E.T. Highway Power Trail

[+geodarts]

The work and planning that went into this monster was spectacular.

 

Maybe we have different definitions of "Spectacular"?

 

On a current trip to the area, I did some repetitive caching and appreciate that it took a lot of work to set up the ET trail. The planing was evident and I assume the owners are committed to maintaining them. I did wonder if the highway department signed off on them - in my area, highway workers have been known to call out the bomb squad for film canisters placed by the side of the road. Things are probably different in the desert and the people at the Inn certainly appreciated the visitors that the series has brought to the area.

 

But on the other hand I just got back from finding a single virtual at Toroweap, 60 mikes from anywhere, 3000 feet above the bottom of the Grand Canyon. That cache was much more logistically challenging, much more rewarding, and much more spectacular.

 

For people who like repetition it's hard to beat the trail. But I am glad our experience was not limited to that. The highlight of our trp to Rachel was not the numbers on the trail, those that we did or those we passed by. Rather it was the caches in the Valley of Fire, which we did the same afternoon. For me, they were much more spectacular.

 

Still, both types of caches might have their place and I am glad for the time spent at each. Ultimately people can decide where they want to put their energy and what is important to them.

Edited June 30, 2010 by mulvaney

[+DonB]

We've heard about it already, but its now a reality. The E.T. Highway Highway Invasion Event and powertrail!

 

GC282F4 E.T. 163 is a good one to use as a centerpoint when viewing the map. I can zoom out to 2 miles before I exceed the 500 cache limit.

It must have something to do with their last site update, I just went to take a look and the map doesn't work for me anymore. Up until this morning I could click on the green icon on the lower map and that would bring it up almost full page and let me zoom in and out showing me the surrounding caches. Now it doesn't make the window any bigger, will let me zoom in and out, but won't show me any additional caches.

[+humboldt flier]

We've heard about it already, but its now a reality. The E.T. Highway Highway Invasion Event and powertrail!

 

GC282F4 E.T. 163 is a good one to use as a centerpoint when viewing the map. I can zoom out to 2 miles before I exceed the 500 cache limit.

It must have something to do with their last site update, I just went to take a look and the map doesn't work for me anymore. Up until this morning I could click on the green icon on the lower map and that would bring it up almost full page and let me zoom in and out showing me the surrounding caches. Now it doesn't make the window any bigger, will let me zoom in and out, but won't show me any additional caches.

 

Indeed,

Trying to run a PQ yesterday from Tonopah, Nv to Warm Springs, Nv and the route " delineator " started @ Tonopah bypassed Warm Springs, hung a left turn and headed up Hwy 6/95 to the northeastern portion of Nevada. With a lot of fiddling and diddling co-operation was had, however.

 

Site issues? Mapping program issues?

[knowschad]

We've heard about it already, but its now a reality. The E.T. Highway Highway Invasion Event and powertrail!

 

GC282F4 E.T. 163 is a good one to use as a centerpoint when viewing the map. I can zoom out to 2 miles before I exceed the 500 cache limit.

It must have something to do with their last site update, I just went to take a look and the map doesn't work for me anymore. Up until this morning I could click on the green icon on the lower map and that would bring it up almost full page and let me zoom in and out showing me the surrounding caches. Now it doesn't make the window any bigger, will let me zoom in and out, but won't show me any additional caches.

Its a new map, with a new purpose. If you want the old map, use the Geocaching.com Google map link on the left.

[Clan Riffster]

Its a new map, with a new purpose.

It's a vast, Left Wing conspiracy!

[jholly]

Its a new map, with a new purpose.

It's a vast, Left Wing conspiracy!

 

Left wing !?! I thought it was a Right Wing conspiracy!

[knowschad]

Its a new map, with a new purpose.

It's a vast, Left Wing conspiracy!

Shhhh... we mustn't let it be known that it is really the New World Order map.

[+Sioneva]

Its a new map, with a new purpose.

It's a vast, Left Wing conspiracy!

Shhhh... we mustn't let it be known that it is really the New World Order map.

 

Yikes, I'm having West Wing flashbacks. It's not the Piers Projection map, is it? Because that would freak me out...

[+Castle Mischief]

Thanks for your input and I support your right to have input.

 

I served and was shot up and have a little purple item for display, so I will exercise a modicum of freedom of speech. I believe that I have earned it.

 

Again, thanks for your input. Further, if you served, I thank you for your service.

 

I see now. Running a power trail is like being shot. It's all so very clear to me now.*

 

Freedom of speech is one matter, gross exaggeration to the point of absurdity for the purpose of establishing monster "rocked-out" vibe to an activity that, while fun and enjoyable for some, is not "rocked-out" or even "FREAKING AWESOME DOOOOOOOOD!!!!!1" is another. See also X-TREME SPORTS.

 

 

 

*There's a great marketing campaign idea if I've ever heard of one. All we need are some black banners across every cache page, a new icon, and maybe even some trackable blinky nanos to top it off! "Experience the THRILL of danger! Just like being shot by enemy fire!"

Edited July 1, 2010 by Castle Mischief

[knowschad]

I see now. Running a power trail is like being shot. It's all so very clear to me now.*

Maybe its more like this to him:

 

Edited July 1, 2010 by knowschad

[+humboldt flier]

Thanks for your input and I support your right to have input.

 

I served and was shot up and have a little purple item for display, so I will exercise a modicum of freedom of speech. I believe that I have earned it.

 

Again, thanks for your input. Further, if you served, I thank you for your service.

 

I see now. Running a power trail is like being shot. It's all so very clear to me now.*

 

Freedom of speech is one matter, gross exaggeration to the point of absurdity for the purpose of establishing monster "rocked-out" vibe to an activity that, while fun and enjoyable for some, is not "rocked-out" or even "FREAKING AWESOME DOOOOOOOOD!!!!!1" is another. See also X-TREME SPORTS.

 

?

 

 

*There's a great marketing campaign idea if I've ever heard of one. All we need are some black banners across every cache page, a new icon, and maybe even some trackable blinky nanos to top it off! "Experience the THRILL of danger! Just like being shot by enemy fire!"

[+humboldt flier]

I will be on the trail 7/22 & 7/23 if anyone cares to drop by and have a civil discussion.

[knowschad]

I will be on the trail 7/22 & 7/23 if anyone cares to drop by and have a civil discussion.

Sorry, I fixed the quotes. If you were talking to me, my post is now more civil.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I see now. Running a power trail is like being shot. It's all so very clear to me now.*

Maybe its more like this to him:

 

 

I loved that movie. Private Benjamin, Right?

[+Team Cotati]

I will be on the trail 7/22 & 7/23 if anyone cares to drop by and have a civil discussion.

 

Dude, I'd love to meet you some day and if I lived just a bit closer, I'd go there but I gotta tell ya, not in summer. Just out of curiosity, what are you expecting the temps to be then?

 

About how long of a drive from Burbank?

 

And as for these types to drop by for a discussion, civil or otherwise? Right, and I am going to trip over a wheelbarrow full of gold bars walking up my driveway tonight too.

 

Good luck and thanks.

 

And another thing, going all the way back to post #1 up there. How is it and why is it that Chaddy felt compelled to co-opt the E.T. Power Trail thingy in the first place? Struck me a a bit odd from the beginning.

 

Was Chaddy like some sort of consultant or adviser on the project?

Edited July 2, 2010 by Team Cotati

[+humboldt flier]

I will be on the trail 7/22 & 7/23 if anyone cares to drop by and have a civil discussion.

 

Dude, I'd love to meet you some day and if I lived just a bit closer, I go there but I gotta tell ya, not in summer. Just out of curiosity, what are you expecting the temps to be then?

 

About how long of a drive from Burbank?

 

And as for these types to drop by for a discussion, civil or otherwise? Right, and I am going to trip over a wheelbarrow full of gold bars walking up my driveway tonight too.

 

Good luck and thanks.

 

I am expecting temps in the 110 vicinity. Had hoped to catch Mother nature away from the thermostat. However, the long range progs are hinting to a brief respite ... hoping for it but certainly not holding my breath. Burbank!!! I figured you for Sonoma County. We are looking at an 8 hr run from RDD > SAC > RNO then to Falon and into the furnace.

[+Team Cotati]

I will be on the trail 7/22 & 7/23 if anyone cares to drop by and have a civil discussion.

 

Dude, I'd love to meet you some day and if I lived just a bit closer, I go there but I gotta tell ya, not in summer. Just out of curiosity, what are you expecting the temps to be then?

 

About how long of a drive from Burbank?

 

And as for these types to drop by for a discussion, civil or otherwise? Right, and I am going to trip over a wheelbarrow full of gold bars walking up my driveway tonight too.

 

Good luck and thanks.

 

I am expecting temps in the 110 vicinity. Had hoped to catch Mother nature away from the thermostat. However, the long range progs are hinting to a brief respite ... hoping for it but certainly not holding my breath. Burbank!!! I figured you for Sonoma County. We are looking at an 8 hr run from RDD > SAC > RNO then to Falon and into the furnace.

 

Well I do live up that way but I also from time to time visit the Burbank area. Too bad those E.T's seem so partial to the boonies.

[+humboldt flier]

I will be on the trail 7/22 & 7/23 if anyone cares to drop by and have a civil discussion.

 

Dude, I'd love to meet you some day and if I lived just a bit closer, I'd go there but I gotta tell ya, not in summer. Just out of curiosity, what are you expecting the temps to be then?

 

About how long of a drive from Burbank?

 

And as for these types to drop by for a discussion, civil or otherwise? Right, and I am going to trip over a wheelbarrow full of gold bars walking up my driveway tonight too.

 

Good luck and thanks.

 

And another thing, going all the way back to post #1 up there. How is it and why is it that Chaddy felt compelled to co-opt the E.T. Power Trail thingy in the first place? Struck me a a bit odd from the beginning.

 

Was Chaddy like some sort of consultant or adviser on the project?

 

Hey Team Cotati,

I know nothing about the inner workings of how the ET Trail evolved. but have been itching to get back into the area after my experience there last summer. Returning from Philmont to Humboldt Co via Las Vegas and an obligatory stop at the Flamingo to indulge in Jimmy Buffet's Margaritaville ... of course a burger was in the mix ( you parrot heads will get the drift )

 

Cruising along 93 and 375 once we got within 75 miles of Rachel, Nv. all four GPS'r devices quit as tho on cue and just as mysteriously came back to life after clearing the valley. Bizzzzzzzzzare. I just wish to experience more of what this area has to offer.

 

All those caches are an incentive to go and explore a bit more. Of course staying clear of the fence line and " The Cammo Dudes ". I also want to see the mystery bus.

[+pppingme]

I just wonder if one or two of these 1,000 caches got muggled but end up being signed as a find by people not keeping track of which cache was missing. Say the owner would pull #458 out of the series yet see how many kept signing it as a find from just mass logging these.... Oh, that would be mean...

 

Can't ever see a series like this coming to the SouthEast but it's neat for those who enjoy these kind of things.

Your comment made me think of these two caches:

 

These are both about as close as you can get to being a P&G while still being a full size ammo can

 

http://coord.info/GC23Z0M Was missing prior to May, yet 8 people managed to log it anyway (this one had more logs at one time but it looks like some people caught the errors of their ways).

 

http://coord.info/GC23Z3G Was always missing, somehow the log book showed up in another cache, but even prior to that this thing accumulated 26 logs, when it wasn't there.

 

So yes, people do "blanket log" the area.

[knowschad]

http://coord.info/GC23Z3G Was always missing, somehow the log book showed up in another cache, but even prior to that this thing accumulated 26 logs, when it wasn't there.

 

So yes, people do "blanket log" the area.

