Geocaching North Carolina

Looking back on my last few geocaching posts, they've been mostly dry sifting through numbers. So I'm going to try to mix in more narrative this time. Hopefully, it will help give other geocachers (and non-geocachers) an idea of what it's like to look for caches. (If you are looking for caches in Greensboro, you might not want to read the "spoilers" of the specific ones below.)

I went to a conference last weekend at UNC Greensboro, which provided me the opportunity to expand my geocaching map. I was also looking for other ways to expand my geocaching experiences.

One cache on campus I was particularly looking forward to was "A Little Cacher Told Me". It's what's known as a "chirp cache" or "beacon cache". At the posted coordinates, there is a low-power radio beacon which broadcasts information used to find the actual geocache location. It requires specialized equipment to receive the beacon, but fortunately for me, Samsung loves to cram their phones with every type of sensor known to mankind. Unfortunately, when I tried loading the software, I found out that Samsung had accidentally disabled the sensor in their latest Android upgrade for my phone. Boo hiss. So no chirp cache, and no 4/2 difficulty/terrain combination for me.

Undaunted, I looked up a cache near where I was having lunch. "Corner Garden" was a few blocks away. It was located, as one might surmise, in a community garden on a neighborhood street corner. (I keep forgetting to take pictures, which would punch up these posts.) I read through the logs from the previous finds, and one helpfully said "look for the chain", so when I saw a rusty chain lying on the ground, I pulled it out and found the cache attached. It really points out how many random things we see on lampposts and elsewhere that we don't give a second thought to.

So now I could claim my 11th state. But wait -- it says I found 7 caches in NC. Yes, I decided to do a more thorough job of finding available caches. After lunch I found Peabody Overlook, which was in a quite nice wooded area on campus. It was nice to find an area in what was really quite an urban setting. Unfortunately, the cache was soggy, and one of the "trade items" was a condom, which is just gross. At least I thought to take a picture of the area!

On a busy campus

Then, that evening, I found Hop-Scotch. This is another "in plain sight" cache -- it's a tiny magnet on a handicap parking sign, right over the screw.

The next day I found ATN Where's the Beef while looking for lunch. It was in a Chik-fil-a parking lot, so Sunday was the perfect time to grab it undisturbed. Unfortunately, the container was one of those plastic domes in which you get cheap toys out of vending machines. It was cracked, but the cache was still findable. So I found it and went to Popeye's.

Then there was Off Your Rocker in Greensboro, NC. The "OYR" series consists of geocaches on Cracker Barrel porches, but was discontinued in 2007 due to Cracker Barrel's banning them. This one is from 2005, so it's grandfathered. It was a hide-a-key attached to whatever iron junk was on the porch. At difficulty 3, it was a little trickier than I am used to, so I was happy I was able to locate it.






That day while grabbing dinner, I also grabbed ATN Return to Honey Do Valley. It was near a Lowe's, and it was an Altoids tin painted to look like the light pole it was wedged on. I am not thrilled when people place caches on electrical equipment, since it encourages poking around electrical equipment.

So that's six Greensboro caches -- but wait, it says I found seven in North Carolina. The next day, on the drive back, we stopped at a rest area which I noticed contained two caches. So while Christina got a break, I took the kids to find one of them. It was far enough off the paved surfaces so that it could be in plain sight without drawing too much attention. The kids were excited enough to search for treasure, and I got to add Granville County to my list of counties.

So that's up to 28 counties. Only 3,114 to go!

OK, now on to more dry statistics. Last time I checked, my difficulty/terrain averages were at 1.484756/1.423780. By focusing on slightly harder caches, I've bumped that up to 1.505814/1.427326. That takes me from the 0.2nd percentile to the 0.3rd.

I reached a milestone here in a challenge I had not discussed here -- the Jasmer challenge. The challenge is to find a geocache placed in each month since the start of geocaching in May 2000. In North Carolina, I got up to 100 months (out of 197 so far). That's more progress than I thought I'd been making. The older months are typically the hardest, so I may look for some particularly old geocaches the next time I travel.

Geocaching: County 26

Last month, I made it up to 25 of the United States' 3142 counties (or county-equivalents). I'm pleased to say I've added Fairfax County, Virginia to that list, so I'm now at 26!

This cache was also the first one I've found in West 77° 17', so that gives me the 10th minute in the West 77 Degrees Longitude Challenge. I am one-sixth of the way there!

Speaking of longitude challenges, I also logged a cache in Beltsville that was the first one I've found in 76° 53'. (Although the second one I've found while visiting the Beltsville MVA.) That's the 30th minute in the West 76 Degrees Longitude Challenge. Halfway there! (I have none of the minutes from 0 to 26, so my ability to fill in gaps will be limited -- on the other hand, it gives me incentive to visit some new counties to the east.) I now have a neater map to look at when figuring out where I can go to help me with degree challenges. (I'm not extending this snippet west of 77° 04' because I have so little filled in there.)

