Changing The Status Of Caches

[Padmassana]

From some very disgruntled cachers!

 

I recently printed off the cache sheet for "The Beak" (GCMVH4) and today I went and did it along with The Wrinklies. We didn't do a drive and dash, we did a 4 mile there and back walk to the cache.

 

When we got home we found that the caches status had changed since we printed it to being a "Members Only" cache, so we were not able to log it. This is a very disappointing trick. If Cache setters intend to make a cache for Members only after a certain period you should make this VERY CLEAR on the cache page. I see that since we did "Devils Toenail" (GCMENF) cache (Like The Beak, owned by Third-Degree-Witch) the same trick has been done again and we are not able to view the cache.

 

Play fair or not at all.

 

Padmassana & The Wrinklies

[+mongoose39uk]

From some very disgruntled cachers!

 

I recently printed off the cache sheet for "The Beak" (GCMVH4) and today I went and did it along with The Wrinklies. We didn't do a drive and dash, we did a 4 mile there and back walk to the cache.

 

When we got home we found that the caches status had changed since we printed it to being a "Members Only" cache, so we were not able to log it. This is a very disappointing trick. If Cache setters intend to make a cache for Members only after a certain period you should make this VERY CLEAR on the cache page. I see that since we did "Devils Toenail" (GCMENF) cache (Like The Beak, owned by Third-Degree-Witch) the same trick has been done again and we are not able to view the cache.

 

Play fair or not at all.

 

Padmassana & The Wrinklies

tend to agree here but there are ways around it

 

Like paying up

[+Team GPSaxophone]

From some very disgruntled cachers!

 

I recently printed off the cache sheet for "The Beak" (GCMVH4) and today I went and did it along with The Wrinklies. We didn't do a drive and dash, we did a 4 mile there and back walk to the cache.

 

When we got home we found that the caches status had changed since we printed it to being a "Members Only" cache, so we were not able to log it. This is a very disappointing trick. If Cache setters intend to make a cache for Members only after a certain period you should make this VERY CLEAR on the cache page. I see that since we did "Devils Toenail" (GCMENF) cache (Like The Beak, owned by Third-Degree-Witch) the same trick has been done again and we are not able to view the cache.

 

Play fair or not at all.

 

Padmassana & The Wrinklies

I would suggest emailing the cache owner and letting them know what happened. They should at least make it a regular cache long enough for you to log it.

[+CuplaKiwis]

Nope, don't agree with this at all.

 

Personally, I think the whole 'members only cache' idea is an arrogant concept. Geocaching started as a public domain activity, and I for one want to keep it that way. I can see why people want to become members, for PQ's etc, but I don't use them, so why should I pay just to do cache that someone has deemed to be 'above the masses'?

 

I also realise that Groundspeak has to make money to support this site, but I feel that encouraging people to place members only caches is simply a cyncal way of 'forcing' membership.

 

I realise I'll probably piss some people off by saying this, but it happens to be something I have very strong feelings about.

[+mongoose39uk]

There are lots of caches that are not members onlyy and few that are members only.

 

Perhaps the cache owner would care to comment on the reasons for making it members only.

 

It may not be elitest, purely that there are lots of caches being trashed in the area.

[+CuplaKiwis]

It may not be elitest, purely that there are lots of caches being trashed in the area.

How does that possibly make a difference? Are you saying that the cachers that pay up are a better breed, and therefore less likely to trash a cache or make crap swaps??

[+-Phoenix-]

Nope, don't agree with this at all.

 

Personally, I think the whole 'members only cache' idea is an arrogant concept.  Geocaching started as a public domain activity, and I for one want to keep it that way.  I can see why people want to become members, for PQ's etc, but I don't use them, so why should I pay just to do cache that someone has deemed to be 'above the masses'?

 

I also realise that Groundspeak has to make money to support this site, but I feel that encouraging people to place members only caches is simply a cyncal way of 'forcing' membership.

 

I realise I'll probably piss some people off by saying this, but it happens to be something I have very strong feelings about.

