New Route 66 Mega Power Trail

[jholly]

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.

I don't see anything of the practices that have been discussed in the forums that would lead BLM to change their policies toward geocaching. Sucks, the containers weren't on BLM land but on NDOT land. Now I can see NDOT or the sheriff getting a bit tight.

[+Castle Mischief]

...

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.

 

...extra page views on the banner ads running up the sides of the cache pages?

[+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.

I don't see anything of the practices that have been discussed in the forums that would lead BLM to change their policies toward geocaching. Sucks, the containers weren't on BLM land but on NDOT land. Now I can see NDOT or the sheriff getting a bit tight.

Until the NDOT says they have to move them and they all end up on BLM land.

[RedShoesGirl]

...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.

 

thank you. i am not sure i even dislike power trails per se, but rather what appears to be the lax approach to obtaining permission. if we all have to abide by a certain set of guidelines as to the placement of single caches, then power trails should be no different. if permission was secured for all 800 caches, then have a good time. seriously.

 

as for popping in occasionally to post, that is true. I spend most of my time in the geocoin forum. i do read these forums quite a bit, but reserve posting unless i feel i have something to say. whether or not what i say is liked by many of the other posters does not concern me. several people have agreed so i know i am not a lone voice in the wilderness saying "wait a minute."

 

as for confronting the COs at the event, i saw no real reason to bring it up at the time. would it have any impact on whether the caches were placed or not? no. was i apprehensive about causing what i knew was going to be trouble at a nice event, yes. it wasn't until i saw this thread and the one about the ET caches did i raise any concern about the whole issue of permissions. the other issues of environmental damage and safety were addressed by others.

 

it is possible the reviewers got it wrong, or they didn't ask the right questions. if the correct procedures, as outlined by GS, are followed then it stands to reason there is no reason not to approve power trails. the main question reviewers need to ask when faced with the daunting task of reviewing a huge number of caches in one long line is, was permission obtained for each one. if the CO says "yes", (and that would be pretty easy to check the veracity) then they should be able to stand up and say permission was granted via whatever agency manages the land in question. if they say "no" then guidelines were ignored and as such the caches should be archived and removed.

 

whether i like them or not is irrelevant to the discussions. and personal attacks will just insure the thread gets closed.

 

rsg

[Clan Riffster]

And this pitty bickering...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you in the running for most bickering posts in this thread?

I think you passed me somewhere around page 5.

 

I'd like to see this thread continue, as I see there are many views to this subject, and folks are passionate about those views.

 

Questions to ponder:

 

Is the simple existence of power trails detrimental to the overall game of geocaching?

 

If so, how?

 

Should power trails be given more, or less leeway as regards to the guidelines, in the review process?

 

If so, either way, why?

 

Do power trails cause a significant increase in environmental impact?

 

If so, should the owners disable them every so often to let the area heal, or simply archive them?

 

If a power trail is on a road's right of way, is explicit permission necessary?

 

If so, should you get permission from whoever manages the road, or from whoever manages the surrounding land?

 

Would having a unique attribute for power trail caches aid both those who hunt them and those who don't?

 

If so, (for both), how?

 

Remember, we all have opinions, and they are all equally valid.

Let's keep it civil, for those of us still interested in discussing this topic.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

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?

 

 

Suppose those that prefer one flavor of ice cream are predisposed to splatter more than those that prefer another flavor of ice cream? One way to reduce the amount of splatter is to reduce the availability of the flavor of ice cream that leads to the most splattering.

 

Let's relate the ice cream analogy back to geocaching.

 

One of the arguments that I, and others have made about power/numbers trails is that these trails by their very nature, because they encourage those that do them to try and find as many cache as possible in a short period of time. Because this type of geocaching effectively becomes a race, this has lead to numerous "shortcuts" that many here have found objectionable. When comparing numbers trail geocaching to say, geocachers that prefer long hikes to a remote cache, forgetting the fact that one class of caches might contain 1000+ caches of one type and only a handful of remote caches, the incentive to race to a remote cache doesn't exist, thus those that prefer that type of cache don't take those shortcuts and splatter as much as those that are doing the numbers runs.

