View source for Talk:Regional geohashing achievement

===Land Hashes?===
Why do they all have to be land hashes?  What's wrong with an air hash or a geohash in the territorial waters of the region? -[[User:Robyn|Robyn]] 03:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Sorry about editing while you were still working on it. I thought you were done.

No worries.  And good point.  I suppose they should all be within the region boundaries; however, is a mile off Vancouver still 'in British Columbia'?  Doesn't feel like to me, for some reason. -[[User:Wmcduff|Wmcduff]] 03:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

A mile off the ooast of Vancouver is not yet calf-deep in water. I'm pretty sure that's in BC. If I wade too far south the US border guards are going to be pretty sure it's in Washington State. And what about lakes and rivers?  I would think that if it's in the graticule and not in international waters or in the territory of another country, it's in the region.  But I can follow your rule. Just wanted to make sure you hadn't accidentally excluded some valid hashes. Or just completely fail to need to follow it, as there is no way I'll get all of BC if I can't air hash the remote graticules. -[[User:Robyn|Robyn]] 03:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Too true; it's an extreme category, though, and the ocean just feels like cheating to me.  Granted, feel free to adjust if you disagree.  

Also, I would define a graticule as a must get if part of the land borders was in a grat (for examples of hard ones, south of [[Eureka, California]], west of [[Key West, Florida]], [[Kekerengu, New Zealand]], or [[Seacow Pond, Prince Edward Island]]).  That's where the 'land' comes from.  I suppose I should say something like a hash in each grat where that region's land extends to, but I need a more elegant way of putting it.

Yes, definitely you must get a hash in every graticule that touches any part of the region's land territory. And if the graticule crosses a region border you must get a hash on your own side of the border for it to count. [[User:Thomcat|Thomcat]] is busy trying to do that for [[:Category:Washington|Washington State]]. How long do you think it will take you to do NB? -[[User:Robyn|Robyn]] 03:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

No hope of that, alas, in the near future; I return to British Columbia on Saturday the 30th.  British Columbia is nigh impossible as well.  Perhaps once I finish my degree in four months I can take a shot at somewhere.

A regional geohash was one of those awards I felt needed to be made; it's something that people will instinctively go for anyway, I think. -[[User:Wmcduff|Wmcduff]] 03:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been thinking quite a while about the "only land vs. water, too" discussion for the Regional Geohash Achievement. My first opinion was "only land", and that's what I still prefer. However, there is a negative aspect to this solution which really bothers me:
If a very very small part of a region's coast is located in another graticule. Examples for this are  [[Santa Cruz, California]] (0,7% of graticule area), [[Kekerengu, New Zealand]] (0.0085% of graticule area, once every 32.2 years) or  [[Dziwnów, Poland]] (0,0007% of graticule area for Denmark, once every some hundred years).
Using the "only land" rule, these graticules will make it impossible to get the Regional Geohash for their respective regions. On the other hand, using the "water, too" rule would make it just too easy.
So I'd like to propose a solution which will make the odds a little more bearable:
:Part 1) "If the land part of a region is smaller than 1/365 (about 0.27%; or 1% or 0.5%, feel free to discuss) of the total graticule area, the valid area for a Regional Geohash is extended to..."
:AND choose one or add another solution:
:Part 2 a) "... the 0.05x0.05 degree (=0.25%; or 0.1x0.1=1% and so on) rectangle containing that land." This would give even chances for every latitude and could easily be verified from that day's coordinates (e.g. If lat < .05 and lon > .95)
:Part 2 b) "... 2 miles (again, discuss) off the coast." For a graticule with only one square foot of land in a corner, this would give a valid area of 3.14 square miles (about 8 square kilometers), which is 0.066% of the total graticule area (once every 4 years) on the equator or 0.1% (once every 2.5 years) at 50° latitude. For the [[Kekerengu, New Zealand]] graticule (about 0.0085% land), it would give about 5.5 square miles, an about 1 in 640 chance. [[User:Danatar|Danatar]] 14:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
<gallery>
Image:Kekerengu_regional-gh-proposal_a.PNG| Version a of Danatar's proposal
Image:Kekerengu_regional-gh-proposal.PNG| Version b of Danatar's proposal </gallery>

===Enshede===
Let me get this straight, I live in the Province of Overijssel, which is for >95% in my [[Enschede, Netherlands|own graticule]], but there are tiny edges in 52 5 and in 52 7. I'd have to wait until a hash actually falls in my Province in those graticules, and visit them. (which is a PITA for 52 5, since that's around 100km away). It sounds fairly easy, but chances make it hard. ARGH. Last sunday(2008-17-08) was a {{egl|2008-08-17|52|7|text=perfect chance}} to get it in 52 7! I didn't go! (why do I remember this?)--[[User:Arvid|Arvid]] 05:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep.  It's in Extreme Geohashing for a reason. :)-[[User:Wmcduff|Wmcduff]] 11:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm forced to agree with Wmcduff. It's an obscure, near-impossible achievement for some graticules. That's part of the fun. No one will ever get all the graticules in my province, let alone country, but it's fun to laugh at the impossibility of the feat. -[[User:Robyn|Robyn]] 14:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

A little late here :-) but I'll probably be stuck with approximately the same thing as Arvid for my own "region": Moscow City, Russia. About 99% of it is in my own graticule (Moscow, Russia), but the northern third or so of the detached Zelenograd district - maybe 10 sq km of actual area - is in the next graticule over (Pushkino, Russia). And then there's the enlargement due on June 1, which would add a (thankfully larger) slice in the Obninsk graticule as well... --[[User:January First-of-May|January First-of-May]] 16:13, 8 April 2012 (EDT)

===Jevanyn===
I'm interested in how this discussion unfolds for many reasons.

*The [[Cape May, New Jersey]] graticule is <1% land.
*The (39, -76) graticule contains no land, but is within 2 miles of land in the [[Atlantic City, New Jersey]] graticule.  (This is more for the Minesweeper achievement then regional, but still, the question is out there.)
*The [[Salisbury, Maryland]] graticule contains no land ''in New Jersey'', but again comes within 2 miles, and includes NJ "territorial" water.
*[[Fort Fisher, North Carolina]] is just plain mean.
*Several state borders, like Alabama/Tennessee, run almost along parallels or meridian lines.  Does the tiny slice of a wedge that's over the line need to be reached?  Should the state categories for affected graticules be updated?
*Do [[:Category:Retro meetup|retrohashes]] count?

Other thoughts:
:Seven nautical miles in international waters?
:Line of sight to land? (verifiable by a picture from land to the geohasher, or vice versa) - Jevanyn


::The section above was written by me when I was still young and stupid. Now that geohashing has festered deep into my mind and soul, I see things differently:
::*Cape May, Fort Fisher: Yes, <1% ''IS'' mean, but that's life (My own regional geohash is blocked by two areas of 0.05% and 0.075% respectively of graticule area). Use [[User:Aperfectring/Notification|Aperfectring's notification program]] so that you won't miss the rare opportunity when the hashpoint falls into that area. For me, water with a depth of ankle-deep or less may be counted as land, and if you visit a hashpoint near the shore at low tide that should give you some square metres extra  (This is my very personal opinion, but so far nobody has said anything against it).
::*39, -76 and other water-only graticules; "territorial water" graticules: Only graticules with land for a certain region count for the Regiohash. Since there is no New Jersey land, you don't need the graticule for the Regiohash. For the Minesweeper, the hashpoint does not have to be on land, a waterhash is valid, too.
::* State borders running along graticule borders: That's a difficult question, and I don't know the answer. On the one hand, according to the rules you'll have to reach that tiny slice. On the other hand, the borders originally were placed along the parallel/meridian line and now are different from the graticule border only because of imprecise survey methods, continental drift...
::*Retrohashes do not count for anything except for the dedicated retro achievements (i.e. (displaced) Origin / Wedding Geohash)
::I know that it can be frustrating, but there is no other way. Except if you use another, bigger region (bad luck if the next bigger region is the whole of the US. Try the Thirteen Colonies instead). Good luck, and may the algorithm be with you - [[User:Danatar|Danatar]] 10:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

== Official alternate coordinates ==

Do official alternates count toward this? [[User:Elbie|- Elbie]] 23:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
:A simple no. Alternate locations always count as ''not reached'', and this achievement clearly requires to reach the hash of the day. There isn't such a thing as official alternates anyway, who should make them official? --[[User:Ekorren|Ekorren]] 23:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
:: Okay, thanks. [[User:Elbie|- Elbie]] 23:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

== non significant area's ==

How small should an area be before you can ignore it for this achievement. I am looking at the tiny part of Gelderland in 51,4. The area is 0.240 square km, which is approximately 0.00003% of the graticule size and 0,00004% of the size of Gelderland. Can I ignore this part or should I wait until a hash falls there (which will happen approximately once every 9126 years).

I think it would be fair to set a cutoff at 0.05% of the area (also the percentage where scientists usually see something as significant). With 0.05% you would have a chance every 5.5 years.
--[[User:Eupeodes|Eupeodes]] 18:31, 11 November 2012 (EST)

:Geohashing isn't fair, and that's part of the fun! It's often frustrating, but for this and other "lucky location" achievements you can't just ignore unconveniently small or otherwise practically unreachable parts of a graticule. Some regions will probably never be visited by geohashers. But that's what they said about [[Globalhash|globalhashes]], too... --[[User:Ilpadre|ilpadre]] 01:49, 12 November 2012 (EST)

::Globalhash is still much more likely to be reachable (every 40 years in your own graticule or one of the directly surrounding ones). Also I am looking at the discussion of graticules almost completely in the sea where also a solution is proposed for (see [[#Land_Hashes]]) with again a 0.05%. I agree that it should be '''challenging''', but a chance of once every 9000 years... And otherwise if I really can't ignore the thing I will just radio Yerevan the thing as soon as I've reached a hash in Gelderland [[51,6]]. --[[User:Eupeodes|Eupeodes]] 04:31, 12 November 2012 (EST)

:::That proposal was back in 2008! Everything about geohashing was new and under discussion at that time. Not every achievement is possible for any graticule - that's just the way it is. I already said it: It might be unfair, but it's also part of the fun that some achievements are really hard or even impossible to get in some graticules. By the way, take a look at [[Kempten, Germany]] or other graticules listed in [[:Category:Interesting graticules]] if you are interested in extreme chances. --[[User:Ilpadre|ilpadre]] 12:19, 12 November 2012 (EST)

::::Ok, I'll stop the discussion. I added [[51,4]] to [[:Category:Interesting graticules]] and will just [[radio Yerevan]] this one (which is maybe even something to discuss, well, than I radio Yerevan that one :P). --[[User:Eupeodes|Eupeodes]] 12:51, 12 November 2012 (EST)