Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8
gebu

SUBMITTED (24998) - [FEATURE] add "Part of a powertrail" to cache attributes

Recommended Posts

Please add "Part of a power trail" [Yes]/[No]/[N/R] to the cache attribute list.

 

I usually plan my cache trips by generating a PQ with a few 100 caches around a given coordinate. If a powertrail lies in the area I then have to manually delete "Boring stretch of road #1 to #185" which makes me an unhappy cacher. Adding a cache attribute would make this process easier in the future.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Please add "Part of a power trail" [Yes]/[No]/[N/R] to the cache attribute list.

 

I usually plan my cache trips by generating a PQ with a few 100 caches around a given coordinate. If a powertrail lies in the area I then have to manually delete "Boring stretch of road #1 to #185" which makes me an unhappy cacher. Adding a cache attribute would make this process easier in the future.

 

Yes please to the PT attribute suggestion.

Share this post


Link to post

We have the request in our database to create a "part of a series" attribute.

 

I'd actually prefer a separate attribute for series vs power trail.

A series of caches can exist, that tie several together without being even remotely a power trail. Example, the BFL Boot Camp caches are a series, with caches scattered up to 30 km apart.

 

A power trail is a series of caches that take up an entire trail at 162M intervals.

 

I'd want the "Power Trail" attribute to filter these out of my PQ, while still being exposed to caches that are linked in other ways.

Share this post


Link to post

We have the request in our database to create a "part of a series" attribute.

 

I'd actually prefer a separate attribute for series vs power trail.

A series of caches can exist, that tie several together without being even remotely a power trail. Example, the BFL Boot Camp caches are a series, with caches scattered up to 30 km apart.

 

A power trail is a series of caches that take up an entire trail at 162M intervals.

 

I'd want the "Power Trail" attribute to filter these out of my PQ, while still being exposed to caches that are linked in other ways.

 

I agree. Locally there's the Country Drive Series (CDS) where small lock n locks are hidden by Ontario country roads. They are often about 30 km apart. They don't highlight one country road by placing film canisters behind every hydro pole on that road. Just one cache on one country road with a nice country drive to get there.

Edited by Lone R

Share this post


Link to post
We have the request in our database to create a "part of a series" attribute.
That is a completely different request from this one.

 

Personally, I see no reason for a "part of a series" attribute. I never want to see caches that are part of a series, any series, whatever series. I may want to see caches that are part of a specific series (e.g., the Northern CA Solar System series), but that's very different from wanting to see every cache that might be part of any series whatsoever.

 

And a series is not the same thing as a power trail. The caches of a series may be unified by theme, rather than by location (e.g., the Assume Nothing series). A power trail is unified by location, whether it's an old-school power trail (the kind with an actual trail and a trailhead) or a modern numbers run trail (the kind with fungible containers along a highway, like the ET Highway trail or the Route 66 trail).

Share this post


Link to post

That is a completely different request from this one.

 

I respectfully disagree. A "series" attribute is a superset, a power trail is a subset. The suggestion for an attribute for power trails alone was previously rejected with this simple comment from Jeremy: 'Rather than adding a power trail attribute, we prefer to add a 'part of a series' attribute."

Share this post


Link to post

That is a completely different request from this one.

 

I respectfully disagree. A "series" attribute is a superset, a power trail is a subset. The suggestion for an attribute for power trails alone was previously rejected with this simple comment from Jeremy: 'Rather than adding a power trail attribute, we prefer to add a 'part of a series' attribute."

 

Sorry, Moun10Bike, I gotta disagree. Sure, all power trails are series (serieses? serii? whatever.), but not all series are power trails. We are talking 2 different things and they should be treated as such.

Share this post


Link to post

That is a completely different request from this one.

 

I respectfully disagree. A "series" attribute is a superset, a power trail is a subset. The suggestion for an attribute for power trails alone was previously rejected with this simple comment from Jeremy: 'Rather than adding a power trail attribute, we prefer to add a 'part of a series' attribute."

 

Sorry, Moun10Bike, I gotta disagree. Sure, all power trails are series (serieses? serii? whatever.), but not all series are power trails. We are talking 2 different things and they should be treated as such.

 

The important difference is that not a lot of people have a need to filter for/against "serieses", but lots of people want to filter for/against powertrails.

Share this post


Link to post

Please add "Part of a power trail" [Yes]/[No]/[N/R] to the cache attribute list.

Is "Not part of a power trail" necessary? I know some people don't like power trails, but do you really need to advertise your cache as not being part of one? :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

Adding my .02 in support of a "Power Trail" Attribute. While a "Series" attrib would be nice to have, it would serve a totally different purpose than a Power Trail one.

 

Having never done a Power Trail, I'm not for or against power trails, but there are times when I would like to be able to search for them or avoid them. Really depends on my intentions when hitting a new area if I want to see them or not.

 

If you only do the "Series" attrib, I can see people start using "Not A Series" to mark a Power Trail. While this would work, it would certainly cause confusion for people and probalby just add fuel to the group wanting a separate attrib.

 

-TWT

Share this post


Link to post
Is "Not part of a power trail" necessary? I know some people don't like power trails, but do you really need to advertise your cache as not being part of one? :laughing:
It might be useful for older normal caches in an area that recently acquired a numbers run trail. Cache owners might use it to indicate that they don't want the cache included in numbers runs.

Share this post


Link to post
That is a completely different request from this one.
I respectfully disagree. A "series" attribute is a superset, a power trail is a subset. The suggestion for an attribute for power trails alone was previously rejected with this simple comment from Jeremy: 'Rather than adding a power trail attribute, we prefer to add a 'part of a series' attribute."
So does that mean that Jeremy endorses the idea of using the upcoming "series" attribute to mean "power trail" or "numbers run trail"? I can see those who place numbers run trails using the attribute that way (and letting scuba cachers have their scuba attribute back).

 

I just can't see many people using the "series" attribute to identify caches that are part of some other series, especially once it starts being used for numbers run trails.

Share this post


Link to post

That is a completely different request from this one.

 

I respectfully disagree. A "series" attribute is a superset, a power trail is a subset. The suggestion for an attribute for power trails alone was previously rejected with this simple comment from Jeremy: 'Rather than adding a power trail attribute, we prefer to add a 'part of a series' attribute."

 

I can understand why Groundspeak permits power trail caches, and that's fine, there are people who like those - plus it makes things seem better for the bottom line when there are more "active geocaches".

I do not understand why we shouldn't have a "Power Trail" attribute for filtering. Failing that, give me an option in the Pocket Queries to block out caches where the density is too high along a line. It's getting to the point around here where I have to go through several pages of a Pocket Query before I can find a cache that's NOT part of a local power trail.

Share this post


Link to post

It's getting to the point around here where I have to go through several pages of a Pocket Query before I can find a cache that's NOT part of a local power trail.

I'm really glad that no one has published a power trail in my area yet (there are a few series of 20 or 30 caches, but not along one road and all a tenth of a mile apart). I have no interest in power trails, and I'm not looking forward to the day when I have to either filter them out somehow or increase the size of my Ignore List exponentially.

 

I vote for differentiating between a cache series and a power trail, and for providing a special attribute for power trails.

 

Of course, if the powers-that-be decide to implement such an attribute, then we get to argue about when a cache series becomes a power trail....

 

--Larry

Share this post


Link to post

If we can't have a power trail attribute, then at least give us unlimited length ignore lists, the ability to ignore caches by hider, AND (not or) a way to put caches on the unending ignore list in large batches instead of having to pull up each cache one at a time to ignore (because not all power trails are placed by a specially created pseudonym).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

If we can't have a power trail attribute, then at least give us unlimited length ignore lists, the ability to ignore caches by hider, AND (not or) a way to put caches on the unending ignore list in large batches instead of having to pull up each cache one at a time to ignore (because not all power trails are placed by a specially created pseudonym).

 

+1!

Share this post


Link to post

I respectfully disagree. A "series" attribute is a superset, a power trail is a subset. The suggestion for an attribute for power trails alone was previously rejected with this simple comment from Jeremy: 'Rather than adding a power trail attribute, we prefer to add a 'part of a series' attribute."

Yes, a power trail is a subset of a series. BUT, that doesn't solve the OP's problem which is:

 

How do you filter out the subset (power trails) while not filtering out the entire superset (series) in a PQ.

Share this post


Link to post

I'd certainly support a powertrail attribute. It seems a large enough 'subset' of caches with a very different gameplay style to warrant a filterable attribute for PQs, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post

I just can't see many people using the "series" attribute to identify caches that are part of some other series, especially once it starts being used for numbers run trails.

Exactly. I would not put the "series" attribute on my Country Driver Series (CDS) caches as people would filter it out to avoid power trails. That would defeat the purpose of having a "series" attribute.

 

If we had both attributes people could do a PQ on: Series Yes, Power Trail No to grab the themed caches while avoiding the power trails.

Share this post


Link to post

I hear you and your arguments for a power trail-specific attribute. I've reactivated the request in our database and linked this thread to it rather than to the series attribute story. I can't promise that the outcome will be different than before, but we will at least re-examine it.

Share this post


Link to post

I hear you and your arguments for a power trail-specific attribute. I've reactivated the request in our database and linked this thread to it rather than to the series attribute story. I can't promise that the outcome will be different than before, but we will at least re-examine it.

 

Thank you, Sir!

Share this post


Link to post

I hear you and your arguments for a power trail-specific attribute. I've reactivated the request in our database and linked this thread to it rather than to the series attribute story. I can't promise that the outcome will be different than before, but we will at least re-examine it.

 

Thank you!

Share this post


Link to post
I hear you and your arguments for a power trail-specific attribute. I've reactivated the request in our database and linked this thread to it rather than to the series attribute story. I can't promise that the outcome will be different than before, but we will at least re-examine it.
Thank you.

 

For the record, not all old-school power trails (the kind with an actual trail and a trailhead) are series. Many developed organically, with varied caches placed by multiple owners at minimal distances along a trail. But it sounds like the real interest in a "power trail" attribute is for modern numbers run trails (the kind with fungible containers along a highway, like the ET Highway trail or the Route 66 trail). Maybe the fact that the containers are fungible could be part of the definition of the attribute.

 

"Took film canister without my name on the log, Left film canister with my name on the log, TFTC..."

Share this post


Link to post
I hear you and your arguments for a power trail-specific attribute. I've reactivated the request in our database and linked this thread to it rather than to the series attribute story. I can't promise that the outcome will be different than before, but we will at least re-examine it.
Thank you.

Merci beaucoup.

 

For the record, not all old-school power trails (the kind with an actual trail and a trailhead) are series. Many developed organically, with varied caches placed by multiple owners at minimal distances along a trail.

These types of "power" trails are fine with me - a variety of owners, a variety of cache styles and hide styles, not a numbers run.

 

But it sounds like the real interest in a "power trail" attribute is for modern numbers run trails (the kind with fungible containers along a highway, like the ET Highway trail or the Route 66 trail). Maybe the fact that the containers are fungible could be part of the definition of the attribute.

"Took film canister without my name on the log, Left film canister with my name on the log, TFTC..."

 

Yes, the PT definition should describe the modern numbers run trails. Not the organic old-school trail or road with many caches. Reviewers had a definition for PTs back when PTs were not allowed. I'm guessing it was something like - one owner or one group placing caches .1 miles apart as a series designed to increase the number of smileys. Reviewers made COs post those as multis. They would not have applied that rule to caches that were placed individually over time by different COs. They would not have applied that rule to caches by the same owner or group that had the same theme but were placed in different areas often miles apart e.g. Bone-Yard Series.

Edited by Lone R

Share this post


Link to post

That is a completely different request from this one.

 

I respectfully disagree. A "series" attribute is a superset, a power trail is a subset. The suggestion for an attribute for power trails alone was previously rejected with this simple comment from Jeremy: 'Rather than adding a power trail attribute, we prefer to add a 'part of a series' attribute."

 

Sounds like Jeremy disagrees....

Share this post


Link to post

I believe a Power Trail attribute should be added and a publishing requirement for Power Trails. This way people can exclude, or include, them in PQ's.

 

Some people like this sort of thing, I personally think it's spam and clutters my map finding actual caches, not GRCs. Exclusions based on T/D won't work, but an attribute would.

Share this post


Link to post

I believe a Power Trail attribute should be added and a publishing requirement for Power Trails. This way people can exclude, or include, them in PQ's.

 

Some people like this sort of thing, I personally think it's spam and clutters my map finding actual caches, not GRCs. Exclusions based on T/D won't work, but an attribute would.

Already covered here:

SUBMITTED (24998) - [FEATURE] add "Part of a powertrail" to cache attributes

Share this post


Link to post

Just chiming-in to denote my agreement that a 'powertrail' is most likely 'a series', but 'a series' is not necessarily a 'powertrail'.

We're talkin' apples and pomegranates here.

 

Of course if the 'Part of a Series' attribute were only use for powertrails...

Share this post


Link to post

Any estimates on when this will be put in place? More and more people keep spamming Highway 127 nearby, tired of the noise..

Share this post


Link to post

Perhaps the elephant in the room is that adding a power trail attribute validates their existence in spite of the fact that they are against the current guidelines posted elsewhere on the site.

 

"Please don't hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can. The two main goals of the saturation guideline are to encourage you to seek out new places to hide caches rather than putting them in areas where caches already exist, and to limit the number of caches hidden in a particular area, especially by the same hider."

 

Groundspeak is finding itself at a fork in the road.. one leading to increasing quality and the other to increasing membership. Where will they go?

Share this post


Link to post

Perhaps the elephant in the room is that adding a power trail attribute validates their existence in spite of the fact that they are against the current guidelines posted elsewhere on the site.

 

"Please don't hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can. The two main goals of the saturation guideline are to encourage you to seek out new places to hide caches rather than putting them in areas where caches already exist, and to limit the number of caches hidden in a particular area, especially by the same hider."

 

Groundspeak is finding itself at a fork in the road.. one leading to increasing quality and the other to increasing membership. Where will they go?

Personally, if I had started geocaching and 90% of the caches in the area were GRC's every 600 feet, I would have found about 10 and that would have been the end of it. No membership, no continued interest.

Share this post


Link to post

Perhaps the elephant in the room is that adding a power trail attribute validates their existence in spite of the fact that they are against the current guidelines posted elsewhere on the site.

 

"Please don't hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can. The two main goals of the saturation guideline are to encourage you to seek out new places to hide caches rather than putting them in areas where caches already exist, and to limit the number of caches hidden in a particular area, especially by the same hider."

 

Groundspeak is finding itself at a fork in the road.. one leading to increasing quality and the other to increasing membership. Where will they go?

Personally, if I had started geocaching and 90% of the caches in the area were GRC's every 600 feet, I would have found about 10 and that would have been the end of it. No membership, no continued interest.

 

Yes but they have us now... it is the potential expansion to a wider audience that they must evaluate.

Share this post


Link to post

If we can't have a power trail attribute, then at least give us unlimited length ignore lists, the ability to ignore caches by hider, AND (not or) a way to put caches on the unending ignore list in large batches instead of having to pull up each cache one at a time to ignore (because not all power trails are placed by a specially created pseudonym).

 

+1!

 

+1

Share this post


Link to post

Power Trail attribute is a must. But don't hold your breath. It's been brought up many times with no results. Look at Nevada, it's just one big power trail. Mostly all set by the same group. It's not geocaching. It's abuse.

Share this post


Link to post

Power Trail attribute is a must. But don't hold your breath. It's been brought up many times with no results. Look at Nevada, it's just one big power trail. Mostly all set by the same group. It's not geocaching. It's abuse.

 

Those are so easy to spot and disregard with various tools that it really isn't necessary. It may not fit your definition of geocaching but it fits a great many others definition. For any business to prosper it has to give its customers what they want and PT is what they want. You can add a power trail to your ignore list in a relatively short time and they never show up again.

Share this post


Link to post

Power Trail attribute is a must. But don't hold your breath. It's been brought up many times with no results. Look at Nevada, it's just one big power trail. Mostly all set by the same group. It's not geocaching. It's abuse.

 

Those are so easy to spot and disregard with various tools that it really isn't necessary. It may not fit your definition of geocaching but it fits a great many others definition. For any business to prosper it has to give its customers what they want and PT is what they want. You can add a power trail to your ignore list in a relatively short time and they never show up again.

 

Yea, good luck with that. I've got over 20,000 power caches in my ignore list. Want me to list them? They completely trash PQ's and API downloads of unsuspecting cachers. I can list a million reasons they need an attribute. Abuse is number 1. And for any business to prosper they have to give the customers what they want, and we want a power cache attribute.

Edited by Jake81499

Share this post


Link to post

I also dislike power trails. Fortunately, I live in an area that doesn't have many, so they aren't overloading my PQ's.

 

The two big issues that I see with a power trail attribute are enforcement, and definition.

 

Attributes are optional. For a power trail attribute to be useful, it needs to be applied to the cache. Attributes are under the control of the CO, how do we get them to apply the attribute to their caches? I think it would be unfair to dump this responsibility on the reviewers. And, there is no attribute feedback mechanism within GS to get attributes applied based on a consensus of cachers.

 

And the second is, what is the definition of a cache that is part of a power trail? As soon as we define it, there will be people that will challenge the definition. This could lead to CO's trying to figure out ways to get around the definition. And round and round we go.

 

I do think that GS should add a power trail attribute. There would be no explicit definition, just a generic one. If it looks like it might be a power trail to a reviewer, they could ask the CO to consider adding the attribute. No enforcement, just a suggestion.

 

I would hope that this would take care of 50-70% of the power trails. If it did, I would consider that a win. We have to realize that it will never be perfect. I doubt it would be anywhere close to perfect. But if it helped out half the time, I think it would be better than nothing in this situation.

Share this post


Link to post

 

I would hope that this would take care of 50-70% of the power trails. If it did, I would consider that a win. We have to realize that it will never be perfect. I doubt it would be anywhere close to perfect. But if it helped out half the time, I think it would be better than nothing in this situation.

 

+1000

 

Keep in mind that if a power trail attribute could successfully identify 50% of the caches that were part of a power trail it would be better than nothing for those that *do* want to finds caches that are part of a power trail.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

 

I would hope that this would take care of 50-70% of the power trails. If it did, I would consider that a win. We have to realize that it will never be perfect. I doubt it would be anywhere close to perfect. But if it helped out half the time, I think it would be better than nothing in this situation.

+1000

 

Keep in mind that if a power trail attribute could successfully identify 50% of the caches that were part of a power trail it would be better than nothing for those that *do* want to finds caches that are part of a power trail.

^This

 

The fact that PT owners already use attributes like "Scuba" on their desert power trails implies that they want a power trail-specific attribute. I fully expect that many PT owners would voluntarily add a power trail attribute to their caches.

Share this post


Link to post

This topic came up again in the general forum. I see that the recommendation has been submitted, but in the past four years we've not yet seen either a "part of a series" or "part of a power trail" attribute added. Please continue to consider actioning at least one of these attributes.

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, feel free to call it a "Series" attribute if you like.

 

Owners of "power trails" and "numbers run trails" will start using it instead of using (e.g.) the "Scuba" attribute. And the rest of us will know what the "Series" attribute really means...

 

But there is demand (from both sides) for this attribute.

Share this post


Link to post

Thank you to hzoi for bumping the proper thread today. I've moved a number of posts from May 6th into this thread. These posts originally appeared in a different attributes request thread, so it made sense to move them here where they are on topic to the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, feel free to call it a "Series" attribute if you like.

No one's looking for a way to detect all caches involved in a series, so, no, don't call it that. What people want flagged are caches planted purely for large numbers of quick finds. I'm not sure why everyone's so worried that people that plant caches purely for large numbers of quick finds won't want to advertise what they must consider an important quality.

Share this post


Link to post

Just a question...if there are PTs consisting of hundreds or thousands of caches, and the COs are pretty hands-off about them...how likely would it be that all existing power trails would be assigned this attribute? Going forward from implementation, I could see reviewers encouraging or requiring its use prior to publication...but for those already out there, it seems like a pretty large task to assign it to existing power trails.

Share this post


Link to post

Going forward from implementation, I could see reviewers encouraging or requiring its use prior to publication...

I could not see this. I would strongly resist adding "power trail attribute police" to my list of reviewer duties. I base this upon (1) prior experience with trying to define a "power trail" back in the days when reviewers could "just say no" to a group of caches placed 600 feet apart, and (2) prior experience with the few attributes which reviewers are asked to enforce (Terrain 1 = handicapped accessible; UV light required; Beacon attribute for Chirp caches).

 

Do not make the reviewer be the person obligated to say "your baby is ugly and you need to label it as such, so that others can steer clear of it." Let the power trail owner say "I want to add this attribute as a service both to those who seek out power trails and to those who wish to filter them out/ignore them."

Edited by Keystone

Share this post


Link to post

Going forward from implementation, I could see reviewers encouraging or requiring its use prior to publication...

I could not see this. I would strongly resist adding "power trail attribute police" to my list of reviewer duties.

Seems fair enough.

 

Would you be willing to encourage or suggest the attribute? Something like, "Your string of caches looks like it could be a powertrail, so you might want to consider adding the powertrail attribute to help cachers."

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 8

×