Total Lose of Commom Sense.

[+humboldt flier]

I have never taken the position that you are assigning to me in the bolded bit.

 

Of course you did. What other reason would you have had to make that post? Just to point out something that he knew already, that he made an assumption? Even though you agree with it? Seriously?

 

Are you going to reply with "I never said I agreed with it" now?

I made a post. Someone else replied to my post. He phrased it as if he was disagreeing, but he actually agreed with my earlier post. I replied that we weren't in disagreement. My position never changed and I never took the position that you are attributing to me.

No no - you can't re-create history. You said that you had never seen evidence of a higher rate of stupid cachers at PT caches. I offered that proof. It is, as I stated simple math. So unless you agree that I have offered proof of a higher rate of stupid cachers - we are still a wide margin apart.

I thought we were in agreement that the ratio of stupid cachers to non-stupid cachers finding a power trail cache was approximately equal to those finding a non-power trail cache. Whether you still agree with that or not doesn't matter to me. What does matter to me is that dfx and castle mischief are mistating my given position.

 

I say there is definitely a greater amount on powertrail. Not only do they attract them, but breed them. MY opinion that is based on many many observations on conversations.

 

I doubt that anyone doing a P.T. Run is taking the time to breed

[+Kryten]

To save on the planets resources we just need to go to the next logical step and revoke the cache density rule. Take 1000 film cans and place them all in a large container and post the co-ordinates. Those who like this sort of thing can then sit all day and log each and every one to their hearts content without causing any problems on the roads. Even better, why not just credit 1000 finds for logging the main container.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

The other reason these are bad is that they block out some very good cache sites on this very beautiful area.

I find this interesting. You mean all the good cache sites are within 528 of the road and beyond that there are no good cache sites?

 

captnemo wrote "block out *some* very good cache sites". Why did you change it to "all good cache sites"?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

The repetition of the terms scale and density is beginning to get about as tired as the argument of "if you don't like them don't do them." Time to get over that one. Just because some don't like it, doesn't mean that others don't.

 

The difference between the arguments is one is valid and the other is not.

 

The issue of scale and density negatively impacts the game in a way that is mostly unique to power trails. "If you don't like it, don't do them." does not alleviate the problems caused by scale and density and may be based on a false premise.

 

Wishing that the valid argument will go away doesn't make it any less valid.

[+GeoGeeBee]

 

What I want to know is if normally responsible cachers become stupid when doing a power trail?

 

"Correlation does not imply causation." It appears that there is a correlation between power trails and stupid behavior. That doesn't necessarily mean that power trails CAUSE the stupid behavior. It could be that people who engage in stupid behavior are attracted to power trails.

[+sbell111]

 

What I want to know is if normally responsible cachers become stupid when doing a power trail?

 

"Correlation does not imply causation." It appears that there is a correlation between power trails and stupid behavior. That doesn't necessarily mean that power trails CAUSE the stupid behavior. It could be that people who engage in stupid behavior are attracted to power trails.

It could be that some of us key in on stupid behavior related to our pet peaves, in this case power trails. After all, there have been threads about people doing stupid things ever since the forums began.

[+Castle Mischief]

The repetition of the terms scale and density is beginning to get about as tired as the argument of "if you don't like them don't do them." Time to get over that one. Just because some don't like it, doesn't mean that others don't.

 

A large group not liking them is not what lead to the archival of over 1500 caches that were part of two power trails. The power trail itself is the problem and it's much more tiring for you and a handful of others to keep ignoring that fact and throwing the "you people just don't like them" back in our collective faces every time we put a well-reasoned opinion on the table.

 

Similarly it's more tiring to see people comparing a string of 500-1000 caches placed .10 of a mile apart that is spawning a whole new type of caching behavior to a single cache, a group of unassociated caches, or a series of caches that are not arranged in the same manner at the same (wait for it) scale and density.

[+Ecylram]

It could be that some of us key in on stupid behavior related to our pet peaves, in this case power trails. After all, there have been threads about people doing stupid things ever since the forums began.

 

Not to mention every perceived slight that happens on a Power Trail gets blown out of proportion.

 

We all want the activity of geocaching to thrive and prosper. Some individuals here look at the power trails and genuinely believe that PT's are hurting geocaching. They speak out in an effort to protect the activity.

 

Others, myself included, don't see a threat in a properly constructed power trail and don't want to see the variety of choices in geocaching to be diminished. Some of us see a threat to geocaching when segments of geocaching start to get lopped off. We also worry about the unintended consequences of bans.

 

Unfortunately, I don't see this argument ever ending. Which is a shame as we are advocating here because we care about geocaching and want the best for the activity.

[+Castle Mischief]

It could be that some of us key in on stupid behavior related to our pet peaves, in this case power trails. After all, there have been threads about people doing stupid things ever since the forums began.

 

Not to mention every perceived slight that happens on a Power Trail gets blown out of proportion.

 

We all want the activity of geocaching to thrive and prosper. Some individuals here look at the power trails and genuinely believe that PT's are hurting geocaching. They speak out in an effort to protect the activity.

 

Others, myself included, don't see a threat in a properly constructed power trail and don't want to see the variety of choices in geocaching to be diminished. Some of us see a threat to geocaching when segments of geocaching start to get lopped off. We also worry about the unintended consequences of bans.

 

Unfortunately, I don't see this argument ever ending. Which is a shame as we are advocating here because we care about geocaching and want the best for the activity.

 

Over 1500 individual caches were archived, en masse, in two separate events that were not caused by slights blown out of proportion.

 

Do you think that's helping geocaching on the whole?

[+Ecylram]

Over 1500 individual caches were archived, en masse, in two separate events that were not caused by slights blown out of proportion.

 

Do you think that's helping geocaching on the whole?

 

Yes

[+CanadianRockies]

The log the OP references indicate that the car was stopped on the road in a no passing zone (perhaps on hill where you couldn't see what cars were coming from the other direction). By leaving their car in the road they force a driver traveling in the same direction to either make an illegal and unsafe pass or to wait for them to return to their car and move it. I'd view the actions of these cachers as lacking courtesy for others using the road more than being unsafe.

I hope I'm wrong, but you seem to be trying to diminish the safety issue by emphasizing the courtesy issue.

 

While forum participants have a wide range of opinions regarding power trails, I think the vast majority would agree that this type of behaviour is both discourteous AND unsafe. Clearly, not all power trail geocachers act this way. But those that do deserve to be criticized for more than just their bad manners.

 

Your description of the OP also seems to diminish the safety issue. The quoted log entry was quite clear about the car being "parked on an uphill section of road;" no "perhaps" about it. And: "This was a no passing zone and we could not see if anyone was coming in the other direction." No "perhaps" there, either. You also neglected to mention that the driver's door was open, which made it even more dangerous to pass the parked vehicle. As well, this is the RT66 power trail, which is along a busier highway than the E.T. power trail.

[+Castle Mischief]

Over 1500 individual caches were archived, en masse, in two separate events that were not caused by slights blown out of proportion.

 

Do you think that's helping geocaching on the whole?

 

Yes

 

Huh. Okay, I'll bite. Could you elaborate? I'm genuinely interested.

Edited March 22, 2011 by Castle Mischief

[+Ecylram]

Over 1500 individual caches were archived, en masse, in two separate events that were not caused by slights blown out of proportion.

 

Do you think that's helping geocaching on the whole?

 

Yes

 

Huh. Okay, I'll bite. Could you elaborate? I'm genuinely interested.

Not that I'm excited about going down this rabbit hole, but since you asked nicely...

 

On it's face your question was absurd as, of course, we'd all like to not have caches archived - PT or not. But, taking your question straight...it's always good for geocaching when a cache that needs to be archived is archived.

 

I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that first trail you referred to was archived due to the sensitive nature of the area. Sounds like it should have been archived. The ET trail was archived when the land owner, NDOT, retracted their permission to place caches on their property. Archiving was the responsible thing to do. Thousands of caches get archived each year, PT or not, and that is a good thing.

 

That's my answer, but since it only addresses your specific question and in no way challenges your primary concerns about power trails...I know that is an unsatisfactory answer.

[+Too Tall John]

Over 1500 individual caches were archived, en masse, in two separate events that were not caused by slights blown out of proportion.

 

Do you think that's helping geocaching on the whole?

Yes

Huh. Okay, I'll bite. Could you elaborate? I'm genuinely interested.

Not that I'm excited about going down this rabbit hole, but since you asked nicely...

 

On it's face your question was absurd as, of course, we'd all like to not have caches archived - PT or not. But, taking your question straight...it's always good for geocaching when a cache that needs to be archived is archived.

 

I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that first trail you referred to was archived due to the sensitive nature of the area. Sounds like it should have been archived. The ET trail was archived when the land owner, NDOT, retracted their permission to place caches on their property. Archiving was the responsible thing to do. Thousands of caches get archived each year, PT or not, and that is a good thing.

 

That's my answer, but since it only addresses your specific question and in no way challenges your primary concerns about power trails...I know that is an unsatisfactory answer.

I believe the real question was not "Is archiving the power trail helpful to caching?" I believe what CM was getting at is "Is allowing the placement of 1000's of caches that soon need to be archived at the request of landowners helpful to caching?"

 

Reading your response above, I believe you would answer No. That is my answer, too.

[+Too Tall John]

Huh... Double post? I've not seen that in a while...

Edited March 22, 2011 by Too Tall John

[+Castle Mischief]

Over 1500 individual caches were archived, en masse, in two separate events that were not caused by slights blown out of proportion.

 

Do you think that's helping geocaching on the whole?

Yes

Huh. Okay, I'll bite. Could you elaborate? I'm genuinely interested.

Not that I'm excited about going down this rabbit hole, but since you asked nicely...

 

On it's face your question was absurd as, of course, we'd all like to not have caches archived - PT or not. But, taking your question straight...it's always good for geocaching when a cache that needs to be archived is archived.

 

I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that first trail you referred to was archived due to the sensitive nature of the area. Sounds like it should have been archived. The ET trail was archived when the land owner, NDOT, retracted their permission to place caches on their property. Archiving was the responsible thing to do. Thousands of caches get archived each year, PT or not, and that is a good thing.

 

That's my answer, but since it only addresses your specific question and in no way challenges your primary concerns about power trails...I know that is an unsatisfactory answer.

I believe the real question was not "Is archiving the power trail helpful to caching?" I believe what CM was getting at is "Is allowing the placement of 1000's of caches that soon need to be archived at the request of landowners helpful to caching?"

 

Reading your response above, I believe you would answer No. That is my answer, too.

 

Now that's using your commom sense. Your "c " sense, if you will.

Edited March 22, 2011 by Castle Mischief

[+briansnat]

Over 1500 individual caches were archived, en masse, in two separate events that were not caused by slights blown out of proportion.

 

Do you think that's helping geocaching on the whole?

 

Yes

 

I agree with Ecylram for once. 1,500 fewer pointless micros ain't all that bad a thing.

Edited March 22, 2011 by briansnat

[+Castle Mischief]

I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that first trail you referred to was archived due to the sensitive nature of the area. Sounds like it should have been archived. The ET trail was archived when the land owner, NDOT, retracted their permission to place caches on their property. Archiving was the responsible thing to do.

 

Huh. My understanding is they were both because of permission issues, based on a Lackey comment. Now can you really agree that creating 500-1000 permission issues for land managers to deal with all at one time is a good idea?

 

If somebody managed to sneak 500 buried caches past a reviewer and then they were all archived at the same time, in the same place would you say at the end of the day, "man it's a good thing these caches were placed so they could later all be archived."

 

Thousands of caches get archived each year, PT or not, and that is a good thing.

 

But only in special cases are 500-1000 caches archived in 24 hours. Two words come to mind that you keep ignoring and trying to remove from the discussion. You cannot have a discussion about power trails without considering that the scale and density are part of the problem.

[+G & C]

The repetition of the terms scale and density is beginning to get about as tired as the argument of "if you don't like them don't do them." Time to get over that one. Just because some don't like it, doesn't mean that others don't.

 

A large group not liking them is not what lead to the archival of over 1500 caches that were part of two power trails. The power trail itself is the problem and it's much more tiring for you and a handful of others to keep ignoring that fact and throwing the "you people just don't like them" back in our collective faces every time we put a well-reasoned opinion on the table.

 

Similarly it's more tiring to see people comparing a string of 500-1000 caches placed .10 of a mile apart that is spawning a whole new type of caching behavior to a single cache, a group of unassociated caches, or a series of caches that are not arranged in the same manner at the same (wait for it) scale and density.

 

You're talking to the wrong person. I'm not throwing anything in anyone's face. Contrarily, I'm telling you to stop throwing your opinions in people's faces, because I'm sick of the people that want to force their way of doing things down everyone elses throats.

 

Less rules + More common sense > scale, density, and any other snazzy little phrase that you can come up with to try to push your point on me.

 

The difference between the arguments is one is valid and the other is not.

 

The issue of scale and density negatively impacts the game in a way that is mostly unique to power trails. "If you don't like it, don't do them." does not alleviate the problems caused by scale and density and may be based on a false premise.

 

Wishing that the valid argument will go away doesn't make it any less valid.

 

Negative. Your argument is not valid. Your argument makes sense. There's a difference. Problems caused by scale and density are a problem that has always had the potential to be, even if it wasn't always being recognized. The rule has always been one tenth of a mile between caches. If it's not PTs, it will be people teaming up and placing groups of caches with different owners one tenth of a mile apart. Why? Because people like this aspect of geocaching. I do not, apparently you do not, but by and large, PEOPLE DO.

 

Simply claiming to be right, and claiming that YOUR argument holds validity, does not make it so. I'm sorry.

 

Stop trying to impose your will on others. Let them do as they please.

[knowschad]

Stop trying to impose your will on others. Let them do as they please.

Oh, the irony!!

[+tozainamboku]

Over 1500 individual caches were archived, en masse, in two separate events that were not caused by slights blown out of proportion.

 

Do you think that's helping geocaching on the whole?

There have been a lot more than 1500 individual caches archived because they were placed without permission, or in violation of some other guideline, or because some caches acted inappropriately when searching for the cache.

 

The argument is being made that power trail caches are more likely to cause these problems than other caches. The only proof we have is these two trail and some anecdotal evidence of bad behavior on some other trails.

 

It may be true that these caches are more likely to cause these problems. What hasn't been shown is that these issues - which can happen with any cache - cause any lasting damage to geocaching. The agencies where the two trails that were archived have actual responded somewhat positively to discovering that geocaching is so popular with so many caches placed on their property. The seem to be willing to work with local groups and Groundspeak to develop new guidelines that will allow caches while addressing issues these power trails were causing. This is much better that what the supervisor at Anza Borego Desert State Park did when he found a cache placed without permission near an archeological site. He banned caches in his park and that resulted in existing caches that had been placed in accordance with prior guidlelines worked out with that park to be archived.

 

Quite frankly, the issues with power trails seem pretty minor compared to some that I've seen with other caches that got archived. I have been disturbed to here stories that some cachers are blantantly ignoring traffic laws in order to speed up their find rates, but then I have also expressed concerns where I hear of cachers with a scorched earth approach to finding a cache or those who trample flower beds or damage property in the course of looking for a cache. I tend to put the blame on the idiots who behave this way, rather than on the caches. Though over time I have come to realize that since there are a few idiots, cache hiders have a responsibility to anticipate this behavior and place caches where the effects will be minimized. I suspect that if you don't like repetitive power trail caching, you will claim that these trails can't be placed in a way to minimize the effects of bad behavior, while if you like this kind of caches you will argue that hiders can find ways to do this under the current guidelines.

[+G & C]

Stop trying to impose your will on others. Let them do as they please.

Oh, the irony!!

 

Oh please, show me the irony. I want less rules and regulations, and more ability to play the game as each person chooses. That's pretty much the direct opposite of imposing my will on others.

 

My stance on PTs is one of neutrality.

[knowschad]

Stop trying to impose your will on others. Let them do as they please.

Oh, the irony!!

 

Oh please, show me the irony. I want less rules and regulations, and more ability to play the game as each person chooses. That's pretty much the direct opposite of imposing my will on others.

 

My stance on PTs is one of neutrality.

 

The irony is that you are imposing your will on others by telling them to stop trying to impose their will on others (which is not at all what they are trying to do, by the way).

 

I think some very strong arguments have been made that these highway power trails DO have an effect on all geocaching, and so they are everybody's business. Sorry if you don't get that, but some of do, and they have every right to argue their points without you trying to shut them up.

[+G & C]

Stop trying to impose your will on others. Let them do as they please.

Oh, the irony!!

 

Oh please, show me the irony. I want less rules and regulations, and more ability to play the game as each person chooses. That's pretty much the direct opposite of imposing my will on others.

 

My stance on PTs is one of neutrality.

 

The irony is that you are imposing your will on others by telling them to stop trying to impose their will on others (which is not at all what they are trying to do, by the way).

 

I think some very strong arguments have been made that these highway power trails DO have an effect on all geocaching, and so they are everybody's business. Sorry if you don't get that, but some of do, and they have every right to argue their points without you trying to shut them up.

 

Right... sorry. I keep forgetting that arguing for more freedom is equal to an imposition of ones will. No, never mind. Your statement makes no sense.

 

I'm not arguing for or against PTs. I'm arguing against those of you who would rather create more rules and restrictions, as opposed to allowing people to play the game the way that they want to. As I've done in every thread where someone wants to make more rules because they don't like the way something is playing out. It's sad.

[+Too Tall John]

Less rules + More common sense

Oh, if only it were that easy.

 

People tend to sink to the lowest common denominator. When it comes to "sense," the bar is set far below what should be common sense.

 

How's this: I'll join in with you and promise that I'll help eliminate rules if you'll promise that everyone will start using more common sense.

 

I await your plan on how to do this, but in the meantime, 6 caches just got published a little bit down the road....

[knowschad]

Stop trying to impose your will on others. Let them do as they please.

Oh, the irony!!

 

Oh please, show me the irony. I want less rules and regulations, and more ability to play the game as each person chooses. That's pretty much the direct opposite of imposing my will on others.

 

My stance on PTs is one of neutrality.

 

The irony is that you are imposing your will on others by telling them to stop trying to impose their will on others (which is not at all what they are trying to do, by the way).

 

I think some very strong arguments have been made that these highway power trails DO have an effect on all geocaching, and so they are everybody's business. Sorry if you don't get that, but some of do, and they have every right to argue their points without you trying to shut them up.

 

Right... sorry. I keep forgetting that arguing for more freedom is equal to an imposition of ones will. No, never mind. Your statement makes no sense.

 

I'm not arguing for or against PTs. I'm arguing against those of you who would rather create more rules and restrictions, as opposed to allowing people to play the game the way that they want to. As I've done in every thread where someone wants to make more rules because they don't like the way something is playing out. It's sad.

OK... I can see that we have a total lose of commom sense here. I tried to explain. Done trying.

[Clan Riffster]

Power trails are no less of a good idea than geocaching as a whole.

Not sure I agree with this at all. While a few roadside caches can, and will present the occasional hazard, as certain seekers will not utilize good judgment when stopping for them, the difference with power trails is a huge matter of scale. If pulling only partially off the road to nab a hide-a-key in a guardrail is a really bad idea, then multiplying this behavior by a thousand such caches significantly magnifies the problem. One poorly placed cache, sought by an obliviot is not nearly as problematic as one thousand poorly placed caches sought by the same obliviot. It's like comparing one bad apple to a container ship full of rotten fruit.

[+Too Tall John]

Right... sorry. I keep forgetting that arguing for more freedom is equal to an imposition of ones will. No, never mind. Your statement makes no sense.

 

I'm not arguing for or against PTs. I'm arguing against those of you who would rather create more rules and restrictions, as opposed to allowing people to play the game the way that they want to. As I've done in every thread where someone wants to make more rules because they don't like the way something is playing out. It's sad.

People are offering their opinion and you are telling them to shut up. Here's free will for you: If you are sick of reading our opinions,

 

DON'T OPEN THIS THREAD!!!

[+M 5]

Stop trying to impose your will on others. Let them do as they please.

Oh, the irony!!

 

Oh please, show me the irony. I want less rules and regulations, and more ability to play the game as each person chooses. That's pretty much the direct opposite of imposing my will on others.

 

My stance on PTs is one of neutrality.

 

The irony is that you are imposing your will on others by telling them to stop trying to impose their will on others (which is not at all what they are trying to do, by the way).

 

I think some very strong arguments have been made that these highway power trails DO have an effect on all geocaching, and so they are everybody's business. Sorry if you don't get that, but some of do, and they have every right to argue their points without you trying to shut them up.

 

Right... sorry. I keep forgetting that arguing for more freedom is equal to an imposition of ones will. No, never mind. Your statement makes no sense.

 

I'm not arguing for or against PTs. I'm arguing against those of you who would rather create more rules and restrictions, as opposed to allowing people to play the game the way that they want to. As I've done in every thread where someone wants to make more rules because they don't like the way something is playing out. It's sad.

 

I has been proven thoughout history that people mess up good things. That there needs to be rules, is painfully obvious. The amount can definitely be argued. I tend to be in the middle on most things, but not on powertrails. They amplify know geocacing issues and create even more. Give people enough rope and they will hang themselves and the sport. Look at virtuals and ALR's. They were alright, until people got goofy. Groundspeak has to determine what rules help the long term viability of the hobby for us and business for them. Just banging the hammer for less rules and restrictions is silly and been played out on many issues. I want smart rules and restrictions, not more for the sake of more.

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

Stop trying to impose your will on others. Let them do as they please.

Oh, the irony!!

 

Oh please, show me the irony. I want less rules and regulations, and more ability to play the game as each person chooses. That's pretty much the direct opposite of imposing my will on others.

 

My stance on PTs is one of neutrality.

 

The irony is that you are imposing your will on others by telling them to stop trying to impose their will on others (which is not at all what they are trying to do, by the way).

 

I think some very strong arguments have been made that these highway power trails DO have an effect on all geocaching, and so they are everybody's business. Sorry if you don't get that, but some of do, and they have every right to argue their points without you trying to shut them up.

 

Right... sorry. I keep forgetting that arguing for more freedom is equal to an imposition of ones will. No, never mind. Your statement makes no sense.

 

I'm not arguing for or against PTs. I'm arguing against those of you who would rather create more rules and restrictions, as opposed to allowing people to play the game the way that they want to. As I've done in every thread where someone wants to make more rules because they don't like the way something is playing out. It's sad.

 

But, isn't people playing the game the way they want, what caused the archiving of the power trails?

 

John

[+Castle Mischief]

Stop trying to impose your will on others. Let them do as they please.

Oh, the irony!!

 

Oh please, show me the irony. I want less rules and regulations, and more ability to play the game as each person chooses. That's pretty much the direct opposite of imposing my will on others.

 

My stance on PTs is one of neutrality.

 

The irony is that you are imposing your will on others by telling them to stop trying to impose their will on others (which is not at all what they are trying to do, by the way).

 

I think some very strong arguments have been made that these highway power trails DO have an effect on all geocaching, and so they are everybody's business. Sorry if you don't get that, but some of do, and they have every right to argue their points without you trying to shut them up.

 

Right... sorry. I keep forgetting that arguing for more freedom is equal to an imposition of ones will. No, never mind. Your statement makes no sense.

 

I'm not arguing for or against PTs. I'm arguing against those of you who would rather create more rules and restrictions, as opposed to allowing people to play the game the way that they want to. As I've done in every thread where someone wants to make more rules because they don't like the way something is playing out. It's sad.

 

I'd just like to point out that this whole Power Trail thing is only possible because a rule was essentially removed (effectly neutered) from the guidelines. If you don't like opinions, you don't have to read them but telling people to stop offering them because you don't like them is rude and uncalled for. If you disagree then offer a counter, but you're just telling us to shut up becuase it doesn't make you happy.

Edited March 22, 2011 by Castle Mischief

[+G & C]

But, isn't people playing the game the way they want, what caused the archiving of the power trails?

 

John

 

It is from what I can tell. So... problem solved, right? Caches are a problem where they are, the number that there are, whatever, so caches are archived. Done.

 

So why are folks proposing more rules/regulations?

 

THAT'S my problem with these threads.

 

I'd just like to point out that this whole Power Trail thing is only possible because a rule was essentially removed (effectly neutered) from the guidelines. If you don't like opinions, you don't have to read them but telling people to stop offering them because you don't like them is rude and uncalled for. If you disagree then offer a counter, but you're just telling us to shut up becuase it doesn't make you happy.

 

Not once did I tell anyone to shut up, or anything close to that. I'm simply on the side that says you're argument is wrong, despite the fact that I do believe it's for the right reasons. I've been very civil to this point, and I don't intend to take any hard feelings from this debate, but whining about me being rude because I don't agree with the way you want to handle this situation is ridiculous.

 

My counter, as has already been offered, is to promote using more common sense when geocaching. Common sense will solve the vast majority of the problems we as geocachers face. But both hiders, and seekers, have to use it for it to be effective.

[+geodarts]

So why are folks proposing more rules/regulations?

 

Personally, I think the existing rules are more than adequate.

 

Permission. By placing the cache, "You assure us that you have the landowner's and/or land manager's permission before you hide any geocache, whether placed on private or public property." "Even if you are certain that geocaching is permitted on a particular public property, ensure that the management agency is aware of your intended placement and secure their permission before placing the cache."

 

Assuming that a megatrail has adequate permission because it is in a public right of way does not seem to have worked out very well. Perhaps Groundspeak should inquire further when a repetitive trail or megatrail is proposed, just as they do if a cache is proposed in an area that they have identified as being problematic.

 

Cache Maintenance. "Owner is responsible for geocache page upkeep. Owner is responsible for visits to the physical location." "As the owner of your geocache listing, your responsibility includes quality control of all posts to the cache page." "You are responsible for occasional visits to your cache to maintain proper working order, especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.)"

 

I am not sure how megatrails in particular can be maintained -- where an owner will read the logs, personally check on caches that need maintenance, and respond to other cache issues. Relying on the community to throw down new containers if a cacher does not spot the old one in 30 seconds is not a maintenance plan.

 

So without trying to impose any new restrictions, these current guidelines would seemingly minimize megatrails. There are many smaller repetitive trails of course. If these are placed within the current guidelines, I certainly do not have a problem with them.

Edited March 22, 2011 by mulvaney

[+tozainamboku]

So why are folks proposing more rules/regulations?

 

Personally, I think the existing rules are more than adequate.

 

Permission. By placing the cache, "You assure us that you have the landowner's and/or land manager's permission before you hide any geocache, whether placed on private or public property." "Even if you are certain that geocaching is permitted on a particular public property, ensure that the management agency is aware of your intended placement and secure their permission before placing the cache."

 

Assuming that a megatrail has adequate permission because it is in a public right of way does not seem to have worked out very well. Perhaps Groundspeak should inquire further when a repetitive trail or megatrail is proposed, just as they do if a cache is proposed in an area that they have identified as being problematic.

Shouldn't this then apply to all roadside caches? Why assume that the person placing a power trail is any more or less likely to get permission than some one hiding a signal cache - or a multi cache or short series along the same road?

 

Cache Maintenance. "Owner is responsible for geocache page upkeep. Owner is responsible for visits to the physical location." "As the owner of your geocache listing, your responsibility includes quality control of all posts to the cache page." "You are responsible for occasional visits to your cache to maintain proper working order, especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.)"

 

I am not sure how megatrails in particular can be maintained -- where an owner will read the logs, personally check on caches that need maintenance, and respond to other cache issues. Relying on the community to throw down new containers if a cacher does not spot the old one in 30 seconds is not a maintenance plan.

This is simply a red herring base on a puritanical ideal. Clearly if I hide a cleverly cammo'ed container or even an ammo can, I don't want the first finder to take this cache and leave a replacement container. If I put out a series of identical 35 mm film cans however I really don't care if the container is replaced and I certainly am not interested in some puritans insistence that I check logs and delete finds if I can't find the signature. Accept the fact for someone enjoying speed caching, they goal is not exactly the way you play the game. If you were to do this trail (and I assume you never will), you could in fact log each cache and replace as you found and dnf the ones you can't find and not replace them. The only reason you complain is because you want to compare your numbers to some "numbers" cachers. These don't compare. I've stopped comparing my numbers to people who I know have done these power trails. If it doesn't effect me I don't care what methods they used to find more caches. This thread, if had stayed on topic, would have been about whether power trails cause cachers to disobey traffic laws and lose common sense when stopping to find the cache. This of course concerns me. But not whether they swap containers.

 

So without trying to impose any new restrictions, these current guidelines would seemingly minimize megatrails. There are many smaller repetitive trails of course. If these are placed within the current guidelines, I certainly do not have a problem with them.

The guidelines should apply to all caches whether a ppower trail, a smaller series, or a lone cache. Just as whether someone breaks a traffic law concerns me whether it is on a power trail or on a single cache.

[knowschad]

The "P" card has been thrown down. Here we go.

[mresoteric]

The "P" card has been thrown down. Here we go.

 

The p word has been used from the beginning of the thread.

[+geodarts]

Shouldn't this then apply to all roadside caches? Why assume that the person placing a power trail is any more or less likely to get permission than some one hiding a signal cache - or a multi cache or short series along the same road?

 

The guideline applies to all caches. Some particular cache placements, however, will trigger further questioning by a reviewer because of the potential impact. If a cache is placed at a school, for instance, the reviewer will ask for more than assurances that the cache has adequate permission. Given the experience with megatrails (ET and the Trail of the Gods come to mind), I think that placing a large number of caches along a particular route should also trigger further inquiry because that kind of activity has more of an impact than a single cache along the roadway. The guideline remains the same. Perhaps the reviewer inquiry is different. Although I would not be adverse if Groundspeak reviewers applied the same permission requirements as earthcache reviewers. it is another issue.

 

This is simply a red herring base on a puritanical ideal. Clearly if I hide a cleverly cammo'ed container or even an ammo can, I don't want the first finder to take this cache and leave a replacement container. If I put out a series of identical 35 mm film cans however I really don't care if the container is replaced and I certainly am not interested in some puritans insistence that I check logs and delete finds if I can't find the signature. . . . The only reason you complain is because you want to compare your numbers to some "numbers" cachers.

 

Actually not. My numbers are my own and they are perfectly adequate for me. Some of them came from the ET trail. If it works out, some of them might come from Route 66, should that be still there in the fall. I have stated in these forums that I do not really care if my signature on an ET trail was moved and I do not expect people to look at signatures (I never do).

 

But maintenance goes beyond that. At some point, owners must be aware of the logs. If hundreds of caches are removed, as they were on the ET trail, can the people replacing the caches have any idea where the originals actually were, the reasons why a cache was removed, or if they should be replaced? Should the CO be the one to first respond to a problem and potentially disable a cache until things are resolved? Does a person who throws a cache down after one minute have any real idea if it is missing or not, or is the area just collecting more plastic?

 

I think the owner maintenance guideline serves the caching community in general by making sure that problems are addressed before a situation escalates, by making sure that the caches are maintained in a consistent manner. To delegate maintenance to whoever happens to be on the trail reduces the cache series to something closer to a vacation cache. If Groundspeak wants to do it, fine, but under those circumstances, different guidelines should be in place. It is not the same guideline that is in effect for other types of caches.

 

So I agree with you that "The guidelines should apply to all caches whether a power trail, a smaller series, or a lone cache." And I agree with the previous poster that we do not need any more rules. As long as the current guidelines are actually being followed it is up to cache finder to proceed with common sense and safe driving. Just like I would do if a cache required me to climb a cliff or a tree.

Edited March 23, 2011 by mulvaney

[knowschad]

The "P" card has been thrown down. Here we go.

 

The p word has been used from the beginning of the thread.

Different "P" word. Check my signature.

[+StarBrand]

How is it that one side so clearly sees the issues and problems and consequences of power trails and the other side keeps trying to lump the individual caches in them with any other cache out there as though the clearly intended power trail does not exist??

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Stop trying to impose your will on others. Let them do as they please.

Oh, the irony!!

 

Oh please, show me the irony. I want less rules and regulations, and more ability to play the game as each person chooses. That's pretty much the direct opposite of imposing my will on others.

 

My stance on PTs is one of neutrality.

 

The irony is that you are imposing your will on others by telling them to stop trying to impose their will on others (which is not at all what they are trying to do, by the way).

 

I think some very strong arguments have been made that these highway power trails DO have an effect on all geocaching, and so they are everybody's business. Sorry if you don't get that, but some of do, and they have every right to argue their points without you trying to shut them up.

 

Right... sorry. I keep forgetting that arguing for more freedom is equal to an imposition of ones will. No, never mind. Your statement makes no sense.

 

I'm not arguing for or against PTs. I'm arguing against those of you who would rather create more rules and restrictions, as opposed to allowing people to play the game the way that they want to. As I've done in every thread where someone wants to make more rules because they don't like the way something is playing out. It's sad.

 

Sometimes there are some legitimate reasons for rules. If, for example, a rule is in place which contributes to the longevity of the game then it's something that we, as geocachers should support.

 

In regards to the rule you're objecting to, I think it's worth noting that up until 2009, power trails, even without a formal definition were not allowed. I haven't seen anyone suggest that a rule be implemented that is more restrictive to what existed before the language of the guideline was changed in 2009.

 

I'm all for allowing to people to play the game how they want, up to the point where how they play the game negatively impacts how I, or others choose to play the game.

[mresoteric]

The "P" card has been thrown down. Here we go.

 

The p word has been used from the beginning of the thread.

Different "P" word. Check my signature.

 

Sorry, I didn't see poush posted. Just kidding. I see what you are talking about now. Thought you meant power trail.

[+geodarts]

The "P" card has been thrown down. Here we go.

 

The p word has been used from the beginning of the thread.

Different "P" word. Check my signature.

 

Sorry, I didn't see poush posted. Just kidding. I see what you are talking about now. Thought you meant power trail.

 

One P word was raised in Post 15. But then there is the other P card, something to do with an old religious sect. P is an important letter

Edited March 23, 2011 by mulvaney

[+Ecylram]

Yeah, it took until post 15 to raise it. But then there is the other P card, something to do with an old religious sect.

 

Dang protestants!

[+StarBrand]

...I'm arguing against those of you who would rather create more rules and restrictions, as opposed to allowing people to play the game the way that they want to. ...

 

The way some are playing the game clearly is having a direct impact on how Geocacher's & Geocaching is being perceived by the public and government officials. That is the issue. That is why we speak up.

[+Student Camper]

(quote)The caches may not have had permission, but they hit the NDOT's radar when safety became an issue.(quote)

 

I don't think "not having permission" was an issue here, there was, if nothing else, a tacit permission given, that permission has now been withdrawn, at least for the powertrail.

Have caches been banned from other BLM lands? other highways? not that I can tell.

Groundspeak was asked to archive the ET trail when safety became an issue and it was right for them to do so.

To say the caches were placed in an unsafe manner is bogus, assuming all of the caches were placed in accordance with the guidelines set forth by Groundspeak.

Some of the cache hunters were not following the guidelines set forth by Groundspeak and not following safe and prudent driving practices.

NDOT identified a hazard to the motoring public, (that includes all of us) and put a stop to it.

If we are not careful, it will happen again, and again, and...

 

The above quote came from so far back that I don't know who to give credit to, but thanks.

 

I have no doubt, given enough time, more caches will pop up in the area and if there are no safety issues, no one is going to care.

[+dfx]

The "P" card has been thrown down. Here we go.

 

Wow, you actually read that post?

[knowschad]

The "P" card has been thrown down. Here we go.

 

Wow, you actually read that post?

Up to the 2nd occurrence of the "P" word. That was when I realized that I'd heard it all before and before that and again before that. I once read an entire Toz post... really. From start to end. And these people that brag about doing the entire E.T. powertrail in one day think that they have stamina. Hah!!! Let them try that once.

 

(Sorry, Toz... I love you, man. But you know that you deserve the teasing!)

[+tozainamboku]

The "P" card has been thrown down. Here we go.

 

Wow, you actually read that post?

Up to the 2nd occurrence of the "P" word. That was when I realized that I'd heard it all before and before that and again before that. I once read an entire Toz post... really. From start to end. And these people that brag about doing the entire E.T. powertrail in one day think that they have stamina. Hah!!! Let them try that once.

 

(Sorry, Toz... I love you, man. But you know that you deserve the teasing!)

That's ok. I wrote that just as I was leaving. I normally preview the posts and read them and often decide not to post as I did just prior to that one. I probably would not have posted this either or at least would have left out the puritan part. The comment that maintenance rules somehow apply to power trails (or at least those where the owner is allowing the swapping of caches) bothers me a little. I just see geocaching as a fun game and while some of these speed logging techniques are silly they don't really get in the way of anyone enjoying the game - unless you make too big of a deal about find counts.

 

How is it that one side so clearly sees the issues and problems and consequences of power trails and the other side keeps trying to lump the individual caches in them with any other cache out there as though the clearly intended power trail does not exist??

This thread could have been a opportunity to discuss if cachers really are more likely to lose common sense when on a speed run. But you need to accept that some cachers lose common sense going for a FTF or finding a cache with a particularly high difficulty or terrain as well. Some may honestly believe that power trails and speed caching cause these action more than other things. I don't believe that even the archiving of two big trails proves this however. There have been many incidents involving cachers at individual caches that have resulted in far more of a black eye to geocaching but we don't make a big deal because "it's just one cache".

 

I don't buy this theory that if a land manager complains about a power trail it is worse than if they complain about one cache. I don't think the land manager cares that a series of 1000 cache had some that caused a problem or that a single cache caused a problem. They will think that geoacaches cause problems. With a power trail it's possible that they will see that a few caches cause problems but most of them don't. While they might want all the caches placed without permission to be archived, they may be more willing to develop guidelines to allow future placement.

 

Scale and density may seem intuitively to lead to more problems but even with two examples I don't think this is proven. What may be proven is that power trails have a higher visibility among geocachers (both pro and anti), so when one gets archive geocachers make a bigger deal.

[+G & C]

...I'm arguing against those of you who would rather create more rules and restrictions, as opposed to allowing people to play the game the way that they want to. ...

 

The way some are playing the game clearly is having a direct impact on how Geocacher's & Geocaching is being perceived by the public and government officials. That is the issue. That is why we speak up.

 

Have at it. Speak up all you want. The notion that I'm telling people to "shut up" is ludicrous. I'm simply meeting people with resistance, and it's not being received well. Such is life.

 

I understand that the way that PTs are being cached is causing problems. But so far, from what I've seen, the problems have been all but solved by simply having the PT archived. Why does it need to go further than that?

 

When the same problems are shown to be problems with the Route 66 PT, don't you all think that it will be archived too?

[Clan Riffster]

(Sorry, Toz... I love you, man. But you know that you deserve the teasing!)

I once read two entire Toz posts in a 24 hour period. Unless I missed it, that should be some kind of record.