New Route 66 Mega Power Trail

1.8k · January 7, 2011

What power trail was archived because of enviromental damage?

I suspect the reference is to Trail of the Gods - but while there were reports folks leaving automotive geotrails, IIRC the actual archivals came about because of inadequate permissions from the power company.

January 7, 2011

What power trail was archived because of enviromental damage?

I suspect the reference is to Trail of the Gods - but while there were reports folks leaving automotive geotrails, IIRC the actual archivals came about because of inadequate permissions from the power company.

Yeah it wasn't because of enviromental damage. They didn't have permission from the power company. There were roads to all the caches.

Edited January 7, 2011 by the4dirtydogs

January 7, 2011

Looks like we may get that PT attribute soon:

http://uservoice.com/a/jCAq4

15.3k · January 8, 2011

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.

That's the distinction I make between numbers run trails like the ET Highway trail and power trails like the hiking trails and walking paths you describe. I think it's confusing to use the term "power trail" to describe the new trails designed for numbers runs, as well as for the older style of power trail.

8.3k · January 8, 2011

There is a feedback topic for a attribute/icon for power trials. Here is what Jeremy has to say about that ...

(No Status) → Under Review

Added to our internal feature tracking system for review (24998)

Jeremy

8.3k · January 8, 2011

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.

<snip>

But of course your over looking the fact that he Olympic National park now has two *physical* caches recently placed in the park.

38.2k · January 8, 2011

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.

<snip>

But of course your over looking the fact that he Olympic National park now has two *physical* caches recently placed in the park.

Indeed there are caches there thanks to years of hard work on the part of geocachers. One of the issues was that of impact and it took years to get the point across that geocaching is generally a low impact sport. Now that our footprint might be visible from space, how is that low impact angle going to sell?

Edited January 8, 2011 by briansnat

1.8k · January 8, 2011

This from FizzyMagic in another thread:

As for the more general change in geocaching; yes, it has changed. A lot. Some of it not for the better. It has required me to change my attitude toward the sport. I am no longer trying to actively make geocaching what I think it should be; I am now content to try to protect the parts I like. And I now view geocaches as a huge river flowing by, from which I can choose to sip selectively, instead of trying to get them all.

5.2k · January 8, 2011

What power trail was archived because of enviromental damage?

I suspect the reference is to Trail of the Gods - but while there were reports folks leaving automotive geotrails, IIRC the actual archivals came about because of inadequate permissions from the power company.

Yeah it wasn't because of enviromental damage. They didn't have permission from the power company. There were roads to all the caches.

There was also concern expressed by the Dept of Homeland Security about the exact coordinates of all the towers - towers which get power to millions of people in the Los Angeles area - being published on the internet. Not like terrorists couldn't see them clearly on Google Maps <_<

1.8k · January 8, 2011

There was also concern expressed by the Dept of Homeland Security about the exact coordinates of all the towers - towers which get power to millions of people in the Los Angeles area - being published on the internet. Not like terrorists couldn't see them clearly on Google Maps

Really? This is the first that I've heard that Homeland Security actually got involved. They contacted Groundspeak?

5k · January 8, 2011

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.

<snip>

But of course your over looking the fact that he Olympic National park now has two *physical* caches recently placed in the park.

I thought that was Cascades NP.

January 9, 2011

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.

Before I went to the event in Barstow where this series was announced, I went caching with McAttk. We found 1 cache on the top of a mountain. The next day (1/1) he found 450 mostly on old route 66.

Another "trail" showed up on Jan. 1 along the Yermo Road east of Yermo along I-15.

I chose instead to finish the Smilie series near Bell Mountain N. of Apple Valley. 22 caches on foot in a morning by myself was a lot more satisfying than 450 hopping in and out of a vehicle.

I have friends here in Oregon who probably will drive down and do both the Route 66 and the Yermo series in 1 day. Cheapest gas in Barstow is $3.15.9. I saw several stations in LV still under $3.

1.8k · January 9, 2011

From the above post:

Cheapest gas in Barstow is $3.15.9. I saw several stations in LV still under $3.

Daaaaaaaaang gas is cheap down there ... we are paying $ 3.49 on the N.W. coast of Calif. ... time to leave the area for Route 66 so I can get some kicks on the cheap

Edited January 9, 2011 by humboldt flier

6.7k · January 9, 2011

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

I'm not sure this is entirely true.

It's entirely untrue! Anonymity + lack of controls = a recipe for disaster!

Witness CB Radio.

or the internet. :huh:

Edited January 9, 2011 by TheAlabamaRambler

7.4k · January 9, 2011

One of the major land managers in my area recently banned geocaching from a portion of their lands, and I won't be surprised if they start taking a closer look at it on ALL their land. Up until now, we've had complete freedom to place geocaches on their land, which is wonderful.

Several power trails have popped up around here in recent months, and I am very concerned that when this land management agency starts researching our game, their search is going to bring them to a map, and these long strings of traditionals on the map will make it appear as though geocachers are indiscriminate and careless about the way geocaches are placed.

