Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7
thebruce0

Challenge Cache Ideas

Recommended Posts

I filed an appeal yesterday to find out officially if first letters of geographic names is allowed. You can't game the challenge by making up odd cache titles so that problem is gone. If they say a spell the word EASY with country names where you have finds is disallowed, then you switch it to find a cache in Estonis, Albania, Switzerland, and Yemen (but enumerate all the E,A,S,Y countries) I've achieved the same challenge but in a complicated way. We will see what they say.

I'd wonder if they'd claim that was 'bookkeeping' (or 'database management') though. dry.gif

 

Which, I should add, is indeed quite broad, because pretty much every challenge has some level of bookkeeping until you eventually qualify, especially if you have to seek out rare target caches.

Edited by thebruce0
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
There is another idea beeing discussed that was really fun for me to see whether I qualify: Fill your grid with 9 caches per cache type (seems that is -speaking in terms of available caches- easily possible in Europe for 8 cache types) and the remaining 9 places fill up with caches of any type that have more than 10 (in my case also 100 is possible) favorite points (the original idea was owned caches, but that's not allowed).

I don't see why that would be denied if reasonably attainable in your area. It is more the 'achievement' style based on additive stats.

 

It might easily happen that a project-gc checker would need more than 30 seconds in the worst case and also exceeds the allowed storage limit (and it gets even more involved if no cache is allowed to be used twice which would not have been an issue if the 9-th category which is not a cache type were not required).

Edited by cezanne

Share this post


Link to post
There is another idea beeing discussed that was really fun for me to see whether I qualify: Fill your grid with 9 caches per cache type (seems that is -speaking in terms of available caches- easily possible in Europe for 8 cache types) and the remaining 9 places fill up with caches of any type that have more than 10 (in my case also 100 is possible) favorite points (the original idea was owned caches, but that's not allowed).

I don't see why that would be denied if reasonably attainable in your area. It is more the 'achievement' style based on additive stats.

 

It might easily happen that a project-gc checker would need more than 30 seconds in the worst case (and it gets even more involved if no cache is allowed to be used twice which would not have been an issue if the 9-th category which is not a cache type were not required).

Well it certainly depends on how many finds a person has, but I could write a SQL script to run that check on my near-10,000 finds and I'm guessing it could run in a few seconds. The described setup isn't that complex, really, if I'm understanding it right.

Share this post


Link to post

Well it certainly depends on how many finds a person has, but I could write a SQL script to run that check on my near-10,000 finds and I'm guessing it could run in a few seconds. The described setup isn't that complex, really, if I'm understanding it right.

 

Of course it depends on the number of finds and in cases like mine it's trivial to provide the answer that I do not fulfill the conditions because I have not filled my matrix at all. For those who have a(n) (almost) filled matrix for many caches types, also not too many cases need to be tested whether a feasible solution can be found. In general it can get ugly - not in the theoretical sense of course as it is only a 9x9 grid but with resource limit of project-gc I'm not sure that the check is doable within these limits in all cases. Note that if cache duplication is allowed, you could ignore duplicate finds of the same type and the same D/T rating and just store all available combinations - however then you might end up with an infeasible solution in the end where a cache is used for both the FP type and one of the 8 cache type categories.

Share this post


Link to post

Of course it depends on the number of finds and in cases like mine it's trivial to provide the answer that I do not fulfill the conditions because I have not filled my matrix at all. For those who have a(n) (almost) filled matrix for many caches types, also not too many cases need to be tested whether a feasible solution can be found. In general it can get ugly - not in the theoretical sense of course as it is only a 9x9 grid but with resource limit of project-gc I'm not sure that the check is doable within these limits in all cases. Note that if cache duplication is allowed, you could ignore duplicate finds of the same type and the same D/T rating and just store all available combinations - however then you might end up with an infeasible solution in the end where a cache is used for both the FP type and one of the 8 cache type categories.

No really, algorithmically it's not complicated. The server PGC is running on isn't slower than my measly PC. I've seen a few clearly convoluted challenge checkers take a few extra seconds when checking my stats, and imagining making a script to do similar calculations it would take much longer locally. I'm confident PGC has enough computing power to run checkers more efficiently than my computer. So the question of speed would be moving into different territory, depending on network activity, busy-ness, cpu throttling, extreme user find count, etc. But looking at the requirements strictly for the challenge, I don't see this one being a CPU hog in the slightest for the vast majority of cachers given find counts.

But I digress.

 

The structure of the challenge seems straight forward enough (though statistically multi-layered) without breaking any clauses, explicit or implied. *shrug* If it gets published we'll find out for sure :)

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post
I filed an appeal yesterday to find out officially if first letters of geographic names is allowed. You can't game the challenge by making up odd cache titles so that problem is gone. If they say a spell the word EASY with country names where you have finds is disallowed, then you switch it to find a cache in Estonis, Albania, Switzerland, and Yemen (but enumerate all the E,A,S,Y countries) I've achieved the same challenge but in a complicated way. We will see what they say.

 

This is strictly my opinion, not guidance we've received or anything of the sort.

 

I see the same problem as always. At 4 letters, it is probably reasonable; that is, until we start getting $,#,!,+ and F,#,@,^ as the words to create. Then someone else thinks EASY is too easy and we get floccinaucinihilipilification and we have to judge the merits and availability of every letter in the alphabet in relation to where the challenge is located. When we have to judge, it becomes like a WOW factor and will lead to inconsistent reviews which makes for many appeals, unhappy reviewers and challenge owners, especially when random area A is okay with a 7 letter word and random area B is not okay with a 6 letter word.

 

The other issue is that we'd inevitably run into:

-Spell "your username", "Challenge Owner's Username", name of "my favorite sport team", etc

-Start and end letters, third letter, or some other letter combo(s)

-Can use county and country, or state and country, or county, state and country (fourth letter of country ONLY)

-Is the "name of country": Germany or Deutschland?

-Is the "name of city": Mumbai or Bombay?

 

Again, my opinion, is that this is a can of worms I'd prefer not to see opened.

Share this post


Link to post

No really, algorithmically it's not complicated.

 

Not complicated but in case someone does not fulfill it it can take quite a while to prove it as you need to look at all possible cases (and you might need to use backtracking).

As I said, if duplicates are allowed, you can reduce the problem a lot.

The 30 seconds time limit appears to be something project-gc puts as constraint for the checkers - you need not do that on your PC.

 

I can easily imagine that for your account a checker works quickly - but you cannot provide a guarantee that this will be the case for every account.

 

Are you sure that you understand the decision part of the problem? It's not simply checking whether some constraints are fulfilled.

 

 

The structure of the challenge seems straight forward enough (though statistically multi-layered) without breaking any clauses, explicit or implied. *shrug* If it gets published we'll find out for sure :)

 

So far the person who proposed the challenge is waiting for the person who said that he will work on a challenge checker (about a month ago) but has not yet started.

Edited by cezanne

Share this post


Link to post
There is another idea beeing discussed that was really fun for me to see whether I qualify: Fill your grid with 9 caches per cache type (seems that is -speaking in terms of available caches- easily possible in Europe for 8 cache types) and the remaining 9 places fill up with caches of any type that have more than 10 (in my case also 100 is possible) favorite points (the original idea was owned caches, but that's not allowed).

No really, algorithmically it's not complicated.

Not complicated but in case someone does not fulfill it it can take quite a while to prove it as you need to look at all possible cases (and you might need to use backtracking).

DT grid: Group finds to show the count of caches per cache type per DT, using caches with under 10 fav points. If each DT has the minimum number of cache types, and each type per cache has at least 9 finds, then that portion of the challenge qualifies. Then if there are enough caches over 10 fav points (easy check) remaining, then that portion qualifies. User has passed.

 

I'm not sure what "remaining 9 places" is referring to, but if the DT grid hasn't qualified, and there aren't enough caches over 10 favs to fill those spots and have extra for the other part of the challenge, then the user is known to not qualify; end. If there are more than enough caches over 10 favs, and enough to potentially fill the missing DT grid spots, then run the next step to iterate through the missing DT spots (actually it doesn't even need to be an iteration; a query could suffice) to see if there are enough 10+ fav caches to complete the grid of those DTs and types. If so, then we know that the grid is filled *and* there are enough 10+ fav caches left to complete both parts of the challenge.

And none of that is cpu intensive. The most complex part would be the initial step.

Again, this is if I'm interpreting your description of the challenge correctly, and a part of it is still a big vague (9 caches per type per DT? Or 8 cache types per DT with 1 'wildcard', so still 9 [# caches] * (8 [# types] +1 [# w/10+ favs] ) * 81 [DT] caches in total?)

 

ETA (rethinking on the 'remaining 9 places' bit) {Technical}:

1. [A] Query for find count per cache type per DT with <10 favs (include a 2nd column for secondary find count, 0 for now)

2. Query for find count per cache type per DT with 10+ favs.

3a. Combine any rows from with no matching rows of DT/CacheType to [A] to fulfill 'remaining' spots

3b. If a parse of [A] shows any DT has fewer than 9 CacheTypes then checker fails.

4a. Update the 2nd find count column for any rows in [A] with <9 finds having a matching row of DT+CacheType where [A]+ finds sum 9 or more, with the find count.

5. Query the result to report number of Types per DT using rows with 9 or more ([A]+) finds. If there are at still least 9*81 rows in the resulting set, the user has qualified.

Additional task:

* If a report of individual qualifying caches is desired, then it's not hard to adjust the steps to return a TOP n caches per row (defined by DT and Type and Fav threshold).

Now if selection at any point of the challenge is required (whether because automated algorithmic selection is too complicated or just impossible), it's no longer a matter of CPU power as it has to wait for user input. But at least if it gets to that point (and it's unavoidable), it's unlikely the challenge would be published in the first place - a full automatic checker isn't possible.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

Now if selection at any point of the challenge is required (whether because automated algorithmic selection is too complicated or just impossible), it's no longer a matter of CPU power as it has to wait for user input.

 

I disagree. It's definitely possible to algorithmically answer the question whether someone qualifies and if so, provide a set of qualifiying caches (I fully understand the underlying problem). However, it might take more than 30 seconds for some cachers as I said right in the beginning when I did not intend to turn this into a long discussion.

 

As the challenge requirement is regarded: Imagine you have to color the 81 fields of the terrain grid with 9 colors such that each color is used exactly 9 times.

The color classes represent the 8 cache types and the ninth type caches with more than x FPs (not being disjoint from the other classes from the point of view of caches). Apart from that you have to make sure that the usual conditions are fulfilled - i.e. a cache can be used only in the right D/T field.

 

It's obvious that it does not suffice that you have at least 9 finds per type as you need to fully cover the D/T grid and are not allowed to use a color more than 9 times.

Edited by cezanne

Share this post


Link to post
I filed an appeal yesterday to find out officially if first letters of geographic names is allowed. You can't game the challenge by making up odd cache titles so that problem is gone. If they say a spell the word EASY with country names where you have finds is disallowed, then you switch it to find a cache in Estonis, Albania, Switzerland, and Yemen (but enumerate all the E,A,S,Y countries) I've achieved the same challenge but in a complicated way. We will see what they say.

 

This is strictly my opinion, not guidance we've received or anything of the sort.

 

I see the same problem as always. At 4 letters, it is probably reasonable; that is, until we start getting $,#,!,+ and F,#,@,^ as the words to create. Then someone else thinks EASY is too easy and we get floccinaucinihilipilification and we have to judge the merits and availability of every letter in the alphabet in relation to where the challenge is located. When we have to judge, it becomes like a WOW factor and will lead to inconsistent reviews which makes for many appeals, unhappy reviewers and challenge owners, especially when random area A is okay with a 7 letter word and random area B is not okay with a 6 letter word.

 

The other issue is that we'd inevitably run into:

-Spell "your username", "Challenge Owner's Username", name of "my favorite sport team", etc

-Start and end letters, third letter, or some other letter combo(s)

-Can use county and country, or state and country, or county, state and country (fourth letter of country ONLY)

-Is the "name of country": Germany or Deutschland?

-Is the "name of city": Mumbai or Bombay?

 

Again, my opinion, is that this is a can of worms I'd prefer not to see opened.

 

This is a bit of a slippery slope argument. If we allow easy ones someone will try to show off by creating a really complex one only they can qualify for. Showing off.

 

Re the individual points.

- spell your username. I guess it is possible with the geo names but much harder for arbitrary user names. It would take a different script since mine will trip over spaces. It does handle UTF8 so It can deal with European alphabets.

- totally doable with more tag parameters. How many of these are because the other variants exist in the local area and so another one is blocked? Strictly speaking, no more arbitrary than saying use the first letter.

- Now your just going crazy to make a challenge that much harder for everyone else. Showing off. This one a reviewer ought to toss out on the too complicated rule

- the name of the geo region is whatever PGC has on file

- Cities not allowed but is the country Sri Lanka or Ceylon. See previous item.

 

Yes, it would create more work for reviewers which is a bad thing. Maybe GS will reject it in the next few days. Time will tell.

Share this post


Link to post

Now if selection at any point of the challenge is required (whether because automated algorithmic selection is too complicated or just impossible), it's no longer a matter of CPU power as it has to wait for user input.

I disagree. It's definitely possible to algorithmically answer the question whether someone qualifies and if so, provides a set of qualifiying caches (I fully understand the underlying problem). However, it might take more than 30 seconds for some cachers as I said right in the beginning when I did not intend to turn this into a long discussion.

 

As the challenge requirement is regarded: Imagine you have to color the 81 fields of the terrain grid with 9 colors such that each color is used exactly 9 times.

The color classes represent the 8 cache types and the ninth type caches with more than x FPs (not being disjoint from the other classes from the point of view of caches). Apart from that you have to make sure that the usual conditions are fulfilled - i.e. a cache can be used only in the right D/T field.

See my ETA above with how I would do it algorithmically. Not complicated.

But if the user is required to select at any point (for any challenge in general), then it would likely not be published.

Share this post


Link to post
There is another idea beeing discussed that was really fun for me to see whether I qualify: Fill your grid with 9 caches per cache type (seems that is -speaking in terms of available caches- easily possible in Europe for 8 cache types) and the remaining 9 places fill up with caches of any type that have more than 10 (in my case also 100 is possible) favorite points (the original idea was owned caches, but that's not allowed).

I don't see why that would be denied if reasonably attainable in your area. It is more the 'achievement' style based on additive stats.

 

It might easily happen that a project-gc checker would need more than 30 seconds in the worst case and also exceeds the allowed storage limit (and it gets even more involved if no cache is allowed to be used twice which would not have been an issue if the 9-th category which is not a cache type were not required).

 

I need to run a couple of existing scripts against alamoguls account and see how they do. I was worried his finds could time out or storage out my script. I suspect I can improve it a bit storage-wise but at the cost of more time. I wonder how GS will treat scripts that cannot check because the user has too many finds.

Share this post


Link to post

I need to run a couple of existing scripts against alamoguls account and see how they do. I was worried his finds could time out or storage out my script. I suspect I can improve it a bit storage-wise but at the cost of more time. I wonder how GS will treat scripts that cannot check because the user has too many finds.

 

In the case of the challenge cache described above, a check for alamogul's account should not take too long as he has found so many caches of all types and of various D/T-levels. As here only one solution and not all are required, it is not too hard to come up with one.

 

The hard cases are the borderline cases between cacher fulfills the challenge and does not fulfill it.

Edited by cezanne

Share this post


Link to post
I filed an appeal yesterday to find out officially if first letters of geographic names is allowed. You can't game the challenge by making up odd cache titles so that problem is gone. If they say a spell the word EASY with country names where you have finds is disallowed, then you switch it to find a cache in Estonis, Albania, Switzerland, and Yemen (but enumerate all the E,A,S,Y countries) I've achieved the same challenge but in a complicated way. We will see what they say.

 

This is strictly my opinion, not guidance we've received or anything of the sort.

 

I see the same problem as always. At 4 letters, it is probably reasonable; that is, until we start getting $,#,!,+ and F,#,@,^ as the words to create. Then someone else thinks EASY is too easy and we get floccinaucinihilipilification and we have to judge the merits and availability of every letter in the alphabet in relation to where the challenge is located. When we have to judge, it becomes like a WOW factor and will lead to inconsistent reviews which makes for many appeals, unhappy reviewers and challenge owners, especially when random area A is okay with a 7 letter word and random area B is not okay with a 6 letter word.

 

The other issue is that we'd inevitably run into:

-Spell "your username", "Challenge Owner's Username", name of "my favorite sport team", etc

-Start and end letters, third letter, or some other letter combo(s)

-Can use county and country, or state and country, or county, state and country (fourth letter of country ONLY)

-Is the "name of country": Germany or Deutschland?

-Is the "name of city": Mumbai or Bombay?

 

Again, my opinion, is that this is a can of worms I'd prefer not to see opened.

But reviewers already are making these kinds of "reasonably attainable" decisions:

  • Have enough local geocachers already attained (or are fairly close to attaining) a Fizzy challenge using only Traditional type caches?
  • Have enough local geocachers already attained (or are fairly close to attaining) a 50 Souvenirs challenge?
  • Have enough local geocachers already attained (or are fairly close to attaining) a Double Jasmer challenge?

It's certainly possible that one review area can support a Double Jasmer challenge but another review area cannot "and will lead to inconsistent reviews which makes for many appeals, unhappy reviewers and challenge owners."

 

Of course, one way to avoid this kind of subjective decision making (and inconsistent reviews) is to get rid of the "reasonably attainable" guideline.

Share this post


Link to post

See my ETA above with how I would do it algorithmically. Not complicated.

 

I read that but what you wrote is not a complete algorithm for the problem at hand. It can used to heuristically try to find a solution and sometimes that will work, and sometimes not. When it does not work, there still can exist solutions.

 

Already this statement you made is false

If each DT has the minimum number of cache types, and each type per cache has at least 9 finds, then that portion of the challenge qualifies.

 

Of course there are trivial cases: For example, if a cacher has only 9 different D/T combos for a cache type, then the placement of those is fixed and if there are less than 9, there cannot be a solution. If for most cache types the grid is filled, it's also making the problem easier (it reduces the size of the remaining problem).

 

But if the user is required to select at any point (for any challenge in general), then it would likely not be published.

 

If checkers are used, the user does not need to select anything.

The issue is the resource limit.

Edited by cezanne

Share this post


Link to post
I filed an appeal yesterday to find out officially if first letters of geographic names is allowed. You can't game the challenge by making up odd cache titles so that problem is gone. If they say a spell the word EASY with country names where you have finds is disallowed, then you switch it to find a cache in Estonis, Albania, Switzerland, and Yemen (but enumerate all the E,A,S,Y countries) I've achieved the same challenge but in a complicated way. We will see what they say.

 

This is strictly my opinion, not guidance we've received or anything of the sort.

 

I see the same problem as always. At 4 letters, it is probably reasonable; that is, until we start getting $,#,!,+ and F,#,@,^ as the words to create. Then someone else thinks EASY is too easy and we get floccinaucinihilipilification and we have to judge the merits and availability of every letter in the alphabet in relation to where the challenge is located. When we have to judge, it becomes like a WOW factor and will lead to inconsistent reviews which makes for many appeals, unhappy reviewers and challenge owners, especially when random area A is okay with a 7 letter word and random area B is not okay with a 6 letter word.

