Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Konnarock Kid & Marge

PMO designation for Earthcaches

Recommended Posts

While reading another topic in one of the other forms, a question came to mind.

I know this topic has arisen before, but it has been quite some time ago and I don't remember if any of TPTB responded.

Many of us feel that using the PMO designation for earthcaches doesn't fit. After all, who really created the cache? Maybe we did the leg work and wrote it up, but Mother nature or the forces of nature or God if you prefer, created the cache so why should we limit visits to only those who have a Premium membership?

Is there some guideline caste in concrete that exists that cannot be changed or can a new guideline be issued banning the use of PMO for earthcaches?

Thanks. :)

Share this post


Link to post

I have visited Premium EC and many for general membership. To be honest, if the reason for the premium was for a higher quality EC, then I did not find that. Was the reason to limit the number of people coming? It was at a high traffic designation, so did not fit. Was it to encourage people to get a premium membership? Well, EC are not the most popular type of cache so that would not be a motivation.

 

Maybe someone can enlighten me why they would make an EC premium membership? I have wondered that one.

Share this post


Link to post

It’s my understanding, from others, that PMO caches tend to give the owner a greater sense of security for the cache from being muggled. As for the educational basis of ECs I can’t fathom why one would want to limit their audience The quality is w/in each EC.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't have a problem with it personally. I'm not sure why someone would want to make an EarthCache for Premium Members only, but I figure it's the cache owner's decision.

Share this post


Link to post

Groundspeak has discussed this aspect of EarthCaching and included the GSA in the discussion. We will leave EarthCaching as is for now, with the ability to create PMO EarthCaches.

Thank you for raising the discussion point.

Share this post


Link to post

It’s my understanding, from others, that PMO caches tend to give the owner a greater sense of security for the cache from being muggled. As for the educational basis of ECs I can’t fathom why one would want to limit their audience The quality is w/in each EC.

 

Good point GEO WALKER. I once tried to muggle a mountain top. I was exhausted before getting it to the bottom. At least now the mountain top is a plateau and very flat! lol

Now we know it was discussed. We just don't know why PMO ECs were allowed continue?

Share this post


Link to post

It’s my understanding, from others, that PMO caches tend to give the owner a greater sense of security for the cache from being muggled. As for the educational basis of ECs I can’t fathom why one would want to limit their audience The quality is w/in each EC.

 

Good point GEO WALKER. I once tried to muggle a mountain top. I was exhausted before getting it to the bottom. At least now the mountain top is a plateau and very flat! lol

Now we know it was discussed. We just don't know why PMO ECs were allowed continue?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

I never really thought about it since I am elitist swine. I agree with the previous statement about why someone would want to limit visitors, it is perplexing.

Share this post


Link to post

I communicated with a land manager of a National Park where a PMO EC is listed, and they did not like the idea one bit. I'm guessing one email from the land manager to Groundspeak would clear things up quickly, but I won't muddy the water. I did get permission to create Virtual listings, which actually require no permission according to the Park. :ph34r:

 

Edit to add: This subject has came up before and Gary agreed that no EC's should be PMO. It's a Groundspeak thing and not GSA IMO. :anitongue:

Edited by Manville Possum Hunters

Share this post


Link to post

It’s my understanding, from others, that PMO caches tend to give the owner a greater sense of security for the cache from being muggled. As for the educational basis of ECs I can’t fathom why one would want to limit their audience The quality is w/in each EC.

 

Good point GEO WALKER. I once tried to muggle a mountain top. I was exhausted before getting it to the bottom. At least now the mountain top is a plateau and very flat! lol

Now we know it was discussed. We just don't know why PMO ECs were allowed continue?

 

But I thought only coal companies were the only ones allowed to do that... but that would only lead to numerous environmental discussions...

