Discuss Foundation/Logo here:
When are you gonna choose the logo?
I thought the logo would be chosen in December 2009. People put in time and effort to design the logos, the least you could do is choose one.--Groundspeak 11:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Voting for the winning design has been delayed while a voting system is implemented. I'll see if I can get things moving along. -- Firefishy 13:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
OK I've added what I consider to be the current situation to the page there.
Personally I don't see a burning need to have a foundation logo wildly different from what we have now, the OSM logo with the word "Foundation" written under it, and I don't think most of the community sees a burning need for it either, otherwise it would have happened a long time ago. ...but I could be wrong.
If I am wrong then... Communication Working Group have been taking charge of sprucing up the foundation website for the past year or so. I would gently suggest that it would probably make sense them (including me) to take charge of any process to select a logo (I don't mean we get to decide)
I have previously run a competition for the Humanitarian OSM Team Logo. Admittedly I was largely inspired by failings of this logo selection process, but I think I did a pretty good job of putting some structure in place up front. See the rules and design brief of the HOT logo competition. That was always missing on this wiki page.
I don't think we should move into any serious selection phase without explicitly throwing this open again for new designs, but this time much more clearly laying down what sort of design we want. One fundamental aspect: Do we want to change the main project logo at the same time? (No!!) And therefore do we want the foundation logo to relate to, or use elements from the existing main OSM logo? (see magnifying glass discussion below) These things should've been spelled out before asking anyone to spend ages designing something.
-- Harry Wood 19:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Avoid magnifying glass
Not sure if this is open for discussion (or if here is the right place), but I'd say that avoiding the magnifying glass would be a good idea. It's an overused symbol and one that's very much associated with search (rather than mapping)... The compass seems a much better symbol. EAi 02:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree. You're right about the association of the magnifying glass with search, but that would be a reason to change the main OpenStreetMap logo. Such a change has been suggested (User:Steve's particularly keen on the idea), but personally I think we'd be crazy to change the main OSM logo now, just as the project is really starting to pick up some "brand recognition". That's another discussion of course but...
- I think the foundation logo should be similar to the main OSM logo or incorporate elements of it somehow. I know that's unexciting, but it's the obvious way to communicate the close relationship with OSM. If we invent and entirely new logo with no recognisable OSMness about it, then the foundation continues to be a mysterious unclear relation to OSM.
- That's my opinion anyway. As such, the only design so far which I like is this one (to the right), since it's the only one which incorporates a recognisable OSM logo.
- -- Harry Wood 16:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I have to admit, I've always kind of wondered what a magnifying glass has to do with mapping, anyway. Is there a reason the original OSM logo has a magnifying glass beside the fact that the ESRI logo had one? --Tpstigers 12:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- The magnifying glass (with 0s and 1s in it) is supposed to signify that the data can be inspected. It turns out to be hard to find good, simple, international symbols which correspond to the themes of OSM. --Matt 20:57, 24 August 2010 (BST)
I like the "survey style" one with an instrument that sets us apart, even if very few of us actually use a theodolite. But then no one uses a magnifying glass either. Ipofanes 10:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Just a note: The last logos have "Foundation" spelled wrong. It's spelled with a 'u'. --Ojan 16:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Wireframe layers under the map
- I would like to see this idea put into a globe: a wireframe globe with a bit of map overlaid on top. Someone is willing to work on the idea? Ivansanchez 19:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- I too like this design, mainly because it uses the folded/grided map of the OSM logo and I think it is very important that OSMF is linked closely to OSM (and vise-versa), perhaps the map could be turned 90 degrees so it is like the OSM logo and the OMF ideas above it. The comment above about the wireframe being the foundation makes me like it more, and the orange line goes with that (it is still simple but not a blank map). The words could be shortened to OSMF in orange and a green F when the logo is used in smaller or square locations. - LastGrape/Gregory 20:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion most of the proposals and drafts are nice, but useless: if you scale them down (to use them as icons, small stickers, on a mobile device and so on) they look crappy and ugly. nothing is readable any more. and most of them are just too complex. we need a simple, clear and modern logo without too much fancy styling elements. two or three distinct key colors and not more. using a map or globe is a nifty idea, but when the globe or map consists of too much features (a lot of thin lines, coordinates, lots of streets) it is - as mentioned above - useless since you loose everything when scaling it down. and scalability is in my opinion very important since OSM is used mainly on computer screens and mobile devices. using the magnifying glass is in my opinion not ideal: it is associated with search (look how many search symbols on web pages contain the magnifying glass...) and not with a map. And OSM is not only about search, it is basically a representation of the world in terms of a map. a globe, a map or a compass rose is much more associated with map and navigation. Thus I'd go for the later ones if there is a need for an iconic symbol. just my 2 cents... I personaly like things like no. 4, 5, 13 or 14: clean, simple, readable in any size... --Marc 09:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
These proposals are to give ideas. If one is chosen, of course it will be rebuilt, reworked to fit any sizes, any utilisations. --Tintao 09:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Some considerations in terms of choosing a professional logo
I'm not sure how much of this you already know, so please forgive me if I'm rehashing. I'm a professional designer, I've been doing it for quite a while now. When having a logo designed for the first time, most of my clients have run into issues where they used a designer who didn't consider some extremely important points of logo design, and they chose a logo on the basis of flashiness, only to be disappointed later when their logo doesn't render in various mediums.
