Talk:A Tale of Two Hashes achievement
The ribbon is pretty complex for this one. Could we have some more instructions on how it works, that is, did I do it right? It's not quite clear which geohash goes where. Shouldn't both geohashes be on both ribbons?
 Strange coincidences
(With apologies for inserting this header betwixt the others, as I have.)
The 2011-06-21 53 -1 location has its Active Geohasher page suggesting that it is in Norton, Sheffield, again, being just 1.5 miles away by road. (Although I am classing this as Frecheville in my Succeeded Expedition report that is being written in parallel to this particular edit.) Ok, so half the geohashers here might well have had this kind of coincidence, but...
The 2011-06-22 53 -1 location has its Active Geohasher page suggesting that it is in Norton, Doncaster, a completely different place in a completely different area of the same Graticule. And I plan to visit this area myself tomorrow, which is actually within Campsall and a short distance from Norton itself.
I'm pretty sure the rules mean I can't set and claim a T/2H with such a self-challenged/self-fulfilled pairing (of Frecheville's Norton and Campsall's version), but it's worth a general note that it has happened... And I can't really think of anywhere better to make that note public than here. Whoops, forgot the .sig --Monty 19:54, 21 June 2011 (EDT)
- You can't fulfill your own challenge, that's right. But if you want to commemorate something like this, you can always create a gratuitous ribbon (or maybe a Radio Yerevan ribbon). I made this one a few months ago after hashing in four places named Dettingen, none alike:
|Ekorren earned the Dettingen again ribbon|
 New comments
OK, folks. Worked on this again, I think I've dealt with most of the suggestions, though there are some contentious points where people disagree. Support, Do Not Oppose, Oppose or tell me where it still Needs Work!
I'll be first. support the proposal in general. DNO on being able to challenge a place name more than once. --aperfectring 22:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- I should note that you can challenge a place name more than once, but you have to go to an additional instance of the place name. (I see multiple Main challenges due to street names...) - Wmcduff 23:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm still not sure that it will work, but I like the changes to the page, and I support people trying, even if it doesn't work in principle. -Robyn 20:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Support. Great job guys :D --Meghan 21:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Do Not Oppose. I find it complicated and don't grasp the fun. Perhaps once people are doing it, I will see the light. Juventas 05:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
DNO. aka: I see no reason not to. --mykaDragonBlue [- i have no sig -] 05:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
DNO I think this may be a limited option for only a few geohashers but can see the potential it has for making some interesting geohashing -Sesquip 06:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Support although it sounds a little bit complicated to me and will need a less wordy explanation. --sermoa 20:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Support I like things. --UnwiseOwl 15:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 Further suggestions
Did I get the change I made to Two Hashes right? That you don't challenge a particular Vancouver, but all Vancouvers everywhere? I still, as I keep saying, think a year from now this will be a choked mass of hundreds of challenges and very few completions, but I'm supporting your right to try to make it work. Perhaps the "passing through" rule will be reconsidered. -Robyn 06:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC) (Retrieved from "http://wiki.xkcd.com/geohashing/User_talk:Wmcduff")
This is a rather good thought, I think (thus the copying). Do we need to loosen the claim side of things so that a pass through of a challenge is good enough? This would make it easier to end a challenge and might make sure the page doesn't get flooded with challenges. I'm not sure it would be effective enough but... Comments? - Wmcduff 16:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 Old comments
I think people are happy with the lack of time limit and the nature of challenges at this point, but not what pairings count (and of course, we still need a ribbon). I've reorganized the talk page to put contentious issues closer to the top. - Wmcduff 13:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 Naming Conventions
Name will be changed to A tale of two hashes achievement to comply with Naming conventions.
- Can we have A Tale of Two Hashes achievement due to it being a joke off a literary title? -Wmcduff 20:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, in a library database it would be Tale of two hashes achievement, a, though I don't think that's the commonly held belief on how it's done... - Wmcduff 15:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 Ribbon images
- I like #2 the best, personally. It looks very Dickensian. :) - Wmcduff 22:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Should we have a ribbon looking thing for the challenge section? Part of me just wants to use art from the recent Firefly arc/Nathan Fillion challenge for that, but it might not work. - 14:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've got a plan for this tonight. I'll take the cities for one and two and create two ribbons. One with one city in half and a black half for challenges, and a second with two cities for the successful ribbon. - Wmcduff 21:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 Completing a Challenge
So, two more questions (I assume that we use open challenging here):
- Is there a limit about how many challenges one can make from one hash? If I think about some of my recent hashes, I could well make a dozen challenges from one, most of them rather obscure, but the obscure ones will make a better story when fulfilled. Unlimited will clog the page, limited will take out the difficult ones.
