M 5

I have an idea. Why don't cachers just move and log the traveling cache like they are supposed to? POOF!!!! No drama.

Believe it or not that could be relevant. I understand that a tack that doesn't extend all the way through the bark is far less likely to harm the tree. That it doesn't extend all the way through the bark, is depends entirely on the type of tree.

I guess it depends on the length of screw. Apparently the length of a fire tack http://shop.geocaching.com/default/geo-tacks-25-pack-black.html, is perfectly acceptable.

Vince Vaughn ( ) says to Stuff it, take coordinates and then put them on the line

Seems rather suspicious when all these great hiding places are exactly 1/10 of a mile apart. Anyway, it would be nice to be able to filter out the power trails. Around here, it would add many miles to the radius my close to home pocket query for traditionals covers if I could just weed out the straight line power trails. nice selective quoting and reading comprehension

If it shows up as a big boring line of caches every 1/10 of a mile apart along a trail, it's a powertrail and something I'd prefer to remove from my PQs. I'd be way less cranky about the whole issue if I could just filter them out. They are not remotely the same at all. the only similarity is proximity to each other, noting else. I disagree. Whether it's 1000 geocaches 528' a apart or several 50-60 cache mini power trails, both promote the notion of quantity over quality. Personally, I'd rather see a handful of 500+ cache power trails out in the middle of nowhere then the proliferation of 50-60 caches trails that are becoming commonplace in smaller cities all over the U.S. and Europe. To me, proximity is not the issue as much as monotony. To me it's neither proximity nor monotony. It's a matter of contributing to the notion that geocaching is all about the numbers. If there is a nice 1-2 miles long biking or hiking trail, it's becoming more and more common to saturate the trail with as many caches as possible rather than place a few creating or interesting hide at some of the better places along the trail. To me, it's about (or least should be) about quality, not quantity. The caches I'm refering to are NOT about the numbers, its about using the nice places for caches. I actually proposed and adopt-a-mile series along the 30+ miles of trails, with all differnt owners, part of my reasoning, was to promote good hides and take the spots BEFORE someone came thru and put a bison every 1/10 on the fenceline. Which is where this hobby is heading. I assure you, that the purely numbers cachers, quickly tire of the trails I speak of, since they can't find most in seconds. I also assure you that I'm about as old school as you can get, and HATE the new style powertrails and have had many arguments on here and within our local group against them. I also feel that actually given them there own icon/attribute in some way legitimizes them. Which I don't like at all, although i see the filtering argument as well. ALso, most of the trail powertrail caches around here, are not exaclty 1/10, that is just when the co starts looking for a good spot. It might be quite a bit further

If it shows up as a big boring line of caches every 1/10 of a mile apart along a trail, it's a powertrail and something I'd prefer to remove from my PQs. I'd be way less cranky about the whole issue if I could just filter them out. They are not remotely the same at all. the only similarity is proximity to each other, noting else. I disagree. Whether it's 1000 geocaches 528' a apart or several 50-60 cache mini power trails, both promote the notion of quantity over quality. Personally, I'd rather see a handful of 500+ cache power trails out in the middle of nowhere then the proliferation of 50-60 caches trails that are becoming commonplace in smaller cities all over the U.S. and Europe. To me, proximity is not the issue as much as monotony.

If it shows up as a big boring line of caches every 1/10 of a mile apart along a trail, it's a powertrail and something I'd prefer to remove from my PQs. I'd be way less cranky about the whole issue if I could just filter them out. They are not remotely the same at all. the only similarity is proximity to each other, noting else. A big line of caches owned by the same person, published all at the same time, 1/10 of a mile apart looks like a powertrail to me. While I recognize that these caches are enjoyable to some people, they are not enjoyable to me and I would prefer the option to filter them out of my pocket queries. I'm sure that some powertrails are better than others, but I am not interested in any of them. A powertrail attribute would be useful for those who are interested as well. Some people really dig this kind of geocaching, and they could get more into a pocket query at a time with an attribute. It would also be useful for indicating that respect/maintenance/etiquette expectations on those caches are different than for traditional caches placed with care at interesting locations. Then I suggest corrective lenses. Close proximity caches, whether by one person or several, along a scenic location, with every cache a different container, size, cammo, difficly and terrain rating and hide style. Is no way the same as a film cannister alongside a road every 1/10 mile where it is expected that cachers do non-owner maint. throwdown, leapfrog, 3 cache monte, start at either end and meet in the middle, yet log all caches with a copy and paste log. If you see them as the same, you are WAY to narrow-minded for me to continue to engage in conversation. I just don't think they should be lumped together as a cache type. Apples and oranges

