[Cancelled] Checker Request GC5YP9D Washington State 50 cemetery cache challenge

I've had this challenge in the works before moratorium, now that it has been lifted I'm working on updating it to get it within the new guild lines, obviously part of that is need for a checker. I was hoping to make the requirements as follows. the challenge seeker needs to find 50 cemetery caches within the state of Washington. Of course then the question comes up what defines a cemetery cache. To me it is a cache that is physically located within a cemetery or that is just outside of a cemetery but highlights the nearby cemetery in someway. I'm not sure if it is possible to build a checker to those specifications and I would be willing to be flexible if needed. So I guess I'm looking for some feedback as well as a checker.

Thanks,
SirKarp

You can't use the title or listing text in any way under the new guidelines. I can't think of a way to do it without using those.

Well, the state of Washington is easy. :)

Defining the cemeteries is not so easy. Since we can't look for the word "Cemetery" in cache name any more.

IF (and it's a really big IF) you could identify the center point coordinate of ALL cemeteries (is there a master list?) and define the radius (say .2 miles). For bigger cemeteries, you could use multiple center points to cover or actually draw or otherwise find the polygon data.

Anyway you luck at it, there is a lot of data gathering you would have to do to make it possible to write a checker or script.

Hope this helps.

TravelingGeek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, the state of Washington is easy. :)
>
> Defining the cemeteries is not so easy. Since we
> can't look for the word "Cemetery" in cache name
> any more.
>
> IF (and it's a really big IF) you could identify
> the center point coordinate of ALL cemeteries (is
> there a master list?) and define the radius (say
> .2 miles). For bigger cemeteries, you could use
> multiple center points to cover or actually draw
> or otherwise find the polygon data.
>
> Anyway you luck at it, there is a lot of data
> gathering you would have to do to make it possible
> to write a checker or script.
>
> Hope this helps.

Thank you, yes that is very helpful. No there is no master cemetery list. Yes there are websites, the biggest one is www.findagrave.com. But it is by no means all inclusive. Those websites require user inputted data, and if no one has entered a given cemetery into the website then it won't be there. So yes there are cemetery lists, but they are not necessarily all inclusive. However I would say that it could be possible to generate a list of most of the cemeteries in Washington State.

I'd like to run a scenario by you. Suppose though research I'm able to come up with a list of the cemeteries in Washington State and their locations. So in this scenario a cacher goes to run the checker and finds that there is a cache in a cemetery that wasn't entered into the checker, and it's just enough to cause him to not pass the checker. Is there a way for the missing cemetery to be added and / or is there a way for that person to be allowed to log the cache ?

Thanks,
SirKarp

Unfortunately, the guidelines prohibit the need to contact the Cache Owner, so I don't think you can leave it open ended like that.

Maybe limit it to the counties you have solid data for?

TravelingGeek Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Unfortunately, the guidelines prohibit the need to
> contact the Cache Owner, so I don't think you can
> leave it open ended like that.
>
> Maybe limit it to the counties you have solid data
> for?


Now that's a thought. I might just have to look into doing it that way, as well as other options.

Thanks,
SirKarp

How would you write the challenge description? Find 50 caches in Washington cemeteries within .2 miles of these coordinates and then list the 153 current hides with cemetery in the title, for example. That sounds pretty weird and I would think you ought to check with your local reviewer before doing too much work.

This new guideline might be a problem with the description you would likely have to use.
"The challenge requirements should be simple, and easy to explain, follow and document. A long list of rules or restrictions may prevent publication."

rragan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How would you write the challenge description?
> Find 50 caches in Washington cemeteries within .2
> miles of these coordinates and then list the 153
> current hides with cemetery in the title, for
> example. That sounds pretty weird and I would
> think you ought to check with your local reviewer
> before doing too much work.
>
> This new guideline might be a problem with the
> description you would likely have to use.
> "The challenge requirements should be simple, and
> easy to explain, follow and document. A long list
> of rules or restrictions may prevent publication."

