Jump to content

Archival of E.T. Highway Series


knowschad
Followers 11

Recommended Posts

While they're out there, why don't they go geocaching? A quick scan of the map shows hundreds of caches scattered about the areas surround Vegas. Looks like almost every road in the area has enough caches to keep one entertained for more than a day.

 

Hopefully they will, although their trip was planned specifically to do 1000 caches in a day, so doing the ET highway was the goal and they were pretty pumped up about it. (not to mention rather heavily invested with plane tickets, accommodations, rental car, etc) I don't share the desire to do 1000 caches in a day, but I do get the whole concept of having a good time geocaching with friends. I'm sure they'll make the most of it and have a great time anyway.

 

Tell them to head up I15 through Mesquite and the Virgin River Gorge to Saint George Utah. Lots of great caches within a few miles of that route and scenic in its own way.

Link to comment

While they're out there, why don't they go geocaching? A quick scan of the map shows hundreds of caches scattered about the areas surround Vegas. Looks like almost every road in the area has enough caches to keep one entertained for more than a day.

 

Hopefully they will, although their trip was planned specifically to do 1000 caches in a day, so doing the ET highway was the goal and they were pretty pumped up about it. (not to mention rather heavily invested with plane tickets, accommodations, rental car, etc) I don't share the desire to do 1000 caches in a day, but I do get the whole concept of having a good time geocaching with friends. I'm sure they'll make the most of it and have a great time anyway.

 

If numbers on a repetitive trail is the primary consideration,they could drive down to the route 66 caches from Vegas. But as I said in previous posts, there are some amazing places to see and adventures to be found in the area. Personally, I would not trade the single cache at Toroweap for a thousand smileys.

Edited by mulvaney
Link to comment

...I'm not going to show my support for what I think is one of the worst aspects of our sport and the most dangerous to its long term viability - the thirst for ######s

 

I'm actually OK with the thirst for pound signs, ampersands, or even asterisks. It's the numbers craze that turns me off.

 

:laughing:

Link to comment

At an absolute minimum, some 'rules' need to be written for both hiders and seekers.

Might I suggest something worded to the effect of:

"Don't hide a cache every 600' just because you can" :P:lol::ph34r:

 

I think it's a mistake to put all powertrails into the same drawer. It's perfectly possible to have powertrails that don't have any negative impact on anything.

 

There may be an area out there, but I doubt many, if any. They also have a negative impact on other things besides just the land and safety though.

Link to comment

Maybe now it can be suggested back on the feedback site. Although, I never really agreed with the multi-cache angle to the suggestion. Just rules limiting power trails to prevent this type of issue. Does anyone know if Nevada DOT has made statewide rules for their land, or just this powertrail?

As far as I know, they've done neither. No geocaching-specific rules were necessary for them to request that this cache series was archived. The fact that only this series aws archived supports the theory that no such geocaching-specific rule was created.

 

Actually, I was just looking at that. At least initially it is just the power trail. So Nevada DOT, at least, thinks that power trails are the bigger issue.

Actually, they don't have a clue what a power trail is (pretty much just like the rest of us). They had an issue with how some cachers were going after this specific group of geocaches. The apparent near collision with the snowplow forced them to take action.

I think most of us know exactly what a power trail is. Somehow they targeted the powertrail only. May have had help from another entity that thinks it's the problem. I don't know. The post from the CO that I saw, was that the snowplow incident was the "last straw". There are many issues amplified by power trails that are bad for the hobby. Glad that action was taken, and hope it doesn't trigger bigger, more widespread action.

 

I've been a bit reticent to mention this, but there was a cacher who said on another thread, that he had reported this trail to many public agencies (with complaints).

So it is very possible that a cacher has some responsibility in this.

Link to comment

...I'm not going to show my support for what I think is one of the worst aspects of our sport and the most dangerous to its long term viability - the thirst for ######s

 

I'm actually OK with the thirst for pound signs, ampersands, or even asterisks. It's the numbers craze that turns me off.

 

:laughing:

 

Actually what's interesting is that this is not only bad for the sport, but seems to be bad for many individuals.

A few of the top cachers (in numbers) have quit the sport and said that their constant drive for numbers took over their lives and caused many problems.

I think many things can get addictive. The problem with addictions is people get focused on one thing and forget about the rest of their lives. (there are other problems with addictions too, but I'll leave it at that)

Link to comment

I've been a bit reticent to mention this, but there was a cacher who said on another thread, that he had reported this trail to many public agencies (with complaints).

So it is very possible that a cacher has some responsibility in this.

That thought has crossed my mind as well. But in the end it really doesn't matter. I would be concerned if it became a trend for cachers to start complaining to public agencies about caches they didn't like. But, as of now, that isn't a common occurrence.

 

The official word we have, or the closest thing we'll get, is that the cause was a near-hit of a NDOT snowplow and a vehicle believed to be driven by geocachers.

Link to comment

I suppose sign like this will be springing up soon.....

 

9118636b-ba90-4682-b2f1-db1d99ca1872.jpg

But they aren't really "parking" they're just stopping slowing down long enough to throw a film can out the window and pick up the one the last group left. :rolleyes:

I think that's what you meant. :lol:

Link to comment

Apparently NDOT and the Highway Patrol have no safety issues with the running of a marathon at Midnight along the ET Highway on August 13th. The run which includes a 10k Half, Full and Ultra race starting at the Black MailBox and on to Rachel. All runners have to wear a headlight and other reflective measures. I was planning on doing the Half Marathon, and then after some rest and if i didn't die of a heart attack doing the Alien head and grabbing the 60 ET caches we missed in November. At least we wont have to worry about those crazy unsafe geocachers. The cows that wantonly run in the road, tractor trailers doing 90 and other motorist are another problem! Hopefully Alien Head is still there.

 

http://www.halfmarathons.net/usa_half_marathons_nevada_et_full_moon_midnight_marathon.html

Link to comment

I suppose sign like this will be springing up soon.....

 

9118636b-ba90-4682-b2f1-db1d99ca1872.jpg

But they aren't really "parking" they're just stopping long enough to throw a film can out the window and pick up the one the last group left. :rolleyes:

 

Which gives me a great idea. How about if the cache containers have large wire loops attached. Cachers can bring poles with hooks on the end and hook the cache as they pass by. This eliminates the need for stopping. Without people stopping the DOT will be happy and the without the need to stop cachers can really rack up numbers.

Win - win.

Link to comment

Since when is it OK to place caches in the medians of divided roadways ???? That's plain STUPID....

 

Who did that? I didn't see any when we did the power trail; but I have seen this type of location used before.

 

But anyway, I am not surprised that the power trail got archived, especially with people abusing it by not following the rules. Although I'm not someone who is against power trails per se (if you've read my other posts) I am against poor caching practices and it seems as though these sorts of things do indeed encourage bad practices, whether I'd like it to be that way or not.

Link to comment

I suppose sign like this will be springing up soon.....

 

9118636b-ba90-4682-b2f1-db1d99ca1872.jpg

But they aren't really "parking" they're just stopping long enough to throw a film can out the window and pick up the one the last group left. :rolleyes:

 

Which gives me a great idea. How about if the cache containers have large wire loops attached. Cachers can bring poles with hooks on the end and hook the cache as they pass by. This eliminates the need for stopping. Without people stopping the DOT will be happy and the without the need to stop cachers can really rack up numbers.

Win - win.

 

Geocacher jousting. Hmmmmmm..........

 

geojousting.com?????

Link to comment

Many people are curious about what will happen to the Route 66 caches. Groundspeak has not been contacted at all by the land owners or land managers for that, so we have no plans.

 

Just wait for the next bad press and possible statewide regulations then I guess. I wonder if Nevada DOT will make a policy for ALL their land now? I wonder if anything could have been done to avoid that potential problem. http://feedback.geocaching.com/forums/75775-geocaching-com/suggestions/1051337-reinstate-old-powertrails-guidelines

 

Well, Route 66 is in California! So no NDOT carryover????

Link to comment

Apparently NDOT and the Highway Patrol have no safety issues with the running of a marathon at Midnight along the ET Highway on August 13th. The run which includes a 10k Half, Full and Ultra race starting at the Black MailBox and on to Rachel. All runners have to wear a headlight and other reflective measures. I was planning on doing the Half Marathon, and then after some rest and if i didn't die of a heart attack doing the Alien head and grabbing the 60 ET caches we missed in November. At least we wont have to worry about those crazy unsafe geocachers. The cows that wantonly run in the road, tractor trailers doing 90 and other motorist are another problem! Hopefully Alien Head is still there.

