+Kryten Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 Rutsons list is preferable Quote Link to comment
Deceangi Posted February 14, 2008 Author Share Posted February 14, 2008 The problem here is everyone has their own view of what is and is not a County, you have to use the present day legislated list, this is and always will be the only way. But I'm sure that Groundspeak will not be keen on updating there lists each time the UK government decides to change this. Surely it would be better to agree on a historic list of some sort which is fixed. As no physical boundary's will be used, any future revisions by the English or Scottish Governments [ I don't believe the Welsh Assembly has been devolved this power yet] would not affect the list. As stated the list is to solely provide a extra level of filtering when running a PQ or cache search. To insure the maximum amount of opinions can be obtained, I've posted the following to all the UK forums Would every UK Cacher please visit This Topic on Groundspeaks UK Forum in particular post 37. And express a preference on the 2 options Deceangi UK Reviewer Geocaching.com With a slightly edited version to catch any NI cachers who solely visit the Ireland forum. We'll leave open the collection of opinions until Noon Saturday 16th Febuary Quote Link to comment
+Haggis Hunter Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 Of those two, Rutson's list, every time. The alternative has far too many unitary authorities, which in most cases, to most people, are not counties. Many of them aren't even cities. Couldn't agree more. Rutson's list gets my vote. Quote Link to comment
+astra-nomical Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 Another vote here for Rutsons list. Quote Link to comment
+Haggis Hunter Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 As no physical boundary's will be used, any future revisions by the English or Scottish Governments [ I don't believe the Welsh Assembly has been devolved this power yet] would not affect the list. As stated the list is to solely provide a extra level of filtering when running a PQ or cache search. I expect I am being stupid here, but with no boundaries, how does the filter work? Quote Link to comment
+Birdman-of-liskatraz Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 A vote for Rutson - though being in the Duchy of Cornwall it's not too much a issue anyway as our border dosen't change often.. Quote Link to comment
+OldNickCov Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 As no physical boundary's will be used, any future revisions by the English or Scottish Governments [ I don't believe the Welsh Assembly has been devolved this power yet] would not affect the list. As stated the list is to solely provide a extra level of filtering when running a PQ or cache search. I expect I am being stupid here, but with no boundaries, how does the filter work? When setting the cache, people select the county from a drop down list. The county selected is stored with the cache details. When searching, the searchers may select a county (or several? not clear) from a drop down list. If they do, the list of caches returned is filtered to match the selected county(ies). Quote Link to comment
+Moote Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 Awwww! What about Lancashire police? Which authority manages them? BlackburnCity of Lacaster City of Preston Hynburn Pendle Ribble Valley Blackpool Wyre Burnley I could carry on, but all are within the County of Lancashire and are serviced by the Lancashire Police and Fire Services. And managed by Lancashire County Council Quote Link to comment
+Belplasca Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 As many have said, neither is perfect - my address is in Middlesex, not London, yet Middlesex is not on either list... However, since having a list is better than the current situation, I'll go with Rutsons list. It will still be almost acceptable in a few years time when the other one has become completely unacceptable. Bob Aldridge Quote Link to comment
+Guanajuato Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 My point was that there is a list, it is provided in the 1972 Act which created the present Counties, these boundaries were not removed or altered by the 2000 0r 2003 acts, so the boundaries are as 1973. And therein lies the confuision - There is the present list (i.e. the adminstrative counties with loads of unitary authorities) and the ceremonial counties list. Rutson's list seems to be the ceremonial list, as defined in the Lieutenancies Act 1997. I understood you to be advocating using the current administrative counties, which could be changed any time. So it appears we actually agree! Quote Link to comment
