New Route 66 Mega Power Trail

7k · January 4, 2011

Nothing like abusing attributes to make them meaningless.

it has long been suggested to GS to create a powertrail attribute. had they listened, then there would be no need to abuse other attributes now.

2.6k · January 4, 2011

Nothing like abusing attributes to make them meaningless.

it has long been suggested to GS to create a powertrail attribute. had they listened, then there would be no need to abuse other attributes now.

To reiterate, I have had an item posted on Feedback for some time. If you would like a filtering attribute, please go vote and/or post a comment.

1.8k · January 4, 2011

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

Do you know more about this? I've seen reports from folks that they have well over 1000 caches on their ignore list, and I've never seen anyone say that they've hit the limit. I once ran across a post from Nate saying that he thought there was technically a limit, but I've never seen or heard that confirmed. I've never heard anyone report that they've lost the ability to add more caches. Does anyone know if the limit in fact exists and what that limit is?

I know that premium members have what was once advertised as an unlimited watchlist, although I believe that there is actually a limit of 5000. I've never heard of that limit actually being hit either, though, so I don't know in practice if it's true or not.

(Please note that I'm not holding this question as an argument in favor of or against power trails or whether or not ignore lists are an acceptable solution. I am just curious about the mechanics of ignore lists.)

4.2k · January 4, 2011

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

Do you know more about this? I've seen reports from folks that they have well over 1000 caches on their ignore list, and I've never seen anyone say that they've hit the limit. I once ran across a post from Nate saying that he thought there was technically a limit, but I've never seen or heard that confirmed. I've never heard anyone report that they've lost the ability to add more caches. Does anyone know if the limit in fact exists and what that limit is?

I'm digging around... I could have sworn it was a hard limit of 1000.

Edited January 4, 2011 by Castle Mischief

1.8k · January 4, 2011

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.

I would gently suggest that at least some people who are not fans of power trails, hold that belief because of the damage that they believe it can cause to the game - it's not just a case of "I don't like it so nobody else should get to do it". The emphasis on speed and numbers seems to encourage cachers to cut corners. The Alien Head trail, which is just off the ET Highway, features cache pages imploring folks not to drive to the caches in order to protect the area. But there are numerous reports of folks ignoring that advice, and I think that is likely to lead to problems with land managers. In my opinion, although I can't be 100% sure, I think that attempts to set speed records on the extensive ET power trail contribute to this behavior.

The Trail of the Gods seems to have been placed on electrical equipment without permission from the power company, and I'm thankful that the fallout from that incident was merely the mass archival of the caches instead of anything with more far-reaching consequences. Often a problem in an isolated area can result in much wider prohibitions (such as in South Carolina).

I'm happy to ignore many caches that I don't particularly enjoy, and I use the filter tools as such. I'm happy to quietly ignore almost all slices of geocaching that aren't my cup of tea. But power trails leave me worried that the slice of the game that I do enjoy could be negatively affected, so I may mention that from time to time when the subject comes up.

4.2k · January 4, 2011

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.

People are absolutely free to not like them and to be vocal about not liking them.

As for lobbying to have them not allowed... If this was actually happening in this thread, then doing it just because they don't fit your particular cache aesthetic- that would be a little uncalled for. However, looking at the history of power trails (admittedly not this particular one) you can collect a laundry list of guideline violations, skirting the edge of the guidelines, potential abuse of reviewer powers, and shifty logging practices. I think these are what come to mind when most people express their disdain for the concept.

8k · January 4, 2011

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.

Geocachers are, if nothing else, creative in finding ways to solve problems. Since some people would like a way to easily ignore power trail caches and others my like a way to easily find them, they have taken the idea of marking these with an attribute that isn't likely to be used in the area where the power trail is hidden. Now, Clayjar has pointed out that the assumption that you wouldn't have scuba caches in the desert isn't so good. There are apparently scuba caches in places like Lake Mead and since scuba cache are rare people will rund queries with a 500 mile radius looking for these. So perhaps it's not the best attribute to use. However the rationale is certainly understandable.

Perhaps had Groundspeak used tags instead of some set of fixed attributes, geocachers could have tagged the caches with a more appropriate value and it could be used to ignore (or find) these caches. As it stands now we have to wait for Groundspeak to decide to add an attribute, which they seem to be reluctant to do in this case. No matter what they do, someone will complain that they didn't name the attribute right, that it is confusing as to when it should be used, or that it's existence is going to encourage more power trails.

I voted for this suggestion in the feedback forum. Even Jeremy suggest adding a tagging system so that users can create their own "attributes".

Edited January 4, 2011 by tozainamboku

1.8k · January 4, 2011

...

I'm happy to ignore many caches that I don't particularly enjoy, and I use the filter tools as such. I'm happy to quietly ignore almost all slices of geocaching that aren't my cup of tea.

