Google Maps Scavenger Hunt

That's a stumper, Evan. It's got all the dismal attributes of a prison compound: guard towers at the corners of the perimeter and guard towers at each cell block (if that's what they are), no aesthetic adornment of any kind, lots of fences, and no visitors or signs of life.

But no famous prison or detention facility I'm aware of (or found in Google) matches up. It ain't Abu Ghraib, I don't think it's Guantanamo (your continent hint would disqualify that possibility anyway) and I can categorically prove it isn't Alcatraz (too few sailing vessels in the vicinity).

Of course if it's not a prison but the latest Club Med resort they really do need to turn on the lawn sprinklers.

Anyone else have any ideas?

MB

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Jun 6 2007, 02:46 PM) [snapback]456865[/snapback]</div>

Ok there are 7 continents or 6 by the European method of education, North and South America combined into one. We have covered both N and S America, Australia, Europe, and Asia. So that leaves Africa and Antarctica right? His clue about Peace and Freedom should help but the only thing I could think of right off was the Peace Village in North Korea. But we have covered that continent I can’t think of anything like that in the Antarctica so therefore it has to be Africa. Right?

Wildkow

p.s. Still looking.

Edit: Nice observation airportkid any country in Africa have a famous location associated with the slogan "Peace and Freedom" or the concept?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Jun 6 2007, 05:46 PM) [snapback]456865[/snapback]</div>

The prison on Robben Island, South Africa, where Nelson Mandela was imprisoned
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&...p;z=17&om=1

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ Jun 6 2007, 06:54 PM) [snapback]457034[/snapback]</div>

Sweet! BaHahahahahaha!

More, More, More. . .

 

Here's mine. And a hint- one of my professors at Penn, Buckminster Fuller, was the inspiration for this structure:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(larkinmj @ Jun 6 2007, 07:01 PM) [snapback]457044[/snapback]</div>

Good one. . .

It's the Bioshpere

Here's mine . . .

Image withdrawn as there are now two locations posted. . .
It's so tall it started a war.

Wildkow

p.s. Dang, he's quick sorry efusco. OK this topic seems to be fairly popular and therefore I call for more rulez?

Awaiting your approval OP and posters. . .

1) You have to post the correct ID and a map location/pic.
2) Got to have another location in the same post.
3) If the pic is smaller than .5-1 mile across a hint should be included.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Jun 6 2007, 07:35 PM) [snapback]457074[/snapback]</div>

Hahahahahahahaha . . . The joke is on you I'm an Independent!

Yeah, the last one wasn't well thought out but those were only suggestions and I don't know that they are really needed. I was just miffed that you beat me to the punch, I do think the first two should be considered, however.

Wildkow

p.s. Let me ask boulder bum and the the rest of you all, is it ok to have more than one location going at one time? It could get confusing but if one image is really, really tough it might keep those that are completely baffled interested.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Jun 6 2007, 07:49 PM) [snapback]457086[/snapback]</div>

I would have no quarrel whatsoever with simultaneous entries from one or more posters, in fact, it would help abate the clash of multiple people getting the answer at the same time since there'd be more for people to work on at any one moment. I have to agree with Evan that clues should be at the sole discretion of the poster - the poster is really the only one who can gauge what kinds of clues would be appropriate.

I would like to relax the requirement that the guess be accompanied by a map link - my North Pole entry, for example (although done in the spirit of another gag) has no map link (at least that I could find). If one names the landmark correctly, that's sufficient proof they got the answer - why force a link?

But let's be careful, guys - if we start to clog this game up with too many rules (even the ones I suggested above) we might wreck the fun without realizing it.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Boulder Bum @ Jun 3 2007, 09:13 PM) [snapback]454703[/snapback]</div>

Ok, so it looks like most of these rules are already covered.

Per the original rules hints are optional and at the discretion of the poster, although if someone posts a very difficult image and includes no clues and refuses to provide clues after a sufficient amount of time, they may find that we become frustrated and bored at which time someone else might just start a new series.

Accoding to the original rules the answer post needs to include 3 things:
An identifying name of what is pictured.
A link that can be clicked on to see the matching image in google maps.
The next image.

