Jump to content

New Route 66 Mega Power Trail


benh57
Followers 3

Recommended Posts

Well,

 

As long as this thread is rambling ( the CO complied with a request of the OP ... utilizing the best tool available at this particular time for this circumstance ) > I will ramble a bit before it gets shut down.

 

I am drawn back into the area for other caching experiences this spring and may do a few on the new trail ... an opportunity to cruise down the Mother Road and memory lane.

 

When I first hit the Mother Road I paid $0.28 per gallon for something we used to call " Ethyl "

 

Anyway a hat tip to the O.P. & the C.O.

Link to comment

Well,

 

As long as this thread is rambling ( the CO complied with a request of the OP ... utilizing the best tool available at this particular time for this circumstance ) > I will ramble a bit before it gets shut down.

 

I am drawn back into the area for other caching experiences this spring and may do a few on the new trail ... an opportunity to cruise down the Mother Road and memory lane.

 

When I first hit the Mother Road I paid $0.28 per gallon for something we used to call " Ethyl "

 

Anyway a hat tip to the O.P. & the C.O.

Don't stop for gas in Amboy then!! $3.65 a gallon for regular!!!

Link to comment

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!

 

See, I think THAT'S why it irks me. Fact is, I could go up there right now and hit every other one of those caches, or the first 400, and claim finds on all 800. Then just say that someone was moving caches as I found them, and the last half of the caches that I found all already had my name on them. And you can't REALLY prove that I'm lying, because it's CLEAR that people are doing it. Most aren't even denying that they're doing it.

 

Most have more integrity than that, but if I ever take part in making some kind of trail or series, they will ALL be different containers. No two will be alike, and hopefully that might discourage this kind of thing.

Link to comment

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)

 

Travesty

and

Blasphemy

are two words that come to mind...

 

monkey-see-monkey-do

 

pitiful...pitiful and sad

Link to comment

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?

 

There is no perfect solution and you can't please everybody all the time, so find what you think is your best effort and just go with it. There was a good suggestion earlier:

 

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.

Link to comment

What I find so funny about all of this is 90% of the people writing on this topic have not been bothered by this PT or do they live anywhere near it! And if they spend more time out caching than complaining on this forum post they would not have time to worry about this (world ending PT). Every time I visit the forums all I read is negative comment after negative comment that always makes the hobby/sport look "great" to newbies. SO go ahead and QUOTE what I said here and give my 20 reasons as to why what I said is wrong but I wont have time to come back and see what you said I will be out at the PT grabbing the rest of the caches I did not grab the first day!

 

Remember the reason you started Geocaching to to find caches, so get off the forums quit worrying what others are doing and have fun!

 

Thanks Team Stevecat! we had a blast and will be back very soon to finish up!

Link to comment
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.

 

that's why most sites supporting a tag system let all users add tags to whatever entities the site features. it's not fool proof either, but seems to work reasonably well on those sites.

Link to comment

Why don't you qoute his whole log.

Why would I? The rest of his log was irrelevant to my point.

 

The keeping track part had nothing to do with the caches being lame.

For you, that may be true. But keeping track has quite a bit to do with a cache being lame, in my eyes.

Lame is, of course, a subjective term. For me, a big part of the Lameness Quotient involves memorability.

If I find a cache, and can't remember the next day which one it was, that tells me it was not very memorable.

Or, to quote a term so often used in these forums: Lame.

Naturally, for you, lame might mean something entirely different.

 

So what part did you travel on and when was that.

It was somewhere east of Los Angeles, to somewhere in Oklahoma. It would have been some time in the early 80's. Maybe? :unsure:

Link to comment

The keeping track part had nothing to do with the caches being lame.

For you, that may be true. But keeping track has quite a bit to do with a cache being lame, in my eyes.

Lame is, of course, a subjective term. For me, a big part of the Lameness Quotient involves memorability.

If I find a cache, and can't remember the next day which one it was, that tells me it was not very memorable.

