Power Trail

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I can assure you, nothing neo-satanic, or orgy-like happens.

Then why would anyone want to go?

[+DeepButi]

If someone from the forum does do any of these caches, would you please post a picture or two of the landscape from the ground? The satellite imagery is freakishly strange, and it would be interesting to see it as a person would.

Street map it!

 

Powerline rd crossing Excelsior mine rd: Minerva

[+Setan Meyacha]

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?

 

I guess I find it difficult to find what is so 'appalling' about someone taking the time, energy, and expense to lay out a 'power trail' for other people's enjoyment in finding those caches. And I also find it difficult to understand why anyone would want to 'ignore all caches by a CO, en masse', unless it was a known fact that the CO placed caches in hazardous places or on private property without permission. If all a person is interested in is finding a cache loaded with goodies to trade for and not the experience of finding the cache in a possible location they have never visited before, then ignoring all caches by a CO might be the way to go.

I hide most of my caches in the country and most of those are in the desert. The majority of places where I hide caches are rarely visited by other cachers for the purpose of hiding caches. So, it is easy for me to be accused of 'over-saturating' an area with caches by being just about the only one hiding caches in those areas. Rarely are any of my caches closer than .2 miles from another cache.

There is an area of desert approximately 30 x 23 miles not far from where I live that I plan on placing quite a number of caches throughout the summer. There are probably not more than 20 caches in the area in question, and most of those are close to US Hwy 75 and Hwy 20. If my placing those caches results in someone(s) 'ignoring all my caches, en masse', that is fine with me...it is your loss.

[+sbell111]

Everyone has a preferance on how to play their own game and their is no right or wrong.

I think you may be missing the point (or, at least one of the points). So-called "Power Trails" were not allowed all that long ago. Then, suddenly, they not only seem to be allowed, but almost sanctioned, again without a clear explaination.

This is kind of my point. Groundspeak seems to do these kinds of things all the time. If I asked a few months ago to place this I woudl have gotten the answer of no and then I see this all the sudden with no publized change letting me know this could be done. I have seen this in other ares of the business. The policy changes and they slowly let it happend and that is how you hear about it.

 

I would think changes like this should somehow be communicated. Not just found out by accident.

You make it sound as if they secretly made changes to the guidelines.

 

Power Trail

 

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?

Because geocaching today is all about the numbers to quite a few geocachers. Sadly some nerds with computers have created stats from the beginning of geocaching and they are to blame as well as Geocaching.com letting them get the numbers out of Geocaching.com easily.

 

The example you have created a lnk to... YAK :-(((

Anyone who does it differently than you is wrong. Okie dokie.

[knowschad]

If someone from the forum does do any of these caches, would you please post a picture or two of the landscape from the ground? The satellite imagery is freakishly strange, and it would be interesting to see it as a person would.

Use the Google Street View images. You will be on a paved road, but the terrain on the sides of the road is the same.

[knowschad]

I can assure you, nothing neo-satanic, or orgy-like happens.

Then why would anyone want to go?

YIKES! I see a ghost vehicle coming at me in the other lane!

[+L0ne.R]

I also find it difficult to understand why anyone would want to 'ignore all caches by a CO, en masse'

 

Because it would be easier then ignoring all 500 power trail caches one at a time. If it takes 30 seconds to put one cache on my ignore list.....open up the listing, click ignore cache, click the "yes ignore it" button, go back to the listing or profile or hide n seek page, select the next PT cache, etc.....500 caches x 30 seconds = 15000s = 250 minutes = 42 hours. It'll take 42 hours to put all those caches on an ignore list one at a time.

[+California66er]

One of the logs was 154 FTFs in one day.

 

I mean... wow.

 

Good for them. Not the way I want to play the game, but to each his own.

[+mtn-man]

I'm the bad man in Maine that started this whole power trail dilemma. I had no idea that power trails were not allowed. I placed 125 caches in one day along a logging road out in the middle of the woods deep in Maine the day after the guidelines had changed. I didn't know there was ever a guideline that existed at that time. Each cache is placed for one reason or more and are placed plenty far enough apart to not infringe in any way on the guidelines.

 

What I did know is that there were a lot of local cachers that I wanted to pay tribute to for making this adventure called Geocaching such fun.

