Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
K is for Crazy

Attribute: Power Trail

Recommended Posts

Please add a "Power Trail" attribute so that users can either include or exclude them in PQ's. I understand that the attribute wasn't needed before, but over the last year power trails have been popping up all over the place. A "Power Trail" attribute would be useful to cachers now that power trails are everywhere. Some users want to visit an area just for the power trail and the attribute would help them filter for it. Likewise a local cacher may want to filter out the local power trails in order to focus on caches they prefer, an attribute would allow them separate power trails from the rest without having to manually add (potentially 100's of) power trail caches to their ignore list. A 'Power Trail" attribute is convenient and efficient.

Share this post


Link to post

Here is a question: How many caches constitute a "power trail"? Five? Ten? Twenty or more?

Your not suppose to ask questions like that. It upsets the space-time continuum.

Share this post


Link to post

Here is a question: How many caches constitute a "power trail"? Five? Ten? Twenty or more?

Your not suppose to ask questions like that. It upsets the space-time continuum.

 

I was up in the mountains where several trails come together to make up "The Hub", and was searching intently all over a park kiosk looking for the second waypoint for a multi cache. Guy on a bike finally walks over and ask, "What are you looking for". I game him a crazy look and said, "I don't know, but I will when I find it".

 

That's probably the best way to describe a power trail, "You'll know it when you see it".

Share this post


Link to post

Here is a question: How many caches constitute a "power trail"? Five? Ten? Twenty or more?

 

Once we have the attribute, the cache owners can decide.

Share this post


Link to post

Here is a question: How many caches constitute a "power trail"? Five? Ten? Twenty or more?

I'd say the way the caches are hidden is a bigger factor than the number. I'd describe a power trail thus:

-Identical containers

-Distance between caches is at or close to the proximity guideline limit of 0.1 miles

-Hiding spots are obvious and easy/quick to access

Of course, number is also a factor, and I'd say 20 or more would make it a power trail. Any less and the number-junkies probably wouldn't find it worth their while and it would just be a "trail" or a "series".

Share this post


Link to post

I would include any trail of caches with more than three or four placed 528 feet apart that take up the entire length of a trail.

Edited by Mr Kaswa

Share this post


Link to post

I agree that they should be a seperate type of cache. These "power caches" have changed geocaching into a numbers game. This is not geocaching! The fix is to make them a seperate type so that they can be screened out of a search. Likewise those number crunchers can screen out the real caches. I have seen logs of 20, 30, and 40,000 finds. One guy even has over 66,000! I feel good if I can find 10 in a day. 250 caches in 50 miles of road just seems weird! Plus, they obscure the real caches in the area.

Edited by trnr&stch

Share this post


Link to post

Not "type", but attribute: "Part of a Power Trail".

 

Each individual cache isn't a different cache type. They are still (usually) traditional caches, and I can choose to find it or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Not "type", but attribute: "Part of a Power Trail".

 

Each individual cache isn't a different cache type. They are still (usually) traditional caches, and I can choose to find it or not.

Well, early 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.

 

But yeah, if it's the same as a traditional cache (or other existing cache type), except that it gets filtered differently, then I agree that it should be an attribute instead of a cache type.

 

Or PQs could support filtering based on the cache owner, since numbers run trails are often owned by a separate account created specifically for the numbers run trail.

Share this post


Link to post

Attribute makes sense. But at what point does this feature really become useful? More than 10, 20, 50 100?

Share this post


Link to post

It's a good idea, but I'm not sure you could make people use it.

 

Best to do your filtering in GSAK, IMHO. You can filter caches to excluded micros or those placed by a particular cacher or caches containing a certain word or phrase.

Edited by The_Incredibles_

Share this post


Link to post

It's a good idea, but I'm not sure you could make people use it.

 

Best to do your filtering in GSAK, IMHO. You can filter caches to excluded micros or those placed by a particular cacher or caches containing a certain word or phrase.

If it were an attribute, people could filter it in/out before the PQ is generated. Exclude caches with Power Trail attribute. Include only caches with Power Trail Attribute.

87e51363-91ea-4854-aef5-085496172408.jpg

Of course, you can also bring them into GSAK, and filter attributes there.