 

I must say Im torn on this matter, Im usually the first to stand up and defend public domain activities from profiteering, but, its got to be recognised that running a high user website is a very expensive buisness, especially one that willingly host pictures, and gives FREE access to such a huge and growing database as the Geocache DB and indeed the forum DBs are.

 

This leads me to feel that maybe Groundspeak should be cut some slack, especially since member only caches are the exception not the rule, and as long as the majority of cachers are happy to keep their caches public domain then I feel there isnt a hige problem.

 

Saying this, it does sound unfair that the status of a chache should be changed in this way, and im sure a compromise can be made somewhere.

Edited March 12, 2005 by -Phoenix-

[+-Phoenix-]

It may not be elitest, purely that there are lots of caches being trashed in the area.

How does that possibly make a difference? Are you saying that the cachers that pay up are a better breed, and therefore less likely to trash a cache or make crap swaps??

 

No, but I think that there are less kids with vandalism in mind who are prepared to part with cache (opps CASH! freudian slip!) for their 'pleasure'!

Edited March 12, 2005 by -Phoenix-

[+Renegade Knight]

It may not be elitest, purely that there are lots of caches being trashed in the area.

How does that possibly make a difference? Are you saying that the cachers that pay up are a better breed, and therefore less likely to trash a cache or make crap swaps??

Quite the opposite. The problem children are less likely to pay. MOC caches tend to survive better in an envrionment where they are being stolen than non MOC caches.

[+rutson]

No, but I think that there are less kids with vandalism in mind who are prepared to part with cache for their 'pleasure'!

PLEASE tell me that was deliberate....

Edited March 12, 2005 by rutson

[+-Phoenix-]

nope, just a brainfart

[+CuplaKiwis]

Nope, don't agree with this at all.

 

Personally, I think the whole 'members only cache' idea is an arrogant concept.  Geocaching started as a public domain activity, and I for one want to keep it that way.  I can see why people want to become members, for PQ's etc, but I don't use them, so why should I pay just to do cache that someone has deemed to be 'above the masses'?

 

I also realise that Groundspeak has to make money to support this site, but I feel that encouraging people to place members only caches is simply a cyncal way of 'forcing' membership.

 

I realise I'll probably piss some people off by saying this, but it happens to be something I have very strong feelings about.

I must say Im torn on this matter, Im usually the first to stand up and defend punlic domain activities from profiteering, but, its got to be recognised that running a high user website is a very expensive buisness, especially one that willingly host pictures, and gives FREE access to such a huge and growing database as the Geocache DB and indeed the forum DBs are.

 

This leads me to feel that maybe Groundspeak should be cut some slack, especially since member only caches are the exception not the rule, and as long as the majority of cachers are happy to keep their caches public domain then I feel there isnt a hige problem.

 

Saying this, it does sound unfair that the status of a chache should be changed in this way, and im sure a compromise can be made somewhere.

Sorry, back on topic here...

 

It is the cache owner's prerogative to change to status if they want, but I'm sure any discerning owner should let Padmassana log it. I'm sure an email would do the trick.

 

Back off topic - webhosting is getting cheaper and cheaper, so the argument for hosting a high user website, while true, is not particularly compelling; at least not in favour of members only caches.

 

That being said, there is a pleasant lack of advertising on GC.com...

[+mongoose39uk]

It may not be elitest, purely that there are lots of caches being trashed in the area.

How does that possibly make a difference? Are you saying that the cachers that pay up are a better breed, and therefore less likely to trash a cache or make crap swaps??

Would you cough up £17 quid to go and spoil the game when there are plenty you can trash for nowt.

 

Not keen on the status being changed but it's their cache and they can do with it as they wish

[+CuplaKiwis]

Would you cough up £17 quid to go and spoil the game when there are plenty you can trash for nowt.

Just make the caches better - a bit of a puzzle'll beat them. Better than excluding people who have been members for years and have no other reason to pay up.

