New Route 66 Mega Power Trail

[jholly]

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

Vote is where mouth is.

[+Markwell]

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.

The difference is that someone that wants a bunch of skirt lifters in Las Vegas will actually get caches that are skirt lifters if they center their search in Las Vegas - they just can't go out to a wide radius into the desert before hitting the power trail. Someone that is scuba-caching HAS to make a wide radius to get ANY caches, and their results would be junked up with caches that are NOT scuba caches. I'm presuming these caches in this power trail are indeed park-and-grab, short-hike and take-less-than-an-hour. Each of those attributes would be completely valid if and when the power trail attribute is implemented. If the power trail attribute is implemented, owners would have to remove the scuba attribute to be "truthful".

[+Castle Mischief]

I have a better idea. Ban powertrails. No additional attribute needed.

 

How about we work for a compromise and let power trails doom themselves?

[+briansnat]

I have a better idea. Ban powertrails. No additional attribute needed.

 

How about we work for a compromise and let power trails doom themselves?

 

Hopefully before they doom geocaching in certain areas.

[+G & C]

I have a better idea. Ban powertrails. No additional attribute needed.

 

I don't care for PTs. But I will always, ALWAYS be on the side of living and letting live. You don't like them? Go elsewhere. But don't try to push your will on others by trying to create more unnecessary rules.

[+M 5]

I have a better idea. Ban powertrails. No additional attribute needed.

 

I don't care for PTs. But I will always, ALWAYS be on the side of living and letting live. You don't like them? Go elsewhere. But don't try to push your will on others by trying to create more unnecessary rules.

 

Only unnecessary in shortsighted eyes. Look at the big picture. You might even try the new beta maps. It's pretty telling the way this explosion of power trails and urban micros is heading. I've always thought geocaching works much better as a niche hobby. It's not the type of hobby that will do well if it gets too big. Too many problems.

[+tozainamboku]

Just want to point out I'm not the one using the term puritan in this thread.

 

However there is a similarity in that some people are searching for anything on the web site to buttress their theory that drop and grab is somehow against the rules of geocaching; and there are no such rules.

 

Clearly in most cases a geocache finder should sign the log and return the cache to same location where he found it. However there are exceptions. In prior threads, I gave examples of reasons why caches get moved or containers get replaced. Most of the people who seem bothered by drop and grab said that the examples I gave were for caches that needed maintenance or where the cache would be compromised to a muggle if returned to the same location, and that was not the case with these power trail caches. Of course it comes down to whether or not a reason is good enough. Just as in the case I make for logging a find when you didn't sign the log, it is up to the cache owner to decide what is a good reason or not. The power trail cache owners seem to have no problem that some people are using this logging technique. I believe that if a cache owner believes that trying to find ways to go faster on their power trail is a good enough reason for moving the caches, that should be the end of the argument.

 

You could always start a request on the feedback site, but I don't believe that Groundspeak is interested in telling cache owners what the acceptable reasons are for keeping logs when someone moves their cache to a different location or replaces the cache with a different container; and making them delete found logs if the reason is not deemed acceptable.

[+briansnat]

I have a better idea. Ban powertrails. No additional attribute needed.

 

I don't care for PTs. But I will always, ALWAYS be on the side of living and letting live. You don't like them? Go elsewhere. But don't try to push your will on others by trying to create more unnecessary rules.

 

If anybody is doing the pushing it's the numbers hounds who have been creating these things lately, regardless of the potential consequences to the sport and the inconvenience that they present to other cachers.

 

Heaven forbid if you voice your concerns in this forum, you are called a "puritan" and told "if you don't like them don't hunt them" (translated: "get lost").

 

These things weren't allowed until recently and we geocachers got along quite well without them. Stoking the thirst for numbers is the only thing they bring to our sport.

[+Ecylram]

If anybody is doing the pushing it's the numbers hounds who have been creating these things lately, regardless of the potential consequences to the sport and the inconvenience that they present to other cachers.

 

... Stoking the thirst for numbers is the only thing they bring to our sport.

"Numbers hounds" is a nice derogatory statement but it doesn't describe all those who use or advocate Power Trails. For many, it's a different kind of challenge/activity from typical geocaching.