Edited by GEO WALKER

Share this post


Link to post

I communicated with a land manager of a National Park where a PMO EC is listed, and they did not like the idea one bit. I'm guessing one email from the land manager to Groundspeak would clear things up quickly, but I won't muddy the water. I did get permission to create Virtual listings, which actually require no permission according to the Park. :ph34r:

 

Edit to add: This subject has came up before and Gary agreed that no EC's should be PMO. It's a Groundspeak thing and not GSA IMO. :anitongue:

 

I forgot that Manville. So why is GS against banning the PMO designation for ECs? :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

I communicated with a land manager of a National Park where a PMO EC is listed, and they did not like the idea one bit. I'm guessing one email from the land manager to Groundspeak would clear things up quickly, but I won't muddy the water. I did get permission to create Virtual listings, which actually require no permission according to the Park. :ph34r:

 

Edit to add: This subject has came up before and Gary agreed that no EC's should be PMO. It's a Groundspeak thing and not GSA IMO. :anitongue:

 

I forgot that Manville. So why is GS against banning the PMO designation for ECs? :ph34r:

Quite simple. The $30 we pay to be a PM. I don't mind paying for a service that I can use and enjoy, but the way I support this site is by listing my geocaches here. I enjoy the new challanges also, and that requires a PM to create them. They need work, people are still voting them down just because they can. That's really all I can't do right now that my PM expired. I ran enough PQ's to keep me busy for quite some time, but my plan is to renew this spring.

Share this post


Link to post

I can see no reason to create an earthcache for PMO. Maybe someone who has done so can enlighten us.

Share this post


Link to post

I can see no reason to create an earthcache for PMO. Maybe someone who has done so can enlighten us.

I'm sure there some with valid reasons, like cache impact. :unsure: But ones that are a POI in a National Park?! Now come on, that is not a valid reason for a PMO EC. :mad: Take GC1RNR7 for example. I have been there and logged that listing. It's a great historical location of interest there in the Park, and also a listed Waymark. It's proudly there marked with information signs for all to see. I really enjoy visiting the site and have toured a few of the caves there. The cave tours are awesome! :)

Share this post


Link to post

I don't see the sense in it, for the reasons discussed.

 

Are there any PMO virtuals, or webcams? Were there any PMO locationless? I've never run across one.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't see the sense in it, for the reasons discussed.

 

Are there any PMO virtuals, or webcams? Were there any PMO locationless? I've never run across one.

 

Not a lot. A quick PQ brings up about 40 of them worldwide. For example http://coord.info/GC8B0C and http://coord.info/GCMF4B

Share this post


Link to post

 

Maybe someone can enlighten me why they would make an EC premium membership? I have wondered that one.

 

its very simple really...because they can :anibad::

Share this post


Link to post

Oh, I get it. The same reason I climb the steep side of the hill instead of the gentle slope... just because I can... LOL... :laughing: :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

Oh, I get it. The same reason I climb the steep side of the hill instead of the gentle slope... just because I can... LOL... :laughing: :laughing:

That makes about as much sense as why a dog....... Well never mind. :anicute: But it does. :anibad:

Share this post


Link to post

We all agree that some people make 'their' ECs PMOs because they can, but there is a lot of things we can do because we can. For instance, breaking the law, getting caught, going to jail, all because we can, but the question remains is why?

GS responded that there was some sort of conference between them and GSA and using the PMO designation was continued to be allowed. With GSA not favoring the PMO designation then why does GS continue to allow it? Maybe there is another reason for using the PMO label beside "we can" and we just aren't covering it. I know a couple of cachers in our area that use the PMO for everything, including their ECs, but they are sort of paranoid.

Let's keep an open mind and maybe there is someone out there who uses it (PMO) who has a valid reason which we haven't thought of. If you are out there, please join in. We will not bite!

GS can you give us additional information as to why you favor keeping the PMO for ECs?

Thanks. :)

Share this post


Link to post

GS responded that there was some sort of conference between them and GSA and using the PMO designation was continued to be allowed. With GSA not favoring the PMO designation then why does GS continue to allow it?

 

I think they continue to allow it because some of their customers wish them to do so. I know several cachers who are using the PM status for their caches in order to try to keep non PM cachers away from their caches. They argue something like this "I am paying the PM fee and I do not want to offer my caches to people not paying the PM fee". I even know cachers who are very unhappy about the fact that PM only caches can be logged by basic members as well.

 

Another effect for PM only ECs is that the effort to reply to answer mails gets reduced. So while in sensitive locations, PM only status might be an approach to limit traffic, PM only status for ECs with many visitors will help to decrease the work load for the cache owners.

 

I would prefer if all ECs are visible to all cachers and also non cachers and thus do not support PM only ECs. I do think, however, that we will have to live with them.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with cezanne. GSA is merely one opinion that Groundspeak must consider when considering this issue. The post from Sandy sounds as if the gave the issue thoughtful consideration.

 

Thanks for bringing up the topic, and to Sandy for giving the official reply.

