JASTA 11 Posted October 24, 2009 Posted October 24, 2009 I just read on one of our local caching organization websites of cachers logging 140 caches in a 12 hour period. How do you figure? Here's a clue: http://www.geocaching.com/map/default.aspx...p;lng=-67.86657 If that link doesn't work, paste this: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...7e-04d451aceb17 and hit the GC.com google map link. Now, I know that Groundspeaks rules can be interpreted differently among reviewers, but isn't this the most extreme power trail ever? What do you think..... Quote
+bittsen Posted October 24, 2009 Posted October 24, 2009 (edited) I just read on one of our local caching organization websites of cachers logging 140 caches in a 12 hour period. How do you figure? Here's a clue: http://www.geocaching.com/map/default.aspx...p;lng=-67.86657 If that link doesn't work, paste this: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...7e-04d451aceb17 and hit the GC.com google map link. Now, I know that Groundspeaks rules can be interpreted differently among reviewers, but isn't this the most extreme power trail ever? What do you think..... It looks like they are spaced every kilometer. You know, like they are all on kilometer marker posts. Edited October 24, 2009 by bittsen Quote
GOF and Bacall Posted October 24, 2009 Posted October 24, 2009 To each his own I guess. Seems to me like a boring way to spend a day. Quote
Mr.Yuck Posted October 24, 2009 Posted October 24, 2009 (edited) That's pretty lame. These appear to be named after various cachers from the State of Maine. I know one thing, If I lived in Maine, I would officially opt out of one of them being named "TheWhiteUrkel Tribute". What can I say? I've seen many a rural roadside micro power trail. It ain't just "urban" anymore. Run for your lives. The end is near! Edited October 24, 2009 by TheWhiteUrkel Quote
+Hrethgir Posted October 24, 2009 Posted October 24, 2009 Good way to boost numbers. Bad way to have fun, at least for me. My biggest "power" day was 14 finds, and I'll bet I had more fun doing them because I was out in the woods and climbing hills and stuff like that instead of stopping at every milemarker and grabbing a film canister with a soggy bit of paper in it. But that's just me.... Quote
Keystone Posted October 24, 2009 Posted October 24, 2009 Now, I know that Groundspeaks rules can be interpreted differently among reviewers, but isn't this the most extreme power trail ever? What "rule" are you referring to? Are you saying that some of the caches are closer together than 528 feet (161 metres)? I didn't look at every cache, but I wasn't seeing that. Quote
+Chrysalides Posted October 24, 2009 Posted October 24, 2009 Now, I know that Groundspeaks rules can be interpreted differently among reviewers, but isn't this the most extreme power trail ever? What "rule" are you referring to? Are you saying that some of the caches are closer together than 528 feet (161 metres)? I didn't look at every cache, but I wasn't seeing that. Hmm, I could have sworn I read the prohibition against power trails either in the KB or the FAQ, but I couldn't find it anywhere using search or google. Guess it's just something I saw in the forums. Quote
+tozainamboku Posted October 24, 2009 Posted October 24, 2009 Now, I know that Groundspeaks rules can be interpreted differently among reviewers, but isn't this the most extreme power trail ever? What "rule" are you referring to? Are you saying that some of the caches are closer together than 528 feet (161 metres)? I didn't look at every cache, but I wasn't seeing that. Some reviewers seem to enjoy pointing out that the guidelines have been changed to remove the reference to power trails. The guidelines still say "Please don't hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can. The ultimate goals of the saturation guideline are to encourage you to seek out new places to hide caches rather than putting them in areas where caches already exist and to limit the number of caches hidden in a particular area, especially by the same hider." For us mere mortals it doesn't seem that much different than when this paragraph mentioned power trails as an example of what might be a reason to prevent a cacher from hiding a cache every 600 ft. and have a single cacher or a small group of cachers saturate a trail and not leave room for future placements. Now, it is true that the old guidelines caused some confusion because different reviewers had somewhat different ideas of how many caches and what distance between them constituted a power trail. It almost looks like the resolution is to simply request that people don't place power trails and then go and approve them since the caches are more that 528 feet apart. So the question is, "Are reviewers still able to enforce the ultimate goal of the saturation guidelines and limit the number of caches on a trail especially by a single cacher or must they approve power trails so long as other guidelines are met?" Quote
Keystone Posted October 24, 2009 Posted October 24, 2009 (edited) Under normal circumstances, and assuming all other guidelines are met, caches need to be 529 feet (162 metres) apart in order to be published. I don't see any extraordinary circumstances in the example presented. It looks like the Maine reviewer published a bunch of caches. That is what we are supposed to be doing. Edited October 24, 2009 by Keystone Quote
+benh57 Posted October 24, 2009 Posted October 24, 2009 Now, I know that Groundspeaks rules can be interpreted differently among reviewers, but isn't this the most extreme power trail ever? What do you think..... As others noted that particular power trail looks a little widely spaced. There are some closer-together ones, check east of Denver international airport (where the 413/day record was set), or west of Lancaster,CA (Tarot Series) or east of Lancaster,CA (NOCLUE series) On-foot power trails, one example I was looking at today is northwest of Ojai, CA (those are hiking, though). 70+ caches in a few miles on one trail. Quote
