Member only caches

[+Irishwaves]

Recently a number of caches in areas I visit regularly have become member only caches. I have toyed with the idea of joining up just to log these caches.

 

When I search for a cache I look for challenges or places of interest / beauty.

 

I have two questions.

 

Can a non-members cache be setup in the same area as a members only cache already exists?

 

Is it fair for cache owners to make their caches member only if they currently contain TB or Geo coins?

 

People may not want their trackables to end up in members caches. They will be safer yes, but will travel much slower I would imagine.

 

Any opinions on this?

[GermanSailor]

Recently a number of caches in areas I visit regularly have become member only caches.

Wow, a completely new topic. I guess PM-only caches were never discussed.

 

I have toyed with the idea of joining up just to log these caches.

Do it! If you register a new Garmin, you get 30 day free trial PM.

 

When I search for a cache I look for challenges or places of interest / beauty.

Good for you, same here.

 

Can a non-members cache be setup in the same area as a members only cache already exists?

No, the .1 mile rule still applies.

 

Is it fair for cache owners to make their caches member only if they currently contain TB or Geo coins?

I don't know a definition of "fair". But there are surely quite a few people who still go there an help the trackables along.

 

People may not want their trackables to end up in members caches. They will be safer yes, but will travel much slower I would imagine.

This is your opinion. If an owner of a trackable doesn't want his or her trackable to be dropped in PM-only caches this should be mentioned in the description of said trackable. If a geocache gets PM-only after a trackable was dropped that is a different story, but I'm absolutely sure it won't be the end of the world.

 

My opinion:

 

If you don't like PM-only caches, you have the following options:

- Ask a PM to give you the listing, you still can log PM-only caches as a normal member.

- Ignore them!

- Become a PM.

 

But please don't try to stir things up be inventing arguments against PM-only caches. Be a contributor to geocaching by hiding nice caches! That's what this hobby is about. I personally don't like the consumer-mentality a lot. Meaning: No PM, no own caches, but finding a lot and complaining even more.

 

Just my 2 Euro-ct!

 

GermanSailor

[Neath Worthies]

But please don't try to stir things up be inventing arguments against PM-only caches.

Or to put it another way "Please don't post opinions that differ from mine". The OP is entitled to ask a perfectly polite question without being accused of "stirring things up". Give the guy a break even if he hasn't done a forum search.

[Deceangi]

Have you tried contacting the owners of the caches, and asking them why the change of status? There could be a justifiable reason for the change, one that they have no wish to discus in public. Especially if they have been advised not to do so. Advice which is Standard Operating Procedure off both Lackeys and Reviewers in certain cases.

 

Deci

Edited February 13, 2010 by Deceangi

[+Moote]

A few years ago I know that a lot of Caches were set to PM in and around Northamptonshire, the reason for this happing was due to an individual who was going around maliciously removing Caches and baiting the owners / community about them. In this case TB's coins and Caches went for good so PMing them was probably the only option. Not sure if this is the reason in your area.

[+Border Caz]

I don't see how making them a PMO cache would help with that. The trouble causer would already know where the caches were so changing them to PM only woudn't stop them, and anyway if they were serious in their intent to cause trouble they would likely already be, or become, PMs themselves.

 

Would it not be better to archive existing caches and place new premium member only caches, rather than changing the status of the existing ones?

 

Another thing that frustrates me with PMOs is that they used to come up on the maps so you knew roughly where they were and could avoid placing a cache near them but now they don't, so you could go to a lot of trouble placing a cache only to have it chucked out because it is too near a PMO.

 

I know the cost of premium membership isn't high, but to some it could be beyond their reach. Geocaching is supposed to be a fun game anyone can play.

[+Moote]

I don't see how making them a PMO cache would help with that. The trouble causer would already know where the caches were so changing them to PM only woudn't stop them, and anyway if they were serious in their intent to cause trouble they would likely already be, or become, PMs themselves.

 

Someone is less likely to become a PM just to remove caches, and also doing that would open their identity up, as the payment would trace back to an individual. They would only know where caches are which they had already seen and saved the details of, once it is made PM then paid membership would be required. Not saying that this is a perfect solution, but I believe did help with the issue.

 

Would it not be better to archive existing caches and place new premium member only caches, rather than changing the status of the existing ones?

 

I think that either method would be about the same, also we have to look after our hard worked reviewers.

 

Another thing that frustrates me with PMOs is that they used to come up on the maps so you knew roughly where they were and could avoid placing a cache near them but now they don't, so you could go to a lot of trouble placing a cache only to have it chucked out because it is too near a PMO.

 

That is an issue to take up with the Powers that be, it is not an issue with the caches, more with the facility to roughly pinpoint them.

 

I know the cost of premium membership isn't high, but to some it could be beyond their reach. Geocaching is supposed to be a fun game anyone can play.

 

Personally I'm not a fan. but it did save many caches in Northamptonshire; I have cached with none PM members and they just use my PM knowledge when we cache together, and logging them is not too difficult for none PM members.

[team tisri]

I know the cost of premium membership isn't high, but to some it could be beyond their reach. Geocaching is supposed to be a fun game anyone can play.

