Counties only in Norway: Agdenes Askim Audnedal Balestrand Ballangen Berg Bjugn Bø (Telemark) Eid Eide Eidsberg Fet Finnøy Fjell Flora Forsand Fosnes Fræna Fusa Førde Gaular Granvin herad Halsa Haram Hemne Hobøl Hornindal Hurum Jondal Jølster Klæbu Kvalsund Leikanger Lenvik Lindås Mandalby magma1447 - Checker news
Regions only in Norway: Akershus Aust-Agder Buskerud Finnmark Hedmark Hordaland Oppland Sogn og Fjordane Telemark Troms Vest-Agder Vestfold Østfold Regions only in _tmp_Norway: Agder Innlandet Troms og Finnmark Vestfold og Telemark Vestland Vikenby magma1447 - Checker news
After a lot of work, it seems like we can finally update the polygon data for Norway. They have merged a lot of counties, also the regions will change. The reason it has taken time is that the site used to use (https://wambachers-osm.website/boundaries/) doesn't exist anymore. An old version of his existed at GitHub as open source and our initial plan was to try to use that. But everythinby magma1447 - Checker news
Example tag: https://project-gc.com/Challenges/GC3CZKJ/8852 The script code never considers the last find date from the user. The first if-part of the find-loop needs to be used when the loop ends as well.by magma1447 - Script development
pieterix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm happy to create/modify scripts to cater for > Lab Caches, but not if HQ is just going to rip the > carpet from underneath us. So who will be able to > ask HQ as to whether/where they will be allowed in > challenges? I don't have any good contact for this. In my opinion, the best thing iby magma1447 - Method requests
I haven't updated myself on the topic. I assume nothing has changed.by magma1447 - Method requests
I don't think this thread is the right place for that discussions. But since it's possible to write such script, it's possible to change the script into handling it. I can't answer for how hard it is since I don't know the script. It can possibly have unintended side-effects on other features in the script. It could very well be smarter to create a new script, that doeby magma1447 - Checker news
That script doesn't support Lab Caches, like most aren't. It just happens to have a copy/paste-block with the name and an icon. It's not fetching Lab caches from the API for example. There probably aren't many active scripts handling Lab caches, probably even fewer that hasn't been created this year, if any.by magma1447 - Checker news
I had used the name 'Lab Cache' in Profile stats as well. I have changed the LUA callback to that now, and am preparing a release. Expect it to be live in ~5 minutes.by magma1447 - Checker news
PattuX Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > On gc.com it's 'Lab Cache' btw. I guess it doesn't > break anything but consistency is always nice. I'll update to 'Lab Cache' before the release. If I forget, please remind me.by magma1447 - Checker news
PattuX Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > https://project-gc.com/Challenges//46972 > > > local finds = PGC.GetFinds(profileId, { > includeLabCaches = true }) > > works correctly. > > > PGC.GetFinds(profileId, { includeLabCaches = true, > fields = {'gccode', 'cache_name', > 'visitdate',&by magma1447 - Checker news
Still? Or was it just a shorter issue? At times the database cluster serving the data stops responding and has to be restarted. We haven't figured out exactly when and why. One more related issue was solved a few weeks ago, but there is still something weird happening now and then. It was restarted around 11:00 UTC, not sure how long it was broken for.by magma1447 - Checker news
Found a sloppy error. After adding the Labcaches I need to re-sort the data. The code did a $data = uasort(...); But PHP's uasort() doesn't return the result, the parameter for the data is a reference, so it's sorted in-place. $data was set to TRUE because the sort was successful. I of course know that uasort() doesn't return the result, so it was surprising to find the error.by magma1447 - Checker news
I will look into this. Maybe it doesn't work as it should. If you haven't heard anything on Monday, please remind me. Right now I am trying to not lose focus on the 360-tool for the The All Around Cacher. Got so many notes about it here that I want to implement most of it.by magma1447 - Checker news
Rikitan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hello, > > checkers are now a bit unstable, more timing-out > than not. > Reading through recent posts above me, is there a > chance that challenges (pun intended:) with CPU > consumption will be improved in near future? > > Thank you. I have felt that the relevant database cluster wby magma1447 - Checker news
