Jake81499

I'm adding this because its part of the ignoring power cache fiasco. I'm sure I'll get flamed by the usual group of flamers. The States API doesn't seem to use the ignore list. There's no way I've found to make the API recognize the ignore list. So each time you run the states API you will get the caches you've already ignored back into your GSAK database. Adding the caches to the GSAK ignore list helps somewhat but it shrinks your API download. The API downloads the ignored power trails but GSAK blocks them, so if there's 500 caches in the power trail you've ignored using the GSAK ignore, the API will be still try and download 6000 or 10000 caches but the end result will be 500 short. It'd probably best to just not use the States API if you are ignoring large numbers of caches. Also, I may have hit the limit on the ignore stored on the website. I can't seem to add to it any more. 29065. Will keep trying. I hope I'm wrong because that will mean I'm stuck a lot of power caches screwing up my pocket queries. Would be nice if the higher ups heard us.

The 'increasing the limits' thing is getting more and more merit with me. We're likely not going to get a PT or GA attribute to help us out and all you get if you say anything is insulted and attacked. So maybe keep bringing this up.

The 'increasing the limits' thing is getting more and more merit with me. We're likely not going to get a PT or GA attribute to help us out and all you get if you say anything is insulted and attacked. So maybe keep bringing this up.

No, nanos should be banned, period. I wish we had a LIKE button. LOL

When have you ever seen a reviewer tell a CO he had to use an attribute? They might suggest to a CO that he add some attributes, but I've never heard of one tell anyone they had to use an attribute. Really, this argument won't go anywhere. Too many people more busy throwing insults than being productive. If an attribute were added there would likely have to be two, one for GeoArt and one for PT's. The smartest thing to do would be to extend the cache limit in a PQ to 5000. That argument is floating around also and it's much more agreed upon than this one is.

Hmm... Let me try this again. What about these geoart series makes them power trails? You seem to be the only one involved in this discussion who considers them power trails. In your opinion, what characteristics of the geoart caches make them power trail? Why should I bother, How many power trails are in your ignore list that would give you the right to say that they aren't? Like I said in another post, it's not up to me to say what's in a power trail and what's not, it's up to the CO to decide if he's going to use the atrribute. Besides, there isn't enough information there to say whether or not they are power trails and I would never see them as such because they contain because they contain puzzle caches. If I were collecting Puzzle Caches and they showed up in a configuration like that and they were large enough a group to damage the PQ then I would call them a power trail and quite possibly ignore them. And there's nothing you or anyone else could do about it.

I don't believe there is any requirement that geoart caches have to be marked as puzzle caches. Here's the location of the Thunderbird aircraft geoart near Mountain Home Base. It consists of a lot of traditionals, a few letterboxes, some wherigos and some multis. No puzzle caches, because the caches are at the posted coordinates. There are numerous other examples. Nearby is a locomotive, primarily traditionals. Of course, we have lots of BLM land in Idaho where it is possible to place the caches at the posted coordinates. Who said anything about requiring? The CO was smart enough to label a puzzle cache as a puzzle cache. If someone labels one as traditionals and they are traditionals, goody. If it's a PT set up as a GA then hopefully they'll use the PT attribute also. If I run across one that I conceder a PT even though it doesn't fit someone else's description of a PT and it's big enough to trash a PQ, it'll get placed in the ignore list. My bad. I took your comment "I do appreciate that they are properly marked as puzzle caches, therefore they wouldn't even show up as GeoArt in my PQs." to mean that you thought all geoart caches should be marked as puzzle caches. No problem, there's a lot of misunderstanding going on here. No biggy. We're talking attributes. Nobody requires the snake attribute to be set in a snake farm, nobody requires any attributes at all in fact. People misuse attributes often like the ones set for scuba gear in the middle of the Nevada desert. Why there's so much argument over getting an attribute is baffling. It'll take forever for it to catch on anyhow. All they are is a helpful tool.