 

It's not a lot, but we are talking about a game where you need to buy a GPS before you begin. If you really can't afford $30 for a year (which works out, in English money, at less than 40p per week) there are still plenty of other caches you can go and find.

 

Geocaching is a fun game anyone can play - if you can afford to buy an Oregon or 60CSX rather than a basic Geko you'll get more out of it. If you can afford to pay the $30 for a premium membership you'll get more out of it. If all you can muster is a borrowed entry-level GPS and no premium membership you won't find it as easy. But you could say the same about all sorts of caches - a micro hidden at the top of a 100-foot chimney isn't a cache I can get to but its presence doesn't detract from my enjoyment of the ones I can do.

 

Focusing on what you can get out of the game rather than the restrictions makes for a far more enjoyable experience.

[+Irishwaves]

Thanks for the replies guys.

Sorry if I didn’t do a forum search on the topic, but then again doing a search wouldn’t necessarily give me an up to date opinion.

 

Thanks for you opinion German sailor, I now remember why I stopped posting on forums. If you want to flame me come round my house and we will see how you fair out.

Fair

Not exhibiting any bias, and therefore reasonable or impartial

Or

Done according to the rules

 

There is no need to read anything into my questions, they where honest questions.

 

I don’t mind PM caches at all.

 

There are many areas near me that have recently become PM caches these are at some pretty historic sites. Having a cache helps attract Geocachers to hidden gems. Another point, if I don’t know exactly where the cache is how will I observe the 1 mile rule?

[+Moote]

Just thought of another reason why people might be PMing caches, if a Landowner hears about Geocaching and thinks, "emmm, I hope none of them are on my land" He will find it harder to find that information via a simple site visit!

[+Cardinal Red]

Another point, if I don’t know exactly where the cache is how will I observe the 1 mile rule?

To comply with the .1 Mile / 528 Foot / 160.9344 Metre rule you sometime have to contact your reviewer with specific or general coordinates and ask if there are any potential conflicts in that area. It's always best to do this early on before spending a lot of time researching a hide.

[+Cardinal Red]

Just thought of another reason why people might be PMing caches, if a Landowner hears about Geocaching and thinks, "emmm, I hope none of them are on my land" He will find it harder to find that information via a simple site visit!

Yes, it would be much better to have an unsuspecting Premium Member confronted by an angry land owner for trespassing.

[+The Bongtwashes]

Another point, if I don’t know exactly where the cache is how will I observe the 1 mile rule?

 

The 0.1 mile rule also applies to physical parts of multi-caches and puzzles, so you would be best advised to check with the reviewers anyway.

[+Moote]

Just thought of another reason why people might be PMing caches, if a Landowner hears about Geocaching and thinks, "emmm, I hope none of them are on my land" He will find it harder to find that information via a simple site visit!

Yes, it would be much better to have an unsuspecting Premium Member confronted by an angry land owner for trespassing.

Like it or not, in the UK many caches have been placed without permission; I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with this practice, I just know it happens. Another thing in the UK is the right to roam, in many areas, so a cacher usually does not look too much out of place.

[GermanSailor]

Thanks for you opinion German sailor, I now remember why I stopped posting on forums. If you want to flame me come round my house and we will see how you fair out.

Fair

Not exhibiting any bias, and therefore reasonable or impartial

Or

Done according to the rules

 

There is no need to read anything into my questions, they where honest questions.

I'm not "flaming" anybody. Actually I offered help with the PM caches via PN. Remember?

 

I don't get the "come round my house" part? Sorry, but I rather hide and see geocaches. After all, that's what this hobby is about.

 

GermanSailor

[+spioradsaor]

What the hell is a member only cache away and grow up...I was in here when geocaching was starting out....its not exclusive and shouldnt be...If you want a private club away and launch your own egnos.

[+HazelS]

I think there are very good reasons for member only caches.

 

In some areas it's important because of people trashing caches - as above, but I make ALL my new caches Member only for the first few finds, so that those that are prepared to put into the hobby are rewarded with chance of an FTF.

 

I wouldn't say a joining date of 2003 was "the beginning" - caching has been around for 10 years this year!!!

[+dino-irl]

Another point, if I don’t know exactly where the cache is how will I observe the 1 mile rule?

As already stated you can contact your local reviewer. You can also follow the advice in Step 3 of this KB article:

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com//index.php?...page&id=199

[GermanSailor]

Another point, if I don’t know exactly where the cache is how will I observe the 1 mile rule?

Same problem applies to:

 

Stages of multicaches

Unsolved mystery caches

fake coordinates

 

The answer, which is not helpful: The reviewer will tell you.

 

GermanSailor

[+sonatellas]

Hi as you have politely just asked for our opinions then I have one on the subject. We have had many caches muggled over and over again and we did try to avoid making them members only but had to in the end to stop this happening. The TBs and coins that are in these caches are better protected being less public. I think the fee for joining is very small considering the enjoyment and rewards we get from it.

 

Just like to add I really don't like it when people start having silly little fights on the forums. Why can't everyone just get along. We can all have an opinion and share it without the cat calling. Please all get along xxxxx

 

I hope this answers you questions.

