New Route 66 Mega Power Trail

[+Don_J]

 

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.

 

 

This again. I've been waiting patiently for someone to tell me who these "other folks" are, and why they waited up to 10 years to place their caches.

[+the4dirtydogs]

 

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.

 

 

This again. I've been waiting patiently for someone to tell me who these "other folks" are, and why they waited up to 10 years to place their caches.

I agree with you Don J. She was even at the event and I didn't hear anyone say anything to the hiders. I heard a big thank you and applause. Then I left to grab some caches on the mother road.

[RedShoesGirl]

...

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!)

 

exactly.

[jholly]

...

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!)

 

exactly.

If it isn't a joke, your spending to much time with the alligators CR. Just what is the monetary value of P&G's that GS is suppose to enjoy? Perhaps, while I was not looking, Jeremy cornered the film can market.

[RedShoesGirl]

 

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.

 

 

This again. I've been waiting patiently for someone to tell me who these "other folks" are, and why they waited up to 10 years to place their caches.

I agree with you Don J. She was even at the event and I didn't hear anyone say anything to the hiders. I heard a big thank you and applause. Then I left to grab some caches on the mother road.

 

yes i was there. and the power trail was a surprise to me when it was announced. i did mention to a friend how dismayed i was about the PT. now, do you think one person standing up at an event saying to the hiders the trail is a bad thing is really going to be paid attention to? yep, i was a coward. knowing full well that nothing i said would have made one bit of difference.

 

i am also against people coming from out of the area and placing the trail more than 50 miles from where they live. and instead of committing themselves to maintaing the caches they passed on replacement canisters to those who might come up on a DNF.

 

and when was permission granted by land owners to place 800 caches!? do you really think the COs really contacted everyone that owns property on route 66 to receive permission?

 

did they contact the owner of Amboy, CA for permission to place caches along route 66 in amboy - all privately owned, either by one man it or the railroad.

 

just because people want to the play the game their way does not mean it is the right way or the way it was imagined in the first place. just because you can tape a micro to a guardrail or stop sign, do you need to do it? what's the point?

Edited February 9, 2011 by RedShoesGirl

[+the4dirtydogs]

and when was permission granted by land owners to place 800 caches!? do you really think the COs really contacted everyone that owns property on route 66 to receive permission?

 

did they contact the owner of Amboy, CA for permission to place caches along route 66 in amboy - all privately owned, either by one man it or the railroad.

 

Are the couple of caches placed in/around Amboy prior to the RT. 66 series......placed with PERMISSION?

[RedShoesGirl]

and when was permission granted by land owners to place 800 caches!? do you really think the COs really contacted everyone that owns property on route 66 to receive permission?

 

did they contact the owner of Amboy, CA for permission to place caches along route 66 in amboy - all privately owned, either by one man it or the railroad.

 

Are the couple of caches placed in/around Amboy prior to the RT. 66 series......placed with PERMISSION?

 

i don't know. but if those are wrong, does that mean all the additional ones are ok if they were placed without permission? i am calling in question all 800 new ones. not the ones that are already there.

Edited February 9, 2011 by RedShoesGirl

[+the4dirtydogs]

and when was permission granted by land owners to place 800 caches!? do you really think the COs really contacted everyone that owns property on route 66 to receive permission?

 

did they contact the owner of Amboy, CA for permission to place caches along route 66 in amboy - all privately owned, either by one man it or the railroad.

 

Are the couple of caches placed in/around Amboy prior to the RT. 66 series......placed with PERMISSION?

 

i don't know. but if those are wrong, does that mean all the additional ones are ok if they were placed without permission? i am calling in question all 800 new ones. not the ones that are already there.

I happen to know that some of those older caches that are placed out there were placed by people that don't live within 50 miles also. Why single out the new ones and not the old ones. Oh I get it you don't like power trails. Whatever. I don't remember caches being near the R/R to be against the guidelines.

Edited February 9, 2011 by the4dirtydogs

[+NYPaddleCacher]

and when was permission granted by land owners to place 800 caches!? do you really think the COs really contacted everyone that owns property on route 66 to receive permission?

 

did they contact the owner of Amboy, CA for permission to place caches along route 66 in amboy - all privately owned, either by one man it or the railroad.

 

Are the couple of caches placed in/around Amboy prior to the RT. 66 series......placed with PERMISSION?

 

i don't know. but if those are wrong, does that mean all the additional ones are ok if they were placed without permission? i am calling in question all 800 new ones. not the ones that are already there.

I happen to know that some of those older caches that are placed out there were placed by people that don't live within 50 miles also. Why single out the new ones and not the old ones. Oh I get it you don't like power trails. Whatever. I don't remember caches being near the R/R to be against the guidelines.

