Members Only Caches

Posted January 19, 2008 · January 19, 2008

My brother-in-law has a Premium membership, and by Summer, I hope to upgrade as well. What I want to know is can non-Premium members who are caching with a Premium member get credit for a Members Only Cache? There are a few of these types of caches in the nearest big league sports town, and if I take off for the weekend to go see a game, with the intent of picking up a few caches, and some non-Premium friends (that sounds rude) go caching with me, how do I tell them that "Even though you helped find it, you can't count it"?

Posted January 19, 2008 · January 19, 2008

You would have to contact the cache owner, I have done this for people caching with their children in the past. When contacted I have open the cache for a 24 hour period of time to allow them to log the find.

All but one of my caches are Members only caches.

This is because I have been having a problem with someone taking my cache containes for the past year,

Posted January 19, 2008 · January 19, 2008

It is said that there is a "back door" for logging PMOCs. Use the search function on the forums and you will find it. Trivia question: What happened on this day in history: January 17, 2007?

Edited January 19, 2008 by Confucius' Cat

Posted January 19, 2008 · January 19, 2008

It is also said the owner of the cache should delete any bogus finds. If the owner does not want non members to find the cache, the owner can just delete the log.

It may be easier to just ask for permission first. Why take the chance of getting a local cachey upset with you.

Posted January 19, 2008 · January 19, 2008

It is also said the owner of the cache should delete any bogus finds. If the owner does not want non members to find the cache, the owner can just delete the log.

It may be easier to just ask for permission first. Why take the chance of getting a local cachey upset with you.

Unless an owner states that they don't want a non-premium member to log the cache, I see no reason for them to ask permission to register an online find after they've signed the log of the cache. TPTB have provided the method for standard members to log the finds online...any owner that doesn't spell it out and then later gets angry is being WAY too sensitive.

Posted January 19, 2008 · January 19, 2008

It is also said the owner of the cache should delete any bogus finds. If the owner does not want non members to find the cache, the owner can just delete the log.

It may be easier to just ask for permission first. Why take the chance of getting a local cachey upset with you.

Unless an owner states that they don't want a non-premium member to log the cache, I see no reason for them to ask permission to register an online find after they've signed the log of the cache. TPTB have provided the method for standard members to log the finds online...any owner that doesn't spell it out and then later gets angry is being WAY too sensitive.

Making the cache a Members only cache spells it out.

Any finder that uses a back door to log a find is being to sensitive when there log get deleted

Posted January 19, 2008 · January 19, 2008

A non-PM logging it is hardly a "bogus finds".

They can log it. If the owner has an issue, they can delete it however most are not that elitist. If it is deleted, there are other methods to keep the numbers straight if that is the concern.

Taking them with, having the fun of the search and attempting to log are all acceptable practices.

Posted January 21, 2008 · January 21, 2008

That happens when my son caches with me and we do a members only cache along with the others. He doesn't get credit for him. He's ok with it. He enjoys the hunt. :unsure:

Posted January 21, 2008 · January 21, 2008

Making the cache a Members only cache spells it out.

Any finder that uses a back door to log a find is being to sensitive when there log get deleted

I agree 100%. The fact that a cache owner made the cache a "Members-Only" cache should be enough to clearly communicate the owner's desire that only members log the find. Spelling it out in the cache description is redundant.

Unless an owner states that they don't want a non-premium member to log the cache, I see no reason for them to ask permission to register an online find after they've signed the log of the cache. TPTB have provided the method for standard members to log the finds online...any owner that doesn't spell it out and then later gets angry is being WAY too sensitive.

That's the same kind of logic that leads to ridiculous warning labels like "Allergy alert: may contain nuts" (seen on a can of Planters Mixed Nuts) or "Not to be used for trimming hedges" (seen on a push mower) or "Caution: contents may be hot" (seen on a McDonald's coffee cup).

Posted January 21, 2008 · January 21, 2008

I would hope that PMOC cache owners would be willing to make exceptions.

My kids are 5,3 and 1 and I log their finds on a different account that isn't PM. I am sure there are a lot of us in that boat.

