Second, that online editor has to be iD, so it’s not suited for those of us who use P2.

Not sure what this means.

MR can support PL2 as easily as iD. The issue was too many buttons.

Michael,

As you say, the devil is in the details. Where I differ slightly from you is that I believe that responsibility is the key, rather than elections. The argument I’ve heard offline against my proposal is that every board member is now acocuntable to every member, but in reality most members are not following every board action that closely. Instead, I would say that we elect board members for one of a few reasons:

1. They represent a specific vision that we have for the organization. That may be a strategic vision for the organization, or a vision for the project, or be part of a demographic.

2. They may represent a counter or check-and-balance to an existing board member. For example, I think that it’s well understood that Kate Chapman has a different vision than Frederik Ramm, but someone may vote for them both for this very reason.

3. Maybe the candidates they voted for wasn’t ideal, but was the best on offer.

In any of those cases, the elected board member has a greater interest in the OSMF operation as a whole and can keep track of the entire goings-on than the average OSMF member.

Where I think we most agree is formalizing these positions, possibly taking them from a larger pool of candidates than the board, or even possibly of membership, and maybe paying them, if the board deems that it makes sense to do so.

This is a good compromise between visibility, legal requirements and the need for screen space to grow.

This is possibly your opinion, but the idea of compromise here is the cornerstone of the issue. The license is codified legal text, and just as you would not allow a customer to unilaterally decide that paying you only half your bill was “a good compromise”, neither does it appear from this diary entry that many OSMers find that this is a good deal.

This issue of multiple attribution is not unique to MapBox. Google also has multiple providers, and you see on some maps that they have an attribution string that includes multiple providers. Furthermore, how you decide to attribute yourself, or how you decide to attribute your other data providers is not the concern of OpenStreeetMap, only how you attribute OSM.

bdiscoe, as the person who wrote the bot that expanded several million way names- yes, it does require some extra step.

Your script doesn’t take a lof of things into consideration- one being the location of the area!

Also, while I’d venture to say your script is safe in the US… it’s something you may want to discuss anyway.

Nice!

I think Ian is right that we make it hard for casual users. Fixing that should be priority #1 in terms of license compliance.

As for corporate users (companies selling tiles based on OSM data), OSM has taken a very light stance with them requesting them to fix each customer at a time, rather than going to the company itself about its misdeeds. There are several companies (who shall remain nameless for now) which have failed to attribute OSM in customer maps.

There is a model for handling this- it’s slow and it’s expensive (due to administrative costs), but it is effective.