Featured image proposals

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Great photos of OpenStreetMap community, maps, or artwork posted here stand a good chance of being made Featured images, giving your picture a week of infamy on the main page of the OpenStreetMap Wiki, plus eternal fame in the archives. Thank you for your new proposal! Please note that a free license is practically a must to encourage re-use.

Meta stuff:

Information
 Most entries on this page either need additional work (see comments) or are informally "declined" to be featured. "Declined" image entries get deleted every now and then (the decision to not use an image is a hard one).

Requests for images

If you know of or can create one of the following images, please add it to this page, or add a link to the talk page:

Suggestions without images

Lübeck Hauptbahnhof in 3D (OSM2World)

[10] Image from User:Projecter63. A great example for OSM2World. --Reneman (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, yes. However, to me osm2world is ... somehow boring. Maybe because I view the slippy map too often. ;-) --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 00:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Indian Railways Network Connectivity Map

Railway network connectivity map of the populated regions of India.

"Indian Railways Network Connectivity Map with cities and population density"

It's in my eyes also a very nice, interesting map. --Kolossos (talk) 13:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Image mentions (in small print) that it is OSM data, but the info on the page doesn't ... ---Aseerel4c26 (talk) 00:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Another (perhaps minor) disadvantage is that we've already featured a lot of awesome map images by User:Planemad. -- Harry Wood (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Mini map printing

This is a neat thing my friend did: http://gofreerange.com/hello-printer , including this nice image http://gofreerange.com/images/printer/18-maps.JPG TODO: I need ask him about open licensing the image and whether he's worked on it lately. (remind for myself) -- Harry Wood (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

That's geeky! Like the description of the hack - and the mini map, of course. Where is the OSM attribution on the map? ;-) Behind the fingers probably... --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Shopping mall details in Russia

http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=48.94407&lon=38.49367&zoom=17&layers=M

We didn't do a map example featured image in a while. In fact I've argued against promoting mega-detail in the past, but I quite like this bit of indoor shopping mall detail. Good on-the-ground surveying work, and not too imbalanced, in that the rest of the city is quite detailed too! -- Harry Wood (talk) 15:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I have a bit of a problem with it because I would like featured map images to also serve as examples for good tagging (so no particle accelerators mapped as major highway), and I'm not sure this really meets these criteria. It's a bit difficult to judge because there are so many alternative suggestions and some experimental implementations around, but that example doesn't seem to make an attempt to follow any documented practice - it uses barrier tags to get visible room outlines in Mapnik and that's mostly it. However, it may very well be that I just don't remember that particular proposal among all the candidates. --Tordanik 19:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Ah right hmm. D'you know if all the different proposals listed at Indoor#Tagging proposals?
I never got involved in any indoor mapping tagging discussions because I sort of feel like indoor mapping is too much detail (I'm generally against insane levels of detail) but a good counter argument is that a "find my nearest" app (desirable OSM use case I would say) would need every shop in a shopping mall mapped out at least as nodes.
Another good counter-argument is that these patches make for fun featured images :-) ...maybe not this patch though. Anyone have other suggestions for good looking bits of map?
--Harry Wood (talk) 10:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

OSMBuildings in a sketch style

OSMBuildings sketch style.png

Spotted this on reddit. Suggested caption:

OSMBuildings is an open source 3D buildings display engine for web maps. Here we see the buildings in a new 'sketch' style creating a cartoon graphical effect. See this as a dynamic 3D map

-- Harry Wood (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Nice! Where did you find the "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 License"? By the way: isn't an OSM attribution missing on the slippy map? Are the mapbox tiles (used in the image) freely licensed? I only saw that they are copyrighted (details in their TOS). --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 22:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Well it's all OpenStreetMap data we're looking at, therefore I presume I'm entitled to share this image on the wiki CCBYSA, but yeah it's good point. For some reason I hadn't noticed that the OSMBuildings.org website is pretty poor at giving credit to OpenStreetMap. Maybe because it had OSM in the name I was assuming we were credited. But now I've emailed the developer suggesting improved credit text. -- Harry Wood (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
At the image license here: not everything is OSM data - the styles (mapbox's tiles and the drawing style buildings) are not. The ODbL only applies to the data in a "produced work" (and I think a map is a "produced work"). Due to ODbL section 4.3 (produced work) section 4.2 (notices) does not apply and so section 4.4 (share alike) does not apply. Maybe I have misunderstood the ODbL here, I am happy get to know better. :-)
At the attribution on the OSMBuildings site: thank you! --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 22:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Also see #Reallife Openstreetmap Wallpaper regarding mapbox's tile licensing. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Christchurch MetroInfo

