Talk:Bicycle geohashes

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)

You don't seem abnormally dim, and it confused you, so your point is well taken. What would you rename it to? Geohashes using bicycles? Cycling distance? I recommend you suggest your favourite and run it by a couple of the heavy cyclists, like Arvid, relet or thepiguy and then move the page. Yay for wiki. -Robyn 22:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Cycling geohashers, perhaps. Not sure. I'll think about it and will consult the heavy cyclists tomorrow, if they haven't made their thoughts known already by then. Time for bed now. Thanks for all your constructive comments! -- Benjw 22:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I think with the now-reworded note in the beginning of the page, it doesn't have to be renamed. Also, I was thinking about adding another achievement ribbon for combined puclic transport and bicycle usage or something like that. And still keep all the bike rides at Bicycle geohashes (or maybe rename it). Koepfel _talk 22:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is any need for renaming, neither for a special combined public transport + bike achievement. The public transport achievement works well for that. --Ekorren 23:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

On another note, I just notice that the description of the page disagrees with common use in another detail: According to the exact description, only expeditions which reached the coordinates should be listed. By now, I listed all of my expeditions, also if I did not reach the coordinates. To be honest, if I had to remove them (and I'm not the only one), my motivation to do bike expeditions would drop a bit. I would strongly suggest to change that part so that all expeditions done for a significant part by bike may be listed (as basically done already). --Ekorren 23:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I think you have accurately represented the spirit of the page. -Robyn 23:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think of that! But I'd agree with that as well. -- Benjw 04:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message Benjw! I've been using it to record any cycling done even if I didn't reach the coordinates or if I had to use another method of transportation (which I usually do, what with living on an island and all). I don't see any reason to move the page though, if we wanted to be really strict (something I also don't see the need for) we can always use the Bicycle_Geohash page itself. Thepiguy 00:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

yeah, just modifying the description should be ok, making it obvious that there are two pages, and how they differ. I admit I was also confused about it to start with though. mykaDragonBlue [- i have no sig -] 01:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Everyone seems to disagree with me here. But other than "it's easier to leave things as they are", I'm still not sure why people think it's a good idea to have one page called Bicycle geohash which gives the strict rules for claiming an all-bicycle, coordinates-reached expedition; and another page called Bicycle geohashes which lists a completely different set of not-all-bicycle, coordinates-maybe-not-reached expeditions. Perhaps someone could explain why this is a good thing, please? -- Benjw 06:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)