3AMT

Probably just symantics, but in this game, there are no rules, just Guidelines. Perhaps that's why getting a solid answer is akin to nailing Jello to a tree? This has been the case. However, I did get a very good response from our reviewer (that appears to have come from Keystone as well) that, while it was not a Black and White answer, did help to change the shade of grey (or gray) quite a bit. Nothing really new, but a bit more of the process that would happen. Again, agree or disagree, right now Power Trails are a No No. But with my reviewer giving a little more insight into the process makes it still possible to place caches that get approved without wasting everyone's time (including the reviewers). Thanks to everyone who has help clear this issue for me (even you Keystone! )

Yes, I did look at some of these before posting. However, since these mainly talked about pros and cons of power trails and opinions as to whether there should or shouldn't be power trails, they really did not answer the questions I had. But thanks for the links to these threads. I actually did not get the Treasure Trail one on my search and I enjoyed that discussion. I really am not trying to debate if there should be power trails. If the rules say no power trails, then no power trails. I am really trying to get a clearer idea as to what makes a group of caches a power trail. The whole WHY about the rule really has nothing to do with my original post at all. I, for one, like the rules to be black and white and then you bend them from time to time. I was trying to take this gray (or grey) area and make it a little more black and white. I don't care that they are not allowed, just define them better. Let me say that again, I DON'T CARE IF THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED and I have no beef with my reviewer. He does a thankless job very well. I started this thread with one thing in mind...Finding out what makes a group of caches a "Power Trail" that will not be approved.

No offense taken at all. If there is one cache in an area, after the FTF, you might get 2 or 3 people looking every couple months. Put 4 or 5 caches in the area, and you will have 2 or 3 looking each weekend. Why? Numbers, gas prices, fear of going all that way and getting a DNF. Lots of reasons. There are people caching that cache for the pure enjoymnet of caching, but for each of those, you have 5 that care about numbers. I enjoy the logs. I love seeing the race for a FTF and being involved in it. That may not be how the "Jedi Masters" envisioned the sport, but it is how many enjoy it. And with the insta-notify feature that was added, I think that is known. Everyone plays the "sport" for a different reason. That is what is so great about it. I don't have to do "Know Your Trees" puzzle cache. I can put it on an ignore list and never see it again. But someone else can enjoy finding the 8 trees and idenifying them. The site/sport has changed to add certain features over the 2 years I have been a member. I am sure that it had changed alot from the first day and will change alot before it's last day (many decades from now). Having an area in the city along a bike trail with caches every 600 feet is something some cachers would enjoy. My wife would love it. She hates having to hike through the woods to find a cache. I enjoy both. Some only enjoy the woods. Some prefer real mental challenge puzzle caches, some like great camo, some look for only below 2 difficulty. We all have our own way of playing the game. I am not judging anyone for how they play it. If you prefer hiking a mile to find a cache, don't stop at the 5 placed between the parking lot and the last cache. But in the same turn, don't judge me because I would prefer to stop at those caches on the way out to that last cache.

Renegade Knight has actually put the issue in a nutshell. Personally, I don't care what the rule is, what I want to know is WHAT is the rule. And yes, there is frustration, and I do appologize for that. Cachers will follow the rules. They will question them, but they will follow them. This guideline is so vague that there is no "RULE". There is judgement which is much harder for a person to follow. Any cacher and any reviewer will see things differently. But if there is a "RULE", then the exception is easier to understand. I have never asked WHY because then you never get a rule defined. You get arguments on both sides. My take on the why is below. Perhaps "Power Trail" is the wrong term, maybe Cluster should have been used and it would defuse some of the emotion. This "sport" is evolving into more than what the "Jedi Masters" may have envisioned. To alot (probably more than anyone wants to admit) it is about the numbers. Not solely about the numbers, but at least a little about the numbers. That is why this issue has such emotion on both sides.

Wow, where did you get that? There have been several posts from cache reviewers describing what factors they consider when presented with a possible power trail, and that's what you conclude from the posts? I am sure glad I didn't waste my time answering in this thread or in the e-mail you sent to me last week or so. You really need to work this out with your local reviewer. Where I came up with that conclusion is from the posts by the reviewers. Perhaps the statement was a bit simplistic. But from every post here, including yours, it is basically up to the individual reviewer to decide what is and is not approved. Statements have said that the guidelines are flexible and if the reviewer feels the intent. It depends was used a lot. As I have stated many times, I have no problems with my reviewer. I have no problem with the guideline other than it is very vague. The posts have answered why it is vague. So that there can be exceptions based on the reviewer’s belief (experienced, educated belief) as to the intent of the cacher. Yes, many factors play a role, but in the end, it rests on the reviewers “feelings” about the cache. Like or dislike is probably the wrong words to use, but they seem to work in this spot. Finally, had you taken the time to reply to my email, this whole thread would not have even happened. If the answer had come from you that it was up to the reviewer and there are x,y,z factors and if there is still a question he goes to the “super-secret reviewer forum”, that would have ended the issue for me. But again, I have gotten 2 responses from “Site Wide Moderators” (I’ll assume that means Groundspeak) and both were meant more as an attack on me more than an answer to the original questions.

I agree. There is really no answer to the question. If a reviewer decides he doesn't like it, it will not get approved. It is solely the opinion of the reviewer as to whether it is or is not a "Power Trail" and whether it is or is not approved. I also agree that the blanket statement that power trails are lower quality caches is not always true. I am not sure that they it is even true a majority of times. The ones I have done in Iowa are all very good quality caches. I have seen many more individual caches that were a waste of time than I have seen power trail caches be a waste of time. But that is me. I think hiking a a half mile round trip to find an ammo can hidden in a homeless person's shanty is not a real quality cache. The quality of the cache is more about the person placing it than how many and how close they are placing them. If the hider cares, they have quality hides. They are not creating a "Power Trail", they are placing a nice group of caches (they can maintain easily) that will get lots of cachers because they can get lots of smilies without having to spend $50 in gas money.

As I stated before, I have nothing planned and am not wanting to do anything. Our reviewer started a thread on our local forum with a statement that he was going to have to "start upholding the intent of the Groundspeak guidelines" but then could not really define a Power Trail. I was sent here with my questions.

Or would you take them to a bike trail in the city with good quality hides every 1000 to 1500 feet to show them a variety of caches? A good cache does not have to be a half mile hike in the woods. And not every half mile hike into the woods brings you to a good quality cache. But I do get your point. I completely agree that I would rather find great quality hides, but does the fact that one person put out the caches preclude them from being good hides? Thanks to everyone for the input. I guess the answers from the other reviewers were as good as answers from Groundspeak itself.

Again, I thank you for your opinion. But it still does not answer the issue. If the issue is a single person taking up the prime caching area, why not make the guideline refect this. "distance between caches for a single cacher is 1 mile"? or whatever. If you look at the posts on different forums about this issue, you get alot of differing OPINIONS as to what the guideline really is and why it is in place. So far, what I have heard from Groundspeak is "If you have to ask, it's probably a power trail." which is a fun post, but does little to answer any of the questions about this issue. I was simply trying to offer a solution to the "problem" at hand. And I do truely thank you for your help. As I have said, I have nothing at stake here. I have no caches being disapproved. I have none that I plan to put out in the near future...Oh wait, I have one, if/when I find the right spot for it. It is about hearing from Groundspeak on the issue. That is it. And it looks like I have heard all I will hear from them.

Actually, I have not had anything disapproved. I truely have nothing in the works. This is an issue that was brought up by our reviewer on the Iowa Forums. I am just trying to find an answer, not for me, but for those here in Iowa that have enjoyed placing caches. I have limited myself to having 25 active caches as that is all I feel I can maintain. But there are alot of people in Iowa who do have plans for great series of caches. I guess I am trying to be their voice. But I agree completely. Follow the rules...Clarify this rule is what I am asking.

