Jump to content

Puzzling waymarks


Followers 2

Recommended Posts

This morning I got an idea. I hope some waymarkers like it and make a category out of it:

There are loads of jigsaw puzzles, 3d puzzles and wooden and steel models about famous landmarks and buildings. Why not make a category in the spirit of 'drawing waymarks'? In order to post a waymark in the category, one needs to have visited the landmark or vista depicted in the puzzle and made a picture of it. Then the poster has to make the puzzle about the subject and make a picture of it if it's finished. A posted waymark consists of the picture of the finished puzzle as the main picture and in the gallery a picture of the landmark or vista in real life has to be added. For a visit, a waymarker can either make a puzzle based upon the waymark or make a visit to the actual landmark or vista. 

For inspiration, I added a picture of some puzzles that I have (I am an avid puzzler/collector). I hope someone want to help me realise this idea, as I am a basic member and can't make this category

20211106_091132.jpg

  • Funny 1
  • Surprised 1
Link to comment

Would this include Lego sets as well? I tried to do a category similar to this, but depicted by lego instead of puzzles, and it was heavily disliked many years ago. I like the idea, but I think this would be too prevalent unless you can nail down what is an acceptable puzzle and what is not.

 

Puzzles like this can be created by anyone. Is there a specific puzzle company that is king? For example, with board games Monopoly comes to mind. We need to make sure that people aren't just creating a puzzle for the waymark. IMO, the puzzle should have a barcode on the back of the box to indicate it is readily available to the public to purchase at the bare minimum.

 

When I tried to do this with Lego, my idea was that we would waymark real world structures and objects that were made into a lego sets. For example, the lego architecture series which are based on real world buildings. If lego sets were not to be included in this category, would anyone like to that become its own separate category?

  • Surprised 1
Link to comment

Maybe if the poster adds a photo of the puzzle box as a requirement we could tackle this? I would limit the category to jigsaw and 3d puzzles, maybe wooden or steel models made out of separate parts. I get the difficulty with lego, if someone is creative enough with the bricks, any famous buildings or landmarks can be duplicated.

  • Upvote 1
  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
On 11/6/2021 at 10:54 AM, Becktracker said:

Maybe if the poster adds a photo of the puzzle box as a requirement we could tackle this? I would limit the category to jigsaw and 3d puzzles, maybe wooden or steel models made out of separate parts. I get the difficulty with lego, if someone is creative enough with the bricks, any famous buildings or landmarks can be duplicated.

Well, what I meant by Lego is that it has to be an official set that one could buy from the website. I think the same should be said for these puzzles.

  • Surprised 1
Link to comment

Don't forget that there are also other brands than Lego, who offer sets for famous buildings/sites, for example:

LOTFUN Notre Dame de Paris

PLEX Schloss Neuschwanstein

ICS Moscow Red Square Micro Block Set

WANGE Architektur Schiefer Turm von Pisa (My favorite. Just kidding :D)

etc.

 

So, in my humble opinion, you should either in- or exclude "bricks sets", but not just Lego sets.

 

Link to comment

I personally do not like this idea. It is just another category for those many well known places and famous landmarks that already have a lot of categories. It does not add anything substantial to the location. It's true, the Philatelic and the Numismatic categories are somewhat similar, but the have at least an authoritative approval by a country and this means something regarding the importance of this place. On the other hand, anybody can create and sell models of existing buildings (well, intellectual property rights might come in the way, but that's not the point).

 

I will not support the idea but if the majority can be convinced I have no problem with it. But there is one thing I will fight against: The idea of having to own a model set for posting or visiting is just absolutely horrible. And the idea of allowing visits for owning the set without actually visiting the place is even worse. Whatever you do with this category, don't go that way!

Edited by fi67
Typos
  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 3
Link to comment
9 hours ago, PISA-caching said:

Don't forget that there are also other brands than Lego, who offer sets for famous buildings/sites, for example:

LOTFUN Notre Dame de Paris

PLEX Schloss Neuschwanstein

ICS Moscow Red Square Micro Block Set

WANGE Architektur Schiefer Turm von Pisa (My favorite. Just kidding :D)

etc.

 

So, in my humble opinion, you should either in- or exclude "bricks sets", but not just Lego sets.

