Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
The Cached Potatoes

Please make Power Trails a new cache type

Recommended Posts

I'm finding more and more when I look for caches out in rural areas, folks have placed strings of hundreds of "power trail" caches.

 

It's getting to the point where literally over 90 percent of the caches in some areas are power trails. For examples, look at the Geocaching maps for the areas surrounding Mountain Home, Idaho and Weiser, Idaho.

 

Power trails are fine for some folks, but my family is not interested in them.

 

I'd like to filter out power caches, both on the Geocaching.com map and from pocket queries.

 

Geocaching.com could make that possible either by requiring all power caches to be tagged as multi-caches (an easy fix), or better yet creating a new cache type called "power trail cache".

 

Then, it would be a simple matter to filter out power caches.

 

Does anybody else agree?

Share this post


Link to post

I'm finding more and more when I look for caches out in rural areas, folks have placed strings of hundreds of "power trail" caches.

 

It's getting to the point where literally over 90 percent of the caches in some areas are power trails. For examples, look at the Geocaching maps for the areas surrounding Mountain Home, Idaho and Weiser, Idaho.

 

Power trails are fine for some folks, but my family is not interested in them.

 

I'd like to filter out power caches, both on the Geocaching.com map and from pocket queries.

 

Geocaching.com could make that possible either by requiring all power caches to be tagged as multi-caches (an easy fix), or better yet creating a new cache type called "power trail cache".

 

Then, it would be a simple matter to filter out power caches.

 

Does anybody else agree?

 

Rather than a new type of cache I would prefer an attribute. But either way, how do you fix the already existing caches? But at risk of being run out of town on a rail, the answer is GSAK. Since power trail caches are mostly hidden by one hider, you can filter out that hider with the getgeocache api interface. Or if you want to use the mapping on geocaching.com you can again use GSAK to easily add these power trail caches to your ignore list.

Share this post


Link to post

If this new cache type is the same as a traditional cache, except that it gets filtered differently, then I agree with jholly: It should be an attribute instead of a cache type. Or PQs could support filtering based on the cache owner, which works in this case because caches in numbers run trails are often owned by a separate account created specifically for the numbers run trail.

 

But last year, there was a thread discussing the possibility of a new cache type for numbers run trails that was like a multi-cache, except: (1) the stages had to be 528ft/161m apart; (2) you get a smiley for each stage you find; and (3) you can get multiple smileys for one online log, by specifying how many of the stages you found on that numbers run. Something like this would be a significant difference from the existing cache types, and would deserve a cache type rather than just an attribute.

 

And FWIW, I don't think GSAK addresses the way numbers run trails flood PQs. By the time you're using GSAK, it's too late. You've already spent your limited PQ bandwidth downloading hundreds of caches that you then have to filter out. For example, the ET Highway numbers run trail will fill 2 full PQs (1000 caches each), more than a third of your daily PQ bandwidth.

 

Besides, not everyone uses a system that can run GSAK.

Share this post


Link to post

<snip>

And FWIW, I don't think GSAK addresses the way numbers run trails flood PQs. By the time you're using GSAK, it's too late. You've already spent your limited PQ bandwidth downloading hundreds of caches that you then have to filter out. For example, the ET Highway numbers run trail will fill 2 full PQs (1000 caches each), more than a third of your daily PQ bandwidth.

 

Besides, not everyone uses a system that can run GSAK.

 

If your going to use PQ's, yes, you have to burn a PQ to be able to update your ignore list. If you use the GSAK GetGeocaches api you can ignore the cache during the download and they don't count against your 6,000. Or if you don't mind burning some of your 6,000 you can download the power trail only and use that to update your ignore list.

 

Yeah, the mac and linux users of the world have to run a windows emulator to run GSAK.

Edited by jholly

Share this post


Link to post

...

Does anybody else agree?

 

Yes, I agree. Be it an attribute or a cache type, it would be useful to be able to filter out power trail caches despite I already found some, when caching with fellow geocachers. But when I'm caching alone I prefer to pick individual caches.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Geocaching.com could make that possible either by requiring all power caches to be tagged as multi-caches

Does anybody else agree?

Won't go over well. That would mean only ONE find for 100 caches. Sure you could log the find on the same page 100 times, But that wouldn't put up your unique finds count. Plus the fact that some, like myself won't do them all at once. I can look at the map and see I've done up to #10 on power trail A and up to #67 on trail B. I would prefer the attribute.

Now around here we have 3 Trails with 100 caches. and they all have co-ords to a "?" for each trail. Plus they are hidden under another name. 3 trails hidden by 3 different people, under one sock account. Keeps it easy especially preventing someone from getting 3 or4 hundred emails in one day after 3 or 4 people log finds on a 100cache trail. I believe that's how it should be done because you can ignore the one user as well and not have anybodies "normal" hides hidden.

Edited by T.D.M.22

Share this post


Link to post

<snip>

And FWIW, I don't think GSAK addresses the way numbers run trails flood PQs. By the time you're using GSAK, it's too late. You've already spent your limited PQ bandwidth downloading hundreds of caches that you then have to filter out. For example, the ET Highway numbers run trail will fill 2 full PQs (1000 caches each), more than a third of your daily PQ bandwidth.

 

Besides, not everyone uses a system that can run GSAK.

 

If your going to use PQ's, yes, you have to burn a PQ to be able to update your ignore list. If you use the GSAK GetGeocaches api you can ignore the cache during the download and they don't count against your 6,000. Or if you don't mind burning some of your 6,000 you can download the power trail only and use that to update your ignore list.

 

Yeah, the mac and linux users of the world have to run a windows emulator to run GSAK.

 

So basically,

 

If someone likes to do power trails they can just do a pocket query as they do now in an area and it will include all of the caches in trail. Pretty simple.

 

However, if someone *doesn't* want to do power caches they need to:

 

Pay for an external application (i.e. GSAK), or, put up with an annoying nag screen so that they can use up one of their pocket queries to create an ignore list, and if they don't have a PC they will have to install a separate piece of software *and* have a windows install disc to run the application. Then, every time another "series" of 40-50 caches comes along they have to do it all again, not to mention that every new series is going to produces dozens of new cache notifications that some people won't want to find.

 

In other words, without anything like a simple attribute which identifies power trails, those that don't want to see caches of a type they don't want to find have to jump through some hoops to do it, while those that do want to play that sub-game essentially don't have to do anything different.

Share this post


Link to post

<snip>

And FWIW, I don't think GSAK addresses the way numbers run trails flood PQs. By the time you're using GSAK, it's too late. You've already spent your limited PQ bandwidth downloading hundreds of caches that you then have to filter out. For example, the ET Highway numbers run trail will fill 2 full PQs (1000 caches each), more than a third of your daily PQ bandwidth.

 

Besides, not everyone uses a system that can run GSAK.

 

If your going to use PQ's, yes, you have to burn a PQ to be able to update your ignore list. If you use the GSAK GetGeocaches api you can ignore the cache during the download and they don't count against your 6,000. Or if you don't mind burning some of your 6,000 you can download the power trail only and use that to update your ignore list.

 

Yeah, the mac and linux users of the world have to run a windows emulator to run GSAK.

 

So basically,

 

If someone likes to do power trails they can just do a pocket query as they do now in an area and it will include all of the caches in trail. Pretty simple.

 

However, if someone *doesn't* want to do power caches they need to:

 

Pay for an external application (i.e. GSAK), or, put up with an annoying nag screen so that they can use up one of their pocket queries to create an ignore list, and if they don't have a PC they will have to install a separate piece of software *and* have a windows install disc to run the application. Then, every time another "series" of 40-50 caches comes along they have to do it all again, not to mention that every new series is going to produces dozens of new cache notifications that some people won't want to find.

 

In other words, without anything like a simple attribute which identifies power trails, those that don't want to see caches of a type they don't want to find have to jump through some hoops to do it, while those that do want to play that sub-game essentially don't have to do anything different.

Hey, it's not my train, I just ride on it. Your going to need to talk to the conductor or engineer about the problems. All I can do is suggest a different route which involves riding a couple trains to avoid that big walk to get you were you want to go.

Share this post


Link to post

PT attribute would be sweet. Those who want 'em can filter for 'em, and those who don't can filter 'em out. I like it. I've liked it every time it was suggested.

Power trail is not a cache type. And certainly not a "multi".

 

In the meantime, I run PQs for terrain 2 and up.

 

Or I run for T 1.5 and up, and once the query is in GSAK I look at micros and "other/unknown" sized caches, and often dump 'em. This tends to eliminate powertrails of roadside stuff. I appreciate that it may also eliminate nice caches with T=1, but I don't see any way around this, these days...

Share this post


Link to post

PT attribute would be sweet. Those who want 'em can filter for 'em, and those who don't can filter 'em out. I like it. I've liked it every time it was suggested.

