[MTCLMBR]

awhip80 wrote:

First, a non list game would not necessarily be dependent on a 3rd party app. People could find lonely caches by using geocaching website, but the filtering capabilities offered by the third party options would make things easier. I think that most geocachers that are going to be involved in geocaching enough to try to score points in the LCG know about and have subscriptions to other cache finding options. Second, yes this is a game about X amount of years. It has been since it started. Proof is by the difference in bonus points for longer running lonelies.

Sorry yes I agree that it is a game about X amount of years. That comment was defined more in the direction of saying if we got rid of a list and going the route of all caches older then say 1 year. More so that there should be limits and a clearer definition of what is defined to be a valid cache that is part of the game.

As for 3rd party I would agree that many use a variety of different tools, but not all use the same, and also know some seasoned cachers that stick to the basics of either their GPS, PQ, with at least most opting out for a different mobile app vs official GC. I know I personally don’t use GSAK, and have at times show more seasoned cachers then me how to use some features on the website(especially as they’ve changed things).

That said I feel and is important that at the core of the LCG it should have a level playing field(in terms of how to know what to find) to start and easily defined and not require extra work to figure out what is part of the game or not.(then those that want to use other tools can do so to ease their search/plan). In the official app you can’t order by “last found date”, on the website you can at least do a search for the state(or narrow based on their filters) and then view at least in list view but when mapped it limits to 750 caches(so at least that is there, but limited and to some ‘finicky’ and hard to figure out/understand what is happening). Can’t speak for android apps on sorting features.

I don’t want to necessarily add to the ‘how to play LCG’ that to play, this is how you do it on this platform, and via this platform you need to do this, and on this platform do x. Not saying its not possible and I know both you and I know how to figure some of that information out but not everyone will and I can foresee an increased frustration and deter interest if it isn’t “easy” in today’s world.

All that to say that it isn’t a potential to go that route(and I’m open and slightly like the idea of a broader selection like that) but I do think it is a very important thing to consider ease of use for users and something I have to deal with on a daily basis at work as we develop various applications for our clients and thinking 10 dumb moves ahead of them or their users(which is where my thought process is coming from. I can make it as complicated as I want on the backside and in the code but for users it needs to be idiot proof). Sadly with todays world if I don’t see what I am needing and it requires 5 secs of thought on how to use/do something they give up and are frustrated. IE Like many currently have with our current website. (which honestly might even be deterring some wanting to play the LCG, at least have increased the speed in the past year best we can in current form to help ease some of that frustration)

Climbing To New Adventures

**The views expressed here are that of myself only and do not necessarily represent that of the WGA board.**

[MTCLMBR]

Also looking at more numbers some food for thought

Since Last Project-GC sync total caches in WI 29,255

So if doing an open list and as current with over 5000 1year or greater that is 1/6th of the caches in WI

Also out of 71 counties

• 10 have less then 100 caches
• 4 have less then 50 caches, which are Lafayette, Crawford, Pepin, Florence
  • 3 of those are ones I called out in my previous post, Iowa in less than 100, interesting Polk has 6th most caches in state
• 23 have less then 100 caches

 

Climbing To New Adventures

**The views expressed here are that of myself only and do not necessarily represent that of the WGA board.**

[MTCLMBR]

I would say thats a unique situation you are experiencing there. (If you haven’t I’m sure you could still submit those and Jim would take a look and see the logs and would approve). As long as if they are enabled and still were not found, they would still qualify to being lonely and would make the next list. Now if someone found it after it was enabled but before the next list it wouldn’t make the list since it technically isn’t “lonely”.

My thoughts and reasoning is mainly due to those caches that got flagged during the past list, reviewers then disabled, then the 30-60+ day process to archive caches begins while then eating up precious spots on the current list to eventually still be archived.

Climbing To New Adventures

**The views expressed here are that of myself only and do not necessarily represent that of the WGA board.**

[MTCLMBR]

Looks like that earlier post for some reason was marked as spam.