- What does the challenger specify on making a challenge?
- a) only the name of the place: "Hash was in Berlin road. Do a hash at any place named something with Berlin" (e.g. any Berlin road, Berlin court, Berlinchen (=little Berlin, there actually is such a place), or whatever you find)
- b) name and type of place: "Hash was in Berlin road. Do a hash in the limits of any settlement actually named Berlin"
- c) specific place: "Hash was in Berlin road. Do a hash in the specific city of Berlin which is the capital of Germany"
My personal favourite at the moment would be a), but without graticules and without allowing only to pass through. - Ekorren
- I'd suggest that it's up to the challenger. One can always propose that then fulfilled the challenge and then be rebuffed, can't they? -- UnwiseOwl 08:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Support (if): I think the idea of this achievement is nice, so I support it with the following:
- Challenge not to a specific person, but to anyone. (So that unknown/new/less active geohashers can take part, and also people who might be in the area by chance. See above.) (O)
- Place like in Ekorren's a) or b) above. I'm not exactly against c), but it would be very difficult for small places. (O)
- An identical place should not be challenged twice. Otherwise every German geohasher would soon have challenged Berlin (German capital) with his/her local version of Berlin Road (and relet's user page would soon be cluttered with 10 times the same ribbon, I don't know if he wants that). (X, see below for why I don't agree yet.)
- Unlimited time period because of the tiny chance for the hashpoint to hit small places. (O)
- An "all open challenges page" is a good idea. (O)
- No challenges backwards in time. (O)
- I'm against the "passing through" variant. The hashpoint has to hit the place. (O) - Danatar 22:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I prefer a) as well, as it makes the achievement more open. - Wmcduff 21:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- I like the "open challenge" idea. I would just say "I have done a geohash in Surrey. I challenge the Internet to geohash in another Surrey." What would happen if two people took up the challenge before the challenge was announced completed? Can the ribbon go to all three people? -Robyn 04:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- I say yes to multiples (on the same day), and that that would be cool. :) I say no to identical challenges being banned, as actually hitting a road is suprisingly difficult. I might support a geohasher not being able to claim a place name more than once. - Wmcduff 14:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I think I challenge should never really be fully closed, but should be closed for a certain graticule after it has been claimed there. E.g. Someone from the Portland, Oregon graticule creates a challenge for Portland. The challenge cannot be completed in the Portland, Oregon graticule, by default. Someone reaches coordinates in Portland, Maine. All people who reached the coordinates on that day can claim the achievement, but no one else can claim the achievement in the Portland, Maine graticule. People from other graticules can complete the challenge for an honorable mention. --aperfectring 15:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think every challenge that has been fulfilled should be closed, making it a tale of two hashes. Also otherwise the same selection of easy challenges will be done over and over again instead of trying the new ones. If you really fulfil a Portland challenge, and think it should be continued, just start a new one on the same hash. You can do that, unless we decide on "no name twice" (but I don't expect that to get a majority, "no place twice" might be something else). Of course, if several people fulfil a challenge on the same day, no matter whether at the same place or not, all of them should get the ribbon. Probably also, if at the time someone reports back (s)he is the first one but someone else later claims to have done it the day before but just didn't find the time for a report. --Ekorren 18:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that only two hashes should get the award. However, I don't think that we should create new challenges with the same place name. I see that as a continuation of the initial one, not as a new thing. There are many places which have common names, and though this challenge has two in the title, I find it more in the spirit of the achievement that all places with a common name fall under one challenge. I advocate only the first two hashes claiming the actual achievement, the rest just getting mentioned in a place where we keep track of completed challenges. --aperfectring 00:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
DNO - I don't really think it's going to work; I think that most challenges will stay open indefinitely, but it's not going to cause any harm, and I'm happy to be proved wrong. -Robyn 08:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 Allowable Pairings
Which of the following source of a name would be legal in a pairing? I would think all of them. Are there any that you would rule out? I'll start with copying Wmcduff's list.
