Premium Member Only Caches

[Mr.Yuck]

 

He's 100% correct Joe. The newbies of today are not the newbies of 2002. Groundspeak most likely has the numbers, but they'll never release them. I wouldn't doubt 95% of people you see who joined within the last couple years with 50 finds or less downloaded a smartphone app. And many of them never visit the website. It's become nearly universal they're going to drop a lame 2 word or less find log on your cache. And many of them do think there is a cache fairy who puts those gamepieces out there, not a regular player like themselves. And yes, a 12 year old or so newbie found my 2004 mini Jasmer challenge for his very first find (he obviously didn't qualify), took it with him, and hid it as his own cache 4 miles away. Me, I studied this website for almost a month before joining the day of my first find (still don't know why I did that). It's a whole new world out there, trust us.

 

That's the other thing I'm seeing in my area - kids playing. Some even say they are 12 years old, or they are in grade school or the go to the public school across from the park. I'm guessing most of them are not caching with their parents. In the olden golden days the only way to play was with a GPS unit. GPS receivers were/are expensive so it was the adults who were playing and they might include family members but the adult was in charge. Now most kids under 18 have a cell phone and most of those are smartphones. Download the free app and off you go - no parental supervision required.

 

I do NOT think I'm seeing more kids playing, actually. I will say it's true kids do the darndest things. I have seen some horrific hides out there by kids, and it's always rather obvious. And this dates back to 2005, when a gang of middle schoolers in my area peppered their village with some really horrible hides. And then they all obviously got a ride to a picnic in a then empty County Park about 20 miles from their village, and peppered that with bad hides, including, if I'm not mistaken, 3 different micros on playground equipment. And like I say, I have seem some doozies over the years by kids, but I'm still not seeing an increase.

 

The kid who took my cache with him and hid somewhere else is also widely believed to have taken a 2nd cache (a micro) and hid that as his own, but the theory is there was a throwdown in place, and the original owner was long gone, and unable to verify. Yes, we had a thread about my incident in our local forum.

[ground control 1]

There are a lot of serious geocachers out there who are not premium members, including me. Not everyone can afford a premium membership. People's circumstances differ. The good thing about geocaching is that it is a great hobby for someone who is on a very tight budget because it costs very little to get started and is great fun and get people outside exploring new areas.

I love the hobby and have hidden three caches of my own now. So please don't knock the people who can't afford a premium membership. There are a lot of serious, sensible, basic members out there. Just a shame that PMO caches are not available for us to find. But thankfully there are thousands of others we can find.

[+Team Dredd]

Smart phones have made sooooo many things obsolete, technology changes so fast it is almost ridiculous. I have problems sometimes narrowing down locations with my phone and was considered getting a GPS, but the more I read about changes in smart phones I wasn't sure. I met a cacher that is local several months ago (and are now friends, cool) who used to use a GPS but now just uses his smart phone because according to him it has become easier and more convenient to cache with his phone than his GPS. This is HIS OPINION not mine. I have never used a real GPS to cache so I cannot compare them.

 

After reading some of these posts we are both of the opinion that we may make more of our caches PMO in the future if we continue to have to replace them and relocate them to their original spot. We knew well in advance that placing caches means maintaining them, but on the flip side of that it still boggles the mind why a cacher (new or not) will find a cache, sign the log, maybe swap swag, and then not put the lids one right, not seal the bag, and worst of all place the cache in a location they believe is a better hiding spot than where we originally placed it! We have found other peoples caches laying out in the open and tried to help by putting it under cover, but not moving it to a location several feet (or further) away just "because"; then we send a message to the CO letting them know.

 

We have yet to have one of our PMO caches get left open or get moved to a different location. So far it has been the regular traditional caches.

[+niraD]

From my perspective it's clear that Groundspeak has no interest in seeking quality

I'm not sure it's a matter of having no interest in promoting quality. Groundspeak has done a number of things that I think are sincerely intended to promote quality. I think the problem is that there really isn't much they can do about it one way or the other.

 

Groundspeak is just a listing service. They don't hide caches. And the volunteer reviewers do not want the drama that would come with reviewing caches for quality. (That's a big part of what killed virtual caches.) So if a cache meets the guidelines, they publish it.

 

Groundspeak did not encourage modern numbers run trails like the ET Highway trail. They actually resisted that trend for quite a while. But cache owners pushed and schemed and placed numbers run trails despite guidelines intended to block them, and finally Groundspeak gave up trying to block them. It wasn't Groundspeak's idea; it was members of the geocaching community.

