[Resolved] Checker Request for GCA9H13

Hello,

I'm trying to make a new Challenge Cache in Guangzhou (a city in China) and I need a checker for it. The goal of this Challenge Cache is to have the product of "found caches in Guangzhou" and "found cache types in Guangzhou" no less than 100.

For example, if someone has found 32 traditional caches, 1 virtual cache and 1 mystery cache in Guangzhou, the product will be (32 + 1 + 1) * 3 = 102 > 100 and he passes the challenge. If someone has only found 99 traditional caches in Guangzhou, the product will be 99 * 1 = 99 < 100 and he doesn't pass the challenge.

There are over 1000 caches and 7 different types of cache in Guangzhou now. The challenge is to encourage cachers finding more caches or finding more types of caches.

Here is the link of the cache: https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GCA9H13

Thank you very much for the help and look forward to the reply.

Unfortunately, this challenge is not publishable under the current Challenge Cache Guidelines:

Quote
Challenge Cache Guidelines - Section 10: Source of Criteria

NOT ACCEPTABLE
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 smallest geographic region recognized by Project-GC is Guangdong Province: no smaller administrative division is currently supported. Hence, it is not possible to require finds in "only" Guangzhou.

Thank you.

I can change the geographic limitation to "in Guangdong Province"

Okay.

I will have to think about this. Do any taggers know if there is a good script already? I know current scripts that are sufficent, but probably would not produce insightful output.

I know few about the code of the checker. But I think it's a possible way to enumerate all the available conditions with "OR"? Just my guess below, not sure whether it's reasonable.


{
"func": "or",
"conf": [
{
"func": "and",
"conf": [
{
"func": "number",
"conf": {
"limit": 100,
"country": "China",
"region": "\u5e7f\u4e1c\u7701"
}
},
{
"func": "adv_number",
"conf": {
"conditions": {
"nrtypes": 1
},
"country": "China",
"region": "\u5e7f\u4e1c\u7701"
}
}
]
},
{
"func": "and",
"conf": [
{
"func": "number",
"conf": {
"limit": 50,
"country": "China",
"region": "\u5e7f\u4e1c\u7701"
}
},
{
"func": "adv_number",
"conf": {
"conditions": {
"nrtypes": 2
},
"country": "China",
"region": "\u5e7f\u4e1c\u7701"
}
}
]
},
{
"func": "and",
"conf": [
{
"func": "number",
"conf": {
"limit": 34,
"country": "China",
"region": "\u5e7f\u4e1c\u7701"
}
},
{
"func": "adv_number",
"conf": {
"conditions": {
"nrtypes": 3
},
"country": "China",
"region": "\u5e7f\u4e1c\u7701"
}
}
]
},
...
]
}

It is indeed possible to do it that way, but I am hesitant because it is somewhat difficult to maintain. For example if you change the requirement from 100 to 200 then everything needs to be edited.

But unfortunately I cannot think of a better script so that may be what is necessary.

It is only 10 options for now

I think it's OK to hardcode like this. Because I don't plan to change anything about it.

I made the checker like you suggested it HankChow..
But it does not show finds for you?
Could you check this one?

https://project-gc.com/Challenges/GCA9H13/78334

I changed it to simple "Guangdong" and now it seems to work. Please test.
It considers a maximum of 8 types now...
But I guess people with more types will not just have 10 finds...

Thanks for the help!

The checker works well and the result is correct. But I notice that the output content is too long. There are 8 conditions under the OR func, each of them will be checked once and the output will always be printed. If someone doesn't fit all the 8 conditions, it's OK to print the results of all the 8 conditions. But if someone fulfills at least one of the 8 conditions, I think it's much more better to show the result of only one of the conditions he fits.

This is my opinion to make the output more pretty. But as I know few about the code, I don't know whether it's difficult to implement like that. If the implement is difficult or the idea is not reasonable, please let me know and I can just use the current version of the checker.

Thank you guys again!

I have made a different checker using a different (new) script:

https://project-gc.com/Challenges/GCA9H13/78345

Let us know which you would like to use.

The new script works well and I will use the new version of the script. Thank you for all your efforts!