Treasure Trail

[+Geoboss]

I am thinking of making a Treasure Trail of caches.

 

A "treasure trail" is a road or trail along which caches are placed every .10 to .15 mile apart for several miles. I have a couple of good areas in mind.

 

Is this a good idea or not? Have you found any of these, and if so what did you think?

[+martinell]

Sounds like a way to rack up numbers. Why would you not this make it a multi?

[+pghlooking]

Bad idea. Power trails do nothing but increase someones virtual counter. It serves no purpose such as quality or anything. There are exceptions to this ruile of course, but they are few and far between. So in general, no this is a bad idea. of course there will be people who will think thisis a great idea. I hear them coming now so I will step aside...

[+QSparrow]

I am thinking of making a Treasure Trail of caches.

 

A "treasure trail" is a road or trail along which caches are placed every .10 to .15 mile apart for several miles. I have a couple of good areas in mind.

 

Is this a good idea or not? Have you found any of these, and if so what did you think?

We have several trails like that (but I haven't heard the term "Treasure Trail"). I like them!

[+frivlas]

Well, depending on how it's implemented it could be cool. I cached on one of these power trails in Central California last year. They were on a multi use trail that wound it's way around through the city...I would never have visited it without the caches. What made it cool is that while the caches were all micro, they were all different and very creatively done. A key holder under every bench along a walking trail would not have been near as interesting.

[+Blue Power Ranger]

Sounds like a "power trail" as defined by the guidelines...

 

....don't go cache crazy and hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can. If you want to create a series of caches (sometimes called a “Power Trail”), 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, though some people might like the idea. What is the point of the caches other than numbers?

[Trinity's Crew]

Generally power trails are not allowed. Just because you CAN place a cache every .10 miles doesn't mean you should.

 

Some power trails have developed naturally over several years with many cachers hiding caches in the same general area, but you probably won't get a power trail approved.

[+StarBrand]

Existing "Power Trails" Are usually the result of time and different cachers slowly placing hides over time. Trying to create a power trail all on your own in one burst is not allowed. Make a multicache instead. Same trail, same sights and still some caches to find on the way.

[+briansnat]

Generally power trails are not allowed. Just because you CAN place a cache every .10 miles doesn't mean you should.

 

Some power trails have developed naturally over several years with many cachers hiding caches in the same general area, but you probably won't get a power trail approved.

 

TC is correct. Your reviewer will probably ask you to make it into a multi cache. Power trails, treasure trails or whatever you call them are not likely to be publisehed.

[+carleenp]

Some people like such things, others really dislike them. As a cacher, I don't personally have strong feelings either way, but you might want to run the locations by your local reviewer before you spend a lot of time on it. Depending on the circumstances, such as cache saturation in the area, general location, how many caches are planned etc, she might suggest or require one or several multi-caches instead one long trail of single caches.

Edited March 16, 2007 by carleenp

[Trinity's Crew]

Make a multicache instead. Same trail, same sights and still some caches to find on the way.

 

I always wondered, why are 20 caches along a path not allowed while a 20 stage multi-cache along the same path is okay?

Edited March 16, 2007 by Trinity's Crew

[+Geoboss]

This would not be done all at one time. Placing caches of all shapes and sizes about .25 mile apart, then filling in the areas in between over time.

[+SixDogTeam]

Bad idea. Power trails do nothing but increase someones virtual counter. It serves no purpose such as quality or anything. There are exceptions to this ruile of course, but they are few and far between. So in general, no this is a bad idea. of course there will be people who will think thisis a great idea. I hear them coming now so I will step aside...

 

Great idea. Power trails really help out the sport and attract people to an area. They serve the purpose of encouraging people to get out and cache, and usually are high quality hides by qualified cachers. There are exceptions to this rule of course, but they are few and far between. So in general, yes, this is a Great idea. Of course, there will be people who will think this is a bad idea. I hear them coming now, so I will step aside...

[+Geoboss]

One reason not to make it a multi is that most cachers, myself included will skip over a multi-cache. Multi-caches take alot more time to complete than do Traditional caches and still only count as ONE find. Cachers traveling through an area will simply skip over a multi-cache because of the time involved. Plus, making a Power Trail (treasure trail) would bring up the cache count in an area and potentially bring more cachers to the area.

Edited March 16, 2007 by Geoboss

[+SixDogTeam]

One reason not to make it a multi is that most cachers, myself included will skip over a multi-cache. Multi-caches take alot more time to complete than do Traditional caches and still only count as ONE find. Cachers traveling through an area will simply skip over a multi-cache because fo the time involved. Plus, making a Power Trail (treasure trail) would bring up the cache count in an area and potentially bring more cachers to the area.

 

Exactly

[+martinell]

One reason not to make it a multi is that most cachers, myself included will skip over a multi-cache. Multi-caches take alot more time to complete than do Traditional caches and still only count as ONE find. Cachers traveling through an area will simply skip over a multi-cache because fo the time involved. Plus, making a Power Trail (treasure trail) would bring up the cache count in an area and potentially bring more cachers to the area.

 

Apparently I am not "Most Cachers". I prefer the multi-cache to the traditional. Having found and DNF'd a few of yours I know it will be fun whichever way you go, but you might want to seriously consider a multi or a series of multi's.

[Clan Riffster]

Is this a good idea or not? Have you found any of these, and if so what did you think?

I guess it depends on how you set it up. There's a crossroads in a nearby forest that looks like a giant green cross when you zoom out your geocache map, due to the extreme close placement of caches. I got the impression that somebody had a string 600' long and everytime they ran out of string, they plopped down a plastic jug. The individual cache pages were mostly copy/paste. Those who really like numbers love this area, as they can get a whole bunch of finds with very little effort.

 

It didn't blow my kilt up.

[+Cedar Grove Seekers]

One reason not to make it a multi is that most cachers, myself included will skip over a multi-cache. Multi-caches take alot more time to complete than do Traditional caches and still only count as ONE find. Cachers traveling through an area will simply skip over a multi-cache because fo the time involved. Plus, making a Power Trail (treasure trail) would bring up the cache count in an area and potentially bring more cachers to the area.

 

Apparently I am not "Most Cachers". I prefer the multi-cache to the traditional. Having found and DNF'd a few of yours I know it will be fun whichever way you go, but you might want to seriously consider a multi or a series of multi's.

I agree, I like multi-caches too. Numbers can be rewarding, but being one of smaller group of people to successfully finish a multi is also rewarding. We did an 11 stage multi that was 25km (15 miles) - only one find, but very rewarding.

[+Kit Fox]

I'll take a five mile hike over rough terrain, hiking the entire time, to find 20 caches, rather than 20 caches placed every .1 miles, in city shopping centers, but that is just me. My last cache find was a 7 mile R/T hike for one cache, but I didn't complain about not finding more than one cache. Regarding Multis : A large portion of the multis that i've found, had zero purpose for the intermediate stages. I would not mind a multi, if each stage took me to an informative trail sign, or scenic location, rather than a bunch of random spots.

 

Here is a visual of a "treasure trail" where the treasure is location.

 

Edited March 16, 2007 by Kit Fox

[Neos2]

If I'm traveling, I won't consider a multi. There is too great a risk that part of it will be missing or I won't find one part, and I won't be able to complete it...and if I never get back there again, it would nag me forever.

 

I'd rather look for 5 or 6 caches over a 10 mile stretch, and perhaps only find half of them, than do a multi. I don't mind a DNF somewhere I'll likely never see again; I can't abide the idea of a DNC (did not complete).

 

In fact, we seldom go for even the shortest multi-caches. The only exception I can think of are cemetery caches where you use info on a fascinating headstone to get coords for the final location. I do love to visit cemeteries; I look for relatives for my family history and admire the artwork and landscaping. Getting to find a geocache while I do that is a great reason to get me to wander the entire cemetery.

 

On the other hand, I like to find a variety of cache types, hidden by numerous cache owners with different styles. Might a power trail created by one person run the risk of losing some of that mystique and challenge?

