Question

Erfüllen wir diese Challenge Guttenberg Challenge GC4VQBB

Answer 1

Is this what you need? Please let me know because my German language is not good.

<a href="http://project-gc.com/Challenges/GC4VQBB/5752">Project-GC Challenge checker</a>

Answer 2

Hi derkleen,

nur zur Sicherheit (bin im Moment etwas verwirrt ;) ). Wenn ich den Checker starte erhalte ich das Zeichen für "nicht bestanden" aber laut Auswertung sollte es doch eigentlich passen, oder?

Kopfsache

2012-12-15 [GC2VGEG] Unknown Cache (3.5/1.5) - Owner: janoschbaer

2014-04-06 [GC24NJ3] Multi-cache (5.0/5.0) - Owner: geotrixx (dist: 38km)
Piratenschatz 3
2013-10-27 [GC4GVCX] Traditional Cache (2.0/2.0) - Owner: Die 4 Detektive
2013-01-03 [GC2D25X] Traditional Cache (2.0/1.5) (archived) - Owner: Jolass (dist: 24km)
Wellingtonie
2012-07-21 [GCXGEX] Traditional Cache (2.5/1.0) - Owner: Johannis10
2012-03-05 [GC2H71R] Traditional Cache (1.0/1.0) - Owner: velofam (dist: 20km)
Steinbock
2013-11-11 [GC1A0Y0] Traditional Cache (1.0/1.5) - Owner: carpis
2014-02-09 [GC4KW09] Unknown Cache (2.0/1.5) - Owner: michiichi (dist: 230km)
Gerlinger Höhe
2013-06-13 [GC29R25] Traditional Cache (1.0/1.0) - Owner: swhö
2013-01-04 [GC3WZKV] Traditional Cache (1.5/2.0) - Owner: hulmgulm (dist: 993m)
I have found a total of 5 'doublet caches'

Comments

geoGrav - Can you write in English , I'm not sure what you're writing

---

Hi Vogelbird,

I wanted to check with the TO, if I understand the results of the checker correctly. Right now the checker sais, that I don't fulfill the requirements - but the "script output" (which you can see above) seems to me, that I should fulfill the requirements!?!
I am a bit puzzled - so I just wanted to doublecheck it with the TO and send you then an answer :)

---

Hallo Geograv

I think the checker is too precise. It does not ignore ?!#* etc.

I just looked at the script and although I put the limit at 5 it remains on 10 pairs

---

The challenge says that only alphabetic character shall be considered.
The problem is that caches in the same series are not permitted in the challenge
The example is #1 Hüttentour and #67 Hüttentour.
I cant see any easy way to determine it the caches are part of a serise. To include numbers i the test is not on option if you look at the last ok caches where one has numbers and one has none.

---

Because of the wrong results the tag is removed.

---

A series or Part of would IMO come from same owner

---

That is often true but not always the case a swedish Petroleum Tango is a good example whan it is not true
http://www.geocaching.com/bookmarks/view.aspx?guid=4d1f696d-0392-4fd9-a384-25deb3161d53
The CO should have used that condition if that was the case. But there is no rule against two caches from the same CO.
If someone would interpreter a series as the same CO i would contact the challenge CO and ask about it.

---

Ok, in the mentioned list I see a lot of adopted caches. I don't know how adoption is mirrored in the cache attributes, which are available by GC API. The other that one CO places two caches with real! identical name (not only for the challenge identical), but no reference is very seldom IMO, also naming caches has no regulations.

---

I thing there in no way for a checker to find out if a cache is adopted. I don't thing there is any way to readability find out from the cache page if the adoption note is removed.
Petroleum Tango is a series in Sweden with caches near petrol stations. Anyone can place them. You should use the same text and contact someone for a unique number.
Here are another example i found after a quick look at caches with # in Sweden
http://coord.info/GC3C1R8
http://coord.info/GC3C1QA

If you assume same CO=series
The problem with series and assume the same CO is that you get false positive pairs.
The problem with one CO and identical name not in a series is a false negative pair.

The real problem is that it is not appropriate to make a knowing misleading checker.
If you cant create it correct you generally should not tag it. Especially if you can get false positives and incorrect logs. False negative is better in my opinion if you add some text in the tag description and preferably in the checker.

---

fully accepted; thanks for discussing this with me in that manner and detail.