In terms of another geocaching goal, how am I doing on increasing my difficulty and terrain? Well, I realized my last post on the topic didn't include the actual averages, but they rounded to 1.49 difficulty and 1.42 terrain. The two caches referenced above were 1/1.5-rated, which brings me to a 1.48/1.42 average, or more precisely 1.484756/1.423780. The combined ranking now puts me 7818/7834. I am now at the 0.8th percentile on terrain, instead of the 0.7th, but I am still at 0.2nd combined and 0.36th on difficulty. This goes against my plan to increase my D/T average, but it accords well with my "don't waste too much time looking for geocaches" plan. (Speaking of percentiles, I have crept up from the 18.7th percentile for counties to the 19.1st.)

Go Update: 5 years, 1 kyu

It has been exactly five years since I've checked in on my on-line go rating. What has happened? Well, looking at the above graph, it's been ugly. I quickly ascended from 15 kyu to 12 kyu, which I held for two days in February 2012, only to crash back down to 15 by January 2013. Since then, I've seen 14 kyu as well as 16 kyu a few times. My latest stint as a 14 kyu has lasted since June, so I'm going to take that as my ranking for this check-in, meaning that I've made 1 kyu of progress in the past five years. Not great, but better than regressing 1 kyu. I am trying to play more games against different people both to get a better sense of my skill level, as well as hopefully improving through practice.

Geocaching: The Difficulty/Terrain Matrix (and my place on it)

Every geocache has two numeric attributes that range from 1 to 5: difficult and terrain. It wouldn't be too far off to say that terrain is how hard it is to get to the geocache, and difficulty is how hard it is to complete the find once you are there. Let's look at where my finds place on that matrix:

So I definitely tend towards the easier caches. I've talked in the past about finding new D/T combos to fill out this matrix, but I haven't made any progress there since April. Hard geocaches are, well, hard, and I haven't had a ton of time to seek out the more adventurous ones lately.

But let's focus on something else -- the average. As you can see above, my average cache isn't too far off a 1.5/1.5 cache. (For reference, that's the hardest cache that can be found with the official Geocaching app if you don't spring for a premium membership.) In my last post, I looked at what percentile I am in terms of number of counties. What percentile am I in difficulty and terrain? (Keeping in mind that the people I'm comparing with have necessarily had to pay for premium in order to generate the stats.

Well, my average difficulty puts me 8019/8048, or the 0.36th percentile. My average terrain puts me 7991/8048, or the 0.7th percentile. Wow -- I think there'd at least be enough geocachers in wheelchairs to bump me higher than that.

Combined, and restricting to those who have found at least 100 caches, 7865/7881, or the 0.2nd percentile. That's pretty bad! And with things like cache rate, where I can say that I'm unusual in that I've kept at it over the years without being obsessed by it, that's one thing. But this just indicates that I'm not particularly good at it!

So, how can I get better? Well, if I knew that... Let's look at my found caches by combined D/T score:

• 2.0: 51 caches
• 2.5: 21 caches
• 3.0: 43 caches
• 3.5: 19 caches
• 4.0: 15 caches
• 4.5: 8 caches
• 5.0: 3 caches
• 5.5: 2 caches

So, certainly, 3.0 caches are findable. If I brought my average ever-so-slightly up to that, I would be up to the 0.64th percentile, which is slightly less embarrassing. 3.5 is also doable, and it would bring me all the way up to the 51st percentile -- slightly better than the median cacher. So, clearly, most cachers are between 3.0 and 3.5. If I make it a point to favor caches with a combined rating of 3.5 and above, I can certainly bring up my average (and track it here).

Geocaching: California County Caching

After adding a new Arizona county last month, I added two more counties on our trip to California.

The first was a virtual cache inside of Disneyland (Orange County). It's also the 9th oldest cache I've found. (More on cache ages in a future post.)

The next day, we went to see friends in LA County. On one of the many bathroom stops on the way home, I found another one outside a Starbucks. Well, despite the fact it was almost identical to the one I found in my parents' retirement community, Christina found it for me. So that's now 4 counties in California.

That's still 54 I haven't found. Maybe three of those are within a couple hours of a future trip to San Diego, but the rest would wait for trips to other parts of California. Still, I enjoy seeing the map changing. California is only one of three states (with Maryland and Arizona) that I've actually caches in multiple counties. But I still enjoy the maps!

25 total counties. How does that compare? Well, one way to look at it is My Geocaching Profile has a ranking page. As with similar pages I've mentioned in the past, this only represents people who have used that site in the past year. I am currently 4716/5798. That's the 18.7th percentile, which is pretty low, but I am 7724/8074, the 4.3rd percentile in number of finds. (I assume the difference in total cachers comes from excluding those who haven't cached in the U.S.)

Finding caches in all the counties in any one state is already probably going to be too much for me, so why keep track of progress towards America's 3142 counties? Well, it's easier to make incremental progress, even when visiting new states. Also, finding all 3142 counties is tricky for anyone.

