From the photo I was able to jot down the following data:
(All distances in Km)
- Sydney 7718
- Moscow 8708
- Berlin 10573
- Bali 3199
- Tokyo 4967
- London 10256
- Amritsar 3647
- Beijing 3544
- Paris 10154
- South Pole 13250
For our own interests, please outline your logic.
The photo is one of 16 hard-copy prints on display, which are in turn a selection of a revolving image display.
The signpost photo started me thinking.
That particular photo lends itself to a mathematical determination of the location.
Of the other 15 photos some had clues, some were clueless.
I took one photo to be Sydney NSW, because it looked to me like a surf boat crashing through a wave; later on I realized that it could have been a raft in white-water on any continent (except Antarctica).
This raised the question of what can ever, and what can never, identify a photo's location.
The race of a person can never serve to identify a photo, since we are all global travelers.
A blossom can never serve to identify a photo, since plant conservatories abound.
Iconic images ("Stonehenge") identify a photo's location, only until such time as the Japanese build a replica in Japan.
Some images have several items which help narrow down the location to one of several locations; for example a broad wheat field is in one of the few great prairie regions of the world, but judging by the density of the crop and the mountains in the background probably NOT Australia, and so on.
Next time you are confronted with a series of "Winning Images", try to identify the location of each and better yet, try to formulate meta-rules for determining the location.
, but apart from the redundancy evident in your post (or "riposte" if you will), if we take the subject line in isolation it can't have a single particular correct answer since there is, in the subject line, no Time Quantifier.