+HazelS Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 (edited) A vote for Mr Rutson from my camp.... At least Wirral will be recognised - better than one of the alternatives - where Merseyside was not on the map, and Cheshire wouldn't have us!!! I'll be glad of the ability to select counties - I have the same problem as Deci... I live on a penninsula and as I've done all bar one of the caches here, it tells me my nearest cache is 4.6 miles away. The only trouble is that that's as the crow flies... In order to get to that cache, I have to drive for around 30 minutes! On the other side of the penninsula it's a good 30 mile drive to the nearest cache - again - across the water... but then I do get to see the lovely Deci when I make the pilgrimage to Welsh Wales!!! Edited February 14, 2008 by HazelS Quote Link to comment
KC_Jan Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 We vote Rutsons list Quote Link to comment
+The Other Stu Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 I used to live in Bucks but then was moved to Berks by the nice government people (although before there it was Middx!). Then I moved to Beds, but it used to be in Bucks too! Ian's list is the one I usually go by. out of interest, when we create caches, will we then be given the option of picking the county? I'm just intrigued because I live so close to the Bucks/Herts/Beds border that sometimes it's difficult. For instance, a nice fella called "The Hornet" placed a cache in one end of a park, Andybug and Ladybird put one at the other end. There's barely 0.4 between them (caches in Question are "Down in the Park" and "Greensand Ridge"). I'm not sure even the most accurate map will decide where Greensand Ridge is - it appears to straddle the border! Quote Link to comment
Alan White Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 Including counties for caches in NI which are listed in the UK would help to remove them from searches for caches by those in Scotland. NI is unique in that caches there may be listed as being either in the UK or Ireland. Ideally the same counties would be added to the Ireland Counties list as well. Until such time as GC renames the area Ireland-RoI & NI or similar, to take into account the uniqueness of the area. OT, but, sorry, that makes no sense at all. Northern Ireland, whether some of its population like it or not, is in the UK. All caches in NI should be listed in the UK. As things are now, anyone wanting a complete list of NI caches has to look in both Ireland and UK. As a general consensus does not seem reachable I thought that I'd put the following 2 lists forward and ask every one to indicate a preference [please remember you considering Administration areas only for filtering purposes, and not physical boundaries] By definition, a discussion about counties can't be about physical boundaries. Counties, and the entities which have replaced them, are political not physical. Sure, the political boundaries often follow physical features - mostly rivers - but that doesn't change the principle. Option One: Administration Geography of the UK click on Open Top 2 Levels I can't read that. Clicking the button returns an object error. Option Two: Rutsons list "Rutson's list" is merely the ceremonial counties list referred to much further up the thread. It's adequate, but Bristol??? I can't say I agree with splitting up Yorkshire either but I guess history is against me on that one . As Phillimore Clan point out, boundaries will move. How will the caches be kept correct? The answer is they won't, which means that the data will become more and more incorrect over time. If the requirement - if indeed there is a requirement: I'm still not sure what it is we're trying to fix - is to make PQs work better for areas then the best solution is for PQs to work with polygons rather than circles. This provides a lower level of granularity than countries, is much more flexible, and is self-maintaining as it works from the cache coords. Quote Link to comment
+pklong Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 Rutsons list please, with some additions as this is a list to help us geographically (and as we have Eire included). 1. Scilly Isles 2. Isle of Mann 3. Channel Islands 4. Orkney 5. Shetland Philip Quote Link to comment
Alan White Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 my address is in Middlesex, not London, yet Middlesex is not on either list... Middlesex isn't on any modern list because it hasn't existed since 1974. Royal Mail were the last bastion of the use of Middlesex and even they've dropped it now. Quote Link to comment
