Jump to content

Power Trail

AtwellFamily
Followers 7

Recommended Posts

Xaa

+Xaa

Posted
Posted

At what point can you finally say that a balance is going to be disturbed? Anyway...

 

Wouldn't it be an idea to make a powertrail attribute for the poor souls in that area. Eeh, sorry for those who so much like powertrails and want to be able to find it? It might make PQ'ing (around) a powertrail a lot easier

Link to comment
buttaskotch

+buttaskotch

Posted
Posted

I think these power trails are appalling. Groundspeak is going in a bad direction by allowing this.

Don't like it? There are a million other caches out there. You can knock it, but there are plenty of others out there that would like to pad their numbers. For me, I may do some. I ACTUALLY did a power run, and can say from EXPERIENCE that it can be boring. Unless you have a carfull of fun people that can help make it a fun day.

Link to comment
Mr.Yuck

Mr.Yuck

Posted
Posted

I think these power trails are appalling. Groundspeak is going in a bad direction by allowing this.

Don't like it? There are a million other caches out there. You can knock it, but there are plenty of others out there that would like to pad their numbers. For me, I may do some. I ACTUALLY did a power run, and can say from EXPERIENCE that it can be boring. Unless you have a carfull of fun people that can help make it a fun day.

 

The Original Post has nothing to do with "If you don't like them, don't do them". The original post has to do with the fact that the guidelines still state "Please don't hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can". But when you think about it, it's not all that surprising. The guidelines also tell you to get permission to place a cache on private property, but "they" just look the other way when caches are placed in store parking lots. So now "they" just look they other way when they tell you not to hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can.

 

It certainly doesn't look good though, that both store parking lot caches and power trails are geared towards numbers oriented geocachers.

Link to comment
t4e

+t4e

Posted
Posted

I think these power trails are appalling. Groundspeak is going in a bad direction by allowing this.

Don't like it? There are a million other caches out there. You can knock it, but there are plenty of others out there that would like to pad their numbers. For me, I may do some. I ACTUALLY did a power run, and can say from EXPERIENCE that it can be boring. Unless you have a carfull of fun people that can help make it a fun day.

 

The Original Post has nothing to do with "If you don't like them, don't do them". The original post has to do with the fact that the guidelines still state "Please don't hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can". But when you think about it, it's not all that surprising. The guidelines also tell you to get permission to place a cache on private property, but "they" just look the other way when caches are placed in store parking lots. So now "they" just look they other way when they tell you not to hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can.

 

It certainly doesn't look good though, that both store parking lot caches and power trails are geared towards numbers oriented geocachers.

 

key word is "please"...its a suggestion for common sense not an interdiction, since the guideline limits the distance between caches to 600 feet

Link to comment
palmetto

+palmetto

Posted
Posted
From the guildlines "Please don't hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can."

 

Why would something like this be approved...607 caches in a straight line?

 

The "Please ... 600 feet..." language is for circumstances where a reviewer has cause to limit cache placements, either in total, or by a single owner.

 

For example, there is a county park system where I review that has decided not to use staff time on reviewing caches, hence no permission required. But they have told me that "there are too many of them". I would not publish a powertrail of caches in one of those county parks, unless they had specific permission for each cache from the park manager.

 

In this instance, the reviewers saw no reason to invoke any restriction.

Link to comment
AtwellFamily

+AtwellFamily

Posted
  • Author
Posted
From the guildlines "Please don't hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can."

 

Why would something like this be approved...607 caches in a straight line?

 

The "Please ... 600 feet..." language is for circumstances where a reviewer has cause to limit cache placements, either in total, or by a single owner.

 

For example, there is a county park system where I review that has decided not to use staff time on reviewing caches, hence no permission required. But they have told me that "there are too many of them". I would not publish a powertrail of caches in one of those county parks, unless they had specific permission for each cache from the park manager.

 

In this instance, the reviewers saw no reason to invoke any restriction.

This is the kind of information I was looking for, any more discussion like this?

 

I know in Colorado near the Denver Airport the original list had to have some scatter pattern to it. Then people started to fill in spots. Thus creating the power trail out there. The original list was around 100 and the reviewer would not let it just be a straight line.

 

Guess this review had other ideas. And yes I realize it isn't just a straight line down a road but pretty close.

