Difference between revisions of "Talk:2010-08-29 51 4"
From Geohashing
imported>Benjw (discussion cat) |
imported>Relet |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Thoughts from other geohashers, please? Thanks. — <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">[[User:Benjw|Benjw]]</span> <sub><nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Benjw|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></sub> 09:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC) | Thoughts from other geohashers, please? Thanks. — <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">[[User:Benjw|Benjw]]</span> <sub><nowiki>[</nowiki>[[User talk:Benjw|talk]]<nowiki>]</nowiki></sub> 09:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :For alternate locations, the convention is to use "Did not attempt (to reach the correct coordinates)". IMHO this applies here too. -- [[User:relet|relet]] 12:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 12:49, 31 August 2010
Expedition category
There appears to be a disagreement. Category:Not reached - Mother Nature or Category:Not reached - Did not attempt? I favour the latter because it was always known, even at the planning stage, that the hashpoint was in the middle of the water. The participants were never aiming to actually reach it, just get as close as possible. Jiml appears to favour the former, I think because some sort of expedition was made at all, so "did not attempt" is not appropriate. But I'll let him explain further if he wishes to.
Thoughts from other geohashers, please? Thanks. — Benjw [talk] 09:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- For alternate locations, the convention is to use "Did not attempt (to reach the correct coordinates)". IMHO this applies here too. -- relet 12:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
