My only issue is that you published it, and now everyone is going to be doing
it, so it will be no safer than flying 000 and 500's.

LOL...

I suppose I can understand what your saying... but anyone who depends
on using Off Altitudes for traffic avoidance already has problems
unrelated to their scheme for picking altitudes... Especially in the
heavily air-trafficed scenic areas I'm describing, where out of town
(and inexperienced) pilots are bobbing up, down, left and right
jockeying for the best view

There is nothing about flying at an off-level that in and of itself
promotes collision avoidance... in fact, if anything, not being where
you're 'expected' to be might have a slight effect to the contrary.
however - in a situation where "see-and-avoid" is the rule, and Norcal
approach is calling out traffic calls virtually non stop, I see being
at an 'off' level as being just one more slight layer of protection...
if everything else breaks down... I fail to see him, he fails to see
me, ATC fails to see either of us, and we just so happen end up at the
exact same position at the exact same time, then there is slightly
more chance that we'll do so at enough of a varying altitude that it
won't end both of our day.

Obviously, for this to have any effect, every other mechanism out
there for keeping us out of eachother's paths must have failed
(including gross failures for both of us in our PIC duties)... But
given the nature of the airspace in question... I'll take that slight
level of added contingency.

And I highly doubt that enough people on here will read my tactic, let
alone actually start practicing it, to have any statistically
noticable effect on GA flying practices over the SF Bay But even if
they did, just the idea of getting pilot's to 'spread out' over our
available altitudes instead of bunching up on a few 'typical' wouldn't
necessarily be a bad thing... IMHO at least.