Premium Member Only ECs?

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

Now I realize that most geocaches can be listed as Premium Member only but should EarthCaches be so listed? Marge and I just returned from a nearly 2000 mile round trip and noticed that some of the ECs we looked at along the way and here at home are listed as Premium Member only.

Due to the nature, pardon my pun, of EarthCaches being creations of nature and not man, should they be exclusively Member only?

Geoaware and others, do you have any opinion on this? Is that something you could consider for the guidelines? Thanks.

[+danieloliveira]

I am against any cache for PM's only. However, in the case of EC's that is an even bigger aberration than for a "normal" cache.

If EC's are meant to teach others about the processes that go on beneath our feet why limit that to only a select few that can and want to pay?

 

I am totally against it!

 

(spell edit)

Edited June 7, 2009 by danieloliveira

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

I am against any cache for PM's only. However, in the case of EC's that is an even bigger aberration than for a "normal" cache.

If EC's are meant to teach others about the processes that go on beneath our feet why limit that to only a select few that can and want to pay?

 

I am totally against it!

 

(spell edit)

 

I couldn't agree more. I was reviewing the EC org page and found this:

 

"An EarthCache site is a special place that people can visit to learn about a unique geoscience feature or aspect of our Earth. Visitors to EarthCache sites can see how our planet has been shaped by geological processes, how we manage the resources and how scientists gather evidence to learn about the Earth.'

 

While not a guideline as such, it seems that the allowance of ECs to be listed as Premium Member does violate the spirit of an EarthCache as expressed in the quote! Non Premium Members will not get the chance to visit. Maybe it could be incorporated into the guidelines?

[+GEO WALKER]

I Agree! This seems to defeat the purpose of EC’s, by limiting the educational audience. And it sounds [or could be viewed as] a bit too “elitist” for me...

[+DeRock & The Psychic Cacher]

I'm on the fence about this one.

 

As a cache owner I'm all for having a the control over my cache. If I want to make it a Premium Members only cache then that is my right.

 

As an EarthCacher I'm for everyone (geocacher or not) having the opportunity to visit my cache, complete the requirements, and log the cache.

 

Deane

AKA: DeRock & the Psychic Cacher - Grattan MI

[+danieloliveira]

I'm on the fence about this one.

 

As a cache owner I'm all for having a the control over my cache. If I want to make it a Premium Members only cache then that is my right.

 

As an EarthCacher I'm for everyone (geocacher or not) having the opportunity to visit my cache, complete the requirements, and log the cache.

 

Deane

AKA: DeRock & the Psychic Cacher - Grattan MI

 

Is "having the control " over your cache mean that only a select few can visit or does it mean that you control it in the sense that you only let people log finds in exchange for completing the requirements? I think the latter demonstrates real control.

[+joranda]

It is the option that you get when you pay for your premuim membership. It is the way groundspeaks works with its premium members to allow them the right of a members only cache.

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

I'm on the fence about this one.

 

As a cache owner I'm all for having a the control over my cache. If I want to make it a Premium Members only cache then that is my right.

 

As an EarthCacher I'm for everyone (geocacher or not) having the opportunity to visit my cache, complete the requirements, and log the cache.

 

Deane

AKA: DeRock & the Psychic Cacher - Grattan MI

 

Is "having the control " over your cache mean that only a select few can visit or does it mean that you control it in the sense that you only let people log finds in exchange for completing the requirements? I think the latter demonstrates real control.

 

Good point!

The only real control of our ECs is in Mother Nature's hands.

I know that paying the 30 bucks gets you the right but what are we gaining by using it? We didn't place a box and if I remember right, the proper term is EC developer not owner so why shut anyone out of finding what Mother Nature has created? If we play a role, it is only as a "gate keeper" so why not leave the gate open to everyone?

Please folks, don't get mad but consider not using the "Member Only" option.

Geoaware, you got an opinion on this?

Edited June 8, 2009 by Konnarock Kid & Marge

[+GEO WALKER]

I Agree…

I see absolutely no sense in limiting the educational base thru a PM Status. To me it defeats the purpose of an EC and it sounds, or can be viewed, as being somewhat “elitist”. So let’s not take that path…

[+Rev Mike]

I don't like the idea of ECs being listed PMO... but I don't really care enough to go to war over it.

