Power Traill vs WOW Factor

[+Keith Watson]

First things first. This is not a personal attack against any organization, person, or approver. If you plan on using this thread as such, stop reading now and find some other thread to trash.

 

Caching for over 3 and a half years has brought me to some really cool spots. It has also brought me to some caches that were obviously placed just to hide a cache.

 

At the time of this posting, this was taken from the cache placement guidelines. I am adding this just so we have no confusion about what the letter of the rule is. The spirit is sure to be a little different.

 

Cache Saturation

The reviewers use a rule of thumb that caches placed within .10 miles (528 feet or 161 metres) of another cache may not be published on the site. This is an arbitrary distance and is just a guideline, but the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area and to reduce confusion that might otherwise result when one cache is found while looking for another. On the same note, 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.

 

Now there has been some discussion on where we should place our caches. Personally I vote for the WOW factor. Unfortunately there are limited places that fall under this category, and people still want to place, and find caches. So we start to move to the non WOW factor areas. To feed the need to place a cache, Walmart micros start showing up. People are sticking a micro on, in, and under just about anything they find. Some last for quite a while, and some get muggled right away. But those micros bring on the cries to get people out of the lame parking lots and back into the woods. Can’t use the WOW factor areas, because they are taken, so the trails start filling up.

 

Let’s go back and look at the rules. We have all accepted that you need 161 meters between caches and we obey it. We kind of have to or we don’t get our caches approved. The rules also suggest creating a multi if you plan on placing a bunch of caches together. Weather you have 8 caches, or an 8 stage multi, the land is still going to be walked on, and is going to be reserved from any other caches being placed there. This leads me to believe the only other reason for this suggestion is the reduce the amount of cache id’s begin used, and thus reduces both the number of hides a person has, and the number of finds other cachers can get.

 

So this leaves us with a conundrum. We all want to go caching. Some of us like to place caches. I would hazard that a great deal us of have a little competitive nature, either personal or with others and like to see those find and hide counts go up. With this in mind, we either have to tolerate caches that are closer together, or more “lame” caches. Keeping in mind that more and more caches are being placed, we may even see more power trails through mall parking lots.

 

What are your views?

[+geoSquid]

I agree with what you're saying. I'd like to see less caches, but better ones.

 

Unfortunately, there's no deterministic way of deciding whether or not a cache is "good" that doesn't turn into come kind of acrimony-generating popularity contest.

 

That's why I'm a big fan of caches having a lifetime. I don't believe a cache placed is becomes a permanent fixture of the landscape, and I think caches should be removed after some period of time or other conditions are met. What conditions would bring about an end-of-life condition is a debate topic, but some guidelines might be:

 

- the cache hasn't been found in n-months

- the cache is over n-years old

- the cache owner hasn't logged in in n-months

 

I'm sure there are other possibilities. I'm also sure that anyone could think up some special exception to whatever condition anyone would come up with. Exceptions should be just that, though - unusual and, well, exceptional.

 

Removing old/unused caches frees up space on that 161m rule and lends a lot more credence to the notion that we aren't out there depositing little patches of litter around the landscape. It means more people get an opportunity to place caches too.

 

I really think we need better enforcement about private property too, and we need this sort of enforcement much sooner than later. Parking-lot micros, for example, are almost certainly on private property and I would think that very few people get permission of the lot owner before placing such an object. I know this is a difficult thing for volunteer reviewers to enforce, however.

Edited June 11, 2007 by geoSquid

[+The red-haired witch]

I think the whole "there will be no place to put caches anymore!" problem only affects a few very limited and highly populated areas. Maybe it's a real problem in California, but honestly, we have lots and lots of free space in Canada. There really is no need to remove caches to free up space. And if there is already a cache in the best "wow" spot of a park, what would be the point in removing it to place a new cache in the same place? I don't think caches should have expiry dates.

 

For the "power trail vs multi-cache" debate, I'd much prefer having 5 regular size caches spaced along a trail (one every 0,5 -1,0 kilometer is nice), than 4 tags and one regular size cache. The biggest advantage of the cache series over the multi-cache, for me, is that even if you DNF cache #2 on the trail, you can still find caches #3, 4 and 5. If you DNF tag #2 of the multi-cache, you can't do the rest of it.

 

Approval seems to really depend on the caches. I suspect that a series of micros spaced every 200 meters on a trail would (and should) have to be turned into a multi-cache. But, from what I can observe here, you are generally allowed to place a series of cache on a trail without the reviewer asking you to turn it into a multi-cache, as long as each cache has a distinct identity (historical or geographical feature, theme, puzzle).

 

I'm not sure the relative number of "lame" caches is increasing. The absolute number is, of course. If 20% of caches are bad, when there were 100 caches in the area, there were 20 bad caches. Now that there are 1000 caches, that includes a couple of hundreds of bad caches. I believe bad caches tend not to last as long, so when you look at 3 year old caches that are still active, the proportion of good caches seems higher...

[+geoSquid]

I think the whole "there will be no place to put caches anymore!" problem only affects a few very limited and highly populated areas. Maybe it's a real problem in California, but honestly, we have lots and lots of free space in Canada. There really is no need to remove caches to free up space. And if there is already a cache in the best "wow" spot of a park, what would be the point in removing it to place a new cache in the same place? I don't think caches should have expiry dates.

 

A cache in the WOW spot of a park would probably be active and well used and maintained. That's a good candidate for leaving it in place.

 

But "wow" spot or not, if it's not being used it should probably be pulled after some period of time. There's no need to be leaving little boxes of stuff that nobody looks at all around the countryside. And most cache use does fade after a period of time, no matter how awesome the cache is.

