Non PMO Logging PMO Caches

[+Panther&Pine]

 

Very true, but we use the iPhone clients to cache and she wants to be able to search them on her phone and log them on the phone in the field. That's worth a PM I think.

If your child is old enough to have a smart phone of her own then I think she should come up with the cash for her own PM.

But that is my opinion.

[+ikonixx]

If your child is old enough to have a smart phone of her own then I think she should come up with the cash for her own PM.

But that is my opinion.

 

I can't disagree there. She offered to pay for it with her allowance. I may just have her do that.

[+addisonbr]

There is nothing implied about that rule. It's clear as a bell. Plain as day. Black and White.

 

Next topic.

Although I agree with your ultimate interpretation / conclusion, I'd gently suggest that none of it is crystal clear. There is a lot of confusing information and terminology around.

 

I don't think it's surprising that these threads pop up a lot. It's confusing to see a cache ID'd as This is a Premium Member Only cache but then learn that it's actually *not* for Premium Members Only. And that what was apparently meant was "Only Premium Members can easily see the cache description of this cache, but it's really for everyone."

 

Like I said, I agree with the ultimate interpretation, but I can see lots of potential for confusion.

[+Panther&Pine]

If your child is old enough to have a smart phone of her own then I think she should come up with the cash for her own PM.

But that is my opinion.

 

I can't disagree there. She offered to pay for it with her allowance. I may just have her do that.

 

That would be a great solution all around.

[+t4e]

 

LOL... "implied"?!?

 

As I posted a short while ago... the actual logging "rule" directly states that anyone who signs the physical log gets to enter an online log. There is nothing implied about that rule. It's clear as a bell. Plain as day. Black and White.

 

Next topic.

 

why isn't it listed in the regular members features?

 

 

6.Seek and create Premium Member CachesTPTB have made it clear that this benefit gives the PM the ability to create a cache page that only other PMs can view. It does not give him the ability to forbid other members from logging. The rational for this goes all the way back to Jeremy's declaration that the game will never become pay-to-play.

 

it that is his stand, he should remove it from the PM perks list or remove it all together

Edited October 7, 2010 by t4e

[+sbell111]

LOL... "implied"?!?

 

As I posted a short while ago... the actual logging "rule" directly states that anyone who signs the physical log gets to enter an online log. There is nothing implied about that rule. It's clear as a bell. Plain as day. Black and White.

 

Next topic.

why isn't it listed in the regular members features?

Why should 'You can log as found any caches for which you sign the log.' be in their list of features? It's in the guidelines already.

TPTB have made it clear that this benefit gives the PM the ability to create a cache page that only other PMs can view. It does not give him the ability to forbid other members from logging. The rational for this goes all the way back to Jeremy's declaration that the game will never become pay-to-play.

it that is his stand, he should remove it from the PM perks list or remove it all together

Why remove it from the perks list? They do have the ability to create these caches. Regarding removing the ability to create these caches, remember my argument that it's hard to take away a feature once it's implemented, even if it doesn't do the job for which it was designed?

[+t4e]

Why remove it from the perks list? They do have the ability to create these caches. Regarding removing the ability to create these caches, remember my argument that it's hard to take away a feature once it's implemented, even if it doesn't do the job for which it was designed?

 

yes, i understand the argument

the problem is they should also change the wording or add to it

 

does this look like regular members are supposed to see/log PMO caches?

 

Premium Member Only Caches

Some caches are only available to premium members. This has been a request of many geocachers who want to put more energy into designing a cache for dedicated geocachers. As the cache owner, you can make any of your caches "Premium Member Only," so folks will need a subscription to seek it out. (Note: member only caches may not be any better than public geocaches. Each cache is managed by their cache owner.)

Edited October 7, 2010 by t4e

[Mr.Yuck]

Why remove it from the perks list? They do have the ability to create these caches. Regarding removing the ability to create these caches, remember my argument that it's hard to take away a feature once it's implemented, even if it doesn't do the job for which it was designed?

 

yes, i understand the argument

the problem is they should also change the wording or add to it

 

does this look like regular members are supposed to see/log PMO caches?