Power trail is not a cache type. And certainly not a "multi".

 

In the meantime, I run PQs for terrain 2 and up.

 

Or I run for T 1.5 and up, and once the query is in GSAK I look at micros and "other/unknown" sized caches, and often dump 'em. This tends to eliminate powertrails of roadside stuff. I appreciate that it may also eliminate nice caches with T=1, but I don't see any way around this, these days...

You can filter by owner name to dump the PT caches. And if you skip the PQ route and use GetGeocaches you can dump the caches by an owner before you even download them. More areas where the website is lacking but the API shines.

Edited by jholly

Share this post


Link to post

A 'Powertrail' attribute would be nice! B)

However, I see far too many caches with no attributes. :(

At what point does a series become a powertrail...10?...50?...200? :unsure:

Is the powertrail owner really going to take the time to add the attribute(s) to all of the caches in their X00-cache powertrail? :huh:

Share this post


Link to post

Is the powertrail owner really going to take the time to add the attribute(s) to all of the caches in their X00-cache powertrail? :huh:

They took the time to place all the caches and create the cache listings. Theoretically ( :laughing: ) they'll have to take the time to maintain the caches.

The ET Highway and Route 66 powertrails have attributes (albeit ridiculous: "requires scuba gear", really?).

If they want to target power-cachers and make it easier for those cachers to learn about and target their caches, they'll probably take the time to add that attribute.

 

Edit to add: I guess they've used the scuba attribute simply because a powertrail attribute doesn't exist. If one was available, they'd most likely make use of it.

Edited by The A-Team

Share this post


Link to post

Is the powertrail owner really going to take the time to add the attribute(s) to all of the caches in their X00-cache powertrail? :huh:

They took the time to place all the caches and create the cache listings. Theoretically ( :laughing: ) they'll have to take the time to maintain the caches.

The ET Highway and Route 66 powertrails have attributes (albeit ridiculous: "requires scuba gear", really?).

If they want to target power-cachers and make it easier for those cachers to learn about and target their caches, they'll probably take the time to add that attribute.

 

Edit to add: I guess they've used the scuba attribute simply because a powertrail attribute doesn't exist. If one was available, they'd most likely make use of it.

Precisely. Most folks don't look for scuba caches in the middle of a desert. Although it was pointed out if you put your search in the middle of Lake Mead and searched for scuba caches you would get lots of the Route 66 caches. It was the best compromise available.

 

It has been discussed endlessly for two years. I wish GS would just go do it, it can't be that hard.

Edited by jholly

Share this post


Link to post

Is the powertrail owner really going to take the time to add the attribute(s) to all of the caches in their X00-cache powertrail? :huh:

They took the time to place all the caches and create the cache listings. Theoretically ( :laughing: ) they'll have to take the time to maintain the caches.

The ET Highway and Route 66 powertrails have attributes (albeit ridiculous: "requires scuba gear", really?).

If they want to target power-cachers and make it easier for those cachers to learn about and target their caches, they'll probably take the time to add that attribute.

 

Edit to add: I guess they've used the scuba attribute simply because a powertrail attribute doesn't exist. If one was available, they'd most likely make use of it.

 

Two good (high profile) examples of responsible powertrail ownership!

 

I've not seen any such responsibility evident on any of the 'lesser' powertrails in my area.

Share this post


Link to post

Is the powertrail owner really going to take the time to add the attribute(s) to all of the caches in their X00-cache powertrail? :huh:

They took the time to place all the caches and create the cache listings. Theoretically ( :laughing: ) they'll have to take the time to maintain the caches.

The ET Highway and Route 66 powertrails have attributes (albeit ridiculous: "requires scuba gear", really?).

If they want to target power-cachers and make it easier for those cachers to learn about and target their caches, they'll probably take the time to add that attribute.

 

Edit to add: I guess they've used the scuba attribute simply because a powertrail attribute doesn't exist. If one was available, they'd most likely make use of it.

 

Two good (high profile) examples of responsible powertrail ownership!

 

I've not seen any such responsibility evident on any of the 'lesser' powertrails in my area.

 

Yeah, the owners of Route 66 do read the logs, all the logs. I was doing some GSAK testing and needed to log a find. I chose a Route 66 cache around 150 or so figuring they would not see it. Logged and deleted a couple times. I shortly got an email from the owners asking if there was anything wrong with the cache. BUSTED. I was flabbergasted.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm finding more and more when I look for caches out in rural areas, folks have placed strings of hundreds of "power trail" caches.