[+-Phoenix-]

Nope, don't agree with this at all.

 

Personally, I think the whole 'members only cache' idea is an arrogant concept.  Geocaching started as a public domain activity, and I for one want to keep it that way.  I can see why people want to become members, for PQ's etc, but I don't use them, so why should I pay just to do cache that someone has deemed to be 'above the masses'?

 

I also realise that Groundspeak has to make money to support this site, but I feel that encouraging people to place members only caches is simply a cyncal way of 'forcing' membership.

 

I realise I'll probably piss some people off by saying this, but it happens to be something I have very strong feelings about.

I must say Im torn on this matter, Im usually the first to stand up and defend punlic domain activities from profiteering, but, its got to be recognised that running a high user website is a very expensive buisness, especially one that willingly host pictures, and gives FREE access to such a huge and growing database as the Geocache DB and indeed the forum DBs are.

 

This leads me to feel that maybe Groundspeak should be cut some slack, especially since member only caches are the exception not the rule, and as long as the majority of cachers are happy to keep their caches public domain then I feel there isnt a hige problem.

 

Saying this, it does sound unfair that the status of a chache should be changed in this way, and im sure a compromise can be made somewhere.

Sorry, back on topic here...

 

It is the cache owner's prerogative to change to status if they want, but I'm sure any discerning owner should let Padmassana log it. I'm sure an email would do the trick.

 

Back off topic - webhosting is getting cheaper and cheaper, so the argument for hosting a high user website, while true, is not particularly compelling; at least not in favour of members only caches.

 

That being said, there is a pleasant lack of advertising on GC.com...

Webhosting isnt the whole story, from reading the Groundspeak website there are also servers to run, owned by Groundspeak, paid for by subscription, and time, probably a huge amount of time.

 

Like you I am very passionate about activities like this getting hijacked in the name of profit especially over the internet, and Groundspeak are in my opinion ballanced at the very edge of 'aceptable' in this matter, but the value they give for subscription is actually very good, like you say advertising is limited, yes there is some merchadising, but they are not alone in this, and you can take it or leave it.

 

The member only caches are questionable, but given that they are such a huge minority, I cant see how this can be considered a profitable feature, in fact looking at the UK alone I reckon it probably costs more to administer the members only feature that it directly creates in revenue.

[+mongoose39uk]

Would you cough up £17 quid to go and spoil the game when there are plenty you can trash for nowt.

Just make the caches better - a bit of a puzzle'll beat them. Better than excluding people who have been members for years and have no other reason to pay up.

So make them puzzle caches and make them elitest in that only those that are clever enough to solve the puzzle can find them. That probably excludes more people me included than making it members only.

[+CuplaKiwis]

Webhosting isnt the whole story, from reading the Groundspeak website there are also servers to run, owned by Groundspeak, paid for by subscription, and time, probably a huge amount of time.

 

Like you I am very passionate about activities like this getting hijacked in the name of profit especially over the internet, and Groundspeak are in my opinion ballanced at the very edge of 'aceptable' in this matter, but the value they give for subscription is actually very good, like you say advertising is limited, yes there is some merchadising, but they are not alone in this, and you can take it or leave it.

 

The member only caches are questionable, but given that they are such a huge minority, I cant see how this can be considered a profitable feature, in fact looking at the UK alone I reckon it probably costs more to administer the members only feature that it directly creates in revenue.

For the most part, I think the (free) service that I get from Groundspeak is an excellent one. I am happy to buy TB tags and occasional merchandise to help support the site. And don't get me wrong, I think the subscription idea is a great one - fully justified for the extra functionality obtained IMO.

 

I guess my 'hatred' of members only caches is based on fear - fear that they *will* become the norm rather than the exception.

 

That will be the day I quit geocaching for good (or at least GC.com )

[+CuplaKiwis]

Would you cough up £17 quid to go and spoil the game when there are plenty you can trash for nowt.

Just make the caches better - a bit of a puzzle'll beat them. Better than excluding people who have been members for years and have no other reason to pay up.

