Cache icon hierarchy

[+Willie Wandering]

Does anybody know how the software for GS maps 'ranks' icons in situations of overlap?

 

We have a puzzle where the icon (listed coordinates) needs to be fixed to a particular location. Some time later a regular cache, as part of a series was placed at the same location – quite understandably as it's a lovely spot. Our puzzle icon is now obscured on the maps and we've had a few notes from people saying they've overlooked it.

 

Rather than changing the puzzle and moving the icon, I was wondering if there was another way to move our icon back on top – not out of spite, I just think with the numbered regular below it would be more apparent that there is an overlap.

 

Our icon started out on top but later switched, despite being placed first and a 50% rating, so I assume the main 'ranking' factor is number of finds.

 

Ant ideas?

[+Bear and Ragged]

Does your cache rely on those coordinates?

Some of the UK reviewers ask cache owners to change their new cache coordinates by .001 or .002 -not that much difference in actually caching searching terms- but enough that the icons are at least overlapping and it is a little more obvious that there is another cache icon there.

[+Ike 13]

I think the cacher who only used the map to find caches to look for would be the type of cacher who would not go for a puzzle (mainly because it would take advance planning where as just using the map is more of freestyle caching).

[+Willie Wandering]

Does your cache rely on those coordinates?

In a word, yes. There is already a slight variation, but unless zoomed right in the icons still cover each other. Moving the coordinates far enough to completely avoid this would mean a change to the puzzle is needed.

 

I think the cacher who only used the map to find caches to look for would be the type of cacher who would not go for a puzzle (mainly because it would take advance planning where as just using the map is more of freestyle caching).

Apparently not; as I say a few people have noted that they have missed our cache because the icon was obscured. We like all cache types, search via maps and have ourselves missed caches for the same reason. This instance is further complicated by the fact that the series is set / numbered in a direction that just happens to go the opposite to the direction for our stages.

 

It's not that important, I just wondered if there was a simple solution. Thanks for the replies.

[+Bear and Ragged]

Would the other cacher change the coordinates to their cache if asked?

Doesn't need to be by much, and would not mean moving the cache, as the small change is well within the usual search area, and would at least show there's another cache icon on the map...

[AZcachemeister]

Doesn't that make it an even better puzzle?

 

"You won't see this one on the map, so you will really need to know how to use the website!"

 

Hopefully those who can't even find the icon are posting their DNFs properly.

[+hzoi]

I think the cacher who only used the map to find caches to look for would be the type of cacher who would not go for a puzzle (mainly because it would take advance planning where as just using the map is more of freestyle caching).

 

I disagree. I prefer to use the map, whether I'm looking for local caches or for visiting new areas. And I do enjoy puzzle caches. So if I was going to this area, I'd miss that puzzle.

[+redsox_mark]

I think the cacher who only used the map to find caches to look for would be the type of cacher who would not go for a puzzle (mainly because it would take advance planning where as just using the map is more of freestyle caching).

 

I disagree. I prefer to use the map, whether I'm looking for local caches or for visiting new areas. And I do enjoy puzzle caches. So if I was going to this area, I'd miss that puzzle.

Me too. I tend to use the map. Sometimes I'll specifically search for puzzle caches and look at a list, but mostly I use the map.

[+lamoracke]

I have a multi that starts on a plant identification sign, its a virtual waypoint. However, there is a puzzle that was there before me that uses that spot as parking. Sure, I could try to move mine a bit or ask the puzzle owner (who is a friend of mine) to move hers a bit, but I felt she was there first and it makes sense where both of ours are. I have had a few folks tell me they missed my cache while searching for it, but I imagine most folks who will find it will find it eventually.

 

I'd hope whichever cache was there first would get the priority, but I have no idea if there is a rule.

[Pup Patrol]

I think the cacher who only used the map to find caches to look for would be the type of cacher who would not go for a puzzle (mainly because it would take advance planning where as just using the map is more of freestyle caching).

 

I disagree. I prefer to use the map, whether I'm looking for local caches or for visiting new areas. And I do enjoy puzzle caches. So if I was going to this area, I'd miss that puzzle.

 

I agree with hzoi.

 

The map is how I plan our geocaching excursions. I avoid caching on the fly as much as possible and spend a good deal of time reading through cache pages, and checking locations on the map, before choosing caches.

 

Having icons piled on top of each other is a pain. I need to write myself a sticky note, to remember to hover the mouse over locations or zoom in, in order to not miss any caches that may be under the Earthcache or Puzzle icons.