If it shows up as a big boring line of caches every 1/10 of a mile apart along a trail, it's a powertrail and something I'd prefer to remove from my PQs. I'd be way less cranky about the whole issue if I could just filter them out. They are not remotely the same at all. the only similarity is proximity to each other, noting else.

I think there is a big difference between a trail on a walking/biking path (we have a few here with all different hide styles and ratings, but are close to the 1/10), and the spew that has proliferated around the time of the nevada power trails, with all the same containers and hide styles and the extremely questionable maintenance and logging practices. The former was the original use for the term powertrail and now that term has morphed into any trail that is approximately 1/10th apart. I don't think they are the same animal.

I was at a little over 600 finds when I first heard of the 81 matrix. I wastn't too far off, don't remember how many. I could have pulled it off around 700 total finds, easily, but purposefully found caches to make my 810th find the final cache I needed. Stinger GC2D47C in November of 2010. At the time, I was the only oklahoman to complete the challenge. i think it is a lot easier now. I drove many hundreds of miles and only found between 10-20 that day (too lazy to actually look it up) to locate the last few I needed. Not near as hard now.

I've actually got a thousand or so 35mm film canisters that I never used. They were given to me on Christmas Day 2006, along with my very 1st GPS to start geocaching. I quickly learned that I never wanted to use them. I kept them around while toying with the idea of making one giant trash can cache with only one canister being the cache itself. That is old news now, but I was thinking about it in '07. Now I'm considering having a bonfire event for the fellow anti-powertrail/urban micro spew camp.

That's one more post for me! Thanks so much for starting this topic.

DNF in my book. The terrain rating for the cache is largely getting to GZ, so I consider the way in as part of the cache hunt.

That's funny, I was told by our local MN reviewers that you can't have a challenge that is based on finds by one specific hider. This is just another example of the inconsistencies that irritate those of us that like to hide. From guidelines But the challenge that is referenced is from 2010, before this particular guideline was written.. And because of that, it was grandfathered. From farther down the guidelines: That particular guideline was well before the 3-12-12 date listed above. I don't know the actual date, but I know of 2 caches published in november of 2010 that were in violation of that guideline, (I remember when they were published, and knew they slipped them through) someone must have complained and they were then archived in march of 2011 for that reason.

Because that is the default and it is a lot of clicks to change it for that many caches. Makes sense. Even more laziness/bad practices associated with power trails than I even imagined.

If the e.t highway caches are sooooooo easy that you can run up those numbers, then why are they rated 1.5 star difficulty?

I usually agree with your posts on here, but I believe we'll have Groundspeak to thank. It's their policies and short-sightedness in pandering to the least common denominator, who in this case happen to be the most common denominator (urban PNGers and powertrailers) that is allowing this explosion of caches, including powertrails.

That's required to be used for those caches. I don't want an attribute. ban=no attribute needed. ....and yes, I know it won't happen. Shame though.

I think it is also sad that there is a distinction between PT and all caches. One of my many issues with roadside power trails.

Definitely a world record, but a world record of what is the question. I doubt that our categories are the same.

I see a gap

Be careful not to make it look like all the other 6 FOOT pipe bombs out there. Jeez. I'm actually using one on a future hide with a buddy of mine. I will glue a cap on one end, and put an expansion plug on the other side with a tool cabled to the container for finders to use. We are putting 6 handmade hiking sticks for the 1st 6 finders, and yes I have a plan to make sure that they go to 6 different people.

I like how the "offending" cacher stated to "put the cache back as found" (or something similar) on his only hide, then posted a found it on his own cache when he/she had to do maintenance when someone moved it.

Far more will just park in the way, and have not even looked at the cache page to know if it has that attribute or not.