[+Airmapper]

I'll take a five mile hike over rough terrain, hiking the entire time, to find 20 caches, rather than 20 caches placed every .1 miles, in city shopping centers, but that is just me. My last cache find was a 7 mile R/T hike for one cache, but I didn't complain about not finding more than one cache. Regarding Multis : A large portion of the multis that i've found, had zero purpose for the intermediate stages. I would not mind a multi, if each stage took me to an informative trail sign, or scenic location, rather than a bunch of random spots.

 

Exactly!

 

I know of a "Power Trail" that has been recently placed. I cached on it and had a great time, so I'm not against the idea. I got to find many more good quality caches than if I were to go parking lot hopping for LPC's. I got to go out in the woods and hike from cache to cache, and not have traffic and muggles bothering me.

 

Sure the numbers are nice, but really having good caches spaced within a reasonable hiking distance makes the trail so much better. I can see where it could be abused, but the few I have been on were well done.

[crawil]

It didn't blow my kilt up.

 

That's a mental image I don't need.

[+Renegade Knight]

I am thinking of making a Treasure Trail of caches.

 

A "treasure trail" is a road or trail along which caches are placed every .10 to .15 mile apart for several miles. I have a couple of good areas in mind.

 

Is this a good idea or not? Have you found any of these, and if so what did you think?

 

I'd love to find a power trail. Since I hate multi caches I'd much rather find each cache individually. Especially if I'm on a trip and don't have time for the entire trail.

[+Hula Bum]

Don't like them at all. But, not everyone caches for the same reasons, some just like the numbers and this would be perfect. For me there is no interest and depending on your reviewer he may be on top of it to notice 1 cacher "filling in" between all the rest of his caches.

[nonaeroterraqueous]

So, though some people might like the idea. What is the point of the caches other than numbers?

Power-caching trails are nice because they never involve getting in the car and driving to the next cache. We can spend an entire day caching without ever having to get back in the car, except to go home. Sure, it's better to have a lone cache at the end of a nice rural hiking trail, but there are some nice semi-suburban trails that approach streets periodically, such that getting to the cache only involves a very small part of a nice path. More caches means using a longer section of the trail.

 

Power-caching trails are easy to spot on a mapping program, and the distance is easy to judge, so I know what kind of day we're in for. Granted, if every cache were done by the same person it might get a little redundant, in theory, but I've never actually seen that happen.

 

In short, I love it, and no, I don't give a rip about the numbers .

[+Juicepig]

I like the idea of a power trail, but not with the minimum distance between them. Give the cacher a chance to actually look up, seperate them by at least twice the minimum distance, and you shouldn't have any problems with reviewers. I did something like this, but it was for a canoe trip down a river (power-river?) - 2 traditionals, a multi and an earthcache along the river, with a final cache. 5 caches over about 25km river ride. Added some spice to the adventure!

 

The down side to a multi is that if a stage goes missing then you have nothing to do but walk the trails without direction, thinking about the inevitable dnf log. I have seen good ones that use virtual stages(signs, trees), or permanent markers (like geodetic markers)

[+angevine]

As others have pointed out, this will probably not be allowed. But even if you do make it a multi, you can still have a theme running through it that could reflect the "treasure trail" idea, especially if you're creative. Maybe go from rainbow to rainbow until you end up at the pot of gold? Something like that?

 

If you're doing it just so people can rack up numbers -- well, then you're really going the "lame micro-cache" route. But if you're doing it as a creative whole and a potentially great adventure, and you can clear it with your approver, why not?

 

Jeannette

www.JeannetteCezanne.com

[+Isonzo Karst]

I'm owner of some of the caches in a "power trail". Image (out of date) of caches along a trail. The reviewer that listed these might well have asked that they be combined as a multi had they all been submitted at once by a single cacher, and been cut and paste - but they developed over time, there are at least 5 different owners - there are micros, smalls, off sets, ammo cans, a multi - caches emphasizing the river, local history, general sillyness etc, AND they all have permits from the forestry manager.