So make them puzzle caches and make them elitest in that only those that are clever enough to solve the puzzle can find them. That probably excludes more people me included than making it members only.

There's always plenty of peple willing to help... This therefore is not excluding anyone.

[+-Phoenix-]

 

I guess my 'hatred' of members only caches is based on fear - fear that they *will* become the norm rather than the exception.

You have nothing to fear, I just checked the 1,000 nearest caches to me and there is a grand total of 1, thats ONE, 0.1%, I know the cacher who placed it and he has also placed 27 public caches... I guess he did this one just on a whim.

[+mongoose39uk]

It still comes down to the choice of the cache placer.

 

At the end of the day they may not want to place a puzzle cache, just reduce the risk of getting it trashed by making it members only or for whatever reason they choose.

 

It's their cache.

 

Puzzle caches are not necessarily better just different.

[gekocacher]

There is a simple solution to this & that is that any MEMBERS ONLY CACHE, has to be members only from Birth, (no swapping of status) so that a non-premium member never gets the cache info in the 1st place. Thus this won't occur again Geko

[+Ashaaria]

Hmmm, i'm not sure that i like the idea that just because i'm not a fully paid up member here, that i might be considered less respectful of caches or of some kind of lower class, than those who have paid.

 

Ho hum, 'tis just a game not a status symbol.

[Big Black Bunny]

The insert card that should go into every cache, just in case it's found by accident, invites muggles to join in and log the cache. How can they do this with members only caches. Maybe the cache page instructions should be hidden to non members, but those finding by chance should be allowed to log.

[+-Phoenix-]

Hmmm, i'm not sure that i like the idea that just because i'm not a fully paid up member here, that i might be considered less respectful of caches or of some kind of lower class, than those who have paid.

 

Ho hum, 'tis just a game not a status symbol.

Nobody has suggested this, the only suggestion made is that kids/vandals etc are not likely to register, your logic is parallel to suggesting that everyone not a card carrying member of the socialist party is a facist.

[markandlynn]

I read somewhere on the forums that there IS a way for non members to log members only caches as it occurs quite often in the USA at event caches etc. I cant find the post on how to do it though.

NB Jeremy knows about this technique and has left it in place for just such an eventuality as the one above.

[+-Phoenix-]

why not try this link, its the log page for this cache, and it may be accesible to non members (I cant test this cos Im a member!!)

 

link deleted.

 

This trick appears to work, get someone to go to the log page and copy the URL at the top of the page, it will look like below, where nnnnnn is the unique number for that cache log, which can be found by converting the waypoint ignoring the first two letters (GC) from Hexidecimal to Decimal

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?ID=nnnnnn

Edited March 12, 2005 by -Phoenix-

[Big Black Bunny]

It would seem to work. I don't want to go as far as logging it because I may not be able to delete it afterwards. Maybe you should delete this link and send it by email to those that need it.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Maybe you should ...send it by email to those that need it.

I already did that when this thread was 2 posts long.

[+third-degree-witch]

i have to say .....as it was my cache referred to.....i can do exactly what i wish with my caches...i didnt feel there was a need to come running in here like a scalded cat to tell everyone..i decided to change ALL of my caches to subscriber only....the reason????? are are a few but here are the main ones...1=the cost to keep the site running is paid for thru the paltry sum we pay each year,surely 15 quid isnt a lot to pay for a years enjoyment ???? 2=it stops the casual muggler seeing my listings 3=why should some of us who are kind enough to pay the yearly contribution provide caches for people who dont ???????.

i tried to do my 'bit' in my area providing caches for you all to find,if you have a problem with what ive decided to do then the answers simple..DONT look for my caches...OR pay the 15 quid a year,also very simple.

[+-Phoenix-]

infor put in above post

Edited March 12, 2005 by -Phoenix-

[+rutson]

...Maybe you should ...send it by email to those that need it.

I already did that when this thread was 2 posts long.