 

"Stoking the thirst for numbers" is, again, a derogatory statement about those who do Power Trails.

 

You don't like them, fine, but lets step back from the labels and subtle insults.

[+humboldt flier]

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?

 

LOL, LOL, LOL ... snicker, snicker

[+M 5]

This section is around 80 miles as the crow flies. May be a little longer with the road route. What if someone put 40 caches along that same section, with differnt types of hides/containers. What makes the 800 so much more attractive? Wouldn't you see the great scenery which has been talked about on here(even better I imagine), with less problems. Not that 1 every 2 miles is a magic number, just an example. I am just curious of the supporters thoughts on that.

[+tozainamboku]

Heaven forbid if you voice your concerns in this forum, you are called a "puritan" and told "if you don't like them don't hunt them" (translated: "get lost").

 

These things weren't allowed until recently and we geocachers got along quite well without them. Stoking the thirst for numbers is the only thing they bring to our sport.

Just to re-iterate, I didn't call anyone a puritan in this thread, and when others did use the term (humorously, I assume, in refering to my post), it had to do with whether a particular logging practice is permitted.

 

The attack on power trails as existing only for the "number hounds" and the posts that imply that numbers trails encourage some kind of cheating, takes away from those how want to argue that power trails have an effect on others cachers. The two points that have been made are that power trails effect others' PQs and that power trails will somehow cause more problems with land managers than other caches.

 

With regards to the first point, there has been some discussion here about getting Groundspeak to provide an attribute or other way for people to ignore power trail caches. There have been some good points made on why the use of the SCUBA attribute, even for caches in the middle of the desert has an effect on caches looking for true SCUBA caches and thus is not a good alternative for a power trail attribute.

 

With regards to the second point. I don't feel the premise has been fully proven. There is some evidence that power trails increase the traffic in areas where a few caches would not and perhaps caches need to be in areas that are not sensitive to the extra traffic (already a guideline). While we have seen some power trails being archived en masse when land managers have either a permission issue or a concern with extra traffic, they have not as yet used these caches to as a reason to ban caching altogether. It isn't clear to me yet that power trails are any more likely to cause a problem than a single poorly placed cache in or near a sensitive area. Many times we have seen single caches removed by land managers and on more than one occasion a single poorly placed cache has resulted in a ban on caching in an area.

 

Finally, I am going to argue that power trails were never banned. They have existed all along, albeit with smaller numbers and in some instances where they developed over a period of time. What changed is some minor wording in the saturation guideline that was being used by some reviewers to limit power trails. The reviewers could not agree among themselves as to what constituted a power trail so the guidelines were cleaned up. The guidelines no longer mention "power trail" by name, but they certainly give reviewers the ability to limit caches beyond the .1 mile guideline in areas where cache saturation becomes a concern.

[+skraeling]

I have a better idea. Ban powertrails. No additional attribute needed.

 

I don't care for PTs. But I will always, ALWAYS be on the side of living and letting live. You don't like them? Go elsewhere. But don't try to push your will on others by trying to create more unnecessary rules.

 

If anybody is doing the pushing it's the numbers hounds who have been creating these things lately, regardless of the potential consequences to the sport and the inconvenience that they present to other cachers.

 

Heaven forbid if you voice your concerns in this forum, you are called a "puritan" and told "if you don't like them don't hunt them" (translated: "get lost").

 

These things weren't allowed until recently and we geocachers got along quite well without them. Stoking the thirst for numbers is the only thing they bring to our sport.

 

Hmm.... all this talk about how "bad" power trails are; how they "inconvenience" other cachers...

 

Lets replace "power trail cache" with "mystery cache". All the same type of arguments can be made about mystery caches... They are "bad" because not everyone can figure them out. They "inconvenience" cachers because now they have "unfound" caches on the map that they cant clear. Whats that? Not every cache is for every cacher? Put it on your ignore list? Replace power trail/mystery with any other cache type/size/location and you have all the same arguments as to why they shouldnt be allowed.

 

Here's an idea: stop whining in the forums. Go out and find caches... The kind you like (urban/nano/small/large/series (really just a mini power trail... but these seem to be ok!?!)/hiking/...) You get the idea.

 

Keep them all coming - I like and will do them all...

