Here is the checker https://project-gc.com/Challenges/GC9Q1H3/67279 It is made in two parts. The first part verifies that there are at least 15 finds from different municipalities. The second part verifies that there are finds from 6 different months from different municipalities. Because each municipality may have more than one suitable find, the second part may pick another cache frby arisoft - ARCHIVE Checker requests (completed)
Here is a new checker: https://project-gc.com/Challenges/GC9N1JC/66062 Please test and tell us whether it is suitable for you.by arisoft - ARCHIVE Checker requests (completed)
DrPflug Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Can you advise me on how to test the modified code > I will want to try out? Is there maybe a PGC > server you can upload the LUA code to test? Check this https://project-gc.com/Home/FAQ#2616943827by arisoft - ARCHIVE Checker requests (completed)
DrPflug Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I could copy the script and come up with the variation I want/need. > has the scriptwriter replied yet about the > technical feasibility of my request? As the author of the script I recommended to use a modified copy of the script as you suggested. I think that there is no general use for this kind of featby arisoft - ARCHIVE Checker requests (completed)
"Can an exception be made for the oldest cache" When this script was made, the volunteer reviewer was very careful that there is no “list” in the selection of caches. Elements under the cache owner’s primary control is not acceptable. Modified copy of the script is the best solution for this kind of special case.by arisoft - ARCHIVE Checker requests (completed)
The script was originally made explicitely to find the oldest cache by using order of the cache-IDs. This is stated in the description note of the script. The reason was to quarantee that there is only one oldest cache per region. It is up to the cache owner to decide wether this is desired feature or not.by arisoft - ARCHIVE Checker requests (completed)
BluePanther51 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What does " not possible " and "missing" mean? Missing is D/T not found by the user. Not possible is a D/T combination that checker can not use because of other stipulationsby arisoft - ARCHIVE Checker requests (completed)
To add HTML code to the description you must change the editor in HTML mode by clicking the "Source" button.by arisoft - ARCHIVE Checker requests (completed)
Debug output of the checker may explain what happened. The checker also compares GC-codes when caches are from the same date. There is only one oldest cache in each region. Panama: GC6CD6,2002-06-14 ≠ GC6CD0,2002-06-14 Montenegro: GC109GH,2007-01-14 ≠ GC1095F,2007-01-14by arisoft - ARCHIVE Checker requests (completed)
The modified checker script is now available. The checker optionally includes all archived finds to the list of oldest caches before scoring them by date. That shoud meet the requirements. I found your cloned tag for the unpublished challenge and modified this to use this new option. The checker is here https://project-gc.com/Challenges/GC8BVHG/44337 Please, tell us wether is it suitabby arisoft - ARCHIVE Checker requests (completed)
This is correct. This checker doesn't use archived caches. Support for archived caches requires a modification to the checker if the challenge and output is appropriate.by arisoft - ARCHIVE Checker requests (completed)
> Would it be possible to create a challenge similar > to this one : > https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC7MNJD_pfalz-classics-challenge > for Alsace (Bas-Rhin + Haut-Rhin) by respecting > the new directives and having an output of the Both examples were using the same checker script. What new directives you are referring here?by arisoft - ARCHIVE Checker requests (completed)
This is fixed. There were extra restrictions in the checker.by arisoft - ARCHIVE Checker requests (completed)
Extra output removed.by arisoft - ARCHIVE Checker requests (completed)
The checker is now adjusted as requested.by arisoft - ARCHIVE Checker requests (completed)
Here is the checker https://project-gc.com/Challenges/GC91BG8/55535 Please test and tell us whether it is suitable for you.by arisoft - ARCHIVE Checker requests (completed)
Here is my proposal for the checker https://project-gc.com/Challenges/GC8ZAD0/55523 Please note: Because the checker must specify which conditions have been met, it scans finds in the order and only in the order. When a condition is met, those caches will be excluded from later conditions. There are no alternative solutions. Please test and tell us whether it is suitable for you.by arisoft - ARCHIVE Checker requests (completed)
All listed caches have been excluded from the challenge checker. 115 caches required now. It will automatically adjust for disabled and archived caches.by arisoft - ARCHIVE Checker requests (completed)
Here is a new checker for this https://project-gc.com/Challenges/GC220H8/55277 It requires currently 121 finds (See debug output for details) Some finders do not qualify this. Maybe more caches should be excluded from the challenge?by arisoft - ARCHIVE Checker requests (completed)
Here is modified checker https://project-gc.com/Challenges/GC8E7ZN/54949 Is this suitable for you?by arisoft - ARCHIVE Checker requests (completed)
Right. I can change the titles if there is something more appropriate in your mind.by arisoft - ARCHIVE Checker requests (completed)
I modified the checker to check all six type and size requirements separately with monthly indication. (It requires separate days for each find even titles in the checker are not stating this requirement.) Please test and tell us whether it is now suitable for you.by arisoft - ARCHIVE Checker requests (completed)
I found that the script is not compatible with your requirements. If I got it right (this time), It requires 6 separate checks for all three types and sizes and every check requires 12 different find dates for every 12 month = 144 finds x 6 = 864 finds totally. To get separate result for every month requires 6 x 12 = 72 different checks. It is too many. Could you verify that 864 findsby arisoft - ARCHIVE Checker requests (completed)
Checker is now removed.by arisoft - ARCHIVE Checker requests (completed)
You have good arguments. I think that there is no real criteria for the challenge.by arisoft - Challenge checker exceptions
Here is the checker https://project-gc.com/Challenges/GC8N1QJ/50023 Please test and tell us whether it is suitable for you.by arisoft - ARCHIVE Checker requests (completed)
Here is the checker https://project-gc.com/Challenges/GC8KF6M/49157 Please test and tell us whether it is suitable for you.by arisoft - ARCHIVE Checker requests (completed)
I am working on this checker.by arisoft - ARCHIVE Checker requests (completed)
sumbloke Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Can I suggest an alternate condition be added: > total unfound days. There are a few lonely cache > challenges I know of which don't care how many > caches are used, but that 5/10/15 years' worth of > unfound days (minimum half a year per cache) have > been found. > > For example,by arisoft - Checker news
I can make the checker. It is not very difficult. But how about the reviewer?by arisoft - ARCHIVE Checker requests (impossible)