Hmmm.... so did I, I wonder how many emails were sent!?

[+-Phoenix-]

i have to say .....as it was my cache referred to.....i can do exactly what i wish with my caches...i didnt feel there was a need to come running in here like a scalded cat to tell everyone..i decided to change ALL of my caches to subscriber only....the reason????? are are a few but here are the main ones...1=the cost to keep the site running is paid for thru the paltry sum we pay each year,surely 15 quid isnt a lot to pay for a years enjoyment ???? 2=it stops the casual muggler seeing my listings 3=why should some of us who are kind enough to pay the yearly contribution provide caches for people who dont ???????.

i tried to do my 'bit' in my area providing caches for you all to find,if you have a problem with what ive decided to do then the answers simple..DONT look for my caches...OR pay the 15 quid a year,also very simple.

Id be interested if we could put a figure to the number of the caches you have visited and will visit that were put there by non paid members, and in fact how many caches existed BEFORE paid members even existed.

[+third-degree-witch]

no idea,but i would say the majority,but i cant tell them how to list their caches.ive decided to list mine as i see fit and thats all there is to it,i personally believe that the yearly contribution is a pittance to pay and there are no viable excuses to avoid paying it.personally im in this to get fitter,im not bothered if i dont win hoards of friends or if i dont crack the 10,000 cache mark by the end of december 2006..its a means to an end to me,nothing more,nothing less.........period.my life doesnt evolve around plastic boxes or surplus 50 caliber ammunition boxes.

[+-Phoenix-]

Student/School Child

OAP

Handicapped/Disabled

Unemployed

First time house buyer (well maybe not)

[+Cryptik Souls Crew]

From some very disgruntled cachers!

 

I recently printed off the cache sheet for "The Beak" (GCMVH4) and today I went and did it along with The Wrinklies. We didn't do a drive and dash, we did a 4 mile there and back walk to the cache.

 

When we got home we found that the caches status had changed since we printed it to being a "Members Only" cache, so we were not able to log it. This is a very disappointing trick. If Cache setters intend to make a cache for Members only after a certain period you should make this VERY CLEAR on the cache page. I see that since we did "Devils Toenail" (GCMENF) cache (Like The Beak, owned by Third-Degree-Witch) the same trick has been done again and we are not able to view the cache.

 

Play fair or not at all.

 

Padmassana & The Wrinklies

Some people seem to have become very worked up over this thread, subscription to GC.com is very cheap, and if a cache owner (yes, owner) decided to make all their caches members only then that is really down to them. They paid for the container and the goodies inside, they travelled to the location and hid it, so they have every right to do exactly what they want with the listing.

 

I consider logging your visit online a way of thanking the cache owner and letting them know you have visited, its something you do for them in return for the fact they have left a cache for you to find.

 

At the end of the day you went out and found the cache, so you completed the caching experience as they intended, to then moan and try to publicly vilify them for altering their own listing is a bit much IMHO, especially when a direct email could probably have resolved the situation in the first place.

[+Brenin Tegeingl]

3=why should some of us who are kind enough to pay the yearly contribution provide caches for people who dont ???????.

i tried to do my 'bit' in my area providing caches for you all to find,if you have a problem with what ive decided to do then the answers simple..DONT look for my caches...OR pay the 15 quid a year,also very simple.

 

Unfortunatly your statment goes against what Jeremy promised at the start, when premium membership was first started, that cache listings would always be free to view, also don't forget, that the site is also supported by the sale of merchandise (TB's, being the most popular), and advertising, also comercial venturs that Jeremy enters into with other companys (Yellow Jeep TB's). If you felt this way from the start, it would have only been fair to make them Members only from the start, and not reverse the proccess, that ussualy happens to MO caches.