[+G & C]

I have a better idea. Ban powertrails. No additional attribute needed.

 

I don't care for PTs. But I will always, ALWAYS be on the side of living and letting live. You don't like them? Go elsewhere. But don't try to push your will on others by trying to create more unnecessary rules.

 

If anybody is doing the pushing it's the numbers hounds who have been creating these things lately, regardless of the potential consequences to the sport and the inconvenience that they present to other cachers.

 

Heaven forbid if you voice your concerns in this forum, you are called a "puritan" and told "if you don't like them don't hunt them" (translated: "get lost").

 

These things weren't allowed until recently and we geocachers got along quite well without them. Stoking the thirst for numbers is the only thing they bring to our sport.

 

I say "if you don't like them, don't hunt them" to EVERYBODY, about EVERYTHING. I don't care about size, difficulty/terrain combo, PT, LPH, what side of the issue I'm on, or anything else. What I like is to not have rules that I have to go by to play a game that I like to play. Rules ruin things for people. One rule will ruin something for you, the next will make you happy but will anger me. I'd much rather see the rules stay away, and we let people play the way that they want to play. So again, I reiterate as I will long past anything being said in this thread:

 

If you don't like them, don't hunt them.

 

Take it however the heck you please. You try pushing new rules on people and you will find me on your back in every thread I see you doing it in because 1) I like irritating people that irritate me, and 2) the less constrained we keep this game, the better it is for all of us. The problem is, you won't realize it until you have all those rules that will never be revoked, and then we're all screwed.

Edited January 6, 2011 by Guns & Cockpits

[+M 5]

Give me a break. When there was 1 or 2 LPC's and they got visited 10 times a year, and now there are 40 in a town and they get visited 40 or more times a year, they are not any more legal or illegal. They are just visited way more and have way more potential for a problem. Seems very obvious to me. Geocaching as a whole is the same way. More is NOT a good thing for this hobby. Powertrails and other urban micros fall under the same category. Of course any single cache can cause and issue. It's about percentages and potential. As an entity, you have to be forward thinking and head off potential problems, before they become a real serious problem.

[+briansnat]

I have a better idea. Ban powertrails. No additional attribute needed.

 

I don't care for PTs. But I will always, ALWAYS be on the side of living and letting live. You don't like them? Go elsewhere. But don't try to push your will on others by trying to create more unnecessary rules.

 

If anybody is doing the pushing it's the numbers hounds who have been creating these things lately, regardless of the potential consequences to the sport and the inconvenience that they present to other cachers.

 

Heaven forbid if you voice your concerns in this forum, you are called a "puritan" and told "if you don't like them don't hunt them" (translated: "get lost").

 

These things weren't allowed until recently and we geocachers got along quite well without them. Stoking the thirst for numbers is the only thing they bring to our sport.

 

Hmm.... all this talk about how "bad" power trails are; how they "inconvenience" other cachers...

 

Lets replace "power trail cache" with "mystery cache". All the same type of arguments can be made about mystery caches... They are "bad" because not everyone can figure them out. They "inconvenience" cachers because now they have "unfound" caches on the map that they cant clear. Whats that? Not every cache is for every cacher? Put it on your ignore list? Replace power trail/mystery with any other cache type/size/location and you have all the same arguments as to why they shouldnt be allowed.

 

Here's an idea: stop whining in the forums. Go out and find caches... The kind you like (urban/nano/small/large/series (really just a mini power trail... but these seem to be ok!?!)/hiking/...) You get the idea.

 

Keep them all coming - I like and will do them all...

 

If someone were to dump 800 mystery caches in a small area then maybe your argument would hold water. Then again maybe not. Mystery caches don't usually attract power cachers who are looking only to find as many caches in as short a time as possible. Mystery caches only appeal to a small segment of geocachers, meaning that a 1,000 mystery cache day is unlikely and hence, the environmental damage that may be visible from space is far less likely to occur.

Edited January 6, 2011 by briansnat

[+G & C]

This section is around 80 miles as the crow flies. May be a little longer with the road route. What if someone put 40 caches along that same section, with differnt types of hides/containers. What makes the 800 so much more attractive? Wouldn't you see the great scenery which has been talked about on here(even better I imagine), with less problems. Not that 1 every 2 miles is a magic number, just an example. I am just curious of the supporters thoughts on that.

