Cache coding for wrong state

[+Alkhalikoi]

Didn't see a better place to put this, so I'll just note it for HQ;

 

GC1H0KK is showing up in list as being in Washington state, rather than in California. Shows up in various stat programs as a single Washington cache.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Didn't see a better place to put this, so I'll just note it for HQ;

 

GC1H0KK is showing up in list as being in Washington state, rather than in California. Shows up in various stat programs as a single Washington cache.

 

I saw that happen once on a cache that was very close to the California/Nevada line. The cache was clearly (to me) on the Nevada side of a property line but was listed as in California. The CO since changed it.

 

The state chosen when filling out the form to submit a cache just comes from a select list and is not verified with the actual coordinates. I'm not sure if a reviewer looks at that field and can't see any reason why that cache would have Washington selected. I'd contact the cache owner and suggest that they change it.

[+addisonbr]

One of the first caches ever listed on Manhattan is recorded in the database as being in New Jersey (despite unambiguously New York coordinates). I have a puzzle cache that depends on identifying the first handful of caches on the island, and this confused NY/NJ cache makes the challenge unintentionally a lot more difficult.

[+Alkhalikoi]

Didn't see a better place to put this, so I'll just note it for HQ;

 

GC1H0KK is showing up in list as being in Washington state, rather than in California. Shows up in various stat programs as a single Washington cache.

 

I saw that happen once on a cache that was very close to the California/Nevada line. The cache was clearly (to me) on the Nevada side of a property line but was listed as in California. The CO since changed it.

 

The state chosen when filling out the form to submit a cache just comes from a select list and is not verified with the actual coordinates. I'm not sure if a reviewer looks at that field and can't see any reason why that cache would have Washington selected. I'd contact the cache owner and suggest that they change it.

 

Oh, I'd forgotten that it was user-coded! It's weird because this cache is one I picked up nearly two years ago and for most the time, showed up as California, and all of a sudden it shows up in Washington state. I'll contact the CO. Thanks!

[+edscott]

Yes I've done one that is in West Virginia that is listed as being in Virginia. I suspect it is just a geographically disoriented owner.

[+mtn-man]

I changed it. You can contact the reviewer that published it by looking for the published log on more recent caches. The reviewer can then change it.

[AZcachemeister]

That happens fairly frequently here in AZ, as we have a LOT of dual-residency cachers (snowbirds) who can't seem to remember what state they were in when they placed the cache.

As well, there seems to be a propensity for folks living along the California border to place caches in that state, and forget where they were when they placed them.

 

I understand that mistakes are easily made, but it makes me wonder how well the caches are being reviewed if it isn't noticed that the wrong state is listed.

[+addisonbr]

That happens fairly frequently here in AZ, as we have a LOT of dual-residency cachers (snowbirds) who can't seem to remember what state they were in when they placed the cache.

As well, there seems to be a propensity for folks living along the California border to place caches in that state, and forget where they were when they placed them.

 

I understand that mistakes are easily made, but it makes me wonder how well the caches are being reviewed if it isn't noticed that the wrong state is listed.

It does seem like the state field should probably just default to whatever the coordinates would indicate. Maybe that could be over-ridden by the reviewer at the CO's request; there are always special situations and exceptions to consider. But I think the system would be better off with a sensible default.

[+Touchstone]

It does seem like the state field should probably just default to whatever the coordinates would indicate.

 

I think the way the system is set up currently is fine. If you set it up defaulting off of the cache page coordinates, it seems like it could possibly be more chaotic, considering the number of fat finger mistakes I've seen. At least the way it is currently set (off of the cache owners home coordinates I assume), it stands some chance of getting corrected before getting Published.

[+addisonbr]

It does seem like the state field should probably just default to whatever the coordinates would indicate.

I think the way the system is set up currently is fine. If you set it up defaulting off of the cache page coordinates, it seems like it could possibly be more chaotic, considering the number of fat finger mistakes I've seen. At least the way it is currently set (off of the cache owners home coordinates I assume), it stands some chance of getting corrected before getting Published.

The part that I can't figure out is, what purpose would it ever serve to have the state indicate a different place than the coordinates?

[+Harry Dolphin]

Perhaps it would be better if the default were for the state where the cache is hidden (by coords). But the curent default, when hiding a cache, is for the cache owner's home state. When I hide a cache in New York, for example, the defualt is New Jersey, and I have to change that. I agree that GC should change this. Stte by puclished coords, rahter tha CO's home sate. A programming change.

[+Touchstone]

It does seem like the state field should probably just default to whatever the coordinates would indicate.