 

If you're really thinking long term here, I'd suggest several hides along the trail, each interesting in its own right, and spaced FURTHER than .25 - far enough that the cachers you attract will find new places to place their own hides. The different emphasis and different ownership makes for a much more interesting experience. Having land manager permission or knowledge (depending on the area) is a major plus.

 

We recently hunted a group of caches in a reserve, all by the same owner. Spaced close enough to be tough to add more - though mostly .2 to .4 apart. It was a pleasant days bike ride in the woods, but if he hadn't so thoroughly occupied the space, there might be other cachers exploring and adding different hides.

[Keystone]

The logic in the recent posts by Juicepig and Isonzo Karst is *exactly* what I look for when reviewing a bunch of caches all submitted at once, and spaced close together, OR when new hiders are adding to an existing cache-dense area. When done right like they describe, these trails can be fun caching experiences. When tossed down in a single bombardment, how's that look to a land manager who peeks at a cache map to see what's in their park?

[+The Jester]

Make a multicache instead. Same trail, same sights and still some caches to find on the way.

 

I always wondered, why are 20 caches along a path not allowed while a 20 stage multi-cache along the same path is okay?

Keystone's post has part of the answer:

When tossed down in a single bombardment, how's that look to a land manager who peeks at a cache map to see what's in their park?

The perception of a single cache (even with 20 stages) has less impact on the land managers psyche.

[+Miragee]

I like the idea of a power trail, but not with the minimum distance between them. Give the cacher a chance to actually look up, seperate them by at least twice the minimum distance, and you shouldn't have any problems with reviewers.

 

<snip>

I have put out several caches at one time: eleven along one set of trails, ten along a rural road, and five on a loop trail. They were widely-spaced and many of the containers were different. Each location was chosen because it offered a unique view or other point of interest.

 

I hoped by putting out more caches, more people would find the areas worth exploring . . .

 

Sadly, because of their rural location, even that hasn't worked out so well . . .

 

However, I still think a well-done "Treasure Trail" of more widely-spaced caches is a good idea.

[Trinity's Crew]

Make a multicache instead. Same trail, same sights and still some caches to find on the way.

 

I always wondered, why are 20 caches along a path not allowed while a 20 stage multi-cache along the same path is okay?

Keystone's post has part of the answer:

When tossed down in a single bombardment, how's that look to a land manager who peeks at a cache map to see what's in their park?

The perception of a single cache (even with 20 stages) has less impact on the land managers psyche.

 

Now that you brought up that point, I remember discussing this before. I thought it was disingenous to allow placement of a twenty stage multi-cache to fool a land manager into thinking there was one cache on the property. If I did this it would feel dishonest or untruthful. It's black and white, right? There ARE twenty caches there no matter how it's listed.

 

But now I see an aspect of this truth that eluded me previously. Thanks to some very astute posters I now realize that a 20 stage multi will have significantly less environmental impact because a pretty good segment of the geocaching community will skip it. A multi like that may very well get less visits than one cache placed in the same area.

 

So here I sit, my faith in truth/deceit and black/white shattered and shaken to it's very core. Whatever will I do in this new, disturbing gray world that I have been thrust into?

 

I do still wonder how you soothe the psyche of a land manager if/when (s)he discovers that one cache on their land is actually twenty.

 

Edit: Spelling.

Edited March 17, 2007 by Trinity's Crew

[+rhelt100]

My opinion has been presented, partially, already in this thread. But, here it is.

 

 

I have enough finds under my belt that I have to drive 45 mins to an hour in any direction to go caching. Personally, if I'm going to spend 1.5-2hrs of my day driving to/from caches...I'm certainly going to choose a string of caches over a long multi every time. I would likely skip a long multi until it's near the top of my closest unfound list. If I'm out of town on business, as I was this week, I don't even look at long multis like this. But, I would definitely go for a power trail. Part of the fun, at least for me, of hiding caches is showing out-of-towners your little hidey spots. I think a majority of the out-of-towners are like me. When I'm staying in a hotel and only have 2-3 hours of daylight at the end of each day to cache...I'm not doing the 5 mile hike multicache...but if there are 10-15 caches along that same trail...I may very well try to squeeze it in one evening.