 

 

But here's another question:

 

Who says that "power trails" have to be micros spaced X distance apart? I'm curious as to everyone's different definitions of Power Trails. We all know the extremes, but what about the cache series based on a theme like Lord of the Rings that take you to 14 ammo boxes placed irregularly along a 7 mile trail? Is that a power trail?

 

What is the minimum number of caches or maximum distance spread that would constitute a "power trail"? I don't know that there's a right answer, and ultimately the cache owner would have to determine if the attribute applies or not, but I'd like to hear what some of the people that are interested in including/excluding these caches think. Exploring these answers would also help in determining if there is a way within the system currently of already excluding these caches until such time as something like this is implemented.

Edited by Markwell

Share this post


Link to post
Attribute makes sense. But at what point does this feature really become useful? More than 10, 20, 50 100?
As soon as someone says, "Hey, let's go do a numbers run on this new trail with xx caches."

 

Or as soon as someone else says, "Argh, someone dropped xx caches along this trail. How can I ignore all of them?"

Share this post


Link to post

I'm curious as to everyone's different definitions of Power Trails.

I came up with a definition up in post #9:

-Identical containers and hiding styles

-Distance between caches is at or close to the proximity guideline limit of 0.1 miles

-Hiding spots are obvious and easy/quick to access

- >~20 caches

 

The way I see it, they're called power trails because number-junkies can "power" through them to increase their numbers. Anything that could interfere with this and slow down the hunt, such as varying containers/hiding styles or large distances between, preclude a series from being a "power trail".

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, that's one definition. Are there others?

 

Also, are there ways with the current tools to filter out these hides? Is there anything with these caches that would make them so you wouldn't hunt them?

 

For example, I'm sitting here in a salon waiting my son's dye session to finish, and there's a micro 161 feet from here. I'm not really interested in finding it, not because of the placer or because it might or might not be part of a series, but because I don't like finding caches in parking lots of strip malls.

Share this post


Link to post
Also, are there ways with the current tools to filter out these hides? Is there anything with these caches that would make them so you wouldn't hunt them?
FWIW, I have it on good authority that some people actually want to filter IN these hides, and they actually want to hunt them. So it isn't merely about people trying to exclude them.

 

Anyway, just taking the ET Highway numbers run trail as an example:

 

They're all owned by the account Clay4&whtwolfden (except we can't filter PQs by owner).

 

They're all named "####-E.T." where #### is a 4-digit number (except we can't filter PQs by name).

 

They're all included in various "ET Highway" bookmark lists (except we can't filter PQs by bookmark list, other than bookmark list PQs which can't be filtered by any other criteria).

 

They all use the Requires Scuba Gear attribute. (Too bad about the legitimate scuba caches within a couple hundred miles.)

 

They are all micros, with low difficulty and terrain ratings. But some people like micros, and/or low difficulty, and/or easy terrain, and want a way to separate the ones that aren't part of a numbers run trail from the ones that are. And others might want a way to separate the ones that are from the ones that aren't, so they don't inadvertently use "optimizations" allowed on the numbers run trail on caches that aren't part of it.

Share this post


Link to post

...and so the debate will continue.

 

There is, and probably never will be a completely satisfactory definition.

 

An attribute would be nice (and potentially useful). But, since the CO might use it on a series you don't consider a P/T, and the CO of the blatantly obvious P/T may not use it we are still going to need to pick and choose carefully and for ourselves.

Share this post


Link to post

...and so the debate will continue.

 

There is, and probably never will be a completely satisfactory definition.

 

An attribute would be nice (and potentially useful). But, since the CO might use it on a series you don't consider a P/T, and the CO of the blatantly obvious P/T may not use it we are still going to need to pick and choose carefully and for ourselves.

I'm glad someone understood the point I was trying to make - while trying to be as open-minded about this as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Attribute makes sense. But at what point does this feature really become useful? More than 10, 20, 50 100?
As soon as someone says, "Hey, let's go do a numbers run on this new trail with xx caches."

 

Or as soon as someone else says, "Argh, someone dropped xx caches along this trail. How can I ignore all of them?"

 

I like this definition. Kind of like, "you'll know it when you see it".

