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

Does series = power trail?

Recommended Posts

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.

 

There is also a grey area in between where there is a contrived theme that links a large number of caches that many consider to be a series. For example, the "Always" caches are linked by theme in that they are all located near Walmart/Kmart stores that are "Always" open. However, there are "Always" caches all over the U.S. and although I guess someone could try to complete the series I just can't see equating the series of Always caches to a power trail. I wouldn't even use "theme" as a criteria for defining a power trail. Some "themes" are really nothing more than a group of caches with thematically related cache titles.

 

I also think knowschad hit the nail on the head when he wrote "Caches on a power trail, by the very nature of a power trail, must be linked by proximity." It's the combination of a large number of caches (again, let's say 100+) *and* being linked by proximity (say, and average of .25 of a mile apart) that goes a long way to defining a power trail such that it is distinct from a series.

 

One of the things I saw from quite a few of the reports from those that the the E.T. trails was the number of caches they found in an hour. Suppose a power trail was defined such that, if all of the caches in a "series" could be found (without using a 3 cache monty approach) within an hour, it would not be a power trail. If it took more than an hour to complete the series it would be defined as a power trail. Since, the difficulty rating is subjectively based partially on how long it would take an average cacher to find the cache, it would seem reasonable for a CO to make a pretty good guess as to how long it would take to complete a series.

Share this post


Link to post

What about people who wanted to filter IN a power trail. The attribute that was suggested would have been able to do both and stop the abuse of the scuba attribute.

 

I have a 'series' of mathematical caches. 26 active caches between 2 locations scattered all about between trails, parks, and other places. I will NEVER use the series attribute on my caches.

Share this post


Link to post

I sort of get the impression that Groundspeak wants to ignore the elephant in the room which is "power trails".

 

The current approach seems to be "ignore it and hope it goes away".

 

I'm not sure how to define "power trail" either but some of my personal criteria are:

-- 25 caches or more

-- close proximity to each other in such a way that allows for easy travel between each other

-- caches designed to be found easily with little hunting

-- placed at the same time

-- often hidden by the same person/team

 

I think they dropped the ball on this decision. Reagrdless of what you think about power trails, I think it is clear there is a difference between "power trail" and "series".

 

It's like watching a season of your favorite TV show over the course of several months (series) or renting the DVD and watching the whole thing in one night(power trail).

Share this post


Link to post

Just wanted to add: the beauty of an attribute is the owner gets to decide what is a power trail. PT owners obviously know what they are setting out to do, and they obviously want an attribute to set their caches apart (thus the use of scuba).

 

Groundspeak can still create a seperate series attribute if they want but we still need a power trail attribute.

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?

 

We had a discussion about attributes over on the NW forum. Several expressed the feeling that the way they play the game is not to put attributes on their caches. It is up to you the finder to take the responsibility to determine if you are going to do the cache or not. So I put out the 500 cache (all the film cans left in the world) trail and don't put the attribute on them. Hey it is your responsibility to determine if you want to do them or not. Now what?

Share this post


Link to post

Just wanted to add: the beauty of an attribute is the owner gets to decide what is a power trail. PT owners obviously know what they are setting out to do, and they obviously want an attribute to set their caches apart (thus the use of scuba).

 

Groundspeak can still create a seperate series attribute if they want but we still need a power trail attribute.

 

Exactly!

Share this post


Link to post

I had voted for that feedback item a looong time ago and also wasn't thrilled with the resolution.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

I don't see any faulty logic here, just a misinterpretation of Nate's comment. He isn't saying that power trails and series are the same thing, but rather that a power trail falls into the general category of a series (as you noted).

 

Groundspeak has a general "Dangerous Animals" attribute rather than specific attributes for "Beware of Bears," "Beware of Poisonous Snakes," etc. Apparently, they are considering a general "Part of a Series" attribute, which might include power trails, themed caches, etc.

 

Personally, I don't think there's a major need for a general "Series" attribute, since similar titles can be used to tie together themed caches and make them easier to search. I do see a need for a specific "Power Trail" attribute.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Did you forget to add sarcastic smilies to your post?

 

I can't imagine developing an attribute for something that remained undefined.

Share this post


Link to post

I have started a feedback thread requesting that they reconsider the power trail attribute. link

And Jeremy has already shut it down.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Did you forget to add sarcastic smilies to your post?

 

I can't imagine developing an attribute for something that remained undefined.

 

What is the definition of "available in winter"? "Difficult climbing"?

Share this post


Link to post

I have started a feedback thread requesting that they reconsider the power trail attribute. link

 

Jeremy already declined it, too. I think this is a valid point, despite that. I'm surprised they can't see that.

Share this post


Link to post

I have started a feedback thread requesting that they reconsider the power trail attribute. link

And Jeremy has already shut it down.

 

There is no way that he took the time to even think about what we have said. <_<

Share this post


Link to post

I have started a feedback thread requesting that they reconsider the power trail attribute. link

And Jeremy has already shut it down.

 

Well there you have it.

 

In my book - TPTB have official defined Series=Power Trail.

 

Time for me to never use the attribute and to remove the word "series" from any of my caches and descriptions.

Edited by StarBrand

Share this post


Link to post

I have started a feedback thread requesting that they reconsider the power trail attribute. link

And Jeremy has already shut it down.

 

There is no way that he took the time to even think about what we have said. <_<

This thread has been running since yesterday afternoon. Right around the same time, counterpoint posts were made to the old feedback thread. I think that's plenty of time for Jeremy to think about the idea, even if they didn't discuss these very issues prior to making the decision on the old feedback request.

 

It should also be noted that I had time this morning to do my job and read other threads including this one, make comments in this thread and others, and comment in the feedback thread prior to the idea being officially denied. I have no reason to believe that Jeremy couldn't also have time to think about the issue.

Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post

I have started a feedback thread requesting that they reconsider the power trail attribute. link

And Jeremy has already shut it down.

 

Well there you have it.

 

In my book - TPTB have official defined Series=Power Trail.

 

Time for me to never use the attribute and to remove the word "series" from any of my caches and descriptions.

It's more like they decided that Series⊇Power Trail.

Share this post


Link to post

I have started a feedback thread requesting that they reconsider the power trail attribute. link

And Jeremy has already shut it down.

 

Well there you have it.

 

In my book - TPTB have official defined Series=Power Trail.

 

Time for me to never use the attribute and to remove the word "series" from any of my caches and descriptions.

It's more like they decided that Series⊇Power Trail.

 

Agreed. A power trail is also a series, but a series isn't necessarily a power trail.

 

Sounds about right.

Share this post


Link to post

Well:

 

A searcher could always view the map. Oh look - there are 7,000 strung to-gether over one mile. They could then make a decision as to whether caching along said area would be to their liking. For Pete's sake we can not continue to molly coddle and spoon feed everyone on the planet.

 

Perhaps the folks at the Lilly Pad might have come up with an outlandish attribute that would raise a RED Flag to even the newest cacher, ( ie the scuba attribute that was employed by the owners of the E.T. Trail ), however, that simply is not the case at the moment.

 

We in the field shall deal with it in a manner that best suits us.

 

Ultimately it will be the decision of the cache owner whether or not the suggested attribute would or would not be used. i do not believe that the folks at or associated with " The Lilly Pad " will be running behind us and affixing their attributes to our caches.

Edited by humboldt flier

Share this post


Link to post
Agreed. A power trail is also a series, but a series isn't necessarily a power trail.

 

Sounds about right.

 

Of course, but it completely misses the point of why such an attribute was requested in the first place. People want to filter PTs out, or want to filter for them. Having a "series" attribute doesn't do that. Not even close.

 

The ability to filter for or against cache name or cache owner would be a nice alternative. But we all know what their stance on that is. <_<

Edited by dfx

Share this post


Link to post

I have started a feedback thread requesting that they reconsider the power trail attribute. link

And Jeremy has already shut it down.

 

Well there you have it.

 

In my book - TPTB have official defined Series=Power Trail.

 

Time for me to never use the attribute and to remove the word "series" from any of my caches and descriptions.

It's more like they decided that Series⊇Power Trail.

 

Agreed. A power trail is also a series, but a series isn't necessarily a power trail.

 

Sounds about right.

 

I'd say that there is a pretty strong consensus here about a distinction between a power trail and a series, except those that threw in the "numbers trail" term into the taxonomy.

 

If there is indeed a distinction, such that a power trail is a subset of a series, the use of a "part of a cache series" attribute does not, by itself, allow us to filter out (or in) the types of caches we may want to find.

 

For example; Let's say the ET trail still existed and someone came along an placed 100 caches in the same general area in the shape of a space ship. Suppose that rather than use the same size container for all of the hides they placed a mix of micro to large containers, tried to create hides that had a range of difficulty levels and rather than place them a minimum distance apart, covered a large area with a variety of terrain.

 

There may be one group of cachers that would like to rack up a large number of finds, and another group that has no interest in the numbers and would like to complete a series of caches with a diversity in the type of container, style of hide, and varying terrain ratings. Clearly, according to the TPTB, both to the ET trail caches and "Space Ship" series should be tagged with the "part of a series" attribute and I think that most of us would agree that both groups of caches *are* part of a series, but, IMHO only the ET trail could be considered a power trail.

 

I think that those that created and voted for the "Create a Power Trail attribute" did so because they felt it would address a specific need (to filter in/out caches that are part of a power trail) and what GS plans to give us does not meet that need.

Share this post


Link to post

Well:

 

A searcher could always view the map. Oh look - there are 7,000 strung to-gether over one mile. They could then make a decision as to whether caching along said area would be to their liking. For Pete's sake we can not continue to molly coddle and spoon feed everyone on the planet.

 

I'm sure that there are a few among us that actually live in areas where a power trail has been created. Looking at the map might be something they might do after they got 7000 "new cache published" email notifications.

Share this post


Link to post
Agreed. A power trail is also a series, but a series isn't necessarily a power trail.

 

Sounds about right.

 

Of course, but it completely misses the point of why such an attribute was requested in the first place. People want to filter PTs out, or want to filter for them. Having a "series" attribute doesn't do that. Not even close.

 

The ability to filter for or against cache name or cache owner would be a nice alternative. But we all know what their stance on that is. dry.gif

 

Actually, I believe it is exactly on topic as per the original post in this thread.

 

FWIW, I gave my three votes that idea as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Agreed. A power trail is also a series, but a series isn't necessarily a power trail.

 

Sounds about right.

 

Of course, but it completely misses the point of why such an attribute was requested in the first place. People want to filter PTs out, or want to filter for them. Having a "series" attribute doesn't do that. Not even close.

 

The ability to filter for or against cache name or cache owner would be a nice alternative. But we all know what their stance on that is. dry.gif

 

Actually, I believe it is exactly on topic as per the original post in this thread.

 

FWIW, I gave my three votes that idea as well.

 

It is on topic. However, it is incomplete in context of the OP. A power trail can be said to be a series. However, not all series are power trails. All that was being asked for was a way to make that distinction.

Share this post


Link to post

I have started a feedback thread requesting that they reconsider the power trail attribute. link

And Jeremy has already shut it down.

 

Well there you have it.

 

In my book - TPTB have official defined Series=Power Trail.

 

Time for me to never use the attribute and to remove the word "series" from any of my caches and descriptions.

precisely.

 

No way I want my "East Texas Earthcache Series" being lumped with the caches that litter the roadsides in the nearby National Forests...although nobody else in my area sets attributes, anyway

Share this post


Link to post

There has never been a minimum number of caches needed to make a power trail. Just stick a few caches along the same path at least 528 feet apart and you have one. Three or four caches would easily qualify and back in the day reviewers would ask you to make it one multicache.

 

If a power trail gets large enough, it becomes a numbers run trail. That's where subjectivity comes into play. How many caches do you need to make it a numbers run trail? Is it about trying to get as many finds as you can in a certain amount of time? Before these multi-hundred cache power trails came about that number was much lower. It was a feat just to hit 25 or 50 in a day, then 100. The "world record" was around 300 and it wasn't done on a power trail but with good planning in a cache-dense area.

 

One of the reasons Groundspeak isn't giving us a numbers run attribute is that then they'd have to define it. Just how many caches does it take before a power trail becomes a numbers run trail? The thing they're missing here is that cache owners can make that determination for themselves just like they do on whether a cache is winter-friendly or not.

Share this post


Link to post
One of the things I saw from quite a few of the reports from those that the the E.T. trails was the number of caches they found in an hour. Suppose a power trail was defined such that, if all of the caches in a "series" could be found (without using a 3 cache monty approach) within an hour, it would not be a power trail. If it took more than an hour to complete the series it would be defined as a power trail. Since, the difficulty rating is subjectively based partially on how long it would take an average cacher to find the cache, it would seem reasonable for a CO to make a pretty good guess as to how long it would take to complete a series.
You need some sort of proximity test, in addition to the total time test. Otherwise, a series of 10k caches (placed at peaks around the state at > 10k elevation) would be considered a power trail, because completing the series takes longer than 1 hour.

 

How about a test based on the ratio of driving time to caching time? It also means that if you can't drive from one cache to another, then it isn't a power trail.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm going to remain hopeful that this is a sign that the language in the guidelines regarding "power trails" might soon be reverting to the version before the current one. The one from the "Prepleasian" Era of power trail guidelines.

 

Not that I have any real facts or evidence that this is the case. So hopeful. So very hopeful.

Share this post


Link to post
I'm sure that there are a few among us that actually live in areas where a power trail has been created. Looking at the map might be something they might do after they got 7000 "new cache published" email notifications.
That's another good reason for a new cache type that is a variation of a multi-cache. There would be only one notification, one entry in the weekly newsletter, one log to submit (with a place to specify the number of smilies), etc.

Share this post


Link to post

How about a test based on the ratio of driving time to caching time? It also means that if you can't drive from one cache to another, then it isn't a power trail.

That would exclude nearly all of the original power trails. Those were generally placed along walking paths. Because of the early power trail guidelines, ownership would be split between 4 or 5 cachers with a rotation worked out (the first would own 1, 5, 9, and the next would own 2, 6, 10, and so on).

Share this post


Link to post

I'm going to remain hopeful that this is a sign that the language in the guidelines regarding "power trails" might soon be reverting to the version before the current one. The one from the "Prepleasian" Era of power trail guidelines.

 

Not that I have any real facts or evidence that this is the case. So hopeful. So very hopeful.

It could also be a sign TPTB recognize it is a third rail subject and best left alone.

Share this post


Link to post

Perhaps a clarification of when Groundspeak expects cache owners would use the part of a series attribute. Some people see a difference between as series as a bunch of caches with a common theme and a series that is a bunch of caches that are intended to be found in one outing - for example caches placed along a trail or a route.

 

It's clear that some people want to particularly avoid what are commonly referred to as power trails. They see these series as bunch of caches placed for people to run up a lot of finds all at once. Some people would like to ignore these series but might not want to ignore a theme series or even a series that is intended to be found all at once but has some "Wow" factor to differentiate it from a power trail. I can't see that Groundspeak is going to differentiate between a power/numbers trail and one with some "wow" factor. However they may be willing to say that series means a group of caches intended to be found all at once. You could then look at other attributes that would at least show if you would like enjoy a particular series or not. It should not be hard to find series with all easy park and grab micros and ignore these.

Share this post


Link to post
Personally, I don't think there's a major need for a general "Series" attribute, since similar titles can be used to tie together themed caches and make them easier to search. I do see a need for a specific "Power Trail" attribute.
I don't see a need for a "Series" attribute either. I generally don't look for caches that are part of any series; I look for caches that are part of a specific series that I'm working on. Unless there is a way to filter for caches with the "Series" attribute that are part of a specific series, it won't be very helpful.

 

Then again, perhaps it will become the de facto "Power Trail" attribute. Those who hide power trails and numbers run trails will use it. Those who hide normal series will avoid it. And everything will be fine, except for the newbies who don't understand why so many people are ignoring their new cache series, and others are complaining that it isn't a real "series".

Share this post


Link to post
How about a test based on the ratio of driving time to caching time? It also means that if you can't drive from one cache to another, then it isn't a power trail.
That would exclude nearly all of the original power trails. Those were generally placed along walking paths. Because of the early power trail guidelines, ownership would be split between 4 or 5 cachers with a rotation worked out (the first would own 1, 5, 9, and the next would own 2, 6, 10, and so on).
Well, yes. That's the distinction I make between power trails and numbers run trails. But for some reason, most people seem to be lumping them all together using the term "power trail".

Share this post


Link to post

Perhaps a clarification of when Groundspeak expects cache owners would use the part of a series attribute.

How would that clarification be disseminated to those that don't visit the forums? Look at all the confusion that even the Winter-Findable (or whatever it is really) attribute has caused. If attributes are to be helpful, they should be as un-ambiguous as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
How about a test based on the ratio of driving time to caching time? It also means that if you can't drive from one cache to another, then it isn't a power trail.
That would exclude nearly all of the original power trails. Those were generally placed along walking paths. Because of the early power trail guidelines, ownership would be split between 4 or 5 cachers with a rotation worked out (the first would own 1, 5, 9, and the next would own 2, 6, 10, and so on).
Well, yes. That's the distinction I make between power trails and numbers run trails. But for some reason, most people seem to be lumping them all together using the term "power trail".

 

I lump together simply because I see the "power" part of the phrase in the context of "power caching" and implies, at least to me, that it *is* about a cache run that is intended to yield a high number. Apparently there are some old timers that recall when a group of 10 or so caches along a trail was labeled as a power trail, but I've only been active in the game since 2007 so I don't have that context and thus don't make a distinction between power trails and numbers run trails.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm going to remain hopeful that this is a sign that the language in the guidelines regarding "power trails" might soon be reverting to the version before the current one. The one from the "Prepleasian" Era of power trail guidelines.

 

Not that I have any real facts or evidence that this is the case. So hopeful. So very hopeful.

It could also be a sign TPTB recognize it is a third rail subject and best left alone.

 

I have a theory that it won't take many more 500+ cache trails being archived (one at a time by a team of reviewers) before before the reviewers buck back and there is a change made. Time will tell.

Share this post


Link to post

Power Trail = Series. Series != Power Trail.

 

There seems to be two opinions as to why Power Trail should be an attribute.

 

1. I want to know a power trail so I can find them all / download them to a PQ

 

2. Power trails suck, and the attribute lets me filter them out of a pocket query / search result.

 

For #1, You can use a Bookmark List of this series.

 

For #2, Caches should be rated on their own individual merits instead of its inclusion in a series

 

We largely create attributes as ways to filter in caches instead of filtering them out, and since the only real benefit of this attribute is to filter out caches, it is unlikely that we would add this attribute. Instead we'd rather find ways for people to create quality caches and support the ability to filter those quality caches *in* instead of finding ways to filter them out.

 

(Don't argue ticks, poison plants, etc. The intent of those attributes are to inform, not filter)

 

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.

 

We are adding the “Series” attribute to inform people that the cache is part of a series of different caches. As with any attribute, the cache owners will have to decide whether this attribute fits their cache.

Share this post


Link to post
StarBrand-“In my book - TPTB have official defined Series=Power Trail.”

 

For the life of me I can’t understand how anyone with a basic understanding of logic could honestly believe that. As some others have pointed out, a power trail clearly fits into a series category. You generalize from subsets to a set, not between subsets. Both cats and dogs (subsets) have 4 legs (set) but that doesn’t make cat=dog.

 

It would appear that some cachers are just too lazy to do the filtering of caches they like or dislike on their own and believe they need 500 categories to cater to their caching styles. There are already so many ways to customize searches to accomplish what you want. GSAK has filters and quite often cache owners or others have pocket queries if you want to select a PT. If you want to exclude a subset of caches you could do that just as easily by putting a little effort into it. I fail to see the reason for all this angst.

 

If you don’t want to do a series of caches and call them a PT, just do them one at a time, but as they say, YMMV. :D

Share this post


Link to post

Power Trail = Series. Series != Power Trail.

 

There seems to be two opinions as to why Power Trail should be an attribute.

 

1. I want to know a power trail so I can find them all / download them to a PQ

 

2. Power trails suck, and the attribute lets me filter them out of a pocket query / search result.

 

For #1, You can use a Bookmark List of this series.

 

For #2, Caches should be rated on their own individual merits instead of its inclusion in a series

 

We largely create attributes as ways to filter in caches instead of filtering them out, and since the only real benefit of this attribute is to filter out caches, it is unlikely that we would add this attribute. Instead we'd rather find ways for people to create quality caches and support the ability to filter those quality caches *in* instead of finding ways to filter them out.

 

(Don't argue ticks, poison plants, etc. The intent of those attributes are to inform, not filter)

 

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.

 

We are adding the “Series” attribute to inform people that the cache is part of a series of different caches. As with any attribute, the cache owners will have to decide whether this attribute fits their cache.

Share this post


Link to post
For #1, You can use a Bookmark List of this series.

Only that from a bookmark list, you get only those caches, all of them, and nothing else. That may not be what everybody wants. More options = good.

 

For #2, Caches should be rated on their own individual merits instead of its inclusion in a series

Right. Unfortunately that's not a solution to the already existing problem.

 

We largely create attributes as ways to filter in caches instead of filtering them out, and since the only real benefit of this attribute is to filter out caches, it is unlikely that we would add this attribute.

But even with a "part of a series" attribute, even if it's not used for powertrail caches, people will use it to filter out caches. I don't see people filtering for this attribute - who would want to get only caches part of some random series? They may be interested in caches part of a specific series, but not just any series. Except maybe in an "OR" query, but PQs don't provide that.

 

We also don't want to create the attribute as it encourages these types of hides. If anything we want to discourage them.

Right, so you want to discourage them, but as of yet you're still allowing them, and at the same time deny people an effective way to filter them out. That's not helping anyone. It only makes sense if PTs were to be disallowed in the near future, but then saying that a "series" attribute would fulfil the function of a powertrail attribute wouldn't make sense.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

 

Good to hear there's some discussion going on at the lilypad in this area.

Share this post


Link to post

Hmmm, mobile version of the web flaked out on me. Was meaning to add....

 

Thanks, Jeremy, for taking the time to explain the decision.

Share this post


Link to post

Power Trail = Series. Series != Power Trail.

 

There seems to be two opinions as to why Power Trail should be an attribute.

 

1. I want to know a power trail so I can find them all / download them to a PQ

 

2. Power trails suck, and the attribute lets me filter them out of a pocket query / search result.

 

For #1, You can use a Bookmark List of this series.

 

For #2, Caches should be rated on their own individual merits instead of its inclusion in a series

 

We largely create attributes as ways to filter in caches instead of filtering them out, and since the only real benefit of this attribute is to filter out caches, it is unlikely that we would add this attribute. Instead we'd rather find ways for people to create quality caches and support the ability to filter those quality caches *in* instead of finding ways to filter them out.

 

(Don't argue ticks, poison plants, etc. The intent of those attributes are to inform, not filter)

 

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.

 

We are adding the “Series” attribute to inform people that the cache is part of a series of different caches. As with any attribute, the cache owners will have to decide whether this attribute fits their cache.

 

Thanks Jeremy. It would be nice if this was originally posted to the feedback site.

 

I'm also all for discouraging PT's

Share this post


Link to post

Power Trail = Series. Series != Power Trail.

 

There seems to be two opinions as to why Power Trail should be an attribute.

 

1. I want to know a power trail so I can find them all / download them to a PQ

 

2. Power trails suck, and the attribute lets me filter them out of a pocket query / search result.

 

For #1, You can use a Bookmark List of this series.

 

For #2, Caches should be rated on their own individual merits instead of its inclusion in a series

 

We largely create attributes as ways to filter in caches instead of filtering them out, and since the only real benefit of this attribute is to filter out caches, it is unlikely that we would add this attribute. Instead we'd rather find ways for people to create quality caches and support the ability to filter those quality caches *in* instead of finding ways to filter them out.

 

(Don't argue ticks, poison plants, etc. The intent of those attributes are to inform, not filter)

 

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.

 

We are adding the “Series” attribute to inform people that the cache is part of a series of different caches. As with any attribute, the cache owners will have to decide whether this attribute fits their cache.

 

I very much appreciate this response. It certainly calarifies the thinking quite a bit. Too bad it was not as clearly communicated from the beginning.

 

Again - thanks!!

Share this post


Link to post

Power Trail = Series. Series != Power Trail.

 

There seems to be two opinions as to why Power Trail should be an attribute.

 

1. I want to know a power trail so I can find them all / download them to a PQ

 

2. Power trails suck, and the attribute lets me filter them out of a pocket query / search result.

 

For #1, You can use a Bookmark List of this series.

 

For #2, Caches should be rated on their own individual merits instead of its inclusion in a series

 

We largely create attributes as ways to filter in caches instead of filtering them out, and since the only real benefit of this attribute is to filter out caches, it is unlikely that we would add this attribute. Instead we'd rather find ways for people to create quality caches and support the ability to filter those quality caches *in* instead of finding ways to filter them out.

 

(Don't argue ticks, poison plants, etc. The intent of those attributes are to inform, not filter)

 

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.

 

We are adding the “Series” attribute to inform people that the cache is part of a series of different caches. As with any attribute, the cache owners will have to decide whether this attribute fits their cache.

 

This may not solve it: >>> " So we may have to make some hard decisions in the near future about the issue of cache saturation by one user. "

 

A group of individuals could get together and agree to post every other, third, fourth, fifth, sixth etc. etc cache in a long string.

 

Perhaps there is room for allowing a LIMITED FEW Power Trails in any particular region. Further, perhaps limiting the length of the trail might be worthy of consideration.

 

For every rule / regulation / suggestion made; attempts will be made to circumnavigate the rules / regulations

Share this post


Link to post

Thank you for the clarification Jeremy. I am sure we are are all anxious to here what you have planned for the saturation guidelines and how that will impact this issue. Please keep us informed.

Share this post


Link to post

For #1, You can use a Bookmark List of this series.

So, does this mean that we are finally going to get a way to search for Bookmark Lists? :)

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.

lol

 

Sort or like "Available In Winter" and "Winter Friendly" being used for the same attribute...

 

Back on topic...no...a Cache Series does not always make for a Power Trail.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

×