+atmospherium Posted October 24, 2009 Posted October 24, 2009 Based on the logs I read through, pretty much every cacher who did this series had fun and enjoyed it. I probably would, too. Quote
+keehotee Posted October 24, 2009 Posted October 24, 2009 Based on the logs I read through, pretty much every cacher who did this series had fun and enjoyed it. I probably would, too. Or...... only cachers who like that sort of caching did the trail?? Logs are subjective! Quote
aniyn Posted October 24, 2009 Posted October 24, 2009 The guidelines do indeed say not to pointlessly saturate an area. On a highway it doesn't really seem like the exact distances matter - these caches are what, 60 - 90 seconds apart? At least with an on-foot power trail you're still only going to be going about half that speed. Plus you actually have to work for those caches. Oh well, I guess it a bit of a reflection of our society - quantity over quality. It could be fun doing all those caches with friends, but I doubt I would have much fun with them. Doing poorly hidden caches and piling in and out of a car for hours on end doesn't sound too appealing to me. Vote with your wallet, or so the saying goes. If you don't like them, don't do them. Quote
Mr.Yuck Posted October 24, 2009 Posted October 24, 2009 Now, I know that Groundspeaks rules can be interpreted differently among reviewers, but isn't this the most extreme power trail ever? What "rule" are you referring to? Are you saying that some of the caches are closer together than 528 feet (161 metres)? I didn't look at every cache, but I wasn't seeing that. Some reviewers seem to enjoy pointing out that the guidelines have been changed to remove the reference to power trails. The guidelines still say "Please don't hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can. The ultimate goals of the saturation guideline are to encourage you to seek out new places to hide caches rather than putting them in areas where caches already exist and to limit the number of caches hidden in a particular area, especially by the same hider." For us mere mortals it doesn't seem that much different than when this paragraph mentioned power trails as an example of what might be a reason to prevent a cacher from hiding a cache every 600 ft. and have a single cacher or a small group of cachers saturate a trail and not leave room for future placements. Now, it is true that the old guidelines caused some confusion because different reviewers had somewhat different ideas of how many caches and what distance between them constituted a power trail. It almost looks like the resolution is to simply request that people don't place power trails and then go and approve them since the caches are more that 528 feet apart. So the question is, "Are reviewers still able to enforce the ultimate goal of the saturation guidelines and limit the number of caches on a trail especially by a single cacher or must they approve power trails so long as other guidelines are met?" Why exactly!! Some reviewers to seem to take great joy in pointing out the dirty word "Power trail" no longer exists. I dunno man, there's a few reviewers I know where I would still find such a Power Trail (I'm allowed to use the word) being published in their review area absolutely unfathomable. I will echo Mr. T's question as posed in the very last sentence of his post. By the way, due to my crack screen shot capturing ablilities (in other words, I had my 15 yr. old daughter do it), here is a screen shot of the offending rural roadside micro power trail: Quote
+DocDiTTo Posted October 24, 2009 Posted October 24, 2009 By the way, due to my crack screen shot capturing ablilities (in other words, I had my 15 yr. old daughter do it), here is a screen shot of the offending rural roadside micro power trail: Wow. A perfect example of why I almost always filter out micros when I travel. If that's what people want to do with their spare time, good for them. As for me, I'll take one cool location over all those numbers. Quote
+jbar Posted October 24, 2009 Posted October 24, 2009 (edited) I drove 6 hrs from Connecticut with my wife and kids to do those caches. We had a great time. We left at 5am got up there and started caching around 1:30. We cached untill 8:30 and had done 89. We had to stop the 98 Honda civic hit a rock and tore a hole in the muffler. We limped out of the woods to find a place to stay. The next morning we went to Home depot to get supplys to patch the exhust. After breakfast we headed out to get another 42. We ended up leaving for connecticut around 2pm. We all had a great time. It'll go down as one of our best caching experiances. Edited October 24, 2009 by jbar Quote
+kunarion Posted October 24, 2009 Posted October 24, 2009 It'll go down as one of our best caching experiances. I'm looking forward to the heartfelt, detailed logs your write for each and every one. Quote
+DocDiTTo Posted October 24, 2009 Posted October 24, 2009 It'll go down as one of our best caching experiances. I'm looking forward to the heartfelt, detailed logs your write for each and every one. Looks like all the cache owners got was a short "copy and paste" log. Perfectly fitting for short "copy and paste" caches I guess. Quote
+kunarion Posted October 24, 2009 Posted October 24, 2009 (edited) Perfectly fitting for short "copy and paste" caches I guess. To be fair, the reason I can leave an individualized log is it often takes me several trips to find a Micro. So, say 3 weeks apiece times 140 caches, that’s just over eight years to find them all. I’d suppose that for each successive find, I’ll have even more flowery compliments to add. Edited October 25, 2009 by kunarion Quote
+succotash Posted October 24, 2009 Posted October 24, 2009 The older I get the more I learn not to be so quick to judge. We've done one power trail, recommended by a friend, on a visit to Arizona. It was an adventure, it was great to be in the desert, and it was hard work - but good hard work. The caches were not all the same. We wrote unique log entries for each one, to the best of our ability. The owner of one of the largest segments emailed us to thank us for our log entries not being cookie-cutter - which means he cared enough to read every log entry. Here is our last photo from that day. You can read the log entry here. Quote
