Talk:Roadside attraction

United States and Worldwide
Well, Canada and the Giants of the Prairies are not part of the US. There is an explaination of this penomenon in Niel Gaiman's novel American Gods. The Angel of the North is similar, but more of a fine art approach, than a folk art approach. Pustelnik (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Globalize tag
I have updated the article to include references to Western Canada and Australia and to make clear what we are speaking of when we speak of a "roadside attraction" &mdash; a modern, highway-based tourist trap. In the sense that this article is currently using for "roadside attraction", the phenomenon is basically centered on these three countries, so I don't think we need the "globalize" tag anymore. The question is whether we want to expand the article to cover all "roadside attractions" of every kind throughout history...and if we do, then we need to rethink the article. First of all, are such things necessarily known as "roadside attractions", or is "roadside attraction" primarily a more specific term for the type of tourist traps popular (formerly) in the U.S., Canada, and Australia? Second, what are some examples? We shouldn't re-add the "globalize" tag until we are clear on roughly what we should be adding here.  Mr. IP  《 Defender of Open Editing 》 19:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

mystery spot
I don't personally mind if it's mentioned in the article, but noting that I'm not quite sure it qualifies as a true roadside attraction (there are very similar attractions in other places, like confusion hill in Humboldt county that would, being literally on the side of the road on US route 101). mystery spot, though, is not along any major thoroughfare, it's somewhat tucked away behind the main part of town, in the hills. so, you do kind of have to go out of your way to go to it. BUT, I don't think many people make a trip to Santa Cruz JUST to go to the mystery spot - so in that sense, it maybe qualifies.

it's not correct, and somewhat libelous to call it pseudoscience, too. SCIENCE FICTION is more accurate: even though the guided tours/demonstrations 'present' it as 'real', it is understood by all that it is fiction (and optical illusions) and it is purely for entertainment/show. pseudoscience carries fraudulent implications and that is not true, and this is not the case. it would be helpful if the zealous pseudoscience crusaders on wikipedia (that there are enormous numbers of) would concentrate their efforts on the pseudosciences out there that have dangerous real world consequences - like anti-medicine, anti-ecology, creationism etc - that running around making sure every single harmless cultural manifestation of paranormalism, divination, astrology etc - that matters not one bit whatsoever - gets dragged through the mud Firejuggler86 (talk) 07:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)