Re: CT 169 Challenge

Would it be possible for a checker to be created for a Connecticut 169 Challenge? Basically you would need to find a cache in all 169 towns in CT. I'm a long ways from qualifying but I would like to see my progress and help me plan trips to qualify for it myself. A similar checker for the Vermont 251 Challenge exists

http://project-gc.com/Challenges/GC1FAMD/22865

This map might help and it includes the exact boundaries for all 169 towns:

https://data.ct.gov/Government/Town-Boundary-Index-Map/evyv-fqzg/data


Thanks!

Howdy

As the tagger for the vt 251 challenge, the tagging is relatively straight forward.

However towns are a type of polygon not allowed under current rules. Current guidelines Dmdefine state county and country as allowed polygons. Others have been considered user defined polygons. If you need the reference to the pertinent guideline ask.

Unless ground speak or a reviewer says otherwise or this is a grandfathered cache do t expect this to be a new tag.

Too bad. I have completed the massachusetts and New Hampshire ones and am working on rhode island and Vermont. They are fun.

How do you go about with the tagging? I tried doing a similar tag like with the VT 251 challenge checker replacing the VT with NY but it did not work.

I disagree. Town boundaries are political, and they are not "User-Defined". Towns are the next sort of political boundary just down the list from a county. Then again it also comes down to how the reviewer interprets the guidelines but we'll see.

Hello again.

Review this guideline.

In particular, focus on the language:

Challenges based on geographic areas other than countries, states/provinces, counties (or their local equivalent). For example, user-defined mapping polygons, latitude/longitude, radius, etc. (updated Aug 2016)

The VT251 challenge as well as other variants predate these guidelines.

If you believe my interpretation incorrect, please raise it with your local reviewer and we will honor their judgement.

Thank you.

That still does not answer my question on how you would go about creating a tag for such a challenge. If you do not want to create such a checker, can you at least tell me how?

I'll contact my reviewer and see how he interprets the guidelines.

Do you have tagging privileges?

Yes

You can use the same script as the vt251 uses. There is a way to enter the polygons directly documented 8n the script. If it gets too large you need to upload a custom Jason through a support request.

Still expect the reviewer to turn the request down.

I'm not seeing how you add the polygon data into the script, but it appears that it can be added into the configuration? Is there an easy way to get the polygon data for the town boundaries, or do I need to manually get all of the boundaries? It seems labor intensive, is there an easier way to this?

Reviewer here. I'm writing to confirm sloth96's advice that a challenge cache based on towns cannot be published. The smallest allowable political subdivision is counties (or equivalent). This is not a matter where a reviewer has the ability to "interpret" the guidelines or to use discretion to make an exception.

I still disagree. Guidelines can be interpreted differently by different reviewers. It all comes down to how you understand the wording of the guideline. One person may interpret the guidelines differently than another person would.

The way I interpret it is that political boundaries are allowed, but user defined polygons (DeLorme challenges) are not.

Please read the listing guidelines they are very clear at this point

Not acceptable
Challenges based on geographic areas other than countries, states/provinces, counties (or their local equivalent). For example, user-defined mapping polygons, latitude/longitude, radius, etc. (updated Aug 2016)

I still disagree. In the guideline, it says "Challenge cache criteria may be based upon these geographic areas: countries, states/provinces, counties (or their local equivalent)." and towns are geographic areas, while not explicitly listed, are considered political boundaries.

I'm a bit annoyed at this point, why is everyone here acting like a reviewer? Leave the job of reviewing to the reviewer, if there is a problem with my idea, my reviewer can tell me. Why not just create the checker and leave the job of reviewing to my reviewer?

You have already an opinion of a reviewer "The Leprechauns" but if you doubt his advice ask your own local reviewer.
The other problem is that pgc will not upload your json file unless it is a challenge with grandfater's wright.