Jump to content

Power Trail


AtwellFamily
Followers 7

Recommended Posts

Anyone define 'power trail' yet? :D

 

Kinda hard to apply an attribute to that which is not defined, isn't it? :(

 

Not to be difficult, but are any of the other attributes clearly defined? As a previous reviewer, surely you were tasked with identifying powertrails when they were verboten... what was the criteria then?

 

But here goes:

 

Powertrail: any series of caches placed as closely as the guidelines will allow (or very near to it) along a road, path, or trail. Often named in a manner to denote them as a sequence, usually containing similar if not exactly identical descriptions and frequently size micro.

 

And to further remove the discussion (for you and me) from the "it doesn't matter because these are placed several states away and will never show up in our PQs" point of view- I point you here.

Edited by Castle Mischief
Link to comment

Just because we disagree, doesn't mean that I'm trolling any more than it means that you are. What I am seeing is you guys repositioning from 'demanding' to 'forcing'. Either is wrong, in my opinion, if the action is truly considered 'voluntary'.

 

There's having an opinion and there's taking my opinion and turning it into that which it is not. Repeatedly. Consistantly.

 

So, back to the task at hand:

 

1- Show me where anybody, with any real ability to enforce anything, is forcing anybody to use any attribute.

Edited by Castle Mischief
Link to comment

Anyone define 'power trail' yet? :D

 

Kinda hard to apply an attribute to that which is not defined, isn't it? :(

 

Not to be difficult, but are any of the other attributes clearly defined? As a previous reviewer, surely you were tasked with identifying power trails when they were verboten... what was the criteria then?

To my knowledge there was not one definition and still isn't. It's an 'I will know one when I see one' decision each Reviewer had to make. our Reviewers however have some guidance and experience, and knowledge of their Reviewing area, and can therefore make such judgment calls.

 

We as geocachers rarely have that background, so with no definition to go by we can't arbitrarily decide what we think is a power trail and apply some attribute to it.

 

But here goes:

 

Powertrail: any series of caches placed as closely as the guidelines will allow (or very near to it) along a road, path, or trail.

So if I place 100 caches half-mile apart, well beyond the minimum distance, or if they are spaced unevenly, then it's not a power trail?

 

Often named in a manner to denote them as a sequence, usually containing similar if not exactly identical descriptions and frequently size micro.

Aha! So creative names without sequence numbers and placed at varying distances is not a power trail?

 

I am sure that the NGA will be glad to hear that! :(

 

I'm not trying to be argumentative or obtuse, I just don't see how this conversation can go anywhere without a definition of 'power trail', which we don't have and I doubt can be defined... which is likely why our Reviewers gave up trying! ;)

 

But please do keep in mind that I am no longer a Reviewer and speak only my opinions.

Link to comment

Anyone define 'power trail' yet? :D

 

Kinda hard to apply an attribute to that which is not defined, isn't it? :(

 

Not to be difficult, but are any of the other attributes clearly defined? As a previous reviewer, surely you were tasked with identifying power trails when they were verboten... what was the criteria then?

To my knowledge there was not one definition and still isn't. It's an 'I will know one when I see one' decision each Reviewer had to make. our Reviewers however have some guidance and experience, and knowledge of their Reviewing area, and can therefore make such judgment calls.

 

We as geocachers rarely have that background, so with no definition to go by we can't arbitrarily decide what we think is a power trail and apply some attribute to it.

 

But here goes:

 

Powertrail: any series of caches placed as closely as the guidelines will allow (or very near to it) along a road, path, or trail.

So if I place 100 caches half-mile apart, well beyond the minimum distance, or if they are spaced unevenly, then it's not a power trail?

 

Often named in a manner to denote them as a sequence, usually containing similar if not exactly identical descriptions and frequently size micro.

Aha! So creative names without sequence numbers and placed at varying distances is not a power trail?

 

I am sure that the NGA will be glad to hear that! :(

 

I'm not trying to be argumentative or obtuse, I just don't see how this conversation can go anywhere without a definition of 'power trail', which we don't have and I doubt can be defined... which is likely why our Reviewers gave up trying! ;)

 

But please do keep in mind that I am no longer a Reviewer and speak only my opinions.

