Should Geocaching become premium only?

8.4k · May 24, 2011

I think that land managers would see Groundspeak Inc. in a different light if it was an entirely "pay to play" site.

How so? :huh:

May 24, 2011

I think that land managers would see Groundspeak Inc. in a different light if it was an entirely "pay to play" site.

How so?

Because now they'd be more directly enabling Groundspeak profits VERSUS merely attracting or permiting the public to their property.

May 24, 2011

It would certainly result in lower cache saturation. But it would also open the door for free competitors to make up market share and that wouldn't necessarily be a good thing. Right now, people can choose services based on who offers the most and cost isn't a factor for the most part. If GS started charging everyone, it's clear many people would no longer use this site, and a lot of them would migrate to other free sites that may not have the features.

May 24, 2011

AI think everyone that uses the site should pay why should the PM members flip the bill for the Non payers? because lets face it without the PM members no one would have the site that have today. How about paying for what you use to many freebies

Scubasonic

You mean them ads I'm looking at don't help pay the bills?

1.4k · May 24, 2011

AI think everyone that uses the site should pay why should the PM members flip the bill for the Non payers? because lets face it without the PM members no one would have the site that have today. How about paying for what you use to many freebies

Scubasonic

You mean them ads I'm looking at don't help pay the bills?

I'm sure that helps

Scubasonic

10.2k · May 24, 2011

AI think everyone that uses the site should pay why should the PM members flip the bill for the Non payers? because lets face it without the PM members no one would have the site that have today. How about paying for what you use to many freebies

Scubasonic

You mean them ads I'm looking at don't help pay the bills?

I'm sure that helps

Scubasonic

I'll help you out with a couple more. Aluminum Dog Tags that cost approximately 4 cents apiece to manufacturer at $5.99 a pop? A $1-$2 cut of every single trackable Geocoin ever manufactured?

EDIT: By the way, I just made up the 4 cents. Can't be more than a quarter or fitty cent though. And I'm just guessing at the Geocoin cut, I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who have had personal Geocoins minted who could set my figures straight if they are wrong. Point being, they have plenty of revenue, and they don't have almost 50 employees and win all these "great place to work" awards solely on the backs of Scubasonic and Mr. Yuck giving them $2.50/month

Edited May 24, 2011 by Mr.Yuck

8.4k · May 24, 2011

I think that land managers would see Groundspeak Inc. in a different light if it was an entirely "pay to play" site.

How so?

Because now they'd be more directly enabling Groundspeak profits VERSUS merely attracting or permiting the public to their property.

Ahhh, took me a bit to change gears. Yes, that would be a baaad thing.

May 24, 2011

The free site pulls in people and gets them to try it out. That adds new folks every year, and is what has led to people joining and ultimately creating the multitude of caches that are out there.

Sure, there will be folks that never pony up and join to further the common good. But who cares about them? The hobby gets by without them now and can continue to do so, probably for the better.

Edited May 24, 2011 by Jeepergeo

2.3k · May 24, 2011

The free site pulls in people and gets them to try it out. That adds new folks every year, and is what has led to people joining and ultimately creating the multitude of caches that are out there.

Sure, there will be folks that never pony up and join to further the common good. But who cares about them? The hobby gets by without them now and can continue to do so, probably for the better.

The free site creates a pretty steady revenue stream of people wanting to buy their branded doo dads in the store. The place where most everything is priced higher than it would be because it has a geocaching logo on it. Not to mention the plethora of travel items sold there. And I guess we shouldn't forget all the codes that are sold to people for their coins. Non-premium members spend plenty on those items as well.

And lets not forget the revenue stream they have from the corporate relationships with Geico, Expedia, at one time Jeep and Planet of the Apes, the guy who plays violin and has all those tags and I recall at one point garmin too. Do you think that Groundspeak advertises these businesses out of the goodness of their hearts? Do you know why these businesses are willing to take the chance? Because ground speak can show them the numbers of people that use the site which is higher because of the non-paying members. They can say how many new users they have daily when pitching this as a medium to advertise through. That revenue stream will follow the users. Ground speak is not stupid enough to gamble on that. And that is much more money than any of these silly premium memberships are.

The ground speak crew are not starving artists. They are business people. They aren't doing this to get their warm fuzzies. They're doing this to run a business and from the looks of it the business is doing fine as is.