There's nothing preventing you from making a challenge based off the street, train station, or name of the farm you end up geohashing on. - Wmcduff 15:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Graticule name, city/villiage/town name, forest district, sister city, creek, anything with a sign proclaiming its name. Only thing not allowed is for the name to be bestowed for the purpose of gaining this achievemnt. ("I'll give you a dollar to put a sign on your fence naming your farm "Uchasumaku Pikwayipanan" for the day! -Robyn 17:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm basically with you here, although I would actually take out the graticule name. Why? Because it would be too easy in the rare case of actually existing pairs, and impossible anywhere else. Also, graticule names are geohasher-made, and not always free of discussion, error, and personal opinions. There are quite a number of graticules that are, for good reasons, not named by the largest settlement but by a geographic feature, a municipality that does not correspond with an actual settlement, a town that is slightly smaller by population but much more important, or a town that is smaller but in the center while the larger one would be split. --Ekorren 18:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Graticule names shouldn't count.
- Spelling variants and translated names should count (so e.g. that I can challenge Oxford when the next hashpoint falls into Ochsenfurt's city limits), also pairings like York/New York.
- Perhaps country names or other places that are larger than a graticule should only be available for being challenged, not to start a challenge from. Otherwise the town of Amerika/America, Netherlands would be the first on the list to be challenged, and that would be somehow boring. An extreme version of this would be that a significantly smaller place may not be challenged, only the other way round. - Danatar 22:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm currently against graticule names being allowed (which is odd, as that's what started it off!) but only by a sliver. As for same name different language? I'll agree, but some sort of external proof might be a good idea in this case. York/New York I'm more firmly against, but I suspect that it might be a good seperate achievement. What do others think? - Wmcduff 14:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 Time to Completion
I propose that the time the challenge was issued and the time the challenge was completed should be a part of the ribbon, allowing for a leaderboard, like Cold Geohash, available to this achievement. One should not have to complete the challenge in record time to get the achievement, but I think it could add some fun to the achievement. Perhaps it is a leaderboard for a month at a time? --aperfectring 15:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think a challenge that took half a year to be completed is even more interesting than an easy one which was fulfilled within of a week. So I can't see the additional achievement in doing fast (and probably easy) achievements, and a leader board by time doesn't make sense IMHO. --Ekorren 18:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- After more thought, I can agree that the time until challenge completion has little value. It could end up being that one which has been around for 6 months was actually an easy one that nobody got to, and it could also happen that an extremely interesting one happened after just a short period. I do think, however, we should include a "time that challenge was issued" on it, so that we can keep track of the longest outstanding challenges. I can see myself as being the kind of person who would deliberately search for hashes in nearby graticules which fulfill the long-outstanding challenges. --aperfectring 00:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- That should happen more or less automatically as long as we request that new challenges be added to the bottom of the list, even without an active time listed. - Wmcduff 15:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
As I understand it just now, it is the one who does the first expedition who should challenge someone else to do a matching one? I don't think that is actually feasible. On a graticule level, there are only a small number of possible pairings, which takes almost the whole world out of this challenge. On a lower-than-graticule (or let's say, lower-than-megapolis) level noone can really accept a challenge to geohash a specific place, as you never know when the coordinates may get there; also noone will issue all possible challenges around the world. As a result, most challenges will either be on a megapolis level or turned down, while the more interesting possible pairings will never be challenged. So, although I really like the idea of matching pairs, I oppose the achievement as it is now.
I would support an achievement that works the other way round, i.e. you find a past or same day expedition which matches yours, no matter whether the one who did that even knew about your place. This would give an additional incentive to go on an expedition you probably would skip otherwise. --Ekorren 15:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think you drastically underestimate the number of pairings, Ekorren. For your hash, I can find two other Stuttgarts , three Ulms , and half a dozen Weilheims in Germany  with a quick scan. I've also encouraged stretching, so there's nothing preventing you from making a challenge based off the street, train station, or name of the farm you end up geohashing on. It seems a more difficult challenge than it is, I think. Some might take a while, but that's part of the fun, isn't it? - Wmcduff 15:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- I do not underestimate the number of pairings, I just did a reality check on the fact that you need to challenge someone else, and the probability that an actual pairing will result in a successful achievement.