Hmmmm, some rational thought here ... Hat Tip for the measured response.

20.7k · January 4, 2011

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.

Strange that you are pouncing on the cache owner for adding an attribute that was requested to be added by many in this thread. Not surprising, however.

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.

Of course, because as Clayjar pointed out, the scuba attribute is his and he should have been asked prior to its use.

In my opinion, the scuba attribute should be left on these (and other powertrail caches) until TPTB introduce a better solution if for no other reason than the use of this attribute will certainly reduce the pool of people who will have to bulk-ignore these caches.

Edited January 4, 2011 by sbell111

January 4, 2011

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.

Perfectly stated.

1.5k · January 4, 2011

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.

Perfectly stated.

Two thumbs up.

14k · January 4, 2011

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.

Perfectly stated.

But it's not an accurate representation of what's going on.

Debates about power trails have been taking place here for awhile, and there are some that keep on trotting out the "if you don't like them, don't do them argument". There have been many which have put down power trails and even lobbied to revert the guidelines back to how they read before they were changed (in 2009) and resulted in the proliferation of power trails. However, many of those doing so are not just claiming that power trails should be eliminated (or at least better regulated) based solely on the notion that they don't like them. The inability to filter them out of a PQ without misusing one of the attributes is just one of the arguments. BTW, the use of the scuba attribute would not have prevented hundreds of instant notification email messages being sent to everyone that live within close proximity of the power trail. But I digress.

In other PT threads concerns about environmental damage and other issues which some feel degrade the game in general and have the potential for causing land managers to deny access to large portions of real estate that might, for now, be available to place a geocache. These concerns will exist whether or not someone likes power trails or not. The issues will exist even if someone chooses not to find caches on a power trail.

It's not a matter of liking power trails or not. It's a matter of how one subset of geocachers playing the game is negatively impacting how others play the game.

8.3k · January 4, 2011

<snip>

It's not a matter of liking power trails or not. It's a matter of how one subset of geocachers playing the game is negatively impacting how others play the game.

I guess you never saw a wide area of ferns trampled down and a stump ripped to shreds by some segments of those that play the game. I can find them without wide spread damage. The carnage caused by others affects how I play the game in the forest. Perhaps we should look at banning those types of caches. Going back to what was the previous stance on power trails does not seem likely since the adventures on one was a blog feature. And it relieves the reviewers from making a judgment calls that lead to long drawn out email exchanges. It gets back to what is the definition of a power trail. I know one when I see one is not a very good definition. Do 10, or 20, or 30, or 40 in a row constitute a power trail? Or is it only if it stretches for 100's?

8.9k · January 4, 2011

Of course, because as Clayjar pointed out, the scuba attribute is his and he should have been asked prior to its use. In my opinion, the scuba attribute should be left on these (and other powertrail caches) until TPTB introduce a better solution if for no other reason than the use of this attribute will certainly reduce the pool of people who will have to bulk-ignore these caches.

Clayjar pointed out that scuba attribute should be used for scuba caches. How radical. <_<

If anything, change all of these falsely labeled scuba caches to "Takes Less Than an Hour", "Short Hike" and "Park and Grab" and you'll be saying TRUTHFUL attributes about the caches. Then people can avoid park and grabs, less than an hour and short hike and these would be whittled out, right?

Meanwhile, lobby for Groundspeak to make an all-encompassing "part of power trail" attribute that would eventually replace (or enhance) the attributes that would be truthful about the caches.

Edited January 4, 2011 by Markwell

January 4, 2011

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.

Perfectly stated.

But it's not an accurate representation of what's going on.

Debates about power trails have been taking place here for awhile, and there are some that keep on trotting out the "if you don't like them, don't do them argument". There have been many which have put down power trails and even lobbied to revert the guidelines back to how they read before they were changed (in 2009) and resulted in the proliferation of power trails. However, many of those doing so are not just claiming that power trails should be eliminated (or at least better regulated) based solely on the notion that they don't like them. The inability to filter them out of a PQ without misusing one of the attributes is just one of the arguments. BTW, the use of the scuba attribute would not have prevented hundreds of instant notification email messages being sent to everyone that live within close proximity of the power trail. But I digress.

In other PT threads concerns about environmental damage and other issues which some feel degrade the game in general and have the potential for causing land managers to deny access to large portions of real estate that might, for now, be available to place a geocache. These concerns will exist whether or not someone likes power trails or not. The issues will exist even if someone chooses not to find caches on a power trail.

It's not a matter of liking power trails or not. It's a matter of how one subset of geocachers playing the game is negatively impacting how others play the game.

I honestly think this is mostly a lot of nonsense.

