Search this site:


November 10, 2004 12:01 AM

Broken: No pedestrian sign

Nopedestriantraffic01_2John Butkus writes:

In the town of Malta, New York, we are not permitted to use this sidewalk if we are walking. Perhaps is OK to drive.


Strange. What are you SUPPOSED to use it for?

Posted by: PlantPerson at November 10, 2004 06:26 AM

Is it just bad image compression or does it appear that traffic is spelled "trafic" with an extra "f" scrunched in after the fact?

Posted by: Carlos Gomez at November 10, 2004 09:18 AM

John - you should be fine. It is only females on the sign.

Or men with purses and dresses. not that there is anything wrong with that

Posted by: jak at November 10, 2004 10:04 AM

Maybe they mean that this is not a public sidewalk. Does the sidewalk lead into the yard of the grey house seen in the background?

Posted by: Jason at November 10, 2004 10:17 AM

Maybe they used a really sloooww-drying concrete, and they'll take the sign down next year.

Posted by: Bob Sifniades at November 10, 2004 10:55 AM

Maybe they meant you are not supposed to step OFF the sidewalk and walk on the grass... kinda like a "keep off the grass" sign, just put at a bad angle so it is running with the sidewalk?

Posted by: Robert at November 10, 2004 11:18 AM

To build on Jason's comment: It looks to me like maybe it passes through a private development and you're not meant to walk through there as a shortcut.

Posted by: brian w at November 10, 2004 11:27 AM

Worst. Photoshop. Job. Ever.

Posted by: mendel at November 10, 2004 12:58 PM

Yeah, seriously, has it gotten so bad around here that people are submitting fakes?

"This Is Broken" Is Broken

Posted by: Chris at November 10, 2004 02:24 PM

ok..... it said pedestrian traffic, then someone PAINTED the "NO" and the little crossed-off-ness on it. note the drips of paint

Posted by: Mink'o'war at November 10, 2004 03:46 PM

hmmm... on second thought/closer looking-ness... not really drips, more like it looks when you paint something without a stencil

Posted by: Mink'o'war at November 10, 2004 03:49 PM


Posted by: Mink'o'war at November 10, 2004 03:50 PM

I think Mink is right. It looks like a simple vandalized sign. The photographer was bound to know, however -- it's too obvious.

Posted by: maz at November 10, 2004 09:02 PM

The "No" isn't neat or the same font size as the other writing and the circle with line isn't perfectly circular. Either vandalism or just poor photography.

Posted by: compubrains at November 12, 2004 04:58 PM

could just be for bikes...

Posted by: CRISTAL at November 12, 2004 09:22 PM

Wow, obviously, someone either Photoshoped it, or changed it physically. It doesn't really matter though. Whatever. Eat tacos. They are good for the liver.

Posted by: Taco boy at November 12, 2004 10:00 PM

Are they really?

Posted by: Maurs at November 13, 2004 11:57 PM

It's real, the reason it looks all botchy is because it hasn't been resized properly.

Check out this:

Posted by: Rowan at November 14, 2004 12:34 AM

Hmm... that does look a bit more convincing. As for the change in boldness, sometimes signs made by a particular development are designed differently, especially when they don't need it to be seen by traffic. So...

Posted by: Bianca at November 14, 2004 07:33 AM

At the very least, it's clearly not a case of vandalism -- why would there be so much space for someone to write "NO" in the first place?

Posted by: at November 15, 2004 01:38 PM

This is definitely photoshopped, they guy even forgot to turn on text antialiazing.

Posted by: Wesha at November 16, 2004 03:20 PM

Could it be the owner of the sign made the alterations, it looks like a private residence. could just be hard to find a no walking sign

Posted by: Ryan at December 6, 2004 11:23 AM

Come on, that's not Photoshop, it looks too good. I'm not saying it looks great, but too good for PS.

edit: It doesn't have a PS signature anyway.

this post has been edited by bob at 15:47cst on Jan 1 2005

Posted by: bob at January 5, 2005 04:19 PM

Hey Taco Boy- Tacos are bad for you.

Posted by: Carly at January 16, 2005 09:10 PM

Yup, Bob is right, in fact the picture was taken w/ a Canon PowerShot S400.

Posted by: Adrian at May 26, 2005 02:33 AM

If the 'NO' was added afterwards, either by vandalism or digital tampering, then why did the sign makers leave such a large space at the top of the sign?

Posted by: Char at September 23, 2005 08:03 AM

Meta Data can be faked if someone cares enough. This could have been made in photoshop.

Posted by: asoth at June 17, 2006 12:14 AM

Comments on this entry are closed

Previous Posts: