Too many caches - 85 x 0.1m apart

[+Geo-Tiki]

Last night 85 (yep - eighty five) new caches were published on a local 'bike / walking' track that follows an old train route in northern IL. Each of the caches are (for the most part) 0.1 mile a part from each other - along with a few other caches that had already been there for quite some time. This seems rather silly; as much as we appreciate the time and effort spent - this feels like just too much. First of all it detracts from the caches that were already in place that are now lost in the jungle of the 85 - seems very disrespectful to them considering the open area. We don't feel that the 0.1m a part rule was made to be used in this manner. Really, how are three people going to honestly take care of all these over time. It doesn't look like there was any permission was obtained / given to place them on the bike track from the townships that manage them (assuming from the map that would be needed - hard to tell). So, where is the fun and challenge in this? Its too much don't you think??? Check it out..... GC3HZYB (#33 in the series of 85). Curious to hear opinions...

 

Nicky and Gavin

[jholly]

85? is that all? Hardly seems worth the while for so few caches. Maybe a couple hundred would be worthwhile. Guess you never heard of the ET Highway or route 66.

[+tozainamboku]

Power trails are very popular. There is a portion of the geocaching community that really enjoys the opportunity to find many caches at once.

 

On the other hand there are many in the geocaching community who prefer finding only a few caches when they go caching. The prefer caches that bring them to different places and perhaps to take a bit of time when caching to take in these new places.

 

There is a fundamental split in the geocaching world between those for whom finding caches is the most important aspect of geocaching and those for whom getting out and discovering new places in the most important aspect.

 

The best advice to give is to learn that you don't have to find every cache. Learn how to use the tools provided to select only the cache you think you will enjoy finding. Skip caches you think you won't enjoy. If you might still enjoy walking the bike trail, just look for every other cache, or every fifth cache. If you want you can come back to walk the trail again and find more caches later.

 

And while your at it, have your favorite flavor and don't worry is it's not the most popular.

[+PokerLuck]

Does this affect you or your geocaching in any way, other than to just irritate you because you don't like to geocache that way? One thing I like about geocaching is that it has many different aspects. It has puzzles, long hikes, park 'n grabs, wherigos, challenges, etc. One aspect about geocaching that I don't like is when someone tries to force other geocachers to only geocache their way. As others have said much more eloquently than I can, you don't have to get them all.

[+Lil Devil]

If I was in that area, I would love to jump on my bike and spend an afternoon finding those. If you don't like them, that's OK. Ignore them. But don't poo-poo things that others might enjoy.

[+Geo-Tiki]

I find it an interesting issue - as it's easy to say; ignore some and go looking for the ones you want - but its hard to ignore it when it takes soooo long to filter out the 'many' to find a few. We also worry that we loose many people from the 'faith' because of this issue and that the extreme excess will cause the game to implode on itself as the world becomes somewhat littered with caches. All things in moderation is a good motto - just think we need to be sensible and considerate of the game, others, environment... and not go to excess just cause we can. Just because some like it that way - doesn't mean it might always be the right thing to do... not pooing pooing - just sharing our thoughts which are just as relevant and important as anyone else aye!!

[+Geo-Tiki]

Thanks - Power Cache's was a new word / concept for us.... looked up Route 66 etc... mentioned above. Still taking it all in - can't say it's something we'd get into... can see the lure though... but have some reservations...

[+Mitragorz]

Why don't you go out on that trail but only find every fifth cache or so? Go back after a few days of caching and do the same thing again. Then go back another day and do it again. Repeat until you've gotten all the finds! Spread them out over a period of days, or even weeks, to break the monotony.

Edited May 20, 2012 by Mitragorz

[+Walts Hunting]

You use the word "we". Just exactly how many are in your collective? This is common now as the emphasis is on numbers not quality. Also you say that this isn't how the .1 rule was supposed to be used.

 

Please state how it was supposed to be used since it seems clear that it means no closer than .1?

[+tozainamboku]

I find it an interesting issue - as it's easy to say; ignore some and go looking for the ones you want - but its hard to ignore it when it takes soooo long to filter out the 'many' to find a few. We also worry that we loose many people from the 'faith' because of this issue and that the extreme excess will cause the game to implode on itself as the world becomes somewhat littered with caches. All things in moderation is a good motto - just think we need to be sensible and considerate of the game, others, environment... and not go to excess just cause we can. Just because some like it that way - doesn't mean it might always be the right thing to do... not pooing pooing - just sharing our thoughts which are just as relevant and important as anyone else aye!!

It is an interesting issue. You've been a member long enough that you may recall when some reviewers would not publish a series like this. The saturation guidelines use to say "Don't place a cache every 600 ft. (sometimes called a power trail)" and "The ultimate 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."

 

The in an attempt to simplify the guidelines and help keep the reviewers from having to make a judgment call over what a power trail was, these phrases were removed. Now if someone want's to place a cache every 528 ft. along a bike trail, they can.

 

The question is "why the change?".

 

One argument has been the shear popularity of these "power trails". The bigger ones attract cachers from all over the world who come to find hundreds of caches in one day. The smaller ones are also popular in that they provide a day or an afternoon of geocaching without needing to drive all over to get to caches. Smaller series are also popular, but a trail with 85 caches will likely attract more people. And as stated, even someone that doesn't care to find 85 caches all at once, can enjoy the trail find only a few of the caches, or may split it up and find a few each time.

 

The original "no power trail" rules as seen to be a value judgement by those who prefer few caches that take you to different places over those that prefer more caches to find. I think TPTB decided to get out of the business of trying to enforce one particular view of quality via the guidelines. Now the guidelines allow people to make their own decisions over what is a quality cache.

 

So, you say, the people who like fewer caches that take them to different places will get frustrated trying to select caches. You worry that "many people from the 'faith' because of this issue and that the extreme excess will cause the game to implode on itself as the world becomes somewhat littered with caches." I've seen these same arguments over and over again, and I still don't understand them.

 

The site provides many tools to identify caches that may be power trails or park and grabs. The system of favorite points works very well to find caches in areas with high density that stand out as exceptional. With pocket queries and third party tools like GSAK, you can select the particular caches you want to load on the GPS (or smartphone) and which caches you want to ignore. There is no danger of geocaching imploding because of more caches. There is simply a need for cachers to be more selective. I don't complain that Baskin and Robbins has 31 flavors for me to choose from. I certainly don't go and get a 31 scoop cone so I can have every flavor. I pick the flavor or flavors I want that day and have that.

[+Geo-Tiki]

Why don't you go out on that trail but only find every fifth cache or so? Go back after a few days of caching and do the same thing again. Then go back another day and do it again. Repeat until you've gotten all the finds! Spread them out over a period of days, or even weeks, to break the monotony.

 

I think a couple of reasons - we'd rather 'spread the love' - there are so many caches in the area, why devote all our attention to just 'one' when others have also gone to equal effort to place caches. It seems to us to be somewhat selfish to have so many caches devoted to yourself/team and to monopolize one area this way. We had already done the small number of caches that have been there for years continuing to earn their dues - now they're lost in amongst all the others - I know if I had one of the previous ones I would probably remove it now and be a little put out by it. At the end of the day - even though we cache in and trash out - we are in affect leaving non-biodegradable 'stuff' all over the place, also climbing up and down the banks of the trail will over time cause damage to the area and the plants. It was a nice bike ride where you could do 5 neat caches - now there's over 90! It just feels to excessive. How is it that those who like this type of thing wants are met where as others just have to tun the other way and 'ignore'. Maybe the rules for placement need looking at. 0.1m maybe to close - I'm not sure..... still thinking. These are just all thoughts out loud...

[+NanCycle]

Gee, just a few weeks ago I was sitting here browsing the forums and wishing that someone would put out more caches on our local bike trail, so that I could take my bike out and find them.

 

Then, the idea hit--I could do just as much bike riding by hiding the caches as by finding them. So I have started to do that. I am placing about 4 a week and working around the few existing caches; I'll probably have about 50+/- by the time I say I'm done.

 

I agree that it would not be much fun to ride 528 feet and stop, ride another 528 ft and stop again; but ride a mile, find a cache, ride another mile, find a cache--that would be more fun and you could get 10 bike rides out of the series.

 

There are a lot of different ways to play the game. You get to choose what's fun for you--and I get to choose what's fun for me. That's what makes it fun for both of us.

[+Geo-Tiki]

You use the word "we". Just exactly how many are in your collective? This is common now as the emphasis is on numbers not quality. Also you say that this isn't how the .1 rule was supposed to be used.

 

Please state how it was supposed to be used since it seems clear that it means no closer than .1?

 

Me, hubby and I (cat's getting to old to tag along...) That's why its signed "Nicky and Gavin". I guess you kinda hit the issue on the head a little though - emphasis is now more on numbers and not quality... sigh.... We always felt the 0.1 rule was kinda to prevent people putting multiple caches in the 'same' place. For instance - how many caches do you need at the Statue of Liberty (if there is any) - one or twenty? Would use the same theory for the bike path - 3-5 good ones seems to be more in the spirit of the rule but sounds like we're wrong/different... : -) Can't get much of a cardiac workout if you have to stop that often LOL.

[+Glenn]

You use the word "we". Just exactly how many are in your collective? This is common now as the emphasis is on numbers not quality. Also you say that this isn't how the .1 rule was supposed to be used.

 

Please state how it was supposed to be used since it seems clear that it means no closer than .1?

 

Me, hubby and I (cat's getting to old to tag along...) That's why its signed "Nicky and Gavin". I guess you kinda hit the issue on the head a little though - emphasis is now more on numbers and not quality... sigh.... We always felt the 0.1 rule was kinda to prevent people putting multiple caches in the 'same' place. For instance - how many caches do you need at the Statue of Liberty (if there is any) - one or twenty? Would use the same theory for the bike path - 3-5 good ones seems to be more in the spirit of the rule but sounds like we're wrong/different... : -) Can't get much of a cardiac workout if you have to stop that often LOL.

 

Not everyone is looking for a "cardiac workout" when they are geocaching. Due to health reason some people can't workout.

 

Anyhoo, I have two suggestions.

First, learn how to tell difference between the caches that you think you'd like and those that you think you wouldn't like. Then only hunt caches on your like list. Also geocaching has an ignore feature.

Second, find all the cache on the power trail. Then stop back from time to time and check in on the caches. Post NM and NA logs as appropriate. One of two things will happen. Either the CO will realize that the power trail was too much for them to handle and the power trail fade away or you will get one very well maintained power trail.

[+Sagefox]

We had already done the small number of caches that have been there for years continuing to earn their dues - now they're lost in amongst all the others - I know if I had one of the previous ones I would probably remove it now and be a little put out by it.

 

We live next to a rails-to-trails where we have four caches and there were a total of about 10 in a six mile section. Last year someone placed 27 additional caches and I had some of the same thoughts as you have posted. None of my concerns proved to be problems. Our caches are not lost in the mix and have been found more frequently now that more people come to the trail.

 

It seems to us to be somewhat selfish to have so many caches devoted to yourself/team and to monopolize one area this way.

 

I never had this thought but it does not seem, at all, to be a selfish act. I'm not sure I could even recall the account name who placed these caches. The owner has been very responsive to the few maintenance issues that have arisen and wrote me a thank-you note when I posted some comments about a missing cache.

 

At the end of the day - even though we cache in and trash out - we are in affect leaving non-biodegradable 'stuff' all over the place, also climbing up and down the banks of the trail will over time cause damage to the area and the plants.

 

I don't see this kind of evidence along our trail. All the caches are within a few feet of the trail. As to leaving "stuff all over the place" goes, even ten caches per mile is a miniscule amount of physical stuff.

 

...now there's over 90! It just feels to excessive.

 

This was my biggest concern in the beginning but it seems to be a pretty quite issue after the initial shock. I have one of the caches on a watch list and there are not all that many folks out doing this suburban trail. It averages probably two to ten people a week and we live in a city complex of 125,000 population and are easily accessible by folks from Seattle and Tacoma.

 

How is it that those who like this type of thing wants are met where as others just have to turn the other way and 'ignore'.

 

This is a bit harder to address because of the emotional nature of the concern. It's a commonly voiced feeling here in the forums so there must be something to it. I think Toz's comments gave a nice broad view of the power trail issue and why these caches are listed.

 

Power trails are a relatively new direction in this social experiment (geocaching) and while it may seem alarming at first the local bike trail power caches seem to be quite compatible with our normal caching patterns. I didn't get around to doing our power trail caches until about six months after they were published and we are very active cachers.

[+The_Incredibles_]

Sounds like a typical power trail. I have done one and there's another I plan to do. I enjoyed the challenge and it was lot of fun.

 

However, the issue I have with power trails is that typically, the cache are low-quality micros. This means I cannot take my children to find any of these caches. Possibly the most annoying part of power trails is they block others from placing high quality caches in the same area. For the above 2 reasons, f you're going to put out a powertrail, please put it out in the middle of nowhere! TFTC!

Edited May 20, 2012 by The_Incredibles_

[knowschad]

I find it interesting that we have two current threads on bike trail "power trails", each from the opposite point of view! The other thread

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Does this affect you or your geocaching in any way, other than to just irritate you because you don't like to geocache that way? One thing I like about geocaching is that it has many different aspects. It has puzzles, long hikes, park 'n grabs, wherigos, challenges, etc. One aspect about geocaching that I don't like is when someone tries to force other geocachers to only geocache their way.

 

It's easy to say everyone can play the game their own way when a small number of puzzles, caches with long hikes, or Wherigo caches has little impact on those that want to do power trails. The same can't be said for someone that might want to find a few more puzzle caches along a bike trail that has just been completely saturated with caches every .1 of a mile. When an area is saturated with power trails, and easy caches which cater to the numbers crowd it effectively forces cachers to play that way or find some place else to go caching.

 

A bike trail completely saturated with a power trail absolutely *does* effect someone that might want to place a difficult hide, puzzle cache, or a multi along that trail because the power trail has taken up every bit of potential real estate available to place a cache.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

I find it an interesting issue - as it's easy to say; ignore some and go looking for the ones you want - but its hard to ignore it when it takes soooo long to filter out the 'many' to find a few. We also worry that we loose many people from the 'faith' because of this issue and that the extreme excess will cause the game to implode on itself as the world becomes somewhat littered with caches. All things in moderation is a good motto - just think we need to be sensible and considerate of the game, others, environment... and not go to excess just cause we can. Just because some like it that way - doesn't mean it might always be the right thing to do... not pooing pooing - just sharing our thoughts which are just as relevant and important as anyone else aye!!

It is an interesting issue. You've been a member long enough that you may recall when some reviewers would not publish a series like this. The saturation guidelines use to say "Don't place a cache every 600 ft. (sometimes called a power trail)" and "The ultimate 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."

 

The in an attempt to simplify the guidelines and help keep the reviewers from having to make a judgment call over what a power trail was, these phrases were removed. Now if someone want's to place a cache every 528 ft. along a bike trail, they can.

 

The question is "why the change?".

 

One argument has been the shear popularity of these "power trails". The bigger ones attract cachers from all over the world who come to find hundreds of caches in one day. The smaller ones are also popular in that they provide a day or an afternoon of geocaching without needing to drive all over to get to caches. Smaller series are also popular, but a trail with 85 caches will likely attract more people. And as stated, even someone that doesn't care to find 85 caches all at once, can enjoy the trail find only a few of the caches, or may split it up and find a few each time.

 

The original "no power trail" rules as seen to be a value judgement by those who prefer few caches that take you to different places over those that prefer more caches to find. I think TPTB decided to get out of the business of trying to enforce one particular view of quality via the guidelines. Now the guidelines allow people to make their own decisions over what is a quality cache.

 

So, you say, the people who like fewer caches that take them to different places will get frustrated trying to select caches. You worry that "many people from the 'faith' because of this issue and that the extreme excess will cause the game to implode on itself as the world becomes somewhat littered with caches." I've seen these same arguments over and over again, and I still don't understand them.

 

The site provides many tools to identify caches that may be power trails or park and grabs. The system of favorite points works very well to find caches in areas with high density that stand out as exceptional. With pocket queries and third party tools like GSAK, you can select the particular caches you want to load on the GPS (or smartphone) and which caches you want to ignore. There is no danger of geocaching imploding because of more caches. There is simply a need for cachers to be more selective. I don't complain that Baskin and Robbins has 31 flavors for me to choose from. I certainly don't go and get a 31 scoop cone so I can have every flavor. I pick the flavor or flavors I want that day and have that.

 

Great job explaining this.....+1.

As for myself, I really don't care for puzzles and multi's so I simply leave them out of my PQ so I don't even see them......for those that love them, have at it. Perhaps a new cache type called a PT could be created.....those who disliked power trails could easily leave them out.

[+Roman!]

Does this affect you or your geocaching in any way, other than to just irritate you because you don't like to geocache that way? One thing I like about geocaching is that it has many different aspects. It has puzzles, long hikes, park 'n grabs, wherigos, challenges, etc. One aspect about geocaching that I don't like is when someone tries to force other geocachers to only geocache their way.

 

It's easy to say everyone can play the game their own way when a small number of puzzles, caches with long hikes, or Wherigo caches has little impact on those that want to do power trails. The same can't be said for someone that might want to find a few more puzzle caches along a bike trail that has just been completely saturated with caches every .1 of a mile. When an area is saturated with power trails, and easy caches which cater to the numbers crowd it effectively forces cachers to play that way or find some place else to go caching.

 

A bike trail completely saturated with a power trail absolutely *does* effect someone that might want to place a difficult hide, puzzle cache, or a multi along that trail because the power trail has taken up every bit of potential real estate available to place a cache.

 

I could see that being a problem if there was only one trail in the world or if every trail that exists was a power trail.

[4wheelin_fool]

The SRT series on the schuykil river trail in philly has a wide variety of different type of hides and much of the landscape changes drastically. The only similarities are the cache pages. I would not assume that every powertrail is the same hide over and over in the same environment.

Edited May 21, 2012 by 4wheelin_fool

[+Mitragorz]

Why don't you go out on that trail but only find every fifth cache or so? Go back after a few days of caching and do the same thing again. Then go back another day and do it again. Repeat until you've gotten all the finds! Spread them out over a period of days, or even weeks, to break the monotony.

 

I think a couple of reasons - we'd rather 'spread the love' - there are so many caches in the area, why devote all our attention to just 'one' when others have also gone to equal effort to place caches. It seems to us to be somewhat selfish to have so many caches devoted to yourself/team and to monopolize one area this way. We had already done the small number of caches that have been there for years continuing to earn their dues - now they're lost in amongst all the others - I know if I had one of the previous ones I would probably remove it now and be a little put out by it. At the end of the day - even though we cache in and trash out - we are in affect leaving non-biodegradable 'stuff' all over the place, also climbing up and down the banks of the trail will over time cause damage to the area and the plants. It was a nice bike ride where you could do 5 neat caches - now there's over 90! It just feels to excessive. How is it that those who like this type of thing wants are met where as others just have to tun the other way and 'ignore'. Maybe the rules for placement need looking at. 0.1m maybe to close - I'm not sure..... still thinking. These are just all thoughts out loud...

 

Ok, I think I see what your saying. It's not so much that there's so many caches in a small area, it's that they're all placed by one cacher? So in your eyes they've taken away the opportunity for others to hide quality caches? I could see why you feel that way. Especially if, for example, it's something like a film canister stuffed in a tree when 100' further there could be a nice, big ammo can hidden near a scenic bluff. Or even a film canister near a scenic bluff.

[+Walts Hunting]

Geo-Tiki said

 

How is it that those who like this type of thing wants are met where as others just have to tun the other way and 'ignore'. Maybe the rules for placement need looking at. 0.1m maybe to close - I'm not sure..... still thinking.

 

I say:

 

There are many, many things that are allowed that some or many have to turn the other way and ignore. Not just in caching but life itself.

 

There is a big difference between allowing people freedom to do what they wish even if you don't like it and passing a law/regulation/rule prohibiting them from doing what they want and enjoying themselves. What you seem be asking is for other people to be deprived of that right so that the caching world meets your paradigm of what it should be. You don't have to go after them. Just run a GSAK macro on the bunch and add them to your ignore list.

 

What makes this hobby so great is that each individual can participate how they see fit.

[+briansnat]

Does this affect you or your geocaching in any way, other than to just irritate you because you don't like to geocache that way? One thing I like about geocaching is that it has many different aspects. It has puzzles, long hikes, park 'n grabs, wherigos, challenges, etc. One aspect about geocaching that I don't like is when someone tries to force other geocachers to only geocache their way. As others have said much more eloquently than I can, you don't have to get them all.

 

It affects my geocaching because these power trails have taken a low impact, low visibility sport and turned it into a high impact, high visibility sport. Long term it will affect the game in a negative way. That affects me.

[+L0ne.R]

Why don't you go out on that trail but only find every fifth cache or so? Go back after a few days of caching and do the same thing again. Then go back another day and do it again. Repeat until you've gotten all the finds! Spread them out over a period of days, or even weeks, to break the monotony.

 

I think a couple of reasons - we'd rather 'spread the love' - there are so many caches in the area, why devote all our attention to just 'one' when others have also gone to equal effort to place caches. It seems to us to be somewhat selfish to have so many caches devoted to yourself/team and to monopolize one area this way. We had already done the small number of caches that have been there for years continuing to earn their dues - now they're lost in amongst all the others - I know if I had one of the previous ones I would probably remove it now and be a little put out by it. At the end of the day - even though we cache in and trash out - we are in affect leaving non-biodegradable 'stuff' all over the place, also climbing up and down the banks of the trail will over time cause damage to the area and the plants. It was a nice bike ride where you could do 5 neat caches - now there's over 90! It just feels to excessive. How is it that those who like this type of thing wants are met where as others just have to tun the other way and 'ignore'. Maybe the rules for placement need looking at. 0.1m maybe to close - I'm not sure..... still thinking. These are just all thoughts out loud...

 

Ok, I think I see what your saying. It's not so much that there's so many caches in a small area, it's that they're all placed by one cacher? So in your eyes they've taken away the opportunity for others to hide quality caches? I could see why you feel that way. Especially if, for example, it's something like a film canister stuffed in a tree when 100' further there could be a nice, big ammo can hidden near a scenic bluff.

 

+1

[+tozainamboku]

It affects my geocaching because these power trails have taken a low impact, low visibility sport and turned it into a high impact, high visibility sport. Long term it will affect the game in a negative way. That affects me.

I'm not seeing this. Perhaps a few of the mega power trails in the California and Nevada desert have attracted large enough groups of caches to cause an issue. We know of one instance where the there were complaints about cachers stopping at dangerous places along the road to find caches.

 

For the most part, while these trails may increase the numbers of visitors, there is not such an increase as to have much of an impact. In addition, since many power trails are designed to be easy finds, each cacher spends less time looking for the caches and has less impact that someone looking for a well hidden individual cache.

 

It seems that those who don't like power trails are quick to blame then for all sorts of problems they don't, in general, cause. You may be able to point to a few cases when the power trail had high impact and high visibility. In my opinion this is rare and power trail caches are have no more of impact or visibility than any other cache.

[jholly]

Does this affect you or your geocaching in any way, other than to just irritate you because you don't like to geocache that way? One thing I like about geocaching is that it has many different aspects. It has puzzles, long hikes, park 'n grabs, wherigos, challenges, etc. One aspect about geocaching that I don't like is when someone tries to force other geocachers to only geocache their way. As others have said much more eloquently than I can, you don't have to get them all.

 

It affects my geocaching because these power trails have taken a low impact, low visibility sport and turned it into a high impact, high visibility sport. Long term it will affect the game in a negative way. That affects me.

Perhaps you could elaborate. Otherwise I will put it down to a quick hip shot. I did not see much impact on both route 66 and ET highway. As for visibility, it was visible in Rachael by keeping folks employed when they normally would not be. I've done other far shorter stretches of caches with out much impact being seen. I've seen far more impact on high difficulty hides that are small and micros. I would worry more about the single high difficulty caches having a visible impact on caching than I would of a power trail.

[+Roman!]

Does this affect you or your geocaching in any way, other than to just irritate you because you don't like to geocache that way? One thing I like about geocaching is that it has many different aspects. It has puzzles, long hikes, park 'n grabs, wherigos, challenges, etc. One aspect about geocaching that I don't like is when someone tries to force other geocachers to only geocache their way. As others have said much more eloquently than I can, you don't have to get them all.

 

It affects my geocaching because these power trails have taken a low impact, low visibility sport and turned it into a high impact, high visibility sport. Long term it will affect the game in a negative way. That affects me.

 

I disagree, let's take a 100 cache power trail, they are meant to be easy to find usually within a few meters of a road, if I go out caching and spend a day on a power trail my impact will be quite minimal. On the other hand if I spend the day caching random caches with various difficulties of hides I will surely do more damage trying to find them, my impact for the day will be much greater. Maybe we should ban all caches except power trails to protect the environment, heck, let's just ban caching.

[+briansnat]

Does this affect you or your geocaching in any way, other than to just irritate you because you don't like to geocache that way? One thing I like about geocaching is that it has many different aspects. It has puzzles, long hikes, park 'n grabs, wherigos, challenges, etc. One aspect about geocaching that I don't like is when someone tries to force other geocachers to only geocache their way. As others have said much more eloquently than I can, you don't have to get them all.

 

It affects my geocaching because these power trails have taken a low impact, low visibility sport and turned it into a high impact, high visibility sport. Long term it will affect the game in a negative way. That affects me.

 

I disagree, let's take a 100 cache power trail, they are meant to be easy to find usually within a few meters of a road, if I go out caching and spend a day on a power trail my impact will be quite minimal. On the other hand if I spend the day caching random caches with various difficulties of hides I will surely do more damage trying to find them, my impact for the day will be much greater. Maybe we should ban all caches except power trails to protect the environment, heck, let's just ban caching.

 

Power trails tend to attract many cachers and they are not only popping up along roads. A state park near me had one published recently, a small one, but a power trail. The caches on that PT have had more finds in the few months since it was published than the pre power trails in that park had over several years.

[jholly]

Does this affect you or your geocaching in any way, other than to just irritate you because you don't like to geocache that way? One thing I like about geocaching is that it has many different aspects. It has puzzles, long hikes, park 'n grabs, wherigos, challenges, etc. One aspect about geocaching that I don't like is when someone tries to force other geocachers to only geocache their way. As others have said much more eloquently than I can, you don't have to get them all.

 

It affects my geocaching because these power trails have taken a low impact, low visibility sport and turned it into a high impact, high visibility sport. Long term it will affect the game in a negative way. That affects me.

 

I disagree, let's take a 100 cache power trail, they are meant to be easy to find usually within a few meters of a road, if I go out caching and spend a day on a power trail my impact will be quite minimal. On the other hand if I spend the day caching random caches with various difficulties of hides I will surely do more damage trying to find them, my impact for the day will be much greater. Maybe we should ban all caches except power trails to protect the environment, heck, let's just ban caching.

 

Power trails tend to attract many cachers and they are not only popping up along roads. A state park near me had one published recently, a small one, but a power trail. The caches on that PT have had more finds in the few months since it was published than the pre power trails in that park had over several years.

I still don't see the negative impact. I think what your saying is if a cache is found more that twice a year it is bad. Perhaps we should place a limit on logging caches to say only one a month. And then a very highly restrictive pay schedule if you want to log more than one a month. That should keep the cache finds very low and will lead to the hobby dying out. Then the impact will be zero.

[+6NoisyHikers]

We have a lovely hike/bike "power trail" (maybe it should be called a "man-power-trail") in our area that I did by myself one afternoon a few weeks ago. There are 40 caches plus 2 previously placed caches along a 10km stretch of river trail. The terrain is level and the scenery is beautiful.

 

The containers are a variety of small lock and locks, bison tubes, bottle preforms, vitamin bottles and magnetic keyholders. And a few rubber animals thrown in for fun

 

Is it a lot of caches? Dunno. I was out on a great walk on a fabulous day *and* got to go geocaching as an added bonus! The only exhausting part was writing 42 unique logs with pictures at the end of the day

 

Check out the Pitt River East Dyke Trail

 

My logs start HERE.

 

This is the HALFWAY point.

 

Would I drive along a highway from cache to cache? Well, maybe - just to try it out - but I'd likely get bored pretty quick. Will I hike all day and pick up whatever caches are along the way? You bet! Nature, here we come!

[+6NoisyHikers]

 

It affects my geocaching because these power trails have taken a low impact, low visibility sport and turned it into a high impact, high visibility sport. Long term it will affect the game in a negative way. That affects me.

 

Having read back through the posts, I do want to mention - and you'll see it in my logs if you read through them - that I did find what I would consider to be "damage" at GZ along this trail, specifically that the caches are hidden at the bottom of a short slope and the earth there is very soggy so the bank is broken down by cachers sliding down and climbing up. I can't say for sure whether this will be a constant problem as we go through the seasons, but in this particular instance, I can see Briansnat's point.

[+Roman!]

Does this affect you or your geocaching in any way, other than to just irritate you because you don't like to geocache that way? One thing I like about geocaching is that it has many different aspects. It has puzzles, long hikes, park 'n grabs, wherigos, challenges, etc. One aspect about geocaching that I don't like is when someone tries to force other geocachers to only geocache their way. As others have said much more eloquently than I can, you don't have to get them all.

 

It affects my geocaching because these power trails have taken a low impact, low visibility sport and turned it into a high impact, high visibility sport. Long term it will affect the game in a negative way. That affects me.

 

I disagree, let's take a 100 cache power trail, they are meant to be easy to find usually within a few meters of a road, if I go out caching and spend a day on a power trail my impact will be quite minimal. On the other hand if I spend the day caching random caches with various difficulties of hides I will surely do more damage trying to find them, my impact for the day will be much greater. Maybe we should ban all caches except power trails to protect the environment, heck, let's just ban caching.

 

Power trails tend to attract many cachers and they are not only popping up along roads. A state park near me had one published recently, a small one, but a power trail. The caches on that PT have had more finds in the few months since it was published than the pre power trails in that park had over several years.

 

Yes and that's a good thing because the day they spent on the trail they otherwise would have spent stomping through random parks, trail and other areas. Power trails save the environment, all other caches should be banned.

[+fuzziebear3]

I do like the caches on our rails/trails. Not all of ours are the same, some are micros, some are smalls, some are clever. And I have never done a power trail at all.

 

Agreed, when biking, stopping every 528 feet gets old, you can skip every other one and get them on the return trip, or just get one every distance you like and make multiple trips.

However, sometimes I walk, and stopping every 528 feet or so while walking seems to be pretty decent motivation to keep me going. Of course, with walking, I have to do the trail in sections anyway.

[+jellis]

Those others you say are lost in the mix, I don't think so. Locals found them already so those of course will be skipped. But new cachers to the trail will include them because it will be more then the 85 just added.

I did the ET Hwy and though I had fun finding 877 in one day. (I know that is not a lot but we didn't want to burn ourselves out.) I don't think I would do another one that intense again unless I go at my own pace not like we did.

Edited May 21, 2012 by jellis

[jholly]

 

It affects my geocaching because these power trails have taken a low impact, low visibility sport and turned it into a high impact, high visibility sport. Long term it will affect the game in a negative way. That affects me.

 

Having read back through the posts, I do want to mention - and you'll see it in my logs if you read through them - that I did find what I would consider to be "damage" at GZ along this trail, specifically that the caches are hidden at the bottom of a short slope and the earth there is very soggy so the bank is broken down by cachers sliding down and climbing up. I can't say for sure whether this will be a constant problem as we go through the seasons, but in this particular instance, I can see Briansnat's point.

And if this different from a random cache hidden there how? It has nothing to do with being part of a PT and every thing to do with where it was hidden.

[+Mr.Benchmark]

The main problems I see with power trails in terms of how they impact the game are that the rules for finders are sometimes a little different on a PT:

1. People sometimes replace missing caches. (Throwdown). On a trail of essentially identical hides, I don't see a big problem with this. Unfortunately, this behavior seems to transfer over to other types of caches and sometimes results in the replacement of a cache that is present. So you end up with two caches at the site, ie a mess!

 

2. Some trails encourage the finder to swap out caches along the trail. Since they are all identical, you sign one while moving to the next. Replacing cache 'N' with 'N-1'.

 

In an area with a mix of PT and non-PT caches, these two behaviors can lead to a really messy situation on the ground. (so you go to maintain your cache, and find a PT cache there. What do you do exactly as a CO?)

 

My feeling is that treating caches as fungible (#2) seems to violate a number of guidelines and assumptions implicit in the game - namely that caches don't move.

[+Scubasonic]

Last night 85 (yep - eighty five) new caches were published on a local 'bike / walking' track that follows an old train route in northern IL. Each of the caches are (for the most part) 0.1 mile a part from each other - along with a few other caches that had already been there for quite some time. This seems rather silly; as much as we appreciate the time and effort spent - this feels like just too much. First of all it detracts from the caches that were already in place that are now lost in the jungle of the 85 - seems very disrespectful to them considering the open area. We don't feel that the 0.1m a part rule was made to be used in this manner. Really, how are three people going to honestly take care of all these over time. It doesn't look like there was any permission was obtained / given to place them on the bike track from the townships that manage them (assuming from the map that would be needed - hard to tell). So, where is the fun and challenge in this? Its too much don't you think??? Check it out..... GC3HZYB (#33 in the series of 85). Curious to hear opinions...

 

Nicky and Gavin

 

Not at all, these are very popular and you may not be interested in it, or support it but many will. If it is something that does not interest you then simply play a differant area of Geocaching that does. With 85 caches this is nothing copared to ones that have 500+

[+DragonsWest]

I really like the idea of a power trail on a hiking or biking route. The car thing is such a fuss and bother.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

I really like the idea of a power trail on a hiking or biking route. The car thing is such a fuss and bother.

 

Rhode Island still has the shortest power trail!

[+6NoisyHikers]

 

Having read back through the posts, I do want to mention - and you'll see it in my logs if you read through them - that I did find what I would consider to be "damage" at GZ along this trail, specifically that the caches are hidden at the bottom of a short slope and the earth there is very soggy so the bank is broken down by cachers sliding down and climbing up. I can't say for sure whether this will be a constant problem as we go through the seasons, but in this particular instance, I can see Briansnat's point.

And if this different from a random cache hidden there how? It has nothing to do with being part of a PT and every thing to do with where it was hidden.

 

Power trails attract more cachers. The older cache on this trail was placed in 2005. It had 56 logged visits between October 2005 and March 2012. In the last two months it has had 63 more logged visits.

 

Regular foot traffic is tough on all environments. It doesn't give the area time to recouperate. That's why we can find geotrails to GZ. It is up to us as cachers to be gentle in our searching.

 

I'm not trying to argue against this type of "man-power-trail" - I really enjoyed doing it myself. I was simply agreeing with Briansnat that this type of setup inflicts some level of damage on the location.

 

On this particular trail, cachers are carving a geotrail stripe in the bank at each stop - probably not a huge ecological trauma as the dyke itself is man-made and the bank is just mud and marsh grass. In other areas of the country, it might be another story.

[knowschad]

Last night 85 (yep - eighty five) new caches were published on a local 'bike / walking' track that follows an old train route in northern IL. Each of the caches are (for the most part) 0.1 mile a part from each other - along with a few other caches that had already been there for quite some time. This seems rather silly; as much as we appreciate the time and effort spent - this feels like just too much. First of all it detracts from the caches that were already in place that are now lost in the jungle of the 85 - seems very disrespectful to them considering the open area. We don't feel that the 0.1m a part rule was made to be used in this manner. Really, how are three people going to honestly take care of all these over time. It doesn't look like there was any permission was obtained / given to place them on the bike track from the townships that manage them (assuming from the map that would be needed - hard to tell). So, where is the fun and challenge in this? Its too much don't you think??? Check it out..... GC3HZYB (#33 in the series of 85). Curious to hear opinions...

 

Nicky and Gavin

 

Not at all, these are very popular and you may not be interested in it, or support it but many will. If it is something that does not interest you then simply play a differant area of Geocaching that does. With 85 caches this is nothing copared to ones that have 500+

 

Isn't that kind of like telling people that if they don't like the new Walmart on the corner, that they can just continue going to the Mom & Pop store down the street?

 

OK... that's a pretty terrible analogy, but there is at least some truth to it.

[+6NoisyHikers]

For further reference and comparison:

 

The Stone Prairie Power Trail is 20 miles (30 kilometres) in length with 85 caches. That's a cache every .235 miles

 

The Pitt River East Dyke Trail is 10 kilometres (6.2 miles) in length with 40 caches. That's a cache every .155 miles.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Those others you say are lost in the mix, I don't think so. Locals found them already so those of course will be skipped. But new cachers to the trail will include them because it will be more then the 85 just added.

 

I don't know how you can assume that all local cachers have found all the caches along a trail that pre-existed the power trail. There's a rail-to-trail trail near me that's about 10 miles long (I own two caches along it). I'm pretty sure that not all of the local cachers have found both of my caches. Some local cacher may *plan* on finding my caches along the trail but just haven't had the opportunity to do so.

 

Suppose a power trail with caches every .1 of a mile was placed along that trail tomorrow. Local cachers that have not yet found the caches along the trail which pre-existed the PT are going to have to figure out a way to filter out the PT caches if they don't want to do them. If the PT CO had placed caches every mile (instead of every .1 of a mile) that would be a lot easier.

 

For cachers (whether local or not) that have not cached along that trail and include pre-existing caches along with the new PT caches I can see a few things happening, because many won't make a distinction between pre-existing caches and new caches along the trail.

 

As Mr. Benchmark noted, sometimes it seems like power trail caching involves an different set of acceptable practices that would not be empoyeed if there were only a handful of caches along the trail. When the motivation is to find as many caches as possible in as short amount of time, it's been established that there are more than a few geocachers that are willing to "cut corners". Throwdowns seem to be acceptable, and even encouraged by PT cache owners. With 100+ caches to be logged, the use of cut-n-paste logs is common, and I've even seen cut-n-paste logs on an earthcache located near one of the big PTs out west. Yes, those pre-existing caches might get a lot more finds (which means the CO will likely have to replace the log more often) but I'd probably archive a cache fairly quickly after a steady stream of "#86 of 100 finds today. TFTC" logs.

 

Forming teams and "leapfrogging" caches (individual members of the team will skip every nth cache but log finds on all caches found by a member of the team) seems to be fairly common of big PTs. A pre-existing cache on a trail saturated by PT cache is likely going to get found it logs from individuals that did not, in fact, find the cache.

 

Those that are not interested in PT caches and have notifications set up will get 100 or so email notification for caches they have no intention of finding. If someone *likes* power trails, but does not like puzzle caches, they can set up their notifications such that they never get an email notification for new puzzle caches. Even if someone is marginally interested in unknown caches they're only going to get a few notifications simply because there are a *lot* more caches in a PT than there are new unknown caches.

 

Those are just a few of the reasons how power trails can impact those that are not interested in doing power trails. Pre-existing puzzle, cleverly placed traditionals, caches along spur trails just don't have the same impact on those that want to do a numbers run simply due to the relative numbers of non-PT caches. Forgetting about any other issue related to power trails, 200 caches is going to have a greater impact than 20.

[+Geo-Tiki]

Thanks for the awesome reply(s).... love the "social experiment" thought!!!! All food for thought...

[+Mr.Benchmark]

Forming teams and "leapfrogging" caches (individual members of the team will skip every nth cache but log finds on all caches found by a member of the team) seems to be fairly common of big PTs. A pre-existing cache on a trail saturated by PT cache is likely going to get found it logs from individuals that did not, in fact, find the cache.

 

I forgot about leapfrogging! Combine leapfrogging with swapping and every Nth cache is replaced by the N-2th cache. Repeat a few times with and without leapfrogging, sprinkle in some throwdowns and the state of any given physical cache along the PT is liable to be very difficult to determine. The CO of the PT may be ok with that, but someone who had a cache there first is liable to have great difficulty with maintenance.

 

BTW, I don't think PT are a problem so much as these practices.

[+fuzziebear3]

BTW, I don't think PT are a problem so much as these practices.

 

Agreed, I think all of those tactics are pretty deplorable -- especially the throwdowns and migrations.

[+Mongo1965]

Did A PT once up in the U.P of Michigan defiantly not my bag. All that they got on my logs was a TFTC and that was a copy and paste. Will I do it again maybe hit a few one day a few the next time but will not go out of my way. Would much rather go out in the woods on a two mile hike with only one cache at the end.

[+fuzziebear3]

I think on a BIKEway power trail, that the migration issue should be less of a problem. Because most people can't ride a bike and sign a log at the same time. So since that won't save time, it doesn't make sense to migrate them that way.

 

And 85 is not the same as 1000, so it might not be so bad. Certainly a 17 mile ride (figuring out and back) is not difficult and could be done in less than 2 hours by slow old me. Although the 85 stops will add several more hours to the trek, but it still seems doable in a day.