Christchurch NZ metro bus map with overlay of routes, stops and realtime bus info.

[| png image 330kB]

--EliotB (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Where is this service? URL? Is the bus route data free?
The map shows ©2011 - a bit old, isn't it? ;-) --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 21:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Festival della Scienza 2013

Today ends the "Festival della Scienza" (Science festival) in Genoa (Italy), a week of conferences, expositions and various events in different parts of the city. An article I saw today says there were more than 200.000 visitors. The OSM related thing is the map that was attached to the schedule booklet, that was using OSM properly credited. Here's the pdf http://www.festivalscienza.it/site/home/programma/documento10005373.html from this page http://www.festivalscienza.it/site/home/programma.html I forgot to take pictures of the ticket shop which had the map on the glass windows, but I saw some tourists in the historical centre with the OSM map in hand. I would be glad to see it as IotW for this week, considering that most of the buildings were imported and fixed by me this summer during lunch time :-) --Sarchittuorg (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the proposal! :-) Great that our maps are used!
1. However, regarding OSM attribution: I think it is not correct (still much better than nothing!). It only says "fonte dati mappa: www.openstreetmap.org". It does not link/mention the http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright page OR mention the licenses.
2. Also, we should not use the map image, in my opinion, because the map is not freely licensed. With "map" I mean the map as it is depicted - with all the information / POIs on top.
So: for the first issue the question is if that is really not sufficient. And if we want to feature a insufficient attribution. For the second issue the creators of the map would have to be asked to freely license (cc-by-sa 2.0 required here, like the map tiles) the POI data. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 16:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC) correct a word, add numbers 13:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, consider it was printed out on paper I think it was at least satisfying to have a kind of attribution :-) I'll ask via email to the press office for permission and make note of your point! --Sarchittuorg (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Commenting my own comment: It is a very grey copyright situation here (in both sides: in our own OpenStreetMap atribution and in using the made alterations). I have asked Sarchittuorg via mail: nothing heard back, no news from the festival people. And from a content point of view: the map style and application is nothing unusual, exceptional (also see e.g. #Ballonmap_with_OpenLayers). So I would suggest to delete this section here. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 13:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Of course this map isn't is something extraordinary, but it shows the multifaceted ways of using OSM-Maps. So in my opinion from the content it's a iotw-candiate. --LordOfMaps (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, okay, at least when we have nothing else – like now. ;-) And what do you think about the attribution/rights issues? --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I would rate the attribution as OK. (It's not done perfectly, but OSM is named and www.openstreetmap.org links to the license) But before featuring the author have to agree to cc-by-sa-license. --LordOfMaps (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! Well, it is a attribution somehow, but "/copyright" or "ODbL" is missing. I do not regard the current attribution as ODbL-compliant use (section 4.3). Just mentioning www.openstreetmap.org seems to be too indirect for me. It does not make a viewing person aware that there my be license information. Just you know that there is license information. Advising/allowing(?) on our /copyright page to just link to this page instead of requiring the mention of "ODbL" is already a relaxation. And since I would like featured images to set examples this excludes this image from being featured – unless we want to weaken our own license.
Regarding cc-by-sa: The interesting part is (due to "sa"): if the author does not agree then his use of the mapnik tiles (looks like, at least) is a violation of the tiles' cc-by-sa license. Or is derived content then automatically also cc-by-sa licensed? I do not think so. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, I posted it here not because it was a "special" use, but because it was an usage with a potentially broad reach (as I said in OP, 200k visitors and people passing near locations)... As regards for permission, imho it's fair use, as when you extract a newspaper article because it talks about you. --Sarchittuorg (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Road construction map in Leningrad region