 

BTW, I wanted to commend you on the approach that you've taken in this and the other thread that was recently closed. It's nice to debate the issues with someone that seems to recognize an opposing point of view without getting personal. This has been a highly contentious topic for quite some time and I appreciate rational thinking, even when you *are* wrong.

[+the4dirtydogs]

...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.

 

thank you. i am not sure i even dislike power trails per se, but rather what appears to be the lax approach to obtaining permission. if we all have to abide by a certain set of guidelines as to the placement of single caches, then power trails should be no different. if permission was secured for all 800 caches, then have a good time. seriously.

 

as for popping in occasionally to post, that is true. I spend most of my time in the geocoin forum. i do read these forums quite a bit, but reserve posting unless i feel i have something to say. whether or not what i say is liked by many of the other posters does not concern me. several people have agreed so i know i am not a lone voice in the wilderness saying "wait a minute."

 

as for confronting the COs at the event, i saw no real reason to bring it up at the time. would it have any impact on whether the caches were placed or not? no. was i apprehensive about causing what i knew was going to be trouble at a nice event, yes. it wasn't until i saw this thread and the one about the ET caches did i raise any concern about the whole issue of permissions. the other issues of environmental damage and safety were addressed by others.

 

it is possible the reviewers got it wrong, or they didn't ask the right questions. if the correct procedures, as outlined by GS, are followed then it stands to reason there is no reason not to approve power trails. the main question reviewers need to ask when faced with the daunting task of reviewing a huge number of caches in one long line is, was permission obtained for each one. if the CO says "yes", (and that would be pretty easy to check the veracity) then they should be able to stand up and say permission was granted via whatever agency manages the land in question. if they say "no" then guidelines were ignored and as such the caches should be archived and removed.

 

whether i like them or not is irrelevant to the discussions. and personal attacks will just insure the thread gets closed.

 

rsg

The way I read it is that you were making a BIG deal about permission and who's land was what. All you had to do was ask the CO's themselves. That's it. Get the answers directly from the COs' mouth. Plain and simple. Having them come to the forums and state if they had permission is not the way to do it. I also remember you saying that you hated power trails and that it was LAZY caching and now you don't know if you don't like Power Trails per se and now it's a permission issue. Then it was you didn't like people coming to your area hiding caches.

 

Alot of this could have been avoided by YOU just asking the COs whatever question you wanted answers for.

Edited February 11, 2011 by the4dirtydogs

[+the4dirtydogs]

And this pitty bickering...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you in the running for most bickering posts in this thread?

I think you passed me somewhere around page 5.

 

I'd like to see this thread continue, as I see there are many views to this subject, and folks are passionate about those views.

 

Questions to ponder:

 

Is the simple existence of power trails detrimental to the overall game of geocaching?

 

If so, how?

 

Should power trails be given more, or less leeway as regards to the guidelines, in the review process?

 

If so, either way, why?

 

Do power trails cause a significant increase in environmental impact?

 

If so, should the owners disable them every so often to let the area heal, or simply archive them?

 

If a power trail is on a road's right of way, is explicit permission necessary?

 

If so, should you get permission from whoever manages the road, or from whoever manages the surrounding land?

 

Would having a unique attribute for power trail caches aid both those who hunt them and those who don't?

 

If so, (for both), how?

 

Remember, we all have opinions, and they are all equally valid.

Let's keep it civil, for those of us still interested in discussing this topic.

Seems to me this would be a whole new topic to the OP.

[RedShoesGirl]

...

The way I read it is that you were making a BIG deal about permission and who's land was what. All you had to do was ask the CO's themselves. That's it. Get the answers directly from the COs' mouth. Plan and simply. Having them come to the forums and state if they had permission is not the way to do it. I also remember you saying that you hated power trails and that it was LAZY caching and now you don't know if you don't like Power Trails per se and now it's a permission issue. Then it was you didn't like people coming to your area hiding caches.

