New Route 66 Mega Power Trail

[+benh57]

800 caches along Route 66 east of Barstow.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?u=Team+Steve+Cat

 

Necessary?

 

I happen to have been making a caches along a route query along 66, and have to filter these out to get a reasonable distance.

 

Not necessarily anti mega powertrail, but this could start to really negate the usefulness of CaaR if these pop up on every highway in the nation.

 

Better tools for filtering caches would certainly help. (ie, ignore based on hider in pocket query, power trail attribute)

Edited January 2, 2011 by benh57

[+pppingme]

I like the power trail attribute, then users that want just those, can filter for them, users that don't want them, can filter against them in pq's.

[TheCacheSeeker]

Why not post this idea in the feedback forum?

[+Scrabble Dogs]

Necessary? To me I would have to say yes had one heck of a time yesterday out there! It is definitely a different type of caching but still a challenge none the less! I would say don't knock it till you try it(with the right group of friends)! But I do agree with you on the fact that we don't need one of these on every highway across the country! Will Groundspeak be able to make every person with a GPS'r happy I doubt it.

[+hariii2]

Road trip! Anyone from Michigan want to go?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

800 caches along Route 66 east of Barstow.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?u=Team+Steve+Cat

 

Necessary?

 

 

I suppose there are some geocachers that can't find anything more difficult than a 2. With 800 of them rated at 1.5 even the most challenged geocacher ought to be able to find a few of them.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

Better tools for filtering caches would certainly help. (ie, ignore based on hider in pocket query, power trail attribute)

 

The least they could have done was use the SCUBA attribute like they did on the ET trail, so people could filter them out if so desired.

[+captnemo]

As I live within 4 miles of Rte 66 East of Barstow I can hardly wait

[+Ginny & Stevecat]

Better tools for filtering caches would certainly help. (ie, ignore based on hider in pocket query, power trail attribute)

 

The least they could have done was use the SCUBA attribute like they did on the ET trail, so people could filter them out if so desired.

 

When I set up this series I really didn't think about setting attributes like "Scuba"

This is a great suggestions, as I realize some people want to avoid this type of series. I will look at adding that attribute to the Route-66 800.

[+ihatethistles]

I am all for power trails. If so many people are against them, I think Groundspeak should create an attribute for them. I'm handicapped and can only walk a short distance. Power trails would help physically challenged people run up their numbers for a change. I spend so much time just driving to and from a cache here or there. And there are too many times that I have to give up because someone forgot to tell me that the weeds are 3 feet high, or "by the side of the road" involves climbing a steep embankment. I haven't done a power trail yet but can't wait to try it. It sounds like it would be a lot of fun with a bunch of people. How nice to just drive .1 mile, park, get out, find, sign, replace and drive on to the next cache. Although I can see how it could get boring. There are a bunch of them here in Illinois that follow mostly backroads around the county borders. But it would be even nicer to do it in California!

[+DragonsWest]

I have found a reason to dislike these things... They play havoc with building Pocket Queries for when on the road.

 

I could select 500 caches and most would be the PT, but miss on the great caches surrounding it.

[+EscapeFromFlatland]

I have found a reason to dislike these things... They play havoc with building Pocket Queries for when on the road.

 

I could select 500 caches and most would be the PT, but miss on the great caches surrounding it.

 

Fully agreed.

Especially in areas with caches at places of historical or Americana interest.

 

But then again, I have a hard time locating some of those caches even when there are no power trails nearby if there are cache-dense towns on the highway and the cache is 3 miles from the highway.

[jholly]

I have found a reason to dislike these things... They play havoc with building Pocket Queries for when on the road.

 

I could select 500 caches and most would be the PT, but miss on the great caches surrounding it.

The ET trail has the scuba attribute so it can be filtered out. But then again if your looking for scuba caches in the high desert ...

 

Edit: I see the route 66 trail now has the scuba attribute. So just filter to exclude scuba caches and the power trail automagically disappears.

Edited January 3, 2011 by jholly

[+humboldt flier]

I have found a reason to dislike these things... They play havoc with building Pocket Queries for when on the road.