If you don't want notification emails or texts (how I have them set up, I receive both), don't set the site to send them. Don't complain when you asked for them, and then get more than you asked for. I get them for a bigger area than I am likely to cache, but I still like seeing them. If I get a bunch in a short period and it bothers me, I shut my phone off or put it on silent for a short time until they are done. If they bother me enough, I'll remove the notifications entirely.

Emails are filtered into a separate folder - if I get one, or a bunch, I see them there and check them out when I'm interested in doing so. If I don't want them, or they bother me, I disable that option.

Misusing an attribute - well, there's a legitimate argument there. If it impacts the people who legitimately use that attribute, I see a problem, and a good reason to make another one. I do think using the scuba attribute in the middle of the desert seemed to not be likely to cause problems, but I do see where it could. GS should make another one.

The issue about land managers has a little legitimacy, but a little education goes a long way. Not being allowed to put them in NPS lands has softened a little, and was a result of a misunderstanding, but that could have been corrected by pushing the right people in the right places, instead of banning them from the website - but, as you said, I digress, and debated this one in another thread.

As for environmental impact - you said it yourself - this is a possibility with any cache. Most of these power trails are in the desert, and don't have a likelihood of doing much damage in the sand. When animals go through an area and leave a trail, people don't bat an eye. When we do, people throw fits. Unless people have forgotten, we are animals too - we have a HUGE impact on the environment. But we don't see people throwing fits every time we build a new building, or a new parking lot, etc. Well, maybe we see some people complain, but it doesn't change anything most of the time. Here, a small "Geotrail", which often looks like an animal trail, is treated as a horrible thing.

As for people following rules - they don't do this on caches already sometimes. Whether it happens 1 or 800 times, its going to happen. It would be nice if it didn't, but it will. Could it possibly impact the game? Maybe - but the bomb scares probably have more of an impact than a little trail leading to a bunch of micros hidden in various places. Those make the news. Those stop people from wanting geocachers in their lands. Not a group of people finding a bunch of film cans.

This subset of cachers, having an impact on the entire game, just isn't true. It took word of one "buried" cache to get NPS lands off the table - but how many places have been closed to us because of power trails? Evidence? Or slippery slope theories of what MIGHT happen.

Let people play the way they want, and don't try to shut down types of caches or sets of caches YOU don't like or YOU think aren't good for the game. Maybe I should start lobbying against puzzles which are too hard - well, for me, anyway. Better not have them. No scuba caches either, because I can't do that. No caches which require climbing - I'm certified to do so, but don't feel like making the effort. No Multis - those don't follow the spirit of hiding a container and posting the correct coordinates online. No more earthcaches - that's a direct violation of the no virtual rule (why make an exception - that's not right - a rule is a rule). See where I'm going? Just because I don't like the way a cacher caches, makes his caches, finds caches, posts their logs, or does whatever he or she is going to do, shouldn't affect how I get to play the game.

Please provide evidence of negative effects to the game of these power trails in the form of the denial of access to lands. I understand there may have been permission issues with the power towers in the one, but other than that, what lands have we lost access to? What geocachers have been thrown in jail, fined, or anything like that for power trails? Evidence, please - not "what might happen".

1.8k · January 4, 2011

Perhaps had Groundspeak used tags instead of some set of fixed attributes

I think tags would make a lot of sense. There is another listing site that makes use of tags rather than fixed attributes, and when I came across it / realized it, I thought - that seems incredibly useful.

14k · January 4, 2011

<snip>

It's not a matter of liking power trails or not. It's a matter of how one subset of geocachers playing the game is negatively impacting how others play the game.

I guess you never saw a wide area of ferns trampled down and a stump ripped to shreds by some segments of those that play the game. I can find them without wide spread damage. The carnage caused by others affects how I play the game in the forest. Perhaps we should look at banning those types of caches.

Sure, I've seen environmental damage done outside the context of a power trail. I'm not going to deny that it happens.

However, I would argue that a power trail is inherently more prone to geocachers causing environmental that some random geocache in the woods. Isn't one of the primary reasons for the existence of a power trail to provide an opportunity to find as many caches as possible in a short period of time, which effectively turns geocaching into a race against time? I've seen plenty of evidence from the discussions about power trails that someone will take a few "short cuts" if it means being about to reduce the time between caches. The most obvious is the Alien head series where the CO specifically asked seekers not to drive the trail but I've read through the logs on some of them and found a lot of them explicitly indicate that they drove the trail. One of the earlier finders even encouraged others to follow the tire tracks so that it would create a trail that could be seen from satellite photos.

20.7k · January 4, 2011

Of course, because as Clayjar pointed out, the scuba attribute is his and he should have been asked prior to its use. In my opinion, the scuba attribute should be left on these (and other powertrail caches) until TPTB introduce a better solution if for no other reason than the use of this attribute will certainly reduce the pool of people who will have to bulk-ignore these caches.
Clayjar pointed out that scuba attribute should be used for scuba caches. How radical.

