Premium Members EarthCache

[+Keith Watson]

A friend pointed out to me an EarthCache that is listed as a premium members cache listing. Should this be allowed, or should EarthCaches be available to everyone. I would say that given their educational value, they should be available to all.

[cezanne]

A friend pointed out to me an EarthCache that is listed as a premium members cache listing. Should this be allowed, or should EarthCaches be available to everyone. I would say that given their educational value, they should be available to all.

 

I agree with your conclusion that Earth caches listed as SO (subscriber only)-caches are not desirable. My reasoning is, however different. My point of view is not the one of the individual cacher (every cacher can become PM if he wishes to), but a more general one taking into account the image of geocaching. I think that the description of Earth caches should be available to non-cachers as well in order to enable them to check whether the "leave no trace outdoor ethics" which is part of the Earth cache guidelines is really taken into account. In this manner both credibility and transparency profit. Sometimes SO-caches are misused to hide borderline caches from the public. This should not happen for Earthcaches. If an Earthcache site reacts very sensitively to extra traffic, then the site is not the right place for an Earth cache.

 

All in all, I would suggest to ban SO-only Earth caches.

 

 

Cezanne

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

A friend pointed out to me an EarthCache that is listed as a premium members cache listing. Should this be allowed, or should EarthCaches be available to everyone. I would say that given their educational value, they should be available to all.

 

I agree with your conclusion that Earth caches listed as SO (subscriber only)-caches are not desirable. My reasoning is, however different. My point of view is not the one of the individual cacher (every cacher can become PM if he wishes to), but a more general one taking into account the image of geocaching. I think that the description of Earth caches should be available to non-cachers as well in order to enable them to check whether the "leave no trace outdoor ethics" which is part of the Earth cache guidelines is really taken into account. In this manner both credibility and transparency profit. Sometimes SO-caches are misused to hide borderline caches from the public. This should not happen for Earthcaches. If an Earthcache site reacts very sensitively to extra traffic, then the site is not the right place for an Earth cache.

 

All in all, I would suggest to ban SO-only Earth caches.

 

 

Cezanne

 

I totally agree with both of you.

Other than in some rare circumstance, we don't see the need to list an EarthCache as PM or SO. With regular or traditional caches, some claim that listing them as SO can deter malicious mischief. That may be very well true but EarthCaches cannot fall victim to a thief. Unfortunately, we know of at least one cacher who lists ALL of his ECs as PM.

In our humble opinion, just because you have the right to do it, doesn't make it right!

 

P.S. There is a previous thread on this very topic. I don't know if this will work, but here is the link:

 

PM only EarthCaches

Edited January 27, 2010 by Konnarock Kid & Marge

[GermanSailor]

I would say that given their educational value, they should be available to all.

I would say since everybody sees the listing anyway, the educational value is there. However just PM can log the earthcache, but even that is not the case since you can log a PM cache even if you are a basic member. Finding out how to do that has some "educational value" as well.

 

How many discussions about subscribers only caches are necessary?

 

GermanSailor

[+Keith Watson]

I would say since everybody sees the listing anyway, the educational value is there. However just PM can log the earthcache, but even that is not the case since you can log a PM cache even if you are a basic member. Finding out how to do that has some "educational value" as well.

 

If it is restricted, how will non premium members know where to find it?

 

How many discussions about subscribers only caches are necessary?

 

As many as it takes.

[cezanne]

I would say that given their educational value, they should be available to all.

I would say since everybody sees the listing anyway,

 

That's wrong. Only PMs can view SO-only caches. Others just get the message that the viewed cache is a subscriber only cache.

 

However just PM can log the earthcache,

 

That's wrong as you mention in the second part of your statement yourself (which contradicts the first part).

 

The key issue is not about logging an Earth cache, but about creating a trustful atmosphere for the public outside of the geocaching community. Land owners, environmental activists, hunters and many others should have the chance to view the descriptions of Earth caches and see what the visitors are required to do and when the Earth cache received visits. This is not possible in the case of SO-only caches as a non-cacher will not become a PM in order to be able to check a cache in his area. SO-only Earth caches create the impression that the community has something to hide from the public and that's the major argument

against SO-only Earth caches. (Note: SO-only caches have been introduced because some caches got muggled. As has already been noted above, there is no danger that Earth caches will get muggled. So there is no plausible argument to be presented to the public for hiding Earth cache descriptions from them except that something illegal or at least questionable is happening there.