I recently heard a podcast mention someone who had that as a goal (along with his son). He stated that nobody had even visited all of the county-equivalents in Alaska, let alone the U.S.  According to My Geocaching Profile, the top county finder is at 2703. The guy is at #16 on the list, but looking at his map, I have hit 14 counties he hasn't so...counties are really difficult I guess.

(I'm in the 86.1st percentile for countries caches, so look like I am more of an international traveler anyway.)

Scotland's UEFA Coefficient: Group Stage Preview

Playoff-Round Review

Well, Celtic qualified for the Champions League, but everything about it was ugly. They let their opponent score 2 goals in the first leg, and then got shut out in the second leg. The one win netted 1 point (and 0.25 for the coefficient), and more importantly 4 points (and 1 for the coefficient) for qualifying for the Champions League.

Group Stage Preview

Celtic face FC Barcelona, Manchester City and Borussia Mönchengladbach. Let's see, sides that finished in the top four in the top three leagues in Europe (and let's face it, the world). That can't be good.

A good result would be a third-place finish in the group, while netting 4 points (and 1 for the coefficient). That would be two wins, four draws, or a win and two draws, i.e., a third of what is available in the six matches. But honestly, that looks like it would take a miracle at this point. Still, third would get them into the knockout phase of the Europa League, and they could actually pick up more points.

A bad result would be six losses. That is more likely than third place right now.

Where We Stand

Still in 23rd? Seriously? I was not expecting them to stay in 23rd the whole time I was tracking this. Fortunately, three of the four teams ahead of them are out of European competition, so by putting together some super-miracle and qualifying for the knock-out phase of the Champions League, Celtic could vault Scotland up at least three notches. Probably four, given Legia Warsaw is unlikely to do the same for Poland. More realistically, any sort of result (i.e. even one draw) will pull them past Norway.

From below, Israel and Azerbaijan both have two teams in Europa League action, where points are easier to come by. Actually, Celtic may have done better for the coefficient in forgoing the 4 point bonus and dropping back to the Europa League where they would have a chance to win more games. Of course, the money and exposure is more important. Celtic better enjoy it this year because...

Champions League Changes

UEFA is supposed to announce changes tomorrow which would see the top 4 leagues get their top 4 teams directly into the Champions League group stage. It's not clear how that's going to be done, but it will certainly make it harder for everyone else (including Scottish teams) to get there.

My analysis of the UEFA coefficient has been based on the assumption that the same rules would apply in future years. But the coefficient I'm following above impacts the 2017/8 season, which is when the new format would start. Right now, countries ranked 19-28 are treated exactly the same, and major changes only happen when you move up to 15, when the runner-up gets in the Champions League. So the goal was to get Scotland up to 15.

It's possible that the coefficient will be more important, particularly if 19-28 are no longer treated the same. Maybe (for example), 23 and below will have to enter in an expanded first round. Or it's possible that the coefficient will be less important, with everybody below (say) 10 only getting one entrant. I'll leave that analysis for another day.

Scotland's UEFA Coefficient: Playoff-Round Preview

Third-Round Review

Celtic secured advancement to the playoff round with a draw and a win. That's very good! It's just a hair off a perfect result, and it ensures them of continuing to the group stages of either the Europa League or the Champions League, depending on what happens in the playoff round. I guess it was a bit closer than you'd like, with everything tied until injury time.

Aberdeen got a draw out of the first leg, and looked to be going out on the away-goal tiebreaker until injury time of the second leg...when they conceded an own goal. So that's another 0.125 off the coefficient for the next 5 years, and Aberdeen bows out in the third round again. Still, the 3.5 they produced this year, is, when divided by 4, worth 0.875. If all of Scotland's non-Celtic teams could manage that, they'd be in good shape. Instead, the three non-Celtics totalled 7 points this year. I set 8 or 9 points as a target, so we're close, but not quite there. Looking ahead to next year, it'll be a crucial question of whether the Scottish Cup winner is a team who can produce more than the 1 point Hibs managed this year.

Playoff-Round Preview

Well, it's just Celtic now!


Celtic is facing Hapoel Beer Sheeva, the Israeli champions. I think that's a good draw for Celtic. While Hapoel have surprised recently, I think you'd rather face an upset winner than a team with a long track record.

It's pretty straightforward at this point. If Celtic advances to the Champions League group stage, they pick up a bonus of four points, which would be a good way towards achieving their "normal" contribution of 12. They can do that with anywhere from 1 to 2 points from wins or draws, so a win would put them at 7.5 to 8.5 and poised to pick up 2 points from each win and 1 point from each draw in the Champions League group stage.

If they fail to advance, it'll be because they pick up no more than 1 point. While the 2 points for a win may be easier to get in the Europa League group stage, the long term financial hit from missing out on the 12 million plus Euros they'd get from the Champions League is a bigger deal.

Where We Stand

So Scotland only has one team left -- but so do Norway and Poland, the two teams ahead of them. Further, the Norwegian champions have been bounced down to the Europa League, so they are not even guaranteed a group stage. Scotland could certainly catch them both, even theoretically by the end of the round. (Denmark is solidly in 20th with all four teams still alive and probably uncatchable.)