 

Alot of this could have been avoided by YOU just asking the COs whatever question you wanted answers for.

 

yep, i said i thought power trail were lazy caching, still think that. and it has nothing to do with how hard it must be to drive and and get in and out of the car a gazillion times.

 

and yes, still think that way-out-of-the-area people coming into any area to place caches is a bad idea. GS seems to have addressed that somewhat. the guidelines used to be a lot more stringent.

 

but for now i am more concerned with the permission guidelines and how they are implemented. things evolve.

 

and asking the COs in private only insures that the issue of permission/guidelines over all is not addressed and the answer remains private. unless i post the answer. it seems that answering the question where all can see it from the COs own mouth is preferable.

 

i asked in the way i thought was the most beneficial to cachers in general. the question is larger than this particular series of caches.

 

as to hating power trails, my opinion on that is evolving also. CR's questions are valid and have me thinking.

 

i think those questions deserve their own thread as this one is specific to the route 66 trail.

Edited February 11, 2011 by RedShoesGirl

[+geodarts]

Questions to ponder . . .

If a power trail is on a road's right of way, is explicit permission necessary?

If so, should you get permission from whoever manages the road, or from whoever manages the surrounding land?

. . . .

Would having a unique attribute for power trail caches aid both those who hunt them and those who don't

 

I had not thought about the issue until I was doing some caches on the ET repetitive trail. I doubt if anybody gets permission for a cache placed on a guard rail. And I am equally sure that most bureaucrats would not like to be asked and have to figure it out. So "don't ask, don't tell" probably works for all.

 

But the impact changes when people are stopping every 528 feet or so -- and on the highway we discussed whether local officials had been made aware of the series. I compared it to when people organized a megaevent in my region. It was my understanding that they informed officials of the event so nobody would be alarmed by the impact of cachers descending on the area. I thought it would make sense to do that with a repetitive trail as well. It seemed like the polite thing to do -- and allow better communication should there be a problem with any part of the series.

 

If I were patrolling the area, I would probably want to know that a car stopping repeatedly on the road did not necessarily mean that something was wrong. If I were a road crew, I would want to know why the film cans were there (I do not know about Route 66, but the many of the cache locations on the ET trail were readily apparent when driving past). And we have seen what happens with the Trail of the Gods and the recent confusion with some of the ET caches when that is not done.

 

So I would give repetitive caches their own icon, just like megaevents are a different category than events. It is a different kind of caching experience. The owners appear to assume a different kind of responsibility for maintenance. There are different kinds of impacts Certainly, the definition of what constitutes "adequate permission" might change. And it might remove some of the angst about whether these trails are a good or bad thing, what constitutes geocaching records, and the like that have recurred ever since the guidelines were relaxed.

Edited February 11, 2011 by mulvaney

[+Ecylram]

BTW, I wanted to commend you on the approach that you've taken in this and the other thread that was recently closed. It's nice to debate the issues with someone that seems to recognize an opposing point of view without getting personal. This has been a highly contentious topic for quite some time and I appreciate rational thinking, even when you *are* wrong.

 

Thank you, that is very kind of you to say. I mean that. I wish I could say that I'm 100% on that, but I'm trying.

 

As for being 'wrong'. I'm used to that, I'm married.

[+CanadianRockies]

BTW, I wanted to commend you on the approach that you've taken in this and the other thread that was recently closed. It's nice to debate the issues with someone that seems to recognize an opposing point of view without getting personal. This has been a highly contentious topic for quite some time and I appreciate rational thinking, even when you *are* wrong.

+1. I had a similar experience with Ecylram on another topic. I'd like to express my thanks as well.

[+Don_J]

...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.

 

thank you. i am not sure i even dislike power trails per se, but rather what appears to be the lax approach to obtaining permission. if we all have to abide by a certain set of guidelines as to the placement of single caches, then power trails should be no different. if permission was secured for all 800 caches, then have a good time. seriously.