You know, I would even take that right now, I can't even get a because I said so. I am not even asking for a WHY to the guideline. I am asking for What...Define what it is we can't do better than a series of caches intended to be found as a group. because I have seen a bunch of series (99 BOB in chicago being one) meant to be found as a group. I know, it is up to the reviewer...unless the reviewer says it is up to Groundspeak....unless Groundspeak says it is up to the reviewer...

But it does not seem like I will get any.

And the fill-in caches would not have been considered a "Power Trail" because they were more than .1 mile apart. You are talking about quality of caches. I have seen where 12 caches were placed along 1.5 miles of a bike trail. 12 different styles of hides, 8 different containers, 3 different sizes. Each hide fun and challenging. And if they were placed by different cachers, there would be no questions asked. But because one cacher placed them and submitted them at the same time, it is a power trail and should not be approved. I have also seen a "Power Trail" where all the caches were placed on the underside of bridges. All the containers were Magnetic Key holders or small tupperware and 5 different cachers placed them over a period of 2 years. Great for my numbers, but I'll take the quality the hides by one person over the copy cat hides of a bunch of cachers. So you do have two sides to both sides of your issue.

What we are being told, our reviewer would consider this a power trail. It is in fact "A series of caches that are generally intended to be found as a group". Again, I am just asking for a "clarification" of the guideline. If the clarification is "If you have to ask, it's probably a power trail." and I don't ask, is it not a power trail?

yes, but it is my reviewer that sent me here because "I don't have the authority to establish add-ons to the guidelines regarding what distances would be appropriate. " and "Some of them seem to think this is all about MY decision. I don't see it that way. It's a Groudspeak thing. [Please see the guidelines.] It would be pointless for me to weigh in officially on the arguments that a few geocachers have voiced, because I'm not the one making the rules. Groundspeak has voiced its displeasure and preference about having power trails approved. As a volunteer reviewer, I am required to abide by Groundspeak's guidelines." SOOO, my reviewer says it is Groundspeak's call, and here, I am being told it is my reviewer's call. Like I said, all I am asking for is a bit of clarification on the "guideline" so everyone knows what the intent of the guideline is.

Again, I thank you for your opinion. But it still does not answer the issue. If the issue is a single person taking up the prime caching area, why not make the guideline refect this. "distance between caches for a single cacher is 1 mile"? or whatever. If you look at the posts on different forums about this issue, you get alot of differing OPINIONS as to what the guideline really is and why it is in place. So far, what I have heard from Groundspeak is "If you have to ask, it's probably a power trail." which is a fun post, but does little to answer any of the questions about this issue.

Wow, that clears it up completely.

Yes and yes But the first is being approved without a second thought. Environmental impact is not the issue here. Maintaining some semblance of quality about the game, is. This is why multicaches exist. Sometimes less is indeed more. The guideline phrase which says it best is "On the same note, don't go cache crazy and hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can." If the intention of the OP is to extract the "secret undocumented number of feet which the reviewers use to determine whether a bunch of caches is a power trail", well, I don't believe any such thing exists. I guess I still don't understand how having 10 good hides is bad and having a 10 stage key holder multi is "quality". But to the question, the OP is trying to get a "clarification" from Groundspeak so EVERYONE (reviewers and cachers) can know what is and isn't acceptable surrounding this issue. Or for that matter maybe exactly what the intent of the rule is. When our reviewer stated he was "going to start upholding the intent of the Groundspeak guidelines." We would like to know the intent and he sent us here. I am not speaking badly of our reviewer, because it is a hard job and one that is greatly appriciated. He is doing what he feels he has been told to do by Groundspeak. I commend him for that. Iam simply trying to get answers for those that have asked the questions he doesn't feel are his questions to answer.

