Intorducing the Washington State Quadrangle Challenge

[+eagsc7]

Congradulations on what I have dubbed the "just one more cache" gene challenge.

 

Washington State Quadrangle Challenge(GC19AMP)

 

Good Luck!

 

The Steaks

[+Allanon]

Ummm...no.

[+-Hawk-]

Ummm...no.

Ya..what Allanon said! I repeat

[+snookie74]

...WHAT THE @!!$#%??

[+hydnsek]

Ummm...no.

Ya..what Allanon said! I repeat

 

...WHAT THE @!!$#%??

 

What they said. No way, no how.

 

Ruck, this one is all yours.

Edited February 20, 2008 by hydnsek

[+ProjectFred325]

I'm lost after reading it and I think its ok, I pass. My eyes hurt from lookin at it.

Edited February 20, 2008 by ProjectFred325

[+LandRover]

I think I'll start the Washingtin State Challange. You have to find every cache in the state before you can find the final that I'll hide under a lamp skirt at the entrance to a really busy mall someplace. The good news is there there won't be a date restriction.

[+The Navigatorz]

Your rule #5 reads: "In each 100K(1 deg W x 1/2 deg N) you only have to find 3/4 of the squares."

 

Without taking the time to count, I'm estimating there are about 2,000 small squares. If we need to find caches in 3/4 of them, then we need to find 1,500 caches to complete the challenge? Let's say by eliminating the small squares that are lakes, reservations, National Parks, suppose that drops it in half, that still remains 750 squares to complete. That's a lot of caches to find for the challenge, considering the County Challenge required 39 finds, the Lookout Challenge requires 50, and the Delorme requires just over 100 finds.

 

So am I understanding this right?

[+FluteFace]

I love a good challenge cache , but this may push my limits . I'm thinking that the administrative work on the cacher's end of this may not be worth the effort. My hat's off to the owner of this one for his fortitude to administer it!

 

I've enjoyed all three state tours that I've embarked on (I would love to do another!) for the major challenge caches that I've completed but, even if I thought I might attempt this one, I'm not sure I could supply the requisite information needed to exclude the caches used for those challenges I've already completed, particularly the DeLorme Challenge where a bookmark list was not required. I submitted gpx files for that, and they are long gone from my computer. I'm suspecting there are others in the same boat.

 

So, I respectfully (at least for now) bow out of this one. I must not have your 'Just one more cache' Gene. But that's okay, 'cause I know I've got mine!

Edited February 20, 2008 by FluteFace

[+woodman5898]

NO Thanks!! Edited February 20, 2008 by woodman5898

[+fairyhoney]

"Quadrangle" I've heard of this word down at Marysville, CA while I was down there. There were 2 of them and both seemed to be very near water towers. But still . . . !

[+Half-Canadian]

How come you don't show Point Roberts on your map of WA Last time I checked, it was still part of Whatcom County

[+eagsc7]

Your rule #5 reads: "In each 100K(1 deg W x 1/2 deg N) you only have to find 3/4 of the squares."

 

Without taking the time to count, I'm estimating there are about 2,000 small squares. If we need to find caches in 3/4 of them, then we need to find 1,500 caches to complete the challenge? Let's say by eliminating the small squares that are lakes, reservations, National Parks, suppose that drops it in half, that still remains 750 squares to complete. That's a lot of caches to find for the challenge, considering the County Challenge required 39 finds, the Lookout Challenge requires 50, and the Delorme requires just over 100 finds.

 

So am I understanding this right?

 

I'm still figuring up the total number of required boxes, but after placing waypoints all over the state(in MapSource) and now doing the squares Really tires out the eyes. I'll post a note when I get the total squares with caches in them. The 750 does sound around the number required. It could be worse. There could be a cache in each square.

 

Yes, Point Robers is there. It actually is in the quadrangle aptly named Point Roberts.

The Steaks

Edited February 20, 2008 by eagsc7

[+Shop99er]

NO and a half!

 

I suspect that will be one lonely little final.

[+hydnsek]

Yes, Point Robers is there. It actually is in the quadrangle aptly named Point Roberts.