So, Wildkow it sounds like you are re-iterating the original rules, not adding or expanding rules.

I think multiple images will get rather confusing as we try to figure out whose answer is for whose image and how many (and which) images we are still searching for. If you want to start a seperate series of images we should probably start a new discussion thread to keep them seperate. However, that may spread the participants a bit thin and we might find that both threads die due to lack of participation.

I reccomend having your image and clues (if any) ready and waiting (do your research now) so that when you eventually figure it out first you'll be ready to post your answer and image right away. Part of the reward for identifying an image is the right to post your own. If everyone starts posting any image they want without first solving the current one, we'll lose some of the reward and incentive for even trying to solve any.

IMHO

Of, course, I'll go along with whatever most of the posters on this thread want to do. I'm enjoying the challenge and will continue to follow this thread until either:
a) it dies due to lack of participation
or
B) I get bored with it and find something new to occupy my ridiculously short attention span.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Jun 6 2007, 10:16 PM) [snapback]457104[/snapback]</div>

The only issue I've noticed so far with not including a link is that, as we've already seen, when a person is sure they know what it is, but they don't match up the image in Google Maps and provide a link to prove that they took that step, they occasionally are wrong. Then they post a picture and we get multiple series going. IF this happenes enough times, we'll end up with more series going than participants.

By the way note the title of the thread is "Google Maps Scavenger Hunt" This sort of implies that if the image can't be found in Google Maps it doesn't realling belong as part of the official thread.

I certainly have enjoyed your off topic images airportkid, but it has generally been obvious that those posts were not really part of the game but rather an entertaining diversion. Any image that is intended to continue the series really should come from "Google Maps" or worst case from "Google Earth" with the understanding that a matching image should be visable in Google Maps.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Jun 6 2007, 10:34 PM) [snapback]457117[/snapback]</div>

It's hard to tell for certain since the scale isn't included in the image, but I think I see a water fall (some waterfalls?) and a hairpin turn in a river.

You're welcome to put up a clue if you'd like, but I'm willing to wait another 6 or 7 hours for a clue while I search for a match to what I think I see.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Jun 6 2007, 08:34 PM) [snapback]457117[/snapback]</div>

I took it off until we could solve the two already posted. I think this topic can tolerate 2 different locations at the same time but not much more than that. In fact I think it may be a good idea. So I will wait until the one by robincx above is solved or yours and then post mine. Don't need a clue yet but if by tomorrow someone hasn't solved it we may need one. The geographic features are unique. It looks like a elevated area but I can't figure the curved the area out.

Wildkow

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Danny Hamilton @ Jun 6 2007, 08:50 PM) [snapback]457121[/snapback]</div>

Agreed DH, now I see the water, I think. But the size disparity between the inflow and outflow of the two is throwing me off.

Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Jun 6 2007, 08:34 PM) [snapback]457117[/snapback]</div>

No need - I found the bastard (and Googlemaps was no help at all, although the link to Iguazu Falls, Argentina/Brazil is a Googlemaps satellite photo). All Googlemaps did when told to go find Iguazu Falls was show the locations of the travel agencies in world that could book you a flight there! Useless!

Evan, if you weren't so consistently showing us pictures from your South American adventures I'd've never gotten it.

The geography of that waterfall is virtually identical to Victoria Falls on the Zambezi River between Zimbabwe and Zambia (too many Zs in all that) - a wide flat river on a plain abruptly plunging across its two mile width into a narrow abyss.

Great pick - difficult enough to slow us all down but not outrageously impossible.

Now, Robincx's marina is still unsolved - but the question is whether to allow it, since he didn't get Evan's landmark correct (and I only partially got it). I'll postpone putting up another landmark until you let me know whether I should wait for the marina solution first or not (I don't have one handy anyway).

MB

 

Hey, I solved one a while back & posted a new image. Is anybody looking for that one? :huh:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Jun 6 2007, 09:43 PM) [snapback]457152[/snapback]</div>

Whoops - I see what happened - I thought that was some image you'd found of the actual North Pole and since it appeared as a link rather than a picture we all just passed over it without a glance.

You're right, we should figure it out before we proceed. I'll go grab it and repost it so it's visible.

MB