 

I would call a power trail a series of caches that are specifically set up so you can try to find between 50 to 100 caches in an hour.

 

We once hiked 9 miles and found 68 caches. Different owners, different containers, and different hide styles, but several sections of caches were .1 mile apart, and they were placed to "fill the gaps". I wouldn't consider that a power trail because it took most of the day to complete. Put those 68 on the highway and we find them in less than two hours, I'd consider that a power trail.

Share this post


Link to post

My other thought on this as I was caching near a powertrail the other day.

 

Isn't it easy enough to spot a power trail on your GPS? For me, it is. When you see a string of caches all in row, can't you just ignore them? :unsure:

 

I also don't see how you can force cache owners to use a powertrail attribute. Creating a powertrail is work enough, you want them to also edit the attributes too?

Edited by The_Incredibles_

Share this post


Link to post

My other thought on this as I was caching near a powertrail the other day.

 

Isn't it easy enough to spot a power trail on your GPS? For me, it is. When you see a string of caches all in row, can't you just ignore them? :unsure:

 

Sure, one can ignore them *after* they're included in a PQ and are downloaded to your GPS, but a PT attribute would provide the ability to filter out 100s of caches that someone has no intention on finding from ever getting to your GPS. More importantly, a PT attribute could also prevent 100s of new cache notifications from being sent to ones email inbox, which then have to be deleted.

 

The "you can just ignore them" argument was also used on the earlier days on the internet when people were complaining about unsolicited commercial email and spam. I think we all know how well that worked out.

Share this post


Link to post
I also don't see how you can force cache owners to use a powertrail attribute. Creating a powertrail is work enough, you want them to also edit the attributes too?
They're already (mis)using attributes, creating sock-puppet accounts, copy-pasting cache descriptions, etc., etc., etc. I don't think anyone will need to force the owners of numbers run trails to use the new attribute. I honestly expect them to use it willingly.

Share this post


Link to post

Orrrrr...

Instead of having an attribute, the cacher placer could use the title of the caches to provide clarity that they are all part of the series. Easy enough for even non-PM or GSAK users to see.

 

Seems that some suggestions are made to make it more complicated, instead of working with the tools we already have to solve a percieved problem.

Share this post


Link to post

Seems that some suggestions are made to make it more complicated, instead of working with the tools we already have to solve a percieved problem.

The website does not currently allow for the easy filtering in or out of power trails (see niraD's post #21). A power trail attribute is a very simple solution to a real problem.

Share this post


Link to post

Seems that some suggestions are made to make it more complicated, instead of working with the tools we already have to solve a percieved problem.

The website does not currently allow for the easy filtering in or out of power trails (see niraD's post #21). A power trail attribute is a very simple solution to a real problem.

Meh, they're all still just caches, right? If you only filter for "Power trail" caches, aren't you going to miss some others that might be nearby and not part of said trail?

 

"Officially" recognizing power trails with an attribute gives a little bit more validity to just placing power trails for the sake of the numbers. Education on how to create a cache listing would be better used in this case. Think of all of the "series" caches out there, and how you might need to work a tad harder to bookmark or whatever.

 

Isn't there already some function where you can click caches on the map and download them as a set?

Share this post


Link to post

I honestly expect them to use it willingly.

 

I don't see that happening. It takes more time to add an attribute and no benefit to the cache owner.

Share this post


Link to post

I honestly expect them to use it willingly.

 

I don't see that happening. It takes more time to add an attribute and no benefit to the cache owner.

Then why do 60% of the caches in the Chicago area use attributes?

Share this post


Link to post

I honestly expect them to use it willingly.

 

I don't see that happening. It takes more time to add an attribute and no benefit to the cache owner.

Then why do 60% of the caches in the Chicago area use attributes?

 

I"m talking about power trails, not regular caches. For a powertrail attribute to be useful, you have to get cache owners co-operating. I've never created a set of 100 identical cache pages, but my guess is if I was I wouldn't want to bother with the extra work of adding attributes.

Edited by The_Incredibles_

Share this post


Link to post

I've looked at the powertrail nearest to me. No attributes have been added to the cache pages. I looked at the cache owner's other caches. They all have attributes added. It's no mystery why.

