Jump to content

A word in favor of power trails


Recommended Posts

how about creating a new attribute icon for caches being part of a power trail, and making that attribute mandatory for those caches? that way people could ignore them from in their PQs, or alternatively run PQs consisting only of power trails.

This wouldn't work for two reasons:

 

Whether a bunch of caches is a 'power trail' is in the eye of the beer holder.

 

What about power trails that spring up over time? Would you archive those caches that were along the trail prior to the new ones being placed simply because they didn't choose to to add the attribute simply because someone else hid a bunch of caches nearby?

 

I'm pretty sure when a reviewer looks in his queue and sees 100 caches waiting for approval and they're all 528" apart straight down a trail that they s/he is able to figure out it is a power trail.

 

Naturally occurring power trails building up over time by different owners are likely to have at least a bit of diversity.

 

Again, if there were not legitimate reasons for being able to filter caches, then why do TPTB give us so many options when building PQ's?

 

I like the idea of a power trail attribute as well. In the case where one cache owner submits 100, or even half that, all in a straight line it's pretty obvious that it's a "power trail". Yes, I realize that "power trail" is no longer in the lexicon of the Groundspeak site. Whatever you want to call it, I would think that most reviewer would recognize it for what it is and would ask that the power trail attribute be set.

 

That allows those interested in power trail to easily discover them and those that are not interested the ability to easily filter them out. I'd take it a step further though. I'd add a filter by attributes feature to the "Setup Notification" form. That way, if someone creates a powertrail of 200 caches in my area, I don't get 200 email message if I am filtering out powertrail caches.

 

In the case where a power trail builds up over time, you don't have the issue of a massive amount of email notifications, and trails that are built up over time are also found over time. A pocket query that simply filters out finds would look like any other PQ results if one has found caches in a power trail over time.

Wasn't this just discussed in one of the other recent threads about the CA/NV trail, and the consensus there was that it was a bad idea and would never work! I guess the motto is... if your idea fails, just bring it up in another thread. :)
Link to comment

Doesn't seem like an issue to me.

I hate it when Bittsen gets all logical and reasonable.

Personally, I hate it when Bittsen or you get all logical and reasonable!! Totally ruins my minute.

 

As you'll note from the word 'please', that bit of verbiage doesn't forbid anything.
Yeah, but who would want to risk offending the guidelines? Edited by knowschad
Link to comment

I asked this in another of the power trail threads and did not get an answer...

 

Those of you who want a power trail attribute, please define power trail.

 

It is what ever I define it as so I can whine, cry and demand WMD and attributes so I can deal with a perceived injury that in no way, even remotely, affects my mellow. :)

Link to comment

I asked this in another of the power trail threads and did not get an answer...

 

Those of you who want a power trail attribute, please define power trail.

 

As I eluded to in another thread, once you come up with a definition, you're just going to get submissions which circumvent the definition. If for example, it was defined as 25 or more caches in a line .2 of a mile or less apart,, someone is going to submit 24 caches, on a curve, then skip .3 of a mile, then submit 24 more. It's almost as if its a game to see how close one can approach a guideline without going over. As someone else suggested, sometimes cache placements can fall within the guidelines but still be detrimental to the game.

you don't understand. you seem to think that people place powertrail caches with the sole purpose of annoying other cachers who don't care about them. that's not quite the case. (i hope, anyway.)

 

an additional attribute wouldn't only be good for allowing people to ignore the caches, COs would actually benefit from having an additional attribute as well. there's plenty of people who fancy going for a power trail. with an additional attribute, they could gather a complete 500-cache power trail with a single PQ, without having their PQ results "polluted" by other, non-powertrail caches in the area.

 

either you go for a power trail, or you don't. when you do, you want all the caches from the power trail on your gps, and likely not much else. and when you don't, you maybe don't want any power trail caches on your gps, but rather everything else. both cases would be served with an additional attribute.

Link to comment

 

re: a power trail attribute

 

Wasn't this just discussed in one of the other recent threads about the CA/NV trail, and the consensus there was that it was a bad idea and would never work! I guess the motto is... if your idea fails, just bring it up in another thread. :)

 

Wait. A consensus was achieved in a thread on this forum?

 

It wasn't my idea, and there are so many threads going on about power trails right now I'm having a hard time keeping track what is being discussed where.

Link to comment

I asked this in another of the power trail threads and did not get an answer...

 

Those of you who want a power trail attribute, please define power trail.

 

As I eluded to in another thread, once you come up with a definition, you're just going to get submissions which circumvent the definition. If for example, it was defined as 25 or more caches in a line .2 of a mile or less apart,, someone is going to submit 24 caches, on a curve, then skip .3 of a mile, then submit 24 more. It's almost as if its a game to see how close one can approach a guideline without going over. As someone else suggested, sometimes cache placements can fall within the guidelines but still be detrimental to the game.

you don't understand. you seem to think that people place powertrail caches with the sole purpose of annoying other cachers who don't care about them. that's not quite the case. (i hope, anyway.)

 

an additional attribute wouldn't only be good for allowing people to ignore the caches, COs would actually benefit from having an additional attribute as well. there's plenty of people who fancy going for a power trail. with an additional attribute, they could gather a complete 500-cache power trail with a single PQ, without having their PQ results "polluted" by other, non-powertrail caches in the area.

 

either you go for a power trail, or you don't. when you do, you want all the caches from the power trail on your gps, and likely not much else. and when you don't, you maybe don't want any power trail caches on your gps, but rather everything else. both cases would be served with an additional attribute.

 

Actually, I think I understand power trails quite well and never even considered the possibility that the motivation for someone placing one would be to annoy other cachers.

 

I am actually in favor of the additional attribute and wrote about it earlier in this thread or perhaps in one of the other PT threads that's going on right now.

 

The point of my post was that too many of these guideline issue threads come down to how one defines the terms, rather than considering the spirit in which the guideline, or in this case, the use of an attribute was created.

Link to comment
Isn't it a bit rude to complain about a hide or series of hides (if listed accurately?) Isn't each hide a gift to be joyously accepted and appreciated, or at least politely accepted and hidden in the closet? What's wrong with a film can under a light post in a shopping mall parking lot if the listing says "film can" and the coordinates put it smack dab in the middle of a Wal-Mart lot?

No, it's not rude. Not even a bit. If you have an opinion about a particular subject, and there is public forum that supports that subject, you should feel perfectly free to express that opinion. As for the concept that each hide is a "gift", I can only surmise that some gifts are more desirable than others. If I am visiting your residence with my shar-pei, and he poos on your Oriental rug, I reckon I could say "Look! Leo just left you a present!", and hope for a reduction in angst since it was a "gift". As for what is wrong with the Wally World hide? It's strictly a matter of personal caching aesthetics. If you like containers with a history of not protecting their contents, hidden in uninspired locations, using a hide technique that is a void of creativity, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with them. If you like that same hide, copy/pasted 600+ times every 529', then there is absolutely nothing wrong with power trails. :)

Link to comment

I don't think there is nothing wrong at all with power trails. I think they are alot of fun.

 

I went to New Orleans at the end of November and seen the nearby power trail and just had to do it. At the time I had not seen anything like it before. It was very tempting and was alot of fun while vacationing. In a sense the power trail created something to do in an area that other wise would have been pointless to be in.

 

We had alot of fun completing the power trail and some fun stories even came out of it. It was a challenge to keep it together for many hours. I think power trails present their own challenge of caching in that aspect.

 

I think everbody should have their own choice. I think we should have alot of options in the game and caches like that should be available to those who do want to do power trails.

 

What would the world be without choices? Just plain boring.

Link to comment

I could just copy and paste the same reply dozens of times in several threads, but then I would just be condoning it..

 

Some powertrail would not necessarily be a bad thing, such as a dozen paddle to caches on a scenic waterway. There are plenty of kayak caches that get very little traffic, but a waterway powertrail of a few dozen small lock'n'locks tethered to trees would most likely lure more people out there. Or a powertrail of a few dozen caches that you need to rappel to.. Hmmm. I gotta get busy now. :)

Link to comment
Isn't it a bit rude to complain about a hide or series of hides (if listed accurately?) Isn't each hide a gift to be joyously accepted and appreciated, or at least politely accepted and hidden in the closet? What's wrong with a film can under a light post in a shopping mall parking lot if the listing says "film can" and the coordinates put it smack dab in the middle of a Wal-Mart lot?

No, it's not rude. Not even a bit. If you have an opinion about a particular subject, and there is public forum that supports that subject, you should feel perfectly free to express that opinion. As for the concept that each hide is a "gift", I can only surmise that some gifts are more desirable than others. If I am visiting your residence with my shar-pei, and he poos on your Oriental rug, I reckon I could say "Look! Leo just left you a present!", and hope for a reduction in angst since it was a "gift". As for what is wrong with the Wally World hide? It's strictly a matter of personal caching aesthetics. If you like containers with a history of not protecting their contents, hidden in uninspired locations, using a hide technique that is a void of creativity, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with them. If you like that same hide, copy/pasted 600+ times every 529', then there is absolutely nothing wrong with power trails. :)

Nothing wrong with a personal preference that says "I wouldn't be interested in finding 600+ caches that are essentially the same hide". But you need to remember there are many people who would be interested in such a hunt. Perhaps they see it as a day spent with a bunch of friends. Perhaps they see and adventure in driving across a isolated stretch of desert and find the idea of stopping ever 600 ft to get out of the car an stretch their idea of getting exercise. You don't really believe that everyone's idea of adventure in being "nipple deep in an alligator infested swamp", just because that is what you like?

 

My impression is that power trails are hidden by cachers who enjoy power trail caching. Sure, those people are in part motivated by finding as many caches as possible in a period of time. But what is so wrong with that being their motivation? Why is that any different then being motivated to find the cache farthest from the parking lot or ones that require braving the swamp with the alligators? Each person can have their own motivation for caching. Each person is entitle to hunt and to hide the kinds of caches they enjoy.

 

To the degree that a large number of caches may make it difficult to spot the few caches that meet Clan Riffsters preference, it does make sense to discuss ways to filter caches. A power trail attribute could be useful if we can define when it should be used.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

To the degree that a large number of caches may make it difficult to spot the few caches that meet Clan Riffsters preference, it does make sense to discuss ways to filter caches. A power trail attribute could be useful if we can define when it should be used.

 

If it is voluntary, then where's the down-side?

 

If you put out a power trail you are very likely to add the attribute because it will be a huge drawing card for those that like them. I know a number of cachers around here that would love it. It would bring people in from out of town to hunt them.

 

For those that are not interested, it gives them a convenient way to filter them out.

 

If it's voluntary, you let the hider decide whether or not it qualifies as a power trail.

 

As Liyah said:

 

What would the world be without choices? Just plain boring.

Link to comment
You don't really believe that everyone's idea of adventure in being "nipple deep in an alligator infested swamp", just because that is what you like?

Kinda makes me wonder if you even read what you copy/pasted.

Did you miss this part?

It's strictly a matter of personal caching aesthetics

I know lots of folks who go ga-ga over what I consider to be the lamest caches on the planet.

I see nothing wrong with that.

No one forces me to search for crappy caches.

No one forces the lame cache hunters to go after the kind that I like.

The whole game is voluntary.

 

And that's a good thing. :)

Link to comment
As you'll note from the word 'please', that bit of verbiage doesn't forbid anything.
on the other hand, it shows that the authors obviously don't want power trails around, at least that's the only reason i can think of why they would put that statement in. which makes me wonder, why change them from disallowed to allowed then?
One thing that I've learned over the years is that there are many things that TPTB personally believe are 'dumb', 'silly', or 'stupid', yet are still allowed because other people like them. For this, I am thankful.
Seems to me the best way to get those pesky power trails off your PQ's is to simply stop whining and go out and log them.
What?! And encourage more of these hides. Not a good idea. I think that's part of the reason there are so many micros, people assume that finders love them (ask sbell), but probably most people are just finding them to get them off their list.
Sbell fully supports your right to ignore caches that you don't wish to find.
Apparently not. That's all I've been asking for and you've been arguing against it at every turn.
Perhaps you could find a post where I have stated that I am against GeoBain filtering out caches that you don't enjoy. Otherwise, please do not post things that are untrue.
-never mind. Discussing the same thing in half a dozen threads is the very definition of pointless.
How 'bout just posting a funny picture once in a while, huh? :)
funny_1558.jpg
Link to comment
Isn't it a bit rude to complain about a hide or series of hides (if listed accurately?) Isn't each hide a gift to be joyously accepted and appreciated, or at least politely accepted and hidden in the closet? What's wrong with a film can under a light post in a shopping mall parking lot if the listing says "film can" and the coordinates put it smack dab in the middle of a Wal-Mart lot?

No, it's not rude. Not even a bit. If you have an opinion about a particular subject, and there is public forum that supports that subject, you should feel perfectly free to express that opinion. As for the concept that each hide is a "gift", I can only surmise that some gifts are more desirable than others. If I am visiting your residence with my shar-pei, and he poos on your Oriental rug, I reckon I could say "Look! Leo just left you a present!", and hope for a reduction in angst since it was a "gift". As for what is wrong with the Wally World hide? It's strictly a matter of personal caching aesthetics. If you like containers with a history of not protecting their contents, hidden in uninspired locations, using a hide technique that is a void of creativity, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with them. If you like that same hide, copy/pasted 600+ times every 529', then there is absolutely nothing wrong with power trails. :)

Personally, I think that drawing an analogy that any cache that you don't like equates to poo is rude. It does your argument no service.
Link to comment

I asked this in another of the power trail threads and did not get an answer...

 

Those of you who want a power trail attribute, please define power trail.

 

As I eluded to in another thread, once you come up with a definition, you're just going to get submissions which circumvent the definition. If for example, it was defined as 25 or more caches in a line .2 of a mile or less apart,, someone is going to submit 24 caches, on a curve, then skip .3 of a mile, then submit 24 more. It's almost as if its a game to see how close one can approach a guideline without going over. As someone else suggested, sometimes cache placements can fall within the guidelines but still be detrimental to the game.

I was working on the quantification of powertrail.

First thing, I asked myself why.

To prevent the over saturation of an area by one player.

So over saturation starts (but doesn't equal) when 2 or more cache radii touch or overlap from the same player.

Then I thought, ok so we need a new phrase to go along with it. Powercluster.

Next I figured 2 miles sounds like a reasonable distance to say this is where powertrail over saturation begins.

That would mean 10 to 20 caches within 2 miles from one player blocking placement from others.

Then I said "Scrap powertrail, because it is a powercluster."

Now we have powercluster.

Now we look at square footage blocked.

Seems to me that it is fare that one shouldn't block out more than one quarter of a square mile.

I asked my wife (who is not a fan) about it and she said "There you go being a hard a** again."

I doubled it.

To boil it down ultimately, power trails/clusters are just descriptors of over saturation and over saturation is touching or overlapping radii from one player which totals 0.5 square miles.

 

Now that is simple right?

1 cache = 875825.7663383769 square foot or 0.031415926536 square mile

If you place caches so that their radii kiss, it will take 8 caches to block that space.

Wait! You can place 7 caches so that 6 of them kiss 3 and one kisses 6 and then without much effort I can come in and place 6 more caches so that the center cache not only kisses 6 radii but overlaps with 6 more so effectually I haven't been blocked. So kissing radii no longer enters the equation.

Now the math starts to get complicated and a programmer has to step in because we cant expect every reviewer to know how let alone take the time to do it.

 

Lets say that a programmer made a filter for Google earth, a standalone program, or a sight upgrade that wont count a cache into the equation unless said caches radius overlaps another and the total is 0.5 square miles.

I have to ask, who is enough of a cry baby to complain if a person makes 2 clusters/trails that are 1 under the limit? Simply put, there is still room in between for another person to place a cache.

Link to comment

I asked this in another of the power trail threads and did not get an answer...

 

Those of you who want a power trail attribute, please define power trail.

 

As I eluded to in another thread, once you come up with a definition, you're just going to get submissions which circumvent the definition. If for example, it was defined as 25 or more caches in a line .2 of a mile or less apart,, someone is going to submit 24 caches, on a curve, then skip .3 of a mile, then submit 24 more. It's almost as if its a game to see how close one can approach a guideline without going over. As someone else suggested, sometimes cache placements can fall within the guidelines but still be detrimental to the game.

I was working on the quantification of powertrail.

First thing, I asked myself why.

To prevent the over saturation of an area by one player.

So over saturation starts (but doesn't equal) when 2 or more cache radii touch or overlap from the same player.

Then I thought, ok so we need a new phrase to go along with it. Powercluster.

Next I figured 2 miles sounds like a reasonable distance to say this is where powertrail over saturation begins.

That would mean 10 to 20 caches within 2 miles from one player blocking placement from others.

Then I said "Scrap powertrail, because it is a powercluster."

Now we have powercluster.

Now we look at square footage blocked.

Seems to me that it is fare that one shouldn't block out more than one quarter of a square mile.

I asked my wife (who is not a fan) about it and she said "There you go being a hard a** again."

I doubled it.

To boil it down ultimately, power trails/clusters are just descriptors of over saturation and over saturation is touching or overlapping radii from one player which totals 0.5 square miles.

 

Now that is simple right?

1 cache = 875825.7663383769 square foot or 0.031415926536 square mile

If you place caches so that their radii kiss, it will take 8 caches to block that space.

Wait! You can place 7 caches so that 6 of them kiss 3 and one kisses 6 and then without much effort I can come in and place 6 more caches so that the center cache not only kisses 6 radii but overlaps with 6 more so effectually I haven't been blocked. So kissing radii no longer enters the equation.

Now the math starts to get complicated and a programmer has to step in because we cant expect every reviewer to know how let alone take the time to do it.

 

Lets say that a programmer made a filter for Google earth, a standalone program, or a sight upgrade that wont count a cache into the equation unless said caches radius overlaps another and the total is 0.5 square miles.

I have to ask, who is enough of a cry baby to complain if a person makes 2 clusters/trails that are 1 under the limit? Simply put, there is still room in between for another person to place a cache.

Your math appears to be off.

 

You can squeeze 126 caches into a square mile. (Thanks Cachew Nut)

Link to comment

I asked this in another of the power trail threads and did not get an answer...

 

Those of you who want a power trail attribute, please define power trail.

 

As I eluded to in another thread, once you come up with a definition, you're just going to get submissions which circumvent the definition. If for example, it was defined as 25 or more caches in a line .2 of a mile or less apart,, someone is going to submit 24 caches, on a curve, then skip .3 of a mile, then submit 24 more. It's almost as if its a game to see how close one can approach a guideline without going over. As someone else suggested, sometimes cache placements can fall within the guidelines but still be detrimental to the game.

I was working on the quantification of powertrail.

First thing, I asked myself why.

To prevent the over saturation of an area by one player.

So over saturation starts (but doesn't equal) when 2 or more cache radii touch or overlap from the same player.

Then I thought, ok so we need a new phrase to go along with it. Powercluster.

Next I figured 2 miles sounds like a reasonable distance to say this is where powertrail over saturation begins.

That would mean 10 to 20 caches within 2 miles from one player blocking placement from others.

Then I said "Scrap powertrail, because it is a powercluster."

Now we have powercluster.

Now we look at square footage blocked.

Seems to me that it is fare that one shouldn't block out more than one quarter of a square mile.

I asked my wife (who is not a fan) about it and she said "There you go being a hard a** again."

I doubled it.

To boil it down ultimately, power trails/clusters are just descriptors of over saturation and over saturation is touching or overlapping radii from one player which totals 0.5 square miles.

 

Now that is simple right?

1 cache = 875825.7663383769 square foot or 0.031415926536 square mile

If you place caches so that their radii kiss, it will take 8 caches to block that space.

Wait! You can place 7 caches so that 6 of them kiss 3 and one kisses 6 and then without much effort I can come in and place 6 more caches so that the center cache not only kisses 6 radii but overlaps with 6 more so effectually I haven't been blocked. So kissing radii no longer enters the equation.

Now the math starts to get complicated and a programmer has to step in because we cant expect every reviewer to know how let alone take the time to do it.

 

Lets say that a programmer made a filter for Google earth, a standalone program, or a sight upgrade that wont count a cache into the equation unless said caches radius overlaps another and the total is 0.5 square miles.

I have to ask, who is enough of a cry baby to complain if a person makes 2 clusters/trails that are 1 under the limit? Simply put, there is still room in between for another person to place a cache.

Your math appears to be off.

 

You can squeeze 126 caches into a square mile. (Thanks Cachew Nut)

My math was not off, I was going on maximum distance apart only using square footage put out of play.

