I applaud that the LWG is undertaking an effort to sure up our attribution guidance.
IMO the sentence in question MUST be changed from "should" to MUST! :Stefan P.S. I really would like to collect once in another thread the hidden agendas behind those * argueing against proper attribution of OSM (why trying to hide to mention OSM?), * calling shame license violators "shenanigans" (so there are violators?), * questioning the legal status of OSMF (why spreading FUD?) Am Fr., 1. März 2019 um 22:55 Uhr schrieb Tomas Straupis <tomasstrau...@gmail.com>: > > 2019-03-01, pn, 17:55 Christoph Hormann rašė: > > As long as data sources you use have been produced by people who got > > paid for their work (through either taxpayer money or private > > investments) the discussion is moot - that is not the same league, that > > isn't even the same sport. You give first rate attribution to OSM and > > second rate attribution to everything else. > > How/why is the financing of data source part relevant? > > How would you calculate the prominence of data source to split them > into "displayed by default" and "displayed after pressing 'data > sources'"? > > While for data visualisations you could calculate number of objects > displayed, what would you do for maps and especially thematic maps? > The latter two would have a specific target group with specific > interests and a specific idea/information to be communicated which > could take a smaller area of the map. A thematic map of X with a > basemap of Y could have visually most part covered by Y, but most > important part of such a map is X. > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk