Harry K wrote:
On Nov 24, 12:32 pm, Josh wrote:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 10:01:59 -0800 (PST), Harry K
wrote:





On Nov 24, 6:13 am, Robert Macy wrote:
On Nov 23, 9:50 am, Harry K wrote:

On Nov 23, 7:53 am, Robert Macy wrote:

On Nov 22, 5:16 pm, DerbyDad03 wrote:

Robert Macy wrote:
On Nov 21, 11:52 am, Harry Johnson wrote:
Does Home Guy work for the transport department?

http://www.calgarysun.com/2012/11/20...eads-to-hydro-...

The lighting on those two poles does not appear to match the
surrounding lighting. Why are both poles casting NO shadows?
Everything else around seems to have very long shadows. Photo looks
more like a composite.

What are you viewing the photo with? I see shadows from both poles on the
left hand side, just like the shadows from all other objects.

It's just that glancing at the photo the poles seemed to be glaringly
different, and 'jump' out while viewing, so I posted more as a
question doubting authenticity, rather than a clear statement
invalidating the photo.

Using Irfanview 4.25, in the photo that downloaded to me, the shadow
looks too narrow and 'drawn in' does not match adjacent shadows in
digital distribution - the hysteresis of colors..

The back pole's base is too abrupt in its termination at the pavement
and it appears that the angle of lighting is off by 5-10 degrees. The
reflector plate mounted on the back pole does not look 'right'
either. It's mounted too low and is too wide proportionally.

However, in support of authenticity, the markings on the pavement
around the closest pole appear to be indeed markings around a pole, or
at least some obstruction. However the pole's base to pavement
junction is extremely clean. Must be they have extremelly good
workmanship there, or...

Where do the wires for these two poles go? They do not seem to line up
with any other set of poles.

Is there another view of these two poles?

http://www.calgarysun.com/2012/11/21...om-quebec-road

which pretty much shoots down your suspicions.

BTW that link was right there as a sidebar to the article.

Harry K

Took awhile to see photos, but they're gone. Interesting last
statment:
"Cookshire-Eaton Mayor Noel Landry said citizens didn't complain
because they knew that the problem would be fixed sooner or later."

Definitely NOT in the USA.

For sure. Surprised that the guy who made the decision to put them
there wasnt' fired.

Perhaps I was misread, but I took it that the poles were already
there; it was the road widening project that wasn't fully coordinated,
so they paved around the existing poles. That would be the fault of
the road contractor, not the power company (though they might have
delayed their part of the job). I've seen that done before, with the
poles removed and holes patched, just never after the new road portion
actually opened.



I saw something else that is unbelievable - back down the stree there
are poles right on the street but next to the curb - that would not be
allowed in the states.

If they're the ones in line with the offending pole, I'm sure the plan
is to move all of them; the one in the foreground is just the most
egregious.

Josh

I think you are correct about them being there first. That would
still leave the guy wo ordered the paving to continue around them at
fault.

Harry K


That was my thought too.

Here in BC it is not unusual to see telephone poles in the middle of the
curb lane if the road is being widened and the power co. has not moved
the poles yet.

We had this a block away and they were like that for over a year. The
city put in the new sidewalks and put down the first layer of asphalt
and left it like that until the power co. got their new poles and lines in.

When the old poles were remove the hole was paved and a few months later
the final layer of asphalt was added.