 

"The great thing about geocaching is that anyone can play. But the worst thing about geocaching is that anyone can play."

[team tisri]

From my perspective it's clear that Groundspeak has no interest in seeking quality

I'm not sure it's a matter of having no interest in promoting quality. Groundspeak has done a number of things that I think are sincerely intended to promote quality. I think the problem is that there really isn't much they can do about it one way or the other.

 

Groundspeak is just a listing service. They don't hide caches. And the volunteer reviewers do not want the drama that would come with reviewing caches for quality. (That's a big part of what killed virtual caches.) So if a cache meets the guidelines, they publish it.

 

Perhaps that's part of the problem. Groundspeak seems to be stuck somewhere between a commercial organisation making a profit, and a volunteer organisation that raises a bit of money to help offset the cost of the hardware. Given how Groundspeak is critically dependent on volunteers at every stage (without people hiding caches and people reviewing caches there would be no game) they don't seem to treat volunteers very well. One of the UK reviewers recently resigned over an issue relating to local legislation where apparently Groundspeak had no interest in the way UK laws worked; it seems there are ongoing issues relating to unvalidated users with the intro app not knowing how the game is supposed to be played (and cache owners get annoyed at the consequences), and Groundspeak seems to have become particularly adept at ignoring popular ideas put forward in their own forums in favour of introducing new features that seem to cause frequent loss of functionality (e.g breaking pocket query emails, breaking all sorts of third party systems when they changed "Unknown" to "Mystery" for no apparent reason etc).

 

Groundspeak did not encourage modern numbers run trails like the ET Highway trail. They actually resisted that trend for quite a while. But cache owners pushed and schemed and placed numbers run trails despite guidelines intended to block them, and finally Groundspeak gave up trying to block them. It wasn't Groundspeak's idea; it was members of the geocaching community.

 

Perhaps if they used paid staff rather than volunteers, or even made the guidelines stricter, it would be less of an issue.

 

"The great thing about geocaching is that anyone can play. But the worst thing about geocaching is that anyone can play."

 

Sadly I fear you are right. The trouble is that the race to the bottom tends to trash a lot of stuff along the way.

[+wesi]

"The great thing about geocaching is that anyone can play. But the worst thing about geocaching is that anyone can play."

 

Yup. This indeed is one of the reasons why I mark some of my caches as "premium". It hides the coords from the one-day chache wonders with 2 finds who make owning caches (and trackables, for that matter) heavy on maintenance. I would vastly prefer though if "premium" weren't tied to a 30$ fee ... something like 250 finds and 1 approved hide would be a lot better and more democratic as a hurdle to overcome. Once you get there: welcome to the family.

 

The influx of new players isn't really the reason that quality in many areas is going downhill. The main reason is "density". In metropolitan areas, the "good spots" at historically significant locations, on hilltops, in the parks, etc, are all taken, and often only the guardrails and dumpsters remain. Nonetheless, I've been living in Westchester County for seven years now, and caching STILL brings me to nearby parks and portions of the Long Island Sound that I never visited before. And every now and then, you come across an epic hide/find that you know you'll remember forever, and it makes all the low-energy unremarkable average smileys that you picked up along the way .. perfectly okay.

 

Happy trails, y'all!

-wesi

[+narcissa]

Perhaps if they used paid staff rather than volunteers, or even made the guidelines stricter, it would be less of an issue.

 

And how much will they have to charge for memberships in order to have an army of paid reviewers?

[+jellis]

I make mine PMO because of Groundspeak's policies regarding novices with smartphones not even having to register, or read any of the guidelines.

I totally agree. Though I did it also to bring more basic members to paid members. Premium Members don't always guarantee anything but it does help cut down problems. I only have a few Non PMO caches and one was logged as found by intro app cachers. The log said they didn't find it. Log was deleted and I explained not only was it a puzzle and the cache was NOT at the posted coords but that you actually have to find the cache.

[+niraD]

Groundspeak did not encourage modern numbers run trails like the ET Highway trail. They actually resisted that trend for quite a while. But cache owners pushed and schemed and placed numbers run trails despite guidelines intended to block them, and finally Groundspeak gave up trying to block them. It wasn't Groundspeak's idea; it was members of the geocaching community.

Perhaps if they used paid staff rather than volunteers, or even made the guidelines stricter, it would be less of an issue.

So what kind of guidelines do you think would effectively block numbers run trails, given that there are geocachers who are determined to create them?

 

If you prohibit caches owned by the same account from being within a mile of each other, then they'll just create 10 accounts to create the numbers run trail. If you prohibit caches owned by the same account from being within 2 miles of each other, then they'll just create 20 accounts to create the numbers run trail. And so on.

[team tisri]

Perhaps if they used paid staff rather than volunteers, or even made the guidelines stricter, it would be less of an issue.

 

And how much will they have to charge for memberships in order to have an army of paid reviewers?

 

Not much point speculating on that without seeing the figures. The question is whether the business would be more or less viable doing it that way, and whether the number of paid memberships would increase or decrease based on whatever benefits having paid reviewers offered.

 

Also it's not as if we're talking paying people as if it were a full-time employment. It would be silly to have reviewers paid a $50,000 salary with benefits on top, I was thinking more along the lines of having a specific amount of activity expected of them paid as a part-time position. If there really is enough reviewing work that full-time hours are required then it needs to be paid accordingly.

[team tisri]

Groundspeak did not encourage modern numbers run trails like the ET Highway trail. They actually resisted that trend for quite a while. But cache owners pushed and schemed and placed numbers run trails despite guidelines intended to block them, and finally Groundspeak gave up trying to block them. It wasn't Groundspeak's idea; it was members of the geocaching community.

Perhaps if they used paid staff rather than volunteers, or even made the guidelines stricter, it would be less of an issue.

So what kind of guidelines do you think would effectively block numbers run trails, given that there are geocachers who are determined to create them?

 

If you prohibit caches owned by the same account from being within a mile of each other, then they'll just create 10 accounts to create the numbers run trail. If you prohibit caches owned by the same account from being within 2 miles of each other, then they'll just create 20 accounts to create the numbers run trail. And so on.

 

If you've got paid reviewers rather than volunteers it's easier to use terms like "power trails are not permitted" and let the reviewer decide what counts as a power trail. If it just so happens that a bunch of geocachers appear to be teaming up to create a trail of dozens of film pots along a trail the reviewer can rule that it's a power trail and disallow it. If they try and create a trail of a cache every mile and then slowly fill in the gaps, sooner or later the reviewer will see what's going on and block further caches.

 

If the implementation is a slavish approach that says "meets all guidelines, therefore publish" because it's hard to objectively define a powertrail the end result is what we see around us. If the implementation uses a bit more discretion perhaps things might improve. But unpaid volunteers can't be expected to deal with the aggravation from people who insist their series of 53 film pots along a 6-mile trail isn't a power trail, whereas perhaps paid reviewers can.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

Groundspeak did not encourage modern numbers run trails like the ET Highway trail. They actually resisted that trend for quite a while. But cache owners pushed and schemed and placed numbers run trails despite guidelines intended to block them, and finally Groundspeak gave up trying to block them. It wasn't Groundspeak's idea; it was members of the geocaching community.

Perhaps if they used paid staff rather than volunteers, or even made the guidelines stricter, it would be less of an issue.

So what kind of guidelines do you think would effectively block numbers run trails, given that there are geocachers who are determined to create them?

 

If you prohibit caches owned by the same account from being within a mile of each other, then they'll just create 10 accounts to create the numbers run trail. If you prohibit caches owned by the same account from being within 2 miles of each other, then they'll just create 20 accounts to create the numbers run trail. And so on.

 

If you've got paid reviewers rather than volunteers it's easier to use terms like "power trails are not permitted" and let the reviewer decide what counts as a power trail. If it just so happens that a bunch of geocachers appear to be teaming up to create a trail of dozens of film pots along a trail the reviewer can rule that it's a power trail and disallow it. If they try and create a trail of a cache every mile and then slowly fill in the gaps, sooner or later the reviewer will see what's going on and block further caches.

 

 

I agree to an extent but you could do it NOW with existing volunteers just as it was done for years....." don't hide a cache every .1 miles just because you can ", power trails simply were not allowed. It's about a business - customer relationship.......tons of geocachers are into numbers and were pushing for power trails until TPTB gave in and allowed them......pretty simple really, give the customer what he wants. PT's are pretty easy to avoid if you don't like them, they stand out like a sore thumb.

[+niraD]

PT's are pretty easy to avoid if you don't like them, they stand out like a sore thumb.

Actually, one of the big complaints is that it isn't that easy to ignore numbers run trails, unless you simply ignore everything in the area. When a new numbers run trail is published, the POI caches in the area get lost in the noise. Plus, the numbers run trail floods PQs and instant notifications.

 

But that's a discussion for another thread.

[+bflentje]

30 dollars might not seem like much to you, but for parents supporting a family on minimum wage, that’s 3 ½ hours of work.

 

That is a worst-case scenario. My point stands. Either way, for a year's worth of enjoyment, it's not a lot...eight cents a day.

Unfortunately where I teach the worst case scenario is the norm, 65 percent of the population live below the poverty level.

 

I contend, no matter how bad it sounds, in poverty stricken areas you will be more likely to lose your stuff. It's a fact that those with little means "find" ways to get by.. no pun intended. They do that by taking anything that isn't bolted down.

[+Team Dredd]

I contend, no matter how bad it sounds, in poverty stricken areas you will be more likely to lose your stuff. It's a fact that those with little means "find" ways to get by.. no pun intended. They do that by taking anything that isn't bolted down.

 

[+Riverview CacheAways]

Thanks to everyone who posted in this thread. Your posts are full of good insights about the sate of geocaching. Very helpful.

 

John

 

 

 

[+Team Dredd]

What circumstances or reasons would you have for marking your cache for premium members only?

 

As an example, we have a non-premium cache that is a small container inside a partially hollowed oak log that is part of a broken off of limb from an oak tree. Of course it is at the base of an old oak tree in the bushes. The original container was hollowed out a lot more than the one we are replacing it with so the sides were quite thin with a wooded plug put in the end that fit snug in the hole. Didn't take long for it to get broken open so we retrieved it and repaired it with some glue and a wire tie. We checked on it the other day and the log was broken open into pieces and the small container laying on the ground next to it in the open; no email message or anything from anyone letting us know it was in this bad of shape. Granted the elements did contribute to the condition of the container.

 

I have found another small log and made another similar container that is stronger than the original. I guess my point is that some of us actually take time to make containers that are not just a small simple container (nothing against small simple containers, we have those too). Some containers take time and effort and it is very gratifying when a cacher posts a nice log about a container or the cache. Other cachers getting enjoyment out of finding a cache and container that you have put this kind of effort into is a big part of why we place them. The new container is finished now with the original log inside and we will be placing it back in it's spot soon, and will be changing it to a premium to try and protect the container from the brand new cachers that haven't learned to respect custom containers yet.

 

We have talked about this and have no intent on making all our caches premium. But as we mature in the caching community we will continue to try and make our caches a bit better as time goes by.

[+Lloyd & Harry]

I would make it premium members if

1. put lots of money into it

2.put lots of time into it

3.travel bug hotel

4.near private property

[+cerberus1]

Hi,

I've hidden one premium member cache (out of five), because of the amount of trackables in it- there are nine TB's and GeoCoins that I don't want to go missing.

Are they supposed to stay with the cache?

If not and another carts 'em off to move 'em along, would the cache still be pm "worthy"?

Trying to figure out what the difference is between any cache that could have trackables dropped off.

[+The_Incredibles_]

30 dollars might not seem like much to you, but for parents supporting a family on minimum wage, that’s 3 ½ hours of work.

 

3 1/2 hours of work? OMG, what a hardship for a whole *year* of fun.

[+narcissa]

30 dollars might not seem like much to you, but for parents supporting a family on minimum wage, that’s 3 ½ hours of work.

 

3 1/2 hours of work? OMG, what a hardship for a whole *year* of fun.

 

If someone is supporting their family on a low wage, an extra $30 very well might be a hardship. It seems pretty tasteless to mock someone for trying to make wise spending decisions on a tight budget.

[+The_Incredibles_]

30 dollars might not seem like much to you, but for parents supporting a family on minimum wage, that’s 3 ½ hours of work.

 

3 1/2 hours of work? OMG, what a hardship for a whole *year* of fun.

 

If someone is supporting their family on a low wage, an extra $30 very well might be a hardship. It seems pretty tasteless to mock someone for trying to make wise spending decisions on a tight budget.

 

Sorry, I just don't buy it. Mr Incredible is making minimum wage right now and we're managing just fine. It's amazing how much you can save if you don't buy cigarettes, booze and junk food.

[+narcissa]

30 dollars might not seem like much to you, but for parents supporting a family on minimum wage, that’s 3 ½ hours of work.