I think the way the system is set up currently is fine. If you set it up defaulting off of the cache page coordinates, it seems like it could possibly be more chaotic, considering the number of fat finger mistakes I've seen. At least the way it is currently set (off of the cache owners home coordinates I assume), it stands some chance of getting corrected before getting Published.

The part that I can't figure out is, what purpose would it ever serve to have the state indicate a different place than the coordinates?

 

I guess looking at it from the other direction, let's say the cache owner accidentally drops/adds a digit and the coordinates put the cache in the Pacific/Atlantic/etc. Ocean. Which Queue does it end up in? Is there a Reviewer for these uninhabited locations on the Earth's surface? Will the Listing languish in no man's land, and what kind of Customer Service would it appear to be to the casual user.

 

At least if the Listing lands in some logical Queue (say, based on their Home Location in their Profile), there's a fair to good chance that a Reviewer will see it and suggest a second look at the coordinates.

 

For the really infinitesimal number of times I've seen this happen, it doesn't seem like a particularly high priority item to me.

[+GeePa]

I guess looking at it from the other direction, let's say the cache owner accidentally drops/adds a digit and the coordinates put the cache in the Pacific/Atlantic/etc. Ocean. Which Queue does it end up in? Is there a Reviewer for these uninhabited locations on the Earth's surface? Will the Listing languish in no man's land, and what kind of Customer Service would it appear to be to the casual user.

 

I don't believe this to be the case. As I understand it, there are some caches hidden in the ocean (and some other very remote places) so I am guessing there must be a reviewer assigned to every inch of the planet to make sure this does not happen.

[+addisonbr]

I guess looking at it from the other direction, let's say the cache owner accidentally drops/adds a digit and the coordinates put the cache in the Pacific/Atlantic/etc. Ocean. Which Queue does it end up in?

I believe that they go into the queue based on coordinates, not the state selected in the drop-down menu. I know that my own state is served by multiple reviewers, so just putting things into the "New York" queue wouldn't really work anyway. I did once fat finger the coordinates for one of my own caches, posting coordinates hundreds of miles away (but still in New York). The cache wound up in the queue of a different reviewer than my regular reviewer. I'm fairly certain that there is no spot on earth that wouldn't send a cache into a reviewer's queue, somewhere.

 

I don't believe the state drop-down menu does much, functionally, other than determine which state a cache belongs to when someone searches for caches by state name.

[+Lil Devil]

I believe that they go into the queue based on coordinates, not the state selected in the drop-down menu. I know that my own state is served by multiple reviewers, so just putting things into the "New York" queue wouldn't really work anyway.

Wrong. They are in the queue based on the state or country selected. For states with multiple reviewers, each reviewer has to look at the coords and decide whether or not the cache is in his/her part of the state.

[+addisonbr]

I believe that they go into the queue based on coordinates, not the state selected in the drop-down menu. I know that my own state is served by multiple reviewers, so just putting things into the "New York" queue wouldn't really work anyway.

Wrong. They are in the queue based on the state or country selected. For states with multiple reviewers, each reviewer has to look at the coords and decide whether or not the cache is in his/her part of the state.

Oh, that's very interesting. I stand corrected. So if I enter coordinates for a cache in Central Park, but select California as my state, it will jump to Krypton's queue?

[+mtn-man]

I believe that they go into the queue based on coordinates, not the state selected in the drop-down menu. I know that my own state is served by multiple reviewers, so just putting things into the "New York" queue wouldn't really work anyway.

Wrong. They are in the queue based on the state or country selected. For states with multiple reviewers, each reviewer has to look at the coords and decide whether or not the cache is in his/her part of the state.

Oh, that's very interesting. I stand corrected. So if I enter coordinates for a cache in Central Park, but select California as my state, it will jump to Krypton's queue?

Yes, the queue for all California reviewers.

 

Keep in mind that for the site to determine what state or even what country the cache is in based on the coordinates only, you would have to have a very highly accurate system that knows the exact boundary line for every state and every country on the globe. Considering the wiggly nature of some boundary lines, this seems impossible with the current data available.

[+addisonbr]

Seems like taking advantage of the Google Maps API and piggy-backing on their investments in geo-coded boundary lines, could potentially be a *perfect* solution to that situation.

[+fizzymagic]

Keep in mind that for the site to determine what state or even what country the cache is in based on the coordinates only, you would have to have a very highly accurate system that knows the exact boundary line for every state and every country on the globe. Considering the wiggly nature of some boundary lines, this seems impossible with the current data available.

 

Google has the data required. The TOS require you to use it in conjunction with displaying a Google map, though, so it can't be used stand-alone. It's also restricted tom something like 2500 queries per day.