+Dobunnis Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 (edited) Noooo! Not another county list... That means we will have to go driving all around the country again The worrying thing is that there are a lot more Scottish counties than on the GCUK list, but we like going to Scotland Now we realise this is just for searching but there are a few stats sites that list cache finds by county. GCUK is one and NotAboutTheNumbers is another. These seem to near enough concer; going to our profile page will bring up a list of all the UK counties according to the latter - 76 in total. The former uses a polygon filter and the latter asks people which county a new cache is in once it appears on their database. It would be nice if there was some agreement if only so people who want to get a coloured county on their map or another number in the GCUK table can be confident when they search. I guess whichever list is finalised could be used by these sites also given time or it could even be listed by GC. If we only have the choice of the two given then Rutson's list would seem the more reasonable from what I have read but I cannot get the other list while at work. Ultimately as long as people can recognise all the counties and none are too big or too small (so for example Yorkshire as a whole would be too large but Rutland may be a bit on the small side) then it does not really matter, Helen Edited February 14, 2008 by T-girls Quote Link to comment
barryhunter Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 Option One: Administration Geography of the UK click on Open Top 2 Levels I can't read that. Clicking the button returns an object error. Table version here that doesnt require Javascript. Quote Link to comment
Alan White Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 Rutsons list please, with some additions as this is a list to help us geographically (and as we have Eire included). 1. Scilly Isles 2. Isle of Mann 3. Channel Islands 4. Orkney 5. Shetland Philip IOM and CI are already separate countries, available in the country drop-down lists in PQs and cache listings. Your post neatly makes the point: the requirement - someone do please correct me - is for meaningful physical areas. Counties don't achieve that, except coincidentally. Quote Link to comment
+Happy Humphrey Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 "Rutson's list" is merely the ceremonial counties list referred to much further up the thread. It's adequate, but Bristol??? I can't say I agree with splitting up Yorkshire either but I guess history is against me on that one . It's similar: how about this for a better list though. As Phillimore Clan point out, boundaries will move. How will the caches be kept correct? Boundaries don't matter a great deal for the purpose of this exercise. As I said above, as a local you'll have a good idea that your cache is in Berkshire so you can select "Berkshire" from the list. Sometimes it's going to be debatable whether the cache really IS in Berkshire, but no doubt the cache description can be changed if enough complaints are received by the cache owner. Quote Link to comment
+reddeeps Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 Rutsons list for us Quote Link to comment
Alan White Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 Table version here that doesnt require Javascript. Thanks, Barry, though JS isn't the problem (at least, it's not anywhere else). Actually, I (alone ) like your list. Because it uses the correct political subdivisions then it's capable of defining the area of the cache much more precisely. Unfortunately Groundspeak doesn't have enough data fields to accommodate that system, and in any case I'm not sure that it's sufficiently meaningful to those from outside the area. And I still think what we're really asking for are physical boundaries not political ones . Quote Link to comment
+Happy Humphrey Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 (edited) Rutsons list please, with some additions as this is a list to help us geographically (and as we have Eire included). 1. Scilly Isles 2. Isle of Mann 3. Channel Islands 4. Orkney 5. Shetland Philip IOM and CI are already separate countries, available in the country drop-down lists in PQs and cache listings. True: I propose the Ceremonial Counties Listwith the addition of the Scilly Isles (plus Anglesey?), and removal of Channel Isles (Orkney and Shetland are already in). Your post neatly makes the point: the requirement - someone do please correct me - is for meaningful physical areas. Counties don't achieve that, except coincidentally. You're right, it's arbitrary: but there's not really another sensible way of splitting the country up at this scale and this list will serve a purpose in several cases (the Isle of Wight is an obvious example). Edited February 14, 2008 by Happy Humphrey Quote Link to comment
+T.R.a.M.P. Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 As a general consensus does not seem reachable I thought that I'd put the following 2 lists forward and ask every one to indicate a preference [please remember you considering Administration areas only for filtering purposes, and not physical boundaries] Option One: Administration Geography of the UK click on Open Top 2 Levels Option Two: Rutsons list Of those two, Rutson's list, every time. The alternative has far too many unitary authorities, which in most cases, to most people, are not counties. Many of them aren't even cities. What the man said - Rutsons list for me. Quote Link to comment