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with cezanne. GSA is merely one opinion that Groundspeak must consider when considering this issue. The post from Sandy sounds as if the gave the issue thoughtful consideration.

 

Thanks for bringing up the topic, and to Sandy for giving the official reply.

 

Touchstone, sometimes we agree, but this is not one of those times.

"gave the issue thoughtful consideration" can be assumed, but it was not stated.

GSA may be merely one opinion but what other opinions were considered? Certainly a quick perusal of this thread will tell that most if not all earthcachers do not agree with the PMO status being used for ECs. Therefore what other opinions entered the deliberations? What's the big deal? Why cannot the PMO status for ECs be made off limits?

GS may have given a reply and it is appreciated, but respectfully, the why was not answered.

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post

I just had my second Earthcache published yesterday. I decided to put an Earthcache in the geologic fault after finding an ammocan there.

If the owner of that cache had made it a PMO cache, I would have done the same. I'm certainly hoping that no one steals the ammocan.

If a bunch of armchair cachers started to log finds on Earthcaches they did not visit and give obviously false answers to the questions, that would be a valid reason for making an Earthcache a PMO cache.

Share this post


Link to post

 

If a bunch of armchair cachers started to log finds on Earthcaches they did not visit and give obviously false answers to the questions, that would be a valid reason for making an Earthcache a PMO cache.

 

Why? Do you really think that basic members are armchair loggers with a higher probability? If so, I think you are wrong.

By the way, I know numerous instances where cachers (most of them PMs) gave correct answers, but still have not been at the location.

 

Cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

Why? Do you really think that basic members are armchair loggers with a higher probability? If so, I think you are wrong.

 

I couldn't agree more, there are lazy cachers that have $30 a year and there are lazy cachers that don't.

 

By the way, I know numerous instances where cachers (most of them PMs) gave correct answers, but still have not been at the location.

 

I have seen this too.Which really falls to the CO to give LRs that "try" to circumvent that from happening. If that is even possible, some people will ask friends for answers and no matter what you ask them to do, there is a way to cheat.

Share this post


Link to post

This whole issue has been discussed recently with Groundspeak, the Geological Society of America and the EarthCache reviewers and it was decided that it is the cache owners decision to make or not make an EarthCache a PMO - just as it is with all other cache types.

Share this post


Link to post

This whole issue has been discussed recently with Groundspeak, the Geological Society of America and the EarthCache reviewers and it was decided that it is the cache owners decision to make or not make an EarthCache a PMO - just as it is with all other cache types.

That kinda blows the whole idea as why EarthCaches should be educational, and takes use back to the because we can. No one has offered any real reason that a EC should be made PMO. :anitongue: GSA has it's own rules, but Groundspeak is in control here and has the last say. In short, their site, their rules. No use to continue this thread, we all got our answers. My listings will never be PMO, because I can. :mad: Or as my case may be for now, because I can't because my PM expired. I'm sure there are some very real reasons, but I'm yet to see any presented. Maybe some PMO EC's are in bad places for geocaching to begin with?

Edited by Manville Possum Hunters

Share this post


Link to post

This whole issue has been discussed recently with Groundspeak, the Geological Society of America and the EarthCache reviewers and it was decided that it is the cache owners decision to make or not make an EarthCache a PMO - just as it is with all other cache types.

 

As I have written already above I think that we all need to accept this decision, and I even can understand the decision when viewed upon from Groundspeak's point of view.

 

However, as far as the "with all other cache types" is regarded, one should not forget that the PM only status for caches has been introduced to help against certain incidents of cache vandalism while this certainly will not happen for Earthcaches.

 

Moreover, I am wondering why the argument that ECs are to be treated like all other cache types does not apply to all cache aspects. For example, there is no language guideline for caches except for ECs. By writing in English in an European country where English is not the local language, one excludes definitely not more, rather less cachers than by PM only status.

 

Cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

It is an option for any cache.

 

Perhaps the owner wants to reduce the number of people going there, or other reasons. So PMO might reduce the regular number visiting. Who knows, but I see no reason why it should not be here.

Share this post


Link to post

...PM only status for caches has been introduced to help against certain incidents of cache vandalism ...

 

That's not my understanding at all. I think that is a another Geo-myth that has merely been propagated on the Forums.

Share this post


Link to post

...PM only status for caches has been introduced to help against certain incidents of cache vandalism ...

 

That's not my understanding at all. I think that is a another Geo-myth that has merely been propagated on the Forums.

 

No, it is not. The feature has been introduced for that reason (there exists an old posting by Jeremy), but lateron

also other usages for the feature have been come along. So it is definitely true that meanwhile the cache vandalism issue is

just one of several reasons why PM only caches still exist and will continue to exist.

 

Cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

As I understand it, the PRIMARY reason (not only) for having PMO caches is to deter cache theft and vandalism.

In Oregon, we have had paint graffiti put on the inside of caves that might not have been found if the coordinates had not been published.

I would never have known about my second Earthcache site if I had not made the effort to go out and find the ammocan in Twin Fault.

If that CO had made her cache a PMO, I would have made my EC a PMO as well.

At my first EC, I hid a peanut butter jar cache at the point in Crack-in-the-Ground where the questions are to be answered. You do not have to take a picture or even find the peanut butter jar which has a code that I wrote on the inside of the lid to get credit for the Earthcache.

Please don't try to put a spacing restriction on Earthcaches. Mine are only 2.3 miles apart and each has a physical cache within 250 feet.

The lessons taught at each are enough different to satisfy the EC reviewer and the BLM.

Share this post


Link to post

I think it is interesting that a vast majority of ECers would like to see the PMO made off limits for earthcaches and there is no change. Yet a very small but vocal minority was against requiring photos and guess what? No requiring photos and the PMO designation is allowed to live on! This is not a debate about the virtues of having a Premium membership and certainly it is worth while. It is how we use that membership.

What gives? Doesn't the majority count for anything anymore or does the squeaky wheel get the grease?

P.S. "cache theft and vandalism". What cache theft and vandalism? Ever try to steal a mountain or bottle a waterfall? :ph34r:

 

edit for spelling error.

Edited by Konnarock Kid & Marge

Share this post


Link to post

I think it is interesting that a vast majority of ECers would like to see the PMO made off limits for earthcaches and there is no change. Yet a very small but vocal minority was against requiring photos and guess what? No requiring photos and the PMO designation is allowed to live on! This is not a debate about the virtues of having a Premium membership and certainly it is worth while. It is how we use that membership.

What gives? Doesn't the majority count for anything anymore or does the squeaky wheel get the grease?

 

I am not specifically disagreeing with you, more so just curious. How do you know that a vast majority of ECers would like to see PMO made off limits for EC's? Is this based on the vocal few in this and the previous threads or is this based on some other way of determining? I think the dynamic of these forums is skewed in that if something appears to be a majority in the forums it doesn't necessarily represent the community as a whole. I would even dare say that the forum posters typically are exceptions to the general community.

 

For the record, I am not against PMO EC's. I would not make any EC of mine PMO but if others want to for w/e reason, it wont bother me.

Share this post


Link to post

I think it is interesting that a vast majority of ECers would like to see the PMO made off limits for earthcaches and there is no change. Yet a very small but vocal minority was against requiring photos and guess what? No requiring photos and the PMO designation is allowed to live on! This is not a debate about the virtues of having a Premium membership and certainly it is worth while. It is how we use that membership.

What gives? Doesn't the majority count for anything anymore or does the squeaky wheel get the grease?

P.S. "cache theft and vandalism". What cache theft and vandalism? Ever try to steal a mountain or bottle a waterfall? :ph34r:

 

edit for spelling error.

I agree that most of us EC'ers would like to see PMO off limits to EC's, but that won't happen. If more of us wanted the PMO EC's more would exist. The subject of PMO EC's in our State and National Parks is an issue that should be continued with land managers, not Groundspeak. :ph34r: I can't see a land manager only allowing paying members of this site able to view a POI on public display. In fact I have discussed this with a few, and we agree.

Share this post


Link to post

I think it is interesting that a vast majority of ECers would like to see the PMO made off limits for earthcaches and there is no change. Yet a very small but vocal minority was against requiring photos and guess what? No requiring photos and the PMO designation is allowed to live on! This is not a debate about the virtues of having a Premium membership and certainly it is worth while. It is how we use that membership.

What gives? Doesn't the majority count for anything anymore or does the squeaky wheel get the grease?

 

I am not specifically disagreeing with you, more so just curious. How do you know that a vast majority of ECers would like to see PMO made off limits for EC's? Is this based on the vocal few in this and the previous threads or is this based on some other way of determining? I think the dynamic of these forums is skewed in that if something appears to be a majority in the forums it doesn't necessarily represent the community as a whole. I would even dare say that the forum posters typically are exceptions to the general community.

 

For the record, I am not against PMO EC's. I would not make any EC of mine PMO but if others want to for w/e reason, it wont bother me.

 

Thanks for your response. Now to address your two points (highlighted).

The only way I could know is from the forum. Maybe I should qualify my comment with the vast majority of ECers who post on this forum would like to see the PMO designation made off limits, but I have no way of knowing who/what they represent other than themselves.

To answer your second point, on what basis would you say "that forum posters typically are exceptions...."? At least I have some data (results of the forum posts). I am not basing my conclusion on assumptions.

Thanks.

Just curious, why wouldn't you make any EC of yours PMO? Using that word again, I would "assume" you don't like the use of it!

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post

I think it is interesting that a vast majority of ECers would like to see the PMO made off limits for earthcaches and there is no change. Yet a very small but vocal minority was against requiring photos and guess what? No requiring photos and the PMO designation is allowed to live on! This is not a debate about the virtues of having a Premium membership and certainly it is worth while. It is how we use that membership.

What gives? Doesn't the majority count for anything anymore or does the squeaky wheel get the grease?

P.S. "cache theft and vandalism". What cache theft and vandalism? Ever try to steal a mountain or bottle a waterfall? :ph34r:

 

edit for spelling error.

I agree that most of us EC'ers would like to see PMO off limits to EC's, but that won't happen. If more of us wanted the PMO EC's more would exist. The subject of PMO EC's in our State and National Parks is an issue that should be continued with land managers, not Groundspeak. :ph34r: I can't see a land manager only allowing paying members of this site able to view a POI on public display. In fact I have discussed this with a few, and we agree.

Good point MPH.

Since GSA has this special relationship with the National Park Service why don't they ask them (NPS) what they prefer? I seriously believe that the NPS would bot approve an EC on the basis of limiting visits due to a PMO designation. These are 'public' parks not private use parks.

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for the discussion and opinions. I see both sides here. So far, nothing compells me to develp PMO EC yet. Since I pay for my PM, I get to find those as well.

Share this post


Link to post

I can't see a land manager only allowing paying members of this site able to view a POI on public display.

I'm not advocating the use of "Private Member Only" for EarthCaches, but either this statement is very misleading or I'm totally confused.

 

Applying PMO status to an EC doesn't prevent the general public from viewing that point of interest. It merely prevents the general public from finding the POI's coordinates on this website.

 

In many national parks, I can hire a private guide to take my family to the guide's favorite places inside the park. How would a PMO EC be any different?

Share this post


Link to post

I think it is interesting that a vast majority of ECers would like to see the PMO made off limits for earthcaches and there is no change. Yet a very small but vocal minority was against requiring photos and guess what? No requiring photos and the PMO designation is allowed to live on! This is not a debate about the virtues of having a Premium membership and certainly it is worth while. It is how we use that membership.

What gives? Doesn't the majority count for anything anymore or does the squeaky wheel get the grease?

P.S. "cache theft and vandalism". What cache theft and vandalism? Ever try to steal a mountain or bottle a waterfall? :ph34r:

 

edit for spelling error.

I agree that most of us EC'ers would like to see PMO off limits to EC's, but that won't happen. If more of us wanted the PMO EC's more would exist. The subject of PMO EC's in our State and National Parks is an issue that should be continued with land managers, not Groundspeak. :ph34r: I can't see a land manager only allowing paying members of this site able to view a POI on public display. In fact I have discussed this with a few, and we agree.

Good point MPH.

Since GSA has this special relationship with the National Park Service why don't they ask them (NPS) what they prefer? I seriously believe that the NPS would bot approve an EC on the basis of limiting visits due to a PMO designation. These are 'public' parks not private use parks.