If the 25 caches were in a power trail format, then I would prefer them to use the PT attribute. But I wouldn't assume that the 25 caches are a PT just because of the name of the cache. I don't consider all 'series' caches to be power trails, I don't consider all GeoArt to be power trails, and I wouldn't 'require' any CO to use any attribute. I recognize PT's just fine when looking at the geocache map, and yes there are a ton of PT's in Nevada. The issue seems to be that you think your definition of 'power trail' is the definitive gold-standard, even when other cachers disagree with your definition. I don't conceder all of them to be PTs either, I'm only arguing the GAs. Some are PTs and some are not. What it'll boil down to is the CO deciding whether or not his series is a PT. If someone else thinks it is and the CO thinks it isn't then there comes a little peer pressure which may or may not convince the CO to use the attribute. Myself, I'm not able to cache like I used to but I keep my GPS full. I probably won't say anything, I'll just add the series to the ignore list. If there were another way to just keep them from cluttering a PQ then everything would be fine and truthfully there is another way and that would be to expand the PQ limits. But that's another argument.

I don't believe there is any requirement that geoart caches have to be marked as puzzle caches. Here's the location of the Thunderbird aircraft geoart near Mountain Home Base. It consists of a lot of traditionals, a few letterboxes, some wherigos and some multis. No puzzle caches, because the caches are at the posted coordinates. There are numerous other examples. Nearby is a locomotive, primarily traditionals. Of course, we have lots of BLM land in Idaho where it is possible to place the caches at the posted coordinates. Who said anything about requiring? The CO was smart enough to label a puzzle cache as a puzzle cache. If someone labels one as traditionals and they are traditionals, goody. If it's a PT set up as a GA then hopefully they'll use the PT attribute also. If I run across one that I conceder a PT even though it doesn't fit someone else's description of a PT and it's big enough to trash a PQ, it'll get placed in the ignore list.

How about your "Post xx" series? If/when a 'Power Trail' attribute is added, will you be setting it on your series of simple hides along a roadway? Actually, last summer I was driving along there and saw an accident. It appeared that an 18 wheeler had rear ended a car that had come to a sudden stop in the road near one of my post caches. I don't know if that person was caching or not but it made me realize how dangerous it was to set so many caches so close to a roadway even though they are along the fence line at a distinct highly visible pullout. Since that time I've archived most of them that I deemed could be unsafe. The rest are slowly being archived as they lose a cap or need maintenance. Since it was originally a power trail of sorts, even though they are mostly at least a quarter mile apart, I would gladly use the PT attribute for the remaining caches. I'm certain that most of the people arguing the definition wouldn't conceder that a power trail. But I'm the one who's doing the ignoring, so yep, it's a power trail. I'm really not understanding how you define a PT, so I'm pretty sure we'll just have to agree to disagree. You're not sure that your original series, when it was originally placed, would be considered a power trail - but yet, you consider the GeoArt examples to be power trails? I suspect that even if a power trail attribute was created and used, that you still wouldn't be happy because your definition of 'power trail' seems a bit off from the majority (assuming the forums can be used to extrapolate to the wider caching community, which may be a mistake). You might want to look at the distance on the post caches, it's quite considerable. A couple of them are even on another road several miles away. The series most likely won't fit whatever description of a PT that some of these guys come up with. Setting the PT flag on them might even upset someone who does nothing but PT's. But I'd do it if I was asked, and I'll probably do it anyhow. If you look at the GAs and PTs in the list I posted the caches are generally very close together but sometimes more than the minimum distance. They are generally very large lines in both size and numbers. But my Post caches fit back into what I was saying about the macro CacheSeries and why you can't just ignore everything that comes up when you run it. Just because a cache has the same basic name doesn't mean it's a power trail, power cache, geoart or whatever the flavor of the name for that day might be. Would you require someone who sets 25 'Welcome To' caches to use the PT attribute? Run the macro on a large GSAK database covering just a single state and see what you get just in Welcome To. The best example I've found for PTs is Nevada. If you don't know what a PT is, try and bring up a map of caches of just Nevada especially around the Reno area. Bring up a map of Wild Ride in Wyoming while your at it. And finally, the one that set me off in the first place, bring up a map of Las Cruces New Mexico. There's a PT right next to a GA which totally trashed the PQ I needed for that weekend.