 

I could select 500 caches and most would be the PT, but miss on the great caches surrounding it.

 

I am in partial agreement with the Dragon:

 

Perhaps there should be an attribute for power trails / series / and geo-art caches. Indeed havoc can be played with Route Queries.

 

PROFILING, or at least cache profiling, is not necessarily a bad thing.

[+Ginny & Stevecat]

Sorry for not knowing about filtering out the route. We are working on adding the scuba attribute to all of our caches along the route. TSC

[sdarken]

I looked at a single cache in the series and saw this in the log of one of the finders:

 

"This is where the CHiP's officer stopped and asked if we were ok. Did you know stopping on the side of the highway, without an emergency is illegal?"

 

Aren't all these caches on a highway?

[+M 5]

Unfortunately, I think it's gone too far and Groundspeak won't have the guts to do anything about powertrails with all the hype of opencaching. I sincerely hope I'm wrong, but I see lots of problems on the horizon with all the powertrails and urban micros that are exploding everywhere. Geocaching is a much better fit as a niche hobby. It's getting too big and it either has already, or is getting real close to it's threshold limit. You can really see it now on the beta maps.

Edited January 3, 2011 by M 5

[+DragonsWest]

I looked at a single cache in the series and saw this in the log of one of the finders:

 

"This is where the CHiP's officer stopped and asked if we were ok. Did you know stopping on the side of the highway, without an emergency is illegal?"

 

Aren't all these caches on a highway?

 

I panned over the area and it does look so. The ET highway looks like in part it is along US-6. The bulk along a state highway.

 

While I have recently driven along sections of Nevada State Highway roads, I can't say I'm enthusiastic at pulling over every 530 feet as there are often large trucks moving along them, plus other drivers going 70 MPH (or faster - usually faster.)

[+Ecylram]

I looked at a single cache in the series and saw this in the log of one of the finders:

 

"This is where the CHiP's officer stopped and asked if we were ok. Did you know stopping on the side of the highway, without an emergency is illegal?"

 

Aren't all these caches on a highway?

I checked with the Nevada statutes and there is no blanket ban (that I could find) for stopping on the side of a highway (NRS 484B.450).

 

But we're talking California then...probably. Nothing is legal in California.

Edited January 3, 2011 by Ecylram

[+Sol seaker]

Well then the private property issue should be looked at with these.

If it is illegal to pull over then it is state property and permission would not be granted to place caches there.

 

I have no problem with power trails myself, but would like to see them in legal, safe settings.

[+Lil Devil]

While I have recently driven along sections of Nevada State Highway roads, I can't say I'm enthusiastic at pulling over every 530 feet as there are often large trucks moving along them, plus other drivers going 70 MPH (or faster - usually faster.)

Before this power trail, there was around a dozen caches along this same highway, all of which I found a couple of months ago when I came through the area. The entire time I was on that highway I saw maybe 8 vehicles. This road is dead. Seriously. You could park smack in the middle of the road and not have a problem. The road is straight and you can see vehicles coming for miles.

[+eightwednesday]

It is illegal to stop on the side of an interstate highway (or any other type of limited access highway, typically) unless it is an emergency. But if it is not a limited access highway (e.g. it has cross streets, driveways, etc. right on the road) it's kind of hard to make stopping illegal. As far as I can tell, it's not illegal unless it's signed as such.

 

On the other hand, it probably looks funny for vehicles to be more or less crawling along the shoulder of a road for miles on end and likely would draw the attention of law enforcement.

 

Prior to this power trail, I've found caches along old Route 66 (not I-15 or I-40) east of Barstow and never ran into any problems. But I was only grabbing caches every few miles, not several per mile.

[+dakboy]

Well then the private property issue should be looked at with these.

If it is illegal to pull over then it is state property and permission would not be granted to place caches there.

Not necessarily a matter of who owns the property, but a simple matter of safety. I had an officer question me about being stopped on the side of a "state highway" (using that designation based upon the signage) because I needed to answer a phone call (state law says that w/o a hands-free, I have to stop the car, and I didn't have that or a speakerphone). It wasn't illegal in this case as I was 100% on the shoulder, but he would have preferred that I pull onto a side road due to traffic.