+DocDiTTo Posted October 24, 2009 Posted October 24, 2009 The older I get the more I learn not to be so quick to judge. We've done one power trail, recommended by a friend, on a visit to Arizona. It was an adventure, it was great to be in the desert, and it was hard work - but good hard work. The caches were not all the same. We wrote unique log entries for each one, to the best of our ability. The owner of one of the largest segments emailed us to thank us for our log entries not being cookie-cutter - which means he cared enough to read every log entry. Here is our last photo from that day. You can read the log entry here. That looks like a pretty neat spot. If I were in the area, I'd probably enjoy visiting that spot. Unfortunately with a power trail, I might have to sort through 80 different caches to figure out which one would take me to a nice location like that. When caches are tossed out just for numbers, trying to find the gems among them becomes a chore. I go geocaching to see neat things, to visit unique places, and to have fun. Trying to find caches at neat locations is much easier if there aren't 100 nearby caches placed just for numbers cluttering up my pocket queries and maps. As I said, to each their own. I will continue to try to filter out the spew and find the gems, others may cache as they choose. Quote
+eagsc7 Posted October 24, 2009 Posted October 24, 2009 Now, I know that Groundspeaks rules can be interpreted differently among reviewers, but isn't this the most extreme power trail ever? What "rule" are you referring to? Are you saying that some of the caches are closer together than 528 feet (161 metres)? I didn't look at every cache, but I wasn't seeing that. Some reviewers seem to enjoy pointing out that the guidelines have been changed to remove the reference to power trails. The guidelines still say "Please don't hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can. The ultimate goals of the saturation guideline are to encourage you to seek out new places to hide caches rather than putting them in areas where caches already exist and to limit the number of caches hidden in a particular area, especially by the same hider." For us mere mortals it doesn't seem that much different than when this paragraph mentioned power trails as an example of what might be a reason to prevent a cacher from hiding a cache every 600 ft. and have a single cacher or a small group of cachers saturate a trail and not leave room for future placements. Now, it is true that the old guidelines caused some confusion because different reviewers had somewhat different ideas of how many caches and what distance between them constituted a power trail. It almost looks like the resolution is to simply request that people don't place power trails and then go and approve them since the caches are more that 528 feet apart. So the question is, "Are reviewers still able to enforce the ultimate goal of the saturation guidelines and limit the number of caches on a trail especially by a single cacher or must they approve power trails so long as other guidelines are met?" Why exactly!! Some reviewers to seem to take great joy in pointing out the dirty word "Power trail" no longer exists. I dunno man, there's a few reviewers I know where I would still find such a Power Trail (I'm allowed to use the word) being published in their review area absolutely unfathomable. I will echo Mr. T's question as posed in the very last sentence of his post. By the way, due to my crack screen shot capturing ablilities (in other words, I had my 15 yr. old daughter do it), here is a screen shot of the offending rural roadside micro power trail: If you live in that area, can you Please complete the two sections of Hwy 9 that don't have caches placed every 529 feet apart. That would be appreciated. Once that is done, I will personally figure a way to get up there and do that series. That looks FUN!! The Steaks p.s. I am actually serious about my post. Quote
+Ekidokai Posted October 24, 2009 Posted October 24, 2009 I drove 6 hrs from Connecticut with my wife and kids to do those caches. We had a great time. We left at 5am got up there and started caching around 1:30. We cached untill 8:30 and had done 89. We had to stop the 98 Honda civic hit a rock and tore a hole in the muffler. We limped out of the woods to find a place to stay. The next morning we went to Home depot to get supplys to patch the exhust. After breakfast we headed out to get another 42. We ended up leaving for connecticut around 2pm. We all had a great time. It'll go down as one of our best caching experiances. I am the one that stired this up. I hope that you had a good time as everyone who has done them has. People who have come to this area for many years have never had the reason or opportunity to travel these great roads, see the great sights and have the greatest experience in their lives. To you and all those that have come here and experienced Mecca, the three legged monster, the Stub Mill Road. Adventure and many other good names for the series, congratulations. Quote
+9Key Posted October 24, 2009 Posted October 24, 2009 We have quite a lengthy and dense power train in the Dallas area: http://www.geocaching.com/map/default.aspx...;zm=13&mt=m Scroll to the northeast to follow it. I think there are 120+ caches along the trail. Look in the Peoria, Illinois area for a bunch more. Quote