 

Consider e.g. an Earth cache that leads cachers to a cave which is used by hibernating bats. Suppose that the logging tasks do not require a visit to the inside of the cave, but that the cave can be entered.

Locking away such caches from the people who might have an interest to see whether the cave is visited by cachers and when, is not a good idea at all.

 

How many discussions about subscribers only caches are necessary?

 

The discussion here focuses on Earth caches and not on caches in general. Earth caches differ from physical caches by being container-less caches and by putting more stress put on the outdoor ethics than in the case of other caches.

 

Cezanne

Edited January 27, 2010 by cezanne

[+Arby Gee]

I agree that Earthcaches should be accessible to as many people as possible. But I can see the rare circumstance where it might be necessary to list an Earthcache for premium members only. If a site is particularly sensitive, or if a land manager is particularly sensitive, it might give them greater peace of mind to know that only premium members will be able to visit.

[cezanne]

If a site is particularly sensitive,

 

Then there should be no Earth cache there. PMs do not behave any more respectfull than non-PMs. It always depends on the individual cacher.

 

or if a land manager is particularly sensitive, it might give them greater peace of mind to know that only premium members will be able to visit.

 

Well, ok that might lead to an exception if it's really based on the desire of the land manager (then the major argument raised above becomes obsolete anyway as the land manager knows about the cache and its design). I do not think, however, that the involvement of land managers (if existent at all) is something that occurs typically outside of the US. In countries like Germany and Austria almost none of the existing Earth caches has to pass any sort of ok-obtaining process.

 

In those cases it is very important from my point of view to give the people who might have some concern about caches in a certain area at least the chance to view the caches. Otherwise, they are not able to contact the creator of the cache or Groundspeak in case of problems which leads to the situation that no one will be informed about the Earth cache. Under such circumstances, I feel that it is of utmost importance that Earth cache descriptions are viewable to the public.

 

In any case, in reality restricting a cache to be viewable only for PMs does not really keep any cacher from visiting the cache. Most cachers know other cachers and so they have no problem to obtain the description of a SO-only cache if they cannot access it with their own account. The situation is of course different for persons who are not cachers themselves. So the main effect of turning an Earth cache into a SO-only cache is to keep away non-cachers from viewing the cache description (in many cases this is also exactly what is intended by turning a cache into a SO-only cache), and not restricting the number of visits.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited January 27, 2010 by cezanne

[+cincol]

............ it might give them greater peace of mind to know that only premium members will be able to visit.

 

Why? Are PM's more superior to a non-PM just because they spent $20? I am terribly sorry but do not buy that one. I am not a PM because where I live there is absolutely no need to be one. So now when I visit the US [or wherever] I suddenly become a 3rd rate citizen purely because I am not a PM and am now excluded from visiting EarthCaches because some superior being who is a PM has excluded me, a non-PM, from an educational experience. This is open discrimination and I am sure it is not in line with the ideals of GSA.

 

My 2c worth.

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

............ it might give them greater peace of mind to know that only premium members will be able to visit.

 

Why? Are PM's more superior to a non-PM just because they spent $20? I am terribly sorry but do not buy that one. I am not a PM because where I live there is absolutely no need to be one. So now when I visit the US [or wherever] I suddenly become a 3rd rate citizen purely because I am not a PM and am now excluded from visiting EarthCaches because some superior being who is a PM has excluded me, a non-PM, from an educational experience. This is open discrimination and I am sure it is not in line with the ideals of GSA.

 

My 2c worth.

Your 2c worth is worth a lot more!

Like we said earlier, unless there is some rare circumstance, you should be allowed to visit and log ANY EC.

We have 3 of our traditional caches listed as PM because they are night caches and have been muggled. I must admit, it is fun to see who and when someone visits a cache page, but not at the expense of keeping others away (non-PMers).

There are some really nice advantages of being a PM such as PQs, etc. , but seeing and logging an EC shouldn't be one.

P.S. To cincol, beware when CS comes to your end of the World! We hope you can teach him to rappel off of a sand dune! That way, when he falls on his butt, he will do little damage!

[+Arby Gee]

Are PM's more superior to a non-PM just because they spent $20? This is open discrimination and I am sure it is not in line with the ideals of GSA.

 

No, PMs are not superior, and I don't ever have any intention of making any of my caches, EC or not, subscriber only. BUT, if I came across a land manager who was unwilling to permit an Earthcache unless I restricted it to subscribers only, I would probably do it. Better some than none.

