+crb11 Posted January 9, 2014 Posted January 9, 2014 One of the standard challenges in the US seems to be the DeLorme one: find at least one cache on every page of a mapbook covering a particular state. Just wondering if anyone has tried something similar in the UK and if there are sites online which measure it for you. The obvious one is to find a cache on each of the 204 Landranger maps, but more feasible would be a street atlas covering a city or county - trouble is there's no real standard one. Or perhaps use the Geograph hectad/myriad designations (10x10 and 100x100 blocks of the OS grid) as a basis, either to find one in each, or try and complete one: I've had a look and have found 45 plus own 3 of the 67 in my local hectad so completing it is definitely feasible. Quote
+mellers Posted January 9, 2014 Posted January 9, 2014 Have you seen the Explorer challenges: http://www.pppgeo.co.uk/explorer.html They require certain grid squares to be completed in each Explorer map. Quote
QUANDRAY Posted January 9, 2014 Posted January 9, 2014 The Geosquare Series may be worth looking at. Quote
+Yorkshire Yellow Posted January 9, 2014 Posted January 9, 2014 The "Explorer challenges" series is beginning to take off. I've three recently published and another one ready to go shortly. There are links on the website metters links to above with some other map based challenge caches. Quote
+crb11 Posted January 9, 2014 Author Posted January 9, 2014 Thanks for those: none near me which is why I hadn't spotted them. The Welsh one is more the kind of thing I was thinking of but the Explorer idea is very interesting. I think the only one I'd be qualified for is Explorer 1 if someone sets that! Had a look in my local area (209) and there ought to be plenty enough squares, so maybe when I'm qualified myself - reckon I'm on somewhere about 2/3rds - I could set one. Quote
+Yorkshire Yellow Posted January 10, 2014 Posted January 10, 2014 Thanks for those: none near me which is why I hadn't spotted them. The Welsh one is more the kind of thing I was thinking of but the Explorer idea is very interesting. I think the only one I'd be qualified for is Explorer 1 if someone sets that! Had a look in my local area (209) and there ought to be plenty enough squares, so maybe when I'm qualified myself - reckon I'm on somewhere about 2/3rds - I could set one. You don't have to qualify for you own Explorer cache to be able to set one, and I know PetersfieldPoodlePosse would be happy to see his the series he's started expand further. Contact him through his profile on GC.com and I'm sure he'd be hapy to help you set something up. One of the Explorer caches I've just set doesn't have enough active caches in the area covered by the map sheet to allow you to find the same (or more)caches equivalent to the Explorer sheet number, so the qualifying number I've set of that one is quite a bit lower. I've also one ready to set based on the Explorer sheet 'OL14', which has something different again. Quote
+crb11 Posted January 11, 2014 Author Posted January 11, 2014 (edited) Thanks for the encouragement! This afternoon I've downloaded GSAK and managed to add the local sheet to the macro file. My PQs don't quite cover the entire square, but from what I have, I find 255 squares have caches in, of which I've found 85. So looks like a 209 cache is viable: will have to scout out locations when I get a chance. Edited January 11, 2014 by crb11 Quote
+Gataki_and_Dr_Al Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 Hi, just to bring attention to a new easy way to check how many squares you have found to qualify for an explorer challenge - just download your "My Finds" pocket query and submit to this site: CGTK geocaching checker You can choose any of the currently published explorer challenges, and you'll get a count of how many squares completed vs how many needed to complete the challenge. Quote
+crb11 Posted February 19, 2015 Author Posted February 19, 2015 Great idea! Had a play and will add a link from my Explorer page. A suggestion: on the output Explorer grid, instead of numbering from 0..X and 0..Y, why not put the actual northings and eastings instead - it would be better for cross-referencing other information. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.