JASTA 11

As someone who deals with the TSA on a regular basis I'll say that none of that should raise any flags. There is no restriction on lithium batteries contained in your gps or other device by either the FAA or the TSA. At worst, some over-zealous hack might ask you to turn on your gps to prove there's nothing harmful inside. Don't sweat it and go have fun.

We are 0 for 3 in the appeals game. Without going into details, my take is that Groundspeak will go out of it's way to not overrule a reviewer. After all, why would they risk losing an unpaid volunteer who's efforts help the company earn profits?

Seems pretty heavy-handed to me. I've seen lots of caches with a string of dnf's that don't get a second glance from a reviewer. Inconsistency abounds.

It would all depend on the policy of the land manager. Here's a couple of NH State campgrounds in Pittsburg: Deer Mountain Lake Francis Lake Francis has access to miles of trails.

There are those for whom benchmarking is 'all about the numbers'. They log recoveries on church steeples or lookout towers that are long since gone. Most don't bother to read the data sheets. Fortunately though, I don't see the 'numbers' people submitting recoveries to the NGS.

Kind of like this one:

We had a paddle cache located under a long, wooden bridge. Not only was a boat required, but it was still pretty tricky to reach. It had gone a while without any finds until this log was posted: We were amazed that someone could have found it by walking to it, so we queried the finder: The log was deleted without a response from the 'finder'. So much for "geterdone".

You said it first, not me. In some cases we'll replace the log, others not. Sometimes the good intentions of replacing a wet logsheet just prolongs the death throws of an unattended cache placed by someone who quit the game long ago.

Tell the 'finders' that they didn't find your cache, they found something else. This cache was in close proximity to a letterbox, and folks were claiming a 'find' on the easier to locate letterbox. In the end, it doesn't matter that they found something, they didn't find your cache. Give them the chance to do the right thing. If they do nothing, then delete the log if you see fit to do so.

Due to the proliferation of these 'smaller than a 35mm can' containers, nanos should have their own size. It'll make it easier for us to put them on the ignore list.

That's funny. The same 'player' has been armchair logging in our area too: http://coord.info/GCR90W They get around!

That's the problem with D/T ratings - they're totally subjective. The CO feels it's a 3.5, you think it should be a 3.0, the 'finder' thinks it should be a 5. I'd agree that most tree climbs are a 3.0, since no special equipment is required. We did a whole series of caches in another state where we have a lot of finds. Each cache in this series was rated a 5/5. Other than a long walk through tall grass, there wasn't anything that would rate a 5. I'd have given the terrain a 3 or 3.5 tops, but that's my subjective opinion. Still, there's no excuse to come unhinged because of a log entry. If you're the CO, try to remember that it's just a game. If that doesn't work - delete the log and move on.

Seems rather honest, straightforward and bland. Not something I could imagine anyone getting stirred up over. There are those among us who are just waiting to be offended.

A somewhat negative, but not at all 'nasty' log posted on one of our caches is probably my personal favorite as a CO. In the end, it's still just a game.

Sounds to me like old dude needs to lighten-up.

The website - better Most everything else - worse

What about data on new cache placements in Plymouth and Bristol counties? Since they are the closest to Barnstable, it may show whether it's a Cape only thing or more widespread.

Do you have any data for the state as a whole during that time frame? Just the raw numbers, not how many players are also placing. It would be an interesting comparison.

The threshold has been breached. Will anything change because of it?

Not everyone. To us, there is no difference. We won't do either. That's what a note is for. Most folks would say that logging a find on your own cache is wrong, but an attended log on your own event isn't the same.

Where does it go from here? The 'mother cache' has been archived and locked due to this practice, but the event page isn't locked. If Groundspeak acknowledges the issue with the cache, why not the same with the event listing? Inconsistency abounds.

Reminding readers that this was added to the event page AFTER the event page was published. See my post #23 on page one. Generally speaking, would a reviewer use their discretion and disable or retract the event listing once they learned of something like this happening?

Nothin' like getting thrown under the bus!

Dude, all this time I had you pegged as a Utica Club Ale guy.

I wouldn't expect a reviewer to be responsible for policing through cache logs looking for any abuses. Instead, I would hope that a guideline would be published so that the encouragement of this type of behavior would not be included in the listing when it is published by the reviewer. The event this cache is tied to has just that. What players do after that isn't for me to say. Logging multiple 'finds' on any single cache is foolish. Claiming a 'find' on an unpublished cache by posting it on a 'mother-ship' cache, even more ridiculous. Those are my beliefs, like them or not. That being said, after it's published, it's the CO's discretion. In my opinion, Groundspeak should come up with a guideline that addresses this so the reviewer has something to reference when a listing like that is submitted..