Re: Requesting checker for GC9MHDJ

Hi there - could I please get a checker created for GC9MHDJ that looks for 2 different "vice versa either or" qualifications? Basically to qualify for the challenge, you need to have found enough caches that have either

- 20 "hunting area" and 22 "may require cross country skis" attributes, or
- its vice versa: 20 "may require cross country skis" and 22 "hunting area" attributes

I hope I'm not overcomplicating my explanation of this challenge and hoping the checker is easy to build too. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks.

Here you go: https://project-gc.com/Challenges/GC9MHDJ/65765

Please note that we've been told that for challenges with multiple paths to qualification, the CO needs to have completed all. You have only found 20 hunting area finds, so don't qualify for one path.

Thanks for the checker and info, sumbloke. Good to know. I'm curious though; is that a fairly recent challenge requirement/change (ie. within the last few days?), and by GC.com/GS or Project-GC? I can't seem to find anything about that on the GC.com website documentation and before I requested the checker be built, I pre-submitted my challenge idea to my local reviewers (I do this every time now). They never mentioned anything about this 'extra' requirement to me.

I guess if I don't find 2 more hunting attribute caches in time for my 'planned' release of this challenge, I may have to modify the challenge for that one criteria only. Please stay tuned but leave the checker as-is for now.

Otherwise, I've tested the current checker and it appears to be working as designed. Thanks.

It's been around for a while, but never written down (which annoys us). It's a Groundspeak requirement that we've only found out about from reviewers who comment here.

Please close this checker request. It'll take a couple of days for it to show up on Project-GC after I log them but I have found 2 more caches with the hunting attribute now so then I'll be able to meet both "sides" of this challenge before it's published.

I agree too; I really wish all these rules were documented somewhere 'officially' too. I know I've already been caught a couple of times in the past with these inconsistencies. It was certainly frustrating and time confusing. There seems to be quite a few of them too (the inconsistencies between what reviewers will (or won't) approve and what the various Project-GC checker writers have said). If they were documented explicitly, it certainly would clear up some of the confusion and minimize the wasted time and effort on everyone's part. Anyways, I'll get off my soap box now. ;-)

Thank you for building the checker. All good at this end now. :-)