File talk:2016-09-21 (0.50m) 2.jpg

Oh, this is neat, a day after image? I'll see about using this to improve the scene map. Does it come in any bigger size? --Caustic Logic (talk) 08:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Just one I eyeballed quickly and marked up, CL. Uploaded full-sized version here without 'squares':


 * Not sure about legality/fair use/etc. - TerraServer is in business to sell these images as their product (but obviously not a watermarked preview). This was just a screen capture of their imagery selection/preview page. No way to move or remove the TERRA watermarks. The most interesting significant damage is the dropped warehouse half that would be under the 'A' in TERRA in the mark nearest the center. Sorry, too much of a noob in PhotoShop to produce a sample quickly.
 * The image is the extent of the TerraServer zoom in preview. I could make the image larger/crop parts, but it would progressively lose resolution. The 721x541 screen cap is the largest/highest resolution we can get.
 * I can screw around with the contrast/coloring and cropping if you want certain areas emphasized and enlarged. Let me know. --Caustic Logic (talk) 08:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Between this and the other views, there should be something to go on. I think we're okay with a screen grab preview use w/built0in advertising. Does seem like a useful tool I never heard of. --Caustic Logic (talk) 08:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks like TerraServer does have some kind of licensing terms for Website/Blog publishing. I'll email them and post the reply here. Maybe they're OK with the watermarked preview usage if it's not-for-profit, but I have not had much luck in the past with commercial outfits. 'Advertising' and attribution often isn't enough for them even though there's little chance a not-for-profit website or something like ACLOS is going to be able to afford any kind of membership and the $100/image fee, but I'll check anyway and post their response here. We may just have to pull all of these.--PavewayIV (talk) 09:47, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * $100? That's not bad ... but hey, does helping prevent WWIII (or escalation of WWIV, depending) maybe count for something in the lines of fair use? Maybe even a gratis full view in the public interest? (eh, sounds good to me) --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * They just replied with a link to their Terms of Use/Licensing page, so the short answer is: [no]. It looks like you even need their expressed written consent (plus a licensing fee) to publish on a blog or web site in addition to the price of purchasing the image. Downloaded, paid images are personal use only. This may have to do with the fact that they don't even own the rights to the images. They distribute them on behalf of other imagery providers like satellite operators.--PavewayIV (talk) 21:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

So this is the day after the day after, by shadows just past solar noon, about 24 hours after most site photos. I don't see craters, but of course this isn't the best view. It's a view though! Only one I've seen, even with DW reporting "The perpetrator of the Aleppo air convoy attack cannot be determined with certainty, but strong clues have been found through the use of digital technology. The new information points to one guilty party." They show the famous 3 craters image (which seem to point somewhere, FWIW) but DO NOT show any satellite views of this area. Suggested: they too saw no sizeable craters, or they'd be happy to show the relevant imagery instead of a stand-in. --Caustic Logic (talk) 08:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Side-note: if these images weren't each a bit different, a simple improved version should be uploaded in place of the worse version using "upload a new version" on the file page. (the old one is even kept on file, so nothing lost!). --Caustic Logic (talk) 08:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm just getting use to the file upload/image thing here, CL. Sorry it got a bit sloppy with all the various uploads. I'll keep it much more organized next time. I see I can upload the highest resolution and manage the display sizes in the image file: tags rather than using multiple uploads. There's really no reason I couldn't have put all of these in one or two files at most. If nothing else, it keeps the discussion about the imagery contained on one page. --PavewayIV (talk) 09:47, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries! Each one is different, useful, etc. Just an FYI for when it is needed. And no worries there either. Just thanks for putting your brain into this. :) --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Note that the neighboring compound was attacked on June 11, 2016. There is a fire somewhere in the warehouse. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)