On the other hand the4dirtydogs do seem to have very fond memories of the time spent on the trail finding all these caches. So do most of the people who have done these power trails. Is there some rule of one memorable experience per cache or can't someone enjoy the collective experience of spending a day geocaching? Certainly, from my point of view one should be able to enjoy an 800 stage multi-cache as much as finding 800 traditional caches. But there have been many discussions on the issue of doing a 800 stage multi because some of the stages may be missing (or that people would just go to the final if you made all the waypoints available). There are clearly some people motivated by the number of finds you can log on these power trails, and I'm not going to question why numbers of finds shouldn't be a motivation for some people.

 

Fact is, I could go up there right now and hit every other one of those caches, or the first 400, and claim finds on all 800.

Heck, you could probably do that without ever leaving your couch.

If other power trails are any indication, the owner will never check the logs.

However, while I can understand someone who says that finding 800 identical cache would be boring or to a lesser extent the speculation that power trails are going to be more noticed by land managers and that any problem they cause is somehow going to get all geocaching banned, I don't understand comments like these. It sounds like people are objecting to power trails because you can get a great number of finds on them. And these comments seem to infer that people who are motivated by find counts are cheaters who will claim finds for caches they didn't look for. This is really nonsense. Those who are motivated to do power trails because of the numbers like them because they actually get to find a lot of caches, not because they get to sit at home and log cookie cutter logs for caches they never looked for. And while some may not remember every single cache they found on these runs, they are likely to try log only the ones they found (and perhaps log DNF on the ones they didn't find). Sure they may make mistakes. And with some practicing the drop and grab technique, you can't go and check the logs to see what caches were found. But who really cares? The point of geocaching is to have fun and it sounds to me like the people who chose to do power trails have fun and the people who aren't likely to have fun (or want to pretend they aren't likely to have fun) don't do the power trails.
Link to comment
Fact is, I could go up there right now and hit every other one of those caches, or the first 400, and claim finds on all 800.

Heck, you could probably do that without ever leaving your couch.

If other power trails are any indication, the owner will never check the logs.

However, while I can understand someone who says that finding 800 identical cache would be boring or to a lesser extent the speculation that power trails are going to be more noticed by land managers and that any problem they cause is somehow going to get all geocaching banned, I don't understand comments like these. It sounds like people are objecting to power trails because you can get a great number of finds on them. And these comments seem to infer that people who are motivated by find counts are cheaters who will claim finds for caches they didn't look for. This is really nonsense. Those who are motivated to do power trails because of the numbers like them because they actually get to find a lot of caches, not because they get to sit at home and log cookie cutter logs for caches they never looked for. And while some may not remember every single cache they found on these runs, they are likely to try log only the ones they found (and perhaps log DNF on the ones they didn't find). Sure they may make mistakes. And with some practicing the drop and grab technique, you can't go and check the logs to see what caches were found. But who really cares? The point of geocaching is to have fun and it sounds to me like the people who chose to do power trails have fun and the people who aren't likely to have fun (or want to pretend they aren't likely to have fun) don't do the power trails.

 

Wow! Is that REALLY what you got from that? Oddly misconstrued, in my opinion.

 

Fact is, the finders of a lot of these PT caches were finding cache containers that they had already found AND signed the log for in a completely different cache location. If there isn't something wrong with that to you, I'm not sure what you'll find as a bad practice in geocaching.

 

This has relatively little to do with my feelings towards PTs. The only thing that it has to do with PTs is that they're really the only place that this practice takes place. My problem is with the practice, not the PT themselves. Caches get placed at a specific location. So specific, in fact, that it is a GS REQUIREMENT that you log the coordinates at which the cache container was left. They are not designed to be moved. In fact, GS banned the practice of moving caches years ago. I just don't see how the "moving cache" method is any different. The title itself infers that caches will be moved.

Link to comment

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.

 

 

Land managers are going to think this is absolutely wonderful. It will go a long way toward improving our image in their eyes. After years of hard work at gaining increasing acceptance, this is just what geocaching needs.

