File talk:2013-05-15 43 -116 18-45-10-611.jpg

Eldin,

I've been hesistating to put up this comment. But you're picture shows a reading of almost 450ft off the destination. I'm really sorry but in my opinion that's a not reached. It should be within the range of uncertainty which is usually (in open spaces) around 3-4 meter, so 10-15ft. At least on my Oregon 450. My crappy phone goed wild but at least it does not claim to be 1 kilometer and 13 millimeter off.

Remember that geohashing is not about collecting 'points'. It's about FUN! I'd rather have 100 'not reached' than 1 'reached' when I'm sure I was not really there. Wish I had time to get to 1000 not reached, sadly most of our haspoints fall in the sea. Of course, I could go to the beach a lot!

Greetings from 52, 4 Palmpje (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2013 (EDT)

Palmpje, Wow, I hadn't looked at the photos after I uploaded them to see what the coordinates in the banner said. I've noticed discrepancies between that banner and the GPS reading on the phone in the past, but generally not nearly that large. If I believed that I had only gotten within 450ft, I certainly wouldn't have categorized this as 'coordinates reached'. However, please see Image:2013-05-15 43 -116 proof.jpg, which was uploaded later as it was taken from a separate camera (the other pictures being taken on my phone, which was doubling as my GPS device this trip). The rock immediately beside my left foot was used to support the stake holding the poster, so this is within a foot of where the picture of the poster was taken, and within 5ft of where I was standing when I uploaded the pictures and comments from my phone. So while I can't account for the coordinates shown on the pictures from my phone except to blame the Android Geohash app, I do sincerely believe based on the GPS reading my phone was showing me and Google Satelite view, that I got within a few feet of the hashpoint this trip, even accounting for the sometimes mediocre GPS in my phone.

And I completely agree that geohashing is about fun. One comment I made in the IRC channel when a new geohasher asked if they were doing it right was "If you're attempting to reach the coordinates, having fun, and can afford whatever expenses you incur in the process, then you're doing it right". And I'm no stranger to 'coordinates not reached' expeditions, with my success rate for reaching coordinates hovering right around 50% to date.

At any rate, I'm always glad to hear from another geohasher. Perhaps we'll meet at a hashpoint someday. --Eldin (talk) 21:18, 16 May 2013 (EDT)

Eldin, i'm glad we're sharing views on this. I had not looked at the other picture. I'm used to really accurate readings on my Oregon and know how a phone can jump around. Putting them next to eachother, the Oregon just gives stable distance to go... And the phone jumps all over the place. I've tried geocashing in a forest once (the Oregon would not boot up for some reason) and had a very hard time finding most of the stages. Only gut feeling of the actual location led me to those.

Good to have this settled! As geohashing is, you define whether you've reached coordinates or not. But in my opinion you should be within the area of uncertainty that your GPS receiver claims. Ha, get a crappy receiver! Meeting up seems to have a probability of having a couch potato hash however. Happy geohashing! Ours is in the sea... Again. Palmpje (talk) 03:42, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

Yeah, I need to get a quality stand-alone GPS unit one of these days, though my phone is usually pretty good as far as what it shows on its screen. But I've noticed that information that the Geohash Droid app adds to posts a)shows the location from which the text/photo was uploaded, not where the photo was taken, and b)has a somewhat random margin of error between what the app displays on the screen and what it displays on uploaded text/photos (though usually less than 30ft, in my previous experience). --Eldin (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2013 (EDT)