Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8
gebu

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

Recommended Posts

You might want to take a second look at most of those. They are power trails, nothing more nothing less, they trash a PQ just as fast and a straight line power trail.

So now you're defining "powertrails" as merely the posted coordinates, regardless of where the cache itself is; thus has nothing to do with the finding experience, just the map pin saturation.

 

Also, what niraD said. =P

 

I don't know where you get that from. Look at the example a couple posts above, someone posted two Geo Arts. Those are simple power caches. No ifs ands or buts. But they are probably not the size I would even notice because it looks like some of the caches in them are properly labeled as puzzle caches which I don't include in my PQs. If you look at the GeoArt above Rock Springs Wyoming called Wild Horse Run (I think), that string is a complete Power Cache, deserves an ignore and needs the Power Cache attribute should we ever receive one. There are hundreds of Pin Saturations. Look at Mondou for example in the Denver/Fort Collins area. The individual setting those uses his name in each and every cache, and he has thousands. It's difficult to separate the power caches from his regular caches. I've located several power caches by Mondou around the DIA area and placed them in the ignore list. The consideration was there to ignore his whole name set but he does have a few hundred actual geocaches even though he has created a case of 'Pin Saturation'. The Mondou situation is why the Macro CacheSeries isn't all that functional and you have to check every group on a map to determine if it is an actual PC.

 

Whether the power trail, numbers trail or geoart are set along some beautiful trail that people might want to actually go see or set out in some bare field somewhere, it's still a power cache and will be placed in the ignore list. If someone actually wants to find power caches, they can by not clicking the ignore power cache attribute should we ever get one.

Gotta ask, what about the geoart above makes them power caches? I didn't go look at them but it appears they aren't caches that a person can do on a whim. I would imagine that it would take some time to complete either of those. I doubt a person could get in their vehicle and drive from one to the next.

 

I know there's no exact definition of what constitutes a power trail but since power is part of the name, it seems obvious to me that a PT would consist of a number of caches placed for finders to find fairly quickly and without much effort. A person or group could power right through them. Sure, some series and/or geoart can be power trails, if they're placed to be found in a minimal amount of time.

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, Here is a short example list of Power Trails, Power Caches, Numbers Runs, GeoArt... Whatever you want to call them they are Power Trails and all should be asked to use the assigned attribute should we ever get one. Look them all up, find them on a map, compare them to one another, whatever you need to do. They are power trails.

 

<-AC & DC-> .. #xxx

Blowout Trail xxx

Joseph's Dream xxxx

#xxxx Highway To H.E.L.L

#xxx-E.T

xxx-Route 66

xx Esterlins Detour

xx – How Many Caches To Brookings?

Xx Run Wild Horses Run

xxx Owyhee Uplands Byway

xx-California 50 State Star

x - ?snikoorB ot sehcac ynam woH

x - BBT: LPC

x - Grand Valley Loop

x - Pooh Diving

x - Run From The Border (N)

x - Run From The Border (S)

x - Runway View

x – Take Me To Church

x – BBT: (assorted names)

x – Glacial Valley Loop

x – Side Street

xxxBT'15 (assorted names)

ACME xxx

Aurora xxx

Balanced Thunderbird Cache #xxx

BAM – xxx

BBTSxxx – Thanks

Blackwood Canyon Power Trail #xxx

Blowout Trail xxx

BLT #xxx

Cx – Going to Sica Trail

Cache Container Test Field – (assorted names)

Deer and Antelope Play xx

Desert Creatures (assorted names)

Do these roads seem a 'little alien' (#xx) to you?

Eagle Eye xxx

Eaglexxx

Elexxx – (assorted names) – Element Series

Escape From Reality – xxx

Ferntucky 500 #xxx

Flipboard Freeway Trail #xxx

Fork It #xx

Freedom Trail #xxx

GBR Trail #xxx

GC Trail #xxx

Ghost Rail to ATL #xxx

Highway To H.E.L.L (assorted names)

Highway To Heaven #xxx

Langell Valley Rd #xxx

Lets Go Tubing #xxx

M-xx

Mahna Mahna #xxx

N2NFRxx

NAA - (assorted names)

NoRuCo No. xx

Oh I Wish I Was In Dixie xxx

Oklahoma Land Run (assorted names)

ORNxxx – TS Oh Really Now?

Paradise Lost xxx

Pole Dancing – xxx

Preston Ridge Trail #xx

Ptxxx (assorted Names)

Roadrunner Fun Facts #xxx

Rosebank Road Mini Power Trail #xx

Rumours xxx

Russellville Run #xxx

Solene's Trail #xxx

Something Fun #xxx

Tahoe Tessie Egg Trail #xxx

Team Bad-xxx

That's HOT xxx

The Connector xxx

The Millennium Power Trail #xxx

Tin Van Alley (assorted names)

TOGA Trail #xxx

Tour of the Buckskins xxx

Tower Of Power xxx

Trail That Never Ends xxx

TS Princess Of The Desert xxx

View Of The Grasslands #xxx

Wxxxx – Lone Star Trail

Waiting For Max #xxx

Walk About – xxx

Wheeler Gauntlet #xxx

When Two World Collide Part 1 - xxxx

Where Bigfoot Walks xx-xx

WildRidexxx

Share this post


Link to post
Ok, Here is a short example list of Power Trails, Power Caches, Numbers Runs, GeoArt... Whatever you want to call them they are Power Trails and all should be asked to use the assigned attribute should we ever get one. Look them all up, find them on a map, compare them to one another, whatever you need to do. They are power trails.
GC codes?

 

How about we stick with one of the examples where we already seem to disagree?

 

You have said that these are power trails:

GC-geoart.png

 

What about these geoart series makes them power trails?

 

To me, it seams that you are defining "power trail" as a few dozen (or more) related caches that you don't want to find. That isn't the way I've heard anyone else use the term "power trail" though.

Share this post


Link to post

Gotta ask, what about the geoart above makes them power caches? I didn't go look at them but it appears they aren't caches that a person can do on a whim. I would imagine that it would take some time to complete either of those. I doubt a person could get in their vehicle and drive from one to the next.

You make a really good point, which is precisely why I agree it should be left up to the CO, not dictated by some external requirement. But looking at Wild Horse Run, I do think it's a power trail and I would think the CO sees it as a power trail. While it doesn't have the normal lame, exchangeable containers, the descriptions indicate that the hides, while not universally trivial, are simple to find. The caches are set up so many can be found in one outing. The descriptions are all the same and have nothing to do with the individual caches themselves. And, of course, there are hundreds of them. These are the interesting characteristics of a power trail while avoiding the common pitfalls of many power trails.

