JASTA 11
-
Posts
483 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by JASTA 11
-
-
And I don't think there are any caches in Irvington. (Too dangerous?)
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.
17 SEP 2014
Found It! (18 BMs Found):It may say lookout tower but there is no other benchmark listed at these coords and I found a benchmark. Was the tower replaced by this disk? I don't know, but this is how I am claiming it.
22 AUG 2014
Destroyed (73 BMs Found):This benchmark has been destroyed.
The data sheet states that this benchmark is a lookout tower.
The tower is long gone.
No tower = No benchmark.
2 OCT 2004 (13 BMs Found):Found the two disks described earlier in the logs.
The lookout tower is gone.
7 JUN 2002 (1100+ BMs found):Well, the tower is no longer there, but I did find a benchmark labeled 'XXXXXX X' (1943) and also reference mark NO 2 from the same year.
These were close to the old tower foundations.
-
1. Appeals are handled by paid staff ("Lackeys") at Geocaching HQ, not by volunteers. When you appeal you are not just asking a second volunteer for their opinion; you are going to headquarters.
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.
2. No cache serves as precedent for any other. Each cache listing is unique, and reviewers are empowered to exercise their judgment. Some reviewers come out on different sides of the same line. And, many reviewers are dogs.
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.
3. Think of it this way: did you ever get a speeding ticket when it seemed like everyone else on the highway was going the same speed or even faster? Try telling the cop that it's inappropriate for him to ticket you while letting other speeders drive on down the highway. Odds are, this argument will not make him rip up the ticket.
But does it justify selective enforcement?
-
Turning down an Appeal is not done in order to appease the "free laborers" who review caches. To the contrary, Geocaching HQ and the Volunteer Cache Reviewers are aligned together in hoping to find a way to make a cache publishable.
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.
-
There is no restriction on lithium batteries contained in your gps or other device by either the FAA or the TSA.
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:
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:
Found it We could not have picked a better day to come over and try this one, though we did it from above, I hope the owner will let the find stand.
I was sure I did the math correctly and added 1.75ft of Intl Orange(to make the easy for the next cacher to find) ribbon per 100ft in altitude to slow their velocity, how ever just after the release a stiff elevator told us differently, a quick stop in Everglades City fixed us right up...thanks we had a BLAST!
-
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:
The bridge is closed so have to walk it. Lots of muggles around, but still able to use stealth and geterdone! Thanks for the smiley!We were amazed that someone could have found it by walking to it, so we queried the finder:
Hi There,We're wondering how you managed to find our 'Powder Point' cache on foot.
Considering that everyone else has had to use a boat to get to it, finding it without using one would be a great story for the cache page.
Please let us know!
JASTA 11
The log was deleted without a response from the 'finder'.
So much for "geterdone".
-
"its the job of the cache owner to maintain their caches"
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.
-
I thought this was a perfect example for this thread. I did a 5/5 tree climb recently and noticed the last to log a find was not on the log. Figured it was just newbie that didn't know any better. Wrong!
XxxxxXxxxxx
Premium Member
Caches Found 11679
Found it 07/30/2014TFTC Team [redacted]. Xx There are words to use on a cache like this, but my dad doesn't allow those words.
That's funny.
The same 'player' has been armchair logging in our area too: http://coord.info/GCR90W
They get around!
-
Fifteen feet up a tree is not a T5 in many areas...T3.5 is actually about .5 high based upon my personal inability to grab most 3.5 climbs. I'm curious what is in the guidelines that brought you to the conclusion that tree climbs should be a T5.
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.
-
Pretty sketchy area, not sure why we would have been brought here. Hope a geocacher didn't do this damage looking for the cache
Cache with Pride!
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.
-
Gonna take this one down, recent activity I was unaware of and a couple idiot cachers who can't seem to just tell me nicely its troubled but have to act like jerks trying to make this one seem like its Apocalypse Now redux...its jerks like this that make providing the caching community hides to find very tedious and I'm about done doing so after ...their childish logs.
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.
-
I'm wondering if this is the case elsewhere as well?
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.
-
Lithiums will last longer in the cold than alkalines.
Rechargeables of any type won't last as long as their non-rechargeable cousins.
If you go with standard lithiums, you'll get away with carrying less of them.
Found It! (18 BMs Found):
Destroyed (73 BMs Found):
Travelling Event?
in General geocaching topics
Posted
This is a first for us:
http://coord.info/GCK5E6