 

~~~~edit to add~~~

I'm sure you know how to calculate the area of a circle, so figure out the min max for yourself. IE minimum number of caches for a maximum of coverage.

 

BTW u soo av01ded my ul7ima7e p01n7.

Edited by Vater_Araignee
Link to comment

Or you could allow them, as is now the case, and create a new attribute, which is not currently the case, that the hider can choose voluntarily to use. That way those that think theiry're the best thing since sliced bread can find them easier and those that think they are like moldy bread can filter them out of their PQ's.

Edited by GeoBain
Link to comment

I asked this in another of the power trail threads and did not get an answer...

 

Those of you who want a power trail attribute, please define power trail.

 

As I eluded to in another thread, once you come up with a definition, you're just going to get submissions which circumvent the definition. If for example, it was defined as 25 or more caches in a line .2 of a mile or less apart,, someone is going to submit 24 caches, on a curve, then skip .3 of a mile, then submit 24 more. It's almost as if its a game to see how close one can approach a guideline without going over. As someone else suggested, sometimes cache placements can fall within the guidelines but still be detrimental to the game.

I was working on the quantification of powertrail.

First thing, I asked myself why.

To prevent the over saturation of an area by one player.

So over saturation starts (but doesn't equal) when 2 or more cache radii touch or overlap from the same player.

Then I thought, ok so we need a new phrase to go along with it. Powercluster.

Next I figured 2 miles sounds like a reasonable distance to say this is where powertrail over saturation begins.

That would mean 10 to 20 caches within 2 miles from one player blocking placement from others.

Then I said "Scrap powertrail, because it is a powercluster."

Now we have powercluster.

Now we look at square footage blocked.

Seems to me that it is fare that one shouldn't block out more than one quarter of a square mile.

I asked my wife (who is not a fan) about it and she said "There you go being a hard a** again."

I doubled it.

To boil it down ultimately, power trails/clusters are just descriptors of over saturation and over saturation is touching or overlapping radii from one player which totals 0.5 square miles.

 

Now that is simple right?

1 cache = 875825.7663383769 square foot or 0.031415926536 square mile

If you place caches so that their radii kiss, it will take 8 caches to block that space.

Wait! You can place 7 caches so that 6 of them kiss 3 and one kisses 6 and then without much effort I can come in and place 6 more caches so that the center cache not only kisses 6 radii but overlaps with 6 more so effectually I haven't been blocked. So kissing radii no longer enters the equation.

Now the math starts to get complicated and a programmer has to step in because we cant expect every reviewer to know how let alone take the time to do it.

 

Lets say that a programmer made a filter for Google earth, a standalone program, or a sight upgrade that wont count a cache into the equation unless said caches radius overlaps another and the total is 0.5 square miles.

I have to ask, who is enough of a cry baby to complain if a person makes 2 clusters/trails that are 1 under the limit? Simply put, there is still room in between for another person to place a cache.

Your math appears to be off.

 

You can squeeze 126 caches into a square mile. (Thanks Cachew Nut)

My math was not off, I was going on maximum distance apart only using square footage put out of play.

If you are going by maximum distance apart, you can't fit any caches into a square mile.
Link to comment

I asked this in another of the power trail threads and did not get an answer...

 

Those of you who want a power trail attribute, please define power trail.

 

As I eluded to in another thread, once you come up with a definition, you're just going to get submissions which circumvent the definition. If for example, it was defined as 25 or more caches in a line .2 of a mile or less apart,, someone is going to submit 24 caches, on a curve, then skip .3 of a mile, then submit 24 more. It's almost as if its a game to see how close one can approach a guideline without going over. As someone else suggested, sometimes cache placements can fall within the guidelines but still be detrimental to the game.

I was working on the quantification of powertrail.

First thing, I asked myself why.

To prevent the over saturation of an area by one player.

So over saturation starts (but doesn't equal) when 2 or more cache radii touch or overlap from the same player.

Then I thought, ok so we need a new phrase to go along with it. Powercluster.

Next I figured 2 miles sounds like a reasonable distance to say this is where powertrail over saturation begins.

That would mean 10 to 20 caches within 2 miles from one player blocking placement from others.

Then I said "Scrap powertrail, because it is a powercluster."

Now we have powercluster.

Now we look at square footage blocked.

Seems to me that it is fare that one shouldn't block out more than one quarter of a square mile.

I asked my wife (who is not a fan) about it and she said "There you go being a hard a** again."

I doubled it.

To boil it down ultimately, power trails/clusters are just descriptors of over saturation and over saturation is touching or overlapping radii from one player which totals 0.5 square miles.

 

Now that is simple right?

1 cache = 875825.7663383769 square foot or 0.031415926536 square mile

If you place caches so that their radii kiss, it will take 8 caches to block that space.

Wait! You can place 7 caches so that 6 of them kiss 3 and one kisses 6 and then without much effort I can come in and place 6 more caches so that the center cache not only kisses 6 radii but overlaps with 6 more so effectually I haven't been blocked. So kissing radii no longer enters the equation.

Now the math starts to get complicated and a programmer has to step in because we cant expect every reviewer to know how let alone take the time to do it.

 

Lets say that a programmer made a filter for Google earth, a standalone program, or a sight upgrade that wont count a cache into the equation unless said caches radius overlaps another and the total is 0.5 square miles.

I have to ask, who is enough of a cry baby to complain if a person makes 2 clusters/trails that are 1 under the limit? Simply put, there is still room in between for another person to place a cache.

Your math appears to be off.

 

You can squeeze 126 caches into a square mile. (Thanks Cachew Nut)

My math was not off, I was going on maximum distance apart only using square footage put out of play.

If you are going by maximum distance apart, you can't fit any caches into a square mile.

Typical of you.

Link to comment
I asked this in another of the power trail threads and did not get an answer...

 

Those of you who want a power trail attribute, please define power trail.

As I eluded to in another thread, once you come up with a definition, you're just going to get submissions which circumvent the definition. If for example, it was defined as 25 or more caches in a line .2 of a mile or less apart,, someone is going to submit 24 caches, on a curve, then skip .3 of a mile, then submit 24 more. It's almost as if its a game to see how close one can approach a guideline without going over. As someone else suggested, sometimes cache placements can fall within the guidelines but still be detrimental to the game.
I was working on the quantification of powertrail.

First thing, I asked myself why.

To prevent the over saturation of an area by one player.

So over saturation starts (but doesn't equal) when 2 or more cache radii touch or overlap from the same player.

Then I thought, ok so we need a new phrase to go along with it. Powercluster.

Next I figured 2 miles sounds like a reasonable distance to say this is where powertrail over saturation begins.

That would mean 10 to 20 caches within 2 miles from one player blocking placement from others.

Then I said "Scrap powertrail, because it is a powercluster."

Now we have powercluster.

Now we look at square footage blocked.

Seems to me that it is fare that one shouldn't block out more than one quarter of a square mile.

I asked my wife (who is not a fan) about it and she said "There you go being a hard a** again."

I doubled it.

To boil it down ultimately, power trails/clusters are just descriptors of over saturation and over saturation is touching or overlapping radii from one player which totals 0.5 square miles.

 

Now that is simple right?

1 cache = 875825.7663383769 square foot or 0.031415926536 square mile

If you place caches so that their radii kiss, it will take 8 caches to block that space.

Wait! You can place 7 caches so that 6 of them kiss 3 and one kisses 6 and then without much effort I can come in and place 6 more caches so that the center cache not only kisses 6 radii but overlaps with 6 more so effectually I haven't been blocked. So kissing radii no longer enters the equation.

Now the math starts to get complicated and a programmer has to step in because we cant expect every reviewer to know how let alone take the time to do it.

 

Lets say that a programmer made a filter for Google earth, a standalone program, or a sight upgrade that wont count a cache into the equation unless said caches radius overlaps another and the total is 0.5 square miles.

I have to ask, who is enough of a cry baby to complain if a person makes 2 clusters/trails that are 1 under the limit? Simply put, there is still room in between for another person to place a cache.

Your math appears to be off.

 

You can squeeze 126 caches into a square mile. (Thanks Cachew Nut)

My math was not off, I was going on maximum distance apart only using square footage put out of play.
If you are going by maximum distance apart, you can't fit any caches into a square mile.
Typical of you.
Let's recap:
  • You post a theory that states that the maximum number of caches in a square mile is 8.
  • The actual number of caches that can occupy this space is 126.
  • I dare to correct your math.
  • You get pissy and I'm the bad guy.

Whatever.

Link to comment

Or you could allow them, as is now the case, and create a new attribute, which is not currently the case, that the hider can choose voluntarily to use. That way those that think theiry're the best thing since sliced bread can find them easier and those that think they are like moldy bread can filter them out of their PQ's.

 

And what are you going to do about those that place what you consider a power trail and don't use the attribute? Or those that put out three caches near each other and do use the attribute?

 