 

Unless you give reviewers or cache owners a quick and easy way to add a powertrail attribute to a whole bunch of caches at a time, I don't see the attribute being used much.

 

I don't want to come off as a Negative Nellie. The idea could work great in theory, but in practise, I don't see it being helpful.

Edited by The_Incredibles_

Share this post


Link to post

Folks are having difficulty with coming up with a metric that says "power trail" or "not power trail.

 

If you use critr=ria of cache owner, then you will miss the poweer trails that were created over time. These cache series were placed on roads by many people over time. Fred places 4 caches, Tom adds 3 moire, Sally adds 4, etc, etc. Pretty soon you have a road with a cache every 600 feet. (See Well Road near Jean, NV).

 

I also know of 'power trails' where there are Small and Medium containers sprinkled along every 20-30 caches (or less).

 

What I would look at is 'excess cache density', where a cache's power trail membership is viewed by how many caches are nearby. Since the common theme of 'power trails' are by how many caches are nearby.

 

Here's one for the GSAK gurus...

I would suggest using something like "there are at least 15 caches within 1 mile of this cache".

 

That would get the middle of the cache run. The next pass would searh for "at least 3 power trail caches with similar characteristics within 1/2 mile [cache name format/cache owner/placement date]" to get the edges. You may want to run through this a few passes.

 

Using this logic would also get those pesky geo-art power trails from cluttering your GPS and well as "power blobs"

Share this post


Link to post

Orrrrr...

Instead of having an attribute, the cacher placer could use the title of the caches to provide clarity that they are all part of the series. Easy enough for even non-PM or GSAK users to see.

 

Seems that some suggestions are made to make it more complicated, instead of working with the tools we already have to solve a percieved problem.

 

That still doesn't address the issue of instant notification via email. With an attribute, and the ability to include/exclude instant notifications by attribute, it could prevent hundreds of email messages from being sent to someone that has no interest in doing power trails.

Share this post


Link to post

I would change the name to "repetitive trail" since there is nothing particularly powerful about repetitive caching. But other than that, an attribute is a good idea. We spent a few days around Rachel and Alamo Nevada last year and it was helpful to use the scuba attribute to exclude the ET caches so they did not get in the way of things we really wanted to do.

Share this post


Link to post

I'd be okay with the term "repetitive trail", but it's a pejorative that won't be acceptable to people who enjoy them.

 

On the other hand, the term "power trail" was in use for years before the existence of modern trails like the ET Highway. I call modern trails like the ET Highway "numbers run trails".

Share this post


Link to post
But here's another question:

 

Who says that "power trails" have to be micros spaced X distance apart? I'm curious as to everyone's different definitions of Power Trails. We all know the extremes, but what about the cache series based on a theme like Lord of the Rings that take you to 14 ammo boxes placed irregularly along a 7 mile trail? Is that a power trail?

 

What is the minimum number of caches or maximum distance spread that would constitute a "power trail"? I don't know that there's a right answer, and ultimately the cache owner would have to determine if the attribute applies or not, but I'd like to hear what some of the people that are interested in including/excluding these caches think. Exploring these answers would also help in determining if there is a way within the system currently of already excluding these caches until such time as something like this is implemented.

 

I think it's about the intention rather than the specific number of caches.

 

If the intention is to provide a means of racking up a large find count quickly then the likely means of implementation is going to be something like a succession of film pots as close to 528 feet apart as the area permits so they are easy to find, easy to sign, easy to return, and can be dealt with very quickly. It may be thee's a gap in the trail because there just wasn't anywhere to hide a film pot for 1500 feet but the intention is cache density. Something like 14 ammo boxes placed along a 7 mile trail would appear to be more about the walk than the find count.

 

I'd be inclined to leave it up to the owner of the series whether it's a power trail or not. In many ways it's a subjective judgment call, just like the current issue of how difficult climbing has to be to qualify for the "difficult climbing" attribute, or when it becomes sufficiently difficult to qualify for the "climbing equipment" attribute.

Share this post


Link to post
But here's another question:

 

Who says that "power trails" have to be micros spaced X distance apart? I'm curious as to everyone's different definitions of Power Trails. We all know the extremes, but what about the cache series based on a theme like Lord of the Rings that take you to 14 ammo boxes placed irregularly along a 7 mile trail? Is that a power trail?

 

What is the minimum number of caches or maximum distance spread that would constitute a "power trail"? I don't know that there's a right answer, and ultimately the cache owner would have to determine if the attribute applies or not, but I'd like to hear what some of the people that are interested in including/excluding these caches think. Exploring these answers would also help in determining if there is a way within the system currently of already excluding these caches until such time as something like this is implemented.

 

I think it's about the intention rather than the specific number of caches.

 

If the intention is to provide a means of racking up a large find count quickly then the likely means of implementation is going to be something like a succession of film pots as close to 528 feet apart as the area permits so they are easy to find, easy to sign, easy to return, and can be dealt with very quickly. It may be thee's a gap in the trail because there just wasn't anywhere to hide a film pot for 1500 feet but the intention is cache density. Something like 14 ammo boxes placed along a 7 mile trail would appear to be more about the walk than the find count.

 

I'd be inclined to leave it up to the owner of the series whether it's a power trail or not. In many ways it's a subjective judgment call, just like the current issue of how difficult climbing has to be to qualify for the "difficult climbing" attribute, or when it becomes sufficiently difficult to qualify for the "climbing equipment" attribute.

 

First, let me say that I agree with what you say. I feel what you said is extremely valid.

 

However :o I think the main goal that folks want from this attribute is because they want to either 1) remove them from a PQ, or 2) include them in a PQ. If Cacher A says 7 ammo cans on a 10 mile trail is a power trail, and Cacher B feels 7 micro caches in a one mile bike trail is not a power trail, then we are not achieving the expressed goal. If ... over time.. 40 cachers put 200 geocaches on a single stretch of road, is that also the scenario that the OP wants to avoid? Or is it just the concept that they were placed in the same day/weekend? In order to filter out what is undesirable, one must be able to measurably describe and define what it is they don't want.

 

If you tell your gardener 'don't plant ugly flowers', then they will plant what they think is not ugly.

 

The best reason for a GSAK macro (or similar) is that it can be tailored to an individual's specific tastes. Also, I doubt we will get many folks going back to the 1.8 million existing caches and set that attribute accordiangly.

 

Tangent warning: Attributes have the problem of 'lack of definition'. "Water nearby" is unclear... is it 'free drinking water'? Is a convienience store down the street 'nearby'? Maybe they are talking about water fountains in a park? Maybe the tap water sucks and so they don't include it? Without definition, it's usefullness is very limited.

Share this post


Link to post
But here's another question:

 

Who says that "power trails" have to be micros spaced X distance apart? I'm curious as to everyone's different definitions of Power Trails. We all know the extremes, but what about the cache series based on a theme like Lord of the Rings that take you to 14 ammo boxes placed irregularly along a 7 mile trail? Is that a power trail?

 

What is the minimum number of caches or maximum distance spread that would constitute a "power trail"? I don't know that there's a right answer, and ultimately the cache owner would have to determine if the attribute applies or not, but I'd like to hear what some of the people that are interested in including/excluding these caches think. Exploring these answers would also help in determining if there is a way within the system currently of already excluding these caches until such time as something like this is implemented.

 

I think it's about the intention rather than the specific number of caches.

 

If the intention is to provide a means of racking up a large find count quickly then the likely means of implementation is going to be something like a succession of film pots as close to 528 feet apart as the area permits so they are easy to find, easy to sign, easy to return, and can be dealt with very quickly. It may be thee's a gap in the trail because there just wasn't anywhere to hide a film pot for 1500 feet but the intention is cache density. Something like 14 ammo boxes placed along a 7 mile trail would appear to be more about the walk than the find count.

 

I'd be inclined to leave it up to the owner of the series whether it's a power trail or not. In many ways it's a subjective judgment call, just like the current issue of how difficult climbing has to be to qualify for the "difficult climbing" attribute, or when it becomes sufficiently difficult to qualify for the "climbing equipment" attribute.

 

First, let me say that I agree with what you say. I feel what you said is extremely valid.