Personally, if I made a PMOC I wouldn't care who logged it. If they can find it, obviously they have a way to get PM info. and I am not going to question how that happens.

Posted January 21, 2008 · January 21, 2008

I agree 100%. The fact that a cache owner made the cache a "Members-Only" cache should be enough to clearly communicate the owner's desire that only members log the find. Spelling it out in the cache description is redundant.

Not always. I've had MOC caches and if a non member wanted to log one I was happy to take it off MOC status temporarily to allow him to do so. I had reasons to make them MOC that did not include exclusivity. If someone found my MOC cache, member or not, I still think he should be able to log it.

I'm sure many other MOC cache owners feel the same. In fact I know some do.

Edited January 21, 2008 by briansnat

Posted January 21, 2008 · January 21, 2008

I agree 100%. The fact that a cache owner made the cache a "Members-Only" cache should be enough to clearly communicate the owner's desire that only members log the find. Spelling it out in the cache description is redundant.

Not always. I've had MOC caches and if a non member wanted to log them I was happy to take it off MOC status teomorarily to allow them to do so. I had reasons to make them MOC that did not include

exclusivity. I'm sure many other MOC cache owners feel the same. In fact I know some do.

Agreed - I have no problem with non PMs logging my PM caches (when I have them). I understand the multiple good reasons for wanting to log them as finds.

Posted January 21, 2008 · January 21, 2008

I would hope that PMOC cache owners would be willing to make exceptions.

I don't have any PMOC caches yet (I've got two in the works that will likely be PMOC), but if a finder would contact me before logging the find, I would likely make an exception. I believe that is different than circumventing the system to log a find, and assuming the cache owner won't mind, or even worse, expecting that they should allow it.

Posted January 21, 2008 · January 21, 2008

The vast majority of our caches -- including all of our Psycho Urban Caches and Psycho Backcountry Caches -- are Premium member-only caches, and we never mind non-PMs logging a find (via any of the known back door methods) if they happened to find the cache in the company of a Premium member. This is simply not a problem for us.

However, on the related topic of owner control over legitimacy of finds, I do sometimes have a problem with non-corporeal beings or entities claiming a find on our caches. For example, a few mystical cachers on the West Coast (all were located in California) have claimed to have found some of our Psycho Backcountry caches while astral traveling, that is, while traveling out of the body, and in many of those cases, I have deleted their online find log because their signature was not to be found in the logbook. Luckily, the few time travelers or folks using time-space portals to log finds on our Psycho caches have actually signed the logbook, and thus there was no question/doubt about allowing their online find logs to remain in place.

Posted January 21, 2008 · January 21, 2008

Not always. I've had MOC caches and if a non member wanted to log one I was happy to take it off MOC status temporarily to allow him to do so. I had reasons to make them MOC that did not include exclusivity. If someone found my MOC cache, member or not, I still think he should be able to log it.

I'm sure many other MOC cache owners feel the same. In fact I know some do.

It doesn't sound like you disagreed with my point. My point was that non-Member finders shouldn't assume that they have the right to log Member-only caches. As I mentioned, given a good reason (several have been mentioned), and given that permission was asked before logging the find, I would likely make an exception and allow the find to be logged by a non-member. However, that's different than what KoosKoos suggested, which is that owners shouldn't mind if non-members log unless they specifically forbid it in their cache's description page.

Posted January 21, 2008 · January 21, 2008

It doesn't sound like you disagreed with my point. My point was that non-Member finders shouldn't assume that they have the right to log Member-only caches.

In this case, the majority of the time you would be safe in making the assumption to log. Very few cache owners would have an issue with someone using the well publicized workaround.

Caches are meant to be found.

Posted January 21, 2008 · January 21, 2008

Not always. I've had MOC caches and if a non member wanted to log one I was happy to take it off MOC status temporarily to allow him to do so. I had reasons to make them MOC that did not include exclusivity. If someone found my MOC cache, member or not, I still think he should be able to log it.

I'm sure many other MOC cache owners feel the same. In fact I know some do.