Road construction map in Leningrad region

A poster at a road construction company "VAD" office for "Sortavala" highway, based on OpenStreetMap: not only for map layer, but also all junctions were redrawn from OSM. User AlexTheTux has drawn most of them from local development plans and has updated some after this map was printed. So OpenStreetMap is currently more relevant than a poster in that office. Photo by nastoyatel from spb-projects.ru forum. -- Zverik 2013-12-02T14:25:35‎

Thank you, Zverik! Nice story and map!
However, we should try to clarify the licensing before.
  • I think we should try to get a license for the map by the cartographer. Is that the standard mapnik style in the background? Then only for the overlay (or is that too simple anyway? I do not think so for the junction drawings). The mapnik style would be cc-by-sa 2.0.
  • And then of course one from the photographer (which hopefully is compatible to the map's license).
Something else: You write "from local development plans" - do you mean data from local government plans was incorporated into OSM? They are public domain? Licensed? We should mention that, so others do not get the impression that we can use any government plans for importing/deriving into/for OSM. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 15:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Ballonmap with OpenLayers

de = Eine Bürgeriniative gegen Atommüll in einem Braunschweiger Wohngebiet nutzt OSM und OpenLayers zur Visualiserung einer Luftballon-Aktion. Die Ballonwolke, die man in der Karte sieht, symbolisiert die mögliche Ausbreitung der Radioaktivität bei einem Unfall.

en = A citizens' initiative against nuclear waste in a residential area uses OSM and OpenLayers for the visualisation of a ballon-action. The ballon-cloud, visible in the map, symbolises the spreading of radioactivity in case of an accident.

Screenshot from: http://www.atomalarm2013.de/doku.php?id=luftballonaktion
Baselayer: mapnik
The author allowed the usage in the wiki. The author agreed to a free license of his work.

Proposed as itow. --Bma (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the proposal (with those already translated captions which we will put on the file page in any case), Bma! Three issues:
  • I am not that much impressed by "just" an OpenLayers map with the standard mapnik layer and some bitmap markers (however it is still great that OSM is used!; also see).
  • Second, the image should be freely licensed (for everyone, not just for the wiki)­ – however, this can be easily fixed: the mapnik tiles are cc-by-sa 2.0 anyway and the icons and those few markers may not be protected (a free license statement by the author would be good).
  • Third, admittedly I have a bit stomach-ache featuring such a political topic which does a (at least scientifically) doubtful comparison of radioactive fallout and balloon landing locations (that does not mean that I am against this project). Next week we feature a map of bird deaths by wind energy (just an illustrative example)? I mean, it is hard to find the right balance of promoting those quite political opinions then.
I am personally sorry for rather downvoting your proposal. I'd like to hear others' opinions. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 21:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
The author agreed to a free license of his work. And of course it was rather an symbolic action than a scientifical experiment. --Bma (talk) 17:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your response, still, a license is missing at File:Ballon_map_v1.png#Licensing. I think the only possible license for the whole is the same license which the basemap is licensed under (due to its "share alike" requirement). So, the author should release his work under "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 License" (auf Deutsch) if possible.
And who is the author of the balloon map? On the source website I cannot find a license info, but on the opposite I find e.g. "Downloads und Kopien dieser Seite sind nur für den privaten, nicht kommerziellen Gebrauch gestattet." at [11]. This is nearly the opposite of a free license. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
The author agreed to a "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 License". (Changed on the file-page.) --Bma (talk) 11:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, but where can I see this? The website still has the same (opposite) copyright statements, if I see correctly. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
You wanted to hear others' opinions: I have no problem with the image. I would feature it as itow. It is a good example for the multifaceted using-possibilities of OSM.--LordOfMaps (talk) 12:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Yes, it is a a good example (still a quite random one - see "first"). As said, it is issue of neutrality or not. However, many iotw are "adverts" in some form (the only difference is that here it is a quite political/opinion advert – somehow). Good, old Harry, please "decide" or comment! ;-) --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Due to the fact that there is no iotw for week 52 and that this is the best current proposal, I would feature this image today. --LordOfMaps (talk) 09:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Main problem with the image is, it's a very straightforward use of the 'standard' map style. It would seem like the only reason for making it image of the week is not because the image itself is particularly interesting, but because we're promoting this anti-nuclear project. If it was a more interesting map e.g. using some heatmap technology or at least a custom style... then it makes it less about promoting, and more about showing an interesting image. I think it's just an "OK" image. Keep it as a proposal in case we're desperate -- Harry Wood (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
...but also why don't you use a custom style? :-) You could make your radiation map more interesting to look at with a some CloudMade editor style for example -- Harry Wood (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Geospatial Content award (reviewing 2013)

