Power Trails and Swiss Cheese

[+tozainamboku]

There are new rules being discussed over on the Get Satisfaction site meant to limit the ability to create new powertrails. (link) So far most of the participation has been from people who oppose power trails seeing them as some kind of threat to geocaching. I wonder if the pro-power trail folks are unaware of the proposals yet or if the structure of the Get Satisfaction site simply encourages more participation by those agreeing with an idea.

 

I find it difficult to debate the pros and cons of a proposal on that site. I posted some concerns and they were dismissed by Jeremy. My guess is that he is not pleased by the number (and size) of many of the powertrails that have been published since the rules were relaxed. He is looking for new rules that will still allow powertrails but will make them harder to put together. The problem I see with the proposal being discussed is that it might go too far in making harder to create a series of even only two or three caches, and in fact it does nothing to stop a group of 10 geocachers from getting together and creating a powertrail where the alternate cache owners to get around the rule.

 

Here's eigengott's proposal for new rules

 

How about implementing the "Swiss Model" guideline for powertrails? It avoided the issues with the old powertrail guidelines (mainly: no suitable definition of powertrail and thus very subjective decision making). What the Swiss reviewers told their community was the following:

 

"We won't ask you any silly questions about powertrails, if your new cache is at least 1.5 km (1 mile) away from any of your other caches posted within the past three months."

 

What does this mean?

1. It tells the owners where the "safe area" is. That's what made it

popular in the Swiss community.

2. It's objective. 1 mile and 3 months are clearly defined units.

Reviewers love that. Owners too. :-)

3. It gives the owners choice. They can place any number of caches at

the same time as long as they are spread out with a 1 mile minimum

distance. Or they can place them closer but then need to wait 3 months

between placing each of them.

4. It's flexible. Reviewers can still make all kinds of exceptions,

like publishing a simple bonus cache etc. As far as I know the Swiss

reviewers made a lot of exceptions.

5. It still allows for powertrails. But they will build up slowly and

probably are not by a single cache owner.

6. It still allows for cache series (eg. 5 traditionals + 1 bonus), if they are spread out by distance or time.

7. It pulls the "instant gratification" plug in a nice way. Usually owners want their powertrail caches published all at the same time. The idea is to give seekers many smilies without much effort. Due to the time limit this no longer works and so the incentive to build a power trail in the first place is reduced.

 

Personally I think the limits could be lower, like 800m/0.5miles and 1 month.

[+the family bu]

Please forgive my ignorance - is there a definition of a powertrail? I am concerned that they are trying to stop series of caches on long walks - our favourite types are a series of about 20 caches on a 15 mile walk.

[+humboldt flier]

I agree with the OP that the " Get Satisfaction " site is not dialogue friendly.

 

Indeed it seems like an idea or thought hopper for the deposition of ideas / thoughts.

 

Negative power trail commentary seems to predominate.

 

Pro power trail commentary is there, however, rather little in comparison to the former.

 

It is my hope that the final outcome is the result of significant and deliberate thought.

 

I believe that there is room for Power Trails in the broader context of this wildly popular activity called Geocaching.

[Clan Riffster]

So far most of the participation has been from people who oppose power trails seeing them as some kind of threat to geocaching.

I had to go back and read the entire thing again, as this was certainly not my first impression.

Having reread it, I still don't see anyone posting anything even mildly suggesting that mindless repetition is a "threat" to geocaching.

What I do see is someone posting an idea, and others posting their thoughts on the idea, which I believe was the original intent of the feedback site.

Exaggerating someones position is a great tool in a verbal debate, where folks listening don't usually pay strict attention to details.

Doing so in a written format doesn't bode so well, as it just takes a couple clicks to prove you wrong.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Please forgive my ignorance - is there a definition of a powertrail? I am concerned that they are trying to stop series of caches on long walks - our favourite types are a series of about 20 caches on a 15 mile walk.

 

I wouldn't consider 20 caches along a 15 mile walk to be a power trail. However, if caches were placed just over the minimum allowed distance along the same walk, I might.

 

I also started a topic in GetSatisfaction about power trails, but my suggestion was to revert the Cache Saturation guideline back to what is was before it was changed last year. I'm no longer following the topic because it degraded to a lot of name calling (with yours truly as the recipient) and no matter how clear I made it that it's not a "if you don't like it, don't do it" issue, most of the pro-PT crowd repeated that argument. It *did* get 175 or so "like this" for my suggestion but after a couple of months without any sort of response from the lackeys I gave up.

 

The "Please, don't hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can" language is useless. Some have even interpreted the sentence only as a suggestion because it begins with the word, "Please". Although there may not be a specific definition of a power trail (though most geocachers will know one when they see it) the suggestion that the OP reference attempts to create a definitive metric for a power trail. I think that's a good start. I would suggest grandfathering any power trails that exist now, then implementing some language that limits them in the future. As the language exists now their proliferation is not limited. Due to the sheer numbers of caches and distances involved they can effectively prevent any other types of placements in areas.

 

As many have said, there are many ways to play this game and we can each choose to play it how we wish. I am fully willing to condone how others play the game, up to the point that how others play the game negatively impacts how I (and others that share a similar approach) play the game.

[+Chokecherry]

Not having this issue where I am... I think it would be interesting to have some sort of pseudo event icon or something for power trails in which the power trail can go up for whatever chunk of time and people who do it get their power trail icon or something. They're not my thing to do them but if one popped up here I could easily avoid it like that.