I know we're all in it to have fun, and if your idea of fun differs from my idea of fun, no problem. But when the game gets banned from large swaths of land - as it has in many instances - it spoils things for just about everybody.

In the past, I've respected Groundspeak for making good faith attempts to respect land managers and foster a healthy image for the entire game. I really don't understand what happened to make them stray that course, and I worry that there will be devastating consequences as a result of their recent poor decisions.

10.2k · January 9, 2011

One of the major land managers in my area recently banned geocaching from a portion of their lands, and I won't be surprised if they start taking a closer look at it on ALL their land. Up until now, we've had complete freedom to place geocaches on their land, which is wonderful.

Several power trails have popped up around here in recent months, and I am very concerned that when this land management agency starts researching our game, their search is going to bring them to a map, and these long strings of traditionals on the map will make it appear as though geocachers are indiscriminate and careless about the way geocaches are placed.

I know we're all in it to have fun, and if your idea of fun differs from my idea of fun, no problem. But when the game gets banned from large swaths of land - as it has in many instances - it spoils things for just about everybody.

In the past, I've respected Groundspeak for making good faith attempts to respect land managers and foster a healthy image for the entire game. I really don't understand what happened to make them stray that course, and I worry that there will be devastating consequences as a result of their recent poor decisions.

A nice post, very interesting. Some (many, probably) would write this off as a doomsday scenario. Personally, I believe TPTB are just experimenting with this power trail stuff, to see what happens. We shall see what happens.

8k · January 9, 2011

In the past, I've respected Groundspeak for making good faith attempts to respect land managers and foster a healthy image for the entire game. I really don't understand what happened to make them stray that course, and I worry that there will be devastating consequences as a result of their recent poor decisions.

I don't follow. If the reviewer knows a land manager want's to restrict cache saturation beyond the .1 mile guideline, they certainly can enforce the land manager's wishes. The saturation guidelines still say "Groundspeak may further restrict cache listings in areas where cache saturation becomes a concern." In addition, the reviewers are probably aware that power trails may result in an increase in traffic, at least initially, as cachers are attracted by the challenge or the opportunity to rack up numbers. Caches placed in areas which are highly sensitive to the extra traffic that would be caused by vehicles and humans may be quickly archived. Should a land manager or anyone else see that a particular power trail (or particular caches on a power trail) are having an negative impact, it should be reported and the caches will likely be archived.

The most powerful tool that geocachers have to improve their image with land managers is to understand the guidelines and how to enforce them. By removing confusing and unnecessary language about power trails we now have guidelines that more clearly address land manager concerns about saturation and about environmental impact. Any land manager can let Groundspeak know of their concerns and prevent power trails from forming where they don't want them or have them removed if the are placed before the land manager has made their concerns known.

1.8k · January 9, 2011

Hmmmmmmm,

Power Trails and proximity rules.

? One power trail per state?

or

? Power Trails may not be closer than XXXX miles to another Power Trail?

Exceptions:

That long skinny state on the west coast may have three to five, in recognition that they are ... well, they are just ... well ... different that's all.

January 9, 2011

In the past, I've respected Groundspeak for making good faith attempts to respect land managers and foster a healthy image for the entire game. I really don't understand what happened to make them stray that course, and I worry that there will be devastating consequences as a result of their recent poor decisions.

I don't follow. If the reviewer knows a land manager want's to restrict cache saturation beyond the .1 mile guideline, they certainly can enforce the land manager's wishes. The saturation guidelines still say "Groundspeak may further restrict cache listings in areas where cache saturation becomes a concern." In addition, the reviewers are probably aware that power trails may result in an increase in traffic, at least initially, as cachers are attracted by the challenge or the opportunity to rack up numbers. Caches placed in areas which are highly sensitive to the extra traffic that would be caused by vehicles and humans may be quickly archived. Should a land manager or anyone else see that a particular power trail (or particular caches on a power trail) are having an negative impact, it should be reported and the caches will likely be archived.

The most powerful tool that geocachers have to improve their image with land managers is to understand the guidelines and how to enforce them. By removing confusing and unnecessary language about power trails we now have guidelines that more clearly address land manager concerns about saturation and about environmental impact. Any land manager can let Groundspeak know of their concerns and prevent power trails from forming where they don't want them or have them removed if the are placed before the land manager has made their concerns known.

Let me get this right. You feel that the VERY few geocachers that actually work with land managers and LEO's should spend even more time working with, and smoothing over issues, because of the cachers that don't get permission and/or make bad cache placements. It's a lot easier for a land manager to just ban them, if there is a problem, then work through it.

January 9, 2011

Hmmmmmmm,

Power Trails and proximity rules.

? One power trail per state?

or

? Power Trails may not be closer than XXXX miles to another Power Trail?

Exceptions:

That long skinny state on the west coast may have three to five, in recognition that they are ... well, they are just ... well ... different that's all.

So I guess, someone should be putting one or more out on the East coast, or somewhere up near me. Why restrict all the fun to the people out West? (and before the people complaining about them get them banned for all of us).

5k · January 9, 2011

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.