 

 

There you have it. I have to admit though, this is a biased point of view because I am sort of a numbers guy. I have no issues with doing a 1/1 walmart lpc micro if it gets me off the road and bumps my count up by 1. I do like the long hikes too, but I don't seek them when I'm travelling.

[+SGT red jeep]

It didn't blow my kilt up.

 

That's a mental image I don't need.

I think I'm going to need therapy.

[+SGT red jeep]

As long as each cache is unique. Not just the same thing hidden over and over. And maybe something at each location that a person might want to see.

 

I have to travel around a couple hundred miles in any direction from my house to get to a cache rich location. And I, like a few of the previous posters, go for the traditional caches first when I get to an area. I might do a multi if it only has a few stages but the only way I would do a multi with 5 or more stages is if I had depleated the regular caches in the area. Its not that I don't like multis but my caching time is very limited and even one multi can take up most of a day or longer.

 

But if you are just going to walk down a path and start placing micros on everything....

park bench.....micro

sign...............micro

fence post......micro

park bench.....micro

lamp post.......micro

sign...............micro

then I will tell you what my logs will be....TNLNSL

Just don't expect a TFTC

[+Renegade Knight]

A power trail is it's own cache expereince. As such it's not broken. I've an idea for one kicking around the back of my mind.

 

Outside my office is a mountain peak. Not too tall you can drive to the top. The land at either end is public but at the feet of this short span of mountan it's private. A power trial running the ridgeline would encourage people to make a ridgline hike. The existing caches at either end have not resulted in anyone saying "gee I love hikes so much that I started at the one cache on the ridge and did a ridge hike to the other end to get to the other cache"

 

Nope, people just drive.

 

There are a lot of people who enjoy a great hike. There are also a lot of people who enjoy the idea of a great hike and drive instead.

 

I'm thinking that I'll make this one a reality. Now I just have to figure out how to make it comply with the event cache rules...and the alternative minimum tax version of the cache listing rules...

Edited March 16, 2007 by Renegade Knight

[+flask]

i can see that a power trail for numbers' sake would be a detriment. i think that a really well-placed one would be an excellent cache destination. it would feature a variety of hides that use the unique terrain features in an interesting way. a thing like this could really make a very nice full-day experience for finders without having to move from park to park.

 

i have a puzzle series that's five caches long. the first three are two-part multis. it makes a lovely two mile hike around some beaver ponds and goes up to see views off of both sides of the mountain. so it's kind of like a power trail, if you do them all at once.

 

someone who put good work into one could design a power trail that's truly excellent. i'd love so see a few of those.

 

but no, i'm not interested in power trail spew.

[+briansnat]

One reason not to make it a multi is that most cachers, myself included will skip over a multi-cache. Multi-caches take alot more time to complete than do Traditional caches and still only count as ONE find. Cachers traveling through an area will simply skip over a multi-cache because fo the time involved. Plus, making a Power Trail (treasure trail) would bring up the cache count in an area and potentially bring more cachers to the area.

 

Apparently I am not "Most Cachers". I prefer the multi-cache to the traditional. Having found and DNF'd a few of yours I know it will be fun whichever way you go, but you might want to seriously consider a multi or a series of multi's.

 

A 10 stage multi would provide the same experience as a 10 cache power trail. You walk the same area and, hunt the same number of containers and it will take about the same amount of time. The only difference is you get one smiley instead of 10.

 

So essentially, if you would pass on a multi, but would eagerly hunt a nearly identical power trail, you you're really in this for sport numbers and not the fun of the hunt. If that's your bag, that's fine, but I think those people whose only thought after finding a cache is where to go for their next smiley are missing out on so much.

[+flask]

i'm happy to hunt a long multi and i'm equally pleased to find ten singles, depending on the day. i have to say that if i'm given the choice between getting ten smileys and one, i'll usually lean toward ten although i have been known to drove four hours and hike in a loooong way to get one. it's all part of the general experience.