Alan White Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 It's similar: how about this for a better list though. Ah, much more interesting . As Phillimore Clan point out, boundaries will move. How will the caches be kept correct? Boundaries don't matter a great deal for the purpose of this exercise. As I said above, as a local you'll have a good idea that your cache is in Berkshire so you can select "Berkshire" from the list. Sometimes it's going to be debatable whether the cache really IS in Berkshire, but no doubt the cache description can be changed if enough complaints are received by the cache owner. You miss the point. Of course boundaries matter - that's what defines which county the cache is in . Setting the county at the time of cache placement is the easy bit. What happens when the boundary moves? What happens when the "county" is renamed? What happens when the cache is moved to the other side of the boundary? All data, just like caches, requires maintenance. Quote Link to comment
+Moote Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 Someone mentioned Lieutenancies Act 1997, but this only covers 14 counties, it ius in no way a definitive list Quote Link to comment
+perth pathfinders Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 Rutsons list looks the least complicated to me! Vote for that one! Quote Link to comment
+Happy Humphrey Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 As this is complicated: how about the following (which is basically the Ceremonial Counties list with a few adjustments, similar to the Rutson List); Aberdeenshire Anglesey Angus Argyll and Bute Ayrshire and Arran Banffshire Bedfordshire Belfast Berkshire Berwickshire Buckinghamshire Caithness Cambridgeshire Cheshire City of Aberdeen City of Bristol City of Dundee City of Edinburgh City of Glasgow City of London Clackmannanshire Clwyd Cornwall County Antrim County Armgh County Derry County Down County Fermanagh County Tyrone Cumbria Derbyshire Devon Dorset Dumfries Dunbartonshire Durham Dyfed East Lothian East Riding of Yorkshire East Sussex Essex Fife Gloucestershire Greater London Greater Manchester Gwent Gwynedd Hampshire Herefordshire Hertfordshire Inverness Isle of Wight Isles of Scilly Kent Kincardineshire Lanarkshire Lancashire Leicestershire Lincolnshire Londonderry / Derry Merseyside Mid Glamorgan Midlothian Moray Nairn Norfolk North Yorkshire Northamptonshire Northumberland Nottinghamshire Orkney Oxfordshire Perth and Kinross Powys Renfrewshire Ross and Cromarty Roxburgh, Ettrick and Lauderdale Rutland Shetland Shropshire Somerset South Glamorgan South Yorkshire Staffordshire Stirling and Falkirk Suffolk Surrey Sutherland The Stewartry of Kirkcudbright Tweeddale Tyne and Wear Warwickshire West Glamorgan West Lothian West Midlands West Sussex West Yorkshire Western Isles Wigton Wiltshire Worcestershire Quote Link to comment
Deceangi Posted February 14, 2008 Author Share Posted February 14, 2008 Just to clarify a couple of points. the counties list will only form a drop down list which will add the chosen one to the country. So any search will filter out all except that chosen ie: UK-Cheshire will only show caches which the owner has designated to be in Cheshire. No physical boundary's will be used, just like now it's possible to submit a cache as being in the UK but the coordinates place it in Ghana [and yes I have seen this happen]. UK and County are just key words for the system to search for, adding the UK ones will just add a level of filtering to searches based on keyword alone. Unless you do a specific search based on coordinates, GC searches are key word based for the most part. OT, but, sorry, that makes no sense at all. Northern Ireland, whether some of its population like it or not, is in the UK. All caches in NI should be listed in the UK. As things are now, anyone wanting a complete list of NI caches has to look in both Ireland and UK. What would make complete sense is for Ireland to indicate that it covers both RoI & NI. You have to remember the Country's used by GC are for Administration purposes only [The UN lists 100+ country's, GC 200+]. Ireland when the system was set up was intended to cover the whole of the Island [both RoI & NI] but due to vocal complaints by a section of the caching community in NI, they agreed to allow the owner to chose between either country. What does not make sense is for Scottish cachers to end up with caches in NI in searches, and cachers who live in RoI not to have caches in NI picked up in searches [travelling down some roads on the border and you can cross into both RoI and NI 3 or 4 times in less than a mile] Quote Link to comment
+John Stead Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 I would prefer Level One of Option One. I would have been happy with Rutson's list but it includes Merseyside which in spite of what Hazel says does not exist in my book. To have Levels One and Two of Option One seems to me to be over complicated and I would be quite content with the larger spreads. Quote Link to comment
