Power Trail Question for Groundspeak

[+3AMT]

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.

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.

[+Team GeoBlast]

 

Why don't you describe what it is you are wanting to do and then maybe someone could give you a definitive answer. Your question is not very clear, so the answers have not been very clear. If the answer depends on the situation, then how can anyone give you an exact answer without knowing the situation?

 

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.

 

I think this might be your frustration. This cannot be a steadfast hard definition because like Erik has already said, there are other factors besides the type cache and distance between them that are going to be different from situation to situation. So, your mileage is going to vary depending on the specific situation is and when considering all the factors involved, what it appears that the intent is. I think if you came in with a specific example (it does seem that you are asking about a specific area) I think you'll get a more defined answer.

 

Please do not take offense to this but I have a question, being from an island with a very defined space for hiding caches, your state seems the exact opposite. Why do you need to put caches this close together to get people to come out of the city to find them? Power Trail or otherwise.

[Ferreter5]

I found a cache recently that involved a two-mile hike. That cache hadn't been found for more than a year. If that cache owner would place a few small caches along the trail, as "breadcrumbs," more people would make the hike.

 

It is a sad reality . . . but that is the way it is . . .

A friend of mine hid a 10-stage multi-cache covering a 6 mile hiking loop in a local park. It's three years old and has had 45 finds logged against it. The first finder did it the day after it was posted. One group did the whole thing at night!

 

Needless to say, some folks will walk several miles for "just" one , so there's hope yet.

[+Renegade Knight]

Two other cachers and I set out one day a few weeks ago to place caches along an incredible trail we discovered. Many of these caches are close to .1 apart, in fact, one is closer than that to another cache, but the terrain is spectacular and we picked awesome viewpoints for each of the caches. The 12 new caches along that trail offer incentive for people to check out the area, but I don't think anyone would call it a "Power Trail."

 

This is one of the caches along our trail.

 

And this is the kind of view our "Power Trail" offers.

 

 

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?

The reason I stated, way up above, that I intended to check back here, is that the OP seemed to be sincere, and I wanted to check that. However, as is usually the case in these types of threads, it would appear that the OP is disgruntled, not getting his/her own way, and wishing to spread a little of that spirit. While I agree that Jeremy's short answer seemed a little flippant to me at the time, I believe he understood this spirit better than I did when he penned it. Your comments now clearly reveal the truth. There are things in this sport which I do not prefer. I follow the rules, and I submit caches which comply, and ignore what I don't like, and enjoy geocaching a great deal. Please do the same.

 

When you are told no and do not understand exactly why, it's fair to ask so you do understand.

 

The OP can no more avoid placing a power trail with the guidance they received than when they first posted the question. Yes they got real answers, and I'd have to say the best I've ever seen on the subject thus far. Just not useful ones in the OP's position.

 

When you wish to follow the rules you need to undertand the rules. Better still you need to understand why the rules exist, where they came from, and what they are trying to accomplish with them. That tells you when the rule will kick in, when you have an exception, and when you are in an area not covered by the rule, but which the rule would cover.

 

The problem here isn't the rule. It's that while normally we go from specific to fuzzy. "Your cache is 422' from another one, but we can except that because their cache is across the river". This is going from fuzzy. "If you have to ask" to specific "Your cache is a power trail". That's much harder for people to figure out.

[+Renegade Knight]

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.

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.

 

That's just frustration bleeding through.

The orginal answers (even Jeremy's) were helpful, but only if you are firmly grounded in the broader context of geocaching as a whole. Quite frankly I thought they were the best answers I've seen on what I've called the alternative minimum tax of caching, but and it's a big BUT. If you don't have that grounding in the broader context, they won't help much because you just won't see the "bigger picture" that lets you understand the answer.

 

Only Jedi Masters will get it. Padawans...need more training in the force. Check for midachlorians. Not ever cacher's going to become a master.

[Team Misguided]

In defense of power trails:

 

I'd rather hike on a nice trail finding caches every .1 to 1 miles rather than finding parking lot micros every .1 mile. But I don't mind long hikes for single caches either.