Climbing To New Adventures

**The views expressed here are that of myself only and do not necessarily represent that of the WGA board.**

[MTCLMBR]

Thought I had and shared with the board is to grab the top 10 longest unfound caches per county (minus Menominee).

• This would increase the list to 710 caches, so more available to find
• Help spread the caches available across the state to make ease available to all WI cachers. Provides an guaranteed chance for a cache near everyone as you would have at least 10 in your county.
• Might see more of a spread of dates over time, still initially alot are on the longer side of being unfound.
  • When I ran list in february, Crawford/Lafayette, Polk, Pepin, Iowa had some of the shortest unfound caches, with the least time was Aug 2019 (but it was a lonely for the county) and about 12 being less than a year, so would see that increase over time.
  • So you would then see a range in times with the bonus points coming back more into play as you would have some shorter time caches and longer ones.
• Could Generate more competition within cachers locally trying to be the first to find a LCG in their county, especially if bonus points are available
• Ease of caches available to all, so those that want to play can, those that want most points can get local and still travel to other locations to increase their points.
• Cleaning/visiting lonely caches everywhere, not just up north/northwest

Negatives

• Could be more involved to generate the list (put potential to ease the process)
• Lonelies in the remote locations will continue to stay unfound due to fewer cachers in the area having ease to go after
  • Granted these then will become worth more in terms of points, so those going for points would go after
• Caches in the remote areas aren’t getting visited/cleaned/checked on as often due to not showing up on the list (ie TNW 100+ caches currently on the list)
• Some counties could eventually always have caches been less than 1 year for last found :/ maybe.. I can forsee cachers starting to of already found those caches so then it would only be revisits and ability for other and newer cachers to go and find.
• Smaller counties in the south east, larger counties in the north so list then could look slightly, just slightly weighted more south. So maybe “unfair” then to northern cachers (granted my opinion is south/southeast is jipped)

GC List of 10 per county when I ran it in February. A number of them have been found since either due to current LCG or found in general. https://coord.info/BM7VX6M

Attached is a pic of the map

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

Climbing To New Adventures

**The views expressed here are that of myself only and do not necessarily represent that of the WGA board.**

[MTCLMBR]

Adding my thoughts.

1. To answer a previous discussion about increasing the list to 1000, This was my previous rough observations per county.
   1. Increase didn’t really help with evening out the spread, most counties basically doubled their count, some no change some saw an increase.
   2. I’ll post a spreadsheet.
   3. Average increase was 3x per county
2. Thought in general about using 3rd party app features. I personally feel that at least with defining the list and available caches need to be able to be done either via GC.com/official app or via the WGA website. Not everyone has cachly, iOS, Android, project-gc subscription, windows computer with GSAK, etc.
   1. Either being dependent or having to provide instructions for various formats will make it hard and confusing and could quickly loose interest with added steps or having to use a method they aren’t used to, etc.
   2. So any LCG list/features/abilities should not be dependent outside of GC.com or WGA
   3. That said don’t let that or technical concerns hold you back from ideas, likely with any of the changes to come whether it is how to submit a LCG report, generating the list, etc.  will need to require some development changes. We are working toward working on updating/making a new site as well as with development we can have a lot of power 🙂 within either limits imposed from GC.com and their API and the effort required to make changes which can be evaluated later.
      1. IE with my thoughts with future site to come, if went the route of open list once someone enters the GC# we can pull all the cache information at that point to get D&T as they fill out the form. I would like to include ease of gathering information for admin so they can see important information without having to visit the GC page to validate log. etc.
3. All that said I think since we are defining it as a “game” it needs to have limits defined for a list and not be open to any cache not found in over X time

Attached are map differences of 500 vs 1000 back in February. And the Number per county back in February (note even with 1000 caches only 64 counties are represented, 500 had 52)

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

Climbing To New Adventures

**The views expressed here are that of myself only and do not necessarily represent that of the WGA board.**

[MTCLMBR]

Sorry for confusion of splitting stuff up from the original thread, figured this would be easier to focus discussion separating some of the topics out as well as having a proper titled thread to ease in finding information at a later date if needed by us or future individuals.