Edited January 3, 2011 by dakboy

[+SwineFlew]

Didnt take long to run away from OP. Not surprising at all.

[+Semper Questio]

Why not post this idea in the feedback forum?

I did some time ago, but it has not gotten much traction yet - Feedback Post

[vagabond]

As soon as the weather warms up a little we're going to hit it

37 degrees out there right now and I heard there was snow, of course next week its supposed to be in the 60s

[+the4dirtydogs]

It is illegal to stop on the side of an interstate highway (or any other type of limited access highway, typically) unless it is an emergency. But if it is not a limited access highway (e.g. it has cross streets, driveways, etc. right on the road) it's kind of hard to make stopping illegal. As far as I can tell, it's not illegal unless it's signed as such.

 

On the other hand, it probably looks funny for vehicles to be more or less crawling along the shoulder of a road for miles on end and likely would draw the attention of law enforcement.

 

Prior to this power trail, I've found caches along old Route 66 (not I-15 or I-40) east of Barstow and never ran into any problems. But I was only grabbing caches every few miles, not several per mile.

This road is really dead. We saw 2 chp and they both gave us a weird look as they drove by. The big rigs at one point on the trail were honking as they drove by on the 40. We waved at them. The area is really nice, a couple volcanoes and some pretty cool lava fields out there. The sunset are cool too. Have fun.

[Clan Riffster]

I would say don't knock it till you try it

For those of us who have tried it, can we knock it?

Finding one lame cache is bad enough.

Multiplying it times 800 would have me wanting to scream.

One crappy container, in an uninspired location, is kinda sad.

800 of them, in a row, is mindnumbing.

[+Castle Mischief]

I looked at a single cache in the series and saw this in the log of one of the finders:

 

"This is where the CHiP's officer stopped and asked if we were ok. Did you know stopping on the side of the highway, without an emergency is illegal?"

 

Aren't all these caches on a highway?

 

Caching in the gray area = potential drama. Power Caching in the gray area = potential drama x800.

 

I look forward to the Inevitable Bad Thing that will result in banning of power trails. Unfortunately, the Inevitable Bad Thing may take out some other caches with it.

[+ClayJar]

This topic only just came to my attention thanks to some friends of mine, but as a scuba instructor who is trying hard to get more scubacaches placed and visited, I find it rather disheartening to find out that the "Scuba Gear Required" attribute is being used so, um, "creatively". Having an attribute or the like for power trails seems like it would likely be a very decent idea, but there are so few actual scubacaches out there, misusing our attribute makes it exceedingly difficult for the few of us out there to find the quite rare scubacaches we enjoy.

 

I know it probably seemed that Scuba isn't a very important attribute, but it is indeed to those few of us trying to better our little exotic corner of the game. I know that there isn't an attribute for your part of geocaching (yet), but as good and honorable geocachers, would you please consider a sincere request to remove our scuba attribute from the non-scuba caches?

 

(I'm a scubacacher and a scuba instructor down in Louisiana. If you were closer to me, I'd gladly work out some introductory scubacaching experience. I'm always looking out for people interested in our wet little corner of geocaching. Alas, it's a bit far of a drive for me on a weekend.)

[jholly]

This topic only just came to my attention thanks to some friends of mine, but as a scuba instructor who is trying hard to get more scubacaches placed and visited, I find it rather disheartening to find out that the "Scuba Gear Required" attribute is being used so, um, "creatively". Having an attribute or the like for power trails seems like it would likely be a very decent idea, but there are so few actual scubacaches out there, misusing our attribute makes it exceedingly difficult for the few of us out there to find the quite rare scubacaches we enjoy.

 

I know it probably seemed that Scuba isn't a very important attribute, but it is indeed to those few of us trying to better our little exotic corner of the game. I know that there isn't an attribute for your part of geocaching (yet), but as good and honorable geocachers, would you please consider a sincere request to remove our scuba attribute from the non-scuba caches?