If anything, change all of these falsely labeled scuba caches to "Takes Less Than an Hour", "Short Hike" and "Park and Grab" and you'll be saying TRUTHFUL attributes about the caches. Then people can avoid park and grabs, less than an hour and short hike and these would be whittled out, right?

Meanwhile, lobby for Groundspeak to make an all-encompassing "part of power trail" attribute that would eventually replace (or enhance) the attributes that would be truthful about the caches.

Certainly, you have been in enough of these threads to know that the attributes that you suggest be used would not do a thing to quell the anguish of those that don't want to go anywhere near a power trail, but still happen to enjoy looking for caches that are park and grabs that take less than a half hour and involve a (very) short hike. Your solution would not solve the problem, so owners of power trails far from water took to using an unlikely attribute, scuba. Use of this attribute causes some additional work for the other relatively few scuba cachers out there, but it satisfies the needs of the greater amount of cachers wishing to identify power trails

1.8k · January 4, 2011

My experience has been that geotrails and environmental damage can and do emerge in non-power trail settings. But I have a sense that it can be exacerbated near power trails, for many of the reasons NYPaddleCacher mentions. Start with a population of geocachers, many of whom may not show proper care and caution even when hunting a standard cache in a forest setting. Add to the mix (1) a pressure to do things quickly, and (2) much higher volume than a typical cache would ever expect to receive, and I think the potential for a problem to get a lot worse is there.

This is the text from the Alien Head cache page:

Please don't drive to these caches. The extraterrestrial visitors might take this as a threat. We think it will be safe if we tread lightly and walk to the landing sites.

And here is a sampling from some of the logs:

We walked the mouth and chin then drove the rest.

I wonder if a new satellite image will reveal the geo-traffic that's been created?

I wonder if google earth will pick up the tire tracks off all the cars that have driven the alien head

It's gonna be interesting when they update the satellite images here and you can see the alien head road between these caches.

Walked in everyone else's tire marks... I'm curious for Google Earth to update their satellite imagery to see if there's a big alien head of tracks visible now.

While we didn’t mind following the tire tracks at times, it is sad that cachers are not cooperating with the CO’s request to walk, not drive, to these caches.

Only by driving the route would we be able to complete it as a team... I would bet my GPS that satellite imagery would show the Alien Head to be clearly defined at this point.

This doesn't mean that every power trailer cacher behaves like this, or even that most of them do. Nor does it mean that non power trail cachers are saints. Only that I think power trails exacerbate a problem pretty significantly. When a cache page asks that cachers not drive the route, but so many people ignore the request that multiple cachers openly wonder if the automotive geotrail can be seen from space, I get worried.

20.7k · January 4, 2011

My experience has been that geotrails and environmental damage can and do emerge in non-power trail settings. But I have a sense that it can be exacerbated near power trails, for many of the reasons NYPaddleCacher mentions. Start with a population of geocachers, many of whom may not show proper care and caution even when hunting a standard cache in a forest setting. Add to the mix (1) a pressure to do things quickly, and (2) much higher volume than a typical cache would ever expect to receive, and I think the potential for a problem to get a lot worse is there.

This is the text from the Alien Head cache page:

Please don't drive to these caches. The extraterrestrial visitors might take this as a threat. We think it will be safe if we tread lightly and walk to the landing sites.

And here is a sampling from some of the logs:

I wonder if the problem wasn't exacerbated simply by the fact that the cache owner decided to be a bit too cute in his warning. Perhaps more people would have heeded the warning had he played it straight. For example:

Please don't drive off-road to these caches. The land manager might take offense at the damage that this off-road driving would cause to this sensitive location. Please play it safe by treading lightly and walking to the cache sites.

Edited January 4, 2011 by sbell111

January 4, 2011

doubt it

9.3k · January 4, 2011

Don't put them down, ... because you don't like them.

Silence the dissent! That seems to be your common theme here, unless, of course, you are the one dissenting. Then you feel free to plaster the forums with your utter contempt of Groundspeak policies and the Reviewers who are charged with enforcing them. While First Amendment issues don't really apply to an Internet forum owned by a private company, I think, so long as I am polite about it, and respect the TOU, I can express my distaste for something. In this case, the topic is power trails. Take one utterly lame cache, (I.e; a crappy container tossed out at an uninspired spot), and multiply it dozens, sometimes hundreds of times. I think it's awesome that this kind of mind numbing repetition appeals to you, and I applaud the fact that you feel comfortable saying so in public. However, those who don't think such a blight is neater than sliced bread should have the same freedom to express their views.

14k · January 4, 2011

doubt it

ditto.