 

 

B.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I had a cache at N 41 W 074 (Degree Confluence). Another cacher liked the numbers a put a mystery right on top. I asked him kindly if he sould move it 70' off or so. No problem. He moved it to W 075.

Yes. I also plan my trips from the map on the GPS.

[+Ike 13]

Well I stand corrected. I stopped using the maps when they were upgraded to beta. I still look at the map, but a PQ will never miss a cache.

[knowschad]

Does anybody know how the software for GS maps 'ranks' icons in situations of overlap?

No, but that's a very interesting question. I doubt that any of the regular members here would know for sure. Perhaps contact@Groundspeak could answer your question?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I think the cacher who only used the map to find caches to look for would be the type of cacher who would not go for a puzzle (mainly because it would take advance planning where as just using the map is more of freestyle caching).

 

I disagree. I prefer to use the map, whether I'm looking for local caches or for visiting new areas. And I do enjoy puzzle caches. So if I was going to this area, I'd miss that puzzle.

Me too. I tend to use the map. Sometimes I'll specifically search for puzzle caches and look at a list, but mostly I use the map.

 

In the past I've always created pocket queries first then reviewed the results on the map. However, with the recently changes to the maps, and better integration with pocket queries, I've found that going to the map first, zooming to the area I want, then creating a pocket query from what's showing on the map is actually easier.

 

On the new maps, it's using a mechanism that I've used on other maps called "clustering". When there is a group of 2 or more icons within some specific proximity, it may show the individual icons but rolling the mouse over the cluster of icons will bring up a pop-up window with a list of all of the icons in the cluster. Unfortunately, the current implementation does not allow you to click on the name of an icon in the list (something I've done with openlayers) and it's also possible the clustering is turned off once you get to a certain zoom level.

[+slukster]

I am in the same boat as others that have missed caches, both on the map on the computer and on my GPS, because the coordinates of two caches were the same. I have a prolific cache hider in my area that puts out many fun puzzle caches and uses the exact same parking coordinates on many of them and I have ended up missing some of their caches. If I am looking at a map and only see one puzzle cache at a parking lot, I might pass the location over if I am looking for a group of caches in an area to make the trip worth while, all along not realizing there are three other caches with the exact same coordinates. I do plan out the puzzle caches I will seek before going out but since the beta maps no longer list all of the caches showing on the map in a list on the side of the screen, I would miss the ones under the top cache since I would just quickly click on the icon and not realize I missed others underneath.

 

On the new maps, it's using a mechanism that I've used on other maps called "clustering". When there is a group of 2 or more icons within some specific proximity, it may show the individual icons but rolling the mouse over the cluster of icons will bring up a pop-up window with a list of all of the icons in the cluster. Unfortunately, the current implementation does not allow you to click on the name of an icon in the list (something I've done with openlayers) and it's also possible the clustering is turned off once you get to a certain zoom level.

 

After reading this thread I went to a group of these puzzle caches and was frustrated that I couldn't figure out how to view the caches under the top one.

 

 

I finally figured out that after you click on the top one and the pop up screen appears, there is a "next" button that you can click on to view the caches underneath.

 

Edited May 8, 2012 by slukster

[+CanadianRockies]

I had a cache at N 41 W 074 (Degree Confluence). Another cacher liked the numbers a put a mystery right on top. I asked him kindly if he sould move it 70' off or so. No problem. He moved it to W 075.

That's an 84-km jump. Doesn't that violate the "puzzle's final location must be within 3 km of the posted coordinates" guideline? Or did they move both the posted coordinates and the physical cache?

[+hzoi]

I had a cache at N 41 W 074 (Degree Confluence). Another cacher liked the numbers a put a mystery right on top. I asked him kindly if he sould move it 70' off or so. No problem. He moved it to W 075.

That's an 84-km jump. Doesn't that violate the "puzzle's final location must be within 3 km of the posted coordinates" guideline? Or did they move both the posted coordinates and the physical cache?

 

Might be an older cache. That rule's relatively new, within the past couple years, and I don't believe it's been applied retroactively.

[+Ranger Roo]

Would it be possible to move the icon a bit (say to a parking area) and then put in a waypoint to direct people to the coords they need to go to to solve the puzzle?

[+Harry Dolphin]

I had a cache at N 41 W 074 (Degree Confluence). Another cacher liked the numbers a put a mystery right on top. I asked him kindly if he sould move it 70' off or so. No problem. He moved it to W 075.

That's an 84-km jump. Doesn't that violate the "puzzle's final location must be within 3 km of the posted coordinates" guideline? Or did they move both the posted coordinates and the physical cache?

 

Might be an older cache. That rule's relatively new, within the past couple years, and I don't believe it's been applied retroactively.