1.7k · May 24, 2011

When hiding one of my first caches I inadvertently selected Premium Members only when posting it for publication. I was still a newbie with the site and I was feeling my way around. It was just an error but I received two e-mails from non-members asking why it was a PM only cache. I corrected the error. But when I think back about it, aren't I entitled to have a PM only cache if I want to? And does doing so mean I have to explain to non-members why I've done it?

You are and you dont.

3k · May 25, 2011

While growing it's clear the Geocaching needed to be a free service. Now that it has over a million hides worldwide do you think it is time to make Geocaching a premium pay for only service? This would mean no more Geocaching for free, you would need to become a premium member to use it.

The advantages to this would be better quality hides and more money for Groundspeak to add features and improve the service. The downsides are obviously you would not have as many new cachers (many would say this is a good thing.)

1) Pretty sure Jeremy has promised to always allow free access to basic features i.e. Finding caches.

2) PM don't necessarily hide "better" caches, even depending on how you define "better". For example, I'm pretty sure there's a very big overlap between Premium Members and cachers who like Power Trails.

3) I know at least one very good cacher who contributes in many ways to geocaching and has done so for years. He has chosen to no longer be a PM.

4) I don't think we're anywhere near a point where we need new user crowd control.

5) I started as a regular member for 5 months. I have several friends who cache pretty casually (100/year or less) that aren't PMs.

6) Some non-PMs still financially support Groundspeak via purchasing the official iPhone/Droid apps or buying from the Groundspeak store.

7) I have seen 'fly-by-night newbies' who sign up, find a few caches, hide some bad caches they don't maintain, and disappear after dropping money on a premium membership. Might be good for Groundspeak's bottom line, but sure didn't prevent geo-junk.

1.4k · May 25, 2011

I'm neither for nor against mandatory premium membership, but what I get a kick out of is some people making a big deal out of spending 8.2 cents a day for a premium membership, but many of these same people don't think anything of paying $60.00 for a carton of cigarettes that last a week, or get into sports like shooting or golfing that costs them hundreds of dollars a year. I guess everyone has their priorities.

7.5k · May 25, 2011

7) I have seen 'fly-by-night newbies' who sign up, find a few caches, hide some bad caches they don't maintain, and disappear after dropping money on a premium membership. Might be good for Groundspeak's bottom line, but sure didn't prevent geo-junk.

No, but it could greatly reduce it. I get a "Newbie" list to watch cache placements by people who have little to no geocaching experience. Approximately 5% of the cachers on the list are PMs (2 of 39).

2.1k · May 25, 2011

No, but it could greatly reduce it. I get a "Newbie" list to watch cache placements by people who have little to no geocaching experience. Approximately 5% of the cachers on the list are PMs (2 of 39).

How do you even know that these "newbies" are actually new?

I've seen a bunch of logs recently that said something like "I found this cache several years ago with my Dad <username>, and now that I have my own account I'm logging it."

But what if the kid didn't want to bother logging all those ancient finds, or just wanted the fun of finding them again on his own? We have quite a few second-generation cachers now days. The new account may belong to a 12-year-old who has been caching since he was in diapers, or an 18 year old who has been caching since he was in second grade.

7.5k · May 26, 2011

No, but it could greatly reduce it. I have a "Newbie" list to watch cache placements by people who have little to no geocaching experience. Approximately 5% of the cachers on the list are PMs (2 of 39).

How do you even know that these "newbies" are actually new?

I've seen a bunch of logs recently that said something like "I found this cache several years ago with my Dad <username>, and now that I have my own account I'm logging it."

But what if the kid didn't want to bother logging all those ancient finds, or just wanteL the fun of finding them again on his own? We have quite a few second-generation cachers now days. The new account may belong to a 12-year-old who has been caching since he was in diapers, or an 18 year old who has been caching since he was in second grade.

Of the caches on my Newbie list about 75% of those were archived by the reviewer. If premium membership were required what are the chances those caches would have been placed and posted? The 12 year old experienced committed kid could publish under his parent's PM account unless his mom/dad feels he's ready for his own account and the responsibility of being an autonomous CO, then they might gift him with a PM. (Although, isn't there a 13 year old limit when it comes to web accounts?) Would it be so bad to hide caches under one PM family account, with parental supervision? The 18 year old might consider buying her own PM account for hiding caches.