Wheelchair acessable comes to mind.

Link to comment

Or you could allow them, as is now the case, and create a new attribute, which is not currently the case, that the hider can choose voluntarily to use. That way those that think theiry're the best thing since sliced bread can find them easier and those that think they are like moldy bread can filter them out of their PQ's.

 

And what are you going to do about those that place what you consider a power trail and don't use the attribute? Or those that put out three caches near each other and do use the attribute?

 

Wheelchair acessable comes to mind.

According to the other thread, they would demand that these 'voluntary' attributes be used (presumably only as they define).

Link to comment
I asked this in another of the power trail threads and did not get an answer...

 

Those of you who want a power trail attribute, please define power trail.

As I eluded to in another thread, once you come up with a definition, you're just going to get submissions which circumvent the definition. If for example, it was defined as 25 or more caches in a line .2 of a mile or less apart,, someone is going to submit 24 caches, on a curve, then skip .3 of a mile, then submit 24 more. It's almost as if its a game to see how close one can approach a guideline without going over. As someone else suggested, sometimes cache placements can fall within the guidelines but still be detrimental to the game.
I was working on the quantification of powertrail.

First thing, I asked myself why.

To prevent the over saturation of an area by one player.

So over saturation starts (but doesn't equal) when 2 or more cache radii touch or overlap from the same player.

Then I thought, ok so we need a new phrase to go along with it. Powercluster.

Next I figured 2 miles sounds like a reasonable distance to say this is where powertrail over saturation begins.

That would mean 10 to 20 caches within 2 miles from one player blocking placement from others.

Then I said "Scrap powertrail, because it is a powercluster."

Now we have powercluster.

Now we look at square footage blocked.

Seems to me that it is fare that one shouldn't block out more than one quarter of a square mile.

I asked my wife (who is not a fan) about it and she said "There you go being a hard a** again."

I doubled it.

To boil it down ultimately, power trails/clusters are just descriptors of over saturation and over saturation is touching or overlapping radii from one player which totals 0.5 square miles.

 

Now that is simple right?

1 cache = 875825.7663383769 square foot or 0.031415926536 square mile

If you place caches so that their radii kiss, it will take 8 caches to block that space.

Wait! You can place 7 caches so that 6 of them kiss 3 and one kisses 6 and then without much effort I can come in and place 6 more caches so that the center cache not only kisses 6 radii but overlaps with 6 more so effectually I haven't been blocked. So kissing radii no longer enters the equation.

Now the math starts to get complicated and a programmer has to step in because we cant expect every reviewer to know how let alone take the time to do it.

 

Lets say that a programmer made a filter for Google earth, a standalone program, or a sight upgrade that wont count a cache into the equation unless said caches radius overlaps another and the total is 0.5 square miles.

I have to ask, who is enough of a cry baby to complain if a person makes 2 clusters/trails that are 1 under the limit? Simply put, there is still room in between for another person to place a cache.

Your math appears to be off.

 

You can squeeze 126 caches into a square mile. (Thanks Cachew Nut)

My math was not off, I was going on maximum distance apart only using square footage put out of play.
If you are going by maximum distance apart, you can't fit any caches into a square mile.
Typical of you.
Let's recap:
  • You post a theory that states that the maximum number of caches in a square mile is 8.
  • The actual number of caches that can occupy this space is 126.
  • I dare to correct your math.
  • You get pissy and I'm the bad guy.

Whatever.

I suggest you reread it.

Then reread and attempt to try to understand exactly what is there rather than imagine some statement that I did not make.

The reread and know that your imaginary statement does not exist.

And you are still dodging my point.

BTW your the one that got pissy when I said you are wrong and that, my not friend, is typical you.

Link to comment

Or you could allow them, as is now the case, and create a new attribute, which is not currently the case, that the hider can choose voluntarily to use. That way those that think theiry're the best thing since sliced bread can find them easier and those that think they are like moldy bread can filter them out of their PQ's.

 

And what are you going to do about those that place what you consider a power trail and don't use the attribute? Or those that put out three caches near each other and do use the attribute?

 

Wheelchair acessable comes to mind.

 

Not a thing.

 

I use a powerchair while caching. A lot of people still use terrain 1 for caches that are clearly not wheelchair accessible. I live with it.

 

Very few people actually label their wheelchair accessible caches with the wheelchair attribute. I live with it.

 

But for those that do use it, it sure is nice. For people like me, it puts their caches further up the list of caches I want to find.

 

According to the other thread, they would demand that these 'voluntary' attributes be used (presumably only as they define).

 

Point me to where I have demanded such.

Link to comment

Point me to where I have demanded such.

 

Hey, that sounded like a DEMAND! :) Apparently on the moon, were logic comes from and is made of blue cheese, if you add the word "please" a sentence is a request. ANY sentence that is lacking the magic word "please" is a DEMAND.

 

At least that's what I'm taking away from the last week of forum activity.

Link to comment

Point me to where I have demanded such.

 

Hey, that sounded like a DEMAND! :) Apparently on the moon, were logic comes from and is made of blue cheese, if you add the word "please" a sentence is a request. ANY sentence that is lacking the magic word "please" is a DEMAND.

 

At least that's what I'm taking away from the last week of forum activity.

 

And the cool thing about it is that he still has a choice to point me there if he can find it, deflect my demand/request with some more diatribe, or even to not respond at all. There is absolutely no way I can force him to post.

 

Just ask AVDezign. He still refuses to post in a certain thread. :blink:

Link to comment
I asked this in another of the power trail threads and did not get an answer...

 

Those of you who want a power trail attribute, please define power trail.

As I eluded to in another thread, once you come up with a definition, you're just going to get submissions which circumvent the definition. If for example, it was defined as 25 or more caches in a line .2 of a mile or less apart,, someone is going to submit 24 caches, on a curve, then skip .3 of a mile, then submit 24 more. It's almost as if its a game to see how close one can approach a guideline without going over. As someone else suggested, sometimes cache placements can fall within the guidelines but still be detrimental to the game.
I was working on the quantification of powertrail.

First thing, I asked myself why.

To prevent the over saturation of an area by one player.

So over saturation starts (but doesn't equal) when 2 or more cache radii touch or overlap from the same player.

Then I thought, ok so we need a new phrase to go along with it. Powercluster.

Next I figured 2 miles sounds like a reasonable distance to say this is where powertrail over saturation begins.

That would mean 10 to 20 caches within 2 miles from one player blocking placement from others.

Then I said "Scrap powertrail, because it is a powercluster."

Now we have powercluster.

Now we look at square footage blocked.

Seems to me that it is fare that one shouldn't block out more than one quarter of a square mile.

I asked my wife (who is not a fan) about it and she said "There you go being a hard a** again."

I doubled it.

To boil it down ultimately, power trails/clusters are just descriptors of over saturation and over saturation is touching or overlapping radii from one player which totals 0.5 square miles.

 

Now that is simple right?

1 cache = 875825.7663383769 square foot or 0.031415926536 square mile

If you place caches so that their radii kiss, it will take 8 caches to block that space.

Wait! You can place 7 caches so that 6 of them kiss 3 and one kisses 6 and then without much effort I can come in and place 6 more caches so that the center cache not only kisses 6 radii but overlaps with 6 more so effectually I haven't been blocked. So kissing radii no longer enters the equation.

Now the math starts to get complicated and a programmer has to step in because we cant expect every reviewer to know how let alone take the time to do it.

 

Lets say that a programmer made a filter for Google earth, a standalone program, or a sight upgrade that wont count a cache into the equation unless said caches radius overlaps another and the total is 0.5 square miles.

I have to ask, who is enough of a cry baby to complain if a person makes 2 clusters/trails that are 1 under the limit? Simply put, there is still room in between for another person to place a cache.

Your math appears to be off.

 

You can squeeze 126 caches into a square mile. (Thanks Cachew Nut)

My math was not off, I was going on maximum distance apart only using square footage put out of play.
If you are going by maximum distance apart, you can't fit any caches into a square mile.
Typical of you.
Let's recap:
  • You post a theory that states that the maximum number of caches in a square mile is 8.
  • The actual number of caches that can occupy this space is 126.
  • I dare to correct your math.
  • You get pissy and I'm the bad guy.

Whatever.

You're quitting already? The thread is only quoted 7 levels deep. I know you guys can do a lot better than that! How about a "did you read what I wrote?" or two, maybe?
Link to comment

You're quitting already? The thread is only quoted 7 levels deep. I know you guys can do a lot better than that! How about a "did you read what I wrote?" or two, maybe?

I have seen that posted to spell111 enough times, so rather than ask if he did I suggested several rereads. :D and made a recommendation or two.

Then somebody made me understand what I'm dealing with so I'm going Weird Al.

 

