Roman!

That explains a lot about you, Roman! You are still purposely shooting the ball onto other's lawns, aren't you?

I hope the company I work for never lessens its work load, I might be out of a job, the company I worked for before lessened its work load so much it doesn't exist anymore. Reviewers are volunteers, bud. It's not the submissions that are the problem it's the appeals to Groundspeak. That's some nice compartmentalization. The reviewers try to work with owners to get these caches published before it gets to the appeal stage. The fact that volunteer reviewers AND paid staff are spending so much time on this issue is a pretty clear sign that the system needs some refinement. At my job, when I have to spend an unexpected amount of time on a task that used to take much less time, it's a problem and it detracts from the other work I have to do. I always work with my employer to make improvements so I can use my time more efficiently. Hmmmmm: While they account for only ~1% of all geocache submissions, challenge caches comprise the bulk of appeals made to Geocaching HQ. Seems the issue is appeals to HQ. So reviewers take a quick glance, say NOPE, and pass it on to Groundspeak? Really? That straight from the horses mouth in post #1.

I hope the company I work for never lessens its work load, I might be out of a job, the company I worked for before lessened its work load so much it doesn't exist anymore. Reviewers are volunteers, bud. It's not the submissions that are the problem it's the appeals to Groundspeak. That's some nice compartmentalization. The reviewers try to work with owners to get these caches published before it gets to the appeal stage. The fact that volunteer reviewers AND paid staff are spending so much time on this issue is a pretty clear sign that the system needs some refinement. At my job, when I have to spend an unexpected amount of time on a task that used to take much less time, it's a problem and it detracts from the other work I have to do. I always work with my employer to make improvements so I can use my time more efficiently. Hmmmmm: While they account for only ~1% of all geocache submissions, challenge caches comprise the bulk of appeals made to Geocaching HQ. Seems the issue is appeals to HQ.

That makes exactly zero sense. I can't even imagine a semi-logical argument that would get you from A (moratorium) to B (people don't like them). Methinks perhaps you are letting your dislike of other people having fun cloud your judgment here. I think the fact that there is a one year moratorium on challenge caches is a good indication that a lot of forum curmudgeons aren't interested in challenge caches as they exist today. Fixed it, guess you haven't read the feedback thread, impression I get is geocachers seem to like them. I read the feedback thread as well as the several other threads related to geocaching challenges. The impression that I got is that some people that like them are coming out of the woodwork to express their displeasure that the moratorium was put in place. I am also seeing a lot of people supporting GS for enacting the moratorium because they feel that geocaching challenges have numerous issues that should be resolved. Some reviewers certainly have some issues with how geocaching challenges are impacting their workload there have been more than a few posts from geocachers that do *not* seem to like how they're implemented today, but I guess we can just dismiss their opinions because, after all, they're just forum curmudgeons. I have no problems with other people having their fun up to the point that how other people are having fun begins to negatively influence the game as a whole. When I was a kid we played street hockey in our cul-de-sac and there was a grumpy old man who always sat on his front lawn and yelled at us whenever we shot the ball onto his yard. All my friends were scared to go retrieve it so I always did, in fact sometimes I even purposely shot the ball onto his lawn. Deep down I know he liked me because I gave him something to do, a purpose in life and I truly believe he lived longer and happier.

I hope the company I work for never lessens its work load, I might be out of a job, the company I worked for before lessened its work load so much it doesn't exist anymore. Reviewers are volunteers, bud. It's not the submissions that are the problem it's the appeals to Groundspeak.

1.73/1.79 now All those PTs took their toll.

I hope the company I work for never lessens its work load, I might be out of a job, the company I worked for before lessened its work load so much it doesn't exist anymore.

But it is an excellent example of the negative impact that the removal of from the guidelines. There was a reason for that clause. While it might not be much of a problem out in the desert, it can present problems in populated areas. This game should not trump people's right to enjoy their home. Consideration should be given before bringing a ton of traffic into a previously quiet neighborhood. Then shouldn't the reviewer be responsible for publishing them?

Power trails are designed for quick finds and are not intended to have any redeeming features. Geoart may or may not be intended for quick finds, but their primary redeeming feature is location of posted coordinates. What timandweze describes in this case is just a bunch of normal caches with high density, neither power trail nor geoart. Having said that, the issue here is the high density, not whether it's a power trail. I agree. It's the high density of caches that brings large numbers of geocachers to places which might not be conducive to a lot of extra traffic. The debate over whether it' a power trail or geoart or calling it something else is just a smoke screen. Not a smokescreen, you're trying to label this a power trail so you can post how bad all power trails are, this is not a power trail. Who cares what its called? It is a cluster of caches hidden for the purpose of building the critical mass that will bring a lot of cachers to the area. And apparently it was done without due consideration for those that live in the area and perhaps enjoy their former privacy, or perhaps are afraid of crime, or for whatever reason, don't want us there. Does anything else really matter? I do, I will admit the caches in question were not a good idea but I feel some here have an alternate agenda and see this as another opportunity to bash power trails.