5.7k · May 27, 2011

While growing it's clear the Geocaching needed to be a free service. Now that it has over a million hides worldwide do you think it is time to make Geocaching a premium pay for only service? This would mean no more Geocaching for free, you would need to become a premium member to use it.

The advantages to this would be better quality hides and more money for Groundspeak to add features and improve the service. The downsides are obviously you would not have as many new cachers (many would say this is a good thing.)

What are your thoughts?

I don't think the quality of hides would improve. I'm a PM on this site, and there are quite a few lame PMO hides here. What makes this site a great site is the reviewers and the guidelines for listing a cache here. I am also a member of another geocache listing service, and I see listings approved that the only content are "A cache." And that meets guidelines for the site. I hope to never see blank listings or ones without content published here. Jeremy Irish has also stated many times that he will keep this site free to basic members. None of my 100 listings here are PMO, and I never plan on making them PMO.

5.7k · May 27, 2011

While growing it's clear the Geocaching needed to be a free service. Now that it has over a million hides worldwide do you think it is time to make Geocaching a premium pay for only service? This would mean no more Geocaching for free, you would need to become a premium member to use it.

The advantages to this would be better quality hides and more money for Groundspeak to add features and improve the service. The downsides are obviously you would not have as many new cachers (many would say this is a good thing.)

What are your thoughts?

I don't think the quality of hides would improve. I'm a PM on this site, and there are quite a few lame PMO hides here. What makes this site a great site is the reviewers and the guidelines for listing a cache here. I am also a member of another geocache listing service, and I see listings approved that the only content are "A cache." And that meets guidelines for the site. I hope to never see blank listings or ones without content published here. Jeremy Irish has also stated many times that he will keep this site free to basic members. None of my 100 listings here are PMO, and I never plan on making them PMO.

May 27, 2011

I am also a member of another geocache listing service, and I see listings approved that the only content are "A cache." And that meets guidelines for the site. I hope to never see blank listings or ones without content published here.

Wouldn't a blank description also meet the guidelines here?

8.3k · May 27, 2011

I am also a member of another geocache listing service, and I see listings approved that the only content are "A cache." And that meets guidelines for the site. I hope to never see blank listings or ones without content published here.

Wouldn't a blank description also meet the guidelines here?

I've seen caches with blank descriptions. Don't know if they were approved that way or edited post publishing.

5k · May 27, 2011

I am also a member of another geocache listing service, and I see listings approved that the only content are "A cache." And that meets guidelines for the site. I hope to never see blank listings or ones without content published here.

Wouldn't a blank description also meet the guidelines here?

Of course. I have seen many blank descriptions, and you may want to sit down for this, but some of them have been by premium members.

5.7k · May 27, 2011

I am also a member of another geocache listing service, and I see listings approved that the only content are "A cache." And that meets guidelines for the site. I hope to never see blank listings or ones without content published here.

Wouldn't a blank description also meet the guidelines here?

Of course. I have seen many blank descriptions, and you may want to sit down for this, but some of them have been by premium members.

I have seen those also. I just thought they were post review caches. Would blank listings be within guidelines here? I know that I would not seek one. I'm not a numbers cacher and only seek the ones that sound interesting to me. I try to make my listings interesting, but some users may take no pride in their listings. I'm sure the numbers cachers don't mind.

19k · May 27, 2011

I have never seen a requirement for any text in the cache listing. I've seen plenty of blank or near blank caches by premium and non-pm's both.

8.3k · May 27, 2011

Thinking about it, a cache with a blank description is the perfect answer to blank logs. <_<

7k · May 27, 2011

I am also a member of another geocache listing service, and I see listings approved that the only content are "A cache." And that meets guidelines for the site. I hope to never see blank listings or ones without content published here.

Wouldn't a blank description also meet the guidelines here?

Of course. I have seen many blank descriptions, and you may want to sit down for this, but some of them have been by premium members.

But were they PMO caches? :anitongue:

Edited May 27, 2011 by dfx

5k · May 27, 2011

I am also a member of another geocache listing service, and I see listings approved that the only content are "A cache." And that meets guidelines for the site. I hope to never see blank listings or ones without content published here.

Wouldn't a blank description also meet the guidelines here?

Of course. I have seen many blank descriptions, and you may want to sit down for this, but some of them have been by premium members.