 

(I'm a scubacacher and a scuba instructor down in Louisiana. If you were closer to me, I'd gladly work out some introductory scubacaching experience. I'm always looking out for people interested in our wet little corner of geocaching. Alas, it's a bit far of a drive for me on a weekend.)

You have some very valid points. I did not realize that the high desert was a hot bed of scuba caches. But your idea of a power trail attribute is spot on. Wonder if the TPTB would be as responsive to that request as they were for the chirp attribute.

Edited January 4, 2011 by jholly

[+ClayJar]

You have some very valid points. I did not realize that the high desert was a hot bed of scuba caches.

Hehe, but seriously, isn't that rather the *point*?

 

If I run a PQ centered on my home coordinates for all scubacaches within 500 miles, I get 47 caches. Some of them are jokes or lies, but at least I can page through 47 caches to find the ones that are actually scubacaches.

 

Do a Pocket Query for all scubacaches with 500 miles of N 36° 08.000' W 114° 25.000', which is in the middle of Lake Mead. In the list of results, number five, at 88.5 miles northeast, is GCXX3N: Just Plane Diving. The next four hundred and ninety-five listings are all from the two power trails mentioned here.

 

Now here's the kicker: The two power cache runs that are out there in the high desert are overflowing the Pocket Queries of *everywhere* with *500 miles*. That means that the *ENTIRE* California coast from San Diego through Monterrey Bay past San Francisco and all the way up to about Shelter Cove is being DOSed. When you're looking for scubacaches, you don't just look at your block or your town or your county or even your state. There are far too few. You look as wide as you can. When you do that where I am (at least, when you do it today), you get a meaningful result. When you try it in Lake Mead (where there is actual scubacaching going on), you get a garbage result.

 

I know there was no malevolence involved, and I certainly empathize with your situation, but you're unintentionally nuking our pool, and I'm just trying to explain the damage so that you can do what's honorable and not unintentionally hurt other cachers because of an oversight. (I completely understand not thinking the scubacaching attribute is important in the desert, but I'd certainly hope that now that the scope of the actual impact is understood, this can be made better.)

Edited January 4, 2011 by ClayJar

[+FireRef]

I really wish people would stop complaining about caches they don't like, or types of caches they don't like. If you don't like it, DON'T GO SEARCH FOR IT!

 

I for one hope this lasts into the summer - I hope to be able to head out to that part of route 66, and get to do most of these. I drove 66 about 12 years ago (when gas was around $1 a gallon), and now have another reason to go back!

 

If I didn't like them, I wouldn't complain - I just wouldn't take the time to go look for them. That's all.

[+FireRef]

I looked at a single cache in the series and saw this in the log of one of the finders:

 

"This is where the CHiP's officer stopped and asked if we were ok. Did you know stopping on the side of the highway, without an emergency is illegal?"

 

Aren't all these caches on a highway?

 

Caching in the gray area = potential drama. Power Caching in the gray area = potential drama x800.

 

I look forward to the Inevitable Bad Thing that will result in banning of power trails. Unfortunately, the Inevitable Bad Thing may take out some other caches with it.

 

As I understand it, this is a state road, not an interstate which has the restriction of not stopping without an emergency. State roads and US routes have no such restriction.

[jholly]

You have some very valid points. I did not realize that the high desert was a hot bed of scuba caches.

Hehe, but seriously, isn't that rather the *point*?

 

If I run a PQ centered on my home coordinates for all scubacaches within 500 miles, I get 47 caches. Some of them are jokes or lies, but at least I can page through 47 caches to find the ones that are actually scubacaches.

 

Do a Pocket Query for all scubacaches with 500 miles of N 36° 08.000' W 114° 25.000', which is in the middle of Lake Mead. In the list of results, number five, at 88.5 miles northeast, is GCXX3N: Just Plane Diving. The next four hundred and ninety-five listings are all from the two power trails mentioned here.