 

It's getting to the point where literally over 90 percent of the caches in some areas are power trails. For examples, look at the Geocaching maps for the areas surrounding Mountain Home, Idaho and Weiser, Idaho.

 

 

Long stretches of caches every 10th of a mile don't really interest me either. I'd rather cache a little and enjoy the scenery as I go. But, there are some power trail owners who try some cool and interesting stuff:

 

b222a874-e1a2-4514-8f3f-8f783f84205c.jpg?rnd=0.2363354

 

This is the map image of the Railroad Series near Grand View, Idaho. While it's still a power trail, it looks like it would be fun to accomplish. There is also a puzzle cache power trail on the other side of Grand View and the highway that runs under the train in this image is another trail as well. I can see the value in being able to mass ignore a power trail...but that train does look fun!

Share this post


Link to post

A 'Powertrail' attribute would be nice! B)

However, I see far too many caches with no attributes. :(

At what point does a series become a powertrail...10?...50?...200? :unsure:

 

A series becomes a powertrail once it breaks the "Please don't hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can" guideline that disappeared this year.

Share this post


Link to post

<snip>

And FWIW, I don't think GSAK addresses the way numbers run trails flood PQs. By the time you're using GSAK, it's too late. You've already spent your limited PQ bandwidth downloading hundreds of caches that you then have to filter out. For example, the ET Highway numbers run trail will fill 2 full PQs (1000 caches each), more than a third of your daily PQ bandwidth.

 

Besides, not everyone uses a system that can run GSAK.

 

If your going to use PQ's, yes, you have to burn a PQ to be able to update your ignore list. If you use the GSAK GetGeocaches api you can ignore the cache during the download and they don't count against your 6,000. Or if you don't mind burning some of your 6,000 you can download the power trail only and use that to update your ignore list.

 

Yeah, the mac and linux users of the world have to run a windows emulator to run GSAK.

 

So basically,

 

If someone likes to do power trails they can just do a pocket query as they do now in an area and it will include all of the caches in trail. Pretty simple.

 

However, if someone *doesn't* want to do power caches they need to:

 

Pay for an external application (i.e. GSAK), or, put up with an annoying nag screen so that they can use up one of their pocket queries to create an ignore list, and if they don't have a PC they will have to install a separate piece of software *and* have a windows install disc to run the application. Then, every time another "series" of 40-50 caches comes along they have to do it all again, not to mention that every new series is going to produces dozens of new cache notifications that some people won't want to find.

 

In other words, without anything like a simple attribute which identifies power trails, those that don't want to see caches of a type they don't want to find have to jump through some hoops to do it, while those that do want to play that sub-game essentially don't have to do anything different.

 

We asked for an attribute when the RT66 caches came out. I can't find the exact thread but I remember that Benh57 started it because he was experiencing this exact problem. We were told by TPTB that it was not a problem and thus did not require a solution. Now, there are these trails all over the globe and people that don't want to see them have no easy way to hide them so they can see the caches that they do want to see. I don't really care one way or the other about power trails themselves, but TPTB can not ignore that they are taking over the landscape, and peoples pocket queries. What is the point of paying for PQs if they only return caches that you have no desire to find?

 

If they had created an attribute and required it's use a year ago, we would not be having this discussion.

Share this post


Link to post

A 'Powertrail' attribute would be nice! B)

However, I see far too many caches with no attributes. :(

At what point does a series become a powertrail...10?...50?...200? :unsure:

Is the powertrail owner really going to take the time to add the attribute(s) to all of the caches in their X00-cache powertrail? :huh:

 

If they want their caches published, yes!

If they can require me to put the word Challenge in my challenge cache, they can require you to put the PT attribute on your PT cache.

Share this post


Link to post

Is the powertrail owner really going to take the time to add the attribute(s) to all of the caches in their X00-cache powertrail? :huh:

They took the time to place all the caches and create the cache listings. Theoretically ( :laughing: ) they'll have to take the time to maintain the caches.

The ET Highway and Route 66 powertrails have attributes (albeit ridiculous: "requires scuba gear", really?).

If they want to target power-cachers and make it easier for those cachers to learn about and target their caches, they'll probably take the time to add that attribute.

 

Edit to add: I guess they've used the scuba attribute simply because a powertrail attribute doesn't exist. If one was available, they'd most likely make use of it.

 

The RT66 caches originally did not have the Scuba Icon. The owner actually edited every page to add it after it was shown that it worked with the ET series. Despite this, TPTB decided that a special icon for these special caches was not necessary.

Share this post


Link to post

If they can require me to put the word Challenge in my challenge cache, they can require you to put the PT attribute on your PT cache.

But then the question still needs to be answered: At what point does a series become a powertrail? A string of 100 caches isn't necessarily a powertrail, whereas a string of 20 caches may be. It all depends on how they're hidden and where. This would have to be defined clearly before the reviewers would be able to hold up publishing for not having a PT attribute.

Share this post


Link to post
But then the question still needs to be answered: At what point does a series become a powertrail?
I don't think we need to nail it down too firmly. If the community considers a series of caches to be a numbers run trail, then they'll let the CO know. And I don't think there will be much of a problem with owners using the attribute for caches that the community doesn't think is a numbers run trail.

 

But I think the concept of a numbers run trail is at least as well defined as "Recommended for Kids" or "Tourist Friendly". To me, it's a series of fungible caches placed along a roadway, designed to allow seekers to find as many caches as possible in as short a time as possible.

Edited by niraD

Share this post


Link to post
But then the question still needs to be answered: At what point does a series become a powertrail?
I don't think we need to nail it down too firmly. If the community considers a series of caches to be a numbers run trail, then they'll let the CO know. And I don't think there will be much of a problem with owners using the attribute for caches that the community doesn't think is a numbers run trail.

What I meant was that the question would need to be answered if TPTB were going to require the attribute for PTs, which I think is what Don meant with his last post. If the reviewers would be holding up publishing until the attribute had been applied (like with the "challenge" word in the names of challenge caches), they'd need to know which series to apply this to.

 

If the attribute wasn't a requirement, then sure, the community would make it known to the CO that they need to add it.

Share this post


Link to post
But then the question still needs to be answered: At what point does a series become a powertrail?
I don't think we need to nail it down too firmly. If the community considers a series of caches to be a numbers run trail, then they'll let the CO know. And I don't think there will be much of a problem with owners using the attribute for caches that the community doesn't think is a numbers run trail.

What I meant was that the question would need to be answered if TPTB were going to require the attribute for PTs, which I think is what Don meant with his last post. If the reviewers would be holding up publishing until the attribute had been applied (like with the "challenge" word in the names of challenge caches), they'd need to know which series to apply this to.

 

If the attribute wasn't a requirement, then sure, the community would make it known to the CO that they need to add it.

 

I agree, a fairly precise definition would have to be created to determine what a power trail was before an attribute could be made a requirement. This would mean power trail guidelines. I have a feeling that Groundspeak would not want to go in that direction. I was mostly commenting on the idea if the CO's would not add the attribute voluntarily, it could be required. Thinking further, that may open many cans of worms that might be best left closed.

 

I do wonder where we would be if they had created such an attribute when these massively long trail started popping up on the map. I personally think that most of the CO's would use it.

Share this post


Link to post

...Does anybody else agree?

Yes, power trails have become a major annoyance to those of us disinterested in fast-food caching, to the point that I will have to quit the game if Groundspeak does not do something to effectively separate them out. Solutions have been discussed ad nauseam but none of the suggestions--GSAK, attribute, cache type, ignore list, etc.--work very well. At one time power trails were not even considered caching, and I think of them as more an event than a series of legitimate caches. They really need to become their own game, much like happened to virtual caches.

Share this post


Link to post

...to the point that I will have to quit the game if Groundspeak does not do something...

 

And this from a Charter Member!

 

Sorry dude, but all Groundspeak can hear is:

 

We want numbers!

We'll pay $30!

We want numbers!

We'll pay $30!

We want numbers!

We'll pay $30!

 

I'm with ya Eddy, but, 'The times they are a Changin''.

Share this post


Link to post

...to the point that I will have to quit the game if Groundspeak does not do something...

 

And this from a Charter Member!

 

Sorry dude, but all Groundspeak can hear is:

 

We want numbers!

We'll pay $30!

We want numbers!

We'll pay $30!

We want numbers!

We'll pay $30!

 

I'm with ya Eddy, but, 'The times they are a Changin''.

You forgot the

We want a facebook like button!

But we aren't going to pay for it!

Share this post


Link to post

...Does anybody else agree?

Yes, power trails have become a major annoyance to those of us disinterested in fast-food caching, to the point that I will have to quit the game if Groundspeak does not do something to effectively separate them out. Solutions have been discussed ad nauseam but none of the suggestions--GSAK, attribute, cache type, ignore list, etc.--work very well. At one time power trails were not even considered caching, and I think of them as more an event than a series of legitimate caches. They really need to become their own game, much like happened to virtual caches.