 

Premium Member Only Caches

Some caches are only available to premium members. This has been a request of many geocachers who want to put more energy into designing a cache for dedicated geocachers. As the cache owner, you can make any of your caches "Premium Member Only," so folks will need a subscription to seek it out. (Note: member only caches may not be any better than public geocaches. Each cache is managed by their cache owner.)

 

Well then, they'd better change the wording to state that Smartphone Geocaching App regular members have unlimited access to viewing and logging MOC's. And that anyone in the USA with a cell phone, who doesn't even have a Geocaching.com membership of any kind, can send a text message inquiry and receive the first 160 Characters of an MOC cache page, which always includes a minimum of the coordinates, terrain and difficulty. I know this, I tested it on my Wife and Daughter's cell phones, neither of which are tied to a Geocaching.com account.

 

But this whole thing is crazy, man. TPTB know there's a logging loophole, they've purposely left the loophole open, and even fixed it when it was temporarily broken by a site update a year or two ago. I can see where upgrading a few lines of text in certain places on the website isn't a big deal.

[+kwcahart]

Yes, scubasonic, some things in Texas are definitely bigger, especially bigger than in the (mental) state you live in. For example the ability to think, the ability to reason, and the ability to recognize the fact that a six year old kid should not need a PM to log a PMO cache. You certainly have had too many sonics in your scuba. You really need a six pack and a nice cigar, relax!!

[+ikonixx]

And that anyone in the USA with a cell phone, who doesn't even have a Geocaching.com membership of any kind, can send a text message inquiry and receive the first 160 Characters of an MOC cache page, which always includes a minimum of the coordinates, terrain and difficulty.

 

I didn't know that. I must do some research and see how this is done.

[+SeekerOfTheWay]

There was a bug in the Geocache Navigator app for BlackBerry that allowed PMO cahes to be shown in the app to non PMO members. I found many PMO caches and could log them by turning my Field Notes into logs. I didn't know they were PMO until after I logged them!

 

That glitch is fixed now.

[+BelKen]

Would you please provide a cite for the rule where it states a non-pm can not log a pm cache?

 

its implied in the Benefits of Premium Membership

 

6.Seek and create Premium Member Caches

 

LOL... "implied"?!?

 

As I posted a short while ago... the actual logging "rule" directly states that anyone who signs the physical log gets to enter an online log. There is nothing implied about that rule. It's clear as a bell. Plain as day. Black and White.

 

Next topic.

 

Interesting take on it.

 

Premium Member Only cache. Nothing implied, Plain as day black and white.

 

If you were not a premium member I would delete your log. Plain as day black and white.

 

I as the cache owner look after the logs. I check the log is legitimate. Not a premium member, not legitimate. Nothing implied, Plain as day black and white.

[jholly]

Would you please provide a cite for the rule where it states a non-pm can not log a pm cache?

 

its implied in the Benefits of Premium Membership

 

6.Seek and create Premium Member Caches

 

LOL... "implied"?!?

 

As I posted a short while ago... the actual logging "rule" directly states that anyone who signs the physical log gets to enter an online log. There is nothing implied about that rule. It's clear as a bell. Plain as day. Black and White.

 

Next topic.

 

Interesting take on it.

 

Premium Member Only cache. Nothing implied, Plain as day black and white.

 

If you were not a premium member I would delete your log. Plain as day black and white.

 

I as the cache owner look after the logs. I check the log is legitimate. Not a premium member, not legitimate. Nothing implied, Plain as day black and white.

Your going to delete a log of a 6 year old child? Man you have a black and cold heart. And if I was that child's father I would appeal to GS to have the log re-instated. Bet they would. And lock the log. And send you a naughty boy letter.

 

Geez, what is the difference if a non-pm logs your cache or not? And maybe if you delete the log of a non-pm just because they had the audacity to log your precious sacrosanct PMO cache they just might come back and delete your cache permanently.

 

By the way, what is your favorite? Milk of Magnesia or Exlax?