 

The bottom line is that the cowboy is a single entity. If it were a single cache, anyone not interested could just ignore that one cache. But because it's hundreds of caches, people are looking for a way to ignore them all together, hence the request for this attribute.

 

So the CO should definitely be the one to decide because it would be fruitless to try to come up with a global definition, but at the same time, I would think that someone putting out hundreds of caches in the shape of a cowboy would be proud to label them as a power trail.

Share this post


Link to post
The bottom line is that the cowboy is a single entity. If it were a single cache, anyone not interested could just ignore that one cache. But because it's hundreds of caches, people are looking for a way to ignore them all together, hence the request for this attribute.
Once upon a time, there was a proposal for a new cache type that would treat such things as a single entity, but still allow people doing numbers runs to get a smiley for each container they found. It didn't get much support.

 

New Cache Type: Numbers Run Trail?

Share this post


Link to post

Look at the example a couple posts above, someone posted two Geo Arts. Those are simple power caches. No ifs ands or buts.

I've solved most of the puzzles in the Peace Sign geo-art, and I can assure you those caches exhibit exactly zero (0) of the characteristics that typically define a power trail.

  • The puzzles vary in difficulty, from trivial to somewhat tough
  • The finals are located on three sides of bodies of water, scattered across an area of roughly 10 square miles
  • The final locations vary from roadside to parks and trails
  • Each cache is separate from the others (ie. there aren't multiple finals along the same trail)
  • The containers and hide styles vary
  • If I had to guess (and depending on Seattle traffic), it would probably take you at least half a day to get these 43 caches.

Frankly, if someone considers this a power trail and wants to find all of the caches in a very short period of time, they'll be very disappointed.

 

I'm still waiting to hear what characteristics you feel these caches have that define them as what you call "power caches".

Share this post


Link to post
But ah, geoart isn't necessarily a powertrail. Plenty of geoart series have finals that are scattered over a region. No "trail" (strung-together finding sequence) in that... just sayin' ;)
Yeah, the geoart closest to my home is a series of very challenging puzzles (intended to be solved by a group working together), and the final locations are scattered across several parks and open spaces. They are definitely not a power trail.

 

Did that one cause any gnashing of teeth by local cachers that were looking for a place to hide a cache but kept running into proximity issues unless they solved these very challenging puzzles?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Yeah, the geoart closest to my home is a series of very challenging puzzles (intended to be solved by a group working together), and the final locations are scattered across several parks and open spaces. They are definitely not a power trail.
Did that one cause any gnashing of teeth by local cachers that were looking for a place to hide a cache but kept running into proximity issues unless they solved these very challenging puzzles?
Not that I've heard of. But then again, they were also designed to be solved on a public forum, as part of Venona's kinda-annual ACTIVITIES, so if people are willing to read through the online discussions, they can see (and hopefully, understand) the solution themselves.

Share this post


Link to post

Once upon a time, there was a proposal for a new cache type that would treat such things as a single entity, but still allow people doing numbers runs to get a smiley for each container they found. It didn't get much support.

Yeah, I can believe that. A mechanism to gather groups of caches into a meta entity is one of those ideas that seems logical but, in practice, would turn out to be both useless and painful for all involved.

Share this post


Link to post

Once upon a time, there was a proposal for a new cache type that would treat such things as a single entity, but still allow people doing numbers runs to get a smiley for each container they found. It didn't get much support.

Yeah, I can believe that. A mechanism to gather groups of caches into a meta entity is one of those ideas that seems logical but, in practice, would turn out to be both useless and painful for all involved.

Probably more prone to abuse, too. If someone can submit one log and add 1000+ finds to their "score", you can be sure people will do it even if they haven't found any of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Ok, Here is a short example list of Power Trails, Power Caches, Numbers Runs, GeoArt... Whatever you want to call them they are Power Trails and all should be asked to use the assigned attribute should we ever get one. Look them all up, find them on a map, compare them to one another, whatever you need to do. They are power trails.
GC codes?

 

How about we stick with one of the examples where we already seem to disagree?

 

You have said that these are power trails:

GC-geoart.png

 

What about these geoart series makes them power trails?

 

To me, it seams that you are defining "power trail" as a few dozen (or more) related caches that you don't want to find. That isn't the way I've heard anyone else use the term "power trail" though.

 

The two power trails you use as an example would probably not even make it to the ignore list because they are so small. I do appreciate that they are properly marked as puzzle caches, therefore they wouldn't even show up as GeoArt in my PQs. I only download traditional, no other kinds, I simply don't have time for them given the style of caching I need to follow.

Edited by Jake81499

Share this post


Link to post

Gotta ask, what about the geoart above makes them power caches? I didn't go look at them but it appears they aren't caches that a person can do on a whim. I would imagine that it would take some time to complete either of those. I doubt a person could get in their vehicle and drive from one to the next.

You make a really good point, which is precisely why I agree it should be left up to the CO, not dictated by some external requirement. But looking at Wild Horse Run, I do think it's a power trail and I would think the CO sees it as a power trail. While it doesn't have the normal lame, exchangeable containers, the descriptions indicate that the hides, while not universally trivial, are simple to find. The caches are set up so many can be found in one outing. The descriptions are all the same and have nothing to do with the individual caches themselves. And, of course, there are hundreds of them. These are the interesting characteristics of a power trail while avoiding the common pitfalls of many power trails.

 

The bottom line is that the cowboy is a single entity. If it were a single cache, anyone not interested could just ignore that one cache. But because it's hundreds of caches, people are looking for a way to ignore them all together, hence the request for this attribute.

 

So the CO should definitely be the one to decide because it would be fruitless to try to come up with a global definition, but at the same time, I would think that someone putting out hundreds of caches in the shape of a cowboy would be proud to label them as a power trail.

 

You said it well, wild horse run is the one I was thinking of above Rock Springs Wyo. I would hope that most people that set power trails would be more than willing to use the attribute.

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, Here is a short example list of Power Trails, Power Caches, Numbers Runs, GeoArt... Whatever you want to call them they are Power Trails and all should be asked to use the assigned attribute should we ever get one. Look them all up, find them on a map, compare them to one another, whatever you need to do. They are power trails.

How about your "Post xx" series? If/when a 'Power Trail' attribute is added, will you be setting it on your series of simple hides along a roadway?

Share this post


Link to post

Actually I was wrong. The PT/GA above Rock Springs is Wild Ride.

Edited by Jake81499

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, Here is a short example list of Power Trails, Power Caches, Numbers Runs, GeoArt... Whatever you want to call them they are Power Trails and all should be asked to use the assigned attribute should we ever get one. Look them all up, find them on a map, compare them to one another, whatever you need to do. They are power trails.

How about your "Post xx" series? If/when a 'Power Trail' attribute is added, will you be setting it on your series of simple hides along a roadway?

 

Actually, last summer I was driving along there and saw an accident. It appeared that an 18 wheeler had rear ended a car that had come to a sudden stop in the road near one of my post caches. I don't know if that person was caching or not but it made me realize how dangerous it was to set so many caches so close to a roadway even though they are along the fence line at a distinct highly visible pullout. Since that time I've archived most of them that I deemed could be unsafe. The rest are slowly being archived as they lose a cap or need maintenance. Since it was originally a power trail of sorts, even though they are mostly at least a quarter mile apart, I would gladly use the PT attribute for the remaining caches. I'm certain that most of the people arguing the definition wouldn't conceder that a power trail. But I'm the one who's doing the ignoring, so yep, I'll call the Post caches along that road a Power Trail.

Edited by Jake81499

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, Here is a short example list of Power Trails, Power Caches, Numbers Runs, GeoArt... Whatever you want to call them they are Power Trails and all should be asked to use the assigned attribute should we ever get one. Look them all up, find them on a map, compare them to one another, whatever you need to do. They are power trails.

How about your "Post xx" series? If/when a 'Power Trail' attribute is added, will you be setting it on your series of simple hides along a roadway?

 

Actually, last summer I was driving along there and saw an accident. It appeared that an 18 wheeler had rear ended a car that had come to a sudden stop in the road near one of my post caches. I don't know if that person was caching or not but it made me realize how dangerous it was to set so many caches so close to a roadway even though they are along the fence line at a distinct highly visible pullout. Since that time I've archived most of them that I deemed could be unsafe. The rest are slowly being archived as they lose a cap or need maintenance. Since it was originally a power trail of sorts, even though they are mostly at least a quarter mile apart, I would gladly use the PT attribute for the remaining caches. I'm certain that most of the people arguing the definition wouldn't conceder that a power trail. But I'm the one who's doing the ignoring, so yep, it's a power trail.

I'm really not understanding how you define a PT, so I'm pretty sure we'll just have to agree to disagree. You're not sure that your original series, when it was originally placed, would be considered a power trail - but yet, you consider the GeoArt examples to be power trails?

 

I suspect that even if a power trail attribute was created and used, that you still wouldn't be happy because your definition of 'power trail' seems a bit off from the majority (assuming the forums can be used to extrapolate to the wider caching community, which may be a mistake).

Share this post


Link to post

The two power trails you use as an example would probably not even make it to the ignore list because they are so small. I do appreciate that they are properly marked as puzzle caches, therefore they wouldn't even show up as GeoArt in my PQs. I only download traditional, no other kinds, I simply don't have time for them given the style of caching I need to follow.

 

I don't believe there is any requirement that geoart caches have to be marked as puzzle caches. Here's the location of the Thunderbird aircraft geoart near Mountain Home Base. It consists of a lot of traditionals, a few letterboxes, some wherigos and some multis. No puzzle caches, because the caches are at the posted coordinates.

 

There are numerous other examples. Nearby is a locomotive, primarily traditionals. Of course, we have lots of BLM land in Idaho where it is possible to place the caches at the posted coordinates.

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, Here is a short example list of Power Trails, Power Caches, Numbers Runs, GeoArt... Whatever you want to call them they are Power Trails and all should be asked to use the assigned attribute should we ever get one. Look them all up, find them on a map, compare them to one another, whatever you need to do. They are power trails.

How about your "Post xx" series? If/when a 'Power Trail' attribute is added, will you be setting it on your series of simple hides along a roadway?

 

Actually, last summer I was driving along there and saw an accident. It appeared that an 18 wheeler had rear ended a car that had come to a sudden stop in the road near one of my post caches. I don't know if that person was caching or not but it made me realize how dangerous it was to set so many caches so close to a roadway even though they are along the fence line at a distinct highly visible pullout. Since that time I've archived most of them that I deemed could be unsafe. The rest are slowly being archived as they lose a cap or need maintenance. Since it was originally a power trail of sorts, even though they are mostly at least a quarter mile apart, I would gladly use the PT attribute for the remaining caches. I'm certain that most of the people arguing the definition wouldn't conceder that a power trail. But I'm the one who's doing the ignoring, so yep, it's a power trail.

I'm really not understanding how you define a PT, so I'm pretty sure we'll just have to agree to disagree. You're not sure that your original series, when it was originally placed, would be considered a power trail - but yet, you consider the GeoArt examples to be power trails?

 

I suspect that even if a power trail attribute was created and used, that you still wouldn't be happy because your definition of 'power trail' seems a bit off from the majority (assuming the forums can be used to extrapolate to the wider caching community, which may be a mistake).

 

You might want to look at the distance on the post caches, it's quite considerable. A couple of them are even on another road several miles away. The series most likely won't fit whatever description of a PT that some of these guys come up with. Setting the PT flag on them might even upset someone who does nothing but PT's. But I'd do it if I was asked, and I'll probably do it anyhow. If you look at the GAs and PTs in the list I posted the caches are generally very close together but sometimes more than the minimum distance. They are generally very large lines in both size and numbers. But my Post caches fit back into what I was saying about the macro CacheSeries and why you can't just ignore everything that comes up when you run it. Just because a cache has the same basic name doesn't mean it's a power trail, power cache, geoart or whatever the flavor of the name for that day might be. Would you require someone who sets 25 'Welcome To' caches to use the PT attribute? Run the macro on a large GSAK database covering just a single state and see what you get just in Welcome To. The best example I've found for PTs is Nevada. If you don't know what a PT is, try and bring up a map of caches of just Nevada especially around the Reno area. Bring up a map of Wild Ride in Wyoming while your at it. And finally, the one that set me off in the first place, bring up a map of Las Cruces New Mexico. There's a PT right next to a GA which totally trashed the PQ I needed for that weekend.

Edited by Jake81499

Share this post


Link to post

The two power trails you use as an example would probably not even make it to the ignore list because they are so small. I do appreciate that they are properly marked as puzzle caches, therefore they wouldn't even show up as GeoArt in my PQs. I only download traditional, no other kinds, I simply don't have time for them given the style of caching I need to follow.

 

I don't believe there is any requirement that geoart caches have to be marked as puzzle caches. Here's the location of the Thunderbird aircraft geoart near Mountain Home Base. It consists of a lot of traditionals, a few letterboxes, some wherigos and some multis. No puzzle caches, because the caches are at the posted coordinates.

 

There are numerous other examples. Nearby is a locomotive, primarily traditionals. Of course, we have lots of BLM land in Idaho where it is possible to place the caches at the posted coordinates.

 

Who said anything about requiring? The CO was smart enough to label a puzzle cache as a puzzle cache. If someone labels one as traditionals and they are traditionals, goody. If it's a PT set up as a GA then hopefully they'll use the PT attribute also. If I run across one that I conceder a PT even though it doesn't fit someone else's description of a PT and it's big enough to trash a PQ, it'll get placed in the ignore list.

Edited by Jake81499

Share this post


Link to post

But my Post caches fit back into what I was saying about the macro CacheSeries and why you can't just ignore everything that comes up when you run it. Just because a cache has the same basic name doesn't mean it's a power trail, power cache, geoart or whatever the flavor of the name for that day might be. Would you require someone who sets 25 'Welcome To' caches to use the PT attribute?

If the 25 caches were in a power trail format, then I would prefer them to use the PT attribute. But I wouldn't assume that the 25 caches are a PT just because of the name of the cache. I don't consider all 'series' caches to be power trails, I don't consider all GeoArt to be power trails, and I wouldn't 'require' any CO to use any attribute.

 

The best example I've found for PTs in Nevada. If you don't know what a PT is, try and bring up a map of caches of just Nevada especially around the Reno area. Bring up a map of Wild Ride in Wyoming while your at it.

I recognize PT's just fine when looking at the geocache map, and yes there are a ton of PT's in Nevada. The issue seems to be that you think your definition of 'power trail' is the definitive gold-standard, even when other cachers disagree with your definition.

Share this post


Link to post

But my Post caches fit back into what I was saying about the macro CacheSeries and why you can't just ignore everything that comes up when you run it. Just because a cache has the same basic name doesn't mean it's a power trail, power cache, geoart or whatever the flavor of the name for that day might be. Would you require someone who sets 25 'Welcome To' caches to use the PT attribute?

If the 25 caches were in a power trail format, then I would prefer them to use the PT attribute. But I wouldn't assume that the 25 caches are a PT just because of the name of the cache. I don't consider all 'series' caches to be power trails, I don't consider all GeoArt to be power trails, and I wouldn't 'require' any CO to use any attribute.

 

The best example I've found for PTs in Nevada. If you don't know what a PT is, try and bring up a map of caches of just Nevada especially around the Reno area. Bring up a map of Wild Ride in Wyoming while your at it.

I recognize PT's just fine when looking at the geocache map, and yes there are a ton of PT's in Nevada. The issue seems to be that you think your definition of 'power trail' is the definitive gold-standard, even when other cachers disagree with your definition.

 

I don't conceder all of them to be PTs either, I'm only arguing the GAs. Some are PTs and some are not. What it'll boil down to is the CO deciding whether or not his series is a PT. If someone else thinks it is and the CO thinks it isn't then there comes a little peer pressure which may or may not convince the CO to use the attribute. Myself, I'm not able to cache like I used to but I keep my GPS full. I probably won't say anything, I'll just add the series to the ignore list. If there were another way to just keep them from cluttering a PQ then everything would be fine and truthfully there is another way and that would be to expand the PQ limits. But that's another argument.

Share this post


Link to post

The two power trails you use as an example would probably not even make it to the ignore list because they are so small. I do appreciate that they are properly marked as puzzle caches, therefore they wouldn't even show up as GeoArt in my PQs. I only download traditional, no other kinds, I simply don't have time for them given the style of caching I need to follow.

 

I don't believe there is any requirement that geoart caches have to be marked as puzzle caches. Here's the location of the Thunderbird aircraft geoart near Mountain Home Base. It consists of a lot of traditionals, a few letterboxes, some wherigos and some multis. No puzzle caches, because the caches are at the posted coordinates.

 

There are numerous other examples. Nearby is a locomotive, primarily traditionals. Of course, we have lots of BLM land in Idaho where it is possible to place the caches at the posted coordinates.

 

Who said anything about requiring? The CO was smart enough to label a puzzle cache as a puzzle cache. If someone labels one as traditionals and they are traditionals, goody. If it's a PT set up as a GA then hopefully they'll use the PT attribute also. If I run across one that I conceder a PT even though it doesn't fit someone else's description of a PT and it's big enough to trash a PQ, it'll get placed in the ignore list.

My bad. I took your comment "I do appreciate that they are properly marked as puzzle caches, therefore they wouldn't even show up as GeoArt in my PQs." to mean that you thought all geoart caches should be marked as puzzle caches.

Share this post


Link to post

The two power trails you use as an example would probably not even make it to the ignore list because they are so small. I do appreciate that they are properly marked as puzzle caches, therefore they wouldn't even show up as GeoArt in my PQs. I only download traditional, no other kinds, I simply don't have time for them given the style of caching I need to follow.

 

I don't believe there is any requirement that geoart caches have to be marked as puzzle caches. Here's the location of the Thunderbird aircraft geoart near Mountain Home Base. It consists of a lot of traditionals, a few letterboxes, some wherigos and some multis. No puzzle caches, because the caches are at the posted coordinates.

 

There are numerous other examples. Nearby is a locomotive, primarily traditionals. Of course, we have lots of BLM land in Idaho where it is possible to place the caches at the posted coordinates.

 

Who said anything about requiring? The CO was smart enough to label a puzzle cache as a puzzle cache. If someone labels one as traditionals and they are traditionals, goody. If it's a PT set up as a GA then hopefully they'll use the PT attribute also. If I run across one that I conceder a PT even though it doesn't fit someone else's description of a PT and it's big enough to trash a PQ, it'll get placed in the ignore list.

My bad. I took your comment "I do appreciate that they are properly marked as puzzle caches, therefore they wouldn't even show up as GeoArt in my PQs." to mean that you thought all geoart caches should be marked as puzzle caches.