It doesn't sound like you disagreed with my point. My point was that non-Member finders shouldn't assume that they have the right to log Member-only caches. As I mentioned, given a good reason (several have been mentioned), and given that permission was asked before logging the find, I would likely make an exception and allow the find to be logged by a non-member. However, that's different than what KoosKoos suggested, which is that owners shouldn't mind if non-members log unless they specifically forbid it in their cache's description page.

My wife and I have found a few MOCs together. We have a membership between us, but it's on my account. We always use the back door to log her finds. She was there, she found it, so why not? We figure that if the owner doesn't like it he can delete her find. I don't think that the owner needs to mention on the page that he won't accept logs from non members, but it couldn't hurt.

Posted January 21, 2008 · January 21, 2008

I guess I see two situations, one of which I wouldn't have a problem accepting a non-member to log, and one of which I would:

Acceptable:

Several geocachers are searching together, at least one of which is a Premium Member, and at least one of which is not. All sign the log, making the find using the premium member's coordinates. All log online as well. Of course, it would be courteous of the non-members to either ask permission first, or include a brief explanation in their logs.

Not Acceptable:

A non-premium member geocacher somehow gets the coordinates, either by asking for them from a friend, or some other way, then goes out alone, finds the cache, and logs it without requesting permission to do so.

Posted January 21, 2008 · January 21, 2008

I guess I see two situations, one of which I wouldn't have a problem accepting a non-member to log, and one of which I would:

Acceptable:

Several geocachers are searching together, at least one of which is a Premium Member, and at least one of which is not. All sign the log, making the find using the premium member's coordinates. All log online as well. Of course, it would be courteous of the non-members to either ask permission first, or include a brief explanation in their logs.

Not Acceptable:

A non-premium member geocacher somehow gets the coordinates, either by asking for them from a friend, or some other way, then goes out alone, finds the cache, and logs it without requesting permission to do so.

See, that's interesting to me because I see little difference between the two scenarios.

I guess, me personally, I just see PMOC's as primarily being a way to avoid random web searchers access to a cache in an area that you want to be extra-sensitive about making sure the cache doesn't get muggled. I wouldn't bother monitoring logs for membership, myself.

Not sure what general thought behind them is though as a whole of the community.

Not that your intent is wrong...I can see your logic behind the integrity of using the information.

Posted January 21, 2008 · January 21, 2008

Making the cache a Members only cache spells it out.

Any finder that uses a back door to log a find is being to sensitive when there log get deleted

I agree 100%. The fact that a cache owner made the cache a "Members-Only" cache should be enough to clearly communicate the owner's desire that only members log the find. Spelling it out in the cache description is redundant.

Unless an owner states that they don't want a non-premium member to log the cache, I see no reason for them to ask permission to register an online find after they've signed the log of the cache. TPTB have provided the method for standard members to log the finds online...any owner that doesn't spell it out and then later gets angry is being WAY too sensitive.

That's the same kind of logic that leads to ridiculous warning labels like "Allergy alert: may contain nuts" (seen on a can of Planters Mixed Nuts) or "Not to be used for trimming hedges" (seen on a push mower) or "Caution: contents may be hot" (seen on a McDonald's coffee cup).

Poppycock & Boulder dash. Sorry couldn't resist saying that.

If you hunt with a PM and find the cache, you found the cache. Your's is the kind of logic that leads to logs being deleted because a person used to be a PM but isn't one when the owner of the cache checks.

Posted January 21, 2008 · January 21, 2008

I guess, me personally, I just see PMOC's as primarily being a way to avoid random web searchers access to a cache in an area that you want to be extra-sensitive about making sure the cache doesn't get muggled.

Thanks for your thoughts. My next question was going to be, "Well, then, what are PMOCs for, anyway?" I can see your perspective. I guess it's all a matter of how strict the cache owner wants to be with the logging. As I've mentioned before, I don't have any PMOCs, so I guess I don't have any real-world experience - just thoughts about how I would hypothetically handle the situation.

I had also previously thought (before reading this thread) that there was really no way for non-PMs to access the coords for a PMOC cache unless they get them from someone else, which I figured was a violation of the guidelines. I also was unaware of a backdoor that would allow PMs to log a PMOC cache.