Climbing To New Adventures

**The views expressed here are that of myself only and do not necessarily represent that of the WGA board.**

[MTCLMBR]

Will do my best to collect/summarize thoughts already shared in general thread related to list creation.

Jim: “The biggest thing that I see is that the list as it is now, tends to hold the most lonely caches in the areas least populated by cachers, while the most populated areas have the fewest lonely caches. So issue #1 is THE LIST.”

Earlier BOD discussion(removed point talk): “We’ve been so attached to and dependent on “the list” since the game began. What would the game look like if we got rid of the list altogether? What if we defined “Lonely Cache” as any cache that has not been found in over 1 year? We could award base points for caches that have been lonely for 1 year, and add bonus points for each additional year  that the cache has gone unfound. (Chris researched this and found about 5600 caches that were unfound for over 1 year.)”

Ralph (summarized): liked the thought, wondered if 12-23 mo would overwhelm the game

Russ (summarized): Ran query last year over 5000 and probably overwhelm. More difficult caches likely forgotten, but think would get more involved. Proposed utilizing smartphone apps (ie like cachly for iOS, can customize what the lonely definition is, so can set 1 year, 2 years, 18mo). Also difficulty with this way is how the submission process would work, ie dropdown wouldn’t work, how admins deal with verification.

Ralph added in later point that C:Geo and official app on android do not have a similar feature available like cachly has

Ralph (summarized): In favor to make more involved. Up north 12 months not all lonely due to snow and seasonal access, would be in favor of 24. Current list has 118 by Team Northwoods and 51 by Hayward cheesehead. Neither has any interest in maintaining caches.

Russ (summarized): If those get cleaned up maybe list might naturally clean itself up. Had a local cacher asking about LCG, concerns was the T rating for a lot of them and due to age and mobility makes difficult.

Ralph (summarized): Contact has been hard with those individuals, concerned even with adoptions that most are just micros in woods. High Ter making list is hard but not sure if anything can be done. Current list 99 are 4T or higher. Higher T are already awarded extra points. Third problem hard to solve puzzles. Maybe add rule puzzles get 10 extra points.

Jim (summarized): agreed to earlier points about stating caches unfound over x time. Agreed it would change how lonelies are reported. Issue with this proposal is if 2 cachers find same cache that day only one would technically get the points (unless visited together). Not sure how to fix without list.

Russ (summarized): Looked at list of caches close to Waukesha, choose area due to low number of current caches on list. Of 200 caches in area, 31 fall under criteria of being unfound for more than 365 days.  Agrees that once someone finds without a defined list that it is one and done unless someone has an idea.

Ralph (summarized): No feature like cachly on C:Geo or official app. Cachers looking on computer and using GSAK can easily sort by last date found, so doesn’t see absence of feature as a problem. Only problem for those that cache with android app.

Climbing To New Adventures

**The views expressed here are that of myself only and do not necessarily represent that of the WGA board.**

[MTCLMBR]

Interesting idea with the puzzle bonus points, but is the difficulty of the cache due to the puzzle or the hide?

Granted at the same time, theoretically the difficulty of the puzzle should be factored into the D/T  so in a way it already should have points weighted for the difficulty.

Climbing To New Adventures

**The views expressed here are that of myself only and do not necessarily represent that of the WGA board.**

[MTCLMBR]

Will try to include thoughts from original generic topic.

Jim- “Issue #2 for me is scoring. We made a couple changes earlier this year, eliminating points for replacing and adopting lonely caches. With all of the caches on the list being over 3, and almost all over 4 years lonely, the bonus points for 1 and 2 year lonely caches don’t really make sense. I would like to see a scoring system that awards points based on how long it has been since the cache has been found.”

From earlier BOD discussion:

<hr />

We’ve been so attached to and dependent on “the list” since the game began. What would the game look like if we got rid of the list altogether? What if we defined “Lonely Cache” as any cache that has not been found in over 1 year? We could award base points for caches that have been lonely for 1 year, and add bonus points for each additional year  that the cache has gone unfound. (Chris researched this and found about 5600 caches that were unfound for over 1 year.)

