Power Trails

[+Mr'D]

Taken from the rules...

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.

What does 'close together' mean? (600'?) What does a 'group' mean? (Along a topographical feature?)

Some of my most enjoyable caching days have been had completing a series of caches placed on a canal/river/trail.

I wouldn't have bothered if these were classed as one 'mulitcache'.

What do others think?

Jon

[+Sensei TSKC]

What does 'close together' mean? (600'?) What does a 'group' mean? (Along a topographical feature?)

Some of my most enjoyable caching days have been had completing a series of caches placed on a canal/river/trail.

I wouldn't have bothered if these were classed as one 'mulitcache'.

What do others think?

Jon

 

Totally agree with you Jon but it's not about the numbers though.....

[+Simply Paul]

What makes a power trail different from a cluster? Why are they frowned on anyway - if they're more than 528ft from the next one, and comply with the rules, then why would a power trail cache not be listed, if indeed it wasn't, but another cache, set by someone else in the same spot, would be. Seems a rather woolly rule (sorry, guideline) to me.

[+Dorsetgal & GeoDog]

If anyone knows of any w/c accessible such trails, please let me know!

[+Renegade Knight]

Cache owners are in the business of setting up caches for the enjoyment of seekers. This site lists them. The site should not be in the business of dictating the type and style of cache hides unless they are wanting to take over responsiblity for them.

 

That guideline should be stricken.

[+ryme-intrinseca]

If I am going to drive am going to make hubbie drive me some distance to look for caches, I'm much more inclined he's much more likely to give in to my nagging if there are several caches there that we can complete.

 

As long as each cache has been well placed, I personally would rather they were separate caches, rather than one big multi - too much chance of one being muggled, leaving the ones after it unfindable for a start.

 

And yes, I freely admit that part of it for me is about the numbers - why do we bother with the congratulations threads otherwise?

 

Stupid rule / guidance if you ask me. As long as permission has been given by the relevant landowners, and the caches are at least 0.1 miles apart, I'm happy.

[+Kitty Hawk]

I'm happy with power trails as long as they comply with the same guidelines as other caches - at least 0.1 mile apart, permission, no micro's etc.

[+Haggis Hunter]

I'm happy with power trails as long as they comply with the same guidelines as other caches - at least 0.1 mile apart, permission, no micro's etc.

I agree, except for the no micro's part. They have their place if done correctly.

Now this thread threatens to go down the micro debate Aaarggghhhh!!!

[+Team Sieni]

Well... just to play devil's advocate ... say there were a nice area somewhere and someone came and laid a trail of 20 caches across it, this could (because of the proximity rule) block other people from placing other caches, meaning that this nice area has nothing but Team X's caches. Which may be all micros (there's no rule against it).

 

It would be even worse if team X hadn't obtained proper permission (after all the reviewers don't police that - it's the placer's responsibility) and it turned out that team Y all the while were in a protracted negotiation with the landowner.

 

That said "This is England" on the S Downs is a (fairly long) example of this - lots of micros and a final - and we loved it.

 

I can see the reasoning behind the guideline. Not that I necessarily agree.

[markandlynn]

They just generate generic logs, add no value, block other placements lead to damp log books in film canisters they do nothing other than pad numbers.

 

I think the relaxed attitude to power trails in the UK needs to tighten up not loosen down to prevent these things becoming the norm

 

The guidelines were introduced because of these things becoming the norm in the USA lets not make the same mistake twice.

 

If you want people to walk from A to B place a multi with part one a third of the way down it part 2 at the end and part 3 somewhere (interesting) in the middle.

[dodgydaved]

Sometimes you need to voice a personal perspective

 

As I understand it the reason for the power trail guideline arose when, occasionally, a cacher would set a series of micros or virts along a stretch of road or forest trail where one location was almost indistinguishable from another.

 

In UK the only locations I have cached where there have been a series of caches fairly close together (some only just separated by the 0.1 guideline have been canal series caches that Jon alluded to. The Lower Oxford, the Lower GU and the K&A are the areas I am thinking of.

 

Certainly, to my mind, the variety of cache types, trads/micors/multis, and the cunningness of some of the hides made these experiences well worth the trip and no way a "power trail".

 

I think "them three" (you know the ones I mean ) are aware of this and have a far more relaxed approach to the idea of power trails.