 

The other issue is that we'd inevitably run into:

-Spell "your username", "Challenge Owner's Username", name of "my favorite sport team", etc

-Start and end letters, third letter, or some other letter combo(s)

-Can use county and country, or state and country, or county, state and country (fourth letter of country ONLY)

-Is the "name of country": Germany or Deutschland?

-Is the "name of city": Mumbai or Bombay?

 

Again, my opinion, is that this is a can of worms I'd prefer not to see opened.

But reviewers already are making these kinds of "reasonably attainable" decisions:

  • Have enough local geocachers already attained (or are fairly close to attaining) a Fizzy challenge using only Traditional type caches?
  • Have enough local geocachers already attained (or are fairly close to attaining) a 50 Souvenirs challenge?
  • Have enough local geocachers already attained (or are fairly close to attaining) a Double Jasmer challenge?

It's certainly possible that one review area can support a Double Jasmer challenge but another review area cannot "and will lead to inconsistent reviews which makes for many appeals, unhappy reviewers and challenge owners."

 

Of course, one way to avoid this kind of subjective decision making (and inconsistent reviews) is to get rid of the "reasonably attainable" guideline.

 

It seems like in dubious cases, the Florida reviewer is asking for a list of 10 cachers in the state who qualify for the proposed challenge. The burden of proof is on the requester.

Share this post


Link to post

I need to run a couple of existing scripts against alamoguls account and see how they do. I was worried his finds could time out or storage out my script. I suspect I can improve it a bit storage-wise but at the cost of more time. I wonder how GS will treat scripts that cannot check because the user has too many finds.

 

In the case of the challenge cache described above, a check for alamogul's account should not take too long as he has found so many caches of all types and of various D/T-levels. As here only one solution and not all are required, it is not too hard to come up with one.

 

The hard cases are the borderline cases between cacher fulfills the challenge and does not fulfill it.

Actually, Alamogul has issues with access on the site due to his high numbers. He's submitted a couple of fairly basic Challenges and had problems accessing the external link codes to put on his Listing pages for the required PGC. A couple of his buddies, with lower numbers checked, and said, no problem here. I found it kind of humorous. Him, not so much :)

Share this post


Link to post

Actually, Alamogul has issues with access on the site due to his high numbers. He's submitted a couple of fairly basic Challenges and had problems accessing the external link codes to put on his Listing pages for the required PGC. A couple of his buddies, with lower numbers checked, and said, no problem here. I found it kind of humorous. Him, not so much :)

 

I can well believe that this is happening for many challenge caches and in particular given the way the checkers on project-gc are written (they have not been written with someone like Alamogul in mind). I just referred to the one we discussed above and the way I would write a checker for that one.

Share this post


Link to post

It's certainly possible that one review area can support a Double Jasmer challenge but another review area cannot "and will lead to inconsistent reviews which makes for many appeals, unhappy reviewers and challenge owners."

 

Of course, one way to avoid this kind of subjective decision making (and inconsistent reviews) is to get rid of the "reasonably attainable" guideline.

It seems like in dubious cases, the Florida reviewer is asking for a list of 10 cachers in the state who qualify for the proposed challenge. The burden of proof is on the requester.

In Alberta, I was able to publish a challenge cache for which I was the only Alberta geocacher who already had completed it. But enough other Alberta geocachers were fairly close to completing it that my reviewer judged it to be attainable by a reasonable number of geocachers. (Note that the guideline states that the challenge must be "attainable" by a reasonable number of geocachers -- not "attained.")

 

There will be inconsistent reviews across different regions.

Edited by CanadianRockies

Share this post


Link to post
I filed an appeal yesterday to find out officially if first letters of geographic names is allowed. You can't game the challenge by making up odd cache titles so that problem is gone. If they say a spell the word EASY with country names where you have finds is disallowed, then you switch it to find a cache in Estonis, Albania, Switzerland, and Yemen (but enumerate all the E,A,S,Y countries) I've achieved the same challenge but in a complicated way. We will see what they say.

 

This is strictly my opinion, not guidance we've received or anything of the sort.

 

I see the same problem as always. At 4 letters, it is probably reasonable; that is, until we start getting $,#,!,+ and F,#,@,^ as the words to create. Then someone else thinks EASY is too easy and we get floccinaucinihilipilification and we have to judge the merits and availability of every letter in the alphabet in relation to where the challenge is located. When we have to judge, it becomes like a WOW factor and will lead to inconsistent reviews which makes for many appeals, unhappy reviewers and challenge owners, especially when random area A is okay with a 7 letter word and random area B is not okay with a 6 letter word.

 

The other issue is that we'd inevitably run into:

-Spell "your username", "Challenge Owner's Username", name of "my favorite sport team", etc

-Start and end letters, third letter, or some other letter combo(s)

-Can use county and country, or state and country, or county, state and country (fourth letter of country ONLY)

-Is the "name of country": Germany or Deutschland?

-Is the "name of city": Mumbai or Bombay?

 

Again, my opinion, is that this is a can of worms I'd prefer not to see opened.

 

This is a bit of a slippery slope argument. If we allow easy ones someone will try to show off by creating a really complex one only they can qualify for. Showing off.

 

 

I think you make a good point here. Before the moratorium it seemed like there were a lot of challenges that seemed to be more about creating the most complex, convoluted change that as few as possible could complete rather than creating an experience that could be enjoyed by a large number of geocachers.

 

 

- the name of the geo region is whatever PGC has on file

- Cities not allowed but is the country Sri Lanka or Ceylon. See previous item.

 

As I see it, ambiguous names (Sri Lanka or Ceylon) for regions isn't an issue a controlled vocabulary from some authoritative data source is used. For example, the list of countries that GS uses is based on the UN Geopolitical ontolgoy. Sri Lanka is on that list. Ceylon is not, thus someone shouldn't be using Ceylon as a country name. As a more concrete example, if there was a challenge spell EASY using the first letter of countries in which one has found a cache, they could not use England. It's not on the list of countries that GS uses nor is it in the UN Geopolitical Ontology.

 

Any challenge which requires one to find caches based on some sort of list should indicate, specifically, what list it's using.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

This is a bit of a slippery slope argument. If we allow easy ones someone will try to show off by creating a really complex one only they can qualify for. Showing off.

I think you make a good point here. Before the moratorium it seemed like there were a lot of challenges that seemed to be more about creating the most complex, convoluted change that as few as possible could complete rather than creating an experience that could be enjoyed by a large number of geocachers.

Even before the moratorium, a guideline stated: "The requirements for meeting the challenge should be succinct and easy to explain, follow, and document."