Wait a minute... are you saying that MOGA put out a bogus cache ("Was always missing")? And that one of the directors that "helped to hide this cache" also logged it? Surely I'm misunderstanding you!

[+pppingme]

http://coord.info/GC23Z3G Was always missing, somehow the log book showed up in another cache, but even prior to that this thing accumulated 26 logs, when it wasn't there.

 

So yes, people do "blanket log" the area.

Wait a minute... are you saying that MOGA put out a bogus cache ("Was always missing")? And that one of the directors that "helped to hide this cache" also logged it? Surely I'm misunderstanding you!

Oh, no, not at all.

 

I'm commenting on the fact that people will blanket log an area, even when a cache is clearly missing.

 

I don't know what happened with these two caches, but the very first logs confirm that they are indeed missing (All of the caches named after space vehicles were very easy, just shy of a p&g, obvious from the road where they were most likely hidden, and all found with almost no real searching needed). I do not, nor have I ever believed that the MOGA team intentionally didn't place, or that they retrieved these two, or did anything to make them tricky. Most likely scenario is that something happened between the time they were placed, and the time they were published (a difference of up to a couple of months for these caches), possibly that they were visible just too visible from the road, and a non-geocacher got curious.

[+Albanysquad]

All of these caches should be archived for breaking geocaching.com rules, right now. In the description for every single cache (which are all the same) they tell the cacher to go to the Little A'LeInn, a local restaurant and gift shop. These break the rule against commercial caches:

 

"Commercial Caches

Commercial caches will not be published on geocaching.com without prior approval from Groundspeak. A commercial cache is a geocache listing or geocache which is perceived by Groundspeak, Groundspeak's employees, or the Volunteer Geocache Reviewers as having been submitted to geocaching.com with the principal or substantial intent of soliciting customers or generating commercial gain. The geocache is presumed to be commercial if the finder is required to go inside a business, interact with employees, and/or purchase a product or service, or if the cache listing has overtones of advertising, marketing, or promotion.

Additionally, links to businesses, commercial advertisers, charities, political or social agendas, or the inclusion of their associated logos are not permitted on cache descriptions without prior permission from Groundspeak." (www.geocaching.com)

 

Because of the overtones of advertising and promotion, every single one of these caches are illegal and should be archived. No exceptions.

[+slukster]

All of these caches should be archived for breaking geocaching.com rules, right now. In the description for every single cache (which are all the same) they tell the cacher to go to the Little A'LeInn, a local restaurant and gift shop. These break the rule against commercial caches:

 

"Commercial Caches

Commercial caches will not be published on geocaching.com without prior approval from Groundspeak. A commercial cache is a geocache listing or geocache which is perceived by Groundspeak, Groundspeak's employees, or the Volunteer Geocache Reviewers as having been submitted to geocaching.com with the principal or substantial intent of soliciting customers or generating commercial gain. The geocache is presumed to be commercial if the finder is required to go inside a business, interact with employees, and/or purchase a product or service, or if the cache listing has overtones of advertising, marketing, or promotion.

Additionally, links to businesses, commercial advertisers, charities, political or social agendas, or the inclusion of their associated logos are not permitted on cache descriptions without prior permission from Groundspeak." (www.geocaching.com)

 

Because of the overtones of advertising and promotion, every single one of these caches are illegal and should be archived. No exceptions.

I believe a friendly request from the reviewer asking them to remove this reference from the cache page would be sufficient if it does indeed break the guidelines. Requesting they be archived seems a bit extreme.

Edited July 4, 2010 by slukster

[Mr.Yuck]

All of these caches should be archived for breaking geocaching.com rules, right now. In the description for every single cache (which are all the same) they tell the cacher to go to the Little A'LeInn, a local restaurant and gift shop. These break the rule against commercial caches:

 

"Commercial Caches

Commercial caches will not be published on geocaching.com without prior approval from Groundspeak. A commercial cache is a geocache listing or geocache which is perceived by Groundspeak, Groundspeak's employees, or the Volunteer Geocache Reviewers as having been submitted to geocaching.com with the principal or substantial intent of soliciting customers or generating commercial gain. The geocache is presumed to be commercial if the finder is required to go inside a business, interact with employees, and/or purchase a product or service, or if the cache listing has overtones of advertising, marketing, or promotion.

Additionally, links to businesses, commercial advertisers, charities, political or social agendas, or the inclusion of their associated logos are not permitted on cache descriptions without prior permission from Groundspeak." (www.geocaching.com)

 

Because of the overtones of advertising and promotion, every single one of these caches are illegal and should be archived. No exceptions.

 

OK, works for me. Local reviewer, start hitting the archive button on a repetitive basis at once.

 

Not really, just kidding. Never gonna happen. Who is doing this power trail? Within the first week we had people flying halfway across the Country to do it. People, incidently, who pay $30/month, and surely will for life. Give the people what they want, and the majority of these $30/year members want this stuff. 'Nuff said.

[+pppingme]

All of these caches should be archived for breaking geocaching.com rules, right now. In the description for every single cache (which are all the same) they tell the cacher to go to the Little A'LeInn, a local restaurant and gift shop. These break the rule against commercial caches:

 

"Commercial Caches

Commercial caches will not be published on geocaching.com without prior approval from Groundspeak. A commercial cache is a geocache listing or geocache which is perceived by Groundspeak, Groundspeak's employees, or the Volunteer Geocache Reviewers as having been submitted to geocaching.com with the principal or substantial intent of soliciting customers or generating commercial gain. The geocache is presumed to be commercial if the finder is required to go inside a business, interact with employees, and/or purchase a product or service, or if the cache listing has overtones of advertising, marketing, or promotion.

Additionally, links to businesses, commercial advertisers, charities, political or social agendas, or the inclusion of their associated logos are not permitted on cache descriptions without prior permission from Groundspeak." (www.geocaching.com)

 

Because of the overtones of advertising and promotion, every single one of these caches are illegal and should be archived. No exceptions.