Before I went to the event in Barstow where this series was announced, I went caching with McAttk. We found 1 cache on the top of a mountain. The next day (1/1) he found 450 mostly on old route 66.

Another "trail" showed up on Jan. 1 along the Yermo Road east of Yermo along I-15.

I chose instead to finish the Smilie series near Bell Mountain N. of Apple Valley. 22 caches on foot in a morning by myself was a lot more satisfying than 450 hopping in and out of a vehicle.

I have friends here in Oregon who probably will drive down and do both the Route 66 and the Yermo series in 1 day. Cheapest gas in Barstow is $3.15.9. I saw several stations in LV still under $3.

Last time I went through Barstow, the Chevron on Barstow Rd. N of the 15, was $3.40, the Valero, S of the 15 was $2.99.

1.8k · January 9, 2011

I don't follow. If the reviewer knows a land manager want's to restrict cache saturation beyond the .1 mile guideline, they certainly can enforce the land manager's wishes...

I think the point was that in deciding whether or not to allow geocaches on their* land, land managers might plausibly pull up maps of other areas, run across some power trails dominating the landscape and think "Holy cow, I don't want that! Answer is no."

Perhaps it would be better for the land manager to have a rational and thoughtful discussion with Groundspeak over stricter guidelines for their* particular parcel of land, but in general I've found that it takes a lot less for someone to say "No" than it does to get them to engage in a meaningful dialog.

At least, that's what I'm assuming is narcissa's point - as opposed to the idea that we would be powerless to prevent powertrails inside NPS land.

* I know that it's not technically "their" land in the sense of actual ownership, but I think most folks know what I mean

1.8k · January 9, 2011

Hmmmmmmm,

Power Trails and proximity rules.

? One power trail per state?

or

? Power Trails may not be closer than XXXX miles to another Power Trail?

Exceptions:

That long skinny state on the west coast may have three to five, in recognition that they are ... well, they are just ... well ... different that's all.

So I guess, someone should be putting one or more out on the East coast, or somewhere up near me. Why restrict all the fun to the people out West? (and before the people complaining about them get them banned for all of us).

But of course ... that would fall under the one per state suggestion.

Heck one could even make an argument that those two states in the east which stretch soooooo far west that they touch one of the lesser Great Lakes should be afforded the " Calif. Exception "

Ooooops, then there is that BIG HUGE state in the central south.

O.K., O.K. enough tongue in cheek.

There are many issues here:

Lets not over run any region with power trails.

Permission, permission, permission

PLUS AN ATTRIBUTE TO FILTER POWER TRAILS IN OR OUT ... After all, that was the initial post of this thread was requesting.

Edited January 9, 2011 by humboldt flier

January 9, 2011

I know of at least 8 in my state

January 9, 2011

Hmmmmmmm,

Power Trails and proximity rules.

? One power trail per state?

or

? Power Trails may not be closer than XXXX miles to another Power Trail?

Exceptions:

That long skinny state on the west coast may have three to five, in recognition that they are ... well, they are just ... well ... different that's all.

So I guess, someone should be putting one or more out on the East coast, or somewhere up near me. Why restrict all the fun to the people out West? (and before the people complaining about them get them banned for all of us).

Has anyone officially defined "Power Trail"? I was at the event in Barstow Dec. 31 when this was announced. On January 1 another shorter series was published along the Yermo Road off I-15. That one is connected to the "Phonetic Series" by McAttk. McAttk got FTF on many of the Yermo caches before heading out on Route 66. He finished the day with 450 at sunset.

The place to make a Series/Power Trail in NW Pennsylvania is within the Allegheny NF starting at Tidoute toward Warren with a branch through Hearts Content (heart Geo-Art?) over to Sheffield. Extend to Pigeon and Marienville if you are allowed. I'm sure a few people would come early to GeoWoodstock if you did.

I would hope you could come up with some larger containers than the 35mm film cans on Route 66.

I have friends here in Oregon who have done Trail of the Gods (mostly archived), the ET Highway and the Presidential series. I am more into doing the Geo-Art mostly on foot.

The thing the Western Power Trails have in common is large tracts of BLM land with a long road running through the desert.

14k · January 9, 2011

Hmmmmmmm,

Power Trails and proximity rules.

? One power trail per state?

or

? Power Trails may not be closer than XXXX miles to another Power Trail?

Exceptions:

That long skinny state on the west coast may have three to five, in recognition that they are ... well, they are just ... well ... different that's all.

So I guess, someone should be putting one or more out on the East coast, or somewhere up near me. Why restrict all the fun to the people out West? .

There's one in Maine that has been mentioned here before. If I recall it has 200+ caches just a bit northeast of Bangor.

(and before the people complaining about them get them banned for all of us)

Yes, there are people complaining about them. People aren't complaining just to take away the fun of others. They're not complaining simply because they don't like the idea of PTs. Instead of just seeing what people are saying about power trails as complaints, you might try to understand the arguments being presented and, if you can, rebut those arguments. Just posting, "those mean people are trying to take away my fun" isn't going to cut it.