I'm sure GSA would agree, it's Groundspeak that allows PMO EC's. I have worked with enough land managers of Parks to know that a PMO EarthCache should never allowed. If the area is that sensitive that visits need to be limited, then the site is likely off limits to begin with. As I discussed with a Park manager, some areas like a Native American burial site that we know about is federally protected. It's also little known about and is in the backcountry. Some places just don't need to be listed on any site. All it takes is common sense, and working with our land managers. They are not part of Groundspeak or GSA, and they dang well make the rules about geocaching on the property they manage. That why you can't place physical geocaches, and virtuals are all that is allowed. Also encouraged I might add, and if the listing has a lesson to be learned, it's all the more welcome. You may not get no where with the NPS in general, the local land managers are the ones to contact. Also sending a email with a State letter head from another Park goes a long way. Also just who to contact can be troublesome. So what it comes down to is I can list a PMO EC at a tourist attraction on a viewing deck in a National Park, but do I need anyone's permission to do so? I don't think so, Waymarks and Challanges don't require it. So when GSA contacts the person who granted me permission, they can request that it be left open to the public or made PMO if needed. Remember to leave no trace. Makes me think of a quote by Ralph Waldo Emerson. "Do not follow where the path may lead. Go, instead, where there is no path and leave a trail." :blink: People like him are the ones that got geocaching banned in lot's of Parks. Dadgum bushwackers! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

I think it is interesting that a vast majority of ECers would like to see the PMO made off limits for earthcaches and there is no change. Yet a very small but vocal minority was against requiring photos and guess what? No requiring photos and the PMO designation is allowed to live on! This is not a debate about the virtues of having a Premium membership and certainly it is worth while. It is how we use that membership.

What gives? Doesn't the majority count for anything anymore or does the squeaky wheel get the grease?

 

I am not specifically disagreeing with you, more so just curious. How do you know that a vast majority of ECers would like to see PMO made off limits for EC's? Is this based on the vocal few in this and the previous threads or is this based on some other way of determining? I think the dynamic of these forums is skewed in that if something appears to be a majority in the forums it doesn't necessarily represent the community as a whole. I would even dare say that the forum posters typically are exceptions to the general community.

 

For the record, I am not against PMO EC's. I would not make any EC of mine PMO but if others want to for w/e reason, it wont bother me.

I think Groundspeak should retain all rights to whether any cache can be PMO. They should not delegate the rights to GSA or the Department of the Interior (BLM and National Park Service). I find it strange that I can hide a physical cache on BLM land with no permission except from a Groundspeak reviewer but I have to contact a BLM Recreation staffer for permission for an Earthcache.

Both of my Earthcaches have physical caches within them and they are in an area open to cattle grazing so the "Leave no Trace" mantra doesn't hold any water. The USDA (USFS) has made no objection to having PMO caches on Forest Service lands.

If I did make any of my caches PMO, I wouldn't care if a Premium Member led 10 people out with them. We'll see how many months it takes for my second EC to be logged. Every one of the visitors to my first Earthcache has posted pictures.

As far as stealing a mountain or bottling a waterfall no but I have seen dead pigs in a watercourse and paint on the walls of caves that were clean for centuries.

Share this post


Link to post

.......... on what basis would you say "that forum posters typically are exceptions...."? At least I have some data (results of the forum posts). I am not basing my conclusion on assumptions.

Thanks.

 

I dont know exactly what kind of conclusions can be drawn from this but I will throw some stats at you to explain my reason for calling the forum users exceptions.

 

The front page of geocaching.com states that there are over 5 million geocachers (exact number unknown)

 

At the bottom of the forums it states the number of registered forum users as 759743

 

So taking those numbers we see that only 15% of all cachers have even registered in the forums. Of course I have no way of knowing how many of those are abandoned or inactive accounts, but for this discussion I will just leave it at 15%

 

To me it would seem that being in the 15 percentile already puts us as exceptions to the geocacher norm.

 

How many of the forum users enjoy/seek EC's? I dont know the answer.

 

How many EC loggers are forum users? I don't know this either, but just to give myself an Idea I looked a random EC of your as a sample.

 

I chose your "Devil"s Elbow" EC for no reason other than it had a larger number of favourites.

 

I looked at the 10 most recent visitors, clicked through to their profiles and clicked the "see the forum posts for this user" links.

 

Of those 10, 9 are premium members and 0 have made forum posts. While this is not a huge sample size, I find those stats interesting.

 

Just curious, why wouldn't you make any EC of yours PMO? Using that word again, I would "assume" you don't like the use of it!

Thanks.

 

I wouldn't enable PMO on any of my EC's because I don't see the need to do so. Some others may see the need, and I appreciate the fact that they are free to make that decision on their own.

While I dont anticipate ever changing my desire to enable PMO status, if I did, i wouldn't be happy about someone telling me I am not permitted to do so.