 

And another guideline stated: "A challenge cache needs to appeal to, and be attainable by, a reasonable number of geocachers." While a particular challenge can appear to be almost unattainable from an individual's perspective, it might seem attainable by a reasonable number of geocachers when you look at it from a region's worth of geocachers.

 

Of course, we can expect some exceptions to slip through and get published, because reviewers have different views about what is "reasonable" or "succinct." Reviewers also are human and thus are capable of making mistakes.

 

As for the question of whether all caches should be enjoyed by a "large number" of geocachers, I hope Groundspeak never adopts that philosophy. Not many geocachers can climb Mt. Everest, scuba dive below 100 feet, or boat to remote islands. But I'm glad such caches exist for the small number who enjoy such adventures. And I'm glad there are challenge caches that encourage geocachers to attain difficult goals, even if few ever will.

Share this post


Link to post

ETA: Given much of my reply below, perhaps a new thread should be made to discuss more technical details about algorithms and feasibility of certain challenge ideas =P

 

I read that but what you wrote is not a complete algorithm for the problem at hand. It can used to heuristically try to find a solution and sometimes that will work, and sometimes not. When it does not work, there still can exist solutions.

:angry: :angry: (not at you) - you haveno idea how frustrated I am right now at my browser - I just spent a load of time adjusting that pseudocode I posted to actually handle all the cases, correctly, and stupid firefox had some strange sticky key effect that didsomething to my tabs, popping up extras and closing a few including that forum tab, without confirmation, where I'd written it all out.... I'm fuming right now. auuuugh! (this annoying Firefox bug comes and goes, and it's infuriating; spaces and shifts get held back and applied out of sync, and other really strange effects; really need to figure out what's causing it)

 

You'll just have to trust me when I say that as I re-read the description, I did notice a couple of holes I missed, and with a few adjustments I was about 95% done typing up an updated pseudocode that would produce the pass/fail needed for the challenge.

 

All of that, though, just to continue to make the point - the algorithm, while technically 'fun' to code, is not so algorithmically complex for the CPU that it would take too long to calculate (whether on my pc or the PGC server). My code only had two queries on the full Finds table, one summarizing <10 Fav finds, and one >10. Everything else was on two temp tables with at most #Types*81DT rows. Execution time after the first Finds query would would be near instantaneous as it was all math calculations on summary number sets.

 

if a cacher has only 9 different D/T combos for a cache type, then the placement of those is fixed and if there are less than 9, there cannot be a solution. If for most cache types the grid is filled, it's also making the problem easier (it reduces the size of the remaining problem).

The code I had filtered out simple/quick passes or fails on easy criteria as soon as the info was known, such as that (which was covered btw in the previous code comment), filtering out short algorithmic paths with guaranteed checker results.

 

Perhaps I will, for my own fun, write a SQL script to do the checking in GSAK... the challenge has my interest piqued. B)

 

But if the user is required to select at any point (for any challenge in general), then it would likely not be published.

If checkers are used, the user does not need to select anything.

....that.. yes...? :blink:

 

The issue is the resource limit.

And I'm just saying that for this particular challenge the resources required to run a checker script on it as I envision it, because it's algorithmically relatively simple, would be minimal. I'd certainly be interested to see how fast a script I envision would handle alamogul's though.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

Again, this is if I'm interpreting your description of the challenge correctly, and a part of it is still a big vague (9 caches per type per DT? Or 8 cache types per DT with 1 'wildcard', so still 9 [# caches] * (8 [# types] +1 [# w/10+ favs] ) * 81 [DT] caches in total?)

An example how to fill the matrix with various cache types and 9 caches per cache type (9th cache type replaced for caches that have more than 10 (100) favorite points as for new cachers there won't be too much events not D1/T1 and other cache types are probably too rare)

26210095ld.jpg

Not using a script I used an intuitive way to find a solution quite quickly.

 

In general the quickest results are 'no full matrix even using all cache types' and 'not enough cache types with minimum 9 DT combos' - for sure not fulfilled - or 'I can fill the matrix for every cache type with that cache type only and once with favorite-decorated caches' - for sure fulfilled.

 

For other cases one has to determine which unique DT combos are available for each cache type and which DT combos are available for caches with > favorite points (easiest case: there are enough so you don't have to use any cache you could otherwise need for a type). I for example have 70/68/61/24/21/20/20/10 and 40 (over 100 favs) DT combos. There could be a lot of solutions, in my case it is very easy to find the first of many.

 

But there also could be no solution at all, even if you start with 81/81/81/81/81/26/26/26 and 81 - if for example the 26/26/26 are on the same places and there is no way to spread them over the necessary 27 places.

Share this post


Link to post

Sometimes I really wonder whether I'm too stupid or my english from school lessons is too far away or whether there is even more cultural difference I ever thought.

 

Can please someone competent explain to me: How I can understand something worded as "10. Source of Criteria" - "Not Acceptable" "These listing elements: cache titles, cache owner, GC Codes, publishing Reviewer or listing text. (new 2016)" means anything else than you can't base your challenge criteria on owner or reviewer (no matter if name or id) and so on.

 

So if you ask for finds on caches published by 10 different reviewers, how can that be done without taking the field reviewer as criteria?

 

If you ask for finds on x cache types by the same owner, how can that be done without taking owner as criteria?

 

And how I can understand "Specifying cache type(s) or find count (above one per day) required during a streak. (new 2016)" means anything else than not allowing to restrict to certain cache types e.g. how "have streak of x days, only these y cache types count" can be possible for new challenges caches?

Share this post


Link to post

Sometimes I really wonder whether I'm too stupid or my english from school lessons is too far away or whether there is even more cultural difference I ever thought.

 

Can please someone competent explain to me: How I can understand something worded as "10. Source of Criteria" - "Not Acceptable" "These listing elements: cache titles, cache owner, GC Codes, publishing Reviewer or listing text. (new 2016)" means anything else than you can't base your challenge criteria on owner or reviewer (no matter if name or id) and so on.

 

So if you ask for finds on caches published by 10 different reviewers, how can that be done without taking the field reviewer as criteria?

 

If you ask for finds on x cache types by the same owner, how can that be done without taking owner as criteria?

 

And how I can understand "Specifying cache type(s) or find count (above one per day) required during a streak. (new 2016)" means anything else than not allowing to restrict to certain cache types e.g. how "have streak of x days, only these y cache types count" can be possible for new challenges caches?

 

My guess is the Not acceptable #10 is aimed at "Spell a word using owner or reviewer name" primarily but it is deliberately fuzzy to make the text simple and to allow some wiggle room to reject things not called out explicitly but which they don't like. It's like the extra text it would take to deal with the problem of "find 25 challenge caches" because they are defined by a word In the title which you aren't supposed to depend on. This is a messy edge case that snap icon or an attribute would fix but they didn't go that far.