~~~ edit to remove extra ~~~

Edited by Vater_Araignee
Link to comment
I asked this in another of the power trail threads and did not get an answer...

 

Those of you who want a power trail attribute, please define power trail.

As I eluded to in another thread, once you come up with a definition, you're just going to get submissions which circumvent the definition. If for example, it was defined as 25 or more caches in a line .2 of a mile or less apart,, someone is going to submit 24 caches, on a curve, then skip .3 of a mile, then submit 24 more. It's almost as if its a game to see how close one can approach a guideline without going over. As someone else suggested, sometimes cache placements can fall within the guidelines but still be detrimental to the game.
I was working on the quantification of powertrail.

First thing, I asked myself why.

To prevent the over saturation of an area by one player.

So over saturation starts (but doesn't equal) when 2 or more cache radii touch or overlap from the same player.

Then I thought, ok so we need a new phrase to go along with it. Powercluster.

Next I figured 2 miles sounds like a reasonable distance to say this is where powertrail over saturation begins.

That would mean 10 to 20 caches within 2 miles from one player blocking placement from others.

Then I said "Scrap powertrail, because it is a powercluster."

Now we have powercluster.

Now we look at square footage blocked.

Seems to me that it is fare that one shouldn't block out more than one quarter of a square mile.

I asked my wife (who is not a fan) about it and she said "There you go being a hard a** again."

I doubled it.

To boil it down ultimately, power trails/clusters are just descriptors of over saturation and over saturation is touching or overlapping radii from one player which totals 0.5 square miles.

 

Now that is simple right?

1 cache = 875825.7663383769 square foot or 0.031415926536 square mile

If you place caches so that their radii kiss, it will take 8 caches to block that space.

Wait! You can place 7 caches so that 6 of them kiss 3 and one kisses 6 and then without much effort I can come in and place 6 more caches so that the center cache not only kisses 6 radii but overlaps with 6 more so effectually I haven't been blocked. So kissing radii no longer enters the equation.

Now the math starts to get complicated and a programmer has to step in because we cant expect every reviewer to know how let alone take the time to do it.

 

Lets say that a programmer made a filter for Google earth, a standalone program, or a sight upgrade that wont count a cache into the equation unless said caches radius overlaps another and the total is 0.5 square miles.

I have to ask, who is enough of a cry baby to complain if a person makes 2 clusters/trails that are 1 under the limit? Simply put, there is still room in between for another person to place a cache.

Your math appears to be off.

 

You can squeeze 126 caches into a square mile. (Thanks Cachew Nut)

My math was not off, I was going on maximum distance apart only using square footage put out of play.
If you are going by maximum distance apart, you can't fit any caches into a square mile.
Typical of you.
Let's recap:
  • You post a theory that states that the maximum number of caches in a square mile is 8.
  • The actual number of caches that can occupy this space is 126.
  • I dare to correct your math.
  • You get pissy and I'm the bad guy.

Whatever.

I suggest you reread it.

Then reread and attempt to try to understand exactly what is there rather than imagine some statement that I did not make.

The reread and know that your imaginary statement does not exist.

And you are still dodging my point.

BTW your the one that got pissy when I said you are wrong and that, my not friend, is typical you.

This is the part that I was responding to:

1 cache = 875825.7663383769 square foot or 0.031415926536 square mile

If you place caches so that their radii kiss, it will take 8 caches to block that space.

You appear to be discussing caches placed per square mile (since you refer to 'square' area.

 

Also, what part of your point did I dodge? Did I miss a question that was posed to me?

 

BTW, I bolded the bit where you appear to have gotten irritable.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
1 cache = 875825.7663383769 square foot or 0.031415926536 square mile

If you place caches so that their radii kiss, it will take 8 caches to block that space.

You appear to be discussing caches placed per square mile (since you refer to 'square' area.

 

Also, what part of your point did I dodge? Did I miss a question that was posed to me?

 

BTW, I bolded the bit where you appear to have gotten irritable.

So exactly how does 0.031415926536 square mile equal 1 square mile?

I wasn't being irritable I was stating a fact. Twisting and ignoring is typical behavior for you. It is also typical behavior for a troll.

 

OK, now I am going Weird Al and I'll stop feeding you.

Link to comment
I asked this in another of the power trail threads and did not get an answer...

 

Those of you who want a power trail attribute, please define power trail.

As I eluded to in another thread, once you come up with a definition, you're just going to get submissions which circumvent the definition. If for example, it was defined as 25 or more caches in a line .2 of a mile or less apart,, someone is going to submit 24 caches, on a curve, then skip .3 of a mile, then submit 24 more. It's almost as if its a game to see how close one can approach a guideline without going over. As someone else suggested, sometimes cache placements can fall within the guidelines but still be detrimental to the game.
I was working on the quantification of powertrail.

