The screenshot shows an in-house application I’m developing for GCP and RPA imagery management.
In the lower-right corner, I’m using the official OpenStreetMap logo as part of an attribution panel that appears when the user hovers over it. The attribution panel itself contains links to the OpenStreetMap copyright and attribution wikis, as well as links to local YouthMappers resources here in the Philippines.
I’ve asked AI to preliminary review the implementation, including the use of the OpenStreetMap logo, the attribution, and the links. After going through the relevant requirements, AI systems indicated that the current approach should cover the necessary legal and attribution requirements.
However, I’d really appreciate feedback from people in the OpenStreetMap community who have actual expertise in licensing, legal matters, or OSM attribution.
If you have relevant expertise, I’d be very grateful for your assessment of whether this implementation is actually compliant, and whether there is anything I should change or add to make sure I’m respecting the OpenStreetMap community’s legal and attribution requirements properly.
I’m specifically looking for factual, informed guidance rather than general opinions. If this isn’t an area you’re familiar with, please feel free to leave it to those who are — I’d rather get a solid answer from someone knowledgeable than a lot of speculation.
I went through the article you linked and, based on my understanding, I would argue that the way I’ve implemented it is 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗢𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗦𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗲𝘁𝗠𝗮𝗽 𝗔𝘁𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗯𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗚𝘂𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀.
So my question to those with relevant expertise is:
I’d particularly appreciate feedback from people familiar with OSM licensing and attribution requirements.
__________________________ Following the link to a text, me actually reading it, and then thinking I understand it are three completely different things from me 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 it — and, perhaps even more importantly, 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗹𝘆 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗼𝗱𝗲.
There’s a surprisingly large gap between “I read the documentation” and “I implemented the documentation correctly.”
In short: 𝗜’𝗺 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝗮𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗺𝘆 𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀.
To quote “The attribution format should not require individuals to interact with the map or produced work to see the attribution.” i.e. it should be visible without having to click on an i button or similar.
If you have lots of lawyers, and/or you’re so big that you are confident you can just do what the heck you like without an annoying little fly like OSMF buzzing at you, then you can do the (i) solution favoured by Facebook, Mapbox etc.
It is, however, an unequivocally shitty thing to do and I make no apologies for my language. In return for getting the best geodata in the world for free, giving the OSM community the attribution that it requests, in one small corner of the map, is really not much to ask. Don’t be like Facebook.
If you have relevant expertise, I’d be very grateful for your assessment of whether this implementation is actually compliant, and whether there is anything I should change or add to make sure I’m respecting the OpenStreetMap community’s legal and attribution requirements properly.
𝗗𝗼 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗮𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗲𝗲𝘁𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀, 𝗼𝗿 𝗱𝗼 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘀𝗲𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝘆𝘁𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗯𝗲 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗿 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗱?
Following the link to a text, me actually reading it, and then thinking I understand it are three completely different things from me 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 it — and, perhaps even more importantly, 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗹𝘆 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗼𝗱𝗲.