 

Now here's the kicker: The two power cache runs that are out there in the high desert are overflowing the Pocket Queries of *everywhere* with *500 miles*. That means that the *ENTIRE* California coast from San Diego through Monterrey Bay past San Francisco and all the way up to about Shelter Cove is being DOSed. When you're looking for scubacaches, you don't just look at your block or your town or your county or even your state. There are far too few. You look as wide as you can. When you do that where I am (at least, when you do it today), you get a meaningful result. When you try it in Lake Mead (where there is actual scubacaching going on), you get a garbage result.

 

I know there was no malevolence involved, and I certainly empathize with your situation, but you're unintentionally nuking our pool, and I'm just trying to explain the damage so that you can do what's honorable and not unintentionally hurt other cachers because of an oversight. (I completely understand not thinking the scubacaching attribute is important in the desert, but I'd certainly hope that now that the scope of the actual impact is understood, this can be made better.)

Okay, I got put in my place. Tell you what. Go to the feedback site and put in a request for a power trail attribute and I'll give it a couple votes. Then we just have to get on the CO's to change their attributes. (and they seem willing) Or we might just be lucky and the update later this month along with GSAK will give us a really neat way for you to get rid of those pesky power trail caches and I can get rid of those scubacaches I won't ever do.

[Clan Riffster]

...can we get rid of puzzles and multis I don't like them!

If we assume that the blight of power trails appeals to the lowest common denominator, then yes, getting rid of those caches which take at least a modicum of mental effort would be the next logical step. All hail the P&G! We certainly wouldn't want you to accidentaly burn a calorie or strain a brain cell.

 

If you don't like it, DON'T GO SEARCH FOR IT!

Great advice... Silence the dissenters!

[+M 5]

I really wish people would stop complaining about caches they don't like, or types of caches they don't like. If you don't like it, DON'T GO SEARCH FOR IT!

 

I for one hope this lasts into the summer - I hope to be able to head out to that part of route 66, and get to do most of these. I drove 66 about 12 years ago (when gas was around $1 a gallon), and now have another reason to go back!

 

If I didn't like them, I wouldn't complain - I just wouldn't take the time to go look for them. That's all.

 

And once again, a failure to listen to the actual arguments. I guess lazy cachers are also lazy readers.

[+fizzymagic]

If I didn't like them, I wouldn't complain - I just wouldn't take the time to go look for them. That's all.

Had you read the OP, you would have seen that the issue is that they pollute the PQs of everyone, not just those who like them. It is easy to do a PQ to filter out puzzles, for example, but not possible to filter out power trails. Thus the discussion.

 

The easiest solution, and one that has been repeatedly requested, is the ability to ignore caches by a particular hider. I would say that the powertrails make this request more relevant and urgent than before.

 

A friendly hint for the forums: it helps the discussion along if you take the time to read the first post in a thread so that you can understand exactly what is being discussed.

[+ZeLonewolf]

First off, I am a fan of power trails. I had a lot of fun doing the "Hang 'em High on Highway 51" series, to the west of New Orleans, however, I am becoming increasingly concerned about the trend towards trespassing and private property issues on the power trails out west. When I was in Vegas, I went to look for the "Trail of Fears" (since the Trail of the Gods had been archived before we got there), and we found that we had to cross into (clearly marked) non-public power company land for the trail -- and there was NO note of any kind on the cache page that permission had been obtained from the power company. Against my better judgement I ended up giving a half-hearted search for the first one, failed (ouch), and then cow-towed it back to town. This new "tresscaching" trend is alarming.

 

Although I know they have enough work to do already, I feel that the reviewers need to do a better job in reviewing the land status of a cache (or series) placement. The notion that "the hider checked the box and GC.com can wash their hands of it" simply isn't enough. Perhaps a new field could be added to the submission form that requires the hider to demonstrate that they have adequate permission (with a link describing what adequate permission means with examples). I am finding that in general, it is a more frequent occurrence than it used to be that finders are sent on private or otherwise inappropriate land to locate caches. Sadly, I expect that nothing will be done unless this comes to a head in some very public (and embarrassing to the sport) way, such as a fatal altercation with an irate property owner or such.