How about your "Post xx" series? If/when a 'Power Trail' attribute is added, will you be setting it on your series of simple hides along a roadway? Actually, last summer I was driving along there and saw an accident. It appeared that an 18 wheeler had rear ended a car that had come to a sudden stop in the road near one of my post caches. I don't know if that person was caching or not but it made me realize how dangerous it was to set so many caches so close to a roadway even though they are along the fence line at a distinct highly visible pullout. Since that time I've archived most of them that I deemed could be unsafe. The rest are slowly being archived as they lose a cap or need maintenance. Since it was originally a power trail of sorts, even though they are mostly at least a quarter mile apart, I would gladly use the PT attribute for the remaining caches. I'm certain that most of the people arguing the definition wouldn't conceder that a power trail. But I'm the one who's doing the ignoring, so yep, I'll call the Post caches along that road a Power Trail.

Actually I was wrong. The PT/GA above Rock Springs is Wild Ride.

You make a really good point, which is precisely why I agree it should be left up to the CO, not dictated by some external requirement. But looking at Wild Horse Run, I do think it's a power trail and I would think the CO sees it as a power trail. While it doesn't have the normal lame, exchangeable containers, the descriptions indicate that the hides, while not universally trivial, are simple to find. The caches are set up so many can be found in one outing. The descriptions are all the same and have nothing to do with the individual caches themselves. And, of course, there are hundreds of them. These are the interesting characteristics of a power trail while avoiding the common pitfalls of many power trails. The bottom line is that the cowboy is a single entity. If it were a single cache, anyone not interested could just ignore that one cache. But because it's hundreds of caches, people are looking for a way to ignore them all together, hence the request for this attribute. So the CO should definitely be the one to decide because it would be fruitless to try to come up with a global definition, but at the same time, I would think that someone putting out hundreds of caches in the shape of a cowboy would be proud to label them as a power trail. You said it well, wild horse run is the one I was thinking of above Rock Springs Wyo. I would hope that most people that set power trails would be more than willing to use the attribute.

GC codes? How about we stick with one of the examples where we already seem to disagree? You have said that these are power trails: What about these geoart series makes them power trails? To me, it seams that you are defining "power trail" as a few dozen (or more) related caches that you don't want to find. That isn't the way I've heard anyone else use the term "power trail" though. The two power trails you use as an example would probably not even make it to the ignore list because they are so small. I do appreciate that they are properly marked as puzzle caches, therefore they wouldn't even show up as GeoArt in my PQs. I only download traditional, no other kinds, I simply don't have time for them given the style of caching I need to follow.

