Member only caches and why I hate them.

[+Zop]

Hi All, I just know the topic has been discussed and the title is sure to get a lot of flack but let's face it. Members only caches cause a lot of sad faces when out caching with my kids or new comers who just want to know what it's all about before diving in the way I did.

 

Several times now, my kids have been along with me for a day outdoors caching. Most of the time they have a great time - until they come home to log their finds only to find out that some may be "Members Only".

 

Don't get me wrong! I'm a member and will continue to be one but my kids are not. Not that $30 is a lot of money - $90 is. And we're a small family!

 

I became a member not to find these off limit caches but to support the hard work behind geocaching.com and all they have done. As a member I do take advantage of pocket queries and download waypoints several times a week. Since most of the time, we are using my PDA and my GPS, there will be "Members Only" caches in my tools.

 

Unfortunately, there does not seem to be any way to determine which is which when on the road! So, when we get home after a fun day caching, my kids often find that they are excluded from logging their finds. This, in a nutshell, SUCKS.

 

I have only 350 or so finds so far but I have yet to see a "Members Only" cache stand out above the rest. I understand that members (myself included) want to encourage support for those who put this all together and keep it going but there should be some sort of "Family" membership that can allow for situations where spouses and children are covered or at least a way to let them log a find.

 

Just my $.02 worth.

[+CYBret]

Here ya go

[+The Jester]

Hi All, I just know the topic has been discussed and the title is sure to get a lot of flack but let's face it. Members only caches cause a lot of sad faces when out caching with my kids or new comers who just want to know what it's all about before diving in the way I did.

 

Several times now, my kids have been along with me for a day outdoors caching. Most of the time they have a great time - until they come home to log their finds only to find out that some may be "Members Only".

 

Don't get me wrong! I'm a member and will continue to be one but my kids are not. Not that $30 is a lot of money - $90 is. And we're a small family!

 

I became a member not to find these off limit caches but to support the hard work behind geocaching.com and all they have done. As a member I do take advantage of pocket queries and download waypoints several times a week. Since most of the time, we are using my PDA and my GPS, there will be "Members Only" caches in my tools.

 

Unfortunately, there does not seem to be any way to determine which is which when on the road! So, when we get home after a fun day caching, my kids often find that they are excluded from logging their finds. This, in a nutshell, SUCKS.

 

I have only 350 or so finds so far but I have yet to see a "Members Only" cache stand out above the rest. I understand that members (myself included) want to encourage support for those who put this all together and keep it going but there should be some sort of "Family" membership that can allow for situations where spouses and children are covered or at least a way to let them log a find.

 

Just my $.02 worth.

Yep, you're right. The GPX file doesn't have any way of marking which are MOCs. But there is the "back door" method that CYBret linked to, so your kids can log them.

[+pigpen4x4]

"there should be some sort of "Family" membership that can allow for situations where spouses and children are covered or at least a way to let them log a find."

 

Ok, so now you have a Zop family find, you still don't have Zop child #1 find or Zop child #2 find. Nothing has changed.

I guess I really don't see the problem. My kids "log" with me, as they don't have (or need) their own accounts. If one of my children is with me, I sign the log as PigPen4X4 & Piglet I, II or III, Or Piglets III if I have all three. If later they get their own accounts, they can go back and read the logs and back log as needed. Since they can't go on their own, I just don't see the need in them having their own accounts.

 

Also, you can filter out MOC's in your PQ. Problem solved. No crying kids.

PP

[+cache_test_dummies]

I understand that members (myself included) want to encourage support for those who put this all together and keep it going but there should be some sort of "Family" membership that can allow for situations where spouses and children are covered or at least a way to let them log a find.

Here is a recent discussion on Family Memberships. In that topic, Jeremy weighs in favorably on the subject, so there is reason to hope that such a feature will be implemented at some point.

[+Kit Fox]

Hi All, I just know the topic has been discussed and the title is sure to get a lot of flack but let's face it. Members only caches cause a lot of sad faces when out caching with my kids or new comers who just want to know what it's all about before diving in the way I did.

 

Several times now, my kids have been along with me for a day outdoors caching. Most of the time they have a great time - until they come home to log their finds only to find out that some may be "Members Only".

 

Don't get me wrong! I'm a member and will continue to be one but my kids are not. Not that $30 is a lot of money - $90 is. And we're a small family!