 

I did not even know that it was possible since I have never seen it or considered doing it.

 

The only time I could ever see it being necessary to PMO an EC would be if it was a very sensitive area and you were trying to keep the number of visitors in check but then if that was really a necessary consideration than perhaps it would be best to question having a cache listed there at all.

 

- Rev Mike

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

I don't like the idea of ECs being listed PMO... but I don't really care enough to go to war over it.

 

I did not even know that it was possible since I have never seen it or considered doing it.

 

The only time I could ever see it being necessary to PMO an EC would be if it was a very sensitive area and you were trying to keep the number of visitors in check but then if that was really a necessary consideration than perhaps it would be best to question having a cache listed there at all.

 

- Rev Mike

 

Thanks Rev Mike.

You are right when you say that using the PMO option to limit visitors then perhaps there shouldn't be an EC there in the first place. It's kinda like being a little bit pregnant. You either should develop or not develop. I know that the reason the National Park Service allows ECs is because they are 'placed" on the trail without harm to the environment.

Other than the curiosity of knowing who is looking at your EC, I just don't find a good reason on using the PMO feature on ECs.

Geoaware, we would love to hear your opinion on this.

Edited June 10, 2009 by Konnarock Kid & Marge

[Mr.Yuck]

I don't like the idea of ECs being listed PMO... but I don't really care enough to go to war over it.

 

I did not even know that it was possible since I have never seen it or considered doing it.

 

The only time I could ever see it being necessary to PMO an EC would be if it was a very sensitive area and you were trying to keep the number of visitors in check but then if that was really a necessary consideration than perhaps it would be best to question having a cache listed there at all.

 

- Rev Mike

 

I had not thought about the sensitive area thing, excellent point!

 

I also feel some of the pro responses in this thread are elitist, along the lines that it's "the right" of the cache owner as a premium member. MOC's are supposed to be for combatting cache piracy (which isn't an issue with an Earthcache). Not do it just because you can.

[POLE POSITION]

I am totally against pm earth caches. I am against pm caches period (I don't think I'll include the punctuation mark since I already mentioned it ) I mean what if you don't have the money to be a pm? (like me)

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

I am totally against pm earth caches. I am against pm caches period (I don't think I'll include the punctuation mark since I already mentioned it ) I mean what if you don't have the money to be a pm? (like me)

Thanks for the input.

I was talking with a fellow geocacher the other day and he pointed out that with problem traditional geocaches (those that disappear) it is felt that having the PM option was important because you can see who has viewed the cache page and that in turn was a deterrent from mischief.

The conversation reminded me that we did have 3 caches that are PM only. For those who are interested, they are: The First, Fifth and Ninth Circles of Hell ( GC1A3TC, GC1CHDV, GC1A3R4). If you read the logs, you can see the problem. We have a good, but unprovable, idea who messed with them due to the page visit log. That and the fact they we locked the boxes to the trees have kept the caches from meanness! '

Now folks, with that little confession behind me, still leaves EarthCaches. We do not have and don't support having ECs as Member only.

I always try, emphasis on try, to keep an open mind, so those of you who do have PM ECs, please tell us why or what advantage have you found with the listing. Thanks and we would really love to have Geoaware's views. Any chance of a EarthCaching guideline on this subject?

Thanks to all.

Edited July 8, 2009 by Konnarock Kid & Marge

[+danieloliveira]

Please remember that being a premium member doesn't:

1- make you a better geocacher

2- give you instant access to sainthood

3- wipe away your past sins

4- give you instant wisdom

5- make you more earth-aware

6- elevate you to a higher echelon of society and it certainly does not mean that you are any better than the other geocachers.

[+Neos 1]

IMHO, PMO EarthCaches are just wrong. While I do support the idea that owners of physical caches have a right to make them members only, I find it counterproductive to do the same thing with EarthCaches. Aren't EC's about learning? Why would you deprive anyone of knowledge about the wonders of the planet just because they either won't pony up, or possibly can't afford to pony up for a premium membership. More knowledge is a good thing, right? I've learned new things about places I've known (or thought I did anyway) all my life thanks to EC's. What possible reason could there be for making learning a members only thing. As stated in an earlier post, if you're trying to limit the number of visitors because of ecological sensitivity, then perhaps there shouldn't be a cache there at all. I don't get it. I'll shut up now.

