Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Where is London's most central sheep?

diamondgeezer.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 174 posts

Re: Where is London's most central sheep?

#161

Post by aleksiy123 »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #83
steerpike wrote: post #3

When my wife and I lived in Bristol we developed a metric designed to measure how enjoyable a city was to live in that we called "time to sheep". Basically it's a measure of how long you have to travel from the center of the city before you're in the English countryside surrounded by sheep and the best cities have a low (but not too low) "time to sheep" metric. It helped explain one of the reasons we loved living in…

If your metric is time or distance to large amounts of nature, I recommend Ottawa, Canada where the 140 square mile Gatineau Park starts 5 miles from downtown.

Vancouver is awesome for this.

Toronto sucks for this :((.

Also time is probably a better metric. You can sit in traffic for an hour to move less than 1km.

Re: Where is London's most central sheep?

#162

Post by dullcrisp »

eppp wrote: post #158
dullcrisp wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re not meant to just go to a city. It’s not like the zoo.

I am not sure what you mean by that. Do cities not want people to visit them? You can't travel through a city unless you commit to live there for a while?

I’m saying that if you want to enjoy a city you should find things that you enjoy to do there. If you just show up it’s not surprising that you’ll be unimpressed.

Re: Where is London's most central sheep?

#164

Post by baxtr »

dullcrisp wrote: post #162
eppp wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure what you mean by that. Do cities not want people to visit them? You can't travel through a city unless you commit to live there for a while?

I’m saying that if you want to enjoy a city you should find things that you enjoy to do there. If you just show up it’s not surprising that you’ll be unimpressed.

Not sure I agree. Strolling through Paris, New York stopping here and there for a coffee and cake is quite fun I’d say.

Re: Where is London's most central sheep?

#165

Post by baxtr »

pyrale wrote: post #129
dylan604 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But do you mark off a field into squares and then place bets on which square the dung will be freshly found for sheep?

This. Cow-bound Monte-Carlo analysis is already supported by a thriving community.

Jokes-only-HN-people-will-understand.

Re: Where is London's most central sheep?

#167

Post by muziq »

dairylee wrote: post #34
steerpike wrote: post #3

When my wife and I lived in Bristol we developed a metric designed to measure how enjoyable a city was to live in that we called "time to sheep". Basically it's a measure of how long you have to travel from the center of the city before you're in the English countryside surrounded by sheep and the best cities have a low (but not too low) "time to sheep" metric. It helped explain one of the reasons we loved living in…

Although it's not quite sheep Newcastle has a Town Moor (Larger than Central Park) which has grazing cattle. There's also a farm not too far from the city centre which has grazing sheep. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_Moor,_Newcastle_upon_Tyne https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03hm60d/p03hm2x8 https://maps.app.goo.gl/vojeS3eDTFznpYwMA

The Ouseburn Farm in Newcastle (your last link) is a great place :)

Re: Where is London's most central sheep?

#169

Post by eppp »

dullcrisp wrote: post #162
eppp wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure what you mean by that. Do cities not want people to visit them? You can't travel through a city unless you commit to live there for a while?

I’m saying that if you want to enjoy a city you should find things that you enjoy to do there. If you just show up it’s not surprising that you’ll be unimpressed.

I guess? Seems like a concert for example would be just as fun in a smaller rural venue than a gigantic urban one.

I would enjoy the activity itself without regard of the location. If the city is to be impressive should it not stand on its own?

Re: Where is London's most central sheep?

#170

Post by justneedaname »

noneeeed wrote: post #52
steerpike wrote: post #3

When my wife and I lived in Bristol we developed a metric designed to measure how enjoyable a city was to live in that we called "time to sheep". Basically it's a measure of how long you have to travel from the center of the city before you're in the English countryside surrounded by sheep and the best cities have a low (but not too low) "time to sheep" metric. It helped explain one of the reasons we loved living in…

I live in Bath, so quite a bit smaller than Bristol, but I really apprecaite the fact that we can be in the city centre in half an hour, or in the countryside in 15 minutes. If I didn't live in Bath I'd probably live in Bristol, it's a great city. And I absolutely agree that it's kind of the perfect size for a metropolitan area. I think a lot of London is saved by having so many parks, and so many large parks and com…

As a fellow Bath resident I had to see if I recognised the name (it's a small place) and turns out we have worked at the same place in Bath (although many years apart!) Bathcamp caught my eye, may look into attending when it next comes round :)
Post reply on HN