 

To be quite honest, a buddy of mine and me had this in mind exactly. We were going to do ammo cans of varying sizes that we'd been collecting every few miles to stretch across this very route, and then try to find others to keep it going beyond that so most of Route 66 had some caches along the way. I guess that could kinda be considered a trail of sorts, but we weren't planning on doing it every tenth of a mile, that's for sure. We were literally talking about it a week before we found out this trail was going up.

[+niraD]

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?

The problem with that combination of attributes as an identifying label is that caches not on a numbers run trail are likely to have them. That renders the combination less effective for filtering (whether you're filtering numbers run caches in or out).

 

The thing I like about the workaround of combining the "Park & Grab" and ">10km" attributes is that these two attributes together actually describe a numbers run trail pretty well (based on what I've heard and read), and yet they are unlikely to be used together on caches that aren't part of a numbers run trail.

[+fizzymagic]

"Numbers hounds" is a nice derogatory statement but it doesn't describe all those who use or advocate Power Trails. For many, it's a different kind of challenge/activity from typical geocaching.

I agree it should not be used if people feel it is insulting, though I am not sure why it would perceived that way.

 

What nickname would you give to those who love racking up numbers?

[4wheelin_fool]

The irony is that the quest for high numbers, in effect makes the numbers meaningless. So someone has 800 finds listed in their profile. Previously this meant that they had found 800 unique caches, but now it could mean that they went out on a cache run with a few people and found the same hide, with the same container 800 times in one weekend on a road rallye type trip, and have almost zero knowledge of any kind of caching.

 

Perhaps it would be a good idea to allow cachers to set their own find count on their profile. Some people log finds on their own caches to make up for the logs that were deleted on other caches anyhow. If you were allowed to adjust your find count to whatever you wanted, it really does not affect anyone else but you. Since the numbers are now meaningless, I cant see any harm in it. If someone really did want your exact count, they could count the number of pages of logs you had. Of course there would be a few people who would set their count really high, and there would be a few other people who would get upset over "fake" numbers because they worked very hard on their powertrail numbers, but at the end of the day the numbers don't mean much of anything, whether they are powertail numbers, unique caching numbers, or completely imaginary numbers.

[+tozainamboku]

... but at the end of the day the numbers don't mean much of anything, whether they are powertail numbers, unique caching numbers, or completely imaginary numbers.

Someone once proposed that each cacher could give a formula for displaying the number of cache finds. For example you could have T+D for the total of the terrain and difficulty of the caches you found, or V + W + 2*T + 3*M + 3*U for the count of virtuals plus webcams plus two points for each traditional plus three points for each multi or unknown cache. The best response was from the person who wanted to use Sqrt(-1).

[+G & C]

The irony is that the quest for high numbers, in effect makes the numbers meaningless. So someone has 800 finds listed in their profile. Previously this meant that they had found 800 unique caches, but now it could mean that they went out on a cache run with a few people and found the same hide, with the same container 800 times in one weekend on a road rallye type trip, and have almost zero knowledge of any kind of caching.

 

Perhaps it would be a good idea to allow cachers to set their own find count on their profile. Some people log finds on their own caches to make up for the logs that were deleted on other caches anyhow. If you were allowed to adjust your find count to whatever you wanted, it really does not affect anyone else but you. Since the numbers are now meaningless, I cant see any harm in it. If someone really did want your exact count, they could count the number of pages of logs you had. Of course there would be a few people who would set their count really high, and there would be a few other people who would get upset over "fake" numbers because they worked very hard on their powertrail numbers, but at the end of the day the numbers don't mean much of anything, whether they are powertail numbers, unique caching numbers, or completely imaginary numbers.

 

Well said. And this also describes pretty well why I really like the new statistics pages on cachers profiles. That's an excellent way to evaluate a cacher in my opinion. Way better than simply a number.

[Clan Riffster]

I have a better idea. Ban powertrails. No additional attribute needed.

Heck, no need for that. All they'd need to do is enforce the existing guidelines.