[+t4e]

to me, at least based on where i live, powertrails are not a reason for concern, there is a minipowertrail nearby with a series of about 30 caches, each a unique hide and with all available cache sizes

 

the other one has over 150 caches along a railway trail, we did about 30 of them and even though they were all micros and hidden in somewhat similar way, we still enjoyed the bike ride for that day, and gives us few more bike trips to finish them

 

tbh i don't think the powertrails are a reason for concern anywhere, at least not yet

 

there is one very simple reason i can't agree with the Swiss Style Powertrail Guideline, it will preclude someone for hiding more than one cache on the same trail

 

we found a trail that in the two years i've been geocaching nobody placed any caches on it, so we put out 4

 

that is by no means anywhere close to the definition of a powertrail, but according to the proposed guideline i would not be able to do it, so if nobody else wants to place a cache there it will go to waste

 

i would agree to it if it didn't apply to a minimum of hides, say 25...anything above 25 would be considered a powertrail and the proposed guidelines would apply

 

and for the sake of it i will add this reply to GS too

Edited August 28, 2010 by t4e

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

tbh i don't think the powertrails are a reason for concern anywhere, at least not yet

 

 

I can provide numerous reason why I feel powertrails are a reason for concern and when I did in the Get Satisfaction forum about 175 people agreed with me. Yes, there were many that chose to ignore those reasons for the sake of increasing their find count at a mind boggling rate (one E.T. cacher claimed to have found more caches in a single day then I have in 3.5 years (just over 1000). Frankly, when it comes to power trails most that are pro-trail take a selfish approach. As long as they're have a good time, finding several hundred caches in a day they don't care if there are others that have concerns about the impact of power trails.

[Clan Riffster]

...so if nobody else wants to place a cache there it will go to waste

Maybe we've just got different motivation? Assuming, for argument's sake, the proposed Swiss Repetition Trail rule gets implemented by Groundspeak, and you tried hiding your 4 caches along a single stretch of trail, a mile long. You read the guidelines, as all good cachers do, and conclude that you can only hide one cache on that stretch, for now. Naturally, being a cacher of good taste and high standards, who takes pride in their hides, you pick the best spot out there, submit your listing, and the cache logs start pouring in, praising you for your new cache. One of your peers loves the new trail so much he hides a cache in another kewl spot along the trail. In a few months, you go back, hike the trail again, find the cache the other guy hid, and place another new one of your own. Again, the logs start pouring in, praising you for hiding another cache along such a beautiful stretch of trail. A little while later another cacher comes along, following in your footsteps, hiding yet another cache along the trail you discovered. You wait the requisite time period, hoof your way out there, find the cache and hide another one of your own, resulting in even more praise.

 

What, exactly, is going to waste?

[+tozainamboku]

 

tbh i don't think the powertrails are a reason for concern anywhere, at least not yet

 

 

I can provide numerous reason why I feel powertrails are a reason for concern and when I did in the Get Satisfaction forum about 175 people agreed with me. Yes, there were many that chose to ignore those reasons for the sake of increasing their find count at a mind boggling rate (one E.T. cacher claimed to have found more caches in a single day then I have in 3.5 years (just over 1000). Frankly, when it comes to power trails most that are pro-trail take a selfish approach. As long as they're have a good time, finding several hundred caches in a day they don't care if there are others that have concerns about the impact of power trails.

Frankly your list was way too long and given the nature of that forum it would not make much sense to respond to each point. I suspect I would end up agreeing with one or two of them - so perhaps there are some reasons to limit power trails. However your complaint right above that one cacher found more in one day on the ET power trail than you have in 3.5 years is certainly not a reason to limit power trails.The best response to numbers cachers is to not do numbers. In your case we know 1) you live in a relatively sparse area and 2) you prefer getting out on finding caches that require a hike or a paddling a kayak or canoe. No body would expect you to have high numbers and nobody should be judging you based on the number of caches you have found (yourself included). For some who likes that thing, finding 1000 caches in a day is another kind of challenge. Power trails make achieving such a challenge easier, so certainly finding 1000 caches driving down a power trail desert highway may be no more impressive than finding one cache that required paddling down a class IV rapids and repelling down a cliff.

[+t4e]

 

I can provide numerous reason why I feel powertrails are a reason for concern and when I did in the Get Satisfaction forum about 175 people agreed with me. Yes, there were many that chose to ignore those reasons for the sake of increasing their find count at a mind boggling rate (one E.T. cacher claimed to have found more caches in a single day then I have in 3.5 years (just over 1000). Frankly, when it comes to power trails most that are pro-trail take a selfish approach. As long as they're have a good time, finding several hundred caches in a day they don't care if there are others that have concerns about the impact of power trails.

 

i am not against this rule for the purpose of increasing my find count

if some want to play the game that way, i don't care

looks to me that you are taking their comments personally

me, on the other hand i couldn't care less if you find 1000 in 6 months and it takes me 2 years to do the same

we each play this game as its suits ourselves, if you draw enjoyment from running your car to the ground, and spending the whole day as if you were stuck in Groundhog Day, so be it

as i said i do not see the powertrails being a problem yet

 

 

Maybe we've just got different motivation? Assuming, for argument's sake, the proposed Swiss Repetition Trail rule gets implemented by Groundspeak, and you tried hiding your 4 caches along a single stretch of trail, a mile long. You read the guidelines, as all good cachers do, and conclude that you can only hide one cache on that stretch, for now. Naturally, being a cacher of good taste and high standards, who takes pride in their hides, you pick the best spot out there, submit your listing, and the cache logs start pouring in, praising you for your new cache. One of your peers loves the new trail so much he hides a cache in another kewl spot along the trail. In a few months, you go back, hike the trail again, find the cache the other guy hid, and place another new one of your own. Again, the logs start pouring in, praising you for hiding another cache along such a beautiful stretch of trail. A little while later another cacher comes along, following in your footsteps, hiding yet another cache along the trail you discovered. You wait the requisite time period, hoof your way out there, find the cache and hide another one of your own, resulting in even more praise.

