Jump to content

Power Trail Overload?


JASTA 11

Recommended Posts

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.

 

Why do you insist on posting this same book every time someone says they want better tools to help improve the enjoyment the get from caching? They didn't even say they wanted to go back to banning all power trails.

Link to comment

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.

Rating system? ;)

Are the servers not slow enough? :mad:

Kidding, get Firefox then Greasemonkey and check out my signature. OK forget my sig, GCVote. It does work, and the more users it gets the better it will work.

It will also make less people ask to chow down on GS bandwidth if they know about it and use it.

Link to comment

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.

Rating system? ;)

Are the servers not slow enough? :mad:

Kidding, get Firefox then Greasemonkey and check out my signature. OK forget my sig, GCVote. It does work, and the more users it gets the better it will work.

It will also make less people ask to chow down on GS bandwidth if they know about it and use it.

 

The problem with systems like that is that some people do like power trails and will rate these caches high, as they should. Those of us who would like to find a different type of cache would be stuck looking at them just the same. Any rating system needs to be more sophisticated than GCvote or it is useless.

Link to comment

Part of the problem is that everyone 'assumes' that the Stud Mill Road in Maine is saturated with caches and you can't turn around without tripping over one and this is not the case. The map previously posted in this thread showing the caches along the road didn't show the scale and was meaningless. If you check any city at the same scale you will find that the cache density is far greater in any city than on this 85 mile long dirt road in Maine. To find the aproximately 140 caches along this road and the 3 feeder roads connecting it with RT-9 you will drive about 120 miles (there is about 30mi of backtracking).

 

There are a few locations (including Denver) where you can find a huge number of caches in a day. If you find the idea of a cache run isn't your cup of tea, the solution is simple, just don't do it. I did the Stud Mill Road and had a fun time.

Link to comment

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.

Rating system? :mad:

Are the servers not slow enough? :blink:

Kidding, get Firefox then Greasemonkey and check out my signature. OK forget my sig, GCVote. It does work, and the more users it gets the better it will work.

It will also make less people ask to chow down on GS bandwidth if they know about it and use it.

 

The problem with systems like that is that some people do like power trails and will rate these caches high, as they should. Those of us who would like to find a different type of cache would be stuck looking at them just the same. Any rating system needs to be more sophisticated than GCvote or it is useless.

First, better than nothing.

Second, if you use Median for calculation it will take into account percentages of extreme ratings and recalculate for it.

 

There are problems with it, but there are problems with all rating systems. Netflix is better system but wrong wrong wrong for example.

Average of raters like you 2.9.

Average of 879,494 ratings: 3.4

Raters like me only have slightly better taste than the total community, I'd shoot the film maker for it if I could get away with it.

I have rated 1532 films & TV shows and it has not gotten better at my custom rating.

But like I said, better than nothing.

 

back to your regularly scheduled thread. ;)

Link to comment

Perhaps I am behind in the current thought and policy but about a year ago a freind of mine was questioned about placing about ten caches in a 10,000 acre area and along some remote roads. None of these caches were nearer than 2.0 miles from another. It was suggested that he was creating a "power trail" by the reviewer. Recently, (October '09) about 120 caches were approved along about 20 miles of a single road. It appears that they were submitted by a well-known, local "sock puppet" and "couch cacher". It kinda makes me think "she" is the reviewer and will take whatever liberties "she" chooses. SugarSpice created these new caches and, curiously, has never found a cache. Reference GC1YWP1 as a center.

 

Make no mistake, we had a grand time racing around to get these caches before the "hider's" arch-enemy came around to sabotage the game by stealing about thirty of the caches.

 

I have had about twenty phone calls asking about the legitimacy and viability of these caches. All of them have been from frustrated searchers or from folks wanting to avoid a fruitless search.

 

What's up?

Link to comment
Perhaps I am behind in the current thought and policy but .... It kinda makes me think "she" is the reviewer and will take whatever liberties "she" chooses.

 

Perhaps the change in the saturation guideline explains the different outcomes better than an attack on the reviewer?

Per your prefacing remark, you may be "behind in the current ... policy". You are.

Link to comment
You miserable, sad, loathsome person.