[jholly]

Note to self: the forum update did not work.

Edited October 8, 2010 by jholly

[+BelKen]

Would you please provide a cite for the rule where it states a non-pm can not log a pm cache?

 

its implied in the Benefits of Premium Membership

 

6.Seek and create Premium Member Caches

 

LOL... "implied"?!?

 

As I posted a short while ago... the actual logging "rule" directly states that anyone who signs the physical log gets to enter an online log. There is nothing implied about that rule. It's clear as a bell. Plain as day. Black and White.

 

Next topic.

 

Interesting take on it.

 

Premium Member Only cache. Nothing implied, Plain as day black and white.

 

If you were not a premium member I would delete your log. Plain as day black and white.

 

I as the cache owner look after the logs. I check the log is legitimate. Not a premium member, not legitimate. Nothing implied, Plain as day black and white.

Your going to delete a log of a 6 year old child? Man you have a black and cold heart. And if I was that child's father I would appeal to GS to have the log re-instated. Bet they would. And lock the log. And send you a naughty boy letter.

 

Geez, what is the difference if a non-pm logs your cache or not? And maybe if you delete the log of a non-pm just because they had the audacity to log your precious sacrosanct PMO cache they just might come back and delete your cache permanently.

 

By the way, what is your favorite? Milk of Magnesia or Exlax?

 

The post was in relation to the quotes regarding rules/guidelines/wordings and what it all means.

 

I will respond though to you. If I had a PM cache then I would assume it would be for a reason. Your take on it is that my reasons account for nothing. If someone wrote to Groundspeak regarding me deleting a non legitimate log I would hope Groundspeak would uphold my rights as the cache owner. If not then get rid of the option altogether. This whole thread is about how to get a non PM to log a PM cache. No regards that I can see to the cache owner.

 

I sort of get your implied insult but am not going to bother googling to find out exactly what you are about. I can tell you though I will never be mistaken for an empath.

[jholly]

Would you please provide a cite for the rule where it states a non-pm can not log a pm cache?

 

its implied in the Benefits of Premium Membership

 

6.Seek and create Premium Member Caches

 

LOL... "implied"?!?

 

As I posted a short while ago... the actual logging "rule" directly states that anyone who signs the physical log gets to enter an online log. There is nothing implied about that rule. It's clear as a bell. Plain as day. Black and White.

 

Next topic.

 

Interesting take on it.

 

Premium Member Only cache. Nothing implied, Plain as day black and white.

 

If you were not a premium member I would delete your log. Plain as day black and white.

 

I as the cache owner look after the logs. I check the log is legitimate. Not a premium member, not legitimate. Nothing implied, Plain as day black and white.

Your going to delete a log of a 6 year old child? Man you have a black and cold heart. And if I was that child's father I would appeal to GS to have the log re-instated. Bet they would. And lock the log. And send you a naughty boy letter.

 

Geez, what is the difference if a non-pm logs your cache or not? And maybe if you delete the log of a non-pm just because they had the audacity to log your precious sacrosanct PMO cache they just might come back and delete your cache permanently.

 

By the way, what is your favorite? Milk of Magnesia or Exlax?

 

The post was in relation to the quotes regarding rules/guidelines/wordings and what it all means.

 

I will respond though to you. If I had a PM cache then I would assume it would be for a reason. Your take on it is that my reasons account for nothing. If someone wrote to Groundspeak regarding me deleting a non legitimate log I would hope Groundspeak would uphold my rights as the cache owner. If not then get rid of the option altogether. This whole thread is about how to get a non PM to log a PM cache. No regards that I can see to the cache owner.

 

I sort of get your implied insult but am not going to bother googling to find out exactly what you are about. I can tell you though I will never be mistaken for an empath.

The only problem I see with your line of reasoning is this fella Jeremy Irish supports non-pm logging a pm cache. He has made the statement that geocaching will never be pay-to-play. GS takes great pains in making sure the ability for a non-pm to log a pm cache is in the software. If for some reason they happen to break it they quickly fix it and apologize for breaking it. Seems GS fully intends for non-pm to have the ability to log a pm cache. How do you rectify that with your world view?

