Talk:Calgary, Alberta

From Geo Hashing
Jump to: navigation, search

I added Calgary to the list of Active Graticules on When I first added it though, I called it Calgary, AB which created a new and different page than this one. I have since deleted that and changed the listing so that it directs to this page but I think it would better if the page was Calgary, AB as that is how the majority of other cities are listed.

This has been fixed to current Naming conventions. --Thomcat 17:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Nordegg Rocky Mountain House Red Deer Stettler
Banff Calgary NW Calgary NE Drumheller
Fairmont Hot SpringsCalgary SW Calgary SE Bassano
Cranbrook Sparwood Fort MacLeod Lethbridge

Hi guys, you might be interested in this template I made: Template:GraticuleQ. It lets you specify four-graticule cities like yours in a single wossname. I quickly whipped up this example → , with the four huge maps... normally you'd probably only specify a single map, and make it an image or something (there's an example on the template page). Anyway, it's there if you want to check it out. --Matty 10:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Renaming the suburb graticules[edit]

Looking at the Calgary graticules, it doesn't really make that much sense to me that 51,-113; 50,-113; and 50,-114 are labeled as Calgary just because Calgary's suburbs hang a bit into them. If you showed me pictures of those graticules on their own, I'd identify them as Strathmore area, Okotoks/Claresholm area, and Black Diamond area. IMO, doing the following renamings would do a better job of describing the region:

  • 51,-114: Calgary NW -> Calgary
  • 51,-113: Calgary NE -> Strathmore
  • 50,-113: Calgary SE -> Okotoks
  • 50,-114: Calgary SW -> Black Diamond

What do people think of this? - Elbie 05:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I lived in Calgary for 10 years, and my family still lives there. (I know that you know Elbie, but for others.) My thoughts:

  • 51, -114 Calgary NW: This is definitely the primary Calgary graticule. If any renaming is done, this one should become Calgary.
  • 51, -113 Calgary NE: Calgary has grown a lot in this area in recent years. In addition, the part of Calgary in the graticule is much larger than Strathmore as a whole.
  • 50, -113 Calgary SE: Industrial Calgary. Population wise, Okotoks may be larger, but land wise, the industrial area is enormous. Some housing developments for Calgary too, but mostly industrial.
  • 50, -114 Calgary SW: This one is largely Calgary too. Behind NW, this is the largest. Fish Creek Park (most of it) and Glenmore Reservoir are both in this area, which are central parts of Calgary. Not to mention (most of) Chinook Centre.

In short, I oppose renaming these graticules. If they had to, I may consent to:

  • Calgary NW -> Calgary North
  • Calgary NE -> Strathmore
  • Calgary SE -> Okotoks
  • Calgary SW -> Calgary South

However, personally I prefer the NW/NE/SE/SW system. From my (obviously biased) point of view, it describes the area well. Renaming to the suburbs, when the suburbs are so small compared to the chunk of Calgary, doesn't make as much sense. Airdrie would be a good alternate, but unfortunately it is in the same graticule as Calgary NW. -Srs0 09:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I know I'm not adding much to the conversation, but I'll still throw my two cents in. I'm going to have to agree with Srs0 on this one. I prefer the quadrant system as well, since Calgary is quickly growing further than Google maps makes it look. --Meghan 16:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

All right, I'm dropping my proposal. Thanks for all the input! - Elbie 18:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

keep nw we ne se[edit]

Calgary is one of the few cities in the world that I support having four graticules this way. Even tje street names demand it. The actual city is centred right over the corner, so thevdownton is in all four quadrants, it is by far the most significant city in the area.

Another idea...[edit]

Calgary NW | Calgary NE
- - - - Calgary - - - -
Calgary SW | Calgary SE

Here, a 1° by 1° box is represented... based on a cropped screenshot of perhaps the individual graticule pages would just have "automatic" links to the relevant categories, and refer people to the "main" calgary graticule.

Going outside the boundary of the Calgary box, there are (would be) 4 normal graticule pages. Anyone who resides in (or wishes to visit) the 75% of land area from the 4 graticules that is *not* part of the Calgary box would be free to use the graticule as normal (but probably with an indication on the relevant page that planning for one quadrant of the graticule was on "the main calgary page"), so as well as the central Calgary box overlapping these graticules, they are also the adjacent ones.

Perhaps some tweaks to other templates and/or server scripts could also allow the unique point within this box for a specific day to be returned.

A similar concept could also be used for any other unaligned localities which nevertheless want co-ordinated planning... e.g. anywhere where there is a significant population with the first decimal of lat or long being 0 or 9 (a surprisingly large 36% of all possible locations in a graticule are within 10% of the border).

As a newcomer I found the previous discussion somewhat interesting - there seem to be two camps - one camp wants a single co-ordinated page to do planning for their area, and another wants to ensure that each graticule has a page. Hopefully this method should allow the best of both worlds... anyway - I should probably stop sticking my nose in, get a GPS receiver and do something in my own inactive graticule! SteveL 16:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)