[+NasheCache]

So essentially, if you would pass on a multi, but would eagerly hunt a nearly identical power trail, you you're really in this for sport numbers and not the fun of the hunt.

I feel like I'm too new at this to have an opinion, but I have to say that I disagree wholeheartedly with that assessment. My family and I enjoy the totality of the experience and we enjoy our growing list of successes. It doesn't have to be either/or.

 

All of us liked getting gold stars on our homework when we were children. It's just human nature to want a reward for our efforts. Now that I'm caching with children, I see that those little smiley faces mean a lot to them. Getting ten smileys is simply more fun than getting just one. But don't worry... they still soak up the rest of the experience... the scenery, the sleuthing, and the camaraderie.

 

We would love to do a "Treasure Trail"... for the excitement of the hunt, the thrill of the find, the chance to see new places, get some exercise and enjoy the great outdoors and... yes... for the smileys.

[+Kit Fox]

A 10 stage multi would provide the same experience as a 10 cache power trail. You walk the same area and, hunt the same number of containers and it will take about the same amount of time. The only difference is you get one smiley instead of 10.

 

So essentially, if you would pass on a multi, but would eagerly hunt a nearly identical power trail, you you're really in this for sport numbers and not the fun of the hunt. If that's your bag, that's fine, but I think those people whose only thought after finding a cache is where to go for their next smiley are missing out on so much.

 

I agree with you, on almost every aspect of geocaching, except this. If I hiked a power trail, with ten unique caches, hidden in spots that are worthy locations of any geocache, i'm having fun. I'd have just as much fun finding a long multi, if there was a purpose for all the intermediate waypoints. Do I like finding lots of caches in a day? Yes, but only if each cach is worthwhile of my time, and fits my criteria for caches that I like to find. Have I spent hours in the hunt for one cache, yes, and I had a blast also.

[Neos2]

...A 10 stage multi would provide the same experience as a 10 cache power trail. You walk the same area and, hunt the same number of containers and it will take about the same amount of time. The only difference is you get one smiley instead of 10.

 

So essentially, if you would pass on a multi, but would eagerly hunt a nearly identical power trail, you you're really in this for sport numbers and not the fun of the hunt. If that's your bag, that's fine, but I think those people whose only thought after finding a cache is where to go for their next smiley are missing out on so much.

If all the stages are there and accessible the day you go, there is some similarity between a 10 stage multi and a 10 cache power trail....but I would still pass on the long multi when I'm just traveling through town.

 

If I am doing ten single caches, and I find I don't like that cache owner's style or the ticks are just too thick, or I'm just too tired to go on that day, I can stop at cache number three or six and never feel that I need to go back there again. If I start a multi, I want to finish that multi---not likely when I'm traveling.

 

If it's really "the same" experience, there is no real reason to make it a multi instead of a group of singles, right? So why not recommend the singles instead of the multi? Then, at least, if one goes missing, the whole thing isn't shut down hard.

[+Driver Carries Cache]

I think if you distill this whole thread, the message that emerges is “quality not quantity”. Seems people are looking for a quality experience and a quality find.

 

Driver Carries Cache

(madmike)

[+Alan2]

A question about protocol. If you place a multi, can someone else place a cache within .1 miles of one of the stages? The second hider would not know necessarily that his cache is nearby one of the first multi stages.

 

If the answer is no, then that would be an argument for power cachers of individual cachers rather than just one multi since individual cache locations are all posted.

[+The Jester]

A question about protocol. If you place a multi, can someone else place a cache within .1 miles of one of the stages? The second hider would not know necessarily that his cache is nearby one of the first multi stages.

 

If the answer is no, then that would be an argument for power cachers of individual cachers rather than just one multi since individual cache locations are all posted.

As I understand it, if the stage is a virtual and listed as "question to be answered", yes another cache can be within .1 miles. Otherwise, no, all caches and stages of multi-caches must be more than .1 miles apart (of course, stages within a multi-cache do NOT have to be .1 miles from each other).