 

Most of the Stud Mill Road caches are named after local cachers. There are 165 caches in that series now and they are placed averaging 3/4 mile apart. That meets all the guidelines of geocaching both then and now. I also have permission for them.

 

Also try to remember these are guidelines, not rules. suggestions for a reviewer and hider to discuss.

 

Believe it or not, I'm not a numbers guy. I don't think I could ever do more than 20 in a day and be able to enjoy it.

 

I was more than surprised to see the overwhelming response to the Stud Mill Road series and the idea of naming them as tributes. I just had no idea this would all become such a big deal.

 

To those that are offended by this power trail propagation, I'm sorry.

 

To those that have had the time of their lives and made memories to last a lifetime, Your welcome.

Trust me. It wasn't you. They were out there well before your placement.

[+Ekidokai]

I also find it difficult to understand why anyone would want to 'ignore all caches by a CO, en masse'

 

Because it would be easier then ignoring all 500 power trail caches one at a time. If it takes 30 seconds to put one cache on my ignore list.....open up the listing, click ignore cache, click the "yes ignore it" button, go back to the listing or profile or hide n seek page, select the next PT cache, etc.....500 caches x 30 seconds = 15000s = 250 minutes = 42 hours. It'll take 42 hours to put all those caches on an ignore list one at a time.

 

Use GSAK it makes all things easy.

[jholly]

I also find it difficult to understand why anyone would want to 'ignore all caches by a CO, en masse'

 

Because it would be easier then ignoring all 500 power trail caches one at a time. If it takes 30 seconds to put one cache on my ignore list.....open up the listing, click ignore cache, click the "yes ignore it" button, go back to the listing or profile or hide n seek page, select the next PT cache, etc.....500 caches x 30 seconds = 15000s = 250 minutes = 42 hours. It'll take 42 hours to put all those caches on an ignore list one at a time.

 

As I pointed out in another post, you don't have to put any of them on an ignore list. They are located out in the middle of the Mojave Desert, a place that has never been confused with a cache dense environment. With a couple carefully crafted PQ's you can get all the caches that were there before the power trail and not get any of the caches on the power trail. So instead of figuring out how long it would take you to put them on an ignore list you can either figure out how to set up your PQ's, which I expect you never have run one for this area, or you can start you trip planning now to go find them and then when you run your PQ with the "I have not found" box checked they won't show up with the other caches.

[+The Jester]

I also find it difficult to understand why anyone would want to 'ignore all caches by a CO, en masse'

 

Because it would be easier then ignoring all 500 power trail caches one at a time. If it takes 30 seconds to put one cache on my ignore list.....open up the listing, click ignore cache, click the "yes ignore it" button, go back to the listing or profile or hide n seek page, select the next PT cache, etc.....500 caches x 30 seconds = 15000s = 250 minutes = 42 hours. It'll take 42 hours to put all those caches on an ignore list one at a time.

Your math is off by a factor of 10 - 250 minutes is 4 hours 50 minutes, or 4.1666 hours NOT 42 hours.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

 

Your math is off by a factor of 10 - 250 minutes is 4 hours 50 minutes, or 4.1666 hours NOT 42 hours.

Umm...Care to try that again?? It's 4 hours and 10 minutes. We haven't switched to the metric system yet.

[+moparots]

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.

 

I was just trying to make the point that it was a very harsh enviroment. Thats why I CAPPED the word death. It might not exactly be DEATH valley, it is only 40 miles South of it. Of course your talking to a Florida boy, so those areas seem pretty dry to me.

 

Id love to visit there and do that run.

[+L0ne.R]

I also find it difficult to understand why anyone would want to 'ignore all caches by a CO, en masse'

 

Because it would be easier then ignoring all 500 power trail caches one at a time. If it takes 30 seconds to put one cache on my ignore list.....open up the listing, click ignore cache, click the "yes ignore it" button, go back to the listing or profile or hide n seek page, select the next PT cache, etc.....500 caches x 30 seconds = 15000s = 250 minutes = 42 hours. It'll take 42 hours to put all those caches on an ignore list one at a time.

 

Use GSAK it makes all things easy.

 

I use Cacheberry. Not sure if I can set it to ignore a COs caches.

 

I looked at GSAK about a year ago, but couldn't figure it out quickly so I gave up on it -- all that stuff about macros. Plus I really don't want to spend more money on another geocaching software product.

