Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
niraD

New Cache Type: Numbers Run Trail?

Recommended Posts

A lot of angst is being wasted on the "swapping containers" issue.

 

If it has been done at all, it has been by a very tiny group of individuals. I know of no cache owner that has posted in their description that they allow this practice.

 

There has got to be 100 more pressing issue affecting the geocaching community than this one.

Share this post


Link to post

A lot of angst is being wasted on the "swapping containers" issue.

 

If it has been done at all, it has been by a very tiny group of individuals. I know of no cache owner that has posted in their description that they allow this practice.

 

There has got to be 100 more pressing issue affecting the geocaching community than this one.

Cache owners are on record as acknowedging, supporting and even suggesting this practice be used on their caches. It matters not that they did not include this information in teh cache description.

Share this post


Link to post

A lot of angst is being wasted on the "swapping containers" issue.

 

If it has been done at all, it has been by a very tiny group of individuals. I know of no cache owner that has posted in their description that they allow this practice.

 

There has got to be 100 more pressing issue affecting the geocaching community than this one.

Cache owners are on record as acknowedging, supporting and even suggesting this practice be used on their caches. It matters not that they did not include this information in teh cache description.

 

Not that you should here, but I bet you can't name one. All we've got is a secondhand report that one prominent owners group is 'ok' with it, but they haven't actually publicly said that is the case.

 

But then I'm not saying it hasn't happened, I'm saying it's a miniscule issue if it is one at all.

Edited by Ecylram

Share this post


Link to post
Not that you should here, but I bet you can't name one. All we've got is a secondhand report that one prominent owners group is 'ok' with it, but they haven't actually publicly said that is the case.

The only thing I have to go on is this report in a blog from a power caching team after tackling one of the many new power trails:

 

The cache owner’s suggestion and what a vast majority of teams have found to be the most logical and effective technique for this craziness is to bring a film can with a log presigned, replace the first cache with that, and sign the cache you pick up while driving to the next cache, then swap. It’s been essential for cachers to bring lots of extra film cans to replace missing ones

It's true that I have yet to see a CO post such a suggestion to a cache page (or here in the forums).

Share this post


Link to post
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.
Well, Groundspeak seems to have ignored the requests to archive the ET Highway caches for violating the moving cache/pocket cache guidelines, so I'm assuming that numbers run trails like that are here to stay. Given that they are here to stay, I think they should be a new type.

 

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.
If you look at the individual film canisters, then there might not be much difference between a "Nopar King" micro-cache hidden on the side of the road and a "Shuffle Me #987 of 1234" micro-cache hidden on the side of the road. But in the context of a numbers run trail where the owners encourage cache shuffling to facilitate extreme find rates, I think there's a huge difference. As I've been told, numbers run trails are "a significant variation from standard caching". I think that "significant variation" deserves a separate cache type.

Share this post


Link to post
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.
Well, Groundspeak seems to have ignored the requests to archive the ET Highway caches for violating the moving cache/pocket cache guidelines, so I'm assuming that numbers run trails like that are here to stay. Given that they are here to stay, I think they should be a new type.

 

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.
If you look at the individual film canisters, then there might not be much difference between a "Nopar King" micro-cache hidden on the side of the road and a "Shuffle Me #987 of 1234" micro-cache hidden on the side of the road. But in the context of a numbers run trail where the owners encourage cache shuffling to facilitate extreme find rates, I think there's a huge difference. As I've been told, numbers run trails are "a significant variation from standard caching". I think that "significant variation" deserves a separate cache type.

Regardless of what a few cache owners allow as far as logging goes, the individual caches are still just traditional caches. As such, it makes no sense to create a new cache type for them. An attribute would work so much better.

Share this post


Link to post

they are traditional caches, 528+ feet apart...they are no more their unique icon than a lamp post or a guard rail cache. I personally will never do the ET run or any such run strictly to boost ones raw numbers, I think its downright silly to just do the same cache 700 times in a row, whether you are in a team of 4, use stickers, whatever. If a challenge cache cant have its own icon, I doubt these will/should. I also think any "trick" to allow them to be closer together, logged easier, is wrong too. You found 1000 of them, you log them, I would say. So many folks say the same thing on every log find, which is not very exciting to read, why allow a tool to make the practice easier and more widespread.

 

As you can see, at least in my opinion, am not a fun of these in general.

Share this post


Link to post

If you look at the individual film canisters, then there might not be much difference between a "Nopar King" micro-cache hidden on the side of the road and a "Shuffle Me #987 of 1234" micro-cache hidden on the side of the road. But in the context of a numbers run trail where the owners encourage cache shuffling to facilitate extreme find rates, I think there's a huge difference. As I've been told, numbers run trails are "a significant variation from standard caching". I think that "significant variation" deserves a separate cache type.

This is interesting.

I am now 'on the fence" between an attribute or a new cache type being the best solution to the shuffle-cache idea with the given idea that the shuffle-cache is or would be officially allowed.

It seems that shuffle-caches are set up to be found in a distinct period of time and not for future return visits. Not that the caches can't last for a long period, just more of the finder gets one shot at them, finds what they can in the time period they have and then goes on to something else. Because other wise a cache hunter could end up signing the same logs several times yet not signing many others while actually going to each cache location due to the shuffling that occurs while the cache hunter was away.

There would be no way for a cache owner to prove or disprove logs which does seem to make them different then all other cache types. It also opens them up to even more possible arm-chair abuse then virtual caches.

 

Anyway, it seems like now there would need to be a new cache type and a new attribute.

Since attributes are often not given and also often ignored something more obvious to all involved such as a new cache type would need to be given for cache runs that allow shuffling since shuffling is quite game changing compared to the other cache types.

But power-trails that do not allow shuffling are not unique enough to need a cache type and an attribute would be sufficient.

JMO YMMV

Share this post


Link to post

Interesting. Since the container shuffling is a key attribute of this type of cache, perhaps calling the new type something like "Shuffle Cache" makes more sense than "Numbers Run Trail" or "Power Trail".

 

Aside from the numbers run trails like the ET Highway, I think there are a couple types of power trail. One type develops naturally, with many cache owners filling in all the available space along a popular hiking trail. There are a number of places like this around here. I suppose all the individual owners could add a "power trail" attribute, given that the caches are hidden along a trail where each cache is less than 1056ft/322m from its nearest neighbor. But my guess is that the owners don't consider the caches to be part of a "power trail".

 

The other type is hidden as a unit. The Alien Head series would be a good example. The caches of these "power trails" are hidden approximately 528ft/161m from each other, they are all hidden by the same cache owner, and they are submitted together for publication. Owners of these series probably consider them to be a unit, so they'd probably use a "power trail" attribute.

 

But neither of these types of power trail is a container-shuffling numbers run trail.

Share this post


Link to post

In another thread, the term Three Cache Monte has been used to describe the process of exchanging containers on a numbers run trail. (The term is a based on the con game three-card Monte.) I think the term captures the concept of container shuffling well, so I offer the following draft of a new cache type for comments.

 

MonteCache80.pngMonteCache32.png

Shuffle Cache (Three Cache Monte)

This variation of a traditional cache is typically found during numbers runs (geocaching trips with extremely high find counts). Unlike other physical caches (which should be returned to their original locations), shuffle caches are completely interchangeable with other shuffle caches. Finders are encouraged to save time by replacing a shuffle cache with an equivalent container (typically a 35mm film canister) that contains a pre-signed log sheet. While driving to another shuffle cache, finders can sign the log sheet in the original container so it is ready to be left in exchange for another shuffle cache.

I still prefer the idea of treating this as a variation of a multi-cache though. Entering a single log and specifying how many containers were found seems much more efficient than copy-pasting hundreds of separate log entries.

Share this post


Link to post
Unlike other physical caches (which should be returned to their original locations), shuffle caches are completely interchangeable with other shuffle caches. Finders are encouraged to save time by replacing a shuffle cache with an equivalent container (typically a 35mm film canister) that contains a pre-signed log sheet. While driving to another shuffle cache, finders can sign the log sheet in the original container so it is ready to be left in exchange for another shuffle cache.

 

Sorry to be overly blunt, but this is a pile of censored stuff. It completely eliminates the whole point of having a log, so why even bother with the logs at all? Just skip the logs and shuffle empty containers around, which obviously has no point in itself either, so might just as well skip that too!

Share this post


Link to post
Unlike other physical caches (which should be returned to their original locations), shuffle caches are completely interchangeable with other shuffle caches. Finders are encouraged to save time by replacing a shuffle cache with an equivalent container (typically a 35mm film canister) that contains a pre-signed log sheet. While driving to another shuffle cache, finders can sign the log sheet in the original container so it is ready to be left in exchange for another shuffle cache.
Sorry to be overly blunt, but this is a pile of censored stuff. It completely eliminates the whole point of having a log, so why even bother with the logs at all? Just skip the logs and shuffle empty containers around, which obviously has no point in itself either, so might just as well skip that too!
I wouldn't put it quite like that, but essentially, I agree with you. If I were elected King of Geocaching™, then number run trails that encouraged/allowed cache shuffling would be archived. But clearly that isn't going to happen. Like it or not, Groundspeak condones the Three Cache Monte.

 

Given that this "significant variation from standard caching" is here to stay, I think the best approach is to create a separate cache type for this kind of cache. I originally suggested fizzymagic's idea of a variant of multi-cache that allows the finder to specify how many stages of the numbers run trail were found. However, that is a fairly significant change. My most recent suggestion merely defines the status quo. The only change would be listing numbers run trails like the ET Highway or Route 66 as Shuffle Caches, rather than as Traditional Caches.

 

As a bonus, the scuba cachers could have their attribute back.

Share this post


Link to post

In another thread, the term Three Cache Monte has been used to describe the process of exchanging containers on a numbers run trail. (The term is a based on the con game three-card Monte.) I think the term captures the concept of container shuffling well, so I offer the following draft of a new cache type for comments.

 

MonteCache80.pngMonteCache32.png

Shuffle Cache (Three Cache Monte)

This variation of a traditional cache is typically found during numbers runs (geocaching trips with extremely high find counts). Unlike other physical caches (which should be returned to their original locations), shuffle caches are completely interchangeable with other shuffle caches. Finders are encouraged to save time by replacing a shuffle cache with an equivalent container (typically a 35mm film canister) that contains a pre-signed log sheet. While driving to another shuffle cache, finders can sign the log sheet in the original container so it is ready to be left in exchange for another shuffle cache.

I still prefer the idea of treating this as a variation of a multi-cache though. Entering a single log and specifying how many containers were found seems much more efficient than copy-pasting hundreds of separate log entries.

 

Why the need for a log? It's all going to get mixed up anyway and won't be accurate. The PT owners aren't going to be checking the logs. If guidelines are a-changing so that swapping caches are allowed (tacitly for now) make the numbers-run cache type logless too, in order to speed up the number crunching.

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry to be overly blunt, but this is a pile of censored stuff. It completely eliminates the whole point of having a log, so why even bother with the logs at all? Just skip the logs and shuffle empty containers around, which obviously has no point in itself either, so might just as well skip that too!

 

Oops, missed reading dfx's reply. Yep, I fully agree. The logbook is pointless, why bother?

Share this post


Link to post

Thinking a separate cache type may eleviate 2 concerns we have about numbers runs:

1) The obvious cluttering of maps and PQs as these continue to grow.

2) Numbers runs can eat-up huge amounts of real estate. There are some really nice hiding spots within 528' of roads which can be quickly wiped-out by the acre with a single numbers run. This could provide a rule change that allows a traditional to be closer to a NR and vice versa.

 

Just thinking out loud.

Share this post


Link to post
MonteCache80.pngMonteCache32.png

Shuffle Cache (Three Cache Monte)

This variation of a traditional cache is typically found during numbers runs (geocaching trips with extremely high find counts). Unlike other physical caches (which should be returned to their original locations), shuffle caches are completely interchangeable with other shuffle caches. Finders are encouraged to save time by replacing a shuffle cache with an equivalent container (typically a 35mm film canister) that contains a pre-signed log sheet. While driving to another shuffle cache, finders can sign the log sheet in the original container so it is ready to be left in exchange for another shuffle cache.

I think it would be a good idea to make this type of cache. Personally, I don't think shuffling containers is a good idea, but it would be nice to have a special cache type in which people could shuffle if they liked, so no need for people to argue against shuffling traditionals.(Then traditionals shouldn't be shuffled.) :grin:

Share this post


Link to post
I wouldn't put it quite like that, but essentially, I agree with you. If I were elected King of Geocaching™, then number run trails that encouraged/allowed cache shuffling would be archived. But clearly that isn't going to happen. Like it or not, Groundspeak condones the Three Cache Monte.

 

Condoning something by not taking action against it is not the same thing as encouraging it though. I'm not sure Groundspeak actually condones the practice (even though evidence suggests that they do - probably just wishful thinking on my part) but explicitly encouraging it is a wholly different animal.

Share this post


Link to post
I'd simply create attributes for 'power trail' and 'three cache monte'.
An attribute might work for power trails, but I think the three cache monte (container/log shuffle) is a "significant variation from standard caching" that deserves a new type.

 

And no, not all power trails encourage the three cache monte. I know of one that is currently disabled while the owner sorts out the mess from people shuffling his containers.

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"!!!

 

The last idea has the making of a good Virtual Power Run. OOoooohhh... VPR!! Now that's a concept!

Share this post


Link to post

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.

 

Repetitive caching is something not done by cache placers? So...ET Alley really was created by forces unknown?

 

Caching is like Skiing. This Freestyle, Bunny Runs, Black Diamond. Salom, and even cross country. And then there are those people who somehow figured out a surfboard would be a great way to change skiing.

 

Point is - All caching is caching, but not all caching is the same caching for all cachers. (ok...just had a Buddha moment).

 

DocWahala

Share this post


Link to post

I have to say I'm starting to warm to the idea of reducing or even removing the limitations presently in place.

What say we line up micros or even nanos end to end, as far as the eye can see or until the gas tank runs out or our endurance fails.

this way we could have 63360 caches per mile or more if the nanos were less than an inch.

No logs to sign, no hiding, no online logs to enter, no effort and no life to live, but WOW, we could rack up the numbers, after all, numbers are the omly thing of importance here isn't it?

 

And in case you haven't picked up on it yet, Yes, I am being sarcastic.

Share this post


Link to post

I have to say I'm starting to warm to the idea of reducing or even removing the limitations presently in place.

What say we line up micros or even nanos end to end, as far as the eye can see or until the gas tank runs out or our endurance fails.

this way we could have 63360 caches per mile or more if the nanos were less than an inch.

No logs to sign, no hiding, no online logs to enter, no effort and no life to live, but WOW, we could rack up the numbers, after all, numbers are the omly thing of importance here isn't it?

 

And in case you haven't picked up on it yet, Yes, I am being sarcastic.

 

Eventually, one of those 63,000 nanos would get stuck in my truck's tire and cause a flat, then I wouldn't be able to finish driving that power trail.

 

Whoops.... I don't think it would have been a good idea to put those nanos so close to the road.

 

DocWahala

Edited by DocWahala

Share this post


Link to post
An attribute might work for power trails, but I think the three cache monte (container/log shuffle) is a "significant variation from standard caching" that deserves a new type.

I agree. :grin:

Share this post


Link to post

I have to say I'm starting to warm to the idea of reducing or even removing the limitations presently in place.

What say we line up micros or even nanos end to end, as far as the eye can see or until the gas tank runs out or our endurance fails.

this way we could have 63360 caches per mile or more if the nanos were less than an inch.

No logs to sign, no hiding, no online logs to enter, no effort and no life to live, but WOW, we could rack up the numbers, after all, numbers are the omly thing of importance here isn't it?

 

And in case you haven't picked up on it yet, Yes, I am being sarcastic.

 

Eventually, one of those 63,000 nanos would get stuck in my truck's tire and cause a flat, then I wouldn't be able to finish driving that power trail.

 

Whoops.... I don't think it would have been a good idea to put those nanos so close to the road.

 

DocWahala

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.

 

Wheres that? sounds fun to me!

Share this post


Link to post

I would be very diligent and place them well down in the ditch and through the nearest available culvert under the road so they wouldn't get stuck in your tires. I'm assuming you dont drive in the ditch very often.

Share this post


Link to post

I would be very diligent and place them well down in the ditch and through the nearest available culvert under the road so they wouldn't get stuck in your tires. I'm assuming you dont drive in the ditch very often.

 

Now where's the fun in having a truck with great big wheels if I canna drive in the ditch? ;)

Share this post


Link to post

I would be very diligent and place them well down in the ditch and through the nearest available culvert under the road so they wouldn't get stuck in your tires. I'm assuming you dont drive in the ditch very often.

 

Now where's the fun in having a truck with great big wheels if I canna drive in the ditch? ;)

 

If you wanna drive inna ditch, go ahead, but this is my ditch, stay outta my ditch.

Share this post


Link to post

I would be very diligent and place them well down in the ditch and through the nearest available culvert under the road so they wouldn't get stuck in your tires. I'm assuming you dont drive in the ditch very often.

 

Now where's the fun in having a truck with great big wheels if I canna drive in the ditch? ;)

 

If you wanna drive inna ditch, go ahead, but this is my ditch, stay outta my ditch.

 

Share some gas money and we can drive over, I mean, after the rest of those 63,000 nanos lined up in the ditch :D

Share this post


Link to post

I would be very diligent and place them well down in the ditch and through the nearest available culvert under the road so they wouldn't get stuck in your tires. I'm assuming you dont drive in the ditch very often.

 

Now where's the fun in having a truck with great big wheels if I canna drive in the ditch? ;)

 

If you wanna drive inna ditch, go ahead, but this is my ditch, stay outta my ditch.

 

Share some gas money and we can drive over, I mean, after the rest of those 63,000 nanos lined up in the ditch :D

I get it, I pay half the gas, do half the driving while you harvest all the nanos and not have a life, do you really think that's fair?

I'm on to you, you are trying to get me to help you get some of my nanos stuck in your tires, I'm watching you.

Darn, now I have to go find that tinfoil hat I keep for protection.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Share some gas money and we can drive over, I mean, after the rest of those 63,000 nanos lined up in the ditch :D

I get it, I pay half the gas, do half the driving while you harvest all the nanos and not have a life, do you really think that's fair?

I'm on to you, you are trying to get me to help you get some of my nanos stuck in your tires, I'm watching you.

Darn, now I have to go find that tinfoil hat I keep for protection.

 

I thought that was the idea of caching? to come up with new ways of racking up never to be repeated numbers. 63,000 caches? How can I not resist? In fact, to get a record like that, I would probably weld some form of scoop to the front of the truck, so it can just shovel them up and force feed them into the bed of the truck, where I would be paying three starving college students to spend all day putting on pre-printed stickers with "SL-DW!" and they could just throw them right over the side.

 

Since it combines so many of the power-cache tecnhniques and adds more, would have to come up with a new name for this technique. How about Power-Vacuum-leapfrogging-with-starving-students?

 

Big numbers means youhave to think big! That's what it is all about. don't let anyone fool you with words like "History", "Scenery" "Challenging to find". No...it's all about getting in the record book, and maybe scoring a big fat endorsement contract with Michellin and Jeep. Maybe even a cover spot on the Wheaties box.

 

:blink:

 

DocWahala

Share this post


Link to post

Creating jobs for starving college students, now that puts a different perspective on it, perhaps we could apply for a federal Obama-grant for funds to pay starving college student wages AND the design and construction of your ditch digging, nano spewing stern loader plus a gallon of gas, the gas would have to come out of the grant because by the time we get this together, gas will be $68.999 per gallon

I hope your truck gets at least ten miles per gallon otherwise it won't work.

Cover spot on a wheaties box? ooooooooooo, this could be exciting.

 

Now, where can I get 63000 film canisters?

Share this post


Link to post
I'd simply create attributes for 'power trail' and 'three cache monte'.
An attribute might work for power trails, but I think the three cache monte (container/log shuffle) is a "significant variation from standard caching" that deserves a new type.

Since I don't play three-cache-monte, it's not a 'significant variation from standard caching' for me. I can go find and log every one of those caches and replace it just where I found it. That's why no new cache type is necessary. I new attribute would serve to let people know that the option to shuffle the caches is available without making it required as a new cache type would suggest.

Share this post


Link to post

Now, where can I get 63000 film canisters?

 

Why can't we just photo copy the canister, laminate it, and call it a proxy canister?

 

DocWahala

Share this post


Link to post

Somehow, over the last year of so, I have been left behind the geocaching curve. Last year we put out 13 caches over a 2 1/2 mile very difficult hiking trail. The Reviewer made us remove half of them as she/he said they constituted a power trail. Now locally we have a committee of four cachers putting runs of a hundred or more caches all over the State. So are these not power trails? And is it now permissible? Can we go back out and put in the caches we were refused last year? Can someone enlighten me please!

Edited by parko

Share this post


Link to post

I think it might just be easier and allow people to specify in their profile a number they want added to their total find count and be done with this cheapness.

Share this post


Link to post

I think it might just be easier and allow people to specify in their profile a number they want added to their total find count and be done with this cheapness.

 

Or just let them specify a number of how many caches they've found ever. Fits right into the profile edit page: name, location, occupation, number of caches found.

 

No? :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

Somehow, over the last year of so, I have been left behind the geocaching curve. Last year we put out 13 caches over a 2 1/2 mile very difficult hiking trail. The Reviewer made us remove half of them as she/he said they constituted a power trail. Now locally we have a committee of four cachers putting runs of a hundred or more caches all over the State. So are these not power trails? And is it now permissible? Can we go back out and put in the caches we were refused last year? Can someone enlighten me please!

The guidelines and attitude of TPTB regarding power trails have been relaxed. It is likely that your other caches would now be listed.

Share this post


Link to post

I can sort of sympathize that cachers would like a way avoid the caches they think they would not enjoy. These caches (especially when they appear in large numbers) tend to clog up pocket queries and difficult to add en masse to your ignore list.

 

It may be that Groundspeak is reluctant to implement a filter (via a cache type or attribute) for any particular cache type based on someone wanting a way to ignore them. If they were to create a Numbers Run cache or a 3 Card Monte cache, they someone will want to ignore some other (nanos, LPCs, tupperware, ammo cans, etc.) On the other hand if a attribute or type seems to useful for those looking for a particular kind of hide, there seems to be more of chance of it being listed. So, for example, Park and Grab got added as an attribute. It seems many people wanted to find caches had easy parking and could be found quickly, so the attribute works as well for these people as it does for people who want to avoid these caches.

 

So what happens is most of these suggestions are really thinly veiled criticisms of certain cache types by those who object to them. To use an ice cream analogy, it's like asking for chocolate ice cream to be labeled as brown ice cream and we all know what things are brown. :mmraspberry:

Share this post


Link to post

I was under the impression that those who enjoy numbers run trails like being able to filter them in easily. The use of the Scuba attribute for desert numbers run trails isn't just for those who want to avoid them; it's also for those who seek them out.

 

I don't like the three cache monte, but if the cache owners, cache seekers, and TPTB are okay with it, then it's here to stay. The problem is how to reduce conflicts between those who enjoy this "significant variation from standard caching", and those who expect standard caching. A new cache type (or at least a new attribute) to indicate caches where the three cache monte is acceptable would help with that.

Share this post


Link to post

Looks like Jeremy's response in the series = power trail thread answers some of this.

 

The preference is to use cache types and attributes to provide generally useful information about caches, and not primarily to filter in or filter out a particular kind of cache. Of course people do use the filters, whether it is to find a kid friendly cache or to avoid ones that require stealth. But there is a desire to avoid the "caches that <your name here> thinks are lame" filters. I suspect TPTB really do see the call for a numbers run or three card monte cache type as thinly veil criticism of these caches, just like asking to label chocolate ice cream as "dirt colored".

 

Jeremy's response is that people who like a particular kind of cache can share bookmark lists. It's pretty clear that once you hear about a particular power trail you can find one cache on it and use the bookmark list to make sure you get them all in your pocket query. So there is no real need to use scuba or any other attribute to include the caches.

 

The problem still remains for those who want to avoid them.

 

According to Jeremy, "Caches should be rated on their own individual merits instead of its inclusion in a series". In other words, if some hides 800 caches you don't have to find them all. If you think these are all boring hides don't look for them at all. If your idea of fun is not finding the same thing over and over, then stop when you stop if you are no longer having fun. I suspect that no one who wanted to avoid repetitive caching has gotten stuck on a power trail and had to complete it when they weren't having fun. There just doesn't seem to be the need for a cache type or attribute to help avoid these.

 

It seems that the only problem is these caches taking up most of a pocket query and forcing other caches out. So for example if I wanted to find caches on BLM land in central Nevada, I may have had to get extra pocket queries while the ET caches were there because I had no way to exclude these. I suspect though that using existing filters (such as D/T and cache size) I could have gotten pretty much the caches I was looking for without any new attributes. Perhaps there was an existing cache at the Little Ale'Inn that I may have wanted to stop at. If it were a 1/1 micro I might miss this. One would hope that other methods such as bookmark lists and favorites would help one filter in these caches. At some point a cache on a power trail may accidentally end up being placed at such a site that it would be interesting enough to visit. You can bet that someone will bookmark it or add it as a favorite.

Share this post


Link to post

It would have been easier to exclude caches such as those that were a part of the ET trail in one step than to dump all the caches that shared the same D/T and then figure work arounds to get those you wanted back.

 

But if you read Jeremy's response that you linked to you'd notice that he called the future of these massive trails into question. He gave the impression that the asked for attribute would not be needed. Seems the same may be true for the idea of a new cache type.

 

We also don't want to create the attribute as it encourages these types of hides. If anything we want to discourage them. With the recent issues of power trail placements (and archival) We're trying to see the benefit of supporting this kind of activity moving forward anyway. So we may have to make some hard decisions in the near future about the issue of cache saturation by one user.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

 

So if they found 413 of the 500 total containers then they earned 82.6% of a smiley. amirite?

Share this post


Link to post

It would have been easier to exclude caches such as those that were a part of the ET trail in one step than to dump all the caches that shared the same D/T and then figure work arounds to get those you wanted back.

 

But if you read Jeremy's response that you linked to you'd notice that he called the future of these massive trails into question. He gave the impression that the asked for attribute would not be needed. Seems the same may be true for the idea of a new cache type.

 

We also don't want to create the attribute as it encourages these types of hides. If anything we want to discourage them. With the recent issues of power trail placements (and archival) We're trying to see the benefit of supporting this kind of activity moving forward anyway. So we may have to make some hard decisions in the near future about the issue of cache saturation by one user.

It may well be that a power trail attribute or cache type would make it easier than ignoring all 1/1 caches and then adding back those you want to find. The point is you can already eliminate the power trail caches from your pocket query, and while the technique might remove some caches you want to find there are ways to get these few caches back. This is the same excuse we hear whenever sbell111 suggests the easy peasy way to ignore caches you don't like. Someone will complain the easy peasy method is too coarse and eliminates caches they like. You can always still have fun finding caches your are sure to like and probably never care that you may have missed a few caches you might have enjoyed. I can't imaging how anyone expects a filter to be so refined it knows exactly what they want to avoid and leaves everything else.

 

The fact that you went out of your way to quote Jeremy saying that he wants to discourage power trails and may want to make some changes to the guidelines to address cache saturation by one user; and take it to mean there might not be power trails in the future simply shows that you're not interested in filtering these caches from your PQ in the first place and what you really want is to see them banned altogether. If that's what you really want then be honest about it.

Share this post


Link to post
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.
So if they found 413 of the 500 total containers then they earned 82.6% of a smiley. amirite?
Nope. If they find 413 of the 500 total containers, then they get 413 smilies. If they come back later and get the other 87, then they can post another log and enter 87, and they'll get 87 more smilies.

 

It would basically be the status quo, except that you don't need to copy-paste 413 logs to get the 413 smilies for finding the 413 containers. You'd just post one log and specify how many you found.

 

But apparently, keeping separate cache listings for each container on a numbers run trail is important to those who like them, so I don't think this idea is going to fly.

Share this post


Link to post
To use an ice cream analogy, it's like asking for chocolate ice cream to be labeled as brown ice cream and we all know what things are brown.
Okay, let's use your ice cream analogy. Let's say that numbers run trails are chocolate ice cream. I don't particularly care for chocolate ice cream, but that's okay. There are plenty of ice cream flavors that I do enjoy.

 

Now let's say that the three cache monte is dirt ice cream. I no longer think it's really ice cream at all, but some people love it, and there are still plenty of ice cream flavors for me to enjoy. Except that there are people who can't tell the difference between dirt ice cream and chocolate ice cream, and some people who enjoy chocolate ice cream are upset because others are mixing dirt ice cream into their chocolate ice cream.

 

I don't care whether we ban dirt ice cream, or whether we set up a system to keep dirt ice cream separate where it won't get mixed with any other ice cream. But contaminating other ice creams with dirt ice cream has got to stop.

Share this post


Link to post

I fail to see how a bunch of p&g micros in a power trail are 'contaminating' p&g micros elsewhere.

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

×