But look below! The four countries below all are doing better this year than Scotland, each has at least two teams left. Because of the four bonus points (equivalent to 1.0 in the coefficient) given for making the Champions League group stage, Israel is guaranteed to catch up with Scotland if Celtic loses to Hapoel -- even on two draws.

So there's a good chance Scotland will finally catch or be caught -- or both. Stay tuned.

Geocaching Arizona

We spent last week in Arizona visiting my parents, and I found two geocaches to go with the one Christina and I found in 2007. The first was in the parking lot outside a pool we visited in my parents' retirement community.  That gave me my first cache in Pinal County.

The second was a virtual cache outside the surprisingly fun International Wildlife Museum. It pointed me towards a lion statue and required me to gather some information. Roar!

So add Arizona to the list of states where I've found caches in more than one county. (Short list: Maryland and California are the two others.)

These also represent the #8 and #10 highest elevations of any cache I've found.

Geocaching: Caching Bristol

I had a nice week of geocaching in Bristol. I had ambitions of doing some "numbers caching" -- either breaking my record of 5 days in a row or 8 caches in a week. But to get the sixth day would require caching before my 6am taxi ride to the airport (or after midnight), and after 7 caches, I lost my pen and it was getting dark on my last evening, so...I guess I'll settle for seeing the UK pass Canada for #2 country in which I've cached.

All of the caches I found in the UK were what's known as "urban micros". They are tiny caches, just big enough for a tiny piece of paper, and they're hidden in busy areas where you need to avoid being detected finding, signing and replacing the cache.

Ordinarily these are not my favorite types of caches. But in Bristol they ended up being pretty neat, mainly because Bristol is a cool city, and they took me to some interesting places. Also, I think I'm finally getting better at finding these micros.

The first cache I found, shortly after landing, was in a car park. But what a view!

My hotel (and this car park) were right near St. Mary Redcliffe church, known to Elizabeth I as, "the fairest, goodliest, and most famous parish church in England." The hide was fairly clever -- it was inside a bike lock (sans bike) attached to a bike rack in the parking lot.

The next day at lunch I found one in Queens Square. I didn't take a picture, but here's one from 2008 I took of the statue the cache is named after: 

The third day I found my first "Church Micro". Hiding micro caches near churches is apparently a big thing in the UK. They've hidden over ten thousand of them. This one was in a church that was destroyed during the Blitz, which is now a park. Bristol was experiencing a record heat wave when I was there, so the parks were full. I thought it was a bit odd for people to be out in the heat, but I realized they probably were better off in the park since most of the buildings weren't air-conditioned. Anyway, I had to come back four times before the bench the cache was attached to was clear of people.

On Day 4, I found another blitz-related cache on my second try. This one brought me to a spot where a tram rail had been sent by an explosion into the courtyard of St. Mary Redcliffe. They left it there to remind people how close the church had come to destruction.

Then it was another "Church Micro". This was actually pretty far down the street from the church in question, but it was a nice view.

The final cache of Day 4 was in an open area near the water. Previous logs said it was hard to access during festivals and whatnot, but at around 9 at night it was mostly deserted -- but still light out!

My final cache of the trip was in a park. For this one, I'll show you a little bit more about how urban micros work. This one was a fake screw on the underside of a bench. Once you know what to look for, it's pretty obvious. On some benches, this would be trickier, but this screw was fairly obviously not one that belongs to this type of bench.

Anyway, geocaching got me out and walking, which helped (maybe) with the jet lag. Because these types of caches are placed in high-traffic areas, a few of the more interesting ones had gone missing. I've marked them down for my next trip to Bristol.

Countries Visited: Number 32

My path to the Travelers Century Club continues. A layover (it counts!) in Dublin allowed me to add a country for the first time since 2009. 68 to go!

Scotland's UEFA Coefficient: Third-Round Preview

Well, I guess I should be glad there's a third round to preview.

Second-Round Review

After I said, "Celtic has no business being in Europe if they can't dispatch these guys handily," Celtic went to Gibraltar and...lost. Oh, boy.


Well it was time for what this blog is (not actually) known for: on-the-scene (sort of) reporting. I was going to be in the UK for the return leg, so I planed to go...to a Celtic pub. The usual one was all the way across town, so I envisioned an epic walk across Bristol followed by watching the game among throngs of rabid Celtic supporters. By Wednesday, however, I was pretty tired, so I was very grateful to find out that the Celtic supporters were watching at a pub kinda near my hotel. Oh, and the sound wasn't going to be on because it was pub quiz night. Well, anyway, it was a place to have a pint of Guinness and watch with...I'm guessing three Celtic supporters. Celtic scored three goals in rapid succession to put things away, and I left before the pub quizzers showed up. The loss in Gibraltar, I'll remind, knocks 0.25 off the coefficient (compared to a win) for a five-year-period.