Edited January 27, 2010 by Arby Gee

[+Cav Scout]

Its an option to premium members, so why not.

 

A friend pointed out to me an EarthCache that is listed as a premium members cache listing. Should this be allowed, or should EarthCaches be available to everyone. I would say that given their educational value, they should be available to all.

[+Touchstone]

Its an option to premium members, so why not.

 

I agree. If Groundspeak felt otherwise, no doubt they would remove the option.

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

The debate isn't about the fact you can use the PM feature ......it is why? Maybe a new EC or some other temporary reason or some special reason for a special EC, but for all ECs? Some, thank God few, use the PM for all of their ECs. Why?

P.S. The 30 bucks we spent for PM status was well worth it, but not to use the PM feature on ECs.

Edited January 28, 2010 by Konnarock Kid & Marge

[cezanne]

Its an option to premium members, so why not.

 

I provided very important reasons why Earth caches (the stress is on Earth cache!) should not be listed as SO-only caches. The non-caching public has a right to be able to view the descriptions of Earth caches.

 

Other cache types are a different topic and I am pretty sure that the possibility for SO-only Earth caches only exists because they are integrated into Groundspeak's system in which it is not that easy to treat different cache types in different ways.

 

 

Cezanne

[+Touchstone]

The non-caching public has a right to be able to view the descriptions of Earth caches.

 

I'm not sure I've seen this "right" written down anywhere?

 

...because they are integrated into Groundspeak's system in which it is not that easy to treat different cache types in different ways.

 

That seems like a reasonable assumption, and probably one reason that PM feature is not turned off for that specific cache type.

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

OK folks, here is a major reason why MOST ECs shouldn't be listed as SO or PM. Various land managers of National Parks, National Forests and certain state and private parks that have been so gracious in allowing EarthCaches want to see the written page.

Even if a land manager doesn't require having access to the cache page, I make sure they get it. This promotes good will and allows them to see the final product. Because of this, I have gotten comments from various associates of these land managers and suggestions for change and tips on other possible EC sites.

The bottom line: required or not, land managers should have access to "their" EarthCaches. Required or not, they cannot see the EC if it is PM/SO. If park/forest officials want/deserve to see their EarthCache shouldn't all of the people who allow us to list an EC be able to see it? After approval, we ALWAYS send the appropriate url (link) to the person who gave permission. Folks, that's just good community relations and if the ECs are hidden away as PM/SO they simply are not seen!

Frankly, beside seeking and receiving approval from the land manager/owner, we believe it ought to be required that the cache url be sent to them! If you got approval, why not? I have not found one land manager/owner who didn't enjoy seeing "their" EC. Especially with photos, most are really proud of it!

Geoaware......hint, hint.

[+Touchstone]

Good point KK&M but not totally convincing. I suspect the really relevant information on the Listing to most Land Managers is the coordinates (i.e. where is it?). In order to see the coordinates they must register on the site. Groundspeak has a very long standing policy of offering PM to Land Managers who ask for it. So PMO Listings appear irrelevant to the argument.

[cezanne]

Good point KK&M but not totally convincing. I suspect the really relevant information on the Listing to most Land Managers is the coordinates (i.e. where is it?).

 

First, many locations can be reasonably described also without having to use coordinates (for most Earth caches I know the GPS-r is just needed to include it into the photograph) and second, there is nothing that keeps a creator of an Earthcache to mention coordinates also within the text of the description.

In case of Earth caches with multiple stages, this is even the standard way it is done.

 

Moreover, I do not agree that the coordinates are the only relevant information. It is at least of equal importance to what the visitors are suggested to do or not to do (e.g. keeping to the paths in a protected area, not to visit caves with hibernating bats during the cold seasons etc). Even if someone got to see the description of an Earth cache when it is published, there is nothing that hinders the creator of an Earth cache to change the text later on.

 

In order to see the coordinates they must register on the site.

 

As mentioned above this is not necessarily true. Moreover, registering is still a much lower hurdle than having to pay just to be able to look at the description to see whether or not the Earth cache fulfills all local rules.

 

Groundspeak has a very long standing policy of offering PM to Land Managers who ask for it.

So PMO Listings appear irrelevant to the argument.