 

3 1/2 hours of work? OMG, what a hardship for a whole *year* of fun.

 

If someone is supporting their family on a low wage, an extra $30 very well might be a hardship. It seems pretty tasteless to mock someone for trying to make wise spending decisions on a tight budget.

 

Sorry, I just don't buy it. Mr Incredible is making minimum wage right now and we're managing just fine. It's amazing how much you can save if you don't buy cigarettes, booze and junk food.

 

It's also amazing how much you can save by not spending on unnecessary luxuries, like cable television, magazine subscriptions, or memberships to websites for recreational activities. Is it so hard to believe that a premium membership just isn't at the top of the priority list for some people? It's not always a priority for me, and I don't think I've ever had to work for minimum wage.

[+qtbluemoon]

30 dollars might not seem like much to you, but for parents supporting a family on minimum wage, that’s 3 ½ hours of work.

 

3 1/2 hours of work? OMG, what a hardship for a whole *year* of fun.

 

If someone is supporting their family on a low wage, an extra $30 very well might be a hardship. It seems pretty tasteless to mock someone for trying to make wise spending decisions on a tight budget.

 

Sorry, I just don't buy it. Mr Incredible is making minimum wage right now and we're managing just fine. It's amazing how much you can save if you don't buy cigarettes, booze and junk food.

 

It's also amazing how much you can save by not spending on unnecessary luxuries, like cable television, magazine subscriptions, or memberships to websites for recreational activities. Is it so hard to believe that a premium membership just isn't at the top of the priority list for some people? It's not always a priority for me, and I don't think I've ever had to work for minimum wage.

 

MMMMEEEEEEEOOOOOOWWWWWWW

[+cerberus1]

30 dollars might not seem like much to you, but for parents supporting a family on minimum wage, that’s 3 ½ hours of work.

 

3 1/2 hours of work? OMG, what a hardship for a whole *year* of fun.

 

If someone is supporting their family on a low wage, an extra $30 very well might be a hardship. It seems pretty tasteless to mock someone for trying to make wise spending decisions on a tight budget.

 

Sorry, I just don't buy it. Mr Incredible is making minimum wage right now and we're managing just fine. It's amazing how much you can save if you don't buy cigarettes, booze and junk food.

 

It's also amazing how much you can save by not spending on unnecessary luxuries, like cable television, magazine subscriptions, or memberships to websites for recreational activities. Is it so hard to believe that a premium membership just isn't at the top of the priority list for some people? It's not always a priority for me, and I don't think I've ever had to work for minimum wage.

+1

Further, T-J was speaking of teaching a free program for low income students in the area.

His words, " I teach in a low social economical area and we have families living with other families in motels" and "Unfortunately where I teach the worst case scenario is the norm, 65 percent of the population live below the poverty level" explained that.

[+narcissa]

30 dollars might not seem like much to you, but for parents supporting a family on minimum wage, that’s 3 ½ hours of work.

 

3 1/2 hours of work? OMG, what a hardship for a whole *year* of fun.

 

If someone is supporting their family on a low wage, an extra $30 very well might be a hardship. It seems pretty tasteless to mock someone for trying to make wise spending decisions on a tight budget.

 

Sorry, I just don't buy it. Mr Incredible is making minimum wage right now and we're managing just fine. It's amazing how much you can save if you don't buy cigarettes, booze and junk food.

 

It's also amazing how much you can save by not spending on unnecessary luxuries, like cable television, magazine subscriptions, or memberships to websites for recreational activities. Is it so hard to believe that a premium membership just isn't at the top of the priority list for some people? It's not always a priority for me, and I don't think I've ever had to work for minimum wage.

+1

Further, T-J was speaking of teaching a free program for low income students in the area.

His words, " I teach in a low social economical area and we have families living with other families in motels" and "Unfortunately where I teach the worst case scenario is the norm, 65 percent of the population live below the poverty level" explained that.

 

Unfortunately, too many people seem to take the attitude that someone in financial difficulty must have done something bad to end up that way (i.e. spent all their money to "buy cigarettes, booze and junk food") and that they do not deserve to have anything nice. In reality, there are lots of good people who have to work hard to stretch their dollars and something like a geocaching fee doesn't, and shouldn't, take priority over other expenses.

[+The_Incredibles_]

I think you've hit the nail on the head. It's not that they *can't* find $30, it's because they choose to spend their money on other things. That's a choice, then, and I don't feel sorry for them.