For Hibs, I said, "I don't hold out much hope here, but it would be nice to see Hibs grab 0.125 or even 0.25, even if they don't advance." They almost advanced! They let in a goal in the first minute of the first leg, then held Brøndby scoreless for 209 minutes. And then lost in penalties. Sigh. I hate penalties. At least they got the 0.25.

Of Hearts, I said, "I think everyone would expect two wins and 0.5 points." How about no wins and 0.125 points? Versus a team from Malta? Very embarassing.

Finally, Aberdeen had looked rusty. "If Aberdeen can shake off some rust, they are certainly capable of a good result, but the full 0.5 points, or even advancement is not assured." Well, they got the full 0.5 points, and they're Scotland's sole Europa League representative (at least until Celtic gets knocked down from the Champions League).

"I think a good outcome of the second round would be to see Scotland with 1.875 points or more for the year, with three out of four teams advancing. If two (or fewer) teams advance and Scotland only comes out of this with 1.5 points or fewer, things will not be looking up." So it's a split decision -- 1.875 points, but only two teams advancing.

Third-Round Preview

So Celtic is off to Kazakhstan to face Astana. Honestly, while they should win,  it's going to be dicey. I included Kazakhstan in the chart above to show their position in the provisional 2017 rankings. A little below Scotland. If you stretch things out to the (very provisional) 2018 rankings, they're actually poised to pass Scotland. As for Astana, they were in the Champions League group stages last weekend, so a Celtic loss and dropping into the Europa League playoffs is a distinct possibility.

Aberdeen faces Maribor of Slovenia. Slovenia is a couple of notches below Kazakhastan. However, two years ago Maribor knocked out Celtic on their way to the Champions League group stages. It's not going to be easy for Aberdeen, but they've got an experienced squad.

A good outcome would have both teams alive, with Celtic still in the Champions League. Honestly, if that happens, the minimum points (2.375) would be acceptable. If it doesn't, you'd like to see Aberdeen add to the coefficient on its way out, with Celtic's main contribution likely to be in the group stages of whichever competition they are in at that point.

Where We Stand

First of all, my plan all along was that Celtic needs to stay Celtic (or Rangers, but we'll address that next year maybe) and pick up on the order of 12 points (3 after adjustment for the coefficient).  They're at 1, which is not great, but most importantly they are alive.

The other teams need to provide 8 or 9 parts. Aberdeen has 3, so they've done their share and are poised to pick up more. Hearts got 2.5 before exiting, which is close to their share. Hibs, however, exited with 1, which is typical for Scotland, and frankly more than you'd expect for a lower-division team. So 6.5 so far. If Aberdeen can advance, there's every reason the non-Celtic teams can hold up their end of the bargain for the year.

Looking at the chart at the top of this post, Norway is in sad shape and is certainly catchable this year. Denmark is doing great, and will likely pass their Scandinavian neighbors soon. Scotland has come close to catching Poland, but the four countries directly below Scotland have done at least as well and are keeping the pressure on. (He says, pretending that anyone feels pressure related to the UEFA coefficient.)

Bowie Restaurant Project: (BB8) Killarney House

Killarney House
584 W Central Ave, Davidsonville
Most Recent Foursquare Check-in: 6/29/2016
Total Foursquare Check-ins: 2
Pre-Foursquare Visits: No
Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

 In addition to reviewing (most of) the restaurants in Bowie, I sometimes highlight a restaurant in the area that provides something Bowie is lacking. I did the seventh and most recent "Beyond Bowie" installment in 2014, so this makes this one...BB-8.




(Sorry.)

Anyway, Killarney House is great. The food is delicious, but it's the setting that makes it a must-visit. It's an Irish pub out in the countryside -- how great is that? Normally I think of the Beyond Bowie series as "restaurants that Bowie doesn't have, but should." But I'm not sure where you'd put this in Bowie to get the same effect.

One of my motivations for reviewing restaurants was finding new places to take people who were visiting work (RIP, Grace's Fortune). This is a great place to take people to convince them not every restaurant in the area is in a strip mall.

Bowie Restaurant News

• The Olive Grove is closed.
• Sardi's Pollo a la Brasa will be giving Bowie its second Peruvian chicken restaurant, at Bowie Town Center.
• Pho D'Lite is coming to Hilltop Plaza.
  

Scotland's UEFA Coefficient: Second-Round Preview

First Round Review

Before we preview the second round, let's recap what happened in the first round. Hearts squeaked by Estonian side Infonet FC 2-1 at home before taking a definitive 4-2 away win. End result: 0.5 points for the coefficient, and a second-round date with the Maltese team Birkirkara FC.

Aberdeen got two late goals for a 3-1 home win against part-time Luxembourgers Fola Esch, before falling to an embarrassing 1-0 loss that left them one goal away from a first-round exit.  End result: 0.25 points for the coefficient, and a second-round matchup with Latvian side Ventspils. Note that if Aberdeen had won this match, that would have been an extra 0.25 carried through for the coefficient for an entire 5-year period.

