This topic contains 38 replies, has 13 voices, and was last updated by 
BigJim 6 years, 4 months ago.
-
Posts
-
As lcg admin, I do have a bit of a struggle when the reports come in and mention probably missing or confirmed missing on revisits. I can only approve the reports and not much more. I have posted some NA notes on some missing ones but never sure if Wiskid disables them or not. I guess I could message him on these to get the archive ball rolling sooner. I can also see if he would send me a list of those he thinks are worth a cache rescue mission.
Not sure how long Dave is going to continue reaping Wisconsin caches.
Being prepared for the eventual change would be good. 1st step is setting up a State-wide PQ. I’ve wanted to start this for years but never figured out the right way beyond trial and error.
Following the signals from space.
Being prepared for the eventual change would be good. 1st step is setting up a State-wide PQ. I’ve wanted to start this for years but never figured out the right way beyond trial and error.
I’ve been getting my toes wet with the GSAK software lately. I have been able compile lists geographically with the rectangle or circle option. Is there a good way to better define boundaries? Being able to setup up boundaries such as state lines, county lines, or quadrants (like Jim mentioned) would be fantastic. It would be nice to learn from someone who has considerable experience with it.
I believe GSAK can sort by counties and states. I think there is a column, plus you should be able to search by it.
The views expressed here are that of myself only and do not necessarily represent that of the WGA board.
Bob,
Here is the forum thread we were talking about at the coffee shop the other day. Again, I think an overhaul to the LCG is necessary and I think that possibility is getting even closer with the aid of our friendly apps.
As some of you probably know, Cachly has added a filter that allows the user to set a “lonely cache” icon on the map determined by the number of days the user chooses that should determine the cache to be “lonely”. If we could get the other popular apps and the geocaching website to follow suit, that would make the WGA’s game easier to manage from the front end. Cache submissions would just have to be verified by the LCG admin (which occurs already in the game).
I think the benefits to opening up the game to lonely caches which have not been found for 1 year or more rejuvenating to this organization, it’s website, and just overall cacher activity in general. I mean, let’s face it, the list of the 500 caches in the state which haven’t been found for the longest time is very limiting. Many of these caches are so difficult to get to that most people don’t want to attempt them. And if they are attempted, chances are they are either missing or in need of some kind of maintenance after better than 3 years with no visitors. By using the parameters set forth in a filter on one’s smartphone (say 365 days), thousands more lonely caches become available statewide for scoring in the game. A lot of these would be much easier to get to, which would probably entice more people to go after them. More people going after lonely caches for the game, equals more people visiting the website on a regular basis, which equals a far more involved and informed geocaching community in the state.
Well written Russ. And I agree. Sorry I don’t have more words to add.
The views expressed here are that of myself only and do not necessarily represent that of the WGA board.
Russ I agree with all of the principles you mentioned. Using new technologies to identify lonlies (I just updated my Cachly, thanks!). More traffic to the WGA website. Easier management. Greater participation. But I am a bit confused with one aspect, not with what you said but with what was discussed at the event. It was pointed out last week at the LCG event that lonlies are defined as caches that remain unfound for 1 year or longer, but then BigJim, the LCG admin, mentioned that it’s not necessarily so. There are times apparently when the total number of caches not found for one year or more in Wisconsin is LESS than 500, or close to it. So adopting easier to manage strategies is beneficial, but may not result in increased number of lonlies to be found, which in turn would mean that they’ll still likely be mostly those that are hard to get to (or solve). Having said that, it still makes sense to pursue those possibilities.
Changing subjects a bit, I noticed that Cachly now offers downloadable “premium” offline maps as well as the “standard” offline maps. I have already been using the standard offline maps almost exclusively, but now have downloaded the premium WI map and it’s nice! My new default map to use. 🙂 Thanks again!
John,
I wish I could post my screenshot of the pocket querie of the most recent LCG bookmark list that I loaded into GSAK, but I cannot figure out how to put a picture into this comment area. I will go ahead and try to explain what I found.