Power trails are designed for quick finds and are not intended to have any redeeming features. Geoart may or may not be intended for quick finds, but their primary redeeming feature is location of posted coordinates. What timandweze describes in this case is just a bunch of normal caches with high density, neither power trail nor geoart. Having said that, the issue here is the high density, not whether it's a power trail. I agree. It's the high density of caches that brings large numbers of geocachers to places which might not be conducive to a lot of extra traffic. The debate over whether it' a power trail or geoart or calling it something else is just a smoke screen. Not a smokescreen, you're trying to label this a power trail so you can post how bad all power trails are, this is not a power trail.

You've never kayaked before and you're going on a three hour tour on the ocean? Even "the skipper" had experience driving a boat and look how that turned out. I assume he's already underway, so we look forward to the story -- or the TV series! Or a new edition of a book that I've read. It's called "Deep Trouble" by Matt Broze. Matt is/was the owner/designer of Mariner Kayaks, a company in Washington state. The book chronicles a dozen or so stories where kayakers got into "deep trouble" after kayakers that were unprepared for the conditions they encountered went out on trips just like Roman describes. The incidents (some involving death) often were directly related to a lack of experience or ignorance regarding how quickly things can go bad paddling on open water. I wouldn't call where we went open water, it's sheltered by all sort of islands, big and small and we were never more than 500 meters from shore. We also had friends in their canoe (the CO) of the cache following us just in case as we did have to go ashore for the caches. I have motor boated the waters and also have thousands of hour paragliding so I am very familiar with both the water conditions as well as weather. I also have all the the safety gear and am a very competent swimmer. I was well aware what I was getting into and sorry to say, we survived without incident, sometimes life isn't stranger than fiction.

Yep. It's yet another case where the placement of as many caches as possible in an area has causes issues with local residents or land managers, yet some geocachers still seem to think that more is always better. More is not always better, I'd never want more than one wife, heck, even one is too much sometimes. For the record I wouldn't call that a power trail, maybe a first grade geoart, but not a power trail. I disagree... I still feel that geoart fall under power trail. If its true that the difficulty ratings on some/many of them were up there, as the OP stated, then I would not call it a power trail. If it is geoart, it is abstract geoart. But regardless... it is carpet bombing... cache saturation that would never have been allowed at one time. Oh god, I agree with the dog.

Close though, on the bright side, we survived, on the brighter side, got 2 FTFs.

You've never kayaked before and you're going on a three hour tour on the ocean? Even "the skipper" had experience driving a boat and look how that turned out. I assume he's already underway, so we look forward to the story -- or the TV series! Nah, leave in an hour. Gotta learn somehow. We will be hugging the shoreline the whole trip and besides I can swim and my kayak can't sink.

Yep. It's yet another case where the placement of as many caches as possible in an area has causes issues with local residents or land managers, yet some geocachers still seem to think that more is always better. More is not always better, I'd never want more than one wife, heck, even one is too much sometimes. For the record I wouldn't call that a power trail, maybe a first grade geoart, but not a power trail. I disagree... I still feel that geoart fall under power trail. traditional cache geoart I would not consider a PT, a mystery cache geoart could be but I don't consider 200 varying container and difficulty caches a PT, I'd just call them extreme saturation.

Yep. It's yet another case where the placement of as many caches as possible in an area has causes issues with local residents or land managers, yet some geocachers still seem to think that more is always better. More is not always better, I'd never want more than one wife, heck, even one is too much sometimes. For the record I wouldn't call that a power trail, maybe a first grade geoart, but not a power trail.

Ha, someone else DNFed it two days after I did. Anyways, just bought a kayak a week ago (never kayaked before) and we're going after 2 FTFs that have been out for several months. Looks like about a three hour round trip on the ocean, hopefully I won't hate geocaching today.

Go after hours, problem solved.

That makes exactly zero sense. I can't even imagine a semi-logical argument that would get you from A (moratorium) to B (people don't like them). Methinks perhaps you are letting your dislike of other people having fun cloud your judgment here. I think the fact that there is a one year moratorium on challenge caches is a good indication that a lot of forum curmudgeons aren't interested in challenge caches as they exist today. Fixed it, guess you haven't read the feedback thread, impression I get is geocachers seem to like them.