[+L0ne.R]

I also find it difficult to understand why anyone would want to 'ignore all caches by a CO, en masse'

 

Because it would be easier then ignoring all 500 power trail caches one at a time. If it takes 30 seconds to put one cache on my ignore list.....open up the listing, click ignore cache, click the "yes ignore it" button, go back to the listing or profile or hide n seek page, select the next PT cache, etc.....500 caches x 30 seconds = 15000s = 250 minutes = 42 hours. It'll take 42 hours to put all those caches on an ignore list one at a time.

 

As I pointed out in another post, you don't have to put any of them on an ignore list. They are located out in the middle of the Mojave Desert

 

Now that the flood gates are open, I'm concerned about someone creating a 500 cache power trail in my area. Then I'm going to have to figure out how to deal with it. I'd like to put them on an ignore list so they don't show up on my map.

[4wheelin_fool]

I also find it difficult to understand why anyone would want to 'ignore all caches by a CO, en masse'

 

Because it would be easier then ignoring all 500 power trail caches one at a time. If it takes 30 seconds to put one cache on my ignore list.....open up the listing, click ignore cache, click the "yes ignore it" button, go back to the listing or profile or hide n seek page, select the next PT cache, etc.....500 caches x 30 seconds = 15000s = 250 minutes = 42 hours. It'll take 42 hours to put all those caches on an ignore list one at a time.

 

As I pointed out in another post, you don't have to put any of them on an ignore list. They are located out in the middle of the Mojave Desert, a place that has never been confused with a cache dense environment. With a couple carefully crafted PQ's you can get all the caches that were there before the power trail and not get any of the caches on the power trail. So instead of figuring out how long it would take you to put them on an ignore list you can either figure out how to set up your PQ's, which I expect you never have run one for this area, or you can start you trip planning now to go find them and then when you run your PQ with the "I have not found" box checked they won't show up with the other caches.

 

On the powertrail in the desert that would work, but how about all of the other powertrails?

 

I really do not want to spend the time "carefully crafting" a PQ. Thats really just for making beer.

[knowschad]

I know... we need an Ignore Along a Route option!!

[+Castle Mischief]

In the hypothetical situation where a 500 cache power trail gets placed anywhere near me, I'm pretty sure that I'm in the clear as I'm filtering out micros these days.

 

Now when somebody hypothetically places 500 small or regular caches (or heavens forbid other/not chosen) near me I guess I spend some time seriously hypothetically worrying about it.

 

Does GSAK have a filter for hypothetical caches...?

[+sbell111]

In the hypothetical situation where a 500 cache power trail gets placed anywhere near me, I'm pretty sure that I'm in the clear as I'm filtering out micros these days.

 

Now when somebody hypothetically places 500 small or regular caches (or heavens forbid other/not chosen) near me I guess I spend some time seriously hypothetically worrying about it.

 

Does GSAK have a filter for hypothetical caches...?

It hypothetically does.

[+The Jester]

 

Your math is off by a factor of 10 - 250 minutes is 4 hours 50 minutes, or 4.1666 hours NOT 42 hours.

Umm...Care to try that again?? It's 4 hours and 10 minutes. We haven't switched to the metric system yet.

Stupid typos! And I'm supposed to know 10-key.

[+L0ne.R]

 

Your math is off by a factor of 10 - 250 minutes is 4 hours 50 minutes, or 4.1666 hours NOT 42 hours.

Umm...Care to try that again?? It's 4 hours and 10 minutes. We haven't switched to the metric system yet.

Stupid typos! And I'm supposed to know 10-key.

 

Thanks for catching the mistake.

 

Still, 4 hours of continuous work (hope the carpal tunnel doesn't flare up). Could break it down to one hour a day for 4 days.

 

It would still be preferable to bulk ignore the CO's caches.

[jholly]

 

Your math is off by a factor of 10 - 250 minutes is 4 hours 50 minutes, or 4.1666 hours NOT 42 hours.

Umm...Care to try that again?? It's 4 hours and 10 minutes. We haven't switched to the metric system yet.

Stupid typos! And I'm supposed to know 10-key.

 

Thanks for catching the mistake.

 

Still, 4 hours of continuous work (hope the carpal tunnel doesn't flare up). Could break it down to one hour a day for 4 days.

