> Other widespread online mapping services also require this kind of > *attribution > on the map*, usually even more prominently (brand logo with much bigger > size than our textual example).
I'd like to emphasize what I said in the previous messages sent to this thread - OpenStreetMap is a data provider and without data you don't have a map (in other words: a map is a visualization of a dataset). Mapbox provides a map (read: visualization of data from OSM), so why is it okay for Mapbox, which is no secret that they use OSM data, to put a giant watermark in the corner of the map, but for them it is absolutely unacceptable to add a small text on the other corner of the map crediting OSM for the data source? Without OSM, there would be no data for Mapbox to produce a map. And I would also like to say that the 2nd version of the draft proposed by the LWG is as bad as the first draft. The first version had lots of feedback from the community and it seems to me that the LWG ignored all this feedback and just went with what corporate users participating in the LWG proposed. For example, they are proposing that it would be absolutely acceptable to attribute OSM in a splash screen that disappears after 3-5 seconds when you start an application. I have pointed out this controversial idea, because in the meeting minutes the LWG says a splash screen is not acceptable, and then proceed to suggest it as an acceptable attribution because it was suggested by corporations. I honestly hope that the OSMF rejects the draft as it is right now, because the current draft provides several breaches to allow companies like Mapbox and Facebook to undermine the importance of the OpenStreetMap project. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
