To be able to write in the forum you need to authenticate. Meanwhile it's read-only.

Re: Checker request - GC4YEFW

[Cancelled] Checker request - GC4YEFW
July 23, 2018 05:55PM
Another that is very time consuming to search previous finds
Can a checker be created for this
Note the very specific requirements - no duplications of cache size or type unless using for another variation -
i.e Trad / Micro for Trad and Trad / Micro for Micro - but then Trad or Micro can not be used again
so quite complex
Re: Checker request - GC4YEFW
July 23, 2018 07:00PM
Also note (to make this even harder (sorry) 3 different counties
I will add my list to show how this pans out - this took a lot of research. Several of the claimants do not qualify because they have not uderstood the criteria properly

Re: Checker request - GC4YEFW
July 29, 2018 01:23PM
I'm not aware of an existing script that can handle this, so I'm marking this as new script required.
Re: Checker request - GC4YEFW
July 29, 2018 03:36PM
Thank you
Re: Checker request - GC4YEFW
October 01, 2018 09:41PM
Any luck with this one
Re: Checker request - GC4YEFW
January 02, 2019 01:19AM
Can I ask why this is still shown as 'New script required' and no action on it - if this one is not doable (though above comment suggests it is ) then I am happy for this request to be closed - but it would seem this is doable.
As I am sure many others would agree, I am grateful for the work that script writers put in to get these checkers created - stuff that is way over my head - but this one has sat for some time now with no response to bumps
Re: Checker request - GC4YEFW
January 05, 2019 08:43PM
I will have a go.....
Re: Checker request - GC4YEFW
January 08, 2019 06:44AM
This caused me more headaches than I thought it would... but I am happy with it. I pushed the config in testing to 4 counties with 4 unique sizes/types, and 6 counties with 3 type/sizes... and I still qualified. Both times it included HQ & the APE cache though, so it seems robust.


Please test it to make sure you are happy, and then get back to us
Re: Checker request - GC4YEFW
January 08, 2019 09:57AM
I have used the checker and it does not show potential for duplicity
The challenge is very specific in that you can only use any type or size - once however it does state twice at a maximium
to allow for the alternate size/type use
for example :- you may claim 1 as a small traditional (using the Small as the unique type) and another small traditional (this would be unique as the Trad). You can then not claim any other small sizes or traditional types as part of the challenge.
Many of the claims to date have cited three trads or three micros (as examples) within their lists and these would/should not qualify
The script output only shows either a size or type for each cache cited but needs to show both in order to prove that there is no duplicity
My example list (not from the checker output) - will show how this works
This may not show the image fully - to the right is another column which shows the three counties (three caches in each)

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/08/2019 09:59AM by Deepdiggingmole. (view changes)
Re: Checker request - GC4YEFW
January 09, 2019 06:55AM
OK, I think I get it.

I have spent several days (well, my spare time anyway) on the logic of this, and I cant make it work like you want.

I keep hitting up against the hard limit of script processing time.... the recursion required means millions and millions of loops....

Maybe some Lua experts can do it, but I dont think I can
Re: Checker request - GC4YEFW
January 09, 2019 08:01AM
Thank you for trying though - it is appreciated
The problem with the challenge is that it is hard to get your head round to ensure you comply with the requirments as the CO has set out - I have managed, finally, to find a set of nine that fitted in with all aspects - however because of the complexity it is obvious the majority of finders have NOT understood it and have supplied incorrect lists. (only 3 of the 28 finders actually complied correctly)
Further frustrating is that the CO who was very specific with the details and updated the cache page to clarify the confusing aspects - has done nothing to challenge the incorrect logs. Which means if you can find 9 caches that look right the CO wont challenge it - I appreciate that is the COs choice but makes a mockery of having criteria
The reason I wanted a checker was to assist the CO in making sure finders do qualify

Re: Checker request - GC4YEFW
January 09, 2019 08:04AM
I have also noted that there needs to be 9 different COs too -- aargh - my list is OK - but will obviously make the script that much harder to create i'm sure
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login