[Beefy4605]

A quick look at your profile and guessing that you cache in much the same area as I do leads to me think I know the caches of which you speak . Try contacting the cache owner who I'm sure will be able to tell you why the caches have been made Premium member only. If it's the member I'm thinking off there is a very good and valid reason for them doing this and was not done just to be "one up" on the non members. They want their caches to be open and available to all but sometimes circumstances make this impossible.

Always better to ask the owners first then ask the wider geocaching community .

Threats no matter what way they are dressed up don't help and are not welcome here - if someone wants to bait you have the good sence to rise above it and ignore it.

[+thisisace]

A few years ago I know that a lot of Caches were set to PM in and around Northamptonshire, the reason for this happing was due to an individual who was going around maliciously removing Caches and baiting the owners / community about them. In this case TB's coins and Caches went for good so PMing them was probably the only option. Not sure if this is the reason in your area.

 

We've recently had that happen to one of our caches, in the Peterborough area, along with a mean-spirited log on the cache page, (which the reviewer deleted and told us about.)

 

Although we didn't want to have to do it, it's much easier to set our caches to Premium Members only for now, rather than have to go round replacing them all in the future. (PM setting makes the cache page virtually empty.)

[+*mouse*]

I regularly make my new hides PM only, but this is because as the owner of a PM cache I get access to an 'audit log' so I can see exactly who has been viewing my cache page and then I know who is likely to go out and find it. Once the FTF fight is over I usually take the PM status off.

 

I also had a cache that I strongly suspect was deliberately targeted by another cacher. I don't have conclusive evidence, so will never let on my suspicions to them personally, but the audit log quite clearly shows when and how often they were looking at the cache page. The timings are more than coincidental as far as I am concerned. It's enough for me to suspect them of muggling it anyhow

 

These are just a couple of reasons why I hide PM only caches - they might help explain to non-premium members why some of us cachers do it.

 

It's not uncommon for people to start caches off as PM only and then open them to everyone at a later date.

You could always check with the cache owner and see if they intend to do the same?

[Pajaholic]

Would it not be better to archive existing caches and place new premium member only caches, rather than changing the status of the existing ones?

I think that either method would be about the same, also we have to look after our hard worked reviewers.

Huge difference IMO. I've got details of several hundred caches stored on my PDA/GPSr. A few months ago, one CO changed all his caches to PMO - including one I DNF'd and have on my watchlist. I had intended to go back and give it a try as soon as a "found it" log confirmed it was in place. I only found out about the change of status when I tried to access the cache page following such a log. Now if the CO had done as Border Caz suggests, I'd have received the "archived" log and known it was out of bounds to me. IMO, caches should not be permitted to change from generally available to PMO once published. However, I understand that some COs want to keep their caches PMO until found, so changing from PMO to generally available seems fair enough to me.

 

I know the cost of premium membership isn't high, but to some it could be beyond their reach. Geocaching is supposed to be a fun game anyone can play.

It's not a lot, but we are talking about a game where you need to buy a GPS before you begin. ...

That's not true. You don't need to buy a GPS if you already have one. The only reason that I can play is because I already had a SiRFStar-equipped PDA; so I just needed to install some software that costs less than PM. The same applies if you already have a GPS-enabled smartphone (e.g. provided by your employer). Also (judging from post on these forums) there are a lot of people who use printouts from Google Maps etc. and don't have a GPS.

 

Just a thought,

 

Geoff

[+keehotee]

IMO, caches should not be permitted to change from generally available to PMO once published.

As is so often quoted on these forums - caching is different things to different people, and it is entirely down to an individual how they play it.

If a PM decides to hide a cache and make it PM only, they are entirely within their rights to do that.

If they then decide to make it open to all, then PM again, then open for a week, then PM for another week etc..... again, they are entirely within their rights (at the moment) to do this as well.

 

Being "free for all to play" is not the same as "having a right to find or know the status of every cache".

And having a GPS enabled phone from your employer, or using Google print outs, is a bonus - not an indication of further entitlement.

[Deceangi]

One point to remember, where a cache has been targeted by specific unwanted individuals. Changing the status to PM, helps to protect the replacement container. Especially if the container is slightly relocated.

 

One individual/group uses Burn Accounts [they create a account use it and dump it] so will never be PM, because as soon as their account was flagged up. It would be banned, wasting the large majority of the money spent on PM status.

 

To just archive the cache because of the need to change the status to protect the cache, would be giving into them. Making them the winner! Which is their aim.

 

 

Deci

[Pajaholic]

IMO, caches should not be permitted to change from generally available to PMO once published.

As is so often quoted on these forums - caching is different things to different people, and it is entirely down to an individual how they play it.

If a PM decides to hide a cache and make it PM only, they are entirely within their rights to do that.

If they then decide to make it open to all, then PM again, then open for a week, then PM for another week etc..... again, they are entirely within their rights (at the moment) to do this as well.

 

Being "free for all to play" is not the same as "having a right to find or know the status of every cache".

And having a GPS enabled phone from your employer, or using Google print outs, is a bonus - not an indication of further entitlement.