7.4k · January 9, 2011

In the past, I've respected Groundspeak for making good faith attempts to respect land managers and foster a healthy image for the entire game. I really don't understand what happened to make them stray that course, and I worry that there will be devastating consequences as a result of their recent poor decisions.

I don't follow.

See the part about fostering a healthy image. Allowing power trails does not.

8k · January 9, 2011

It seems as if people project their personal view of power trails on to land managers.

.. land managers might plausibly pull up maps of other areas, run across some power trails dominating the landscape and think "Holy cow, I don't want that! Answer is no."

See the part about fostering a healthy image. Allowing power trails does not.

My guess is that land managers may see a row of geocaches along a two lane highway in the desert and perhaps get the view that some cachers are into stopping their cars every .1 mile to sign a log. Then they will probably also realize, by looking around a bit on the maps, that some geocachers are interested in driving a 4x4 out in the desert then hiking in the wilderness another mile or two to find a cache. They may wonder which kind of caches they want on the land they manage. Depending of the charter or goals of their agency, they may have different views.

I personally think that many land managers would be more worried about the one cache in the wilderness. Is that box hidden in the wilderness keeping with the goals of keeping a wilderness wild and pristine? Would he extra traffic and noise caused by cachers entering the wilderness to look for the cache impact on the enjoyment of others? Would cachers be moving rocks or trampling plants in a ecologically or archeologically sensitive area? Would they drive their 4x4 off the road into areas closed to motor vehicles?

A bunch of caches along a rarely traveled two lane highwas would not likely set off as many red flags as the lone cache in the wilderness. Sure some managers may worry about the safety of stopping along the road, or perhaps if some caches are a little ways from the road that people might drive off road or use trails may form where people walk through the desert to get to the cache. In the case of caches along a power line access road, there may be concerns that people stopping at each tower would look suspicious as these towers could be seen as potential terrorist targets. But all in all I'm just not convinced that power trails cause any more problems for land managers than any other caches.

The fact is that geocaching needs individuals who will work with land managers to make sure that geocaching is viewed as compatible with the other uses of the lands they manage and should be allowed. There will always be some foolish geocachers who will ignore guidelines and place problem caches, and responsible geocachers will be left to smooth over these conditions and convince land managers that there are way of enforcing guidelines. If the guidelines that are clear it helps land managers understand what geocaching is and how to work with the local reviewers to address concerns. Clear and unambiguous guidelines also help reviewers to enforce them without getting accused of being inconsistent; and they help cache owners who are honest when they check the boxes that they have read and followed the guideines because they know what the guidelines mean. When the term "power trail" was in guideline as an example of why not to place caches every 600 feet just because you can, it was confusing and ambiguous. The current guidelines allow reviewers to further restrict cache listings in areas where cache saturation becomes a concern.

If the power trail complies with the guidelines for placing caches, I just don't find them causing the problems people seem to think they are going to cause. And more over, were they to cause a problem (as ToTG did because caches were place on powerline towers that could be considered terrorist targets), the existing guidelines would cause the caches to be quickly archived. Land Managers need to know that problem caches will be quickly archived when brought to the attention of Groundspeak.

Edited January 9, 2011 by tozainamboku

January 9, 2011

Has anyone officially defined "Power Trail"?

As far as I can tell the answer is no. So until it can be defined, I taking the stance that There is no such thing as a Power Trail. All we have is a string of caches that are easy to find along a common route. And if you look in any major city I'm sure that you could also find strings of caches that are easy to find along a common route.

On the ET Highway, if the caches were placed every .2 miles apart would some call this a "Power Trail"? If so, how about a mile apart or two miles apart? At what point does a string of caches become a power trail? If you have 3 P&G caches a .1 mile apart why is that not called a power trail?

Words have meaning. The only problem is the we don't always agree on what that meaning should be.

So I'm willing to bet that as a group we cannot come up with an agreed-upon meaning of the term "Power Trail". The definition needs to include what is the minimum number of caches needed, how close they are to each other and is it part of the same trail even if it switches to a different road or trail, plus if there is a gap in the trail, how big can that gap be and still be apart of the same "power trail".

2.8k · January 9, 2011

There's one in Maine that has been mentioned here before. If I recall it has 200+ caches just a bit northeast of Bangor.

That would be the "Stub Mill Road" series. Here's one in the middle.

Edited January 9, 2011 by BBWolf+3Pigs

1.3k · January 9, 2011

I don't have a strong opinion for or against PT's, but I've always wanted to drive the Mother Road in it's entirety. Finding caches along the way is a definite bonus for me.

1.8k · January 9, 2011

Then they will probably also realize, by looking around a bit on the maps, that some geocachers are interested in driving a 4x4 out in the desert then hiking in the wilderness another mile or two to find a cache. They may wonder which kind of caches they want on the land they manage...

My general worry is that people who know nothing or next-to-nothing about geocaching won't be able to conduct the kind of in-depth analysis of the different kinds of geocaching that you, as a cacher with almost a decade and thousands of finds under your belt, can.

