Talk:2010-02-11 34.52 -110.10 (Unofficial)
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)
- The difference is simple, and strong: The alternate meetup locations are made for, and restricted to, actual meetups where several geohashers meet at another point in case the actual geohash is not possible to reach for them and the meetup would have to be cancelled otherwise. Also the point has to be announced in advance, and preferrably be determined by common agreement. This wasn't a meetup, and it wasn't a geohash.
- If Eylrid feels up to report of that trip, so be it, and I feel perfectly well with the report being on the wiki and linked from the user page. However, it certainly wasn't a geohashing expedition and so I would prefer it not being categorized as such. --Ekorren 16:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Fair point. Presumably, then, you would prefer it if the page remained, but that none of the categories currently in use were to remain. (The map would have to be removed, but it's pretty useless on this page anyway.) -- Benjw 16:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think it would be difficult to choose a reasonable set of categories to remain, so I'd indeed prefer to remove them all. Or, maybe, introduce some category for reports on unofficial trips? User:Aperfectring/Trip could go in there as well. --Ekorren 16:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Creating a new category seems a sensible way of going about it. A bit more sensible, in my opinion than Jiml classifying it as a retro expedition, anyway. :-) -- Benjw 11:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think it would be difficult to choose a reasonable set of categories to remain, so I'd indeed prefer to remove them all. Or, maybe, introduce some category for reports on unofficial trips? User:Aperfectring/Trip could go in there as well. --Ekorren 16:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Fair point. Presumably, then, you would prefer it if the page remained, but that none of the categories currently in use were to remain. (The map would have to be removed, but it's pretty useless on this page anyway.) -- Benjw 16:04, 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)
Any geohasher can empathize with the enthusiasm that drove him on this expedition, and he did do his best to document it without claiming it was a real expedition. I would compare it a little bit to my attempt on a snow and boulder-covered slope in Squamish where I redefined success as getting to within a kilometre of the geohash. I might categorize and name it as a normal expedition in that graticule, under Not Reached - Did not attempt, except that it would encourage and confuse copycats who don't understand the promlem as well as this new geohasher clearly does. Probably the best thing to do with it is to put it on a user sub-page, and give it an Category:Alternate algorithm category, or some new one for unofficial trips. It is TERRIBLY frustrating to be a new geohasher with no way of geohashing, and I don't want anyone bashed for trying to make the best of it. -Robyn 14:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