 

Mind you there are some areas of Southern England that are becoming so criss crossed by multis that it must be VERY difficult to fit any more in

[+Foinavon]

I must say that I am not a big fan of Power Trails. When I first did Oldham way I thought it was fun because it was a bit of a novelty, but now its a novelty if you only place one cache as they seem to be everywhere. When I do them I end up only a doing a few because I get bored and then when I get back to log them I can't remember which one's which, especially when they have dull names like bla bla number 1, bla bla number 2 etc.

 

And I agree with MarkandLynn about the logs. All you get is "Nice Quick Find" thirty odd times,very dull. It reduces the hobby to mere box ticking. Just my personal opinion, give me a multi any day!

 

They just generate generic logs, add no value, block other placements lead to damp log books in film canisters they do nothing other than pad numbers.

 

I think the relaxed attitude to power trails in the UK needs to tighten up not loosen down to prevent these things becoming the norm

 

The guidelines were introduced because of these things becoming the norm in the USA lets not make the same mistake twice.

 

If you want people to walk from A to B place a multi with part one a third of the way down it part 2 at the end and part 3 somewhere (interesting) in the middle.

[+currykev]

I agree, except for the no micro's part. They have their place if done correctly.

Now this thread threatens to go down the micro debate Aaarggghhhh!!!

 

Not this time young man!

[+The Bolas Heathens]

I agree - we did a series in Florida that were all micro's, placed every 0.1 of a mile behind white cable company boxes at the side of a road in the middle of nowhere. It was a novelty at first but after about 4 or 5 of them it quickly became very boring. When I came to log them I really had not got a clue which one was which and while I tried to make my logs not generic, it was a challenge. On the plus side, we did get 40 odd finds in 2 hours

 

We've done quite a few of the UK's so called power trails and none of them are like the above. They have all been lovely walks in nice areas with a wide variety of hiding styles and were all much more spaced out than the minimum 0.1 of a mile. A considerable amound of them have been bigger than a micro too which is good (IMHO).

 

If a new set came out that were like the US style ones I alluded to in my first paragraph then I could understand the concerns about them but I've not seen any like this and so can't see an issue at the moment.

 

We much prefer a set of well thought out individual caches in an area than a long multi, especially if they are a distance from home as we'd be gutted to travel a distance and then get thwarted at one of the stages of a big multi and come home with no finds. If they were close to home then we're more than happy with a big multi and really enjoy them.

 

As I understand it the reason for the power trail guideline arose when, occasionally, a cacher would set a series of micros or virts along a stretch of road or forest trail where one location was almost indistinguishable from another.

[+Birders]

We don't even know what a "power trail" is!!!

[+Simply Paul]

So, micros. Good or bad?

 

 

I can see the argument against allowing people to smother an area or route with caches, but out of interest, have our reviewers ever needed to invoke this guideline in the UK? As an owner of a trail of sorts, it's of interest!

[+Kryten]

It all cames back to "location location location". If the only reason for hiding a box (of any size) at a particular location is that it is sufficiently far from it's neighbours then why bother.

[+HazelS]

I, for one, Love power trails...

 

I'm a lazy article, and can't see the merit in a long walk for one cache.... However... get me on a power trail and I love it...

 

I've done two true power trails - Oldham Way and the Walk to the Shops Series in Dudley. Neither of which were places I'd have chosen to go caching, and I enjoyed the longer walks, interspersed with caches.

 

At the end of the day - caching is about going to places you'd not normally go to, and enjoy a nice walk - heck... guess that means I love pwqer trails then!!

[+ryme-intrinseca]

It all cames back to "location location location". If the only reason for hiding a box (of any size) at a particular location is that it is sufficiently far from it's neighbours then why bother.

 

I agree 100%. I have no objections to 'power trails' if the locations have been well thought out. An example (of sorts) is the 'Snowdon View' series - most of them are micros, but each spot offers a stunning view, and it's worth visiting for that alone. If it weren't for the caches, we wouldn't have visited that spot, and wouldn't have been able to enjoy the view. Okay, the typical Welsh weather made this difficult due to fog, but the thought was there.

[Lactodorum]

I can see the argument against allowing people to smother an area or route with caches, but out of interest, have our reviewers ever needed to invoke this guideline in the UK? As an owner of a trail of sorts, it's of interest!

Not so far, no for the reasons mentioned above. I think the situation in the UK is fundamentally different from the US with our extensive network of public footpaths etc. However we ARE seeing more of the "Mytrail #1, Mytrail#2, .........etc." type of series.