 

What, exactly, is going to waste?

 

the trail where i put my 4 caches has been around for longer than the 10 years that geocaching has been around, i have been caching for 2 years now, and nobody has placed one single cache there

Edited August 29, 2010 by t4e

[+FireRef]

 

tbh i don't think the powertrails are a reason for concern anywhere, at least not yet

 

 

I can provide numerous reason why I feel powertrails are a reason for concern and when I did in the Get Satisfaction forum about 175 people agreed with me. Yes, there were many that chose to ignore those reasons for the sake of increasing their find count at a mind boggling rate (one E.T. cacher claimed to have found more caches in a single day then I have in 3.5 years (just over 1000). Frankly, when it comes to power trails most that are pro-trail take a selfish approach. As long as they're have a good time, finding several hundred caches in a day they don't care if there are others that have concerns about the impact of power trails.

 

Honestly, I think it is more the opposite - the people who are anti-power-trails are being selfish. "I don't like them, so I don't think anyone else should be able to have or do them". If your find count means nothing in the grand scheme of things to anyone other than yourself, which is what the website always says, then what does it matter if someone outcaches you because they enjoyed the challenge of following that trail and finding that many in a short time? I like a little of everything - I've enjoyed the few mini power trails I've done, a few seriously challenging caches, and everything in between.

 

If you don't like them, don't look for them - don't begrudge people who do like them the ability to do so. That is what has removed locationless caches, and prohibited new webcams and virtuals.

 

Look for what you like, ignore what you don't.

[Clan Riffster]

the trail where i put my 4 caches has been around for longer than the 10 years that geocaching has been around, i have been caching for 2 years now, and nobody has placed one single cache there

Which does nothing to address my suggestion, or to answer my question.

You'd still get the first cache. You might get more caches to find as others go in search of your initial hide.

If nobody hides anything there, you would still end up with your desired monopoly.

What's going to waste?

[4wheelin_fool]

They should just make the minimum distance .5, but allow reviewer discretion up to .10

 

Caches closer than .5 from each other would be ok if they were not saturating the area in excess.

[+t4e]

the trail where i put my 4 caches has been around for longer than the 10 years that geocaching has been around, i have been caching for 2 years now, and nobody has placed one single cache there

Which does nothing to address my suggestion, or to answer my question.

You'd still get the first cache. You might get more caches to find as others go in search of your initial hide.

If nobody hides anything there, you would still end up with your desired monopoly.

What's going to waste?

 

i addressed your suggestion right to the point

 

nobody placed a cache there for 10 years, what is not clear?

 

there is no monopoly in this game, not as long as we have so many players in it

 

while i like revisiting places, i prefer to go to new ones rather than revisit the same place every 3 months for a new cache

 

and yes, i agree with FireRef

why does anyone care how the others chose to play?

 

i personally think there are too many challenge caches that to me have unreasonable requirements, but others manage to complete them

i don't go around asking that challenge caches be banned

i just ignore them

Edited August 29, 2010 by t4e

[Clan Riffster]

If you don't like them, don't look for them - don't begrudge people who do like them the ability to do so. That is what has removed locationless caches, and prohibited new webcams and virtuals.

Huh. Learn something new every day. I was under the impression that a decision by Jeremy, as CEO of Groundspeak, was the reason locationless caches went away and new virtual/webcam caches were prohibited. Are you suggesting that we, the members, made that decision? Heck, maybe we, the members, could shuck all the guidelines? Make this site an "Anything Goes" kinda place? I'm still wanting to create my 2000+ virtual power trail along a local Interstate. Drive along at 60 MPH, clicking your camera at the guardrail every time the odometer ticks, and you'd have over 2000 smileys in about 4 hours. Those who didn't like them could simply not do them, right?

 

Or, we could convince TPTB to create a forum where folks could offer their opinions on varied geocaching topics...

Then other folks could shout down those opinions with statements like, "If you don't like them, don't do them"...

Oh... Uh... Er... Nevermind. We've already got that.

[+dfx]

They should just make the minimum distance .5, but allow reviewer discretion up to .10

reviewer discretion = matter of interpretation/opinion = arguments = appeals to Groundspeak = lots of heat = bad idea

[Clan Riffster]

i addressed your suggestion right to the point

Actually, you completely dodged my suggestion. Since you're doing so again, I'll quit, as it's falling on deaf ears.

[4wheelin_fool]

They should just make the minimum distance .5, but allow reviewer discretion up to .10

reviewer discretion = matter of interpretation/opinion = arguments = appeals to Groundspeak = lots of heat = bad idea

 

It depends how it is implemented. If 95% of the time the reviewer publishes it, then the 5% refusal rate would most likely be tolerated.

[+t4e]

i addressed your suggestion right to the point

Actually, you completely dodged my suggestion. Since you're doing so again, I'll quit, as it's falling on deaf ears.

 

w/e maybe you haven't exactly expressed your suggestion clearly or maybe you can't understand my reply

 

your suggestion leaves an area totally wasted if nobody else puts a cache out there, apart from the one i did

 

what part of "nobody placed a cache there for 10 years until i did so" you don't understand? ?

[+dfx]

It depends how it is implemented. If 95% of the time the reviewer publishes it, then the 5% refusal rate would most likely be tolerated.

not really. you'll run into problems as soon as you get into a situation where you have one reviewer who refuses to publish a cache while another reviewer would publish it.

 

if you don't manage to spell out the rules in a meaningful, unambiguous (as much as possible anyway) and deterministic manner, you might as well not have the rules at all.

[+t4e]

the proposed guideline will not stop powertrails by any means, what is going to happen is that a group of 4-5 people will get together and start a powertrail, each of them placing a cache within the proposed 1 mile distance

 

or you will have a surge of "sock puppet" accounts that will start placing caches

so what do you do in that case, make a rule that precludes someone from hiding caches before they have a certain number of finds?

 

seriously people this is just a game there is no need for all this arbitrary restrictions based on personal taste of a handful of people

[+skraeling]

Hmmm....

 

There are people who dont like multis. Lets ban/restrict those.

There are people who dont like micros. Lets ban/restrict those.

There are people who dont like urban cacheses. Lets ban/restrict those.

There are people who dont like challenge/mystery caches. Lets ban/restrict those.

....

There are people who dont like geocaching. Lets ban/restrict the whole lot.

 

And this all got started because some got their tighty whities a bit too tight over power trails.

Do you think this is a bit over the top? Think it cant happen? Think again.

 

I see nothing wrong with power trails. If you like them, do them. Nor do I see anything wrong with any other types of caches. If you dont like them, ignore them. We have some "challenge" caches here that force you to do waymarks or benchmarks in order to get the smiley. I have no interest in either. Am I going to try to get them banned/restricted? Nope, I just clicked the handy ignore link on the cache page.

[Clan Riffster]

There are people who dont like... <snip for brevity>

There are people who like the concept of 2000 virtual cache finds in 4 hours.

Can I get your vote for my virtual repitition trail?

[+FireRef]

There are people who dont like... <snip for brevity>

There are people who like the concept of 2000 virtual cache finds in 4 hours.

Can I get your vote for my virtual repitition trail?

 

If you're stopping and signing the log, they're not virtual.

 

There's no "click your camera and get a find" caches.

 

The power trails aren't what you're talking about.

 

If you don't like them, don't do them - but please stop trying to ruin them for the people that do!

[imwithstupider]

What exactly is a power trail?

[+tozainamboku]

There are people who dont like... <snip for brevity>

There are people who like the concept of 2000 virtual cache finds in 4 hours.

Can I get your vote for my virtual repitition trail?

Jeremy can, as you say, run Geocaching.com anyway he chooses. He angered a lot of people by moving virtual caches to Waymarking. But at least he recognized that some people like the idea of sharing interesting place with each other and either couldn't or wouldn't hide a geocache to do so. Jeremy polled the users in the forums several times to see if anyone could come up with a satisfactory definition of a virtual cache that wasn't a waymark. I suspect he had already made up his mind, and that's why no definition was satisfactory. But at least he can make a claim that if you want to hide a virtual cache you can do so on Waymarking.

 

The Swiss Rule works in somewhat the same fashion. He will be able to claim that if you want to put up a power trail you can, just that you start with caches a mile apart and every three months you fill in some gaps. Or you get a group of ten caches together and the each places 1/10th of the caches on the power trail.

 

The issue I have are all the times when a geocacher wants to place a series of two or three caches that might be closer together. We don't know the effect this rule will have on them. Perhaps some people will place multis. Perhaps some will place just one cache (and if the other site is still open in three months they will go back). Perhaps they will not place any caches. And what will that do to finders. Numbers cachers will still look for numbers. They will find places with a high cache density and many hiders.

 

When I began caching in 2003, I could see already that the urban park and grab needed no help. Plenty of those were being hidden. But already back then, hiking caches, particularly in new areas, were not placed nearly as often. So that's what I decided to place. I placed my first cache and waited three weeks for a FTF. It still gets found only about once a year. Nobody goes looking for lone caches on long hikes. Over time, I noticed other cachers were hiding series of caches on some trails. They weren't power trails so much. Usually five to ten caches often as much a half a mile apart. These cache would at least attract the notice of cachers who like to hike. In some areas, the finders would fill in the gaps, turning some hikes into power trails created over time by different cachers. The best part for me was that there were now plenty of hiking caches being placed. I've tried to get some areas going. I added three caches to a trail that already had two or three other caches and that was successful. Soon other cachers were hiding caches in that area. And after a fire destroyed some of the caches, I went on a hike with some friends and we replaced some of the destroyed caches and added some new ones. But in other cases where I've put out three or four caches, the area hasn't caught on yet. Perhaps others will add caches eventually, and a critical mass will be reached. But this is taking a while. I'm considering hiding some more (and as it's been more than three months the Swiss rule might allow it). But why make it harder to get to this critical mass? And why prevent me from placing an extra cache, as I did, to help cacher navigate a tricky section of the trail because it would a have been too close to the cache at the location I ultimately wanted to take cachers too?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

tbh i don't think the powertrails are a reason for concern anywhere, at least not yet

 

 

I can provide numerous reason why I feel powertrails are a reason for concern and when I did in the Get Satisfaction forum about 175 people agreed with me. Yes, there were many that chose to ignore those reasons for the sake of increasing their find count at a mind boggling rate (one E.T. cacher claimed to have found more caches in a single day then I have in 3.5 years (just over 1000). Frankly, when it comes to power trails most that are pro-trail take a selfish approach. As long as they're have a good time, finding several hundred caches in a day they don't care if there are others that have concerns about the impact of power trails.

