Re: GC8KT29 (And More!) States and Types Challenge

Hello!

I apologize for the flood of requests, but we are creating a new “Challenge Trail” of sorts. There are a total of 13 different challenges, each with a “Bronze”, “Silver”, and “Gold” level, for a total of 39 checkers needed.

Since the “Bronze”, “Silver”, and “Gold” are basically the same checker validation with slightly different criteria, I am including them all in this post. Please let me know if I should create separate posts for every GC code

To the best of my knowledge, I have qualified for each challenge submitted.

Thanks in advance for your help!!

This challenge is very similar to GC82H05. It is a challenge to have multiple types of caches in multiple states. The types and states are important, but find date is not. I absolutely LOVE the checker for GC82H05 and would be very happy if the checker for our caches looked similar.

They can achieve the result in any combination as long as they have enough of each cache type (So one person may have 10 Virtuals in 10 states, but another may have 10 Traditionals)

Here are the caches and qualifications for this challenge:

GC8KT1N - Bronze 4 different cache types/states (4, 3, 2, 1)

GC8KT28 - Silver- 7 different cache types/states (7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1)

GC8KT29 - Gold - 11 different cache types (11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1)

So, for example, I qualify for Gold as follows:

I have found traditional caches in 48 states (Using that for "11")
I have found a Virtual cache in 38 states (Using for "10")
I have found an Earthcache in 32 states (Using for "9")
I have found a mystery cache in 29 states (Using for "8")
I have found a Webcam in 25 states (Using for "7")
I have found a Multi-cache in 19 states (Using for "6")
I have found a Wherigo in 19 states (Using for "5")
I have found a Letterbox in 18 states (Using for "4")
I have found an Event in 17 states (Using for "3")
I have found a Mega event in 4 states (Using for "2")
I have found a CITO event in 2 states (Using for "1")

Any combination is acceptable for Gold, as long as they have 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

Here's your checkers:

https://project-gc.com/Challenges/GC8KT1N/49151
https://project-gc.com/Challenges/GC8KT28/49152
https://project-gc.com/Challenges/GC8KT29/49153

Please test and let us know if they're suitable. PS: the output is maybe a bit odd in that it continues past the required level, but haven't found a better script. If it bothers you, I'll contact the script maintainer to drop that.

Overall, this seems to be working as expected.

On the "Fail", I noticed that the "Bronze" level one works great. I'm using a newer cacher Maidenamanda for my test

For that level, when I run her name, it shows me that she fails the "4" level, but passes the 3, 2, and 1 levels. That looks good.

For the Silver level, it fails (as it should), but it only shows that the person passed the "1" level. It should show that they passed the 3 and 2 as well.

For the Gold level, it doesn't show that they passed ANY of the levels.

I also used MOTgeo as a test case. He passes the Bronze and Silver, but fails the gold. The only "credit" it gives him is for 11 & 1.

Other than this, the checkers seem to be working as expected.

Thanks so much for the super-fast turnaround!!!!

GMT!

Can this be updated so that if someone passes a level, it will be reflected?

All 3 these checkers operate the same way. It finds the highest matches and try to assign it to each of the levels on the way down. I think I understand the logic of the script author in that your highest failing level will have to be expanded to match that level. So in a way when it shows you have eg 7 out of 10, it basically tells you that you need 3 more to qualify for that level. The same for the rest of the levels below that one. In other words, it always concentrates more on the higher levels than letting you "qualify" for a lower level. Once you qualify for the higher levels, you'll almost automatically qualify for the lower levels.

Hello,

Ok. I better understand how this is working. I'm fine with the way it assigns the levels and the seemingly contradicting example of failing level 3 on one checker and passing level three on another.

Is it possible to make two changes to this?

One of them is my fault. I should have specified U.S. States only. We can include District of Columbia, so I would expect that 51 would be the highest number anyone would have.

The second request has to do with the output. When it lists the states for a particular type of cache type, is it possible to alphabetize them? Can that be done?

Thanks in advance for your help!

GMT!

I've now changed the checker to limit the states to USA only. It seems to list the states in the order of finds, but I'll ask the script maintainer whether an alternative sorting method could be added to the functionality.

I added the sort by regions. Try it now

THAT IS PERFECT!!!

Thanks so much for the quick response and fix on this! Sorry about my mistake in the beginning about not specifying US States.

You rock!! Thanks for all you do!

Matt (GMT!)

Hey, we all slipped up a little here and there in this series. Happy to have helped.