Link to comment
briansnat

+briansnat

Posted
Posted

I think these power trails are appalling. Groundspeak is going in a bad direction by allowing this.

Don't like it? There are a million other caches out there. You can knock it, but there are plenty of others out there that would like to pad their numbers. For me, I may do some. I ACTUALLY did a power run, and can say from EXPERIENCE that it can be boring. Unless you have a carfull of fun people that can help make it a fun day.

 

I'm just glad I don't live there and have to devote the time putting 607 caches on my ignore list so they don't pollute my pocket queries.

Link to comment
Mr.Yuck

Mr.Yuck

Posted
Posted

You have preferences about how you play the game.

 

Others have preferences about how they play the game.

 

Does it really upset you that others don't play it your way, or are you just looking for something to get on about?

 

I assume this is in response to me, seeing as it's right below my post. :) Do I sound upset? I'm just discussing a subject on an internet message board. More power, pun intended, to Groundspeak. You're not going to see some non-premium member newb who joined in 2010 with 25 finds going out and running a power trail. You are going to see long-term premium members (and probably premium members for life) with hundreds ==> thousands of finds running a power trail.

 

*Disclaimer: At then end of March, I'm going to a very moderate rails-to-trails "power trail". They're at least .2-.3 miles apart, and none of them are micros. I anticipate finding over 50 caches that day. I'm also contemplating hiding a similar one, although it would be 15 caches at most.

Link to comment
Mr.Yuck

Mr.Yuck

Posted
Posted
From the guildlines "Please don't hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can."

 

Why would something like this be approved...607 caches in a straight line?

 

The "Please ... 600 feet..." language is for circumstances where a reviewer has cause to limit cache placements, either in total, or by a single owner.

 

For example, there is a county park system where I review that has decided not to use staff time on reviewing caches, hence no permission required. But they have told me that "there are too many of them". I would not publish a powertrail of caches in one of those county parks, unless they had specific permission for each cache from the park manager.

 

In this instance, the reviewers saw no reason to invoke any restriction.

This is the kind of information I was looking for, any more discussion like this?

 

I know in Colorado near the Denver Airport the original list had to have some scatter pattern to it. Then people started to fill in spots. Thus creating the power trail out there. The original list was around 100 and the reviewer would not let it just be a straight line.

 

Guess this review had other ideas. And yes I realize it isn't just a straight line down a road but pretty close.

 

Simple explanation, "power trails" have only been allowed for about a year or so. The phrase "power trail" has been stricken from the guidelines, although the "please don't hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can" sentence remains.

Link to comment
Tequila

+Tequila

Posted
Posted (edited)

I think these power trails are appalling. Groundspeak is going in a bad direction by allowing this.

Don't like it? There are a million other caches out there. You can knock it, but there are plenty of others out there that would like to pad their numbers. For me, I may do some. I ACTUALLY did a power run, and can say from EXPERIENCE that it can be boring. Unless you have a carfull of fun people that can help make it a fun day.

 

I'm just glad I don't live there and have to devote the time putting 607 caches on my ignore list so they don't pollute my pocket queries.

 

This is the best reason yet to create an "Ignore All Caches by Owner" option.

Edited by Tequila
Link to comment
Keystone

Keystone

Posted
Posted

The OP asks, "how does something like this get approved?" it doesn't. I publish caches every day that I don't personally approve of - all math puzzles, for instance. I am obligated to publish caches that meet the listing guidelines. That's why I'm a Reviewer, not an Approver.

 

In this example the caches meet the guidelines. As noted, last year's wording change removed the teeth from the former power trail guideline.

Link to comment
Mr.Yuck

Mr.Yuck

Posted
Posted

The OP asks, "how does something like this get approved?" it doesn't. I publish caches every day that I don't personally approve of - all math puzzles, for instance. I am obligated to publish caches that meet the listing guidelines. That's why I'm a Reviewer, not an Approver.

 

In this example the caches meet the guidelines. As noted, last year's wording change removed the teeth from the former power trail guideline.