 

as for popping in occasionally to post, that is true. I spend most of my time in the geocoin forum. i do read these forums quite a bit, but reserve posting unless i feel i have something to say. whether or not what i say is liked by many of the other posters does not concern me. several people have agreed so i know i am not a lone voice in the wilderness saying "wait a minute."

 

as for confronting the COs at the event, i saw no real reason to bring it up at the time. would it have any impact on whether the caches were placed or not? no. was i apprehensive about causing what i knew was going to be trouble at a nice event, yes. it wasn't until i saw this thread and the one about the ET caches did i raise any concern about the whole issue of permissions. the other issues of environmental damage and safety were addressed by others.

 

it is possible the reviewers got it wrong, or they didn't ask the right questions. if the correct procedures, as outlined by GS, are followed then it stands to reason there is no reason not to approve power trails. the main question reviewers need to ask when faced with the daunting task of reviewing a huge number of caches in one long line is, was permission obtained for each one. if the CO says "yes", (and that would be pretty easy to check the veracity) then they should be able to stand up and say permission was granted via whatever agency manages the land in question. if they say "no" then guidelines were ignored and as such the caches should be archived and removed.

 

whether i like them or not is irrelevant to the discussions. and personal attacks will just insure the thread gets closed.

 

rsg

 

As far as I know, GS has never asked for explicit permission for a cache placed along a hwy ROW. Why do demand that this series be an exception?

[+Ecylram]

Questions to ponder:

 

Is the simple existence of power trails detrimental to the overall game of geocaching?

 

I don't believe that the concept of power trails is detrimental to the game of geocaching. I see it as more of a branch off the original tree. After talking with people who've done E.T. and reading the logs, I believe they CAN be an asset to geocaching even though they aren't everybody's 'cup of tea'.

 

Should power trails be given more, or less leeway as regards to the guidelines, in the review process?

 

I believe that Reviewers need to handle them differently than a single cache placement. There aren't many places where a mega power trail can effectively be placed. Once a spot is found, it takes an amazing amount of work to setup and manage. A lot of details must be sorted to make it work as they cross many jurisdictional lines.

 

Do power trails cause a significant increase in environmental impact?

 

To date, 'no'. I believe there has been much hysteria surrounding hypothetical scenarios that SO FAR has not happened.

 

BUT there is a real potential for that to happen. As a result I don't believe Power Trails should be placed in or next to a wilderness area, for example. I like that the E.T. trail was setup on/next to BLM land that is used for higher impact activities than geocaching. It fits with the land use of the area.

 

If so, should the owners disable them every so often to let the area heal, or simply archive them?

 

It depends on the land use and how the caches are placed. If a cache is in a cattle pasture just a few feet from the road I'd say the impact is negligible on the environment. If the cache is 200 feet off the road through an area undergoing restoration I think the cache should be archived. It boils down to appropriate 'land use'.

 

If a power trail is on a road's right of way, is explicit permission necessary?

 

Depends. If the area is 'public access', the location is 'safe', parking is permitted, and other public activities such as picture taking are allowed/tolerated then I see no need to treat geocaching different from any other public access activity in the area. However, if the recognized authority requires permission or has an explicit ban then explicit approval needs be sought. Same goes if it isn't 'public access', it is not a 'safe' location, or parking isn't normally permitted. The key is treating geocaching on an equal basis with other activities that occur in the location.

 

Would having a unique attribute for power trail caches aid both those who hunt them and those who don't?

 

Yes, yes, yes. The sooner the better. A 'series' attribute and/or 'power trail' attribute would benefit everybody.

 

I'll throw in that I'd like to see Groundspeak address some activities surrounding power trails that have been more controversial. (Those who might be swapping containers, for example.)

[jholly]

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.

I don't see anything of the practices that have been discussed in the forums that would lead BLM to change their policies toward geocaching. Sucks, the containers weren't on BLM land but on NDOT land. Now I can see NDOT or the sheriff getting a bit tight.

Until the NDOT says they have to move them and they all end up on BLM land.

And which one of the practices talked about in the thread(s) would cause BLM to re-examine their policies?