http://blog.openstreetmap.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Mail-bijlage-300x225.jpeg or http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7353/9734933941_c1eff784f7_z.jpg

OpenStreetMap was awarded the Geospatial Content Company of the Year 2012 award by Geospatial World. At State of the Map the trophy was sent on a world tour around the OSM community. Andrew (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you also for this proposal, Andrew! :-) The trophy photo is very small and the object not really recognizable. Not that good.
For the second image: it is not really clear what it is about - just two people on a conference speaking, also not that good. However, well, the caption could make it clear. However, would both images be freely licensed by their photographers (you did not provide links to description pages)? Oh, although we should also respect the copyright of the award sculpture designer - a freely licensed sculpture? --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 22:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The Spanish gendarmerie using OpenStreetMap in the maritime border control

In Spain the Civil Guard uses OpenStreetMap in its Coordination Centre for the Maritime Surveillance of Coasts and Borders, as you can see in this report broadcast by the main news program on national television, TVE. This Operations Centre of Spanish gendarmerie is also part of European Surveillance System (EUROSUR) of Frontex.
http://www.rtve.es/v/2269467/ (min 9:05)
Screenshots
--Tony Rotondas (talk) 20:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The screenshot image is pretty cool. I like it.
There's a legal problem though. I think Wikipedia would use something like this on an article under fair use laws, but that's quite restrictive actually. The image can be used "for reporting" where no suitable substitute is available... and other such weird rules. The idea of being quite strict with image of the week licensing, would be to make the full set of images quite nicely reusable. I think this doesn't meet that criteria, unless (unlikely) you can get permission from the TV studio to publish the image with an open license.
...but what we can do is spread the image via other channels. For example we could tweet it or facebook it.
-- Harry Wood (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok, that's what I was afraid of. A curious fact in the gallery of images from the website of the Frontex we can see screenshots with OSM mapping. Supposedly, because no credit is given in the map viewer... --Tony Rotondas (talk) 09:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! Nice images, yes! nearly fully copyrighted, though. A license (for everybody, not only for OSM) from the photographer would be needed. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

OSM Tchoutchou

OSM Tchoutchou uses the railway network of OSM. Maybe some screen capture could be interesting. --FrViPofm (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the proposal! It is quite interesting, nothing really new (at least the OSM-part), though. A caption would be needed. Could you please suggest one? What is raildar.fr and what is Tchoutchou? Ah, I think I got it. Tchoutchou is the sound of trains? Funny! :-)
Oh, but... the attribution of OSM is done very bad. It is hidden behind the side bar: So, no(!), until this is fixed. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC) updated 22:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Now the attribution is on the left side, good. It is visible now. "Map data © OpenStreetMap contributors, CC-BY-SA" is not really correct. The data is ODbL – just the osm.org tiles are CC-BY-SA. I would also suggest not to apply an additional 0.5 opacity for the attribution line. That gets close to be unreadable.
Sadly nobody else comments here. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Estate agent mash-up

Map mash-up: https://twitter.com/logiCHIP/status/423389083470024705 is it an estate agent? not sure

Would be more interesting if it wasn't using the "standard" style, but on the whole I think it's visually quite interesting, and it's quite a nice "down to earth" usage example. Would be an OK image of the week.