 

Well, I have to say the fact that the Nevada Power Trail wouldn't have had a snowball's chance in heck of being published in say 2008, combined with the fact that the guidelines still say "Please don't hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can" (I'm getting sick of typing that sentence, by the way), still has many, many people scratching their heads. I'd suggest better wording there next edit. :)

Link to comment
TheAlabamaRambler

+TheAlabamaRambler

Posted
Posted

I assume this is in response to me, seeing as it's right below my post. :huh:

Nope, not a direct response to you, else I would have quoted you or otherwise addressed it to you. :lol:

 

It's more of a comment meant to spur each of us to evaluate our motives for coming online and griping about things that we don't like which don't affect us.

 

Yeah, I know that I am doing that now! :)

 

I love playing in this forum but the constant negativity by a few is making this place a real downer.

Link to comment
Touchstone

+Touchstone

Posted
Posted

Goodness or badness of power trails aside, what kind of place is this? It looks like it could be the surface of some alien world.

 

DEATH Valley!

 

Sorry. Death Valley is a National Park. No power trails allowed there without NPS permission :)

 

...Nevada Power Trail ...

 

Actually, most of it is in California.

 

For the record, here are the various Guideline versions of the Saturation/Proximity portion of the Guidelines:

 

2010-present

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

 

2007-2009

On the same note, don't go cache crazy and hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can. If you want to create a series of caches (sometimes called a "Power Trail"), the reviewer may require you to create a multi-cache, if the waypoints are close together. A series of caches that are generally intended to be found as a group are good candidates for submission as a single multicache.

 

2003-2005

On the same note, don't go cache crazy and hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can. If you want to create a series of caches, the reviewer may require you to create a multi-cache, if the waypoints are close together.

 

Not much variation between the versions as far as I can tell. Perhaps a difference in interpretation over time though.

Link to comment
jholly

jholly

Posted
Posted

I think these power trails are appalling. Groundspeak is going in a bad direction by allowing this.

Don't like it? There are a million other caches out there. You can knock it, but there are plenty of others out there that would like to pad their numbers. For me, I may do some. I ACTUALLY did a power run, and can say from EXPERIENCE that it can be boring. Unless you have a carfull of fun people that can help make it a fun day.

 

I'm just glad I don't live there and have to devote the time putting 607 caches on my ignore list so they don't pollute my pocket queries.

 

Wrong attitude ... you devote time to get 607 smileys so when your PQ's with the I have found checked run they don't show up :)

Link to comment
jholly

jholly

Posted
Posted

Goodness or badness of power trails aside, what kind of place is this? It looks like it could be the surface of some alien world.

 

DEATH Valley!

 

More closer to the Mojave Desert. They are along a road called Powerline Rd. It runs along electric transmission lines.

Link to comment
KJcachers

+KJcachers

Posted
Posted

Goodness or badness of power trails aside, what kind of place is this? It looks like it could be the surface of some alien world.

 

DEATH Valley!

 

More closer to the Mojave Desert. They are along a road called Powerline Rd. It runs along electric transmission lines.

 

zoom in using the satellite image. Looks like the caches are at the bases of all the towers. Don't forget your sunscreen! :)

Link to comment
DragonsWest

+DragonsWest

Posted
Posted (edited)

Goodness or badness of power trails aside, what kind of place is this? It looks like it could be the surface of some alien world.

 

DEATH Valley!

 

Not quite. It's a Power Line service road through the Mojave Desert.

 

Detractors can moan all they like about ruining pristine desert, but the people who put in the pylons, lines and service road have done that. This is only making use of the access road, which will be periodically used by the power company to inspect the pylons and lines.

 

If there were an ideal location to place a power trail this is a good candidate.

Edited by DragonsWest
Link to comment
vagabond

vagabond

Posted
Posted

I think these power trails are appalling. Groundspeak is going in a bad direction by allowing this.

Don't like it? There are a million other caches out there. You can knock it, but there are plenty of others out there that would like to pad their numbers. For me, I may do some. I ACTUALLY did a power run, and can say from EXPERIENCE that it can be boring. Unless you have a carfull of fun people that can help make it a fun day.

 

I'm just glad I don't live there and have to devote the time putting 607 caches on my ignore list so they don't pollute my pocket queries.

 

Not to worry there aren't many people living between Primm and Baker :)

Link to comment
bflentje

+bflentje

Posted
Posted

I think these power trails are appalling. Groundspeak is going in a bad direction by allowing this.