+Ekidokai Posted October 24, 2009 Posted October 24, 2009 It'll go down as one of our best caching experiances. I'm looking forward to the heartfelt, detailed logs your write for each and every one. Looks like all the cache owners got was a short "copy and paste" log. Perfectly fitting for short "copy and paste" caches I guess. Yeah it's me. Seems there are a lot of people that sit alone at a computer complaining instead of doing something. Doesn't even have to be note worthy. Sad, miserable lonely. Guess that's what you get for that type of attitude. Do you find it so important to call into question everybody else's actions and intentions because you have nothing to contribute? The Stud Mill Road series has brought people from all over the country just to do this series. There have been over 100 logs posted in those caches in just a few short months. Can you say that about anything you have done in your sad miserable lonely existence? Teams of people sometimes in several cars have come out here and made memories of a lifetime. Teams, that means people that have a positive attitude and like other people and life. Two people standing next to each other look at the same thing and one says "It is a beautiful thing." The other one says "That's a terrible thing." Who do you think has more people standing with them? Who do you think has a great life? Who do you think is going to get hit by a bus and have a lonely, no one attending funeral? This all started out to see if it could be done. To place 100 caches in a day. Many have found 100 caches but no one had placed that many. I placed 125 in one day with exacting coordinates. Not all are micros and not all are easy. The next thing is I named them in tribute to all the great things that the local cachers have brought to this sport. Not all from Maine either. That's over a hundred jesters of kindness to a vast segment of our community. These caches are spaced out 3/4 of a mile a part or more. There is over 75 miles of roads up there with some great activity now. Brought some life back to the area. I don't see anything like that coming from you. You miserable, sad, loathsome person. That should stir things up. Quote
+Ekidokai Posted October 24, 2009 Posted October 24, 2009 Now, I know that Groundspeaks rules can be interpreted differently among reviewers, but isn't this the most extreme power trail ever? What "rule" are you referring to? Are you saying that some of the caches are closer together than 528 feet (161 metres)? I didn't look at every cache, but I wasn't seeing that. Some reviewers seem to enjoy pointing out that the guidelines have been changed to remove the reference to power trails. The guidelines still say "Please don't hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can. The ultimate goals of the saturation guideline are to encourage you to seek out new places to hide caches rather than putting them in areas where caches already exist and to limit the number of caches hidden in a particular area, especially by the same hider." For us mere mortals it doesn't seem that much different than when this paragraph mentioned power trails as an example of what might be a reason to prevent a cacher from hiding a cache every 600 ft. and have a single cacher or a small group of cachers saturate a trail and not leave room for future placements. Now, it is true that the old guidelines caused some confusion because different reviewers had somewhat different ideas of how many caches and what distance between them constituted a power trail. It almost looks like the resolution is to simply request that people don't place power trails and then go and approve them since the caches are more that 528 feet apart. So the question is, "Are reviewers still able to enforce the ultimate goal of the saturation guidelines and limit the number of caches on a trail especially by a single cacher or must they approve power trails so long as other guidelines are met?" Why exactly!! Some reviewers to seem to take great joy in pointing out the dirty word "Power trail" no longer exists. I dunno man, there's a few reviewers I know where I would still find such a Power Trail (I'm allowed to use the word) being published in their review area absolutely unfathomable. I will echo Mr. T's question as posed in the very last sentence of his post. By the way, due to my crack screen shot capturing ablilities (in other words, I had my 15 yr. old daughter do it), here is a screen shot of the offending rural roadside micro power trail: If you live in that area, can you Please complete the two sections of Hwy 9 that don't have caches placed every 529 feet apart. That would be appreciated. Once that is done, I will personally figure a way to get up there and do that series. That looks FUN!! The Steaks p.s. I am actually serious about my post. Can't really safely place caches along the Airline. There is heavy fast moving traffic there. Quote
Keystone Posted October 24, 2009 Posted October 24, 2009 I'm temporarily closing this thread until I can get home and deal with the forum guideline violation above. Then the discussion will reopen. Back to my cache trip. Quote
Keystone Posted October 25, 2009 Posted October 25, 2009 Re-opening this thread. Let's resume an on-topic, respectful discussion of "power trails." Criticizing a style of cache hide is fine. Attacking a person for their opinion is a lame method of debate, and is against our forum guidelines. Quote
+tozainamboku Posted October 25, 2009 Posted October 25, 2009 I was in the middle of responding to the post that caused the thread to be locked when Keystone locked the thread. Basically I was saying what I find interesting is the discussion as to why or even whether the guidelines regarding power trails were changed. Most of this thread however has been the people who like vanilla ice cream arguing with the people who like chocolate ice cream. Or in this case the people who like to eat a whole lot of ice cream versus the people who prefer their ice cream in moderation. Discussion over what kind of ice cream some else should like or trying to tell someone that they eat too much ice cream is not very productive. (Of course with ice cream if you eat too much you might get sick and depending on what kind of insurance you have, that may very well end up effecting everyone else) Quote
+DragonsWest Posted October 25, 2009 Posted October 25, 2009 Quite surprised to see these things, the one in Maine, the one in Texas and the one NW of Peoria, IL. I thought I hit a powertrail out here, a few dozen caches, placed by different people along levees on either side of a creek. Nothing quite like those others, though. I guess some people like these things, I might find tedious (and question why I'm actually doing one.) If they brought out some interesting bits along the trail, that would be great (I've learned so much through geocaches!) But I don't think I'm up to doing a 100+ cache run and then rubberstamping the log. Not my cuppa. In a few weeks I'll be traveling and looking for caches which show me interesting things or take me interesting places. That's my cuppa. Quote
