Premium membership issue

[FollowMeChaps]

Two of my caches are premium membership caches. I made them 'members only' because of potential dangers associated with them. The logic being to prevent non-cachers, especially children, from signing up for free, reading the listing on the web and attempting them without heeding the advice in the listing.

My Groundspeak membership is now expiring and I am choosing to not renew. Can anyone advise whether I would still be able to see my own premium caches as the owner or will I loose access to them altogether without opening them up to all?

[markandlynn]

You will lose access to them it came up a year ago and a reviewer had to change the status for the owner to none PM.

Just make them into mystery caches with false starting coords this forces people to read the cache page, as a PM my children could read the cache page , safety of children is down to the parent not you.:beer:

[FollowMeChaps]

Thanks for the confirmation M&L, I've consequently downgraded them.

I agree with what you say about parental responsibility but I'd be a fool to believe that all children are under the watchful eye of their parents all the time, indeed that all parents are 'responsible'.

[markandlynn]

Thanks for the confirmation M&L, I've consequently downgraded them.

I agree with what you say about parental responsibility but I'd be a fool to believe that all children are under the watchful eye of their parents all the time, indeed that all parents are 'responsible'.

True just trying to make you feel less guilty when one plunges to thier doom. :popcorn:


Ive got three so thats at least a spare one :lol:

Parents and responsible in the same sentence thats new one :beer:

[jerryo]

I archived a cache because some tube tried to push their kid under a bridge to retrieve the box. I don’t care what anyone says, I don’t think disclaimers would make any difference in the event of a serious accident.

[jacobite]

I archived a cache because some tube tried to push their kid under a bridge to retrieve the box. I don’t care what anyone says, I don’t think disclaimers would make any difference in the event of a serious accident.

What cache was it? If you don't mind me asking?

[Paradiddle]

'A bridge too far' perhaps? :)

[sTeamTraen]

I archived a cache because some tube tried to push their kid under a bridge to retrieve the box. I don’t care what anyone says, I don’t think disclaimers would make any difference in the event of a serious accident.

Legally, I don't think a disclaimer makes a difference. I think you're in the clear either way. :) Groundspeak is based in the most litigious country in the world and one of the partners is a licensed attorney; if there were serious legal issues about caching under any legal system in the Anglo-Saxon tradition, we'd have heard about them by now.

However, if I thought someone might get hurt on one of my caches, I'd archive it like a shot.

About 20 years ago a 7-year-old boy ran out onto a dual carriageway and I hit him in my car. I was sober, under the speed limit, with my wife and baby in the car, it was entirely his fault, and he "only" had a broken arm and some bruising. But I still felt awful for weeks afterwards.

[Alan White]

However, if I thought someone might get hurt on one of my caches, I'd archive it like a shot.Anyone can get hurt doing any cache. I could get hurt sitting here at my desk typing this.

If you set a cache that is, literally, a short walk in the woods, then the chances of someone getting hurt must be much lower than if you hide a cache which requires someone to (and I use this merely as an example) hang off a bridge.

In each case, it's the decision of the placer and the finder to make their own judgement about whether to place and seek the cache, and to deal with the resulting consequences.

[Paradiddle]

I came across some discussion on the Groundspeak forums about what happens to your premium member only (PMO) caches if you stop paying for premium membership. According to the post linked below you would still have the ability to view and edit the page, and see the audit log, but you would lose access to the premium member only tick box, so you would be unable to turn that function off (although you could get a reviewer to do it).
So perhaps FMC could have left his PMO caches as they were and still maintained functional control over the cache page.

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=205390&hl=catch-22

[sandvika]

There's a strong ethic in GAGB (not that I endorse it), that GAGB membership will always be free.

If you follow that ethic, then it would be consistent to reject members only caches on Groundspeak on the basis that you should not have to pay to play either.

When out caching with others who are not premium members we have ended up with the unfortunate situation where they could find the PMO cache with us and sign the log but not actually log their find online.:(

My personal ethic is that my caches are there for everyone and PMO on Groundspeak is the antithesis of this; I like the fact that Navicache offers cache syndication, I wish Groundspeak did this rather than operating a closed user group, since the game is essentially the same.

However, I do regard Terracaching as an exception; the cache and thus player scoring system is based on cache age and this simply could not work on a syndicated basis. As I'm not drawn into a raw numbers game (neither the time nor inclination to pursue the increasingly large cache rings that a proliferating) I find the alternative game of Terracaching to be compelling.:)

[Matrix]

When out caching with others who are not premium members we have ended up with the unfortunate situation where they could find the PMO cache with us and sign the log but not actually log their find online.:(


I had the same problem recently with my daughter completing a puzzle cache finding it and then not being able to log it on GC ,luckily she is not completely number oriented yet :ph34r:

[Brenin Tegeingl]

I had the same problem recently with my daughter completing a puzzle cache finding it and then not being able to log it on GC ,luckily she is not completely number oriented yet :ph34r:

How to Log a Members Only cache on GC,when not a Premium Member (https://forums.groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=95567&st=0&#entry1422176) But please contact the cache owner first, as some are very touchy about Non Members logging their PM caches. Even if it is by a way concidered acceptable by the sites owner

Deci

[Matrix]

How to Log a Members Only cache on GC,when not a Premium Member (https://forums.groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=95567&st=0&#entry1422176) But please contact the cache owner first, as some are very touchy about Non Members logging their PM caches. Even if it is by a way concidered acceptable by the sites owner

Deci

On behalf of my daughter I thank you :applause:

The 2 caches are owned by friends so I will double check its ok first .

[Matrix]

Sadly it seems that loophole was "accidently" closed back in November but it has been promised that it will re-open soon :rolleyes:

I have been informed of another work around though so I may try that later.

[Maple Leaf]

I haven't got a problem if any 'non-premium' cacher does my PMO caches with a premium member and wants to log it (as they are made a PMO cache for other reasons) What I do, is arrange a suitable time and 'untick' the box whilst the cacher logs their find - then switch it back on again later when they have done it.