Difference between revisions of "Talk:2010-02-11 34.52 -110.10 (Unofficial)"
From Geohashing
imported>Ekorren (It's not a geohashing expedition at all, so it doesn't need any title. Definitely not one of the official namespace.) |
imported>Benjw (but if it had been designated an alternative Saturday meetup?) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
I've just come across this page. My instinct is that, even though you are using an alternative algorithm to generate the coordinates, it should still be titled "2010-02-11 34 -110". But I don't think we've ever had an actual expedition using an alternative algorithm before (someone will correct me if I'm wrong, I'm sure). What do others think? -- [[User:Benjw|Benjw]] 14:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC) | I've just come across this page. My instinct is that, even though you are using an alternative algorithm to generate the coordinates, it should still be titled "2010-02-11 34 -110". But I don't think we've ever had an actual expedition using an alternative algorithm before (someone will correct me if I'm wrong, I'm sure). What do others think? -- [[User:Benjw|Benjw]] 14:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC) | ||
:I just think that alternative algorithms should not be used. It might be a great trip totally worth the effort, but it's not a ''geohashing expedition'' if you go somewhere else. So it definitely shouldn't be named or categorized as a geohashing expedition either. --[[User:Ekorren|Ekorren]] 15:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC) | :I just think that alternative algorithms should not be used. It might be a great trip totally worth the effort, but it's not a ''geohashing expedition'' if you go somewhere else. So it definitely shouldn't be named or categorized as a geohashing expedition either. --[[User:Ekorren|Ekorren]] 15:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC) | ||
| + | ::I understand your point, and I certainly agree that it wasn't a successful geohash, but I don't know if we should simply dismiss them out of hand. This was clearly a 'practice' expedition by someone who lacked the capability of actually going to the day's coordinates, so he entered into the spirit of the thing rather than just sitting at home. If you look at his user page, he went on a proper expedition the following day. Besides, what's the difference between this and using a graticule-nominated official alternative meetup point, which we accept as far as the xkcd meetup ribbons go? -- [[User:Benjw|Benjw]] 15:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 15:33, 25 July 2010
Page name
I've just come across this page. My instinct is that, even though you are using an alternative algorithm to generate the coordinates, it should still be titled "2010-02-11 34 -110". But I don't think we've ever had an actual expedition using an alternative algorithm before (someone will correct me if I'm wrong, I'm sure). What do others think? -- Benjw 14:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- I just think that alternative algorithms should not be used. It might be a great trip totally worth the effort, but it's not a geohashing expedition if you go somewhere else. So it definitely shouldn't be named or categorized as a geohashing expedition either. --Ekorren 15:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- I understand your point, and I certainly agree that it wasn't a successful geohash, but I don't know if we should simply dismiss them out of hand. This was clearly a 'practice' expedition by someone who lacked the capability of actually going to the day's coordinates, so he entered into the spirit of the thing rather than just sitting at home. If you look at his user page, he went on a proper expedition the following day. Besides, what's the difference between this and using a graticule-nominated official alternative meetup point, which we accept as far as the xkcd meetup ribbons go? -- Benjw 15:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