As mentioned earlier we can't go by title tittle or description so listing 153 caches by name I don't think will work. Also I have been in contact with my local reviewer, and as we move forward I will continue to be. I wouldn't want to put a bunch of work into an unpublishable cache anymore than the next person. As far as the description, I think it could be just to the effect of a cache that is located inside of a cemetery or just outside of the cemetery. Or it could be worded for this challenge any cache located inside of a cemetery or within 0.2 of a cemetery. The problem that I see is that a cache outside of a cemetery can be a cemetery cache if it highlights the cemetery in someway, but it's not necessarily a cemetery cache if it say takes you to say a lamp skirt on the outside of a cemetery fence and the cacher isn't even aware the cemetery is there. With the new system and guild lines in place there would be no way to differentiate between that sort of thing, which is unfortunate, but that's another discussion I suppose.

To me it's not a matter of how to word it the description, it the amount of work that would be required to research and locate all or most of the cemeteries within Washington state and to be accurate. I guess it would come down to, if it doesn't pass the checker then it doesn't count for this challenge. Whether it right or wrong.

Once a checker is made can it be modified or updated at all. Say in this example if a cemetery was missed could it be added later ?

Thanks,
SirKarp

This might be skirting the intent of the guidelines and would likely be struck down with a clarification but right now it does not appear illegal to base a challenge on finding 50 caches on a bookmark list. Just put up a list with all the cemetery caches you can find and more could be added later.

rragan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This might be skirting the intent of the
> guidelines and would likely be struck down with a
> clarification but right now it does not appear
> illegal to base a challenge on finding 50 caches
> on a bookmark list. Just put up a list with all
> the cemetery caches you can find and more could be
> added later.
That is very interesting point that you make. I will discuss it with the reviewer and see how they feel about it.
Thanks,
SirKarp

rragan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This might be skirting the intent of the
> guidelines and would likely be struck down with a
> clarification but right now it does not appear
> illegal to base a challenge on finding 50 caches
> on a bookmark list. Just put up a list with all
> the cemetery caches you can find and more could be
> added later.


Are you sure it's not against guideline 11?
A challenge based on elements under the cache owner’s primary control is not acceptable: examples, my favorites, my caches, caches by this owner, or this group.

My understanding (I'm not a reviewer and different reviewers probably will interpret things differently) is you can't have a list of caches that are based on a whim of the cache owner, however an objective bookmark list probably is valid - a good example in the UK would be must be a 'church micro' - that is appear in the 'church micros' bookmark lists.

With respect to the guidelines on contacting the Cache Owner again I'd interpret that as being a prohibition against being required to contact them to log, not having the option to contact the owner if there is a cache/graveyard missing and ask for the checker to be corrected.

Personally I'd go for defining the centre/boundaries of the cemeteries rather than a bookmark list as that requires much less maintenance dealing with new caches being created.
I'd ague the rule would be fairly straightforward "Find a cache within or close to a cemetery".
The page can then provide clarification on 'here is the list of cemeteries I know about, feel free to contact the cache owner if you find one that I have missed".

I am currently in discussion with one of my local reviewers regarding a checker that uses a bookmark. Though I don't have a definitive answer yet, it does appear as though it would not be approved under guildline #11. Which means the only realistic method would be the cemetery center point method. Doable but a lot of research would be needed. Not sure at this time where I will be going with this.

Thanks for all the input so far it's be much appreciated,
SirKarp

Did you get a sense that all bookmark lists would be unacceptable? Or if the list is some sort of reference list controlled by others like the English Church micro list if that would be ok? Then the list would not be in the primary control of the CO and not violate #11.

rragan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Did you get a sense that all bookmark lists would
> be unacceptable? Or if the list is some sort of
> reference list controlled by others like the
> English Church micro list if that would be ok?
> Then the list would not be in the primary control
> of the CO and not violate #11.

I was told specifically that using a bookmark list for challenge caches is NOT ok. So the assumption I would make is bookmarks are out regardless of who is in control of the list. If they allowed that it would be super easy for someone to ask a friend or simply create another account to hold the bookmark list. So I'm thinking that bookmark lists are out completely, but then again it never hurts to ask a reviewer regarding the specific scenario around the English Church Micro.

SirKarp

From experience and observation it is also quite possible other reviewers will come up with different interpretations of the rules, particularly when presented with fairly different scenarios such as the cm lists.

It looks like a guideline #10 clarification got added that prohibits polygon-defined areas so that won't work either.

This challenge does not seem to be allowed under the new guidelines, so I'm marking the request as cancelled. If you come up with new challenge criteria, feel free to make a new request.