Share this post


Link to post

Have you ever heard of sampling? With this season of political polls do you think all "100%" of the population is queried? No, it is sampled. Like you, I don't know if 15% of geocachers are using the forum, but let's assume it's half of that number. Polls representing millions of people don't come close the 7.5% of the population. Admittedly, the sample is carefully chosen based on certain statistical parameters, but we don't know the actual 'make-up' of our forum sample.

If it should remain (the PMO designation), I suggest you take an informal count of ECers who have more than one or two ECs. If it were so desirable, then why isn't it used other than by few individuals who are not major EC developers? Maybe they realize a potential negative impact?

This argument wouldn't be worth having if it wasn't for those few misguided individuals who use the PMO. I contend they give earthcaching a bad name. Most cachers I know are premium members and think any PMO designation on an EC is just plain rude. Who are we to set qualifications for visiting an EC? We are the mortals who developed the EC. We didn't create the EC!

Thanks for a very civil, but frank discussion. I now realize I am not going to change anyone's mind or at least those who make the rules.

Having said all I want to say on this topic, I don't want to forget the season so I want to wish everyone a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year!

Share this post


Link to post

Have you ever heard of sampling? With this season of political polls do you think all "100%" of the population is queried? No, it is sampled. Like you, I don't know if 15% of geocachers are using the forum, but let's assume it's half of that number. Polls representing millions of people don't come close the 7.5% of the population. Admittedly, the sample is carefully chosen based on certain statistical parameters, but we don't know the actual 'make-up' of our forum sample.

If it should remain (the PMO designation), I suggest you take an informal count of ECers who have more than one or two ECs. If it were so desirable, then why isn't it used other than by few individuals who are not major EC developers? Maybe they realize a potential negative impact?

This argument wouldn't be worth having if it wasn't for those few misguided individuals who use the PMO. I contend they give earthcaching a bad name. Most cachers I know are premium members and think any PMO designation on an EC is just plain rude. Who are we to set qualifications for visiting an EC? We are the mortals who developed the EC. We didn't create the EC!

Thanks for a very civil, but frank discussion. I now realize I am not going to change anyone's mind or at least those who make the rules.

Having said all I want to say on this topic, I don't want to forget the season so I want to wish everyone a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year!

And Merry Christmas to you and yours also KK&M. :) Remember, it's up to good people like yourself that can and do develop good EarthCaches and keep them open for basic members to enjoy. :D

Share this post


Link to post

It is an option for any cache.

 

Perhaps the owner wants to reduce the number of people going there, or other reasons. So PMO might reduce the regular number visiting. Who knows, but I see no reason why it should not be here.

 

I agree.

 

I guess I don't understand what all the angst is all about. Some EarthCaches I can't get because of their T rating, some I can't get because they are far away...some may require more from me than I am willing to give, etc

 

So? Whether its the limitations of my mind, body, equipment or location, not all caches are able to be found.

 

Can't you just focus on the ECs that aren't PMO?

 

If a CO wants to make his EC PMO, then so be it. Why does it have to affect people so much? If you're not a PM, then either back door log it, or move on.

Edited by JesandTodd

Share this post


Link to post

Some EarthCaches I can't get because of their T rating, some I can't get because they are far away...some may require more from me than I am willing to give, etc

 

So? Whether its the limitations of my mind, body, equipment or location, not all caches are able to be found.

 

I agree with the above. I do think, however, that the argument that ECs can be PM only because this feature is available for all caches is not quite consistent as there are several aspects where the guidelines for ECs differ from the guidelines for the rest. I can get published my normal caches easily based on solely an English description, something which I am denied for ECs. I am convinced that my the PM only status more people are excluded than by me writing in English only (the exclusion aspect is the reason provided for the language guideline). So to sum up, while I do understand Groundspeak's decision about the PM only status for ECs and have no problem with it, I feel that the argument provided by geoaware in this thread is weak.

 

Cezanne

Share this post


Link to post
If a CO wants to make his EC PMO, then so be it. Why does it have to affect people so much? If you're not a PM, then either back door log it, or move on.

 

Because it's much more fun starting threads to cause angst where there was none to begin with... :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

I just noticed this thread had a request from the OP some time back to close it, so I am doing that now since it appears to be devolving.

 

For the record: This topic comes up every year or so, and it seems we all say the same things each time. That must mean something. I would add my two cents, but it wouldn't add anything new to the discussion and it might seem like a parting shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

×
×
  • Create New...