OSM logo

I was pondering on the current OSM logo, and I’ve come to conclude it needs a little work. I think really it needs a whole new idea and some simplifying possibly, but I came to conclude this while making a slightly different version of the current. So here’s a start. The current lacks any depth, the borders are inconsistent and the colours are a bit harsh, although some may still like it bright. Also, (and this is particularly anal) it doesn’t line up on the OSM main page…it just sits there all off.

I made 6 variations anyway. They differ on map colour and then the 3 variations of shading. I have a feeling that most none CRT users probably won’t be keen on any of the darker shading at all.

I also made 2 images of it in place for a better idea. These are of the 2 in the centre column. [1][2]. You may love them, you may hate them, but so as to make my evening less wasted I’ll stick them here.

Looks nice, especially the first and third image :slight_smile:

is this like those games where you have to spot the difference…?

btw all look good to me.:rolleyes:

You need to get a new monitor that is capable of displaying colors properly :stuck_out_tongue:

Well, they look definitely more “realistic”, with shadows and curved lenses and such. I’m currently not sure whether they look too detailled for the purpose of being a logo. I do agree, however, that our current logo could go with some improvements, especially the magnifying glass has always looked weird to me due to its inconsistent levels of detail.

If I had to choose one of your logos, I’d pick #1 or #2, as they look more colorful. We are a fun- and enthusiasm-driven hobbyist project, after all. :wink:
(Edit: Oh, and I probably have a crappy monitor, so take this with a grain of salt.)

BTW, do you have these as vector graphics? As we need scalability for using it on printed info material, books, clothing and so on, this would, imo, be necessary.

not really clear on what the numbers mean since I didn’t number them…

They aren’t vector graphics no. I did think of that, but considered the wikipedia logo and concluded that wouldn’t be necessary. I did make it at 250% of the size though.

I agree totally with what you (Tordanik) said though. I don’t think in general the current, or the images I’ve attached are really logo like, in particular in terms of simplicity, or at least complex but organised. But this was just more of a tweak to the current than any real redesign, which is maybe necessary one day.

I mentally numbered them in reading order (#1 = first row, left column, #2 = first row, center column).

Anyway, if you want to make your logo versions a bit more widely known, sending a mail to one of our mailing lists is probably necessary in order to get the attention of most of the people with administrative access to our web content.

Ben, i really like this one (the big one). Thank you!