Before the discussion even starts, I figured I'd mention that I envisioned this as an "I'm better than you" achievement because I couldn't think of a fair and reasonable way to describe an achievement where you had to climb a whole lot to get to the hash that day. It just seemed too subjective. Note that I also thought about the fact that you often (usually!) have to go up, then down, then up again...repeatedly...to get to a hash. I haven't found a consistently precise way to measure that total elevation gained, and in my experience the numbers I got were wholly fabulous, so I think the fairest way to do it is to simply measure elevation difference between start and end point. Any thoughts from other folks??
- Sounds like a fair game. I would specify that it has to be achieved using your own or the geohashers' human power. Not sure whether I can think of a non-fabulous counterexample, but I think that using a palanquin shouldn't count. :P -- relet 05:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- Can you choose your starting point freely? (I think you should) - i.e. driving to the base of the mountain, climbing 1422m, reaching the geohash is valid, whether you actually live in a valley or on a mountain top. Just the destination should be the geohash. -- relet 06:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- The other suggestion I would like to make is to make this an "I'm better than you" achievement that is still available to everyone after the first ascent of the mount everest (or up-dive from the Mariana trench for that matter). I.e. awarding ribbons for "a climb of 500m", 750m, 1000m... etc. whether or not the 'highest' ribbon is already at 3000 or not. You can still show off your prowess by collecting them. ;) Not sure what would be a sensible subdivision here. -- relet 06:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- I like the idea generally and I support the "steps" idea. Also, we could keep track of different records for each type of "transport" (highest climb by bike, highest climb with snowshoes, etc.). --Crox 09:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- What about highest consecutive climb/highest total climb/highest elevation gain categories? Might give people who live in hilly areas who otherwise would have a negligible elevation gain some incentive if they can prove they went up and down a lot :P -- Ephphatha 12:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think the lower limit to get the achievement should be between 300 and 500 m. I walked once 650 m and once 460 m up, in both cases it took several hours and quite an effort. --Crox 14:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- I support the suggestion to make steps of (300)/500/1000/... metres (High Climb/Very High Climb/Huge Climb/Gigantic Climb/... Making this an "I'm better than you, latecomers suck" achievement would, erm... suck for, erm... latecomers. - Danatar 15:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- I like the idea generally and I support the "steps" idea. Also, we could keep track of different records for each type of "transport" (highest climb by bike, highest climb with snowshoes, etc.). --Crox 09:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- A possible definition would be altitude difference between the hash point and the lowest (or highest?) point on the way to the hash. Otoh, that would prevent you from getting the achievement if you start approximately at the same height as the hash, but have to climb a mountain up and down to get there... --Crox 14:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- I was thinking myself later that differential between highest/lowest elevation would be a more representative measurement than simply start/end point. The idea being the start point is absolutely arbitrary (as relet mentioned) and the important distinction is that you are climbing it under human power (I don't much care if it's your own or another person's, although claiming the ribbon for someone else's climbing work seems like bad form to me personally!). I guess I was inspired by the 425 m climb I had to do myself yesterday, although I've been thinking about this one for a while. I'm still not comfortable with the idea of calculating total elevation climbed just because of the inconsistency of measuring it. GPS tracks jump around enough that if I'm walking on level ground along the edge of a cliff it can come up with some pretty impressive elevation gain numbers for no reason at all. I agree that this sux for a person hashing in a hilly area with no single large climb to claim, but if you have a recommendation on how to measure that effectively I'm all for it. --redaragorn 14:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- I use a topographic map for the "uphill" column of my Bicycle Geohashes page. I just add the elevation steps between the lower and the higher locations along my route together. Since the map I use (the official state map on the internet) only shows elevation steps of 10m (and sometimes half-steps), the figures are lower than reality, but it's a good enough estimate. Free or cheap topographic maps might not be available for every region, but this could be used for "highest total climb" - Danatar 15:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- I was thinking myself later that differential between highest/lowest elevation would be a more representative measurement than simply start/end point. The idea being the start point is absolutely arbitrary (as relet mentioned) and the important distinction is that you are climbing it under human power (I don't much care if it's your own or another person's, although claiming the ribbon for someone else's climbing work seems like bad form to me personally!). I guess I was inspired by the 425 m climb I had to do myself yesterday, although I've been thinking about this one for a while. I'm still not comfortable with the idea of calculating total elevation climbed just because of the inconsistency of measuring it. GPS tracks jump around enough that if I'm walking on level ground along the edge of a cliff it can come up with some pretty impressive elevation gain numbers for no reason at all. I agree that this sux for a person hashing in a hilly area with no single large climb to claim, but if you have a recommendation on how to measure that effectively I'm all for it. --redaragorn 14:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I very much don't like "record" achievements, in any form (including the ones we already have). However, I do kinda like the graduated ribbons for this. My only suggestion is that it should probably be a cumulative amount of elevation gain. I'd say that someone who climbed from 100m to 800m, went back down to 100m, and back up to 800m should get 1400m, not just 700m. When crossing mountainous areas, elevation gain tends to add up quick, even though the difference between your low and high points may not be all that great. I do think that it should only be human powered transport, and wouldn't oppose saying that the elevation gain only counts in one direction (either to or from but not both). --aperfectring 22:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Support as a progressional achievement with stages (the length of the total climb). The specifics of the achievement (such as total climb vs. difference in elevation from start/end point) are not something I have a strong opinion on, all options seem to work. Clarifying these conditions would, however, need to be required if the achievement were to be created. --KerrMcF (talk) 02:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
