Talk:Expedition 10000

By the Numbers

I find this interesting:

According to the World map of Successful Expeditions, there are 966 Graticules that have recorded expeditions. So this averages out to just over 10 expeditions per (non-virgin) graticule.

Further, the World map indicates that there are over 12,000 Graticules that are named and (probably) aren't ocean/sea/water. If every single expedition was to a new Graticule, there would still be over 3,000 virgin Graticules over land not counting Antartica(where most Graticules aren't named).

Pedalpusher (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2015 (EST)

"Did not attempt"

I am not discounting any Category:Not reached - Did not attempt expeditions, about 50 right now. A lot of them are meetups at closest spot on the beach when the hash is out at sea, which I'm all for encouraging. The same with other "Not reached" categories. -- Jevanyn (talk) 09:35, 6 March 2015 (EST)

Comments

I was checking out some Categories and came across a few that will affect your numbers.

• There is one 'expedition' in the Examples category that isn't really an expedition
• For the Retro expeditions, some have the Expedition category, some don't: Retro Not reached and Retro Reached
• If retros will be counted, then the expedition category should be added to the origin expeditions too.

Let me know if you want help with these and what you want to do and I can assist. Pedalpusher (talk) 13:49, 24 March 2015 (EDT)

• I'll take the example expedition into account, so I know I'm looking for a count in the category of 10,001 to adjust for it. I want to bring attention to all the expeditions on the day we go over, more than the individual one, because of items like this that I can't account for.
• I hadn't thought about the retro hashes. I'd like to count origin expeditions and successful retro hashes for interesting historical dates, but it gets more complicated. There are cases where someone went to several retro hashes on one trip. Count that as one, or many? I think a lot of people would not want to count retro hashes unless they were for dates before May 2008 when geohashing actually got started.

Let me think it over, and see if anyone else has some comments. -- Jevanyn (talk) 14:54, 24 March 2015 (EDT)

If we are going to count Retros, then they should each be their own expedition; just like on a Multi-hash, each location has it's own page and is thus counted individually as an expedition even though it was one trip. Also, I think that would just be too hard to count otherwise. Pedalpusher (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2015 (EDT)

I agree, if we were to include retrohashes, then multiple retrohashes on the same excursion should be counted the same way multihashes are, which is one for each hashpoint/expedition page. But I wouldn't count all retro-hashes unless there was a quorum that thought we should. There was some resistance to that idea when it came to other questions IIRC -- Jevanyn (talk) 09:47, 30 March 2015 (EDT)

RHMH2009-07-25

I think we should include retro's, as they do accomplish the goal of getting us out into the world to visit random places. There are some people who hate the entire concept of retro's, just like there are folks who feel it is completely wrong to drive to a hashpoint. But I think the idea is to make the adventures accessible to lots of folks. Jiml (talk) 09:17, 31 March 2015 (EDT)

Also a good argument. Another effective "vote" in favor is that NWoodruff is including retrohashes on the Most active graticules page, and so I should count them as well for consistency. I've updated the main page to include the Retro reached and not reached totals, which brings us to about 9,920 currently.

I strongly believe that retrohashes are not geohashing expeditions. You can always add some without even trying by checking your recent tracklogs against the full list of past hashpoints. That Mr. N. includes them into the numbers only speaks against the relevance of these lists - you can always visit a number of cheap retrohashes and fool yourself into being the "top geohasher" by that. If retrohashes are counted towards the 10000, I refuse to accept this number and the date when it's "completed". --Ekorren (talk) 13:11, 13 April 2015 (EDT)

You might have a look to http://wiki.xkcd.com/wgh/index.php?title=Special:ShortPages&limit=500, there are a lot of strange expedition reports. --GeorgDerReisende (talk) 13:18, 8 April 2015 (EDT)

Those blank ones don't show in the expedition category, but it is a good idea to process the deletes. Asked a question about one that looked valid to me - there may be others. --Thomcat (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2015 (EDT)

Fuzzy math

With a total of 9967, and 32 "new reports" in play, we're entering the Romulan Neutral Zone the gray area where #10,000 could happen at any time. -- Jevanyn (talk) 12:16, 13 April 2015 (EDT)

Or are 120 away for those who don't agree with Retro hash expeditions. --Thomcat (talk) 13:25, 13 April 2015 (EDT)

Wiki cleanup

New Reports cleaned up as much as possible (down to 4) -- 9,859 expeditions, or add the 119 (94+25) retro for a total of 9978. --Thomcat (talk) 17:09, 13 April 2015 (EDT)

Thanks for the assist with new reports. Then again, the Expedition Planning category has ~700 pages -- Jevanyn (talk) 09:00, 14 April 2015 (EDT)

All Expedition Planning processed; now less than 700. Found some expeditions in there, though not enough to push over the top. --Thomcat (talk) 13:51, 14 April 2015 (EDT)

Logged In vs Not Logged In

The Category:Expeditions page shows 9,864 Expeditions if a user is logged in, and 9,253 if they aren't. Will have to compare lists sometime - did not know there was a way to have "private" entries. --Thomcat (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2015 (EDT)

Turns out the count of 9253 only shows on the first page for non-logged-in users. Subsequent pages agree whether or not a user is logged in - 9,864 expeditions. Did fine one different in the list though - if not logged in, 2008-05-31 40 -85 shows up as on the Category:Expeditions list. --Thomcat (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2015 (EDT)

Expeditions with Photos

The Category:Expeditions with Photos has 8,591 entries. --Thomcat (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2015 (EDT)

count over 10000 reached

I first stumbled over the problem of the wrong count on the first page of the expeditions category like noted in the "logged in vs not logged in" section above, but that's resolved. I still have a slight problem with your (Jevanyn) total count. Now (2 hours after your edit, there have been no relevant edits on the wiki in between) I get: 9886 for "Category:Expeditions", among it the pages "Expedition" and "RHMH2009-07-25"; 94 for "Category:Retro coordinates reached" including "User:RocketMac/Geohashing 101 Geocache"; 25 for "Category:Retro coordinates not reached" including "RHMH2009-07-25". Those numbers are correct. RHMH2009-07-25 is counted twice (it should be removed from "Category:Expeditions" but I don't want to mix up your count; alternatively, since the page describes 5 expeditions, perhaps it should be counted 5 times), Expedition is an explanation page and User:RocketMac/Geohashing 101 Geocache is not a real expedition as noted at the top of the page (perhaps you missed that); EDIT: then there is the example page 2012-07-22 55 -17 which is in "Category:Expeditions" as well /EDIT; you only subtract 2 instead of 3 4 from the total count. If I didn't miss anything, that should put the total count at 10002 10001; with three expeditions on 2015-04-19 the 10000th would be on that day, at least if no further expedition is reported later. Of course I totally did not write all this because I went geohashing on 2015-04-19 and I want the ribbon ;-) Perhaps you should wait another week for late reports before announcing the final results. Also I personally think that retro expeditions should not be counted but I'm late to the vote so I will not challenge this. - Danatar (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2015 (EDT), EDIT 15:04, 20 April 2015 (EDT)

I was aware of Expedition and User:RocketMac/Geohashing 101 Geocache, they were examples that I was subtracting for. I meant to subtract one also for RHMH2009-07-25 as well because of being in two categories, but I don't remember why I decided not to. Maybe I planned on changing the RHMH page?

Anyway, the whole operation was done quickly because we were already at ~9700 when I noticed how close we were. I never claimed to have vetted all of the pages with the "Expedition" tag.

I started including retros because of a suggestion by another geohasher, and I didn't think there would be any objection. I understand Ekorren's point, but from the retrohashes I looked at, there did not seem to be any cases of "the retrohash for some random date is on the corner, so I'm going to go there and write that up". I agree that's really cheesy and not in the spirit of geohashing, which is to explore drag yourself to someplace random. Most of the retrohashes I've seen are legitimate attempts at either a significant historical date, or just the day after. I don't count retrohashes as expeditions on my home page, for that matter. If there is an unwavering objection from a significant number of people, I can certainly go back and exclude RH's from the total and look forward to a May or June timeframe. Jevanyn (talk) 10:44, 21 April 2015 (EDT)

Retros or not

Personally I also think retro hashes are not geohashing expeditions (I agree with most of what Ekorren said before). Was there a vote about it that I missed somewhere? I'm fine with having a separate counter that includes them though. --Crox (talk) 16:18, 20 April 2015 (EDT)

Simple solution - a "current 10k" medal which doesn't count retros. Still 120 some expeditions away from that, no matter how we count it. Perhaps just in time for geohashing day! --Thomcat (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2015 (EDT)

Vote

Here is the official vote on whether to include retrohashes in the expedition count. As of today, there are 64 active users (see Special Pages > active user list), so this vote will be open until we get enough votes to establish a majority either way. To be clear, "For" is for inclusion of retrohashes in the total, and "Against" is for exclusion from the total. "Abstain" will count as half a vote for either side.

Jevanyn (talk): Abstain (since I started this mess)