Frankly your list was way too long and given the nature of that forum it would not make much sense to respond to each point. I suspect I would end up agreeing with one or two of them - so perhaps there are some reasons to limit power trails. However your complaint right above that one cacher found more in one day on the ET power trail than you have in 3.5 years is certainly not a reason to limit power trails.

 

You're right about my list being too long. I probably should have just focused on 2-3 issues.

 

My comment about one cacher finding as many caches in a day then I've found in 3.5 years wasn't intended to be a complaint about power trails, but only an example of the kinds of numbers some are achieving doing power trails.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

tbh i don't think the powertrails are a reason for concern anywhere, at least not yet

 

 

I can provide numerous reason why I feel powertrails are a reason for concern and when I did in the Get Satisfaction forum about 175 people agreed with me. Yes, there were many that chose to ignore those reasons for the sake of increasing their find count at a mind boggling rate (one E.T. cacher claimed to have found more caches in a single day then I have in 3.5 years (just over 1000). Frankly, when it comes to power trails most that are pro-trail take a selfish approach. As long as they're have a good time, finding several hundred caches in a day they don't care if there are others that have concerns about the impact of power trails.

 

Honestly, I think it is more the opposite - the people who are anti-power-trails are being selfish. "I don't like them, so I don't think anyone else should be able to have or do them". If your find count means nothing in the grand scheme of things to anyone other than yourself, which is what the website always says, then what does it matter if someone outcaches you because they enjoyed the challenge of following that trail and finding that many in a short time? I like a little of everything - I've enjoyed the few mini power trails I've done, a few seriously challenging caches, and everything in between.

 

If you don't like them, don't look for them - don't begrudge people who do like them the ability to do so. That is what has removed locationless caches, and prohibited new webcams and virtuals.

 

Look for what you like, ignore what you don't.

 

Sigh. Here we go again.

 

Whether I, or anyone else likes or doesn't like power trails is irrelevant. If there problems that arise as the result of the placement and searching of power trail caches those problems are going to continue to exist whether I or others choose to do them or not.

 

To me, the reason that power trails are created is to provide others the opportunity to try and find as many caches as possible in a short period of time. The hides are typically easy and conducive to a quick find so that high find counts in a day can be achieved. Effectively it turns a day of geocaching into a race. Because it's becomes a race many will look for ways to do as quickly as possible. I have read many examples of some of the things geocachers will do in order to "win the race". For example, a couple of people that did the E.T. trail mentioned seeing tire tracks in environmentally sensitive areas. Specifically, they noted that there were a bunch of caches 50' or so from the road, and rather that just park on the shoulder they'd seen evidence of some that had driven as close to the cache as possible to retrieve the cache then drove back to the road to go on to the next one. Whoever did that didn't care about the environmental damage they may be causing as long as they were saving a few seconds between each cache. Similarly, for the alien head portion of the trail, the COs specifically ask in the cache listing that others not drive to those caches, yet there are those that are driving from cache to cache in that area in order to get them all as quickly as possible. In fact, one fo the logs even suggests that others drive the route so that future satellite photos will show an alien head made from the tire tracks.

 

From reading other logs on power trail caches you can read about some people slapping team stickers across several lines of the log sheet or even on the outside of the container, containers being found just laying on the ground because a previous cacher didn't take the time to rehide it or even close the container properly, and then because they've found so many caches post the same cut-n-paste log on all of them, even those that pre-existed the trail. While it's true that a scorched-earth approach and other time saving practices are employed for non-power trail caches, the fact remains that power trails encourage some practices that many have identified as "bad form" and potentially detrimental to the future of the game.

[+briansnat]

Hmmm....

 

There are people who dont like multis. Lets ban/restrict those.

There are people who dont like micros. Lets ban/restrict those.

There are people who dont like urban cacheses. Lets ban/restrict those.

There are people who dont like challenge/mystery caches. Lets ban/restrict those.

....

There are people who dont like geocaching. Lets ban/restrict the whole lot.

 

And this all got started because some got their tighty whities a bit too tight over power trails.

Do you think this is a bit over the top? Think it cant happen? Think again.

 

I see nothing wrong with power trails. If you like them, do them. Nor do I see anything wrong with any other types of caches. If you dont like them, ignore them. We have some "challenge" caches here that force you to do waymarks or benchmarks in order to get the smiley. I have no interest in either. Am I going to try to get them banned/restricted? Nope, I just clicked the handy ignore link on the cache page.

 

You see nothing wrong with them. I see them as infringing on my enjoyment of the game and a threat to our sport.

 

1. They muck up my PQs. I don't want to do your power trail, nor do I want to have to wade through 300 of your power trail caches on my GPS. It's hard enough weeding out all the mundane LPCs, strip mall caches and guard rail hides, now I have to deal with your power trail too.

 

2. They are more likely to receive negative attention from land managers. Far fetched? Nope, already happened with TOTG. It only took a short time for the power trail to come to the attention of land managers and spark their ire, while individual caches in the area existed for years without a problem.

 

3. Increased potential for environmental damage. These power trails draw a lot of people, far more than most individual caches. Until now they have largely been placed in areas that are resistant to damage, but unchecked, they WILL explode and WILL start appearing in parks and forests. Even if all geocachers are careful and well behaved, the concentrated activity is bound have a serious impact. And most ill behaved cachers come from the power cacher fraternity, the very people who will be attracted to these. In their zeal to rack up numbers they're far more likely than most cachers to take shortcuts, drive where they shouldn't and tread heavily.

