Thank you!!by henne165 - ARCHIVE Checker requests (completed)
Would you be able to remove the locationless caches from this checker? I forgot that they ever existed. Thank you!by henne165 - ARCHIVE Checker requests (completed)
It works. Thank you!by henne165 - ARCHIVE Checker requests (completed)
It works. Thank you!by henne165 - ARCHIVE Checker requests (completed)
I'd like a checker for just one cache (any kind) placed at 0ft (or below). As a note, I had previously tried to use this GC code for a different challenge that is not allowed by my local reviewer so I'm re-purposing it for this challenge. I was able to find a few similar challenge checkers but nothing exactly like this. Let me know if you need anything. Thank you! henne165by henne165 - ARCHIVE Checker requests (completed)
I'd like a checker for just one cache (any kind) placed at 10,000ft (or more). As a note, I had previously tried to use this GC code for a different challenge that is not allowed by my local reviewer so I'm re-purposing it for this challenge. I was able to find a few similar challenge checkers but nothing exactly like this. Let me know if you need anything. Thank you! henne165by henne165 - ARCHIVE Checker requests (completed)
Hello! I see that this checker (or variations of it) is now in use with some caches published in 2017. I had tried to publish some like it back in January/February but there was an issue with counties connecting over bodies of water (e.g. the Great Lakes, bays/harbors on the east coast, etc.). Has this issue been resolved? I would love to be able to publish my caches if contiguous counties challby henne165 - ARCHIVE Checker requests (completed)
I would like a checker identical to the one for GC45B7B only for 93 degrees west rather than 96 degrees west. ***Note - GC70ARK may have a note from a previously requested checker that ended up getting denied in the review process due to a technicality. That challenge is no longer one I can pursue and am re-using the GC code for this challenge. Also, I personally am still 4 caches away from compby henne165 - ARCHIVE Checker requests (impossible)
Yeah I'm a little bummed as well. :( But thank you to you as well, MaxB for your help and input on this matter, even if it appears to have been for naught (for now at least). Looks like I'll just have to come up with some new ideas for caches instead.by henne165 - ARCHIVE Checker requests (impossible)
According to http://www.mnopedia.org/thing/minnesota-state-boundaries - In the congressional acts that created the states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, their borders in Lake Superior were imprecise. Finally, in 1947, the three states agreed on a boundary compact that clearly outlined their Lake Superior extents. In 1990, the U.S. Census Bureau began adding the area of all adjoining wby henne165 - ARCHIVE Checker requests (impossible)
Here is the latest feedback from my local reviewer: Geocaching HQ has given the following direction: "The checker for a challenge like this one should be written so that the county contiguity is defined by political boundaries, not by the boundaries that are arbitrarily drawn by the writer. Even if the counties connect by water only, then the checker should show them as contiguous.&by henne165 - ARCHIVE Checker requests (impossible)
It appears there was actually a misunderstanding - the reviewer is under the impression that counties touching across bodies of water (like Lake Michigan) should be counted as contiguous rather than the other way around. We have messaged back and forth a couple of times and are working on reaching agreement on what should or should not count as contiguous regarding these oddities. I will update aby henne165 - ARCHIVE Checker requests (impossible)
Yes I would say that removing locationless caches would be preferred as long as it isn't too much trouble. Also, the publication of these challenges has been put on hold as I guess some counties register when they are connecting over larger bodies of water (e.g. Lakes Michigan/Superior) -- is there any way to correct that? Beyond that I have tested a few cachers on each of the checkers and hby henne165 - ARCHIVE Checker requests (impossible)
***I missed that my last reply had posted and didn't see until just now that I ended up posting it twice... This edit is just because I cannot delete the second reply***by henne165 - ARCHIVE Checker requests (impossible)
The 100 county challenge has been given the nod and is ready for a checker. GC# is GC70D4Xby henne165 - ARCHIVE Checker requests (impossible)
Okay, so it looks like this checker is certainly doable then. I have created cache pages for the 10, 25, and 50 county challenges and am waiting to hear back from a reviewer regarding the 100 county challenge (in case it is deemed as "not achievable enough" to warrant publication). Once I get the approval on that final challenge in the series I will put together the cache page for it asby henne165 - ARCHIVE Checker requests (impossible)
There is currently a series of checkers for contiguous counties as they relate to the number of states that they connect (for example, if you found the 4 counties where NM, AZ, CO, and UT meet, it would count for 4 states, or if you found ALL of the counties in both NM and AZ, it would count for 2 states) but I was thinking of putting out a series of challenges strictly regarding the number of coby henne165 - ARCHIVE Checker requests (impossible)