I wrote that it's my opinion that caches should not be permitted to change status from generally available to PMO. That is my opinion because of the issues that have arisen for me with caches changing status and I suspect it would be the same for others who, like me, cache details acquired over several months of a lot of caches. Having taken the time to input the details by hand, I'm not about to nuke my database. So the current system has an inconsistency. By changing the status to PMO the CO indicates his/her desire that only PMs search for it - yet there could be hundreds of basic members who've still got details of the cache and would be rightly miffed to find that they can no longer access the cache page even if they can log via the "back door". The same applies to those caches that we've logged while generally available but can no longer access because they've changed to PMO. This could be avoided by requiring the CO to archive the generally-available cache and re-submit as a PMO. But then I suspect porcine aviation might be closer to realisation.

 

WRT having a GPS-enabled phone etc. My point was just that you don't necessarily have to splash out on a GPS to play. I said nothing in that point about entitlement, so I don't understand where you got the inference.

 

Geoff

[+keehotee]

Apologies to any non car-owning members who might be in the situation - but 3 months premium membership will only cost you about the same as a gallon of petrol (or a couple of pints of beer)(or a packet of fags). If you're really that keen to complete a PM only cache, and you drive - or drink - or smoke, maybe this puts it into a little better perspective.

[Pajaholic]

To just archive the cache because of the need to change the status to protect the cache, would be giving into them. Making them the winner! Which is their aim.

I must be missing something. Could you explain your reasoning since I can't see how archiving the old cache entry and creating a new PMO entry would be "giving in to 'them'" - unless by "them" you mean basic members? Assuming by 'them' you mean those who would destroy or steal caches, I don't see how you would be 'giving in' by archiving then resubmitting as PMO. You'd still have a cache at that location. Their aim AFAICT is to destroy caches - but they'd have failed since the cache would still physically exist.

 

I can understand your desire to cut down on your workload as a reviewer, but from my point of view the system has a glaring inconsistency (see previous post) that could be resolved by requiring archival and resubmission. Also, protecting the cache isn't the only reason why a CO might want to make a cache PMO. For example, elitism is another. Whatever the reason for the status change, to me it seems only fair that all players are allowed full access to their own caching history - and that's something that doesn't happen with the current system.

 

JMHO,

 

Geoff

[Pajaholic]

Apologies to any non car-owning members who might be in the situation - but 3 months premium membership will only cost you about the same as a gallon of petrol (or a couple of pints of beer)(or a packet of fags). If you're really that keen to complete a PM only cache, and you drive - or drink - or smoke, maybe this puts it into a little better perspective.

And after the three months are up? Can you still access the cache pages of those you've completed?

 

Edited to add: while £20 annual PM fee might be small potatoes to most cachers, it's worth remembering that it's about a third of basic benefit and even 3 months represents a sizeable chunk.

 

Just a thought,

 

Geoff

Edited February 16, 2010 by Pajaholic

[+keehotee]

Apologies to any non car-owning members who might be in the situation - but 3 months premium membership will only cost you about the same as a gallon of petrol (or a couple of pints of beer)(or a packet of fags). If you're really that keen to complete a PM only cache, and you drive - or drink - or smoke, maybe this puts it into a little better perspective.

And after the three months are up? Can you still access the cache pages of those you've completed?

 

Just a thought,

 

Geoff

 

No. Why would you want to? If it's idle curiosity to see who else has completed it, you'll have to pay for a premium membership - just as every other PM has to pay when their membership expires.

 

But then, after you've driven your 40 miles, can you still access your original gallon of petrol? No - you used it to get to places on the ride - just as you did with your 3 month Premium Membership. And I don't think you'll find many petrol suppliers offering free trips to let you revisit places you got to with their petrol either....

[+MartyBartfast]

...yet there could be hundreds of basic members who've still got details of the cache and would be rightly miffed to find that they can no longer access the cache page even if they can log via the "back door".

 

You could also make the same argument about cache owners who necessarily move their cache a short distance, but the data you have is weeks/months out of date so you won't be able to find it. Should cache owners be required to archive and republish a cache if they need to move it a few yards?

 

And after the three months are up? Can you still access the cache pages of those you've completed?

 

I though you could get to the cache page by viewing your own log entry, but I may be wrong.

 

If I understand you right, you went out armed with co-ords which you obtained some time ago, found a cache, but were then unable to log it as it had since been made PMO? Have you tried contacting the cache owner and asking him/her if you can log the cache? I have known of situations in the past where a PMO cache owner made the cache public for a short while to allow a non PM who'd found it to log it.

Edited February 16, 2010 by MartyBartfast

[Pajaholic]

No. Why would you want to?

I guess it's just me then that likes to revisit cache pages for better previous finds just to reminisce. Perhaps I'm over-sentimental or something. I suspect that both yourself and Marty Bartfast are completely missing my point.

 

FWIW, yesterday I had a request for a hint for my latest cache. The easiest way to give the hint was to visit the cache page for the cache that had given me the idea and check whether the person who asked for the hint had also found that cache, and then offer the comparison. That would have been impossible if the cache had changed to PMO. Worse would be if I'd asked for a hint and a PM had referred me to a cache that had changed to PMO.

