jholly

I simply don't worry about it. The number times I have been stopped by a LEO you can count on one hand with fingers to spare. All have been pleasant and polite exchanges. Several times I'm sure I've been watched by LEO's and either they knew what was up or just didn't care. The most difficult exchange was with a county road worker that was convinced I was stealing his stop sign and not getting the micro out of the pole that was hung with some wire.

They are nurtured and fed.

Possible, but owning the source for maps has to be awful attractive also. It would be one way to break the Navteq stranglehold on the map products.

Your new here, aren't you? We can go on for pages and pages slicing and dicing the smallest and most insignificant minutia.

Cache has been unarchived but is listed as temporarily unavailable.

Bookmark posted. I knew I should not have gone to the 2015 geocoin event, 12 caches found on this list. As previously noted, #16 is archived. #23 - GC4AX5W - Several DNF logs indicate the cache was underwater from a high river. Gone? #51 - GC605F3 - Long string of DNF's. #53 - GC3B20K - Last four were DNF #61 - GC4VYQV - Last two were DNF. #88 has several recent DNF's but they appear to be from brand new caches, so I'll reserve judgement. Note for datafile users: It has come to my attention that some folks delete the caches they found or won't be doing on the route. As a result the macro stopped before completion. It now runs to the end and gives you a list of caches that were not found while adding the numbers.

I guess to me the more interesting question is if a reviewer of a multi or mysytry ever finds this cache and the waypoints and finals are not what is published as hidden waypoints what does the reviewer do? That is the CO not trusting the reviewer purposely fudeged the waypoints and final to hide the actual locations. Normal finders would not be aware since they can not see the hidden waypoints but a reviewer can. Has it happened, and if so what did the reviewer do? This is assuming the reviewer was not bought off with a whole box of MilkBones.

Hi niraD - I don't see anything in the log that would need to be converted. Is there a particular part of the log that you would expect to be converted? I'm not niraD but I guess it's the second star (starts the appendix) that should be altered manually to \* . Hans As EngPhil has said any system that requires you to take special precautions with plain text is just plain bonked. Why should you have to escape plain text to make it appear as plain text? Make no sense.

I don't see where the OP mentioned nefarious use of privileged information by reviewers The OP did not, at least not directly. One of the responses before yours certainly did and in no uncertain terms. Which is precisely the point I'm making. The thread seems to have taken a direction which I'm not convinced the OP intended. Well that is a shocker.

NO!!!!!!! NEVER!!!!!!!!! Do you really want to break probably half the cache pages on the site? Or are you hoping for mass archiving because folks don't want the clean up the mess left by that change? I would archive my hides instead of dealing with the mess that change would cause.

They haven't rendered correctly since the change from plain text.

When creating a cache listing, or after a cache listing is published a user can edit the placed date field. This seems to be what your asking. You can edit the date for times in the past, but except for event types you can't edit the date into the future.

I believe the crickets are saying yes.

Would CO's make use of this attribute? Maybe not. I wouldn't. Would smartphone users pay attention to this attribute? Probably not. The way the game is played is find the cache, sign the log, log online. If someone is going to do a throwdown an attribute is not going to stop them.

I was not aware that GSAK had a GPS. Learn new things everyday.

The log had several comments indicating it may need maintenance, that was what was so confusing. I was trying to indicate it may need repair without totally giving the location away to other potential cachers. CO could have simply indicated they had checked it and it was as described. *shrug* Oh well, the world goes on turning haha. Well if it had several logs indicating it needs repair then maybe it is time to log a needs archive do to lack of maintenance. Doesn't matter if this log is deleted or not, soon as you log it the email is on the way to the reviewer community.

bored kids.

I'm not sure I would call it abuse of power by a government entity, which is some thing the government entity can do on it's own. In this case it took a willing independent third party to do it's will. And perhaps a bit of gold to ease any pangs of guilt.

Well then you should have logged a needs maintenance instead of found it. But really a cache with a string in a pipe is not exactly a D4, maybe a D2.

How is using the GPS in a smartphone different from using a GPS in a handheld unit or the GPS in a car GPS? They all use the same satellites and technology.

Of course it can be oral, but that written permission comes in handy if you need to prove it to Groundspeak (as is the case in many restricted areas) or to an employee who doesn't know that the boss gave permission. Sure, and I covered that in my examples. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. You sound kinda combative, but I think we are on the same page. Oral should be just fine. Groundspeak needs to learn to accept oral. That what I use. niraD does sound combative, he just asks very pointed and honest questions.

It has always bothered me, just what is explicit permission? Can some one define it?

I am sure all geocachers would just love to have a "captcha security thingie on all finds" every time they log a find As long as the logging API will fill in the captcha then not a problem

I can't imagine why they'd bother to shut people up, since if they're doing such research, it's all to their advantage to let people talk about how much research they're doing. But even if they were, I would expect to hear about the nondisclosure agreements whether people could talk about the actual questions asked or not. They do. Last year before the block party you could sign up for a session to explore changes to geocaching. This was covered by a NDA, the participants could not discuss what was said and really could not discuss that they were chosen. GS is a privately held company that likes to keep things close to their chest.

Simple, before you can share your ideas with them you have to sign a nondisclosure agreement that even prevents you from mentioning you participated in the market research.