Locationless Challenges != Worldwide Geocaching Challenges Worldwide Geocaching Challenges - No review process - Challenge does not involve a geocaching activity (finding/hiding a cache) - Once challenge is created, the creator does not "own" it - No difficulty/terrain rating - No validation of completion Locationless Challenges - Challenge are either owned by GS or must go through a review proces - The challenge is based on a geocaching activity (find N caches of this type) - The challenge creator owns and "maintains" the challenge (must continue to be attainable) - Can have difficulty/terrain ratings - Challenge can only be logged at completed if the challenge criteria is verified About the only thing they would have in common is they're both called challenges. I have done the jasmer, fizzy, have all my calendar filled, if GS went ahead with this idea I could rack up quite a few find doing little more than logging from my toilet, this is not geocaching, this is not a challenge. Are you saying completing the jasmer, fizzy, and filling up your calendar were not challenges? The only difference here is what you have to do to acknowledge that you completed the criteria. Finding another cache or just logging a locationless "cache" doesn't change the fact that you have completed the challenge. If GS adopted the idea of a locationless cache for challenges it would just mean that the definition of a cache has changed. It would mean that a "cache" could be found/attended/photo taken/completed in order for it to count as a find. They were challenges but I don't deserve an extra smiley for completing them and if GS redefines a cache as something that is merely completed I will refuse to ever log it.

The failure of challenges probably had to to do more with the individual challenges than with with worldwide challenges. The latter had a lot of potential. It's a shame they pulled the plug before discovering it's full potential. Im glad they pulled the plug, kissing a frog got you a smilie

Firstly, most people will rent a car to do a PT. Secondly doing a power trail is the most environmentally friendly way of caching if you look at impact/cache found. Oh, OK. That's MUCH better now. Ingenious, dividing your carbon footprint by the number of caches you've found! Makes one feel very environmentally conscious! Unless you're dead you are damaging the enviroment to some level or another so unless you are dead please don't criticize the impact I have. Yes... but the LEVEL is what is important. Sorry, but I can't support your rationalizing gas use per cache in an environmentally responsible sense. If you're gonna burn a bunch of gas, just admit it. Don't cushion it in a "per cache found" divisor... geeze. Who do you think you're kidding? awesome, you found a new angle at knocking power trails, news alert, driving around all day in your neighborhood caching consumes the same amount of gas as driving all day on a power trail. Naw... thanks for the compliment. And you are essentially correct. Aside from the stop and go effect of a power trail, driving all day is driving all day. But you were rationalizing about caches per mile (or caches per gallon, or whatever). That is what I am addressing. Maybe we should ban all major events like geowoodstock too, thousands of people travel for long distances to get to them, the environmental impact of that travel and then the area they spend a few days caching must be devastating. Let's cut out the hypocrisy and just ban geocaching. Or maybe we can just stop being silly and enjoy. I don't totally disagree with your suggestion. We talk a good line with CITO, but is it really worth anything when we drive all over the countryside to increment a number, when we burn thousands of dollars worth of gas (aggregate) to attend an event, mostly because it gets us a special digital icon? You have made some surprisingly good points there. Thank you! we have to take it further, sex needs to be outlawed, no new people = less environmental impact. Personally I'll pass on all this environmental stuff and enjoy my life.

Firstly, most people will rent a car to do a PT. Secondly doing a power trail is the most environmentally friendly way of caching if you look at impact/cache found. Oh, OK. That's MUCH better now. Ingenious, dividing your carbon footprint by the number of caches you've found! Makes one feel very environmentally conscious! Unless you're dead you are damaging the enviroment to some level or another so unless you are dead please don't criticize the impact I have. Yes... but the LEVEL is what is important. Sorry, but I can't support your rationalizing gas use per cache in an environmentally responsible sense. If you're gonna burn a bunch of gas, just admit it. Don't cushion it in a "per cache found" divisor... geeze. Who do you think you're kidding? awesome, you found a new angle at knocking power trails, news alert, driving around all day in your neighborhood caching consumes the same amount of gas as driving all day on a power trail. Naw... thanks for the compliment. And you are essentially correct. Aside from the stop and go effect of a power trail, driving all day is driving all day. But you were rationalizing about caches per mile (or caches per gallon, or whatever). That is what I am addressing. Maybe we should ban all major events like geowoodstock too, thousands of people travel for long distances to get to them, the environmental impact of that travel and then the area they spend a few days caching must be devastating. Let's cut out the hypocrisy and just ban geocaching. Or maybe we can just stop being silly and enjoy.

That would be a buried plastic bucket with a can of beans in it, would it not? So GS should stick to being a plastic bucket full of beans? Your persistence to argue with me may be getting the better of you.

Alien Head gets hit like it does because of the E.T. trail. You know that. ET highway is but one of hundreds of power trails, driving down a paved road and running 10 - 20 feet into the desert causes way less damage than hiking in the forest and finding hidden caches, I've seen some pretty torn up areas. Is that all it is? 10-20 feet into the desert from a paved road to cache the Alien Head? I must apologize. I had no idea. That makes backpacking in the wilderness look absolutely atrocious. Do you not know the difference between geoart and a power trail? Alien head has nothing to do with my comment, if you have issues with alien head take it up with someone else.