[+geodarts]

As far as I know, GS has never asked for explicit permission for a cache placed along a hwy ROW. Why do demand that this series be an exception?

 

Actually, I have been asked. But it involved a state highway right of way through NPS boundaries so different issues were at play. But I suppose that if there are 800 caches along a highway right of way, that could create different kinds of issue. At what point, if any, does the cumulative impact necessitate different considerations? I don't need to repeat my previous post so I will leave it at that.

Edited February 11, 2011 by mulvaney

[Clan Riffster]

Questions to ponder:

Oops! I forgot one:

if I do a powertrail in, say, Canada, and stub my toe, can I hold the reviewer liable?

[+geodarts]

Questions to ponder:

Oops! I forgot one:

if I do a powertrail in, say, Canada, and stub my toe, can I hold the reviewer liable?

 

I would be more concerned about being eaten by an alligator in a swamp.

[+Ecylram]

Questions to ponder:

Oops! I forgot one:

if I do a powertrail in, say, Canada, and stub my toe, can I hold the reviewer liable?

 

Yes. If the reviewer is Canadian and the request is made both in French & English.

[RedShoesGirl]

...

As far as I know, GS has never asked for explicit permission for a cache placed along a hwy ROW. Why do demand that this series be an exception?

 

i am not demanding anything. it isn't just this series. there are much larger questions at hand.

[jholly]

Questions to ponder:

Oops! I forgot one:

if I do a powertrail in, say, Canada, and stub my toe, can I hold the reviewer liable?

 

I would be more concerned about being eaten by an alligator in a swamp.

In Canada?

[+geodarts]

Questions to ponder:

Oops! I forgot one:

if I do a powertrail in, say, Canada, and stub my toe, can I hold the reviewer liable?

 

I would be more concerned about being eaten by an alligator in a swamp.

In Canada?

 

The Canadian ones are the most dangerous.

[jholly]

Questions to ponder:

Oops! I forgot one:

if I do a powertrail in, say, Canada, and stub my toe, can I hold the reviewer liable?

 

I would be more concerned about being eaten by an alligator in a swamp.

In Canada?

 

The Canadian ones are the most dangerous.

Yeah, I guess being in a cold place where they have to wear a brown fur coat does make them a bit testy.

[+geodarts]

Questions to ponder:

Oops! I forgot one:

if I do a powertrail in, say, Canada, and stub my toe, can I hold the reviewer liable?

 

I would be more concerned about being eaten by an alligator in a swamp.

In Canada?

 

The Canadian ones are the most dangerous.

Yeah, I guess being in a cold place where they have to wear a brown fur coat does make them a bit testy.

 

Exactly. They were brought there when various people visited other parts of their family in Louisiana. Once taken North they mutated, and have a special fixation for film cans left along roadways. This would be off topic, but it brings to mind the giant mutated scorpions near Barstow that escaped from a Hollywood set, where they were filming a disaster epic based upon the creatures terrifying the local population. The movie ran out of money and was never made, but the scorpions remain. About eight feet tall. With mean looks. If you get out to Barstow, just keep an eye out and all will be well since they move rather slowly compared to the average cacher -- or the average time it takes to sign a log and get back in the car.

 

Still, if you stop for coffee along the old Route 66, you might think about having to live in the area with these creatures and give the waitress a very large tip. I did the last time I was there. Or was that in Needles? Now back to the regular issues . . .

Edited February 11, 2011 by mulvaney

[+Ecylram]

Once taken North they mutated, and have a special fixation for film cans left along roadways.

 

Then there must be a lot of Canadians in my area.

[RedShoesGirl]

...This would be off topic, but it brings to mind the giant mutated scorpions near Barstow that escaped from a Hollywood set, where they were filming a disaster epic based upon the creatures terrifying the local population. The movie ran out of money and was never made, but the scorpions remain. About eight feet tall. With mean looks. If you get out to Barstow, just keep an eye out and all will be well since they move rather slowly compared to the average cacher -- or the average time it takes to sign a log and get back in the car....

 

wow! you've seen them too. amazing!