Wow... He points out that all those cache pages are copy/paste, and that the logs are all copy paste. Both are established facts. There was no insult there. Yet, you felt the need to hurl vitriol? Who, exactly, is loathsome here? Are we feeling a bit defensive perhaps? The people who play this game are the single kewlest variable in the game. Some folks like caches placed at unique spots, requiring at least a modicum of effort to reach. Others like seemingly endless strings of park & grab micros which require no more effort than getting into/out of a car every few hundred feet. Neither group is wrong, bad, evil or contemptible. You placed a gazillion caches along roadsides. None of these "tributes" were inspiring enough to you to be worth the effort of generating more than a single sentence on the cache page. While I personally wouldn't take a P&G micro with a three word cache page (I.e; "Another Great One"), as a complimentary tribute, I suppose there are possibly some folks out there who would. Maybe...

 

As so many cachers have experienced, you had a geovision. Your muse spoke to you. You pictured a gazillion, seemingly identical P&G caches, named after people who you respect, spit out every few hundred feet. Then you followed through with your vision and made it happen. Kudos to you! But for you to feel slighted because not everybody has the same likes and dislikes as you is just childish. What you see as a wonderful opportunity for folks to easily crank up their find counts, others will see as nothing more than a blight on the landscape.

 

One indicator I use to determine if a cache is going to meet my particularly biased caching aesthetics is the logs it receives. Take this cache as an example. Read the logs. Compare them with the logs of the other caches nearby. You'll see that not a single log is of the copy/paste variety. You will also notice that not a single find log is a single sentance. No TNLNSLs either. Why is that? I would venture a guess it's because this cache is so memorable. When I see 20, 30, 50, 100, etc caches with the exact same log, it seems to me that none of the caches in the group were memorable enough to generate a unique log. If that's what you were attempting to achieve, I'd say you could pat yourself on the back for a job well done. There is absolutely no need to feel defensive, simply because you opted to create this series. Just because I would find such a series to be the ultimate in droll, doesn't mean others won't enjoy it.

 

Heck, I've even hunted a similar series. The fun was in the camaraderie, as the containers and locations mostly sucked.

Edited by Clan Riffster
Link to comment

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.

Rating system? :mad:

Are the servers not slow enough? :blink:

Kidding, get Firefox then Greasemonkey and check out my signature. OK forget my sig, GCVote. It does work, and the more users it gets the better it will work.

It will also make less people ask to chow down on GS bandwidth if they know about it and use it.

 

The problem with systems like that is that some people do like power trails and will rate these caches high, as they should. Those of us who would like to find a different type of cache would be stuck looking at them just the same. Any rating system needs to be more sophisticated than GCvote or it is useless.

First, better than nothing.

Second, if you use Median for calculation it will take into account percentages of extreme ratings and recalculate for it.

 

There are problems with it, but there are problems with all rating systems. Netflix is better system but wrong wrong wrong for example.

Average of raters like you 2.9.

Average of 879,494 ratings: 3.4

Raters like me only have slightly better taste than the total community, I'd shoot the film maker for it if I could get away with it.

I have rated 1532 films & TV shows and it has not gotten better at my custom rating.

But like I said, better than nothing.

 

back to your regularly scheduled thread. ;)

 

Back when I used to waste money on the local, alleged, news paper they had a movie reviewer that was very accurate in a left-handed sort of way. If he hated a movie I knew I would almost certainly love it. It also worked the other way. If he loved a movie I knew not to waste my entertainment dollar on it. We had two opposing views as to what made a movie great. I wanted to be entertained and he insisted on some form of socially redeeming value. There needed to be a lesson for all of mankind.

 

Point is that if we each rated a movie with stars from one to five the averaged results would mean nothing to anyone.

Link to comment
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.

That's too bad because you'd be missing out on some really pretty areas.

 

While doing these caches, we got to see lots of wild animals including moose, turkeys, frogs and snakes. Plus, we got to see some really remote lakes with gorgeous vistas and some unusual terrain. Oh, and we also got to enjoy great friendships and build up some wonderful memories. Skippermatt is still talking about the trip two months later!

 

Some examples of the scenery you might see in the area.

 

680416168_dLBUB-M.jpg

 

686383997_Wk57t-M.jpg

 

680416382_pc2fD-M.jpg

 

686382617_uFw9W-M.jpg

Edited by Skippermark
Link to comment

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.....

 

I guess I'm the cacher that you are talking about. For the record, we went because it was Maine & in the middle of nowhere & peak foliage Columbus Day weekend. If it had been 140 URBAN caches, there is NO WAY we would have ever driven all the way to Maine & spent a 3 days caching & sightseeing. We even had dinner with caching friends from ME & others from MA. Even did some shopping at LLBean & Cabela's. ;)

 

We've never had a caching experience like it . It was great. Is it how we normally cache? No. Is it something I want to do all the time? No. I've cached crazy numbers while in CA for 2 weeks while out there for GeoWoodstock. (198 caches in 2 wks. That was crazy to us. lol) It was all urban caches but we tried to stick with historic & scenic while we sightseed. While it was different, it got tiring after a few hours.