Link to comment

What I find so funny about all of this is 90% of the people writing on this topic have not been bothered by this PT or do they live anywhere near it! And if they spend more time out caching than complaining on this forum post they would not have time to worry about this (world ending PT). Every time I visit the forums all I read is negative comment after negative comment that always makes the hobby/sport look "great" to newbies. SO go ahead and QUOTE what I said here and give my 20 reasons as to why what I said is wrong but I wont have time to come back and see what you said I will be out at the PT grabbing the rest of the caches I did not grab the first day!

 

Remember the reason you started Geocaching to to find caches, so get off the forums quit worrying what others are doing and have fun!

 

Thanks Team Stevecat! we had a blast and will be back very soon to finish up!

 

I've never shot myself in the foot either but I have an opinion about that as well. We're worried because of the impact on other caches and the hobby as a whole.

Link to comment
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.

 

I have 1004 caches on my ignore list.

Link to comment
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.

 

I have 1004 caches on my ignore list.

 

Huh. Okay, so do-able, but still tedious.

Link to comment

What I find so funny about all of this is 90% of the people writing on this topic have not been bothered by this PT or do they live anywhere near it! And if they spend more time out caching than complaining on this forum post they would not have time to worry about this (world ending PT). Every time I visit the forums all I read is negative comment after negative comment that always makes the hobby/sport look "great" to newbies. SO go ahead and QUOTE what I said here and give my 20 reasons as to why what I said is wrong but I wont have time to come back and see what you said I will be out at the PT grabbing the rest of the caches I did not grab the first day!

 

Remember the reason you started Geocaching to to find caches, so get off the forums quit worrying what others are doing and have fun!

 

 

OK, I'll quote it. How much are you actually reading, or just quickly browsing the forums while thinking "everything is so negative here"?

 

I don't see anyone posting that desert power trail's shouldn't exist because their lame. I see them posting legimate concerns like below (which we should all "worry" about):

 

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.

 

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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.

 

The format of the cache name was suggested by the Groundspeak Reviewers. This was to allow GPSR's to not hang up on the first part of the name. Placing the cache number first makes it obvious that it is a new cache and not part of another.

Link to comment

The naming format of this series was suggested by the Groundspeak Reviewers. Placing the number first allows many of the GPS'r units to view them correctly and not drop the end of the test, thus making their PQ efforts useless. What would you like to see on your GPSr?

 

Route 66 – or 001– Route 66

Route 66 – or 002– Route 66

Route 66 – or 003– Route 66

Link to comment

The naming format of this series was suggested by the Groundspeak Reviewers. Placing the number first allows many of the GPS'r units to view them correctly and not drop the end of the test, thus making their PQ efforts useless. What would you like to see on your GPSr?

 

Route 66 – or 001– Route 66

Route 66 – or 002– Route 66

Route 66 – or 003– Route 66

Personally, I like the number first.

 

A few years ago a cacher near us put out a hiking series with 12 hiking caches in a large park, and the caches had long names like, "Big Pond Park - Woodpecker Heaven," "Big Pond Park - Wooden Fort" and so on.

 

It was very confusing because the caches would get names like, "BgPndPrkWpkh" and "BgPndPrkWdnF," and you'd have to try to match up the "generated name" with the full name. It got even more confusing if you went with other cachers because their GPS might generate different names than yours.

 

People ended up logging finds on caches that they didn't find DNFing caches they actually found because they got the names confused.

 

After a couple weeks, the owner changed the names to include numbers at the beginning. The generated part of the names may have been different between GPS units, but they all started with01, 02, 03 at the beginning, making it easy to know which cache you were at.

 

With newer GPS units/iPhones and the like, it may not be as much of an issue, but there are a lot of cachers who still cache with older units, so I think it's a good idea.

Link to comment
Fact is, I could go up there right now and hit every other one of those caches, or the first 400, and claim finds on all 800.

Heck, you could probably do that without ever leaving your couch.

If other power trails are any indication, the owner will never check the logs.

<Text almost as repetitious as power trails, snipped for brevity>

 

Wow! Is that REALLY what you got from that? Oddly misconstrued, in my opinion.