No quadrangle named Point Roberts is shown on the maps you have posted on the cache page. Perhaps an oversight?

[+WRASTRO]

My real name is Gene but I certainly won't be up to trying this challenge.

[+Logbear]

OK, some quick numbers.

 

1,392 7.5 minute maps cover Washington State.

3/4 of those would be 1,044.

 

I looked at some of the "Cache Restricted zones" like National Parks, Indian Reservations, Hanford works, National Wildlife Refuges, National Recreation Areas, Military Bases, Wilderness areas. Several of these areas have several 7.5 minute quads completely inside of them. I quit counting when I got to 100 quads that can't have caches, and I know there are a lot more. As much as I'd like to explore areas of the Pasayten Wilderness some day, visiting the 24 or more quads in that wilderness to find or place caches (and technically caches aren't allowed in Wilderness Areas), just won't happen in my lifetime. And I'm sure there are some quads where I've found the only cache in that quad. Heck I think there are some DeLorme Gazetteer pages that I've done all the caches in. Doing the DeLorme Challenge, County Challenge, and the Lookout Challenge covered a lot of ground.

 

I love maps, and I love challenge caches, but this is too much for me.

 

I say downsize this challenge to the 100K series maps. That would be about 57 maps I think. That would be a little more fun. And it would still take you on a tour of the state.

[+fairyhoney]

I Think you need to explain it in "simpleton". I see your first map that has squares. Then the 2nd has what appears to be sections. The sections look do-able, If we only have to do 1 cache in each of those "sections". How many caches would be involved and/ or are WE going to have to figure out how to "quadrangle " Please explain the rules better.

[+eagsc7]

I Think you need to explain it in "simpleton". I see your first map that has squares. Then the 2nd has what appears to be sections. The sections look do-able, If we only have to do 1 cache in each of those "sections". How many caches would be involved and/ or are WE going to have to figure out how to "quadrangle " Please explain the rules better.

 

I've been working on the map for a few weeks now, but in simple terms, starting at N46 00.000 W116 52.500 you build boxes measuring 7.5 min x 7.5 min for the entire state. In each box(starting at N46 00.000 W117 00.000 by N46 30.000 W118 00.000) you have to find 3/4 of the Quadrangles in that Section. I'll be posting the files for everyone's appreciation in the next few days. Almost every spare moment that I've been on the computer this last couple weeks has been me working on this one data set.

 

Current Map progress is:

 

I will now retire for the night... work tomorrow and then draw(and name) more boxes per the quadrangle names...

 

The Steaks

Edited February 20, 2008 by eagsc7

[+The Navigatorz]

The first map on the cache page is confusing. The squares of a 7.5 minute quadrangle map are larger than those shown on the first map. The squares on the map shown on the cache page appears to be 3.75 minute.

 

So if the challenge is to find a cache in 75% of the 7.5 minute quadrangles, why show a map with 3.75 minute boundaries (the squares of a 3.75 minute quad are 1/4 the size of the 7.5 minute quadrangle)?

 

Just an observation.

 

Regardless, I'll have to agree with LogBear. Forget the 7.5 minute quadrangles and set the challenge goal to find a cache in each square of the 100K map. That makes it more do-able, but then starts to resemble the Delorme or County challenges.

[+Lizzy]

Oh golly! I sure hope you're up for the maintenance on this - mine takes a LOT of time. The 100K sections look a bit more do-able & would not be so complicated to maintain. It looked really fun to start & see where I was at, until I read all the requirements. The requirements might be unattainable for all but a very few. It's your cache though, so whatever you feel you can take on... Good luck to ya & hope you haven't pulled all your hair out after a year or so.

[+AndrewRJ]

I was thinking more along the lines of, drop the no previous find requirement. No way anyone has anywhere close to all the boxes needed. I know that if I take out all my previous finds, that there are areas in the longbeach area that I have cleared.

 

This is over the top. Good luck on your endevor...

[Moun10Bike]

I've been working on the map for a few weeks now, but in simple terms, starting at N46 00.000 W116 52.500 you build boxes measuring 7.5 min x 7.5 min for the entire state.