[+narcissa]

I think you've hit the nail on the head. It's not that they *can't* find $30, it's because they choose to spend their money on other things. That's a choice, then, and I don't feel sorry for them.

 

Yeah, it's a "choice" when someone pays their phone bill instead of buying a premium membership.

 

I'm incredibly grateful that I've never had to "choose" between basic necessities and minor luxuries. If bad luck ever came our way and my husband or I had to work for minimum wage to put food on the table, we wouldn't be lording our extra handful of pennies over the people one step below us, that's for sure. Simply unbelievable.

 

I guess I understand where the weird premium member elitism comes from now. I guess it's something to cling to if it's the only luxury someone has.

[+The_Incredibles_]

I think you've hit the nail on the head. It's not that they *can't* find $30, it's because they choose to spend their money on other things. That's a choice, then, and I don't feel sorry for them.

 

Yeah, it's a "choice" when someone pays their phone bill instead of buying a premium membership.

 

Why not work the extra 3 1/2 hours so you can pay both? Oh right, work is a horrible hardship!

[+narcissa]

I think you've hit the nail on the head. It's not that they *can't* find $30, it's because they choose to spend their money on other things. That's a choice, then, and I don't feel sorry for them.

 

Yeah, it's a "choice" when someone pays their phone bill instead of buying a premium membership.

 

Why not work the extra 3 1/2 hours so you can pay both? Oh right, work is a horrible hardship!

 

Maybe you can't get an extra 3 and a half hours because your job is only part-time and the hours aren't available. Maybe you're already working 65 hours a week just to make ends meet. Maybe that extra money would have to go to another bill that you've fallen behind on.

 

I don't know. Sometimes people fall on hard times. Sometimes people just learn to make do with very little so they can be home with their kids. Sometimes people work their butts off and still don't have much to spare.

 

And some people work just hard enough to lift themselves up to the 15th percentile and then treat everyone below them like vermin.

[+The_Incredibles_]

Since you're feeling sympathetic and my family is supposedly below the poverty line, any offers to renew my premium membership?

[+The_Incredibles_]

Maybe you can't get an extra 3 and a half hours because your job is only part-time and the hours aren't available. Maybe you're already working 65 hours a week just to make ends meet. Maybe that extra money would have to go to another bill that you've fallen behind on.

 

I don't know. Sometimes people fall on hard times. Sometimes people just learn to make do with very little so they can be home with their kids. Sometimes people work their butts off and still don't have much to spare.

 

Well maybe it's a reflection of where I live, but I have never met any of these people you describe. I have never met someone who's working 65 hours a week just to make ends meet. Where I live, if you can't find an extra 30 dollars a year, it's because you're either not willing to work the hours or you waste your money or both.

 

Like I said, I don't have a problem with it if a premium membership is not a priority for someone. What I do have a problem with is people complaining it's unaffordable or inaccessible. It's just not alot of money and, like all things in life, anybody who really wants it can find a way to make it happen (IMHO).

[+Team Dredd]

So let me get this straight. Because some people cannot afford a premium membership no-one should be allowed to hide premium caches because it isn't what - fair? Trim all the out of this thread and that is "basically" what I am getting from it.

 

You know that sounds an awful lot like a much bigger issue. Hey I got an idea, lets just have the Government take premium member information from Ground Speak and then take and extra $30.00 out of all premium member's taxes! Then they can provide a premium membership for all the people that can't afford one!

 

Or even better, lets get a law passed that it is illegal or some kind of discrimination for Ground Speak to mark some caches as premium because it isn't, what's the word . . . . fair. Then we wouldn't even have to worry about it.

 

You know, there is a really really nice up-scale resort near hear that I have never stayed at because I can't afford it. Come to think of it I don't think it is fair that I can't afford a membership there, how dare they!!!!. I think everyone, including me should be able to stay there regardless of how much $$ they or I don't make. And then while we are all lounging around the pool like on Caddy Shack I'm gonna do two things; buy a Baby-Ruth bar, and then hide a bunch of micros all over the place (non premium micros of course).

 

We have a premium membership because we decided to spend $30.00 on a membership (instead of spending it on something else) because I CAN make that decision, at least until P****i and R**d find out that horrible unfair premium memberships exist.

