What is Wrong With This Photograph? Part 29

I have been walking a lot lately — simply because I enjoy walking, as evidenced in this article pertaining to walking from the airport in Las Vegas to the city itself — and on a mild day earlier this year, I walked at least eight miles and noticed something which caught my attention.

What is Wrong With This Photograph? Part 29

Path Trail

Photograph ©2020 by Brian Cohen.

For this edition of this popular game, can you guess what you believe is wrong — or, at least, quite bizarre — with this photograph?

Please submit your answers in the Comments section below — and I enjoy reading creative answers.

Thank you in advance. As always, I cannot wait to read your answer and feedback…

…and if you are wondering what happened to the article pertaining to What is Wrong With This Photograph? Part 28 as it seems to have been skipped, I recently found an article titled Can You Spot the $11.2 Million Mistake on This Can? which belongs in this series of articles.

Summary

Past articles with which you can participate and play along with the What is Wrong With This Photograph? game include:

All photographs ©2020 by Brian Cohen.

8 thoughts on “What is Wrong With This Photograph? Part 29”

  1. Ric says:

    Beware of blind hill on other side of underpass

  2. Bob says:

    This (bicycle path) hill warning sign is mounted 45 degrees off its vertical axis, unless you discovered a hyperlocalized shift in gravity 😉

    It is supposed to be diamond-posted, it is not a square-posted sign. Think ♦ not ■ on the post.

    Officially, per MUTCD 2009, it is a warning sign for bicycle facilities, designated as W7-5, dimensions shall be…and so on and so forth. I trust you found a hill at least 50 feet beyond the sign, or it’s placed incorrectly, too, not just mounted incorrectly. 🙂

  3. Ed says:

    The bike defies perspective. While it rides a road that vanishes into the horizon, the bike is firmly rooted in the foreground.

  4. Rich says:

    The sign has been rotated 45 degrees clockwise from its correct orientation. It’s a yellow warning sign, so it should be in a diamond orientation (i.e., the diagonals of the square should be vertical and horizontal relative to the ground). That would give the triangle that represents the ground a base parallel to the ground.

    It would also make it mean “Look out! Downgrade” rather than “Look out! Upgrade!”. But in fact it does look like there’s a downgrade ahead. You rarely have to warn cyclists that they’re going to start going up in any case.

  5. derek says:

    The sign warns of a steep downslope that should be of concern to bicyclists but the sign in incorrectly mounted so it shows an upslope.

    The sign is also evidence of sexism and rampant discrimination in America, unlike in a socialist paradise, like Cuba. The bicycle is a men’s model. (disclaimer: Such claim about Cuba is not actually true, maybe a socialist paradise but not a paradise)

  6. John Maynes says:

    Runaway Bikes (going up-hill) – BEWARE!!

  7. r m a h says:

    no joke….no spokes!!

    1. Bob says:

      What if the axles are magnetically levitating at the respective foci for the circumference of those cool supercooled wheels?

      Science!? Or magic!? Or maybe just clear polycarbonate rims?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

BoardingArea