+TheAlabamaRambler Posted October 25, 2009 Posted October 25, 2009 The cool thing about the "power-trail" depicted in the map above is that that it gives cachers choices. Look at the hundreds of square miles around those power-trail roads that have no caches. Lots and lots of room for anyone to get off the road and hide caches anywhere out there. And plenty of non-power-trail caches already in place too. Looks like the long-hike, interesting-place, boat-access and power-trail fans can all find something to like in that area. The fact that there are caches of a type you don't like there should not negate your enjoyment of finding the type you do. I like choices. I see nothing to complain about when everybody gets something to enjoy. Quote
Mr.Yuck Posted October 25, 2009 Posted October 25, 2009 Re-opening this thread. Let's resume an on-topic, respectful discussion of "power trails." Criticizing a style of cache hide is fine. Attacking a person for their opinion is a lame method of debate, and is against our forum guidelines. Why, thank you. DocDitto is quoted in the personal attack, although it seems portions of it are directed at me? I will let it go though. So I guess the question is, why has the phrase "Power Trail" not only been striken from the guidelines, but they appear (from a couple of examples here in the forums the last couple of months) to be allowed again? One certainly can't argue that "Power Trails" are popular with the number seekers. And you'd be hard pressed to find a number's seeker who isn't a premium member. And a long term premium member. And probably a Premium member for life. Quote
+TheAlabamaRambler Posted October 25, 2009 Posted October 25, 2009 ... One certainly can't argue that "Power Trails" are popular with the number seekers. You can't? I can. I'll take a power trail run over a hike in the mountains every time. And you'd be hard pressed to find a number's seeker who isn't a premium member. And a long term premium member. And probably a Premium member for life. Well, yeah... it's hard to do large numbers without PQs. This whole "numbers seeker" appellation confuses me, though. I know lots of cachers who enjoy power runs, on occasion. Mostly they cache in different ways on different days. I know very few cachers, actually none that I can think of right off the bat, who do the same thing all the time. I've done 100 a day several times and 293 one memorable Dallas day, but normally I find one or two a week and have had months when I found none. If I lived near the power-trail being discussed I would do it asap. Am I a "numbers seeker" or a slacker? As to any dropping of the power-trail guideline, great! I never thought it was of any real value and it was hard to apply fairly... like the "wow factor" a power trail was often in the eye of the beholder, since there were no specifications to clearly state how many and how close made a power trail. By far most trails in this country have no caches, so the idea that a power-trail blocks someone else doesn't hold much water. Plus, if there's a cache every .10 on a trail, cool; and why does it matter if they all have the same owner? Quote
Mr.Yuck Posted October 25, 2009 Posted October 25, 2009 ... One certainly can't argue that "Power Trails" are popular with the number seekers. You can't? I can. I'll take a power trail run over a hike in the mountains every time. Hmm. Did I blow that one? I think I did! Did I mean to say that power trails can't not be popular with the number seekers? Please insert the word "not" between the words are and popular. I think? Quote
+paleolith Posted October 25, 2009 Posted October 25, 2009 I'm sure the reviewers absolutely loved having to judge whether placements constituted (denigrated) Power Trails. "Wow factor" anyone? I'm not interested in those power trails, but I'm happy that some people are. Their existence doesn't hurt me, except in the rare case that they block another cache from an interesting location. Cache on. OTOH, having a hider around who calls other cachers sad, miserable, lonely and loathsome just because they disagree with his cache placements ... that does affect me. That's far sillier than civilly criticizing the hides. Edward Quote
+Walts Hunting Posted October 25, 2009 Posted October 25, 2009 One of the things I point out when I give my geocache class is that this hobby is whatever the participant wants it to be. Noone has to live by someone else's definition (well there are rules about cache placement but I am not talking about placing but finding) of the hobby. I was out yesterday on my bike in a park area (8 miles, 3.5 hours, 1100' ascent) and got 6 caches. That to me is far more enjoyable than the above but if that's what they want to do then fine, more power to them. The comment about only people who want to do this type of caching will do it I found right on. Quote
+Vater_Araignee Posted October 25, 2009 Posted October 25, 2009 I'm having a difficult time convincing myself that a hide every .75 miles is a power trail. I'm not a car caching personality so doing the math I would only get 6 caches for about 9 miles (4.5 one way) of walking. Of course that doesn't factor in caches that others have put in place but even if the number got bumped up to 2 caches per mile, the term power still wouldn't apply to the trail nor to caching for me. How about calling trails like this CH2O2 trails? 9Key, The example you gave is interesting. As I followed it, appeared that a team was attempting to keep a general trajectory but strayed from it at the L.B.J. National Grassland. They got back on track tho. Ya know the more I look at it, the more it reminds me of a Contrail. Quote