I’m not sure if BigJim explained it to you correctly, but what you have written is not correct according to what I have found. On the current bookmarked list, there are 496 lonely caches. 4 of those have been found recently. The next most recently found on the list (GC4DXNT), has not been found since 10/7/2015. That is nearly 3 1/2 years and the remaining 491 caches have been even longer without a “found” log.
When we first started chasing lonely caches (fairly recently compared to many that visit these forums), the most recently found cache on those lists was about 3 years out. And if you look back many years further you will see that, yes, there were caches on the list just a year out. If the trend in the game continues, the most recently found will grow to 4 years, then 5, and so on. And the probability of a quality find without need for maintenance will greatly diminish.
I think if you set that filter in Cachly to show the clock icon at 365 days, you will see that there are many many caches that fall within the definition of lonely cache that do not make the bookmark list and are not available for scoring. I have no idea how many more caches this would add to the game, but I would say at least a couple thousand, if not 5000.
What I said, or what I think I said, at the LCG event was that the list of lonely caches is made up of the 500 (or so) caches in the state that have gone the longest without being found, and that there is no specific amount of time that a cache must go unfound to be considered lonely. When I started playing the LCG in 2010, there were many caches on the lonely cache list that had been found within 8 – 9 months. One example that I looked up was a cache that I found in June 2011 that had been last found on 10/28/2010. So at the beginning of May when the cache first appeared on the lonely list, it had been just over 6 months since it was last found.
All opinions, comments, and useless drivel I post are mine alone and do not reflect the opinions of the WGA BOD.
Couple thoughts here. First, I am a fam of using technology to make our lives easier, however waiting around for all the geocaching apps to get around to putting a date feature on the system, could be a while. Especially Groundspeak the owner of Geocaching.com, as they seem to be way behind others in this arena. Also, did u know that Cachly uses an API, whereas C:geo only “scrapes the internet”, whatever that means. I dread about that in the forums of Cachly recently. My point here is that the two are not the same.
Now to drill down to what I think is the more important point. I thought I heard there was an algorithm involved in figuring which 500 or so caches made the list. Something more than just the 500 oldest. Maybe there is, maybe there isn’t. What I understand Russ to be saying is that by throwing that criteria out, and implementing a “any cache over x number of days” approach; we will see more people get interested in looking for Lonelies. As the system appears to sit now, there are only really hard caches on the list. Arguably caches that nobody has looked for in a long time.
Currently, I would argue there are a small number of participants from year to year. I think we have a concensus, that more lonely finders is a good thing. One good way to assist that would be to open the game up to more caches. I’m sure there are caches that are relatively easy to do that haven’t been found in a while. We could increase the number of cachers that are looking for lonelies, by allowing for more caches on the list. Which in the end may prompt more people to competitively seek out the harder hidden caches.
We can and should argue over what x number of days is equal too.
Does anyone know why the game was set up for only 500?
The views expressed here are that of myself only and do not necessarily represent that of the WGA board.
I can’t say for sure, but I would guess that at the time, 500 seemed like plenty. The scoreboard goes back to 2008, which is before I started caching, so I can’t say for sure. I’d guess that there was fewer than 10.000 caches across the state back then, compared to the 30,000 that there is now.
All opinions, comments, and useless drivel I post are mine alone and do not reflect the opinions of the WGA BOD.
Maybe we need 2 or 3 lists, with double and triple points. The “Lonely List”, the “REALLY Lonely List” and the “REALLY REALLY Lonely List”. Since Geo Art and Power Trails entered the game, fewer and fewer cachers will travel distances to find the Lonelies. As caching evolves, the LCG should evolve also…keeping in mind that it is administered by volunteers.
Wasn’t a query just limited to 500 caches as well?
I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived.
-Henry David Thoreau
Wasn’t a query just limited to 500 caches as well?
A pocket query is limited to 1000 caches I believe. But I believe the LCG
Wasn’t a query just limited to 500 caches as well?
A pocket query is limited to 1000 caches I believe. But I believe the LCG list is built with GSAK (maybe I’m wrong), which would have a much higher limit. Somehow a macro could be built, defining the parameters which would put together this list for the game. I wish I knew how to build a macro on GSAK, because I would do it to include all caches which haven’t been found for a year or better.
Is anyone else having an issue with the LCG map? Is this Googlemaps?
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.