While I appriciate both replies, they say basically the same thing. If the caches are different, then it is not a power trail even if you place then every 528 feet. While you mention "the majority" of cachers, I am not so sure in Iowa the majority is not about the number of smilies. As one person stated, "I will skip a 5 stage multi if I can look for 5 individual caches that are in the same area." I understand the guidelines are just that, but each reviewer has their interpretation of those guidelines. When asked, my reviewer directed us to Groundspeak for an explaination of the guideline. Thus the questions to Groundspeak (the keepers of the guidelines!). If a power trail is not really defined how are cachers to know what is and isn't a power trail. If I place 10 caches all the same style a mile apart along a trail, is it a power trail? On the flip side, if I place 10 caches that are all different sizes and styles along a 1 mile stretch of a trail is it a power trail? Removing enviornmental impact as an issue (because you are placing 10 containers either way), what is the difference between a 10 stage multi and 10 individual caches except how they appear in the stats and on the map (and the fact that you will have less than half the number of people look for a multi)?

On the Iowa Geocaching Forum, there has been lots of discussion on this topic. Basically, those cacher's with questions have been directed to Groundspeak and they direct you to here. SOOO, here is the question for a Groundspeak person who makes the guidelines (or interprets them). What is the distance caches along a trail must be spaced for them to no longer be considered a "Power Trail"? You are required to keep them 528 feet apart, but "the reviewer may require you to create a multi-cache, if the waypoints are close together. A series of caches that are generally intended to be found as a group are good candidates for submission as a single multicache." So what distance is "close together"? How many caches make up a "Power Trail"? If I put 3 caches in an area 528 feet apart is it a "Power Trail" or does it take 10 or 15? Finally, What is the difference (other than the number of caches that can be logged) in placing 10 caches and one 10 stage multi? Other than you will not get nearly as many people looking for the 10 stage multi as the 10 individual caches. I know everyone has an opinion on this issue, but I would really like to hear from someone from Groundspeak.

I like the new feature of showing what ones have been found. Thanks for all the hard work on this. It makes planning a day of caching so easy. Makes me want to renew my membership for another year.

Well, I have experienced both in my short time of caching. I have released a few TBs and the first one went to a cache and sat. The second moved quickly from Iowa to Arizona and came up missing. The funny thing is, the one that sat, finally moved and we got some fun pics. The one that came up missing, I sent out the copy and someone contacted me today saying they think they found the original bug minus the tag. How cool is that. So if it is the original bug and I get it back, I will try to attach it to my copy and let if travel some more. TB's are fun and yes, sometimes you have to ask someone to move one for you. Or maybe even find someone to rescue it from a cache that never gets visited. But when you get the picture of Eeyore watching a Disney Crusie ship (one if its goals) it is alot of fun. I have a Geocoin I released that one person has had for a while. He logs it in and out of alot of caches and personally, I would like him to allow others to have it, but it is interesting watching it travel. He takes pictures and seems to have alot of his own, so I know he isn't trying to keep it, he is just having fun with it. So if he keeps if for another month, I might send him a nice note and ask that he release it so others can experience the coin. You will come up with your own personality when it comes to your TBs and however you "rule" them, it is correct for you. The key is have fun. Right?

I completely agree with this request. I would love to be able to toggle between seeing caches I haven't found yet and all caches in an area. BTW, I love being able to bookmark from the page too. I bookmark the caches, create a PQ from the bookmark and use the GPX file to dump the waypoints to my GPS. Then I put the GPX on my PDA and I am all set for a day/weekend of caching.

I have the same question. Mine isn't so much a lack of computers, it is just ease for the cachers and the cache owners. Why have 5 or 6 log entries when one for a family or team could do the job. Perhaps this feature request could be looked into.

I don't often post on the GC.Com forums, but I have to say I love the google maps function and the new link to it is great. I was using it to plan my trips when it went away (back to the mapquest maps) and I am SOOOOOO happy it is back. This is a great help in planning trips and just heading out for a couple hours caching. Thanks for all the hard work on this feature, it is greatly appriciated.