Then you should do a needs archived on "every single one of these caches", don't forget to hand write them and make each one unique.

[+humboldt flier]

Fall off in visitors to the ET Trail may be multi-factorial:

 

GeoWoodstock & related events.

 

4th. of July festivities.

 

Mother Nature cranking up the heat in the desert.

[Clan Riffster]

All of these caches should be archived for breaking geocaching.com rules, right now.

Looks like you have your work cut out for you. Start at E.T. 001 and start submitting "Needs Archived" logs. In the spirit of the series, I think a copy/paste SBA would be perfectly fine. Oddly enough, I don't recall that little tidbit being on the cache pages when they were initially submitted. Perhaps the owner, knowing that would be a guideline violation, added it after puplication? Of course, I only ready about 20 of them, bouncing around the series, so I can't attest to all of them.

[+Dread_Pirate_Bruce]

"Commercial Caches

Commercial caches will not be published on geocaching.com without prior approval from Groundspeak. A commercial cache is a geocache listing or geocache which is perceived by Groundspeak, Groundspeak's employees, or the Volunteer Geocache Reviewers as having been submitted to geocaching.com with the principal or substantial intent of soliciting customers or generating commercial gain. The geocache is presumed to be commercial if the finder is required to go inside a business, interact with employees, and/or purchase a product or service, or if the cache listing has overtones of advertising, marketing, or promotion.

Additionally, links to businesses, commercial advertisers, charities, political or social agendas, or the inclusion of their associated logos are not permitted on cache descriptions without prior permission from Groundspeak." (www.geocaching.com)\

 

If one reads the actual description of the "Commercial Cache" guideline, one would quickly realize that the E.T. caches are not "Commercial Caches" within the scope of the guideline. No one should perceive them as having "the principal or substantial intent of soliciting customers or generating commercial gain." No one is "required to go inside a business, interact with employees, and/or purchase a product or service." Likewise, there are no "overtones of advertising, marketing, or promotion."

 

While I am hopeful that the suggestion that the caches be archived for violating the guideline is based on a genuine desire to strictly adhere to the guidelines, even if based on a misreading of those, I suspect that it is sour grapes by someone who does not like power trails.

 

BTW: I've started scoping out a location for MY power trail. It will consist only of true difficulty 3, terrain 3 caches.

[+Team Cotati]

"Commercial Caches

Commercial caches will not be published on geocaching.com without prior approval from Groundspeak. A commercial cache is a geocache listing or geocache which is perceived by Groundspeak, Groundspeak's employees, or the Volunteer Geocache Reviewers as having been submitted to geocaching.com with the principal or substantial intent of soliciting customers or generating commercial gain. The geocache is presumed to be commercial if the finder is required to go inside a business, interact with employees, and/or purchase a product or service, or if the cache listing has overtones of advertising, marketing, or promotion.

Additionally, links to businesses, commercial advertisers, charities, political or social agendas, or the inclusion of their associated logos are not permitted on cache descriptions without prior permission from Groundspeak." (www.geocaching.com)\

 

If one reads the actual description of the "Commercial Cache" guideline, one would quickly realize that the E.T. caches are not "Commercial Caches" within the scope of the guideline. No one should perceive them as having "the principal or substantial intent of soliciting customers or generating commercial gain." No one is "required to go inside a business, interact with employees, and/or purchase a product or service." Likewise, there are no "overtones of advertising, marketing, or promotion."

 

While I am hopeful that the suggestion that the caches be archived for violating the guideline is based on a genuine desire to strictly adhere to the guidelines, even if based on a misreading of those, I suspect that it is sour grapes by someone who does not like power trails.

 

BTW: I've started scoping out a location for MY power trail. It will consist only of true difficulty 3, terrain 3 caches.

 

Finally, a good 3-3 power trail is being developed.

 

Thank you very much for your planning and efforts.

 

How many caches do you anticipate being on this PT? Have a ball park date in mind for its activation?

Edited July 5, 2010 by Team Cotati

[Mr.Yuck]

"Commercial Caches

Commercial caches will not be published on geocaching.com without prior approval from Groundspeak. A commercial cache is a geocache listing or geocache which is perceived by Groundspeak, Groundspeak's employees, or the Volunteer Geocache Reviewers as having been submitted to geocaching.com with the principal or substantial intent of soliciting customers or generating commercial gain. The geocache is presumed to be commercial if the finder is required to go inside a business, interact with employees, and/or purchase a product or service, or if the cache listing has overtones of advertising, marketing, or promotion.

Additionally, links to businesses, commercial advertisers, charities, political or social agendas, or the inclusion of their associated logos are not permitted on cache descriptions without prior permission from Groundspeak." (www.geocaching.com)\

 

If one reads the actual description of the "Commercial Cache" guideline, one would quickly realize that the E.T. caches are not "Commercial Caches" within the scope of the guideline. No one should perceive them as having "the principal or substantial intent of soliciting customers or generating commercial gain." No one is "required to go inside a business, interact with employees, and/or purchase a product or service." Likewise, there are no "overtones of advertising, marketing, or promotion."

 

While I am hopeful that the suggestion that the caches be archived for violating the guideline is based on a genuine desire to strictly adhere to the guidelines, even if based on a misreading of those, I suspect that it is sour grapes by someone who does not like power trails.

 

 

I don't really think it's sour grapes. The person who brought it up may just be kidding about it, or, even if they are serious, they really don't want to see them all archived, but the text removed from the cache pages. Because I assure you there are dozens of examples of TPTB being very strict about that kind of stuff. Just mentioning it as is? Definitely needs to go. Not that I care, but someone will enough to make sure it's offa there. You watch.

[Andronicus]

 

I have no desire to flame you. Just wanted to say that there is no rocker switch on the back of my computer.

I was about to flame you, saying "every computer has a rocker switch on the back; open your eyes. But I just looked at mine, and lo and behold, no rocker switch. When did that start?

