Difference between revisions of "Talk:Graticule Unlocked"

From Geohashing
imported>Ekorren
(Two Sorts of Virgin Graticule Ribbon)
imported>Ekorren
m (-)
Line 23: Line 23:
 
I think there should be a second rank of Virgin Graticule ribbon, one for someone who evidently went, before they had a camera, or before we had rules about proof, or who isn't around anymore to clarify whether they reached the exact spot; and another for the first to provide proper proof. This allows recognizing the early pioneers, but doesn't leave the person who proved the conquest later feeling unfairly treated. I want to do this in advance of a project to comb the old archives, from when many people didn't write expedition reports, and find as many original expeditions as possible. I don't want to have to yank Virgin Graticule ribbons in the process, but I also don't like the original pioneers being ignored just because they didn't take GPS pictures. -[[User:Robyn|Robyn]] 18:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 
I think there should be a second rank of Virgin Graticule ribbon, one for someone who evidently went, before they had a camera, or before we had rules about proof, or who isn't around anymore to clarify whether they reached the exact spot; and another for the first to provide proper proof. This allows recognizing the early pioneers, but doesn't leave the person who proved the conquest later feeling unfairly treated. I want to do this in advance of a project to comb the old archives, from when many people didn't write expedition reports, and find as many original expeditions as possible. I don't want to have to yank Virgin Graticule ribbons in the process, but I also don't like the original pioneers being ignored just because they didn't take GPS pictures. -[[User:Robyn|Robyn]] 18:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  
:I think that's a bit problematic. Where do you draw the line? What's sufficient proof, what isn't? Currently, people accept anything that's plausible, and I think it's ok that way. Invalidating any virgin graticule which was not proven with a GPS shot would basically turn half of Germany upside-down.
+
:I think that's a bit problematic. Where do you draw the line? What's sufficient proof, what isn't? Currently, people accept anything that's plausible, and I think it's ok that way. Invalidating any virgin graticule which was not proven with a GPS shot would basically turn half of [[Germany]] upside-down.
  
What, for an example, about [[2008-10-03_48_9]] (in my home graticule)? They had a GPS, but that's all you can see. Surroundings are not really recognizable either. Also, they didn't link it to the graticule page. I found it with a systematical search and, since I then considered the virgin graticule to be gone, did not put too much effort into quickly finding an accessible spot for my first home expedition. Or, what about [[2008-11-19 47 7]]? This expedition "report" was done from a transcript of a radio report. They never reported on the wiki. Believe me - if the radio expedition hadn't been there, commonly considered as being successful, there would have been another one in winter or early spring latest. --[[User:Ekorren|Ekorren]] 19:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
+
:What, for an example, about [[2008-10-03_48_9]] (in my home graticule)? They had a GPS, but that's all you can see. Surroundings are not really recognizable either. Also, they didn't link it to the graticule page. I found it with a systematical search and, since I then considered the virgin graticule to be gone, did not put too much effort into quickly finding an accessible spot for my first home expedition. Or, what about [[2008-11-19 47 7]]? This expedition "report" was done from a transcript of a radio report. They never reported on the wiki. Believe me - if the radio expedition hadn't been there, commonly considered as being successful, there would have been another one in winter or early spring latest. --[[User:Ekorren|Ekorren]] 19:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:05, 14 June 2009

What is sufficient proof of being there? I just found out I wasn't the first in the Dortmund graticule(51 7) yesterday, but there was no page of the Dortmund graticule before I created it. And the real first hash contains no pictures or proof in any other form.--Arvid 10:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the geohash in question, and think it's a planning page. At least until somebody decides to post their story there. Someday I hope to post a table somewhere, but until then here's my worksheet --Thomcat 17:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Does a successful Origin Geohash count as a Virgin Graticule award, if no-one has ever achieved a hash in the graticule previously? --CJ 06:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I would say no. I wouldn't count it myself. I see the Origin (or Displaed Origin) as a back-up geohash for the day that you can't get to the real geohash. -Robyn 12:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

What about one like this? No proof, plus if you zoom in on the map the point is not in the road. --excellentdude 06:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I saw it, and I think it's pretty weak, but I didn't say anything because I expect that he will do a better geohash within a couple of weeks and then it won't really matter which one is counted as the virgin geohash. If someone else come along in that graticule and does a real geohash before Kortney does, then there's a challenge. I didn't want to jump on a newbie and say "hey you did it wrong!" -Robyn 06:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Right, zoom in on the satellite instead of the map and the point is basically on the edge (verge?) of the road. Definitely doable. Worst case, someone else can claim virgin with better proof, as I did in Bellingham, Washington. --Thomcat 06:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

What if someone has claimed it, say's they will provide the proof yet 4 months later still has no picture's, could a counter claimed hash take it if the person doesn't provide the proof?

If you've got proof, and they don't, go for it. I did that to a grat.  :-) --excellentdude 01:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
If their claim is dubious, then I think it's okay for someone who reached it for sure to swoop in, being gracious and prepared to relinquish it if they return with proof. But if it's pretty lear that the person reached it, e.g. it was at a very accessible place and they said they went there, and it was in the first couple of months before precedent had been set on proof, I'd hesitate to steal. Virgin graticule should go to the first to successfully geohash a graticule, when they prove it, not to someone who came along later but was the first to have the technology to prove doing so. If that means some gratcules never have ribbons awarded, well that's okay by me. -Robyn 03:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, This is the page that I was inquiring about 2008-12-16 -37 174. I now have 2 successful hash's in this gratical, only the one that I got yesterday is my first one with actual proof (just brought a GPSr) TunezNZ 23:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
If you've got pictures and proof, I don't see why it shouldn't be yours over this one. I mean, leave his, but I'd say you can take one, too. --excellentdude 02:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I disagree, because does anyone actually doubt the December user reached the point? But it's not something I'm going to put any energy into fighting. I would make a Virgin ribbon and put it on his page. But if you do take it, at minimum leave a note on his talk page making it clear that he is entitled to take the ribbon from you when he has proof. -Robyn 03:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Well there is still 57 more Virgin Graticule's in New Zealand, So I will keep on going and try for a few others.

Two Sorts of Virgin Graticule Ribbon

I think there should be a second rank of Virgin Graticule ribbon, one for someone who evidently went, before they had a camera, or before we had rules about proof, or who isn't around anymore to clarify whether they reached the exact spot; and another for the first to provide proper proof. This allows recognizing the early pioneers, but doesn't leave the person who proved the conquest later feeling unfairly treated. I want to do this in advance of a project to comb the old archives, from when many people didn't write expedition reports, and find as many original expeditions as possible. I don't want to have to yank Virgin Graticule ribbons in the process, but I also don't like the original pioneers being ignored just because they didn't take GPS pictures. -Robyn 18:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a bit problematic. Where do you draw the line? What's sufficient proof, what isn't? Currently, people accept anything that's plausible, and I think it's ok that way. Invalidating any virgin graticule which was not proven with a GPS shot would basically turn half of Germany upside-down.
What, for an example, about 2008-10-03_48_9 (in my home graticule)? They had a GPS, but that's all you can see. Surroundings are not really recognizable either. Also, they didn't link it to the graticule page. I found it with a systematical search and, since I then considered the virgin graticule to be gone, did not put too much effort into quickly finding an accessible spot for my first home expedition. Or, what about 2008-11-19 47 7? This expedition "report" was done from a transcript of a radio report. They never reported on the wiki. Believe me - if the radio expedition hadn't been there, commonly considered as being successful, there would have been another one in winter or early spring latest. --Ekorren 19:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)