 

I would say, for me personally, if the category would include 3d puzzles, they should only include official Lego sets. No other company. That said, for the 2d puzzles, they need to find an equivalent company that is "king" in the 2d puzzle making business. If they include all puzzles, it would be too prevalent and not interesting. Which puzzle companies are most interesting, or most global (as in which ones sell their products worldwide)?

  • Surprised 1
Link to comment

Just a theoretical question, because (like fi67) I'm not very enthusiastic about this idea: Why limit this category to one company? We already have categories for just one company and sooner or later we had another category for the other companies (McDonald's Restaurants / Burger Shops - Regional Chains; Pizza Hut Restaurants / Pizza Shops - Regional Chains; Starbucks Stores / Independent Coffee Shops, and the list goes on and on).

 

Many sights will have a 2D-Puzzle, a 3D-Puzzle and(!) a Lego set. But f.e. the Red Square in Moscow doesn't have a Lego set (at least not that I know of) and I don't know if the "2D puzzle king" will have one. So, it would just be a matter of time, until someone has been to a building that has not a Lego set, but a set of another company and he is therefore not allowed to create that waymark. Instead, I would allow just one waymark per building (other than the Philatelic Photographs, who allow one WM per stamp). This would keep the amount of WMs down (who wants to see xx more WMs of the Eiffel Tower?) and at the same time not discreminate smaller companies.

 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, PISA-caching said:

Instead, I would allow just one waymark per building (other than the Philatelic Photographs, who allow one WM per stamp). This would keep the amount of WMs down (who wants to see xx more WMs of the Eiffel Tower?) and at the same time not discreminate smaller companies.

 

This I would agree with. One waymark per structure/building.

Link to comment

I thought about the situation too, and came up with the same solution. I also communicated to Toshea that I'm okay if this is going to be more like philatelic photographs than drawing waymarks. There is one problem that I can see and that is that the waymarkers take pictures of the internet instead of looking for the actual puzzle boxes. If someone takes photos of the internet loads of waymarks can be created in a few hours. Need we have the gps with the puzzle box for visiting proof?

  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
On 11/13/2021 at 8:15 AM, Becktracker said:

[…] Need we have the gps with the puzzle box for visiting proof?

Totally wrong question!

 

You don't need the puzzle box at all. It is a stupendous violation of the spirit of this game to require to own or buy anything to be able to post or visit a waymark. The idea of allowing post or visits just because you own something related to the location is just the same silly idea.

 

Once again: allow posts ONLY after a personal visit to the physical location of the original, allow visits ONLY after a personal visit to the physical location of the original. Don't care about the box. However,  you can require proof of the existence of the puzzle box, that may be a link to a website (of the company, a third party shop, a collector's club or whatever you may think of) or - but only if you do not find any site but own the box yourself - a picture of it, why not.

 

BTW: a picture of a puzzle box with a GPS receiver??? Who still has them anyway - I mean in a different device than the one you take the pictures with it? Take a mirror? And why do you want to see the coordinates of the home of an owner of a puzzle box that could be anywhere in the world? And why should anyone want  to see anybody else their home coordinates.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 3
Link to comment
On 11/13/2021 at 1:15 AM, Becktracker said:

Need we have the gps with the puzzle box for visiting proof?

I do not understand this at all. Don't you want people to personally visit the waymarked place, not the puzzle?  Most of the geocachers I know take photos with the same device they geocache with anyway. 

 

This category is starting to feel very commercial like. 

 

Just my opinion,  it seems it would be most akin to the Monopoly category. You have to visit the actual thing waymarked. To post a waymark you don't need to own a copy of the specific Monopoly board. To visit the waymark you do not need to own that Monopoly board.  This seems very similar to a puzzle box. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
3 hours ago, fi67 said:

[...] allow posts ONLY after a personal visit to the physical location of the original,

allow visits ONLY after a personal visit to the physical location of the original.

[...] require proof of the existence of the puzzle box

 

I think these three points sum up what the category should be about. No real need to buy a puzzle box with the waymarks picture on it in order to add to the category (analogous to the monopoly category).

 

3 hours ago, fi67 said:

BTW: a picture of a puzzle box with a GPS receiver??? Who still has them anyway - I mean in a different device than the one you take the pictures with it?