 

I completely understand that you are no longer a reviewer and I appreciate your point of view on this.

 

Few things- you didn't answer one of my questions: Not to be difficult, but are any of the other attributes clearly defined?

 

Which leads me to this:

 

We as geocachers rarely have that background, so with no definition to go by we can't arbitrarily decide what we think is a power trail and apply some attribute to it.

 

We, the non-previous-reviewers, are frequently responsible for applying attributes that, unless I've overlooked it, are not clearly defined. Really, we are arbitrarily applying attributes to every single cache we list, are we not? Nobody is asking the reviewers to verify that these attributes are "correctly" applied and nobody would be asking the reviewers to check a hypothetical "Powertrail" attribute against a textbook definition either.

 

Take a look at "Child Friendly". What does that mean? Friendly for your children or my children? Children of a certain age?

 

"Scuba Gear" - often used in cases where the cache is underwater, but sometimes used when it is accessible by free diving.

Edited by Castle Mischief
Link to comment

Anyone define 'power trail' yet? :D

 

Kinda hard to apply an attribute to that which is not defined, isn't it? :(

 

Not to be difficult, but are any of the other attributes clearly defined? As a previous reviewer, surely you were tasked with identifying power trails when they were verboten... what was the criteria then?

To my knowledge there was not one definition and still isn't. It's an 'I will know one when I see one' decision each Reviewer had to make. our Reviewers however have some guidance and experience, and knowledge of their Reviewing area, and can therefore make such judgment calls.

 

We as geocachers rarely have that background, so with no definition to go by we can't arbitrarily decide what we think is a power trail and apply some attribute to it.

 

But here goes:

 

Powertrail: any series of caches placed as closely as the guidelines will allow (or very near to it) along a road, path, or trail.

So if I place 100 caches half-mile apart, well beyond the minimum distance, or if they are spaced unevenly, then it's not a power trail?

 

Often named in a manner to denote them as a sequence, usually containing similar if not exactly identical descriptions and frequently size micro.

Aha! So creative names without sequence numbers and placed at varying distances is not a power trail?

 

I am sure that the NGA will be glad to hear that! :(

 

I'm not trying to be argumentative or obtuse, I just don't see how this conversation can go anywhere without a definition of 'power trail', which we don't have and I doubt can be defined... which is likely why our Reviewers gave up trying! ;)

 

But please do keep in mind that I am no longer a Reviewer and speak only my opinions.

 

I completely understand that you are no longer a reviewer and I appreciate your point of view on this.

 

Few things- you didn't answer one of my questions: Not to be difficult, but are any of the other attributes clearly defined?

 

Which leads me to this:

 

We as geocachers rarely have that background, so with no definition to go by we can't arbitrarily decide what we think is a power trail and apply some attribute to it.

 

We, the non-previous-reviewers, are frequently responsible for applying attributes that, unless I've overlooked it, are not clearly defined. Really, we are arbitrarily applying attributes to every single cache we list, are we not? Nobody is asking the reviewers to verify that these attributes are "correctly" applied and nobody would be asking the reviewers to check a hypothetical "Powertrail" attribute against a textbook definition either.

 

Take a look at "Child Friendly". What does that mean? Friendly for your children or my children? Children of a certain age?

 

"Scuba Gear" - often used in cases where the cache is underwater, but sometimes used when it is accessible by free diving.

Are we then going to bully other people into following our personal definitions of power trail to ensure that they use (or don't use) the attribute in a way that pleases us? (Notice that I refrained from any suggestion that anyone is forced to do so.)
Link to comment

Anyone define 'power trail' yet? :D

 

Kinda hard to apply an attribute to that which is not defined, isn't it? :(

 

It's about as defined as "Recommended for kids", "Scenic view", "Significant hike", or "Dangerous area".

 

It is left up to the CO to determine whether or not to add one of those to their cache. So long as the attribute is voluntary, then the CO can figure out whether or not their series needs the attribute or not.

 

A number of people have offered up general parameters. As we have been discussing a voluntary attribute for quite some time now, then a general idea of what constitutes a power trail is all you need for a CO to decide whether or not to use the attribute.

 

We as geocachers rarely have that background, so with no definition to go by we can't arbitrarily decide what we think is a power trail and apply some attribute to it.