 

Good thing we're all entitled to our own opinions. After the first 40 or 50 caches I'd be at my limit of enjoyment, but I love the fact that the opportunity is there for me if I so desired. And while I respect YOUR opinion for disliking the notion of a power trail, using the word uppalling is a bit over the edge.

Link to comment
Mr.Yuck

Mr.Yuck

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

Actually, most of it is in California.

 

For the record, here are the various Guideline versions of the Saturation/Proximity portion of the Guidelines:

 

2010-present

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

 

2007-2009

On the same note, don't go cache crazy and hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can. If you want to create a series of caches (sometimes called a "Power Trail"), the reviewer may require you to create a multi-cache, if the waypoints are close together. A series of caches that are generally intended to be found as a group are good candidates for submission as a single multicache.

 

2003-2005

On the same note, don't go cache crazy and hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can. If you want to create a series of caches, the reviewer may require you to create a multi-cache, if the waypoints are close together.

 

Not much variation between the versions as far as I can tell. Perhaps a difference in interpretation over time though.

 

OK, I stand corrected on most in California. As I said in the other thread, the alien planet like terrain was annoying my eyes, so I stopped looking at them. :)

 

2003-2005: Who in the world would have even thought of placing hundreds of micros .1 mile apart on a rural road, such as we've seen in many places for the past year or so? Well, maybe the reveiwers were

starting to see some of that in 2005, which led to the "power trail ban".

 

2007-2009: So power trails were banned under the saturation section, best I can tell. Something like the Nevada/California power trail would have never saw the light of day. Nor would 150 caches in Maine, or 150 caches just outside of New Orleans. I don't need to go into detail, but I'm familiar with a 2007 "project" where a CO was placing caches and encouraging others to join them to create a blatant power trail. Although they got some of these placed (almost all archived now) and made their own project webpage and HTML tables for their cache pages, they were soon told their "project" was over under the saturation section of the guidelines. And that's not even a placed by one account power trail, like everything we're seeing in the past year.

 

2010 to present: Bottom line, it still says don't do it just because you can. But if you do do it, you can. :huh:

Edited by TheWhiteUrkel
Link to comment
Mr.Yuck

Mr.Yuck

Posted
Posted (edited)

It is possible to find a lot a caches and still write unique logs for each one. It's much like the light bulb and psychiatrist. You just have to want to change. :)

 

I'm going to try to do it with about 50-75 caches spread out for several miles on a rails to trails later this month. I know I'll have them marked as found, and in proper numerical order in my GPS. I'll be sure to report back here if I can do it.

 

I can remember from the discussion of the Maine Power Trail that Flask had no problem writing unique logs for them. :huh:

Edited by TheWhiteUrkel
Link to comment
DragonsWest

+DragonsWest

Posted
Posted

I think these power trails are appalling. Groundspeak is going in a bad direction by allowing this.

 

Good thing we're all entitled to our own opinions. After the first 40 or 50 caches I'd be at my limit of enjoyment, but I love the fact that the opportunity is there for me if I so desired. And while I respect YOUR opinion for disliking the notion of a power trail, using the word uppalling is a bit over the edge.

 

One aspect of this is establishing a benchmark run.

 

So Ventura Kids did a 24 hours run of 437 caches in Colorado. Well done them. Now there's a trail where a long run is possible, plus a few power trails over near Primm, should someone get through this one within 24 hours. I can see this becoming a competition. Perhaps that was part of the motivation for laying this trail (something had to be, that was a LOT of work.)

Link to comment
StarBrand

+StarBrand

Posted
Posted

Too bad the older "power trail" wording wasn't still in effect.........sigh. This seems to be the very difinition of a saturation problem.

While it is definitely saturation, why is it a problem?

If saturation is not a 'problem' then why write about it at all in the guidelines?? By mentioning it (in mostly negative terms no less) it is clearly something that TPTB have some concerns over. The word 'problem' is defined by "A difficulty/concern that has to be resolved or dealt with". The guidelines attempt to deal with the difficulty/concern of saturation ("...don't go cache crazy and hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can...") so I think the term 'problem' does indeed apply. Just because it is viewed as a problem doesn't mean it is prohibited by the guidelines. YMMV.

