Talk:San Diego, California

From Geo Hashing
Jump to: navigation, search

I agree. This also fixes things for us South-Orange-County-ers.

The San Diego graticule should be 32, -117. However, this poses a problem as almost all of this graticule lies in the ocean or in mexico. One suggestion for fixing this issue is to offset the graticule by .5 in both latitude and longitude (i.e. 32.5, -116.5) so that more territory in the US is accessible, while still leaving the possibility of Mexican venues. On the other hand, we could just keep it pure and expect to find few in any people at the mexican or pelagic venues which would predominate.

A possible solution to wrap the coordinates into the three neighboring graticules on the east, north and northeast when the location falls off US soil.
Another possible solution is to wrap over into the next graticule east when the location falls in the ocean and then wrap over to the two graticules north of those two when the location falls south of the border as seen in the illustration to the right.

--Cahlroisse 05:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure "wrap" is the right word. It's simple: you can just choose to visit the hash for a neighboring graticule! Or not! (Me)

Choosing a neighboring graticule seems like the most sensible solution to me as well. Somnivore 21:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
yes that should work perfectly, only one graticule will be closest to san diego from the four neighboring graticules and should provide quite a nice area for meetups. see ya there saturday at 4pm!
Curley 17:05, 09 June 2008 (UTC)

For clarity, any plan above was shot down in favor of simply visiting another graticule. Shifting graticules would create unexpected consequences for regional and reverse regional geohashes. They would also break most of the existing tools and require the hasher to do calculus, trigonometry or some sort of addition and subtraction. The front page comments about this method has been removed. Stephen Cerruti (talk) 23:42, 30 July 2013 (EDT)

[edit] 2012 Revisions

Can we remove the stuff on the front page about alternate strategies since it is resolved? Stephen Cerruti 02:44, 26 April 2012 (EDT) Done Stephen Cerruti (talk) 23:42, 30 July 2013 (EDT)

Can we remove notable date entries without expeditions? If they were notable then wouldn't they be documented? Stephen Cerruti 02:44, 26 April 2012 (EDT)

I agree, this should be placed on the main page for san diego. I feel more people would see it and show up. Curley 11:03, 30 May 2012 (EDT)

Curley -- er, what should be on the main page, and what page is that? JesseW 13:56, 30 May 2012 (EDT)

[edit] graticule page cleanup

I've been going through the wiki graticule-by-graticule updating and cleaning up the graticule pages. This is the first graticule I've hit where both a)There are local geohashers who have been updating the page recently, and b)more than a couple of expedition pages are not linked from the graticule page. I note that there has been previous discussion about cleaning up the 'notable dates' section on the page. Might I suggest cutting the notable dates section down to just those expeditions which were notable in some way (first attempt, first success, particluarly noteworthy location, large number of attendees, etc.), and a separate section which just lists all documented expeditions (possibly excluding planning-only pages)? I'm more than happy to do the work, but I'd like input from the geohashers who have actually been maintaining this page up until now. --Eldin (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2013 (EDT)

I made some suggestions regarding cleaning up this page over a year ago. Those suggestions should be implemented. I also recommend that you look at how the Santa Ana graticule page is arranged. It's not perfect, but I like that the expeditions are all automatically updated. Notable events should contain ribbons. (If I were to make a change on Santa Ana I would move notable events first and then expeditions and eventually just keep the first (n) expeditions with an entire list on a separate page.) Any changes you want to make are fine with me. Stephen Cerruti (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2013 (EDT)
Ok. I've put an explanation of the default meetup strategy decided on above at the top of the graticule page, and set up an auto-generated expedition list using the same format as the Santa Ana graticule's page. Once the list populates, cleanup of the Notable Dates to just those expeditions which are actually somehow noteworthy can begin.
That default meetup strategy actually doesn't work as many of the at sea points in this graticule actually are at sea in Santa Ana as well. I will think up some clever verbiage and replace it. Thanks again for the edits. Stephen Cerruti (talk) 23:12, 30 July 2013 (EDT)
If the Santa Ana point is at sea, the default strategy as I outlined it should result in a point in either the Tecate or Borrego Springs graticules. Though now that I've seen your edit, I agree that your wording reads better than mine. --Eldin (talk) 23:45, 30 July 2013 (EDT)

I've removed the items from the Notable Dates list which did not have any documented expedition. The expeditions linked from the remaining items should probably be reviewed to see if those dates are actually noteworthy beyond simply having had an expedition. --Eldin (talk) 12:34, 3 August 2013 (EDT)