Looking at the above chart excerpt from Bert Kassies' excellent site, not much has changed among teams within two points of Scotland. Of most note is the bad round Poland had, seeing one team knocked out, only picking up 0.25 points and falling behind Denmark. I included Norway in the picture just to note that they had trouble too, having a team knocked out to the fourth-placed Welsh side.


So where are we (as fans of Scotland -- specifically Scotland's UEFA coefficient) and where are we headed? I have two different ways of looking at things.

Reasons for Pessimism

Among the teams within two points of Scotland, only Poland did worse -- Denmark, Azerbaijan, Cyprus and Israel all did better. If Scotland is not only going to retain their ranking, but improve, they need to gain ground, not lose it.

Going into the second round, Hearts has to face a Maltese side that took West Ham United to penalties last year. Aberdeen looked shaky in both of their matches -- Ventspils didn't. And Hibs, a second-tier club, has to face Brøndby, who just advanced with a 10-1 aggregate score. (Note that losses to Brøndby both hurt Scotland and help Denmark.) Celtic should be fine against a team from Gibraltar, but it's later rounds where we worry about their performance slipping.

Reasons for Optimism

Despite not quite keeping pace with most of the countries ranked in the twenties, Scotland didn't slip more than a quarter-point compared to any of them. And it did keep all teams alive to earn more points.

Further, my past analysis indicates that a typical year gives Scotland a coefficient contribution of 3.75 -- 3 from Celtic and 0.75 from everybody else. Well, they've already got 0.75 from everybody else, so things are looking better than usual, with all three non-Celtics able to add to that. Bringing Scotland's coefficient gradually up into the mid-teens requires the non-Celtics to contribute consistent totals of 2-2.25 points/year -- that's at least mathematically possible in the second round alone.

And despite the possibility of upsets, three of the opponents are from leagues ranked 40, 50 and 52 out of 54 European countries. And although Hibs have a tough road ahead, their new manager did take Celtic to the knockout stages of the Champions League a few years back, so they may do better in Europe than they have any right to.

Second Round Preview

Celtic starts things off with Champions League matches against Lincoln Red Imps, who won the Gibraltar Premier League for the 14th time. Celtic has no business being in Europe if they can't dispatch these guys handily. They should pull out the full 0.5 points for the coefficient, but it's certainly possible that they get way ahead in the first leg and settle for a draw or a narrow loss in the second to rest their players.

Hibs face Brøndby (honestly, I will never tire of putting ø in my posts). I don't hold out much hope here, but it would be nice to see Hibs grab 0.125 or even 0.25, even if they don't advance.

Hearts face Birkirkara. The Maltese have never made it out of the second round of European competition, and I don't see this year being any different. Like Celtic, Hearts might drop some points by not going all out in the second leg, but after their impressive performance in the second leg of the first round, I think everyone would expect two wins and 0.5 points.

Aberdeen takes on Ventspils. If Aberdeen can shake off some rust, they are certainly capable of a good result, but the full 0.5 points, or even advancement is not assured.

I think a good outcome of the second round would be to see Scotland with 1.875 points or more for the year, with three out of four teams advancing. If two (or fewer) teams advance and Scotland only comes out of this with 1.5 points or fewer, things will not be looking up.

Geocaching Update: So Many Minutes

When I last checked in with my quest to get all 60 minutes of longitude in 76 degrees West, I had 23. Now I'm up to 28!

One way I've been finding caches to fill in holes is by creating a map that shows where I've already found caches. The vertical stripes are pretty clear; the shaded in areas show minutes I've already covered. (It extends west to 77 degrees.) The top and bottom of the rectangles represent the extent to which I've filled in the 38 North and 39 North latitude challenges in this area. I could create more boxes to show areas I've cleared in Baltimore, but that would be too much work.

Anyway, the bottom line is that anywhere in the shaded boxes will not help me with a longitude or latitude challenge. There are only five strips to fill in between Washington and Annapolis, so it will be challenging to get beyond 33.

The five minutes I've filled in are 28, 29, 30, 32, 39. The kids were in camp in Severna Park this week, which allowed quick stops for 28 and 30 (and a failure for 34). Minute 29 was found in April on a visit to a friend in Essex, Minute 32 was in a shopping center while waiting for the Annapolis MVA to open, and Minute 39 was in the woods near Crofton while passing through.

Scotland's UEFA Coefficient: First-Round Preview

I've developed a bit of an obsession with where Scotland's UEFA coefficient is headed, so I might as well go all-in and offer a preview of what is at stake in this week's Europa League kickoff.

The places in the 2016-7 Europa League are actually determined by the coefficient at the end of the 2014-5 season, which is in turn made up of performance over the 2010-2015 time frame. For that, Scotland ranked 23rd. From the 2015-6 coefficient, they dip to 25th for next year's placings. That was actually caused by good performances by Sweden and Norway, rather than significantly worse play by Scottish clubs.