+Tequila Posted October 25, 2009 Posted October 25, 2009 I have no problem with power trails, if that is what this is. It is not my cup of tea but clearly some cachers enjoy them. My only request is that Groundspeak create a "Bulk Ignore" capability for those of us who chose to ignore them. Having to ignore 150+ caches one at a time is tedious. It would be nice it there was a "Check All/Ignore" similar to the "Check All/Download Waypoints" Quote
GOF and Bacall Posted October 25, 2009 Posted October 25, 2009 I have no problem with power trails, if that is what this is. It is not my cup of tea but clearly some cachers enjoy them. My only request is that Groundspeak create a "Bulk Ignore" capability for those of us who chose to ignore them. Having to ignore 150+ caches one at a time is tedious. It would be nice it there was a "Check All/Ignore" similar to the "Check All/Download Waypoints" This does not sound like an unreasonable compromise. Quote
+KBI Posted October 25, 2009 Posted October 25, 2009 ... One certainly can't argue that "Power Trails" are popular with the number seekers. You can't? I can. I'll take a power trail run over a hike in the mountains every time. Hmm. Did I blow that one? I think I did! Did I mean to say that power trails can't not be popular with the number seekers? Please insert the word "not" between the words are and popular. I think? Nope. I’m pretty sure you had it right the first time. My interpretation: You made the observation that "power trails are popular with the number seekers," presenting your observation as an inarguable fact. If that’s what you meant to say, then you chose your words correctly the first time around. In his response, AlabamaRambler started by making it sound as if he disagreed with you, but then he instead made a statement that was not at all contrary to your assertion. He apparently does not consider himself a "number seeker," and seemed to take it as if you’d claimed that power trails are ONLY popular with the number seekers, and can therefore never be enjoyed other types of cachers ... which is an entirely different claim from what you actually said. For the record, I agree with both of you – which is made possible by the fact that your statements are not mutually exclusive. Sorry for being so anal, guys. I was planning to just sit over here in the "Watch Threads Implode" section of the bleachers and be quiet for a while, but seeing that exchange was like seeing a real-life version of the old "pie are round, cornbread are square" joke play out right in front of me. And I had this keyboard right here, you see ... Quote
+KBI Posted October 25, 2009 Posted October 25, 2009 I'm not interested in those power trails, but I'm happy that some people are. Their existence doesn't hurt me, except in the rare case that they block another cache from an interesting location. Cache on. Maybe what we need is for the guidelines to be modified so as to prevent any two interesting locations from being within 1/10 mile of each other. For example, if a 1000-foot waterfall and an ancient sequoia tree are ever found to be only 300 feet apart, then one of them clearly has to go, or at least be moved far enough away so as to be within compliance. That way, one interesting-location cache won’t ever be able to block another cache from being placed at an interesting location. Quote
+DocDiTTo Posted October 25, 2009 Posted October 25, 2009 I'm not interested in those power trails, but I'm happy that some people are. Their existence doesn't hurt me, except in the rare case that they block another cache from an interesting location. Cache on. Maybe what we need is for the guidelines to be modified so as to prevent any two interesting locations from being within 1/10 mile of each other. For example, if a 1000-foot waterfall and an ancient sequoia tree are ever found to be only 300 feet apart, then one of them clearly has to go, or at least be moved far enough away so as to be within compliance. That way, one interesting-location cache won’t ever be able to block another cache from being placed at an interesting location. Of course you jest, however I'd suggest that a multi, rather than 2 traditionals, be used to highlight both the neat features. My particular problem isn't that power trails exist, it's that they make it difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. To use Toz's ice cream example, let's say I like vanilla ice cream. I don't want any other flavor, just vanilla. So when I go looking for vanilla, I find that there are 100 ice cream cones all in a row that all look the same. But maybe only 2 are actually vanilla. Now how do I know which ones are the ones I want without sampling each and every one of them? For someone who caches like I do, power trails are annoying because they cause nothing but clutter that needs to be sorted through. Thankfully in the case of these Maine caches almost every one of them is a micro and they're all hidden by the same person so filtering the whole trail out of existence would be very easy. Sadly, there probably are a few of these power trail caches hidden in spots I'd like to see, but I'd miss those locations just because trying to pick out those few isn't worth the time it would take. This is when a rating system would be handy, but that's a whole other topic. Quote
+KBI Posted October 25, 2009 Posted October 25, 2009 I'm not interested in those power trails, but I'm happy that some people are. Their existence doesn't hurt me, except in the rare case that they block another cache from an interesting location. Cache on. Maybe what we need is for the guidelines to be modified so as to prevent any two interesting locations from being within 1/10 mile of each other. For example, if a 1000-foot waterfall and an ancient sequoia tree are ever found to be only 300 feet apart, then one of them clearly has to go, or at least be moved far enough away so as to be within compliance. That way, one interesting-location cache won’t ever be able to block another cache from being placed at an interesting location. Of course you jest, however I'd suggest that a multi, rather than 2 traditionals, be used to highlight both the neat features. Indeed I jested. My jest was made in order to express my opinion of the ever-popular viewpoint which sees interesting location caches as being more