 

According to your profile you've hidden 80 caches, and each time you had to check the box which indicated that you read the guidelines which includes the following:

 

Caches may be quickly archived if we see the following (which is not exhaustive):

 

...

* Caches hidden in close proximity to active railroad tracks.

 

You also seem to miss this part:

 

"First and foremost please be advised there is no precedent for placing caches."

 

That means that even *if* there are caches which were placed without adequate permission, that does not justify placing a new cache which violates the same guideline.

 

I have no idea what Amboy is like or the history of geocaching in that area but I did take a look at a few logs on the area and noticed that the same cut-n-paste logs that were showing up on every Route 66 numbers trail cache are being posted for cache which pre-existed the trail. That includes one which simply reads "good hide.sl" that was posted on an Earthcache that was published four years ago.

 

I don't know if there is something about power trails that causes some to lose all rational thought but one would think that someone with over 3300 finds would have figured out by now that an Earthcache isn't hidden nor is there a log to be signed.

 

And, BTW, the issues that many bring up about power trails have nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not they like power trails.

[RedShoesGirl]

...

I happen to know that some of those older caches that are placed out there were placed by people that don't live within 50 miles also. Why single out the new ones and not the old ones. Oh I get it you don't like power trails. Whatever. I don't remember caches being near the R/R to be against the guidelines.

 

because the new ones are overwhelming. they are part of the proliferation of micros that i think have ruined the sport of geocaching. as far as the railroad, look at the sat maps. i can tell you from experience and knowledge of the area, a couple of those caches look to be on RR property.

 

yes, you are right, i don't like power trails. i think they are lazy caching. i tried a portion of one trail to see what it was like and got bored quickly. PTs don't take any thinking! or walking.

 

but hey, we are allowed to have a difference of opinion on this subject.

[+the4dirtydogs]

...

I happen to know that some of those older caches that are placed out there were placed by people that don't live within 50 miles also. Why single out the new ones and not the old ones. Oh I get it you don't like power trails. Whatever. I don't remember caches being near the R/R to be against the guidelines.

 

because the new ones are overwhelming. they are part of the proliferation of micros that i think have ruined the sport of geocaching. as far as the railroad, look at the sat maps. i can tell you from experience and knowledge of the area, a couple of those caches look to be on RR property.

 

yes, you are right, i don't like power trails. i think they are lazy caching. i tried a portion of one trail to see what it was like and got bored quickly. PTs don't take any thinking! or walking.

 

but hey, we are allowed to have a difference of opinion on this subject.

I don't have to look at the sat maps, I did the trail. They seem to be fine with me. When I go back out there I'll take another look to make sure and let the cache owner know, but I think they are aware of not putting caches near the R/R.

 

Micros have not ruined anything. I think it's more the bad attitudes that have more of an effect to caching. There is nothing lazy about power caching, finding 50 caches an hour is short of being lazy. To be honest I take power trails for what they are a numbers inflater and that's it.

 

We all know what people say about opinions.

 

You could walk the power trail if that would make you happy. You could get all the thinking and walking all in one.

[RedShoesGirl]

...

I happen to know that some of those older caches that are placed out there were placed by people that don't live within 50 miles also. Why single out the new ones and not the old ones. Oh I get it you don't like power trails. Whatever. I don't remember caches being near the R/R to be against the guidelines.

 

because the new ones are overwhelming. they are part of the proliferation of micros that i think have ruined the sport of geocaching. as far as the railroad, look at the sat maps. i can tell you from experience and knowledge of the area, a couple of those caches look to be on RR property.

 

yes, you are right, i don't like power trails. i think they are lazy caching. i tried a portion of one trail to see what it was like and got bored quickly. PTs don't take any thinking! or walking.

 

but hey, we are allowed to have a difference of opinion on this subject.

I don't have to look at the sat maps, I did the trail. They seem to be fine with me. When I go back out there I'll take another look to make sure and let the cache owner know, but I think they are aware of not putting caches near the R/R.

 

Micros have not ruined anything. I think it's more the bad attitudes that have more of an effect to caching. There is nothing lazy about power caching, finding 50 caches an hour is short of being lazy. To be honest I take power trails for what they are a numbers inflater and that's it.

 

We all know what people say about opinions.

 

You could walk the power trail if that would make you happy. You could get all the thinking and walking all in one.

 

whatever.

[+the4dirtydogs]

and when was permission granted by land owners to place 800 caches!? do you really think the COs really contacted everyone that owns property on route 66 to receive permission?

 

did they contact the owner of Amboy, CA for permission to place caches along route 66 in amboy - all privately owned, either by one man it or the railroad.

 

Are the couple of caches placed in/around Amboy prior to the RT. 66 series......placed with PERMISSION?

 

i don't know. but if those are wrong, does that mean all the additional ones are ok if they were placed without permission? i am calling in question all 800 new ones. not the ones that are already there.

I happen to know that some of those older caches that are placed out there were placed by people that don't live within 50 miles also. Why single out the new ones and not the old ones. Oh I get it you don't like power trails. Whatever. I don't remember caches being near the R/R to be against the guidelines.

 

According to your profile you've hidden 80 caches, and each time you had to check the box which indicated that you read the guidelines which includes the following:

 

Caches may be quickly archived if we see the following (which is not exhaustive):

 

...

* Caches hidden in close proximity to active railroad tracks.

 

You also seem to miss this part:

 

"First and foremost please be advised there is no precedent for placing caches."

 

That means that even *if* there are caches which were placed without adequate permission, that does not justify placing a new cache which violates the same guideline.

 

I have no idea what Amboy is like or the history of geocaching in that area but I did take a look at a few logs on the area and noticed that the same cut-n-paste logs that were showing up on every Route 66 numbers trail cache are being posted for cache which pre-existed the trail. That includes one which simply reads "good hide.sl" that was posted on an Earthcache that was published four years ago.

 

I don't know if there is something about power trails that causes some to lose all rational thought but one would think that someone with over 3300 finds would have figured out by now that an Earthcache isn't hidden nor is there a log to be signed.

 

And, BTW, the issues that many bring up about power trails have nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not they like power trails.

YOU seem to be missing the point. Any of the caches near the railroad are placed in excess of 150 ft. away..........per the rest of the guideline you omitted. You can't effectively argue about one set of caches or CO's for lack of permission on a cache placement and just turn a blind eye to the rest of the caches placed without permission. That's totally hypocritical.

 

Besides, the majority of caches around the world are placed without permission from whomever owns the land/location so this is really a mute point.

 

It all comes back to the reviewers and GS for allowing PT's to exist in the first place.

[RedShoesGirl]

...

YOU seem to be missing the point. Any of the caches near the railroad are placed in excess of 150 ft. away...

 

you think that railroads just own the 150 feet on either side of the tracks? the land owned by the railroad far exceeds that puny 150 feet.

 

that's why it is important to figure who owns what. just because people ignore this does not make the point moot, it just makes it ignored by the majority - and something Groundspeak turns a blind eye to, or rather cannot enforce.

Edited February 10, 2011 by RedShoesGirl

[+the4dirtydogs]

...

YOU seem to be missing the point. Any of the caches near the railroad are placed in excess of 150 ft. away...

 

you think that railroads just own the 150 feet on either side of the tracks? the land owned by the railroad far exceeds that puny 150 feet.

 

that's why it is important to figure who owns what. just because people ignore this does not make the point moot, it just makes it ignored by the majority - and something Groundspeak turns a blind eye to, or rather cannot enforce.

I would say 150' is a pretty good guess. Thats half a football field. If they owned more than that they would own the road too. The tracks behind my work I know the R/R owns about 20' of land between the tracks and our fence. The tracks in the pass don't have 150'. The signs posted are like 20' from the tracks. Maybe it's more in the desert but I doubt that.

[Clan Riffster]

If it isn't a joke, your spending to much time with the alligators CR.

Just what is the monetary value of P&G's that GS is suppose to enjoy?

Perhaps, while I was not looking, Jeremy cornered the film can market.

Maybe. I do seem to spend a lot of time out there.

 

Back on topic:

On the subject of protecting P&Gs...

Please bear in mind that I have absolutely no facts to support my beliefs.

All I have are my opinions, based upon my local observations.

 

There is an ever increasing percentage of P&G caches being placed. I believe this is a side effect of the game going more mainstream. This is not a critique. For the purpose of these observations, I make no judgement. Folks like them, and they are mostly within the guidelines. No worries there. I am simply observing that, in my particular geographic region, (as well as many others, based on what I've read in these forums), There is a significantly greater percentage of caches that are P&Gs then there was a year ago. Not just more total. That would be expected with normal growth. Also, I believe the percentage of premium vs regular members is pretty close to what it was last year. Not exact, but close. What this tells my alligator addled brain is that the percentage of PM cachers who enjoy P&Gs is steadily increasing. Again, this is not a critique, just an observation, which admittedly may be biased. If Groundspeak were to take sudden and decisive action against P&Gs today, (such as requiring explicit permission for hides on private properties such as parking lots), they would anger a whole bunch of people. If my opinions are accurate, if Groundspeak takes decisive action against P&Gs a year from now, they will anger an even greater number and greater percentage of people. Each P&G fan that Groundspeak angers is, potentially $30 a year in income that might walk away. Multiply that by the gobs of P&G fans, and you have enough $$$ to equal incentive to leave the P&G crowd alone.