 

It would still be preferable to bulk ignore the CO's caches.

 

Do these caches interfere with your PQ's? Probably not so I don't see the problem.

Are these caches out in the middle of nowhere and can easily be avoided with properly constructed PQ's? Yes, so I don't see the problem.

 

Why do you insist on making a problem where a problem does not exist?

 

It has been pointed out in the past that there are some existing power trails that have built up over the years with caches placed by a number of cachers. Since you seem to be so totally against power trails and want a weapon of mass destruction, how are you going to handle that case? Ban all caches by the dozen or so cachers that have placed caches along the trail? But then your going to lose many other caches you probably don't want to lose.

Edited March 11, 2010 by jholly

[+sbell111]

 

Your math is off by a factor of 10 - 250 minutes is 4 hours 50 minutes, or 4.1666 hours NOT 42 hours.

Umm...Care to try that again?? It's 4 hours and 10 minutes. We haven't switched to the metric system yet.

Stupid typos! And I'm supposed to know 10-key.

 

Thanks for catching the mistake.

 

Still, 4 hours of continuous work (hope the carpal tunnel doesn't flare up). Could break it down to one hour a day for 4 days.

 

It would still be preferable to bulk ignore the CO's caches.

 

Do these caches interfere with your PQ's? Probably not so I don't see the problem.

Are these caches out in the middle of nowhere and can easily be avoided with properly constructed PQ's? Yes, so I don't see the problem.

 

Why do you insist on making a problem where a problem does not exist?

Even if the caches were unavoidable in his PQ, it is no reason for anyone else to take any action.

[+Sioneva]

I wonder if flask's neighbor's cat wears a blue bow.

[+wimseyguy]

Best post to the thread all day!

 

Back OT and to answer the OP's question in the topic title.

Perhaps the reviewer was offered a complimentary lifetime platinum membership to the NGA?

Edited March 11, 2010 by wimseyguy

[4wheelin_fool]

 

Your math is off by a factor of 10 - 250 minutes is 4 hours 50 minutes, or 4.1666 hours NOT 42 hours.

Umm...Care to try that again?? It's 4 hours and 10 minutes. We haven't switched to the metric system yet.

Stupid typos! And I'm supposed to know 10-key.

 

Thanks for catching the mistake.

 

Still, 4 hours of continuous work (hope the carpal tunnel doesn't flare up). Could break it down to one hour a day for 4 days.

 

It would still be preferable to bulk ignore the CO's caches.

 

Do these caches interfere with your PQ's? Probably not so I don't see the problem.

Are these caches out in the middle of nowhere and can easily be avoided with properly constructed PQ's? Yes, so I don't see the problem.

 

Why do you insist on making a problem where a problem does not exist?

Even if the caches were unavoidable in his PQ, it is no reason for anyone else to take any action.

 

The powertrails in the middle of nowhere are not the issue. It's the ones in populated areas (or the potential) that is the source of the PQ pollution angst.

[knowschad]

I wonder if flask's neighbor's cat wears a blue bow.

I dunno, but the nested quotes are sure getting deep. Gotta go look for my waders.

[+Castle Mischief]

The powertrails in the middle of nowhere are not the issue. It's the ones in populated areas (or the potential) that is the source of the PQ pollution angst.

 

I think that and there may be some angst coming from cachers that had caches denied because they were deemed to be "power trails" in the past.

 

Hypothetically.

[knowschad]

The powertrails in the middle of nowhere are not the issue. It's the ones in populated areas (or the potential) that is the source of the PQ pollution angst.

 

I think that and there may be some angst coming from cachers that had caches denied because they were deemed to be "power trails" in the past.

 

Hypothetically.

And a reasonable fear that such a power trail may soon be coming to a park near you.

 

ETA: Hypothetically.

Edited March 11, 2010 by knowschad

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

The powertrails in the middle of nowhere are not the issue. It's the ones in populated areas (or the potential) that is the source of the PQ pollution angst.

 

I think that and there may be some angst coming from cachers that had caches denied because they were deemed to be "power trails" in the past.

 

Hypothetically.

And a reasonable fear that such a power trail may soon be coming to a park near you.

 

ETA: Hypothetically.

So all this kerfluffle is about something that hasn't happened, might not ever happen, and is easily dealt with if it does?