 

http://www.halfmarathons.net/usa_half_marathons_nevada_et_full_moon_midnight_marathon.html

 

Dude. I don't even know what you said, but can I favorite one of your caches? :)

Link to comment

If NDOT can't train snowplow drivers to not hit parked vehicles, then they should ban geocaching. Makes perfectly logical sense to me.

 

This ranks up there with the reports I've heard of their sheriff's departments considering outdoor survival knives as dangerous weapons and threatening to arrest geocachers that were cutting back bush branches that had grown to block their geocache.

 

Got my one smiley for that state, not worried about getting others there.

Link to comment

Apparently NDOT and the Highway Patrol have no safety issues with the running of a marathon at Midnight along the ET Highway on August 13th.

 

Are you suggesting that if they are ok with a marathon, they should be ok with a power trail? Apples and oranges. Actually, further apart than that... more like apples and blowfish.

 

I'd be willing to wager my Garmin that the marathon organizers are required to pay for a hefty police presence for traffic control over the entire route, during the entire time that the event is taking place.

Link to comment

[

Which gives me a great idea. How about if the cache containers have large wire loops attached. Cachers can bring poles with hooks on the end and hook the cache as they pass by. This eliminates the need for stopping. Without people stopping the DOT will be happy and the without the need to stop cachers can really rack up numbers.

Win - win.

 

Even better: just put a Chirp in each cache. Set the chirp to broadcast a serial number, instead of the coordinates of another container. Cachers can drive by and log the serial numbers without stopping.

Link to comment

Apparently NDOT and the Highway Patrol have no safety issues with the running of a marathon at Midnight along the ET Highway on August 13th. The run which includes a 10k Half, Full and Ultra race starting at the Black MailBox and on to Rachel. All runners have to wear a headlight and other reflective measures. I was planning on doing the Half Marathon, and then after some rest and if i didn't die of a heart attack doing the Alien head and grabbing the 60 ET caches we missed in November. At least we wont have to worry about those crazy unsafe geocachers. The cows that wantonly run in the road, tractor trailers doing 90 and other motorist are another problem! Hopefully Alien Head is still there.

 

http://www.halfmarathons.net/usa_half_marathons_nevada_et_full_moon_midnight_marathon.html

 

Dude. I don't even know what you said, but can I favorite one of your caches? :)

Link to comment

Many people are curious about what will happen to the Route 66 caches. Groundspeak has not been contacted at all by the land owners or land managers for that, so we have no plans.

 

Just wait for the next bad press and possible statewide regulations then I guess. I wonder if Nevada DOT will make a policy for ALL their land now? I wonder if anything could have been done to avoid that potential problem. http://feedback.geocaching.com/forums/75775-geocaching-com/suggestions/1051337-reinstate-old-powertrails-guidelines

 

Well, Route 66 is in California! So no NDOT carryover????

 

I'm aware of that, but the ET power trail isn't what the feedback suggestion I linked was only aimed at. These types of issues will keep popping up, until changes are made to the guidelines. A pro power trail cacher earlier said it was like "hitting a tack with a sledgehammer". Exactly what usually happens with a bureaucracy . It helps prove the point that anti-power trail cachers have been trying to make, but then are called alarmists. I think when issues arise, that unfortunately most land managers will just ban geocaching, than make more work for themselves and govern them. We need to govern ourselves. I hope NDOT doesn't ban it on all their lands, but we'll see soon enough. This same scenario could play out on the Route 66 caches later on.

Link to comment

Snowplow collided with a geocacher, and the series got archived.

According to the earlier posts, there was no collision. There was an apparent near collision.

 

If NDOT can't train snowplow drivers to not hit parked vehicles, then they should ban geocaching. Makes perfectly logical sense to me.

Has it been reported that the vehicle was parked? From the earlier post, I envisioned a vehicle pulling onto the roadway in front of a passing snowplow.

 

This ranks up there with the reports I've heard of their sheriff's departments considering outdoor survival knives as dangerous weapons and threatening to arrest geocachers that were cutting back bush branches that had grown to block their geocache.

It would surprise me to find a police department anywhere that didn't consider survival knives to be dangerous weapons. Just saying...
Link to comment

If NDOT can't train snowplow drivers to not hit parked vehicles, then they should ban geocaching. Makes perfectly logical sense to me.

That's kind of like calling a cruiseship captain negligent for ramming a sailboat. Snowplows have the right-of-way. And nobody said the vehicle was parked, to the best of my knowledge. It might well have pulled out right in front of the snowplow.

 

Bashing the DOT for being concerned with our safety does not make perfectly logical sense to me.

Link to comment
It's perfectly possible to have powertrails that don't have any negative impact on anything.

You may be right. Just because I haven't yet seen one doesn't mean it's not technically possible.

 

I think it is only possible if almost no cachers are able/allowed to go there. As soon large number of cachers visits a powertrail, even the most considerate designed powertrail will eventually in the long run have negative impacts. It's unavoidable as the setup of a PT is not able to control how cachers behave when visiting the trail. There are too many cachers who switch off their brains when they have certain geocaching goals in their mind, and a PT where caches follow in short distance to each other does not leave them any time in between for resetting their brain function.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment
As long as power trails are allowed the problem will exist. These things attract hordes of geocachers, the very thing that concerns many land managers, and too many of these "geocachers" act irresponsibly.
The archival had nothing to do with power trails. It was about one group of geocachers almost colliding with one snowplow before or after finding one cache. The power trail was simply collateral damage.

This is an area where there is going to be disagreement. Caches are archived all the time because a land manager or property owner has some objection to them. Power trails themselves should not be any more of a problem than any other caches. However, there seems to something different with power trails - particularly when they do get archived.

 

One issue may be that power trails attract far more traffic than just a few caches placed along a road in the desert. Had the cache owners placed only fifty or one hundred caches aalong the ET highway, would there have been as many cachers toing to look for them? Did the increased traffic make the safety issues the NDOT have more pertinent than a smaller trail that attracted fewer cacher would have?

 

The other issue that some will bring up is that some who are attracted to power trails are doing something that can best be described as speed caching - the goal being to set some personal record for caches found in some period of time. Are these cachers ignoring traffic laws and driving unsafely? Is this what caused concerns for NDOT?

 

Maybe now it can be suggested back on the feedback site. Although, I never really agreed with the multi-cache angle to the suggestion. Just rules limiting power trails to prevent this type of issue. Does anyone know if Nevada DOT has made statewide rules for their land, or just this powertrail?

As far as I know, they've done neither. No geocaching-specific rules were necessary for them to request that this cache series was archived. The fact that only this series aws archived supports the theory that no such geocaching-specific rule was created.

This is another area where there is going to be disagreement. Some people believe that power trails are bound to cause problems for whatever reason and feel that it would be beneficial to simply ban all powertrail caches proactively to prevent these issues. Others will want to avoid blanket bans on types of caches that many people seem to enjoy and react to problems as they occur. It seems Groundspeak has a great system for removing caches (not just power trails) when they cause a problem and they are notified by a property owner or land manager. If certain problems re-occur often they will make adjustments to the guidelines to try and avoid such problems. This includes having reviewers ask for more specific information about permission in some cases. It doesn't seem there needs to be any ban on power trails, but there may be need for reviewers to ask a bit more from those placing them to ensure that adequate permission was obtained.

Link to comment
It's perfectly possible to have powertrails that don't have any negative impact on anything.

You may be right. Just because I haven't yet seen one doesn't mean it's not technically possible.

 

I think it is only possible if almost no cachers are able/allowed to go there. As soon large number of cachers visits a powertrail, even the most considerate designed powertrail will eventually in the long run have negative impacts. It's unavoidable as the setup of a PT is not able to control how cachers behave when visiting the trail. There are too many cachers who switch off their brains when they have certain geocaching goals in their mind, and a PT where caches follow in short distance to each other does not leave them any time in between for resetting their brain function.

 

Cezanne

I tend to think that the "I'll cache my way - you cache yours" mentality along with the belief of a few that anything not explicity denied by the guidelines is allowed and nobody's business directly led to this point.

Link to comment

It does not look like the entire 1023 cache series has been archived. Looks like about 28 have been archived due to visibility issues and maybe drivers pulling out in front of passing vehicles.

The road crew in Nye County considered them trash and picked them all up in their county.

As for the Route 66 series, they are all on BLM land. Barstow gets about 3 inches of snow about every 5 years. They wait for it to melt the next day. The recent (last week) snow event in the Mojave didn't even dust the sagebrush.

Cache placement should take into consideration safety of drivers entering and leaving the roadway and not just distance from the next or previous cache.

Link to comment
It's perfectly possible to have powertrails that don't have any negative impact on anything.

You may be right. Just because I haven't yet seen one doesn't mean it's not technically possible.

 

Absolutely right.

 

Unless that was supposed to be sarcasm and you claim you actually visited all powertrails worldwide?

Link to comment

I've been thinking about this and reading the back and forth comments. What it all boils down to is the CO's didn't have the proper permission to place these caches. Even if they did have permission you still can't control the way people cache. Some people are just idiots and don't use common sense when out there grabbing caches. You can get into accidents anywhere when caching, if it's one cache or 1000 caches on a road. I think it was a good thing to shut down the trail before someone really got hurt. I really think GS should ban power trails that are placed on roads like these. There is no reasons for these trails other than getting your numbers up. I wonder what the lawsuit was for..... littering. :laughing:

Edited by the4dirtydogs
Link to comment

It does not look like the entire 1023 cache series has been archived. Looks like about 28 have been archived due to visibility issues and maybe drivers pulling out in front of passing vehicles.The road crew in Nye County considered them trash and picked them all up in their county.

As for the Route 66 series, they are all on BLM land. Barstow gets about 3 inches of snow about every 5 years. They wait for it to melt the next day. The recent (last week) snow event in the Mojave didn't even dust the sagebrush.

Cache placement should take into consideration safety of drivers entering and leaving the roadway and not just distance from the next or previous cache.

 

You might want to look a tad closer.

Link to comment

What it all boils down to is the CO's didn't have the proper permission to place these caches.

That's not accurate. The BLM gave specific permission, as per their policy, for geocaches. NDOT did not have an issue until the reports that people weren't pulling entirely off the highway, then they asked that the caches by road signs & markers be moved back. They pulled their permission all together when the snowplow incident happened and at that point the caches were promptly archived.

 

Even if they did have permission you still can't control the way people cache. Some people are just idiots and don't use common sense when out there grabbing caches.

Which is true of all caches. I'll bet most caches will have issues with stupid cachers at one point or another - just take a look at the many threads on the subject. I wish I had a magic wand that I could wave to make all cachers responsible, but I don't.

 

There is no reasons for these trails other than getting your numbers up.

I can't agree with that statement. When you read through the logs you'll see that caching the ET highway was an 'experience' and a fun group activity for most of those who participated. It picked up 132 favorites and many long log entries about how much fun the cachers had on their adventure. It may not be your cup of tea, I'm not sure it would be mine, but those who chose to do generally had a great time.

 

As a side point, I really don't give a hoot if someone DOES cache for the numbers. It doesn't hurt me and if it floats their boat, more power to them. All I ask is that other cachers leave the cache in as good or better shape than when they found it.

Link to comment

What it all boils down to is the CO's didn't have the proper permission to place these caches.

That's not accurate. The BLM gave specific permission, as per their policy, for geocaches. NDOT did not have an issue until the reports that people weren't pulling entirely off the highway, then they asked that the caches by road signs & markers be moved back. They pulled their permission all together when the snowplow incident happened and at that point the caches were promptly archived.

 

Even if they did have permission you still can't control the way people cache. Some people are just idiots and don't use common sense when out there grabbing caches.

Which is true of all caches. I'll bet most caches will have issues with stupid cachers at one point or another - just take a look at the many threads on the subject. I wish I had a magic wand that I could wave to make all cachers responsible, but I don't.

 

There is no reasons for these trails other than getting your numbers up.

I can't agree with that statement. When you read through the logs you'll see that caching the ET highway was an 'experience' and a fun group activity for most of those who participated. It picked up 132 favorites and many long log entries about how much fun the cachers had on their adventure. It may not be your cup of tea, I'm not sure it would be mine, but those who chose to do generally had a great time.

 

As a side point, I really don't give a hoot if someone DOES cache for the numbers. It doesn't hurt me and if it floats their boat, more power to them. All I ask is that other cachers leave the cache in as good or better shape than when they found it.

 

Power Trail caching does not promote this or many other etiquette or low-impact practices

Link to comment

What it all boils down to is the CO's didn't have the proper permission to place these caches.

That's not accurate. The BLM gave specific permission, as per their policy, for geocaches. NDOT did not have an issue until the reports that people weren't pulling entirely off the highway, then they asked that the caches by road signs & markers be moved back. They pulled their permission all together when the snowplow incident happened and at that point the caches were promptly archived.

 

Even if they did have permission you still can't control the way people cache. Some people are just idiots and don't use common sense when out there grabbing caches.

Which is true of all caches. I'll bet most caches will have issues with stupid cachers at one point or another - just take a look at the many threads on the subject. I wish I had a magic wand that I could wave to make all cachers responsible, but I don't.

 

There is no reasons for these trails other than getting your numbers up.

I can't agree with that statement. When you read through the logs you'll see that caching the ET highway was an 'experience' and a fun group activity for most of those who participated. It picked up 132 favorites and many long log entries about how much fun the cachers had on their adventure. It may not be your cup of tea, I'm not sure it would be mine, but those who chose to do generally had a great time.

 

As a side point, I really don't give a hoot if someone DOES cache for the numbers. It doesn't hurt me and if it floats their boat, more power to them. All I ask is that other cachers leave the cache in as good or better shape than when they found it.

 

"The BLM must confirm that geochaching activities do not jeopardize public health and safety, do not cause environmental damage, and do not conflict with other authorized land uses. Prior to establishing a cache on public lands, please contact the local BLM Field Office to identify the intended location and to request authorization."

 

http://www.blm.gov/nm/st/en/prog/recreation/recreation_activities/geocaching.html

 

Did the BLM actually confirm that the pulling in an out of traffic every 500ft 800 times is appropriate use of a highway? I do not mean any disrespect, I am more curious about the thought process of that government agency...

 

edited to change confirmed to confirm

Edited by Fonty Family
Link to comment

Apparently NDOT and the Highway Patrol have no safety issues with the running of a marathon at Midnight along the ET Highway on August 13th.

 

Are you suggesting that if they are ok with a marathon, they should be ok with a power trail? Apples and oranges. Actually, further apart than that... more like apples and blowfish.

 

I'd be willing to wager my Garmin that the marathon organizers are required to pay for a hefty police presence for traffic control over the entire route, during the entire time that the event is taking place.

 

I've volunteered as a safety boater for the swim portion of a local triathalon several times. Both the bike and run portion of the marathon had strict traffic control on the roads where those legs took place. I suspect that if a marathon took place on the ET highway there would be a heavy traffic control presence as well.

Link to comment

All I ask is that other cachers leave the cache in as good or better shape than when they found it.

 

Power Trail caching does not promote this or many other etiquette or low-impact practices

Kinda pointless for me to argue when we have an apparent example of people not driving properly, but...cachers were reviled in some quarters here for performing cache maintenance on the trail. Darned if you do, darned if you don't.

Link to comment

"The BLM must confirm that geochaching activities do not jeopardize public health and safety, do not cause environmental damage, and do not conflict with other authorized land uses. Prior to establishing a cache on public lands, please contact the local BLM Field Office to identify the intended location and to request authorization."

 

http://www.blm.gov/n...geocaching.html

 

Did the BLM actually confirm that the pulling in an out of traffic every 500ft 800 times is appropriate use of a highway? I do not mean any disrespect, I am more curious about the thought process of that government agency...

 

edited to change confirmed to confirm

This subject has been beat to death in previous threads. If you've got any evidence that there was a BLM problem with the caches, please provide the source.

Link to comment

:wacko:

What it all boils down to is the CO's didn't have the proper permission to place these caches.

That's not accurate. The BLM gave specific permission, as per their policy, for geocaches. NDOT did not have an issue until the reports that people weren't pulling entirely off the highway, then they asked that the caches by road signs & markers be moved back. They pulled their permission all together when the snowplow incident happened and at that point the caches were promptly archived.

 

Even if they did have permission you still can't control the way people cache. Some people are just idiots and don't use common sense when out there grabbing caches.

Which is true of all caches. I'll bet most caches will have issues with stupid cachers at one point or another - just take a look at the many threads on the subject. I wish I had a magic wand that I could wave to make all cachers responsible, but I don't.

 

There is no reasons for these trails other than getting your numbers up.

I can't agree with that statement. When you read through the logs you'll see that caching the ET highway was an 'experience' and a fun group activity for most of those who participated. It picked up 132 favorites and many long log entries about how much fun the cachers had on their adventure. It may not be your cup of tea, I'm not sure it would be mine, but those who chose to do generally had a great time.

 

As a side point, I really don't give a hoot if someone DOES cache for the numbers. It doesn't hurt me and if it floats their boat, more power to them. All I ask is that other cachers leave the cache in as good or better shape than when they found it.

 

"The BLM must confirm that geochaching activities do not jeopardize public health and safety, do not cause environmental damage, and do not conflict with other authorized land uses. Prior to establishing a cache on public lands, please contact the local BLM Field Office to identify the intended location and to request authorization."

 

http://www.blm.gov/nm/st/en/prog/recreation/recreation_activities/geocaching.html

 

Did the BLM actually confirm that the pulling in an out of traffic every 500ft 800 times is appropriate use of a highway? I do not mean any disrespect, I am more curious about the thought process of that government agency...

 

edited to change confirmed to confirm

 

Please ignore as I realized now the link was for New Mexico :wacko:

Link to comment

All I ask is that other cachers leave the cache in as good or better shape than when they found it.

 

Power Trail caching does not promote this or many other etiquette or low-impact practices

Kinda pointless for me to argue when we have an apparent example of people not driving properly, but...cachers were reviled in some quarters here for performing cache maintenance on the trail. Darned if you do, darned if you don't.

 

I think you may be confusing simple cache maint, like adding log sheets and baggies, to the throwdowns and swapping. Some of the throwdowns resulted in multiple containers in spots. Happens often here. I don't think they were reviled for normal maint. (I may have missed that part). I thought it was more the the COs expecting future finders to maintain them. I think most on here think you should only hide the amount of caches that you can legitimately maintain.

Link to comment

If NDOT can't train snowplow drivers to not hit parked vehicles, then they should ban geocaching. Makes perfectly logical sense to me.

 

This ranks up there with the reports I've heard of their sheriff's departments considering outdoor survival knives as dangerous weapons and threatening to arrest geocachers that were cutting back bush branches that had grown to block their geocache.

 

Got my one smiley for that state, not worried about getting others there.

 

I presume you're talking about the two cachers who got questioned up in North Vegas after hacking into bushes for a cache (someone else's, not theirs) in a public park with an 11" machete. I said the same thing on the MAGC board I'll say now: if I saw someone wandering around a public park with a machete, I'd call the cops.

 

I don't think this is endemic to Nevada. If you started caching around Portland while wielding an 11" blade, I bet police would stop you there, too. Just as I bet the Oregon DOT would be upset with you if you almost hit one of their plows while continuously pulling on and off the highway shoulder (I presume that's what happened here).

Link to comment

There is no reasons for these trails other than getting your numbers up.

I can't agree with that statement. When you read through the logs you'll see that caching the ET highway was an 'experience' and a fun group activity for most of those who participated. It picked up 132 favorites and many long log entries about how much fun the cachers had on their adventure. It may not be your cup of tea, I'm not sure it would be mine, but those who chose to do generally had a great time.

What I don't understand is why people would think the experience of the fun group activity would be somehow diminished if there were only caches every 2 miles instead of every .1 mile.

 

I just don't get the "numbers" motivation, I guess.

 

But, let's face it -- a trail such as this really becomes a single entity, as evidenced by the fact cachers felt it was perfectly acceptable to shuffle containers and logs around from place to place. If there had been some distance between caches and someone unsafely pulled in front of a snowplow we would likely be talking about one cache being archived, not a whole series.

Link to comment

"The BLM must confirm that geochaching activities do not jeopardize public health and safety, do not cause environmental damage, and do not conflict with other authorized land uses. Prior to establishing a cache on public lands, please contact the local BLM Field Office to identify the intended location and to request authorization."

 

http://www.blm.gov/n...geocaching.html

 

Did the BLM actually confirm that the pulling in an out of traffic every 500ft 800 times is appropriate use of a highway? I do not mean any disrespect, I am more curious about the thought process of that government agency...

 

edited to change confirmed to confirm

This subject has been beat to death in previous threads. If you've got any evidence that there was a BLM problem with the caches, please provide the source.

 

Fair enough, I haven't seen the other thread(s) you are referring to.

 

I do not mean to hijack the thread. That being said, I do not have an evidence that this was not done, but it would surprise me if explicit permission had been obtained (if required by the state). I just question the long term viability of the hobby, if we keep arguing that it is better to keep our "heads in the sand" versus having an open discussion about policies and effectively "policing" ourselves. This would also include appropriate "seeking" guidelines...

 

For the record, I would have wanted to try the ET trail but not for the numbers but more for the experience. Reading logs from cachers they talk about the activity (and their caching groups) as a positive experience. It is unfortunate the lack of common sense of a few cachers spoiled the "fun" for others.

Link to comment

All I ask is that other cachers leave the cache in as good or better shape than when they found it.

 

Power Trail caching does not promote this or many other etiquette or low-impact practices

Kinda pointless for me to argue when we have an apparent example of people not driving properly, but...cachers were reviled in some quarters here for performing cache maintenance on the trail. Darned if you do, darned if you don't.

 

I think you may be confusing simple cache maint, like adding log sheets and baggies, to the throwdowns and swapping. Some of the throwdowns resulted in multiple containers in spots. Happens often here. I don't think they were reviled for normal maint. (I may have missed that part). I thought it was more the the COs expecting future finders to maintain them. I think most on here think you should only hide the amount of caches that you can legitimately maintain.

It's hard to argue that replacing a cache with a brand new one doesn't leave it better than it was. Also, while it is true that teh cache owners welcomed community maintenance (as most cache owners do), it is not true that the cache owners weren't willing to do maintenance.
Link to comment

This subject has been beat to death in previous threads. If you've got any evidence that there was a BLM problem with the caches, please provide the source.

Apparently it was not beaten hard enough, because you keep going on about the BLM as if it has any relevance. The NDOT does not want people acting out their Mad Max fantasies in the right of way. The BLM has nothing to do with it.

Link to comment

It does not look like the entire 1023 cache series has been archived. Looks like about 28 have been archived due to visibility issues and maybe drivers pulling out in front of passing vehicles.

The road crew in Nye County considered them trash and picked them all up in their county.

As for the Route 66 series, they are all on BLM land. Barstow gets about 3 inches of snow about every 5 years. They wait for it to melt the next day. The recent (last week) snow event in the Mojave didn't even dust the sagebrush.

Cache placement should take into consideration safety of drivers entering and leaving the roadway and not just distance from the next or previous cache.

E.T. 001 to E.T. 1021 have been archived.

Link to comment

What it all boils down to is the CO's didn't have the proper permission to place these caches.

That's not accurate. The BLM gave specific permission, as per their policy, for geocaches. NDOT did not have an issue until the reports that people weren't pulling entirely off the highway, then they asked that the caches by road signs & markers be moved back. They pulled their permission all together when the snowplow incident happened and at that point the caches were promptly archived.

 

Even if they did have permission you still can't control the way people cache. Some people are just idiots and don't use common sense when out there grabbing caches.

Which is true of all caches. I'll bet most caches will have issues with stupid cachers at one point or another - just take a look at the many threads on the subject. I wish I had a magic wand that I could wave to make all cachers responsible, but I don't.

 

There is no reasons for these trails other than getting your numbers up.

I can't agree with that statement. When you read through the logs you'll see that caching the ET highway was an 'experience' and a fun group activity for most of those who participated. It picked up 132 favorites and many long log entries about how much fun the cachers had on their adventure. It may not be your cup of tea, I'm not sure it would be mine, but those who chose to do generally had a great time.

 

As a side point, I really don't give a hoot if someone DOES cache for the numbers. It doesn't hurt me and if it floats their boat, more power to them. All I ask is that other cachers leave the cache in as good or better shape than when they found it.

It doesn't matter if you agree with the statement.............it's true. Why else do you think people came from all over to do this trail? To hang out for 16hrs jumping in and out of the car. No they came for an easy 1000+ finds in a day or two. Oh by the way I did all the power trails out here and have a blast doing them. These trails right on the road just aren't good ideas.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 11
×
×
  • Create New...