JASTA 11

Once upon a time I would cut through Irvington on my way back and forth to work over at the airport. One day I learned that it wasn't really a smart thing to be doing. After that, I would only cut through there if it was raining out. The locals didn't hang around outside when it was raining.

If you don't find what's supposed to be there, just log something you did find! A benchmark that was a fire tower, dismantled back in the 70's: ''DESCRIBED BY COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY 1958 (WER) ''THE STATION IS THE TOP CENTER OF THE LOOKOUT TOWER WHICH IS ''LOCATED ON THE SUMMIT OF MT. XXXXXX, APPROXIMATELY 7.5 MILES ''SOUTHEAST OF YYYYYYY AND 7 MILES EAST-NORTHEAST OF ZZZZZZZZ. '' ''THE LOOKOUT TOWER IS A SQUARE CABIN SUPPORTED BY FOUR LEGS ''AND IS APPROXIMATELY 35 FEET HIGH.

Yes, I messed that up. The email reply came from a "Community and Volunteer Support Coordinator", not a volunteer. An employee of Groundspeak did not want to go against the volunteer reviewers decision, nor did the employee offer the courtesy of a reply to my follow up questions. That's understood. Each reviewer will have their own subjective opinion. As far as this discussion goes, my beef isn't with the reviewer. It's with "HQ". They (the paid employee) made a decision on the matter.That's fine, I accept it. But now that they have made a ruling that something is in violation of their Terms Of Use, why is it selectively applied? Has the wind changed direction or something? My belief is that rules or 'guidelines' are applied arbitrarily and inconsistently, and when this occurs the player is just S.O.L. But does it justify selective enforcement?

I wasn't going to go into details, but here I go: Last year I had an event listing rejected by a reviewer because of wording contained in an image on the listing that was deemed by the reviewer as an 'agenda'. I appealed to Groundspeak, citing precedence in numerous other published listings. This included a listing published by the same reviewer six months prior that had the same phrase contained in my image, used as the cache title. Soon after, I get a reply from the 'volunteer', siding with the reviewer stating that it was indeed an 'agenda' and violated the terms of use. I wasn't pleased with the decision, but I accepted it. I removed the image and the listing was published. About a month later a new cache was published nearby, by a different reviewer this time, that has a title nearly identical to the wording in the image I had to delete. What gives? I send an email to the volunteer in appeals asking why the wording in my image was considered an agenda, but this cache title was not. No reply, nothing. Just crickets chirping. So what am I to believe? I believe that the appeals volunteer did not want to go against the reviewers decision, and I wasn't afforded the courtesy of a response to my follow up email about the title of the other cache because they knew they couldn't defend their reasoning.

The TSA prohibits loose lithium batteries in checked baggage. I had no idea about this particular restriction until I flew into Minneapolis last month. I noticed security signs in both Calgary and Minneapolis airports now mention these batteries. Yeah, you have to keep them in your carry-on. That way when they start smoldering, it won't be in the cargo hold. It'll be under the seat in front of you warming your feet.

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.