Difference between revisions of "Talk:Oil City, Pennsylvania"
From Geohashing
imported>Eldin (Created page with "It seems to me that one of 2012-08-18 41 -79 or 2014-09-12 41 -79 should get the virgin graticule award for this graticule. In the 2012 one, User:Fezzic181 claims...") |
imported>Pedalpusher (response to virgin grat designation) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
It seems to me that one of [[2012-08-18 41 -79]] or [[2014-09-12 41 -79]] should get the virgin graticule award for this graticule. In the 2012 one, [[User:Fezzic181|Fezzic181]] claims to have reached the point, but never provided any pictures or tracklogs. In the 2014 expedition, [[User:Pedalpusher|Pedalpusher]] provides photographic evidence of reaching the spot. But being neither local, nor involved in either of the reasonably eligible expeditions, I'm uncomfortable picking one of them over the other. Would anyone else like to weigh in on the question? --[[User:Eldin|Eldin]] ([[User talk:Eldin|talk]]) 19:43, 26 June 2015 (EDT) | It seems to me that one of [[2012-08-18 41 -79]] or [[2014-09-12 41 -79]] should get the virgin graticule award for this graticule. In the 2012 one, [[User:Fezzic181|Fezzic181]] claims to have reached the point, but never provided any pictures or tracklogs. In the 2014 expedition, [[User:Pedalpusher|Pedalpusher]] provides photographic evidence of reaching the spot. But being neither local, nor involved in either of the reasonably eligible expeditions, I'm uncomfortable picking one of them over the other. Would anyone else like to weigh in on the question? --[[User:Eldin|Eldin]] ([[User talk:Eldin|talk]]) 19:43, 26 June 2015 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :I weighed taking the virgin graticule ribbon on my expedition, but I decided not to do so(I was also new at the time). My reasoning was that he described the hash as: "Found a set of twin ash trees that were growing right on the spot." which, to me, indicated he was actually there. Also, while there wasn't photo proof, the expedition page was complete(not missing categories, at least) so it looks like [[User:Fezzic181|Fezzic]] had an idea on how to set up the page but he was also new and either never uploaded pictures or didn't take any. [[User:Pedalpusher|Pedalpusher]] ([[User talk:Pedalpusher|talk]]) 12:03, 29 February 2016 (EST) | ||
Latest revision as of 17:03, 29 February 2016
It seems to me that one of 2012-08-18 41 -79 or 2014-09-12 41 -79 should get the virgin graticule award for this graticule. In the 2012 one, Fezzic181 claims to have reached the point, but never provided any pictures or tracklogs. In the 2014 expedition, Pedalpusher provides photographic evidence of reaching the spot. But being neither local, nor involved in either of the reasonably eligible expeditions, I'm uncomfortable picking one of them over the other. Would anyone else like to weigh in on the question? --Eldin (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2015 (EDT)
- I weighed taking the virgin graticule ribbon on my expedition, but I decided not to do so(I was also new at the time). My reasoning was that he described the hash as: "Found a set of twin ash trees that were growing right on the spot." which, to me, indicated he was actually there. Also, while there wasn't photo proof, the expedition page was complete(not missing categories, at least) so it looks like Fezzic had an idea on how to set up the page but he was also new and either never uploaded pictures or didn't take any. Pedalpusher (talk) 12:03, 29 February 2016 (EST)
