Jump to content

Korsgat

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Korsgat

  1. A quick-fix for the CA-script: Open the home-page for your tampermonkey-scripts, press CTRL+F to get an option to force updates of scripts. Do an update of the CA-script. It will reinstate theCA-bar on the map. Placed differnetly, but will work for now. The script will be adjusted if needed when bug is fixed at geocaching.com.
  2. Mission 1: Sent my info to Laval K-9: March 5th 2022Name received from Laval K-9: March 6th 2022Sent my gift: March 14th 2022 - Replacement sent April 11th 2022My gift arrived at destination: 1st attempt with errorsI received a gift: April 4th 2022 - from Canada - Not going to open package until getting my vacation, so proper thanx will come then Mission 2: Sent my info to Laval K-9: March 5th 2022Name received from Laval K-9: March 6th 2022Sent my gift: March 14th 2022My gift arrived at destination: April 16th 2022I received a gift: April 25th 2022 I really appreciate theese coins and the other stuff. I now need to focus on diong more with my own next missions. So now, easter has ended for me as well
  3. Mission 1: Sent my info to Laval K-9: March 5th 2022Name received from Laval K-9: March 6th 2022Sent my gift: March 14th 2022My gift arrived at destination:I received a gift: April 4th 2022 - from Canada - Not going to open package until getting my vacation, so proper thanx will come then Mission 2: Sent my info to Laval K-9: March 5th 2022Name received from Laval K-9: March 6th 2022Sent my gift: March 14th 2022My gift arrived at destination:I received a gift:
  4. Forgot to post here, sorry. Computer to irritating for a week or two here: Mission 1: Sent my info to Laval K-9: March 5th 2022Name received from Laval K-9: March 6th 2022Sent my gift: March 14th 2022My gift arrived at destination:I received a gift: Mission 2: Sent my info to Laval K-9: March 5th 2022Name received from Laval K-9: March 6th 2022Sent my gift: March 14th 2022My gift arrived at destination:I received a gift:
  5. There was a bit of problems with my coins last holiday, I hope that it is less trouble with the mail this time around. I go in with 2 missions this time as well.
  6. I wish I could present all the coins I got for this Holiday, but several days with an error in uploading a picture 😭
  7. I have no knowledge of which mission had what names, but I recieved one package in the mail on Dec 23. I notice that both of the people I sent to, have not yet gotten the package. I hope that is just a delay inn the postal from Norway into Canada. I will update the missions when on a computer again tomorrow. Tonight is the present-opening day inn Norway, so Happy Holiday from me.
  8. Mission 1: Sent my info to Laval K-9: 21.11.2021Name received from Laval K-9: 28.11.2021Sent my gift: 30.11.2021My gift arrived at destination:I received a gift: Mission 2: Sent my info to Laval K-9: 21.11.2021Name received from Laval K-9: 28.11.2021Sent my gift: 30.11.2021My gift arrived at destination:I received a gift:
  9. As I said, we all caches differently. If someone had done this to one of my caches, I would not have had the need for proof. So I assumed (I know, wrong, but still) that the CO had access to the same equipment. Not knowing that for the five months between me submitting the log and the deletion did not either help me to understand. And just to clerify something here: Last night, one of my fellow cachers, who was with me when we signed the log, submitted a new log, which was deleted as well. Many hours after the CO had seen the picture on this forum. So I am not sure a picture sent to the CO would have helped. I can tell you that I have no intention of finding any other caches from the CO in the future, as the cache we signed are 357 miles away from where I live. So for me to accidentally log some of those caches are not an issue here. I have tried to start a discussin with the CO prior to him starting this tread, and he did not want to continue that discussion with me (as I refered to in my first post in this thread), and therefore, the only thing left for me is to ask HQ for help on solving this matter. It is clear to me that the CO do not want to accept the logs from the four of us, despite the proof we have given (both in the conversation in private messages and here in this thread that he started). As for my sentence of "I was expecting the CO to check the logs, and that is also why I wrote in my online-log that I have signed with an UV-pen." I did not expect the CO to make a check on it very fast. But I have seen caches that have UV-writing on a stage, where people have written over that UV-writing, and you may still see that UV has been used. The time-frame here are merely that I would have thought that the CO actually had those 5 months to tell me he could not verify my logging by not having the right accessory. But again, that is the way I was thinking, and we do cache differently. I had absolutely no intention of getting either the log deleted, or making this a great fuzz. I would much rather have had this solved within some short messages between the CO and me. That is the way I would have liked to solve every other problem that might occur too. I hope I do not have to write in this thread any more. If HQ says that the CO are entitled to deleting the logs, the whole matter is ended. If they reinstate the logs, the whole matter is ended. For the rest of the story, I have said what I have meant, and will not change my mind either
  10. I knew it might trigger the CO to get in touch with me, yes. It is a very long way from making not only one but two threads on this forum, instead of sending me a message about the fact that the CO might not be able to see my signing because of lack of equipment. That would have (perhaps) found a solution there, at least in my part of the world.