 

However, I've got an alternative compromise: permit non-PMs to access details of all caches they've logged - even if the log is a DNF or a note etc.

 

Geoff.

[Deceangi]

To just archive the cache because of the need to change the status to protect the cache, would be giving into them. Making them the winner! Which is their aim.

I must be missing something. Could you explain your reasoning since I can't see how archiving the old cache entry and creating a new PMO entry would be "giving in to 'them'" - unless by "them" you mean basic members? Assuming by 'them' you mean those who would destroy or steal caches, I don't see how you would be 'giving in' by archiving then resubmitting as PMO. You'd still have a cache at that location. Their aim AFAICT is to destroy caches - but they'd have failed since the cache would still physically exist.

 

I can understand your desire to cut down on your workload as a reviewer, but from my point of view the system has a glaring inconsistency (see previous post) that could be resolved by requiring archival and resubmission. Also, protecting the cache isn't the only reason why a CO might want to make a cache PMO. For example, elitism is another. Whatever the reason for the status change, to me it seems only fair that all players are allowed full access to their own caching history - and that's something that doesn't happen with the current system.

 

JMHO,

 

Geoff

 

Currently there is a person/group active who are deliberately Trashing caches, always using a specific log. There was a attempt to block them by banning the account. But as they are not using a static ISP, it is impossible to block them accessing the site

 

[AOL don not use static ISP No's is just one example. I'm aware of multiple UK cachers with AOL as their ISP, who had the same ISP No assigned to them] or you can use any free WIFI such as McDonalds [personally I've used quite a few McD's free WIFI to review caches] . Ban one account and a new one is created within minutes.

 

The advice given to the affected cache owners is

 

Disable the cache for a period

On enabling it, change to a PM if possible to block these individuals from accessing the details

Do not post a reply to the cache page

Do not talk about them in public.

 

By changing the cache to PMO and relocating slightly, experience has shown that these individuals do not re-visit the cache.

 

So enabling the Cache Owner to activate their cache in the knowledge that it has protection from these specific individuals. The change has absolutely nothing to do with a increased workload. A couple of caches would not add in a noticeable way to the workload.

 

People have a right to take reasonable measures to protect their caches from these individuals. Who will never pay out for a PM. I'm sure that any Owner who has been affected by these individuals, who has changed their cache to a PMO. Would happily supply the details to a cacher whose got a track record of Finds on caches. And not just a Track record of Trshing them.

 

Deci

[Pajaholic]

And after the three months are up? Can you still access the cache pages of those you've completed?

I though you could get to the cache page by viewing your own log entry, but I may be wrong.

 

If I understand you right, you went out armed with co-ords which you obtained some time ago, found a cache, but were then unable to log it as it had since been made PMO? Have you tried contacting the cache owner and asking him/her if you can log the cache? I have known of situations in the past where a PMO cache owner made the cache public for a short while to allow a non PM who'd found it to log it.

I've tried - all you can view are your own logs and the cache page still appears with the "error" message that the CO has made it PMO - even if you click the link in your own log.

 

You understand wrong. I DNF'd a cache and put it on my watch list intending to have another try once the logs confirmed it was still there. A few weeks later a couple of "found it" logs were copied to my email. "Goody!" I thought, I'll give it another go - but before I did I tried to access my own DNF log via the cache page; and that's when I found that the CO had changed the cache status. Also a couple of caches have changed to PMO after I found them and now the only way I know to review my own log is via my profile - since I can no longer access the cache pages.

 

It's not about being able to log the caches (there are a few ways for non-PMs to do this); it's more about having the door electronically slammed in your face after the fact.

 

Geoff

[Pajaholic]

Deci:

 

Thanks for the explanation. I guessed that was what you meant by "protecting the cache". However, I don't think you've told me why archiving and then resubmitting as PMO would be 'giving in' to those individuals. For that, I suspect the cache would be safer if it were archived and then resubmitted with different co-ordinates since from the POV of the miscreants it would have gone and I suspect they'd be even less likely to have another go at the cache.

 

Geoff

[+Border Caz]

You don't need to go out and buy a GPS unit to start caching. The friend who introduced me to it started by using his Sat nav - and I did, and still do, the same.

 

Another friend, who actually took me to my first finds, was on over 120 finds before they acquired a GPS - they were using maps which they already had, google earth, and cache descriptions.

 

As someone said previously, the cost of premium membership may not be much to some - but to someone on basic benefits it is a third of their weekly income. They may not smoke, drink, or run a car - in fact they probably don't as they can't afford such luxuries after their basic needs of accomodation, clothing and food are met - so the comparison to the cost of fuel is irrelevant.

[Deceangi]

Deci:

 

Thanks for the explanation. I guessed that was what you meant by "protecting the cache". However, I don't think you've told me why archiving and then resubmitting as PMO would be 'giving in' to those individuals. For that, I suspect the cache would be safer if it were archived and then resubmitted with different co-ordinates since from the POV of the miscreants it would have gone and I suspect they'd be even less likely to have another go at the cache.