 

Okay. I exaggerated. He moved it 79.7 km. Yes. It's an older cache. 2008. Before that guideline went into effect.

[+Willie Wandering]

Would the other cacher change the coordinates to their cache if asked?

Doesn't need to be by much, and would not mean moving the cache, as the small change is well within the usual search area, and would at least show there's another cache icon on the map...

If I'm honest I'm a little bit miffed it's happened, but it's not a big enough problem to make an issue of. It's more of a question about how the maps work than anything. I'd have thought older caches would take precedence.

 

I think the cacher who only used the map to find caches to look for would be the type of cacher who would not go for a puzzle (mainly because it would take advance planning where as just using the map is more of freestyle caching).

 

I disagree. I prefer to use the map, whether I'm looking for local caches or for visiting new areas. And I do enjoy puzzle caches. So if I was going to this area, I'd miss that puzzle.

That does concern me, I doubt we'd see it either as we search the maps in a similar way and I know others do. On the other hand I'm sure we've had finders who have come to do the series who might not have travelled to do a puzzle, so it's not all bad.

 

I am in the same boat as others that have missed caches...

Apologies for snipping your post. What you describe is even worse once you log one of the caches as found because you're unlikely to ever have reason to look beneath a smiley. We overlooked an earthcache for about a year, because it was beneath a multi we'd found already. That definitely seems wrong – assuming it's still the case, it could have changed.

 

I finally figured out that after you click on the top one and the pop up screen appears, there is a "next" button that you can click on to view the caches underneath.

I didn't notice the next and previous feature, that makes perfect sense. I've been coming at the icons from different angles to try and catch them by surprise , so that the 'other' cache comes up when you click. I've actually just tried it again and our cache is still beneath but comes up first when you click, I don't think it did before. Of course if you're scanning the maps, looking for puzzles, you wouldn't click on every cache to see if another is hidden beneath. It'll never be perfect but with older caches always on top, it would be up to a 'new setter' to decide if they are happy to later place an icon under an existing one.

 

Would it be possible to move the icon a bit (say to a parking area) and then put in a waypoint to direct people to the coords they need to go to to solve the puzzle?

Yes and no; I could re-work the puzzle and move the coordinates, but I'd really rather not. Being brutal about it our cache was there first and it's been set for a reason, in a specific location and in a particular way. I'm very happy with it the way it is. It strikes me as a little thoughtless to put a cache on top of someone else’s icon (a series doesn't have to have a cache every 100m, does it?). Being rational, I'm also certain it wasn't done with any malicious intent and I can completely understand wanting to place a cache there as it's a lovely spot as well has a 'specific location'... which is why I incorporated it into our cache.

 

Does anybody know how the software for GS maps 'ranks' icons in situations of overlap?

No, but that's a very interesting question. I doubt that any of the regular members here would know for sure. Perhaps contact@Groundspeak could answer your question?

Good idea. I'll send them an email and report back. Thanks

[+wimseyguy]

What you describe is even worse once you log one of the caches as found because you're unlikely to ever have reason to look beneath a smiley.

 

Really?? Cuz one of the first things I do when accessing the official maps is toggle my finds off. I wish there was a way to have that setting stored.

[+slukster]

What you describe is even worse once you log one of the caches as found because you're unlikely to ever have reason to look beneath a smiley.

 

Really?? Cuz one of the first things I do when accessing the official maps is toggle my finds off. I wish there was a way to have that setting stored.

Ah, I never thought to do that. That could definately help.

[+wimseyguy]

Once you have found >50% of the local caches it's the only way. Otherwise you cannot see the forest for the smileys.

[+Willie Wandering]

Okay I have an update, a reply from Groundspeak support in which they say:

 

Thank you for contacting Groundspeak regarding your question about icons on the map. The most recent cache is the one that is shown on top and as it is encountered by the database when populating the map. The developers explained it to me like 'dealing out cards'- the first ones dealt get overlaid by the later ones. I understand your argument but this it the current system that we have for our icons and it does not look like it will change soon.

 

Overlaps will and do happen and it doesn't seem right to me that an established cache doesn't take precedence. A later setter may choose to accept that their icon will be underneath another, but this way the original setter gets no choice.

 

Well, there you go.

[+Willie Wandering]

Sorry to keep bumping this to the top... final update, promise.

 

Someone has pointed out that it's possible to change the 'date placed', and that by setting it a day after the 'other' cache, with the system as is, it is possible to 'force' one on to the top.

 

May not be ethical... it may not work... but it's a thought.

 

Cheers

Edited May 18, 2012 by Willie Wandering