 

For your information, MO caches restrict the rest of my family from loging them, and yes they have found 2 with me, the reson their not members is, this is my hobby, but they enjoy coming out with me, and at no time would they ever use MO features, other than to log MO caches. As we rely on benifits (I'm my wifes full time carer), forking out £45, to log two caches is not worth it. We put more than that back into the hobby, by organising Events, for the enjoyment of all who wish to attend (petrol going to look at locations, buffet for those who attended a CITO event, phone calls. It all adds up), just because people are not members, doesn't mean that they are not supporting GC, every time one of them lists a cache, thats support, as without new caches being listed, membership would drop like a stone.

 

And to end my soap box, think about this, by making your caches MO's after they were listed as open ones, is just saying, I'm now better than you, because I'm a member and your not! And that is a elitist attitude, which is something that Geocaching is not suposed to be about!

 

Dave

 

Dave

[+rutson]

Without starting on prejudices, we are talking about one pound something a month:

 

Less than a pint of beer

Two litres (under half a gallon) fuel

A sunday newspaper (give or take)

 

I fail to see how someone that can afford:

 

A PC

an internet connection

transport to the caches

A GPSr

 

can't afford the subscription IF THEY WANT TO!

 

And that's the point, it's down to the individual cacher.

 

Please don't reply to this with tales of people who've found hundreds of caches using the library computer, photocopies of OS maps, a bus pass and a compass; I'm sure there are exceptions.

 

A much more sensible point to my mind, is without a credit card, I suspect it would be hard to part with yout fifteen quid.

[+rutson]

Just a quickie, I started my diatribe before dave and CSC's posts.

 

Dave makes a really good point, I for one have spent MUCH more money placing caches than on membership. And I suppose I would rather cachers place caches than cough up membership. But then we're in a circular argument, no-one pays their dues, no more GC.com, so we don't get to find out about these caches.

 

I think my point is, if you can afford it, and let's face it, 90-odd % of cachers can, then unless you have some sort of moral objection, then you should cough up. If you have a moral objection, then I think then you should be placing caches, to give something back.

[+third-degree-witch]

thats a fair comment rutson

[+Brenin Tegeingl]

How about a genuine breakdown of were those things came from

 

A PC

Payed for out of a compensention claim, after a industial accident, with a Stanly Knife.

 

an internet connection

a mojor expense for us, but also used for educational purposes, by 2 children who have home tutoring (School Phobic, CFS) one of whom only gets 3 hours a week of actual tutoring!

 

transport to the caches

Dont drink, smoke, go out to the pictures, or pubs, and attending a event, means tightening the purse strings.

 

A GPSr

again payed for out of the same claim, given as a xmass present, and used by 4 of us.

 

can't afford the subscription IF THEY WANT TO!

Given as a birthday present, and renewed the same way this year.

 

Please think before making comments, as this is my only past time, I go out when I can afford to, or link it it to other occations, finds around Manchester, linked to when staying with my Mother. Not everyone can go out to earn a wage, so as to be able to afford £1 a month. Unless your ever in the position of having no choice but to manage on benifits, you won't understand. Also my children don't wear designer clothing, which is a comment often mentioned about those on benifits. I'd love to go out to work so I could aford the £4 per month for 4 memberships, as it would mean that my family was healthy! Hell I'd give up caching altogether to have a healthy family!

 

Dave

[SlytherinAlex]

I fail to see how someone that can afford:

 

A PC

an internet connection

transport to the caches

A GPSr

 

can't afford the subscription IF THEY WANT TO!

Where does that leave Team Nippa and Ravenclaw? AFAIK they don't have any of those things you mention. Fifteen quid is a lot of pocket money.

 

-

[+rutson]

I assume from the above that you took my reply to be a personal attack, I thought that might happen, that's why I was keen to point out that I wrote my post before I saw yours.

 

As I said, there ARE exceptions, I accept that. I am certainly not trying to have a go at anyone.

 

As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, there is nothing to stop the rest of your family logging the MO caches.

 

You have my sympathy, from the bottom of my heart, and I thank God that my family and I are all healthy and that my wife and I are able to work.

 

Carry on caching, carry on working on the events. I've not been able to make one yet, but maybe this year. Most of us simply do not have the time to put in to organise such things, therefore in this respect, you actually have an advantage.