 

By the way, the only thing a non-pm can do is log it. They can not get the coordinates, read the cache page or get anything else. The PM caches are listed in a non-pm search and the GC number is available. Think of a family out caching, likely not everyone in the family will have a PM account, why should they be denied the ability to log a legitimate find? And according to the guidelines finding the cache and signing the logbook constitutes a legitimate find. There are no words about a non-pm signing the logbook of a pm cache not being a legitimate find. Your rights as a cache owner are to delete bogus finds on your cache page. A non-pm finding the cache with pm friends or family and signing the logbook is not a bogus find. Look at it another way, requiring everyone that signs the logbook and logs online to be a PM would be an ALR. ALR's are not allowed. I would certainly hope that GS would side with the non-pm person that signed you logbook and you subsequently deleted the online log. If they did not I would be disappointed.

Edited October 8, 2010 by jholly

[+SSO JOAT]

Argue the "rules" all you guys want, but no one has yet found anything, anywhere that says a basic member can't LOG a PMO cache.

 

It only says they can't create or view the listing of a PMO cache.

 

It does clearly state that anyone who finds any cache and signs the log can enter an online log. Hence the reason the site intentionally allows a basic member to enter a log for a PMO cache.

 

Deleting the valid log of a basic member on a PMO cache is specifically prohibited (as I've already cited in a previous post with links and quotes).

 

The reason why some cache owners put out PMO caches is for access to audit logs (rooting out maggots, etc), giving PMs first shot at FTF, or general incentive to become a PM to support the GS site. It is not to prevent basic members from accompanying PMs on caching adventures. That would just be stupid to tell a group of cachers that only the ones present who are PM may sign the log in this particular cache that you all found together. I gladly and openly share the method for letting a basic log my PMO caches. The ones I have PMO are that way for a specific reason, but it's not to keep basic members away (as long as they are with a PM).

[+BelKen]

Would you please provide a cite for the rule where it states a non-pm can not log a pm cache?

 

its implied in the Benefits of Premium Membership

 

6.Seek and create Premium Member Caches

 

LOL... "implied"?!?

 

As I posted a short while ago... the actual logging "rule" directly states that anyone who signs the physical log gets to enter an online log. There is nothing implied about that rule. It's clear as a bell. Plain as day. Black and White.

 

Next topic.

 

Interesting take on it.

 

Premium Member Only cache. Nothing implied, Plain as day black and white.

 

If you were not a premium member I would delete your log. Plain as day black and white.

 

I as the cache owner look after the logs. I check the log is legitimate. Not a premium member, not legitimate. Nothing implied, Plain as day black and white.

Your going to delete a log of a 6 year old child? Man you have a black and cold heart. And if I was that child's father I would appeal to GS to have the log re-instated. Bet they would. And lock the log. And send you a naughty boy letter.

 

Geez, what is the difference if a non-pm logs your cache or not? And maybe if you delete the log of a non-pm just because they had the audacity to log your precious sacrosanct PMO cache they just might come back and delete your cache permanently.

 

By the way, what is your favorite? Milk of Magnesia or Exlax?

 

The post was in relation to the quotes regarding rules/guidelines/wordings and what it all means.

 

I will respond though to you. If I had a PM cache then I would assume it would be for a reason. Your take on it is that my reasons account for nothing. If someone wrote to Groundspeak regarding me deleting a non legitimate log I would hope Groundspeak would uphold my rights as the cache owner. If not then get rid of the option altogether. This whole thread is about how to get a non PM to log a PM cache. No regards that I can see to the cache owner.

 

I sort of get your implied insult but am not going to bother googling to find out exactly what you are about. I can tell you though I will never be mistaken for an empath.

The only problem I see with your line of reasoning is this fella Jeremy Irish supports non-pm logging a pm cache. He has made the statement that geocaching will never be pay-to-play. GS takes great pains in making sure the ability for a non-pm to log a pm cache is in the software. If for some reason they happen to break it they quickly fix it and apologize for breaking it. Seems GS fully intends for non-pm to have the ability to log a pm cache. How do you rectify that with your world view?