"Please don't hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can. The ultimate goals of the saturation guideline are to encourage you to seek out new places to hide caches rather than putting them in areas where caches already exist"

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I have a better idea. Ban powertrails. No additional attribute needed.

Heck, no need for that. All they'd need to do is enforce the existing guidelines.

"Please don't hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can. The ultimate goals of the saturation guideline are to encourage you to seek out new places to hide caches rather than putting them in areas where caches already exist"

 

Awhile back someone actually posted that the first sentence in the guideline made it unenforceable because it began with the word "Please" and was therefore only a recommendation.

[+Markwell]

...and yet they are unlikely to be used together on caches that aren't part of a numbers run trail.

But what people are failing to realize is that when someone does a Pocket Query, they usually DON'T filter on include one and exclude the other. When I'm looking for caches where the hike is >10KM, I search on the attribute >10KM. I don't then go through and EXCLUDE caches that are Park-and-Grab in my criteria. So unexpectedly, I would get the power trails, thinking that I would have to hike 10KM to get to a particular cache, when in reality the cache is not likely to be 10KM hike to that cache, but 10KM in it's entirety as a trail of caches.

 

When you place an attribute on a cache, you must look at "Does this single attribute describe this single cache" - because that's how the search criteria works on pocket queries. Each cache MUST have this particular attribute on it, and people typically search on returning one attribute, or excluding one attribute. If someone is looking for hikes >10km, assuming that someone must intuitively "know" to EXCLUDE park-and-grabs to remove them from PQs results is bad. If someone is looking for park-and-grabs, assuming that someone must intuitively "know" to EXCLUDE >10km hikes to remove them from PQs results is bad.

The problem with that combination of attributes as an identifying label is that caches not on a numbers run trail are likely to have them.

That's my point. Don't think of the caches on a power trail as caches on a power trail. Think of them each as individual caches. Since we don't have any current method of specifically and truthfully identifying power trail caches as power trail caches, identify them correctly and truthfully and let the cachers narrow the criteria as they see fit. Maybe I wouldn't mind finding one or two of the caches in a power trail if they had the criteria I selected. Or is it that the caches aren't "worth finding" unless done as an entire group?

 

<off topic a little>

I think the biggest complaint I see is that the power trail has so many individual caches that it muddies up the results of cachers that are truly seeking caches in the area. So - why not just create this power trail as a single lots-of-stages multi-cache? It would bring people to the area because it was a great spot to find a lot of containers, right? Before anyone hits "reply" - I already know why this wouldn't work. I just want people to think about why it wouldn't work and see if they'd be able to frame their response without using the words "find count" or "numbers" in their response.

<off topic a little>

[+GeoGeeBee]

 

Awhile back someone actually posted that the first sentence in the guideline made it unenforceable because it began with the word "Please" and was therefore only a recommendation.

 

That's good to know. Now I can go light up a cigar in my favorite restaurant. After all, the sign on the wall says "No smoking, please."

[+Ecylram]

I agree it should not be used if people feel it is insulting, though I am not sure why it would perceived that way.

 

What nickname would you give to those who love racking up numbers?

"Cachers" or "Geocachers" would be acceptable terms. A lot of assumptions are made about people who choose to do these power trails. Assumptions that are based on isolated stories & rumors.

 

You can tell a lot about a cache or cache series by their log entries, so a few months ago I took the time to read through the logs of the E.T. Highway. I was a bit surprised by what I found. It turns out there are a wide variety of reasons why people choose to do these power trails, but for many it was some variant of a "change of pace" or pilgrimage - it was to do something unique or different.

 

Cachers plan trips around doing the E.T. Highway and leave entries about what a wonderful experience it was. There are stories of families bonding and friends having a grand ol' time. A few entries talk about how they didn't realize how beautiful the scenery was - something they wouldn't have noticed by speeding through the area.

 

Of course there are some who want to pump up their numbers and when they go home they'll continue grabbing every LPC they find. But others block out a few hours and grab whatever they grab and get a taste of the experience. Still others see it like a marathon and want to complete it for the physical/mental challenge. And some just want to say they had been their and done it. There are speed cachers who want to see how fast they can do the 1075 or how many they can accomplish in 24 hours. Top that off with the caching groups, families and/or friends, who are just looking for a unique caching experience.