It may seem strange, but I have one that I still use. It is better to use in the forest when you have no or only a bad connection to the cellular network.

Link to comment

When i wrote my message i had the idea that you can go to a toy store and pull out some puzzles from the ranks. I know these are expensive and i wouldn't like to force anyone to buy one to satisfy the waymark goals. I just wanted to suggest something to prevent people posting 20+ waymarks of more or less the same landmarks the minute this category comes out. Anyone has an idea?

Edited by Becktracker
Link to comment
On 11/14/2021 at 7:18 AM, Max and 99 said:

Just my opinion,  it seems it would be most akin to the Monopoly category. You have to visit the actual thing waymarked. To post a waymark you don't need to own a copy of the specific Monopoly board. To visit the waymark you do not need to own that Monopoly board.  This seems very similar to a puzzle box.

 

I agree completely with 99's vision of the proposed category.

I've talked with the category owner and hence know that ownership of a puzzle will not be a requirement. It will likely work pretty much as does the Monopoly category which has, to date, 1346 approved submissions, making it a more popular category than many.

 

I see no real difference between the two categories, beyond the fact that a Puzzles category may be even more historically oriented than is the Monopoly category. Puzzle themes very often depict historical sites, most of which remain extant and accessible to the average Waymarker.

 

Though I couldn't consider myself an avid puzzler, after reading the initial proposal I found myself rooting through my small puzzle collection in search of potential Puzzling Waymarks. Though I did find a few, for now they will be put on the back burner for future Waymarking trips, still in the back of my mind for whenever I should be passing through those necks of the woods.

Keith

Edited by ScroogieII
  • Upvote 1
  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
4 hours ago, T0SHEA said:

Are we done here?

No further comments.

 

I don't know what you want to say with your message. Perhaps one of these?

 

- "Is this idea done and can go to the wastebin?" (re-reading the statements above I wouldn't think so) or

- "Are we finished talking on this and can proceed to make a category proposal?" or

- "Has somebody else some other points we didn't consider?"

 

Erik.

Link to comment
On 11/21/2021 at 11:42 AM, FamilieFrohne said:

 

I don't know what you want to say with your message. Perhaps one of these?

 

- "Is this idea done and can go to the wastebin?" (re-reading the statements above I wouldn't think so) or

- "Are we finished talking on this and can proceed to make a category proposal?" or

- "Has somebody else some other points we didn't consider?"

 

Erik.

 

Why not just pick one and answer it - or even all three. :)

Keith

Link to comment

Working on the category description and on the "fence" about:

Brick sets

Setting a minimum number of pieces in the puzzle for example 300

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Some requirements include

Photographs if the puzzle is in a retail store: a close up view of the puzzle box and one with an overview of the display including the puzzle box

Internet source for an image of a puzzle box, requiring a link and name of the company who made the puzzle and a clear image that shows the location/landmark displayed on the puzzle box.

Link for the location/landmark

Three photographs of the location:  One must be a duplicate of the vantage point and perspective of the image on the puzzle/brick set box

Limit one waymark per location

Only accept puzzles and brick sets that are commercially manufactured  for retail outlets with a minimum of XXX pieces.

 

 

 

 

Edited by T0SHEA
  • Surprised 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment

I would say 2d puzzles have to be exactly matched by the picture of the original landmark and so there can be several vantage points and thus waymarks of a site. I would say, because 3d puzzles can't be exactly replicated, one 3d puzzle waymark per landmark.

  • Upvote 1
  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
On 11/6/2021 at 9:38 AM, bluesnote said:

Would this include Lego sets as well? I tried to do a category similar to this, but depicted by lego instead of puzzles, and it was heavily disliked many years ago.

 

A bit of an epiphany has taken place here as the result of an email by Becktracker, the OP here.

It finally occurred to me to actually LOOK AT the Lego category, only to find that there is no coincidence between that category and the one proposed.

It turns out that the words "3D Model" should at least ameliorate, if not eliminate, any fears of a particular style or type of model's being excluded from the proposed category.

As presently proposed the category would include (commercially manufactured) jigsaw puzzles, both 2D and 3D, as well as commercially manufactured 3D models of essentially any type.

Further, more mundane, details are currently "on the editor's desk".