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

Please remember that being a premium member doesn't:

1- make you a better geocacher

2- give you instant access to sainthood

3- wipe away your past sins

4- give you instant wisdom

5- make you more earth-aware

6- elevate you to a higher echelon of society and it certainly does not mean that you are any better than the other geocachers.

Gosh Daniel, all this time I thought being a PM would at least give me a better chance at sainthood! Perhaps my only chance??? Darn it anyway, I'm gonna ask for a refund. Just kidding, I love your humor even if I don't have any.

Seriously, you are absolutely right. There is no need for ECs to be private. God didn't make them private from anyone! Using PM status on ECs ought to be banned. Yes, it is nice to see who's looking but is it necessary? Maybe there is a reason for it, I'm just too dumb to know!

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

IMHO, PMO EarthCaches are just wrong. While I do support the idea that owners of physical caches have a right to make them members only, I find it counterproductive to do the same thing with EarthCaches. Aren't EC's about learning? Why would you deprive anyone of knowledge about the wonders of the planet just because they either won't pony up, or possibly can't afford to pony up for a premium membership. More knowledge is a good thing, right? I've learned new things about places I've known (or thought I did anyway) all my life thanks to EC's. What possible reason could there be for making learning a members only thing. As stated in an earlier post, if you're trying to limit the number of visitors because of ecological sensitivity, then perhaps there shouldn't be a cache there at all. I don't get it. I'll shut up now.

 

Very good points!

[+Geoextreme87]

So I just ran into a Premium Member Earthcache just alittle bit ago. Is there anything in the actual EC guidelines to forbid this or is it just wishful thinking at the moment?

[Knight-Errant]

Our three cents worth (have to account for inflation). . .

 

While we fully support the OPTION of Premium Member Only caches (for a lot of reasons that we won't mention here), we believe that because of their unique nature, EarthCaches should NOT ever be restricted to Premium Members only. (Actually, we didn't even realize that this was an option.)

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

Our three cents worth (have to account for inflation). . .

 

While we fully support the OPTION of Premium Member Only caches (for a lot of reasons that we won't mention here), we believe that because of their unique nature, EarthCaches should NOT ever be restricted to Premium Members only. (Actually, we didn't even realize that this was an option.)

 

Talking about constructive changes to the EC listing guidelines, the previous two posts make good points. Unless there is a very rare reason for doing so, and there may be one, we don't believe ANY EC should be premium member only! How about it Geoaware? Can you respond? Please give us your opinion as this has come up before. Thanks.

[+TerryDad2]

I did it by accident on one of mine. It has been corrected, but if anyone sees one of my EarthCaches (or even the adoped out ones) set as premium, let me know and I'll get it corrected.

[+mfamilee]

I did it by accident on one of mine. It has been corrected, but if anyone sees one of my EarthCaches (or even the adoped out ones) set as premium, let me know and I'll get it corrected.

Here you go... I found 2 of your earthcaches set as premium members only.

(I was bored)

 

GC1X720

 

GC1VK9V

[+TerryDad2]

Here you go... I found 2 of your earthcaches set as premium members only.

(I was bored)

 

GC1X720

 

GC1VK9V

Thanks. All fixed.

 

Maybe that's why they haven't gotten many visitors...

[+Harry Dolphin]

Curious. I had never heard of such things until my last trip. I don't know of any near me. And I had never run across them on any previous geocaching trips. But, to my great surprise, they do exist! (Including one that I visited recently, that has changed over.) Bizarre, to say the least!

I guess it is to keep out the riffraff?

PMO does keep non-premium members from seeing the cache page, and to some extent keeps them from knowing that it exists. It certainly does not keep them from logging it. All it takes is a friend to print the page for you. And geocaching has no intent of closing the well-known back door for logging PMO caches. And will reinstate your log, if it is deleted.

Geocaching, obviously, works from templates. The EarthCaching pages are adapted from regular cache page templates. They did change the ability to log log travel bugs and geocoins through EarthCaches (and probably wished they had done that for Virtuals). I have no idea why they did not eliminate the ability to make EarthCaches PMO.