This is one of the difficulties many people have with understanding the power trail rule. Someone can put out a series of 20 to 30 caches in an urban area of micros hidden in parking lots or hanging in bushes. These caches are spread over an area of a few square miles and with a little planning you can come up with a way to drive from cache to cache and find them all in a few hours. Yet if someone places 10 to 15 caches along the same hiking trail over a 2 mile stretch some caches you will be asked to make some of them into a multi-cache or to place fewer and leave some space. It seems like the rule discourages certain kinds of hiking caches while being neutral or even encouraging microSpew in urban areas.

 

Not necessarily. If those 20-30 caches were all placed at the same time then the reviewer would likely put the breaks on and suggest a multi or series of multis.

[+3AMT]

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.

Edited June 12, 2007 by 3AMT

[+3AMT]

Please do not take offense to this but I have a question, being from an island with a very defined space for hiding caches, your state seems the exact opposite. Why do you need to put caches this close together to get people to come out of the city to find them? Power Trail or otherwise.

 

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.

Edited June 12, 2007 by 3AMT

[+Kit Fox]

3AMT,

 

Have you taken the time to read any of the previous "Power Trail" threads? The search function provides valuable reference material for your viewing pleasure.

 

Treasure Trail (Good idea or not?)

 

Power Trails (Lets loosen up restrictions! )

 

Power Trails - Guidelines? (Seeking definition/guidelines)

 

Power Trails

[Neos2]

In defense of power trails:

 

I'd rather hike on a nice trail finding caches every .1 to 1 miles rather than finding parking lot micros every .1 mile. But I don't mind long hikes for single caches either.

This is one of the difficulties many people have with understanding the power trail rule. Someone can put out a series of 20 to 30 caches in an urban area of micros hidden in parking lots or hanging in bushes. These caches are spread over an area of a few square miles and with a little planning you can come up with a way to drive from cache to cache and find them all in a few hours. Yet if someone places 10 to 15 caches along the same hiking trail over a 2 mile stretch some caches you will be asked to make some of them into a multi-cache or to place fewer and leave some space. It seems like the rule discourages certain kinds of hiking caches while being neutral or even encouraging microSpew in urban areas.

I think that if I went out today and placed 20 or 30 caches in a relatively compact urban area, my reviewer would probably email me to see if I was planning an event some time soon. If not, he'd likely tell me that I was being a bit greedy, and ask me if I really needed to put all those caches out in that tiny little space. It wouldn't be anything against my caches and he is a swell guy, but he would probably discurage me from hogging all that landscape in one area. If I wouldn't back down, he'd maybe even refuse to publish at least some of the caches.

 

Now if the same urban cluster of caches were put out over time by a variety of cachers, they would be allowed--just as the trail caches apparently are allowed to grow naturally in spots that people find while doing other caches on the trail.

[+3AMT]

3AMT,

 

Have you taken the time to read any of the previous "Power Trail" threads? The search function provides valuable reference material for your viewing pleasure.

 

Treasure Trail (Good idea or not?)

 

Power Trails (Lets loosen up restrictions! )

 

Power Trails - Guidelines? (Seeking definition/guidelines)

 

Power Trails

 

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.

Edited June 12, 2007 by 3AMT

[Clan Riffster]

I, for one, like the rules to be black and white and then you bend them from time to time.

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?

[+3AMT]

I, for one, like the rules to be black and white and then you bend them from time to time.

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! )

[Keystone]

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 read your e-mail and frankly, my reaction was "why the heck is a geocacher from Iowa writing to the Pennsylvania cache reviewer for a complete explanation of power trails?" I felt as though I was being asked to second guess your local reviewer or, more charitably, that I was being asked to do extra work outside my territory that is best done by the reviewer for that other territory. My voice is no more important than the Iowa reviewer's, and in Iowa my voice doesn't count for squat.

 

You need to work this out with your local reviewer.