Banned Power Trails?

[+TerraViators]

I was talking to a couple from OKC, today. They said there was a reviewer in Oklahoma who would not publish power trail caches. Of course, I have no hard proof, but does a reviewer have that authority?

[+Chrysalides]

I was talking to a couple from OKC, today. They said there was a reviewer in Oklahoma who would not publish power trail caches. Of course, I have no hard proof, but does a reviewer have that authority?

A reviewer has the authority to not allow a cache to be published. You can appeal to geocaching.com if you disagree with the reason given by sending an email to appeals@geocaching.com.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

[+Ashallond]

there are tons of powertrails in Oklahoma.

[+dfx]

apparently the swiss reviewers also have authority to make up their own rules.

[+Scooter Rider]

I was talking to a couple from OKC, today. They said there was a reviewer in Oklahoma who would not publish power trail caches. Of course, I have no hard proof, but does a reviewer have that authority?

 

Most likely a power cache was not publish because it didn't comply with the rules.

And then the local rumor mill started spewing that all power caches are banned.

[+M 5]

I posted a link to the feedback section a week or so ago in the Oklahoma yahoo group. I also listed a few of the ideas that were either "planned" or "under review" for those that didn't feel like following the link. A power trail guideline is listed as "under review". It may be accepted or rejected. A decision either way hasn't been made public yet to my knowledge, but that may be where the confusion lies. As a previous poster stated, there are a bunch of power trails in Oklahoma and have been coming in steadily for a while now.

[+ventura_kids]

apparently the swiss reviewers also have authority to make up their own rules.

 

What did they do?

[+dfx]

What did they do?

the whole details were posted in Get Satisfaction, which is now offline. google still has it cached: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/sear...=clnk&gl=ca

 

oh there's a forum thread too: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=258567

Edited September 22, 2010 by dfx

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I was talking to a couple from OKC, today. They said there was a reviewer in Oklahoma who would not publish power trail caches. Of course, I have no hard proof, but does a reviewer have that authority?

 

Yes. Here is how the saturation guideline reads:

 

"Please don't hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can. The ultimate goals of the saturation guideline are to encourage you to seek out new places to hide caches rather than putting them in areas where caches already exist and to limit the number of caches hidden in a particular area, especially by the same hider. Groundspeak may further restrict cache listings in areas where cache saturation becomes a concern."

 

It's unclear whether a reviewer is acting on behalf of Groundspeak or if one of the lackeys would get involved directly but if the reviewer thought that cache saturation was a concern in that case the guideline does allow restricting those cache listings.

 

This would be the first example I've seen when a reviewer didn't publish caches in a power trail since the language was changed. If a reviewer never did exercise the option to restrict caches where saturation was a concern then that entire paragraph I quoted above should be removed from the guidelines as it would be superfluous.

[Clan Riffster]

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

Sorry. Nothing original to add. I just wanted to quote that bit 'cuz it feels so good seeing it in print.

[+PastorDIC]

If someone were to put a cache every 600 feet by the power poles along Burnt Bridge Creek here in Vancouver, WA it would be a great thing. But this may be an anomoly

 

We have power line poles only part way down the hill. Further down is a creek. The city of Vancouver (WA) has added additional trails, benches, wetlands, and wetland information signs at the bottom of the hill. It's wonderful. Also if someone were to put a cache every 600 feet there would be something to see, hear, or do in addition to the cache. A cache every 600 feet - in this case - would be a good way to get people out to use the trails and benches, etc.

 

Every 600 feet water babbling. Or a red wing blackbird calling its mate. Or tiny fish swimming in the creek. Or duckweed floating on the water.

 

I'm glad we have these things and sympathize with those that only have a dirt trail with flat land full of weeds and a power pole every 600 feet.

[knowschad]

We still have folks in my area that think that powertrails are not allowed. Doesn't mean they are right, though.