 

As for the other, a streak requires one per day and you may not demand more. Nor may specify the cache type required for a streak so a month of puzzle cache finds would not be allowed.

Share this post


Link to post

And I'm just saying that for this particular challenge the resources required to run a checker script on it as I envision it, because it's algorithmically relatively simple, would be minimal. I'd certainly be interested to see how fast a script I envision would handle alamogul's though.

 

I do understand your frustration about your browser.

 

In my opinion it's not that simple though of course it can be done. When implemented with heuristics to reduce the problem size alamogul's case should be easier than the really borderline cases. The computationally most intensive case is proving that no solution exists when almost a solution exists (all quick and simple tests do not help you in that case and you have to look at all cases for which the conditions you can come up with are not violated).

 

The heuristics one can use will speed up the checking process for most cachers considerably, but some hard cases will remain.

Share this post


Link to post

So if you ask for finds on caches published by 10 different reviewers, how can that be done without taking the field reviewer as criteria?

 

If you ask for finds on x cache types by the same owner, how can that be done without taking owner as criteria?

 

I'd say it's not about your English but rather about what kind of challenge caches slip through, right?

Share this post


Link to post

Again, this is if I'm interpreting your description of the challenge correctly, and a part of it is still a big vague (9 caches per type per DT? Or 8 cache types per DT with 1 'wildcard', so still 9 [# caches] * (8 [# types] +1 [# w/10+ favs] ) * 81 [DT] caches in total?)

An example how to fill the matrix with various cache types and 9 caches per cache type (9th cache type replaced for caches that have more than 10 (100) favorite points as for new cachers there won't be too much events not D1/T1 and other cache types are probably too rare)

 

Not using a script I used an intuitive way to find a solution quite quickly.

 

In general the quickest results are 'no full matrix even using all cache types' and 'not enough cache types with minimum 9 DT combos' - for sure not fulfilled - or 'I can fill the matrix for every cache type with that cache type only and once with favorite-decorated caches' - for sure fulfilled.

 

For other cases one has to determine which unique DT combos are available for each cache type and which DT combos are available for caches with > favorite points (easiest case: there are enough so you don't have to use any cache you could otherwise need for a type). I for example have 70/68/61/24/21/20/20/10 and 40 (over 100 favs) DT combos. There could be a lot of solutions, in my case it is very easy to find the first of many.

 

But there also could be no solution at all, even if you start with 81/81/81/81/81/26/26/26 and 81 - if for example the 26/26/26 are on the same places and there is no way to spread them over the necessary 27 places.

Ooooh ok, right, so you're saying it's 9 caches per type (and you have to use 9 cache types, with 1 optional wilcard (10+ favs being a 'type')), and you can (effectively) choose which type to use for each DT - meaning, 9*81 qualifying caches total?

I was interpreting it as 9 caches per type, per DT. That's pretty insane. But I didn't question the local area's cache type landscape :laughing:

 

Yeah in that case, I'd still summarize first to determine if qualifying is possible at all, grouped as DT/Types for find count total, and finds with over 10 favs, each. The process is similar...

* Fail if there are fewer than 8 Cache Types having at least one DT with 9+ total finds (~even with the fav wilcard there aren't 9 'types')

* Fail if there are exactly 8 Cache Types with 9+ finds but no DT with at least 9 finds of over 10 Favs (~not even worth checking for a fav wildcard as it doesn't exist)

* Fail if any DT has no Cache Type with 9+ total finds AND has fewer than 9 total finds of over 10 Favs (~impossible to fulfill a DT)

Next loop by priority:

* Any DT with only one qualifying type (including if its Fav 'type' sum >=9) is locked to that icon.

* Any Type (incl. fav) that passed in only 1 DT is locked to that DT. --- this one might be problematic, since if there are more than 9 types usable, this step may hinder another type that needs its DT.

For the rest of the DTs, loop recursively, backtracking if necessary, to determine if there's a matrix that satisfies 9+ Cache Types used. I've done algorithms like that before, and for a 9x9 grid it's not really that intense.

 

Basically, the algorithm would be 'fun' to program, but not insanely CPU intense. Even with enormous find counts - there are really only two potential bottlenecks: the first Find summary query parsing to a rowcount of 81*#CacheTypes, and the recursive matrix selection which again isn't dealing with a lot of data, and can be reduced depending on how good the coder is at optimizing the process :)

But it is a little too complex for a series of SQL queries. :P

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

Sometimes I really wonder whether I'm too stupid or my english from school lessons is too far away or whether there is even more cultural difference I ever thought.

 

Can please someone competent explain to me: How I can understand something worded as "10. Source of Criteria" - "Not Acceptable" "These listing elements: cache titles, cache owner, GC Codes, publishing Reviewer or listing text. (new 2016)" means anything else than you can't base your challenge criteria on owner or reviewer (no matter if name or id) and so on.

 

So if you ask for finds on caches published by 10 different reviewers, how can that be done without taking the field reviewer as criteria?

That cannot be done. Such a challenge cache should not be published. If one was published recently and after the moratorium ended, then it was published in error and should be archived.

 

If you ask for finds on x cache types by the same owner, how can that be done without taking owner as criteria?

That cannot be done. Such a challenge cache should not be published. If one was published recently and after the moratorium ended, then it was published in error and should be archived.

 

And how I can understand "Specifying cache type(s) or find count (above one per day) required during a streak. (new 2016)" means anything else than not allowing to restrict to certain cache types e.g. how "have streak of x days, only these y cache types count" can be possible for new challenges caches?

That cannot be done. Such a challenge cache should not be published. If one was published recently and after the moratorium ended, then it was published in error and should be archived.

Share this post


Link to post

That cannot be done. Such a challenge cache should not be published.

 

All such challenge caches have been published (not all in the same country).

Share this post


Link to post

As someone who prefers a long hike or many-staged multi over a park-and-grab, I'm toying with the idea of a challenge cache based on finding caches with the "takes more than 1 hour" attribute. Such caches often become rather lonely even though completing them can be a very fulfilling experience, so my aim would be to encourage a bit more of this style of caching.

 

While this seems to clear most of the hurdles in the new guidelines, I'm not sure about the one that says "A challenge cache needs to appeal to and be attainable by a reasonable number of cachers. Your reviewer may ask for a list of cachers from your area who qualify." Would this be likely to have enough appeal? And if so, how does one go about creating the list of qualifying cachers? I can't see any obvious way to do this with either the website search function or PQ generator, and doing it manually would be rather arduous to say the least!

