Difference between revisions of "Talk:Largest geohash achievement"
From Geohashing
imported>Juventas (per graticule) |
imported>Jiml m (Per Graticule is right) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
::Unless I misread, it's per graticule. Boston getting 26 wouldn't effect the other graticules. -[[User:Juventas|Juventas]] 23:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC) | ::Unless I misread, it's per graticule. Boston getting 26 wouldn't effect the other graticules. -[[User:Juventas|Juventas]] 23:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | You didn't misread it: I missed that point. I added a tidbit of text to try to make it clearer. [[User:Jiml|Jiml]] 17:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 17:44, 5 September 2010
It seems many (like me), aren't aware of this achievement. It's also not very well-defined. It seems you do not need to reach the coordinates, and that taking a virgin graticule would count, or taking a friend to one where before it was only done alone would count.
I'd like to change it to five or more participants and reaching the coordinates as requirements. I don't think this would conflict with the ones already listed there. Support? -Juventas 20:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- I am in favour. --Fasanen 20:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- I am favor of setting a minimum of 5 people, though I don't see why that is needed since the number is now up around 26. We might want to set the minimum based on the number of geohashers around like the sociable geohasher award. I don't favor requiring reaching the hashpoint, but I would encourage it. Jiml 21:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
- Unless I misread, it's per graticule. Boston getting 26 wouldn't effect the other graticules. -Juventas 23:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
You didn't misread it: I missed that point. I added a tidbit of text to try to make it clearer. Jiml 17:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