A proper logo should:
- Look good in single color, for black and white. This is so important that most good designers work ONLY in black and white when they design - no color and no effects. When the logo looks good in black and white, then they add color. Effects come last, if they come at all. The reason for this is that most promotional materials, like printing on pens, or shwag, for example, or steel engraving, or some forms of embroidery, can only be done in one color.
- Can easily be converted to, at maximum, 4 flat colors for printing on t-shirts. This means that the logo must not be dependent on shininess, gradient effects, drop shadows and the like. You can use these for digital presentations, but if the logo loses too much when converted to flat color, toss it.
- Looks good and is still distinguishable when it is VERY small. You will want people to be able to read your logo when it's only 30x30 px, because you'll want to use the logo that small many times. Trust me on this. A great logo can be distinguished at 16x16, so that it can be used as a favicon.
- Fits comfortably in corners. Letterhead, website headers, business cards - you'll want your logo to usually sit in a corner. If there are too many pokey-outy bits, it can make the logo hard to work with.
- You should be able to use it with and without a name. For example, the logo should be delivered to the client with just a logo (the symbol), and with a logo and lettering. Obviously, both ways will be frequently used.
- Is designed 100% VECTOR. NO RASTER GRAPHICS!!! This is crucial if you want a logo with staying power. If the logo has been designed in raster only, it can't be easily re-sized, and will have to be re-done in a vector editor at a later point.
Of course, rules can be broken in certain circumstances. You can always design a different "small version" of your logo if it's too complex to be shown small, and if you have a unique branding concept that doesn't conform. So yes, broken sometimes, but preferably not chucked out the window altogether.
Hope that helps!
-- Kscahefer 15:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Decision table for selecting logo
Here goes an attempt to help decision finding. It includes the criteria mentioned by Kscahefer above and some more.
|Area||Criterion||Relevance factor [-100 .. 10]||Scores 0 .. 3||Remark|
|Proposal A||Proposal B||Proposal C||Proposal D|
|Technical||SVG and 16x16 pixmap is available||5|
|Technical||SVG and 32x32 pixmap is available||5|
|Technical||4 flat color version is available||5||prints on T-shirts|
|Technical||"flat" version is available||5||for footers in booklets|
|Technical||versions with and without name are available||10|
|Aesthetical||Looks good in black and white||10||highly subjective, split into sub criteria?|
|Aesthetical||Looks good as 32x32 pixmap||10||"|
|Aesthetical||distinguishable as 16x16 pixmap||10|
|Aesthetical||Fits in corners||5|
|Vision||for resolutions 32x32 and above. Note, it will be very hard to score on more than a few criteria here. So although Vision has a high overall weight it might be underrepresented|
|Vision||Transports idea of a map||3|
|Vision||Transports idea OSM is world-wide||3|
|Vision||Transports idea of freedom||3|
|Vision||Transports idea of collaboration||3|
|Vision||Transports idea of versatility||3|
|Vision||Transports idea of growth||3|
|Vision||Transports idea of reliability||3|
|Vision||Transports idea OSM is huge||3|
|Vision||Transports idea you can participate||3|
|Vision||Is an eye-catcher||3|
|Vision||Not user group specific||5||f.e. not specific to shop owners, car navigation, ...|
|Vision||Internationally understood||5||f.e. no roadsigns|
|Legal||OSM is likely to be sued for it||-50||may not closely resemble other logos|
|Legal||OSM is likely to be successfully sued||-100|
The scores 0..3 are meant to be simple (quicker and less source for conflict than 0..10). The relative weight of the Technical/Aesthetical/Vision is 30/35/40 (probably OK in my view and not OK in other views:) The factor for the legal section basically makes the legal sector a go/no-go criterion (intended).
We should expect conflicts when selecting a logo. I hope the table helps. If the table is the cause for more conflict than it solves, well, then it doesn't help:) --Frief 11:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)