Difference between revisions of "Talk:Bicycle geohashes"
imported>Robyn (I disagree with removing mixed mode cycle expeditions from this page.) |
imported>Benjw (I quite agree, but this page then has a confusing title) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
I disagree that geohashes on this page cannot involve non-bicycle means of transport. The bicyle geohash ribbon is another matter. It definitely requires that bicycle alone be used to reach the geohash. And bicycle distances on this page must be distances actually cycled. But if, in order to get to the geohash the cyclist takes a train to reach another graticule, hitchhikes part way with a fellow geohasher who is using a car, uses a shuttle or public transit to bypass an unpleasant or illegal area to cycle, takes a ferry across a stretch of water, or disembarks from the bicycle and rents a kayak to reach a water point, I think that the effort he or she puts into cycling should not be discounted. -[[User:Robyn|Robyn]] 22:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC) | I disagree that geohashes on this page cannot involve non-bicycle means of transport. The bicyle geohash ribbon is another matter. It definitely requires that bicycle alone be used to reach the geohash. And bicycle distances on this page must be distances actually cycled. But if, in order to get to the geohash the cyclist takes a train to reach another graticule, hitchhikes part way with a fellow geohasher who is using a car, uses a shuttle or public transit to bypass an unpleasant or illegal area to cycle, takes a ferry across a stretch of water, or disembarks from the bicycle and rents a kayak to reach a water point, I think that the effort he or she puts into cycling should not be discounted. -[[User:Robyn|Robyn]] 22:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :I quite agree that cycling at least part of the way to a hash is good. And I would definitely support the idea of a list containing all hashes for which some or all of the distance was covered by bike. I would aspire to being on it, even. However, calling the page containing such a list "Bicycle geohashes" surely creates the idea that it is a page of bicycle geohashes -- that is, expeditions that meet the requirements for the bicycle geohash achievement. At least, that's what confused me. I could be abnormally dim. :-) -- [[User:Benjw|Benjw]] 22:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 22:35, 19 April 2009
The "own cycling page" Arvid joked about in his last update isn't a bad idea. We could have totals here and say that if you have more than ten lines in the table for cycling expeditions, that you have just the total here, and link back to your own cycling grid.
- Robyn
I disagree that geohashes on this page cannot involve non-bicycle means of transport. The bicyle geohash ribbon is another matter. It definitely requires that bicycle alone be used to reach the geohash. And bicycle distances on this page must be distances actually cycled. But if, in order to get to the geohash the cyclist takes a train to reach another graticule, hitchhikes part way with a fellow geohasher who is using a car, uses a shuttle or public transit to bypass an unpleasant or illegal area to cycle, takes a ferry across a stretch of water, or disembarks from the bicycle and rents a kayak to reach a water point, I think that the effort he or she puts into cycling should not be discounted. -Robyn 22:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- I quite agree that cycling at least part of the way to a hash is good. And I would definitely support the idea of a list containing all hashes for which some or all of the distance was covered by bike. I would aspire to being on it, even. However, calling the page containing such a list "Bicycle geohashes" surely creates the idea that it is a page of bicycle geohashes -- that is, expeditions that meet the requirements for the bicycle geohash achievement. At least, that's what confused me. I could be abnormally dim. :-) -- Benjw 22:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
