Regions

[MooseMob]

Just thinking aloud.
It may be overkill, but how about the ability to look at it from multiple angles? Folks that live on the edge of an existing region may associate with more than one region, the same could be true for those living near a State border. It 'might' make sense to have a DGP region view, then also be able to view it by County, or USGS Quad view.

If detail maps were avaiable, it would also be good to see by BLM/USFS land view, or other non-urban mapping.

[afudc]

I like the idea of the current DGP regions the best. It seems to me that much thought went into them and that for the most part they work well. If for legal or other reasons modifications are needed that is fine.
If that just can't work then I probably like the idea of counties as the next best idea. However what I don't like about counties is that they are so unequal. Not only are some small and some large, but some have very large numbers of caches and others hardly any. Maricopa county in Arizona would have about 6000 caches while Mineral county in Colorada would have less than 50. Also some counties are drawn using geographical features and others aren't so there is no consistency in that regard.
I don't like USGS or Delorme much at all. Just one reason is that USGS cross state lines and DeLorme has partial pages. I know that DeLorme is used for certain challenge caches and that is fine, lets keep this separate from that.
All that being said, what I am really most concerned with is getting something going again. Nothing will please everyone and I'm sure almost everyone can agree that something is better than nothing.

[Cache-Chaos]

I think if at all possible just keep all the mapping as it was it seemed to be working well.

[Team Tuxawuxa]

The responses I've seen here seem to indicate that the total area of the LCP is the Southwest but I haven't actually seen a description of the total area, though I may have missed that. At any rate, if regions are not going to be created, then I suggest going with whole states. Counties might be easy to define but as previously stated, there is great disparity in the number of counties from state to state, not to mention population variances from county to county. In New Mexico there are 34 counties and probably 3 or 4 of them have less than 100 caches in the entire county. Go find only 1 cache in any of these counties and you will automatically be in the Top Ten there!

[Team Opjim]

Here's my two cents.
To some extent I liked the DGP regions, but I did have some issues with them. For those who are not familiar with the geography I'm about to review, please bear with me as it is to illustrate a point:
Understand that I live in Payson Arizona, which was in the "Tonto" region. I was always unhappy with the Tonto region. The problem was that Tonto included all the area where I live below the Mogollon Rim, but it also included areas west of the Mazatzal divide. This area was relatively accessible from Phoenix metro (which was a different region), but for me it was a 2.5 hour one way drive to get to this part of my "home" region (the Mazatal divide is wilderness, so no through access except by a long backpacking trip).

Tonto

Tonto Region.jpg (133.68 KiB) Viewed 9111 times

Likewise, the Rim Region included Flagstaff, the Blue Ridge area, and the White Mountains. It never made sense to me that one region could be so geographically separated.

Rim Region Screenshot

Rim Region.jpg (104.51 KiB) Viewed 9111 times

Finally, there was a small section of the Yavapai region that was directly above Pine/Strawberry: I literally walked along a road on Nash point from one to the other, a few feet from the Mogollon Rim dropoff, which was the "logical" geographic division.

Yavapai

Yavapai Region.jpg (158.41 KiB) Viewed 9111 times

My point is that on a flat plain the dividing line can be any arbitrary point such as a county line, major road or highway, etc, but when topography becomes involved, the natural topographical boundaries such as rivers, mountain divides, promienent clifftops (such as the Mogollon Rim), or areas where physical caches aren't allowed (National parks, wilderness areas, National Forests run by geocaching unfriendly Rangers, etc) really should be used to divide the regions. For states with smaller counties, the county line makes sense. For Arizona, portions of counties might be best given the size of these counties. I realize that this will make the issue harder and more complicated, but perhaps cachers who live in the area might be willing to suggest boundaries for their areas (I certainly have suggestions for my area if anyone cares).

[MichaelCorfman]

I hesitate to use the regions that were created for the DGP. I'm no lawyer but the regions just seem more like DGP property that I would need permission to use more than anything else. If we did use them, I doubt anything would come of it, but I'd just assume not.

I'm not an attorney either, but I do manage intellectual property matters for the business I run, and in that context I do worry about what is properly protected intellectual property. My viewpoint is that there is not a substantive intellectual property issue to be concerned with here. I'm not sure how the boundaries used within DGP were established, but I expect the Lonely Cache Project would need to independently define regions by creating new data from scratch for use in its database to represent the regions to be used on the LonelyCache.com website. So, I think the information stored in the Lonely Cache Project database would most likely be separate and distinct intellectual property. If the geographic areas were given names that were separately copyrightable place names, then that could potentially be an issue. But I expect the names are probably descriptive of the geopgraphic region not subject to copyright protection.

Of course, intellectual property rights are a separate issue from being respectful, and so certainly trying to obtain permission from the operator of the prior site would be desirable. But if the prior site operator is unreachable after making some attemps, as I gather is the situation here, then, in my humble opinion, no disrespect is shown.

[Corfman Clan]

Michael, thanks for the input.

I'm not sure how the boundaries used within DGP were established, but I expect the Lonely Cache Project would need to independently define regions by creating new data from scratch for use in its database to represent the regions to be used on the LonelyCache.com website. So, I think the information stored in the Lonely Cache Project database would most likely be separate and distinct intellectual property. If the geographic areas were given names that were separately copyrightable place names, then that could potentially be an issue. But I expect the names are probably descriptive of the geopgraphic region not subject to copyright protection.

The dgpadmin created the regions. There was some user input on the boundaries and names, but he essentially did the work. He also made available a KML file that defines the regions, so we have that and that is where my hesitiation lies.

[MichaelCorfman]

The dgpadmin created the regions. There was some user input on the boundaries and names, but he essentially did the work. He also made available a KML file that defines the regions, so we have that and that is where my hesitiation lies.

OK, so here is what is perhaps crazy idea, but I think maybe a pretty good crazy idea.

When you implement regions, make regions something that users of the site can personally define as polygons of their own choosing. Doing that allows folks to be able to tailor regions to their specific interests, which seems like a good thing given some of the comments earlier in this thread.

Of course, the site itself could have a set of regions defined as well, but if the database architecture and user interface is done properly the administrative interface for the site and for individual users defining regions could be one and the same.

As soon as you abstract regions from a site-specific concept to something individual users can control, then I think any possible intellectual property issue vanishes. I say that because you imply that the KML file was made available to folks to use for their individual use, and so you would just be facilitating an already authorized use if I have that right.

[Corfman Clan]

OK, so here is what is perhaps crazy idea, but I think maybe a pretty good crazy idea.

I think I know exactly the expression you had when you thought this up

So if I understand what you are saying here, then the site really wouldn't be in the business of creating regions. It basically provides an interface for the users to input the regions. Once those regions are in the site, the site would generate the statistics/leader boards for those regions and a way to view them.

This has potential. Ideally, users would perhaps collaborate on creating a good set of regions that most everyone would agree to instead of a hodge podge of overlapping regions. I imagine there could be public/private regions too. It would also make it simpler to expand the site to new areas. Yes this has potential.

[skeeper]

Try to not make this so difficult that those of us who are computer challenged can't figure it out.

[Corfman Clan]

Try to not make this so difficult that those of us who are computer challenged can't figure it out.

Doesn't everybody like a good puzzle.

Seriously, I haven't thought about this much and won't for awhile yet but I imagine the interface would be fairly simple. FIrst, the user would need to create the region(s) using some sort of mapping software such as google earth or google maps or whatever and save the regions to a file. The user would then need to go to the site and upload the file via some region create/update page. There would probably be some rules for the regions such as:

• The region file would need to be a specific format (e.g., KML)
• Regions would need to be named
• A region cannot have sides that cross (e.g., a figure eight)
• A region cannot have an inner and outer portion (e.g., a doughnut)

[jsarche]

I'll vote for the DGP regions, also. My second choice would be groupings of DeLorme pages. Using counties, I think, just creates too much disparity between states for reasons that were well-stated by others already.

Thanks for all the hard work going into this! I'm very excited to see the final product.

[MichaelCorfman]

OK, so here is what is perhaps crazy idea, but I think maybe a pretty good crazy idea.

I think I know exactly the expression you had when you thought this up

Yes, you probably do know that expression, being my brother.

So if I understand what you are saying here, then the site really wouldn't be in the business of creating regions. It basically provides an interface for the users to input the regions. Once those regions are in the site, the site would generate the statistics/leader boards for those regions and a way to view them.

This has potential. Ideally, users would perhaps collaborate on creating a good set of regions that most everyone would agree to instead of a hodge podge of overlapping regions. I imagine there could be public/private regions too. It would also make it simpler to expand the site to new areas. Yes this has potential.

Yes, that is pretty much what I was thinking. And it would mean the site could support the old DGP regions, DeLorme pages, USGS Quad view, Counties all at once - any user of the site could choose to define a set of regions like one of those and make them publicly available on the site. Or one could define a personal region if one wanted a leader board based on an area that was not already defined.

[:twisted: Doesn't everybody like a good puzzle.

Well, yes, but unless you are a linguist or a cryptologist, probably only in languages one understands.

[Team Opjim]

I have two concerns about the idea of users creating their own regions:
1. While the programmers of this site seem to think that creating one's own region is a clear and simple thing, not all users are likely to be the same. Some users may end up with lists of the entire 5 state LCP area as a result. The regions were part of the fun: I may not be able to even break into the top 100 for the entire area, but perhaps be in the top 10 for my local region, but if there are no regions except what I invent, then what difference does it make. It kind of makes the entire project irrelevant except to those few fanatical cachers who appear to have unlimited time and other resources.
2. If I am saavy enough to create my own region, I can certainly tailor one where I am king (queen for you female geocachers). However, if everyone else is looking at a different region that favors them, then once again who cares. To illustrate this: see the picture below (credit due to http://www.despair.com).

individuality.jpg (53.93 KiB) Viewed 9004 times

[Team Opjim]

Forgot my final sentance, which is that I vote against everyone making their own regions for the reasons listed above in the posting that I accidently clicked submit before it was done

[skeeper]

I agree. Everyone needs to compete within the same regional boundaries. That being said, I doubt if I could create my own. I'm from the outdoor portion of Geocaching, not the technical side.

[rocketsciguy]

This idea has some interesting possibilities that might be worth looking into further. I like the idea of having users create regional boundary files just for the simple idea of offloading work from Corfman Clan and Redfist to the broader community. They already have too much to do. Here's how I see this working (long term sort of stuff).

User creates a boundary file (KML/KMZ or whatever) and can use that to identify/search for high value caches of interest within that boundary or regions if more than one are defined. The user could also generate on-the-fly statistics (if the server and database can handle it and our admins can code it) for that region, including top cachers, rankings by cache type. Doesn't have define the entire LCP area, just that user's specific need. The user could keep that boundary file in a personal library (like a GC.com bookmark list) -- could be a personal home caching radius or as far as you're willing to drive for a FTF, or maybe an area that you want to explore on your next camping trip, or an entire state divided by county. He/she could also share that boundary file with other users by making it public so others could use it.

Noteworthy boundary files could be nominated for site-wide incorporation. A user could divide up his state into DeLorme pages, or into USGS quadrangles or 7.5-minute boundaries, or reconstruct his interpretation of the DGP boundaries, and make them public. (I note that when I last looked at the DGP KML file, it did not include the expansion into northern Utah and many parts of other states that are in the current DGP boundaries.) Other users can vote up or down the quality/usefulness of those boundaries, and boundaries that meet the overall needs of the site and are of sufficient quality can be "blessed" by the admins, cleaned up and standardized if needed, and made part of the permanent structure of site.