I agree. PMO Earthcaches is inane. There is absolutely no reason for them to exist. This should be changed.

[+Manville Possum]

I have logged 1 PMO EC that I recall, and it was in a public place. I don't think that EC's should be PMO.

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

I have logged 1 PMO EC that I recall, and it was in a public place. I don't think that EC's should be PMO.

Since I started this topic, I'm obviously with you. Unless there is a rare reason, it is silly and rather narcissistic to list ECs as PMO.

Thanks for your contribution and forget those who respond to you (in another thread) just to read their own words and to be mean spirited!

Even though there is plenty of room for disagreement, unless you are responding to a personal attack from a self proclaimed geo know-it-all, there is no need to use snide remarks.

Your posts represent an honest inquiry or response.

Keep on contributing. This forum is open to all!

[+narcissa]

I can't imagine why someone would list an Earthcache as PMO unless it was by mistake. There's no container to be stolen, and the entire point of the Earthcache program is to educate people. It seems obviously contradictory to limit who is allowed to learn.

 

BTW, there is a forum user who's been flying off the handle, using foul language, and consistently following up others' comments with bizarre personal comments. Snark is one thing, extensive insult campaigns dragged from one thread to the next are quite another.

 

A word of advice - you can't control what others say and do, but you can control how you react to it. If you choose to make a spectacle of yourself every time someone disagrees with you or makes light of a poorly-worded question, well, okay. It does liven things up, at least.

[+lachupa]

I'm not sure what the point would be. I'd be interested to hear it from someone who has one out there. The only thing I can think is that they had too many responses and got tired of answering all the e-mail but other than that I have no clue.

[+narcissa]

I'm not sure what the point would be. I'd be interested to hear it from someone who has one out there. The only thing I can think is that they had too many responses and got tired of answering all the e-mail but other than that I have no clue.

 

Maybe if they've had a problem with armchair logging?

 

I just can't imagine wanting to exclude casual geocachers, teenagers, young families, and other types of cachers who tend not to have Premium Membership.

 

I also don't think it's my responsibility as a cache owner to sell Premium Memberships to other geocachers.

[+Manville Possum]

I am glad that we as ECO's agree that EC's should not be PMO.

I only have two EC's, and plan on creating one more, one could not be published at this time because of White Nose Syndrome in Bats in our area, and I need one more find in another State also to get my Priemium EC Master level, that is my intentions. I don't think that I will create any more EC's, they are difficult if done correctly. I see posts about arm chair logging, I don't think that our area has that problem. Yet anyway. It could be due to the fact that they are very few EC's listed in the area that I live.

[+FunnyNose]

I can't imagine why someone would list an Earthcache as PMO unless it was by mistake.

 

I recently noticed that someone made all their Earthcaches PMO, I think is was their attempt to keep out the non-human loggers.

[+narcissa]

I can't imagine why someone would list an Earthcache as PMO unless it was by mistake.

 

I recently noticed that someone made all their Earthcaches PMO, I think is was their attempt to keep out the non-human loggers.

 

Sheesh.

[+Manville Possum]

I can't imagine why someone would list an Earthcache as PMO unless it was by mistake.

 

I recently noticed that someone made all their Earthcaches PMO, I think is was their attempt to keep out the non-human loggers.

You mean like Dogs that have user accounts? The K9 cacher that caches with me is not a PM, but I am. Logging a find for a basic member on a PMO cache is no problem. PM's use this "loop hole" all the time to log finds for their children that have basic user accounts.

[+Manville Possum]

Now I realize that most geocaches can be listed as Premium Member only but should EarthCaches be so listed? Marge and I just returned from a nearly 2000 mile round trip and noticed that some of the ECs we looked at along the way and here at home are listed as Premium Member only.

Due to the nature, pardon my pun, of EarthCaches being creations of nature and not man, should they be exclusively Member only?

Geoaware and others, do you have any opinion on this? Is that something you could consider for the guidelines? Thanks.

I think that this issue needs addressed. While geocaching in Cumberland Gap, Tn. in a National Historic Park, we found a PMO EC that is really just a virtual cache. The subject of the EC is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. What right does a CO have to make a PMO EC in a National Historic Park, when cache saturation is not an issue, as many Park visitors pass by the site daily, and it is promoted as a Historic site? Geoaware needs to set certin restrictions on PMO caches on public land, such as our Parks.

