Ambientweather.net

HikeAndMap · October 1, 2026, 11:44pm

I have another question regarding attribution and the legal use of OpenStreetMap data.

I noticed that Ambient Weather appears to be using OpenStreetMap data on its dashboard, but I cannot find any OpenStreetMap attribution or license information displayed there.

I am quite certain that the map data comes from OpenStreetMap because I can recognize specific footways, steps, and other features that I personally added to OpenStreetMap, and which do not appear on other map sources.

My question is: is this permitted under the OpenStreetMap licensing terms? In particular, can a service use OSM-contributed data without providing the required OpenStreetMap attribution and then present the map or underlying data as being entirely covered by their own “All rights reserved” notice?

I’m interested in understanding what the OSM license requires in this situation and whether this would constitute a licensing or attribution issue.

I add a screenshot of what I see

𝗠𝘆 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗼𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗼𝗻: 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗱𝗿𝗲𝗶𝘀𝘁 “audacious?”—𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗽 𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗮 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗜 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗯𝘂𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗢𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗲𝘁𝗠𝗮𝗽 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗱 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗮 “@Ambient, LLC, 2026 All rights reserved” 𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗲.

Preston_Maness_aspensmonster · October 2, 2026, 2:47am

No, it is not permitted, and no, a service cannot do that, specifically because they are making Public Use of their Produced Work. Attribution is a clear-cut requirement in this circumstance, as per sections 4.2 and 4.3 of the ODbL. Section 4.2.c requires keeping copyright notices in tact. While their map is not a Database itself, and is instead a Produced Work built from a Database, it is nonetheless a Produced Work that is also Publicly Used, and as such, the notice requirement persists.

4.2 Notices. If You Publicly Convey this Database, any Derivative Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, then You must:

a. Do so only under the terms of this License or another license permitted under Section 4.4;

b. Include a copy of this License (or, as applicable, a license permitted under Section 4.4) or its Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) with the Database or Derivative Database, including both in the Database or Derivative Database and in any relevant documentation; and

c. Keep intact any copyright or Database Right notices and notices that refer to this License.

d. If it is not possible to put the required notices in a particular file due to its structure, then You must include the notices in a location (such as a relevant directory) where users would be likely to look for it.

4.3 Notice for using output (Contents). Creating and Using a Produced Work does not require the notice in Section 4.2. However, if you Publicly Use a Produced Work, You must include a notice associated with the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced Work aware that Content was obtained from the Database, Derivative Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, and that it is available under this License.

a. Example notice. The following text will satisfy notice under Section 4.3:

Contains information from DATABASE NAME, which is made available
here under the Open Database License (ODbL).

DATABASE NAME should be replaced with the name of the Database and a hyperlink to the URI of the Database. “Open Database License” should contain a hyperlink to the URI of the text of this License. If hyperlinks are not possible, You should include the plain text of the required URI’s with the above notice.

[definition of “Publicly” and “Use” within the ODbL follows]

“Publicly” – means to Persons other than You or under Your control by either more than 50% ownership or by the power to direct their activities (such as contracting with an independent consultant).

“Use” – As a verb, means doing any act that is restricted by copyright or Database Rights whether in the original medium or any other; and includes without limitation distributing, copying, publicly performing, publicly displaying, and preparing derivative works of the Database, as well as modifying the Database as may be technically necessary to use it in a different mode or format.

odbl

HikeAndMap · October 2, 2026, 6:35am

Thank you for the detailed part of the ODbL agreement.

Then I hope the DWG can reach other to them and make sure they also mention OpenStreetMap attribution.

So users of their service know that this is the effort of millions of contributors worldwide.

GuardedBear · October 2, 2026, 8:39pm

You can also try contacting them yourself. See here for details:

SimonPoole · October 3, 2026, 7:24pm

The DWG does not concern itself with third party use of OSM data, that would be the LWG.

But as has been pointed out you should attempt to rectify the situation yourself before escalating the matter (just be polite and don’t jump to conclusions).

HikeAndMap · October 4, 2026, 1:56am

I’ll try — yes, I don’t jump to conclusions.

For all I know, they may already have embedded @OpenStreetMap, and it could simply be a bug that they’re not aware of because nobody has reported it.

I’ve actually had this happen myself. I embedded @OpenStreetMap into my own software, and at some point it suddenly disappeared. When I investigated where I had introduced the bug, I realized that it had actually been there for many weeks before I noticed it.

It’s still all in-house development, but I still want @OpenStreetMap properly attributed in case the software ever leaks outside the organization. More importantly, I want everyone working in-house to understand that the map data actually comes from OpenStreetMap.

A lot of people seem to think that virtually every map on the planet is 100% Google, which is honestly rather frustrating. One company has become so dominant that a significant portion of people apparently assume that anything resembling a map must somehow belong to Google.

But anyway, I’ll try to come up with a nice letter — not a complaint, not a rant, and certainly not something along the lines of, “Hey, you’re violating the license.”

I’d rather approach it in a very polite, questioning way. For all I know, there could simply be a technical issue or an attribution element that I’m not seeing.

What I ultimately want to achieve is greater public awareness of OpenStreetMap and where the map data actually comes from. Putting someone, or an entire company, on the defensive isn’t helpful if that’s the goal. I’d much rather give them an opportunity to look into it themselves and, hopefully, make the connection visible to their users.

In short: When writing to a company, always ask yourself: “What am I trying to achieve?” And then: “Does this phrasing make that outcome more or less likely?”