Would be good enough if the magnifying glass had some form of outline
Besides - it has been discussed in 2016 and nothing’s changed since then
At this point, that particular proposal would be ironic because its color scheme resembles Google Maps’ bluish map. 
The last time our logo got a refresh, the OSMF Board of Directors held a contest and eventually worked with a designer they selected (Ken Vermette). It was a very drawn-out process (no pun intended) taking almost two years. Discussions about the copyright status of this and the original logo have underscored the fact that Ken built upon the original concept by @Matt and we’ve never had a logo go in a significantly different direction.
Despite the logo’s visual complexity and 2010s photorealism, the concept is something of a classic in our little corner of the Internet, similar to Wikipedia’s jigsaw globe, so any attempt to replace it would need to be approached with care. Back in 2020, the Wikimedia Foundation caught the Wikimedia community by surprise when they proposed to replace the jigsaw globe and all the other gloriously uncoordinated project logos with a professional “global brand signature”. It did not go over well for various reasons; community outcry forced them to pause the effort. As a data project, we have a little less riding on our branding either way, but the “open” in our name is a promise to do things a little differently than a conventional organization would, even if that means a more bottom-up process.
4 Likes
2 Likes
You’re right, because the Wikimedia community doesn’t see the Wikimedia project as a simple company that needs to have its brand image refreshed in the traditional way (with management making decisions that apply to everyone).
No, we need a process that suits the community.
From what I’ve seen, creating (or changing) a logo in an open-source ecosystem involves :
- 1/ a lot of discussion (well, I don’t think anyone is surprised)
- 2/ a call for concrete proposals and
- 3/ a community vote.
This was the case, in 2020-2021, for the new Wikifunctions project, which was a success (Abstract Wikipedia/Wikifunctions logo concept - Meta).
It was also the case for the Mediawiki logo, and that was also a success (Project:Proposal for changing logo of MediaWiki, 2020 - MediaWiki and see new logo guidelines).
1 Like
Also Grass GIS went through a rebranding recently.
I haven’t followed it directly, but you can start by reading the blog announcement and here the PR on Github.
I agree that current logo seems old. I liked logo of OSM Poland drawn by Arsen Mosiichuk Logo „OpenStreetMap Polska”
And logo of OSM US looks good
4 Likes
IMHO the binary gibberish (100111010011) in the magnifying glass are essential for the logo, and should be kept in some way or the other.
Generally updating the logo with an iteration of the current one would be ok (or desirable) as long as the visual and conceptual continuity is recognizable, but I don’t think it is very important.
During a recent community project we created a take on a simplified version of them OSM Logo that we use for community projects like our local user group and other related software projects GitHub - osmberlin/logos: OpenStreetMap Community Logo Design System
For communities that look for a variation of the Logo that is a simplified without loosing too much of the original logo, this might be a good starting point.
5 Likes
I don‘t see any „US“ in the two Logos above.
The „USA“ is intended?
Nice logo, no shadows, no degrades, simple magnifying glass. Easier to print
2 Likes