I have seen those also. I just thought they were post review caches. Would blank listings be within guidelines here? I know that I would not seek one. I'm not a numbers cacher and only seek the ones that sound interesting to me. I try to make my listings interesting, but some users may take no pride in their listings. I'm sure the numbers cachers don't mind.

It is allowed, and at times it works out to be a great cache. NOTHINGNESS

May 27, 2011

I am also a member of another geocache listing service, and I see listings approved that the only content are "A cache." And that meets guidelines for the site. I hope to never see blank listings or ones without content published here.

Wouldn't a blank description also meet the guidelines here?

Of course. I have seen many blank descriptions, and you may want to sit down for this, but some of them have been by premium members.

I have seen those also. I just thought they were post review caches. Would blank listings be within guidelines here? I know that I would not seek one. I'm not a numbers cacher and only seek the ones that sound interesting to me. I try to make my listings interesting, but some users may take no pride in their listings. I'm sure the numbers cachers don't mind.

It is allowed, and at times it works out to be a great cache. NOTHINGNESS

:lol:

February 12, 2013

Geocaching should still have free membership, As there are loads of people who enjoy Geocaching but are not prepared to pay.

I do think pocket queries should be brought to free accounts as well.

February 13, 2013

There should always, in my mind, be a free membership option.

If there hadn't been one, I probably wouldn't have started geocaching. It's nice to be able to try caching out first. On a student budget it'd be hard for me to justify paying to join a pasttime I haven't had the chance to try out yet, and when I started caching I didn't know anyone else who was into it to go along with, so this would've been my only option really. Less than a year later, I'm happily paying for a premium membership - I like supporting the site and I think the premium features, especially pocket queries and access to many caches in my neighbourhood I wouldn't have access to otherwise, are absolutely worth the money. I think that provided premium membership comes with good enough benefits, new cachers will continue to opt to pay for it.

February 13, 2013

No.

February 13, 2013

Sometimes I have to wonder how stuff like this pops up in the minds of some. We just had a topic about Groundspeaks' income, and now someone is asking if it should be pay for play? Topics that have absolutely nothing to do with the hobby/sport/game, or whatever you wish to call what we do.

I don't see anything wrong with the way it works now. I pay for a premium membership because it's my choice to do so. If it becomes mandatory, I'll find another hobby.

February 13, 2013

How about if a Basic Membership allowed anyone to view the cache pages and perform all of the current tasks that you can do now, but you need a Premium Membership to log your finds online?

February 14, 2013

The advantages to this would be better quality hides and more money for Groundspeak to add features and improve the service.

I think this premise is flawed.

6k · February 14, 2013

The advantages to this would be better quality hides

Could you please explain this?

I don't get that either. I don't see how quality would be changed at all.

1.3k · February 14, 2013

the business model is perfect the way it's set up now. They do a wonderful balance between free and premium. And like I said in other postings, Groundpeak hasn't raised the price for premium membership but have greatly improved the features over the past ten years.

Same price now as ten years ago

4.4k · February 14, 2013

How about if a Basic Membership allowed anyone to view the cache pages and perform all of the current tasks that you can do now, but you need a Premium Membership to log your finds online?

Bzzzt.

Nobody will log online.

Owners won't get positive feedback.

People stop hiding caches.

