Konnarock Kid & Marge

There is no rule that a cache owner must verify answers to posed questions. Some don't even acknowledge any kind of logs. A lot of EC owners do not send anything to the finder archived or not! If you find a cache and you can log it on GS then do so if you wish. The only thing that prevents logging the cache is when it is locked and that may be the real goal of the OP............................................to get the caches locked! The caches shouldn't have been archived in the first place so there in no need to lock them. Again, as Geobain said, the OP already knew his answer.

It was archived due to a user being banned...AFAIK, there's no permission issues. So this thread is just a way to bring up the CavScout issue again? We cannot look into anyone's mind, but we believe you hit the nail on the head! Maybe this quote will give us a clue as to intent, "I agree that it would be cheesy to log such a cache that cannot have the answers verified."

This whole topic is just to bring up an old issue of the massive archiving of a certain cachers 203 earthcaches. There is no problem with the earthcaches and if you legitimately found them and make a reasonable attempt to answer (in your own mind) the questions, there is no reason why you shouldn't log the find(s). Because I don't know the reason for the ban I'll stay away from that topic, but once again archiving 203 earthcaches was wrong. We have found several (while they were active) and most are well worth the trip! Thanks.

Touchstone, sometimes we agree, but this is not one of those times. "gave the issue thoughtful consideration" can be assumed, but it was not stated. GSA may be merely one opinion but what other opinions were considered? Certainly a quick perusal of this thread will tell that most if not all earthcachers do not agree with the PMO status being used for ECs. Therefore what other opinions entered the deliberations? What's the big deal? Why cannot the PMO status for ECs be made off limits? GS may have given a reply and it is appreciated, but respectfully, the why was not answered. Thanks.

We all agree that some people make 'their' ECs PMOs because they can, but there is a lot of things we can do because we can. For instance, breaking the law, getting caught, going to jail, all because we can, but the question remains is why? GS responded that there was some sort of conference between them and GSA and using the PMO designation was continued to be allowed. With GSA not favoring the PMO designation then why does GS continue to allow it? Maybe there is another reason for using the PMO label beside "we can" and we just aren't covering it. I know a couple of cachers in our area that use the PMO for everything, including their ECs, but they are sort of paranoid. Let's keep an open mind and maybe there is someone out there who uses it (PMO) who has a valid reason which we haven't thought of. If you are out there, please join in. We will not bite! GS can you give us additional information as to why you favor keeping the PMO for ECs? Thanks.

Yup, that would be how you do it. Of course that's provided you know that the cache is PMO ahead of time. Thanks dfx.

I forgot that Manville. So why is GS against banning the PMO designation for ECs?

Good point GEO WALKER. I once tried to muggle a mountain top. I was exhausted before getting it to the bottom. At least now the mountain top is a plateau and very flat! lol Now we know it was discussed. We just don't know why PMO ECs were allowed continue?

While reading another topic in one of the other forms, a question came to mind. I know this topic has arisen before, but it has been quite some time ago and I don't remember if any of TPTB responded. Many of us feel that using the PMO designation for earthcaches doesn't fit. After all, who really created the cache? Maybe we did the leg work and wrote it up, but Mother nature or the forces of nature or God if you prefer, created the cache so why should we limit visits to only those who have a Premium membership? Is there some guideline caste in concrete that exists that cannot be changed or can a new guideline be issued banning the use of PMO for earthcaches? Thanks.

I am probably missing something as usual, but is there a way to view a PMO cache page without showing up on the audit list? I guess a PQ including the PMO cache downloaded to GSAK would do it? Thanks.

I agree with all who object to PMO earthcaches. "Pass muster with the reviewers"? Several have brought objections to the practice and the reviewers sit on their hands and do nothing about it. Therefore, rule wise, there is nothing against that silly approach. We have a couple of local cachers who are so paranoid that they classify all of their caches, including earthcaches, as PMO. Thanks goodness, they are the exceptions!

Bottom line........don't like, don't visit, but don't let opinions on arbitrary limitations govern! It's a game!

There is no need for spacing guidelines. The 'unofficial' guideline of how far can you travel in one hour is also arbitrary. Why arbitrary? Well just think about it. Doesn't that depend on where you are? Back in the mountains on some muddy forest service road versus a 70 mph interstate highway means covering everything from 15 miles to 70 or 75 miles not to mention only using a difficult trail. I agree with the proposition of different lessons if listed by the same cache owner otherwise, there is absolutely no reason to limit the number of like earthcaches. The above example given by hzoi is exactly what we mean. There was no reason to turn down the cache. This 'lession' and 'distance' business is getting out of hand. Frankly, some of us believe those newly imposed rules are totally unnecessary. Remember your middle or high school educational experiences in something like math? Was it forbidden to repeat a lesson or give a similar problem? Heck no, repetition is one of the most fundamental ways we learn! As with earthcaches, why the need for the limitations? Are they so elite that they must stand above all other caches? There are already built in limitations like finding and researching the area geologically! One last point......are two waterfalls or springs really alike? Are two eratics or lagoons really alike? We don't think so! God or the forces of nature are more creative than that! Thanks.