[Padmassana]

As I started this, thought I had better reply again.

 

First Thanks to the the 2 cachers who sent me a link so that we could log the cache. (Neither being the cache owner)

 

I did e-mail the cache owner and they replied basically saying sorry, but its their cache and they will do what they like with it. I do agree that people who have paid have the right to do as they wish.Below is the reply I sent which basically sums up my feelings for myself and any cachers who may like me have printed off the sheet before its status changed.

 

I have no problem with people doing "Members only"

caches, they have paid for the right.But it is still a

dirty trick to change ones that were originally normal

caches.You should have left those as they were.

 

I am just glad we didn't leave any of the Travel bugs

we had with us in the cache, otherwise we would have

had to try and retrieve them as we would have been

unable to log them. Cachers from further afield would

not be able to come back if they had dropped off bugs

etc.

 

Padmassana & The Wrinklies

[+rutson]

Hmmm.... travel bugs is a good point, that should be mentioned somewhere.

[+third-degree-witch]

Padmassana....

 

there are several things you didnt know when you first emailed me,and one thing you didnt ask........

 

firstly i wasnt at home when you emailed me first,i was in bedford where my other half lives tackling the north bedford ten miler (see log).secondly you launched into me within the forum before giving me a chance to either reply OR give u a chance to log your visit on my caches.

i knew full well that my decision to change the status of my caches might 'overlap' peoples visits to them,and i FULLY expected to get a few emails from people asking to log their visits..this i was fully prepared to do to keep people happy and to keep things running smoothly...but you found it impossible to think further than yourself and couldnt wait for a reply from me,a reply i indeed gave to you on my return home,before i even read your unwarranted attack upon myself.so please in future before you launch into a self centred little rant,consider that people have lives seperate from pc's etc etc etc and dont check their email every 20 mins just to see if they have emails from you !!!!!

[+Cryptik Souls Crew]

it is still a

dirty trick to change ones that were originally normal

caches.

Explain to me how it is a dirty trick?

 

You should have left those as they were.

 

Again, that's really up to the cache owner. It's certainly not your place to dictate to people how they should conduct themselves within the boundaries of the game.

[SlytherinAlex]

It's certainly not your place to dictate to people how they should conduct themselves within the boundaries of the game.

Likewise it's not anyone's place to dictate how other people spend their money.

Edited March 12, 2005 by SlytherinAlex

[+Queeny]

Well, I only pay £1.61 a month Direct Debit!!! Hardly even notice...Worth every penny! Never even seen a Members Only cache listed in my area. I doubt I would ever set one myself.

[+McDeHack]

MY TWO PENCE WORTH.

After a few years playing caching, I decided that I would pay for the pleasure that I get from the hobby. I don't use the bits that I can have for paying.

If I place a cache then it is for all to try and find. Payed up or not.

If others place a cache that they only want a select few to find, I cannot see why.

 

As for trashed caches. That is another subject that I would ask. Why do caches get trashed? I do not believe that Geocachers would do this. Maybe unintentionaly they do not hide the cache enough.

I have found a few that can easily be spotted from way off. A white box covered with a few twigs could soon attract attention by Muggles.

If you place a cache HIDE IT. Don't make it obvious by unnatural cover. Muggles might pass a cache by, even if it was not hidden completly as they would not be looking for it. Or even knew of its existance. But a dog sniffing at a partly exposed cache. " whats that then dog?" "Oh look kids, some one has hidden McD-toys"

[+Simply B]

Without wishing to "fan the flames", could someone explain to this tadpole what is the benefit of making your cache members only, apart from that already given that anyone set on vandalising caches won't then see it.

As I think about placing my first cache (hey, I made double figures today), I assume that once I've had the fun of planning and placing it, then the main pleasure is in reading the log as others find it and give feedback on it. Surely making it members only dramatically reduces how many other cachers do so, and hence the amount of pleasure you get from placing it?