 

I'll sum it up like this. When we were growing up we did not "have" that's for sure. My Daddy fought in WWII for our ability to have a choice (like marking a cache premium) He was gone all the time working to support us, left before we were up for school and usually got home tired and late in the day. One of his sayings we all hated to hear growing up was, "no body ever said life was fair, suck it up". So we absolutely will mark a cache as premium anytime we feel like it. If you don't like it, suck it up. Contact P****i, R**d or even O***a I really don't care. Now blast away at me for my opinion if you want to it is ok, we all have the right to voice our opinions. At least for now.

[+Twentse Mug]

I would make it premium members if

....

3.travel bug hotel

....

 

Size matters?

[+L0ne.R]

I don't understand how it's possible to geocache if one is on a very tight budget. The cost of a GPS or smartphone (and 3G plan) would be prohibitive to start with. Let alone the gas expenditure. I spend $25 to $60 dollars in gas on a day of geocaching.

[+cerberus1]

I don't understand how it's possible to geocache if one is on a very tight budget. The cost of a GPS or smartphone (and 3G plan) would be prohibitive to start with. Let alone the gas expenditure. I spend $25 to $60 dollars in gas on a day of geocaching.

Person had all the cool gadgets just before he was downsized and the rest of the company moved to Mexico.

Living in the suburbs, caching's a bike ride away.

[+JesandTodd]

I don't understand how it's possible to geocache if one is on a very tight budget. The cost of a GPS or smartphone (and 3G plan) would be prohibitive to start with. Let alone the gas expenditure. I spend $25 to $60 dollars in gas on a day of geocaching.

Person had all the cool gadgets just before he was downsized and the rest of the company moved to Mexico.

Living in the suburbs, caching's a bike ride away.

 

Then they can find all the basic caches they want. Plenty of those to go around...

[+Roman!]

Instead of being thankfull for what they get for free they complain about what they can't get if they don't pay. Nice.

 

There's a great golf club nearby and I can't afford to join, c'est la vie.

Edited July 26, 2014 by Roman!

[+niraD]

I don't understand how it's possible to geocache if one is on a very tight budget. The cost of a GPS or smartphone (and 3G plan) would be prohibitive to start with. Let alone the gas expenditure. I spend $25 to $60 dollars in gas on a day of geocaching.

When I started, I found hundreds of caches without a GPS receiver. I found most of them in places that I was already near anyway--near home, near work, near church, along the route between any two of those, at a park that I was visiting for some other reason, etc.

 

I wasn't on a tight budget back then, but I didn't really spend much on geocaching either.

[+T.D.M.22]

I don't understand how it's possible to geocache if one is on a very tight budget. The cost of a GPS or smartphone (and 3G plan) would be prohibitive to start with. Let alone the gas expenditure. I spend $25 to $60 dollars in gas on a day of geocaching.

 

Explorist GC, under $200. Too much? The yellow Etrex is what, $100 or so? Make that used and it's $50, or less. I have used my phone to cache- I have less than $100 finds, but I did 20-30 in one night. I know people who have way more data then I used, and they don't cache.

 

Now you're not going to get 500 caches in one day on a budget, but you can get a few. I worked out of town last summer, and the only thing preventing me from finding cache was the lack of caches. Smartphone and bus pass in hand, and a day off. Any other major city, I could have done 10 or 20 a day. It's no power trail, but it's possible.

[vagabond]

So let me get this straight. Because some people cannot afford a premium membership no-one should be allowed to hide premium caches because it isn't what - fair? Trim all the out of this thread and that is "basically" what I am getting from it.

 

You know that sounds an awful lot like a much bigger issue. Hey I got an idea, lets just have the Government take premium member information from Ground Speak and then take and extra $30.00 out of all premium member's taxes! Then they can provide a premium membership for all the people that can't afford one!

 

Or even better, lets get a law passed that it is illegal or some kind of discrimination for Ground Speak to mark some caches as premium because it isn't, what's the word . . . . fair. Then we wouldn't even have to worry about it.

 

You know, there is a really really nice up-scale resort near hear that I have never stayed at because I can't afford it. Come to think of it I don't think it is fair that I can't afford a membership there, how dare they!!!!. I think everyone, including me should be able to stay there regardless of how much $$ they or I don't make. And then while we are all lounging around the pool like on Caddy Shack I'm gonna do two things; buy a Baby-Ruth bar, and then hide a bunch of micros all over the place (non premium micros of course).