 

Nonsense. Most people know a power trail when they see it. This line of thought reminds me of "A Few Good Men" when the defense asks how a new recruit knows where the mess hall is even though it is not in the manual. You just know.

 

So if I place 100 caches half-mile apart, well beyond the minimum distance, or if they are spaced unevenly, then it's not a power trail?

 

If it's voluntary, it doesn't really matter. If they were spaced exactly 528" apart in a straight line you still don't HAVE to use the attribute. If you put out a series of caches that were spaced 2 miles apart for 50 miles and you considered it a power trail you could choose to use the attribute.

 

The key here is as long as it is voluntary, the CO gets to decide whether or not s/he considers his/her series to be a power trail or not.

 

I am sure that the NGA will be glad to hear that! :(

 

I don't anyone from NGA, but I bet if a power trail attribute were available, they would proudly add it to their listings. We have a couple of people in our local caching group already making plans to travel from Florida to Nevada to do this series. It would be a calling card for all those wishing to do such a series.

 

I'm not trying to be argumentative or obtuse, I just don't see how this conversation can go anywhere without a definition of 'power trail', which we don't have and I doubt can be defined... which is likely why our Reviewers gave up trying! ;)

 

The difference is in order for a reviewer to enforce some guideline about power trails, then yes, you need a somewhat concrete definition.

 

But if you are talking about a voluntary attribute available at the hider's discretion for something that we all know exists (thus the prior non-approval of them), then the fact that most cacher's know what constitutes a power trail is enough to justify the attribute.

Link to comment

Anyone define 'power trail' yet? :D

 

Kinda hard to apply an attribute to that which is not defined, isn't it? :(

My guess is that if you are going to define an attribute, you might want something more generic. I wouldn't mind a "This cache is part of series" attribute. A series being two or more caches placed at roughly the same time and meant to be found a group. Let the hider decide whether or not his cache gets the attribute. Note that it could apply to a series put out by several hiders. Unless you said all the caches in a series must be in the same general area, something like Cache Across America caches might also be given a series attribute.

 

I suppose one could say "A series is at least 20 caches where each cache is no more that .2 miles from at least one other cache in the series" Then if someone were to put out a power trail with 19 caches then skip at least .2 miles to put out 19 more caches, it wouldn't be a series. :(

 

Leave it simple and the attribute could work.

Link to comment

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["power trail"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it."

But I know it when I see it, and the geocaching series involved in this case is not that.

 

With a voluntary attribute, it would be up to the CO whether or not they considered the series to be a power trail and if so, whether or not they wanted to use the attribute.

Link to comment

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["power trail"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it."

But I know it when I see it, and the geocaching series involved in this case is not that.

 

With a voluntary attribute, it would be up to the CO whether or not they considered the series to be a power trail and if so, whether or not they wanted to use the attribute.

It was the completion of an appropriated quote... Mr. Justice Stewart commenting on one of the more famous attempts to determine what is pornography.

Link to comment

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["power trail"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it."

 

The Potter Stewart definition of a power trail.

Link to comment

The full quote, for those whom we may have confused:

 

From FindLaw - http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...8&invol=184

 

MR. JUSTICE STEWART, concurring.

 

It is possible to read the Court's opinion in Roth v. United States and Alberts v. California, 354 U.S. 476 , in a variety of ways. In saying this, I imply no criticism of the Court, which in those cases was faced with the task of trying to define what may be indefinable. I have reached the conclusion, which I think is confirmed at least by negative implication in the Court's decisions since Roth and Alberts, 1 that under the First and Fourteenth Amendments criminal laws in this area are constitutionally limited to hard-core pornography. 2 I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.

 

Replace 'pornography' with 'power trail' where appropriate for geocaching humor. :D:(

Link to comment

So, I spent a good part of yesterday along the "trail of the gods". This is not something I would have chosen to do on my own. I had a free day and some people were going. I wasn't sure what I was going to think. Some observations:

 

1) I had a good time. I was caching with some people that I had not cached with before and they were good company. They shared a lot of their knowledge of both the area and geocaching.

 

2) We were able to do some other caches in the area too.