Keith

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

How about "Make a Puzzle of a Real Life Location" as a "Photo Goals" Waymark? It could have a two-part requirement for a qualifying visit -- make a puzzle and submit an original photo of said place...bonus points if photo is from similar view as puzzle. No need to have the OP's puzzle be the only location; any puzzle/place combo counts as a visit.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
57 minutes ago, 401Photos said:

How about "Make a Puzzle of a Real Life Location" as a "Photo Goals" Waymark? It could have a two-part requirement for a qualifying visit -- make a puzzle and submit an original photo of said place...bonus points if photo is from similar view as puzzle. No need to have the OP's puzzle be the only location; any puzzle/place combo counts as a visit.

 

Less desirable, for sure, as it would require the ownership of a puzzle, which is NOT really in the spirit of Waymarking.

Your proposal would close entrance to anyone not owning a puzzle depicting a specific location or unwilling to buy such a puzzle, likely eliminating the majority: Not rational politics.

Keith

Edited by ScroogieII
  • Upvote 1
  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
10 hours ago, Becktracker said:

I would say 2d puzzles have to be exactly matched by the picture of the original landmark and so there can be several vantage points and thus waymarks of a site. I would say, because 3d puzzles can't be exactly replicated, one 3d puzzle waymark per landmark.

I disagree. We should be Waymarking the sites themselves, not the puzzles. This is going to be problematic and create a lot of unnecessary, repetitive, and redundant waymarks. One waymark per location IMHO. 

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment

I'm 100 percent in agreement with you about avoiding additional costs re. mandatory expenses. And to clarify my "make a puzzle" phrase -- I didn't mean pay for having a custom puzzle created, just "make" as in "put one together."

Would outright personal ownership actually be needed? (Who's checking for proof of purchase?!)

How about borrowing a puzzle?  Someone you know may have one that piques your interest. Public libraries have puzzles to lend, too.


Back to the main gist of my idea: It was meant to consider adding "any completed-by-you puzzle and an original picture of same" as an entry to the existing "Photo Goals" category instead of creating a new category which, if I'm understanding correctly, may require buying/finding a matching puzzle in order to count as a new Waymark and visit.
 

Edited by 401Photos
Link to comment

I still feel Lego sets could be its own category. Here me out:

 

The category Becktracker is proposing could stick strictly to 2d puzzles. While another, new category could step in for Lego sets which are based on real world buildings and places (to account for 3d puzzles). That way, we fix Becktracker's category being too redundant allowing all puzzles. I think, IMHO, puzzles in the most basic definition should be classified as 2d ones. However, I am okay with including them for the purposes of a single new category.

 

I could be wrong, but I still think the category proposal, as it currently sits, is messy. If the two category idea is much, here's what I would suggest:

 

1. Allow one waymark per building or site. No need to have multiple waymarks for the same building if multiple puzzle exist. We are Waymarking the building in the real world, not the puzzle for that building.

2. Puzzles should only be accepted if they are available for mass market. No etsy or custom ones. That said, a URL link to Target, Walmart, Amazon, ect. should be provided to show it is easily purchasable and created in large quantities. I don't think we should be required to purchase or own one. That seems pointless.

3. I am okay with adding all puzzles (both 2d and 3d), but there needs to be some discussion to prevent redundancy. Like I said before, I think it would be better if we limited to several companies which are known for producing high quality puzzles. Lego, for example, is and should be one of them (if we are to keep it as one category). Are there a few companies that come to mind (i.e. quality, aesthetics, price, quantity, ect.) that we should say, "yes, include them" or "no, exclude them"? This is what I would like to know before moving forward.

4. I am against this becoming a Photo Goal because I feel this is more than a Photo Goal. We aren't doing a specific task. Rather, we are documenting real world objects which are represented as puzzles. Its similar to the Monopoly category, which I feel wouldn't be best as a Photo Goal.

 

Just my two cents.

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, bluesnote said:

. Puzzles should only be accepted if they are available for mass market. No etsy or custom ones. That said, a URL link to Target, Walmart, Amazon, ect. should be provided to show it is easily purchasable and created in large quantities. I don't think we should be required to purchase or own one. That seems pointless.

There should be an option for a photo of the puzzle instead of a link. If I have a puzzle that was purchased 50 years ago and is no longer mass produced or easily purchased, why shouldn't it count? 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

There should be an option for a photo of the puzzle instead of a link. If I have a puzzle that was purchased 50 years ago and is no longer mass produced or easily purchased, why shouldn't it count? 