It's Toz. It's what he does. :lol:

Link to comment

Wow! Is that REALLY what you got from that? Oddly misconstrued, in my opinion.

 

Fact is, the finders of a lot of these PT caches were finding cache containers that they had already found AND signed the log for in a completely different cache location. If there isn't something wrong with that to you, I'm not sure what you'll find as a bad practice in geocaching.

 

This has relatively little to do with my feelings towards PTs. The only thing that it has to do with PTs is that they're really the only place that this practice takes place. My problem is with the practice, not the PT themselves. Caches get placed at a specific location. So specific, in fact, that it is a GS REQUIREMENT that you log the coordinates at which the cache container was left. They are not designed to be moved. In fact, GS banned the practice of moving caches years ago. I just don't see how the "moving cache" method is any different. The title itself infers that caches will be moved.

I have posted my opinion of the drop and grab method used on power trails in previous threads. I see nothing wrong with it so long as the cache owner says it's okay. The guidelines refer specifically to caches that have the goal to move ("traveling caches") and says they most likely will not be published. The power trail caches don't have a goal to move. They do have a "goal" of sort in providing to geocachers who want it, a challenge to find the maximum number of caches in the shortest time. Some cachers have come up with creative ways to sign the logs in order to increase the rate at which they log the caches. One method is to shift containers and logs along these power trails. When they are done there is still a cache at each location for the next person to find and no caches have been placed in locations where there wasn't a cache before. These were the two problems that led to travelling caches no longer being listed: people would look for the cache after it had been moved and have no cache to find, and sometimes the cache would be moved to a location that violated some other guideline. Since the drop and grab method doesn't results in these problems it is silly to try to argue that it violates the moving cache guideline.

 

I fail to see why this practice is causing so much consternation even among some who like power trails. I personally think its fun to see what ideas people come up with to do "speed caching". It's not something I would do, but hey, if you're having fun and it's not hurting anyone, go for it.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

I fail to see why this practice is causing so much consternation even among some who like power trails. I personally think its fun to see what ideas people come up with to do "speed caching". It's not something I would do, but hey, if you're having fun and it's not hurting anyone, go for it.

Because it violates the puritan way of doing things. Actually, don't power trails violate the puritan creed?

Link to comment
I don't really know why, but the moving cache method irks me. Can't really pinpoint the reason though.
I can. One of the basic rules of the game is "Sign the logbook and return the geocache to its original location."

 

Without permission from the CO, the moving cache method is a form of vandalism. With permission from the CO, it isn't vandalism, but it isn't really geocaching either, IMHO.

Link to comment

Because it violates the puritan way of doing things. Actually, don't power trails violate the puritan creed?

 

Please don't use the word "puritan" to describe those who disagree with you on this topic. It's offensive and uncalled for. Using derogatory names does not promote constructive discussion, IMO.

 

Me, I don't care one way or another. People on power trails can do whatever they want; I am never likely to do any of the caches, so whether they have been moved or not doesn't affect me.

Link to comment

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?

There are several suggestions of things that may work. They may not be as effective as some who don't care for power trails would like them to be, but they are what you have to work with. Consider the following quote:

 

[...]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

Now what you have to ask yourself is this: Is it the right thing to render an attribute unusable for the group of cachers for whom is was expressly created just because their group is smaller? Should you poison the admittedly small well of one group so that a larger group has a somewhat more convenient time?

 

You have hidden caches; so whether they're any particular cacher's preferred variety, you have shown initiative in building the community of geocaching. You have also gone out of your way to be respectable even to geocachers who actively dislike your variety of caching. I cannot make your decision for you, and I can truly say I regret that there is currently no attribute or other simple solution that can accommodate those who want to filter out your caches. Is their dislike sufficient to justify breaking the game for the few of us scubacachers as are out there, or will you decide that convenience for the many is not sufficient to sacrifice the few?

 

As one of the few, I appreciate your consideration.

Link to comment

I fail to see why this practice is causing so much consternation even among some who like power trails. I personally think its fun to see what ideas people come up with to do "speed caching". It's not something I would do, but hey, if you're having fun and it's not hurting anyone, go for it.