- If a hash falls into "my" Weilheim, which is a chance of about once in four years, and I hash there, I would still need to find another hasher near another Weilheim, which might have a similar chance, and who is willing to neglect the life he has only to hash there when available. To get a pairing done, I could just issue hundreds of challenges and go on everyones nerve with that, but it wouldn't really help. Myself, I couldn't do much for it, because in each case I see a pairing I could fulfil, I most probably haven't got the challenge. And that's the point I make: How cool would it be if a hash would fall into München be Bad Berka, a small village in Thuringia which happens to have the same name as the third largest city in Germany, and someone went there to pair it with the Munich everyone knows? But how dumb would it be to challenge each and every hasher who might come to Thuringia or not during the next century to hash in a village, where the hash might fall once in ten years? And how dumb would it be if someone has the chance to hash in München bei Bad Berka but this does not count only because this hasher did not get challenged before to do that by someone who did the other half?
- I know that my proposal would turn the achievement totally around, which is why I said "oppose" and not "needs work" in the former post. --Ekorren 15:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- The problem with the reverse is that it becomes less of a geohashing achievement and more of a research achievement. (Has someone done this versus go do this, if your see what I mean). I think it has to be a challenge, but it could possibly be more open, so that rather than a specific person doing it, there could be a list of open challenges on the achievement page. You claim a challenge, do it, and get the ribbon. Would this be more acceptable? So after doing Wilheim, Stuttgart, you could post an open challenge to one of the other Weilhiems. Might sit for a while, admittedly, but it's another reason to look at different hashes! - Wmcduff 16:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- What's better at that version is that it no more is a challenge to a specific person, so that also less-known less-active people can take part in it, and you can fulfil it by going somewhere where others wouldn't expected you to go. But in this variant, the best you can do is to do a regular hash, and then try and think up as many challenges as you can, likely and impossible, which you just throw out at the public in case there might be someone who happens to get an appropriate hash years later. So I still would prefer to do it without the challenging part but on the other hand accept a number of other restrictions about time between the expeditions and maybe kind of places. I still think that if there is a possible pairing, especially between two small or remote places, validity should not depend on whether the first one issued just that challenge. --Ekorren 17:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Here's an idea I passed over earlier: Maybe there's some way to do it, with the geohashers having to pass through the identically named place on the way to their geohash, and not necessarily have the geohash fall there. So I'm geohashing somewhere and come across a Berlin Street, I photograph it, go on to my own geohash, and then challenge a jelly doughnut. (Ich bin ein Berliner). I really like the idea of an "open challenges" page. -Robyn 17:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Somehow that would degrade the achievement to a "how many miles of detour can you afford" kind, wouldn't it? --Ekorren 18:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- I thought of it more as changing "waiting for the impossibly small chance of the geohash falling in this town" to "waiting for a geohash that is in the general direction of this town." But I see your point. Could the magnitude of the required detour be defined? Would "the twinned town must be closer to the geohash than your origin" suffice? I can't see how this will work as other than a research/lucky location achievement if the points have to fall within municipal boundaries or on an actual street. -Robyn 18:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Somehow that would degrade the achievement to a "how many miles of detour can you afford" kind, wouldn't it? --Ekorren 18:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- If we have a page that collects all open challenges, it will be a kind of lucky location for the one fulfilling the challenge. For the one starting it, it will be a challenge to think up realistic and/or interesting challenges. And yes, I will check my hashpoints against the list, and make an extra effort to fulfil them if I can. I don't think I will do much extra effort for just passing through somewhere, though. And some of them will get really easy then, for example a "Berliner Strasse" (Berlin road) exists in almost every smaller town in Germany. --Ekorren 19:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think completion of a challenge must occur at the hash if the challenges are open and not on the way. Harder to complete, perhaps, but on the way seems a bit too easy. - Wmcduff 21:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Challenge System Details: the wording on the achievement page is excellent. Clear and good at closing loopholes. The open challenge ribbon will put the challenging expedition in the category, and then I assume that category page would also have a more readable list of challenges? I can imagine looking at the list of open challenges and then seeing that a neighbouring graticule geohash for today is on Kamloops Street, and that Rhonda's mom from Kamloops has an open challenge, so racing over there. This is going to be good. Also regarding the number of open challnges: it should be one per geohash, but unlimited per geohasher. That makes me choose between issuing the challenge based on state, city, street or the name of the school, but allows me to do it again next time. -Robyn 17:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 Sister Cities