 

I became a member not to find these off limit caches but to support the hard work behind geocaching.com and all they have done. As a member I do take advantage of pocket queries and download waypoints several times a week. Since most of the time, we are using my PDA and my GPS, there will be "Members Only" caches in my tools.

 

Unfortunately, there does not seem to be any way to determine which is which when on the road! So, when we get home after a fun day caching, my kids often find that they are excluded from logging their finds. This, in a nutshell, SUCKS.

 

I have only 350 or so finds so far but I have yet to see a "Members Only" cache stand out above the rest. I understand that members (myself included) want to encourage support for those who put this all together and keep it going but there should be some sort of "Family" membership that can allow for situations where spouses and children are covered or at least a way to let them log a find.

 

Just my $.02 worth.

 

With 350 finds, you should already know how to use the tools available to you, (like pocket Queries.)

 

Yep, you're right. The GPX file doesn't have any way of marking which are MOCs. But there is the "back door" method that CYBret linked to, so your kids can log them.

 

Wrong!

 

[+The Jester]

Hi All, I just know the topic has been discussed and the title is sure to get a lot of flack but let's face it. Members only caches cause a lot of sad faces when out caching with my kids or new comers who just want to know what it's all about before diving in the way I did.

 

Several times now, my kids have been along with me for a day outdoors caching. Most of the time they have a great time - until they come home to log their finds only to find out that some may be "Members Only".

 

Don't get me wrong! I'm a member and will continue to be one but my kids are not. Not that $30 is a lot of money - $90 is. And we're a small family!

 

I became a member not to find these off limit caches but to support the hard work behind geocaching.com and all they have done. As a member I do take advantage of pocket queries and download waypoints several times a week. Since most of the time, we are using my PDA and my GPS, there will be "Members Only" caches in my tools.

 

Unfortunately, there does not seem to be any way to determine which is which when on the road! So, when we get home after a fun day caching, my kids often find that they are excluded from logging their finds. This, in a nutshell, SUCKS.

 

I have only 350 or so finds so far but I have yet to see a "Members Only" cache stand out above the rest. I understand that members (myself included) want to encourage support for those who put this all together and keep it going but there should be some sort of "Family" membership that can allow for situations where spouses and children are covered or at least a way to let them log a find.

 

Just my $.02 worth.

 

With 350 finds, you should already know how to use the tools available to you, (like pocket Queries.)

 

Yep, you're right. The GPX file doesn't have any way of marking which are MOCs. But there is the "back door" method that CYBret linked to, so your kids can log them.

 

Wrong!

 

You missed my point. In the GPX file there is no indicator that it is or isn't a MOC. Yes, you can set a filter on the PQ to exclude them, but once you have the file it doesn't have any field(s) to mark them. So there is no way to filter them out of CacheMate or GSAK or other third party programs.

[Keystone]

If the issue is that sensitive, run a PQ that is just for MOC's and process it separately in your offline software. For example you can change the name of each cache in that PQ to add the characters MOC at the end of the cache name. That way, you can choose to skip the MOC's if you're out hunting caches with regular members and don't wish to go through the process of backdoor logging.

[+Kit Fox]

 

You missed my point. In the GPX file there is no indicator that it is or isn't a MOC. Yes, you can set a filter on the PQ to exclude them, but once you have the file it doesn't have any field(s) to mark them. So there is no way to filter them out of CacheMate or GSAK or other third party programs.

 

I understand where you're coming from.

 

Unfortunately, there does not seem to be any way to determine which is which when on the road! So, when we get home after a fun day caching, my kids often find that they are excluded from logging their finds. This, in a nutshell, SUCKS.

 

Zop,

 

Haven't you ever bothered to plan ahead, and review caches before you go caching. Things like checking the status of the cache (disabled, PMOC, not kid friendly, etc.) If you plan on taking non PMOCs with you, try taking the time to plan ahead.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Zop,

 

Haven't you ever bothered to plan ahead, and review caches before you go caching. Things like checking the status of the cache (disabled, PMOC, not kid friendly, etc.) If you plan on taking non PMOCs with you, try taking the time to plan ahead.

Why? I have found a few caches, and can count the number of planned caching trips with my shoes on.

 

Even then, on our Dallas cache run that was carefully planned and orchestrated by four people for two months, we deviated and found caches not on our plan, and skipped some that were. Planned trips almost always fall apart.

 

There's an old saying that I believe in - Man plans, God laughs!

 

I load 1000 caches in the area where I am going into my GPS and PDA and set out! No planning involved.

 

I found my first 500 or so with no information but coordinates in an eTrex Yellow. Yes, I spent some time wasted on hunts where I needed more info... one notable cache where I spent two solid hours searching, returned home defeated, looked it up and it was a virtual! Oh well, all told I spent less time on such endeavors than if I had spent time planning and reading up on all possible target caches.

 

Without planning you DO lose the right to complain about DNFs, however!

[+Knight2000]

Zop,

 

Haven't you ever bothered to plan ahead, and review caches before you go caching. Things like checking the status of the cache (disabled, PMOC, not kid friendly, etc.) If you plan on taking non PMOCs with you, try taking the time to plan ahead.

Ummm. Sounds like a waste of time to me. Why not just load a fresh PQ for up to date results and go caching?

 

We do it, we have had no problems.

[+Knight2000]

Yes, we would LOVE the idea of a family membership. I like keeping good records and it would just be very helpful.

 

For instance if half of my family gets a cache and logs it, then we run a PQ and it omits that cache, half of the family misses the cache. We could run all caches in the PQ but then we get a bunch back that all of us have visited.

[+baloo&bd]

Zop,

 

Haven't you ever bothered to plan ahead, and review caches before you go caching. Things like checking the status of the cache (disabled, PMOC, not kid friendly, etc.) If you plan on taking non PMOCs with you, try taking the time to plan ahead.

 

Why? Some just like to load up and live by the creed "all who wander are not lost". Kind like a live version of the old method of web surfing.

 

I should state up front that the reasons for MOC's escapes me and most of those I cache with. The only reasons that comes close to valid for me are the log auditing and the muggle issue, the latter of which still doesn't really make sense. These are fairly rare around me.

 

Use the backdoor method however understand going in that every owner may not be as reasonable as others and delete the log. Not much you can do, it can even happen on the non-MOC's.

 

It would be great if you could get a family membership with an extra 2 ID's that are somehow limited, say no PQ's however the only real reason for this type of membership is this MOC issue. I do understand the potential however for abuse. Better to do away with the MOCs and make log auditing available to premium members. Most join to support the site, not for the ability to create restrictive MOC's anyway.

[+baloo&bd]

For instance if half of my family gets a cache and logs it, then we run a PQ and it omits that cache, half of the family misses the cache. We could run all caches in the PQ but then we get a bunch back that all of us have visited.

 

The multiple PQ's are one of the "abuses" that have been cited in the past. PQ's coupled with creative use of programs like GSAK eliminate the need for multiple pq's for groups.

[+Miragee]

<snip>

 

I should state up front that the reasons for MOC's escapes me and most of those I cache with. The only reasons that comes close to valid for me are the log auditing and the muggle issue, the latter of which still doesn't really make sense. These are fairly rare around me.

There are quite a few MOCs around here. Some start out as MOC's for a little while -- I did that with one of mine when it had a "White Jeep" in it -- and then they are opened up to everyone.

 

Here is one example of why someone makes a cache Members Only, and keeps it restricted.

 

I don't think anyone around here would delete the log of a non-member.

[+Knight2000]

For instance if half of my family gets a cache and logs it, then we run a PQ and it omits that cache, half of the family misses the cache. We could run all caches in the PQ but then we get a bunch back that all of us have visited.

 

The multiple PQ's are one of the "abuses" that have been cited in the past. PQ's coupled with creative use of programs like GSAK eliminate the need for multiple pq's for groups.

 

 

What do you mean multiple PQ's?

 

We dont run multiple PQ's. Currently if half the group gets a cache and we log it- the other half just misses out on the cache. Cause its eliminated in our PQ's.

 

We dont use GSAK. I dont want to have to pay extra money for a program when GC could just have a family account of some type.

[+Knight2000]

Here is one example of why someone makes a cache Members Only, and keeps it restricted.

 

I am not debating. I just dont understand why this is a MOC.

[+Kealia]

Why? I have found a few caches, and can count the number of planned caching trips with my shoes on.

 

Without planning you DO lose the right to complain about DNFs, however!

 

You're right, there is no NEED to plan ahead, but as you mentioned, if you don't you don't get the right to complain about things like missing caches, DNFs, or MOCs that you didn't "plan" on hitting.

 

... to create restrictive MOC's anyway.

 

I hate seeing this. Just because a cache is placed FOR a group of people (MOCs in this case) doesn't mean it was placed to EXCLUDE others. Not everybody can get every cache out there.

Apologies if that was not your intent, but I have issues with the self-entitlement that most people have these days.

If you're not a member, you don't get to find MOC.

If you can't SCUBA, you can't find SCUBA caches

[+baloo&bd]

Here is one example of why someone makes a cache Members Only, and keeps it restricted.

 

Sorry, I don't see why this is restricted. What am I missing?

[+Miragee]

If you read the cache page, I think it is evident . . .

 

It is the site of a plane crash. The cache owner doesn't want anyone who is not a Premium Member of the site to have access to the coordinates.

[+baloo&bd]

I hate seeing this. Just because a cache is placed FOR a group of people (MOCs in this case) doesn't mean it was placed to EXCLUDE others. Not everybody can get every cache out there.

Apologies if that was not your intent, but I have issues with the self-entitlement that most people have these days.

If you're not a member, you don't get to find MOC.

If you can't SCUBA, you can't find SCUBA caches

 

If not to exclude, then why?

 

This is not an issue of "self-entitlement". Caches are made to be found.

 

The analogy of SCUBA is a good one. If I have the training, ability and equipment I can find the SCUBA cache. Non-premium members have the training and equipment to find the MOC, why exclude them?

 

You're right, you don't have to find every cache, however it appears that their is a unusually high amount of MOC's in the OP's (or one of the previous posters) area. GC has made a point out of promoting the fact that you do not have to pay to play. Premium members get some additional features such as PQ's for supporting the site. This is a feature that is all too often abused and has outlived it's usefulness, if there ever was a real use.

 

It would be far easier just to eliminate the problem rather than coming up with a work around such as family memberships, which I support by the way for other reason, in this instance.

[+Knight2000]

If you read the cache page, I think it is evident . . .

 

It is the site of a plane crash. The cache owner doesn't want anyone who is not a Premium Member of the site to have access to the coordinates.

 

I read and still do not understand.

Pillaging wont happen if someone pays $3 a month?

[+Kit Fox]

Why? I have found a few caches, and can count the number of planned caching trips with my shoes on.

 

Without planning you DO lose the right to complain about DNFs, however!

 

Ummm. Sounds like a waste of time to me. Why not just load a fresh PQ for up to date results and go caching?

 

We do it, we have had no problems.

 

 

Why? Some just like to load up and live by the creed "all who wander are not lost". Kind like a live version of the old method of web surfing.

 

My point was related to the OP's complaint about taking their kids, or friends caching and finding out they can't log their find, because of the $3.00 restriction. If taking non Premium Members caching is something you do often, use the tools available to you, and then you would have less to complain about.

 

I cache by doing PQs of the caches that I prefer (3 + difficulty, or 3 + terrain.) Mostly, I download waypoints in bulk and find the caches that interest me.

 

On the other hand, I prefer to find caches with a minimum terrain of 4 stars, so I do plenty of research before hand. The chance of serious injury, being stuck overnight, as well as other variables requires a bit of pre-planning. I wouldn't recommend downloading a waypoint, and going off on a whim for this cache, (like the last DNF did)

[+TotemLake]

 

If not to exclude, then why?

It is to exclude... but iti s a membership perk and it is used a lot of times to allow paying members to have first crack at it.

 

This is not an issue of "self-entitlement". Caches are made to be found.

 

The analogy of SCUBA is a good one. If I have the training, ability and equipment I can find the SCUBA cache. Non-premium members have the training and equipment to find the MOC, why exclude them?

SCUBA is an exclusion by means of training, equipment AND membership of an affiliated SCUBA certified credential. Without that credential, your diving is illegal.

 

You're right, you don't have to find every cache, however it appears that their is a unusually high amount of MOC's in the OP's (or one of the previous posters) area. GC has made a point out of promoting the fact that you do not have to pay to play. Premium members get some additional features such as PQ's for supporting the site. This is a feature that is all too often abused and has outlived it's usefulness, if there ever was a real use.

Just because there are MOCs in place, does not mean the finder has to be a paid member to play. It just means the member has to pay to access the cache page by normal means.

 

It would be far easier just to eliminate the problem rather than coming up with a work around such as family memberships, which I support by the way for other reason, in this instance.

It's only a perceived problem by those who feel that all caches should be freely accessed. That's the entitlement crowd Kealia speaks about. Groundspeak is a commercial company and has every right to provide perks not otherwise provided to the general player. So why is THAT a problem?

My comments are in red.

[+Miragee]

Intersting that a thread that got an answer in the very first post has generated so much angst.

 

"Membership has its privileges."

[+Kit Fox]

 

If not to exclude, then why?

It is to exclude... but iti s a membership perk and it is used a lot of times to allow paying members to have first crack at it.

 

This is not an issue of "self-entitlement". Caches are made to be found.

 

The analogy of SCUBA is a good one. If I have the training, ability and equipment I can find the SCUBA cache. Non-premium members have the training and equipment to find the MOC, why exclude them?

SCUBA is an exclusion by means of training, equipment AND membership of an affiliated SCUBA certified credential. Without that credential, your diving is illegal.

 

You're right, you don't have to find every cache, however it appears that their is a unusually high amount of MOC's in the OP's (or one of the previous posters) area. GC has made a point out of promoting the fact that you do not have to pay to play. Premium members get some additional features such as PQ's for supporting the site. This is a feature that is all too often abused and has outlived it's usefulness, if there ever was a real use.

Just because there are MOCs in place, does not mean the finder has to be a paid member to play. It just means the member has to pay to access the cache page by normal means.

 

It would be far easier just to eliminate the problem rather than coming up with a work around such as family memberships, which I support by the way for other reason, in this instance.

It's only a perceived problem by those who feel that all caches should be freely accessed. That's the entitlement crowd Kealia speaks about. Groundspeak is a commercial company and has every right to provide perks not otherwise provided to the general player. So why is THAT a problem?

My comments are in red.

 

My favorite was your last post totemLake The "entitlement generation" has discovered Geocaching. That is why we have threads like, "it's not fair, premium members get the FTFs, boo hoo," and, "PMOC are elitist, this is a free game, I don't care who pays for the site upkeep, I should be able to find all caches."

 

Baloo,

 

Why don't you petition a ban on hard puzzle caches, or five star terrain caches, aren't they exclusionary? After all, puzzles weed out cachers who aren't good at puzzles, and high terrain caches weed out senior citizens, children, and the disabled.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

 

If not to exclude, then why?

It is to exclude... but iti s a membership perk and it is used a lot of times to allow paying members to have first crack at it.

 

This is not an issue of "self-entitlement". Caches are made to be found.

 

The analogy of SCUBA is a good one. If I have the training, ability and equipment I can find the SCUBA cache. Non-premium members have the training and equipment to find the MOC, why exclude them?

SCUBA is an exclusion by means of training, equipment AND membership of an affiliated SCUBA certified credential. Without that credential, your diving is illegal.

 

You're right, you don't have to find every cache, however it appears that their is a unusually high amount of MOC's in the OP's (or one of the previous posters) area. GC has made a point out of promoting the fact that you do not have to pay to play. Premium members get some additional features such as PQ's for supporting the site. This is a feature that is all too often abused and has outlived it's usefulness, if there ever was a real use.

Just because there are MOCs in place, does not mean the finder has to be a paid member to play. It just means the member has to pay to access the cache page by normal means.

 

It would be far easier just to eliminate the problem rather than coming up with a work around such as family memberships, which I support by the way for other reason, in this instance.

It's only a perceived problem by those who feel that all caches should be freely accessed. That's the entitlement crowd Kealia speaks about. Groundspeak is a commercial company and has every right to provide perks not otherwise provided to the general player. So why is THAT a problem?

My comments are in red.

 

My favorite was your last post totemLake The "entitlement generation" has discovered Geocaching. That is why we have threads like, "it's not fair, premium members get the FTFs, boo hoo," and, "PMOC are elitist, this is a free game, I don't care who pays for the site upkeep, I should be able to find all caches."

 

Baloo,

 

Why don't you petition a ban on hard puzzle caches, or five star terrain caches, aren't they exclusionary? After all, puzzles weed out cachers who aren't good at puzzles, and high terrain caches weed out senior citizens, children, and the disabled.

TotemLake and Kit Fox, I agree with each of you 150%; thank you each for stating it so well! The entitlement crowd has arrived, and boy, do they know how to moan and whine, and they do love to argue!

Edited April 20, 2007 by Vinny & Sue Team

[+Renegade Knight]

Intersting that a thread that got an answer in the very first post has generated so much angst....

 

I was noticing that. Heck I was ready to post an answer when I saw it had been done.

[+baloo&bd]

It would be far easier just to eliminate the problem rather than coming up with a work around such as family memberships, which I support by the way for other reason, in this instance.

It's only a perceived problem by those who feel that all caches should be freely accessed. That's the entitlement crowd Kealia speaks about. Groundspeak is a commercial company and has every right to provide perks not otherwise provided to the general player. So why is THAT a problem?