 

No problem, there's a lot of misunderstanding going on here. No biggy. We're talking attributes. Nobody requires the snake attribute to be set in a snake farm, nobody requires any attributes at all in fact. People misuse attributes often like the ones set for scuba gear in the middle of the Nevada desert. Why there's so much argument over getting an attribute is baffling. It'll take forever for it to catch on anyhow. All they are is a helpful tool.

Share this post


Link to post
The two power trails you use as an example would probably not even make it to the ignore list because they are so small. I do appreciate that they are properly marked as puzzle caches, therefore they wouldn't even show up as GeoArt in my PQs. I only download traditional, no other kinds, I simply don't have time for them given the style of caching I need to follow.
Hmm... Let me try this again.

 

What about these geoart series makes them power trails?

 

You seem to be the only one involved in this discussion who considers them power trails. In your opinion, what characteristics of the geoart caches make them power trail?

Share this post


Link to post
The two power trails you use as an example would probably not even make it to the ignore list because they are so small. I do appreciate that they are properly marked as puzzle caches, therefore they wouldn't even show up as GeoArt in my PQs. I only download traditional, no other kinds, I simply don't have time for them given the style of caching I need to follow.
Hmm... Let me try this again.

 

What about these geoart series makes them power trails?

 

You seem to be the only one involved in this discussion who considers them power trails. In your opinion, what characteristics of the geoart caches make them power trail?

 

Why should I bother, How many power trails are in your ignore list that would give you the right to say that they aren't? Like I said in another post, it's not up to me to say what's in a power trail and what's not, it's up to the CO to decide if he's going to use the atrribute. Besides, there isn't enough information there to say whether or not they are power trails and I would never see them as such because they contain because they contain puzzle caches. If I were collecting Puzzle Caches and they showed up in a configuration like that and they were large enough a group to damage the PQ then I would call them a power trail and quite possibly ignore them. And there's nothing you or anyone else could do about it.

Edited by Jake81499

Share this post


Link to post

Until the reviewers are on board, I doubt we will ever see an attribute. I read this from a reviewer regarding PTs:

 

Years ago, the cache saturation guideline had a phrase like "don't go cache crazy and hide a cache every 600 feet, just because you can." Some reviewers used this to stop "power trails" or carpet-bombing a particular park or open space. I was one of them. But, the concept was subjective and unevenly applied, so it was removed. Now, I must publish any cache that meets the guideline, even if it is cache 242 in a series of 300, all spaced .1 miles apart.

[My bold and italics.]

The push to remove the no-PT guideline came from the reviewers, to make reviewing less subjective. I doubt there will ever be an attribute, if the reviewers don't see it as making their workload easier. GSAK may be the only alternative, or anything that doesn't involve Groundspeak making a change.

Share this post


Link to post

Until the reviewers are on board, I doubt we will ever see an attribute. I read this from a reviewer regarding PTs:

 

Years ago, the cache saturation guideline had a phrase like "don't go cache crazy and hide a cache every 600 feet, just because you can." Some reviewers used this to stop "power trails" or carpet-bombing a particular park or open space. I was one of them. But, the concept was subjective and unevenly applied, so it was removed. Now, I must publish any cache that meets the guideline, even if it is cache 242 in a series of 300, all spaced .1 miles apart.

[My bold and italics.]

The push to remove the no-PT guideline came from the reviewers, to make reviewing less subjective. I doubt there will ever be an attribute, if the reviewers don't see it as making their workload easier. GSAK may be the only alternative, or anything that doesn't involve Groundspeak making a change.

So, your fellow comrades are to blame for this? :blink:

 

Maybe this did alleviate some problems with the review process but in my opinion, it's hurt geocaching as a whole. Oh well, it's done. What i can't understand now, is why Reviewers and Groundspeak would be against an attribute. No, it's not a perfect solution, but i have no doubt it would be beneficial to just about everyone who geocaches.

Edited by Mudfrog

Share this post


Link to post
What about these geoart series makes them power trails?

 

You seem to be the only one involved in this discussion who considers them power trails. In your opinion, what characteristics of the geoart caches make them power trail?

Why should I bother,
Well, you seem to be trying to communicate a point of view. I'm just trying to understand what that point of view is.

 

How many power trails are in your ignore list that would give you the right to say that they aren't?
So is being on your ignore list, or being on anyone's ignore list, part of what makes it a power trail in your view?

 

FWIW, the caches on my ignore list are all local challenge caches that I expect never to complete. But that has nothing to do with whether these geoart puzzle caches are part of a power trail (whichever definition of "power trail" we're using).

 

Besides, there isn't enough information there to say whether or not they are power trails
Well, I believe we were discussing geoart puzzle caches where the puzzle finals are nowhere near each other. Isn't the fact that the puzzle finals are nowhere near each other relevant to whether they are part of a power trail?

Share this post


Link to post
Besides, there isn't enough information there to say whether or not they are power trails

Well, I believe we were discussing geoart puzzle caches where the puzzle finals are nowhere near each other. Isn't the fact that the puzzle finals are nowhere near each other relevant to whether they are part of a power trail?

Jake81499 is so full of contradictions, I'm thoroughly confused. :laughing:

For example, one second he'll say:

 

I'm only arguing the GAs. Some are PTs and some are not.

..and then the next he'll say:

 

If I were collecting Puzzle Caches and they showed up in a configuration like that and they were large enough a group to damage the PQ then I would call them a power trail and quite possibly ignore them.

Based on the mountain of confusing information in this discussion, I can only come to the conclusion that Jake81499's definition of a "power cache" [sic] is, "any cache that damages my PQs and I add to my ignore list." Since this is a completely unique definition that isn't shared by anyone else, it doesn't seem relevant to the discussion at hand.

 

Let's discuss the issue using the typical definition of power trails, using the E.T. Highway power trail as the gold-standard example.

Share this post


Link to post

Until the reviewers are on board, I doubt we will ever see an attribute. I read this from a reviewer regarding PTs:

 

Years ago, the cache saturation guideline had a phrase like "don't go cache crazy and hide a cache every 600 feet, just because you can." Some reviewers used this to stop "power trails" or carpet-bombing a particular park or open space. I was one of them. But, the concept was subjective and unevenly applied, so it was removed. Now, I must publish any cache that meets the guideline, even if it is cache 242 in a series of 300, all spaced .1 miles apart.

[My bold and italics.]

The push to remove the no-PT guideline came from the reviewers, to make reviewing less subjective. I doubt there will ever be an attribute, if the reviewers don't see it as making their workload easier. GSAK may be the only alternative, or anything that doesn't involve Groundspeak making a change.

So, your fellow comrades are to blame for this? :blink:

 

Maybe this did alleviate some problems with the review process but in my opinion, it's hurt geocaching as a whole. Oh well, it's done. What i can't understand now, is why Reviewers and Groundspeak would be against an attribute. No, it's not a perfect solution, but i have no doubt it would be beneficial to just about everyone who geocaches.

That was my quote about the cache saturation guideline.

 

Whether there is a power trail attribute is a separate question from "should power trails be allowed under the listing guidelines?"

 

As I've posted previously, I am not opposed to adding the Ugly Baby attribute. I just don't want to be in the position of telling a cache owner that their baby is ugly. Reviewers shouldn't have to enforce the inclusion of attributes above the ones we already do.

 

The more I read this thread, the more I'm convinced that there should not even be an expectation that reviewers would ASK an owner to include the Ugly Baby attribute. I would feel sorry for the reviewers in the states where Jake81499 runs pocket queries. "Please tell this geo art owner to add the attribute." Ummm, no thanks. Tell him yourself.

Share this post


Link to post

As I've posted previously, I am not opposed to adding the Ugly Baby attribute. I just don't want to be in the position of telling a cache owner that their baby is ugly.

I'm not so sure it's an "ugly baby" attribute, because there seems to be support from PT owners for such an attribute. Maybe it's more like a "special baby" attribute, where it can be taken as either positive or negative? :laughing:

 

As for having reviewers do anything related to such an attribute, I think I agree with you now. Leave it up to each owner to decide if they consider their baby "special".

Share this post


Link to post

The more I read this thread, the more I'm convinced that there should not even be an expectation that reviewers would ASK an owner to include the Ugly Baby attribute.

Well, yes, I certainly don't want a reviewer to comment about it if all they can say is something outrageously negative. And I hope most reviewers don't call anyone's cache ugly, with or without an attribute. I'd like -- but certainly wouldn't require -- reviewers to point out the advantages of flagging a power trail when someone submits one.

Share this post


Link to post

As I've posted previously, I am not opposed to adding the Ugly Baby attribute. I just don't want to be in the position of telling a cache owner that their baby is ugly.

I'm not so sure it's an "ugly baby" attribute, because there seems to be support from PT owners for such an attribute. Maybe it's more like a "special baby" attribute, where it can be taken as either positive or negative? :laughing:

 

As for having reviewers do anything related to such an attribute, I think I agree with you now. Leave it up to each owner to decide if they consider their baby "special".

It's not positive, negative, ugly, or special. Just like the numerous attributes we already have, it's something that gives people additional information about a cache.

 

I have to ask, i may not care for them myself but, is it the general consensus that power trails are the equivalent of ugly babies? Would their owners ever think of them as being inferior in some way? Do they think an attribute would harm the popularity of their caches? And if so, would they purposely not use an attribute in an effort to trick people into going for their cache? The answer of course is a big NO. PT owners know that these caches are popular and they also know that a lot of people would filter for their attribute if they could.

 

I definitely agree that attribute usage should be the responsibility of the cache owner,, not the Reviewer.

Share this post


Link to post

Until the reviewers are on board, I doubt we will ever see an attribute. I read this from a reviewer regarding PTs:

 

Years ago, the cache saturation guideline had a phrase like "don't go cache crazy and hide a cache every 600 feet, just because you can." Some reviewers used this to stop "power trails" or carpet-bombing a particular park or open space. I was one of them. But, the concept was subjective and unevenly applied, so it was removed. Now, I must publish any cache that meets the guideline, even if it is cache 242 in a series of 300, all spaced .1 miles apart.

[My bold and italics.]

The push to remove the no-PT guideline came from the reviewers, to make reviewing less subjective. I doubt there will ever be an attribute, if the reviewers don't see it as making their workload easier. GSAK may be the only alternative, or anything that doesn't involve Groundspeak making a change.

I don't see how that quote relates to the likelihood of a PT attribute.

-- The quote is about changing the cache placement guidelines, where reviewers didn't publish caches that subjectively seemed like PT caches. Making subjective decisions in such cases would cause discontent between reviewers and CO's.

-- A PT attribute would not require reviewers to make subjective decisions, since attributes are assigned by the CO. Since reviewers would not be 'enforcing' the PT attribute, then I don't expect that reviewers would be opposed to having such an attribute.

Share this post


Link to post

Until the reviewers are on board, I doubt we will ever see an attribute. I read this from a reviewer regarding PTs:

 

Years ago, the cache saturation guideline had a phrase like "don't go cache crazy and hide a cache every 600 feet, just because you can." Some reviewers used this to stop "power trails" or carpet-bombing a particular park or open space. I was one of them. But, the concept was subjective and unevenly applied, so it was removed. Now, I must publish any cache that meets the guideline, even if it is cache 242 in a series of 300, all spaced .1 miles apart.

[My bold and italics.]

The push to remove the no-PT guideline came from the reviewers, to make reviewing less subjective. I doubt there will ever be an attribute, if the reviewers don't see it as making their workload easier. GSAK may be the only alternative, or anything that doesn't involve Groundspeak making a change.

I don't see how that quote relates to the likelihood of a PT attribute.

 

Reviewers have the biggest influence on Groundspeak. If some of the reviewers have strong feelings against a PT attribute, it's not likely that Groundspeak will implement it.

Share this post


Link to post

Until the reviewers are on board, I doubt we will ever see an attribute. I read this from a reviewer regarding PTs:

 

Years ago, the cache saturation guideline had a phrase like "don't go cache crazy and hide a cache every 600 feet, just because you can." Some reviewers used this to stop "power trails" or carpet-bombing a particular park or open space. I was one of them. But, the concept was subjective and unevenly applied, so it was removed. Now, I must publish any cache that meets the guideline, even if it is cache 242 in a series of 300, all spaced .1 miles apart.

[My bold and italics.]

The push to remove the no-PT guideline came from the reviewers, to make reviewing less subjective. I doubt there will ever be an attribute, if the reviewers don't see it as making their workload easier. GSAK may be the only alternative, or anything that doesn't involve Groundspeak making a change.

I don't see how that quote relates to the likelihood of a PT attribute.

 

Reviewers have the biggest influence on Groundspeak. If some of the reviewers have strong feelings against a PT attribute, it's not likely that Groundspeak will implement it.

Yes - if Reviewers will be burdened by having a PT attribute, then that burden may affect their feelings about such an attribute, and their feelings may affect whether the attribute ever materializes.

 

However, your quote about a no-PT guideline is very different from a PT attribute. The bolded portion of your quote was about how Reviewers applied the no-PT guideline. It's not about whether attributes are used or not.

With the no-PT guideline, Reviewers were tasked with evaluating whether a cache was a "PT cache" or not. That could cause headaches. That is very different from a PT attribute, as Reviewers generally are not tasked with evaluating attributes (with the exception of wheelchair / T-1). I think Keystone summarized it well in his post #130.

Share this post


Link to post

Until the reviewers are on board, I doubt we will ever see an attribute. I read this from a reviewer regarding PTs:

 

Years ago, the cache saturation guideline had a phrase like "don't go cache crazy and hide a cache every 600 feet, just because you can." Some reviewers used this to stop "power trails" or carpet-bombing a particular park or open space. I was one of them. But, the concept was subjective and unevenly applied, so it was removed. Now, I must publish any cache that meets the guideline, even if it is cache 242 in a series of 300, all spaced .1 miles apart.

[My bold and italics.]

The push to remove the no-PT guideline came from the reviewers, to make reviewing less subjective. I doubt there will ever be an attribute, if the reviewers don't see it as making their workload easier. GSAK may be the only alternative, or anything that doesn't involve Groundspeak making a change.

I don't see how that quote relates to the likelihood of a PT attribute.

 

Reviewers have the biggest influence on Groundspeak. If some of the reviewers have strong feelings against a PT attribute, it's not likely that Groundspeak will implement it.

Yes - if Reviewers will be burdened by having a PT attribute, then that burden may affect their feelings about such an attribute, and their feelings may affect whether the attribute ever materializes.

 

However, your quote about a no-PT guideline is very different from a PT attribute. The bolded portion of your quote was about how Reviewers applied the no-PT guideline. It's not about whether attributes are used or not.

With the no-PT guideline, Reviewers were tasked with evaluating whether a cache was a "PT cache" or not. That could cause headaches. That is very different from a PT attribute, as Reviewers generally are not tasked with evaluating attributes (with the exception of wheelchair / T-1). I think Keystone summarized it well in his post #130.

 

OK. I re-read Keystone's post..."I just don't want to be in the position of telling a cache owner that their baby is ugly. Reviewers shouldn't have to enforce the inclusion of attributes above the ones we already do."

I'm sensing a strong negative feeling for the attribute suggestion, even though people in this discussion aren't asking that the attribute be enforced by reviewers.

There's still the worry that reviewers will still get complaints from finders that Bob-the-Carpet-Bomber didn't use the PT attribute.

I don't think it will happen. I base this feeling on how Keystone feels about the attribute and all the years the PT attribute has been requested (at least as far back as the creation of the ET Highway). If we want to do something about the PT filtering problem we have to do something that doesn't involve Groundspeak. Other then a makeshift solution for GSAK aficionados, or using the scuba attribute, I don't know what could done. Maybe Project-GC will come up with a PT-filtering option.

Edited by L0ne.R

Share this post


Link to post

 

The more I read this thread, the more I'm convinced that there should not even be an expectation that reviewers would ASK an owner to include the Ugly Baby attribute. I would feel sorry for the reviewers in the states where Jake81499 runs pocket queries. "Please tell this geo art owner to add the attribute." Ummm, no thanks. Tell him yourself.

 

When have you ever seen a reviewer tell a CO he had to use an attribute? They might suggest to a CO that he add some attributes, but I've never heard of one tell anyone they had to use an attribute. Really, this argument won't go anywhere. Too many people more busy throwing insults than being productive. If an attribute were added there would likely have to be two, one for GeoArt and one for PT's. The smartest thing to do would be to extend the cache limit in a PQ to 5000. That argument is floating around also and it's much more agreed upon than this one is.

Share this post


Link to post

Until the reviewers are on board, I doubt we will ever see an attribute. I read this from a reviewer regarding PTs:

 

Years ago, the cache saturation guideline had a phrase like "don't go cache crazy and hide a cache every 600 feet, just because you can." Some reviewers used this to stop "power trails" or carpet-bombing a particular park or open space. I was one of them. But, the concept was subjective and unevenly applied, so it was removed. Now, I must publish any cache that meets the guideline, even if it is cache 242 in a series of 300, all spaced .1 miles apart.

[My bold and italics.]

The push to remove the no-PT guideline came from the reviewers, to make reviewing less subjective. I doubt there will ever be an attribute, if the reviewers don't see it as making their workload easier. GSAK may be the only alternative, or anything that doesn't involve Groundspeak making a change.

I don't see how that quote relates to the likelihood of a PT attribute.

 

Reviewers have the biggest influence on Groundspeak. If some of the reviewers have strong feelings against a PT attribute, it's not likely that Groundspeak will implement it.

Yes - if Reviewers will be burdened by having a PT attribute, then that burden may affect their feelings about such an attribute, and their feelings may affect whether the attribute ever materializes.

 

However, your quote about a no-PT guideline is very different from a PT attribute. The bolded portion of your quote was about how Reviewers applied the no-PT guideline. It's not about whether attributes are used or not.

With the no-PT guideline, Reviewers were tasked with evaluating whether a cache was a "PT cache" or not. That could cause headaches. That is very different from a PT attribute, as Reviewers generally are not tasked with evaluating attributes (with the exception of wheelchair / T-1). I think Keystone summarized it well in his post #130.

 

OK. I re-read Keystone's post..."I just don't want to be in the position of telling a cache owner that their baby is ugly. Reviewers shouldn't have to enforce the inclusion of attributes above the ones we already do."

I'm sensing a strong negative feeling for the attribute suggestion, even though people in this discussion aren't asking that the attribute be enforced by reviewers.

There's still the worry that reviewers will still get complaints from finders that Bob-the-Carpet-Bomber didn't use the PT attribute.

I don't think it will happen. I base this feeling on how Keystone feels about the attribute and all the years the PT attribute has been requested (at least as far back as the creation of the ET Highway). If we want to do something about the PT filtering problem we have to do something that doesn't involve Groundspeak. Other then a makeshift solution for GSAK aficionados, or using the scuba attribute, I don't know what could done. Maybe Project-GC will come up with a PT-filtering option.