Share this post


Link to post

I was interpreting it as 9 caches per type, per DT. That's pretty insane. But I didn't question the local area's cache type landscape :laughing:

 

Yes, that's insane in most areas but of course really easy to check.

 

I've done algorithms like that before, and for a 9x9 grid it's not really that intense.

 

Yes, it's doable on a 9x9 grid (I said that from the beginning), but I I'm sceptic that it can be done within the framework of project-gc and the resource limits there for every user.

 

 

But it is a little too complex for a series of SQL queries. :P

 

Definitely.

Share this post


Link to post

As someone who prefers a long hike or many-staged multi over a park-and-grab, I'm toying with the idea of a challenge cache based on finding caches with the "takes more than 1 hour" attribute. Such caches often become rather lonely even though completing them can be a very fulfilling experience, so my aim would be to encourage a bit more of this style of caching.

 

While this seems to clear most of the hurdles in the new guidelines, I'm not sure about the one that says "A challenge cache needs to appeal to and be attainable by a reasonable number of cachers. Your reviewer may ask for a list of cachers from your area who qualify." Would this be likely to have enough appeal? And if so, how does one go about creating the list of qualifying cachers? I can't see any obvious way to do this with either the website search function or PQ generator, and doing it manually would be rather arduous to say the least!

 

I think appeal to that would mostly depend on that quality of caches in the region with the more than 1 hour attribute :laughing:

I don't think there'd be a problem at all with that one, as long as you can demonstate that enough people qualify.

Share this post


Link to post

Does anyone here know how I can identify 10 geocachers in California who currently qualify for my Bi-Polar Challenge? that seems to be the last hurdle before publication. It seems the only way to be sure is if those cachers could run their stats through the checker on the not-yet-published cache page.

Share this post


Link to post

As someone who prefers a long hike or many-staged multi over a park-and-grab, I'm toying with the idea of a challenge cache based on finding caches with the "takes more than 1 hour" attribute. Such caches often become rather lonely even though completing them can be a very fulfilling experience, so my aim would be to encourage a bit more of this style of caching.

 

While this seems to clear most of the hurdles in the new guidelines, I'm not sure about the one that says "A challenge cache needs to appeal to and be attainable by a reasonable number of cachers. Your reviewer may ask for a list of cachers from your area who qualify." Would this be likely to have enough appeal? And if so, how does one go about creating the list of qualifying cachers? I can't see any obvious way to do this with either the website search function or PQ generator, and doing it manually would be rather arduous to say the least!

Does anyone here know how I can identify 10 geocachers in California who currently qualify for my Bi-Polar Challenge? that seems to be the last hurdle before publication. It seems the only way to be sure is if those cachers could run their stats through the checker on the not-yet-published cache page.

Once your Geochecker is tagged to your cache page at Project-GC.com, you can run names of local cachers through the checker yourself. Anyone can test up to ten times per day. Paying supporters of Project-GC have no limits on using checkers.

 

Tip: Help your reviewer by saying "I ran a bunch of local cachers' names through the checker, and the following 12 accounts all passed:

  1. "

Share this post


Link to post

As someone who prefers a long hike or many-staged multi over a park-and-grab, I'm toying with the idea of a challenge cache based on finding caches with the "takes more than 1 hour" attribute. Such caches often become rather lonely even though completing them can be a very fulfilling experience, so my aim would be to encourage a bit more of this style of caching.

 

While this seems to clear most of the hurdles in the new guidelines, I'm not sure about the one that says "A challenge cache needs to appeal to and be attainable by a reasonable number of cachers. Your reviewer may ask for a list of cachers from your area who qualify." Would this be likely to have enough appeal? And if so, how does one go about creating the list of qualifying cachers? I can't see any obvious way to do this with either the website search function or PQ generator, and doing it manually would be rather arduous to say the least!

Does anyone here know how I can identify 10 geocachers in California who currently qualify for my Bi-Polar Challenge? that seems to be the last hurdle before publication. It seems the only way to be sure is if those cachers could run their stats through the checker on the not-yet-published cache page.

Once your Geochecker is tagged to your cache page at Project-GC.com, you can run names of local cachers through the checker yourself. Anyone can test up to ten times per day. Paying supporters of Project-GC have no limits on using checkers.

 

Tip: Help your reviewer by saying "I ran a bunch of local cachers' names through the checker, and the following 12 accounts all passed:

  1. "

 

Thanks for that. I was hoping there might have been a way of generating the list before going to all the effort of setting up the cache page and having a checker created, particularly as it'd be handy to see how many qualifiers there are when deciding how high to set the bar (I've found 13 "more than 1 hour" caches myself, but I don't know how typical that would be). I suppose I could work backwards by looking at the caches with that attribute around here and see what names appear in the logs - it might be something to fill in a rainy day.

Share this post


Link to post

[

Does anyone here know how I can identify 10 geocachers in California who currently qualify for my Bi-Polar Challenge? that seems to be the last hurdle before publication. It seems the only way to be sure is if those cachers could run their stats through the checker on the not-yet-published cache page.

Once your Geochecker is tagged to your cache page at Project-GC.com, you can run names of local cachers through the checker yourself. Anyone can test up to ten times per day. Paying supporters of Project-GC have no limits on using checkers.

 

Tip: Help your reviewer by saying "I ran a bunch of local cachers' names through the checker, and the following 12 accounts all passed:

  1. "

 

The Challenge Checker that I have tagged for the unpublished cache won't run when I enter another cacher's handle with the error that the cache doesn't exist.

 

**never mind, it just worked***

Edited by Geobun

Share this post


Link to post

[

Does anyone here know how I can identify 10 geocachers in California who currently qualify for my Bi-Polar Challenge? that seems to be the last hurdle before publication. It seems the only way to be sure is if those cachers could run their stats through the checker on the not-yet-published cache page.

Once your Geochecker is tagged to your cache page at Project-GC.com, you can run names of local cachers through the checker yourself. Anyone can test up to ten times per day. Paying supporters of Project-GC have no limits on using checkers.

 

Tip: Help your reviewer by saying "I ran a bunch of local cachers' names through the checker, and the following 12 accounts all passed:

  1. "

 

The Challenge Checker that I have tagged for the unpublished cache won't run when I enter another cacher's handle with the error that the cache doesn't exist.

 

**never mind, it just worked***

 

You could use the list of finders of any of the Antarctica caches and see if they are in state. Also asking on the local FB groups might help. For one requiring as much travel as this one, I would petition the reviewer to let out of area qualifiers be considered given that they already are great travelers and could well come here and sign the log. Maybe expand the net to OR and WA

Share this post


Link to post

Some of us are half done. Maybe that is worth something.