 

The point is...it isn't always about the numbers, even if they are being racked up. There are a wide variety of reasons why people choose to do that type of caching. An example...in our area, there are a number of caches that are placed out on the plains. Caches are typically 1/2 mile apart but it varies. The containers themselves are unremarkable and the scenery is...the plains.

 

I've had a great day going out and grabbing caches in that area. It was nice to have a relaxing day, enjoying the country, looking at the farms and the silos and the equipment. Fresh air, sunshine, no traffic, and a chance to think. Caching out there I find memories of my childhood on the farm coming back to me. After a day like this I've picked up a lot of caches, but am I a "numbers cacher" who is only trying to up my numbers? I don't think so, but others would think so and it would be an unfair label.

 

My point is this...it's ok to voice your opinion on power trails. It's also perfectly ok to criticize bad caching behavior and to point out issues such as Pocket Query problems. What I'm objecting to is labeling all cachers who do power trails as "number hounds" and the like. Aside from being inaccurate, it's a term that's never used in this forum with a positive connotation, its always negative. With how heated these conversations get, avoiding labels will help keep the conversation on track.

[+Castle Mischief]

<off topic a little>

I think the biggest complaint I see is that the power trail has so many individual caches that it muddies up the results of cachers that are truly seeking caches in the area. So - why not just create this power trail as a single lots-of-stages multi-cache? It would bring people to the area because it was a great spot to find a lot of containers, right? Before anyone hits "reply" - I already know why this wouldn't work. I just want people to think about why it wouldn't work and see if they'd be able to frame their response without using the words "find count" or "numbers" in their response.

<off topic a little>

 

Can I use the terms "smiley" and "ho"?

 

Back on topic- thank you (and ClayJar) for calmly and rationally explaining the need to use correct attributes.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

I have a better idea. Ban powertrails. No additional attribute needed.

Heck, no need for that. All they'd need to do is enforce the existing guidelines.

"Please don't hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can. The ultimate goals of the saturation guideline are to encourage you to seek out new places to hide caches rather than putting them in areas where caches already exist"

 

+1

[+addisonbr]

2) the less constrained we keep this game, the better it is for all of us

I'm not sure this is entirely true.

[+niraD]

What I'm objecting to is labeling all cachers who do power trails as "number hounds" and the like. Aside from being inaccurate, it's a term that's never used in this forum with a positive connotation, its always negative. With how heated these conversations get, avoiding labels will help keep the conversation on track.

FWIW, I don't use terms like "numbers hound" or "FTF hound" or whatever to be demeaning. I simply use them to describe geocachers who are especially interested in numbers of finds, in FTFs, etc. If you can suggest a better term, then go for it. Maybe it will catch on. But expecting others not to use a label of some kind is unreasonable. People just don't work that way. The phrases "geocachers who are especially interested in numbers of finds" is a mouthful, so people naturally develop a shorter label to describe that group.

[+Ginny & Stevecat]

I hate Multi caches, let's ban them

[+tozainamboku]

...and yet they are unlikely to be used together on caches that aren't part of a numbers run trail.

But what people are failing to realize is that when someone does a Pocket Query, they usually DON'T filter on include one and exclude the other. When I'm looking for caches where the hike is >10KM, I search on the attribute >10KM. I don't then go through and EXCLUDE caches that are Park-and-Grab in my criteria. So unexpectedly, I would get the power trails, thinking that I would have to hike 10KM to get to a particular cache, when in reality the cache is not likely to be 10KM hike to that cache, but 10KM in it's entirety as a trail of caches.

Of course I wouldn't expect a >10K hike to be terrain 1 or for that matter a SCUBA cache to be terrain 1. My guess is that the power trail caches that use a an attribute that would normal imply a high terrain can be sorted out by looking for a combination of terrain and attribute. I suppose you could also list them as wheelchair accessible and terrain of 3 or more.

 

However, the best thing would be for Groundspeak get rid of the failed attributes system and replace it with tags, so that caches will be tagged with the appropriate tag for their cache and not encouraged to use the wrong attribute. (Standard tags can be defined for each of the current attributes so searches on these would still work).

[+Castle Mischief]

I hate Multi caches, let's ban them

 

Do I need to re-post the laundry list of concerns that people have about power trails? Again?