 

Land managers exist only in some areas of the world and even in the US not for all areas for which sensitive treatment of the area is something desirable. Groundspeak's US-policy might be possible if there are just a few people they have to deal with in this way. It would clearly be not possible at all for Groundspeak to offer a PM-access to all people who have a legitimate interest into the description of Earth caches in European countries (there are far too many of them). Moreover, it should be taken into account that many land owners, environmental activitists, government officers etc are not sufficiently proficient in English to be willing and able to contact Groundspeak. As Groundspeak is just a small company, they will not be able to deal with foreign language requests (examples from the past show that such requests are simply ignored), and therefore what you suggest will not workout in most parts of the world.

 

 

Cezanne

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

Good point KK&M but not totally convincing. I suspect the really relevant information on the Listing to most Land Managers is the coordinates (i.e. where is it?). In order to see the coordinates they must register on the site. Groundspeak has a very long standing policy of offering PM to Land Managers who ask for it. So PMO Listings appear irrelevant to the argument.

I am sorry that I was "not totally convincing". Perhaps if you have dealt with as many Land Managers/owners as we have, you would be a little more convinced.

Your point that GS has a long standing policy of "offering PM to Land Managers" is not relevant.

First, they the Land Manager would have to have an account with GS. Second, after they go to all of the trouble to establish this account, they would then have to apply for and receive PM status. Just to see our EC? Come on!

What about other owners of the land? You left them out. Most land owners who have given us permission don't give a hoot about geocaching much less want to establish an account that is never to be used!

Other than the argument that GS gave it to us therefore we should be able to use the feature, we haven't heard one point is this debate as to why the PM/SO SHOULD be used. As you alluded to, we also are not even close to being convinced!

Please present a reason WHY an EC should be listed as PM/SO which is something beyond 'we got it therefore we should use it'. We can jump off one of the rock outcrops that we have as an EC, but that doesn't mean we should! Thanks.

[GermanSailor]

That's wrong. Only PMs can view SO-only caches. Others just get the message that the viewed cache is a subscriber only cache.

That's true, sorry. I thought that basic members see the listing, but not the coordinates.

 

However just PM can log the earthcache,

Nice! Just quoting the part of my posting, which fits. Lets read the complete sentence:

However just PM can log the earthcache, but even that is not the case since you can log a PM cache even if you are a basic member. Finding out how to do that has some "educational value" as well.

That's wrong as you mention in the second part of your statement yourself (which contradicts the first part).

I just guess, I explained myself not clearly enough. Basic members CAN log SO, or PM-only geocaches!

 

Hiermit melde ich mich aus der Sozialneiddiskussion ab!

 

GermanSailor

[cezanne]

However just PM can log the earthcache,

Nice! Just quoting the part of my posting, which fits. Lets read the complete sentence:

 

I definitely read the whole sentence. That's why I wrote that the first part of your sentence is wrong and even contradicts the second part where you corrected yourself what you claimed in the first part.

Maybe you wanted to write something else and failed in expressing yourself in English - I only commented what you have written as I cannot see what's taking place in your mind.

 

Hiermit melde ich mich aus der Sozialneiddiskussion ab!

 

Why do you write this in German? In any case, the discussion here has no connection to social envy (Sozialneid) or related motives. It is a perfectly reasonable suggestion to suggest to a cacher who is not a PM and complains that he cannot view SO-only caches to become a PM-member. Pesonally, I would not even mind if there existed caches for which one would have to pay on a per cache basis - I just would ignore most of them except those where what I get is worth my investment. All in all, none of my arguments in this thread has anything to do with money or social status.

 

In my opinion it is quite ridiculous to ask government agencies, environmental activists, land owners etc to become PMs just to be able to view caches established on land into which they have a legitimate interest. Note moreover, that the text of non-PM cache descriptions is accesible and searchable via search machines like google while this is not the case for SO-caches which makes a big difference in some cases. A cache where e.g. a certain cave is mentioned in the description, can be found via google if it is a non-PM cache also by people who have never heard before about geocaching. This is not true any longer for SO-caches.

 

If there would exist a process like in many parks in the US where every hidden cache has to pass a review process at the local authorities, the ability to view the cache descriptions is not that important (though as a land manager I still would like to be able to read the logs without having to become a cacher at all - many reckless cachers even mention their inadequate behaviour in logs). In most European countries (there are execeptions, like e.g. the Netherlands), the situation is very different and SO caches there are there willingly used to hide borderline or even illegal caches from the non-caching public. That has never been the idea behind SO caches.

 

Cezanne

Edited January 28, 2010 by cezanne

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

However just PM can log the earthcache, but even that is not the case since you can log a PM cache even if you are a basic member. Finding out how to do that has some "educational value" as well.