Somebody who speaks german could ask them if we can have an open licensed screenshot image -- Harry Wood (talk) 13:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, "OK" somehow, yes, but not really overwhelming. ;-) Hence, currently *I* am not inclined to do any effort for this image. I am not at twitter in addition (and don't want to be).
It is some (internal) RFID chip-based container management/tracking solution/company/thingy (judging from the screenshot text) using Leaflet with markers (apparently using different images and marker clustering) and a search through the markers in a sidebar. Looking again at it, the search side bar with the info boxes is quite nice. As you say... the mashup does it. Don't we have something similar of a non-profit humanitarian aid organization? ;-) --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Reallife Openstreetmap Wallpaper

A reallife OpenStreetMap wallpaper with clothes hooks on top

I made a reallife Openstreetmap wallpaper for my vestibule. I used a the MapBox Pencil style as starting point to make this wallpaper. The process is described [on my blog]. You can use the flickr photo I uploaded here, or any of the photos in the blog post. They are all CC-BY-SA.

Thanks to [Harry Wood] for pointing me towards this wiki.

--flowolf 14:46, 22 Jan 2014 (UTC)

Wow, that's a cool project. I'm in favour of featuring this! :) --Tordanik 16:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Great! I'm pretty sure that this will be the next iotw. Why not feature it for the next week today? --LordOfMaps (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Nice!!! Lord: Gogogo! ;-) Some stuff needs to be done until it is fine (I guess you know my suggested process and hints here). E.g. OSM attribution is missing (at least on the file page but if possible it should also be on flickr/blog, of course). --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I added a link to the Openstreetmap licence on all pages. hth --flowolf 07:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's good, thank you. Do you know by chance if the mapbox pencil tiles (you used them, right?) are freely licensed? I could not find anything and the TOS are quite restrictive. I guess they will have no problem to freely license this single photo, but one has to ask in this case. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Well the pencil tiles just another raster tile set from Mapbox (not really to do with vector tiles). For mapbox tiles the general rule is "copyright Mapbox" (as a "produced work") which I suppose means we're not allowed to use anything from them for a featured image, without asking. Becomes a bit flimsy when it's a photo of a printout, but it is an issue. This was also the problem with the OSMBuildings proposal above.
Specifically we need to ask them if we can open license the image we're using for image of the week (because we're sticking to the rule, open licensed images only) I guess we could ask them to grant us blanket permission to open license any image feature a bit of mapbox map which we're using for image of the week.
-- Harry Wood (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Good, thank you! When that issue here is solved and clarified this info needs to be incorporated into Mapbox (TODO).
I guess they will not have a problem with granting such a license. A blanket license may be legally a bit doubtful as anybody here could "feature" a image here, and so scraping of their tiles. Or, hey, we use bigmap and... stop. ;-) Just joking.
Yes, one could argue that the specifics of Mapbox's style are not visible in that photo but that is quite unsafe.
Anyway, I think we need a license from them.
A side note: I am not happy about those not-in-any-fucking-way freely licensed map tiles. Makes me think about if I really would like to feature such tiles … having thought about it one more day: it is great that they use OSM and advertising OSM by this in their products. But I would wish they would play the using-free-content game nicer. Featuring this reallife wallpaper with the unfree tiles is fine for me (if we get a license for the tile use in this photo, of course). --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC), update: 22:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I chatted to Alex Barth of Mapbox about this. He was distracted another issue with this image. Although he loves the image and the wallpaper use, he wasn't happy with the blog post which encourages scraping their tile servers, in breach of the Mapbox Terms of Use... and in fact he wasn't happy with this being a featured image for that reason. He said he was going to contact flowolf to suggest some changes to the blog post.
But I did also talk to him about copyrights. He wasn't comfortable with blanket permission, but he said he's fine legally speaking with the use of this image for image of the week, indeed it didn't feel it is a significant form of copying to invoke any kind of copyright anyway. I asked him to state this in the discussion here, for clarity in relation to this image, and also for the OSMBuildings image above, and suggested he or somebody from Mapbox could proactively join in and do this any future images we'd like to use (be clear that we're allowed to open license the images on a case-by-case basis)
...waiting for him, or somebody from Mapbox to do this.
-- Harry Wood (talk) 14:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
note: This is now already "featured" in the Wochennotiz weekly blog post: WN 184. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 02:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