worthy of existence than non-interesting-location caches, and which accordingly sees cachers who have a preference for caches in interesting locations as being superior to cachers with certain other preferences. The poster to whom I responded claimed actual personal harm as a result of cache hiders not complying with his personal preference. It occurred to me that if we’re going to entertain suggestions of changing the entire game of geocaching to satisfy the preferences of one cacher, then why stop there? Why not modify nature as well? (His comment wasn’t one of those angry rants about banning things, of course. It was merely a polite expression of his preference. It was just the way it was presented – specifically the use of the word "hurt" – that compelled me to respond. And I was responding to the widely-held viewpoint itself, not just his post.) My particular problem isn't that power trails exist, it's that they make it difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. To use Toz's ice cream example, let's say I like vanilla ice cream. I don't want any other flavor, just vanilla. So when I go looking for vanilla, I find that there are 100 ice cream cones all in a row that all look the same. But maybe only 2 are actually vanilla. Now how do I know which ones are the ones I want without sampling each and every one of them? By getting your ice cream from another store, one with a less-confusing menu? For someone who caches like I do, power trails are annoying because they cause nothing but clutter that needs to be sorted through. Thankfully in the case of these Maine caches almost every one of them is a micro and they're all hidden by the same person so filtering the whole trail out of existence would be very easy. Sadly, there probably are a few of these power trail caches hidden in spots I'd like to see, but I'd miss those locations just because trying to pick out those few isn't worth the time it would take. This is when a rating system would be handy, but that's a whole other topic. Seriously, the world is full of great geocaches. Instead of frustrating yourself and lamenting the few great caches that happen to be buried among caches you dislike, why not simply move on to different hunting grounds? It’s like the conversation that gets repeated over and over here in the forums: Cacher 1: Most micros are sooooooooo lame. I’m getting really tired of them. Cacher 2: Good thing for you, then, that the problem is so easy to solve: Just bypass all micros! Cacher 1: But some micros aren’t lame! By ignoring micros in bulk I’ll miss the few rare gems! Cacher 2: Yes, but by ignoring micros in bulk you’ll still have more caches to do that you’ll ever have time for, and the resulting menu will have NONE of those lame micros you dislike! Isn’t that great? Cacher 1: But ... but ... what about the good ones I’ll miss? I understand your complaint, but you have to understand that it is a dilemma that is inherent to any amateur-driven hobby such as this one. Wishing it weren’t so won’t make it go away. Actually, you do have at least one other option: Post to my thread in the dot-com forum and express your opinion of my proposed solution. Whether you like or dislike my idea, I’d be very interested to hear about it! Quote
+DocDiTTo Posted October 25, 2009 Posted October 25, 2009 For someone who caches like I do, power trails are annoying because they cause nothing but clutter that needs to be sorted through. Thankfully in the case of these Maine caches almost every one of them is a micro and they're all hidden by the same person so filtering the whole trail out of existence would be very easy. Sadly, there probably are a few of these power trail caches hidden in spots I'd like to see, but I'd miss those locations just because trying to pick out those few isn't worth the time it would take. This is when a rating system would be handy, but that's a whole other topic. Seriously, the world is full of great geocaches. Instead of frustrating yourself and lamenting the few great caches that happen to be buried among caches you dislike, why not simply move on to different hunting grounds? I'm not frustrated at all, just pointing out the negative aspects of power trails. Some folks seem to think they're a wonderful addition to the hobby, others like me disagree and I've provided my reasoning for my opinions. I've come to accept the fact that not every cache I find will be a life-changing, earth-moving experience -- usually far from it. However, I've also learned over the years that I most often enjoy caches hidden for a purpose other than just to inflate numbers. Power trails are all about numbers. That's fine, I just won't participate in that part of the game. Unfortunately there's no perfect way to separate the "numbers" caches from the "placed with some other purpose in mind" caches -- but I'll do my best. Actually, you do have at least one other option: Post to my thread in the dot-com forum and express your opinion of my proposed solution. Whether you like or dislike my idea, I’d be very interested to hear about it! Interesting idea, I'll check that thread. Quote
+bittsen Posted October 25, 2009 Posted October 25, 2009 Given the choice, I would rather do a power trail than to search for a micro (ie nano) at the end of a long hike in the woods. Quote
+genegene Posted October 25, 2009 Posted October 25, 2009 This is an interesting topic. I was thinking of setting one up here in Western Mass but they wouldn't be P&G's. The caches would be set at about .5 from each other, and in the logs I would ask that other cachers place one in between them so we can get a good trail going. It would also promote other cachers to find good spots along the way. In the end we would have caches at about .25 miles for about 20 miles (as the crow flies) once the trail is complete. There is talk that the trail will continue to the bottom of the state in the future, witch will add a additional 27 miles (as the crow flies). In total the trail may be around 60+ miles of mountain hiking starting in NY and going along the Berkshire Mts. in Mass. and ending in Conn. That would put an additional 250+ caches on a trail that has about 15 - 20 on it now. Quote
