Difference between revisions of "Talk:Multiple elevations achievement"
From Geohashing
PeterRoder (talk | contribs) |
m (+1) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
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). [[User:Neimster| Neimster : 33, -97 ]] ([[User talk:Neimster|talk]]) 17:03, 3 June 2013 (EDT) | 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). [[User:Neimster| Neimster : 33, -97 ]] ([[User talk:Neimster|talk]]) 17:03, 3 June 2013 (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". [[User:Mystrsyko|Mystrsyko]] ([[User talk:Mystrsyko|talk]]) 13:09, 17 September 2013 (EDT) | + | * '''support''': trying to get some life back into this --[[User:Gefrierbrand|Gefrierbrand]] ([[User talk: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". [[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 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 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 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. | + | * 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) | 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) | ||
| + | |||
| + | * '''Support''' but note that it's similar to lapsed suggested achievements 'Over and under' and 'Stacking' (as pointed out in the [[Discord]]). [[User:Arlo|Arlo]] ([[User talk:Arlo|talk]]) 00:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 00:21, 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)