Because it violates the puritan way of doing things. Actually, don't power trails violate the puritan creed?

 

So we've come to the point where if you believe that when you find a cache, you should return it to its hiding place it makes you a puritan. :blink:

Link to comment

 

Now what you have to ask yourself is this: Is it the right thing to render an attribute unusable for the group of cachers for whom is was expressly created just because their group is smaller? Should you poison the admittedly small well of one group so that a larger group has a somewhat more convenient time?

 

 

Of course it's right. As long as it serves the powercaching community's desires, anything goes.

Link to comment

 

Now what you have to ask yourself is this: Is it the right thing to render an attribute unusable for the group of cachers for whom is was expressly created just because their group is smaller? Should you poison the admittedly small well of one group so that a larger group has a somewhat more convenient time?

 

 

Of course it's right. As long as it serves the powercaching community's desires, anything goes.

 

Wow. Snark level just went off of the scale, Cap'n! From a moderator, no less!

Link to comment

Because it violates the puritan way of doing things. Actually, don't power trails violate the puritan creed?

 

Please don't use the word "puritan" to describe those who disagree with you on this topic. It's offensive and uncalled for. Using derogatory names does not promote constructive discussion, IMO.

Agreed. Well said, and for the second time in this topic.

 

You trying to get a moderator job Fizzy? :ninja::anibad:

Link to comment

 

Now what you have to ask yourself is this: Is it the right thing to render an attribute unusable for the group of cachers for whom is was expressly created just because their group is smaller? Should you poison the admittedly small well of one group so that a larger group has a somewhat more convenient time?

 

 

Of course it's right. As long as it serves the powercaching community's desires, anything goes.

 

Wow. Snark level just went off of the scale, Cap'n! From a moderator, no less!

Probably why Keystone was the Geocacher of the year for 2009 and 2010. :laughing:

Link to comment

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?

There are several suggestions of things that may work. They may not be as effective as some who don't care for power trails would like them to be, but they are what you have to work with. Consider the following quote:

 

[...]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

Now what you have to ask yourself is this: Is it the right thing to render an attribute unusable for the group of cachers for whom is was expressly created just because their group is smaller? Should you poison the admittedly small well of one group so that a larger group has a somewhat more convenient time?

 

You have hidden caches; so whether they're any particular cacher's preferred variety, you have shown initiative in building the community of geocaching. You have also gone out of your way to be respectable even to geocachers who actively dislike your variety of caching. I cannot make your decision for you, and I can truly say I regret that there is currently no attribute or other simple solution that can accommodate those who want to filter out your caches. Is their dislike sufficient to justify breaking the game for the few of us scubacachers as are out there, or will you decide that convenience for the many is not sufficient to sacrifice the few?

 

As one of the few, I appreciate your consideration.

 

While it would not be as useful as a true power trail attribute, a combination of mutually exclusive attributes would be better than any single attribute like the SCUBA attribute. Consider Park and Grab along with Significant Hike, for one example.

Link to comment

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.

 

I wonder where one would go scuba diving between Barstow and Needles along Route 66?

Link to comment

Wow! Is that REALLY what you got from that? Oddly misconstrued, in my opinion.

 

Fact is, the finders of a lot of these PT caches were finding cache containers that they had already found AND signed the log for in a completely different cache location. If there isn't something wrong with that to you, I'm not sure what you'll find as a bad practice in geocaching.

 

This has relatively little to do with my feelings towards PTs. The only thing that it has to do with PTs is that they're really the only place that this practice takes place. My problem is with the practice, not the PT themselves. Caches get placed at a specific location. So specific, in fact, that it is a GS REQUIREMENT that you log the coordinates at which the cache container was left. They are not designed to be moved. In fact, GS banned the practice of moving caches years ago. I just don't see how the "moving cache" method is any different. The title itself infers that caches will be moved.