 

Geoff

 

Archiving the cache because it was deliberately Targeted by this individual/group not only tells them they have won. As they will be able to see the archive status of the cache, it also destroys the history of that cache, as submitting a replacement is to make a fresh start. The purpose of not archiving, shows that they have not achieved their aim and so destroys part of their pleasure of winning by getting the cache archived.

 

As the UK Authorities will tell you, you don't give into Blackmail or Coercion. Archiving a targeted cache is doing just that. We all except that caches getting muggled, is part of this game. But what is not acceptable is a individual/group deliberately and extensively targeting this game for their own pleasure , to the detriment of others.

 

Deci

[+maxkim]

Maybe it would be better for Groundspeak to offer a years free membership then charge.... then the problems would resolve themselves automatically

[Pajaholic]

... it also destroys the history of that cache, as submitting a replacement is to make a fresh start.

I know it would be relatively simple to implement a "replacement cache" option to copy the history from the old to the "new" cache. So it would only destroy the history if Groundspeak lets it and hence that argument is almost irrelevant.

 

The purpose of not archiving, shows that they have not achieved their aim and so destroys part of their pleasure of winning by getting the cache archived.

But disabling it for some time then making it PMO does not? I guess we must agree to disagree on that point. Since the miscreants would effectively put the cache out of action for longer in the procedure you advocate, I suspect that 'they' get a bigger feeling of satisfaction than archival and immediate replacement of the cache would give. BTW, I suspect the only reason 'they' leave caches alone following prolonged disablement is because they believe they've won - and I also suspect they feel pretty smug about it.

 

As the UK Authorities will tell you, you don't give into Blackmail or Coercion. Archiving a targeted cache is doing just that. We all except that caches getting muggled, is part of this game. But what is not acceptable is a individual/group deliberately and extensively targeting this game for their own pleasure , to the detriment of others.

Yet IMO you're giving in much more effectively than you would be if you'd simply replaced the cache with a PMO. To me, replacing the cache says that they won't get the upper hand. Every time they muggle one, we'll put another in its place. Disabling a cache for days, week, or months is just giving in IMO since they've denied us that cache for however long it's disabled. While just archiving a targeted cache might be giving in, archiving and immediately replacing the cache is quite different. Since we're not denied a cache at that location for any significant time, we most certainly would not be giving in IMO.

 

Geoff

[team tisri]

I know the cost of premium membership isn't high, but to some it could be beyond their reach. Geocaching is supposed to be a fun game anyone can play.

It's not a lot, but we are talking about a game where you need to buy a GPS before you begin. ...

That's not true. You don't need to buy a GPS if you already have one. The only reason that I can play is because I already had a SiRFStar-equipped PDA; so I just needed to install some software that costs less than PM. The same applies if you already have a GPS-enabled smartphone (e.g. provided by your employer). Also (judging from post on these forums) there are a lot of people who use printouts from Google Maps etc. and don't have a GPS.

 

Just a thought,

 

Geoff

 

OK, you could already have a GPS, in which case you already found the money to buy the GPS and can probably find £20. If you have a job where you are provided a fully-featured smartphone you can probably find £20. If you've funded your own smartphone you've either had to pay for the phone or pay for an ongoing contract (or possibly both) in which case you can probably find £20.

 

The premium membership works out at less than 40p/week. If you honestly can't find 40p/week to fund a hobby how do you fund the transport between your home and the caches you're seeking? Unless you live in a big city walking and cycling will only get you to so many caches, and 40p will only get you about 350ml of petrol. So even if you drive one of these hugely efficient microcars it's only enough to get you about 7 miles, and that's before you consider wear and tear and parking costs.

 

I don't doubt that people on unemployment benefits have more trouble finding £20 than those in well paid employment. But there comes a point when we have to accept that a service costs money and if you can't afford it then you can't have it. For unemployed people to go caching they still need a means of getting around, which feeds right back into the point about transport costs above.

 

It's easy to argue that something should be free for everybody but somebody has to pay for the servers, for the bandwidth, for the storage. By the same argument we could be claiming that GPS manufacturers should make their products available for free so that people with no money can still find their way around, and perhaps say cars should be free so everybody can get around easily. Where do you draw the line?

Edited February 16, 2010 by team tisri

[+MartyBartfast]

You understand wrong. I DNF'd a cache and put it on my watch list intending to have another try once the logs confirmed it was still there. A few weeks later a couple of "found it" logs were copied to my email. "Goody!" I thought, I'll give it another go - but before I did I tried to access my own DNF log via the cache page; and that's when I found that the CO had changed the cache status.

 

OK get it now. I can see why you're a bit miffed but TBH it's not the end of the world is it? I don't really understand why archiving and republishing it would be significantly different to changing the existing cache to PMO, the end result for you is the same either way, i.e there used to be a cache at a location which you could see, now there's still a cache at that location which you can't see. If I was the cache owner I would prefer to leave the cache details & history and just change it rather than archive and republish.

 

As you alluded to in another post, I can't see this being changed by GC so you're going to have to live with it I think.

[Pajaholic]

OK, you could already have a GPS, in which case you already found the money to buy the GPS and can probably find £20.

