[Resolved] GC5NRD8 Name challenge Tranås

Not my challenge, but an old one that can use a checker in my opinion

This is an unusual ABC challenge, since it will be unique for every cacher – in one calendar week (monday to sunday), you have to log geocaches whose starting letters create your own geocaching name, in two different municipalities in Småland (area in Sweden with 20 municipalities).

To not make this challenge impossible for people with weird geocaching names, the following exceptions can be made:
- Only letters (A-Ö) and numbers (0-9) in the geocaching name count. Any other symbols and characters, for example “&” or space, you can ignore.
- The capitalization (a or A) of the characters in the geocaching name or cache name does not matter.
- If your name contains numbers (0-9), it is of course possible to find and log caches starting with the same number, but these are probably hard to find. Therefore, if you want to, you can replace numbers in the name as follows: 1 -> i, 2 -> s, 3 -> b, 4 -> y, 5 -> s, 6 -> g, 7 -> t, 8 -> b, 9 -> g, 0 -> o.
- If your name contains the letters Z, X or Q, they can be replaced with each other, if you want to.
- If your name contains the letter Y, you can replace it with V, if you want to.
- The letters Å, Ä and Ö in your name can be replaced with A, A and O, if you want to.
Example: The cacher "Co3ra & Cottex" can choose to log caches starting with the letters "cobracotteq".

Caches that you have placed yourself can’t count in this challenge.
You can log the caches in any order (it does not have to be the same order as the letters in your geocaching name), as long as the starting letters spell your full name once in the first municipality in Småland, and once in the other municipality in Småland, during one calendar week.

Which two municipalities in Småland you chose is up to you. Tranås municipality does not have to be one of them, even if the challenge cache itself is located here.

Pretty sure this one needs a one off-script.

I've made progress here, based on the similar one like this.... However, not being from Sweden, and never been there (although, I have plans!), I'm unfamiliar with the geography.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sm%C3%A5land

It doesn't look like it corresponds exactly to the regions in PGC maps. Is there a region filter (or even a specific county filter) that would work here - or does it require polygons? Because, if it requires polygons, that's probably a no-go.

@bmuzzin

Honestly, polygons would probably just make things worse because you would have to use county-borders from before geocaching started which would just be confusing for players. I don't think the CO thought that statement through when placing the challenge really...

I'd say the most reasonable way to do this would be to use all the counties that are fully enclosed within the borders generally agreed on as "Smålands landskap". That leaves 3 counties were parts of them are in Småland and other parts are not. Trying to make people understand why some caches in those counties can be used and some can't sounds like a headache as a CO. For the checker to ignore them would mean you might technically get some false negatives but you wouldn't get any false positives. That seems like a fair trade off IMHO.

Included counties should then be:
Alvesta
Aneby
Eksjö
Emmaboda
Gislaved
Gnosjö
Hultsfred
Högsby
Jönköping
Kalmar
Lessebo
Ljungby
Markaryd
Mönsterås
Nybro
Nässjö
Oskarshamn
Sävsjö
Tingsryd
Torsås
Tranås
Uppvidinge
Vaggeryd
Vetlanda
Vimmerby
Värnamo
Västervik
Växjö
Älmhult

Unfortunately, I can make the multi-test checker *do* the check... but without timing out, no. Probably going to need a more focused script for this one to get it under the time limit.

Well - you've been waiting a while for this one...
https://project-gc.com/Challenges/GC5NRD8/92704

Test it out and let me know.

Wow thank you so much for your efforts!

I tested myself and the recent finders of the challenge. As expected I don't fulfill and most of the finders fullfil, so far so good. But Ramlajh doesn't fullfil according to the checker, but he has a kist in his log with qualifying caches. I am a bit confused. Is his list wrong, or is this a little bug in the checker?

Secondly, I would prefer to be able to track progress. I'm not qualified, but what are my best tries? But if this is too time consuming to make it, just let it be. I am happy with the checker like it's now too.

@Noach! All of the finds that user has claimed for the challenge are in Vetlanda kommun, the challenge explicitly requires finds in two different counties during the period. Checker seems to be correct here.

And since it's time limited in that it has to be done within a week I'd say a "progress" isn't really possible/helpful. What I logged last time I was in the area is just a list of caches I can't use the next time. So unless that "last time" was this week it isn't actual progress, it's just a failed attempt.

Okej, than the checker seems to be good, thanks for the investigation!

The second point isna matter of taste. I understand (and understood) that it would be not really progress but a failed attempt. Still I personally like to see such failed attempts, as they give an impression about the difficulty just for me. If I was close another time, maybe without even thinking about it, it may be perfectly doable next time when I am planning for it. But as said, it's a matter of personal taste and if it's too difficult or time consuming to fix it, I am only thankful för a new old Swedish challenge that has a checker from now on.

As Pleu said - unless it's the current week (which, doesn't always catch up with the find logs anyhow), then it's a failed attempt and doesn't really "help" you to know what you need to qualify. For this challenge, you'd likely need to pre-plan to get it, unless you have a really "easy" caching name (Noach! does seem like one of the easiest you'll get!)

An output of your best failed attempt could be added, but it's also not clear what your "best" would mean - is it the most letters matched in a county in a week? Is it, if you match an entire county? Is it the most letters matched between 2 counties? Since this is a custom script for a grandfathered challenge, it's probably not worth putting so much effort into.

Okej, I understand between your lines that its much extra effort. In that case I absolutely agree it's bot worth it. I am happy with the checker as it is now! Another challenge without checker became a challenge with a checker :).