 

Really?

 

[+palmetto]

I think you may be missing the point (or, at least one of the points). So-called "Power Trails" were not allowed all that long ago. Then, suddenly, they not only seem to be allowed, but almost sanctioned, again without a clear explaination.

This is kind of my point. Groundspeak seems to do these kinds of things all the time. If I asked a few months ago to place this I woudl have gotten the answer of no and then I see this all the sudden with no publized change letting me know this could be done. I have seen this in other ares of the business. The policy changes and they slowly let it happend and that is how you hear about it.

 

I would think changes like this should somehow be communicated. Not just found out by accident.

 

As sbell111 has already posted, the guidelines aren't exactly a secret document. The change to the cache saturation guideline happened at the same time as the addition of the section on the logging of physical caches, and the end of ALR caches. All were mentioned in the forums. All the response and threads at that time were about the "death" of ALR.

 

"to be allowed, but almost sanctioned" sanctioned? a cache is either published, or not published. It isn't sanctioned.

[+NGA]

..."to be allowed, but almost sanctioned" sanctioned? a cache is either published, or not published. It isn't sanctioned.

Thanks for the clarification. Now I am no longer wearing a frawn frown.

[+Castle Mischief]

The powertrails in the middle of nowhere are not the issue. It's the ones in populated areas (or the potential) that is the source of the PQ pollution angst.

 

I think that and there may be some angst coming from cachers that had caches denied because they were deemed to be "power trails" in the past.

 

Hypothetically.

And a reasonable fear that such a power trail may soon be coming to a park near you.

 

ETA: Hypothetically.

So all this kerfuffle is about something that hasn't happened, might not ever happen, and is easily dealt with if it does?

 

Really?

 

 

In order: hypothetically yes, hypothetically yes, and hypothetically maybe.

 

But I would never leave kerfuffle in a cache because of the "no food" guideline, which I guess hypthetially could be changed in a possible future to read "please don't leave food" which would then open the floodgates, break the seventh seal, cause the Black Tower to fall and maybe even pop a few soap bubbles in my bath water.

[+brodiebunch]

I hope geocacher is serious and sincere about maintenance, those 600 plus geocaches can turn into geotrash pretty fast.

[Clan Riffster]

I guess it's a matter of personal caching aesthetics.

What for many would be a grand adventure, looks to me, like a blight on the landscape.

To each their own, I reckon.

[knowschad]

I think you may be missing the point (or, at least one of the points). So-called "Power Trails" were not allowed all that long ago. Then, suddenly, they not only seem to be allowed, but almost sanctioned, again without a clear explaination.

This is kind of my point. Groundspeak seems to do these kinds of things all the time. If I asked a few months ago to place this I woudl have gotten the answer of no and then I see this all the sudden with no publized change letting me know this could be done. I have seen this in other ares of the business. The policy changes and they slowly let it happend and that is how you hear about it.

 

I would think changes like this should somehow be communicated. Not just found out by accident.

 

As sbell111 has already posted, the guidelines aren't exactly a secret document. The change to the cache saturation guideline happened at the same time as the addition of the section on the logging of physical caches, and the end of ALR caches. All were mentioned in the forums. All the response and threads at that time were about the "death" of ALR.

 

"to be allowed, but almost sanctioned" sanctioned? a cache is either published, or not published. It isn't sanctioned.

ALL were mentioned in the forums? I was here. I readily admit that something like "we are now wecoming power trails where we had banned them previously" may have escaped my attention, somehow I don't think that it would have escaped causing a 5 page thread. I remember the "death of ARL" threads. But any cache saturation guideline changes, if discussed at all, were certainly eclipsed by the ARL changes. (OK, re-reading, I can see that you said the same thing)

 

Personally, I would love to see the guidelines posted in a Wiki style, where anyone could do delta comparisons between any versions (eg: the History tab in Wikipedia). At the very least, give them a version number, and make it very visible.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

But I would never leave kerfuffle in a cache because of the "no food" guideline, ...

Food?

 

From http://www.worldwidewords.org/weirdwords/ww-ker1.htm

 

KERFUFFLE/kəˈfʌf(ə)l/Help with IPA

A commotion or fuss.