 

3) While I did enjoy myself, I look forward to getting back to some more challenging caches. I wouldn't want to spend every weekend doing this.

 

4) This was a trail/dirt road and it's original purpose was to maintain power poles. I guess you could call it a power trail. :D

 

5) The terrain was difficult. Some of these towers were strait up some big hills. Some of the caches were away from towers and roads and I ended up rock climbing to get to them. I did find an easier/longer route back down though.

 

6) The large containers were LARGE. The small containers were small. All were appropriately rated/sized.

 

7) I HAD A GOOD TIME.

 

At this time, I still haven't logged these caches. I'm still letting the whole experience sink in. Before we started on the trail of the gods, we did the entire Trail of fears. This was A LOT of fun. The hides were all different. You didn't know what to expect or where to look at each location. I will agree this isn't for everyone. If you don't like the idea, look for something else. My girlfriend doesn't enjoy the desert landscape, so we stopped looking for desert caches unless it is evident that the cache alone is worth the journey.

Link to comment

Are we then going to bully other people into following our personal definitions of power trail to ensure that they use (or don't use) the attribute in a way that pleases us? (Notice that I refrained from any suggestion that anyone is forced to do so.)

Why not, we appear to do that quite often on most any other subject under the sun! :)

 

Opinions run rampant in these forums. I fail to recall any situation where because of somebody's rampant opinion another person felt bullied or coerced into acting. I can think of plenty were TPTB and a reviewer have enforced a guideline, but none were a regular poster was effectual in somehow bossing around another regular poster to the point of getting their way.

 

If that were the case... Clan Riffster, I demand that you wire me $500 right now, or I'm taking your lunch money and your binky!

Edited by Castle Mischief
Link to comment

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["power trail"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it."

But I know it when I see it, and the geocaching series involved in this case is not that.

 

So you think that this series would have been approved prior to the guideline change? Respectfully, I doubt that most of the reviewers would have let it pass.

Edited by Castle Mischief
Link to comment

Anyone define 'power trail' yet? :)

 

Kinda hard to apply an attribute to that which is not defined, isn't it? :blink:

My guess is that if you are going to define an attribute, you might want something more generic. I wouldn't mind a "This cache is part of series" attribute. A series being two or more caches placed at roughly the same time and meant to be found a group. Let the hider decide whether or not his cache gets the attribute. Note that it could apply to a series put out by several hiders. Unless you said all the caches in a series must be in the same general area, something like Cache Across America caches might also be given a series attribute.

 

I suppose one could say "A series is at least 20 caches where each cache is no more that .2 miles from at least one other cache in the series" Then if someone were to put out a power trail with 19 caches then skip at least .2 miles to put out 19 more caches, it wouldn't be a series. :D

 

Leave it simple and the attribute could work.

 

This actualy makes complete sense to me.

Link to comment

So, I spent a good part of yesterday along the "trail of the gods". This is not something I would have chosen to do on my own. I had a free day and some people were going. I wasn't sure what I was going to think. Some observations:

 

1) I had a good time. I was caching with some people that I had not cached with before and they were good company. They shared a lot of their knowledge of both the area and geocaching.

 

2) We were able to do some other caches in the area too.

 

3) While I did enjoy myself, I look forward to getting back to some more challenging caches. I wouldn't want to spend every weekend doing this.

 

4) This was a trail/dirt road and it's original purpose was to maintain power poles. I guess you could call it a power trail. :D

 

5) The terrain was difficult. Some of these towers were strait up some big hills. Some of the caches were away from towers and roads and I ended up rock climbing to get to them. I did find an easier/longer route back down though.

 

6) The large containers were LARGE. The small containers were small. All were appropriately rated/sized.

 

7) I HAD A GOOD TIME.

 

At this time, I still haven't logged these caches. I'm still letting the whole experience sink in. Before we started on the trail of the gods, we did the entire Trail of fears. This was A LOT of fun. The hides were all different. You didn't know what to expect or where to look at each location. I will agree this isn't for everyone. If you don't like the idea, look for something else. My girlfriend doesn't enjoy the desert landscape, so we stopped looking for desert caches unless it is evident that the cache alone is worth the journey.