I *still* occasionally encounter people in positions of authority over my game who claim to know what geocaching is, but believe that geocaches are buried. I'm fighting a battle of perception on a very, very basic level, and I don't have the same faith that they'll process the geocaching.com maps as accurately as you might.

3.4k · February 7, 2011

...
Another "trail" showed up on Jan. 1 along the Yermo Road east of Yermo along I-15....

and to make things really interesting (not) there is another power trail within the other one. i do not know which one came first.

the route 66 one is a bad idea all the way around. the road is NOT straight, it goes very close to the railroad in many places and crosses the rail line in at least three - and the caches are close to the crossing itself, i would say on railroad property.

that said i am prejudiced, i hate micros and whoever thought putting a cache in a film canister was a good idea was nuts. i liked the old days of caching when small was a small tupperware size container and an ammo was a regular. now small lock n locks are considered regular.

and those folks who do not mark the size on their caches, well, i just won't go look for those either.

recently i found several micros - i thought the yermo trail was a series of ammo cans! imagine my surprise when i discovered only the first one was an ammo can. just shows you i really do need to read the cache description of all the caches i download and not just the first one.

i did 15 and then was bored.

what's the point. a pvc tube jammed into the ground with a little glass tube stuck down near an old billboard surround by junk it is not a cache by the old style descriptions.

i think the route 66 caches will keep other folks from putting out caches near the old road. they just suck up space, these power trails do. just because there is an empty space on the map of the desert does not mean folks from out of the area should come out and place a power trail. you want people to enjoy the mother road, then place quality caches at select locations that are not on curves or next to the railroad crossing.

the route 66 power trail means people are not driving along enjoying the view, it means they are going a fast as they can, in and out of the car quickly just to get to the next cache so they can claim they did all 800 bloody caches.

ok, off my soapbox now.

flame away!

rsg

3.4k · February 7, 2011

I don't have a strong opinion for or against PT's, but I've always wanted to drive the Mother Road in it's entirety. Finding caches along the way is a definite bonus for me.

but do you need 800? or just the few that are out there anyway? driving the mother road is about the experience of route 66. there is a charm of only seeing a few cars on most of the road.

3.4k · February 7, 2011

... Why restrict all the fun to the people out West? (and before the people complaining about them get them banned for all of us).

lots of people out west do not like litter thrown along a lovely stretch of lonely road every few feet. quality beats quantity every time.

3.4k · February 7, 2011

and i wonder if the person/persons that placed the route 66 caches actually contacted the land owners. i think not because of the proximity of the railroad. and i have never heard any railroad says "sure, go for it."

3.4k · February 9, 2011

There is a feedback topic for a attribute/icon for power trials. Here is what Jeremy has to say about that ...

(No Status) → Under Review

Added to our internal feature tracking system for review (24998)

Jeremy

so where does that stand and is groudspeak going to take an actual stand on power caches - and if they are banned, are the cache owners going to go out and retrieve them all, like the 800 in this series?

2.5k · February 9, 2011

and i wonder if the person/persons that placed the route 66 caches actually contacted the land owners. i think not because of the proximity of the railroad. and i have never heard any railroad says "sure, go for it."

And I never heard any DOT say go ahead and place that cache on the gaurdrails and go ahead and place that cache on the bridge. Oh yeah paste them on all the stop signs that you want too. So how many caches do we need to get archived now? Would people be saying did the RR say it was ok to place these ammo boxes every 5 miles?

Just because you don't like the connected trail or powertrail, don't kill it for the others who do. You start witch hunting these kinds of caches and all it can do is start a snowball that could lead to no gaurdrails then bridges then stop signs, then LPC.

Becareful what you wish for.

9.4k · February 9, 2011

and i wonder if the person/persons that placed the route 66 caches actually contacted the land owners. i think not because of the proximity of the railroad. and i have never heard any railroad says "sure, go for it."

And I never heard any DOT say go ahead and place that cache on the gaurdrails and go ahead and place that cache on the bridge. Oh yeah paste them on all the stop signs that you want too. So how many caches do we need to get archived now? Would people be saying did the RR say it was ok to place these ammo boxes every 5 miles?

Just because you don't like the connected trail or powertrail, don't kill it for the others who do. You start witch hunting these kinds of caches and all it can do is start a snowball that could lead to no gaurdrails then bridges then stop signs, then LPC.

Becareful what you wish for.

I'm not so sure the hate has anything to do with the trail part at all. It has to do with the ways hiders and finders practice behavior that is detrimental to geocaching.

2.5k · February 9, 2011

and i wonder if the person/persons that placed the route 66 caches actually contacted the land owners. i think not because of the proximity of the railroad. and i have never heard any railroad says "sure, go for it."

And I never heard any DOT say go ahead and place that cache on the gaurdrails and go ahead and place that cache on the bridge. Oh yeah paste them on all the stop signs that you want too. So how many caches do we need to get archived now? Would people be saying did the RR say it was ok to place these ammo boxes every 5 miles?

Just because you don't like the connected trail or powertrail, don't kill it for the others who do. You start witch hunting these kinds of caches and all it can do is start a snowball that could lead to no gaurdrails then bridges then stop signs, then LPC.