As you can see, I am using all of the sentence and quite frankly it is a bit disturbing. Obviously, I'm not fond of using the PM designation for EarthCaches, but I am even less fond for using 'back door' methods of logging a cache which you were not supposed to have access to it in the first place.

This "educational value" which you alluded too, is it learning a method to hack your way into a log? I don't know, but I'll bet that isn't Groundspeak's intention!

Like I said, paying the small amount for being a Premium Member is well worth it and while you can maintain a non-PM membership and it is totally free, PM folks ought to get something for their money.

Heck, that 30 bucks allows the GS people to buy lunch!

[cezanne]

However just PM can log the earthcache, but even that is not the case since you can log a PM cache even if you are a basic member. Finding out how to do that has some "educational value" as well.

As you can see, I am using all of the sentence and quite frankly it is a bit disturbing. Obviously, I'm not fond of using the PM designation for EarthCaches, but I am even less fond for using 'back door' methods of logging a cache which you were not supposed to have access to it in the first place.

This "educational value" which you alluded too, is it learning a method to hack your way into a log? I don't know, but I'll bet that isn't Groundspeak's intention!

 

Let me put things into the right perspective. The method which can be used for logging SO-caches as a non PM is not a hack. It is just based on knowing the id of the PM-cache one wishes to log. (That id one needs to get from elsewhere, e.g. from a friend, family member etc who is PM.) Groundspeak is aware of the method (it has also been described numerous times on the Groundspeak board). I believe that they left that possibility open intentionally. Think of a family where the father or the mother is a PM and they go caching with three children and all of them have their own account. The children will most certainly not have a PM-account (which family would be willing to buy 5 PM-accounts?), but they certainly would like to log their find. A similar situation applies to caching in groups. Suppose some cachers solve together a puzzle and find the cache together. Then it is quite fair if all of them who contributed and signed the log book, will be eligible for a found log. Moreover, there are even caches which are listed as PM-caches on gc.com, but are listed also on other geocaching sites - so the cache description and the coordinates are available to the public anyway.

 

Cezanne

Edited January 28, 2010 by cezanne

[+narcissa]

PM folks ought to get something for their money.

 

Premium Members get plenty of benefits aside from the small handful of PMO caches put out by elitists.

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

However just PM can log the earthcache, but even that is not the case since you can log a PM cache even if you are a basic member. Finding out how to do that has some "educational value" as well.

As you can see, I am using all of the sentence and quite frankly it is a bit disturbing. Obviously, I'm not fond of using the PM designation for EarthCaches, but I am even less fond for using 'back door' methods of logging a cache which you were not supposed to have access to it in the first place.

This "educational value" which you alluded too, is it learning a method to hack your way into a log? I don't know, but I'll bet that isn't Groundspeak's intention!

 

Let me put things into the right perspective. The method which can be used for logging SO-caches as a non PM is not a hack. It is just based on knowing the id of the PM-cache one wishes to log. (That id one needs to get from elsewhere, e.g. from a friend, family member etc who is PM.) Groundspeak is aware of the method (it has also been described numerous times on the Groundspeak board). I believe that they left that possibility open intentionally. Think of a family where the father or the mother is a PM and they go caching with three children and all of them have their own account. The children will most certainly not have a PM-account (which family would be willing to buy 5 PM-accounts?), but they certainly would like to log their find. A similar situation applies to caching in groups. Suppose some cachers solve together a puzzle and find the cache together. Then it is quite fair if all of them who contributed and signed the log book, will be eligible for a found log. Moreover, there are even caches which are listed as PM-caches on gc.com, but are listed also on other geocaching sites - so the cache description and the coordinates are available to the public anyway.

 

Cezanne

Please forgive me, but do you want to argue for the sake of arguing? The topic is using the PM designation for ECs and for a while I actually thought we were on the same side of the debate!

Yes, I did mention using some other than the legitimate method to read about and log a PM cache and please believe me I am sorry I did so! I don't see any thing educational in beating the 'system'! I know that I am gonna regret this, but it's like the current health care debate. Why should I pay for the PM feature and you get a free ride and use part of it? You can always have others run PQs for you, but does it make it right!

Oh well back to your point. Encouraging someone to find and use a 'back door' method of logging a cache doesn't seem appropriate. I don't pretend to have a crystal ball and can determine what Groundspeak knows or doesn't know or what Groundspeak allows or doesn't allow, but if they wanted non-PM cachers to read and log PM caches then they would not have the designation in the first place! Maybe there is a way around and obviously using a GC number is one route, but again by definition PM caches are open only to PM cachers......at least officially!