>>> Well, here we are in the N.W. corner of Calif. <<< eyeballing this P.T. and all of the postings. *** Our decision >>> we are planning a road trip just because we can, just because we want to grab a few before this series gets shut down. I ask myself how is this P.T. any different than a magnetic key hide in every newspaper rack in a town >>> I reference a certain series in Cheektowaga, N.Y. related to the Cheektowaga Bee ( a local newspaper ) Draw a line between them you might have a trail look at them collectively you might perceive a " Power Grid "

 

The posting from the party who had a good time is but one motivation for this upcoming adventure. Could be funnnnnnnn, hey we have a newly published P.T. equivalent and all we get to see are sweeping vistas of mountains covered with trees, superb views of lakes, extinct volcanic cinder cones, an un-imaginble amount of wildlife streams and creeks merging with rivers as the journey to the sea begins.

 

Perhaps it might have been illegal a while back but it is O.K. now so enjoy the ride.

Link to comment

because we want to grab a few before this series gets shut down.

 

Who said it's getting shut down?

 

I ask myself how is this P.T. any different than a magnetic key hide in every newspaper rack in a town

 

They are exactly the same! X500.

 

X500

>>>> Get enough folks making squeaky wheel noises and perhaps someone will get a grease gun out and apply some grease. I do not see a need to shut it down, however, one never knows. Look for example at the flap over ALR's and how that has changed some aspects of the game we play.

Link to comment

because we want to grab a few before this series gets shut down.

 

Who said it's getting shut down?

 

I ask myself how is this P.T. any different than a magnetic key hide in every newspaper rack in a town

 

They are exactly the same! X500.

 

X500

>>>> Get enough folks making squeaky wheel noises and perhaps someone will get a grease gun out and apply some grease. I do not see a need to shut it down, however, one never knows. Look for example at the flap over ALR's and how that has changed some aspects of the game we play.

 

Hey, your ">" key is stuck.

 

The ALR change was due to "squeaky" reviewers, if you look at the history. I don't think the change to allow power-trails was due to squeaky wheels and I don't think that any squeaky wheels will result in a reversal of the change.

Link to comment

The ALR change was due to "squeaky" reviewers, if you look at the history. I don't think the change to allow power-trails was due to squeaky wheels and I don't think that any squeaky wheels will result in a reversal of the change.

There is some evidence that the reference to power trails was removed from the saturation guidelines becasue of "squeaky" reviewers as well. The reviewers were placed in the uncomfortable position of defining what a power trail was when enforcing the guidelines. Now they can still tell people not to place too many caches but they either have to show that this is an area where this kind of saturation is a concern or that the placement of so many caches is incosistent with the goal of encouraging cachers 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 (i.e. monopolizing an area). The reference to power trails, seemed to indicate that a trail was a priori in violation of the guideline. And reviewers then debated the definiton of a power trail so that they could deny them. The new wording ephasizes the goals of the saturation guidelines and removes any suggestions that there is some maximum number of caches that can be placed that would always trigger the guideline. The reviewers have stated many times that they prefer to publish caches and not have to reject them. They are now free to publish power trails so long as they are consistent with the stated goals of the staturation guideline.

Link to comment

The ALR change was due to "squeaky" reviewers, if you look at the history. I don't think the change to allow power-trails was due to squeaky wheels and I don't think that any squeaky wheels will result in a reversal of the change.

There is some evidence that the reference to power trails was removed from the saturation guidelines because of "squeaky" reviewers as well.

 

<SNIP!>

 

You got links? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just looking for some first-hand info.

Link to comment

The ALR change was due to "squeaky" reviewers, if you look at the history. I don't think the change to allow power-trails was due to squeaky wheels and I don't think that any squeaky wheels will result in a reversal of the change.

There is some evidence that the reference to power trails was removed from the saturation guidelines because of "squeaky" reviewers as well.

 

<SNIP!>

 

You got links? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just looking for some first-hand info.

 

I don't have links, but I was about to post essentially the same thing. Look over the 2 or 3 power trail threads and you will see several references to this.

 

** added the power trail bit in italics.

Edited by GeoBain
Link to comment

I don't have links, but I was about to post essentially the same thing. Look over the 2 or 3 power trail threads and you will see several references to this.