Non sequitur. For example, we're in a recession and that PDA, smartphone, etc. could have been bought when times were good by someone who no longer has a job. However, this is almost besides the point. A statement was made that, "we are talking about a game where you need to buy a GPS before you begin" and all I did was show that assumption to be false.

 

BTW, before you decry cycling as a way of getting around, you should be aware that a lot of regular cyclists are capable of over fifty miles a day and a few on the CTC forum commute that sort of distance every working day. Most of the several hundred people who cycle from Lands End to John O'Groats (or JOGLE) do the approximately 1,000 miles in a fortnight or less, which equates to over 70 miles a day; and many do it under 10 days, which equates to over 100 miles a day. Also, there are several who enjoy cycle-camping (which costs nothing if you "wild camp"). So, draw a circle on the map radius 25 miles centred on your home and the caches encompassed would be possible as a day trip for an average regular cyclist. Draw another circle radius 50 miles and the encompassed caches would be within the reach of the more fit cyclists. Draw another circle radius 250 miles and all caches encompassed would be within the reach of a cycle-camper on a ten-day holiday. Hopefully you can now see that your remark "Unless you live in a big city walking and cycling will only get you to so many caches" is somewhat of a fallacy.

 

It's easy to argue that something should be free for everybody but somebody has to pay for the servers, for the bandwidth, for the storage. By the same argument we could be claiming that GPS manufacturers should make their products available for free so that people with no money can still find their way around, and perhaps say cars should be free so everybody can get around easily. Where do you draw the line?

Another non sequitur. People do make facilities free to end users, and many of those actually make money for the operators. For example, how much did you last pay to search via Google? How much do you have to pay to use Facebook? The majority of hobby sites are free to use and get their revenue some other way (or the operators provide them at their own expense out of the goodness of their hearts). GS is somewhat of an exception. However, I fully accept that they have the right to run it which ever way they choose.

 

Edited to add: BTW, I never wrote that it should be free for all; just that it should be fair and consistent.

 

Geoff

Edited February 17, 2010 by Pajaholic

[team tisri]

Non sequitur. For example, we're in a recession and that PDA, smartphone, etc. could have been bought when times were good by someone who no longer has a job. However, this is almost besides the point. A statement was made that, "we are talking about a game where you need to buy a GPS before you begin" and all I did was show that assumption to be false.

 

OK, perhaps I should have said that at some point in the past you have to have acquired some form of GPS unit. But to be honest I think we're splitting hairs arguing that point. It doesn't change the fact that $30 isn't a whole lot of money, especially when you can still enjoy geocaching without spending it at all.

 

BTW, before you decry cycling as a way of getting around, you should be aware that a lot of regular cyclists are capable of over fifty miles a day and a few on the CTC forum commute that sort of distance every working day. Most of the several hundred people who cycle from Lands End to John O'Groats (or JOGLE) do the approximately 1,000 miles in a fortnight or less, which equates to over 70 miles a day; and many do it under 10 days, which equates to over 100 miles a day. Also, there are several who enjoy cycle-camping (which costs nothing if you "wild camp"). So, draw a circle on the map radius 25 miles centred on your home and the caches encompassed would be possible as a day trip for an average regular cyclist. Draw another circle radius 50 miles and the encompassed caches would be within the reach of the more fit cyclists. Draw another circle radius 250 miles and all caches encompassed would be within the reach of a cycle-camper on a ten-day holiday. Hopefully you can now see that your remark "Unless you live in a big city walking and cycling will only get you to so many caches" is somewhat of a fallacy.

 

I'm not decrying cycling at all - I cache by bike myself because I hate driving in town. I'm not in the 70+ miles a day league but can still pick off a dozen or more caches in a day. I'm not a "regular cyclist" but can still cover 30+ miles in a day.

 

If you're going to take a ten-day cycling holiday of course you can reach a lot more caches than if you're going out at the weekend. But again I think you're nitpicking rather than addressing the argument - by taking your argument to its conclusion you could say that someone with a bike and no job could spend their entire life cycling around the country, at which point every single cache in the country (and potentially within Europe as well) is within cycling-wildcamping range without spending any money at all. Even ignoring extremes, someone serious enough about cycling to cover large distances on a cycling holiday will most likely have bought tools, spare parts etc to maintain their bike. If they are also serious enough about geocaching to want to find caches across the entire distance they are covering they will probably see that £20 isn't a lot of money when compared to the cost of spares and tools for their bike.

 

Another non sequitur. People do make facilities free to end users, and many of those actually make money for the operators. For example, how much did you last pay to search via Google? How much do you have to pay to use Facebook? The majority of hobby sites are free to use and get their revenue some other way (or the operators provide them at their own expense out of the goodness of their hearts). GS is somewhat of an exception. However, I fully accept that they have the right to run it which ever way they choose.

So some companies offer their products for free and some don't. Google offers free email and a free search engine. Ferrari offers very little without a hefty price tag. Google makes its money through means other than charging people to search, Ferrari makes its money by charging its end customers. So what? If something has a price tag you either pay the price or do without.