bus.meran.eu

Bus.meran.eu real time bus map.png

The website bus.meran.eu displays real time locations of public transport buses in the city of Meran - Merano and uses OpenStreetMap for their custom-made basemap. This could be interesting because Meran already already has some history with OSM (in 2007, they were among the first public entities to release their data as open data specifically for OSM).

The map does correctly attribute OSM as the data provider, but the tiles as well as the bus locations are not freely licensed as far as I can tell. But I'm positive that we could get this screenshot under a suitable license (If we liked to feature this, I could ask).

-- Tyr (talk) 10:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for proposing!
I think the OSM attribution is a bit disrespectful since it is barely readable (since it is just text on the map) - instead the map companies are well readable (background). At first I did not see the ODbL link.
Why can't they host the jquery library themselves but instead leak their user data to "don't be evil" google (ajax.googleapis.com)? … :-(
Otherwise: a nice application – similar to the french train thing. Could be featured if we have nothing better (and after it has a free license for the screenshot). However, we should only feature the French trains OR this one here as both are quite similar. Maybe with several months space between both.
If you write them an email … the answer should be from a person with the needed authority. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 19:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the OSM attribution is a little bit hard to read. But it's still a beta, isn't it? Strangely, they apparently only want feedback to a very generic info@ mail address (which seems to be mainly a contact for tourists of the region!?).
Also, now I'm starting to think that it could be hard to get the screenshot under a really open licence because it features the official logos of the tourism region and other firms. Maybe something like CC-BY-SA-ND could work (would that be enough for IOTW?), or if we pixelated the respective logos…
-- Tyr (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
We (I) could simply edit out the logos, same grey colour as the background. But maybe these companies also will not like this because they want to be seen. ;-)
Oh, by the way, companies... the map is made by an external company, so possibly it still holds the needed copyrights for the map style (and not the Meran bus company). Could not that easy to get a license, but you can try it.
"ND" is not really "free" because you would not be allowed to edit anything. "The NC and ND options will make a work non-free according to the Definition of Free Cultural Works." (WP). It greatly reduces possible uses of such an image. So I would not like to have ND here. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, if the image was CC-BY-SA (or similar), one could legally extract the logo(s) and create derivative works from it, for example for a logo of a competing tourism region (and I guess they wouldn't like that to happen). Or are such logos always protected by other laws (trade marks?!)? I'm not a lawyer unfortunately.
And yes, the company who makes the map is R3GIS (I have a contact who works there, so that should be less of a problem I hope).
-- Tyr (talk) 14:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
IANAL: Yes, usually trademark law applies too (and, AFAIK, the free CC licenses do not restrict the trademark rights). By the way: those are quite simple logos - just text - that may not be copyright eligible anyway (this depends strongly on the country … and the judge/court in the end). However, maybe a licensing a screeshot with removed logos would be the safe way if they agree. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

OSM Changesets of the last 7 Days

A new Result-Map from Pascal Neis shows the changesets of the last 7 Days filtered by the comment.
for example: olympia-changesets around Sochi
--LordOfMaps (talk) 14:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmmmm... Sochi is already this week on the main page. In general: A nice project, but not that great. And it could get/need some improvements. Just my opinion. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 14:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
OK, maybe we should wait for the improvements... And of course something else than Sochi would be nice for the next week. --LordOfMaps (talk) 15:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Teaching Girl Scouts to make maps with @Mapbox!

I know you'll need to ask permission, but how about this photo? --EdLoach (talk) 07:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! We had no people for the last 4 featured images. While it is not really overwhelming (except if you love pink), it would be much better than nothing this week. ;-) --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 12:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Mapbox have now featured it in their blog --EdLoach (talk) 13:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from ‘http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Featured_image_proposals&oldid=999284’