That could very well be a valid point. I'm not aware of standard procedure in an area where the watershed is effected by a large river/body of water (or primarily correlated as in this case). Not seeing a hydrant in either shot got me really skeptical, as that was my go-to self-debunk.
That could very well be a valid point. I'm not aware of standard procedure in an area where the watershed is effected by a large river/body of water (or primarily correlated as in this case). Not seeing a hydrant in either shot got me really skeptical, as that was my go-to self-debunk.