Difference between revisions of "Talk:Pub Geohash"
From Geohashing
imported>Ted ("Within sight of"...?!) |
imported>Thomcat (→"Within sight of"...?!) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
I didn't update it, because I wanted to give a chance for discussion and, in particular, the author to consider. | I didn't update it, because I wanted to give a chance for discussion and, in particular, the author to consider. | ||
[[User:Ted|Ted]] 14:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC) | [[User:Ted|Ted]] 14:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :There is some precedent for the "nearness" factor, and I like the "within sight" limitation. Our hash yesterday was one block south of a pub, so I argue for at least that nearness to be included. Perhaps "3 blocks and you have to be able to see it" would be good? --[[User:Thomcat|Thomcat]] 07:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 07:14, 29 June 2008
"Within sight of"...?!
It seems to me that "within sight" is too easy, and dilutes the honor associated with this prestigious award. ;) (Besides, there are certain graticules where practically the entire thing is within sight of a pub!) Then you run into the whole problem of: if your geohash location is on a hill or mountain overlooking the city, you can see dozens of pubs! Etc.
I suggest that the award be changed such that it is only achieved if the site falls AT a pub. I would say that the sidewalk in front of, parking lot associated with, beer garden, and similar "extensions of the pub" should also count.
I didn't update it, because I wanted to give a chance for discussion and, in particular, the author to consider. Ted 14:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- There is some precedent for the "nearness" factor, and I like the "within sight" limitation. Our hash yesterday was one block south of a pub, so I argue for at least that nearness to be included. Perhaps "3 blocks and you have to be able to see it" would be good? --Thomcat 07:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