Sensing this negativity from who?

Share this post


Link to post

 

The more I read this thread, the more I'm convinced that there should not even be an expectation that reviewers would ASK an owner to include the Ugly Baby attribute. I would feel sorry for the reviewers in the states where Jake81499 runs pocket queries. "Please tell this geo art owner to add the attribute." Ummm, no thanks. Tell him yourself.

 

When have you ever seen a reviewer tell a CO he had to use an attribute? They might suggest to a CO that he add some attributes, but I've never heard of one tell anyone they had to use an attribute. Really, this argument won't go anywhere. Too many people more busy throwing insults than being productive. If an attribute were added there would likely have to be two, one for GeoArt and one for PT's. The smartest thing to do would be to extend the cache limit in a PQ to 5000. That argument is floating around also and it's much more agreed upon than this one is.

My opinion is based on years of experience asking Cache Owners (1) to add the wheelchair accessible attribute when they've rated the terrain at one star, or (2) to remove the attribute when the terrain is rated greater than one star, or (3) to add the "UV" attribute when a UV light is needed to find a clue for a cache, or (4) to add the "Beacon" attribute when the cache utilizes a Chirp or similar high-tech device. So when have I ever seen this? Pretty much every week for around a decade. Reviewer-enforced attributes delay publication of caches on a regular basis.

 

My opinion is also based on years of experience, beginning in 2003, in telling cache owners that their series of caches constituted a "power trail" and needed to be redesigned / re-spaced to be more like a quarter mile apart. Since there were so many different opinions on what constituted a "power trail," that guideline was modified and I do not have to undertake that exercise anymore. The review process goes much faster without that restriction, and I get a lot less hate mail. I'd like to keep it that way.

Share this post


Link to post

My opinion is also based on years of experience, beginning in 2003, in telling cache owners that their series of caches constituted a "power trail" and needed to be redesigned / re-spaced to be more like a quarter mile apart. Since there were so many different opinions on what constituted a "power trail," that guideline was modified and I do not have to undertake that exercise anymore. The review process goes much faster without that restriction, and I get a lot less hate mail. I'd like to keep it that way.

How would you, as a reviewer, feel about having the attribute available to use, but having the discretion (and no obligation at all) as to whether or not you suggest it to cache owners?

 

I'm all for having the tool available, without making the reviewers' lives any harder than they already are....

Share this post


Link to post

 

On 5/12/2016 at 3:21 PM, dprovan said:

Absolutely. Reviewers should say, "Your power trail is beautiful. Don't you want to label it as such?"

+1  Love this one

On 5/18/2016 at 6:50 PM, noncentric said:

Take a look at these 2 GeoArts. If a cacher thinks that these are power trails, then that cacher and I have very different definitions of "power trail".

 

 

GC-geoart.png

 

 

I agree geoart is not a power trail, and they are too easy to exclude as they are puzzle caches, and are for the most part solved at home and then found.

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/8/2011 at 6:42 AM, Semper Questio said:

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).

Yes, please! +1

Share this post


Link to post
22 hours ago, sdkonkle said:
On 5/12/2016 at 6:21 PM, dprovan said:

Absolutely. Reviewers should say, "Your power trail is beautiful. Don't you want to label it as such?"

+1  Love this one

On 5/18/2016 at 9:50 PM, noncentric said:

Take a look at these 2 GeoArts. If a cacher thinks that these are power trails, then that cacher and I have very different definitions of "power trail".

 

 

GC-geoart.png

 

 

I agree geoart is not a power trail, and they are too easy to exclude as they are puzzle caches, and are for the most part solved at home and then found.

How does one exclude them without excluding other puzzle caches in the area that are not part of the geo-art?

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:
On 8/29/2017 at 8:32 PM, sdkonkle said:

I agree geoart is not a power trail, and they are too easy to exclude as they are puzzle caches, and are for the most part solved at home and then found.

How does one exclude them without excluding other puzzle caches in the area that are not part of the geo-art?

The finals for a geoart could most certainly be a powertrail.

If one looks at the 'powertrail' attribute as a method to identify many caches in close quarters intended to be found sequentially en masse in a minimal number of trips, then geoart can have the attribute applied. Some geoart aren't powertrails - finals scattered around a region not in any particular order or obvious 'route' to locate.

Geoart as a different attribute has also been requested, though iirc mainly to do easier searches for those labeled as such.  The powertrail attribute has benefits to those who want to ignore them and those who love long stints of high count cache finding.

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, thebruce0 said:
On 8/31/2017 at 6:09 AM, NYPaddleCacher said:
On 8/29/2017 at 8:32 PM, sdkonkle said:

I agree geoart is not a power trail, and they are too easy to exclude as they are puzzle caches, and are for the most part solved at home and then found.

How does one exclude them without excluding other puzzle caches in the area that are not part of the geo-art?

The finals for a geoart could most certainly be a powertrail.

If one looks at the 'powertrail' attribute as a method to identify many caches in close quarters intended to be found sequentially en masse in a minimal number of trips, then geoart can have the attribute applied. Some geoart aren't powertrails - finals scattered around a region not in any particular order or obvious 'route' to locate.

Geoart as a different attribute has also been requested, though iirc mainly to do easier searches for those labeled as such.  The powertrail attribute has benefits to those who want to ignore them and those who love long stints of high count cache finding.

I don't really see much of an issue with the fact that there isn't a clear cut definition for when a group of caches is a power trail or isn't.  If the CO feels that their group of caches has characteristics of a PT, even if it's geo-art, they can add the attribute.   There may be some disagreement between the CO and others viewing that collection of caches, but for every CO that does apply the PT attribute, that's going to benefit those that want to ignore a large group of caches and those that love those long stints of high count cache finding.  It doesn't have to be perfect to provide a benefit over not having a PT attribute at all.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

I don't really see much of an issue with the fact that there isn't a clear cut definition for when a group of caches is a power trail or isn't.  If the CO feels that their group of caches has characteristics of a PT, even if it's geo-art, they can add the attribute.   There may be some disagreement between the CO and others viewing that collection of caches, but for every CO that does apply the PT attribute, that's going to benefit those that want to ignore a large group of caches and those that love those long stints of high count cache finding.  It doesn't have to be perfect to provide a benefit over not having a PT attribute at all.  

I have no idea why people want to dissect these things to death. It's obvious that it wouldn't be perfect. Still, the positives would certainly outweigh the negatives.

  • Upvote 2

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

×