 

4. They stress the idea that the entire point of geocaching is to rack up numbers and serve to move the sport farther away from it's original ethic of bringing you to interesting places (and for those who will dispute this, check out Dave Ulmer's Usenet posts in the weeks after he placed his first cache. Jeremy has also weighed in on the subject a number of times).

 

This said, I'm not in favor of the "Swiss model" in its current form. Perhaps with some tweaking it can become more palatable.

[Clan Riffster]

There are people who dont like... <snip for brevity>

There are people who like the concept of 2000 virtual cache finds in 4 hours.

Can I get your vote for my virtual repitition trail?

 

If you're stopping and signing the log, they're not virtual.

 

There's no "click your camera and get a find" caches.

 

The power trails aren't what you're talking about.

You haven't been paying attention. Not surprising, as you're getting so worked up over a proposal that you've ended any attempts at actually communicating, reverting instead to politician like sound bites.

 

The 2K Virt concept is one I mentioned earlier. I live near Interstate-4, which, for an Interstate, is really short. Not much over 100 miles. The whole thing can be traversed in a couple hours, or 4 hours round trip. By staggering waypoints along the eastbound and westbound lanes, I've calculated that I can fit over 2000 virtual caches along its length. Naturally, being an Interstate, there's not much to see off the right of way other than guardrails and fence posts, but the E.T. Trail silliness has already demonstrated that folks care more about increasing their find counts than scenery. As the author of all these virts, I would be in a position to set the standards regarding how a find can be logged, and I would include the option of driving by, clicking your camera every 529'. Thus, the numbers crowd could snag over 2000 smileys in less than 4 hours.

 

Now that you (hopefully), grasp the concept, do I have your support, if Groundspeak ever brings back virts?

[+geodarts]

As the author of all these virts, I would be in a position to set the standards regarding how a find can be logged, and I would include the option of driving by, clicking your camera every 529'. Thus, the numbers crowd could snag over 2000 smileys in less than 4 hours.

 

Now that you (hopefully), grasp the concept, do I have your support, if Groundspeak ever brings back virts?

 

Since virtuals are not currently subject to proximity rules you could do it in much less distance. Of course if they were brought back with a specific educational focus and tasks you would be out of luck. The longest trail of earthcaches I have seen is nine, and that type of virtual can take far longer than a simple park and grab. People could be out on a virtual trail for weeks!

 

But trails of traditionals seem like they are with us to stay, one way or the other. However, I distinguish areas where there are a high density of caches placed over time from true repetitive trails. I have done 85 caches along a 45 mile bike ride, with different types of hides and terrain (where you could do more than that today), and I have done part of the ET trail that was set up for the purposes of repetition -- same type of hide, one rock pile or rock marker to another, 18-30 seconds to sign a log, repeated for as long as you like). The latter I would make into a separate category since it seems like its own type of caching experience. The former probably would not be restricted under the proposed changes for a "swiss rule" but would also not get into the 1000+ numbers.

Edited August 29, 2010 by mulvaney

[+DanOCan]

your suggestion leaves an area totally wasted if nobody else puts a cache out there, apart from the one i did

 

Not really. If you hide a good cache in a nice spot the area is not wasted, regardless of whether or not anyone else places a cache there. You certainly don't need multiple caches to avoid "wasting" an area.

 

As for power trails, we don't have any around here yet so I'm not too worried but, like challenge caches, I suspect it won't be long before it happens.

[+Ike 13]

I dislike the 'Swiss' model. 1 mile is a big area. I like to pride myself on quality hides and locations. I also know that people are more willing to walk a trail if there are caches all along the trail. A power trail is not difficult to define.

 

Power trail,n: A trail of 10 or more caches placed barely .1 miles apart. The caches are placed along a road so one can drive along and find many caches very quickly. These are usually micros placed in a similar fashion.

 

Instead of hard fast rules GS could have one reviewer in charge of all power trails. If we keep them create an attribute to help filter them out.

[GOF and Bacall]

...If we keep them create an attribute to help filter them out.

 

I agree that if we are going to have them they need an attribute or a new cache type to filter them on. Some folks will use the filter to avoid and other to find. Either way they need a way to be filtered.

[+tozainamboku]

You see nothing wrong with them. I see them as infringing on my enjoyment of the game and a threat to our sport.

 

1. They muck up my PQs. I don't want to do your power trail, nor do I want to have to wade through 300 of your power trail caches on my GPS. It's hard enough weeding out all the mundane LPCs, strip mall caches and guard rail hides, now I have to deal with your power trail too.

I agree with this to some degree. I think most people can deal with this using third party software. But it would be nice to have a power trail attribute (or an ignore caches in an arbitrary bookmark list) so that people who don't want to get these caches in there PQs can eliminate them.

 

2. They are more likely to receive negative attention from land managers. Far fetched? Nope, already happened with TOTG. It only took a short time for the power trail to come to the attention of land managers and spark their ire, while individual caches in the area existed for years without a problem.

Existing guidelines ought to cover this. One is adequate permission. If land managers are going to want to limit power trails or have their own saturation guidelines, the can simply make this known to reviewers who can then not publish these caches. If there is concern that a land manager will go farther and ban caching altogether, reviewers can ask power trail hiders what kind of permission they got.