My comments are in red.

 

It is only a problem to the hiders, GC has a backdoor that they are fully aware of and have no issue with it being used.

[+baloo&bd]

Baloo,

 

Why don't you petition a ban on hard puzzle caches, or five star terrain caches, aren't they exclusionary? After all, puzzles weed out cachers who aren't good at puzzles, and high terrain caches weed out senior citizens, children, and the disabled.

 

Was wondering how long after you got backed into a corner with no logical response availabe the attacks would start. Took longer than usual.

 

If you read back through the posts, the MOC's are not the issue, it is the logs being deleted when they are logged by non-premium members. I did not call for any sort of ban, and entitlements was introduced by you and does not even remotely apply to the thread. I simply was offering an alternative solution of eliminating the problem rather than a workaround.

 

Sorry if I embarrased you.

Edited April 20, 2007 by baloo&bd

[+Kealia]

If you read back through the posts, the MOC's are not the issue, it is the logs being deleted when they are logged by non-premium members.

 

Actually, based on the thread title (Member only caches and why I hate them), I'd say that MOCs are the issue.

 

And with a title like that (stating personal opinions) you can't be surprised that there are so many opinions in here, can you?

[+Miragee]

Where have cache hiders deleted logs by non-Premium Members. I have never heard of that happening here. I very much doubt it would happen here . . .

 

When I had my MOC, I didn't check the profiles of the people who logged my cache . . .

[+The Jester]

The analogy of SCUBA is a good one. If I have the training, ability and equipment I can find the SCUBA cache. Non-premium members have the training and equipment to find the MOC, why exclude them?

The two lists don't match. Non-PM don't have the ability to see the MOC details (unless a PM give the info to them), so they "can't" find them (quotes because of the exception noted, hence the backdoor). That ability is perk of paying a fee to the website, just like PQ's, zoomable maps, and the like.

[+baloo&bd]

If you read back through the posts, the MOC's are not the issue, it is the logs being deleted when they are logged by non-premium members.

 

Actually, based on the thread title (Member only caches and why I hate them), I'd say that MOCs are the issue.

 

And with a title like that (stating personal opinions) you can't be surprised that there are so many opinions in here, can you?

 

You right, however if you then read the message, the subtitle came more in to play. It was a request for a family membership feature. Cybret pointed out how to log them, solving the problem, then someone quickly came in and mis-characterized logging them as "wrong".

 

I simply offered an alternative solution to the group membership (the real point of the OP) to the OP that on the surface sees like a good idea however has many drawbacks.

 

Opinions are great and the discussion was fine, however as is often the case, other agendas slipped in and the angst started.

 

So I am going to excercise my other alternative solution/option and head out the door to do some caches.

[+Cpt.Blackbeard]

 

then someone quickly came in and mis-characterized logging them as "wrong".

 

 

THey did? After reading that I went back and re-read every post up to yours and I still don't see anyone saying that. The closest I get to it is you yourself stating that some owners won't like it and will delete the logs. What are you reading that i"m not seeing?

[+Kit Fox]

Was wondering how long after you got backed into a corner with no logical response availabe the attacks would start. Took longer than usual.

 

If you read back through the posts, the MOC's are not the issue, it is the logs being deleted when they are logged by non-premium members. I did not call for any sort of ban, and entitlements was introduced by you and does not even remotely apply to the thread. I simply was offering an alternative solution of eliminating the problem rather than a workaround.

 

Sorry if I embarrased you.

 

Nobody backed me into a corner, and nobody embarrased me, you're debating a different thread, but you don't know it yet.

 

If you read back through the posts, the MOC's are not the issue, it is the logs being deleted when they are logged by non-premium members.

 

Deleted logs was not brought up by the OP, only being unable to log the finds for her kids.

 

and entitlements was introduced by you and does not even remotely apply to the thread.

 

Actually Entitlements was brought up by Kealia first, in this thread.

 

I also own a plane crash geocache, and it will always be a PMOC. Why, because I chose to, and I don't need to give a reason.

Edited April 21, 2007 by Kit Fox

[+TotemLake]

It would be far easier just to eliminate the problem rather than coming up with a work around such as family memberships, which I support by the way for other reason, in this instance.

It's only a perceived problem by those who feel that all caches should be freely accessed. That's the entitlement crowd Kealia speaks about. Groundspeak is a commercial company and has every right to provide perks not otherwise provided to the general player. So why is THAT a problem?