You are kidding aren't you? Apparently the concept of game is not grasped by some. Packanack, Well said! Earthcaching is only a part of geocaching. Different from the run-of-the-mill geocaching pursuits yes, but none the less it is part of geocaching and geocaching is a game! As far as effort goes, some put more into the game than others. That doesn't make them better or worse than others.

I find it totally amazing when some folks celebrate the difficulty (real) rating of earthcaches yet have found few. It's sorta like praising 5 terrain ratings, but not walking past a 1.5 rating. I know my survey is unscientific and doesn't represent the entire Would of earthcaching, but well over 80% of the cachers I have talked too visit ECs for one or both of two reasons. One is that disreputable WOW factor which means seeing something worthwhile and the second is to simply capture a smiley. Yeah, yeah I know the earthcache concept was created with the sole purpose of the 'learning experience', but like it or not an unintended consequence is people visiting, seeing and enjoying some wonder of nature. Is there really something wrong with seeking an answer by reading a sign? Guess what? Reading is one of the basic portals to learning! If the sign matches the geology it seems to fit 'the learning experience' rather well. Reading the cache page, reading a sign or some other required research are all reading. Yes, it is simple to identify an waterfall with a given classification. Maybe some will learn what are the types of waterfalls. Until the visit, most cachers never knew that waterfalls were classified! Oh yes, there are those simple estimate questions i.e. how tall or how wide. Maybe when the estimate is confirmed or corrected, a little learning takes place. Learning how to be accurate with 'outdoor' estimates can be important and could even save a life! I'll wind down this with this. Learning takes place in even the most simple forms. If we don't attract folks to ECs then one thing is for sure.................no learning at all takes place. Thanks.

Hey guys. There are no answers. Who said GS has to be consistent? I still believe that GS doesn't believe that ECs are "mainstream" geocaches, but they are sort of an oddity. Kinda like someone's crazy uncle. If you dig far enough in the forum archives, you can find where photos can be still be required for an EC log under certain circumstances. It not clear as to what those circumstances are. At the time of the discussion it was as clear as looking through a foot thick block of sandstone. I guess GSA got out voted by GS. Who knows. This is one of the reasons I have sort of given up on developing ECs. I hate inconsistency. I gave up on the photo argument a long time ago!

I did find that a little funny too with all the emphasis on adding more and more material to the cache pages to just get them through review. I am with you 'Chokecherry' and I have several emails to prove it. Yes, I have saved every email pertaining to getting all 60 ECs published! Many have requested lengthening the content. I am glad to see it is different now. I have noticed how brief many of the newer ECs are described. Perhaps some are too brief?

Daniel, either way seems OK. All of yours are great. As a side, but related note. I find it rather amusing that suddenly, brevity is valued!

Manville, you're OK. Thanks.

I agree. All the vitriol was unnecessary.

Never, you say? Keeps saying "don't let it go to your head"? Keeps saying????? While we may and can differ regarding any topic on this forum and yes, it can get heated, why the personal aspect? For your benefit, I changed my note regarding using the expression "don't let it go to your head". While I cannot remember when I used it orally, I know I have never used it in relation to caching or to put someone down. Kidding a friend yes, but using it as you did in a negative mocking, manner, no! Your use of the expression is still out of it's proper context. It just doesn't fit the discussion or use of the phrase, "it's a game!" P.S. Saying it wasn't a cheap shot doesn't change the fact it was a cheap shot! Wouldn't it be better to stay on topic?

That's a great link GEO WALKER. I have used it before. Thank god for short cuts and brief lessons. I'm too old to learn to be a programmer! Thanks, since I lost the page.

As someone around here keeps saying, don't let it go to your head, it's a game. Nice! It didn't go to anyone's head, especially mine! I am at the far end of the spectrum of those who criticize logs and want to get out their red pencils. If anything, I have been criticized for being too lenient. While saying 'nothing' is short, it's fine and perfectly proper. Usually a reference to the saying of "don't let it go to your head" means someone being overly proud or bragging about some feat. Just curious, as to where it fits with my fun intended example? Yes, I agree it's a game whom some people take much too seriously! "Don't let it "go to your head", never used the expression regarding caching!

Why can't these discussions stay on topic? I give up.................next topic to stray from!

Did I mention IQ? I don't think so. A lot of things in nature are 'normally' distributed. Height, weight, etc. etc. and while reading levels are correlated to IQ, they are distinctly two different but related things (concepts). I have a couple of degrees in psychology and for the record have never heard of the theory that "Reading abilities and also performance at school are, however, known to be not necessarily closely linked to the IQ." Actually, no matter what you think of the IQ concept, the relationship is clear. How do you think IQs are measured? The two components, verbal and performance are distinctly different, but one thing for sure, a high reading comprehension level usually relates to high over all IQ. All of this is pedantic and as the guidelines say, average 14 year old!, not IQ levels of 130+, not college level reading levels, but that same old 14 year old that has been mentioned over and over. Paint it any way you want and some countries may have deficient earthcaches which do not appeal to the puzzle minded, but the guidelines are clear!