Becareful what you wish for.

I'm not so sure the hate has anything to do with the trail part at all. It has to do with the ways hiders and finders practice behavior that is detrimental to geocaching.

I don't think I used the word "hate". So now as cachers we judge others on there pratice behaviors? How do we know who is right or who is wrong with the way they enjoy to cache? Either way, they are supporting the cache listing site.

February 9, 2011

and i wonder if the person/persons that placed the route 66 caches actually contacted the land owners. i think not because of the proximity of the railroad. and i have never heard any railroad says "sure, go for it."

And I never heard any DOT say go ahead and place that cache on the gaurdrails and go ahead and place that cache on the bridge. Oh yeah paste them on all the stop signs that you want too. So how many caches do we need to get archived now? Would people be saying did the RR say it was ok to place these ammo boxes every 5 miles?

Just because you don't like the connected trail or powertrail, don't kill it for the others who do. You start witch hunting these kinds of caches and all it can do is start a snowball that could lead to no gaurdrails then bridges then stop signs, then LPC.

Becareful what you wish for.

I'm not so sure the hate has anything to do with the trail part at all. It has to do with the ways hiders and finders practice behavior that is detrimental to geocaching.

If these power trails are so detrimental to geocaching then why do these REVIEWERS keep publishing these trails. What happened to don't hide a cache every .10 of a mile. I'm putting the blame on them. Nobody has brought this up. A cache can not get published without their review. Stop letting these trails get published and we won't have to debate what detrimental to this game. If people hide caches people WILL find them, that's how we play this game. You can't control the way people cache but you can control what caches they hide.

I don't hate powertrails. We have a blast doing them. Do we need powertrail? I think we don't. So stop blaming the cacher and start pointing fingers at the reviewers and then maybe GS will do something about it.

9.4k · February 9, 2011

and i wonder if the person/persons that placed the route 66 caches actually contacted the land owners. i think not because of the proximity of the railroad. and i have never heard any railroad says "sure, go for it."

And I never heard any DOT say go ahead and place that cache on the gaurdrails and go ahead and place that cache on the bridge. Oh yeah paste them on all the stop signs that you want too. So how many caches do we need to get archived now? Would people be saying did the RR say it was ok to place these ammo boxes every 5 miles?

Just because you don't like the connected trail or powertrail, don't kill it for the others who do. You start witch hunting these kinds of caches and all it can do is start a snowball that could lead to no gaurdrails then bridges then stop signs, then LPC.

Becareful what you wish for.

I'm not so sure the hate has anything to do with the trail part at all. It has to do with the ways hiders and finders practice behavior that is detrimental to geocaching.

I don't think I used the word "hate". So now as cachers we judge others on there pratice behaviors? How do we know who is right or who is wrong with the way they enjoy to cache? Either way, they are supporting the cache listing site.

Witch hunt (your term) seems to imply hate, but I wasn't referring to you necessarily. Plenty of other cachers have weighed in on their, shall we say, "strong dislike" for these trails.

Yes, we do judge others on how they help or hurt the game we all play. Complete disregard for how geocaching has been established over the years is not acceptable behavior. Rushing from cache to cache to get as many numbers in a short amount of time is going to have effects on the environment around those caches. If one person out of 100 does it then maybe you will never notice. These trails, by definition, are setup to encourage everyone to do it. When the way you geocache has detrimental effects on the land we use for geocaching you are sending a message to land managers that all geocachers act that way. That's the kind of thing that gets geocaching banned, so yes, the rest of us will judge you on the way you play.

2.5k · February 9, 2011

and i wonder if the person/persons that placed the route 66 caches actually contacted the land owners. i think not because of the proximity of the railroad. and i have never heard any railroad says "sure, go for it."

And I never heard any DOT say go ahead and place that cache on the gaurdrails and go ahead and place that cache on the bridge. Oh yeah paste them on all the stop signs that you want too. So how many caches do we need to get archived now? Would people be saying did the RR say it was ok to place these ammo boxes every 5 miles?

Just because you don't like the connected trail or powertrail, don't kill it for the others who do. You start witch hunting these kinds of caches and all it can do is start a snowball that could lead to no gaurdrails then bridges then stop signs, then LPC.

Becareful what you wish for.

I'm not so sure the hate has anything to do with the trail part at all. It has to do with the ways hiders and finders practice behavior that is detrimental to geocaching.

I don't think I used the word "hate". So now as cachers we judge others on there pratice behaviors? How do we know who is right or who is wrong with the way they enjoy to cache? Either way, they are supporting the cache listing site.

Witch hunt (your term) seems to imply hate, but I wasn't referring to you necessarily. Plenty of other cachers have weighed in on their, shall we say, "strong dislike" for these trails.

Yes, we do judge others on how they help or hurt the game we all play. Complete disregard for how geocaching has been established over the years is not acceptable behavior. Rushing from cache to cache to get as many numbers in a short amount of time is going to have effects on the environment around those caches. If one person out of 100 does it then maybe you will never notice. These trails, by definition, are setup to encourage everyone to do it. When the way you geocache has detrimental effects on the land we use for geocaching you are sending a message to land managers that all geocachers act that way. That's the kind of thing that gets geocaching banned, so yes, the rest of us will judge you on the way you play.