 

** added the power trail bit in italics.

 

Search function broke my brain. I'll take your word for it. At any point, it wasn't the squeaky wheels of the cachers- it was the strain put on the reviewers. I've yet to see cacher opinion change anything other than the Google Earth plug-in change.

Link to comment

I don't have links, but I was about to post essentially the same thing. Look over the 2 or 3 power trail threads and you will see several references to this.

 

** added the power trail bit in italics.

 

Search function broke my brain. I'll take your word for it. At any point, it wasn't the squeaky wheels of the cachers- it was the strain put on the reviewers. I've yet to see cacher opinion change anything other than the Google Earth plug-in change.

 

My apologies. I just searched back through the recent PT threads and it appears that the posts I was referencing were made by TAR who is no longer a reviewer. Specifically the WOW factor post was the one in my head at the time of my post.

 

I think this is one of the reasons that the prohibition against power trails is being lightened if not lifted... like the WOW factor the definition of "power trail" was left to each Reviewer's interpretation and each area under consideration was different.

Link to comment

So, I spent a good part of yesterday along the "trail of the gods". This is not something I would have chosen to do on my own. I had a free day and some people were going. I wasn't sure what I was going to think. Some observations:

 

1) I had a good time. I was caching with some people that I had not cached with before and they were good company. They shared a lot of their knowledge of both the area and geocaching.

 

2) We were able to do some other caches in the area too.

 

3) While I did enjoy myself, I look forward to getting back to some more challenging caches. I wouldn't want to spend every weekend doing this.

 

4) This was a trail/dirt road and it's original purpose was to maintain power poles. I guess you could call it a power trail. :D

 

5) The terrain was difficult. Some of these towers were strait up some big hills. Some of the caches were away from towers and roads and I ended up rock climbing to get to them. I did find an easier/longer route back down though.

 

6) The large containers were LARGE. The small containers were small. All were appropriately rated/sized.

 

7) I HAD A GOOD TIME.

 

At this time, I still haven't logged these caches. I'm still letting the whole experience sink in. Before we started on the trail of the gods, we did the entire Trail of fears. This was A LOT of fun. The hides were all different. You didn't know what to expect or where to look at each location. I will agree this isn't for everyone. If you don't like the idea, look for something else. My girlfriend doesn't enjoy the desert landscape, so we stopped looking for desert caches unless it is evident that the cache alone is worth the journey.

>>> Well, here we are in the N.W. corner of Calif. <<< eyeballing this P.T. and all of the postings. *** Our decision >>> we are planning a road trip just because we can, just because we want to grab a few before this series gets shut down. I ask myself how is this P.T. any different than a magnetic key hide in every newspaper rack in a town >>> I reference a certain series in Cheektowaga, N.Y. related to the Cheektowaga Bee ( a local newspaper ) Draw a line between them you might have a trail look at them collectively you might perceive a " Power Grid "

 

The posting from the party who had a good time is but one motivation for this upcoming adventure. Could be funnnnnnnn, hey we have a newly published P.T. equivalent and all we get to see are sweeping vistas of mountains covered with trees, superb views of lakes, extinct volcanic cinder cones, an un-imaginble amount of wildlife streams and creeks merging with rivers as the journey to the sea begins.

 

Perhaps it might have been illegal a while back but it is O.K. now so enjoy the ride.

 

What? This series is not going to get shut down. I have no idea what makes you think that. So take your time, you can go whenever you want. B) And being local to the "Cheektowaga Bee" caches, there were only 10 of them (half of them archived), not "every newspaper rack in town". Even including other towns, there was never more than 50 Bee caches placed (many of which no longer exist) out of probably over 500 Bee newspaper box locations. I have no desire to count them, but you could if you really wanted: Bee Locations

Link to comment

The new wording ephasizes the goals of the saturation guidelines and removes any suggestions that there is some maximum number of caches that can be placed that would always trigger the guideline. The reviewers have stated many times that they prefer to publish caches and not have to reject them. They are now free to publish power trails so long as they are consistent with the stated goals of the staturation guideline.

 

I know this has been posted at least a couple of times in this thread but for reference:

 

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

 

 

As someone else wrote earlier, the inclusion of the word "Please" makes it a request, thus if someone chooses to ignore the request it is not, by itself, grounds for not publishing a cache, or even 1000 caches. Why include the sentence if non-compliance does not influence whether or not a cache will be published.