I have posted my opinion of the drop and grab method used on power trails in previous threads. I see nothing wrong with it so long as the cache owner says it's okay. The guidelines refer specifically to caches that have the goal to move ("traveling caches") and says they most likely will not be published. The power trail caches don't have a goal to move. They do have a "goal" of sort in providing to geocachers who want it, a challenge to find the maximum number of caches in the shortest time. Some cachers have come up with creative ways to sign the logs in order to increase the rate at which they log the caches. One method is to shift containers and logs along these power trails. When they are done there is still a cache at each location for the next person to find and no caches have been placed in locations where there wasn't a cache before. These were the two problems that led to travelling caches no longer being listed: people would look for the cache after it had been moved and have no cache to find, and sometimes the cache would be moved to a location that violated some other guideline. Since the drop and grab method doesn't results in these problems it is silly to try to argue that it violates the moving cache guideline.

 

I fail to see why this practice is causing so much consternation even among some who like power trails. I personally think its fun to see what ideas people come up with to do "speed caching". It's not something I would do, but hey, if you're having fun and it's not hurting anyone, go for it.

 

You can paint it any way you want to, but it still ain't right. Creative? Sure. Fast? Obviously. But moving a cache from its intended location is against the rules from what I can tell. And as a less important aspect of this conversation, it screws with the integrity of the geocaching on the trail as a whole. No one will ever really know if all 800 have been found by anyone or not, because not all of the caches will have all of the signatures on them.

Link to comment

Because it violates the puritan way of doing things. Actually, don't power trails violate the puritan creed?

 

Please don't use the word "puritan" to describe those who disagree with you on this topic. It's offensive and uncalled for. Using derogatory names does not promote constructive discussion, IMO.

 

Me, I don't care one way or another. People on power trails can do whatever they want; I am never likely to do any of the caches, so whether they have been moved or not doesn't affect me.

Actually I don't disagree with you on this topic, so I would be classed as a puritan. But there is nothing I can do about it and it is not worth the effort to get upset about. I guess if your doing a power trail of identical film containers is there anything really special about the film container that you found? Yes we can go into the argument about the logs. But I have found these type of containers where the log was a sodden moldy mess. I replaced the log with my own in a new bag. The old log was discarded. Did I just violate the rule of putting the cache back? Don't know. If I find one of these containers broken and the log a sodden mess and I replace the whole shebang have I violated the rule of putting the cache back? Again I don't know. So looking at these two examples what is the difference between those and replacing a cache along the power trail with a different cache than the one that was found? I really don't know. If I were to do the power trails would I play musical containers? Nope. I am a puritan.

Link to comment
I wonder where one would go scuba diving between Barstow and Needles along Route 66?

The point that ClayJar was making earlier was that SCUBA cachers have a very hard time finding appropriate caches and as a result have to set very wide PQ radii just to find a handful of caches. Centering a search on Lake Mead does turn up a couple of true SCUBA caches - but then results #6-500 are all part of a power trail. The point being, and it's one I hadn't really thought too much about before, that even if there are no SCUBA opportunities within 50 miles of a power trail doesn't mean that it doesn't throw a wrench into the plans of SCUBA cachers.

Link to comment

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.

 

I wonder where one would go scuba diving between Barstow and Needles along Route 66?

 

Say I'm visiting the state and I'm an avid SCUBA diver. I know nothing about the area, but I want to check for SCUBA caches to see if bringing my equipment is worthwhile.

 

Attributes not only tell you if the kind of cache you want is there, they can also tell you if that kind of cache is not there. The SCUBA attribute has now effectively been rendered useless for an entire region, not just the immediate area around this power trial.

Link to comment

While it would not be as useful as a true power trail attribute, a combination of mutually exclusive attributes would be better than any single attribute like the SCUBA attribute. Consider Park and Grab along with Significant Hike, for one example.

 

I was thinking "SCUBA" and "WATCH FOR LIVESTOCK".

That's the idea!
Link to comment

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.

 

I wonder where one would go scuba diving between Barstow and Needles along Route 66?