 

We didn't feel that way in Maine. We didn't want to stop & spent the last 2 hours caching by flashlight in the total darkness on dirt roads. HOPING to see a moose. lol

 

Here's a link to ALL our pictures from the weekend. Maybe you'll change your mind. And by the way, lots of MA cachers have driven up to ME for other caching besides Stud Mill Rd. So why a thread about me?

 

For the record, when I saw all those caches, we NEVER though we could find so many in one day. We don't cache that fast to begin with. LOL

 

I like to travel & see nice places. This was my one & only get-away weekend this year.

 

http://wandering4cache.smugmug.com/

ENJOY THE PICTURES!!! All the pictures are geotagged with coordinates. So feel free to hit the MAP IT button once in the gallery to see their locations on the map.

Edited by wandering4cache
Link to comment

While doing these caches, we got to see lots of wild animals including moose, turkeys, frogs and snakes. Plus, we got to see some really remote lakes with gorgeous vistas and some unusual terrain. Oh, and we also got to enjoy great friendships and build up some wonderful memories. Skippermatt is still talking about the trip two months later!

 

Thank you for making my point. ;) A few caches placed to highlight the scenic areas or other "special" spots like those in your pictures would be wonderful. Littering an area with dozens of caches just because you can means that all those special spots are lost in the midst of the spew. When I travel, I usually don't have an entire day to spend caching -- maybe a couple hours if I'm lucky. It's great when geocaching takes me to special places I might otherwise have overlooked. When an area is littered with caches I either have to spend a lot of time trying to figure out which ones highlight something special and which ones are just placed for numbers, or I just ignore the whole mess altogether.

 

I'm sure you had a great time on the power trail. Nothing wrong with that. My point is that not everyone caches that way and not everyone appreciates the cluttered mess that power trails bring to our pocket queries.

Link to comment

...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?....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? ...I don't see anything like that coming from you. You miserable, sad, loathsome person.

 

That should stir things up.

 

You are asking if we discuss every nuance of caching in the forums? Why yes we do. Does that stop me from enjoying a cache? Why no sir it doesn't.

 

Have we in the forums contributed to your enjoyment? Likely so. Do you know why or how? Likely not. Do you know enough to care? Probably not.

 

Yeah it's annoying and embarassing when your caches are the ones in the spotlight. Then again it was annoying and embarrasing when some pretty girls waived when I was riding my bike and just when I waived back my front tire snagged a rail road track and down I went. Life happens.

 

While you perhap brought some joy with your tribute caches did you also bring some joy here? Did you stop, count to 10 and learn? I'm not so sure. Normally I defend folks like you who make power trails, and such. Today I'm going to go buy a soda, and say hello to the clerk. That would be more productive. I've alrady bumped up a thread created to help raise some funds for the local greenway by selling a geocoin. Giving back is done a thousand ways. It's something that I and others like me do with our pathetic lonely lives while waiting for the bus to run us over.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment

Another thing. The thought that we are number seekers is hysterical. It took us 7 YEARS to get to 1000 caches. ROFL!!!! Yeah, a real number seeker. LOL

 

Why did you go then? Why not just take a trip to the Maine countryside and find 5 caches? Why do your logs, the exact same one copy and pasted 140 times, talk about how you found 140 caches in x number of hours?

 

Skippermark copied and pasted the same log 170 times. Just about everyone is copying and pasting logs, and referencing how many they snagged in x number of hours. I didn't read 17,000 logs, but why isn't anyone referencing the beautiful Maine countryside in their cut and paste cache logs? Why isn't anyone mentioning the honorees who have the roadside micros named after them?

Link to comment

Another thing. The thought that we are number seekers is hysterical. It took us 7 YEARS to get to 1000 caches. ROFL!!!! Yeah, a real number seeker. LOL

 

Why did you go then? Why not just take a trip to the Maine countryside and find 5 caches? Why do your logs, the exact same one copy and pasted 140 times, talk about how you found 140 caches in x number of hours?

 

Skippermark copied and pasted the same log 170 times. Just about everyone is copying and pasting logs, and referencing how many they snagged in x number of hours. I didn't read 17,000 logs, but why isn't anyone referencing the beautiful Maine countryside in their cut and paste cache logs? Why isn't anyone mentioning the honorees who have the roadside micros named after them?