If you want to find and log PM caches then pay the piper! Don't sneak around and use other's PM rights to circumvent the procedure. That's not much of an education!

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

PM folks ought to get something for their money.

 

Premium Members get plenty of benefits aside from the small handful of PMO caches put out by elitists.

 

I hope you know that I was just joking. I believe I said in an earlier post that the Premium Membership is "well worth it!" I just don't like using it as a barrier to EarthCaches, that's all. Thanks.

[cezanne]

Please forgive me, but do you want to argue for the sake of arguing? The topic is using the PM designation for ECs and for a while I actually thought we were on the same side of the debate!

 

Answer to your first question: No. I still believe that we are on the same side regarding the issue that SO Earth caches are not a good idea.

 

Yes, I did mention using some other than the legitimate method to read about and log a PM cache and please believe me I am sorry I did so! I don't see any thing educational in beating the 'system'!

 

It was not me who used the term "educational" in this context. I share your opinion that the term is not fitting in this context.

 

The method to log a SO cache as non-PM is however. neither a hack (as a computer-affine person I feel that the term hack should be used with care) nor is it based on something illegitimate. The log is done in the same way as thousands of cachers are logged each day, regardless of which type they are - there is not even a trick involved. That's a fact, not an opinion.

 

What you talk about is a different issue, and in that way you are the one who digress from the topic.

I never argued about whether there should be a way for non-PM cachers to log SO caches - I just stated that the way exists and that it is not based on a hack or on beating the system. If you would like Groundspeak to change its policy, write to them, but the Earth cache forum will not be a suitable place for that.

 

It is a pity that in this and also other geocaching forums, there is a high tendency that what people write is to be interpreted in a somehow selfish way. The same happens here at least to some extent. My motivation to argue against SO Earth caches has nothing to do with my status as non-PM. My reasons for not being a PM are on the one hand private reasons (not monetary ones - I often spend 30$ or more for a one hour service) and on the other hand I do not have any use for PQs and all sort of that stuff. So even if someone would present a PM-ship as a gift to me, I would not use it. There are also so many caches near my home that I am not able to visit and I have to deal with that - SO Earthcaches caches hundreds miles away of where I live really do not bother me from a point of view as a cacher.

 

My opinion on SO Earth caches is neither connected to my own status as non-PM nor to the preferences of any cacher around the world. My concern is one about the effects of geocaching on the environment and on the image of geocaching in the public. Believe it or not. It's up to you.

 

I will not post any further contributions in this thread. I have said all what I wanted to say. Apparently there is no one around who is willing to discuss the issues I brought up. (I am not surprised that those who think that the SO-status of caches is a legitimate manner to hide problematic caches from the public are not taking part in this discussion. Moreover, some of my concerns are much more relevant for Europe than for the US and the number of European cachers who are active in this part of the forum is small in general.)

 

Cezanne

Edited January 28, 2010 by cezanne

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

In my examples given in the last post seemed personal, they were not meant to be. I had no idea of who has and who doesn't have PM status. Frankly I don't give a darn.

I was only speaking generically and wasn't pointing any fingers at any specific non-PM geocacher.

My point is simple, call it a hack, call it a back door, call it using black market GC numbers, whatever...is doesn't seem right for those who rightfully choose to not be a Premium Member be be able to take advantage of the benefits thereof!

The central argument (topic) of this thread is aimed at those of us who do have PM status and use it for ECs. Obviously it is allowed, but it could be blocked as a friendly email told me that you cannot have a geocacher Meet as PM, so it is possible to do the same thing with ECs.

Frankly, when it comes down to it, I guess I am not even advocating GS disallow the use of PM/SO with ECs.

What I would like to see is we EarthCachers voluntarily skip the use of PM on our caches unless there is a special circumstance which would warrant it's use on his/her EC. Let everyone easily see your EC and find and then log it.

Thanks a lot. I've said enough.

[cezanne]

In my examples given in the last post seemed personal, they were not meant to be.

 

Just a final, last comment on this for the sake of clarification. I did not understand your examples as targeting at specific persons. I had no problem whatsoever with what you wrote.

My personal comments were rather directed at what GermanSailor had written before (including the German sentence which was obviously targeted at me) - it is hard to explain to people who do not speak German and who are not familiar with the way the topic SO caches are discussed in Germany. It almost always ends up in a discussion about a two class society within the caching community.

 

Cezanne