[geokon]

yes, I've misclicked the hidden link many times as well

The credit is due to the volunteers or governments that created the data, and not the project that collates it (their names are not displayed). The logic behind wikipedia doesn't translate to OSM b/c OSM is providing data to be reused

If this requirement wasn't there in the first place then OSM maps would have been the default go-to map and a household name like wikipedia. You wouldn't need to force an ad in every map to self-promote.

> Attribution is also a requirement of many proprietary map providers

the project had the opportunity to do something truly different and unique and chose not to... what a missed opportunity.

[cormorant]

I'm genuinely curious why this is a sore spot for you, since I've never heard this perspective. It seems like you see the key difference as being that the OSM attribution is commonly clickable, whereas the Google Maps one is not (similar font/placement). (Actually Google Maps does have "Terms" clickable. Random example of website embedding it: https://www.belcourt.org/directions-and-map/ or see https://developers.google.com/maps/documentation/embed/get-s...)

Meanwhile OSM says that you may "fade/collapse the attribution ... automatically on map interaction" among other possibilities (https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Attribution_Guideline...). It being licensed the way it is, you can use Leaflet.js or whatever else instead of the copy they host, if you really don't like their iframe...

[geokon]

I don't use Google maps, so I'm honestly not really sure what their terms are

I guess in the big picture it just rubs me the wrong way a bit. I just find it mildly absurd that if I take a screenshot of OSMand on my phone and send it to a friend, that I've broken the law. It'd like to live in a world where that's not the case.

It's like if Project Gutenburg mandated everyone had to include a cover page with their name on every book they distribute. It doesn't make it unusable or horrible, but it's just a general feeling "ah, so close but they missed the mark".

It could have been a truly open repository of data and instead it's just so slightly not that (and in a way that's so minor that no one will ever bother to re-make a truly no-strings-attached version :) )

[jumelles]

> if I take a screenshot of OSMand on my phone and send it to a friend, that I've broken the law

I'm not sure what exactly you're misunderstanding but this is not how the law works.