Talk:No Batteries Geohash
I propose a new extension of this: the "X-TREME!!!!! No Batteries Geohash": In addition to the basic No Batteries requirements, additional, you must calculate the coordinates by hand. Using something electronic to fetch the input data (Dow opening price) is permissible, though if you can get it through smoke signals or something, so much the better! After that,may paper, pencil, and the Force be with you! --Kyevan 05:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Uh... doing MD5 by hand?! That sounds like a whole new category, to me. Wow. That makes my head hurt... 64.74.213.98 06:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- We had a discussion about this on the IRC channel. It was to be an extreme version of the endurance geohash. Rest assured if any person or team of people calculates the geohash by hand and reaches the coordinates on the same day, we'll make sure there's a ribbon for it. -Robyn 03:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Clarification... Are you eligible for this achievement if you use no tools at all for the actual trip? Most city dwellers can easily locate the precise hash position on a map prior to leaving the house, then reach and stand directly on it without any further assistance.
Contents
No batteries + Digicam?
I wonder how some people here did fabricate their proof. -- Relet 07:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- Well I guess the batteries weren't needed for reaching the geohash, just documenting it -- Kriechstrom 15:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- ...but one can never prove a negative, in this case, that one didn't have a GPS.... -- Jevanyn 20:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Vehicle Batteries?
Is it ok to use a vehicle battery? Watch? Camera? Media player?
In other words, I think the requirements should be clarified. --193.254.155.48
The achievement was written with the idea of using only pre-GPS technology to locate the point, but I like the idea of expanding it to mean no batteries whatsover. I guess that allows you to use your computer plugged in to find the coordinates, and then use non-battery-using transportation and technology to get there. Perhaps it could have a second rank. -Robyn 17:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
using Google maps
Most people (including me, I hasten to add) are taking this achievement after visiting a geohash using a Google maps aerial view print-out instead of a GPS. I suspect most are doing this because they don't *own* a gps. And that's fine -- people should be able to geohash without having to buy gadgets, if they can, and if they wish to. But really, what's the point of having an award for that? I think the spirit of the No Batteries award is to do what a few people have done (such as NCBears in their 2009-01-03 36 -77 expedition) and find the hash point using map, compass, tape measure, etc. Should the award be changed? Should another award -- the primitive navigational technology geohash achievement? :) -- be created? What do others think? -- Benjw 15:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I understand exactly what you mean. There are three options:
- leave it the way it is and allow people to chose the extent to which they embrace the spirit of the award
- grandfather the people who have taken it with Google Maps consultation, but rewrite it to disallow any use of Google Maps, including the peeron tool. After receiving the raw coordinates, winners will have consulted only paper maps.
- leave it as it is for an easy achievement non-GPS-owning beginners can get, but create a new one as you suggest
I'm okay with #1, think #2 could cause problems because so many people have it, and I would support a thoroughly worded #3. You'd have to specifically forbid the technique of going to the approximate coordinates and then just walking over to where the people you are meeting are. You would need a rule for checking the accuracy of the primitive navigation: if the person carried a GPS and turned it on when s/he arrived, how close does s/he have to be? If the geohasher doesn't bring a GPS at all what verification method should be used? What kind of proof of navigational method would be needed? If you create a proposal page, move this paragraph over to the talk page. -Robyn 19:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Others with GPS leave a marker
Just came to my mind, as I thought of my 2009-10-18 52 13 geohash. I didn't use a GPS and didn't even need Google maps for more than a rough approximation, because others (with GPS) had been there earlier and left a marker. Eligible or not?! --HiroProtagonist 21:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- From the wording, I don't see why not. -- relet 22:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Existential Doubt regarding accuracy levels in an NBG.
So far, I've been considering each of my No Batteries expeditions (as they have all been, save when there have been others around) on their own merits. Moving through regimented woodland on a line guaranteed to cross the point was taken as a success, although I chose as a photo point a bit of irregularity in the form of a fallen tree that I know was a few yards away from the exact point. Just "seeing" the spot, in the middle of a field was not counted as a success when there was no access, but divining the point as being within a (proven) stone's throw but refraining from striding (carefully though it could have been done) into the crop of an easily walked field for a quite picky level of accuracy I took as being Ok. Slightly different Google/etc positions in another led me to conclude that having driven along the road at the bottom of a very small embankment and reached the fence at the lip of the top (with a bit of angle-measuring, no less) meant that it was valid, but it remains to be confirmed by device as to exactly which journey might have been the more exact.
Today, though, Google told me that a spot was (overhead projection errors allowing) in a terrace house, and I reached the front door but did not wish to invade the privacy of the owners. I was again within a stone's-throw (sings: #...if it wasn' fer the 'ouses in-between!#), but for the sake of three or four metres distance was that successful? I could tell you where the Google marker was. There was no mistaking the house involved. But the GPS could have said different (as it could in all the others). From the device owned by a relative of mine (which maybe I should borrow) I know that (in)accuracy is indicated and is typically on the order of this displacement. But by accepting Google's point (or occasionally one from other accepted mapping sources) am I actually bound to be even more accurate? And what if the owners of the house (I posted an Active Geohasher sheet through their door, along with a little extra explanation) use a GPS and find that the point is in their neighbour's house, a few feet away to the side, what then?
To save myself grief, I really need to get myself something 'Batteried' (just missed out on a nice little model, a couple of months ago, and have been holding out for as good a deal since then), but I've yet to sort out today's situation. Erm, now yesterday's. But are my worries about general situation applicable?--Monty 19:20, 25 April 2011 (EDT)
"Finding of the hashpoint"
The page says that "the actual finding of the hashpoint must be done without electronic equipment". Does that apply to getting near the location, or more specifically finding the exact location of the hashpoint? For instance, in my first expedition, I used the GPS to get to a nearby intersection, but used my memory of Google Maps to find the hashpoint itself. I'm assuming this doesn't count because the GPS was used to get closer to the hashpoint, but I'd like some specification on this point. --Haberdasher 02:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I also have a question about this. I used my iPod to get the adress of the hash, and then biked there. Does it still count? Also, I did this with a prior hash. Is the achievement still valid? --mnm7198
Coexistence with Tron achievement?
Is it possible to earn this achievement at the same time with the Tron achievement? For example, you look up a way make the trip without crossing your own path beforehand, and you arrive at the hashpoint without the help of a digital device, but you keep the track log device recording in your pocket the whole time anyway, without looking at it...would it count as both? Obviously all this requires an even greater amount of good faith and trust, I suppose. Epingchris (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