Excellent question Urkel!

Link to comment

I didn't read 17,000 logs, but why isn't anyone referencing the beautiful Maine countryside in their cut and paste cache logs? Why isn't anyone mentioning the honorees who have the roadside micros named after them?

 

If you check carefully, you will find at least two cachers who had a unique log for each find!

Nice little tree.

NiceCharlie Brown tree.

Nice skinny tree.

&c

I am told that this took quite a bit of effort!

Link to comment
Skippermark copied and pasted the same log 170 times. Just about everyone is copying and pasting logs, and referencing how many they snagged in x number of hours. I didn't read 17,000 logs, but why isn't anyone referencing the beautiful Maine countryside in their cut and paste cache logs? Why isn't anyone mentioning the honorees who have the roadside micros named after them?

That's not totally true. I varied some of the logs, but yes, overall I did cut and paste. If someone wants to write something more detailed, they can. In fact, someone did. At least one of the finders who did that series wrote an individual log for each cache.

 

Part of the fun with a series like this is seeing how many caches you can find in a certain amount of time, which is probably why people mentioned it in their logs. I don't know why people didn't mention the countryside. Maybe it wasn't important to them. I know it really made the trip fun for us, but I only mentioned in a few logs.

 

As for mentioning the honorees, I didn't know any of them. What would I say about them?

Link to comment
Skippermark copied and pasted the same log 170 times. Just about everyone is copying and pasting logs, and referencing how many they snagged in x number of hours. I didn't read 17,000 logs, but why isn't anyone referencing the beautiful Maine countryside in their cut and paste cache logs? Why isn't anyone mentioning the honorees who have the roadside micros named after them?

That's not totally true. I varied some of the logs, but yes, overall I did cut and paste. If someone wants to write something more detailed, they can. In fact, someone did. At least one of the finders who did that series wrote an individual log for each cache.

 

Part of the fun with a series like this is seeing how many caches you can find in a certain amount of time, which is probably why people mentioned it in their logs. I don't know why people didn't mention the countryside. Maybe it wasn't important to them. I know it really made the trip fun for us, but I only mentioned in a few logs.

 

As for mentioning the honorees, I didn't know any of them. What would I say about them?

 

Thank you for your answers! It stands to reason people are going up there too see how many they can find in a certain amount of time, so I guess that makes sense why so many mention it. Not why I cache, but everyone has their own reasons.

 

The part about people not mentioning the countryside and scenery puzzles me though. I can see people not mentioning this when they're finding quick grab micros in suburban parking lots, but I guess when you're going for the numbers, you're still going for the numbers, despite the setting.

 

And finally the question about the honorees never being mentioned by anyone goes back to the cache owner's personal attack post (I'm still not sure who it was directed at). He talked about how he was honoring those people for all the great things they had done for Geocaching. It looks to me from the logs that none of the finders could care less if the caches were named after letters of the alphabet. Actually, you'd run out of them pretty fast. Perhaps a hexidecimal naming system? :signalviolin:

Link to comment

Another thing. The thought that we are number seekers is hysterical. It took us 7 YEARS to get to 1000 caches. ROFL!!!! Yeah, a real number seeker. LOL

 

Why did you go then? Why not just take a trip to the Maine countryside and find 5 caches? Why do your logs, the exact same one copy and pasted 140 times, talk about how you found 140 caches in x number of hours?

 

Skippermark copied and pasted the same log 170 times. Just about everyone is copying and pasting logs, and referencing how many they snagged in x number of hours. I didn't read 17,000 logs, but why isn't anyone referencing the beautiful Maine countryside in their cut and paste cache logs? Why isn't anyone mentioning the honorees who have the roadside micros named after them?

 

I do not have 140 identical logs. I spent a lot of time being organized & taking notes about cache condition, scenery, and anything else we thought log worthy. My log is long in each case, and when appropriate, I mentioned what was unique about the cache. Yes, many are copy & paste, but they aren't all the same. It took me 3 days to log them all.

 

I did mention the honorees I know & have met. Did you read all my logs? I'm guessing not.

 

Think what you all want. I really don't care. We went & we had fun. So did the other cacher with us. We were glad to hook up with friends again that we had met at GeoWoodstock in CA. I've been to Maine before and Acadia National Park. This was an area / type of scenery I hadn't experienced in Maine, and I'm glad we went.

