are you now going to enforce it? The past 5 years since this was approved by the board, you could even have a company with “OpenStreetMap” as part of the registered name and a misleading website and not have problems…
Just posting a link without any accompanying text explaining why that link matters may come across as rude or dismissive. To me that reads as if the person you’re replying to isn’t even worth the effort to type a coherent reply. I don’t think that’s what you want to convey though.
Of course, but this is not about the raw information. By just posting the link without any context you’re not pointing out why that link would be relevant, or even if it is. That form of communication can be construed as a form of passive aggression.
Compare posting just that raw link (as the first response to a cool project someone is showcasing even!) with this:
Cool project, I like [INSERT SOME FEATURE YOU LIKE].
You might also consider adding whether you are an expert on the matter of trademarks, or just a contributor who suspects that that policy might be relevant. You could add whether you feel that it’s probably alright, but that they should check, or if you are absolutely dead sure that they’ll run into legal trouble. Perhaps a hint about who to contact with questions about that topic.
Just basic polite conversation. We’re not machines.
Something that would be quite useful would be accepting IATA and FAA codes in addition to the ICAO codes. Most non-airgeeks, if they know airport codes at all, know the IATA ones (“ORD”, “LHR”, etc.), not the ICAO ones. Meanwhile, most airports in the United States don’t have ICAO codes, but they do have FAA codes.
That’s actually a really good point. I wanted to mimic the behaviour of osm.org but I just noticed that this is probably why they are using the anchor # and not the search ? parameters. I’ll definitely improve that.