 

By the way, the only thing a non-pm can do is log it. They can not get the coordinates, read the cache page or get anything else. The PM caches are listed in a non-pm search and the GC number is available. Think of a family out caching, likely not everyone in the family will have a PM account, why should they be denied the ability to log a legitimate find? And according to the guidelines finding the cache and signing the logbook constitutes a legitimate find. There are no words about a non-pm signing the logbook of a pm cache not being a legitimate find. Your rights as a cache owner are to delete bogus finds on your cache page. A non-pm finding the cache with pm friends or family and signing the logbook is not a bogus find. Look at it another way, requiring everyone that signs the logbook and logs online to be a PM would be an ALR. ALR's are not allowed. I would certainly hope that GS would side with the non-pm person that signed you logbook and you subsequently deleted the online log. If they did not I would be disappointed.

 

Bit of a different response than the original insult. Thanks for that.

[4wheelin_fool]

Previously the found logs had an implied value worth based on logging conditions which distorted the game. Its an ALR if you need to be a PM to log it. "Found" means that you found it, nothing more, nothing less.

[+BelKen]

Argue the "rules" all you guys want, but no one has yet found anything, anywhere that says a basic member can't LOG a PMO cache.

 

It only says they can't create or view the listing of a PMO cache.

 

It does clearly state that anyone who finds any cache and signs the log can enter an online log. Hence the reason the site intentionally allows a basic member to enter a log for a PMO cache.

 

Deleting the valid log of a basic member on a PMO cache is specifically prohibited (as I've already cited in a previous post with links and quotes).

 

The reason why some cache owners put out PMO caches is for access to audit logs (rooting out maggots, etc), giving PMs first shot at FTF, or general incentive to become a PM to support the GS site. It is not to prevent basic members from accompanying PMs on caching adventures. That would just be stupid to tell a group of cachers that only the ones present who are PM may sign the log in this particular cache that you all found together. I gladly and openly share the method for letting a basic log my PMO caches. The ones I have PMO are that way for a specific reason, but it's not to keep basic members away (as long as they are with a PM).

 

Get real. Your explanation with quotes is as simplistic and childish as mine. It proved nothing.

 

You are OK with the basic member logging. I am Ok with that. But what makes you believe all PM;s have the same view. There is at least two that do not.

Edited October 8, 2010 by BelKen

[+BelKen]

Previously the found logs had an implied value worth based on logging conditions which distorted the game. Its an ALR if you need to be a PM to log it. "Found" means that you found it, nothing more, nothing less.

 

I don't believe this at all.

[Keystone]

The only "rules violation" that has been identified in this thread are the violations of the Forum Guidelines concerning respect for other posters, and avoidance of personal attacks. So, everyone stop violating THOSE rules.

 

To the OP, I hope that you and your family continue to have fun finding geocaches together, including caches that you identify using your Groundspeak premium membership.

 

To those who helped the OP with the advice on logging methods, thank you.

[4wheelin_fool]

Previously the found logs had an implied value worth based on logging conditions which distorted the game. Its an ALR if you need to be a PM to log it. "Found" means that you found it, nothing more, nothing less.

 

I don't believe this at all.

 

So a muggle finds a cache accidentally, and signs the logbook. They manage to locate a cacher that they know and tell them about it. Suppose the cacher tells them that they didnt really find it because they are not a geocacher. That would be a bit absurd, wouldnt it? Its pretty much the same thing.

Edited October 8, 2010 by 4wheelin_fool

[+SSO JOAT]

Get real. Your explanation with quotes is as simplistic and childish as mine. It proved nothing.

 

You are OK with the basic member logging. I am Ok with that. But what makes you believe all PM;s have the same view. There is at least two that do not.

 

The "quotes" I posted are not mine. They are pulled from and linked back to the Guidelines according to Groundspeak. If one were to click on the provided links, they could read the same Game Rules that I was able to read.

