Re: Elevation challenge request

Hi there, I am planning an elevation challenge cache for when they bring back geocaching challenges. To complete the challenge, a cacher would have to have at least one find in each of the 21 levels of elevation (i.e. <0, <25, <50...<5000) Would it be possible to create a challenge checker for this? I have created a page for this, the GC code is GC6J3EY, and the cache will be located in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Thanks in advance!

Yes, it's possible, are there any restrictions like country or region or type

Thanks for the quick response vogelbird! The only restriction I would have on location or cache type would be no location-less (reverse) caches.

The 21 steps are not clear and the elevation in feet or meters

Elevations in metres, in the same groups as on the project gc elevation graphs:

1) less than 0
2) 0 or more, less than 25
3) 25 or more, less than 50
4) 50 or more, less than 75
5) 75 or more, less than 100
6) 100 or more, less than 125
7) 125 or more, less than 150
8) 150 or more, less than 200
9) 200 or more, less than 250
10) 250 or more, less than 300
11) 300 or more, less than 400
12) 400 or more, less than 500
13) 500 or more, less than 600
14) 600 or more, less than 750
15) 750 or more, less than 1000
16) 1,000 or more, less than 1,250
17) 1,250 or more, less than 1,500
18) 1,500 or more, less than 1,750
19) 1,750 or more, less than 2,000
20) 2,000 or more, less than 2,500
25) 2,500 or more, less than 5,000

Here is the link http://project-gc.com/Challenges//20515.
Check it out first and if it is Okay I will attach it to the gc code

0-25 stands for >= 0 to <25

Thanks for getting this together so quickly!!! It worked on my profile (I do qualify) and on someone who doesn't qualify.

If it is not too much work, would it be possible to have it show as 0-24, 25-49 etc. in the script instead of 0-25, 25-50, so as to remove any confusion as to which group a cache qualifies for, for instance if a cache location is right on 25 metres elevation. Otherwise, it's exactly what I was hoping for!

I have changed it but the result will show as -1000#-1 , 0#24 because of the cache <0

Just nitpicking, but -1000 might not be the correct limit. I have a find that is officially at -5123m, which shows in the PGC stats but doesn't come up in your checker.

I would suspect that a cache with a -5123 elevation is a locationless (reverse) cache, which are excluded from qualifying for this challenge. What is the GC code of the cache with this 'legitimate' elevation?

It's a mystery cache, from before the close to the actual coordinates rule came in (its listed coordinates are on the opposite side of the Earth to where it is, so it shows as the bottom of the Pacific Ocean). GC3TMG7

Hmmm, sumbloke raises a good point. Mystery cache elevations are those at the posted coordinates, not the final coordinates. Perhaps I should exclude those as well from the challenge. Would that be difficult to do at this stage?

That cache and som other travelling/locationless are on this bookmarklist and is resonable to ignore for som challenges
https://www.geocaching.com/bookmarks/view.aspx?guid=7cf4124c-1061-4412-b79a-7df1df4d8783

Another problem is that there are virtuals and earth caches that are located on the top of a mountain but you dont have to reach the summit for a log.
I have seen some eleveration challenges that required that the cache have a physical logbook to remove those caches. That also exclude event caches

I like the second one if you can remove the summary. However, I preferred the using the - rather than the #, could that be changed for those who don't qualify? Thanks!

This is the new link http://project-gc.com/Challenges/GC6J3EY/20523

The qualifiying caches are shown with the elevation

0-24, 25-49 doesn't make sense to me, probably because my mind is one of a programmer.

If I log a geocache at 24.2 meters height, then that would not qualify me for any of the above, as I read it. (just my two cents)

I agree totally with you. The first set I did >=0 - <25, >=25 - <50, etc would not have this problem and could be explained on the cache page and I could use the - instead of the # again.

The alternative is >=0.00#<=24.99, <=25.00#>=49.99

If output 2 is chosen without the summary the above is not shown. Then the above does not matter and I could use the first set

I wait till Rockchick67 tells which output is chosen before I change any thing

I tried to sort out the difference in quatity and to my suprise there is no difference.
It looks like the elevations are rounded to the nearest meter (at least in the printout results and your profile stats)

For =>0 - <25, =>25 - <50, ...........etc
Your result is
[ganja1447](https://www.geocaching.com/profile/?u=ganja1447) has used [Project-GC](http://project-gc.com/Challenges//20618 "Project-GC Challenge Checker") to see if he/she qualified for this challenge and he/she did.

-1000-0: 62
0-25: 1000 this the max the script allows
25-50: 1000
50-75: 1000
75-100: 1000
100-125: 1000
125-150: 921
150-200: 885
200-250: 266
250-300: 126
300-400: 122
400-500: 16
500-600: 14
600-750: 8
750-1000: 3
1000-1250: 4
1250-1500: 1

For =>0 - =< 24, =>25 - =< 50, ..............etc
Your result is
[ganja1447](https://www.geocaching.com/profile/?u=ganja1447) has used [Project-GC](http://project-gc.com/Challenges//20617 "Project-GC Challenge Checker") to see if he/she qualified for this challenge and he/she did.

-1000#-1): 62
0#24: 1000
25#49: 1000
50#74: 1000
75#99: 1000
100#124: 1000
125#149: 921
150#199: 885
200#249: 266
250#299: 126
300#399: 122
400#499: 16
500#599: 14
600#749: 8
750#999: 3
1000#1249: 4
1250#1499: 1

I have made two checker examples where Unknown and Lacationless are excluded and the output is different

a) http://project-gc.com/Challenges//20515 , with this output is the restriction that I cannot show elevation and type

b) http://project-gc.com/Challenges//20523 with this output I can show the groups as a summery and the details like elevation, gccde, visitdate, cache name and type with the one you qualify with.

If you like I can also remove the summary

Please check which one you like best and to that one I can attach the gccode