Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
GOF and Bacall

Does series = power trail?

Recommended Posts

An idea on the feedback forum to Define an attribute or devise a way to filter power trails was just declined.

 

Rather than adding a power trail attribute, we prefer to add a "part of a series" attribute. (24998)

84d5dba3-ec27-41a2-84ce-b1a9eac94573 OpinioNate Admin

 

Now I think that the apparent logic is faulty. Nate seems to be saying that series and power trail are the same thing. I see where all power trails could be said to be series, but not all series need be power trail.

 

What do you folks think? Should we ask the lily pad to revisit the idea?

Share this post


Link to post

An idea on the feedback forum to Define an attribute or devise a way to filter power trails was just declined.

 

Rather than adding a power trail attribute, we prefer to add a "part of a series" attribute. (24998)

84d5dba3-ec27-41a2-84ce-b1a9eac94573 OpinioNate Admin

 

Now I think that the apparent logic is faulty. Nate seems to be saying that series and power trail are the same thing. I see where all power trails could be said to be series, but not all series need be power trail.

 

What do you folks think? Should we ask the lily pad to revisit the idea?

Yes - clearly.

 

I have an Oregon Trail cache series but we are talking 25 caches spread over 200+ miles of trail - many requiring side hikes of .5 mile or more.

 

A Power Trail is another type of series entirely.

 

If they want to mix them - I will never ever make use of the "part of a series" attribute.

Share this post


Link to post

Full ack. Series doesn't equal power trail.

Share this post


Link to post

Once the decision has been made I don't see why they should waste their time on it when then can be looking to the future. There's always going to be somebody unhappy with every decision so let's put it to rest and move on.

 

If you are still bothered by something that has already been decided I would suggest two margaritas and a bourbon soaked, bone in, rare rib-eye. That solves all problems.

Share this post


Link to post

Once the decision has been made I don't see why they should waste their time on it when then can be looking to the future. There's always going to be somebody unhappy with every decision so let's put it to rest and move on.

 

If you are still bothered by something that has already been decided I would suggest two margaritas and a bourbon soaked, bone in, rare rib-eye. That solves all problems.

 

Ohoh! Looks like copy/paste logging has spread to the forums. :laughing:

 

Seriously though, TPTB are human to. They can make mistakes and I think this time they have. The idea of this thread is to see if others agree or not.

Share this post


Link to post

Once the decision has been made I don't see why they should waste their time on it when then can be looking to the future. There's always going to be somebody unhappy with every decision so let's put it to rest and move on.

Except this decision didn't even make sense.

 

I would expect this to be a strong disincentive to use the "series" attribute for non-powertrails. I know that I won't ever see a cache in any of my PQs with that attribute once it is applied to powertrails.

Share this post


Link to post

An idea on the feedback forum to Define an attribute or devise a way to filter power trails was just declined.

 

Rather than adding a power trail attribute, we prefer to add a "part of a series" attribute. (24998)

84d5dba3-ec27-41a2-84ce-b1a9eac94573 OpinioNate Admin

 

Now I think that the apparent logic is faulty. Nate seems to be saying that series and power trail are the same thing. I see where all power trails could be said to be series, but not all series need be power trail.

 

What do you folks think? Should we ask the lily pad to revisit the idea?

Yes - clearly.

 

I have an Oregon Trail cache series but we are talking 25 caches spread over 200+ miles of trail - many requiring side hikes of .5 mile or more.

 

A Power Trail is another type of series entirely.

 

If they want to mix them - I will never ever make use of the "part of a series" attribute.

+1. Although our series is only six caches, but still takes a good part of the day to complete.

Share this post


Link to post

3 caches in a series is not a power trail.

4 caches in a series is not a power trail.

5 caches in a series is not a power trail.

6 caches in a series is not a power trail.

.

.

.

800 caches in a series is a power trail.

 

Where do you draw the line?

Share this post


Link to post

I draw the line between a series and a numbers run trail at the point where the owner encourages seekers to use the three cache monte. I draw the line between a power trail and a numbers run trail at the same point.

Share this post


Link to post

3 caches in a series is not a power trail.

4 caches in a series is not a power trail.

5 caches in a series is not a power trail.

6 caches in a series is not a power trail.

.

.

.

800 caches in a series is a power trail.

 

Where do you draw the line?

 

You don't. Just like the rest of the attributes it is up to the cache owner. But even if you take the word power out of the equation not all series are trails.

Share this post


Link to post

The terms, "power trail" and "cache series" mean something totally different around here. It would be complete confusion to change the meaning of the word "series".

 

By the way, Toz... thanks for not lising all 798. :lol:

 

6 caches in a series is not a power trail.

.

.

.

800 caches in a series is a power trail.

Share this post


Link to post

Like a Supreme Court justice once said in another context, the difference between a series and a repetitive trail is easy: "I know it when I see it."

 

I have a series that involves a 15 mile hike to the top of a mountain and back. That is not a repetitive trail, although I think it is powerful. As to the decision made on the feedback topic at issue, to put it charitably, it is not one of their best.

Edited by mulvaney

Share this post


Link to post

I guess the way "series" is used around here is generally to refer to a group of like-themed caches. Like, maybe, the "songbird series", where each cache is named after a different type of songbird... that sort of thing.

Share this post


Link to post

I guess the way "series" is used around here is generally to refer to a group of like-themed caches. Like, maybe, the "songbird series", where each cache is named after a different type of songbird... that sort of thing.

 

That or a group of caches that when taken together lead to a final mystery cache. In both cases the caches have a common connection but don't necessarily follow a trail.

Share this post


Link to post

An idea on the feedback forum to Define an attribute or devise a way to filter power trails was just declined.

 

Rather than adding a power trail attribute, we prefer to add a "part of a series" attribute. (24998)

84d5dba3-ec27-41a2-84ce-b1a9eac94573 OpinioNate Admin

 

Now I think that the apparent logic is faulty. Nate seems to be saying that series and power trail are the same thing. I see where all power trails could be said to be series, but not all series need be power trail.

 

What do you folks think? Should we ask the lily pad to revisit the idea?

 

I think so. I have a series of 8 caches over 8 miles of mostly 3 star terrain. It takes most of the day to complete. That is about as far from a power trail as you can get. Clams and oysters.

Share this post


Link to post

Clams and oysters.

Please forgive my lack of retraint...

ClamDance%281%29.jpg

 

 

So... how do we get them to revisit the decision? Start a fresh Feedback topic?

Share this post


Link to post

3 caches in a series is not a power trail.

4 caches in a series is not a power trail.

5 caches in a series is not a power trail.

6 caches in a series is not a power trail.

.

.

.

800 caches in a series is a power trail.

 

Where do you draw the line?

 

Not necessarily. If I hide 800 caches in my "World Traveler Series" and they consist of caches hidden the world over, no way it could be considered a power trail.

Share this post


Link to post

Sadly - I think the true problem here is that at least a few folks up at HQ see an "Oregon Trail Series" - (something that no one cacher has ever even tried to complete in a single day) as being on exactly the same par as the ET Power Trail.

 

Toz seems to think they are equal. Easy to believe others do as well.

Share this post


Link to post

Who coined the phrase "power trail" anyway?

 

It seems to me that debates in past have revolved around trying to define a power trail in term of the number of caches. Even if everyone agreed that a the definition of a power trail such that it required 100 caches a minimum, a series of 100+ similarly named, or theme base caches, if they were placed over a distance of 200 miles or scattered about in a 100 mile radius they would be seen in a different light than if they were all 600 feet apart along the right shoulder of a long road.

 

To me, a power trail is all about intent. When 100+ caches placed at the minimum distance between caches hidden such that they can be found very quickly, the intent is clearly to create a series of caches that will lead to finding as many caches as possible over a short period of time, effectively turning the day (or more) into a race. That, to me, is a power trail. There are many types of cache series that are not condusive to high find counts and treating them the same as a power trail (using my definition) just doesn't make any sense.

Share this post


Link to post

definition of a power trail a series of 100+ similarly named,

http://coord.info/GC2FQM2

 

The SRT series, it is hidden by the people that own the Schukyll river trail, they got wind of geocaching and decided to use it to get more people to visit there trail (It's free and non-profit) they hid OVER 100 caches with the exact same name, except for the number changing and exact description. Here's the thing, it's impossible to drive to these caches, the Schukyll river trail goes from Historical Valley Forge to West Philadelphia, over 10 miles of walking, it is BIKE AND HIKE ONLY, you can not drive your car from cache to cache, you must walk or bike the majority of this ten mile trail.

 

Would this be considered a power-trail, I personally can't comment on the containers as I have not done the trail, I'm looking to do 10 to 20 on the weekend.

 

Would you consider this a series or powertrail?

 

keep in mind it is a beautiful park and a very nice and relaxing walk that you have to bike or hike.

 

So would you consider this a series or powertrail?

Share this post


Link to post
http://coord.info/GC2FQM2

 

The SRT series, it is hidden by the people that own the Schukyll river trail, they got wind of geocaching and decided to use it to get more people to visit there trail (It's free and non-profit) they hid OVER 100 caches with the exact same name, except for the number changing and exact description. Here's the thing, it's impossible to drive to these caches, the Schukyll river trail goes from Historical Valley Forge to West Philadelphia, over 10 miles of walking, it is BIKE AND HIKE ONLY, you can not drive your car from cache to cache, you must walk or bike the majority of this ten mile trail.

 

Would this be considered a power-trail, I personally can't comment on the containers as I have not done the trail, I'm looking to do 10 to 20 on the weekend.

 

Would you consider this a series or powertrail?

I would consider it a power trail. But I don't consider numbers run trails like the ET Highway trail (RIP) or the Route 66 trail to be power trails. I consider them to be numbers run trails.

Share this post


Link to post

definition of a power trail a series of 100+ similarly named,

http://coord.info/GC2FQM2

 

The SRT series, it is hidden by the people that own the Schukyll river trail, they got wind of geocaching and decided to use it to get more people to visit there trail (It's free and non-profit) they hid OVER 100 caches with the exact same name, except for the number changing and exact description. Here's the thing, it's impossible to drive to these caches, the Schukyll river trail goes from Historical Valley Forge to West Philadelphia, over 10 miles of walking, it is BIKE AND HIKE ONLY, you can not drive your car from cache to cache, you must walk or bike the majority of this ten mile trail.

 

Would this be considered a power-trail, I personally can't comment on the containers as I have not done the trail, I'm looking to do 10 to 20 on the weekend.

 

Would you consider this a series or powertrail?

 

keep in mind it is a beautiful park and a very nice and relaxing walk that you have to bike or hike.

 

So would you consider this a series or powertrail?

Yes, I would consider it a power trail, but one of higher integrity than a drive through power trail.

Share this post


Link to post

definition of a power trail a series of 100+ similarly named,

http://coord.info/GC2FQM2

 

The SRT series, it is hidden by the people that own the Schukyll river trail, they got wind of geocaching and decided to use it to get more people to visit there trail (It's free and non-profit) they hid OVER 100 caches with the exact same name, except for the number changing and exact description. Here's the thing, it's impossible to drive to these caches, the Schukyll river trail goes from Historical Valley Forge to West Philadelphia, over 10 miles of walking, it is BIKE AND HIKE ONLY, you can not drive your car from cache to cache, you must walk or bike the majority of this ten mile trail.

 

Would this be considered a power-trail, I personally can't comment on the containers as I have not done the trail, I'm looking to do 10 to 20 on the weekend.

 

Would you consider this a series or powertrail?

 

keep in mind it is a beautiful park and a very nice and relaxing walk that you have to bike or hike.

 

So would you consider this a series or powertrail?

One of the most prolific power-cachers that I know of frequently seeks out trails like that. In fact, it was bicycling that got him into geocaching in the first place, when he bought a GPS for his bike.

Share this post


Link to post

3 caches in a series is not a power trail.

4 caches in a series is not a power trail.

5 caches in a series is not a power trail.

6 caches in a series is not a power trail.

.

.

.

800 caches in a series is a power trail.

 

Where do you draw the line?

Finally an easy one!

 

hazy_decision.gif

Share this post


Link to post

I guess the way "series" is used around here is generally to refer to a group of like-themed caches. Like, maybe, the "songbird series", where each cache is named after a different type of songbird... that sort of thing.

One could argue that a power trail is also a group of "like-themed caches" too.

Share this post


Link to post

3 caches in a series is not a power trail.

4 caches in a series is not a power trail.

5 caches in a series is not a power trail.

6 caches in a series is not a power trail.

.

.

.

800 caches in a series is a power trail.

 

Where do you draw the line?

Or, with yes/no reversed and the colors adjusted for Saint Patrick's Day:

 

hazy_decision_st_patricks_d.gif

 

Either way, it seems pretty obvious to me.

Share this post


Link to post

An idea on the feedback forum to Define an attribute or devise a way to filter power trails was just declined.

 

Rather than adding a power trail attribute, we prefer to add a "part of a series" attribute. (24998)

84d5dba3-ec27-41a2-84ce-b1a9eac94573 OpinioNate Admin

 

Now I think that the apparent logic is faulty. Nate seems to be saying that series and power trail are the same thing. I see where all power trails could be said to be series, but not all series need be power trail.

 

What do you folks think? Should we ask the lily pad to revisit the idea?

 

I have three "Series", 5,7, and 7 caches. All on hiking trails. I would never put an attribute on them that equates to a power trail. I'm really kind of baffled by this decision.

Share this post


Link to post

I guess the way "series" is used around here is generally to refer to a group of like-themed caches. Like, maybe, the "songbird series", where each cache is named after a different type of songbird... that sort of thing.

One could argue that a power trail is also a group of "like-themed caches" too.

 

Like I said in the OP, a power trail can easily fit the description "series". But that doesn't mean that all series are power trails.

Share this post


Link to post

definition of a power trail a series of 100+ similarly named,

http://coord.info/GC2FQM2

 

The SRT series, it is hidden by the people that own the Schukyll river trail, they got wind of geocaching and decided to use it to get more people to visit there trail (It's free and non-profit) they hid OVER 100 caches with the exact same name, except for the number changing and exact description. Here's the thing, it's impossible to drive to these caches, the Schukyll river trail goes from Historical Valley Forge to West Philadelphia, over 10 miles of walking, it is BIKE AND HIKE ONLY, you can not drive your car from cache to cache, you must walk or bike the majority of this ten mile trail.

 

Would this be considered a power-trail, I personally can't comment on the containers as I have not done the trail, I'm looking to do 10 to 20 on the weekend.

 

Would you consider this a series or powertrail?

 

keep in mind it is a beautiful park and a very nice and relaxing walk that you have to bike or hike.

 

So would you consider this a series or powertrail?

 

CG is partially correct. However these caches are spread over 20+ miles not 10. The hides also vary.

 

Looking forward to biking it!

Share this post


Link to post

800 caches in a series is a power trail.

Not if they're scattered all over the place.

 

If I had to come up with a definition it would be "Five or more caches put out by a cacher, or group of cachers working together, that can be visited one after another without having to use any kind of traveling salesman algorithm and are not more than 1500ft apart". I'm flexible on the 5 and 1500 numbers.

 

As for the attribute, a series attribute won't help people filter out power trails.

Share this post


Link to post

Now I think that the apparent logic is faulty. Nate seems to be saying that series and power trail are the same thing. I see where all power trails could be said to be series, but not all series need be power trail.

I'm not sure where Groundspeak's logic is faulty. It may not be responding to the intent of the referenced feature request, but it is probably in response to other feature requests and they have decided it is a far as they are willing to go at this time.

It sounds as if they are proposing an attribute to indicate that a cache is done in concert with other caches. Most likely it will be use for a series of caches that are intended to be done together, perhaps because they take you along a specific trail or route.

 

In the old guidelines a group of caches intended to be done together was a good candidate for a multi-cache. So reviewers sometimes would require they be listed as multi-cache instead of as a series. In response to many cachers who felt that multis (especially ones with more than 2 or 3 stages) don't get found very often and are hard to maintain, the guidelines were changed to remove the suggestion they be done as multi. The old guidelines refered to such series as "power trails". Thus this attribute would identify exactly those series of caches that were previously called power trails.

 

Now since the change in the guidelines it is clear that sometimes these series get very large, and they are placed on rural roads where you can drive from one cache to the next and find large numbers of caches in one day. In addition, these large series may use similar or identical containers and hiding styles for all the caches. Some people believe these series serve only the purpose of increasing ones find count quickly. Those who are not interested in this kind of caching would like to have a way to identify these series. But it isn't easy to draw a line as to when the series gets too big. For some it may even be possible to enjoy finding 800 caches if they are mixture of different sizes and type of containers and use many different hiding styles, others would avoid a single film can in a guardrail even if there was a spectacular view.

 

My guess is that many can avoid the power trails they feel are "for numbers" and still be able to look for the series they don't want to refer to as power trails, if they avoid caches that are part of a series were all (or most) of the caches are 1/1 or 1/1.5 micros. It may even be that you could avoid caches with both "part of a series" and "park and grab" attributes set.

Share this post


Link to post

I guess the way "series" is used around here is generally to refer to a group of like-themed caches. Like, maybe, the "songbird series", where each cache is named after a different type of songbird... that sort of thing.

One could argue that a power trail is also a group of "like-themed caches" too.

 

OK... the group of "like-themed caches" that I was referring to are only linked by that theme, and not necessarily by proximity. Caches on a power trail, by the very nature of a power trail, must be linked by proximity.

Share this post


Link to post

Now I think that the apparent logic is faulty. Nate seems to be saying that series and power trail are the same thing. I see where all power trails could be said to be series, but not all series need be power trail.

I'm not sure where Groundspeak's logic is faulty. It may not be responding to the intent of the referenced feature request, but it is probably in response to other feature requests and they have decided it is a far as they are willing to go at this time.

It sounds as if they are proposing an attribute to indicate that a cache is done in concert with other caches. Most likely it will be use for a series of caches that are intended to be done together, perhaps because they take you along a specific trail or route.

 

In the old guidelines a group of caches intended to be done together was a good candidate for a multi-cache. So reviewers sometimes would require they be listed as multi-cache instead of as a series. In response to many cachers who felt that multis (especially ones with more than 2 or 3 stages) don't get found very often and are hard to maintain, the guidelines were changed to remove the suggestion they be done as multi. The old guidelines refered to such series as "power trails". Thus this attribute would identify exactly those series of caches that were previously called power trails.

 

Now since the change in the guidelines it is clear that sometimes these series get very large, and they are placed on rural roads where you can drive from one cache to the next and find large numbers of caches in one day. In addition, these large series may use similar or identical containers and hiding styles for all the caches. Some people believe these series serve only the purpose of increasing ones find count quickly. Those who are not interested in this kind of caching would like to have a way to identify these series. But it isn't easy to draw a line as to when the series gets too big. For some it may even be possible to enjoy finding 800 caches if they are mixture of different sizes and type of containers and use many different hiding styles, others would avoid a single film can in a guardrail even if there was a spectacular view.

 

My guess is that many can avoid the power trails they feel are "for numbers" and still be able to look for the series they don't want to refer to as power trails, if they avoid caches that are part of a series were all (or most) of the caches are 1/1 or 1/1.5 micros. It may even be that you could avoid caches with both "part of a series" and "park and grab" attributes set.

 

I'm not even gonna read all that. I made it as far as the first sentence though. It is really simple. A series of caches don't necessarily form a trail.

 

Are you a textbook writer?

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not sure where Groundspeak's logic is faulty. It sounds as if they are proposing an attribute to indicate that a cache is done in concert with other caches. In the old guidelines a group of caches intended to be done together was a good candidate for a multi-cache. Now since the change in the guidelines it is clear that sometimes these series get very large My guess is that many can avoid the power trails.

 

The Cliff Notes version.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not sure where Groundspeak's logic is faulty. It sounds as if they are proposing an attribute to indicate that a cache is done in concert with other caches. In the old guidelines a group of caches intended to be done together was a good candidate for a multi-cache. Now since the change in the guidelines it is clear that sometimes these series get very large My guess is that many can avoid the power trails.

 

The Cliff Notes version.

 

Thanks.

 

Is there some problem with making it easier for folks to sort power trails? This would help both those who want to avoid them and those who want to concentrate on them.

Share this post


Link to post

A 'series' is not necessarily the same as a 'powertrail'.

Most likely a 'powertrail' is a series of caches, that's easy to figure out.

OTOH, I could create a series based on 'Mountain peaks in Arizona over 5000 feet in elevation' that would certainly NOT be a 'powertrail'.

I understand TPTB's interest in simplifying the attributes that may be added, but a 'series' and a 'powertrail' are not interchangeable.

Share this post


Link to post

A 'series' is not necessarily the same as a 'powertrail'.

Most likely a 'powertrail' is a series of caches, that's easy to figure out.

OTOH, I could create a series based on 'Mountain peaks in Arizona over 5000 feet in elevation' that would certainly NOT be a 'powertrail'.

I understand TPTB's interest in simplifying the attributes that may be added, but a 'series' and a 'powertrail' are not interchangeable.

 

Precisely.

Share this post


Link to post

This has to be a first:

 

A thread with near unanimity of thought. The thoughts are largely right on.

 

Series and Power Trails are not the same beasts

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not sure where Groundspeak's logic is faulty. It sounds as if they are proposing an attribute to indicate that a cache is done in concert with other caches. In the old guidelines a group of caches intended to be done together was a good candidate for a multi-cache. Now since the change in the guidelines it is clear that sometimes these series get very large My guess is that many can avoid the power trails.

 

The Cliff Notes version.

 

Thanks.

 

Is there some problem with making it easier for folks to sort power trails? This would help both those who want to avoid them and those who want to concentrate on them.

Is there some problem with making it easier for folks to read Toz' posts? This would help both those who want to avoid them and those who want to concentrate on them.

Share this post


Link to post
OTOH, I could create a series based on 'Mountain peaks in Arizona over 5000 feet in elevation' that would certainly NOT be a 'powertrail'.

 

I envision a much worse scenario. A CO thinking that all his otherwise totally unrelated hides are part of a series, simply because it's all his own caches.

Share this post


Link to post

I'll try again.

 

Certainly a series could refer to any group of caches. But I believe that the intent of the attribute that Groundspeak is proposing is for a group of caches that are intended to be found at one time. Generally these caches will be on the same trail or route. The intent is you start at one end and find caches till you get to the other end. Of course, if these are listed as traditional caches you could in fact do them in any order, and you don't have to do them all at once, but these are caches that were placed with the expectation that most finders would follow the path.

 

I know that in the UK it is popular for series of caches to take finders on a loop or circuit through the countryside. There are many places here in the States where a cacher has marked a trail by placing several caches along it. I believe the idea is to have attribute to show that a cache is part of such a series so that you know if you go to look for it you will probably want to do the rest of the caches on that trail.

 

This definition certainly applies to so-called power trails as well (whatever definition you use).

 

I understand that some are disappointed because they didn't get an attribute to ignore power trails easily. I believe the problem is that everyone has a different definition of what makes a power trail. However, if you were to combine the series attribute with a D/T filter (and perhaps a cache size filter), I believe that most people would get what they are looking for.

Share this post


Link to post
I understand that some are disappointed because they didn't get an attribute to ignore power trails easily.

That is the ONLY reason I care about the attribute. I need a way to filter power trails out of my pocket queries. That was my request. I understand that TPTB are balancing a number of competing priorities, and I feel for them, but the fact of the matter is that the proposed solution does not fix my problem, and I refuse to pretend that it does.

 

I believe the problem is that everyone has a different definition of what makes a power trail.

That is complete and utter nonsense. Your attempt to sidetrack the discussion into one about the definition of "power trail" failed, as it should have, because the term does not need to be defined in order to make a good attribute. It is off-topic and does not contribute positively to the discussion.

 

The actual problem is not that I define "power trails" in one way or another. It's that I need a way to stop power trails from polluting my pocket queries. A 1000-cache power trail completely fills a pocket query. Really, I don't think is too hard a concept to understand.

Share this post


Link to post

After reading this discussion I am wondering if challenge caches would come under this label.

 

I also believe there is an understandable difference between a series of caches in a scattered set of locations and a power trail of caches in a line or a distinct pattern. And I believe they should not be tossed into the same pot.

Share this post


Link to post
I need a way to stop power trails from polluting my pocket queries ... Really, I don't think is too hard a concept to understand.
I don't see why any CO would pander to such a self-righteous attitude by electing to set the "My Cache Is Just One Of Many Worthless Ones In A Big Series" attribute.

 

If you want "unpolluted" PQs, why don't you ask GS for a better PQ-building interface?

 

I think GS are dead right in declining the request, though I'm not sure the Series attribute has much value as an alternative. There are lots of ways GS could support series, for example by a new List type that included metadata such as the trail length (time & distance) and average difficulty/terrain, and having a subcategory of Favourites that applied only to series. A mere attribute, however, seems to add little to the game.

Share this post


Link to post
I need a way to stop power trails from polluting my pocket queries ... Really, I don't think is too hard a concept to understand.
I don't see why any CO would pander to such a self-righteous attitude by electing to set the "My Cache Is Just One Of Many Worthless Ones In A Big Series" attribute.

 

Self-righteous? Not my intent. Snarky, yes, and maybe even condescending, but I don't see any morality in power trails.

 

As for people choosing to set a "My Cache Is Just One Of Many Worthless Ones In A Big Series" attribute: that designation doesn't seem to keep them from hiding the cache; why not identify it for those who prefer them?

Share this post


Link to post
I need a way to stop power trails from polluting my pocket queries ... Really, I don't think is too hard a concept to understand.
I don't see why any CO would pander to such a self-righteous attitude by electing to set the "My Cache Is Just One Of Many Worthless Ones In A Big Series" attribute.

 

If you want "unpolluted" PQs, why don't you ask GS for a better PQ-building interface?

 

I think GS are dead right in declining the request, though I'm not sure the Series attribute has much value as an alternative. There are lots of ways GS could support series, for example by a new List type that included metadata such as the trail length (time & distance) and average difficulty/terrain, and having a subcategory of Favourites that applied only to series. A mere attribute, however, seems to add little to the game.

 

A power trail attribute will work just as well for those who WANT to find the power trail caches as it would for those who don't. They can run a PQ in the area and ONLY get the power trail caches. This idea is NOT about labeling anybodies cache as good or bad. Rather it is an acknowledgment that for better or worse they are here.

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 1

×