Yes, this too. The Monopoly category is the same way where either a photo or a URL will suffice.

Link to comment

Toshea and I want to go the 'picture perfect postcards' way with the 2d jigsaw puzzles. The image on the puzzle has to be exactly replicated in real life (for as close as you can get), or the other way around. I wrote this line yesterday "You have to take a picture that is exactly like the image on the puzzle and/or the puzzle box, or as close as you can get. For 3d puzzles and 3d models this is difficult because mostly they don 't have a background. We accept waymarks of 3d puzzles and models that are in the same angle as the original picture that you took of the actual site. Also, because of this, we will only accept one 3d puzzle of model of a specific landmark."

Link to comment
On 11/23/2021 at 11:59 PM, pmaupin said:

If the puzzle is sold in different countries, what do we do?

 

Thank you for your question. I have rewritten the category to allow multiply waymarks at the same location with exceptions. 

 

Purposed category description addressing your concerns:

 

Instructions for Posting  Puzzles in the Real World

Flat Puzzles in the Real World will accept multiple waymarks per location, they must be of a different vantage point and perspective. NO duplications.

_____________________________________________________________________

3D puzzles

3d puzzles (carboard or wood) and 3d models (construction brick sets) generally do not have a background. A picture is required of the landmark taken at the same angle and perspective as shown on the puzzle box. We will only accept one 3d puzzle model of a specific landmark.

  • Helpful 3
Link to comment
On 11/14/2021 at 8:05 AM, FamilieFrohne said:

It may seem strange, but I have one that I still use.

 

Not strange at all, to me. A GPS receiver is all I use and have ever used.

 

19 hours ago, bluesnote said:

I still feel Lego sets could be its own category. Here [sic] me out:

 

The category Becktracker is proposing could stick strictly to 2d puzzles. While another, new category could step in for Lego sets which are based on real world buildings and places (to account for 3d puzzles).

 

No longer really factual. The intended direction is toward the inclusion of 3D puzzles, as well. If we include 3D puzzles, then it becomes a very short stride to acceptance of other 3D models, totally eliminating the need for yet another, very similar, category. Moreover, the extant LEGO category presently covers LEGO submissions which would otherwise not fit in the proposed category.

 

You sort of shoot yourself in the foot with this inclusion:

3. I am okay with adding all puzzles (both 2d and 3d)

It better supports my argument than it does yours.

 

Are there a few companies that come to mind (i.e. quality, aesthetics, price, quantity, etc.) that we should say, "yes, include them" or "no, exclude them"? This is what I would like to know before moving forward.

I've not seen any examples, as yet. Have you? Creating such exclusions/inclusions would inevitably lead to the type of nightmares experienced by other category leaders who engaged in insufficient forethought.

 

Keith

Edited by ScroogieII
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
19 hours ago, 401Photos said:

Back to the main gist of my idea: It was meant to consider adding "any completed-by-you puzzle and an original picture of same" as an entry to the existing "Photo Goals" category instead of creating a new category which, if I'm understanding correctly, may require buying/finding a matching puzzle in order to count as a new Waymark and visit.

 

I believe that my most appropriate response would be to allow you to read posts following (and preceding) yours in the thread. :)

However, anyone may submit a Photo Goals Waymark at any time. The existence of the proposed category wouldn't bar the submission of a particular Waymark to Photo Goals. Whether or not it might be approved is quite another matter, totally in the hands of the category officers.

Keith

Edited by ScroogieII
Link to comment
18 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

There should be an option for a photo of the puzzle instead of a link. If I have a puzzle that was purchased 50 years ago and is no longer mass produced or easily purchased, why shouldn't it count? 

 

Excellent point, 99! I believe that it shall be done.

Keith

Link to comment

Puzzles in the Real World (directly from the category requirements)

 

"If you are using a puzzle box or a 3d model image off the internet, you MUST provide the link, the name of the company who produced the puzzle or 3d model and a clear image.


If you own the puzzle or 3d model the above requirements are waived. Take a close up photo of the box showing the location/landmark and the company name. If there is information on the backside or as an insert about the puzzle/model set location/landmark, include a photo. Also include a photo of the completed puzzle, if available."