 

Ergo, it's in Groundspeak's financial best interest to not push for stricter guidelines for private property hides.

[RedShoesGirl]

...

I would say 150' is a pretty good guess. Thats half a football field. If they owned more than that they would own the road too.

 

that is illogical. they can own acres of land that a public road runs through therefore owning more than 150 feet on either side. there are areas in barstow where they own the road! it is not a city road even though it is within city limits. the land, the tracks, the road all belong to the railroad. and it is more than 150 feet.

 

The tracks behind my work I know the R/R owns about 20' of land between the tracks and our fence. The tracks in the pass don't have 150'. The signs posted are like 20' from the tracks. Maybe it's more in the desert but I doubt that.

 

there is no set amount of land the railroad can own, so unless you check every quadrant, every mile, you can't know what is owned and what is not. there are caches that are near the railroad maintenance of way dirt road near ludlow and the crossing. did the COs ask permission to place caches within the town limits of ludlow? a privately owned town.

 

the railroad owns a lot of property out here.

 

rsg

[+the4dirtydogs]

...

I would say 150' is a pretty good guess. Thats half a football field. If they owned more than that they would own the road too.

 

that is illogical. they can own acres of land that a public road runs through therefore owning more than 150 feet on either side. there are areas in barstow where they own the road! it is not a city road even though it is within city limits. the land, the tracks, the road all belong to the railroad. and it is more than 150 feet.

 

The tracks behind my work I know the R/R owns about 20' of land between the tracks and our fence. The tracks in the pass don't have 150'. The signs posted are like 20' from the tracks. Maybe it's more in the desert but I doubt that.

 

there is no set amount of land the railroad can own, so unless you check every quadrant, every mile, you can't know what is owned and what is not. there are caches that are near the railroad maintenance of way dirt road near ludlow and the crossing. did the COs ask permission to place caches within the town limits of ludlow? a privately owned town.

 

the railroad owns a lot of property out here.

 

rsg

You don't know and I don't know so we may as well put this part of the discussion to bed.

[RedShoesGirl]

...

I would say 150' is a pretty good guess. Thats half a football field. If they owned more than that they would own the road too.

 

that is illogical. they can own acres of land that a public road runs through therefore owning more than 150 feet on either side. there are areas in barstow where they own the road! it is not a city road even though it is within city limits. the land, the tracks, the road all belong to the railroad. and it is more than 150 feet.

 

The tracks behind my work I know the R/R owns about 20' of land between the tracks and our fence. The tracks in the pass don't have 150'. The signs posted are like 20' from the tracks. Maybe it's more in the desert but I doubt that.

 

there is no set amount of land the railroad can own, so unless you check every quadrant, every mile, you can't know what is owned and what is not. there are caches that are near the railroad maintenance of way dirt road near ludlow and the crossing. did the COs ask permission to place caches within the town limits of ludlow? a privately owned town.

 

the railroad owns a lot of property out here.

 

rsg

You don't know and I don't know so we may as well put this part of the discussion to bed.

 

sounds good to me. now we can just wonder if the CO asked permission to place 800 caches from the different land managers/owners.

[+Don_J]

...

I would say 150' is a pretty good guess. Thats half a football field. If they owned more than that they would own the road too.

 

that is illogical. they can own acres of land that a public road runs through therefore owning more than 150 feet on either side. there are areas in barstow where they own the road! it is not a city road even though it is within city limits. the land, the tracks, the road all belong to the railroad. and it is more than 150 feet.

 

The tracks behind my work I know the R/R owns about 20' of land between the tracks and our fence. The tracks in the pass don't have 150'. The signs posted are like 20' from the tracks. Maybe it's more in the desert but I doubt that.

 

there is no set amount of land the railroad can own, so unless you check every quadrant, every mile, you can't know what is owned and what is not. there are caches that are near the railroad maintenance of way dirt road near ludlow and the crossing. did the COs ask permission to place caches within the town limits of ludlow? a privately owned town.

 

the railroad owns a lot of property out here.

 

rsg

 

I find it amazing that you require all this for the caches that you don't like, but waive the same requirements for caches that you like. If one were to take the Rt 66 caches out of Amboy, then the other dozen need to go as well. Is this what you really want?

 

The only caches that concern me are the couple dozen that are along the section that parallels the tracks. I assume the reviewer questioned the CO and the CO gave the right answers.

[RedShoesGirl]

...

 

I find it amazing that you require all this for the caches that you don't like, but waive the same requirements for caches that you like. If one were to take the Rt 66 caches out of Amboy, then the other dozen need to go as well. Is this what you really want?