The term "witch-hunt" has been in use as a metaphor to refer to moral panics in general (frantic persecution of perceived enemies).

8k · February 9, 2011

I object to the term "witch-hunt", it implies a relationship to puritanism.

I don't see a relationship between the controversy over power trails and geocaching puritans. Sure the debate over logging techniques such as grab and drop have an air of puritanism about them. However this seems to a inconsequential side argument by those who object to power trails. Instead the real objection to power trails falls into two main arguments that have nothing to do with find counts or logging practices.

One is that the shear number of caches involved in a power trail overwhelm an area so that people who enjoy other types of caching are affected. Mainly this means that they can't filter out these caches easily from their pocket queries, hence the request for some sort of attribute to make it easier to ignore them.

Two is that the shear number of caches attracts a larger number of finders. Either the areas where these caches are placed are sensitive to the extra traffic or the extra traffic may be more likely to appear suspicious or dangerous to outsiders resulting in a less favorable view of geocaching. There are specific examples available now to indicate this is at least partly true. My personal feeling is that negative impacts are being exaggerated by those who don't care for power trails, but they are significant enough that they shouldn't be ignored by those who favor power trails. A sensible discussion of how to mitigate these problems, perhaps with some guidelines adjustment, makes more sense than spending time demonizing the other side.

February 9, 2011

and i wonder if the person/persons that placed the route 66 caches actually contacted the land owners. i think not because of the proximity of the railroad. and i have never heard any railroad says "sure, go for it."

And I never heard any DOT say go ahead and place that cache on the gaurdrails and go ahead and place that cache on the bridge. Oh yeah paste them on all the stop signs that you want too. So how many caches do we need to get archived now? Would people be saying did the RR say it was ok to place these ammo boxes every 5 miles?

Just because you don't like the connected trail or powertrail, don't kill it for the others who do. You start witch hunting these kinds of caches and all it can do is start a snowball that could lead to no gaurdrails then bridges then stop signs, then LPC.

Becareful what you wish for.

I'm not so sure the hate has anything to do with the trail part at all. It has to do with the ways hiders and finders practice behavior that is detrimental to geocaching.

I don't think I used the word "hate". So now as cachers we judge others on there pratice behaviors? How do we know who is right or who is wrong with the way they enjoy to cache? Either way, they are supporting the cache listing site.

Witch hunt (your term) seems to imply hate, but I wasn't referring to you necessarily. Plenty of other cachers have weighed in on their, shall we say, "strong dislike" for these trails.

Yes, we do judge others on how they help or hurt the game we all play. Complete disregard for how geocaching has been established over the years is not acceptable behavior. Rushing from cache to cache to get as many numbers in a short amount of time is going to have effects on the environment around those caches. If one person out of 100 does it then maybe you will never notice. These trails, by definition, are setup to encourage everyone to do it. When the way you geocache has detrimental effects on the land we use for geocaching you are sending a message to land managers that all geocachers act that way. That's the kind of thing that gets geocaching banned, so yes, the rest of us will judge you on the way you play.

You claim that rushing from cache to cache is having effects on the enviroment then why do the Reviewers keep publishing these Powertrails. Stop publishing them and we will not have this so called problem.

1.5k · February 9, 2011

My personal feeling is that negative impacts are being exaggerated by those who don't care for power trails, but they are significant enough that they shouldn't be ignored by those who favor power trails. A sensible discussion of how to mitigate these problems, perhaps with some guidelines adjustment, makes more sense than spending time demonizing the other side.

I'll drink to that. My vote would be to dispassionately identify any real issues that are above & beyond those of typical caches and look at what can be done to mitigate or resolve those issues. Like you, I've seen issues exaggerated, but that doesn't mean that there aren't issues at all.

9.3k · February 9, 2011

...and all it can do is start a snowball that could lead to no gaurdrails then bridges then stop signs, then LPC.

Wait. Are you saying this is a bad thing? :lol: :unsure:

How do we know who is right or who is wrong with the way they enjoy to cache?

Sorry. That just doesn't seem all that complicated.

If I believe that a particular behavior could endanger my favorite hobby, then, in my eyes, the person perpetuating that behavior is wrong.

(Yes, this is just my entirely biased opinion.)

If these power trails are so detrimental to geocaching then why do these REVIEWERS keep publishing these trails.

Because they must. They are reviewers. Publishing caches is what they do. So long as they meet the guidelines, they have little choice in the matter.

The "Don't hide a cache every 600' just because you can" portion of the guidelines seems to be being ignored, when at one point, it was not.

My guess is, this change came about as a direct result of communication between Groundspeak and the reviewer team.

I would further guess that someone high up at Groundspeak recognized the monetary value of gobs and gobs of park & grab caches.

Once this value was recognized, power trails came back in fashion, with a passion. (Hey! I'm a poet!)