+Happy Humphrey Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 Someone mentioned Lieutenancies Act 1997, but this only covers 14 counties, it ius in no way a definitive list I think you've misread the Act there. The counties as mentioned in the Act are the "Ceremonial Counties", i.e. the ones I listed above. The fourteen are cases where two or more LGA's are merged into one county. Quote Link to comment
+Guanajuato Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 Someone mentioned Lieutenancies Act 1997, but this only covers 14 counties, it ius in no way a definitive list "The counties in England for the purposes of this Act are— ( a ) Greater London (excluding the City of London); ( b ) the areas which are to be regarded as counties for those purposes by virtue of paragraph 3; and ( c ) any other areas in England which are counties for the purposes of the [1972. c. 70.] Local Government Act 1972. " Link to the act The 1972 list formed the administrative counties such as North Yorks, Cumbria, Humberside, Teesside, but the 1997 act then replaced certain 'new' and put them into ceremonial counties which are loosely based on the 1972 adminstrative counties. Examples are Teeside being split between Durham & North Yorks, Humberside being split between East Riding and Lincolnshire. Therefore it covers the 1972 counties and subesequent amendments to arrive at the ceremonial list, on which Rutson's list is based. Maybe we should use: Strathclyde, Northumberland, Danish Mercia, English Mercia, Kingdom of Guthrum, Wessex and its dependencies, Wales and Scotland? See here Cue loads of marauding Scots claiming Strathclyde as Scottish. Pah. Now I shall stop being silly/argumentative (depends on your point of view I guess) and get back to work. Quote Link to comment
+PopUpPirate Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 Ohhhhhh heck, it's all going complicated again. You know, I don't think we actually deserve counties. Quote Link to comment
+spannerman Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 OK. We will choose our County when submitting new caches but what about all the current caches. Will it be up to the owners to edit the details? Unless every cache is correctly classified the County search will never be very accurate, or am I missing something here? Quote Link to comment
+Guanajuato Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 You know, I don't think we actually deserve counties. You know, this is much more fun than work! I'm supposed to be checking a document, and its really tedious. That might be why I'm being overly picky - it takes a certain mindset I to do what I'm doing. We're not even allow crayons here. Now stop distracting me. Quote Link to comment
Alan White Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 OK. We will choose our County when submitting new caches but what about all the current caches. Will it be up to the owners to edit the details? Unless every cache is correctly classified the County search will never be very accurate, or am I missing something here? Unless every cache is correctly classified the County search will never be very accurate work Quote Link to comment
Alan White Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 Ohhhhhh heck, it's all going complicated again. You know, I don't think we actually deserve counties. Hey, you found Tiddles (Poor Tiddles! for those who don't understand. Quote Link to comment
+Jaz666 Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 Time to throw in an alternative suggestion. If we really can't decide on a definitive list, how about we opt for the top level of Postal Code districts instead. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Post..._United_Kingdom Quote Link to comment
+Jonovich Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 I guess the answer is to not have Groundspeak derived counties, but instead have some macro or code to assign county names based on a set of county border templates... Everyone can then have their own set of templates/names to suit their own personal requirements... J Quote Link to comment
+Kersti.com Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 I'm seeing various options for Derry / Londonderry - can I suggest that we resolve that issue first Sorry, couldn't resist.... It strikes me that if the areas are too granular then people will be doing searches for countries instead in order to get a wide enough local. This is to aid, not be your local search. Quote Link to comment
+Mad H@ter Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 Ohhhhhh heck, it's all going complicated again. You know, I don't think we actually deserve counties. Hey, is that Tiddles ? Of the two choices I'd say it has to be Rutsons list. Mind you I'm not sure how useful this is going to be with 20,000 odd caches already in existence that won't have this data attached! Quote Link to comment
+Windsocker Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 I'm seeing various options for Derry / Londonderry - can I suggest that we resolve that issue first Sorry, couldn't resist.... It strikes me that if the areas are too granular then people will be doing searches for countries instead in order to get a wide enough local. This is to aid, not be your local search. it's Derry Quote Link to comment