 

The USGS quadrangles use NAD27 datum, while geocaching.com uses WGS84 datum. There is a significant difference between the two. Are you accounting for this?

 

Way back when the DeLorme Challenge was just getting started I joked about starting a quadrangle challenge. I'm still shaking my head that someone actually decided to do it. Heck, I even track my own quadrangle finds for fun, but this is just too much in my opinion.

[+-Hawk-]

I've been working on the map for a few weeks now, but in simple terms, starting at N46 00.000 W116 52.500 you build boxes measuring 7.5 min x 7.5 min for the entire state.

 

The USGS quadrangles use NAD27 datum, while geocaching.com uses WGS84 datum. There is a significant difference between the two. Are you accounting for this?

 

Way back when the DeLorme Challenge was just getting started I joked about starting a quadrangle challenge. I'm still shaking my head that someone actually decided to do it. Heck, I even track my own quadrangle finds for fun, but this is just too much in my opinion.

After seeing that you have over 4500 finds just in this state, and looking at the map you created of your finds in the quadrangles, it really puts into perspective how this is pretty much an un-doable challenge IMHO.

[+MtnGoat50]

Heck, I even track my own quadrangle finds for fun, but this is just too much in my opinion.

That's awesome!

The map on the cache page seems to have a lot more "quads" than your map?

[+-Hawk-]

The map on the cache page seems to have a lot more "quads" than your map?

I wonder if perhaps that is the difference in the datums that he mentioned.

[Art Carnage]

[Moun10Bike]

The map on the cache page seems to have a lot more "quads" than your map?

 

His first map on the cache page is showing 3-3/4-minute boundaries, which are each a quarter of the boundaries seen on the familiar 7-1/2-minute USGS topo maps. I'm not sure if that's intentional or not. In any case, it's not a commonly used map size.

 

My map shows the standard 7-1/2-minute quadrangles, so my map shows about a fourth of the quads that his does.

[+yumitori]

Heck, I even track my own quadrangle finds for fun, but this is just too much in my opinion.

 

Hey, Jon. You missed a spot or two.

 

And here I thought you were a serious cacher.

[Art Carnage]

Congradulations on what I have dubbed the "just one more cache" gene challenge.

 

Washington State Quadrangle Challenge(GC19AMP)

 

Good Luck!

 

The Steaks

I've read this 10 times, and still can't figure out who you're congratulating. Since no one else has done anything, I can only guess that you're congratulating... yourself?

[+Harriet the Spy]

What happened to the cache? I clicked the link and now I can't see it. Uh OH I think I broke the cache....

[+Prying Pandora]

What happened to the cache? I clicked the link and now I can't see it. Uh OH I think I broke the cache....

I suspect that the approval has been rescinded so the reviewers can look at it more closely.

[+yumitori]

I had a watch on it. The cache was retracted.

 

While I obviously know nothing more than what what was in the note (i.e. very little), it appears that the cache was in fact not ready to go and so one of the folks at Groundspeak retracted it until eagsc7 could get it in place.

[+Lizzy]

I'm still keeping it bookmarked - just in case.

[+quadsinthemudd]

c'mon Trevor this is just going to kill you and your wife. and nobody is going to do it. time is to valuable to waste go get a cache or two and live alittle the computer is a tool not a life.

[+quadsinthemudd]

OK just doing some number crunching. If you have to find 750 caches for this hide I took eagsc7 past two years average finds and averaged them out to be 1.4 finds a day. if you use that it will take him 531 day to get 750 finds. Since he has a job you would only be able to get these caches on the weekends so that is 265 weekends worth of caching that would take every weekend for 5.11 years.

[+The Leprechauns]

I love Challenge Caches. I co-own two here in Pennsylvania, I've made a serious start towards the Washington DeLorme Challenge and Washington All Counties Challenge, and I've entered the Washington Fizzy Challenge.

 

I read this one before it was retracted, and I didn't like it. I doubt that we will ever see a rules change on this, but wouldn't it be nice if a Challenge Cache owner had to demonstrate that they had completed the challenge before it could be published? (I've completed the ones I co-own, although not before they were published.)