 

My comments are in red.

 

It is only a problem to the hiders, GC has a backdoor that they are fully aware of and have no issue with it being used.

No... it is not a problem to the hiders. It is a problem to the OP and others wanting to access the MOC page the normal way instead of using the backdoor method. Your arguement has been supporting that with statements that their reason for being escapes you and you labeled THAT as a problem. Now you try to twist away from it with doublespeak.

 

edited to fix the silly broken quote thing

Edited April 21, 2007 by TotemLake

[+Harry Dolphin]

Here is one example of why someone makes a cache Members Only, and keeps it restricted.

 

I am not debating. I just dont understand why this is a MOC.

 

I would guess that it's restricted because the owner chose to make it so. That would seem to be the owner's prerogative? Does he need a reason?

Most of OP's question was answered in post 2, by CyBret.

I did a few MOC caches before I became a member. With the permission of the cache owner. In fact, for one of them (before I found the loophole) the cache owner made it public for a half hour so that I could log it!

I became a member before there were more than a few MOCs nearby. I did it to support gc.com.

I cache with a non-paying member. (We shall demand a non-family joint membership!) We have done several PMOCs, and no one has ever complained about both of us logging them. (Okay, maybe they never noticed?)

Entitlement does seem to have crept into the thread. Is that like saying that if I buy a coach airline ticket, I should be entitled to the same service as those who paid for a First Class ticket? I don't see the difference.

[+Knight2000]

Here is one example of why someone makes a cache Members Only, and keeps it restricted.

 

I am not debating. I just dont understand why this is a MOC.

 

I would guess that it's restricted because the owner chose to make it so. That would seem to be the owner's prerogative? Does he need a reason?

Most of OP's question was answered in post 2, by CyBret.

I did a few MOC caches before I became a member. With the permission of the cache owner. In fact, for one of them (before I found the loophole) the cache owner made it public for a half hour so that I could log it!

I became a member before there were more than a few MOCs nearby. I did it to support gc.com.

I cache with a non-paying member. (We shall demand a non-family joint membership!) We have done several PMOCs, and no one has ever complained about both of us logging them. (Okay, maybe they never noticed?)

Entitlement does seem to have crept into the thread. Is that like saying that if I buy a coach airline ticket, I should be entitled to the same service as those who paid for a First Class ticket? I don't see the difference.

 

I dont think they need a reason to make anything a MOC. Its the owners choice and i respect it. I just didnt understand why Miragee wrote:

Here is one example of why someone makes a cache Members Only, and keeps it restricted.

I just personally didnt understand the "why" part of his comment.

 

Why can most certianly be because the owner wanted to.

 

Not trying to start debate. Just curious.

 

No answer needed. I honestly am not concerned with it. Its the owners choice, and i am fine with that.

[+SRD525]

Here ya go

 

I think "Keyboard Diarrhea" is a terrible affliction, almost as bad as being cheap.

Edited April 21, 2007 by SRD525

[+CYBret]

Here ya go

 

I think "Keyboard Diarrhea" is a terrible affliction, almost as bad as being cheap.

 

huh?

[+The Jester]

Here is one example of why someone makes a cache Members Only, and keeps it restricted.

 

I am not debating. I just dont understand why this is a MOC.

 

I would guess that it's restricted because the owner chose to make it so. That would seem to be the owner's prerogative? Does he need a reason?

Most of OP's question was answered in post 2, by CyBret.

I did a few MOC caches before I became a member. With the permission of the cache owner. In fact, for one of them (before I found the loophole) the cache owner made it public for a half hour so that I could log it!

I became a member before there were more than a few MOCs nearby. I did it to support gc.com.

I cache with a non-paying member. (We shall demand a non-family joint membership!) We have done several PMOCs, and no one has ever complained about both of us logging them. (Okay, maybe they never noticed?)

Entitlement does seem to have crept into the thread. Is that like saying that if I buy a coach airline ticket, I should be entitled to the same service as those who paid for a First Class ticket? I don't see the difference.

 

I dont think they need a reason to make anything a MOC. Its the owners choice and i respect it. I just didnt understand why Miragee wrote:

Here is one example of why someone makes a cache Members Only, and keeps it restricted.

I just personally didnt understand the "why" part of his comment.

 

Why can most certianly be because the owner wanted to.

 

Not trying to start debate. Just curious.

 

No answer needed. I honestly am not concerned with it. Its the owners choice, and i am fine with that.