 

It is not about like or dislike. Constantly posting the same one-dimensional characterization of other posters' position is disrespectful and tone deaf. You are taking the many different facets of well-considered thoughts and dumbing them down to a single guttural utterance.

Edited January 6, 2011 by Castle Mischief

[+addisonbr]

Or we can turn the powertrail into a REALLY REALLY BIG multi-cache. I'd fly out there to find that...

Actually... if there was an 800-stage multi-cache that was within an easy drive of me, and was truly a multi-cache, I'd actually try to complete it. It would take a hellaciously long time, but it's probably something I'd add to my 'to-do' list. I've found a couple of multi-caches that require 5000-8000 miles to complete.

[+JL_HSTRE]

Wouldn't any real Scuba cache have a Terrain rating of 5?

 

Wouldn't any Power Trail have a Terrain rating of 2 or less?

[+fizzymagic]

What nickname would you give to those who love racking up numbers?

"Cachers" or "Geocachers" would be acceptable terms.

 

Sorry, but that does not work, as that usage implies that all cachers are focused on numbers.

 

I get your point that there are some cachers who do power trails that are not focused on the numbers alone; heck, I know a cacher who is a reviewer who enjoys doing them solo, for the challenge. And I have nothing but respect for him.

 

However, I think those are in the minority. In my opinion, the vast majority of those who do the power trails do it for the numbers. And we need some descriptive phrase for them. "Numbers hound" doesn't seem terribly insulting, but I am open to any other ideas. "Numbers-focused cachers," perhaps?

[+briansnat]

What nickname would you give to those who love racking up numbers?

"Cachers" or "Geocachers" would be acceptable terms.

 

Sorry, but that does not work, as that usage implies that all cachers are focused on numbers.

 

I get your point that there are some cachers who do power trails that are not focused on the numbers alone; heck, I know a cacher who is a reviewer who enjoys doing them solo, for the challenge. And I have nothing but respect for him.

 

However, I think those are in the minority. In my opinion, the vast majority of those who do the power trails do it for the numbers. And we need some descriptive phrase for them. "Numbers hound" doesn't seem terribly insulting, but I am open to any other ideas. "Numbers-focused cachers," perhaps?

 

Smiley Fanciers? Numbers Enthusiasts? Stats Stackers?

[+Castle Mischief]

What nickname would you give to those who love racking up numbers?

"Cachers" or "Geocachers" would be acceptable terms.

 

Sorry, but that does not work, as that usage implies that all cachers are focused on numbers.

 

I get your point that there are some cachers who do power trails that are not focused on the numbers alone; heck, I know a cacher who is a reviewer who enjoys doing them solo, for the challenge. And I have nothing but respect for him.

 

However, I think those are in the minority. In my opinion, the vast majority of those who do the power trails do it for the numbers. And we need some descriptive phrase for them. "Numbers hound" doesn't seem terribly insulting, but I am open to any other ideas. "Numbers-focused cachers," perhaps?

 

Smiley Fanciers? Numbers Enthusiasts? Stats Stackers?

 

Scorched-earth-drop-downing-anti-puritanical-every-cache-is-sacred-if-you-don't-like-it-then-don't-hunt-it-scuba-attributanarians?

 

(Did I hit all the notes?)

 

EDIT: Almost forgot-

Edited January 6, 2011 by Castle Mischief

[Brad_W]

I seem to think this has been done before, but maybe not.

 

A few of the participants are pretty excited about their points of view, which is OK, but the excitement level seems to be leading to some name calling and pigeon-holing of some players with labels. So I'm going to give this topic a rest for the remainder of the day; when we come back please feel free to talk about objects like caches, power trails, attributes and the like, while remaining on topic and while staying away from describing or labeling people.

 

Hope this helps.

[Brad_W]

Open for business.

[+addisonbr]

Can anyone explain why the Route 66 trail shows up on the "regular" Groundspeak geocaching map, but not the new "beta" maps"?

[+M 5]

Maybe the beta maps really are an improvement

[+dfx]

Can anyone explain why the Route 66 trail shows up on the "regular" Groundspeak geocaching map, but not the new "beta" maps"?