[+niraD]

I was about to flame you, saying "every computer has a rocker switch on the back; open your eyes. But I just looked at mine, and lo and behold, no rocker switch. When did that start?

Once the OS started shutting off the computer, rocker switches disappeared. Even my old MS Windows ME box had a power button rather than a rocker switch. My old MS Windows 3.1 box did have a rocker switch (although it was on the front, not the back). None of my Macs have had rocker switches.

[+Team Cotati]

If you don't have a rocker switch, can you still be a rocker?

[+roziecakes]

"Commercial Caches

Commercial caches will not be published on geocaching.com without prior approval from Groundspeak. A commercial cache is a geocache listing or geocache which is perceived by Groundspeak, Groundspeak's employees, or the Volunteer Geocache Reviewers as having been submitted to geocaching.com with the principal or substantial intent of soliciting customers or generating commercial gain. The geocache is presumed to be commercial if the finder is required to go inside a business, interact with employees, and/or purchase a product or service, or if the cache listing has overtones of advertising, marketing, or promotion.

Additionally, links to businesses, commercial advertisers, charities, political or social agendas, or the inclusion of their associated logos are not permitted on cache descriptions without prior permission from Groundspeak." (www.geocaching.com)\

 

If one reads the actual description of the "Commercial Cache" guideline, one would quickly realize that the E.T. caches are not "Commercial Caches" within the scope of the guideline. No one should perceive them as having "the principal or substantial intent of soliciting customers or generating commercial gain." No one is "required to go inside a business, interact with employees, and/or purchase a product or service." Likewise, there are no "overtones of advertising, marketing, or promotion."

 

While I am hopeful that the suggestion that the caches be archived for violating the guideline is based on a genuine desire to strictly adhere to the guidelines, even if based on a misreading of those, I suspect that it is sour grapes by someone who does not like power trails.

 

BTW: I've started scoping out a location for MY power trail. It will consist only of true difficulty 3, terrain 3 caches.

 

HH242 is correct. The commercial cache guideline refers to caches that specifically promote a business that REQUIRE someone to go into a business to complete the cache. I don't think there is anything wrong with making a suggestion that folks check out a local business.

 

In fact, I'm happy when a cache owner does this, especially in an area that I'm not familiar with... I want to know about local landmarks and local points of interest.

 

WHO CARES? You must really be reaching for excuses. Just get over it and play the game the way you like to play. My goodness some people are petty.

[+roziecakes]

Oh, and I would definitely be interested in trying the 3/3 power trail. That sounds AMAZING. I wish you the best of luck in placing that!

[Mr.Yuck]

"Commercial Caches

Commercial caches will not be published on geocaching.com without prior approval from Groundspeak. A commercial cache is a geocache listing or geocache which is perceived by Groundspeak, Groundspeak's employees, or the Volunteer Geocache Reviewers as having been submitted to geocaching.com with the principal or substantial intent of soliciting customers or generating commercial gain. The geocache is presumed to be commercial if the finder is required to go inside a business, interact with employees, and/or purchase a product or service, or if the cache listing has overtones of advertising, marketing, or promotion.

Additionally, links to businesses, commercial advertisers, charities, political or social agendas, or the inclusion of their associated logos are not permitted on cache descriptions without prior permission from Groundspeak." (www.geocaching.com)\

 

If one reads the actual description of the "Commercial Cache" guideline, one would quickly realize that the E.T. caches are not "Commercial Caches" within the scope of the guideline. No one should perceive them as having "the principal or substantial intent of soliciting customers or generating commercial gain." No one is "required to go inside a business, interact with employees, and/or purchase a product or service." Likewise, there are no "overtones of advertising, marketing, or promotion."

 

While I am hopeful that the suggestion that the caches be archived for violating the guideline is based on a genuine desire to strictly adhere to the guidelines, even if based on a misreading of those, I suspect that it is sour grapes by someone who does not like power trails.

 

BTW: I've started scoping out a location for MY power trail. It will consist only of true difficulty 3, terrain 3 caches.

 

HH242 is correct. The commercial cache guideline refers to caches that specifically promote a business that REQUIRE someone to go into a business to complete the cache. I don't think there is anything wrong with making a suggestion that folks check out a local business.

 

In fact, I'm happy when a cache owner does this, especially in an area that I'm not familiar with... I want to know about local landmarks and local points of interest.

 

WHO CARES? You must really be reaching for excuses. Just get over it and play the game the way you like to play. My goodness some people are petty.

 

You and HH242 don't hang around these forums enough. That's probably a good thing though. You can't even mention a business, period. Forget your interpretations of the guidelines as written. They also say you need permission to place caches on private property. Do 2,000 Wal-Mart parking lot micros come to mind? However, unlike that one, this is one of the ones they "go after".

[+roziecakes]

 

You and HH242 don't hang around these forums enough. That's probably a good thing though. You can't even mention a business, period. Forget your interpretations of the guidelines as written. They also say you need permission to place caches on private property. Do 2,000 Wal-Mart parking lot micros come to mind? However, unlike that one, this is one of the ones they "go after".

 

I suspect that you are right. And yeah, that's true... no one wants to go after the parking lot micros, many of which do violate guidelines permission-wise (and I know that's been discussed many times), but a power trail somehow sparks so much contempt. Curiouser and Curiouser.

[+Team Cotati]

 

You and HH242 don't hang around these forums enough. That's probably a good thing though. You can't even mention a business, period. Forget your interpretations of the guidelines as written. They also say you need permission to place caches on private property. Do 2,000 Wal-Mart parking lot micros come to mind? However, unlike that one, this is one of the ones they "go after".

 

I suspect that you are right. And yeah, that's true... no one wants to go after the parking lot micros, many of which do violate guidelines permission-wise (and I know that's been discussed many times), but a power trail somehow sparks so much contempt. Curiouser and Curiouser.

 

Only from the envious.