 

Has nothing to do with what I think or what 2 other cachers think. Again, it's what the almighty Creator and Controller, Groundspeak, has published on the matter. Personal opinions are irrelevant after one reads the written rules. That's why it is "black & white".

 

[+BelKen]

Get real. Your explanation with quotes is as simplistic and childish as mine. It proved nothing.

 

You are OK with the basic member logging. I am Ok with that. But what makes you believe all PM;s have the same view. There is at least two that do not.

 

The "quotes" I posted are not mine. They are pulled from and linked back to the Guidelines according to Groundspeak. If one were to click on the provided links, they could read the same Game Rules that I was able to read.

 

Has nothing to do with what I think or what 2 other cachers think. Again, it's what the almighty Creator and Controller, Groundspeak, has published on the matter. Personal opinions are irrelevant after one reads the written rules. That's why it is "black & white".

 

I read the same things I came to a different conclusion. So did at least one other in this thread. Groundpeak has not said anywhere that a cache owner would be chastised for deleting a non PM log. They have supported the ability to log Pm cachers by non PM's. Not exacrly the same thing.

 

Even Keystones post seems to be deliberately worded to leave doubt.

[Mr.Yuck]

And that anyone in the USA with a cell phone, who doesn't even have a Geocaching.com membership of any kind, can send a text message inquiry and receive the first 160 Characters of an MOC cache page, which always includes a minimum of the coordinates, terrain and difficulty.

 

I didn't know that. I must do some research and see how this is done.

 

Well, anyone (USA only) can text for the first 160 characters of any cache page. I'm probably the only smart-aleck to check to see if it worked on MOC's. Intructions at coord.info textmark webpage

Edited October 8, 2010 by Mr.Yuck

[+ikonixx]

 

Well, anyone (USA only) can text for the first 160 characters of any cache page. I'm probably the only smart-aleck to check to see if it worked on MOC's. Intructions at coord.info textmark webpage

 

I tried it out. That IS a handy little tool. Thanks.

[Mr.Yuck]

There was a bug in the Geocache Navigator app for BlackBerry that allowed PMO cahes to be shown in the app to non PMO members. I found many PMO caches and could log them by turning my Field Notes into logs. I didn't know they were PMO until after I logged them!

 

That glitch is fixed now.

 

Interesting. I'm just going on heresay. I have a Palm cell phone, and it's pretty smart, but not considered a smartphone, and it's too old for Palm Geocaching Apps (which are still unauthorized at this point anyways).

 

There are tons of people out there using the Iphone and Android Geocaching apps. Anyone care to comment? Can you still see and log MOC's on them? (without being a premium member).

[+ikonixx]

To the OP, I hope that you and your family continue to have fun finding geocaches together, including caches that you identify using your Groundspeak premium membership.

Thank you very much. We are planning a whirlwind geocaching extravaganza for this Saturday (read, all 5 of us are going out caching together ).

To those who helped the OP with the advice on logging methods, thank you.

Yes, thank you everyone. I appreciate your help very much! I just hope one day I'll be able to help someone as much as you all have helped me.

[+Avernar]

does this look like regular members are supposed to see/log PMO caches?

 

Premium Member Only Caches

Some caches are only available to premium members. This has been a request of many geocachers who want to put more energy into designing a cache for dedicated geocachers. As the cache owner, you can make any of your caches "Premium Member Only," so folks will need a subscription to seek it out. (Note: member only caches may not be any better than public geocaches. Each cache is managed by their cache owner.)

Doesn't say anything about no being able to log them. It only says that a PM is required to find the cache.

 

So if there is a PM in the group when the cache is found then the requirement is met. Then the "Geocaches can be logged online as Found once the physical log has been signed." rule kicks in.

Edited October 8, 2010 by Avernar

[+GeoGeeBee]

Would you please provide a cite for the rule where it states a non-pm can not log a pm cache?

 

its implied in the Benefits of Premium Membership

 

6.Seek and create Premium Member Caches

 

LOL... "implied"?!?