 

So far we've given them the benefit of the doubt but I fear the day is approaching when we're going to have to act.

[+purple_pineapple]

my 2p, FWIW...

 

I can see that a power trail with all micros would be a bit tedious (although I enjoyed the oldham way, maybe more to do with the company though!) but they don't all have to be micros.

 

imagination is the key - a power trail could have ammo cans, small boxes, 'disguised' micros, 'normal' micros, something in a tree, and hidden log sheet but not actually in a container (all current caches,...!)

 

The variety would provide an interesting trail, albeit resulting in 20 caches...

 

just had an idea for a mystery along the trail that relies on observation skills as you walk along the trail as well, to encourage cachers to look around them!

 

so, yep, i'm in favour! it gets me out the house anyway....

[+Happy Humphrey]

There's a lot of opinion here about liking or disliking power trails but not much about the logic behind the guideline.

 

I always thought that quality was an issue between the cache setter and finder, and that it operates on a feedback basis: but clearly not in this case. It seems that this is the only type of cache where quality control is applied by the reviewers.

 

So, to summarise...the reason for the "no power trails" guideline is that the quality of the caching on such enterprises is automatically deemed low. Should a power trail be converted into a multicache, the quality improves immediately (magically?) to the level where approval could be granted.

 

I'm not convinced that this guideline really makes sense, unless some sort of quality check is applied to all caches - and that isn't practical unless we want to pay £500 a year for membership. What we should do in my opinion is allow them to be set up within the normal guidelines. But if the caches turn out to be rubbish then the finders should make frank and honest comments in the cache log until the embarrassed owner withdraws the cache - too often we are diplomatic about poor-quality caches!

 

HH

[+ryme-intrinseca]

But if the caches turn out to be rubbish then the finders should make frank and honest comments in the cache log until the embarrassed owner withdraws the cache - too often we are diplomatic about poor-quality caches!

 

HH

 

You have a point, but I have to be honest, I wouldn't feel comfortable about writing a log saying that I didn't think much of a cache. I may give it a low mark in the Geocache UK ratings (which unfortunately not everyone uses), but I wouldn't want to upset the owner by publicly slating their cache like that.

 

So what should we do? Should we say that e.g. all the caches in the bottom 10% of the ratings (or top 100% as it so nicely says!) must be removed? (I know that's not what you're saying, HH, I'm just making a general comment that if there were to be some sort of 'official scheme to keep quality high, then I don't know how else it would work) It's all arbitrary, it's a matter of personal opinion as much as anything else. I may think a cache is rubbish, but someone else may really enjoy finding it.

[markandlynn]

But if the caches turn out to be rubbish then the finders should make frank and honest comments in the cache log until the embarrassed owner withdraws the cache - too often we are diplomatic about poor-quality caches!

 

HH

 

You have a point, but I have to be honest, I wouldn't feel comfortable about writing a log saying that I didn't think much of a cache. I may give it a low mark in the Geocache UK ratings (which unfortunately not everyone uses), but I wouldn't want to upset the owner by publicly slating their cache like that.

 

So what should we do? Should we say that e.g. all the caches in the bottom 10% of the ratings (or top 100% as it so nicely says!) must be removed? (I know that's not what you're saying, HH, I'm just making a general comment that if there were to be some sort of 'official scheme to keep quality high, then I don't know how else it would work) It's all arbitrary, it's a matter of personal opinion as much as anything else. I may think a cache is rubbish, but someone else may really enjoy finding it.

 

Terracaching operates on that principle get a poor rating by a certain number of visitors and its deleted off the site.

 

The logs would stand a very high chance of being deleted.

[+Happy Humphrey]

I wouldn't want to upset the owner by publicly slating their cache like that.

Without getting too far away from the topic of power trail guidelines (there's another thread about quality v quantity), if your words are carefully chosen you can indicate that the cache was below par without getting offensive. To me, that's a better system than the simplistic "this is in a line of microcaches so it must be a poor cache and can't be allowed".

[+ryme-intrinseca]

I wouldn't want to upset the owner by publicly slating their cache like that.

Without getting too far away from the topic of power trail guidelines (there's another thread about quality v quantity), if your words are carefully chosen you can indicate that the cache was below par without getting offensive. To me, that's a better system than the simplistic "this is in a line of microcaches so it must be a poor cache and can't be allowed".