January 4, 2011

I think tags would make a lot of sense. There is another listing site that makes use of tags rather than fixed attributes, and when I came across it / realized it, I thought - that seems incredibly useful.

Free-form tags wouldn't work. One person will tag their caches with 'power trail', another with 'powertrail' and a third will probably just put 'trail' and confuse things even more. Then there's spelling errors, etc... The result would not be filterable because there would be a cacophony of different ways that people would tag their caches whilst meaning the same thing.

Attributes essentially are tags in any case, albeit represented with icons. They just come from a fixed pool of options instead of being free-form. From a filtering point of view, this is a much better way because their 'wording', for the want of a better term, is fixed and hence is filterable because there will only be one attribute to say "recommended at night", for example. The downside is that people will always be nagging for more and more attributes for their specific situation

+1 from me for a PT attribute though, even though it will cause all sorts of :drama: about what does and what does not constitute a power trail and which caches should and should not have it enabled.

January 4, 2011

Take one utterly lame cache, (I.e; a crappy container tossed out at an uninspired spot), and multiply it dozens, sometimes hundreds of times.

Have you even been to this portion of Route 66???? The entire area is UTTERLY INSPIRING............lava flows and tubes, multiple volcanic craters, caverns, wildlife, gorgeous mountains and exhilarating sunrises and sunsets just to name a few aspects. Thanks to this trail, we were able to go out there and experience/appreciate it and can't wait to go back and do so again.

To assume it is "an uninspiring spot" is purely ignorant.

Edited January 4, 2011 by the4dirtydogs

4.2k · January 4, 2011

Thanks to this trail, we were able to go out there and experience/appreciate it and can't wait to go back and do so again.

Um, you couldn't go there before?

January 4, 2011

Thanks to this trail, we were able to go out there and experience/appreciate it and can't wait to go back and do so again.

Um, you couldn't go there before?

Certainly could have but never really thought about it. The PT was definitely an encouragement to get us out there and is the reason we are planning a return trip.

Edited January 4, 2011 by the4dirtydogs

4.2k · January 4, 2011

I guess anything is possible and I certainly wasn't with you on the trail, but when I think "stop and enjoy the sights" I don't usually also think "while running a 800-cache power trail as fst as I can".

Did you swap up the caching with the sight-seeing or did you break it up into multiple days?

January 4, 2011

I guess anything is possible and I certainly wasn't with you on the trail, but when I think "stop and enjoy the sights" I don't usually also think "while running a 800-cache power trail as fst as I can".

Did you swap up the caching with the sight-seeing or did you break it up into multiple days?

Since the goal wasn't to run it as fast as we could......we were able to do both.

January 4, 2011

Might be a nice section and maybe this section can support a power trail. Not many places really can, but there are a select few. Why not put out some nice caches every few miles in appropriate places instead. I also know that there is talk of trying to do a power trail the entire route 66. I'm sure those will all be great and won't cause any problems.

1.8k · January 4, 2011

Free-form tags wouldn't work. One person will tag their caches with 'power trail', another with 'powertrail' and a third will probably just put 'trail' and confuse things even more. Then there's spelling errors, etc... The result would not be filterable because there would be a cacophony of different ways that people would tag their caches whilst meaning the same thing.

Attributes essentially are tags in any case, albeit represented with icons. They just come from a fixed pool of options instead of being free-form. From a filtering point of view, this is a much better way because their 'wording', for the want of a better term, is fixed and hence is filterable because there will only be one attribute to say "recommended at night", for example. The downside is that people will always be nagging for more and more attributes for their specific situation

+1 from me for a PT attribute though, even though it will cause all sorts of drama about what does and what does not constitute a power trail and which caches should and should not have it enabled.

I think it's entirely possible to be surprised on this front. I watch tags and hashtags develop on other platforms and there is a clear tendency for users to organize themselves around emerging standards. The great thing about tags is that you don't need a centralized authority to decide what people want; the users will do all of that work for you. The centralized authority can watch what develops and if they want to offer radio buttons and some increased standardization for the most commonly used tags, great. If they don't want to (perhaps they don't want to be seen as 'endorsing' power trails, say) then they don't have to. But at least we'd have the tag.

To the extent that this self-organization around a common standard doesn't happen from time to time, I think many of the problems above can be handled with relative ease. If I've filtered out 'power trail' and realize I'm drowning in Route 66 caches, a quick peek may tell me that the CO has used the tag 'powertrail' instead. Simple, I'll re-run my query filtering out both 'power trail' and 'powertrail'. Easy. Or maybe the CO has misspelled it as 'powertrali'. No worries, I'll filter out 'powertrali' and shoot him a nice email telling him he may want to fix the spelling. With power trails in particular, I just need to confirm one tag to keep upwards of 1000 caches from contaminating my results.