Ok, Here is a short example list of Power Trails, Power Caches, Numbers Runs, GeoArt... Whatever you want to call them they are Power Trails and all should be asked to use the assigned attribute should we ever get one. Look them all up, find them on a map, compare them to one another, whatever you need to do. They are power trails. <-AC & DC-> .. #xxx Blowout Trail xxx Joseph's Dream xxxx #xxxx Highway To H.E.L.L #xxx-E.T xxx-Route 66 xx Esterlins Detour xx – How Many Caches To Brookings? Xx Run Wild Horses Run xxx Owyhee Uplands Byway xx-California 50 State Star x - ?snikoorB ot sehcac ynam woH x - BBT: LPC x - Grand Valley Loop x - Pooh Diving x - Run From The Border (N) x - Run From The Border (S) x - Runway View x – Take Me To Church x – BBT: (assorted names) x – Glacial Valley Loop x – Side Street xxxBT'15 (assorted names) ACME xxx Aurora xxx Balanced Thunderbird Cache #xxx BAM – xxx BBTSxxx – Thanks Blackwood Canyon Power Trail #xxx Blowout Trail xxx BLT #xxx Cx – Going to Sica Trail Cache Container Test Field – (assorted names) Deer and Antelope Play xx Desert Creatures (assorted names) Do these roads seem a 'little alien' (#xx) to you? Eagle Eye xxx Eaglexxx Elexxx – (assorted names) – Element Series Escape From Reality – xxx Ferntucky 500 #xxx Flipboard Freeway Trail #xxx Fork It #xx Freedom Trail #xxx GBR Trail #xxx GC Trail #xxx Ghost Rail to ATL #xxx Highway To H.E.L.L (assorted names) Highway To Heaven #xxx Langell Valley Rd #xxx Lets Go Tubing #xxx M-xx Mahna Mahna #xxx N2NFRxx NAA - (assorted names) NoRuCo No. xx Oh I Wish I Was In Dixie xxx Oklahoma Land Run (assorted names) ORNxxx – TS Oh Really Now? Paradise Lost xxx Pole Dancing – xxx Preston Ridge Trail #xx Ptxxx (assorted Names) Roadrunner Fun Facts #xxx Rosebank Road Mini Power Trail #xx Rumours xxx Russellville Run #xxx Solene's Trail #xxx Something Fun #xxx Tahoe Tessie Egg Trail #xxx Team Bad-xxx That's HOT xxx The Connector xxx The Millennium Power Trail #xxx Tin Van Alley (assorted names) TOGA Trail #xxx Tour of the Buckskins xxx Tower Of Power xxx Trail That Never Ends xxx TS Princess Of The Desert xxx View Of The Grasslands #xxx Wxxxx – Lone Star Trail Waiting For Max #xxx Walk About – xxx Wheeler Gauntlet #xxx When Two World Collide Part 1 - xxxx Where Bigfoot Walks xx-xx WildRidexxx

So now you're defining "powertrails" as merely the posted coordinates, regardless of where the cache itself is; thus has nothing to do with the finding experience, just the map pin saturation. Also, what niraD said. =P I don't know where you get that from. Look at the example a couple posts above, someone posted two Geo Arts. Those are simple power caches. No ifs ands or buts. But they are probably not the size I would even notice because it looks like some of the caches in them are properly labeled as puzzle caches which I don't include in my PQs. If you look at the GeoArt above Rock Springs Wyoming called Wild Horse Run (I think), that string is a complete Power Cache, deserves an ignore and needs the Power Cache attribute should we ever receive one. There are hundreds of Pin Saturations. Look at Mondou for example in the Denver/Fort Collins area. The individual setting those uses his name in each and every cache, and he has thousands. It's difficult to separate the power caches from his regular caches. I've located several power caches by Mondou around the DIA area and placed them in the ignore list. The consideration was there to ignore his whole name set but he does have a few hundred actual geocaches even though he has created a case of 'Pin Saturation'. The Mondou situation is why the Macro CacheSeries isn't all that functional and you have to check every group on a map to determine if it is an actual PC. Whether the power trail, numbers trail or geoart are set along some beautiful trail that people might want to actually go see or set out in some bare field somewhere, it's still a power cache and will be placed in the ignore list. If someone actually wants to find power caches, they can by not clicking the ignore power cache attribute should we ever get one.

Yeah, the geoart closest to my home is a series of very challenging puzzles (intended to be solved by a group working together), and the final locations are scattered across several parks and open spaces. They are definitely not a power trail. You might want to take a second look at most of those. They are power trails, nothing more nothing less, they trash a PQ just as fast and a straight line power trail.

I can't believe there's so much discussion over what a power trail is. GeoArt is a power trail, numbers runs are a power trail, power trails are a power trail. They all get ignored indiscriminately even if they are placed 708 feet apart.