  11. If you have asked me for a proof, before deleting my log, you would have got it. If you had sent me a message saying you did not have a UV-torch to verify, you would have gotten the picture. I upload pictures in my log if there are things I like all others to see. I could not see that a picture of the log was of any use for anyone. I could not at all know that you did not have access to an UV-torch. I think I own 2 or 3, because of geocaching, but yes, we all cache differently. So no, my aim was never to get the logs deleted. I would have answered any message that had been sent to me between the time I sent in the log to the time you deleted my log. And yes, as far as you deleting not only my original log, but also the other log I sent in (I could not know that the deletion of my log was not a mistake, since you did not tell me why you deleted it in the first place) I had to ask you why you deleted it. And after telling me you did not want to continue the discussion, you made a thread here instead. So who is the one trying to make this a big thing?
  12. Time to give a little bit of my side in this part. Yes, I am the geocacher that signed this cache with an UV-pen. Why? I wanted to. The other reasons are not something I want to take out in public. Did I want this to be something this big? No. I was expecting the CO to check the logs, and that is also why I wrote in my online-log that I have signed with an UV-pen. So that the CO might have a chance to verify the find, as I was expecting the CO to do. For it to take nearly 5 months (since the CO started the other tread right after I submitted my online-log) was more than I counted for. Actually, I thought that I would get a message no more than a week after submitting the log. And then do the conversation in a fair matter there. Time went until yesterday, where all of our logs where deleted. I travelled with 3 other geocachers to a mega-event in that area, and this was one of the many finds we had on May 18th last year. The CO did not say anything for a reason to delete the logs. I submitted my log again (not happy about it since it now comes in a different order than I have logged the caches) and after a little time, that log was also deleted and once again without any reason sent to me. I now sent the CO a message asking for why he deleted my log. The CO claims I did not sign it, and says that I just are claiming to sign with UV-pen. And ask for a reason. I do not feel obligated to answer that question, but I tell the CO that the log was signed, and that I told so in my online-log in order for the CO to be able to check it. The CO says "I do not have the oportunity to see UV-ink" and says that I should have attached an UV-lamp the next time. Meanwhile I have logged again, and the log is deleted. I log once again, and do tell the CO that I now have been pointed out to the thread regarding the UV-signature that was made in August, and suggest that the CO would follow some of the advices that was given in that thread. Or suggest that the CO should have contacted me before even posting that thread on this forum. The reply are a deleted log and just a question regarding my motivation. I do submitt a new log, and ask the motivation for the CO to delete a log that tells him that the cache is signed. I also tells the CO the place where I signed the log, and the two signatures in the logbook before me. And as a different fact, I do mention that the two nicks that are between the two signatures on the website were not on that page when we signed it, but of course, they could have signed the logbook somewhere else that that page. The storyline are April 30th - log with a signature in the logbook that I saw, May 13th - two logs which I did not see in the logbook (on that same page), May 17th - log with signature in the logbook that I saw, May 18th our signature in the logbook. The CO then replies with deleting my log and sending me a message that says: "You are obviously just doing this for the argument. Further discussion seems meeningless. I therefore ends this conversation" The CO then starts this thread in this forum in order to get some users saying he is entitled to blocking my log. I will have to submitt a new log later on today. The reader (that follows me this far) will se that the CO not once have followed suggestions on how to get this matter checked in the way that would have stopped this situation from getting this much attention. And for those that thinks what I have described to the CO not proves that I have signed the cache, what is needed then? Oh wait, what about a picture of the log I did sign?
  13. Building a huge Friend League of random people doesn't really do anything useful anyway. To get the Souvenir, each person needs to contribute at least 5 points. If everyone contributes only 5 points, then you need only half a dozen active members of your Friend League to earn the first week's Souvenir. Yeah I know that. But I'm still getting friend requests from random people that I don't know. I think this is the price for Groundspeak not having announced the goals or the tasks for all weeks. People just do not want to miss out the souvenirs, and therefore are gathering unknown (personal unknown at least) geocachers on their team to avoid possible trouble. Sad to say this is a direction Groundpeak should have seen coming....
  14. As a geocacher that prefers to write logs when I'm in the mood for it, and not just send a short TFTC, I think I will be completely without this summers suvenirs, since I tend to delay the process of logging online as for being more outside caching. Earlier souvenirs have come to me when I have sent in my logs, be after a new country, a new MEGA or a special souvenir for an event. Are this now completely out of range for us who likes to have a story to tell after finding a cache? As for the idea of a friends league and something more fun there, I am not thinking this would have to be wrong. But I believe all points have to count longer after the period of collection are, so that finds done near the time limit may count. In that case, even those of us not logging online at the instant can get finds that count.
×
×
  • Create New...