Difference between revisions of "User talk:Thomcat"
imported>Sartakh (→Categorization Scheme: new section) |
imported>Sartakh (→Categorization Scheme) |
||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
Following that scheme, I would think that the cities would be categorized under their respective state only, the state categorized under "United States" and "United States" categorized under "North America" to yield a heirarchy structure. | Following that scheme, I would think that the cities would be categorized under their respective state only, the state categorized under "United States" and "United States" categorized under "North America" to yield a heirarchy structure. | ||
| − | Might I suggest this, since I will be adding a number of places here in the near future. | + | Might I suggest this, since I will be adding a number of places here in the near future. --[[User:Sartakh|Sartakh]] 07:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:44, 16 June 2008
There was one in Tyler? Too bad I don't go to school near there anymore! --BenPop 00:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Goals
Having edited one quarter of our Three Graticule Tall state, I firmly intend to visit a geohash in each Graticule of our state - eventually. Going to be tough to catch those two coastal ones (Forks and the one south of it). Although the "Victoria" one contains a nub of Washington, I am going to call that one Canada and skip it for now.
Categories
I know only about as much as you do, but I've tried something out, and left a message on the category page where you asked your question. AshleyMorton 14:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Cape May graticule
I think it's closer to 99.5% water. :-) Since Jan 1st, the geohash has been on land 3 times, and twice it was wetland. On the other hand, a lot of people in the area own boats, so close-to-shore spots are fair game for weekend meet-ups. --Jevanyn 15:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Oi!
Sorry I missed you at Cosmo's. One of these next times, though, for sure.--Nukewaste 02:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
Good job on making the Active/Inactive graticule categories! I think it's awesome. Booberfish 05:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Categorization Scheme
I'm curious about the categorization scheme you are pushing. You categorize U.S. cities as "North America / State" and remove a categorization of "United States"
Following that scheme, I would think that the cities would be categorized under their respective state only, the state categorized under "United States" and "United States" categorized under "North America" to yield a heirarchy structure.
Might I suggest this, since I will be adding a number of places here in the near future. --Sartakh 07:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
