Tequila

I see you're in Ontario. How does that give you the right to post a "Webcam Photo Taken" log on a broken webcam cache? (Yeah, I know. You were there last month) I see you mentioned you would eventually be posting a picture with your log... Is it safe to assume the picture you claim you will someday post came from the webcam linked on the cache page? No? Wouldn't that qualify as a bogus log? perhaps if you look at my activity for that week you will see i was in Vegas can you see the label on the picture in the log above mine? i guess your detective capabilities are a bit limited, it takes making wider observations no, its not a bogus log, I was physically at the location, the Co allowed the log why is anyone else's business? Were those pictures taken by the webcam as required in the logging requirements delineated on the cache page? . did the CO exercise his/her right to delete the allegedly non complying logs? That is not the question I asked. Were those pictures taken by the webcam as required in the logging requirements delineated on the cache page? .

I see you're in Ontario. How does that give you the right to post a "Webcam Photo Taken" log on a broken webcam cache? (Yeah, I know. You were there last month) I see you mentioned you would eventually be posting a picture with your log... Is it safe to assume the picture you claim you will someday post came from the webcam linked on the cache page? No? Wouldn't that qualify as a bogus log? perhaps if you look at my activity for that week you will see i was in Vegas can you see the label on the picture in the log above mine? i guess your detective capabilities are a bit limited, it takes making wider observations no, its not a bogus log, I was physically at the location, the Co allowed the log why is anyone else's business? Were those pictures taken by the webcam as required in the logging requirements delineated on the cache page? .

The 60CSx, arguably the best GPS Garmin ever made, does not support field notes. It is the precursor to the Colorado/Oregon which introduced "paperless caching". Each waypoint in the 60CSx has a "memo" field that holds about 20-30 characters but you would drive yourself nuts using the toggle for data entry. .

Time for you to get new glasses. I count four vases of tulips. AND the stand has a tulip pattern. LOL . Actually five vases of tulips. .

Time for you to get new glasses. I count four vases of tulips. AND the stand has a tulip pattern. LOL .

This is a very interesting statement. When this thread was started, and answered 13 minutes later, I wondered why it was ever started. In less that 2 minutes the OP could have gotten the answer to the posed question by a quick search of the Guidelines. No need for a forum thread. When the second "question" was posed, it became apparent that the purpose of the thread was probably not fully stated in the original question. It has been repeatedly suggested that the OP directly contact either the Reviewer(s) or Groundspeak and ask for clarification. I don't recall seeing a post here indicating she has done that. I think most, but not all, would agree she is not going to get an answer from the Reviewers or Groundspeak in this thread. I also think most, but not all, would agree that this thread is no longer going to serve any positive purpose. . .

Probably much to the disappointment of Packers fans, , Wisconsin is not in Canada. You will have better luck posting in the appropriate US Regional forum. .

I think you are doing the right thing and are being a big person here. A BIG +1. There is nothing to be gained by deleting their log other than propagating hard feelings. You are taking the high road. A good way to start the new year. .

On the topic of speaking volumes, it is interesting to note that the OP didn't even attend the event she is whining about. .

That is probably a good thing. .

I'm sure we can find more. Keith makes a good point though - what is the goal of the complaint? To gain an exemption from the rule guideline because someone else "got away with it". Hardly seems fair to me. Pointing out the others who "got away with it" surely doesn't increase the enjoyment of the game for the players, the other cache owners, or the reviewers. It seems to me that it's a lose, lose, lose situation. It does help satisfy one's insatiable need to find something about Groundspeak to complain about; should one suffer from that affliction. .

Seven inconsistencies in 1,601,488 caches. This has reached EPIDEMIC proportions. ..

Since you seem to be the most interested in resurrecting the cache, perhaps you should go do a maintenance check on it for the CO. Before someone else creates a new listing and this merr-go-round starts up all over again. .

Doesn't uploading your My Finds to oc.com violate the license agreement with Groundspeak? .

I hope someone down there got a free GPS for putting out those 5. .

I would say they mesh with mine as well. And for full disclosure, I am about as far from being a VR as you can get. .

Can you hear the applause all the way from Markham???? .

As the holiday season approaches and another year of caching comes to an end, this is an excellent time to wish the volunteer reviewers a happy and peaceful holiday. And thank you for giving so much to this sport. Every minute you spend reviewing is a minute you lost to getting out and caching. THANK YOU AND HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO YOU AND YOUR FAMILY. .

Works great. One caveat: Make sure you set up a notification for each cache type. Wherigo's and Letterboxes are infrequent and it is easy to think you have everything working, only to miss the odd chance at a rarer cache type. .

and angst!!!! .

And you should capitalize your sentences. But I doubt that is gonna happen either. .

I have no issue with requesting the timestamping (I kinda like it, though I'm not likely to use it) but I think this statement is incorrect. It wasn't a statement -- it was a question. If there is concern regarding the reviewer's time, then my suggestion will actually help. Typing the the time instead of "Published" will reduce each log entry's keystrokes to 55% of what they were before. Not asking for flowery -- just hh:mm -- that's all. And it is a request, not an expectation. My work email confidentiality disclaimer is a haiku: Email not for you? Inform us then disregard Delete forever. Did your 55% allow for the time required to look at the clock to get the correct time? ") .

I have no issue with requesting the timestamping (I kinda like it, though I'm not likely to use it) but I think this statement is incorrect. The VRs have a hard enough job sifting through dozens of potential listings on their own time to have to worry about putting something flowery for their reviewer publication note. Some do occasionally (RadicalEd puts haikus in her notes, I'm told) but that shouldn't be expected, IMO. Edit: for emphasis. My sentiments exactly. Let them concentrate on reviewing, and if there's something to be added, like a timestamp, that should be automatic. We're talking about posting a log - adding an entry to an online database ... remembering to tack the time on the end is precisely the sort of task humankind invented computers for in the first place. I certainly don't require a detailed "published" log from the reviewer, giving me an attaboy for my listing. The attaboy is the job of the FTF +1. I gave up worrying about FTF's a long time ago. So I am probably a bit biased but I agreed with my two esteemed friends (and viewers of Seinfeld) that the VR's time is better spent on reviewing. .

Hence the term "leading". It was not implied nor written. There was no 'certainty' in the first place. No one said, nor implied as far as I can tell, that they would rather have the event canceled at the expense of children's enjoyment than change the listing text. You are the first person that delineates a difference between the "event" and the "event listing". If the CO intends to hold the "event" regardless of whether the "event listing" is ever published on gc.com, then I withdraw my question. I am trying to ascertain what is more important. The actual event or listing the event with the "charity statement" included. If the CO is having the event regardless, my question is answered. I haven't seen any indication this is the case. .

Hence the term "For greater certainty...." Not a case of mis-reading. A case of asking for clarification. .