 

I think you are doing the filtering process a bit a disservice. 10 years times the influx of caches and you expect everyone fill in the right boxes that let you find the right cache?

 

I manage by contacting local cachers that I think might have something worth sharing.

 

You got a better method or is it just the old days that led you to a cache?

 

 

edited for angst.

Edited by BlueDeuce

Share this post


Link to post

I agree. If they were a seperate type, they could easily be filtered out. First, you have to make the change. Then, we can discuss how to go back and fix all of the existing "Power trails" to comply. They are really hard to avoid!

Share this post


Link to post

I would prefer the ability to create a shared bookmark list, that a person could populate with the power trail, geotrail, list of mountain peaks, etc. From there, you can ignore everything on the list or run a PQ against the other person's list. When the list changes, so does your PQ content.

Share this post


Link to post

I would prefer the ability to create a shared bookmark list, that a person could populate with the power trail, geotrail, list of mountain peaks, etc. From there, you can ignore everything on the list or run a PQ against the other person's list. When the list changes, so does your PQ content.

 

I suggested the idea of shared bookmark lists quite awhile ago but not in the context of power trails. A shared bookmark list could take advantage of the under utilized Friends feature. That might require a bit of rethinking of authorization and role based permissions, but it I could see having shared bookmarks that were readable *and* writable by specific sets of users. For example,

 

BillyBobNosePicker (there he is again!) creates a new bookmark and indicates that is shared. He could allow rad access to everyone, premium members only, only people on his friends list, or only to specific usser ids. He could also make it "writable" to people on his friends list (assuming he had any) or to specific users.

Share this post


Link to post

...to the point that I will have to quit the game if Groundspeak does not do something...

 

And this from a Charter Member!

 

Sorry dude, but all Groundspeak can hear is:

 

We want numbers!

We'll pay $30!

We want numbers!

We'll pay $30!

We want numbers!

We'll pay $30!

 

I'm with ya Eddy, but, 'The times they are a Changin''.

 

The way the times are changing it might be good if more people made sure Groundspeak hear:

 

This new idea stinks!

I'll stop paying my $30!

This new game sucks!

I'll stop paying my $30!

Take out that new change!

I'll stop paying my $30!

 

Ultimately if those that will pay $30 in exchange for being able to tell all their friends on TwitFace that they just found a cache This Precise Moment (perish the thought their friends wouldn't know about the latest film pot they found behind a sign until this evening) outnumber those that will stop paying $30 because they're sick of the drift towards micros and TwitFace then that's the way the game will go. If enough people stop paying the $30 perhaps the game will drift back towards what it once was.

Share this post


Link to post

I would prefer the ability to create a shared bookmark list, that a person could populate with the power trail, geotrail, list of mountain peaks, etc. From there, you can ignore everything on the list or run a PQ against the other person's list. When the list changes, so does your PQ content.

 

One of the best ideas I've heard in a while.

 

Either ignore everything on the list so a group of friends can list all the truly dismal caches they found, or maintain a list of the awesome caches so your friends know which are the best ones in a new area.

Share this post


Link to post

Power Trails are not a separate type of cache any more than an LPC is. But there should be a Power Trail attribute to allow for people to easily find or exclude them from PQs.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm finding more and more when I look for caches out in rural areas, folks have placed strings of hundreds of "power trail" caches.

 

It's getting to the point where literally over 90 percent of the caches in some areas are power trails. For examples, look at the Geocaching maps for the areas surrounding Mountain Home, Idaho and Weiser, Idaho.

 

 

Long stretches of caches every 10th of a mile don't really interest me either. I'd rather cache a little and enjoy the scenery as I go. But, there are some power trail owners who try some cool and interesting stuff:

 

b222a874-e1a2-4514-8f3f-8f783f84205c.jpg?rnd=0.2363354

 

This is the map image of the Railroad Series near Grand View, Idaho. While it's still a power trail, it looks like it would be fun to accomplish. There is also a puzzle cache power trail on the other side of Grand View and the highway that runs under the train in this image is another trail as well. I can see the value in being able to mass ignore a power trail...but that train does look fun!

 

That isn't even geocaching anymore!

Share this post


Link to post

The attribute suggestion makes sense and would accomplish the opener's goals. I think a new cache type is going to far.

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 4

×