 

There is also geonames.org, which provides a reverse geocaoding Web service that even works down to the city level. It's pretty spiffy. I've used it to determine the names of cities for various challenge caches.

 

I agree that the site should not be in the business of determining the state (or country) of a cache close to the border, but perhaps a system can be built to give an alert if the coordinates are, say, more than a few miles from the claimed state or country.

 

For the example given, Washingont and California do not share a common border, so there would be no confusion.

 

I'd be glad to donate my reverse-geocoding code to the reviewers!

[+NYPaddleCacher]

It does seem like the state field should probably just default to whatever the coordinates would indicate.

I think the way the system is set up currently is fine. If you set it up defaulting off of the cache page coordinates, it seems like it could possibly be more chaotic, considering the number of fat finger mistakes I've seen. At least the way it is currently set (off of the cache owners home coordinates I assume), it stands some chance of getting corrected before getting Published.

The part that I can't figure out is, what purpose would it ever serve to have the state indicate a different place than the coordinates?

 

I can't think of a good reason either for a traditional cache. A multi or unknown cache type could certain have the published coordinates in one state and the final physical container in another. Reverse geocoding would work for the published coordinates for a traditional but would have to use an additional waypoint with the "final location" type for multis/puzzles. However, a CO for a puzzle cache might not want the final location automatically reverse geocoded.

 

By the way, to see reverse geocoding in action, just open up google maps and right click (or the equivalent for a single button mouse) somewhere on the map and select "What's Here" from the dialog box. It'll show the lat/long value in the search box and a list of place names nearby on the left side of the page.

[+palmetto]

responses to various things in this thread

 

GC1H0KK is showing up in list as being in Washington state....

 

It was published by one of the California reviewers. It almost certainly had California in the state field at the time of review. It was edited later, probably unwittingly - editing something, and wandered over the state pulldown box. Got the state changed without even noticing. A keyboard cat can be a big help with this.

 

If you hide a cache in Florida, but put Texas as the state, the Florida reviewers won't see it. The Texas reviewer will probably tell you that your coords and your state don't match, please fix what is in error.

 

In the Olden Days, back when mtn-man was young, there were only a few reviewers looking at everything. And the mapping on cache pages was rudimentary (heck, there were no satellite views when I started reviewing, not from a cache page - if I wanted to look at a sat view, I loaded coords into Expert GPS)

 

The default on the cache report form is not to your home coords, it's to whatever you used last. Of course, that's usually your home state.

 

There is some geo-locating going on. If you enter N coords on a cache where you've selected Australia you'll get the warning

 

There are errors on this page. Scroll down to see the errors.

 

* Latitude must be S for this country

[+addisonbr]

However, a CO for a puzzle cache might not want the final location automatically reverse geocoded.

I don't think that should be a problem, because there's no pull-down state associated with hidden waypoints. Just the published coordinates, AFAIK.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

However, a CO for a puzzle cache might not want the final location automatically reverse geocoded.

I don't think that should be a problem, because there's no pull-down state associated with hidden waypoints. Just the published coordinates, AFAIK.

 

What I'm suggesting is that the pull-down state select list could be removed entirely if reverse geocoding was used. The "state" is only really used when displaying the information about the cache on the cache page listing but the Groundspeak:state element in the GPX for the waypoint also contains the state name (or Nil) for use by stats managers like the GSAK FindStatsGen macro. I know that it (at least used to) uses that element because when I found that cache near the CA/NV border I used to change that field from California to Nevada before I ran the stats macro.

[+mtn-man]

Keep in mind that for the site to determine what state or even what country the cache is in based on the coordinates only, you would have to have a very highly accurate system that knows the exact boundary line for every state and every country on the globe. Considering the wiggly nature of some boundary lines, this seems impossible with the current data available.

 

Google has the data required. The TOS require you to use it in conjunction with displaying a Google map, though, so it can't be used stand-alone. It's also restricted tom something like 2500 queries per day.

 

There is also geonames.org, which provides a reverse geocaoding Web service that even works down to the city level. It's pretty spiffy. I've used it to determine the names of cities for various challenge caches.

 

I agree that the site should not be in the business of determining the state (or country) of a cache close to the border, but perhaps a system can be built to give an alert if the coordinates are, say, more than a few miles from the claimed state or country.

 

For the example given, Washingont and California do not share a common border, so there would be no confusion.

 

I'd be glad to donate my reverse-geocoding code to the reviewers!

