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

[Awaiting feedback] Checker request for many municipalities with D/T- and different cache types -Challenge

I´m wondering if that is even possible, hopefully and probably is, to get checker for next kind of challenge cache:

There is three level in challenge:

1) Log a cache from the every municipalities of the states of Northern and Southern Carelia, Finland. There is totally 22 municipalities in those two states.
2) Use every Difficulty- and every Terrain-level so that you use one level per municipality. That means that you have to use 18 municipality to get all the levels.
3) For those four municipalities which are left you have to log four different cache types that you haven't use when logging D/T-levels. So if you have used for example trads and mysteries to fill D/T-levels you have to log multi, letterbox, virtual, whereigo, webcam or earthcache (but not events or citos) for those places.

Please, can anyone help me with?


Municipalities of Northern Carelia:


Municipalities of Southern Carelia:


Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/2020 10:13PM by Joksut. (view changes)
This most certainly requires a new script. Unless someone else figures out a way to do this with an existing script, or does one earlier, I'll do this one this weekend.
Just a quick update, I've tried my luck on a script for this but I currently can't get it to run fast enough. I have a few more ideas I can try to implement this weekend or so.

I assume you know you qualify? Could you give me an example of 22 finds that show you fulfill the challenge?
Also, can you let us know the GC code?
Ok, I think I have a first draft of this checker ready, but it's far from done.


I think it works correctly.

Please try it, but consider the following as it is work in progress:
  • The script fails if someone hasn't found a cache in all 22 muncipalities (error message "[string ""]:262: bad argument #1 to 'pairs' (table expected, got nil)"; I'll fix this later)
  • I tired it for some top cachers in that region, and for some users it does time out (e.g. ehikki or Nusut)
  • The output isn't tidied at all, this will be better in the final version

For the output - I put a full matrix of all county/difficulty and county/terrain combinations below as you can see with all types found for each combination.

When you click "Show debug output" (between the table and the red "did not qualify"-symbol) there's a list of all areas. It shows the best attempt to fulfill this challenge (where "best" means with the most counties being assigned a cache)

If an area has been assigned to a D- or T-rating the line starts with --- followed by the rating that county was used for and the type of the find used for that county.
If there is only a type and county name, then the county has been used in step 3) of your challenge (i.e. different type than all caches used so far)
If there's only the area name, then there was no find with a type that was not used yet.

For you in particular this list is quite short. This is not a mistake.
You have found caches that are not Traditionals or Unknowns in the following eight counties:
- Heinävesi (WIG)
- Ilomantsi (LB)
- Joensuu (Multi, WIG, LB, Virtual)
- Polvijärvi (Virtual, Multi)
- Kontiolahti (WIG, LB, Multi)
- Liperi (Multi, LB)
- Outokumpu (Multi)
- Tohmajärvi (Multi)
However since these are what I assume to be your home areas, these are also the only ones were you found rare ratings. E.g. Joensuu is the only county where you found a D5. Once you used Joensuu for D5 there are only Polvijärvi and Kontiolahti for D4.5 and only Kontiolahti and Liperi for D3.5. This makes it so that after filling all rare ratings, you were forced to use at least five out of these eight counties. However, if there are only three of these counties left you can of course not find the four areas required in step 3) with different types.

I have not found a single user qualifying yet. I think this challenge is tougher than you may have thought intially.
If there really are no other people qualifying, this challenge won't be published by a reviwer.

I have a few suggestions on how to lighten the requirement and/or make the checker faster (feel free to extend this list by your own ideas - your challenge after all):
  • Require that the cache types used in step 3) are different from all types used for the D/T ratings, but not necessarily different from each other. This makes the challenge easier and the checker faster.
  • Alternatively, drop step 3) as a whole. This also makes the challenge easier and the checker faster.
  • If that makes it too easy, maybe fix the types. E.g. make the challenge read "Fill every D- and T-rating with a Tradi, Mystery or Multi" and require the finds in the remaining four counties to be of types LB, WIG, Virtual, Webcam or EC. This might make the checker faster.
  • Allow Events. This makes the challenge easier, but won't make the checker faster.

A bit much for a response I guess, so tl;dr:

  • Try the checker. Let me know if you find any mistakes and if you find anyone who qualifies.
  • Have a look at my suggestions for the challenge and let me know if any of them would be ok for you, or if you have any other ideas
  • Give us the GC code of your challenge

First of all, Thank you very much for work you've done to me and my challenge!

When opening the checker from the link (https://project-gc.com/Challenges//48367) there's error which says that "This checker is taken away from the use".

Here in Finland - and probably everywhere else also - we have quite strict policy about challenge caches and because the rules of GCHQ it is said that to make challenge cache you have to have first checker. That's why I don't have to GC code for challenge yet. I was wondering that it could be so that checker for this challenge is not possible to do so I decided first to ask checker. Now, when I know that checker is possible I will get the GC code also and start to make cache.

That was interesting to read that you didn't find anyone who is qualified challenge yet. There's so many hardcore cachers in here that I assumed that many have already fulfilled the task. I'm personally missing one cache/county but I will qualify the challenge in next month (I know already the missing cache [virtual cache in Ruokolahti) so I know that it is possible to fulfill this). And of course I´m planning to publish this challenge after I have done it by myself.

But if it is the case that there is no other cacher that have qualified it I have to obviously make challenge easier. So can you make the checker allow also your suggestions 1 (Require that the cache types used in step 3) are different from all types used for the D/T ratings, but not necessarily different from each other.) and 4 (Allow Events [and Citos])?

And once more: Big Thanks already for what you have done!


Whoops, forgot to enable it. Should work now.

For now I haven't implemented the changes, so it still checks for the original request. Maybe you'll actually find some people qualifying. After all you're more familiar with the people and I just looked at some users with many finds.

Also I've done a run where I added a Virtual in Ruokolahti for you manually and it found a solution very quickly, so that's good.

Please let me know if it works correctly and if you find still want the changes in case you find any cachers qualifying. (The first change takes a bit of time, including Events is just a matter of seconds tho)
Re: Checker request for many municipalities with D/T- and different cache types -Challenge
February 29, 2020 03:13PM
Hi, sorry this took so long, had little time.

Now Events are allowed and the reamining four caches don't need to have different types from each other, just different from the 18 used for the D/T ratings.

The link is still the same:


Please test and reply.
Re: Checker request for many municipalities with D/T- and different cache types -Challenge
May 29, 2021 10:05AM
This thread has not received any further feedback and will therefor be moved to ARCHIVE Checker requests (impossible). Should the requester have any queries he can raise his question on this thread in the archived section,
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login