 

You will most commonly come across this wonderfully expressive word in Britain and the British Commonwealth countries (though the White House spokesman Ari Fleischer used it in January this year). It is rather informal, though it often appears in newspapers. One of the odder things about it is that it changed its first letter in quite recent times. Up to the 1960s, it was written in all sorts of ways — curfuffle, carfuffle, cafuffle, cafoufle, even gefuffle (a clear indication that its main means of transmission was in speech, being too rarely written down to have established a standard spelling). But in that decade it suddenly became much more popular and settled on the current kerfuffle. Lexicographers suspect the change came in response to the way that a number of imitative words were spelled, like kerplop and kerplunk.

 

In those cases, the initial ker– adds emphasis, as it does in other words, perhaps onomatopoeic but perhaps also borrowing the first syllable of crash. But we know kerfuffle was originally Scots and it’s thought that its first part came from Scots Gaelic car, to twist or bend. The second bit is more of a puzzle: there is a Scots verb fuffle (now known only in local dialect), to throw into disorder, dishevel, or ruffle. No obvious origin for it is known and experts suspect it was an imitative word. It is probably linked with Scots fuff, to emit puffs of smoke or steam, definitely imitative, which in the late eighteenth century also had a sense of going off in a huff or flying into a temper.

 

Some specialists think kerfuffle is also related to the Irish cior thual, confusion or disorder. It seems to be a minority opinion, though.

 

It's a word I picked up working on contract in Folkestone Kent UK a few years ago. One of my clients used it anytime there was something interesting happening. Take a group of rather irreverent techies from the US, Ireland, Germany and India and stick them in a room in England managed by a rather stiff and proper (read steel-rod-up-his-wazoo) project manager, open the door every now and then to shovel in food and money, and there was always something interesting happening! Most of the time we contractors had no idea what he was on about but he kept us in stitches.

Edited March 12, 2010 by TheAlabamaRambler

[knowschad]

I guess it's a matter of personal caching aesthetics.

What for many would be a grand adventure, looks to me, like a blight on the landscape.

To each their own, I reckon.

Oh, come on, CR... just because they aren't nipple deep in swamp water doesn't make them a blight! I mean... this is the desert, OK? They don't have much nipple deep swamp water in the desert. Really.

[Clan Riffster]

Well, they need to ship some in then!

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Well, they need to ship some in then!

Can't. There's no water.

Edited March 12, 2010 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+eagsc7]

 

Your math is off by a factor of 10 - 250 minutes is 4 hours 50 minutes, or 4.1666 hours NOT 42 hours.

Umm...Care to try that again?? It's 4 hours and 10 minutes. We haven't switched to the metric system yet.

Stupid typos! And I'm supposed to know 10-key.

 

Thanks for catching the mistake.

 

Still, 4 hours of continuous work (hope the carpal tunnel doesn't flare up). Could break it down to one hour a day for 4 days.

 

It would still be preferable to bulk ignore the CO's caches.

 

...LESS than 5 Minutes(depending on internet Speed).

1) Create PQ for area

2) Download

3) Load into GSAK into your regular DB(with Flag ON)

4) Sort by User Flag)

5) Delete waypoints, making sure to IGNORE FUTURE ADDs for points...

 

The Steaks

[+The Jester]

 

Your math is off by a factor of 10 - 250 minutes is 4 hours 50 minutes, or 4.1666 hours NOT 42 hours.

Umm...Care to try that again?? It's 4 hours and 10 minutes. We haven't switched to the metric system yet.

Stupid typos! And I'm supposed to know 10-key.

 

Thanks for catching the mistake.

 

Still, 4 hours of continuous work (hope the carpal tunnel doesn't flare up). Could break it down to one hour a day for 4 days.

 

It would still be preferable to bulk ignore the CO's caches.

 

...LESS than 5 Minutes(depending on internet Speed).

1) Create PQ for area

2) Download

3) Load into GSAK into your regular DB(with Flag ON)

4) Sort by User Flag)

5) Delete waypoints, making sure to IGNORE FUTURE ADDs for points...

 

The Steaks

That works well in GSAK, but it does nothing about the GC.com maps nor the PQ (which will contain all the caches, they just won't load into GSAK). And if the whole (or most of the Trail) is in range of the PQ, then the PQ is all Trail with no other caches included.