 

As I posted a short while ago... the actual logging "rule" directly states that anyone who signs the physical log gets to enter an online log. There is nothing implied about that rule. It's clear as a bell. Plain as day. Black and White.

 

Next topic.

 

Interesting take on it.

 

Premium Member Only cache. Nothing implied, Plain as day black and white.

 

If you were not a premium member I would delete your log. Plain as day black and white.

 

I as the cache owner look after the logs. I check the log is legitimate. Not a premium member, not legitimate. Nothing implied, Plain as day black and white.

 

But you should be aware that when the non-premium member complains to Groundspeak, GS will reinstate the log and lock it to keep you from deleting it again. Nothing implied, plain as day, black and white... non-premium members are allowed to log PMO caches.

[+SSO JOAT]

Can't help but beat this dead horse just a little more.... ;-)

 

For the 2 CO's who have a problem with a basic logging a PMO cache, I have a question... how do you know that any particular log was from a basic member? Unless you go to the profile of each person who logs your caches to check them out, there is no outward indication that a log was from a basic member.

 

Further, if you let your PM status expire or transfer it to another username, that name reverts back to a basic account. So, if you do notice that a logger on your PMO cache is currently a basic member, you don't know that they weren't a Premium Member when they found your cache. Perhaps their account expired yesterday. You have no way of knowing this.

[+sbell111]

I read the same things I came to a different conclusion. So did at least one other in this thread. Groundpeak has not said anywhere that a cache owner would be chastised for deleting a non PM log. They have supported the ability to log Pm cachers by non PM's. Not exacrly the same thing.

 

Even Keystones post seems to be deliberately worded to leave doubt.

Back in May, a non-PM found a cache by himself, through his own methods. The PMO owner deleted the log and the cache finder appealed to TPTB. Here's a post that communicated TPTB's response:

OK for those interested here is an extract of the email received from Groudspeak that should leave no doubt about how they wish us to play the game:

 

'Basic Members can log finds for Premium Member Only caches when the physical logbook has been signed.

 

Groundspeak’s Guidelines state, “Geocaches can be logged online as found once the physical log has been signed.” There are no restrictions or guidelines that prevent Basic Members from signing a Premium Member Only cache logbook.

 

Basic Members may have access to PMO caches through various means, including when they geocache with Premium Members.

 

Groundspeak encourages Cache Owners to allow these logs. If we find that a log was deleted inappropriately, Groundspeak can reinstate the log.'

TPTB did reinstate his found log. Edited October 8, 2010 by sbell111

[+addisonbr]

Here's a post that communicated TPTB's response:

This is a great, topical, data-rich addition to the thread. Thanks.

[Leebart121]

I was told to look in the forum by GS to see how to log a PMO find that I got durring my membership and had not logged before it ran out. The same thing was told to me for finding a GC with a PM and logging a find on the site to show that I had found it and it would be logged as a find when I some day have the money to renew my membership.

[+BelKen]

I read the same things I came to a different conclusion. So did at least one other in this thread. Groundpeak has not said anywhere that a cache owner would be chastised for deleting a non PM log. They have supported the ability to log Pm cachers by non PM's. Not exacrly the same thing.

 

Even Keystones post seems to be deliberately worded to leave doubt.

Back in May, a non-PM found a cache by himself, through his own methods. The PMO owner deleted the log and the cache finder appealed to TPTB. Here's a post that communicated TPTB's response:

OK for those interested here is an extract of the email received from Groudspeak that should leave no doubt about how they wish us to play the game:

 

'Basic Members can log finds for Premium Member Only caches when the physical logbook has been signed.

 

Groundspeak’s Guidelines state, “Geocaches can be logged online as found once the physical log has been signed.” There are no restrictions or guidelines that prevent Basic Members from signing a Premium Member Only cache logbook.

 

Basic Members may have access to PMO caches through various means, including when they geocache with Premium Members.

 

Groundspeak encourages Cache Owners to allow these logs. If we find that a log was deleted inappropriately, Groundspeak can reinstate the log.'

TPTB did reinstate his found log.

Thanks for this. It is still third hand but it will do.