You could even allow others to add tags to caches, with CO approval (to avoid the 'a-hole owner' tag or whatever other meanness is floating out there). If I have a morse code puzzle and don't mind it being identified as such, and someone out there wants to add the 'morse code' tag, great. " 'JeremyR' wants to add the tag 'morse code' to your cache listing 'What Hath God Wrought (GC12345)' Approve? Yes / No "

January 4, 2011

We added the scuba attribute at the suggestion of people in this forum to help them filter out the trail. Now that we have, people don't like that either. So what works?

8k · January 4, 2011

I think tags would make a lot of sense. There is another listing site that makes use of tags rather than fixed attributes, and when I came across it / realized it, I thought - that seems incredibly useful.

Free-form tags wouldn't work. One person will tag their caches with 'power trail', another with 'powertrail' and a third will probably just put 'trail' and confuse things even more. Then there's spelling errors, etc... The result would not be filterable because there would be a cacophony of different ways that people would tag their caches whilst meaning the same thing.

I disagree. Since this is primarily to filter out these caches when setting up pocket queries, it's not hard to find the tag or tags that would work. Just try it and preview the PQ till you find what keeps these caches off. Also it would not be hard to use a wildcard search with tags: power* could match power, powertrail, power trail, power cache, etc. There are even algorithms that could find common mispellings and abbreviations.

Of course if someone is searching for a power trail, it might be harder to figure out a tag that would work in all cases. But even if there was a power trail attribute some people would not use it (and others would use it for a single cache on a difficult hiking trail). You can't come up with a tag/attribute that would be perfect. Many people believe tag systems are better because users can create a new tag if there is nothing appropriate already and if that tag is useful it will eventually be copied and become common. Many systems provide a drop down list for selecting common tags while still allowing anyone to type anything they want. Right now we have a rigid system that encourages people to misuse the scuba attribute. If we had tags, there would few if any non-scuba caches that have a scuba tag. Instead if someone wanted to be funny they would have a "nuclear powered submarine required" tag on their cache. At least that would match *power*

Edited January 4, 2011 by tozainamboku

2.8k · January 4, 2011

Thanks to this trail, we were able to go out there and experience/appreciate it and can't wait to go back and do so again.

Um, you couldn't go there before?

Certainly could have but never really thought about it. The PT was definitely an encouragement to get us out there and is the reason we are planning a return trip.

Why did you need a power trail to go there? Why not just a couple of caches at beautiful vistas?

I had to go to China Lake for business, and found a couple of caches between LAX and China Lake based solely on the pictures posted in logs. Sure, I might have see some of the scenery if there was a road side power trail, but I hiked into the area a couple of miles and really enjoyed the scenery and peace and quiet. 20, 30, 100 film cans at reflector posts would have been a waste of my time.

January 4, 2011

Thanks to this trail, we were able to go out there and experience/appreciate it and can't wait to go back and do so again.

Um, you couldn't go there before?

Certainly could have but never really thought about it. The PT was definitely an encouragement to get us out there and is the reason we are planning a return trip.

Why did you need a power trail to go there? Why not just a couple of caches at beautiful vistas?

I had to go to China Lake for business, and found a couple of caches between LAX and China Lake based solely on the pictures posted in logs. Sure, I might have see some of the scenery if there was a road side power trail, but I hiked into the area a couple of miles and really enjoyed the scenery and peace and quiet. 20, 30, 100 film cans at reflector posts would have been a waste of my time.

We never contemplated caching in that area until the PT was published. For US, this was the reason for a road trip and was definitely not a waste of our time.

January 4, 2011

We added the scuba attribute at the suggestion of people in this forum to help them filter out the trail. Now that we have, people don't like that either. So what works?

The SCUBA works. At this point, until there is another attribute, it's really the only thing you can do. We voted for a PT attribute on the feedback forum so hopefully Groundspeak will consider it.

1.8k · January 4, 2011

We added the scuba attribute at the suggestion of people in this forum to help them filter out the trail. Now that we have, people don't like that either. So what works?

Hey there,

Your efforts are appreciated. You came up with a solution as pondered by the original poster.

Much of what is being brought to the fore has been fodder before.

I have a Nomex Fire Suit which I am not currently using.

January 4, 2011

We added the scuba attribute at the suggestion of people in this forum to help them filter out the trail. Now that we have, people don't like that either. So what works?

The SCUBA works. At this point, until there is another attribute, it's really the only thing you can do. We voted for a PT attribute on the feedback forum so hopefully Groundspeak will consider it.

Don't get what I'm saying wrong, because I agree with you. The Scuba attribute DOES work. IF you mark all of them. As it stands, anyone who does a pocket query for the scuba attribute and excluding all other attributes centered around any of the Route 66 PT caches will be missing this cache:

142-Route 66

and will get this one in its place:

Mrs. Wisearse Puzzle

[sarcasm]Now we're going to have ALL KINDS of people with only a 799 cache power trail! The HORROR![/sarcasm]

3k · January 4, 2011

I agree that adding a Power Trail attribute would be a good idea.

