File talk:Nottingham tram construction diversion notice.jpg

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

FIP discussion

discussion moved from Featured_image_proposals&oldid=918104#Nottingham_tram_diversion to here (at 00:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC))

Nottingham Tram footpath diversion notice. Clayton's Bridge (canal bridge 13A, way 16877153) over the Nottingham and Beeston Canal has been strengthened to carry the Nottingham tram extension to Chilwell (close to the proposed HS2 Toton station). The tram contractor used this OpenStreetMap image to inform pedestrians and cyclists how to reach the canal towpath via a temporary diverted route. (Credit: Paul Sladen, 2013-04-26)

-- Harry Wood (talk) 11:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Edited by —Sladen (talk) 11:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC) And again, —Sladen (talk) 12:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Sadly very low resolution and bad colours, still interesting. For the license - Sladen, could you please to a confirming edit to File:Nottingham tram construction diversion notice.jpg with a notice (e.g. "I, the photographer, release that photo under the currently given license") in the edit summary? --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Sladen gave it to me in much higher resolution actually. I reduced it a bit for wiki upload. I figured we don't actually need to see much detail of the map itself, but maybe I'm wrong about that. We were chatting about the image on IRC (including various ranting about licensing) this morning. He's cool with public domain. -- Harry Wood (talk) 17:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Is there a need to scale down? Scaling down is done automatically but preserves the possibility to zoom in. I really would like to see the map closer. For example to see the markup on the map and if they gave a proper attribution. ;-)
By the way (since you mention (ranting about) licensing): isn't the photo a derived work of the map? Oh, and I placed the description and the licensing info on the file page. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I have added some more links to our data, view box and diversion route to the file page. Good or too much and uninteresting? What means "13A"? --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
The three higher-resolution originals are at, crop as needed. For canal users, "addressing" is done by bridge numbers. Bridge 13A is the number of the bridge (from the point-of-view of the canal); this is shown on a cast-iron plate affixed to each side of the bridge. We could include a picture of the bridge plate number too. —Sladen (talk) 12:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for not commenting earlier. Thank you for this info! No, a picture is not needed. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 01:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Yeah I actually think "diversion routes" are not what's interesting here. I'd suggest this caption:
"UK construction firms have access to very detailed Ordnance Survey map products, but when it comes to displaying a map on a public notice, the people building the new tram in Nottingham found it easier to use OpenStreetMap. Detailed, up-to-date, and open licensed"
-- Harry Wood (talk) 13:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, right. Your suggestion is good for the "featured image" caption (the other can stay on the file page). Hoooowever, you mention open licensed but exactly that was not obeyed here - OSM is not mentioned in any way on the map or the sign below. An example of how not to use OSM? An example of how bad we do (if we assume that is an export from in helping others to obey our own license (an attribution is not included, not even optionally available to include in's export function - goes back to the question of what should be...)? I have mixed feeling in putting that image up with your caption. Your decision. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 01:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Yeah it would be better if they'd put a little credit text on their sign. The truth is it's not a very carefully produced sign. They've spelt "apologise" wrong :-) In general it's quite a nice positive story for OSM.
So should we not tell this story because the sign doesn't give us the required credits? If you like getting into legal nit-picking, we can make the argument that this is an "insubstantial extract" (interesting clause in our license, full of unclear possibilities for shades-of-grey interpretation). Or we can make the argument that the credits might be written on the back :-)
-- Harry Wood (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Is general carelessness a valid excuse for disrespecting the license (I will not use other words here...)?
Well, no, I think overall we should show that image, but maybe with a comment that the licensing is not correct (so others know that it should be done better)? Otherwise it is an advert to disrespect our own license!? Credits on the back? Naah, not valid - no one ever looks there who looks at the map. Not a usual location for credits on construction site signs. ;-) Te be honest, I never read the ODbL (yet) completely. To continue legal "nit-picking" - isn't the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 to be respected too (if be assume those are tiles)? It does not contain that "insubstantial extract" section you mention (sure, general copyright laws do...). By the way: how do we know that this is OSM data and tiles? Just because it looks like on first glance? Could be Ordnance Survey rendered by the construction company using a similar style to ours. Okay, now I have reached the moon. Enough now. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 22:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
If we can't make the point that OSM is an easy win for all sorts of users, without getting up our own backsides about precisely how well the license is respected, then we deserve not to get recognition. Furthermore we do not make it as easy as it could be to respect attribution (see my recent blog on the issue). How do we know it's OSM, well Nottingham mappers will recognise this area well and there are a number of features which to my knowledge do not appear on ANY OTHER map (specifically the Nature Reserve, names of the industrial estate, and exactly which buildings are mapped). I have also blogged about the road which starts to the N of this bridge (one where the Ordnance Survey data is wrong). Colours on the image show typical over-saturation so might be alterable a bit. SK53 (talk) 01:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
@SK53: sorry, I don't understand that (wording): "without getting up our own backsides about precisely how well the license is respected". Sure, I know that we can compare lots of details to our data to find out if it likely is an OSM derived map. I wrote that with a implied ";-)". --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
"Getting up our own backsides"? We're worrying about legalities too much.
I do think it's important to encourage compliance with our license with prominent things like featured images, but in this case, two things...
A) The photo shows a sign with a map on it in the distance. That fact that you had to squint at a higher resolution photo to check for credits, shows this is not setting a clear bad example, and the reality (which is plain for everyone to see) is that this is a fairly slapdash sign someone's quickly printed and pinned to the fence.
B) The story here is "Hey this is funny. Even these guys are using OpenStreetMap" . It's not a typical "look at this awesome project using OpenStreetMap". We're not particularly promoting the tram anyone as innovative cartographers. I think we do need to be strict with license compliance when people/companies are receiving promotion. That's not really the case here.
Those factors combined mean it's pretty much OK as a featured image, but I do actually agree we should be quite strict.
-- Harry Wood (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again for your comment, Harry Wood. Regarding A and B: I do not see how being "slapdash" overall is an excuse (at least legally it is clearly not an excuse, hmm?). It is still not fair - using without giving back the demanded attribution/notice (that's the other part of the use agreement). However, I personally do not care, of course. I am happy that they use OSM. But I think we should not set this as an example of how to use OSM (at least that is featured and hopefully seen by many people - maybe, hopefully, also by some non-OSM contributors). Otherwise we could scrap our /copyright page somehow (or add: you can use without any attribution/notice for every use as long as that use is not exceeding 10k views or generating more than 20k € of profit) ... ;-) --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 00:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I scheduled this for the next week (Template:Iotw image/2013-26, Template:Iotw text/2013-26). --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Cool. I normally blow away images and discussions from here, but I suggest preserve this discussion by moving it over to File talk:Nottingham tram construction diversion notice.jpg -- Harry Wood (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Yup, indeed. Did that. --Aseerel4c26 (talk) 00:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)