Difference between revisions of "Talk:Illinois"
From Geohashing
imported>Dvdllr (New page: ==How Much?== How much of a state has to be included in a graticule before it's considered a part of the state's region? I've seen Illinois maps that include [[Sikeston, Missouri|Sikeston]...) |
imported>Joannac m (as accurate as region borders go) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==How Much?== | ==How Much?== | ||
How much of a state has to be included in a graticule before it's considered a part of the state's region? I've seen Illinois maps that include [[Sikeston, Missouri|Sikeston]], but not [[Farmington, Missouri|Farmington]]. Both have a miniscule amount of Illinois within the graticule, and the odds of getting a hashpoint within Illinois' borders are phenomenal. I'd do away with both, personally, for the sake of making the [[regional geohashing achievement]] anything more than impossible, but the [[Talk:Regional geohashing achievement|talk page]] says that's what makes it fun. Anyway, include Farmington/Sikeston/both/neither? There are applications for a precedent in other states as well ([http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=42.014229,-72.796955&spn=0.115042,0.208912&z=13 e.g.]). | How much of a state has to be included in a graticule before it's considered a part of the state's region? I've seen Illinois maps that include [[Sikeston, Missouri|Sikeston]], but not [[Farmington, Missouri|Farmington]]. Both have a miniscule amount of Illinois within the graticule, and the odds of getting a hashpoint within Illinois' borders are phenomenal. I'd do away with both, personally, for the sake of making the [[regional geohashing achievement]] anything more than impossible, but the [[Talk:Regional geohashing achievement|talk page]] says that's what makes it fun. Anyway, include Farmington/Sikeston/both/neither? There are applications for a precedent in other states as well ([http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=42.014229,-72.796955&spn=0.115042,0.208912&z=13 e.g.]). | ||
| + | :IMO if there is a chance, however minuscule, of getting a hash in REGION in that graticule, then the region is in the graticule. --[[User:Joannac|joannac]] 01:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 01:40, 26 August 2009
How Much?
How much of a state has to be included in a graticule before it's considered a part of the state's region? I've seen Illinois maps that include Sikeston, but not Farmington. Both have a miniscule amount of Illinois within the graticule, and the odds of getting a hashpoint within Illinois' borders are phenomenal. I'd do away with both, personally, for the sake of making the regional geohashing achievement anything more than impossible, but the talk page says that's what makes it fun. Anyway, include Farmington/Sikeston/both/neither? There are applications for a precedent in other states as well (e.g.).
- IMO if there is a chance, however minuscule, of getting a hash in REGION in that graticule, then the region is in the graticule. --joannac 01:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