[nonaeroterraqueous]

I hoped by putting out more caches, more people would find the areas worth exploring . . .

 

Sadly, because of their rural location, even that hasn't worked out so well . . .

 

I'd just like to say that Miragee caches are awesome. They turn a good vacation into a great vacation.

 

So essentially, if you would pass on a multi, but would eagerly hunt a nearly identical power trail, you you're really in this for sport numbers and not the fun of the hunt. If that's your bag, that's fine, but I think those people whose only thought after finding a cache is where to go for their next smiley are missing out on so much.

 

Deductive fallacy. You presume to know all possible explanations and then narrow it down to the most likely. We like traditionals better than multi's, no matter whether they're in a power trail or not. Some of us just don't like being lead on a wild goose chase. We like to know what we're getting ourselves into before we get committed. Also, with traditionals I don't have to get the next one along the trail if I don't feel like it; no one is dangling the reward over my head to manipulate me into hiking the whole thing to get credit for part.

[+michigansnorkelers]

I like the idea.

 

We have much the same thing in Metro Detroit. There is a long parkway, Hines Drive, that is loaded with caches, just about every 1/10 of a mile.

 

As a new cacher, I was immediately drawn to this series of caches. They were 1/1 or close to it. They were close enough to do together, so if one is a DNF there is another close by. PERFECT for a newbie.

 

Oh, and you can actually do them by bicycle! And many have.

 

BTW. There is enough diversity of scenery in this park that many of the hides are unique. A series of "boxes in the bush" would be a little boring. So, if you do this, make sure there is a lot of diversity in what you put out. Either unique hides, themes, etc. Maybe start with a couple 1/1 regular size caches, and proceed in difficulty to 3/3 micros? Hey, I think THAT would be neat! You could call it GEOCACHING UNIVERSITY or something like that.

 

Good Luck, and Happy Geocaching!

[+NasheCache]

We have much the same thing in Metro Detroit. There is a long parkway, Hines Drive, that is loaded with caches, just about every 1/10 of a mile.

There is?? How cool! We used to live in Canton and would go to the parks on Hines Drive rather frequently. When (if?) the weather ever warms up, we'll have to go search for the caches there. Thanks for the tip!

[+fox-and-the-hound]

I am thinking of making a Treasure Trail of caches.

 

A "treasure trail" is a road or trail along which caches are placed every .10 to .15 mile apart for several miles. I have a couple of good areas in mind.

 

Is this a good idea or not? Have you found any of these, and if so what did you think?

 

I think it's a great idea if... there is an exceptional view, unusual feature, or general point of interest in each area. There should be a good reason behind placing a cache where you do other than simply because you could. Otherwise it might just make for an excellent multi. The best multis we've enjoyed often followed along a trail and told a story enroute. Every area is different so you'll have use your best judgment, but contact your reviewer for advice, too. They're a pretty sweet bunch that are often very willing to help you out.

[+Renegade Knight]

...A 10 stage multi would provide the same experience as a 10 cache power trail. You walk the same area and, hunt the same number of containers and it will take about the same amount of time. The only difference is you get one smiley instead of 10.

 

So essentially, if you would pass on a multi, but would eagerly hunt a nearly identical power trail, you you're really in this for sport numbers and not the fun of the hunt. If that's your bag, that's fine, but I think those people whose only thought after finding a cache is where to go for their next smiley are missing out on so much.

 

There is something to be said for a sence of completion be it one cache or a multi. There is also a sence of fustration if you can't complete something be it a single cache or a multi. I enjoy finds more than DNF's. Anyone who says they have fun on a DNF is probably telling the truth, but few would be telling the truth if they didn't admit they would rather of found the cache just the same.

 

My skunk ratio is high enough to where any multi with more than one or two legs is likley to be a DNF. I don't go out of my way to accumulate DNFs. I look for caches to find them, and log DNF's if I don't.

 

When you skew the odds towards fun, the numbers follow. If your fun is numbers, that's not wrong either.

Edited March 19, 2007 by Renegade Knight