The good news for Scotland is that as 2010-1 performances get wiped off the ledger, they are tentatively back in 23rd place (before 2016-7 results get added in). Again, that's not because Scottish performance in 2010-1 was bad (though it was), but because Cyprus and Israel had really good years that year, which no longer count.

Scotland starts this campaign with 14.55 points. For countries with four clubs in European play (true of everyone ranked 16 through 32), a win in a qualifying round is worth 0.25 points towards their coefficient, and a draw is worth 0.125. Scotland has two clubs in first-round play (Hearts and Aberdeen), for a maximum of 1 point from this round. (Each team plays two games.) Let's look at who they can catch or be caught by. (Data collected from here.)

Azerbaijan was 29th in 2015-6, so they actually have three teams who have to enter in the first round. (One played an early game, hence why they have already picked up 0.125 points.) Thus they could pick up as many as 1.375 points, and pass Scotland as early as next week. By contrast, should Denmark's two teams lose all their games, Scotland's teams could pass them with a clean sweep. Reality will probably be somewhere in between.

At least as important as how many points each of these teams picks up is which of them advance to the second round, where each team can again earn up to half a point. (The same is true of the third round and the playoffs.)

I'll be back around July 8th to review what has happened and to preview the second round. (In the second round, Champions League matches will also start to be relevant.)

Geocaching: FTF & LPC

I got my first geocaching "first to find" (FTF) in late 2007. FTFs are an unofficial geocaching statistic awarded to the first person to find a particular geocache. I inadvertently picked up one in Australia almost a year later on an Earthcache. I hadn't noticed ahead of time that the cache hadn't been found yet.

Well, since I've started to geocache again in earnest this year, I haven't had any new FTFs...until this weekend. I had a couple of near misses. In one, I got a new cache alert when I was at the allergist, and decided I would drop off a library book, then find it on the way to work...only to pull up to see the FTFer replacing the cache. Another one, I was at a nearby grocery store when I got the alert, but I searched to no avail.

That one was a type of cache not prominent during my last caching binge (2007-8): an LPC. LPC stands for "Lamp Post Cache." Most lamp posts in parking lots across the country have a "skirt" above the cement base. You probably won't have noticed if you don't geocache, but that metal skirt can be lifted, and a small object can be hidden underneath. (Click here to see an example.)

I don't want to offend anybody who hides caches there, but LPCs are about the least exciting type of caches there are. You're in a parking lot, messing with a lamp post, and hoping nobody asks you why. They're often placed apologetically with a note that it's a good cache if you're trying to keep a streak of consecutive days going.

Google Maps view of the cache

The one I missed FTF on after leaving the grocery store was like that, but it was placed in a magnet attached to the inside of the skirt. I came back later (after being assure it was there) and found it.

Well, when I got an alert on another one this Saturday, I wasn't sure if it was an LPC. But the kids were happily enjoying a playdate, and it seemed like a good shot at an FTF. I drove up to an office park, and, well, from the Google Maps image, you can see that the cache location is pretty much right on top of a lamp post. There's no other place it can be. Still, it took me five or ten minutes of searching. This one was in a hide-a-key inside the skirt, and because it was black, I missed it the first several times I looked.  A day later, nobody else has found it (or presumably, even looked for it).

I think 11 of the 52 caches I've found this year have been LPCs. They are mainly good to satisfy some statistical metric, but I'd certainly prefer a nice container in the woods, or a virtual cache.

Scottish Football: Thinking About Club Coefficients

As we wait for the June 30th kickoff of Europa League football (or the June 20th draw date), I thought of a new factor that I had overlooked in trying to figure out how Scottish clubs can be successful there.

I've focused on the Scottish UEFA coefficient, which determines where the clubs enter the Europa League (or in Celtic's case, the Champions League). But the individual clubs also have UEFA coefficients. Part of that is determined by the national coefficient, but part is determined by the club's performance in Europe over the past 5 years.

I didn't understand how that mattered until I saw an article about potential first-round and second-round opponents. Basically, at each round, the teams with the better coefficients are "seeded," and the worse ones are "unseeded," with each seeded team facing an unseeded one. So it's important to have a good club coefficient to make sure you have an easier opponent.

Anyway, this re-enforces two principles I had already notice about the way the ranking works.

1. The Rich Get Richer. If you do well, you have a good coefficient, so you have an easier opponent, so you do well, so you have a good coefficient... This would seem fatalistic -- the rules are rigged against you, but there is a sub-principle which gives some hope.

1a. A Little Luck Goes a Long Way. If a team beats the odds...say they're unseeded, but draw one of the weaker seeded teams and pull off a minor upset, well, then, they're in better shape for the next five years. Maybe that's enough to get them seeded in the first-round, they have a little more luck, get seeded in the second round...

2. It Is Better to Have a League Where the Same Teams Dominate. Before, I figured that was true because the richer teams likely have the resources to compete in Europe, as well as the experience from being there most years. But an underdog not only has to deal with a lower budget and less experience, they are also more likely to be unseeded.

So how does that affect the current crop of Scottish teams?