 

The only caches that concern me are the couple dozen that are along the section that parallels the tracks. I assume the reviewer questioned the CO and the CO gave the right answers.

 

first off i didn't say i liked any of the amboy caches. if any of the other caches in amboy were placed without permission, then yes, those need to go also. as you said, we can't waive requirements for some but not others.

 

as for the reviewer questioning the CO about the placement of all 800 caches individually, we can't assume anything. nor can we assume the reviewer actually looked up the coords for the caches and approved the ones near the tracks or on a blind curve, or in a dip in the road where you can't see oncoming traffic.

 

or was there just a blanket approval for the power trail along route 66 with reviewer assuming the CO wrote and received permission for all 800 of the caches.

 

were the caches places within the guidelines of GS? what does the CO have to say about it all?

 

pretty simple questions and pretty easy to find out the truth: who is the land owner/manager of where each of 800 caches is placed and were they asked in advance for approval?

 

rsg

[+the4dirtydogs]

...

 

I find it amazing that you require all this for the caches that you don't like, but waive the same requirements for caches that you like. If one were to take the Rt 66 caches out of Amboy, then the other dozen need to go as well. Is this what you really want?

 

The only caches that concern me are the couple dozen that are along the section that parallels the tracks. I assume the reviewer questioned the CO and the CO gave the right answers.

 

first off i didn't say i liked any of the amboy caches. if any of the other caches in amboy were placed without permission, then yes, those need to go also. as you said, we can't waive requirements for some but not others.

 

as for the reviewer questioning the CO about the placement of all 800 caches individually, we can't assume anything. nor can we assume the reviewer actually looked up the coords for the caches and approved the ones near the tracks or on a blind curve, or in a dip in the road where you can't see oncoming traffic.

 

or was there just a blanket approval for the power trail along route 66 with reviewer assuming the CO wrote and received permission for all 800 of the caches.

 

were the caches places within the guidelines of GS? what does the CO have to say about it all?

 

pretty simple questions and pretty easy to find out the truth: who is the land owner/manager of where each of 800 caches is placed and were they asked in advance for approval?

 

rsg

It's pretty simple. All you have to do is email the CO with all your questions to get your answer directly from them. You know who they are you were at the event. They are really nice people, I'm sure they will give all the information you need. That way you can stop speculating on this whole matter and hear from the Cache Owners themselves. How does that sound?

[RedShoesGirl]

...

It's pretty simple. All you have to do is email the CO with all your questions to get your answer directly from them. You know who they are you were at the event. They are really nice people, I'm sure they will give all the information you need. That way you can stop speculating on this whole matter and hear from the Cache Owners themselves. How does that sound?

 

private. that's how it sounds. i am asking publicly. the response will be public. easy peasy.

[jholly]

...

It's pretty simple. All you have to do is email the CO with all your questions to get your answer directly from them. You know who they are you were at the event. They are really nice people, I'm sure they will give all the information you need. That way you can stop speculating on this whole matter and hear from the Cache Owners themselves. How does that sound?

 

private. that's how it sounds. i am asking publicly. the response will be public. easy peasy.

I don't see why it has to be public. When you had a chance to ask publicly you did not. You had a chance to raise all your concerns publicly at the event you attended when it was announced. So why hide behind a monitor now and demand public explanations?

[+Team GPSaxophone]

...

It's pretty simple. All you have to do is email the CO with all your questions to get your answer directly from them. You know who they are you were at the event. They are really nice people, I'm sure they will give all the information you need. That way you can stop speculating on this whole matter and hear from the Cache Owners themselves. How does that sound?

 

private. that's how it sounds. i am asking publicly. the response will be public. easy peasy.

I don't see why it has to be public. When you had a chance to ask publicly you did not. You had a chance to raise all your concerns publicly at the event you attended when it was announced. So why hide behind a monitor now and demand public explanations?

[Clan Riffster]

I don't see why it has to be public.

I don't think it has to be public. That was simply RedShoes' preference.

I can see why a public answer might be preferable to a private communique, in some situations.

In this case, RedShoes could talk for hours with the CO, then post on here what they discussed.

Knowing this forum, I'd say within a few seconds, someone would dismiss her post as being second hand.

Asking for, and receiving a public explanation eliminates that possibility.

[RedShoesGirl]

...

It's pretty simple. All you have to do is email the CO with all your questions to get your answer directly from them. You know who they are you were at the event. They are really nice people, I'm sure they will give all the information you need. That way you can stop speculating on this whole matter and hear from the Cache Owners themselves. How does that sound?

 

private. that's how it sounds. i am asking publicly. the response will be public. easy peasy.