Posted January 21, 2008 · January 21, 2008

I guess I see two situations, one of which I wouldn't have a problem accepting a non-member to log, and one of which I would:

Acceptable:

Several geocachers are searching together, at least one of which is a Premium Member, and at least one of which is not. All sign the log, making the find using the premium member's coordinates. All log online as well. Of course, it would be courteous of the non-members to either ask permission first, or include a brief explanation in their logs.

Not Acceptable:

A non-premium member geocacher somehow gets the coordinates, either by asking for them from a friend, or some other way, then goes out alone, finds the cache, and logs it without requesting permission to do so.

Again the logic is off.

MOC only means that you can't view the cache page without being a member. Nothing more. IT doesn't bar you from finding the cache on accident. It doesn't mean you best friend isnt' a PM and likes caching with you. IT doesn't mean you can't find the cache and sign the log. It doesn't mean that you can drop out of caching and stop being a PM yourself. You can also have info from when you were an MOC but dodn't hut the cache until after your PM status is gone.

It would be an additional logging requirment on the cache to say "Only MOC's can log".

Why would you assume that you can't log?

Posted January 21, 2008 · January 21, 2008

...Thanks for your thoughts. My next question was going to be, "Well, then, what are PMOCs for, anyway?" ...

They give you a way to see who's been looking at your cache page. That's rather cool.

Even though there is a way to log, it does slow down cache traffic. There are times when that's a handy tool.

In my area MOC caches tend to survive longer before being stolen. (that gets controversial but it's a simple fact).

Posted January 21, 2008 · January 21, 2008

I also was unaware of a backdoor that would allow PMs to log a PMOC cache.

Yeah, and it's my understanding the back door has been deliberately left unlocked as well...

Posted January 21, 2008 · January 21, 2008

I agree 100%. The fact that a cache owner made the cache a "Members-Only" cache should be enough to clearly communicate the owner's desire that only members log the find. Spelling it out in the cache description is redundant.

Not always. I've had MOC caches and if a non member wanted to log one I was happy to take it off MOC status temporarily to allow him to do so. I had reasons to make them MOC that did not include exclusivity. If someone found my MOC cache, member or not, I still think he should be able to log it.

I'm sure many other MOC cache owners feel the same. In fact I know some do.

As a cache owner with numerous PMOCs I have no problem allowing members to log finds, provided that they actual found the cache, and signed the log. On one of my PMOCs I noticed a "found it" log that referenced numerous cachers whom I already knew were members. I emailed eah of them and invited them to log their find, with the direct link. They were very appreciative, and their logs were far more entertaining than the PM logger who they tagged along with.

Posted January 21, 2008 · January 21, 2008

Do the logs written in a PM only cache indicate whether the cacher is a premium member or a regular member? Or would a cache owner have to go to each logger's profile to see what kind of member they are?

Posted January 22, 2008 · January 22, 2008

Do the logs written in a PM only cache indicate whether the cacher is a premium member or a regular member? Or would a cache owner have to go to each logger's profile to see what kind of member they are?

I was going to make this point. As an owner of PMOCs I would have to check each logger's profile to see if they were a PM. WAY too much effort. If they've found it and logged it GREAT! If they don't know the backdoor and ask me, I tell them about it.

And what about PM's who log as a PM, drop the PM - are their logs then deleted? <_< I think a mountain is being made out of a molehill. :unsure:

Posted January 22, 2008 · January 22, 2008

And what about PM's who log as a PM, drop the PM - are their logs then deleted? I think a mountain is being made out of a molehill.

I think in fairness to kwikstix response a couple things have to be considered...

1. He openly admitted that he is somewhat new to the concept of PMOC's and how they work.

2. His intention wasn't selfish, or thoughtless, in fact quite the opposite...he was doing what he thought was the right thing by thwarting efforts by people who were back-dooring, cheating the system by logging PMOC's when they weren't paying for the service.

An honest, easy mistake to make until you understand that GC.com has deliberately allowed this loophole to remain open.

