Talk:Consecutive geohash achievement

While this was originally meant to be a record achievement, like Coldest and North Geohash, it seems that most people claim it when they have hashed in a continuous sequence of days at all. Speaking as the original creator of the page (the idea was a collaborative effort, though), I approve of this change. I have therefore made a small edit to reflect the new interpretation.

To keep the page uncluttered, I would however suggest to include only the respective records in the table on the page. -- relet 14:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I disagree. The previous version of the table wasn't exactly cluttered -- it had about eight or ten people listed instead of just the three record-holders. As long as we (collectively) keep it roughly that short, it is neat enough -- and more encouraging to those who wish to have a go. Surely geohashing isn't just about setting records? -- Benjw 16:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Benjw in that. I think a top ten is better, especially since there are few geohashers who've gone more than 3. -- Jevanyn 16:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Disclaimer

Given the "prestige" that might be associated with this particular achievement, and the fact that we have disclaimers on other pages, should we put one on this page as well? Something like, "Just as with any single geohashing expedition, don't proceed into dangerous territory or venture onto land clearly marked with No Trespassing without obtaining permission simply to keep a consecutive geohashing streak alive. Perhaps visit another graticule instead." --excellentdude 16:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Using engine-driven vehicles

... for beating the record of this achievement (now) seems pointless to me. As one can see, you can obviously do this nearly as long as you want to - just watch the daily new records of NWoodruff, Manu or me. I'm not going to do this any longer (except of today, because the plan already exists and it doesn't mean a too long detour). Therefore, I'd propose establishing a new achievement, that's like "Consecutive man power (hope the translation is fine) geohash achievement" which excludes successful expeditions that made use of cars, motorbikes or things like that. So one has to do the expedition from home or work and back only by foot or bicycle or things like that.

Yes, I know, that some of you already only do their geohashes, if they don't have to burn fuel, but as it's not prohibited to do so, one has to set up extra rules for future achievements, right?

What do you think about that?--Reinhard 11:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's an admirable idea, however in some places, on some time constraints, the rest of us can't do waht you crazy dedicated people do. A new award sounds fun, but I'll stil try to beat this record some time. -- 219.90.135.111 11:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Basically, I would like to agree (in that the record is being put to absurd numbers using absurd amounts of fuel just now), but I don't think a modified achievement is the way to change that. The creator of this achievement possibly hoped his own record would hold for a long time, but achieved it only by car himself. So, if someone thinks it's fun to keep that up forever - whatever. You can't hold them off anyway, as long as fuel is only a small fraction of a reasonable price. I haven't read a single one of the reports of the Atlanta group for some time as they rarely are worth it and sometimes get me angry for overstretching the rules. --Ekorren 11:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, with a modified achievement you could stop watching the old one which you (rightly) might think of as stupid and could concentrate on a new competition with a more adventure- and sport-like character and less senseless burning of fuel.--Reinhard 12:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Whoah, hang on a sec. Geohashing doesn't really get into the bashing of other members liek that. I see your concerns, but I feel that maybe you're being a little bit derogatory towards our American brethren. Live and let live, and all that. So, who's making this new award? -- UnwiseOwl 12:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello UnwiseOwl, I was not and am not aware of bashing other members at all. The stupid old one of course means the achievement. I absolutely respect NWoodruff's achievement, because he just did what this achievement calls for. As you can see I've done nearly the same as he the last few days and just wanted to propose some good alternative for getting an achievement like that.--Reinhard 13:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure this referred to my remark about the Atlantans, which may not have been very diplomatic, I admit, but has a background. So, please blame me for it instead of yourself ;) --Ekorren 13:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Aaaaah, thank you, Ekorren! That helps alot! ;) Btw, after Manu and I just lloked up the new weekend's hashpoints, we decided that Saturday's hash will most probable (if it's not today's) be the last one in series - going there by bike.--Reinhard 14:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you can never make the ribbons be equal opportunities. However, the point of geohashing is not to earn ribbons, but to have fun. Be awesome. Tell the world about the fun you had. So of course people will applaud the first guy to reach 10 consecutive geohashes by car. They will woo at every single one who reaches ten by bike. And if you want to one-up it, there's still the endurance geohash achievement waiting to be conquered. Also, ekorren, you are one bitter man. :P -- relet 13:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't think a different ribbon or category is necessary. Americans are more likely to travel by car; some parts of the country have less public transit than others, or are less bicycle friendly. If I were doing it, I would put a separate mention on the Consecutive Geohash page for "consecutive days of bicycle geohashes" or the like. We could add an optional "by {{{vehicle}}}" to the ribbon so that it includes the qualifier. -- Jevanyn 16:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Consecutive geohash achievement

Contents

Ribbon

Must Succeed?

New Record

Re: Common usage

Disclaimer

Using engine-driven vehicles