The game fizzles and dies.

~~~

No changes needed. They've figured out the right balance. This thread from 2011, as far as I'm concerned, can go back to sleep again.

Edited February 14, 2013 by Viajero Perdido

February 14, 2013

WOW, Someone actually suggested this.

COME ON PEOPLE!!!

1.4k · February 14, 2013

It should be a free option. One of our greatest cachers here don't have a premium account and has a long streak. If there was to be such a thing I don't think it should be a 30 day or 90 day as someone might find a cache and think it is kind of cool and not look at it again for 6 months. Then they would have to pay to see if they really liked the thing they kind of started. I think more of a after 50 finds or 100 finds thing....well that is if it happened at all which i think we all agree should never happen.

February 14, 2013

I'm a Charter Member. I'm fortunate enough to be able to afford the fee. I don't think the game should be for premium members only.

February 15, 2013

While growing it's clear the Geocaching needed to be a free service. Now that it has over a million hides worldwide do you think it is time to make Geocaching a premium pay for only service? This would mean no more Geocaching for free, you would need to become a premium member to use it.

The advantages to this would be better quality hides and more money for Groundspeak to add features and improve the service. The downsides are obviously you would not have as many new cachers (many would say this is a good thing.)

What are your thoughts?

What? This would make geocaching less popular. The fact that newbies have a chance to experience geocaching with a free membership before they go spend money. If geocaching was only premium, then newbies would buy the membership only to see they go outta interest. Then they would still have to pay the fee. So I say noooooo. 100% of experienced cachers started their geolife as a basic member.

BTW, its been a while since ive seen you post.

What if you got a FREE trial membership, for say, 60 or 90 days before you decide if you want to continue and pay or not? I don't think that making it premium would help quality hides so much, as people with money can hide just as crappy as people with out. But, it might help people respect the game more if you have to pay to play it. With the expense of the equipment (GPS or Smart Phone) I'd find it hard to believe someone couldn't afford 30 bucks for the year. I paid the premium membership, and b/c my equipment is so old, I'm not sure that I'm getting that much out of it (like, now downloading to my GPS, I have to print everything I'm going to find) but I feel like I'm supporting the game.

No, please--not even with a free trial. I know many people who love this hobby because (after equipment, and many already have a smart phone) it's fun you can share with friends and family even if you're on a shoe-string budget. Many will eventually move up to a premium membership. But in the meantime they've polished their searching skills, introduced newbies to caching, repaired cache containers, picked up trash, built rewarding community ties at meetings, and enjoyed time outside instead of infront of the TV (and gotten some exercise). Please don't require a membership fee! I would have never begun if a fee were required...but as the program works now I'm likely to soon get the premium membership so I can add the features not available for free. The whole spirit of the game would change if a fee were required, and not for the better. Please don't "fix" what isn't broken!

Edited February 15, 2013 by steppe-up

February 15, 2013

If it wasn't a free service I never would've started... I don't think anyone would invest $30 on something that they might find isn't for them... I'm a paying member now, but having the chance to get hooked for free and even with a free app is what makes new members... and for my area, new members are what we need.. most "new" caches around here are years old, new members = new adventures!

February 15, 2013

A short answer to the question of the topic starter: no. It takes some time for people to really get into the game, to understand the website, to realize they are hooked. And as soon the realize, they'll become premium members, don't worry.

But what really intriges me is the reason for posting the question.

The topic starter thinks it might result in

1) better quality hides

2) Groundspeak to add features and improve the service.

Many post lately are about how people are frustrated/irritated/disappointed by the decrease in quality in hides. How it gets more and more about quantity instead of quality, trackables can't/won't be moved because of micro's and a TFTC is sufficient as a log nowadays etc. etc. etc.

Luckily there are still some nice caches left, and luckily there are still nice hides being published, with and without premium membership. It just takes a bit more homework and preparation to find them.

I wonder what the topic starts means with the lack of service and which features should be added. To me the increase in features the last 2 years wasn't all that positive. The website with all the tabs has become more difficult to new cachers, too much information to know where to look for the basics. I wonder if I wouldn't have found geocaching over 4 years ago, if I would have even started this hobby nowadays. The look and feel has changed so much, and the map with caches just near my home is so filled up, I wouldn't know where, how or even why to start.

About service, I don't know, the service of faster publication of yet another micro or cache page with less than 3 sentences of interesting information? Lack of patience with geocachers is also a result of all the changes, where everything has to be quick and easy (otherwise it is no fun?!).

I'm afraid the solution is not in (just) paying membership fees. But what are real solutions to counter this increase of irritation? I found this disappointed in the evolution of geocaching with cachers worldwide. More and more cachers are afraid this game is turning into a numbers game. A game where in the end it's more about how many lamp posts, traffic signs etc. you have found, preferably on your way to work or grocery store, instead of really having a great day out.

