[Resolved] GC5WGKX Calgary's Favorites (or 20 in 20) Challenge
June 01, 2016 08:26AM
Can you please write a checker for this cache. The requirements are to find or own 20 caches within a 20 kilometer radius of Calgary City Hall (T2P 2M5 or N51° 02.763 W114° 03.441) with 60 or more favorite points.
Currently there are more than 20 active caches available. Counting archived caches, I have found 28 that meet the criteria.
Thanks for your time,
JanlarC
Re: GC5WGKX Calgary's Favorites (or 20 in 20) Challenge
June 06, 2016 11:35AM
"[...]or own[...]" will not work due to guidelines (10. Source of Criteria: "Requiring cachers to own a cache." ). You'll have to remove that part from the list of criteria.

I do not want to claim the credits for the script, SeekerSupreme has written a nearly perfect one (" Generic location proximity checker", although NOT regarding favourite points). You should ask him to add that tiny bit into his script (add and regard configuration criteria "min_favpoints").

If he wants to do so and has done it you can use the tag http://project-gc.com/Challenges/GC5WGKX/21253. Please tell me that the script is prepared for my config, I'll enable the tag a.s.a.p.

Cheers,
Hampf
Re: GC5WGKX Calgary's Favorites (or 20 in 20) Challenge
June 06, 2016 11:58AM
Is "or own" a problem

The guidelin is:
Quote

Requiring cachers to own a cache.
My interpretation is that if you have to own a cache it is not ok but it is if it is an option

It is only two other "Not accepted" that have require in it
Quote

Requiring cachers to log caches that are disabled or archived.
Quote

Requiring caches to be found in earlier years, as it is not attainable by someone new to the game.

And in both caches you are allowed to use archived/disabled and old finds are ok to use

If owning a cache cant be an option the guidline would be just "owning a cache" as the other not allowed are written

But most scripts cant include owned cacher in without a rewrite because an extra API call is needed and two lista has to bee looked at
Re: GC5WGKX Calgary's Favorites (or 20 in 20) Challenge
June 06, 2016 12:06PM
It would be easier in the publishing process if you just remove that passage B)
I didn't make the rules, then. Maybe you should just ask your local reviewer beforehand.

Edit: Sorry, Target, I thought it was JanlarC writing.

And as a matter of fact you could just log your own cache if you like. This is not forbidden and if that brings you to fulfil the requirement nobody would object, I think.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/06/2016 12:10PM by hampf. (view changes)
Re: GC5WGKX Calgary's Favorites (or 20 in 20) Challenge
June 06, 2016 09:03PM
I have a problem. If I leave out the "or own" option, it would exclude those who own caches with lots of favorite points. For example, there are three cache owners who own many of the caches that qualify for this challenge. By leaving out the "or own" passage, they will be penalized by not being able to include their own caches, and one might actually be excluded from achieving this challenge.

I don't think it fair to ask them to log their own cache just to satisfy the requirements. Is it hard to write a script that makes an extra API call?

As for the archived/disabled comment. There are over 20 active caches available so newcomers will have the opportunity to complete the challenge. However, if a cache that they have found becomes archived or disabled while they are working on the challenge, I believe it is in keeping with the guidelines that they should still be able to count that cache. In other words, they do not have to find archived/disabled caches, but they can include them.

Same with ownership. They do not have to own, but can include their own. Target interpreted my intention correctly.

Thanks for your help,
JanlarC
Re: GC5WGKX Calgary's Favorites (or 20 in 20) Challenge
June 06, 2016 09:34PM
You are not excluded if you own a cache on the top list
The checker takes the top caches with the FP variant you choose.
And it starts from the top and add caches until it reached the required amount 20 in your case
It add a cache if is active and you dont own it. It add a disable/archived if that option is used if you have found it.
And gives ok if you have found all 20 added cache

The result can be said in another way that you have to find the top 20 caches that you don't own. And archived/disabled caches is included in the list if you have found them
I think it is quire resonable to ask that everyone shall found the top 20 they don't own.

I was mistaken with the extra API because the get top list include them. Including them it not that hard in the checker.
But I think it is better to ask for a owner of a top cache to find the top 20 they down own
Re: GC5WGKX Calgary's Favorites (or 20 in 20) Challenge
June 06, 2016 10:26PM
I am not sure I understand you. Are you saying that it is not possible to allow a cache owner to count their own caches if they own several caches in the list with the FP variant? I would really prefer to include those cachers who make such wonderful caches, rather than penalize them.

I am not familiar with the LUA language, but I wonder if an 'if...then' condition is possible as follows:
The checker selects all caches that meet the location and FP criteria, including active, disabled and archived. (This list will have more than 20 caches.)
Loop through the list
... If the cacher has found a cache on the list, then add one to the counter
... Else,
...... If the cacher owns a cache on the list, then add one to the counter
Repeat the loop until the counter reaches 20 points or the list is exhausted.
Give OK when 20 points are reached

I sure hope this is possible.
JanlarC



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/06/2016 10:35PM by JanlarC. (view changes)
Re: GC5WGKX Calgary's Favorites (or 20 in 20) Challenge
June 06, 2016 11:03PM
I don't think it is possible taking owned caches into account, sorry about that.

And, as I said, it is not forbidden to log own caches as a found, so just go ahead and do so. This will only be of interest for Calgary residents so they will understand the need of looging their own caches. Should be no problem for them to fulfil the logging criteria if it is no problem for you, shouldn't it?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/06/2016 11:10PM by hampf. (view changes)
Re: GC5WGKX Calgary's Favorites (or 20 in 20) Challenge
June 07, 2016 01:09AM
Too bad it can't be done since at least one of the cachers who own caches in the list might not have a chance to qualify at this time without logging some of her own caches (4 on the list). She is the type of person that probably would not want to log her own caches as found.

I suppose I could go with the found only option. She might not even be interested in getting the challenge. If she is interested, she has been caching for some time and might have enough of the archived caches that fit the criteria anyway. Alternatively, I could allow her log the challenge cache, if her found and owned caches meet the criteria, even if the checker says no.

There are several caches in the defined area sitting at 59 FPs, so soon there will be more on the qualifying list, making this a non-issue.

How do I ask SeekerSupreme to modify his script for the "Generic location proximity checker" as mentioned in your first post? Does this script use a radius algorithm?

I was just looking at the sandbox and wondered if this function could work to include caches owned:
static PGC_LUA_Sandbox::GetFavorites

Thanks for your help,
Janice



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/07/2016 03:01AM by JanlarC. (view changes)
Re: GC5WGKX Calgary's Favorites (or 20 in 20) Challenge
June 07, 2016 03:07AM
There is no need for anyone to log a cache they own on my checker.
The list of the top 20 is customized for the user and owed caches are removed from the list

It should had work with the builtin radius filer in the API call but it looks lite there is a bug I will send in a bug report and report back to you when it works

Here is the buggy checker that looks at all caches in Alberta
Try it with a owner of toplisted cache and see the difference
http://project-gc.com/Challenges//21288
Re: GC5WGKX Calgary's Favorites (or 20 in 20) Challenge
June 07, 2016 04:01AM
Thanks Target. I look forward to getting a checker that meets my criteria.

Unfortunately, the buggy checker in the link has been disabled - probably for debugging.

When you said, "The list of the top 20 is customized for the user and owed caches are removed from the list," does the owner of several of the top rated caches, have her list decreased by the number she owns (making fewer available for her to find to meet the challenge)? Or will the checker add the number of owned caches (that meet the criteria) to her finds?

I really appreciate your help!
Thanks,
JanlarC
Re: GC5WGKX Calgary's Favorites (or 20 in 20) Challenge
June 07, 2016 04:21AM
I forgot to enable the script. The bug is not in the script but in the servrcode on the website
Re: GC5WGKX Calgary's Favorites (or 20 in 20) Challenge
June 07, 2016 08:30AM
I have contacted Seeker Supreme already, let's see what can be done. If SeekerSupreme doesn't want to edit the script I'll make a copy and work on that.
Re: GC5WGKX Calgary's Favorites (or 20 in 20) Challenge
June 07, 2016 02:16PM
There was two problem
I could not read the documentation that late during the night
But there was also a distance calculation problem that is not fixed
http://project-gc.com/Challenges/GC5WGKX/21288

I hope it it what you asked for
Please try it with owner a cache on the list and notice the change.

I could include their own cache in the list. But is it not more fun for them to found the top 20 caches they dont own?
Re: GC5WGKX Calgary's Favorites (or 20 in 20) Challenge
June 07, 2016 08:29PM
Thanks hampf and Target!

I think that Target has the idea exactly as I was intending. I had planned on putting out this challenge before the moratorium and it was to find or own the top 20 caches (by FPs) in Calgary. I changed the criteria to find caches with over 60 FP, just because I thought it would be easier to create a challenge checker.

I tried Target's script for this cache and it seems to be just what I would like and could include caches owned. I see that you have solved the radius problem now and do not need a minimum FP requirement (which is good). I like the way the top 20 list varies for those who are not premium members. I think I would still prefer the CO's to be able to count their own.

One comment, on the output, it states that green is for disabled. However, the green ones on the list were archived caches.

Thanks for all your time and expertise!
JanlarC
Re: GC5WGKX Calgary's Favorites (or 20 in 20) Challenge
June 07, 2016 09:07PM
Now it includes own as found in the list.
But there might be som bugs
The order of disabled and archived is changes so archived has priority
Re: GC5WGKX Calgary's Favorites (or 20 in 20) Challenge
June 08, 2016 12:04AM
Wow, thanks Target. The script is perfect! I think there might be a typo in the tag though. ownesasdfound should be ownedasdfound

Thank!
Janice
Re: GC5WGKX Calgary's Favorites (or 20 in 20) Challenge
June 08, 2016 12:12AM
yes and fixed
Re: GC5WGKX Calgary's Favorites (or 20 in 20) Challenge
June 08, 2016 12:16AM
Not quite. Now there is an extra d on the end of ownedasdfound
Re: GC5WGKX Calgary's Favorites (or 20 in 20) Challenge
June 08, 2016 12:18AM
Now then?
I added tried to add a test misspell to another but edited this instead.
Re: GC5WGKX Calgary's Favorites (or 20 in 20) Challenge
June 08, 2016 12:32AM
Heh, that's funny.

Now that the tag is spelled correctly, I tried the script with one of the owners in the top 20 (Hedgehog's spoon), but her caches don't show up. She should have GC2AYVY at 87 FP and GC58P3A at 81 FP on the list.

Thanks,
JanlarC
Re: GC5WGKX Calgary's Favorites (or 20 in 20) Challenge
June 08, 2016 12:45AM
there was an extra space before the final "
Now is that fixed and her caches are included in her list
Re: GC5WGKX Calgary's Favorites (or 20 in 20) Challenge
June 08, 2016 12:51AM
Thanks! you are great!
Re: GC5WGKX Calgary's Favorites (or 20 in 20) Challenge
June 08, 2016 07:45AM
Yes, he's a guru in my opinion.
Over and out.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login