1. Celtic 40.460
2. Motherwell 6.460
3. Hearts 6.460
4. Saint Johnstone 6.210
5. Aberdeen 5.460
6. Dundee United 4.960
7. Rangers 4.960
8. ICT 3.960
9. Hibs 3.960

Celtic appears to be doing fine with the seeding in the Champions League. The threshold this year for first-round seeding is about 3.6 and for the second-round around 5.76.  So this year Scottish teams are guaranteed to be seeded in the first round, but only Hearts will be if they make it to the second round. While this might be a reason to root for Motherwell or Saint Johnstone to have qualified, it's probably better for Aberdeen and Hibs to boost their performance for future seasons.

How important is consistency? It looks like 3.460 is what a Scottish club with no European experience would get just from the country coefficient. So one year's experience is generally enough to get at least a seeded draw in the first round.  On the other hand, if the second-best club in Scotland had been the same every year for the past five years, that club would have a 9.460 coefficient. That's probably not quite enough to be seeded in the third round, but it's close.

Scottish Football: European Weirdness

In March, I speculated about which Scottish soccer clubs would qualify for European competition.  As expected, Celtic, Aberdeen and Hearts took the top three places, and as expected, Celtic took the sole Scottish Champions League berth. This is all good. With their new manager, Celtic has a chance to make a run, and the other two sides have enough resources to win a few rounds if luck falls their way.

It's the other place that is kind of weird. The top three clubs are guaranteed European places, along with the Scottish Cup winner. If, as often happens, the Scottish Cup winner is in the top three, the fourth place team goes too. Well, this year, the Scottish Cup final was contested between the two biggest clubs not already in the top three...Rangers and Hibernian, both of whom played this year in the second-tier Scottish Championship.

Now that would not have necessarily messed up the European places. With both teams contending for promotion, a big-time newly-promoted club would have the resources to compete in Europe. Rangers won the Championship comfortably, and I'm sure they would have loved to give their supporters European football to go with their first first-tier competition in four years.

But...things didn't work out that way. After losing the Premiership playoff, Hibs managed to lift the Scottish Cup for the first time in 114 years. A great story, certainly, but not the best thing for the UEFA coefficient. Hibs will be spending their third year in the Championship. They absolutely have to get out, and so they will be focusing on that rather than a European competition that doesn't give them much hope. Despite their large fan base, their resources will be constrained by being a second-tier club, so I can't imagine they'll be able to compete seriously.

Still, with three out of four high-resource teams, there's hope that Scotland will have enough success to halt the slide in their UEFA coefficient.

Housekeeping Note

The Android's Dungeon is back on-line. It was not appearing everywhere. Basically, 15+ years ago, I contracted with a small ISP for hosting. They were bought out by a company that merged with another company, was bought out again, then was bought out by one of the top five network providers. So they don't have a lot of interest in giving support to someone paying them $5/month. I finally figured out that the domain name servers from the original tiny ISP needed to be updated to the name servers for the giant ISP, and that did the trick.

Nebula Update: Uprooted

While I haven't made any progress on my project of reading all the Nebula-winning novels, at least I haven't fallen further behind. That's because Uprooted, which won this year's award, is a book I've already read. My Goodreads review from last summer is below.

---

Uprooted by Naomi Novik

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

The fantasy is based on Polish folklore. I found the perspective refreshing, and I was impressed at Novik's ability to shift from the Temeraire series to a very different type of story. The plot was good, and the characters were well-formed.

I had two quibbles, one more serious than the other. I found sections of the book creepy, and I'm not big on creepy. More seriously, the parts of the book that described how magic was done did not click with me -- there was a lot of trying to convey how it felt to do magic, and I would have like to have skipped those parts. Unfortunately, those parts ended up figuring prominently in the climax of the novel, which took the shine off what was otherwise a really enjoyable read.

Geocaching: Busy Month

I posted recently comparisons of the various geocaching statistics web sites. Each had advantages and disadvantages. I think, though, that I'm growing to like Project Geocaching. One of the drawbacks is that it only updates once a week, unless you pay them. But that's given me a handy marker for when I check in on my stats, rather than updating them multiple times in a week.

So let's check out what's new...

Although I haven't topped my best week from 2008, I am having my busiest month yet. Some of that was my recent trip to California, but I've also been trying to find a few minutes here or there most days to grab a nearby cache.

Deep thought alert: one of the things that attracted me to geocaching is the idea that these hidden pockets exist even in our built-up world where people hide little boxes of stuff. Another thing I find interesting is finding little pockets of time in the day to locate these little boxes. As an example, recently I was driving down a highway and needed to pull over to make a couple of phone calls. I remembered where there was a geocache, so I parked 100 feet away, and in between phone calls, I signed the log.

Anyway, what else is new in the stats?

I picked up four more of the 81 possible difficulty/terrain combinations. Given that I've only found one with difficulty or terrain greater than 3, and there are only 25 combos that don't fall into that category, I'm running out of the easier ones to knock out.