 

To be clear, the GC.com Ignore function and the GSAK Ignore function are two different things - the one is before the data is packaged (PQ) the other is after (loading PQ in GSAK).

[+sbell111]

Even if the caches were unavoidable in his PQ, it is no reason for anyone else to take any action.

The powertrails in the middle of nowhere are not the issue. It's the ones in populated areas (or the potential) that is the source of the PQ pollution angst.

Even if the PQ was right outside your front door, it still doesn't demand action by anyone except for you.

 

The bottom line is this: Each cache in a power trail is just like any other cache. If it looks to be a cache that you want to search for, go for it. Otherwise, ignore it. The fact that other caches are nearby doesn't change this fact one bit.

 

Some people might like the caches, but not the idea of going after a bunch of them at a time. Those people can choose to look for only the number of caches that brings them joy and either save the rest for another day or ignore them.

 

It is true that choosing to ignore all of the caches in a huge power trail will take up some of the "ignorer's" time. So what? The end result is that they are no longer 'subjected' to these caches while allowing anyone who wants to go find the caches to do so.

 

Personally, I would love to see the guidelines posted in a Wiki style, where anyone could do delta comparisons between any versions (eg: the History tab in Wikipedia). At the very least, give them a version number, and make it very visible.

Tracking the changes to the guidelines is easily done using the wayback machine.

[+sbell111]

Thanks for catching the mistake.

 

Still, 4 hours of continuous work (hope the carpal tunnel doesn't flare up). Could break it down to one hour a day for 4 days.

 

It would still be preferable to bulk ignore the CO's caches.

...LESS than 5 Minutes(depending on internet Speed).

1) Create PQ for area

2) Download

3) Load into GSAK into your regular DB(with Flag ON)

4) Sort by User Flag)

5) Delete waypoints, making sure to IGNORE FUTURE ADDs for points...

 

The Steaks

That works well in GSAK, but it does nothing about the GC.com maps nor the PQ (which will contain all the caches, they just won't load into GSAK). And if the whole (or most of the Trail) is in range of the PQ, then the PQ is all Trail with no other caches included.

 

To be clear, the GC.com Ignore function and the GSAK Ignore function are two different things - the one is before the data is packaged (PQ) the other is after (loading PQ in GSAK).

Luckily, the website's ignore function still works.

[+thedeadpirate]

Thanks for catching the mistake.

 

Still, 4 hours of continuous work (hope the carpal tunnel doesn't flare up). Could break it down to one hour a day for 4 days.

 

It would still be preferable to bulk ignore the CO's caches.

...LESS than 5 Minutes(depending on internet Speed).

1) Create PQ for area

2) Download

3) Load into GSAK into your regular DB(with Flag ON)

4) Sort by User Flag)

5) Delete waypoints, making sure to IGNORE FUTURE ADDs for points...

 

The Steaks

That works well in GSAK, but it does nothing about the GC.com maps nor the PQ (which will contain all the caches, they just won't load into GSAK). And if the whole (or most of the Trail) is in range of the PQ, then the PQ is all Trail with no other caches included.

 

To be clear, the GC.com Ignore function and the GSAK Ignore function are two different things - the one is before the data is packaged (PQ) the other is after (loading PQ in GSAK).

 

It's fine if Groundspeak decides to change their stance on power trails. But since they have decided to now allow them, they should also offer a way to ignore them in bulk.

 

I think this is a valid reason for Groundspeak to finally implement this as a feature.

[+Klatch]

It's fine if Groundspeak decides to change their stance on power trails. But since they have decided to now allow them, they should also offer a way to ignore them in bulk.

 

I think this is a valid reason for Groundspeak to finally implement this as a feature.

Seconded!

Edited March 12, 2010 by Klatch

[+sbell111]

Yawned.

[+brdad]

Why not just have a new cache type for caches placed mainly for the numbers? Those that want to do them can run PQs just for them, those that don't can filter them out. Another interesting option I read earlier in the UK forum was to have an attribute set for why the cache was placed. Sure, the designation may be up to the placer, but it's better the the current system.

 

I think these types of caches are not great for Geocaching. I'd like to see all cache hiders have to give a good reason why the location of each cache was worthy, much like the virtuals did at one time. But if they have to exist there should be a way to identify them.

Edited March 12, 2010 by brdad

[+Castle Mischief]

Yawned.