Edited September 27, 2010 by Manville Possum Hunters

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

Now I realize that most geocaches can be listed as Premium Member only but should EarthCaches be so listed? Marge and I just returned from a nearly 2000 mile round trip and noticed that some of the ECs we looked at along the way and here at home are listed as Premium Member only.

Due to the nature, pardon my pun, of EarthCaches being creations of nature and not man, should they be exclusively Member only?

Geoaware and others, do you have any opinion on this? Is that something you could consider for the guidelines? Thanks.

I think that this issue needs addressed. While geocaching in Cumberland Gap, Tn. in a National Historic Park, we found a PMO EC that is really just a virtual cache. The subject of the EC is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. What right does a CO have to make a PMO EC in a National Historic Park, when cache saturation is not an issue, as many Park visitors pass by the site daily, and it is promoted as a Historic site? Geoaware needs to set certin restrictions on PMO caches on public land, such as our Parks.

 

We are with you Manville! That EC as well as other ECs listed as 'Premium Member Only' is unnecessary. There is really no reason for using the PM designation. We too would like a response....maybe from Groundspeak????,,,,,,,, since they are now the 'final answer' on things 'earthcache!'

[+Touchstone]

...since they are now the 'final answer' on things 'earthcache!

 

I believe that Groundspeak has always been the Final word on all things Earthcaches

 

Regarding a response from Groundspeak, the Feedback site is probably the best place for that, since the Lackey's tend to monitor that area much more frequently than the regular Forums.

 

It appears that MPH has posted the topic for comments already (although it appears that MPH is kind of mixing two issues into one Feedback topic....i.e. PMO/Permission)

 

Ban PMO in NP and SP

 

I suspect that the answer would be something along the lines of "we'll get to it, when we get to it". Considering how long it took for Trackables to finally get fixed, I wouldn't hold my breath on this one

 

Personally, I don't really have strong opinions on this issue. It is what it is. If it goes away, fine. If not immediately, I'm not in any rush.

[+Manville Possum]

I am in no rush either touchstone. I am a PM, and some PMO caches are nessary. But EarthCaches are supposed to be educational and related to Earth science. Some of the older ones published are just glorifyed virtuals, and as we all know, GC plans on bringing back virtual caches. I just think that PMO caches should be limited as to where and why. Making an EarthCache PMO just because you can to keep basic members away is not a reason. Sure, Groundspeak has the last say, but I just do not think that Geoaware would approve such a cache, and some guidelines need to be created involving our National and State Parks concerning EarthCaches and virtuals. The leave no trace rule is already in place for EC's.

[+Touchstone]

I'm not a terribly big fan of the "more is better" attitude towards the Guidelines, and in fact, I feel pretty strongly that even minor updates to the Guidelines should be done on a Geologic time scale. Even changes ofonce a year are to frequent IMO. Changes to the Guidelines merely make it difficult for the casual user of the site, and do little to enhance the sport, and perpetuate the myth that Geocaching is some kind of secret society with arcane and difficult to understand rules.

 

As far as the LNT aspects of Earthcaches is concerned, I can't dispute that it is about as low impact as we can get. However, I'm no stranger to the fact that there have been more than one issue come up regarding even Virtual Listings in sensitive areas (usually Archeological) that Land Managers have requested/demanded be removed from the site.

 

I don't think it's a coincidence that the first principle of LNT states that we should, above all else, obey all laws and regulations regarding recreational use of Public Lands.

[+geoaware]

I personally do no think any EarthCaches should be Premium Member Only.

 

However, the final decision on PMO's rests with Groundspeak.

[+Manville Possum]

I personally do no think any EarthCaches should be Premium Member Only.

 

However, the final decision on PMO's rests with Groundspeak.

Thank you Geoaware, your opinion carries a lot of weight. Maybe Groundspeak will consider what you, and EarthCache developers like myself and others think about this issue. Jeremy has already said that GC is going to reinstate some type of virtuals, and I enjoy historical caches. Many locations a physical cache could not be placed. Let's just hope that PMO caches are limited to physical caches, and not applied to ANY type of virtual cache.

Edited September 28, 2010 by Manville Possum Hunters