Difference between revisions of "Talk:Multiple elevations achievement"

Revision as of 00:08, 16 January 2022

I support this, mostly because I'm a pilot and I could hope to some day pull of the simultaneous air and land geohashes (with the help of a friend, of course). Neimster : 33, -97 (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

support: trying to get some life back into this --Gefrierbrand (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2015 (EDT)

Perhaps some clarification is needed in the section on positioning geohashers for the team stack? I know it was just pasted over from the Stacking achievement page, but as I read it now it sounds like it requires that all parties involved be directly over the top of each other. In the case of a multistory building or a bridge, how could hashers be expected to position themselves with such precision? I understand that in the cliff example it would be impossible for one person to be directly over another, but I don't think it's fair to invalidate such a situation and yet allow others to roam within their GPS margin of error. I don't really see the need to nit pick like that when in every other hashing situation the margin of error is accepted as "good enough". Mystrsyko (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2013 (EDT)

I have a few points to make, mostly based on the discussions on the two original achievements.

I prefer the 2 meter vertical separation rule to anything about GPS accuracy
I think having someone at the top and the bottom of a vertical cliff at the hashpoint should be allowed; it's unlikely enough anyway and it's just as much of a noteworthy accomplishment
I disagree with the rule that limits it to the use of pre-existing structures (which wasn't copied to this page, I'm not sure if that was intentional or not). Sure, taking a ladder to the hash is a different sort of challenge to waiting for one to fall on a bridge that you can get on top of and underneath, but it would still give an interesting story and pictures.

But irregardless of whether people agree with these points, I still support the achievement as a whole. --PeterRoder (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 Perhaps some clarification is needed in the section on positioning geohashers for the team stack? I know it was just pasted over from the [[Stacking achievement]] page, but as I read it now it sounds like it requires that all parties involved be directly over the top of each other. In the case of a multistory building or a bridge, how could hashers be expected to position themselves with such precision? I understand that in the cliff example it would be impossible for one person to be directly over another, but I don't think it's fair to invalidate such a situation and yet allow others to roam within their GPS margin of error. I don't really see the need to nit pick like that when in every other hashing situation the margin of error is accepted as "good enough". [[User:Mystrsyko|Mystrsyko]] ([[User talk:Mystrsyko|talk]]) 13:09, 17 September 2013 (EDT)
+I have a few points to make, mostly based on the discussions on the two original achievements.
+*I prefer the 2 meter vertical separation rule to anything about GPS accuracy
+*I think having someone at the top and the bottom of a vertical cliff at the hashpoint should be allowed; it's unlikely enough anyway and it's just as much of a noteworthy accomplishment
+*I disagree with the rule that limits it to the use of pre-existing structures (which wasn't copied to this page, I'm not sure if that was intentional or not). Sure, taking a ladder to the hash is a different sort of challenge to waiting for one to fall on a bridge that you can get on top of and underneath, but it would still give an interesting story and pictures.
+But irregardless of whether people agree with these points, I still '''support''' the achievement as a whole. --[[User:PeterRoder|PeterRoder]] ([[User talk:PeterRoder|talk]]) 00:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)