Edited January 22, 2008 by egami

Posted January 22, 2008 · January 22, 2008

I guess, me personally, I just see PMOC's as primarily being a way to avoid random web searchers access to a cache in an area that you want to be extra-sensitive about making sure the cache doesn't get muggled. I wouldn't bother monitoring logs for membership, myself.

No need to make a cache PMO for that reason. Random web searchers cant see any cache coordinates. If they create an account and log in they can see them. that is a bit more effort than 'random web searching" and makes them theoretically traceable by GC.

Posted January 22, 2008 · January 22, 2008

I guess, me personally, I just see PMOC's as primarily being a way to avoid random web searchers access to a cache in an area that you want to be extra-sensitive about making sure the cache doesn't get muggled. I wouldn't bother monitoring logs for membership, myself.

No need to make a cache PMO for that reason. Random web searchers cant see any cache coordinates. If they create an account and log in they can see them. that is a bit more effort than 'random web searching" and makes them theoretically traceable by GC.

That's what I meant...a random searcher can create an account and have instant access to standard cache locations.

Posted January 22, 2008 · January 22, 2008

I think a mole hill has been made out of thin air.

If a cacher puts his/her signature in the log book the online log stands.(one of my caches) I don't care if they got Scotty to beam them to the cache from orbit.

Posted January 22, 2008 · January 22, 2008

I think if your name's in the logbook inside the cache, it's perfectly OK to log online.

What do you do if someone logs your PM only cache on the logbook? Erase the entry, tear out the page?

Some log only in the logbook in the cache and do not log online anyway.

I say if their name is in the physical log, they made the effort to go to the cache and find it.

Allow the log online as well.

Posted January 22, 2008 · January 22, 2008

A good discussion - my horizons have been broadened! The root of my initial disagreement was not really in the logging of a PMOC by a non-PM, but in their ability to seek it in the first place (unless, as I mentioned before, by accompanying a PM). I guess my opinion was (and perhaps still is) that the purpose of making a cache PMOC is to limit, primarily in quantity, but also perhaps arguably in quality, the geocachers who are able to seek the cache.

For instance, I am working on an earthcache which would be on private property (the owners of which I know fairly well). The requirements of the earthcache would certainly be met (including the requirement that the earthcache be for a unique or unusual geologic feature), but there is no signage, no visitor's center, indeed no markings or indicators at all that would provide any guidance to seekers. Due to some concerns from the landowners, I planned to make this earthcache PM only, under the assumption that fewer people will seek it, and those who do will likely be more experienced, or at least more dedicated geocachers, and therefore will be more likely to take better care of the site. (Again, this may be an arguable point - I'm sure there are exceptions, but it seems logical.)

I'm still not quite sure what all the backdoor entails. Does it give non-PM cachers the ability to see the coordinates of a PMOC, or does it merely provide the ability for them to log the PMOC (meaning they would still need to get the coords from a PM)?

Posted January 22, 2008 · January 22, 2008

I'm still not quite sure what all the backdoor entails. Does it give non-PM cachers the ability to see the coordinates of a PMOC, or does it merely provide the ability for them to log the PMOC (meaning they would still need to get the coords from a PM)?

The backdoor being referenced allows logging, that's all.

There is also, however, at least one hacky way to get coordinates within a hundred feet or so.

Posted January 22, 2008 · January 22, 2008

The backdoor is just for logging.. you could probably figure out where a premium member cache is with a some work, but I think if getting the coords is worth the hours to you, it'd be worth the 30 bucks to you to just be able to view the page.

I think most of the cases where non-members want to log member only caches are a matter of not knowing that the cache you sought was a premium member cache b/c you were caching with a member and the member did the prep... and I'm inclined to believe that when people make caches member only, it's for a host of reasons such as security from the less experienced, maybe you want to see whos working on your puzzle; but not for some elitist reason.

Maybe I'm wrong, but if I owned a member only cache I really wouldnt care if a non member found it with their friend and wanted to log it. They legitimately found the cache.

Members Only Caches

Recommended Posts

Join the conversation