It isn't exact as it relates to state borders. I've seen this numerous times. A good example is a bunch of caches along the LA/AR border. Many look like they are in one state on Google, but they are in the other. I had to confirm with the cacher that they were in fact in the state he listed them in. I've seen this on the AL/MS border too. It would have to be exactly perfect, and it isn't. There is plenty of proof out there.

[knowschad]

If you hide a cache in Florida, but put Texas as the state, the Florida reviewers won't see it. The Texas reviewer will probably tell you that your coords and your state don't match, please fix what is in error.

While I had never tested it, I always figured that the reason both were included as user-entered fields was as a cross-check to avoid fat-fingered coordinates. If coords and state (or whatever entity is used) don't match, then I figured it would pop up a message stating as much and let the cache owner figure out if it is the coordinates, or the state, that is wrong. I think that makes sense. But apparently it is not being done. That is the programming change that I would make.

[+mtn-man]

<snip>... but perhaps a system can be built to give an alert if the coordinates are, say, more than a few miles from the claimed state or country.

By the way, there are newer reviewer tools to highlight a possible error and alert you to check more closely. It is an improvement for sure. That cache was in 2008 and I don't think that tool was active at that time. Hopefully this type of issue is less prevalent in the future.

[+addisonbr]

It isn't exact as it relates to state borders. I've seen this numerous times. A good example is a bunch of caches along the LA/AR border. Many look like they are in one state on Google, but they are in the other. I had to confirm with the cacher that they were in fact in the state he listed them in. I've seen this on the AL/MS border too. It would have to be exactly perfect, and it isn't. There is plenty of proof out there.

I don't think it would need to be exactly perfect.

 

I'm not personally in favor of preventing the "state" field from being adjusted manually, because you're right, things can get weird and quirky right along the border. The CO and the reviwer should have a way to adjust that. I just think that defaulting to the coordinates (and piggybacking on some of the open API reverse geocode work that's available, through Google and others) is probably not a bad way to go. At least, when compared with the default of using a cacher's home coordinates. If a cacher places a container along the border, and then selects a different state than what the geocode thinks, a simple confirmation box could come up. "You've selected California but the coordinates indicate Nevada. Are you sure that you want to select California?" Feels like a pretty painless way to account for some inexactitude right along state and country borders. In fact, that wouldn't be a bad piece of code to include for after publication edits either - may well have prevented the accidental Washington / California problem the OP mentioned, if the system were to simply ask for a confirmation when first changing a cache's "state" field from what it believes the coordinates to indicate.

 

As palmetto says, the system balks when you try to place a cache in Australia with a latitude in the Northern hemisphere. The foundation for the mechanics of some reverse geocode work seems to already be there.

[+mtn-man]

I know it doesn't have to be perfect, but I think you could be susceptible to being complacent about it and not looking close enough. Right now we check that as a normal thing, but sometimes obviously still miss it since no one is perfect. These are great suggestions though, and it has been nice to see our reviewer tools improve and improve as the years have gone by. I remember those first days while on dial-up checking maps and kicking back while the map loaded and then nearest caches, etc. So much better now and it keeps getting better and better for us through the hard work of the Groundspeak developers. Kudos to them, as if we don't thank them enough.

[+addisonbr]

To the extent that complacency is a concern - and I don't necessarily disagree - I wonder if we should make it so that the state field doesn't default to anything at all. I'd rather the state default to the coordinates of the cache than to the coordinates of the hider's house, but vis a vis complacency maybe defaulting to nothing at all is superior to both.

[+palmetto]

make it so that the state field doesn't default to anything at all

 

When I first read this, I rather liked it.

But when I think about it more, not so much. For the possible benefit of occasionally catching errors, make every cache placer, every time, first select a country, then select a state.

If this were implemented, there'd be some serious complaining.

 

It's drop down list, I see cachers select both District of Columbia and Georgia when they mean Florida, because they're in order on that U.S. states list:

District of Columbia

Florida

Georgia

 

They get a bit fat fingered, and hit the wrong item in the list.

Once they've gotten it right, it's going to be right after. If it has to be done each time, I think there might be more errors, not fewer.

 

I hope, over time, the cache report form can offer more tools to cache placers. Auto location by coords is one, with an over-ride available.

A warning when a traditional cache's coords are under .1 miles from another traditional cache is another (this first, as it's a common error, while getting the state wrong isn't even 1 in 5000).

[+addisonbr]

If it has to be done each time, I think there might be more errors, not fewer.

This is fair.

 

I haven't yet seen a rationale for defaulting, in particular, to the location of the hider's house - does anyone know if there are reasons why that would be preferred to alternative defaults that I'm not grokking?