I think Sister Cities should not be included in this achievement...I think it should be its own achievement! - Wmcduff 13:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Support Unconditionally this looks like funnsies. I think the challenge setter should be free to set whatever conditions on it they like, might make it your intriguing than setting a blanket rule. -- UnwiseOwl 07:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 The Genesis of the Idea
Hi! I'm wmcduff from the Bathurst, New Brunswick, Canada graticule. If I ever get off my rear end and do a hash, and you do one on the same day, we should totally both get a gratuitous ribbon for that. (Tale of Two Cities Achievement!) - 17:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sound like a good idea :). Due to the whole date issue though, it might be hard finding a day where we can both reach the hash point. I'll attempt anything nearby, and I'll keep watching your userpage. Ephphatha 14:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think you're ahead of me temporally speaking. Though send an alert my way if you get a Bathurst, Austrailia hash done, and I'll do my darndest to match the effort on this side of the globe! :) - Wmcduff 16:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- I like what I suspect is your achievement proposal. I assume it is for people in two or more graticules to reach geohashes within the legal boundaries of different cities with the same name (spelling counts?) on the same day? -Robyn 16:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Mmm, that would be a good achievement! I was just thinking graticules with the same city name (Bathurst; Portland, OR & Portland, ME.) but your idea would be very neat. Special notice if both are done by one person of course. (Say, Vancouver, BC and Vancouver, WA, if that's even possible... :D) - Wmcduff 17:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- I like this idea. There's also two Edmontons (Alberta, Canada; Kentucky, USA). --Meghan 17:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Oh wait, my way makes it harder for the coordinates to work ... oh almost impossible, really, because unless the cities were really large, in the same centicule (or across the 30W line) they would never match. Maybe there's some way to do it, with the geohashers having to pass through the identically named city on the way to their geohash. It needs to be extended to more than just identically named graticules, though, or else it's unfair to people in places like Uchasumaku Pikwayipanan, Québec (not that there's anyone there, but you know what I mean). I really like the idea of a cooperative achievement that has to work across graticules, kind of like the hashcard. Maybe one person does a geohash in a city/town/region/graticule then sends a challenge to a person who is near an identially named one and when the recipent of the challenge gets a geohash there, both parties get the ribbon. Or you could do it yourself by getting two different places on different dates yourself. The "both on the same day" aspect could then be a bonus, for people with the same graticule name, or really lucky coordinates. Gee, we should make a proposal page for this. -Robyn 18:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm. A Tale of Two Hashes achievement for meeting the challenge of a geohasher and hashing a similarly named city within a week, bonus points for a) doing it on the same day or b) doing it yourself. Slightly lesser kudos for doing this in similarly named graiticules. What do people think?- Wmcduff 18:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I like this one. and in fact the idea of having a number of cooperative achievements is good. mykaDragonBlue [- i have no sig -] 03:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 Time Periods
Seven days may seem reasonable, but bear in mind that Vancouver is among the largest cities in Canada and the geohash hasn't fallen within Vancouver city limits for 75 days. Also many geohashers only go out every couple of weeks or so. I think the short time period is too restrictive, and any time period might be. What about the case where you have done a geohash in Paris, Texas, and then a year later a geohasher becomes active in Paris, France. I think you should then be able to challenge them. I agree that it shouldn't be applicable to people who discover "oh look in the past I did London, England and you did London, Ontario - we can get an achievement," however. -Robyn 05:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- Mmm. I was thinking unlimited for smaller than grat, and seven days for a full grat (I mean, surely one doable hash in a week is reasonable, no?) but, thinking about it, since we don't have any other co-op achievements yet, it makes it more difficult unnecessarily. So OK, no time limits on when the second hash must be done.
- However, I think the challenge aspect should be made when you're reporting the hash because you can challenge someone nearby, which gets people out of their grat on occasion. (Perhaps as part of the write up? Could we have a challenge ribbon?) Silly challanges (like asking you to geohash Darwin, Australia) can always be declined, after all. So, challenges made on a successful hash, ribbon received when the other party does their part? - Wmcduff 14:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- One doable hash in a week may not coincide with the one available day some people have for geohashing. Especially in the graticules which aren't covered by road networks. I'd support no time restriction, but also no retroactive discovery: the second hash should be done after the challenge is issued and accepted. -- Rhonda 16:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see a need for a time limit at all. Having long lasting challenges just adds to their rarity value, in my opinion. The chances of two hashes landing in a similarly named place in a week seem to me to be ridiculously small. -- UnwiseOwl 08:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
How about the proof is the regular proof, plus side by side pictures of signs (one provided by each geohasher) identifying the locations. If it's a sister city a sign proclaiming the twinning is greatly preferred, but a web link to a proclamation is acceptable.
- Stupid grin™ optional, but encouraged. - Wmcduff 21:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)