[+Kris32]

All of these caches should be archived for breaking geocaching.com rules, right now. In the description for every single cache (which are all the same) they tell the cacher to go to the Little A'LeInn, a local restaurant and gift shop. These break the rule against commercial caches:

 

"Commercial Caches

Commercial caches will not be published on geocaching.com without prior approval from Groundspeak. A commercial cache is a geocache listing or geocache which is perceived by Groundspeak, Groundspeak's employees, or the Volunteer Geocache Reviewers as having been submitted to geocaching.com with the principal or substantial intent of soliciting customers or generating commercial gain. The geocache is presumed to be commercial if the finder is required to go inside a business, interact with employees, and/or purchase a product or service, or if the cache listing has overtones of advertising, marketing, or promotion.

Additionally, links to businesses, commercial advertisers, charities, political or social agendas, or the inclusion of their associated logos are not permitted on cache descriptions without prior permission from Groundspeak." (www.geocaching.com)

 

Because of the overtones of advertising and promotion, every single one of these caches are illegal and should be archived. No exceptions.

 

I think the mention of the Inn is good for survival info. There is NOTHING around, but that Inn. You have no cell coverage, you have cows crossing in front of you (the dead cows along the road and the destroyed truck would suggest it is not a rare event, not to mention it almost happened to us), you have deadly snakes, and badgers around. That Inn would be your nearest spot for a working phone. If you didn't bring any food, that's the only food around once you get on the trail too.

 

I can see if there were two places and the caches only mentioned one, but the Inn is the ONLY place I saw while on the trail.

 

I can't speak for the road after the inn, but I didn't see anything past it, but more road and open range.

[+Team Cotati]

All of these caches should be archived for breaking geocaching.com rules, right now. In the description for every single cache (which are all the same) they tell the cacher to go to the Little A'LeInn, a local restaurant and gift shop. These break the rule against commercial caches:

 

"Commercial Caches

Commercial caches will not be published on geocaching.com without prior approval from Groundspeak. A commercial cache is a geocache listing or geocache which is perceived by Groundspeak, Groundspeak's employees, or the Volunteer Geocache Reviewers as having been submitted to geocaching.com with the principal or substantial intent of soliciting customers or generating commercial gain. The geocache is presumed to be commercial if the finder is required to go inside a business, interact with employees, and/or purchase a product or service, or if the cache listing has overtones of advertising, marketing, or promotion.

Additionally, links to businesses, commercial advertisers, charities, political or social agendas, or the inclusion of their associated logos are not permitted on cache descriptions without prior permission from Groundspeak." (www.geocaching.com)

 

Because of the overtones of advertising and promotion, every single one of these caches are illegal and should be archived. No exceptions.

 

I think the mention of the Inn is good for survival info. There is NOTHING around, but that Inn. You have no cell coverage, you have cows crossing in front of you (the dead cows along the road and the destroyed truck would suggest it is not a rare event, not to mention it almost happened to us), you have deadly snakes, and badgers around. That Inn would be your nearest spot for a working phone. If you didn't bring any food, that's the only food around once you get on the trail too.

 

I can see if there were two places and the caches only mentioned one, but the Inn is the ONLY place I saw while on the trail.

 

I can't speak for the road after the inn, but I didn't see anything past it, but more road and open range.

 

Some people have personal axes to grind. Please do not encourage them.

Edited July 6, 2010 by Team Cotati

[+roziecakes]

I think the mention of the Inn is good for survival info. There is NOTHING around, but that Inn. You have no cell coverage, you have cows crossing in front of you (the dead cows along the road and the destroyed truck would suggest it is not a rare event, not to mention it almost happened to us), you have deadly snakes, and badgers around. That Inn would be your nearest spot for a working phone. If you didn't bring any food, that's the only food around once you get on the trail too.

 

I can see if there were two places and the caches only mentioned one, but the Inn is the ONLY place I saw while on the trail.

 

I can't speak for the road after the inn, but I didn't see anything past it, but more road and open range.

 

I find this to be an extremely good point.

[Clan Riffster]

HH242 is correct.

Actually, both you and HH242 are wrong. He posted proof of this himself:

"with the principal or substantial intent of soliciting customers or generating commercial gain"

Directing someone to visit a particular business, by name, would certainly qualify as an intent of soliciting customers.

Naturally, those folks who get all atwitter over cranking up their find count, one P&G at a time will conveniently ignore guideline violations.

Then they'll call "Sour Grapes", "Geocaching Police" or whatever other idiotic notion comes to mind when something they like is against the rules.

 

Just get over it and play the game the way you like to play. My goodness some people are petty.

For the record, caring about the guidelines doesn't necessarily make a person "petty". If, for instance, someone wanted to "play the game they like to play", and that involved hiding caches shaped like pipe bombs on the exteriors of government buildings, would it be safe to say that you would be perfectly OK with that? While I recognize that some folks truly embrace anarchy, I didn't realize you were one of them. I would be willing to bet that most of our current guidelines came into play for a very good reason, designed, in the long run, to protect the game itself. If you don't particularly enjoy this game, and would like to see it regulated to death, feel free to continue your "To Heck With The Guidelines. Play Any Way You Want" attitude. Me? I've come to thoroughly enjoy this game, and I'd like for it to be around a while longer.

 

No one wants to go after the parking lot micros, but a power trail somehow sparks so much contempt.

Gotta agree with TWU on this one. You definitely don't hang out here enough. If you did, you would probably notice that the folks who roll their eyes over 1000 identical P&Gs spit out every 529 feet are mostly the same folks who roll their eyes over a gazillion Wally World lamp post P&Gs. They do so because both bunches represent the exact same thing; mindless repetition, an abject void of creativity and promoting absolutely nothing of value other than an incremental increase in someone's find count.

 

I think the mention of the Inn is good for survival info.

You are probably right. If I had created this blight, I would have certainly included the coords as an additional waypoint, on every one of the cache pages, with something to the effect of, "If you have an emergency, you can find succor here", without mentioning the business by name. That would have been perfectly acceptable by the guidelines. Kinda makes me wonder why they added the business name.

[+roziecakes]

HH242 is correct.

Actually, both you and HH242 are wrong. He posted proof of this himself:

"with the principal or substantial intent of soliciting customers or generating commercial gain"

Directing someone to visit a particular business, by name, would certainly qualify as an intent of soliciting customers.

Naturally, those folks who get all atwitter over cranking up their find count, one P&G at a time will conveniently ignore guideline violations.

Then they'll call "Sour Grapes", "Geocaching Police" or whatever other idiotic notion comes to mind when something they like is against the rules.

 

Just get over it and play the game the way you like to play. My goodness some people are petty.

For the record, caring about the guidelines doesn't necessarily make a person "petty". If, for instance, someone wanted to "play the game they like to play", and that involved hiding caches shaped like pipe bombs on the exteriors of government buildings, would it be safe to say that you would be perfectly OK with that? While I recognize that some folks truly embrace anarchy, I didn't realize you were one of them. I would be willing to bet that most of our current guidelines came into play for a very good reason, designed, in the long run, to protect the game itself. If you don't particularly enjoy this game, and would like to see it regulated to death, feel free to continue your "To Heck With The Guidelines. Play Any Way You Want" attitude. Me? I've come to thoroughly enjoy this game, and I'd like for it to be around a while longer.

 

 

I am certainly not someone who believes that the guidelines should be ignored. Not even close to that. I feel like folks should play the game they want to the degree that the guidelines are followed. Perhaps I was too flippant in my explanation; I certainly did not mean to give the impression that I don't think the guidelines are important, since I do. And I DO particularly enjoy this game. It's my favorite hobby, and one I put a lot of time, money, effort, and joy into.

 

In this case, I think that you and I have different interpretations of this particular guideline. I don't feel that the way the Little Ale-inn (sp?) is mentioned on these cache pages violates the guidelines. What I considered to be petty was the fact that I felt the person was molding the guideline to fit the fact that they just don't like power trail caches.

 

It just seemed like they were overthinking it and looking for excuses for these caches to be archived. It seemed extreme to me.

 

I just really don't see where the guideline is being violated. I don't think that the purpose of the cache is to advertise for the Little Ale-inn. And that's what my interpretation of the guideline is; that one cannot place a cache with the purpose of advertising a business. I feel that the reference to this venue is a side-note, and doesn't violate the guidelines.

 

But, I do really respect what you have to say, and agree with probably 99% of it, so I'm definitely willing to look at your side of things, and in a case such as this, where folks can interpret the guideline in different ways, I think your suggestion of marking the venue as a waypoint, but not mentioning it by name is a good one; and a win-win compromise in my mind.

 

Hope I explained my position better in this post.

[+roziecakes]

Sorry to bump this, but I just want to make sure that Clan Riffster read my last response. Trying to come to an understanding...

[Clan Riffster]

Yup. I read it. I think we'll just have to disagree on that interpretation. I honestly believe that a cache page that states words to the effect of, "Be sure to stop by Pop's Stop & Shop" violates the solicitation section of the guidelines. Not an archival offense in my book, but the phrase needs to go away. As for whether or not the person who initially mentioned archiving them just had a chip on their shoulder, I can't speak to that, as I don't know their history. You may have hit that nail square on the head.

[+roziecakes]

Yup. I read it. I think we'll just have to disagree on that interpretation. I honestly believe that a cache page that states words to the effect of, "Be sure to stop by Pop's Stop & Shop" violates the solicitation section of the guidelines. Not an archival offense in my book, but the phrase needs to go away. As for whether or not the person who initially mentioned archiving them just had a chip on their shoulder, I can't speak to that, as I don't know their history. You may have hit that nail square on the head.

 

Thank you for your reply. I really do respect what you have to say, and I'm always willing to consider my opinions from someone else's perspective, and If I was looking at it that way, then yes I could see how you would think that.

 

I do agree with you that perhaps the phrase does need to go away or at least be changed, because hey, it would probably prevent disagreements like that one we had.

 

Thanks so much again for responding.

[+Dread_Pirate_Bruce]

I'm not going to incorporate anything anyone has said. I assume everyone who reads this has read everything else already.

 

Personally, I am a stickler for the rules, both the letter and the spirit.

 

I wholeheartedly agree that caches that have the “principal or substantial intent of soliciting customers or generating commercial gain” are contrary to the guidelines and should not be allowed, except under unusual circumstances (which includes prior approval.)

 

But, mentioning a business or even suggesting that one visit it does not equate with there being a “principal or substantial intent of soliciting customers or generating commercial gain.” The key is the intent.

 

Many caches are on the premises of businesses. They are in the parking lots. They may be in nearby bushes. I found one under the front steps. There are a number of caches that are actually inside of a particular business and the cacher must ask the proprietor for it. But, that does not mean the “principal or substantial intent” of the cache is to solicit customers or generate commercial gain. If the business is incidental to the cache and the cache is just a cache, then the “principal or substantial intent” is not to solicit customers.

 

Mentioning the presence of a business at a particular location, does not, in my view, shows any more an intent to solicit customers than placing a cache in the general vicinity of a business.

 

In fact, now that I’m really thinking about it, the caches that would concern me would be a few caches located in or even within 30 miles of a place like Rachel. In the absence of a real good reason for the caches being there, I would infer that they were placed in order to lead cachers to town and to the only food or drink within 60 miles. And, I would infer it regardless of whether the description mentioned the business or not.

 

In contrast, the ET caches constitute a power trail that happens to run past Rachel. Rachel, the restaurant and the inn are just incidental to the power trail.

 

I do not see the ET caches or description as violating the letter or spirit of the guidelines. If the guidelines wanted to prohibit any mention of a business, they could easily have done so. They could have said something like: “The cache page may not mention or describe a business.” If the guidelines wanted to preclude caches that might lead a cacher to visit a business, they could easily have done so. They could have said something like: “Caches may not be hidden closer to a single business than to other similar businesses.”

 

Having now spent an hour drafting this, TTFN.

[Clan Riffster]

But, mentioning a business or even suggesting that one visit it does not equate with there being a “principal or substantial intent of soliciting customers or generating commercial gain.”

I think of those as two totally different concepts, as far as the guidelines go. My thoughts regarding the solicitation section are, if all I do is mention the existance of a business, I am not soliciting for that business, but if I suggest visiting the business, I've crossed an invisible line. I think some Reviewers might even take a firmer stance than mine, since caches which blatantly include a business name in their title seem to not get published anymore. Could I hide a cache in a Walmart lamp post and include Walmart in the cache title? I'm thinking probably not, but I'd have to ask a Reviewer to be sure. Is there any real difference between mentioning Walmart in the cache description and including it in the title? I'm not sure. Heck, I've even heard stories of folks having to alter words to the effect of, "This cache is placed at Bill's Hardware" to something along the lines of, "This cache is placed at a really neat hardware store", just to get the listing published.

 

But I have to say, I am by no means, an expert.

 

Your interpretation of the guidelines may be entirely correct. Perhaps we could give it a real world test?

 

You could post a SBA to one randomly selected E.T. Highway Power Trail cache, with the claim that the wording on the cache page violated the guidelines. That would put the local Reviewer in a position where they would have to act, either by stating that the wording was OK, or by stating that it needs to be changed. I would suggest that you do the SBA posting, rather than me, because you would be the last person anyone would accuse of disliking the power trail. If I posted an SBA to that effect, we'd start up the drama of "sour grapes" again.

[+Team Geo-Rangers]

Has anyone spotted an UFO yet while making this run?

 

Has anyone spotted an UFO yet while making this run?

Who's got time to look?

Good point!

 

We caught ET in the act of one cattle mutilation. See photo in TGR's Geocaching Photo Gallery. Felt bad for the non-geocacher who wrecked his truck hitting the black steer at night.

 

Having done both the TOTG and the ET Highway, offer the following observations:

 

1) The TOTG/Phobia/Presidents trails took us (TGRs/PIAP) the full 24 hours to complete and find 626 in one vehicle. The terrain was very difficult to navigate, especially at night. We knocked out the main ET trail of 1022 caches in just over 14 hours, in daylight, over two consecutive days which left lots of time to meet and greet other geocachers, take pictures of ET, attend events, find other caches including the alien head, and take many pictures along the way. ET PT is not as challenging as the TOTG PT. We found them all and replaced none.

 

2) We took turns being the primary seeker with the other offering assistance from the vehicle. Sometimes the driver would spot it first on the ET Highway. Sometimes the pattern was obvious so you knew where it was before you could see it. We suffered another flat tire on the ET Highway and changed it after a celebratory feast at the Alien Inn on Day 2. Bring a fix a flat tube, just in case. It is cheap insurance and you may need it. We did. If you hit a cow, your day is done.

 

3) On the ET PT, some geocachers used multiple vehicles and leap frogged, pooling their finds, even thought they did not stop and visit each one. If they obtained prior approval, more power to them, especially if doing cache maintenance for the hosts. However, should this count as a record? Just as beta testers do not claim an FTF, cache maintenance warrants a caveat if a record is claimed.

 

4) We described our tactics in advance with the ET host which included using the little smiley sticker. It was approved just as others used a stamp for speed. Our sticker had our caching handle initials on it since someone commented that Team 500+ was too vague when we did the TOTG.

 

5) Both VKs squad and Legoboyjj's team will likely do it to set a new record/personal best. Others are planning a 24 Hr run too - GO FOR IT! Best to include Las Vegas or some other cache rich area because the ET trail is not long enough for a 24 hour run (for us). Don't think this one will be archived as none are in California and don't pose the same issues that led to its archival demise.

 

6) Because of the ease of ET vs TOTG, we need a longer trail to attempt another daily find record. Would like to see Groundspeak or one of the other organizations associated with geocaching create a course with this in mind. It needs to be long enough so that no team, caching in a single vehicle, can do it all in 24 hours. Using multiple vehicles and leap frogging will boost your stats, but it should not be recognized as setting any record, unless it is stated as such. Taking the leap frogging tactic to the logical extreme, anyone can amass a congo line of caching vehicles and find thousands in 24 hours, if the cache density is there ...

 

7) Power trails seem to be more about cache density than caching prowess. Challenges arise when terrain and hide difficulty vary significantly. Both the difficulty and terrain were easy on the ET highway. The difficulty was comparable on the TOTG to ET, but the terrain was harder, which takes a toll on the vehicle occupants for 24 hours straight. There needs to be a regulated course if someone wants to claim a daily find record (and turn in their track files upon completion, for independent validation).

 

That's it. We had a fun time doing both trails and meeting other geocachers in the field. Everyone has different preferences and motivations for what they do in geocaching. Best not to get hung up on how others do it, just do it the way you prefer and have fun. It's all good!

[+Don_J]

 

3) On the ET PT, some geocachers used multiple vehicles and leap frogged, pooling their finds, even thought they did not stop and visit each one. If they obtained prior approval, more power to them, especially if doing cache maintenance for the hosts. However, should this count as a record? Just as beta testers do not claim an FTF, cache maintenance warrants a caveat if a record is claimed.

 

 

That's just plain wrong, whether the group is trying to claim a record, or not. How can you claim a find on a cache that you didn't even slow down for. Heck I found 102 of them on the day after they were publish. I passed the other 900 at 70MPH. Do I get to log them? Can I offer to print VK's stickers for him and add a "DJ" to them? This way my name is on the log and I can "Find" them from the comfort of my home.

 

I have no problems with power trails, but antics like this is what will eventually get them banned.

Edited July 9, 2010 by Don_J