+perth pathfinders Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 Time to throw in an alternative suggestion. If we really can't decide on a definitive list, how about we opt for the top level of Postal Code districts instead. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Post..._United_Kingdom That wouldn't work, who knows the postcode apart from those who live there? e.g. the DN postcode would include places on the lincolnshire east coast, although DN (Doncaster) is in Yorkshire (north I think?) Quote Link to comment
+The Other Stu Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 Time to throw in an alternative suggestion. If we really can't decide on a definitive list, how about we opt for the top level of Postal Code districts instead. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Post..._United_Kingdom That wouldn't work, who knows the postcode apart from those who live there? e.g. the DN postcode would include places on the lincolnshire east coast, although DN (Doncaster) is in Yorkshire (north I think?) And I'm sure that people in Aylesbury and High Wycombe (very much Bucks) don't want to be in Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire! Quote Link to comment
+redtalut Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 Rutsons list is my vote Quote Link to comment
+Moote Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 Maybe we should just forget it and just have the selection of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland as countries Quote Link to comment
barryhunter Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 And what has Wales done to you? Quote Link to comment
+Rosie's Rangers Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 Rutson for president, oops sorry, wrong thread Quote Link to comment
Deceangi Posted February 14, 2008 Author Share Posted February 14, 2008 OK. We will choose our County when submitting new caches but what about all the current caches. Will it be up to the owners to edit the details? Unless every cache is correctly classified the County search will never be very accurate, or am I missing something here? It will be up to the owners to edit their caches once implemented, not a imposable task to get the majority done in 12-18 months, going from the experience of other country's. I'm sure between the 3(4) of us [Reviewers] , we can knock up a template to be used for owners who haven't added the county, locals could also post a note requesting the owner adds the county. Quote Link to comment
+Twm-y-tonnau Posted February 14, 2008 Share Posted February 14, 2008 Couple of points to remember. No physical boundary's will be used by GC, the list is to provide subdivision of the UK to allow extra filtering in PQ's and cache searches. which would come in extremly handy for those near a large natural barrier [for instance I live on the North Wales coast, if I do a search from home within 10 miles I get caches on the Wirral. I can stand on the beach and wave to people at some of the cache sites, but to get to them means a 30+mile journey one way] Including counties for caches in NI which are listed in the UK would help to remove them from searches for caches by those in Scotland. NI is unique in that caches there may be listed as being either in the UK or Ireland. Ideally the same counties would be added to the Ireland Counties list as well. Until such time as GC renames the area Ireland-RoI & NI or similar, to take into account the uniqueness of the area. Also please remember GC will only implement the counties list if we provide them with one, they will not pick a single list from a multiple choice. As a general consensus does not seem reachable I thought that I'd put the following 2 lists forward and ask every one to indicate a preference [please remember you considering Administration areas only for filtering purposes, and not physical boundaries] Option One: Administration Geography of the UK click on Open Top 2 Levels Option Two: Rutsons list And then come to a final decision with Eckington and Lactodorum, which will then be passed on to GC as the definitive counties list. And yes I'm aware we're not going to please everyone, but as stated the aim is to provide more filtering in PQ's and cache searches. And if I seem to be rushing the issue, it's because GC have recently implemented counties for several other European country's, and I'd like to see this happen for the UK. The Mega is 6 months away, by the time we'd tallied up all votes we'd be looking at least 8 months from now before we could present the results to GC. By which time we could be looking at a code freeze as GC prepares to role out V2 (Phoenix) of the site [if it hasn't already been done]. Meaning we'd have no idea what sort of wait we would be looking at for implementation. Does the above highlighted piece mean if we dont choose, nothing changes, and nobody has to argue anymore. Sorted Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.