[+briansnat]

Better tools for filtering caches would certainly help. (ie, ignore based on hider in pocket query, power trail attribute)

 

The least they could have done was use the SCUBA attribute like they did on the ET trail, so people could filter them out if so desired.

 

When I set up this series I really didn't think about setting attributes like "Scuba"

This is a great suggestions, as I realize some people want to avoid this type of series. I will look at adding that attribute to the Route-66 800.

 

Nothing like abusing attributes to make them meaningless.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

Perhaps a new field could be added to the submission form that requires the hider to demonstrate that they have adequate permission (with a link describing what adequate permission means with examples). I am finding that in general, it is a more frequent occurrence than it used to be that finders are sent on private or otherwise inappropriate land to locate caches.

 

Would this include hides in mall & supermarket parking lots? Apartment complex property? I hope so.

[+FireRef]

If I didn't like them, I wouldn't complain - I just wouldn't take the time to go look for them. That's all.

Had you read the OP, you would have seen that the issue is that they pollute the PQs of everyone, not just those who like them. It is easy to do a PQ to filter out puzzles, for example, but not possible to filter out power trails. Thus the discussion.

 

The easiest solution, and one that has been repeatedly requested, is the ability to ignore caches by a particular hider. I would say that the powertrails make this request more relevant and urgent than before.

 

A friendly hint for the forums: it helps the discussion along if you take the time to read the first post in a thread so that you can understand exactly what is being discussed.

 

I did read it, and I have no problem with having a power trail attribute, or some other way to filter out the ones people don't like. Or to filter them in for people that do like them. I support this idea.

 

I have a problem with everyone complaining that they lower the quality of the game, shouldn't be allowed, should have an easy way to ignore ones you don't like, etc. If you don't like them, don't find them. There is an ignore list to get them out of the PQ and other lists. Use it.

 

And thanks, M5, but I'm not exactly lazy. Argue all you want - it still comes down to people complaining they don't like a particular kind of cache, that it shouldn't be allowed, or should be banned, or you want an easy way to ignore ones you don't like. Honestly, it sounds to me like the people who want the easy way to ignore ones they don't like are the lazy ones - not those of us who like to have lots of different caches to find, easy or hard.

[+Kit Fox]

 

I have a problem with everyone complaining that they lower the quality of the game, shouldn't be allowed, should have an easy way to ignore ones you don't like, etc. If you don't like them, don't find them. There is an ignore list to get them out of the PQ and other lists. Use it.

Have you ever put 800 to 1000 caches on your ignore list?

 

Honestly, it sounds to me like the people who want the easy way to ignore ones they don't like are the lazy ones - not those of us who like to have lots of different caches to find, easy or hard.

 

Lazy, because we want tools to better enjoy geocaching, that does not require hours of tedious ignoring of geocaches?

Edited January 4, 2011 by Kit Fox

[+mtn-man]

And once again, a failure to listen to the actual arguments. I guess lazy cachers are also lazy readers.

You should look at Fizzy's reply below yours quoted above. Name calling is unacceptable in the forums. Fizzy did a much better job of getting the point across and was not offensive in the process.

[+Castle Mischief]

I have a problem with everyone complaining that they lower the quality of the game, shouldn't be allowed, should have an easy way to ignore ones you don't like, etc. If you don't like them, don't find them. There is an ignore list to get them out of the PQ and other lists. Use it.

 

You know there's a limit on the size of that ignore list, right?

[+ZeLonewolf]

Perhaps a new field could be added to the submission form that requires the hider to demonstrate that they have adequate permission (with a link describing what adequate permission means with examples). I am finding that in general, it is a more frequent occurrence than it used to be that finders are sent on private or otherwise inappropriate land to locate caches.

 

Would this include hides in mall & supermarket parking lots? Apartment complex property? I hope so.

 

I would hope that Groundspeak would come up with a more, well, adequate definition of "adequate permission" which I still have yet to see. Many hiders feel that they have automatic adequate permission to hide in such places, hence the proliferation of that type of cache.