 

True, I do recall writing in one log "We were a bit wary about pulling back vegetation, etc., as unfortunately there were some syringe parts and broken glass around the site. However, just as we were about to give up, we spotted it!". We weren't the only ones who mentioned this, and the cache has now been archived. I still said thank you for the cache though, as, despite the rubbish, it gave us an enjoyable walk.

 

Is this the sort of comment you mean HH? Negative, but without being too rude?

Edited April 25, 2007 by ryme-intrinseca

[+Happy Humphrey]

Is this the sort of comment you mean HH? Negative, but without being too rude?

Looks like a good example. If I was considering putting this cache on my list and I read that log I'd probably give it a miss so you'd have done me a favour (from the sounds of it).

 

For a cache on a power trail that you thought had no particular merit you could say something along the lines of "Added another cache to my list of finds". Hopefully, after a few similar logs the cache owner would start wondering why he/she should maintain something that is being received with such indifference!

[+macroderma]

Each to his own

 

Are the many caches along the Ridgeway a power trail?

 

Its a great walk, there are plenty of views and quite a variety of hides and types

 

You can walk it, bike it or dash & cache it

 

I have done parts of it in all those ways

 

I also did 20-odd caches along the Kennet & Avon in a single day. There was a fair variety of hides, some were on the towpath, some a short way off.

 

It was a nice way to break up what would have otherwise been a very straightforward 10 mile bike ride - is that a power trail?

 

Is it simply an issue with a single owner placing the caches?

[+Mr'D]

Is it simply an issue with a single owner placing the caches?

That's a good point and one that I'd wondered about before.

 

I'd say the Ridegway is a powertrail and in my opinion so are the K&A, Thames Path, and Oxford Canal series. I am sure there are many more.

 

I think the point has now been made that a majority of cachers want these to remain and I for one think we deserve the type of caches we, the cachers, want.

 

So there

[+Morgan's Marauders]

..................

 

If you want people to walk from A to B place a multi with part one a third of the way down it part 2 at the end and part 3 somewhere (interesting) in the middle.

 

Sounds good to me! My next one will be a multi! Thanks for the encouragement!

[+The_Westies]

I think they're great particularly if you're out with a group of people having a good old natter. It's not as easy to have a sociable day out if you're spending time jumping in and out of the car and travelling between caches on a regular basis. It breaks up the walk for the kids as well so they don't necessarily realise quite how far they've walked.

[Alan White]

I'd say the Ridegway is a powertrail and in my opinion so are the K&A, Thames Path, and Oxford Canal series. I am sure there are many more.

I wouldn't say that any of those (can't comment on Oxford Canal as I've not done it) is a power trail. I would take a power trail to be a collection of caches not much more than 161m apart. The much-discussed (in the other forum) LPCs and similar are no doubt what's trying (and failing) to be discouraged.

 

So, as Birders said, the difficulty is that there doesn't seem to be a definition of what a power trail is. The only mention in the guidelines is

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.

This makes little sense to me, as I can't see the thinking behind it and there are thousands of examples of series in the UK (and no doubt elsewhere). I can't believe that the guidelines are really trying to suggest that the Ridgeway series, which covers 85 miles, 64 caches and 8 owners, should be a single multicache

[+ryme-intrinseca]

I suppose the key point is that 'the reviewer may require you to create a multi-cache' - i.e. this is not set in stone, and can be reviewed on a cache-by-cache basis.

[The Red Kite]

"This makes little sense to me, as I can't see the thinking behind it and there are thousands of examples of series in the UK (and no doubt elsewhere). I can't believe that the guidelines are really trying to suggest that the Ridgeway series, which covers 85 miles, 64 caches and 8 owners, should be a single multicache "

 

 

I for one would not want to do 64 caches over 85 miles and only be able to log one find!! Where is the point in that?

 

I have a couple of series which can be done individually or linked together and these are intended to be done on foot or by bike, so that you can appreciate the places you visit without having to keep getting in and out of the car. Some of them can be done in this way, but that was not the intention. There are some "dreaded micros," purely because in this area, which was completely cache-less, it is difficult to place a sizeable cache where it is not likely to get muggled. Where it is possible to place even a very small container I have done so. I prefer to find a container with swaps in myself, although for me micros have their place and sometimes the location and the search make them worthwhile - as someone has said before re the Snowdon View series It's not always about the numbers