 

In the cache of ToTG, the issue was that many of the caches were placed on high voltage transmission towers that move electricity from Hoover Dam to Southern California metropolitan areas. These towers are critical infrastructure and thus a possible terrorist target. It was the various power companies that own these lines that asked the BLM to have the caches removed. The problem was not the density of the caches but rather the way they were hidden. Now, it has been pointed out that if there were one or two caches on towers out in the desert the power companies would have never known about it. But that doesn't make it anymore right to hide caches on the towers so long as they are not part of a power trail.

3. Increased potential for environmental damage. These power trails draw a lot of people, far more than most individual caches. Until now they have largely been placed in areas that are resistant to damage, but unchecked, they WILL explode and WILL start appearing in parks and forests. Even if all geocachers are careful and well behaved, the concentrated activity is bound have a serious impact. And most ill behaved cachers come from the power cacher fraternity, the very people who will be attracted to these. In their zeal to rack up numbers they're far more likely than most cachers to take shortcuts, drive where they shouldn't and tread heavily.

Any cache placed in an environmentally sensitive area invites damage from careless geocachers. I don't see this as a power trail issue. The issue as to whether power trail cachers are more likely to be careless is anecdotal at best. I may be that in order to rack up a bigger number someone is going to act stupid. On the other hand, power trail cache, by definition are hidden in pretty obvious place and easy to find. With the exception of driving through sensitive areas to get from one cache to the next more quickly, power trail caches are likely to have less impact.

4. They stress the idea that the entire point of geocaching is to rack up numbers and serve to move the sport farther away from it's original ethic of bringing you to interesting places (and for those who will dispute this, check out Dave Ulmer's Usenet posts in the weeks after he placed his first cache. Jeremy has also weighed in on the subject a number of times).

As much as some of us would like to emphasize geocaching as taking people to interesting places, we cannot put this genie back in the bottle. There are many people who are motivated by the find count and this is the reason they enjoy geocaching. I think even those who say they aren't into the numbers, still like using numbers to set up various challenges. Setting a personal record for caches found in a a day can be fun and interesting to many people. Even selecting where you are going to go on a hike. Sometimes you may go for that one cache in a remote area, but other times you'll be attracted to that trail where someone has placed six new caches in addition to the six that were already there. The Swiss Rule will eliminated many of these options.

[+humboldt flier]

Hmmm....

 

 

You see nothing wrong with them. I see them as infringing on my enjoyment of the game and a threat to our sport.

 

 

Not trying to be confrontational, however, I would like some clarification and context for some of the words parsed from a larger quote.

 

From above: " infringing on my enjoyment ".

" threat to our sport "

 

I need to understand these two positions because I am stumbling on them.

 

Many Thanks in advance for your assistance.

[+humboldt flier]

With respect to the E.T. Trail:

 

There is a small group of players who are driven to spend significant time and resources to tackle this particular adventure. Travelers from various locations in North America and Europe have seen this critter and been lured into the desert.

 

The tiny subset of cachers who are lured out onto a Power Trail represent a miniscule portion of our worldwide caching community it might be illuminating to discover the various driving forces.

 

What are the motivators? What is the lure? An analysis of stats reveals cachers with small numbers and cachers with mega numbers so I am not certain that number pumping is the primary motivator.

 

On the subject of " Geo Manners " We indeed see evidence that some folks have done things along trails and cache sites which seem to fly in the face of some of the precepts. CITO and not trashing the environment. Perhaps there are some souls who might attend to those details a little / a lot better.

 

We probably need to reinforce that the desert is an ecosystem and needs to be cared for as we would care for any other ecosystem.

 

O.K. Stepping off soap box.

[GOF and Bacall]

I like swiss cheese on my ham sandwich.

[Clan Riffster]

I like swiss cheese on my ham sandwich.

No, no, no! You're doing it all wrong! A nice soft Brie is best on ham! Swiss cheese should be banned! Banned, I tell ya!

[+NYPaddleCacher]

With respect to the E.T. Trail:

 

There is a small group of players who are driven to spend significant time and resources to tackle this particular adventure. Travelers from various locations in North America and Europe have seen this critter and been lured into the desert.

 

The tiny subset of cachers who are lured out onto a Power Trail represent a miniscule portion of our worldwide caching community it might be illuminating to discover the various driving forces.

 

What are the motivators? What is the lure? An analysis of stats reveals cachers with small numbers and cachers with mega numbers so I am not certain that number pumping is the primary motivator.

 

Sorry, I'm not buying it. Picking a random cache (#252) I looked at the logs. There are 134 finds (no DNFs). Of those 134 finds, there was only two with less than 1000 finds. There were a handful with just over 1000. One log in particular was from someone that had 1132 finds and they wrote that they found 1100 caches in about 11 hours. I'm not sure what you consider small number but in may areas 1000 is considered quite a few finds. I also counted a wopping 33 finders that have more than 10,000 finds. To put that number into perspective, according to cacherstats.com there are only 3 geocachers in the state of NY with more than 10,000 finds, and only 150 or so in the entire world.

 

I also took a look at a nearby cache with a 3.5 terrain that wasn't on the PT. It only has 28 finds (since 2008), none since the E.T. trail was created.

 

The evidence is pretty clear to me that the motivation for doing the power trail is to find as many caches as possible in a short period of time, effectively turning geocaching into a race. I'm willing to listen to some other reason why geocachers are doing the ET trail, other than to try and find a lot of caches in a short period of time but I've yet to see anything convincing.

[+Chokecherry]

While not a fan of power trails (and they're not something I would likely do)....

 

The reality is there are A LOT of non-power trail caches placed for the purpose of inflating numbers in the shortest possible time and with the least amount of effort.

 

You can't really fault the power trailers and then let those that use lamp post hides to inflate their numbers slide either.

 

I think it would be entirely more interesting to see the entire power trail count as a single smiley in an event open from such and such a date to another date.

[GOF and Bacall]

I like swiss cheese on my ham sandwich.

No, no, no! You're doing it all wrong! A nice soft Brie is best on ham! Swiss cheese should be banned! Banned, I tell ya!

 

How rude! You eat your ham your way and let me play...er...eat mine my way!

[Mr.Yuck]

I actually have a hard time following that thread on Get Satisfaction. Although I find the "Jeremy's nut sack" hostile troll sock puppet rather amusing. I don't know if that stuff is still there, I haven't looked in a couple of hours.

 

Well, I predicted from day one (and still stand by it) that the "experiment" of open season on 1,000 film cans/and or altoids tins 529 feet apart would implode quickly. Even when they are masterminded by well-known reviewers who sit firmly on the liberal side of the geocaching fence.

[+t4e]

i seriously can't see a problem with powertrails yet, and except for the ET highway how many are out there?

 

can those opposed to powertrails show us the nearest one state how close it is to them?

 

somehow this whole issue with powertrails seems to steam from the fact that some cachers don't like the numbers game, so why do you log your finds?

you are entitled to dislike them like them, but why can't other people be allowed to like them?

 

as of now the powertrail are not threatening anyone's enjoyment of the game and it certainly does not threaten the game

 

somewhere along the line this whole "i hate powertrails" has turned into "i hate 5-6-7 cache hidden in a row"

 

get over it, there are trails that can accommodate 10-12 quality caches, and you're telling me if there is one its enough

 

for the very few powertrails out there you want to restrict regular hides

 

ET highway? yes, its the perfect place for a powertrail, don't even try telling me that is a place where you can make a quality hide

[+tozainamboku]

The evidence is pretty clear to me that the motivation for doing the power trail is to find as many caches as possible in a short period of time, effectively turning geocaching into a race. I'm willing to listen to some other reason why geocachers are doing the ET trail, other than to try and find a lot of caches in a short period of time but I've yet to see anything convincing.

Arguing over the motivation of cachers to find caches on a power trail isn't a particular strong case for changing the rules. You might as well complain that people look for lamppost hide for the wrong motivation, or people who prefer hides you need a canoe or kayak. I have to smile at Jeremy's claim that the intent of geocaching is to bring people to new and interesting places. I thought that was the intent of Waymarking. There are as many reasons fro geocaching as there are geocachers and if some are motivated by seeing the number of their finds increase more rapidly who can say this is an invalid motivation.

 

There may be some real issues that some people see with too many power trails. Perhaps damage to environment, perhaps the perception land managers have of geocaching, perhaps the difficulty of ignoring repetitive hides that you aren't interested in finding. Perhaps we can find other ways to address these issues, if the are in fact the real issues with power trails .

 

Trying to regulate the reasons people like to geocache is silly. If you limit power trails placed by individuals or by groups using a team account, you will just encourage groups forming to place these trails within the new rules. You will still get clusters of caches in one area that will attract people who are motivated by numbers; what you may get is fewer caches placed in areas where the cache density is low, because few people will go look for those caches and a individual will not longer be able to place a small series to jump start that area.

[GOF and Bacall]

But what does any of this have to do with my ham sandwich?!

[Clan Riffster]

ET highway? yes, its the perfect place for a powertrail, don't even try telling me that is a place where you can make a quality hide

One can only assume, from this bit of silliness, that you've never been to the deserts of Nevada.

If you had, you'd know that, geographically, it can support anything from a 1/1 crappy film can, (or 1000+ crappy film cans, to be more precise), to a 5/5 ammo can. Just because a select few opted on that specific region for their blight on the landscape doesn't mean there can't be quality hides there. Quality hides can be found in every region, and every climate, including the desert.

[+t4e]

ET highway? yes, its the perfect place for a powertrail, don't even try telling me that is a place where you can make a quality hide

One can only assume, from this bit of silliness, that you've never been to the deserts of Nevada.

If you had, you'd know that, geographically, it can support anything from a 1/1 crappy film can, (or 1000+ crappy film cans, to be more precise), to a 5/5 ammo can. Just because a select few opted on that specific region for their blight on the landscape doesn't mean there can't be quality hides there. Quality hides can be found in every region, and every climate, including the desert.

 

before you call it silliness read again what i said

 

i referred strictly to the ET Highway location, i don't see where i said that the whole Nevada is a bad place for quality caches

 

seriously, i don't care for powertrail, i have no intention of placing any nor "killing" a day doing one

 

my problem is that people are opposed to them for the wrong reason, just because they are quick TFTC, because they can get more caches in a day than the powertrail haters got in a year

and for those personal and silly reason they want everyone else to suffer

geocaching goes on because people hide caches, be it LPC, ammo cans in the woods, powertails, micros, nanos and so on...nobody likes them all, but you can't please everybody

 

come on, this is turning into a kindergarden argument here

Edited August 30, 2010 by t4e

[Mr.Yuck]

 

somehow this whole issue with powertrails seems to steam from the fact that some cachers don't like the numbers game, so why do you log your finds?

you are entitled to dislike them like them, but why can't other people be allowed to like them?

 

 

This one is thrown out there all the time, and is super easy. Why do I log my finds? Because that's the way this website was designed to work from day one in the year 2000. I find a cache, it gets removed from my searches. I resolve to always log caches I deem worthy on this website as finds. Just kidding about the "deem worthy" part. I guess.