I don't see why it has to be public. When you had a chance to ask publicly you did not. You had a chance to raise all your concerns publicly at the event you attended when it was announced. So why hide behind a monitor now and demand public explanations?

 

i have already admitted at the event i was a coward. besides, being shouted down in public is rather frightening. i expressed my concerns to a friend at the event and later.

 

and even via a monitor, this is not easy, really. btw, were you at the event?

[RedShoesGirl]

I don't see why it has to be public.

I don't think it has to be public. That was simply RedShoes' preference.

I can see why a public answer might be preferable to a private communique, in some situations.

In this case, RedShoes could talk for hours with the CO, then post on here what they discussed.

Knowing this forum, I'd say within a few seconds, someone would dismiss her post as being second hand.

Asking for, and receiving a public explanation eliminates that possibility.

 

thank you, my thoughts exactly.

[+the4dirtydogs]

...

It's pretty simple. All you have to do is email the CO with all your questions to get your answer directly from them. You know who they are you were at the event. They are really nice people, I'm sure they will give all the information you need. That way you can stop speculating on this whole matter and hear from the Cache Owners themselves. How does that sound?

 

private. that's how it sounds. i am asking publicly. the response will be public. easy peasy.

I don't see why it has to be public. When you had a chance to ask publicly you did not. You had a chance to raise all your concerns publicly at the event you attended when it was announced. So why hide behind a monitor now and demand public explanations?

 

i have already admitted at the event i was a coward. besides, being shouted down in public is rather frightening. i expressed my concerns to a friend at the event and later.

 

and even via a monitor, this is not easy, really. btw, were you at the event?

You sit there typing what about permission, what about permission, what about permission. If your a coward that's fine. If you want to know ask the CO. The CO's don't have to answer to the public. No other cacher has to prove to the public that they have permission to hide a cache so why are these CO's having to make it public. That's between the reviewers and them. So maybe sit up straight and email the CO's or just let it go.

Edited February 10, 2011 by the4dirtydogs

[RedShoesGirl]

...

It's pretty simple. All you have to do is email the CO with all your questions to get your answer directly from them. You know who they are you were at the event. They are really nice people, I'm sure they will give all the information you need. That way you can stop speculating on this whole matter and hear from the Cache Owners themselves. How does that sound?

 

private. that's how it sounds. i am asking publicly. the response will be public. easy peasy.

I don't see why it has to be public. When you had a chance to ask publicly you did not. You had a chance to raise all your concerns publicly at the event you attended when it was announced. So why hide behind a monitor now and demand public explanations?

 

i have already admitted at the event i was a coward. besides, being shouted down in public is rather frightening. i expressed my concerns to a friend at the event and later.

 

and even via a monitor, this is not easy, really. btw, were you at the event?

You sit there typing what about permission, what about permission, what about permission. If your a coward that's fine. If you want to know ask the CO. The CO's don't have to answer to the public. No other cacher has to prove to the public that they have permission to hide a cache so why are these CO's having to make it public. That's between the reviewers and them. So maybe sit up straight and email the CO's or just let it go.

 

read what CR said, much more articulate.

[+the4dirtydogs]

...

It's pretty simple. All you have to do is email the CO with all your questions to get your answer directly from them. You know who they are you were at the event. They are really nice people, I'm sure they will give all the information you need. That way you can stop speculating on this whole matter and hear from the Cache Owners themselves. How does that sound?

 

private. that's how it sounds. i am asking publicly. the response will be public. easy peasy.

I don't see why it has to be public. When you had a chance to ask publicly you did not. You had a chance to raise all your concerns publicly at the event you attended when it was announced. So why hide behind a monitor now and demand public explanations?

 

i have already admitted at the event i was a coward. besides, being shouted down in public is rather frightening. i expressed my concerns to a friend at the event and later.

 

and even via a monitor, this is not easy, really. btw, were you at the event?

You sit there typing what about permission, what about permission, what about permission. If your a coward that's fine. If you want to know ask the CO. The CO's don't have to answer to the public. No other cacher has to prove to the public that they have permission to hide a cache so why are these CO's having to make it public. That's between the reviewers and them. So maybe sit up straight and email the CO's or just let it go.

 

read what CR said, much more articulate.

I did read it. Your SO concerned with permission, YOU should go find out for yourself if YOU want YOUR answer. It's not going to fall out of the sky Don't hide behide CR.

[+joranda]

What was this thread about anyways? I got lost a page or two back.

[+the4dirtydogs]

What was this thread about anyways? I got lost a page or two back.

Something to do with beating dead horses or something like that.

[+joranda]

What was this thread about anyways? I got lost a page or two back.

Something to do with beating dead horses or something like that.

 

Only if you have permission.