Scoring is currently Terrain + difficulty + 5. That could be the base, then add 5 additional points for each year: T+D+10 for 2 years, T+D+15 for 3 years, etc. Or we could stay closer to the current scoring system, but expanded: (T+D+5)x2 for 2 years, (T+D+5)x3 for 3 years, and so on.

We would most likely need to create a completely new submission form that would be less automated and players would need to enter the GC Code, T+D ratings, and years unfound.

I also think that the points for revisits should be increased, too. Currently revisits score T+2. I’d propose scoring T+D+1 point per year lonely.

<hr />

Zuma: “A third problem is the large number of hard to solve puzzles on the list from HCH and SS.  On the current LCG, 76 of the caches on the list are puzzle caches.  11 from SS. 16 from HCH.  It may be reasonable to add a rule that puzzle caches get 10 extra points.”

awhip80: “This is an interesting thought. Bonus points for lonely puzzles. I’m not sure that all puzzles should be given the same bonus points. D5 puzzles should be awarded more than D1 puzzles.”

 

Correct me if I missed a thought.

Climbing To New Adventures

**The views expressed here are that of myself only and do not necessarily represent that of the WGA board.**

[MTCLMBR]

TB discoveries are likely just the latest round of armchair TB logging happening trying random codes. GC likely either got word or noticed the activity and disabled the account and deleted logs.

Climbing To New Adventures

**The views expressed here are that of myself only and do not necessarily represent that of the WGA board.**

[MTCLMBR]

Quoted from the closure order

Several parks have had record attendance recently. For the weekend of April 4-5, High Cliff had an estimated 16,457 visitors, Lapham Peak had an estimated 11,168 visitors, Kohler-Andrae had an estimated 8,469 visitors, Devil’s Lake had an estimated 7,647 visitors, Richard Bong had an estimated 3,884 visitors, and Mirror Lake had an estimated 2,870 visitors.

Harrington beach had an estimated 3,639 visitors for the weekend has had more than 5,600 estimated visitors so far for the month of April. By comparison, the average monthly visitors at Harrington for the past 12 years is 9,695 for the entire month of April.

Release Order

Climbing To New Adventures

**The views expressed here are that of myself only and do not necessarily represent that of the WGA board.**

[MTCLMBR]

Because they want to make it complicated :/ ……. But yes my guess are they are ones that are likely have been high impacted with groups congregating and with all the people, can’t even attempt to practice social distancing. I know at Devils Lake and Parfey’s Glen from an article they were as busy as a perfect summer weekend. Cars were parked along side of roads, and groups were gathering together in parking lots and open areas. (which if the parking lots are full, likely not going to be able to practice social distancing). I know the WGA cache at Natural bridge was getting a lot of logs, which if there were that many cachers can only guess how many others were visiting and with not that many trails there doesn’t equal room to spread out. I’m can only guess that the various park managers reported large issues in their parks and was decided based on that.

Climbing To New Adventures

**The views expressed here are that of myself only and do not necessarily represent that of the WGA board.**

[MTCLMBR]

Clothing items I could see be nice would be a nice polo with a small logo. Something I can wear to work and promote the WGA 🙂

Climbing To New Adventures

**The views expressed here are that of myself only and do not necessarily represent that of the WGA board.**

[MTCLMBR]

Well not sure where to post this for inclusion of our meeting but didn’t want to put in the public suggestion box. This is my response from Dave/wiskid

“It is just the 500 longest unfound caches.  I run 35 pocket queries to cover the whole state (actually, it doesn’t include the newest caches.)  Then put into GSAK, sort by last found date, take the top 500, shaving off the last day if not all of them are within the 500.  Thats it.  Quite frankly, I don’t know that the participation merits the effort, but I will leave that up to you.”

Climbing To New Adventures

**The views expressed here are that of myself only and do not necessarily represent that of the WGA board.**

[Author]

Posts