 

We have a premium membership because we decided to spend $30.00 on a membership (instead of spending it on something else) because I CAN make that decision, at least until P****i and R**d find out that horrible unfair premium memberships exist.

 

I'll sum it up like this. When we were growing up we did not "have" that's for sure. My Daddy fought in WWII for our ability to have a choice (like marking a cache premium) He was gone all the time working to support us, left before we were up for school and usually got home tired and late in the day. One of his sayings we all hated to hear growing up was, "no body ever said life was fair, suck it up". So we absolutely will mark a cache as premium anytime we feel like it. If you don't like it, suck it up. Contact P****i, R**d or even O***a I really don't care. Now blast away at me for my opinion if you want to it is ok, we all have the right to voice our opinions. At least for now.

 

Right on :)

[+narcissa]

I don't understand how it's possible to geocache if one is on a very tight budget. The cost of a GPS or smartphone (and 3G plan) would be prohibitive to start with. Let alone the gas expenditure. I spend $25 to $60 dollars in gas on a day of geocaching.

 

I've given old GPSrs to people who wanted to try it, and it is quite easy to geocache without a car when you live in a city like ours. The geocachers around here are also very willing to let someone hitch a ride on group outings. You don't need a $600 GPSr to get started, someone's old one will do. Internet access is free at the library.

[+Danielphunt]

I want to limit the traffic to my cache. This is a *good* thing. I don't want newbies trashing the forest looking around for my cache.

 

So what you're saying is that people who are NEW to geocaching are prone to vandalism and destruction of nature? Does this go away once they've been geocaching for a year or more? No, I don't think so.

 

I would say that anyone who would trash a forest would do so regardless of how new they are to the hobby.

Remember, YOU were new once too.

[+JesandTodd]

I want to limit the traffic to my cache. This is a *good* thing. I don't want newbies trashing the forest looking around for my cache.

 

So what you're saying is that people who are NEW to geocaching are prone to vandalism and destruction of nature? Does this go away once they've been geocaching for a year or more? No, I don't think so.

 

I would say that anyone who would trash a forest would do so regardless of how new they are to the hobby.

Remember, YOU were new once too.

 

Yes I was once new, and yes I remember. And I was a terrible geocacher when I was new because I didn't know how things were hidden. So YES I, and just about EVERYBODY else is better at geocaching once they are less new.

 

Anything else?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I think you've hit the nail on the head. It's not that they *can't* find $30, it's because they choose to spend their money on other things. That's a choice, then, and I don't feel sorry for them.

 

Yeah, it's a "choice" when someone pays their phone bill instead of buying a premium membership.

 

Why not work the extra 3 1/2 hours so you can pay both? Oh right, work is a horrible hardship!

 

I'm guessing that you've never been unemployeed. I have, and for long enough that I did have to make a choice between spending what little money I had saved on food or other things. Guess what? I chose food, rent, and other expenses that kept me from being homeless. I suspect that you wouldn't be so callous towards that are suffering hardship if you ever had to suffer hardship yourself.

[+colleda]

I don't understand how it's possible to geocache if one is on a very tight budget. The cost of a GPS or smartphone (and 3G plan) would be prohibitive to start with. Let alone the gas expenditure. I spend $25 to $60 dollars in gas on a day of geocaching.

 

I've given old GPSrs to people who wanted to try it, and it is quite easy to geocache without a car when you live in a city like ours. The geocachers around here are also very willing to let someone hitch a ride on group outings. You don't need a $600 GPSr to get started, someone's old one will do. Internet access is free at the library.

That's how we started, using a Garmin Nuvi car GPSr. We were on a cruise and thought it would be a good way to see places not usually seen by the average tourist. When in port we would head for the nearest library or internet cafe where we write down cache coordinates and hints on a sheet of paper and off we'd go. It was 6 months before we sprung for an Etrex 10, heaven!

[team tisri]

I think you've hit the nail on the head. It's not that they *can't* find $30, it's because they choose to spend their money on other things. That's a choice, then, and I don't feel sorry for them.

 

Yeah, it's a "choice" when someone pays their phone bill instead of buying a premium membership.

 

Why not work the extra 3 1/2 hours so you can pay both? Oh right, work is a horrible hardship!

 

Perhaps because a premium membership isn't worth it to you?

 

To me $30 is the kind of sum that involves "type credit card, press Buy, forget about it". I decided a premium membership isn't worth $30 to me. If I had to work for several hours to fund it there's no way I'd do it.