Does Home Guy work for the transport department?

http://www.calgarysun.com/2012/11/20...quebec-roadway

On 11/21/2012 12:51 PM, Harry Johnson wrote:
Does Home Guy work for the transport department?

http://www.calgarysun.com/2012/11/20...quebec-roadway


I thought Canada didn't have Affirmative Action hiring requirements. O_o

TDD

Harry Johnson wrote:

Does Home Guy work for the transport department?

Just so you know - Q-bec is not really part of Canada.

So you can trash and riducule them all you want.

On 11/21/12 12:51 PM, Harry Johnson wrote:
Does Home Guy work for the transport department?

http://www.calgarysun.com/2012/11/20...quebec-roadway



My first thought was that hydro pole was Canadian slang for fire
hydrant or maybe a water fountain.

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.

On Thursday, November 22, 2012 8:13:53 AM UTC-7, 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.

Bull****...the shadows are all there. Picture was taken with ZOOM on.
Everything is in perspective.

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.

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?

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

On Nov 23, 9:53*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?

one of the photos showed a long line of poles directly in line with
the two misplaced poles

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

Your link is actually a slide show show various photo of the poles as well
it's removal.

This slide show is just as weird, maybe even weirder.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2012/11/23...refuse-to-move

On 11/23/2012 9:37 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
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

Your link is actually a slide show show various photo of the poles as well
it's removal.

This slide show is just as weird, maybe even weirder.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2012/11/23...refuse-to-move


I saw another one from China where a house was atop a piece of land that
looked like a butte with straight sides because all the land around it
had been dug away around it. It was like a big dirt tower in
a quarry. Darn, I wish I had an address for the image. O_o

TDD

On Nov 23, 9:04*am, "hr(bob) "
wrote:
On Nov 23, 9:53*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?

one of the photos showed a long line of poles directly in line with
the two misplaced poles

Shhh, He doesn't want to hear anything that refutes his theory.

Harry K

On Nov 23, 9:50*am, Harry K wrote:
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

Thanks for the URL. Just goes to show that truth can be stranger than
fiction.

Didn't see the link for any other photos. Habit from ignoring
everything presented around information on a website.

The obvious next question is Who is culpable for traffic accident
caused by obstruction?

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.

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.

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.

Harry K

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

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

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.

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

Did you read the article? The transportation department took responsibility
while "the guy who ordered the paving to continue" said he was just
following orders.

I quote...y

"...The regional director for the transport department admitted there was a
miscommunication with Hydro-Quebec.

"It's unacceptable," said Gilles Bourque. "As the one responsible for the
regional transport network, we should have ensured that this didn't
happen."

Gilles Therrien, owner of the company that executed the work, said he was
embarrassed about the poles, but there was nothing he could do - he was
just following orders, he said.

"Everyone knows it looks crazy," he told QMI Agency. "But the transport
department is our client. You must understand, I was somewhat uncomfortable
to criticize them."..."