+L0ne.R Posted October 25, 2009 Posted October 25, 2009 I'm not interested in those power trails, but I'm happy that some people are. Their existence doesn't hurt me, except in the rare case that they block another cache from an interesting location. Cache on. Maybe what we need is for the guidelines to be modified so as to prevent any two interesting locations from being within 1/10 mile of each other. For example, if a 1000-foot waterfall and an ancient sequoia tree are ever found to be only 300 feet apart, then one of them clearly has to go, or at least be moved far enough away so as to be within compliance. That way, one interesting-location cache won’t ever be able to block another cache from being placed at an interesting location. Of course you jest, however I'd suggest that a multi, rather than 2 traditionals, be used to highlight both the neat features. My particular problem isn't that power trails exist, it's that they make it difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. To use Toz's ice cream example, let's say I like vanilla ice cream. I don't want any other flavor, just vanilla. So when I go looking for vanilla, I find that there are 100 ice cream cones all in a row that all look the same. But maybe only 2 are actually vanilla. Now how do I know which ones are the ones I want without sampling each and every one of them? For someone who caches like I do, power trails are annoying because they cause nothing but clutter that needs to be sorted through. Thankfully in the case of these Maine caches almost every one of them is a micro and they're all hidden by the same person so filtering the whole trail out of existence would be very easy. Sadly, there probably are a few of these power trail caches hidden in spots I'd like to see, but I'd miss those locations just because trying to pick out those few isn't worth the time it would take. This is when a rating system would be handy, but that's a whole other topic. Well said DocDiTTo. Good ice cream analogy. I agree, a rating system would help find the 2 vanillas amongst the spam-flavored icecream. Quote
+KJcachers Posted October 26, 2009 Posted October 26, 2009 looks like I need to plan the next family vacation to be in Bangor, Maine! All those caches should help out the tourist industry in the area! My wife likes numbers and I like hikes so we do both at different times. We both like Maine so this is going to end up a must do next time we go to New England to visit family. Quote
+tozainamboku Posted October 26, 2009 Posted October 26, 2009 My particular problem isn't that power trails exist, it's that they make it difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. To use Toz's ice cream example, let's say I like vanilla ice cream. I don't want any other flavor, just vanilla. So when I go looking for vanilla, I find that there are 100 ice cream cones all in a row that all look the same. But maybe only 2 are actually vanilla. Now how do I know which ones are the ones I want without sampling each and every one of them? For someone who caches like I do, power trails are annoying because they cause nothing but clutter that needs to be sorted through. Thankfully in the case of these Maine caches almost every one of them is a micro and they're all hidden by the same person so filtering the whole trail out of existence would be very easy. Sadly, there probably are a few of these power trail caches hidden in spots I'd like to see, but I'd miss those locations just because trying to pick out those few isn't worth the time it would take. This is when a rating system would be handy, but that's a whole other topic. Well said DocDiTTo. Good ice cream analogy. I agree, a rating system would help find the 2 vanillas amongst the spam-flavored icecream. The ice cream analogy only goes so far. One cannot expect to always be able to determine what flavor ice cream you are getting based on the cache description, container size, or even a rating system if we had one. In fact for many it is just this knowing that you never know what you will get that makes gecaching so exciting. The people who insist on complaining point out that the good surprises are fewer than the unpleasant surprises so they would like to change that ratio a bit. My guess is that if you see a power trail you'd be able to tell quickly if all the caches are the same (or similar) or if there is some variation along the trail. If they do seem to be all the same you can decide to do just a part of the trail or perhaps skip it altogether. On the other hand if someone places a power trail where they took the time to put out a variety of different caches types, you might decide there was enough effort put into placing these caches to meet your criteria for enjoyment. Some people may choose a power trail just because this is a way to get a lot finds in a short time. Others may do it because is an easy way to plan a days caching. You can find caches on the power trail until you get tired or run out of time. Still others will look a the overall experience the hider has set up. Some of these power trails are setup to provide a total geocaching experience with a good mixture of different size caches hidden in a variety of ways and taking you down a trail or country road that would be interesting all by itself even if it didn't have caches along it. The assumption that a power trail is always a bunch of 35mm film cans hidden the same way over and over again on a boring stretch of highway is wrong. There may be some power trails like this but there are others that you might find to be quite enjoyable. A little research and reading of logs will tell you if you want to do the whole series, only a part of the series, or skip it altogether. If you're like DocDitto and don't like variety and only want vanilla, don't do a power trail that has a mixture of vanilla and other flavors (unless you can get some to tell you which caches are vanilla). Simply look for caches that are the one flavor you like or at least are more likely to be the one flavor you like. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.