I'm more bothered by the naming of the cache: they are in the form "NNN-Route 66". I think "Route 66 #NNN" or "Route 66 PT #NNN" would have been much better. Starting with the number just kinda bugs me.

I noticed down here in SE Florida the famous TeamSnook brought a GRIM (Guardrail Madness) Power Trail to US 441. It's only about 100 or so caches in length since we only have really straight roads running alongside canals down here not barren stretches of remote desert highway.

While I would personally just as soon get rid of Power Trails, I have yet to hear a solution that actually would get rid of them that could be put into guidelines; they can all be circumvented by cachers working together to form a team Power Trail. I can't imagine a guideline of Power Trail = "I know it when I see it" would actually be accepted.

9.3k · January 5, 2011

Have you even been to this portion of Route 66???? The entire area is UTTERLY INSPIRING

Yes, I have. Parts of that route are beautiful. Parts of it are naught but sign posts stuck in dirt.

Which parts did the creators use? Looking at a few randomly selected satellite images suggests the sign posts and rocks.

I guess the area wasn't INSPIRING enough to justify using anything but the poster child of crappy containers?

Parts of this log tell me quite a bit:

"It became hard to keep track of our finds so I have waited to copy the logs of the rest of the group.

Hopefully it is accurate, with people already starting to use the 'moving cache' method it makes it difficult to be 100%"

If a cache is so lame you can't even remember it the next day, was it really worth stopping for?

Obviously, the numbers crowd would say "Yes". I would not.

Edited January 5, 2011 by Clan Riffster

January 5, 2011

I don't really know why, but the moving cache method irks me. Can't really pinpoint the reason though.

14k · January 5, 2011

I think tags would make a lot of sense. There is another listing site that makes use of tags rather than fixed attributes, and when I came across it / realized it, I thought - that seems incredibly useful.

Free-form tags wouldn't work. One person will tag their caches with 'power trail', another with 'powertrail' and a third will probably just put 'trail' and confuse things even more. Then there's spelling errors, etc... The result would not be filterable because there would be a cacophony of different ways that people would tag their caches whilst meaning the same thing.

This isn't a new problem and is certainly not unique to geocaching. Although using a controlled vocabulary for tags is a common approach, the use of more free-form ontology to describe a domain is becoming much more common as more information is being tagged using semantic web technologies and the use of seeAlso properties, preferred term, broader term, narrower term, and recommended term. The use of semantic web technologies and linked data is becoming much more common (Tim Berners-Lee, the creator of the world wide web is a very vocal advocate).

I happen to work for someone that began developing semantic web application several years ago. That project is now a multi institutional development effort will millions of dollars in funding (17M, I think) that is becoming highly visible. I interrupted my boss awhile back when I walked into his office for a meeting while he was talking to Tim Berners-lee on the phone about it. At the first annual conference for the project the chief technology officer for the whitehouse was in attendance. I only tangentially work with the project but that still resulted in an invitation by the Chinese National Science Library to deliver a keynote speech at a conference about a month ago.

Awhile back I was playing around with a content management system and used my MyFinds pocket query gpx file to create content about geocaches within the CMS. As this CMS (Drupal) has modules which can transform content into RDF (a protocol for describing data semantially) it would be fairly easy to semantically enable geocaching related data, perform adhoc queries that are currently not available via simple pocket queries. More than that, all of that data can be linked with other open data to create some interesting visualizations such as cache density as related to population. Once GS decides to open up an API for developers I may take a look at the little project I started and see what I can do with it.

January 5, 2011

Have you even been to this portion of Route 66???? The entire area is UTTERLY INSPIRING

Yes, I have. Parts of that route are beautiful. Parts of it are naught but sign posts stuck in dirt.

Which parts did the creators use? Looking at a few randomly selected satellite images suggests the sign posts and rocks.

I guess the area wasn't INSPIRING enough to justify using anything but the poster child of crappy containers?

Parts of this log tell me quite a bit:

"It became hard to keep track of our finds so I have waited to copy the logs of the rest of the group.

Hopefully it is accurate, with people already starting to use the 'moving cache' method it makes it difficult to be 100%"

If a cache is so lame you can't even remember it the next day, was it really worth stopping for?

Obviously, the numbers crowd would say "Yes". I would not.

That's one log out of many. Not a true representation of all the other logs from those cachers that have been on the trail. The majority of the caches are located in rocks which is no different from single caches located in other areas.

38.2k · January 5, 2011

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.