 

More importantly, I think it's critical to develop the idea among cachers that caches are not permanent fixtures of the landscape. Such a stance would make us look better, I think, to land owners, government agencies and other people whose actions and opinions directly impinge upon geocaching.

 

For example, a park owner might be more open to the idea of a cache being placed if there is assurance that it will be maintained, and removed after a period of time or if it isn't being used. That gets beyond a common perception that caches are tossed out there forever, eventually to become geotrash.

 

That's the point I was trying to make about removing caches.

[+bwmick]

Living in Northern Ontario is great. Close to nature (even though I live right in North Bay) lots of crown land to play on and caches are good. The downside is the number of players is not as high as it may be in other parts of Ontario. Most of my caching now takes place while I travel or when I take a day to drive around a bit. Really not a problem I like to drive around.

 

For me caching is about the trip to the cache. If I can ride my bike down some nice secondary or tertiary roads to get to a roadside micro I will probably give the cache a good log because I like where the hider took me. A lot of micros have been showing up about 60 minutes south of me and I did a bunch of them over the weekend. There was only one that didn't really do much for me, but if I was driving south and needed a place to rest my legs it would be perfect. The people placing these caches placed them thoughtfully and with care. As I said the wow wasn't necessarily in the cache but in the trip to the cache.

 

But my favourite cache is the traditional ammo can in the woods type that makes me earn the smiley. Another cache I did yesterday required a apprx. 3 km hike through the mosquito infested woods of northern Ontario. Once you cross the beaver dam the rest is easy. Once or twice when trails crossed over one another I was left wondering how well the track back feature worked on Hal, but I didn't need it after all. The finish was near a waterfall that was breathtaking. early morning fog over the water as the sun burned it off, Talk about WOW factor.

 

I have found almost 200 caches over 2.5 years and haven't found very many that I would call lame at all. From my experience the hides could be a little more difficult (I really don't like my caches bungy tied to a tree) but as far as location, most real estate agents would be pleased.

[danoshimano]

160m is not a great distance. If the "wow" spot is, say, a 600m walk then there is potential for 3 great caches (two along the way, and the final one). The conumdrum exists only if the same person tries to place all three, and then only if the reviewer tried to force them to turn it into a three stage multi, which I don't agree with.

 

I think cachers would be doing other cachers a favour if they were to place another cache close to a cache they really liked hiking to. Some cachers balk at walking a kilometre on the trail to find a cache, but if there were 5 or 6 along the trail it's a whole new adventure and they'll be drawn in to that final "wow" spot.

 

I'm with the Red-haired witch: Not finding a stage on a big multi is a real downer for me!

 

I don't agree with time limits on caches. I place mine slowly but surely, and I expect to maintain those caches for as long as I am physically able to walk (or roll) through the woods.

[+Renegade Knight]

WOW is subjective.

Cache Saturation rules applied to Power Trails are subjective.

Cache time limits are self fufilling for the most part and a waste of effort to do a better job than natural attrition already does.

I've got too many unfinished multi caches to ever think they are a good idea except as a local highlight, or a awe inspring WOW cache in it's own right.

 

If a power trail encourages people to see something WOW at a higher rate than one cache or one multi, isn't that the point?

 

So I say we all place caches that our muse demands and don't sweat what others will think. It's also ok to place a lame cache entirly because you wanted to place one. As a final thought if you try to place a lame cache and fail, that's better than vice versa.

Edited June 12, 2007 by Renegade Knight

[+Algonquin Bound]

Personally, I think there are FAR too many caches, FAR too many lame caches and FAR too many cachers, which accounts for both of the former. I don't see that any of the guidelines need to be changed, nor time limits imposed. As has been said, most caches with longevity tend to be good caches anyway.

 

If restraint is called for, and I think it is, it would be to restrain from putting caches out "just because". Find a unique spot or a unique idea. If you can't - don't place one. As has been said, there are all kinds of great areas around.

 

The joy of finding a good, well-placed, well-stocked cache in a beautiful area, is almost nostalgic now. We have gotten lazy or cheap or both. It was once a thrill to look through the varied, brand-new contents of a cache to find something neat to trade for, then replace it with something neat that you had in your pack. Then, we would write something neat in the log-book. We don't need to keep spreading the word about geocaching. It used to be our little secret. Oh, for those good old days.

 

In a side note, to bwmick, if you want a great day, with TONS of WOW factor, not too far from home, check out Bisset Creek treasure and Francoeur's Mill Cache. Both are unforgettable!

[+northernpenguin]

 

In a side note, to bwmick, if you want a great day, with TONS of WOW factor, not too far from home, check out Bisset Creek treasure and Francoeur's Mill Cache. Both are unforgettable!

 

Hmmmm. That's technically within do-able range for me, and as a bonus, I've always wanted to get over there (preferably in Autumn). Mental note made , I'll have to add these to my to-do list

[+Algonquin Bound]

Hmmmm. That's technically within do-able range for me, and as a bonus, I've always wanted to get over there (preferably in Autumn). Mental note made , I'll have to add these to my to-do list

Oh, yeah! You would love it NP. YOU might have to plan an overnight trip, because the photo-ops are endless. It all seems to be in or near Crown Land, so I believe that is possible, but you may want to check with locals, to be sure.

[+willowbrookfarm]

I generally agree. I like the wow factor. The exceptions are the multis/puzzles. Some of these have been great, even if the scenery hasn't. Bloomin' Onion by AdventureRat (GCYF7R) is a great puzzle cache, even if I didn't find the scenery a wow. And I can't forget one of my favourites, RACK'EM UP by debi13 (GCK1ZW). Strange start where you have to find a pool ball on someone else's cache and then follow a multi to a spot that is truly a wow and scratch your head as to how to open the cache (although recent logs seem to indicate opening the cache is not an issue).

 

willowbrookfarm