[+fizzymagic]

Your (sic) SO concerned with permission, YOU should go find out for yourself if YOU want YOUR answer.

 

This thread has long passed the point of ridiculousness. However, the burden of proof is on the cache hider to demonstrate permission. And yes, the CO should be willing to do so in public. Permission to hide a geocache is not a private matter.

[+the4dirtydogs]

Your (sic) SO concerned with permission, YOU should go find out for yourself if YOU want YOUR answer.

 

This thread has long passed the point of ridiculousness. However, the burden of proof is on the cache hider to demonstrate permission. And yes, the CO should be willing to do so in public. Permission to hide a geocache is not a private matter.

I agree with the ridiculousness of this thread. I don't agree that the CO has to come here or anywhere else for that matter to show proof of permission. That is between them and the reviewer. Reviewers are the only ones who publish the caches thus the only ones who need to know if permission was granted.

 

edited to say I hate it when I use the wrong you're

Edited February 11, 2011 by the4dirtydogs

[+Don_J]

...

 

I find it amazing that you require all this for the caches that you don't like, but waive the same requirements for caches that you like. If one were to take the Rt 66 caches out of Amboy, then the other dozen need to go as well. Is this what you really want?

 

The only caches that concern me are the couple dozen that are along the section that parallels the tracks. I assume the reviewer questioned the CO and the CO gave the right answers.

 

first off i didn't say i liked any of the amboy caches. if any of the other caches in amboy were placed without permission, then yes, those need to go also. as you said, we can't waive requirements for some but not others.

 

as for the reviewer questioning the CO about the placement of all 800 caches individually, we can't assume anything. nor can we assume the reviewer actually looked up the coords for the caches and approved the ones near the tracks or on a blind curve, or in a dip in the road where you can't see oncoming traffic.

 

or was there just a blanket approval for the power trail along route 66 with reviewer assuming the CO wrote and received permission for all 800 of the caches.

 

were the caches places within the guidelines of GS? what does the CO have to say about it all?

 

pretty simple questions and pretty easy to find out the truth: who is the land owner/manager of where each of 800 caches is placed and were they asked in advance for approval?

 

rsg

 

Tell you what, since I really don't care if permission was gained, written or not, It would be a major waste of my time to do the research on it.

 

I suggest that if this so important to you, either do your own research, or ask the CO. Continually asking forum members this question will only serve to derail the thread. How could we possibly know the answer?

 

BTW, I notice that you rolled all of the same tactics, in the same order in the ET thread. It's obvious that you don't like power trail and would like to get them banned. What bothers me is if you don't enjoy something, why would you be so determined to remove from those that do? I don't like strawberry ice cream. It never occurred to me to launch a campaign to have it removed from the market.

Edited February 11, 2011 by Don_J

[+Don_J]

I don't see why it has to be public.

I don't think it has to be public. That was simply RedShoes' preference.

I can see why a public answer might be preferable to a private communique, in some situations.

In this case, RedShoes could talk for hours with the CO, then post on here what they discussed.

Knowing this forum, I'd say within a few seconds, someone would dismiss her post as being second hand.

Asking for, and receiving a public explanation eliminates that possibility.

 

Since the CO does not participate in the forums, and none that do could possibly know the answer, I think that there is no choice but to ask privately.

[RedShoesGirl]

...

Tell you what, since I really don't care if permission was gained, written or not, It would be a major waste of my time to do the research on it.

 

I suggest that if this so important to you, either do your own research, or ask the CO. Continually asking forum members this question will only serve to derail the thread. How could we possibly know the answer?

 

BTW, I notice that you rolled all of the same tactics, in the same order in the ET thread. It's obvious that you don't like power trail and would like to get them banned. What bothers me is if you don't enjoy something, why would be so determined to remove from those that do? I don't like strawberry ice cream. It never occurred to me to launch a campaign to have it removed from the market.

 

your argument is specious at best.

 

what fizzymagic said.

Edited February 11, 2011 by RedShoesGirl

[+Ecylram]

I suggest that if this so important to you, either do your own research, or ask the CO. Continually asking forum members this question will only serve to derail the thread. How could we possibly know the answer?

 

BTW, I notice that you rolled all of the same tactics, in the same order in the ET thread. It's obvious that you don't like power trail and would like to get them banned. What bothers me is if you don't enjoy something, why would be so determined to remove from those that do? I don't like strawberry ice cream. It never occurred to me to launch a campaign to have it removed from the market.

 

I suspect the individual believes they are protecting Geocaching (or at least the environment) with their actions. I don't agree with their tactics but I believe their concern is genuine, though misplaced. Ultimately, I think the tactics will backfire but...who knows?

[+Don_J]

What was this thread about anyways? I got lost a page or two back.