The hider states on the page his reason. He wants a cache there, but wants limited numbers to prevent pillaging of the remains. Seems simple enough.

[+escondido100]

i am now a premium member beacause my bro gave me a boost so i can log some mainland hides.....however prior to this i was considering creating NON MEMBER only hides were i would only accept logs from non members....as a way to create something unique for those tha choose not to pay....just an idea...... as cache owner i have been led to believe you can have what ever you want for a cache and the rules that go with it...thought it might be interesting.

[+ArtieD]

i am now a premium member beacause my bro gave me a boost so i can log some mainland hides.....however prior to this i was considering creating NON MEMBER only hides were i would only accept logs from non members....as a way to create something unique for those tha choose not to pay....just an idea...... as cache owner i have been led to believe you can have what ever you want for a cache and the rules that go with it...thought it might be interesting.

 

 

That would be even easier to bypass than PMOC...not to mention kind of childish...but hey...

[+cache_test_dummies]

i am now a premium member beacause my bro gave me a boost so i can log some mainland hides.....however prior to this i was considering creating NON MEMBER only hides were i would only accept logs from non members....as a way to create something unique for those tha choose not to pay....just an idea...... as cache owner i have been led to believe you can have what ever you want for a cache and the rules that go with it...thought it might be interesting.

There is such a cache in Germany. Created quite a stir in the forums when it was placed.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

i am now a premium member beacause my bro gave me a boost so i can log some mainland hides.....however prior to this i was considering creating NON MEMBER only hides were i would only accept logs from non members....as a way to create something unique for those tha choose not to pay....just an idea...... as cache owner i have been led to believe you can have what ever you want for a cache and the rules that go with it...thought it might be interesting.

There is such a cache in Germany. Created quite a stir in the forums when it was placed.

Yes, and in that vein, if I remember correctly, I once created a cache where valid find claims could be made only by chain-smoking full-blooded Lithuanians with type A- blood who were full and active members in the third synod, fourteenth convocation, ninth conference, 1984 revision of a particular religion. The cache never had any finders. sigh.

[+Kabuthunk]

You missed my point. In the GPX file there is no indicator that it is or isn't a MOC. Yes, you can set a filter on the PQ to exclude them, but once you have the file it doesn't have any field(s) to mark them. So there is no way to filter them out of CacheMate or GSAK or other third party programs.

Well, until a 'family pack' becomes available (which I think is an excellent idea BTW... the hobby IS quite greatly about getting kids outdoors), you could go with the method that I used to tell which are winter accessible, and which aren't.

 

Basically, I had two PQ's. One was for all caches from home coords... the other was ONLY winter-accessible caches from home coords. I first uploaded the 'all caches' into the GPS... and then uploaded the winter-only caches, but added a "W" in front of the name, and changed the icon to the snowy mountain that's on the Garmin GPSMap 60cx. However, all of the winter-accessible caches WILL technically be listed twice... once with the snow icon, once without. On the map, the snowy mountain would appear overtop of the normal icon.

 

And thusly... that was my way around it. You could do the same with member's only, I suppose. Or as was posted right near the top of the topic... use the workaround to log 'em.

 

Man, that's gotta be kinda annoying though, for that many to be members only. Over here, there's only one Member Only cache in all of Manitoba.

[+Miragee]

i am now a premium member beacause my bro gave me a boost so i can log some mainland hides.....however prior to this i was considering creating NON MEMBER only hides were i would only accept logs from non members....as a way to create something unique for those tha choose not to pay....just an idea...... as cache owner i have been led to believe you can have what ever you want for a cache and the rules that go with it...thought it might be interesting.

Uh . . . Good luck with that . . .

[+cache_test_dummies]

Yes, and in that vein, if I remember correctly, I once created a cache where valid find claims could be made only by chain-smoking full-blooded Lithuanians with type A- blood who were full and active members in the third synod, fourteenth convocation, ninth conference, 1984 revision of a particular religion. The cache never had any finders. sigh.

Not true - I found that cache. I just never bothered to enter an on-line log because I knew you would just delete it. Check the log book in the cache if you don't believe me.

[+Airmapper]

Yes, and in that vein, if I remember correctly, I once created a cache where valid find claims could be made only by chain-smoking full-blooded Lithuanians with type A- blood who were full and active members in the third synod, fourteenth convocation, ninth conference, 1984 revision of a particular religion. The cache never had any finders. sigh.

 

Didn't you know they aren't allowed to Geocache? It is one of the ten "Forbidden Things."