 

Now for the "stated goals".

 

"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."

 

What does "seek out new places". Technically, according to basic geometry, a line intercects another line at one point. A parallel line, no matter how close it is, intersects it at a different point. Does this mean that the two points are different, and thus one of them is a "new" place. We already know that caches can be placed, at a minimum, 528' apart. I've driven on roads for a 100 miles or me, and too me, it pretty much looked all the same. Is a cache 600' down a dead straight road in the middle of Nevada really a "new place"? Are two caches placed along a dirt road, both hidden on metal power poles *really* hidden in new places. Geometrically, yes, but I don't think that was the intent of the stated goal.

 

Then there is "rather than putting them in areas where caches already exist and to limit the number of caches hidden in a particular area". What constitutes an "area"? Is it a park? Is it a neighborhood? How about a town or a desert? I used to live in the San Francisco Bay Area. That a pretty large space and there are certainly a *lot* of caches in that area.

 

Next, there is "...especially by the same hider." We already know how to get around that one. Get several geocachers as a team and designate them as co-hiders and they can place 600 caches without violating the guideline.

 

The guideline ends with "Groundspeak may further restrict cache listings in areas where cache saturation becomes a concern." At one point does cache saturation occur?

 

So is this guideline useful as it's written now? It seems to me that a guideline isn't really useful unless examples can be cited where a cache, or in this case, a group of caches has met the guideline *and* examples of cache which have not. Does anyone know of any caches which have not been published specifically because they were not in compliance of the saturation guideline as it's currently written (other than not meeting the 528' guideline)?

Link to comment

I'm new to caching and stumbled across one NGA power trail while looking at the Mojave National Preserve area in prep for a camping trip. People do all things in different ways and that is something that enrichens the human race not detracts from it. I don't want to "power cache" but if others do thats fine with me, just please create a class for this type of cache that I may exclude from my pocket queries. Some folks don't like micros. Some folks don't like condoms left in caches, oops, wait, I did that before I knew about caching and what a family pursuit it was and won't do it again. Point is there are all views to be considered. Yep, it's that simple so don't hate others for being different just enact the easy fix. ;)

Link to comment

So it took 5 people to hide a 1/1.5 micro? ;)

Well, most of the teams that go on these runs for finding are 4-5 people(so I've heard) so it would stand to reason that the hiding team would be about the same size.

Nah, it just takes one guy if he's got one of these...

 

model_519_aaa.jpg

 

:laughing:

That's a lot of re-loading...wouldn't the chain fed version be better...attached to an ammo can??

Link to comment

That's a lot of re-loading...wouldn't the chain fed version be better...attached to an ammo can??

One of the UK Reviewers had a life-size Gatling film can gun TB mounted on a tripod, it was a serious geocaching tool!

 

I've lost the picture and can't find it online. ;)

Oh come on!

It isnt bad enough the things get thrown out moving cars and getting listed.

Now they can do a drive by PT? :laughing:

Whats next, a saturation power cluster bombing? :unsure:

Link to comment
An example of why a find count has become meaningless, IMO :)

Agreed.

 

I suspect, (sans any evidence), that those 5 cachers were not on hand for all 600+ placements.

My guess is, different members were given different stretches of road to cover.

Then they logged "Found It" on the whole shebang.

Just my guess though. :lol:

Link to comment
An example of why a find count has become meaningless, IMO :)

Agreed.

 

I suspect, (sans any evidence), that those 5 cachers were not on hand for all 600+ placements.

My guess is, different members were given different stretches of road to cover.

Then they logged "Found It" on the whole shebang.

Just my guess though. :lol:

Maybe they all signed the logs before they started for the day?

Link to comment
An example of why a find count has become meaningless, IMO :)

Agreed.

 

I suspect, (sans any evidence), that those 5 cachers were not on hand for all 600+ placements.

My guess is, different members were given different stretches of road to cover.

Then they logged "Found It" on the whole shebang.

Just my guess though. :lol:

Maybe they all signed the logs before they started for the day?

 

Perhpas. but then doesn't that play into CR's suspicions?

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
×
×
  • Create New...