Is it possible (and more importantly, permissible) to embed an area in OSM into a related Wikipedia place article?
Do you mean something like https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiMiniAtlas ?
That plugin should be available and is already used in many wikipedia instances, or not?
See an article about a place that has coordinates in a special template … and then the plugin is present in the upper right screen corner in Wikipedia, or not?
Thank you for the reply. However, I was referring to “map images themselves” embedded in a Wikipedia article such as this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewel_Box_%28St._Louis%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Forest_Park_%28St._Louis%29.png
If this is acceptable to do in other Wikipedia place articles, could anyone kindly give instructions on how to do these:
a) Should I download the image or capture using PrintScreen?
b) Should I use the exact “License” details for the map image used in the Wikipedia article above?
I think it is legally OK, however, unless you are adding value, I would suggest it is better to link to the live map https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/28533273 Having said that, it seems to be being accessed through a standard template that expects a snapshot of the map. I would note that the only added value in the map is constructed in the browser, on a rather small image. You lose it if you click through.
At the scale used here, whole seconds of latitude are not precise enough.
Some of the description seems to be specially coded for the map module subsystem of WP. That’s new to me, and I couldn’t quickly find the documentation, but you will need to comply with whatever that requires if the marker is going to be overlaid correctly.
The Map Symbology link is unsafe. It represents the live key to the map, but used on a snapshot. There has been a recent change in the symbology used. This snapshot was taken after the change in symbology.
You can use the share option on the standard OSM web page to export the file. You should consider using SVG rather than PNG, as vector images are generally a better choice for line art in Wikipedia than bit maps.
Although the licensing page is not completely clear in this case, I would suggest you include the copyright statement in the image itself, as described in https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright
The licence version should be 2.0, not 2.5.
You should use the proper copyright symbol. At least on my browser, I see a smiley, so I think that someone has tried to approximate it with ASCII characters. This may be a bug in the WP template.
It would help if OSM were updated with any information that you have, e.g. in your example, the Jewel Box seems to be mapped twice, once as a park, and once as an attraction. The park has more data, but is only mapped as a point; it is probably not a park. The attraction has essentially no data. It really needs a stronger main tag. I’d be very surprised if both entities weren’t referring to a single real world entity. Neither element says it is a building, let a alone a glass house.
The update history says a label has been added for Tuttle Park. This is a good reason for not snap-shotting, as it suggests that a features has been added in the bit map, but not in the OSM map from which it was derived. Whilst the laxer database copyright position on WP means that it may sometimes to necessary to overlay a bitmap with such information, the source would need including in the copyright statement. If there is no copyright problem (e.g. the source is local knowledge), the OSM community would want the feature added to OSM, rather than just the bitmap.
Thank you very much for the detailed and informative advice and suggestions.
Some additional infos to hadw’s detailled reply:
- There is a category for OSM images, which shows that OSM is used quite a lot on Wikipedia and Commons.
- To get the licensing right, just use this helpful template.