 

Really, I don't know what everyones problem is. Everyone caches for different reasons. We cache for many reasons. Each trip / cache outing is different. Its what we were looking for that particular weekend & we are happy.

 

Really, what's your problem?

Edited by wandering4cache
Link to comment

 

http://wandering4cache.smugmug.com/

ENJOY THE PICTURES!!! All the pictures are geotagged with coordinates. So feel free to hit the MAP IT button once in the gallery to see their locations on the map.

 

Nice pics! I especially like the one of the lake with the 3 stones in the foreground. Nicely composed. :signalviolin:

 

thank you. I really enjoy taking pictures & sharing them. I'm far from good at it though. lol Glad someone appreciates it.

Edited by wandering4cache
Link to comment

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. :signalviolin:

 

Keystone

 

Here is a question I have,

 

Why is it that one reviewer will allow the example that is being heavily discussed here but Another will not allow it because they call it a power trail or cache saturation.

 

I have talked to many cachers that are having this problem. ALL Guidelines are being met but its the reviewer that wont allow the caches to be published.

 

I have not seen anywheres where it says that a person can not do a so called "power trail" (I personaly hate the name power trail) but the reviewers are taking upon themselves to wright this "rule" into the guidelines and there judgment about the amount of caches on a trail or there distance from each other (between .11 and .19).

 

Can you please explain to myself and everyone else that my be following this topic and have that same question I do, as to why there is such a wide range permissible and not permissible cache locations between reviewers?

 

If this is a big issue with reviewers (distance between caches on a trail or road) why not just up the distance between caches to .2 and the problem will be solved. (This would be a future update and everything in place now would be grandfathered)

 

Gene G.

genegene

Edited by genegene
Link to comment

While doing these caches, we got to see lots of wild animals including moose, turkeys, frogs and snakes. Plus, we got to see some really remote lakes with gorgeous vistas and some unusual terrain. Oh, and we also got to enjoy great friendships and build up some wonderful memories. Skippermatt is still talking about the trip two months later!

 

Thank you for making my point. :signalviolin: A few caches placed to highlight the scenic areas or other "special" spots like those in your pictures would be wonderful. Littering an area with dozens of caches just because you can means that all those special spots are lost in the midst of the spew. When I travel, I usually don't have an entire day to spend caching -- maybe a couple hours if I'm lucky. It's great when geocaching takes me to special places I might otherwise have overlooked. When an area is littered with caches I either have to spend a lot of time trying to figure out which ones highlight something special and which ones are just placed for numbers, or I just ignore the whole mess altogether.

 

I'm sure you had a great time on the power trail. Nothing wrong with that. My point is that not everyone caches that way and not everyone appreciates the cluttered mess that power trails bring to our pocket queries.

So if you would enjoy seeing the Maine countryside without finding any caches why not just go up to Maine and not find caches. Or if you think its OK to have just a few caches along the route just stop at few caches at random. Or if you get bored finding the same kind of hide over and over again, stop looking for caches when you get bored. If I lived nearby I would considering going and finding a few caches at different times of the year, just to see how the scenery changes.

 

Sure the are people who select which caches to find by selecting an area with high density or where there is a power trail like this. Maybe they are interested in getting "numbers". Or they may find that when driving a stretch of road like this it is more fun to stop every so often and get out of the car. You may prefer to stop only once or twice, and you may be asking for the cache hider to place just one or two caches so you know the place to stop. It sounds like you are more frustrated that you haven't been told which two places to stop at if you only want to stop twice. So you need drive the whole trail and slow down at least near each cache to see if it worth it to get out and look around to find the cache. I'd say that it looks like if you just stop when you feel like it there is likely to be a cache nearby, and since your aren't really going there to find caches, if you found a more interesting place to stop that didn't have a cache you could post a note on the nearest cache's page with a picture of what the people who are only stopping at the caches miss.

 

Another thing. The thought that we are number seekers is hysterical. It took us 7 YEARS to get to 1000 caches. ROFL!!!! Yeah, a real number seeker. LOL

 

Why did you go then? Why not just take a trip to the Maine countryside and find 5 caches? Why do your logs, the exact same one copy and pasted 140 times, talk about how you found 140 caches in x number of hours?

 

Skippermark copied and pasted the same log 170 times. Just about everyone is copying and pasting logs, and referencing how many they snagged in x number of hours. I didn't read 17,000 logs, but why isn't anyone referencing the beautiful Maine countryside in their cut and paste cache logs? Why isn't anyone mentioning the honorees who have the roadside micros named after them?

 

This judging caches because they get cookie cutter logs and accusing people of selecting the power trail only because it was an opportunity to get a lot of finds in a short time sound a bit like sour grapes. Certainly TWU may prefer a cache that takes some effort to get to and find; one where he might have a whole lot to write about. But what should it matter to him that someone else is satisfied with finding some easy P&Gs that someone took the time to put out in what may be an interesting and beautiful area to visit. The people hunting these seemed to have spent a day having fun seeing the Maine countryside and finding caches. They many not have much to say about each individual cache, but the day's experience was certainly a lot of fun. Why begrudge them that fun. You had fun going after a single more difficult cache or even driving to a different part of the Maine country side to find the unusual cache someone told you about.

 

Other than DocDitto's complaint that I address above (he only wants to stop at a few "interesting" places and with all the caches on the trail he is sure that not all of them are "worthy" of stopping) I don't see how the power trail effects you. You can ignore all together or you could decide to fjnd just a few of the caches on it. There seems to be other caches in backwoods Maine that people who don't like the idea of finding a bunch of caches all one trip or who prefer individual caches with higher terrain or difficulty ratings, can find.

Link to comment

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. :signalviolin:

 

Keystone

 

Here is a question I have,

 

Why is it that one reviewer will allow the example that is being heavily discussed here but Another will not allow it because they call it a power trail or cache saturation.

 

I have talked to many cachers that are having this problem. ALL Guidelines are being met but its the reviewer that wont allow the caches to be published.

 

I have not seen anywheres where it says that a person can not do a so called "power trail" (I personaly hate the name power trail) but the reviewers are taking upon themselves to wright this "rule" into the guidelines and there judgment about the amount of caches on a trail or there distance from each other (between .11 and .19).

 

Can you please explain to myself and everyone else that my be following this topic and have that same question I do, as to why there is such a wide range permissible and not permissible cache locations between reviewers?

 

If this is a big issue with reviewers (distance between caches on a trail or road) why not just up the distance between caches to .2 and the problem will be solved. (This would be a future update and everything in place now would be grandfathered)

 

Gene G.

genegene

 

Genegene, just an FYI here. Your example is sort of comparing apples & oranges. Incase you haven't looked at the caches in ME, they are about .75 miles & more apart, and the section of dirt road(s) used is well over 75 miles long. More when you factor in the doubling back required for some parts of it. I haven't totalled up the driving just for the section of caches, but I know we were well into 120 miles just on dirt roads...and quite happy to find a gas station when we reached civilization. Plus the hour drive on Rt 9 in the morning just to get from Bangor to the Stud Mill Rd area.

 

I'm not aware of anywhere in MA where you could duplicate this. So trying to say the reviewer wouldn't approve it is a bit unfair. In MA, you would have to put them closer and it would be a much shorter road for sure. This isn't your cache every .10 mile....like we saw out in CA on a section of highway. All guardrail caches. We didn't do any of those by the way. Drive right by them.

 

This is an area of land owned by a paper company. A dirt logging road. No logging trucks on the Sunday we were there, but its shared as a recreational area for all to use. There were hunters, ATV trailerss, fisherman using the road that day.

Edited by wandering4cache
Link to comment

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. :signalviolin:

 

Keystone

 

Here is a question I have,

 

Why is it that one reviewer will allow the example that is being heavily discussed here but Another will not allow it because they call it a power trail or cache saturation.

 

I have talked to many cachers that are having this problem. ALL Guidelines are being met but its the reviewer that wont allow the caches to be published.

 

I have not seen anywheres where it says that a person can not do a so called "power trail" (I personaly hate the name power trail) but the reviewers are taking upon themselves to wright this "rule" into the guidelines and there judgment about the amount of caches on a trail or there distance from each other (between .11 and .19).

 

Can you please explain to myself and everyone else that my be following this topic and have that same question I do, as to why there is such a wide range permissible and not permissible cache locations between reviewers?

 

If this is a big issue with reviewers (distance between caches on a trail or road) why not just up the distance between caches to .2 and the problem will be solved. (This would be a future update and everything in place now would be grandfathered)

 

Gene G.

genegene

 

I looked at the "power trail". The eastern half of Stud Mill Road from the intersection with Little River Rd the distances between the first seven caches are 0.646, 0.785, 0.725, 0.744, 0.714, 0.644, 0.809. All distances are in miles as the crow flys. Certainly if someone else wanted to place caches I would assume that they would find places in between these caches to do so. Judging from the map, with the exception of the junction between Little River Road and Stud Mill Road and on the east side of East Clifford Lake the other caches appear to be placed about the same distances apart, approximately 0.7 miles.

 

So, this seems to fit with your comment that if the caches were 0.2 miles apart the problem would be solved. It seems it is already solved.

 

I really don't see what the tempest in a tea pot is about. The caches are spread out quite a bit, you certainly are not going to walk the "trail", maybe a bike, but likely a car. Seems like a very pleasant day caching to me. I just keep thinking what an awesome cache machine this layout would make. As for cluttering up PQs like one poster complained about, it seems that his PQs were not cluttered until this "trail" was pointed out to him, otherwise I'm sure he would have mentioned before.

 

Jim

Edited by jholly
Link to comment

Take a peek at the map around this one.

 

A Dead Horse?

 

There you go - 28 miles of .1 mile apart micros. It even crosses another power trail that has caches spaced at 1 mile markers.

 

Yes, I looked at that. There's an insane amount of caches in that general area, even without the two power trails!! Dead horse (placed recently) definitely proves without a doubt that power trails (a phrase which no longer exists) are allowed again, which many of us didn't know when this thread was started. It sure doesn't explain the "Please don't place a cache every 600 feet just because you can" sentence in the guidelines though. :signalviolin:

Link to comment

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. :signalviolin:

 

Keystone

 

Here is a question I have,

 

Why is it that one reviewer will allow the example that is being heavily discussed here but Another will not allow it because they call it a power trail or cache saturation.

 

I have talked to many cachers that are having this problem. ALL Guidelines are being met but its the reviewer that wont allow the caches to be published.

 

I have not seen anywheres where it says that a person can not do a so called "power trail" (I personaly hate the name power trail) but the reviewers are taking upon themselves to wright this "rule" into the guidelines and there judgment about the amount of caches on a trail or there distance from each other (between .11 and .19).

 

Can you please explain to myself and everyone else that my be following this topic and have that same question I do, as to why there is such a wide range permissible and not permissible cache locations between reviewers?

 

If this is a big issue with reviewers (distance between caches on a trail or road) why not just up the distance between caches to .2 and the problem will be solved. (This would be a future update and everything in place now would be grandfathered)

 

Gene G.

genegene

 

I looked at the "power trail". The eastern half of Stud Mill Road from the intersection with Little River Rd the distances between the first seven caches are 0.646, 0.785, 0.725, 0.744, 0.714, 0.644, 0.809. All distances are in miles as the crow flys. Certainly if someone else wanted to place caches I would assume that they would find places in between these caches to do so. Judging from the map, with the exception of the junction between Little River Road and Stud Mill Road and on the east side of East Clifford Lake the other caches appear to be placed about the same distances apart, approximately 0.7 miles.

 

So, this seems to fit with your comment that if the caches were 0.2 miles apart the problem would be solved. It seems it is already solved.

 

I really don't see what the tempest in a tea pot is about. The caches are spread out quite a bit, you certainly are not going to walk the "trail", maybe a bike, but likely a car. Seems like a very pleasant day caching to me. I just keep thinking what an awesome cache machine this layout would make. As for cluttering up PQs like one poster complained about, it seems that his PQs were not cluttered until this "trail" was pointed out to him, otherwise I'm sure he would have mentioned before.

 

Jim

 

I think I know what GeneGene is talking about (please correct me if I'm wrong). A region of a larger State a couple of hundred miles from the Maine Tribute Trail was recently designated as being "saturated" by one cacher by the local reviewer. And this A. was after "power trails" are apparently allowed again, and B. none of that cacher's 100 or so caches were placed on anything resembling a "trail".

 

I agree (and always have) that there is a "a wide range permissible and not permissible cache locations between reviewers". I think ultimately very few people know of the appeals process, or attempt to use it. Their reviewer tells them what to do or not do, and they comply.

Link to comment
A region of a larger State a couple of hundred miles from the Maine Tribute Trail was recently designated as being "saturated" by one cacher by the local reviewer.

 

I'm not familiar with the area you're talking about, but perhaps this portion of the Guidelines is applicable:

 

Groundspeak may further restrict cache listings in areas where cache saturation becomes a concern.

 

Then it would be up to the cache owner to discuss ways in which A: the area is not truly saturated, or B: find alternative ways in which they can get some or all of their Listings Published (e.g. convert some to Multi's or reduce the number).

 

I would assume that conversation would take place between the cache owner and the Reviewer, or ultimately Groundspeak through the appeals process.

Link to comment

I'm not aware of anywhere in MA where you could duplicate this. So trying to say the reviewer wouldn't approve it is a bit unfair. In MA, you would have to put them closer and it would be a much shorter road for sure. This isn't your cache every .10 mile....like we saw out in CA on a section of highway. All guardrail caches. We didn't do any of those by the way. Drive right by them.

 

I'm not saying that this is isolated to Mass.

 

I talk to many people all over, and some want to create a cache trail in the woods (on existing trails) or want to add some more caches to an area that has a bunch in it already.

 

I have not had this issue here with MadMin and I have a good cache placement experience with MadMin. We don't always see eye to eye on some issues, but overall Ive learned a lot from MadMin about cache placements and have even gotten some good cache ideas.

 

If I wanted to do a series of P&G's like the one in Maine then there is plenty of back dirt roads here in Western Mass that I could use. It sounds interesting to try and do but I personaly would rather do it on a trail.

 

I'm not saying anything bad about the "Dragon" in fact I would like to go and do it myself and then move on and do some more in Maine. I'd go up for an extended weekend and have fun with some friends and family.

 

My question was:

Why do some reviewers allow the cache density 0.11-0.19 and others don't.

 

If we are allowed to place them at 0.1 from the nearest cache (in any direction) why do some reviewers say there is to many in the area already and deny the location?

Link to comment

The OP, Genegene, and others are using The Stud Mill Road near Old Town, Maine as an example of cache saturation but as I, and a few others have said, this is not the case at all. Here are 2 pictures of the area around Pittsfield, MA, where Genegene lives, and the Stud Mill Road using the same scale.

 

4052317177_341c724ecb.jpg

 

As you can see, the October Mountain State Park has a far greater cache density than the Stud Mill Road. If you look at almost any city, or even a lot of rural areas, you will find the same sort of cache distribution. There are areas that some may feel are saturated but the Stud Mill Road isn't one of them. Most of these caches are about 7 times further apart than the guidelines require.

Link to comment
You miserable, sad, loathsome person.

Now that's the kind of attitude we need more of in geocaching!

 

:blink::blink::blink:

 

But seriously, why put down people who want to see how many caches they can find in a day? There is often a certain enjoyment in pushing yourself to do something new. I'm a well-known cache snob and probably wouldn't do this series because I would find it boring, but I don't particularly mind if other people do.

 

The only problem I would see is if these caches interfered with somebody who wanted to place a quality cache in the area, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.

Edited by fizzymagic
Link to comment

 

I think I know what GeneGene is talking about (please correct me if I'm wrong). A region of a larger State a couple of hundred miles from the Maine Tribute Trail was recently designated as being "saturated" by one cacher by the local reviewer. And this A. was after "power trails" are apparently allowed again, and B. none of that cacher's 100 or so caches were placed on anything resembling a "trail".

 

You are correct.

 

I agree (and always have) that there is a "a wide range permissible and not permissible cache locations between reviewers". I think ultimately very few people know of the appeals process, or attempt to use it. Their reviewer tells them what to do or not do, and they comply.

 

That is what I am asking, why is there such a wide range between reviewers on the amount of caches in an area, be it a trail or in the woods.

 

I would have put this question in a separate topic but I figured that this was just as good a place for my question as any.

 

The OP, Genegene, and others are using The Stud Mill Road near Old Town, Maine as an example of cache saturation but as I, and a few others have said, this is not the case at all. Here are 2 pictures of the area around Pittsfield, MA, where Genegene lives, and the Stud Mill Road using the same scale.

 

4052317177_341c724ecb.jpg

 

As you can see, the October Mountain State Park has a far greater cache density than the Stud Mill Road. If you look at almost any city, or even a lot of rural areas, you will find the same sort of cache distribution. There are areas that some may feel are saturated but the Stud Mill Road isn't one of them. Most of these caches are about 7 times further apart than the guidelines require.

 

If anyone thinks that they can do all of those in October Mt. in one day then good luck. Look at google earth with the Geocaching kmz to see it better. Most of those caches are not a straight run to each other. Most will take you a good 20 to 30 minn to get to each, if not longer because of the terrain.

 

A good chunk of them were also part of 1 cache at one time and changed over to individual caches.

Link to comment

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. :laughing:

 

Yes. It's just terrible to have MORE choices as opposed to less. :laughing:

 

At least it affords some cachers the smug superior feeling that they cache better than other less refined cachers. :laughing::laughing:

 

Ahoi polloi :blink::blink::angry::blink:

Link to comment

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...