Link to comment
wimseyguy

+wimseyguy

Posted
Posted

As palmetto has already pointed out-it is potentially a problem in some areas, but not others. There are some land managers and park rangers who have requested a greater separation than .1 miles. There are others who are fine with that distance. And there are some areas where it isn't a concern at all, like in the middle of the desert, or prairie outside the airport.

 

So the guideline exists, and is written such, to allow the volunteer reviewers to bring it up where it may be a problem.

Link to comment
dibug

+dibug

Posted
Posted

I have never heard of a Power Trail cache system before so I checked it out. I thought it rather strange looking a the map of the caches,until I looked at the satellite one. A person could really make this interesting my finding a patern to hike from one to the other instead of the st. line method. Since I live in Wisconsin I guess I could not give it a try.

Link to comment
tozainamboku

+tozainamboku

Posted
Posted (edited)

Too bad the older "power trail" wording wasn't still in effect.........sigh. This seems to be the very difinition of a saturation problem.

While it is definitely saturation, why is it a problem?

If saturation is not a 'problem' then why write about it at all in the guidelines?? By mentioning it (in mostly negative terms no less) it is clearly something that TPTB have some concerns over. The word 'problem' is defined by "A difficulty/concern that has to be resolved or dealt with". The guidelines attempt to deal with the difficulty/concern of saturation ("...don't go cache crazy and hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can...") so I think the term 'problem' does indeed apply. Just because it is viewed as a problem doesn't mean it is prohibited by the guidelines. YMMV.

The saturation guideline specify the what the "saturation problem" is being addressed:

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

 

Let's examine the Trail of the Gods powertrail as it applies these goals.

 

Seek out new places to hide cache rather than putting them in areas where caches already exist These are new caches along a power line access road. This is an area out in the desert that had relatively few caches to begin with. Power trails are one way to encourage some subset of cachers that are motivated by numbers to make a trip to new areas. While a power trail in not neccessary to put caches in a new area, the guidelines could be interpreted as encouraging cachers to seek out areas where the are not many caches already as places where a power trail can be placed.

 

Limit the number of caches hidden in a particular area, especially by the same hider Since it is not stated what the limit on the number of caches that can be placed in an area, this is a judgement call left to the reviewer. Perhaps the reviewer saw all these caches and thought "Wow, that's a lot of caches" and then published them. Being out in the desert, it is not hard to place additional caches nearby. There are likely a few spots along the power lines that are still available, but anyone who wants to hike 528 feet out in the desert could hide another cache. It's not as if they are saturating the area. The caches were hidden using the Neveda Geocaching Association account. They are likely placed by a group rather than one individual. There may even be some indication by the group on how they plan to do maintenance on the caches given the number of them. The reviewer may have considered this in deciding whether or not to apply the saturaton guideline. Given the circumstances the reviewer determined that the limit on the caches in this area had not been met and that these caches were not preventing others from hiding cache in the same area.

 

Groundspeak may further restrict cache listings in areas where cache saturation becomes a concern. These caches are out in the desert along a power line access road. Saturation is not a concern in this area.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment
L0ne.R

+L0ne.R

Posted
Posted

I think these power trails are appalling. Groundspeak is going in a bad direction by allowing this.

 

I agree. It is worrisome. I wonder what made Groundspeak change its' collective mind about the issue of power trails. Do power trails bring in more revenue?

 

Imagine having to ignore all of these caches, one at a time? Now that Groundspeak allows PTs, perhaps they can also provide a feature which allows ignoring all caches by a CO, en masse.

 

Are ignore lists limitless or is the list full at 500 caches?

Link to comment
jholly

jholly

Posted
Posted

I think these power trails are appalling. Groundspeak is going in a bad direction by allowing this.

 

I agree. It is worrisome. I wonder what made Groundspeak change its' collective mind about the issue of power trails. Do power trails bring in more revenue?

 

Imagine having to ignore all of these caches, one at a time? Now that Groundspeak allows PTs, perhaps they can also provide a feature which allows ignoring all caches by a CO, en masse.

 

Are ignore lists limitless or is the list full at 500 caches?

 

Ignore list? Look, this is the Mojave Desert, outside of these caches there really aren't that many others out there. A couple judicious centered PQ's with the proper radius and perhaps a correctly parametered CAR and you miss just about everyone. We are not talking cache dense urban areas here.

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...
×
Followers 7
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...