 

The wording again is a little strange ie Groundspeak encourages cache owners to allow. ???

In post 57 T4E showed some wording used that seems pretty clear but as we see that means squat when we read 7 other lines from the guidelines.

 

In Post 66 Jholly mentioned my world view. Well in my world we say what we mean and mean what we say.

 

The strange way the GS handle PMOCs looks and feels dirty and deceptive. Why?? They need to fix it up. I came across this thread when I was wondering how to best protect a cache from the unwashed hoards. It seems from various things said in this thread PMOCS is not the way. ie phone apps etc

[Mr.Yuck]

I read the same things I came to a different conclusion. So did at least one other in this thread. Groundpeak has not said anywhere that a cache owner would be chastised for deleting a non PM log. They have supported the ability to log Pm cachers by non PM's. Not exacrly the same thing.

 

Even Keystones post seems to be deliberately worded to leave doubt.

Back in May, a non-PM found a cache by himself, through his own methods. The PMO owner deleted the log and the cache finder appealed to TPTB. Here's a post that communicated TPTB's response:

OK for those interested here is an extract of the email received from Groudspeak that should leave no doubt about how they wish us to play the game:

 

'Basic Members can log finds for Premium Member Only caches when the physical logbook has been signed.

 

Groundspeak’s Guidelines state, “Geocaches can be logged online as found once the physical log has been signed.” There are no restrictions or guidelines that prevent Basic Members from signing a Premium Member Only cache logbook.

 

Basic Members may have access to PMO caches through various means, including when they geocache with Premium Members.

 

Groundspeak encourages Cache Owners to allow these logs. If we find that a log was deleted inappropriately, Groundspeak can reinstate the log.'

TPTB did reinstate his found log.

Thanks for this. It is still third hand but it will do.

 

The wording again is a little strange ie Groundspeak encourages cache owners to allow. ???

In post 57 T4E showed some wording used that seems pretty clear but as we see that means squat when we read 7 other lines from the guidelines.

 

In Post 66 Jholly mentioned my world view. Well in my world we say what we mean and mean what we say.

 

The strange way the GS handle PMOCs looks and feels dirty and deceptive. Why?? They need to fix it up. I came across this thread when I was wondering how to best protect a cache from the unwashed hoards. It seems from various things said in this thread PMOCS is not the way. ie phone apps etc

 

I was in that thread, believe me, it happened. Username Stanolli from the UK had a log deleted for finding an MOC as a non-premium member. A low-level Groundspeak lackey actually sided with the Cache owner at first, and many of us were shocked. The complaint was eventually escalated, and a somewhat official response was received, and the log re-instated.

 

Protect a cache from the unwashed hoardes? I don't know. But you could become a letterboxer, and join AtlasQuest.com, where you can restict your letterboxes to people with X number of finds, or even X number of letterbox hides. And if they don't meet the criteria, they don't see them, or know of their existence, period. I wonder how that one would go over here?

[Andronicus]

...stop trying to beat the system. ...

Scubasonic

Man, before I was a PM I found several by triangulating the location. Logging was easy. Just go to:

http://geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?WP=<enter GC Code here>

Very easy. Micros and nanos are fairly tough not having any of the description or the hint. Never managed to bag one of those, but regulars and smalls were not so bad. Not only did I enjoy "beating the system", it was more fun due to the increased challange.

 

When logging, just don't mention that you are not PM. It is highly unlikely that the cache owner will even notice.

[+briansnat]

I think it's definitely alright in this case for someone's child to log PMO caches. It would be so expensive, especially if you have a lot of kids to purchase PM accounts for them all.

 

Rules are Rules, once you start accepting this you get on a slippery slope......So then where do you draw the line, once this type of behavior is acceptable.......certain age maybe?, number of kids? no enough money? it is not like there are no other caches to find but PM caches........

 

Scubasonic

 

Groundspeak knows about the backdoor, has promoted the fact that exists and has even fixed it when it broke. That tells me they don't care about Ikonixx's daughter's $30, so I don't see why you should.

Edited October 9, 2010 by briansnat