I don't know the solution(s), maybe it's already too late. I just try not to participate in the negative effects and keep on giving examples on how it can be/should be/ "was in the good old days" [].

And I'm not against cachers who don't care about quality, and prefer just scoring points. I just notice newbees who only have powertrail like caches in their neighborhood, think that is what geocaching is all about. They think the standard is a micro and a TFTC log. Understandable, since that is what they see most. And they will copy that....

But is it the (new) standard? And do we want it to be?

Maybe be an international think tank should be formed to discuss if and how the increase in dissapointment/frustration can be countered.

Edited February 15, 2013 by irisisleuk

February 15, 2013

Maybe be an international think tank should be formed to discuss if and how the increase in dissapointment/frustration can be countered.

Some very good points were raised. As a newcomer, I find meaningless little caches here and there interesting to a certain extent. The whole thing is to add a bit of interest to getting out and walking, getting some exercise. There have also been series or individual caches out in the countryside where I actually enjoyed seeing new scenery......while walking and getting exercise.

What I have not enjoyed is the attitude of some that caches need to be something wonderful every single time, especially when these same people are out placing caches of 'interest' that re total jokes as such.

I also am disappointed with the number of 1.5D caches that are no more than 0.5D caches, simply because of the hint actually being a neon sign pointing to the cache. And these people getting upset when a 2.5D cache with a cryptic hint turns out to be difficult. This also will bring out the 'special place' folks who can't bear to put a DNF without some sort of complaint.

The etiquette of helping out COs seems to be so complex that I am considering just not even logging some caches and focusing on the next find.

And i do NOT think, in fact feel certain, that making membership mandatory is going to do squat about improving the situation at all in any problematic area.

February 15, 2013

I think we all find different things disappointing/frustrating, and because of this, it'll be difficult to counter disappointment/frustration.

For example, some people find give-away hints frustrating. I love them. If I'm looking at the hint, I'm already frustrated because I can't find the cache. Cryptic hints make me even more frustrated.

I'm disappointed when I can drive right up to a cache. Make me hike. Preferably bushwhack. At least a few hundred feet (preferably a few miles). I'm in the minority on this one.

The only solution to my particular disappointments is for me to spend time preparing for my next caching trip - read the descriptions, read the map, consider passing on that 3D hide and that hide with two recent DNFs (or at least steel myself for my inevitable DNF). I suspect this kind of prep work is the only solution to most people's disappointments in the game.

On topic, I'm glad the game isn't premium only - I'd never have started if it was. It didn't take long for me to get hooked.

February 16, 2013

If they make it pay only...I guarantee you'd see a never ending battle of people removing caches (I think cache bandits of the unofficial geo-term). So many would be pissed off. I already see people battle this locally a bit when folks get banned from the site.

Edited February 16, 2013 by TheWeatherWarrior

February 16, 2013

Cryptic hints make me even more frustrated.

Make me hike.

Yep, we are all different. Make me hike for it but put a neon sign out there. Give me a guaranteed adventure. This is something I don't get.

I have a 4.0D/4.0T cache on a mountain. Now, if you start where many of the hikers coming to this area start from, the train station, you'll go through a string of about 5-6 caches getting to the park, some very easy, a couple a wee bit harder, two neon sign types in the parking lot placed by another geocacher, another of mine that isn't all that hard half-way up the mountain, and then the multi-cache with the cryptic hint. If you don't want to mess with it, that is perfectly fine with me. I warned you. There is a nice view though. And since you hiked all this way, ok, hike another 10 minutes up the trail and there is a very easy multi-cache. Hiking, up and back, looking for the caches, would turn into a mid-morning almost nightfall adventure. Even if you skipped my cryptic hint you would end up with 10 caches.

Should you have to be a premium member to do this? No. Could I make the string premium only if I wanted? Yes. Would anything at all be accomplished by making GeoCaching Premium only? No, not in my mind. As Shakespeare said, "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

2.8k · February 16, 2013

If they make it pay only...I guarantee you'd see a never ending battle of people removing caches (I think cache bandits of the unofficial geo-term). So many would be pissed off. I already see people battle this locally a bit when folks get banned from the site.

So we'd lose all the players with anger management issues? I vote yes, let's make it premium.

3.7k · February 16, 2013

Not sure what the point of debating this is. Jeremy has made it clear that there will always be a free membership.

Even if you were to make it for paid members only, you'd have to have some sort of free trial period.

5.7k · February 16, 2013

I think that land managers would see Groundspeak Inc. in a different light if it was entirely a virtual listing site. :laughing:

Leave nothing but foot prints, take nothing but photos with your camera.

And only allow PM to list them, like with the Challenges were.

Edited February 16, 2013 by Manville Possum Hunters

Should Geocaching become premium only?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation