Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
niraD

New Cache Type: Numbers Run Trail?

Recommended Posts

In the Allowing Smileys for each Stage of a Multi cache? thread, fizzymagic wrote:

You know, I was thinking about this topic, and I realized that multicaches with a smiley per stage might be a way to deal with the power-trail problem. There are several advantages:

 

  • Multi stages don't have to be 528 feet apart, so you could get thousands of smileys per mile.
  • The multicache owner could explicitly allow moving containers from one stage to another, obviating the whole debate about that practice.
  • The entire power trail would show up as one cache, eliminating the PQ pollution problem.

Maybe it's worth considering.

 

(Sorry if this is off-topic. If anybody else likes the idea, maybe we should start a new thread.)

I think this idea is worth considering, but it is off-topic for the original thread. Thus, I split it into a new thread.

 

I think it makes sense to create a numbers run trail cache type that is essentially the same as a multi-cache, but with the ability to log multiple Finds. Actually, the need to copy-paste when logging a numbers run trail could be eliminated, if the log form simply allowed you to specify how many caches you found on the numbers run trail. So in addition to the potential advantages fizzymagic suggested, those who do numbers run trails wouldn't need to spend hours copy-pasting logs. They would just post a single log and specify how many of the containers they found.

 

I think it would be better for stages of a numbers run trail to remain at least 528ft/161m apart though, so that might be another difference between a multi-cache and a numbers run trail.

 

So, assuming that numbers run trails like the ET Highway exist, and assuming that they will continue to exist, does a new cache type like this make sense?

Share this post


Link to post

Outstanding! You can place a stage every 10 feet. Make them all arrows pointing to the next stage. People can just drive by and count the arrows. Geez, we're talking possibly 528 finds every mile. Traveling 60 MPH imagine how many finds you can pile up in 24 hours.

 

The current record is toast.

Share this post


Link to post

The problem I see with that is of keeping track of the ones found and not found and maintaining correct logs.

Having each cache unique on something like the ET power trail allows a person to know which ones they missed if they want to someday return and also allows the owner to verify which cache maybe went missing.

How would you log that you found caches 1-25, 27, 33 and 56 without each being a distinct cache page? How would it reward the correct smiley for the correct cache stage?

To me it would be easier to just give power trails their own attribute and not mess with turning them into multi-log-multi's.

Share this post


Link to post

The problem I see with that is of keeping track of the ones found and not found and maintaining correct logs.

Having each cache unique on something like the ET power trail allows a person to know which ones they missed if they want to someday return and also allows the owner to verify which cache maybe went missing.

How would you log that you found caches 1-25, 27, 33 and 56 without each being a distinct cache page? How would it reward the correct smiley for the correct cache stage?

To me it would be easier to just give power trails their own attribute and not mess with turning them into multi-log-multi's.

For once, I agree with you. This idea is kind of lame, it only encourages this behavior. Not that I don't like power trails, I would DIE for one near me. The closest thing we have here is a 100 cache long 10 mile trail... Worst part? You can't even drive from cache to cache, you have to walk or bike.

Share this post


Link to post

A cache series just posted recently near me that is similar to this new cache type. But stay in the current guidelines. This series has 6 caches in it. They are a mix of the regular puzzle and multi caches. Each of the first 5 cache has a clue in it that contribute to the 6th cache which is set up as a puzzle cache. Essentially its a multi cache that you can log each find. Here is the final in the series and points you at the other 5 caches.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=57a859f5-2d46-4d28-8b2d-d15129728368

Share this post


Link to post
Outstanding! You can place a stage every 10 feet. Make them all arrows pointing to the next stage. People can just drive by and count the arrows. Geez, we're talking possibly 528 finds every mile. Traveling 60 MPH imagine how many finds you can pile up in 24 hours.The current record is toast.
Yeah, that's why I don't like fizzymagic's suggestion of allowing stages of a numbers run trail to be closer than 528ft/161m. I think a numbers run trail should be like a multi-cache that requires its own stages to be 528ft/161m apart, but allows multiple Found logs (up to one per stage).

 

The problem I see with that is of keeping track of the ones found and not found and maintaining correct logs.Having each cache unique on something like the ET power trail allows a person to know which ones they missed if they want to someday return and also allows the owner to verify which cache maybe went missing.How would you log that you found caches 1-25, 27, 33 and 56 without each being a distinct cache page? How would it reward the correct smiley for the correct cache stage?
Given the practice of shuffling containers and logs from one cache of a numbers run trail to the next (and in some cases, from a cache of one numbers run trail to a cache of a different numbers run trail), I think verifying exactly which caches you found on a numbers run trail is pretty much a lost cause. If you care, then go ahead and keep track of which ones you found and which ones you didn't. If you find a couple hundred caches on the ET Highway numbers run trail today, then come back next month and find a couple hundred more, then just enter the total Find count for each day, and indicate in your logs (or in your private notes) which ones you've found so far.

Share this post


Link to post

Outstanding! You can place a stage every 10 feet. Make them all arrows pointing to the next stage. People can just drive by and count the arrows. Geez, we're talking possibly 528 finds every mile. Traveling 60 MPH imagine how many finds you can pile up in 24 hours.

 

The current record is toast.

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post

Given the practice of shuffling containers and logs from one cache of a numbers run trail to the next (and in some cases, from a cache of one numbers run trail to a cache of a different numbers run trail), I think verifying exactly which caches you found on a numbers run trail is pretty much a lost cause. If you care, then go ahead and keep track of which ones you found and which ones you didn't. If you find a couple hundred caches on the ET Highway numbers run trail today, then come back next month and find a couple hundred more, then just enter the total Find count for each day, and indicate in your logs (or in your private notes) which ones you've found so far.

See I've not been convinced that practice of moving containers to a different location is actually condoned by the guidelines. It may well happen but that does not mean it 'should' happen. Because it seems that following the progression of that one would be able to log say 50 caches in the middle area of the trail, claim finds on caches 1-50 and then return the following month lets say and be able to log 50 new caches in the same spot they logged the previous ones. It would not be the same container nor the same log so eventually all 1020ish logs would have the proper signature and then all 1020ish finds could be claimed while only visiting 50 spots. Or even easier a person could just sit at one cache and sign each log as they pass through that spot. I might as well arm-chair the trail from here since the cache owner cant disprove I found the caches since the logs are going all over the place :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

Not a good idea. It would make the find count even more meaningless than it already is, for those that care about it.

Share this post


Link to post

In the Allowing Smileys for each Stage of a Multi cache? thread, fizzymagic wrote:

You know, I was thinking about this topic, and I realized that multicaches with a smiley per stage might be a way to deal with the power-trail problem. There are several advantages:

 

  • Multi stages don't have to be 528 feet apart, so you could get thousands of smileys per mile.
  • The multicache owner could explicitly allow moving containers from one stage to another, obviating the whole debate about that practice.
  • The entire power trail would show up as one cache, eliminating the PQ pollution problem.

Maybe it's worth considering.

 

(Sorry if this is off-topic. If anybody else likes the idea, maybe we should start a new thread.)

I think this idea is worth considering, but it is off-topic for the original thread. Thus, I split it into a new thread.

 

I think it makes sense to create a numbers run trail cache type that is essentially the same as a multi-cache, but with the ability to log multiple Finds. Actually, the need to copy-paste when logging a numbers run trail could be eliminated, if the log form simply allowed you to specify how many caches you found on the numbers run trail. So in addition to the potential advantages fizzymagic suggested, those who do numbers run trails wouldn't need to spend hours copy-pasting logs. They would just post a single log and specify how many of the containers they found.

 

I think it would be better for stages of a numbers run trail to remain at least 528ft/161m apart though, so that might be another difference between a multi-cache and a numbers run trail.

 

So, assuming that numbers run trails like the ET Highway exist, and assuming that they will continue to exist, does a new cache type like this make sense?

 

If there's an attribute or special cache type I can leave out of my PQ, then I'm all for it.

Share this post


Link to post

Outstanding! You can place a stage every 10 feet. Make them all arrows pointing to the next stage. People can just drive by and count the arrows. Geez, we're talking possibly 528 finds every mile. Traveling 60 MPH imagine how many finds you can pile up in 24 hours.

 

The current record is toast.

Do I detect a wee bit of sarcasm?

Share this post


Link to post

I'll go a step further and combine two current threads and suggest that you get a smiley for each letter in the online log. Then we'll get the Power Trail cachers C&Ping "War and Peace"

Share this post


Link to post

SNIP

 

Geez, we're talking possibly 528 finds every mile. Traveling 60 MPH imagine how many finds you can pile up in 24 hours.

 

760,320 give or take a couple if you blink :lol:

Edited by BC & MsKitty

Share this post


Link to post

This is an absolutely Brilliant idea.

 

I just checked, and my GC Username takes up about 1.5 inches of space when I sign a logsheet. That averages out to be 8 signatures per foot, or 42,240 signatures per mile.

 

Timing myself, I can realistically sign my Username in 5 seconds, and still have it legible. That would be 12 signatures a minute, or 720 signatures per hour, OR 17,280 signatures in a 24 hr period.

 

That calculates out to be a 24 hour world record run of 17,280 Fizzy/niraD Geocaches in 2,160 feet, or just slightly over 0.4 miles.

 

To complete an entire Fizzy Mile of caches arranged in this manner would take me 2.44 days.

 

Truly mind boggling to think about.

 

Thanks Fizzymagic and niraD. You guys are geniuses :)

Share this post


Link to post
Timing myself, I can realistically sign my Username in 5 seconds, and still have it legible. That would be 12 signatures a minute, or 720 signatures per hour, OR 17,280 signatures in a 24 hr period.

 

If you can write anything non-stop for 24 hours you need to leave this website for the companion site RobotCaching.com :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post
Given the practice of shuffling containers and logs from one cache of a numbers run trail to the next (and in some cases, from a cache of one numbers run trail to a cache of a different numbers run trail), I think verifying exactly which caches you found on a numbers run trail is pretty much a lost cause. If you care, then go ahead and keep track of which ones you found and which ones you didn't. If you find a couple hundred caches on the ET Highway numbers run trail today, then come back next month and find a couple hundred more, then just enter the total Find count for each day, and indicate in your logs (or in your private notes) which ones you've found so far.
See I've not been convinced that practice of moving containers to a different location is actually condoned by the guidelines. It may well happen but that does not mean it 'should' happen.
I'm not saying that the current guidelines condone shuffling caches/logs on a numbers run trail. I'm not saying that it should happen. Actually, I think the practice violates the basic "sign the logbook and return the geocache to its original location" rule. But shuffling caches/logs on a numbers run trail seems to be pretty widespread, and is condoned by at least some owners of numbers run trails.

 

Not a good idea. It would make the find count even more meaningless than it already is, for those that care about it.
Given the existence of the ET Highway caches and similar numbers run trails, I think that ship has sailed.

 

I just checked, and my GC Username takes up about 1.5 inches of space when I sign a logsheet. That averages out to be 8 signatures per foot, or 42,240 signatures per mile.

 

Timing myself, I can realistically sign my Username in 5 seconds, and still have it legible. That would be 12 signatures a minute, or 720 signatures per hour, OR 17,280 signatures in a 24 hr period.

I didn't think there was a requirement for logs to be signed by hand. My printer can generate more than 1000 copies of my name every 3 seconds... :)

Share this post


Link to post

This is an absolutely Brilliant idea.

 

I just checked, and my GC Username takes up about 1.5 inches of space when I sign a logsheet. That averages out to be 8 signatures per foot, or 42,240 signatures per mile.

 

Timing myself, I can realistically sign my Username in 5 seconds, and still have it legible. That would be 12 signatures a minute, or 720 signatures per hour, OR 17,280 signatures in a 24 hr period.

 

That calculates out to be a 24 hour world record run of 17,280 Fizzy/niraD Geocaches in 2,160 feet, or just slightly over 0.4 miles.

 

To complete an entire Fizzy Mile of caches arranged in this manner would take me 2.44 days.

 

Dude! You are not thinking right. That's what custom stamps are for. I'll bet you can do a stamp per second. The hard part will be doing it while leaning out of the car door for 24 hours.

 

I was actually semi-serious about this proposal. Find counts have become entirely meaningless with the proliferation of power trails, so just let those that care log as many finds as they want. As long as it doesn't clog up my PQs, I could basically care less.

Share this post


Link to post

This is an absolutely Brilliant idea.

 

I just checked, and my GC Username takes up about 1.5 inches of space when I sign a logsheet. That averages out to be 8 signatures per foot, or 42,240 signatures per mile.

 

Timing myself, I can realistically sign my Username in 5 seconds, and still have it legible. That would be 12 signatures a minute, or 720 signatures per hour, OR 17,280 signatures in a 24 hr period.

 

That calculates out to be a 24 hour world record run of 17,280 Fizzy/niraD Geocaches in 2,160 feet, or just slightly over 0.4 miles.

 

To complete an entire Fizzy Mile of caches arranged in this manner would take me 2.44 days.

 

Dude! You are not thinking right. That's what custom stamps are for. I'll bet you can do a stamp per second. The hard part will be doing it while leaning out of the car door for 24 hours.

 

I was actually semi-serious about this proposal. Find counts have become entirely meaningless with the proliferation of power trails, so just let those that care log as many finds as they want. As long as it doesn't clog up my PQs, I could basically care less.

 

You guys are forgetting one thing. With a multi there is no need to stop and sign logs at the intermediate stages. Those stages could be any sort of director with no requirement to even stop and log. Imagine the possibilities! I'm very enthusiastic about this idea. It has taken me nearly 10 years to rack up 800 finds. I can double that number in two minutes! This might be the best thing to come to geocaching since ammo boxes.

Share this post


Link to post

You guys are forgetting one thing. With a multi there is no need to stop and sign logs at the intermediate stages. Those stages could be any sort of director with no requirement to even stop and log. Imagine the possibilities! I'm very enthusiastic about this idea. It has taken me nearly 10 years to rack up 800 finds. I can double that number in two minutes! This might be the best thing to come to geocaching since ammo boxes.

 

Heck they could be "virtual" stages to a multi. I'm going to create a new multi-smile trail and call it "All the Mile Markers on I-65 North and South-bound"! I hope your enthusiasm is now at least doubled if not goodropled!

 

Heck, I'm not even thinking big enough for my own brain! It could be "All the Random White Reflectors on I-65 North and South-bound"!!!

Share this post


Link to post

For once, I agree with you. This idea is kind of lame, it only encourages this behavior. Not that I don't like power trails, I would DIE for one near me. The closest thing we have here is a 100 cache long 10 mile trail... Worst part? You can't even drive from cache to cache, you have to walk or bike.

 

Worst part?!?! That to me is the best part!

Share this post


Link to post
Worst part? You can't even drive from cache to cache, you have to walk or bike.

 

Worst part?!?! That to me is the best part!

 

But why? You can walk or bike to any cache if you want to, even if it's a drive-in!

Share this post


Link to post
Multi stages don't have to be 528 feet apart, so you could get thousands of smileys per mile.

At some point it ceases to be "geocaching" and becomes something else. <_<

Share this post


Link to post

Just pretending that the OP's suggestion was serious:

 

I'm not in favor of this idea for the simple reason that just because several caches are set up in a row doesn't mean I am forced to race along logging them all. I might wish to log one today and a few more next week, or never return. That's my choice and the biggest reason that I am not in favor of getting rid of 'power trails', making them multis, or creating a new cache type for them.

Share this post


Link to post

Just pretending that the OP's suggestion was serious:

 

I'm not in favor of this idea for the simple reason that just because several caches are set up in a row doesn't mean I am forced to race along logging them all. I might wish to log one today and a few more next week, or never return. That's my choice and the biggest reason that I am not in favor of getting rid of 'power trails', making them multis, or creating a new cache type for them.

 

Pretty much sums up my opinion as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Multi stages don't have to be 528 feet apart, so you could get thousands of smileys per mile.
At some point it ceases to be "geocaching" and becomes something else. <_<
For the record, it was fizzymagic who wrote that, not me. I merely quoted him.

 

And I agree. IMHO, the cache shuffling that occurs on numbers run trails is no longer geocaching. If it were geocaching, then they'd return each geocache to its original location.

 

But I've been told that numbers run trails are "a significant variation from standard caching". If so, then a new cache type seems appropriate as a way to reduce conflict between those expecting standard caching and those expecting numbers run trails.

 

Just pretending that the OP's suggestion was serious:
Depending on who you consider the OP to be... fizzymagic has already said that he was "semi-serious", and I am serious. I think the basic idea makes more sense than what's going on right now, although I disagree with fizzymagic about whether the 528ft/161m guideline should apply between stages of a numbers run trail.

 

I'm not in favor of this idea for the simple reason that just because several caches are set up in a row doesn't mean I am forced to race along logging them all. I might wish to log one today and a few more next week, or never return. That's my choice and the biggest reason that I am not in favor of getting rid of 'power trails', making them multis, or creating a new cache type for them.
Interesting. Most of the comments I've read have indicated that the value of a numbers run trail like the ET Highway trail isn't in the individual caches, but in the effort required to find as many of them as possible in a given period of time.

Share this post


Link to post
I'm not in favor of this idea for the simple reason that just because several caches are set up in a row doesn't mean I am forced to race along logging them all. I might wish to log one today and a few more next week, or never return. That's my choice and the biggest reason that I am not in favor of getting rid of 'power trails', making them multis, or creating a new cache type for them.

I fail to see how my proposal prevents you from logging some one day and others later. It does not. You can just make two (or more) logs, each with the number you found that day.

 

All of the positive comments I have read concerning the power trails have had to do with the challenge, getting out to the area, and doing the trail with friends. This proposal does not eliminate any of those features.

Share this post


Link to post
Worst part? You can't even drive from cache to cache, you have to walk or bike.

 

Worst part?!?! That to me is the best part!

 

But why? You can walk or bike to any cache if you want to, even if it's a drive-in!

 

But it's so much nicer to walk in the woods than in the Best Buy parking lot.

Share this post


Link to post
But it's so much nicer to walk in the woods than in the Best Buy parking lot.

 

good point :D

Share this post


Link to post

I can only see this happing if ARL's are brought back. As a power trail owner there is no way I could be expected to go out and verify that each of the 528 per mile stages have been signed, let alone maintenance of them. The ARL could be accomplished if I use CHIRP at each stage with a code for the finder to use. Just think of the environmental impact I am also avoiding.

Share this post


Link to post
I'm not in favor of this idea for the simple reason that just because several caches are set up in a row doesn't mean I am forced to race along logging them all. I might wish to log one today and a few more next week, or never return. That's my choice and the biggest reason that I am not in favor of getting rid of 'power trails', making them multis, or creating a new cache type for them.
Interesting. Most of the comments I've read have indicated that the value of a numbers run trail like the ET Highway trail isn't in the individual caches, but in the effort required to find as many of them as possible in a given period of time.

That is no doubt the value of the trails for those people who wish to do a numbers run. Someone who just wishes to go out and find a couple of caches while enjoying his/her day probably values them differently. I believe that you and fizzymagic are ignoring the value that the individual caches have and instead are fixating only on the group of caches and behaviors that some cachers have when finding them. Through the glasses that you are viewing these caches from, I suppose that you idea has some merit, but it ignores that cache trails are comprised of individual caches. Individual cachers look for these caches for reasons that are all their own.

 

Assuming that all cachers have the same interests and motivations is a recipe for disaster.

Share this post


Link to post

As a power trail owner there is no way I could be expected to go out and verify that each of the 528 per mile stages have been signed, let alone maintenance of them.

Don't you agree to do that when placing ANY cache on this site?

If a cache is too difficult for you to maintain properly then you need to reconsider your cache. :ph34r:

 

 

Edit:left out a 'r'

Edited by cx1

Share this post


Link to post

As a power trail owner there is no way I could be expected to go out and verify that each of the 528 per mile stages have been signed, let alone maintenance of them.

Don't you agree to do that when placing ANY cache on this site?

If a cache is too difficult for you to maintain properly then you need to reconsider your cache. :ph34r:

 

I'm a Power Trail supporter, but I totally agree with cx1. If you're placing a Power Trail you need to have plan in place to maintain it. That's why many Power Trails are setup by groups , so the work load is spread among each individual and is manageable.

Share this post


Link to post
As a power trail owner there is no way I could be expected to go out and verify that each of the 528 per mile stages have been signed, let alone maintenance of them.

Looks like it's time to submit "Should Be Archived" on each cache in your power trail since you state you cannot maintain them.

Share this post


Link to post
Most of the comments I've read have indicated that the value of a numbers run trail like the ET Highway trail isn't in the individual caches, but in the effort required to find as many of them as possible in a given period of time.
That is no doubt the value of the trails for those people who wish to do a numbers run. Someone who just wishes to go out and find a couple of caches while enjoying his/her day probably values them differently.
I don't see anything in the proposal that would prevent someone from finding and logging a couple stages of a numbers run trail. They could even post separate logs for each stage if they wanted to follow standard geocaching practices.

 

As a power trail owner there is no way I could be expected to go out and verify that each of the 528 per mile stages have been signed, let alone maintenance of them.
Don't you agree to do that when placing ANY cache on this site?If a cache is too difficult for you to maintain properly then you need to reconsider your cache.
Given that logs and containers from numbers run trails are being shuffled, sometimes being found miles away from where they started, I don't see any way for a CO to verify finds on a numbers run trail. If that's really a show stopper, then existing numbers run trails should be archived, or at least, the log/container shuffling should end. If that isn't a show stopper (and based on the continued listing of the ET Highway caches on the site, I have to assume that it isn't), then why not formalize this "significant variation from standard caching" by creating a separate cache type for it?

 

Edit: grammar

Edited by niraD

Share this post


Link to post

For once, I agree with you. This idea is kind of lame, it only encourages this behavior. Not that I don't like power trails, I would DIE for one near me. The closest thing we have here is a 100 cache long 10 mile trail... Worst part? You can't even drive from cache to cache, you have to walk or bike.

 

Worst part?!?! That to me is the best part!

+1 I was thinking the exact same thing.

Share this post


Link to post

or at least, the log/container shuffling should end.

I would support that 100%

While it might not be strictly against the guidelines (though it also might be, I am unsure) it seems to be counter to the idea that you put the cache back where you found it. I don't believe that idea has the disclaimer of 'unless you are in a hurry'.

If one were to use the excuse that maintenance and log verification can't be performed due to cache containers being moved then why bother with the containers at all? Just make a cache that automatically awards 500 smileys. If people wish to be more traditional about it they can just pick a random spot to wander around and pretend to look for the caches. They could even write their names on bits of paper. Everyone wins.

Hyperbole aside as long as they make these new ??? (power-multi? claim-stage multi? all you for this idea really need to come up with a snappy name for them) able to be filtered out (without stealing another cache type attribute)then I will not attempt to prevent you from doing so. In fact I wish you well on your attempt.

Share this post


Link to post
The closest thing we have here is a 100 cache long 10 mile trail... Worst part? You can't even drive from cache to cache, you have to walk or bike.
FWIW, I see a difference between that kind of trail (which I consider a traditional power trail) and numbers run trails like the ET Highway caches. Maybe this new cache type could help distinguish between the two.

 

A cache series just posted recently near me that is similar to this new cache type. But stay in the current guidelines. This series has 6 caches in it. They are a mix of the regular puzzle and multi caches. Each of the first 5 cache has a clue in it that contribute to the 6th cache which is set up as a puzzle cache. Essentially its a multi cache that you can log each find. Here is the final in the series and points you at the other 5 caches.
A series with a bonus cache like that really isn't anything like a numbers run trail. Numbers run trails have hundreds of closely spaced, nearly identical hides. The nearly identical hides make it easier to find the caches extremely quickly. For one thing, once you've found one, you can spot later cache locations as you drive up. For another, it makes cache shuffling possible. Cache shuffling is the practice of:
  • taking the container from cache #1, leaving a new container with a signed/stamp log in its place
  • signing/stamping the log from cache #1 while driving to cache #2
  • taking the container from cache #2, leaving the container from cache #1 (which now has a signed/stamped log) in its place
  • signing/stamping the log from cache #2 while driving to cache #3
  • and repeating this process for the rest of the numbers run trail.

Share this post


Link to post

Cache shuffling is the practice of:

  • taking the container from cache #1, leaving a new container with a signed/stamp log in its place
  • signing/stamping the log from cache #1 while driving to cache #2
  • taking the container from cache #2, leaving the container from cache #1 (which now has a signed/stamped log) in its place
  • signing/stamping the log from cache #2 while driving to cache #3
  • and repeating this process for the rest of the numbers run trail.

So what is supposed to happen at the end of the shuffle?


  • The cache seeker takes the last log with several other people's signatures back to the 1st cache.
    The cache seeker throws the last log away destroying other cachers logs.
    The cache seeker leaves the 'extra' log in the last cache but considering they are normally micros I would think it would quickly be too full to add more logs, so then what?

I don't mind power trails but I am not so sure about this shuffle business.

Share this post


Link to post
The closest thing we have here is a 100 cache long 10 mile trail... Worst part? You can't even drive from cache to cache, you have to walk or bike.
FWIW, I see a difference between that kind of trail (which I consider a traditional power trail) and numbers run trails like the ET Highway caches. Maybe this new cache type could help distinguish between the two.

 

In some ways, the difference is sort of like how one of our Supreme Court justices once defined other types of distinctions: "I know if when I see it." In my area there is a biking trail that now has around 100 caches or more. These were placed by different owners, with different styles of hides, over time. And to my mind it is distinct from the repetitive caching trails that have sprung up at various places.

 

I have long thought that there should be a separate attribute or cache type for the latter type of experience. Repetitive caching is caching, but it is a different experience than most traditional caches. A separate designation would help identify these caches for the people who like to do them and allow others to easily filter them out. It would do a lot to eliminate the kind of angst that periodically erupts on this forum over claims of world records and the like.

 

I would not go so far as to add "the ability to log multiple Finds" so that copy-pasting is eliminated by a form that "simply allowed you to specify how many caches you found on the numbers run trail." I did a limited number of caches along the ET trail when I was last in the area to see what the experience was all about. If I ever return to the area I might want to do others that I have not found by narrowing the pq accordingly. Simply specifying the numbers I found would not be enough.

 

In addition, the real challenge on a repetitive trail is not to copy and paste - I have to admit that after over a hundred logs, I was having to think twice about what I could say about any given cache and had long exhausted the pictures that I wanted to include with my logs. So if I really got into the numbers I would have to do a lot more with it.

Edited by mulvaney

Share this post


Link to post

I think it would work just fine.

 

  • place all of the waypoints for the powertrail on one page so they can be either uploaded or ignored easily.
  • have logbooks in each cache and a dropdown list to choose how many you found.
  • allow the proximity guideline changed to not interfere with other caches, or itself.
  • give it its own icon, or cache type called powertrail.

 

The powertrail numbers would boost the find count, but would be easy for anyone to see how they got their numbers. They could simply be ignored with one click, and nobody would have to use the scuba attribute. There would not be a load of cache notifications to delete either. Finders could post just one log for the entire series, and one log listing those that need maintenance.

Share this post


Link to post
The closest thing we have here is a 100 cache long 10 mile trail... Worst part? You can't even drive from cache to cache, you have to walk or bike.
FWIW, I see a difference between that kind of trail (which I consider a traditional power trail) and numbers run trails like the ET Highway caches. Maybe this new cache type could help distinguish between the two.

 

In some ways, the difference is sort of like how one of our Supreme Court justices once defined other types of distinctions: "I know if when I see it." In my area there is a biking trail that now has around 100 caches or more. These were placed by different owners, with different styles of hides, over time. And to my mind it is distinct from the repetitive caching trails that have sprung up at various places.

 

I have long thought that there should be a separate attribute or cache type for the latter type of experience. Repetitive caching is caching, but it is a different experience than most traditional caches. A separate designation would help identify these caches for the people who like to do them and allow others to easily filter them out. It would do a lot to eliminate the kind of angst that periodically erupts on this forum over claims of world records and the like.

 

I would not go so far as to add "the ability to log multiple Finds" so that copy-pasting is eliminated by a form that "simply allowed you to specify how many caches you found on the numbers run trail." I did a limited number of caches along the ET trail when I was last in the area to see what the experience was all about. If I ever return to the area I might want to do others that I have not found by narrowing the pq accordingly. Simply specifying the numbers I found would not be enough.

 

In addition, the real challenge on a repetitive trail is not to copy and paste - I have to admit that after over a hundred logs, I was having to think twice about what I could say about any given cache and had long exhausted the pictures that I wanted to include with my logs. So if I really got into the numbers I would have to do a lot more with it.

Repetitive caching is something that cache seekers do, not cache placers. No one forced you to go find 100 identical caches. You could have actually just gone and found one. That one cache that you found would not be identicle to any other caches that you found that day. Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post

I think it would work just fine.

 

  • place all of the waypoints for the powertrail on one page so they can be either uploaded or ignored easily.
  • have logbooks in each cache and a dropdown list to choose how many you found.
  • allow the proximity guideline changed to not interfere with other caches, or itself.
  • give it its own icon, or cache type called powertrail.

 

The powertrail numbers would boost the find count, but would be easy for anyone to see how they got their numbers. They could simply be ignored with one click, and nobody would have to use the scuba attribute. There would not be a load of cache notifications to delete either. Finders could post just one log for the entire series, and one log listing those that need maintenance.

Alternatively, they could just come out with a 'cache trail' attribute. It's a much simpler solution and one better suited to the reality of the situation. As a bonus, multiple owners of caches along the same trail to properly flag the caches along the trail.

Share this post


Link to post

Repetitive caching is something that cache seekers do, not cache finders. No one forced you to go find 100 identical caches. You could have actually just gone and found one. That one cache that you found would not be identicle to any other caches that you found that day.

 

Agreed. I was very tempted to do just one on the ET trail and simply focus on the caches apart from the trail, but other considerations tempted me even more.

 

Yet, there is a difference between a series of caches set up for a particular purpose of facilitating a repetitive numbers run and other types of hides. At the very least an attribute or separate type would allow that type of caching experience to be easily identified, regardless of whether you choose to do a single cache or a thousand.

 

Cache owners could choose to identify their series in this way. Cache seekers could choose to focus on this particular type of cache, ignore them all, or do just one. There would be less angst about record claims and numbers (although I am not quite sure why there is any angst at all).

 

As long as each cache is logged individually, I don't see a downside in the way that certain caches are identified. I do have a problem with the drop down menu approach because I want to easily do a pq that indicates which caches remain to be found should I return to that area with more of a caching focus.

Edited by mulvaney

Share this post


Link to post

Alternatively, they could just come out with a 'cache trail' attribute. It's a much simpler solution and one better suited to the reality of the situation. As a bonus, multiple owners of caches along the same trail to properly flag the caches along the trail.

 

I like this idea. It addresses the issue of people avoiding these caches and makes it easy for those want to find them. Makes making a trail Pocket Query easy.

Share this post


Link to post
So what is supposed to happen at the end of the shuffle?


  • The cache seeker takes the last log with several other people's signatures back to the 1st cache.
    The cache seeker throws the last log away destroying other cachers logs.
    The cache seeker leaves the 'extra' log in the last cache but considering they are normally micros I would think it would quickly be too full to add more logs, so then what?

Good question. I can't say what is supposed to happen, but in at least in some cases, what actually does happen is that containers from the ET Highway numbers run trail are swapped for containers on the Route 66 numbers run trail.

 

I don't mind power trails but I am not so sure about this shuffle business.
Same here. While I agree that shuffling containers is a clever "optimization" of the numbers run process, I think it crosses the line. Swapping a container for one containing a pre-signed log would be completely unacceptable for any other kind of cache. If numbers run trails where this practice is endorsed are going to be listed here, then IMHO they should be listed as a different type of cache.

Share this post


Link to post
Alternatively, they could just come out with a 'cache trail' attribute. It's a much simpler solution and one better suited to the reality of the situation. As a bonus, multiple owners of caches along the same trail to properly flag the caches along the trail.
I think the differences between numbers run trails and normal geocaching are much more significant than an attribute should indicate. The differences are at least as significant as the differences between a traditional cache and a multi-cache, or between a multi-cache and a mystery/puzzle cache.

Share this post


Link to post
I don't mind power trails but I am not so sure about this shuffle business.
Same here. While I agree that shuffling containers is a clever "optimization" of the numbers run process, I think it crosses the line. Swapping a container for one containing a pre-signed log would be completely unacceptable for any other kind of cache. If numbers run trails where this practice is endorsed are going to be listed here, then IMHO they should be listed as a different type of cache.

Listing them as a different type isn't necessary. A simpler solution is for TPTB to simply archive any cache for which the owner allows such a practice as a violation of the moving cache/pocket cache guidelines.

Share this post


Link to post
Alternatively, they could just come out with a 'cache trail' attribute. It's a much simpler solution and one better suited to the reality of the situation. As a bonus, multiple owners of caches along the same trail to properly flag the caches along the trail.
I think the differences between numbers run trails and normal geocaching are much more significant than an attribute should indicate. The differences are at least as significant as the differences between a traditional cache and a multi-cache, or between a multi-cache and a mystery/puzzle cache.

I disagree.

 

There is no significant difference between a micro hidden on a sign post that is part of a power trail and a micro hidden on a sign post that is not part of a power trail.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

×