[+FireRef]

 

I have a problem with everyone complaining that they lower the quality of the game, shouldn't be allowed, should have an easy way to ignore ones you don't like, etc. If you don't like them, don't find them. There is an ignore list to get them out of the PQ and other lists. Use it.

Have you ever put 800 to 1000 caches on your ignore list?

 

Honestly, it sounds to me like the people who want the easy way to ignore ones they don't like are the lazy ones - not those of us who like to have lots of different caches to find, easy or hard.

 

Lazy, because we want tools to better enjoy geocaching, that does not require hours of tedious ignoring of geocaches?

 

Nope - because I don't ignore caches. I actually attempt to go find them. Honestly, I don't think I've ever used the ignore function, because I believe that just about every cache is worth finding at some point. I know there are some that drive me up a wall, that I haven't been able to find, and some that I just don't think I'll ever have the time or resources to go find. However, I don't ignore them - they're part of the game.

 

Better tools? Sure. Complaining that the caches are bad because you don't like them? Not good.

 

I would love to have a PT like this around me - I would go after it on a weekend day in a heartbeat. I can't go to California in time to do this on a weekend until summer - and I hope they'll still be there then.

[+Castle Mischief]

Nope - because I don't ignore caches. I actually attempt to go find them. Honestly, I don't think I've ever used the ignore function, because I believe that just about every cache is worth finding at some point. I know there are some that drive me up a wall, that I haven't been able to find, and some that I just don't think I'll ever have the time or resources to go find. However, I don't ignore them - they're part of the game.

 

Better tools? Sure. Complaining that the caches are bad because you don't like them? Not good.

 

I would love to have a PT like this around me - I would go after it on a weekend day in a heartbeat. I can't go to California in time to do this on a weekend until summer - and I hope they'll still be there then.

 

I see it more as they are complaining that there's not a better way to find a cache they don't like. Goodie for you that you want to find every cache. Some people don't. Your solution seems to be to either find caches they don't want to or add them, all 800 of them to an ignore list, one at a time. You seem to be painting them as whiners while ignoring the actual logistical issues of caching around the footprint of an 800 cache power trail.

[+FireRef]

Nope - because I don't ignore caches. I actually attempt to go find them. Honestly, I don't think I've ever used the ignore function, because I believe that just about every cache is worth finding at some point. I know there are some that drive me up a wall, that I haven't been able to find, and some that I just don't think I'll ever have the time or resources to go find. However, I don't ignore them - they're part of the game.

 

Better tools? Sure. Complaining that the caches are bad because you don't like them? Not good.

 

I would love to have a PT like this around me - I would go after it on a weekend day in a heartbeat. I can't go to California in time to do this on a weekend until summer - and I hope they'll still be there then.

 

I see it more as they are complaining that there's not a better way to find a cache they don't like. Goodie for you that you want to find every cache. Some people don't. Your solution seems to be to either find caches they don't want to or add them, all 800 of them to an ignore list, one at a time. You seem to be painting them as whiners while ignoring the actual logistical issues of caching around the footprint of an 800 cache power trail.

 

If you choose to play the game, you choose to play with what is out there. Someone took the time (or a set of someone's) to put a series of caches out that some people want to find, and some people don't. There used to be over 100 micro caches around my area. I went and found most eventually, and some I never went to find. I can live with unfound caches on my map. I don't see why people have such a problem with it.

 

Ignore them if you want. Find them if you want. Ask for a better way to filter them if you want. Don't put them down, or lobby for them to not be allowed, because you don't like them. That's all I'm saying.

[+addisonbr]

I know there was no malevolence involved, and I certainly empathize with your situation, but you're unintentionally nuking our pool, and I'm just trying to explain the damage so that you can do what's honorable and not unintentionally hurt other cachers because of an oversight. (I completely understand not thinking the scubacaching attribute is important in the desert, but I'd certainly hope that now that the scope of the actual impact is understood, this can be made better.)

This is a very reasonable appeal. I don't know what the solution ultimately is, but it seems that using the SCUBA attribute is not it.