I!
-
Posts
829 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by I!
-
-
I suggest another size category called the Quark.
You've done that series too? A good leg-stretch, but I thought having only eight caches was a bit miserly.
-
Oops ... I should not have underestimated the omnipresent attention of the review team!In view of the additional information now available about this cache and a potentially dangerous location I've temporarily disabled it and contacted the cache owner.Here's hoping this won't make me public enemy #1. ( Top five I can live with, though
) -
As far as this one goes, I agree that if there is danger to cars below then it is bad, but like someone else said if that wire mesh is there to catch stuff then why the worries?
Ah yes, I forgot to answer that. The mesh is pulled tight-ish across the bridge the whole way across, leaving only an inch-or-so's gap. Can't see the point of it myself except to hold cache boxes tucked-in! I think CO now appreciates the risk and, as I noted previously, has PM'd to say he'll move it. I'll keep watching just in case.
Thanks again for the advice.
-
I would have to see pictures before I could make a determination.
Good call re the picture -- will take photographic evidence to the review team if it's needed ...
... which it might not be since CO has just PM'd to say he'll move it "asap". Great!
Thanks, all.
-
Cache GC294YV opened recently. It's a small tupperware box placed on the outside of a bridge over a lane of traffic, held in place by being partially tucked in to a wire mesh that stretches across the bridge some two feet or so below the top. To get it, you have to reach over (safe enough for adults) and stretch, whilst hoping not to distract the oncoming traffic and absolutely praying not to fumble the cache and so drop it onto a car.
The cache has met with some very favourable comments, but I'm not so sure. I posted a note explaining why I thought it could put drivers (and nearby pedestrians) at risk, but the cache owner deleted that and PM'd me to say just what he thought of my intervention.
Just thought I'd ask here ... am I being over-cautious?
-
Although this still doesn't quite answer my "why?", your preceding sentence suggests you're in the same egalitarian-minded group that toz described: so I can see that providing the temptation and means to make PMO caches specifically for one's friends would be objectionable. (Note, however, that my aim was subtly different: if a cache "had" to be PMO for whatever reason then I'd like my friends still to be able to see it).what i don't agree with is that what you are suggesting is in a sense trying to pass on the perks you are getting as premium member onto your friends, different story if they were family membersThanks t4e and toz -- you've told me something about geocaching culture that I'd not appreciated before.
-
Ah-ha. That's an interesting contrast to at least one other dissenting opinion which, dare I say it, seemed to be of an elitist "I paid for PM so why should the OM oiks get a look-in" nature.I can guarantee that there will be people who will object to this change because they will find it elitist or unfair.So I imagine the people you refer to would object to my idea on the grounds that it would encourage the proliferation of PMOCs.
Oh, what's the point arguing. I'm only on this forum today because it's rainy outside!
-
If you don't get it then that puts you in the "ignore" camp in my hypothetical example. Okay, I have no argument with that.
You are mistaken that I am trying to bend the guidelines. The thread title is "Suggestion: ..." -- I was hopeful of getting broad agreement that friends access to PMO caches could be a Good Thing, and that the developers might consider implementing it. However, after several replies exhibiting rigid adherence to the status quo, I see little future for the idea. Oh well, it was worth a go.
-
Gitchee-Gummee, t4e and tozainamboku ... Imagine there was a check-box when editing your PMO cache that said: "extend access to basic member friends as well? [Yes/No]". Some people, me included, would definitely use that. Some others would ignore it. And a significant remainder would, it seems, object to the existence of this feature. Why? Are they (/you) worried that the loss of upgrade revenue from these lucky friends will push up your subscription by a few pence?
If your objection is on the grounds of pain (for Groundspeak developers) outweighing gain then I have no argument with you. But if you feel that the idea is, in itself, somehow morally reprehensible then I'm baffled.
-
Thank-you, people, for the helpful advice, especially baloo&bd's link.
When I make a cache "PMOC" it's because I want to give it protection from scavengers. I am in the fortunate position of being able to trust my friends, so wish to include them among the group that can view my protected caches. Why the few dissenters here should wish to deny their "friends" this privilege (which extends only to one's own caches) is beyond me
-
Not that good of a friend, eh?I want except to pay for him to have a membership upgrade (fat chance!).I take it you want him/her to VIEW your caches. But not hunt for them? Hmmmmmmm...
Well, your choices seem to be to wait until your friend decides to go premium, or make your caches open for all members. You can "de-premium-ize" a cache.
No, I want him to be able to access my caches as if he was a premium member; but I don't want to open up those particular ones to the general population.
I could obviously print off the cache description, hand him the paperwork, and say "off you go". He'd find the cache and could write in the log book ... but geocaching.com wouldn't offer him the facility to log that find online (nor to log the removal of any trackables). That's an unfortunate gap in functionality IMO.
-
First post here; apologies if a FAQ ...
I would like to allow a particular ordinary member to view my premium caches. I would have thought that the natural mechanism was to make him a geocaching.com friend; but this doesn't have the desired effect. I can't see any way of achieving what I want except to pay for him to have a membership upgrade (fat chance!).
Thoughts? (I can't see why anyone would want to hide caches from their friends ...)
)
using google maps to find catches quicker
in General geocaching topics
Posted
On the evidence of my own hides, I'd say yes you can.