Advanced Search
Search

Tideway Rollingstone - IMO 7814101

Ship
2,1488
FavoriteComment
More
Full Screen
Exfir Data
Download Photo

Photo
details

Photographer:
Hans Lingbeek [ View profile ]
Captured:
May 17, 2008
Photo Category:
Cable And Pipelayers
Added:
May 21, 2008
Views:
2,148
Image Resolution:
3,264 x 2,448

Description:

Nieuwe Maas Rotterdam, 17-5-2008.
Ex Super Servant 1, Wijsmuller.

[color=006600]Incorrect place of watermark. Please read the guidance:
http://www.shipspotting.com/modules/xoopsfaq/index.php?cat_id=22

Admins[/color]

[color=0000FF]*advisory e mail sent 18/5*[/color]

Vessel
particulars

Former name(s):

 -  Super Servant 1 (Until 1994)

Current flag:
Netherlands
Home port:
Flushing
Vessel Type:
Pipe Burying Vessel
Gross tonnage:
13,489 tons
Summer DWT:
14,310 tons
Length:
143 m
Beam:
32 m
Draught:
5.8 m

AIS Position
of this ship

Last known position:
20°6’7.11” N, 95°42’31.88” W
Status:
Speed, course (heading):
9.5kts, 127.6° (124°)
Destination:
 - Location:
Bop S4 Crossing 1
 - Arrival:
19th Apr 2024 / 13:00:58 UTC
Last update:
4 days ago
Source:
AIS (ShipXplorer)

Photo
Categories

This ship exists in the following categories:

Shipping - 1 photos

Cable and Pipelayers - 93 photos

Heavy Lift Vessels and Heavy Load Carriers - 6 photos

Special Purpose Vessels - 13 photos

Ships under Repair or Conversion - 3 photos

Photographers
of this ship

(50)

Pilot Frans

3 photos

simonwp

1 photos

Frits Olinga

3 photos

Mikkel

2 photos

kevin blair

3 photos

Pekka Laakso

7 photos

Joerg Seyler

2 photos

Geir Vinnes

1 photos

Ingvar

1 photos

E. Vroom

2 photos

Eyjolfur

1 photos

Michel FLOCH

6 photos

Fred Vloo

1 photos

Lutz Hohaus

1 photos

provost

3 photos

Guido B.

1 photos

ian leask 27

2 photos

fabianv

2 photos

B.Clark

2 photos

vazee

2 photos

Alf K

1 photos

MimiShips

1 photos

Netty

2 photos

Marcus-S

1 photos

Jonesy55

1 photos

COMMENT THIS PHOTO(8)

Newest First
person
I disagree with the Admin remark. Surely the watermark is inconspicuous enough. The rule is being applied without much discretion here. The idea was to stop large watermarks from blocking details of the vessel, which the watermark in this case doesn't do, therefore it is within the guidelines.

Edit
comment

person
Michael,

Are you proposing a change in policy, as the present one says.
1. Reasonable in size - the Photo Admins will advise if the watermark is
too large and it will be expected that the member will reduce the size
accordingly.

2. Watermarks should be placed in the corner of the photograph only.

3. No part of the Watermark should interfere with the picture of the vessel.

4. Digital Watermarks are permitted.

Let me know

regards
Derek

Edit
comment

person
Not necessarily a change in policy, but surely this watermark doesn't constitute obscuring the image, which was why I thought you added the rule in the first place. To strictly adhere to ONLY allowing a watermark in the corner no matter what is within your purview, of course, but deleting this image for this reason seems slightly rigid. Rules are necessary, of course, but a little dose of common sense helps too. I tend to always add my watermark in the bottom left or right, so I'm less apt to "break" that particular rule. Mixing absolute interpretation with subjective opinion is just a path I would think you would want to avoid. Again, like I said before, it was a very good solution to add this category to at least hash out the mindset of certain or all admins trying valiantly to keep all in order. I welcome the opportunity to at least add my two cents worth and apologize up front if in initiating a discussion I may be wasting administrative time discussing it.

Edit
comment

person
Hi Michael,

Firstly thanks for your input, I will be discussing this with the admins.
I will also put it in the forum, lets see what the members think.

regards
Derek

Edit
comment

person
I think that the key issue is:

"3. No part of the Watermark should interfere with the picture of the vessel."

Unfortunately, the watermark in this case does.

Edit
comment

person
Of course, anally insisting on rules even though you know in this particular case he has made the watermark so small and at the waterline is just one of the nit picky things that will turn this site into a vessel version of airliners.net or whatever that silly site is called. A site used by many and enjoyed by none.

Edit
comment

person
Hi Michael,

I am not anally insisting, I am asking for opinions!
This site will not be turned into a version of Airliners.net. whilst I am
in position as Webmaster.

regards
Derek

Edit
comment

person
Excuse me, Derek. I was replying to Phil's quotation of the "Rule". It implies that absolute interpretation is only allowed, no matter that the image is perfectly visible and the watermark does not obscure the vessel. Maybe someone here should ring up Tideway and tell them that their Rolling Stones "Lips" on the stbd fwd superstructure is obscuring the vessel and should be removed so that we can have their picture on this website. ;-)

Edit
comment