ShipSpotting.com
Login: Lost Password? SIGN UP
Ship Photo Search
Photo Search - Advanced Search

Tideway Rollingstone - IMO 7814101

Full Screen - Add Comment - Bookmark this photo - Edit Info
Get thumbnail code to post in forum, blog or homepage

New! View the summary page for this ship!
Photo Details
Photographer:Hans Lingbeek [View profile]Title:Tideway RollingstoneAdded:May 21, 2008
Captured:May 17, 2008IMO:7814101Hits:1,895
Location:Rotterdam, Netherlands
Photo Category: Cable and Pipelayers
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 Identification
Name:Tideway Rollingstone
IMO:7814101
Flag:Netherlands
MMSI:245746000
Callsign:PHYR
Former name(s):
- Super Servant 1 (Until 1994)
Technical Data
Vessel type:Pipe Burying Vessel
Gross tonnage:13,489 tons
Summer DWT:14,310 tons
Length:143 m
Beam:32 m
Draught:5.5 m

Additional Information
Home port:Flushing
Class society:American Bureau Of Shipping
Build year:1979
AIS Information
Last known position:
51°34’44.44” N, 2°53’33.46” E
Status:Restricted
Speed, course (heading):
0kts, 230° (56°)
Destination:
Location:Rental
Arrival:13th Oct 2017
01:00:19 UTC
Last update:
0 seconds ago
Source:AIS (AirNav ShipTrax)

Port history
2017 November 3rd, 12:00:50 UTCGdansk
2017 November 3rd, 12:00:28 UTCGdansk
2017 October 13th, 01:00:19 UTCRental
2017 October 2nd, 04:00:35 UTCRentel Owf
2017 October 1st, 10:00:18 UTCVlissingen
2017 September 28th, 22:00:21 UTCRental Wf
2017 September 5th, 17:00:27 UTCVlissingen
2017 September 3rd, 17:00:30 UTCBaltiysk
2017 August 26th, 06:00:29 UTCL10ad Platform
2017 August 16th, 11:00:24 UTCGdansk
More Of This Ship
TIDEWAY ROLLINGSTONE
© Netty
TIDEWAY ROLLINGSTONE
© Peter Beentjes
TIDEWAY ROLLINGSTONE
© Peter Beentjes
More Of: This Photographer - This Ship - This Ship By This Photographer

Photo Comments (8)

Comments sorting method :
Michael Martin on May 20, 2008 14:42 (9 years ago)
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. ;-)
DEREK SANDS on May 20, 2008 13:06 (9 years ago)
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
Michael Martin on May 20, 2008 12:45 (9 years ago)
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.
Phil English on May 20, 2008 12:04 (9 years ago)
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.
DEREK SANDS on May 20, 2008 04:34 (9 years ago)
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
Michael Martin on May 19, 2008 19:49 (9 years ago)
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.
DEREK SANDS on May 19, 2008 15:20 (9 years ago)
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
Michael Martin on May 19, 2008 14:54 (9 years ago)
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.
Please Login to add a comment!

This photo has been shown 1,895 times since it was added to the site.

Copyright © 2017 All rights reserved View airplanes live at RadarBox24.com!