Re: Is it possible to make a checker on my concept?

LOWEST PRIORITY

Hi!

I can't see a reason why this challenge idea of mine shouldn't be allowed by the guidelines. But... Is it possible to make a checker for it?

The idea: Log one (or maybe a higher figure like 5 or 10) cache with N/S DD° M0.000 E/W DDD° M0.000 (like a smaller confluence), or rather log one with N/S and one with E/W coordinate part, meaning two logs (but if both N/S and E/W on one cache it's enough with one log). While I'm asking, I imagine it is possible. But - and this is important! - is it possible to check on the final coordinates (and not the start coordinates)? I mean it's only logged caches by the cacher that comes in mind, so he/she has been at the final coordinate place knowing those, so there's no giving away final coords using a script like this, as I can see it. And I don't mean the user corrected coordinates, where it's possble to add anything really. If it isn't possible to check on the final coordinates, I must re-think on this, perhaps using traditionals only, because CO:s often put start coordinates on even numbers. While this is on a planning stage, I don't have a GC code for it yet. And I will probably take a while before asking for a checker, where I specify more than I have now.

I know it's not easy to select caches like this for a cacher, but using PGC's search function (first page), one can sort a lot of data or copying to Excel. This is the only fear I have when giving this to the reviewers.

Best regards

SKroff

In principle we can not advice you what to publish but can only tell you what we observe when making the checkers and which are published.
In general "Confluence" checkers, we made, were not approved by the reviewers (with the exception of one but now already archieved).
The reason used is rules 2.12.10. Source of Criteria of the hiding guidelines "Not acceptable" article - Challenges based on geographic areas other than countries, states/provinces, counties (or their local equivalent). Examples: user-defined mapping polygons, latitude/longitude, radius, etc..

The other point is that the checker system has only access to the listed coordinates.

Thanks for a very good answer!
You did definitely not have to advice me, I think your principle is good in that matter. Though this answer adviced me a lot!! :-)
I read the guidelines (again) before contacting you in the first place and yes I read that, but I didn't even think of it. I guess it can be seen as another form of area, or limitation.
About the final coordinates: It was just as I expected. But now you made me know for sure. Very good!
So if I decide to continue I know what to do. Traditionals. But I will start by asking the reviewers first about the concept before asking for a checker. I take it I can refer to your answer.
So this matter can be archived! I got an answer that cleared everything to me. Great job! And it should be taken as irony.
Best regards
SKroff