Something to do with beating dead horses or something like that.

 

It was about ways of keeping power trails from screwing up PQs from the same area. It turned into, just like ET thread turned into, a person with a "no power trail" agenda badgering the other forum members with questions they couldn't possibly know the answer to.

[+M 5]

Blame Groundspeak for throwing the feedback idea about powertrails back into the forums.

[Clan Riffster]

Since the CO does not participate in the forums, and none that do could possibly know the answer, I think that there is no choice but to ask privately.

Perhaps. Something we've seen time and again in these forums is a question about a particular cacher with zero forum posts, who gets wind of the discussion, and makes an appearance, addressing the question directly. Maybe those cache owners were psychic? Maybe friends told them? Who knows? I'll stand by my belief that, in this instance, attempting to get a public answer to a hot-button question is an acceptable practice, while maintaining my personal stance that the answer would be irrelevant to me, as I don't see the E.T. Trail having permission issues. I'll also admit freely that my lack of concern regarding permission issues for this series could, quite likely stem from my geographic ignorance. I have not been out there since caching began, so I never had cause to question who managed the land, or what activities were allowed there. It's possible that RedShoes has direct knowledge that has led to her concern. Assuming this, I must therefor respect her desire for an answer.

 

Just because she dislikes powertrails doesn't mean every post she makes is some nefarious plot to have them banned.

[+joranda]

What I don't understand is that someone had the chance to speak up at the event that the cache owners had when they announced the Rt66 series. Why did you not ask your questions then to them or at least told them that you thought it was a bad idea? You could of pulled them off to the side.

[+Ecylram]

This thread is veering dangerously close to where a moderator is going to step in and lock it.

 

While I understand the sentiments, lets try and steer this one back to the topic of the Route 66 Power Trail and away from discussions on any particular forum member.

[+GeoGeeBee]

It's obvious that you don't like power trail and would like to get them banned. What bothers me is if you don't enjoy something, why would you be so determined to remove from those that do? I don't like strawberry ice cream. It never occurred to me to launch a campaign to have it removed from the market.

 

The existence of strawberry ice cream doesn't threaten my ability to enjoy chocolate ice cream. The existence of power trails, and the practices of those who enjoy them, does threaten my ability to enjoy geocaching.

 

For example, the BLM has taken a very loose approach to the existence of geocaches on their land. The practices along the ET Trail may soon cause them to reconsider that approach. I think this threatens a large part of our hobby. These aren't just caches that I wouldn't enjoy hunting; the attention they are drawing threatens the existence of caches that I WOULD enjoy hunting.

[+joranda]

And this pitty bickering doesn't make any non-cacher that looks into these forums wonder what caching is really all about? It looks like nothing but drama and they just might head the other way.

[+the4dirtydogs]

Back on Topic:

 

Necessary?.........I really don't think Power Trails are necessary. There are quite a few caches that I don't think are necessary, I just don't search for those caches. I do have a fun time with my family caching and that's what this whole game is about. Having fun.

 

I do feel that the Power Trails can really use their own attribute to easily be filtered out by cachers that don't do Power Trails.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

It's obvious that you don't like power trail and would like to get them banned. What bothers me is if you don't enjoy something, why would you be so determined to remove from those that do? I don't like strawberry ice cream. It never occurred to me to launch a campaign to have it removed from the market.

 

The existence of strawberry ice cream doesn't threaten my ability to enjoy chocolate ice cream. The existence of power trails, and the practices of those who enjoy them, does threaten my ability to enjoy geocaching.

 

For example, the BLM has taken a very loose approach to the existence of geocaches on their land. The practices along the ET Trail may soon cause them to reconsider that approach. I think this threatens a large part of our hobby. These aren't just caches that I wouldn't enjoy hunting; the attention they are drawing threatens the existence of caches that I WOULD enjoy hunting.

 

Thanks. This is an argument about power trails that many of the power trail advocates seem to be unable to grasp. No matter how many issues geocachers bring up about power trails and how they (or have a reasonable potential to) negatively impact the enjoyment for some, trotting out "you must no like power trails, so don't them and stop trying to spoil our fun" does *not* address the argument.

 

It doesn't matter whether or not GeoGeeBee likes strawberry ice cream. It makes no difference if GeoGeeBee never intentionally eats strawberry ice cream. If, however, there are some that enjoy eating strawberry ice cream, and in doing so splatters some of it into GeoGeeBees chocolate ice cream, he's not going to be able to enjoy the kind of ice cream that he likes.

[+Ecylram]

So is the problem really the ice cream then? They'll still splatter, just a different flavor. Wouldn't it be better to deal with the splatterer than an ice cream flavor?

 

Edited February 11, 2011 by Ecylram