On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 10:33 AM Nuno Caldeira
<nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com <mailto:nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com>>
wrote:
Hi Martin,
For another perspective, imagine someone making a world map with
85% OpenStreetMap data and 15% XY inc. data, if someone looks on
a part of this map which is fed by these 15% XY data, you would
not want to have it incorrectly attributed to OpenStreetMap
(although we are generally the principal data provider).
Well, the example i gave previously
https://janaodaparaabastecer.vost.pt/ is a good example of what
you are saying. What do you do to fix it? Mapbox will say nothing
or "believe this is the common, VOST won't say anything. Meanwhile
99.9% of that map is OSM a the gas station status update is
provided by Waze. Sounds fair doesn't it?
I believe the 50% rule is ok, if it refers to the displayed
objects on the screen (although this can also be arbitrary, since
you can always split a way, or interpolate nodes to get more of
them).
Imagine a map which chooses a different data provider per
country. For zoomed in maps (you only see data from one provider)
you would want this one provider prominently attributed. If you
attribute to someone else more prominently and show the actual
data provider only in „others“, you will inevitably create a
wrong impression about the source, and if it’s us who miss out on
visible attribution, we should care.
Good that you mention this. On my email from 10th of October 2018
to facebook and Mapbox (both stopped replying), i pointed out
these examples which have zero issues about having multiple
sources being attributed visibly and not hiding them:
Microsoft - Uses HERE and OSM and attributes both visibly on the
footer
https://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&where1=48.187141%2C%2016.349561&q=48.187141%2C16.349561&cp=48.18694871145921~16.349901334904583&lvl=18&encType=1
<https://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&where1=48.187141%2C%2016.349561&q=48.187141%2C16.349561&cp=48.18694871145921%7E16.349901334904583&lvl=18&encType=1>
ARCGIS Web - Uses OSM and ESRI data, credits both
https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=fae788aa91e54244b161b59725dcbb2a
European Commission - credits OSM and other sources
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/infrastructure/tentec/tentec-portal/map/maps.html
and
http://emergency.copernicus.eu/mapping/copernicus-emergency-management-service#zoom=2&lat=23.42974&lon=16.28085&layers=00B0T
Sadly, some say this is hard to implement. The above sites, must
have a hell of a research UX dept to make it possible and others
just say it's hard. Google does the same on "dynamic attribution".
It's not rocket science, especially when it's for desktop use,
there's plenty of space to attribute visibly. It's just excuses.
What about maps that display an overlay over a basemap? This
would lead to the overlay data provider mostly being pushed in
the second row because it is quantitatively less, but the overlay
data might be the rare unique data that is interesting. In case
someone displayed an OpenStreetMap based overlay over a different
background, why would we deliberately renounce from attribution
in these cases?
We shouldn't as it would violate the license.
It is crucial that the 50% relate to the actually visible map
features, and not to the total map. If the latter was possible,
you could just fill your db with random crap in the middle of the
ocean and distort the proportion.
Obviously, we know those dirty tricks. Fatmap is a perfect example
of that
https://fatmap.com/adventures/@38.6755407,-9.1596113,3096.1899062,-40.2439178,19.7162561,31.6575309,normal
and there's is plenty of room to add the attribution visibly.
To be honest i'm kinda fed up of all of this, nothing happens. And
it's a shame stating "the license doesn't say this or that", it
neither says you must attribute with the exact text “©
OpenStreetMap contributors”, must be unreasonable calculated to
acknowledge. Common sense and fairness is all needed, not crappy
legal interpretations and placing fear for legal actions from
corporate interests. Sadly i'm starting to believe the concerns
that some have shared on the list that OSMF is being "controlled"
by corporate interests and not by the spirit that it was created.