 

because the beta maps only update every so often. FWIW i just tried looking for a cache that was published on dec 22nd on the beta maps and it isn't there. i guess they never updated after they were rolled out. on the plus side, it's a good way to search for now archived caches.

Edited January 7, 2011 by dfx

[+sbell111]

A number of reasons have been given as to why people don't care for this power trail. I'd like to address a few of them:

• These caches take up real estate that could be used by 'good' caches.
  

These caches actually only block other caches from being placed right on the roadside. Other caches can still be placed a mere 458(ish) feet away from the road.

 

• Finding hundreds of cookie cutter caches in a day isn't my idea of fun.
  

While this is certainly true for many, it's important to note that you need not search for any more caches than you wish to. You can go out and find a couple along the trail and come back some other day and find a few more, or never return at all. The mere existence of a trail of caches does not require anyone to go out and look for all of them or any of them.

[+Castle Mischief]

Are we talking about identifying power trails in PQs or are we talking about why people's opinions are wrong again?

Edited January 7, 2011 by Castle Mischief

[+sbell111]

Are we talking about identifying power trails in PQs or are we talking about why people's opinions are wrong again?

This power trail became super simple to identify the moment that the scuba attribute was placed on all of the caches. As previously discussed, this is a solution that works because people searching for real scuba caches can adjust the terrain ratings upward and avoid all power trail caches while people looking to get only power trail caches can adjust the terrain downward and avoid the true scuba caches.

 

It should also be noted that my previous post did not state that anyones opinions were wrong. It merely explored counterpoints to two frequently used anti-power trail positions.

Edited January 7, 2011 by sbell111

[+Sol seaker]

BANNED SPORT???

 

As far as I'm concerned, I have no problem with any way people play the game.

 

The one big exception is when it does something to give the sport a bad name which leads to certain officials banning the sport in areas, such as the banning of caches in national parks because of a partially buried cache in Olympic National Park. One bad cache caused hundreds of miles that are no longer available to caching.

 

There was one power trail in the desert that had to be archived because of the environmental damage it was causing, even though it was only in operation a short time.

 

To me these are the real questions. Personal opinion really doesn't matter. There will always be people who like (power trail, multi-caches, puzzle caches, etc. fill in the blank) or don't like (power trails, multi's, puzzles, etc. fill in the blank). It's good we have variety to suit everyone.

 

The real question to me, when things like this come up, is how does it look to the people who are in charge of those public lands. Will they get caching banned from a much wider area than just the one trail? Is it giving geocaching a bad name which will lead to more banning in other places?

 

I don't have the answer to these questions (ie I am not saying it will or will not).

 

I think these are the important questions though, rather than who likes it and who doesn't. That's pretty irrelevant.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

The SCUBA cachers may have a valid complaint about misuse of the attribute, but I doubt there are enough of them to get Groundspeak to do anything about it.

 

Is there really one attribute that would fit all power trails? Some are park n grab like these and were placed purely for the numbers. Others follow hiking trails or walking paths. Some of these developed over time, others were placed just like the drive-up ones, just for the numbers.

[+the4dirtydogs]

BANNED SPORT???

 

As far as I'm concerned, I have no problem with any way people play the game.

 

The one big exception is when it does something to give the sport a bad name which leads to certain officials banning the sport in areas, such as the banning of caches in national parks because of a partially buried cache in Olympic National Park. One bad cache caused hundreds of miles that are no longer available to caching.

 

There was one power trail in the desert that had to be archived because of the environmental damage it was causing, even though it was only in operation a short time.

 

To me these are the real questions. Personal opinion really doesn't matter. There will always be people who like (power trail, multi-caches, puzzle caches, etc. fill in the blank) or don't like (power trails, multi's, puzzles, etc. fill in the blank). It's good we have variety to suit everyone.

 

The real question to me, when things like this come up, is how does it look to the people who are in charge of those public lands. Will they get caching banned from a much wider area than just the one trail? Is it giving geocaching a bad name which will lead to more banning in other places?

 

I don't have the answer to these questions (ie I am not saying it will or will not).

 

I think these are the important questions though, rather than who likes it and who doesn't. That's pretty irrelevant.

What power trail was archived because of enviromental damage?