And they need not be mutually exclusive either. You could have "layers" of divisions. Whole states will obviously be the first boundaries produced and used on the site. From there, you might have counties, and the DGP regions, and ... I don't know, whatever is useful ... reported on the "official" site stats. But personalization options are potentially enormous. Colorado counties too small and Nevada counties too big for you? Switch to maybe DGP regions. Don't like that a state boundary is in the middle of your natural caching ground? Make the entire Great Basin or Colorado Plateau or Four Corners area "your" region! Want to be one the #1 cacher in your town or between home and work? You could figure that out. Looking for 10+ CP(?) within a National Forest on your next backpacking trip? Sure, just sketch it out on Google Earth! We can have our cake, and eat it too!

Would something like this be a pipe dream, years down the road, or a real possibility by this summer?

[Corfman Clan]

1. While the programmers of this site seem to think that creating one's own region is a clear and simple thing, not all users are likely to be the same. Some users may end up with lists of the entire 5 state LCP area as a result. The regions were part of the fun: I may not be able to even break into the top 100 for the entire area, but perhaps be in the top 10 for my local region, but if there are no regions except what I invent, then what difference does it make. It kind of makes the entire project irrelevant except to those few fanatical cachers who appear to have unlimited time and other resources.

I never meant to imply that making a good set of regions is clear or simple. I think the site can be set up in a way that it's easy to add regions. Creating the regions is a different story. Yes, it would be simple enough to create a big polygon around Black Canyon City for example. What gets difficult is creating a good set of regions, where adjacent borders match and the divisions make good sense. I did write:

Ideally, users would perhaps collaborate on creating a good set of regions that most everyone would agree to instead of a hodge podge of overlapping regions

To me that's where the value lies. We should consider ourselves a community and we can work together to come up with something good. Those regions would be the regions people follow.

2. If I am saavy enough to create my own region, I can certainly tailor one where I am king (queen for you female geocachers). However, if everyone else is looking at a different region that favors them, then once again who cares.

I think this is just a matter of managing the regions in such a way that they have value and that this should be a community issue. Let's say we add Wyoming to the LCP. A group of cachers with interest there can create the regions for it. They know the area and would have the motivation. Also, not everyone would need to know the technical details of how to create a region, but those that have the interest could be actively involved in the region formation.

I understand the worry that the site would end up with many regions that few people would care about. Regions would overlap and be superfluous. We certainly want to avoid having a sort of region anarchy. I think controls can be put in place that will manage things so that we would have a meaningful set of regions. Again, I think that is really a community issue.

[Corfman Clan]

I like the idea of having users create regional boundary files just for the simple idea of offloading work from Corfman Clan and Redfist to the broader community. They already have too much to do.

Thanks, my thoughts/motivation as well

Noteworthy boundary files could be nominated for site-wide incorporation. A user could divide up his state into DeLorme pages, or into USGS quadrangles or 7.5-minute boundaries, or reconstruct his interpretation of the DGP boundaries, and make them public. (I note that when I last looked at the DGP KML file, it did not include the expansion into northern Utah and many parts of other states that are in the current DGP boundaries.) Other users can vote up or down the quality/usefulness of those boundaries, and boundaries that meet the overall needs of the site and are of sufficient quality can be "blessed" by the admins, cleaned up and standardized if needed, and made part of the permanent structure of site.

Yes, I think that would be a reasonable direction to head. Also, I just loaded the DGP region file into Google Earth. It apears to be up to date.

DGP View.jpg (36.36 KiB) Viewed 8987 times

Rocketsciguy has lots of good thoughts. Thanks!

[rocketsciguy]

Also, I just loaded the DGP region file into Google Earth. It apears to be up to date.

Ah, I know what I was remembering now: http://dgpstats.com/google_map_test I just found the KML file linked to in a DGP forum discussion (http://dgpstats.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=137), and while I was at it, I downloaded the KML and your GSAK polygon files -- might come in handy sometime! But wait -- this KML only has the older smaller boundaries... No matter, Corfman Clan has the KML for the whole DGP even if I can't find it!

Rocketsciguy has lots of good thoughts. Thanks!

Thank you! I'll try to keep them coming.