First thing, I asked myself why.

To prevent the over saturation of an area by one player.

So over saturation starts (but doesn't equal) when 2 or more cache radii touch or overlap from the same player.

Then I thought, ok so we need a new phrase to go along with it. Powercluster.

Next I figured 2 miles sounds like a reasonable distance to say this is where powertrail over saturation begins.

That would mean 10 to 20 caches within 2 miles from one player blocking placement from others.

Then I said "Scrap powertrail, because it is a powercluster."

Now we have powercluster.

Now we look at square footage blocked.

Seems to me that it is fare that one shouldn't block out more than one quarter of a square mile.

I asked my wife (who is not a fan) about it and she said "There you go being a hard a** again."

I doubled it.

To boil it down ultimately, power trails/clusters are just descriptors of over saturation and over saturation is touching or overlapping radii from one player which totals 0.5 square miles.

 

Now that is simple right?

1 cache = 875825.7663383769 square foot or 0.031415926536 square mile

If you place caches so that their radii kiss, it will take 8 caches to block that space.

Wait! You can place 7 caches so that 6 of them kiss 3 and one kisses 6 and then without much effort I can come in and place 6 more caches so that the center cache not only kisses 6 radii but overlaps with 6 more so effectually I haven't been blocked. So kissing radii no longer enters the equation.

Now the math starts to get complicated and a programmer has to step in because we cant expect every reviewer to know how let alone take the time to do it.

 

Lets say that a programmer made a filter for Google earth, a standalone program, or a sight upgrade that wont count a cache into the equation unless said caches radius overlaps another and the total is 0.5 square miles.

I have to ask, who is enough of a cry baby to complain if a person makes 2 clusters/trails that are 1 under the limit? Simply put, there is still room in between for another person to place a cache.

Your math appears to be off.

 

You can squeeze 126 caches into a square mile. (Thanks Cachew Nut)

My math was not off, I was going on maximum distance apart only using square footage put out of play.
If you are going by maximum distance apart, you can't fit any caches into a square mile.
Typical of you.
Let's recap:

 

* You post a theory that states that the maximum number of caches in a square mile is 8.

* The actual number of caches that can occupy this space is 126.

* I dare to correct your math.

* You get pissy and I'm the bad guy.

 

Whatever.

I suggest you reread it.

Then reread and attempt to try to understand exactly what is there rather than imagine some statement that I did not make.

The reread and know that your imaginary statement does not exist.

And you are still dodging my point.

BTW your the one that got pissy when I said you are wrong and that, my not friend, is typical you.

This is the part that I was responding to:

1 cache = 875825.7663383769 square foot or 0.031415926536 square mile

If you place caches so that their radii kiss, it will take 8 caches to block that space.

You appear to be discussing caches placed per square mile (since you refer to 'square' area.

 

Also, what part of your point did I dodge? Did I miss a question that was posed to me?

 

BTW, I bolded the bit where you appear to have gotten irritable.

 

Thanks for bolding the part where he appears to have gotten irritable. I was wondering just where that happened. Without that piece of information, this thread was starting to seem a bit off-topic, but I guess we're OK now.

 

Oh yeah... thanks, too for going back to the nested quotes, even if you didn't really nest it any more.

 

[Edit: Gosh durnit!! and here I go and break the awesome quote structure!]

Edited by knowschad
Link to comment

I must be having an off day.

My math says that a square mile, staying within the guidelines, would only contain 100 caches if they were spaced exactly 528 feet apart.

 

Geez, there you go, trying to apply some common sense! Actually, you can squeeze a little bit more than 100 in, but you have to be pretty clever.

 

Figure you have a row of ten caches 528' apart, oriented east-to-west "kissing" the south side of the "box". You could just stack up nine more rows of ten to get your 100. Or you could set a row of nine caches 457' north, then a row of ten another 457', and so on. You would then have 105 caches in your mile-square box. (You can find ways of getting maybe 18 more caches in the mile square box, but those additional caches would exclude area outside the box, so I'm not counting those.)

 

Of course this is sort of a dumb exercise. I'm sure SOMEONE will find a place out in the middle of the desert and do a "power grid" of sorts. I have a hard time getting exorcised about "power trails". The one in CZ/NV is a little gratuitous, but I think you are all neglecting the terrain and remoteness of that bad boy. My only worry is that it will kill someone before anyone comes close to hitting them all in a day.

Link to comment

I must be having an off day.

My math says that a square mile, staying within the guidelines, would only contain 100 caches if they were spaced exactly 528 feet apart.

 

Geez, there you go, trying to apply some common sense! Actually, you can squeeze a little bit more than 100 in, but you have to be pretty clever.

 

Figure you have a row of ten caches 528' apart, oriented east-to-west "kissing" the south side of the "box". You could just stack up nine more rows of ten to get your 100. Or you could set a row of nine caches 457' north, then a row of ten another 457', and so on. You would then have 105 caches in your mile-square box. (You can find ways of getting maybe 18 more caches in the mile square box, but those additional caches would exclude area outside the box, so I'm not counting those.)

 

Of course this is sort of a dumb exercise. I'm sure SOMEONE will find a place out in the middle of the desert and do a "power grid" of sorts. I have a hard time getting exorcised about "power trails". The one in CZ/NV is a little gratuitous, but I think you are all neglecting the terrain and remoteness of that bad boy. My only worry is that it will kill someone before anyone comes close to hitting them all in a day.

What's wrong with my power grid idea?

 

And, as far as the math goes, technically you could have 121 caches in a square mile IF you cheated a little and placed one or more a few millimeters closer than 528 feet apart. That would make 11 across and 11 down for a total of 121 caches. But you would be cheating, technically speaking.

Link to comment

Figure you have a row of ten caches 528' apart, oriented east-to-west "kissing" the south side of the "box"...

I've wanted to do something like this since I started geocaching!

 

I wanted to put a cache on or near every intersection of a 10-block grid, incorporating the existing caches.

 

Most Birmingham streets are laid out in grid fashion and fairly evenly spaced... Avenues run east-west and Streets run north-south, and north Birmingham and south Birmingham are divided by a railroad, so you could actually have two of these 10-block grids... a North Power Grid and a South! :D

 

I may have to ponder that some more now! :(

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...