A down side of the Members only caches is not everyone is a member....
Hiker
ken@highpointer.com
To: listserv@azgeocaching.com
Sent by: cc:
az-geocaching-admin@listserv.azgeocaching. Subject: [Az-Geocaching] You can audit your caches if they are "Members
com Only" caches (and other benefits)
Thursday December 5, 2002 11:27 AM
Please respond to listserv
I have tranformed my easily accessible urban non-virtual caches into
"Members Only" caches. I did this to reduce the chances of these caches
being stolen or plundered. All of my virtual caches and caches that are
more difficult to get to are still available for access to all.
If we make more caches "Members Only", then this would encourage more
people to acquire Charter Memberships. This may potentially keep the
authorities at bay, because some of them may remove caches from parks or
other public lands that they manage, even if the cache is in a good place
for a cache to be. This happened to me with the one cache of mine that was
removed, "Pinnacle Peak Park". I may reactivate this one soon, but I will
change its name, use a small container of little or no value (such as a
coffee can), and make it "Members Only" to keep it as low-profile as
possible.
Another cache that was removed by parks authorities was a cache located
near the highest point of Arkansas, Magazine Mountain Mother Lode.
Magazine Mountain is now in an Arkansas state park, and an Arkansas Parks
Department Ranger removed this cache during the summer.
I found a new feature with "Members Only" caches - the ability to audit
your cache so you can see who has read it. Here is an example of what I
saw when I audited "Angels Spring Training World Championship Edition":
Audit Log for
Angels Spring Training World Championship Edition
12/5/2002 10:11:52 AM Highpointer
What do other Geocachers think about making more caches "Members Only"? In
my opinion, it's a good way to manage urban caches and those with easy
access, because those are the most likely to be stolen or plundered.
Ken
(See attached file: C.htm)
I have tranformed my easily accessible urban non-virtual caches into "Members Only" caches. I did this to reduce the chances of these caches being stolen or plundered. All of my virtual caches and caches that are more difficult to get to are still available for access to all.
If we make more caches "Members Only", then this would encourage more people to acquire Charter Memberships. This may potentially keep the authorities at bay, because some of them may remove caches from parks or other public lands that they manage, even if the cache is in a good place for a cache to be. This happened to me with the one cache of mine that was removed, "Pinnacle Peak Park". I may reactivate this one soon, but I will change its name, use a small container of little or no value (such as a coffee can), and make it "Members Only" to keep it as low-profile as possible.
Another cache that was removed by parks authorities was a cache located near the highest point of Arkansas, Magazine Mountain Mother Lode. Magazine Mountain is now in an Arkansas state park, and an Arkansas Parks Department Ranger removed this cache during the summer.
I found a new feature with "Members Only" caches - the ability to audit your cache so you can see who has read it. Here is an example of what I saw when I audited "Angels Spring Training World Championship Edition":
Audit Log for Angels Spring Training World Championship Edition
12/5/2002 10:11:52 AM Highpointer
What do other Geocachers think about making more caches "Members Only"? In my opinion, it's a good way to manage urban caches and those with easy access, because those are the most likely to be stolen or plundered.
Ken
(text/plain)