I would gently suggest that at least some people who are not fans of power trails, hold that belief because of the damage that they believe it can cause to the game - it's not just a case of "I don't like it so nobody else should get to do it". The emphasis on speed and numbers seems to encourage cachers to cut corners. The Alien Head trail, which is just off the ET Highway, features cache pages imploring folks not to drive to the caches in order to protect the area. But there are numerous reports of folks ignoring that advice, and I think that is likely to lead to problems with land managers. In my opinion, although I can't be 100% sure, I think that attempts to set speed records on the extensive ET power trail contribute to this behavior.

The Trail of the Gods seems to have been placed on electrical equipment without permission from the power company, and I'm thankful that the fallout from that incident was merely the mass archival of the caches instead of anything with more far-reaching consequences. Often a problem in an isolated area can result in much wider prohibitions (such as in South Carolina).

I'm happy to ignore many caches that I don't particularly enjoy, and I use the filter tools as such. I'm happy to quietly ignore almost all slices of geocaching that aren't my cup of tea. But power trails leave me worried that the slice of the game that I do enjoy could be negatively affected, so I may mention that from time to time when the subject comes up.

Well said!

January 5, 2011

I don't really know why, but the moving cache method irks me. Can't really pinpoint the reason though.

We don't really understand it either. It was strange to find a log with our name on it already about 100 caches further than we had been yet. That process does not seem like real caching to us. We enjoy looking at the log to see who has been at a cache. Not possible to do if someone is dropping a new cache and log every time!

6.7k · January 5, 2011

...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!

Come on, CR, aren't you overdoing the criticism and insults to anyone who does not think like you do? "If you don't like them don't hunt them" isn't silencing dissent, we value your opinion, but don't insult those of us who do like them.

38.2k · January 5, 2011

We added the scuba attribute at the suggestion of people in this forum to help them filter out the trail. Now that we have, people don't like that either. So what works?

The SCUBA works. At this point, until there is another attribute, it's really the only thing you can do. We voted for a PT attribute on the feedback forum so hopefully Groundspeak will consider it.

It works unless you are someone looking for a SCUBA cache.

Edited January 5, 2011 by briansnat

9.3k · January 5, 2011

"If you don't like them don't hunt them" isn't silencing dissent

If that were the totality of FireRef's message, I might agree with you. However, as you know, he took it a bit farther, stating that those who don't like them shouldn't express their opinion on the matter. This attitude is one I take umbrage to. If someone starts a thread titled "What do you think about brussel sprouts", you can bet it won't take me too long to say "I think they are icky". In that same vein, if a conversation turns toward discussing the merits of placing hundreds of inferior containers along a stretch of roadway, again, I'm gonna say "I think they are icky".

As to my lowest common denominator, that may have seemed excessive. In expressing that sentiment, I was referring to the caches themselves, not the folks who hunt them, though I can see from reading what I wrote that it reads the way you interpreted it. I have many near and dear friends who simply love P&G caching, so I can't really criticize the group. I think my typing fingers got ahead of my cogitation. Now that you've pointed it out to me, I would edit it, but then your post wouldn't make sense. :lol: My contempt is directed toward the lowest common denominator of caches, the 1/1 P&G, using a container which has failed in almost every environment, placed at spots utterly void of creativity.

Kind of a "Hate the playa' gamepiece, not the game" thing. :lol:

Sorry for the confusion.

January 5, 2011

Have you even been to this portion of Route 66???? The entire area is UTTERLY INSPIRING

Yes, I have. Parts of that route are beautiful. Parts of it are naught but sign posts stuck in dirt.

Which parts did the creators use? Looking at a few randomly selected satellite images suggests the sign posts and rocks.

I guess the area wasn't INSPIRING enough to justify using anything but the poster child of crappy containers?

Parts of this log tell me quite a bit:

"It became hard to keep track of our finds so I have waited to copy the logs of the rest of the group.

Hopefully it is accurate, with people already starting to use the 'moving cache' method it makes it difficult to be 100%"

If a cache is so lame you can't even remember it the next day, was it really worth stopping for?

Obviously, the numbers crowd would say "Yes". I would not.

Why don't you qoute his whole log. The keeping track part had nothing to do with the caches being lame. We were skipping some areas that had cachers in front of us, we were going for ftfs as a group. Fast paced and we didn't use our gps's. We were caching without the coords to make it more a little more fun.So what part did you travel on and when was that.

January 5, 2011

We added the scuba attribute at the suggestion of people in this forum to help them filter out the trail. Now that we have, people don't like that either. So what works?

The SCUBA works. At this point, until there is another attribute, it's really the only thing you can do. We voted for a PT attribute on the feedback forum so hopefully Groundspeak will consider it.

It works unless you are someone looking for a SCUBA cache.

Well heck your geocacher of the year and a mod. So why dont you tell the frog to make an attribute for the power trails.

New Route 66 Mega Power Trail

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment