Talk:Featured tile layers/Guidelines for new tile layers

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

With respect to the discussion on "non-commercial is preferred" in SWG. Perhaps rather than tying the preference to commercial vs non-commercial, it should be "comes from within the OSM community or not". One of the main reasons for having multiple tile layers is to show and advertise the power of what can be done with the data. At the same time it could also show off the power of the community and how easily one can create great new styles from the data by preferring . This would automatically give a certain degree of divide between commercial vs non-commercial however without explicitly saying so. It would also be easier to justify why that would be a relevant criterion. --Amm 00:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

What counts as "within the OSM community"? If they are using OSM data, and wanting their tiles to be on (2 requirements) then surly they are part of the community? - LastGrape/Gregory 22:42, 16 May 2011 (BST)

It seems as if guidelines to retiring tile layers are missing. So once in, always in?

If that is not the case, I don't quite understand why the cyclemap layer is still available. - User:SimonPoole 18:37, 20 May 2011 (MET)

Use of non-OSM data

There is not a particular practical need for this at the moment i suppose but i think to be in line with the mission of the OSMF the guidelines should include something like the following:

  • In the must conditions: A tile layer must not use any non-free data.
  • In the should conditions: A tile layer should not use non-OSM data where OSM data exists.

--Imagico (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that this would be a sensible and hopefully uncontroversial improvement. Is there any established mechanism to update the guidelines? They seem to have remained unchanged over the past years. --Tordanik 16:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Since the current page is not identical to the text approved by the OSMF board originally anyway i think we can edit it if there is consensus on the change. This does not make it part of the official policy of course. Adopting a modified policy officially by the OSMF should probably go through the OWG.
Formally it would probably be necessary to more precisely define non-free data, in particular if this includes non-commercial licenses. --Imagico (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I think it's clear enough for the most part (non-commercial data is generally considered unfree). But in other contexts (e.g. the contributor terms), the OSMF has relied on the Open Definition. So that might be a good resource if there's a need for more precise definitions. --Tordanik 16:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)