Share this post


Link to post

5 from California

 

brian1789

CLMDS

Coastal Eddy and PB2

WERDAVE

Geobun ;)

 

Thank you AnnaMoritz! I just have a few more to go :-)

Share this post


Link to post

Some of us are half done. Maybe that is worth something.

 

I could probably come up with 20 half-dones but that might not fly.

Share this post


Link to post

Some of us are half done. Maybe that is worth something.

 

I could probably come up with 20 half-dones but that might not fly.

 

What is 'in California'? Having found caches there? That would seem reasonable to me as they also can find your cache even if only visiting for holidays.

 

For special caches there will be a target audience even from far away. For example there was a planned package tour of 25 German Austrian and Swiss geocachers to visit APE in Brazil. And California is a popular destination for people from all over the world.

 

Maybe you could try to convince some north american cachers that seem to live outside California to find caches in California? :ph34r:

iceweed

MooseBob

dunezilla

STNolan

polarnav

 

Or look through all finders of the few Antarctic caches, I would think quite a few of them have also cached in the Arctic and in California.

Share this post


Link to post

Some of us are half done. Maybe that is worth something.

 

I could probably come up with 20 half-dones but that might not fly.

 

What is 'in California'? Having found caches there? That would seem reasonable to me as they also can find your cache even if only visiting for holidays.

 

For special caches there will be a target audience even from far away. For example there was a planned package tour of 25 German Austrian and Swiss geocachers to visit APE in Brazil. And California is a popular destination for people from all over the world.

 

Maybe you could try to convince some north american cachers that seem to live outside California to find caches in California? :ph34r:

iceweed

MooseBob

dunezilla

STNolan

polarnav

 

Or look through all finders of the few Antarctic caches, I would think quite a few of them have also cached in the Arctic and in California.

 

AnnaMoritz, Thank you for all your help with this. As I understand, GS wants the 10 names to be cachers whose home base is in California. I will look through the popular Antarctic caches and see if I can find more names.

Share this post


Link to post

I was hoping there might have been a way of generating the list before going to all the effort of setting up the cache page and having a checker created, particularly as it'd be handy to see how many qualifiers there are when deciding how high to set the bar (I've found 13 "more than 1 hour" caches myself, but I don't know how typical that would be).

You can expend a small amount of effort to create a bare-bones cache page, which will get you a GC Code for that page. The challenge checker will need that GC Code. If everything else goes well, then you can fill in the cache page with all the other information before submitting it to your reviewer.

 

I would suggest that you request a high-bar challenge checker -- say, with 13 caches required. Most challenge checkers generate output that indicates how close people are if they haven't yet completed the requirement. For Jane Doe geocacher, as an example, it might indicate she's found only 10 qualifying caches. Run a bunch of likely candidates through the checker and keep track of how many qualify with 13 caches, how many come close with 12 caches, 11 caches, etc.

 

I'd also ask one of your local reviewers how many geocachers must have pre-qualified (or come close to pre-qualifying) for the reviewer to consider your challenge "attainable by a reasonable number of geocachers." Once you have that information, you should know the highest bar that would be accepted for publication. If that bar is lower than 13 (i.e., the number you set for your challenge checker), then you can ask someone to change the challenge checker to match the maximum acceptable bar (or lower than that bar, if you prefer).

Edited by CanadianRockies

Share this post


Link to post

cachers whose home base is in California.

 

Strange, especially for a challenge that involves traveling veeeery far.

 

No one is obliged to share their home location, it is for good reason not allowed to have challenges based on home coordinates.

 

Thinking of visiting patterns I know there are many cachers from elsewhere that cache here regularly and of recurrent cache raids in my town by non-local-groups also from abroad. And for special challenge caches Austrians visit them if they can include it in travel plans.

Share this post


Link to post

cachers whose home base is in California.

Strange, especially for a challenge that involves traveling veeeery far.

 

No one is obliged to share their home location, it is for good reason not allowed to have challenges based on home coordinates.

I don't believe Groundspeak partners, like Project-GC, actually have access to a geocacher's home coordinates. But they do assign geocachers to specific countries and states/provinces/regions. I think they do this based on where a geocacher has registered the most finds.

 

There's one prolific geocacher who moved to Alberta relatively recently, but Project-GC still assigns him to his former country/state. I always make sure to include him in my data when I try to determine how many Alberta-based geocachers have pre-qualified or nearly pre-qualified for my challenge caches.

Share this post


Link to post

cachers whose home base is in California.

 

Strange, especially for a challenge that involves traveling veeeery far.

 

No one is obliged to share their home location, it is for good reason not allowed to have challenges based on home coordinates.

 

Thinking of visiting patterns I know there are many cachers from elsewhere that cache here regularly and of recurrent cache raids in my town by non-local-groups also from abroad. And for special challenge caches Austrians visit them if they can include it in travel plans.

 

I find it strange too. I know there are cachers who come from all over the country to sign the log for the Jasmer Challenge, which is less than a mile from my Bi-Polar Challenge.

Share this post


Link to post

 

I don't believe Groundspeak partners, like Project-GC, actually have access to a geocacher's home coordinates.

 

pgc has access to the home coordinates entered at gc.com. Of course not the real ones.

 

But they do assign geocachers to specific countries and states/provinces/regions. I think they do this based on where a geocacher has registered the most finds.

 

Yes, they use different methods than the entered home coordinates to assign cachers to areas.

Share this post


Link to post

I was hoping there might have been a way of generating the list before going to all the effort of setting up the cache page and having a checker created, particularly as it'd be handy to see how many qualifiers there are when deciding how high to set the bar (I've found 13 "more than 1 hour" caches myself, but I don't know how typical that would be).

 

I find it amazing that apparently so few cachers in your area have found such caches. I thought a moment about setting up a challenge cache asking for a higher number of multi caches with the >10km attribute, no motorbikes allowed attribute and T-rating at least 3*. It would not be an issue to have enough qualifyiing cachers but it would also include some caches I do not want to have there and exclude some I'd like to have there. It would be easier if there were further distance related attributes >20km, >40km etc or even a length field.

 

As your challenge cache is regarded, the >1 hour might be misleading. I typically do not set the >1 hour where it's obvious, e.g. when I use the >10km attribute (and/or the significant hike attribute) for a hiking cache. I use the >1 hour attribute mainly in an urban setting when it is not clear from the beginning that my cache needs more time than the average cache nearby.

Edited by cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7

×