Just go for it, I can't see any side effects besides heat and high power usage. I was mostly surprised of seeing how well the servers scaled. I recently adjusted some parameters so that they scale out better.by magma1447 - Checker news
I can see that someone has published one or more Challenge-checkers with the new method. For hours I have seen six servers with 16 cpu cores each working on max. This is the auto-challenge-checkers testing users. The power consumption of the server park has increased from ~2500W to ~4000W.by magma1447 - Checker news
Fixed in the development environment. Will try to send out a fix later today or tomorrow. It was what I suspected. Something that the first engine understands is implicit, isn't as obvious for the next engine.by magma1447 - Checker news
The other database sql parser is smarter and understands some syntax better. I will have to adjust the old SQL a bit, I totally missed and forgot the fallback part when I updated it. Hoping for a fix later today.by magma1447 - Checker news
I am currently not home. Does it work without the fallback parameter? Seems to be an issue after I switched database cluster. I will need to look at that later.by magma1447 - Checker news
I am a bit torn there. In a way I see it as HQ, ones achievements shouldn't be based on the logs of others. It's pretty much the same thing. But just as HQ also realizes, it's also a fun factor, and maybe even good for the Geocaching to "force" Geocachers to find those lonely ones. But it's also a matter of technically difficulties. Besides being quite expensive tby magma1447 - Checker news
Thank you for lifting this early on, and actually coming back with a result. I kinda suspected this would be the case, that's also why I wrote this fairly early. I definitely can see HQs point here. magma1447 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I am not 100% sure such Challenges are allowed. On > the other hand, I can't see any rule against itby magma1447 - Checker news
Project-GC has two database clusters that works very differently when querying data. The row based system needs ~48 seconds for the mentioned name. The column based system answers in less than 5 seconds. The down-side with the column based system is that it isn't realistic to update it in real-time, so it's currently being updated every 4th hour, by transferring/copying all relevantby magma1447 - Checker news
pieterix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I had a look at the first one listed (GC6TF7R) and > it appears to be due to the CO of the cache who > logged it on 2000-01-05, before geocaching > existed. Likewise with the second one listed > (GC6EVD1) where someone logged it on 2002-11-24, > which is 14 years before it was hidden. I've trieby magma1447 - Checker news
As I see it, the order is irrelevant, because the CO can not know if the order online is the same as on the logbook. Such requirement shouldn't be allowed since it's technically impossible to check (for an online checker system). If such Challenge should be allowed, the rules of it has to adapt to what's possible in reality. The only way to know the order is to actually read theby magma1447 - Checker news
I have these two epic FTFs by the way: GC157RV GC157VQ Found ~5 years after publish. Their coordinates were wayyyyy off.by magma1447 - Checker news
If the fallback option is used, FTF like logs won't count, as there is no former found log. With fallback, either hidden or publish date will be used as an alternative when there is no found log before the target geocacher's. I didn't understand the second part, I do not know what HTH is. It could also be worth knowing that this method doesn't care about order withinby magma1447 - Checker news
I am not 100% sure such Challenges are allowed. On the other hand, I can't see any rule against it either. Could be worth getting a reference case that actually went via HQ though.by magma1447 - Checker news
Upon request I have created a new method, GetLonelyFinds(). I don't like the name myself, since "Lonely" typically means two things withing Geocaching, maybe depending on your geographical location. * Geocaches with few logs per days active * Geocaches that haven't been logged (found) for X days before a Geocacher found it. This method is for the second alternative. Ifby magma1447 - Checker news
There is an extreme performance difference, and it's because I have removed a bounding box check. I will re-add that bounding box, the problem is that I know that it doesn't work correctly. But it's actually only if your circle reaches lat -90, +90 or lon -180 or +180. For that to work properly, the bounding box function would need to return multiple boxes, and it does not. Iby magma1447 - Checker news