Link to comment

More: 

Puzzles in the Real World (directly from the category requirements)

 

Purchase of any puzzle type is not required.

 

Acceptable puzzle types include:
Cardboard 2 and 3 dimensional
Wood 2 and 3 dimensional
3d models

 

Required is a picture of the puzzle box with the image of the Location/Landmark and the company name, which must be the default image.

Puzzles in the Real World will only accept puzzles that are commercially manufactured, available in retail outlets and having a minimum of 300 pieces.

 

We will not accept any homemade, custom made, or any puzzle or 3d model of questionable origin.

 

This category is ready to go to peer review. 

 

More comments are encouraged. 
 

Link to comment

HI Toshea,

 

the category description is very strong. In the line of puzzle types, I would add foam-backed 3d puzzles (which is the puzzle type that I own the most of). I would say 2 pictures of the actual site are sufficient, one replicate of the puzzle and an additional photo for control. Pleasure working with you and I think the category is (after a round of checks from the group) ready to go to review!

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Some of the comments from Peer Review:

"I'm curious how the officers will check that the perspective of a new WM is different to all the puzzles of that location that have already been approved."

Actually, up to ten nearest Waymarks of the same category appear on the review page, so checking for dupes is pretty easy.

 

" In my opinion, we should only have one waymark per site, not one waymark per angle."

It's not really "one Waymark per angle", so much as one Waymark per puzzle manufacturer. Several manufacturers may issue puzzles for a single well known site, each taken from a different photograph. It would seem unfair to accept only the first of these, when other Waymarkers may own a copy from a different manufacturer, AND with a different perspective.

 

Places such as the Grand Canyon and the Sydney Opera House come to mind. There appears to have been dozens of jigsaw puzzles, both 2D and 3D, produced for these two randomly chosen sites alone, almost all depicting a different perspective.

 

"A picture is required of the landmark taken at the same angle and perspective as shown on the puzzle box..." could be hard for the puzzle of the Empire State Building shown here."

Which is why the requirements are less stringent for 3D entries. In this case an exactly matching perspective is not necessary, only as close as can be achieved by the Waymarker from ground level.

 

Keith

Edited by ScroogieII
  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
Link to comment

"What a nice idea. But what will the coordinates for the waymark be? Will it be coordinates for the puzzle or for the landscape/building etc"

Excellent point. 

We will clarify this after it passes peer review. The coordinates will be for the location/landmark.

 

Thank you for bring this to our attention. 

Link to comment
On 11/30/2021 at 10:04 PM, ScroogieII said:

Some of the comments from Peer Review:

"I'm curious how the officers will check that the perspective of a new WM is different to all the puzzles of that location that have already been approved."

Actually, up to ten nearest Waymarks of the same category appear on the review page, so checking for dupes is pretty easy.

 

There are some locations that will have much more than 10 puzzles at the end of the day. F.e. the Eiffel Tower. And this tower looks more or less the same from all 4 sides. Anyway, we'll see. I think that we will see lots of puzzles for sights that already have dozens of WMs and puzzles for unusual places will get lost in the crowd. But that's just my opinion.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, PISA-caching said:

 

There are some locations that will have much more than 10 puzzles at the end of the day. F.e. the Eiffel Tower. And this tower looks more or less the same from all 4 sides. Anyway, we'll see. I think that we will see lots of puzzles for sights that already have dozens of WMs and puzzles for unusual places will get lost in the crowd. But that's just my opinion.

This also goes for other categories, movie locations for instance, or photos or paintings then and now. See the center of prague, where there are dozens on one location.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
5 hours ago, Becktracker said:

This also goes for other categories, movie locations for instance, or photos or paintings then and now. See the center of prague, where there are dozens on one location.

That true and it was a mistake already then. We did not anticipate the risk of flooding until it was too late.

That others already hit their heads is not a good reason to run against the wall, especially when you have seen what happened before.

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
1 minute ago, fi67 said:

That true and it was a mistake already then. We did not anticipate the risk of flooding until it was too late.

That others already hit their heads is not a good reason to run against the wall, especially when you have seen what happened before.

 

So if I am understanding your reasoning correctly, this did not apply to the newest sculpture category. :huh:

  • Surprised 1
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...