Edited February 9, 2011 by Clan Riffster

February 9, 2011

...and all it can do is start a snowball that could lead to no gaurdrails then bridges then stop signs, then LPC.

Wait. Are you saying this is a bad thing?

How do we know who is right or who is wrong with the way they enjoy to cache?

Sorry. That just doesn't seem all that complicated.

If I believe that a particular behavior could endanger my favorite hobby, then, in my eyes, the person perpetuating that behavior is wrong.

(Yes, this is just my entirely biased opinion.)

If these power trails are so detrimental to geocaching then why do these REVIEWERS keep publishing these trails.

Because they must. They are reviewers. Publishing caches is what they do. So long as they meet the guidelines, they have little choice in the matter.

The "Don't hide a cache every 600' just because you can" portion of the guidelines seems to be being ignored, when at one point, it was not.

My guess is, this change came about as a direct result of communication between Groundspeak and the reviewer team.

I would further guess that someone high up at Groundspeak recognized the monetary value of gobs and gobs of park & grab caches.

Once this value was recognized, power trails came back in fashion, with a passion. (Hey! I'm a poet!)

They need to go back to that guideline of don't hide a cache every 600'. I think it might have something to do with the monetary value as well.

Oh by the way sorry about that Richard thing awhile back

14k · February 9, 2011

If these power trails are so detrimental to geocaching then why do these REVIEWERS keep publishing these trails.

Because they must. They are reviewers. Publishing caches is what they do. So long as they meet the guidelines, they have little choice in the matter.

The "Don't hide a cache every 600' just because you can" portion of the guidelines seems to be being ignored, when at one point, it was not.

Specifically, in 2009 there was language in the Saturation guideline which specifically mentioned Power Trails. When that language was removed it effectively made the "Please don't hide a cache every 600' just because you can." statement superfluous. Here's what the language looked like before it was changed:

"On the same note, don't go cache crazy and hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can. If you want to create a series of caches (sometimes called a "Power Trail"), the reviewer may require you to create a multi-cache, if the waypoints are close together. A series of caches that are generally intended to be found as a group are good candidates for submission as a single multicache."

I started a topic on the old Feedback site suggesting that the guideline be reverted back to what it include prior to the change in 2009. It got a lot of discussion and "Like" votes before Groundspeak shutdown that Feedback system. A similar issue was posted in the current Feedback site and it eventually had a comment from Groundspeak that it was under review. Then a further comment was posted that it was a policy issue and, thus, should be discussed in the forums.

So here we are, back in the forums, debating the same issues with no resolution in sight.

8k · February 9, 2011

If these power trails are so detrimental to geocaching then why do these REVIEWERS keep publishing these trails.

Because they must. They are reviewers. Publishing caches is what they do. So long as they meet the guidelines, they have little choice in the matter.

The "Don't hide a cache every 600' just because you can" portion of the guidelines seems to be being ignored, when at one point, it was not.

Specifically, in 2009 there was language in the Saturation guideline which specifically mentioned Power Trails. When that language was removed it effectively made the "Please don't hide a cache every 600' just because you can." statement superfluous. Here's what the language looked like before it was changed:

"On the same note, don't go cache crazy and hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can. If you want to create a series of caches (sometimes called a "Power Trail"), the reviewer may require you to create a multi-cache, if the waypoints are close together. A series of caches that are generally intended to be found as a group are good candidates for submission as a single multicache."

I started a topic on the old Feedback site suggesting that the guideline be reverted back to what it include prior to the change in 2009. It got a lot of discussion and "Like" votes before Groundspeak shutdown that Feedback system. A similar issue was posted in the current Feedback site and it eventually had a comment from Groundspeak that it was under review. Then a further comment was posted that it was a policy issue and, thus, should be discussed in the forums.

So here we are, back in the forums, debating the same issues with no resolution in sight.

The old guideline was a bit confusing. It basically told reviewers that if caches were "close together" they could ask the hider to make a multi-cache. A series of caches intended to be found as a group were good candidates for a multi-cache. But it didn't define close together. For some reviewers if the caches were 601 ft apart that was good enough to approve the caches as traditionals. Other reviewers wanted to make people placing a series to leave .2 miles between caches. And other reviewers had rules that if you waited 3 months you could place another cache in that space if no one else had in the meantime.

Rather than having all these different rules, the guideline was simplified. If caches were at least 528 feet apart they could be listed. Note that Groundspeak and reviewers may further restrict cache listings in areas where cache saturation becomes a concern.

The rule change may have had an effect of encouraging a lot of new power trails, whether or not this was intended. Clearly, there are many cachers who enjoy finding these. If these power trails do in fact cause problems, Groundspeak certainly has the right to modify the guidelines again to address this. Quite frankly, I believe we would have seen power trail formed anyhow. Trails could be placed by a group of cachers with the caches alternating between accounts. And trails could be created over a period of time. Depending on the local reviewer, you could have trails with caches every 601 feet. Simply calling something a power trail in the guidelines and telling reviewers to require these be listed as multicaches, doesn't eliminate them or address any potential issues they may have.

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