 

Okay, here's a plausible scenario. Suppose I lived near Needles, and perhaps one of the reasons I live in the area is I want the proximity to the remoteness of the desert and might enjoy some of the long hikes it offers. It would would be understandable if I might have a preference for caches which require long hikes and high terrain ratings. Since I'm not a scuba diver I wouldn't like use scuba attribute.

 

Now suppose a power trail of 800 caches was placed in the area and they were tagged with the requires scuba attribute. As a premium member I now have 800 email messages for geocaches that I have no interest in finding in my inbox because I have instant notifications turned on. Unless I know what attribute or combinations that you misuse *before* the power trail is published I have no way of filtering out instant notifications.

Link to comment
Now suppose a power trail of 800 caches was placed in the area and they were tagged with the requires scuba attribute. As a premium member I now have 800 email messages for geocaches that I have no interest in finding in my inbox because I have instant notifications turned on. Unless I know what attribute or combinations that you misuse *before* the power trail is published I have no way of filtering out instant notifications.

I didn't think you could set Instant Notifications to work at the level of attributes. I know you can do it for type of cache, and for type of log, but can you for attributes?

Link to comment

So here is a suggestion. Someone start a feedback topic for a power trail attribute. I suggest the icon be that of an alien head :rolleyes: We can all go vote on it. When the icon becomes available the owners get to change the attributes again. Those that want the trail filter for the attribute, those that don't want the can filter to exclude the attribute. Both camps are happy. All we need is an appropriate attribute.

Link to comment

So here is a suggestion. Someone start a feedback topic for a power trail attribute.[...] We can all go vote on it. When the icon becomes available the owners get to change the attributes again. Those that want the trail filter for the attribute, those that don't want the can filter to exclude the attribute. Both camps are happy. All we need is an appropriate attribute.

 

Someone did that very thing, as mentioned earlier in this very thread. It's already there, and it has been for a while, but it looks like it could use more votes.

 

Feedback forum: "Define an attribute or devise a way to filter power trails" http://feedback.geocaching.com/forums/75775-geocaching-com/suggestions/1050853-define-an-attribute-or-devise-a-way-to-filter-powe

Link to comment
While it would not be as useful as a true power trail attribute, a combination of mutually exclusive attributes would be better than any single attribute like the SCUBA attribute. Consider Park and Grab along with Significant Hike, for one example.
I was thinking "SCUBA" and "WATCH FOR LIVESTOCK".

 

And doing so would mean that the scubacachers would have to inherently KNOW that they not only have to search for scuba caches, but exclude the ones that have "watch for livestock." Nope. Why should there be any inconvenience put on the scubacachers at all? You could say the same thing for

snowshoes-yes.gif and winter-no.gif

Snowshoes and Not Available in Winter. They're mutually exclusive and no single cache would logically have them both set like that. But then anyone that searches on JUST snowshoes will get all of the power trail caches. See how that works? Anyone that searches for caches Not Available In Winter will get the power trail caches. We need to stop trying to use something totally unrelated as a description of power trail cache.

 

Instead...

 

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.

Link to comment
While it would not be as useful as a true power trail attribute, a combination of mutually exclusive attributes would be better than any single attribute like the SCUBA attribute. Consider Park and Grab along with Significant Hike, for one example.
I was thinking "SCUBA" and "WATCH FOR LIVESTOCK".

 

And doing so would mean that the scubacachers would have to inherently KNOW that they not only have to search for scuba caches, but exclude the ones that have "watch for livestock." Nope. Why should there be any inconvenience put on the scubacachers at all? You could say the same thing for

snowshoes-yes.gif and winter-no.gif

Snowshoes and Not Available in Winter. They're mutually exclusive and no single cache would logically have them both set like that. But then anyone that searches on JUST snowshoes will get all of the power trail caches. See how that works? Anyone that searches for caches Not Available In Winter will get the power trail caches. We need to stop trying to use something totally unrelated as a description of power trail cache.

 

Instead...

 

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.

I'm just trying to suggest a possible workaround until something better comes along. The other workaround could equally upset somebody that wanted a bunch of skirt lifters in Las Vegas but didn't want to head out to the desert.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 3
×
×
  • Create New...