Difference between revisions of "Category:Expedition outcomes"

Who is this Thomcat, and why does he think my expedition failed (or succeeded)?

As part of a project to go back and gather statistics on successes, failures, and whether Mother Nature or Civilization caused the most failures, I've been reading all the expeditions. Some great stories in there! Here's the procedure I used to fill in the blanks.

• If it didn't look like somebody attempted an expedition, I marked it Category:Expedition planning Category:Not reached - Did not attempt.
• Everything else got Category:Expeditions, with photos or videos called out as appropriate.

Next, I read the story, looked at the pictures and the satellite maps. If you were on the spot or within ordinary GPS tolerance (a few meters or feet), or if the location looks like you could have reached it easily and legally from the spot where you took the picture, I marked it Category:Coordinates reached. Otherwise, it was Category:Coordinates not reached and then I tried my best to determine the reason your expedition failed.

If I made a mistake or you just plain disagree with my conclusion, go change your category(s)! It might be a good idea to add to your story while you are at it - perhaps what I missed just plain wasn't there. --Thomcat 04:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Is Failure bad?

I haven't ever thought of these as 'expedition failures', merely a failure to reach the coordinates. As I said before, some of these expedition stories are great! And about 1/4 of the Saturday meetups have skipped the idea of visiting coordinates completely (aka Category:Not reached - Did not attempt Category:Not reached - Attended alternate location). It sure looks like the participants had fun anyways - and that's no failure. --Thomcat 04:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)