FWIW, I distinguish between "power trails" (a trail saturated with caches) and "numbers run trails" (a power trail optimized for numbers runs). Your power trail of difficult hides is just a power trail. A local parks department uses a local power trail for its Intro to Geocaching classes, because beginners can experience 8-10 varied geocaches and make it back to the trailhead in time for lunch. Power trails like this can develop organically, especially in parks that require caches to be placed near existing trails/roads. Numbers run trails seem to generate most of the problems with "wasted Pocket Queries", which is what many want an attribute for. They also generate most of the problems with questionable shortcuts (e.g., leapfrogging or the three cache monte) being applied to caches owned by people who do not approve of such shortcuts. It might be nice to have a "NOT part of a numbers run trail" attribute, so owners of normal caches can indicate that they do not approve of such shortcuts, and that normal geocaching practices should be observed for those caches. The cache trails (PTs) of 8 to 10 caches aren't the annoying power trails. It's the PTs consisting of a large number. While a large number might be different from one person the next, I ignore everything over around 25 to 50. But ANY number in a power trail should try and use the attribute should we get one. Hopefully people are keeping tabs on Nevada, I've read a couple complaints about that area being nothing but one big power trail, and they're right. Most of them are being set by the same team and being extended weekly. I can't really see any way to regulate a problem like that but it deserves being looked into.

Hmmmmm, this one says Submitted and is the New Feature category. Maybe we're getting somewhere. COOL! (Maybe)

Great Choice! You'll be happy!

Might be due to OPTD (Obsessive Power Trail Disorder) LOL, that might be true. But the more we talk about it and complain about it, the sooner someone might do something about it. It's right on track with the subject matter. It's a major irk.

You're kidding right? (I'm sure you are, it made me giggle.) There are PTs and GAs just for cachers and armchair cachers who think that way.

In areas without a lot of open space, people sometimes do geoart with puzzle caches so the art shows on the map, but the actual cache locations are not so constrained. Anyway, why argue about it? If it's a power trail, it's a power trail. It makes absolutely no difference whether or not it could also be called geoart. The characteristic people want flagged with an attribute is that it's a power trail. Those people could care less whether it paints a pretty picture on the map except when, like you, they mistakenly believe there's some kind of correlation and that people putting out power trails that draw pictures will for some odd reason want to hide the fact that their power trail's a power trail. Not arguing it at all, it's a power trail, no argument. The issue is this, people use the API and PQs to download caches to put in their GPS. The limits for a PQ are 1000 caches in a 500 mile radius. I always set my PQs to 1000 caches and 500 miles. If I'm going to Reno Nevada for example, I would normally expect to get about a 50 to 100 mile circle of caches in the Reno area. But it doesn't work that way in areas where people have placed PTs and GAs. Especially in areas where the PTs and GAs have become cache dense. You might be lucky to get a 3 to 5 mile circle simply because of the PTs in that area. So you end of doing a lot more PQs to cover the same amount of area than you would even expect to do in a cache dense area like Denver where there aren't any PT's of GeoArt. I would suggest you did a State API of Nevada over a period of three days just to see how bad the PT's have become abused. Another good example would be Rock Springs Wyoming. A PQ of 1000 in 500 centered in Rock Springs would bring up a circle with a radius extending almost all the way to Rawlins. But now there is a PT called Ghost Rail and the Run Horse Run GA/PT. Now in the circle you can hardly get all even get all of Ghost Rail just because of the size of those two chains. So adding an attribute for PT's and requiring people to use them, or extending the PQ limit to 5000 in 500, or adding a type of cache (PT) to the PQ creation tables are needed so that we can ignore them without having to use the ignore list function. PTs/GAs are a numbers game, they have little to do with Geocaching. They are a Heaven for the Armchair Cacher who can now set in the comfort of his or her home and easily collect thousands of caches. If a newbie with zero caches went to almost any part of Nevada today he could easily have several thousand caches by next Saturday and not have to drive more than 30 miles. That's so impressive. LOL! If all you want is numbers, go set and find PTs and GAs. If you're not chasing numbers, go Geocaching. But do us a favor, post the names of those PTs/GAs you set or find so we can look them up and put them on the ignore list. It would really help the rest of us out.

I was going to add something that was kinda an irk. The slowness of the website due to ads. But it looks like the geofathers may have removed the ad from the area I was thinking about. It works great now.