| QUOTE (Image Maker @ September 18, 2013 03:18 am) | ||||
Another idea this morning ... I can only speculate as to what makes a map solution inappropriate. If it is the number of points being displayed on the map, maybe these can be reduced as follows ... Of the 5104 caches in my 'unfound' DB, 3731 of them have 4 or fewer FPs (Almost 75%). How about dividing the FPs by 5 and rounding down? Only request display of FP/5 copies of each cache, ignoring all caches with a resulting 0 value? Concrete example => All my unfound caches together have 27973 FPs. Using the suggested algorithm I end up with 4459 "reduced FPs" - less than the original number of caches. Doing the same dividing by 4 rather than 5 I end up with 5868 "reduced FPs" - so somewhat more. Would this solve the map issue or is there an problem with displaying the same cache multiple times at the same point? Thank you (also for your patience Image may be NSFW. Clik here to view.  ) |
My comment 'not on a map' was related to the difficulty of interpreting the results, not of creating the map. Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
If we are looking for quality, not quantity, then I've tried the following procedure, which seems to give some aid.
1. Filter the database to caches with favorite points > 5 (or other perhaps higher value you choose). This is our quality filter.
2. Map this selection using the GoogleMapsV3 macro
3. Right-click on the map and set the clustering grid size to 100.
This will cluster most caches and the cluster size will now be a good indication of local density.
You can confirm this by running the Density macro I linked to above (unedited) against the same filter.