 

The rules for this challenge also specify that caches used for this challenge must not be the same caches used for any other challenge. We use this rule in Pennsylvania so that separate caches are required for the DeLorme and All Counties challenges. Even with total cache requirements of about 70 caches each, it is a lot of work for the cache owner to confirm that there is no overlap -- especially if the finder is not a premium member or chooses not to create bookmark lists that I can run pocket queries on.

 

Somehow, I suspect that this cache won't require lots of work for verifying the many submitted finds.

Edited February 22, 2008 by The Leprechauns

[+jcar]

A state wide challenge like this isn't for me, but I could see having fun with something like this if it was on a smaller scale, like one county or a small section of the state.

[Chumpo]

Firefox has a built in spell checker.

 

The more you no...

[+quadsinthemudd]

I kant spel do that mak me dum?

 

Hey Trevor why dont you take just spokane county and make the pages the size of Moun10Bike's quads and put a date limit on the caches? Looks like you put a little computer time into this so I think you should try and save a little something because it looks like nobody can or will do this cache so you will have done it all for nothing.

[+eagsc7]

The map on the cache page seems to have a lot more "quads" than your map?

 

His first map on the cache page is showing 3-3/4-minute boundaries, which are each a quarter of the boundaries seen on the familiar 7-1/2-minute USGS topo maps. I'm not sure if that's intentional or not. In any case, it's not a commonly used map size.

 

My map shows the standard 7-1/2-minute quadrangles, so my map shows about a fourth of the quads that his does.

 

Doh! I will replace the first picture on the page here in a couple days. Also, I know the cache was retracted. It will come back avaliable in a few days Hopefully!

 

The Steaks

[+eagsc7]

I've been working on the map for a few weeks now, but in simple terms, starting at N46 00.000 W116 52.500 you build boxes measuring 7.5 min x 7.5 min for the entire state.

 

The USGS quadrangles use NAD27 datum, while geocaching.com uses WGS84 datum. There is a significant difference between the two. Are you accounting for this?

 

Way back when the DeLorme Challenge was just getting started I joked about starting a quadrangle challenge. I'm still shaking my head that someone actually decided to do it. Heck, I even track my own quadrangle finds for fun, but this is just too much in my opinion.

 

I had somehow looked over the datum change. For this challenge, we will go with the WGS84 datum. Reason for this is that its what gc.com uses, and is the Current Datum. If (for any reason) the datum does change in the future... it will stay the WGS84 datum.

 

The Steaks

[Moun10Bike]

I had somehow looked over the datum change. For this challenge, we will go with the WGS84 datum. Reason for this is that its what gc.com uses, and is the Current Datum. If (for any reason) the datum does change in the future... it will stay the WGS84 datum.

 

The Steaks

 

Then you are going to have to adjust the coordinates for the corners of your quadrangles - i.e., your comment on the cache page that they "WILL end in 0, 7.5, 15, 22.5, 30, 37.5, 45, or 52.5" will not be accurate. The USGS quadrangles use NAD 27 and there is little chance that they will convert anytime soon (although many of the recent maps have a WGS 84 grid superimposed on them). Otherwise, you are using an arbitrary quadrangle grid that does not match the - arguably arbitrary but at least standard - USGS quadrangle grid.

[+eagsc7]

I had somehow looked over the datum change. For this challenge, we will go with the WGS84 datum. Reason for this is that its what gc.com uses, and is the Current Datum. If (for any reason) the datum does change in the future... it will stay the WGS84 datum.

 

The Steaks

 

Then you are going to have to adjust the coordinates for the corners of your quadrangles - i.e., your comment on the cache page that they "WILL end in 0, 7.5, 15, 22.5, 30, 37.5, 45, or 52.5" will not be accurate. The USGS quadrangles use NAD 27 and there is little chance that they will convert anytime soon (although many of the recent maps have a WGS 84 grid superimposed on them). Otherwise, you are using an arbitrary quadrangle grid that does not match the - arguably arbitrary but at least standard - USGS quadrangle grid.

 

Oii... I will get that changed in the morning. Thanks for the valuable input!

 

The Steaks

 

Now to change over 1400 waypoints(and growing) in MapSource...

 

The Steaks