The Expansion Conundrum

[Corfman Clan]

Several months back I asked what changes people would like made to LonelyCache. One of the biggest responses was to expand. This included adding the rest of the DGP territory not yet encompassed by LonelyCache (the CA, TX, and Mexico regions) and to expand into Wyoming, Montana and at least parts of Idaho. Since then I've been making several changes to the LonelyCache infrastructure to better allow it to support an expanded territory. Things had finally improved enough that a week ago today, we added Wyoming to LonelyCache. Our web hosting company actually said it would be fine to add Montana too and would check some things and get back to us about expanding further.

Right now, Wyoming has 5,748 caches and contains seven of the top 10 loneliest traditional caches LonelyCache wide, Utah contains the other three. Wyoming also has the loneliest traditional, virtual, and webcam caches. Since Wyoming has not been a part of LonelyCache, it will naturally have a lot of high point caches to start with. Once the cachers there learn about LonelyCache and start to play our game, those high point caches will start to receive more exposure and will become target caches. The same thing was seen when DGP first expanced its territory to include all of Utah and Nevada. At that time, there was a lot of commotion with this change in balance. DGP responded with introducing the challenge cache and haystack cache notions. I never really liked that idea and it was my feeling then, as it is now, that over time, that imbalance will even out. I think we've seen this occurring in Utah since LonelyCache went live.

So how far should LonelyCache expand? Should we continue north into Montana where maybe a handful of cachers are familiar with our game or should we wait on it to develop some traction in Wyoming first? I'd like to add the traditional DGP regions in CA and TX (and maybe even Mexico) but there is a non-trivial amount of development needed to add partial states. How willing are you, the current users of LonelyCache, to move the balance of the top lonely caches from our current territory into areas not yet a part if it? I suspect it will take several caching seasons before a balance occurs.

[Fugads]

My views are that the strength of LCP are in the types of geocaching behaviors it encourages. With immense geotrails and dense urban cache-areas forming, it is is easy for the better caches to get lost. Of course, a "quality" cache is subjective, and there are various ways geocachers can narrow down their searches for the ones that most appeal to them. For my caching purposes, I really like how LCP does this for me. Many of the qualities I find most enjoyable, result in lonely caches. Those with high adventure, remote locations, challenging puzzles, and complicated multis. The LCP is my go-to for helping me identify these in the areas I cache. I also find that, at least in my locale, the effect of DGP/LCP on local cachers is very positive, encouraging more adventurous caches to placed, and pushing many to tackle caches at the limits of their abilities. This makes for a really fun local caching scene. It doesn't really matter to me which direction LCP expands, this effect should follow.

Not that I don't also enjoy the competitive nature of the leaderboards, those are good fun too. Expanding LCP in states far away from me (Southern NM) isn't going to help my standings, but I'm not a big enough player to be concerned about that (and I suspect the "big players" will absorb the expansions pretty readily anyways). I mostly keep an eye on my state and nearby region/county pages to see who is doing the high CP caches, and who I can catch up on in rankings. And that isn't going to change by any expansion (although if you added West Texas, I would have another area where I might be competitive since the El Paso area's got some good CP caches).

None of which is really that helpful to you in deciding where to expand perhaps. Except that I find expansion of the LCP a good thing regardless of area, so perhaps where to expand can be based more on the technical issues of expansion, the amount of resources required for expansion and such. If adding Montana and Idaho is relatively simple and has the green-light from the webhost, then that would make it the most logical choice to me.

[ModernNessmuk]

I am not sure you can put it much better then Fugads has. I use LCP to target most of my cache adventures. So if I am going in to an unknown area I go right to LCP and look for the loneliest caches in the area. Adding large areas like Wyoming, Idaho & Montana increase the LCP range a lot and give me and other cachers more chances to play LCP outside our home area. From what I can tell on the user end, the Wyoming expansion went well and has already got me planning adventures in that area, which I would not have planned before. So as Fugads said, if an expansion is easily and can fit right in do it, the more area LCP covers the more lonely caches we can go after.

[Redfist]

For me personally, most of my caching is in AZ. I have a small # in WA and in CA. I have EXTREMELY small numbers is ~40 other states (ie: less than 20). The all-up LCP #s don't mean anything *to me*. Adding other states wouldn't dilute any leaderboards that I watch from a user perspective.

I say as long as we are ok w/ hosting and query times, we should add more and more states to help the positives that LCP brings be realized by other cachers. If LCP truly does enable more fun caching, why not expand until we have a reason not to?

That being said, I would imagine that people who are currently highly placed on the all-up leaderboards might have a different opinion. We could always consider having regional leaderboards. "Southwest" could be a collection of states in the SW. "Northeast" could be a bunch of Bostonian's making fun of their neighbors.

[desert dawg]

My feelings on any LCP further expansion are as follows..

IF your planning on adding Montana (6933 total caches ) to LCP you might as well add the entire state of Idaho ( 18890 total caches) as well. The ID panhandle is narrow and most of the hidden caches
are most likely placed from the Boise area south to the Utah line..
This would expand LCP South to North completely across the USA from Mexico to Canada..
I am guessing you might have to have another Premo Groundspeak membership donated to cover the expanded data? That should not be a problem.
This would be good as long as LCP does not experience too many ( slowdown) growing pains..
just my 2 cents worth
dawg~

[Corfman Clan]

These are some really good comments. It's great to hear your thoughts and I noticed they all seem positive towards expansion.

IF your planning on adding Montana (6933 total caches ) to LCP you might as well add the entire state of Idaho ( 18890 total caches) as well.

That was my thought as well, but then there would be this strip to the west of CA, OR, and WA just begging to be included.

I am guessing you might have to have another Premo Groundspeak membership donated to cover the expanded data? That should not be a problem.

I think we'll be fine with the four we have to expand to MT and ID and some more. It's mostly just a minor change in how the pocket queries are defined. Not sure how many more we would need to cover a large expansion. I think that would be a find out as we grow issue.

[desert dawg]

Russell.. check your PM's...

[Corfman Clan]

Russell.. check your PM's...

Checked

[Fugads]

I need to revise my previous statement. Put all current expansion work on hold, because the state you really need to add is.... Tennessee! Yeah, just found out we'll be moving there in a few months. And I know I am going to be going through some LCP withdrawal .

[Team Opjim]

I would like to add California. Since adding such a populated state may double the total number of caches, I suggest adding the rural states first (east of LA/bay area).

[Corfmania]

Hello Bro. Perhaps if I help you with your "no LCP Maps" Conundrum you will help me with my "no LCP in the Mid Atlantic" conundrum.
Seriously, let me know if I can help. I'm a map head.

Oh, and include Tennessee.