What's Next?

[Corfman Clan]

LonelyCache went live close to a year ago, August 18, for International Geocaching Day. We've had a few hiccups along the way, but I think we've improved the site quite a bit since then.

So what's next? I'm asking you what types of changes you would like to see made to LonelyCache. I know there has been several things discussed in the past that have yet to be implemented but I'd like to get a fresh view of what your thoughts are now that we've been running for close to a year. What are we missing and what holes should we fill first. What things are working well, and what things are off or need tweeking?

Have at it; I'm looking forward to hearing.

Thanks,
Russell

[geost4fun]

I would love to see California added to the LCP. I think the DGP regions fit pretty well with the intent of this site but anything would be greatly appreciated. You have done a great job with this site and although I don't seem to get out as much anymore the LCP is usually my starting point when I am away from home. Thanks again for all the time and effort spent.

[Corfman Clan]

I would love to see California added to the LCP. I think the DGP regions fit pretty well with the intent of this site but anything would be greatly appreciated. You have done a great job with this site and although I don't seem to get out as much anymore the LCP is usually my starting point when I am away from home. Thanks again for all the time and effort spent.

We would like to add California but we're not sure of the effects more than doubling the number of caches in the LonelyCache territory would have on system performance. Currently LonelyCache has 115,200 caches and adding all of CA would add another 120,600 for a total of 235,800. Currently we utilize four premium accounts to keep the LonelyCache data up to date. I imagine we'd need to up that by three, if not four. The logistics of adding all of CA would be demanding too. As a start, I'll see what may be needed to add the three CA DGP regions.

[skeeper]

I'd like to maybe see southern Idaho added. Maybe from Pocatello or Idaho Falls south. Lots of lonely caches in those parts.

[geost4fun]

I should have been more specific in my request. I don't see any reason to add the Urban regions of California to the LCP. I liked the DGP regions fine. I'm sure there could be some other remote areas added but the DGP regions would be a great start. My request is purely selfish since I spent some time and effort in those regions of California but I do think if fits well with the LCP.

[Redfist]

Adding an entire state is easier (currently) than adding just part of it. The way we learn about caches today is to run a series of pocket queries. In general, they look like (show me all caches in state S between dates X and Y). We then have multiple of those per state changing X and Y until we cover the whole state's history. To do just a part of a state, we'd have to have a series of queries that define by area and then restricted by date (X & Y above). There are some restrictions around how to query for area, so in all likelihood, that would mean many more queries than our current approach today.

Similarly, we don't have a good way to say "these 200 square miles except for the big city in the middle". We don't define "lonely" by location but rather by frequency of find regardless of where it is located. If there is an old cache in the middle of a city that rarely gets visited, it is "lonely". We intentionally didn't define this site as "back country" since there is much more of a subjective judgment that goes into that. Age and frequency of finds becomes very objective and thus no-one can cry fowl with how we generate stats.

The idea of adding new states isn't a bad idea. I'm not trying to dissuade that conversation. Doing so though, does add more computational burden and more $$ burden (premium memberships doing the queries) so we have to consider it carefully.

Thanks!

[Fugads]

One thing I've been pondering of is a LCP/find stat (has this already been debated and I just missed the forums?). It should be really easy to generate and I'm curious about some of the local cachers that basically only go after high terrain caches, and how they stack up against the "uber-cachers" with thousands of finds. The backcountry rating works pretty well for this already... again I was just curious.

[Corfman Clan]

One thing I've been pondering of is a LCP/find stat (has this already been debated and I just missed the forums?). It should be really easy to generate and I'm curious about some of the local cachers that basically only go after high terrain caches, and how they stack up against the "uber-cachers" with thousands of finds. The backcountry rating works pretty well for this already... again I was just curious.

I forgot all about this, but it was discussed in the CP to Smiley Ratio thread.

[Fugads]

Figures I'm just dredging up old ideas... thanks for the link. Looks like the idea didn't get very far, or have much interest... the masses have spoken?

[Corfman Clan]

Figures I'm just dredging up old ideas...

Actually, that's fine. We're not asking for new ideas here, just what things we should implement next. There's been a lot of good ideas and discussions about what the site may do. Some of those ideas have been implemented, and some haven't. So we're looking for some hints on what should be next.

So far we've heard to add territory and a points/finds ratio. I was expecting to hear maps, and most wanted. So fire away.

[rocketsciguy]

One thing I've been pondering of is a LCP/find stat (has this already been debated and I just missed the forums?). It should be really easy to generate and I'm curious about some of the local cachers that basically only go after high terrain caches, and how they stack up against the "uber-cachers" with thousands of finds. The backcountry rating works pretty well for this already... again I was just curious.

I forgot all about this, but it was discussed in the CP to Smiley Ratio thread.

I still think this is a fun idea, but I don't think it would make for a good leaderboard. Just an "Average CP/Find" computed and displayed maybe right underneath the "Top Find" on the top box of the GeocacherPage. In the same vein, an "Average CP/Hide" right underneath the "Top Hide" would also be appropriate. The number of finds and hides, of course, would be the same total displayed on the page -- number of active (not archived) finds/hides within LonelyCache territory.

What else is on my wish list? In no particular order

• Adding Wyoming and Idaho to the LonelyCache stats. A completely self-serving request as I have two finds in those states (just Idaho actually now that I think about it) that would improve my backcountry score.
• Static maps or KML files outlining the Regions
• Live maps, such as a layer over Google Maps, with CPs as cache icons, clickable hyperlinks back to the GeocachePage
• A GreaseMonkey script (Firefox add-on) that would add LonelyCache stats to a Geocaching.com page. Likely to be broken every time Groundspeak changes the page format.
• Additional capability of the Nearby page: Use a registered user's home coords (or custom basecamp location) as the center point in addition to centering on a cache. An extra column on this page for that divides the nfCPs by the distance in miles -- I liked that on DGP. Dropdown box to limit the list results to (e.g.) 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 40, 50, 75, 100, 200 mile radius. Capability to sort list on Miles or nfCP/Miles.
• I hate asking for additional capabilities on the Nearby page because that's already a very computationally intensive, slow-loading page. I don't know how it's currently done, but there might be a way to do some indexing to speed it up by dividing the territory into zones and filtering the query behind this page to only return caches within the center point's zone and as many adjacent zones necessary to capture the search radius. Once those filtered results are returned, then compute great circle distance and sort. The zones would be an extra field in the Geocache table where the coords are stored. If this is of interest, I have suggestions about how to implement these "zones" that I can share.

How's that for starters?

[skeeper]

A base map showing the regions would be nice.

[The marauders]

I second some kind of mapping based graphic. There are a lot of ways to go about this, but I would like to see a large clickable map to take a cacher to the different regions. I guess a similar thing could be developed for counties, but that would be a lot more work. I have completely enjoyed the site over the past year. It is a website I visit every day. Thanks for all your efforts.

[jcanyoneer]

I hosted an event in Sandy Eggo this year (2nd year in a row) and a couple of the attenders asked when Lonely Cache would include them. The told me they had found out about from my profile page (probably the gallery and that old dirty shirt ). They then told me about a cache they had found that week that had not been found in 84 months. Holy Crap! Sounds to me like Southern CA is more appropriate for LCP than most of the areas that it currently covers! .

I did tell these cachers that I would mention it to the LCP admins-so there ya go!

[Corfman Clan]

Alright, so now the site has been live for just over a year. These are some great ideas listed here. Some of them may be able to be added without much effort but others will take some work. We'll take a look at what we can do in the coming months to keep this site relevant and interesting for you.

I'm hearing expansion as the overwhelming request so we will start investigating that. To do so, we'll need to rework some of the infrastructure sooner than later (if you're an insomniac, you may have noticed the site doesn't respond the best during the daily statistics update from 04:00 to ~05:30 Eastern time), but that's a good thing. We'll also start investigating adding some map functionality to the site.

Thanks for the input,
Russell

[ModernNessmuk]

I would just like to concur about adding Idaho, Wyoming & Montana. Adding mapping as well would be great.

[Taz]

I would like to see mapping as well. Personally I do not care one way or the other about adding states. Even with Cali missing I don't find it as a bad thing. I guess I am easy going and just glad the site is around and took the place of the DGP.

[Corfman Clan]

One thing I've been pondering of is a LCP/find stat (has this already been debated and I just missed the forums?). It should be really easy to generate and I'm curious about some of the local cachers that basically only go after high terrain caches, and how they stack up against the "uber-cachers" with thousands of finds. The backcountry rating works pretty well for this already... again I was just curious.

I forgot all about this, but it was discussed in the CP to Smiley Ratio thread.

I still think this is a fun idea, but I don't think it would make for a good leaderboard. Just an "Average CP/Find" computed and displayed maybe right underneath the "Top Find" on the top box of the GeocacherPage. In the same vein, an "Average CP/Hide" right underneath the "Top Hide" would also be appropriate. The number of finds and hides, of course, would be the same total displayed on the page -- number of active (not archived) finds/hides within LonelyCache territory.

Okay, this has been implemented. See the release notes for details.

[Corfman Clan]

What else is on my wish list? In no particular order

• I hate asking for additional capabilities on the Nearby page because that's already a very computationally intensive, slow-loading page. I don't know how it's currently done, but there might be a way to do some indexing to speed it up by dividing the territory into zones and filtering the query behind this page to only return caches within the center point's zone and as many adjacent zones necessary to capture the search radius. Once those filtered results are returned, then compute great circle distance and sort. The zones would be an extra field in the Geocache table where the coords are stored. If this is of interest, I have suggestions about how to implement these "zones" that I can share.

How's that for starters?

I meant to address this suggestion before but missed it. As suggested, indexing can speed up this sort of operation dramatically and we are already utilizing a spatial index for finding nearby geocaches.

[Corfmania]

OK brother, and redfist my friend, since you asked:

midatlantic.lonelycache.com

Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Washington D.C., New York, Virginia, and West Virginia

I'd be willing to take this on as a wholly owned subsidiary of lonelycache.com

I have a feeling it might need it's own infrastructure and support.