That's the logic I use. The only real exception I have if it it is really a bonus cache - that is you have to found caches from a small very electric list most likely owned by the same cache owner as part of a route. Policing the rules is up to the reviewers at point of publication, so I judge it on merit based on the logic that if it has been published it was allowed (until archived) andby mole125 - Miscellaneous
I agree. The presence of a checker is irrelevant as the point of the exception process is mainly to identify old challenge caches that were published before the current rules and which wouldn't have a checker. For many a checker isn't even possible (such as lonely caches). I'll admit I don't normally pay attention to the publication date when reviewing these, so if a challengby mole125 - Miscellaneous
Might just have been a typo when pasting, or somebody doing a bulk add of any cache that looked like it was a french based on the name. Once added it can't be removed, and doesn't really do any harm if the number of bad cases are low.by mole125 - Miscellaneous
Unfortunately the rules do not allow arbitary polygons which is what you are effectively defining. You are only allowed make restrictions based on country, region/state and county level information. So you could reformulate the challenge to be find 1000 caches in States/counties north of that point - either fully or partially its up to you. If you provide a list people can then create an appropriby mole125 - ARCHIVE Checker requests (completed)
Sorry I didn't spot this topic go past. The script is now fixed. Thank you very much pieterix for doing the analysis it made the fix much simpler.by mole125 - ARCHIVE Checker requests (completed)
Shouldn't be too hard to calculate either, the most southerly cache matching criteria x (must be in canada) is less than the most northerly cache matching criteria y (must be in USA) - although the equator/meridian makes things a bit more complex for the generic case.by mole125 - ARCHIVE Checker requests (completed)
The three most commonly encountered limitations that I encounter are a) Required information not being available, for instance a particular country not being broken down into regions/counties, no access to users home location, limited information about lab caches etc. b) Not api to access past logs on a cache. So whilst project-gc has all the logs of every cache, there is no way for a checkerby mole125 - Miscellaneous
Done, old checker tag disabled (which effectively deletes it from public view)by mole125 - ARCHIVE Checker requests (completed)
I believe I've fixed the issue with elevation data - if you've got any example tags/owners I can look at what is happening as there is a chance something else is wrong. (Though I'm not sure why project-gc is failing to supply elevation data on old caches). I've just tried all those owner names again and they are working for me, it could be it is an intermittent problem or dby mole125 - ARCHIVE Checker requests (completed)
The original checker seems to be working fine now (though I'm not sure what changed as first test against it failed). There is a chance that projectgc has updated data in between as it may be the elevation value was null which seems to happen sometimes - though I believe the script has protection for that in place I'm not sure why Vogelbird mentioned the change in the system as the sby mole125 - ARCHIVE Checker requests (completed)
The cache name is automatically get picked up shortly after the cache is published. So give it a few days after publishing and the information will be there.by mole125 - ARCHIVE Checker requests (completed)
Yeh it's one of someone's find which the checker was failing in because it didn't include any elevation data unlike the rest of the cache results.by mole125 - Script development
I've noticed a cache (GC1DHNV) for which the checker system isn't returning any elevation data. It was published back in December 2017 so I'm not sure why it wouldn't have any value?by mole125 - Script development
The ability to use PGC.Log and then view the output at https://project-gc.com/Challenges?viewDebugLog=<token> is really useful and making debugging much easier. However I've noticed there is a difference between PGC.print and PGC.Log in how they handle parameters passed in. print is able to expand arrays, so the statement PGC.print("Returning cache", cache) may give an oby mole125 - Script development
I've managed to track down the problem so it is working now. Not sure what has changed though - code was working on the new checker system and suddenly broke with this error with no code changes within the script. It was debug output causing it so I didn't fully track down whether the error is actually accurate or not.by mole125 - Miscellaneous
And you wouldn't be allowed to encourage finding of archived cachesby mole125 - ARCHIVE Checker requests (impossible)
Sorted - I had some variables called string which were now clashingby mole125 - Miscellaneous
Great idea syncing with GitLab. Gitlab account: mole125by mole125 - Checker news
To make it easier for other people, here are the script owners https://project-gc.com/Challenges//9533 - vogelbird https://project-gc.com/Challenges//984 - arisoft https://project-gc.com/Challenges//2580 - the Seagnoid https://project-gc.com/Challenges//7295 - hampf https://project-gc.com/Challenges//10031 - Tanjent https://project-gc.com/Challenges//9830 - taxoft https://project-gc.coby mole125 - Checker news
I've updated the script with the old syntax ToString so hopefully it should work in the new environment. My guess is it is something to do with the switch of using StringLen to stringlen, did your wrapper do some implicit conversion of number parameters to strings? Have you thought about a standard 'preamble' script that gets prepended to all the lua scripts before they are eby mole125 - Checker news
Sounds like the results will be good but a lot of work to get there. Presumably for the search and replace of Lua scripts some automated testing could be done by executing the 'validate last 10 logs' for each tag with the old and new data and see whether the results stay consistent.by mole125 - Checker news
Glad you find the script useful. Vogelbird is right. The default works 99% of the time and helps prevents timeouts and get better performance, but there are times like this where it can be raised.by mole125 - Miscellaneous
As I said the cache you think you should qualify with doesn't appear to be in that bookmark list, hence it isn't being included as being valid. You need to ask the CO to include it in the bookmark list (or explain why they don't think it is valid).by mole125 - ARCHIVE Checker requests (completed)
Looks like the checker uses the cache owners bookmark list to do the validation https://www.geocaching.com/bookmarks/view.aspx?guid=214fbad7-f152-48c3-913e-0e4a9c7836a4 If you think caches are missing from the list you are probably best to contact the cache owner and ask them to be added.by mole125 - ARCHIVE Checker requests (completed)
I've tweaked the checker so now it returns up to 500 results matching the criteria (but still only needs 1 to pass). Alternatively I could make it so it only returns the first 1 result per requirement (ie will only list 2 results at most).by mole125 - ARCHIVE Checker requests (completed)
In order for the change to be detected please can you go to self support and refresh the gc-code that you updated so that the system notices the change.by mole125 - ARCHIVE Checker requests (completed)
It is possible. Have you got a sample person that I can test with?by mole125 - ARCHIVE Checker requests (completed)
You'll need either vogelbird or Target to make the changes. You could try messaging them though they'll probably see this thread here shortly.by mole125 - ARCHIVE Checker requests (completed)
You can rephrase your new challenge to find 15 counties on the same calendar date. This means cachers have the option of finding 8 in one year and 7 in the next year - but you can give them (unofficial) bonus credit if they achieve it all on the same day.by mole125 - ARCHIVE Checker requests (impossible)
Apologies, looks like I couldn't count when I was tagging it! Should all be fixed now.by mole125 - Miscellaneous