<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div>26 Aug 2020, 20:34 by pla16021@gmail.com:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">On Wed, 26 Aug 2020 at 18:03, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <<a href="mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><div class=""><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class=""><div><div>Though note that in practice that it is fairly rare to delete things as out of scope.<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>That's true. But the spectre of it happening is raised whenever people mention<br></div><div>using wikimedia images.<br></div><div><br></div><div>What I could see happening is linking to a wikimedia image because that is<br></div><div>the only one of the POI. Later somebody uploads another image of the same<br></div><div>POI taken from approximately the same angle and distance, but of much<br></div><div>better quality. Later still, somebody at wikimedia decides they don't<br></div><div>need two almost identical images of the same thing, so deletes the<br></div><div>lower-quality one.<br></div></div><div class=""><br></div><div class="">-- <br></div><div class="">Paul<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div>In practice you need horrific image quality,<br></div><div>to the point of unasibility for deletion to <br></div><div>succeed</div><div><div><br></div><div>Not just "clearly better".<br></div><div><br></div><div>They have backlog of copyright violations,<br></div><div>and tricky cases where legality is not clear.<br></div><div><br></div><div>People making backlog worse by making<br></div><div>such "low quality, delete" would not be<br></div><div>appreciated or encouraged there</div></div></div><div><br></div> </body>
</html>