TL;DR: The main trigger for this post was this OpenStreetMap diary https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/umbraosmbr/diary/402729 in special this image which contains “Comunidade OSM Brasil” and OpenStreetMap logo with Brazil flag on merchandising but… lacks verifiability outside whats said by the organizers.
I already asked this on the telegram https://t.me/OSMBrasil_Comunidade/1/71466, but there was no answer on where the public discussion with consensus to be used for this action. The closer to this was a reply https://t.me/OSMBrasil_Comunidade/1/71470 in which an organizer admits not consulting first. Immediately after my question, another person asked if any NGO was founded using this name, however there was change on the subject, so yes, this might be one good place to wait for clarifications.
For outsiders, the history of a formal association in Brazil is long. I could cite https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Brazil/Associação and older attempts since at least 2014 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Brazil/Entidade . Long history short: with a larger group with mappers from the entire Brazil, it wasn’t viable to agree on how such a neutral association, representative of everyone, should be. It’s no surprise that even the individuals who registered “OpenStreetMap.org.br” plus the bigger Telegram group (which is neither the ones from UmbraOSM or any YouthMappers group) always opted to avoid fragmentation and only imply in public to be truly representative of Brazil careful consensus before any action even if this means take no action on disputed subjects. Even before UmbraOSM (which, by the way, is unclear if even formalized as NGO in Brazil) at least another NGO (which doesn’t use OpenStreetMap Foundation trademarks), called AddressForAll was created, but even then do not use its formal NGO status to attempt to represent others beyond its members, and much less without respectfully asking upfront. So merely having a CNPJ (Brazilian VATIN) and OSM-related focus it’s not even a reason alone, because there’s others organizations.
So yes, it is necessary to have a public explanation. Where was the public discussion? If there’s none, then cease the misleading use. It’s a bit of a surprise that a new wave of OpenStreetMap Diaries and OSMCalendar entries (by the way, duplicated announcements increasing numbers, despite being a single event) by UmbraOSM+YM seems to imply agreement from groups that exist before but neither others here or me can find any upfront agreement than they dump links after the facts. Another curious use of national-level endorsement was in how “YouthMapers” trademark is referenced in recent marathons before this one: for example in a region (Rio Grande do Sul) without any Y.M. chapter near, there’s implication of some sort of YouthMapers Brazil (example: changeset by an validator deleting data not visible on aerial image which was added by local mapper https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/142196876 uses
#YOUTHMAPPERS-BR), however not only doesn’t exist listed on <YouthMappers.org>, but doesn’t seems to be possible have any country-level chapter of YouthMapers approved at all by the international movement.