 

The majority of hobby sites may well be free to use, funding the servers and bandwidth by some means other than a subscription charge. So what? The fact some hobby sites are free to use doesn't mean all must be. Even then, gc.com is free to use - you just have to pay to gain access to some extra parts of the site.

 

A site like Google can make money by letting people pay extra for their sites to be ranked higher (hence the "sponsored links" you sometimes get in Google searches). How are you expecting Groundspeak to pay for their servers and bandwidth? One could easily argue they are being pretty generous letting people have free memberships at all, over and above a very simple "try before you buy" arrangement.

 

Edited to add: BTW, I never wrote that it should be free for all; just that it should be fair and consistent.

How is it unfair or inconsistent? Some caches are for premium members only, some caches are for anybody. Before I first took out a premium membership I never thought I was being somehow cheated out of access to the features restricted to premium members.

 

What's not to like about a membership to a site that costs you nothing but gives you some benefits? Are people not satisfied they are getting their money's worth from their free membership?

[Pajaholic]

Edited to add: BTW, I never wrote that it should be free for all; just that it should be fair and consistent.

How is it unfair or inconsistent? Some caches are for premium members only, some caches are for anybody. Before I first took out a premium membership I never thought I was being somehow cheated out of access to the features restricted to premium members.

PMO caches that have always been so are both fair and consistent IMO. The inconsistency arises when a cache changes status from "open" to PMO and the door gets rudely (IMO) slammed in your face. Therein also lies the unfairness. If you found it it's only fair to be able to recall it IMO (but I fully accept YMMV).

 

Geoff

[+Unobtainium]

I'm a PM and own a small number of non PM caches. If in the future for any reason I see fit to change one or more to PMO I will. It's my box, my log, my IP on the cache page and it's GC's server.

 

If you don't like that, don't find my caches or buy a membership.

[+dino-irl]

Edited to add: BTW, I never wrote that it should be free for all; just that it should be fair and consistent.

How is it unfair or inconsistent? Some caches are for premium members only, some caches are for anybody. Before I first took out a premium membership I never thought I was being somehow cheated out of access to the features restricted to premium members.

PMO caches that have always been so are both fair and consistent IMO. The inconsistency arises when a cache changes status from "open" to PMO and the door gets rudely (IMO) slammed in your face. Therein also lies the unfairness. If you found it it's only fair to be able to recall it IMO (but I fully accept YMMV).

Instead of complaining have you followed the sound advice given earlier in this thread (I think it was by Deci?) to contact the CO and ask them if you can log the cache. They have the ability to remove the PMO status of the cache to give you time to log it and then change it back.

[team tisri]

Edited to add: BTW, I never wrote that it should be free for all; just that it should be fair and consistent.

How is it unfair or inconsistent? Some caches are for premium members only, some caches are for anybody. Before I first took out a premium membership I never thought I was being somehow cheated out of access to the features restricted to premium members.

PMO caches that have always been so are both fair and consistent IMO. The inconsistency arises when a cache changes status from "open" to PMO and the door gets rudely (IMO) slammed in your face. Therein also lies the unfairness. If you found it it's only fair to be able to recall it IMO (but I fully accept YMMV).

 

I still don't see how it's unfair or inconsistent, any more than it's unfair or inconsistent when a free trial ends and you have to pay for what used to be free. It seems that sometimes an open cache becomes a restricted cache, and sometimes a restricted cache becomes an open cache. I'll hazard a guess that you don't regard it as being unfair and inconsistent when a restricted cache is converted into an open cache?

[Pajaholic]

Instead of complaining have you followed the sound advice given earlier in this thread (I think it was by Deci?) to contact the CO and ask them if you can log the cache. They have the ability to remove the PMO status of the cache to give you time to log it and then change it back.

Let's get this very clear: I am not complaining. I am merely expressing a point of view and a preference. Also, the advice you echoed would not address the issue I perceive.

 

I still don't see how it's unfair or inconsistent, any more than it's unfair or inconsistent when a free trial ends and you have to pay for what used to be free.

I guess we must agree to disagree.

 

I'll hazard a guess that you don't regard it as being unfair and inconsistent when a restricted cache is converted into an open cache?

I don't - but that's simply because those who could access the cache page before can still access it. Hence there are no electronic doors being slammed in people's faces.

 

Let me give an analogy. Say that you joined some other sports club and you won some trophies. Would you consider it fair if they took away your trophies when your subscription ran out? IMO, that's exactly what happens with GC IMO. All those smilies on the map disappear and you can no longer access the cache pages.

 

Geoff

[+keehotee]

Let me give an analogy. Say that you joined some other sports club and you won some trophies. Would you consider it fair if they took away your trophies when your subscription ran out? IMO, that's exactly what happens with GC IMO. All those smilies on the map disappear and you can no longer access the cache pages.

 

Geoff

 

Not quite true. To give another analogy...

 

You will, of course, still have every trophy you won caching.

But, as you have decided not to pay for Sky TV after your free trial, you will no longer be able to go back and watch reruns of the event - or see who else has won since you did.....

 

TBH, I really don't think you're going to get much sympathy on here (steps back and waits for another PM to prove him wrong....)