 

However :o I think the main goal that folks want from this attribute is because they want to either 1) remove them from a PQ, or 2) include them in a PQ. If Cacher A says 7 ammo cans on a 10 mile trail is a power trail, and Cacher B feels 7 micro caches in a one mile bike trail is not a power trail, then we are not achieving the expressed goal. If ... over time.. 40 cachers put 200 geocaches on a single stretch of road, is that also the scenario that the OP wants to avoid? Or is it just the concept that they were placed in the same day/weekend? In order to filter out what is undesirable, one must be able to measurably describe and define what it is they don't want.

 

If you tell your gardener 'don't plant ugly flowers', then they will plant what they think is not ugly.

 

The best reason for a GSAK macro (or similar) is that it can be tailored to an individual's specific tastes. Also, I doubt we will get many folks going back to the 1.8 million existing caches and set that attribute accordiangly.

 

Tangent warning: Attributes have the problem of 'lack of definition'. "Water nearby" is unclear... is it 'free drinking water'? Is a convienience store down the street 'nearby'? Maybe they are talking about water fountains in a park? Maybe the tap water sucks and so they don't include it? Without definition, it's usefullness is very limited.

 

You make some good points here. The trouble is even if a concrete definition could be determined, what happens when a trail falls just outside the definition?

 

The person who doesn't want to find 100 micros spaced evenly around a circuit of 10.2 miles is unlikely to be impressed if excluding the "power trail" attribute results in the 99 micros spaced evenly around a circuit of 11.4 miles still appearing in their PQ. Likewise the person who wants to find power trails won't be pleased if they set up a "local power trails" query only to find the loop of 99 easy finds is excluded because the threshold was set at 100.

 

I don't care one way or the other about trails - some are good and some are bad (using my own subjective definition of what "good" and "bad" mean, which changes based on the day, the weather, my mood etc) so when I'm planning a caching run I pick a route accordingly. The trouble with using GSAK or anything else to exclude them is that it means I still have to run a pocket query that does include them and then filter them out using some criteria. If caches are named "Team Tisri's Trail #001" through "Team Tisri's Trail #499" it's easy to sort by name and then block-select and ignore them, but it still potentially wastes a good chunk of a pocket query to download stuff I'm not interested in finding.

 

We won't get many people going back over existing caches to add a new attribute but then neither will we see hundreds of traditional caches archived and relisted as "power trail caches" if a new cache type is introduced. For all any attribute would be imperfect I think it would be a step forward for those who care about such things - sometimes an imperfect solution is worse than no solution but I think this is a case where an imperfect solution is better than nothing.

Share this post


Link to post

Here's another thread that discusses the misuse of the scuba attribute for numbers run trails:

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=306579

 

It would be helpful if numbers run trails had their own attribute, so their owners could stop using the scuba attribute. Here's a strawman icon suggestion:

4fed2019-2391-42fa-af53-c6b02863399b.png

 

Does anyone have any ideas for improving it? Keep in mind that the attribute will be used both by those trying to avoid these caches as well as by those who want to find them.

Share this post


Link to post

Without having to define 'power trail', perhaps the use of Park and Grab would fit the general catagory of 'lame cache' that folks seem to be trying to avoid. To be useful, this attribute needs to be set by folks that find it, not just by the CO. Perhaps it could be catagorized by the lack of/low ratio of favorite points?

 

Granted, it could be just one cache at a rest stop on the freeway. Without defintion of 'trail', it's tough to distiguish.

Share this post


Link to post

Without having to define 'power trail', perhaps the use of Park and Grab would fit the general catagory of 'lame cache' that folks seem to be trying to avoid. To be useful, this attribute needs to be set by folks that find it, not just by the CO. Perhaps it could be catagorized by the lack of/low ratio of favorite points?

 

Granted, it could be just one cache at a rest stop on the freeway. Without defintion of 'trail', it's tough to distiguish.

 

Not all P&G caches are part of a power trail, but (at least using my definition) power trails are made up from a lot of P&G caches.

 

I'm not convinced that "power trail" needs to be specifically defined in order for an PT attribute to be useful. The guidelines contain numerous instance where a term or phrase is not defined and is open to interpretation. I suspect that most cachers that submit "a bunch" of cache listing know whether or not they're creating a power trail simply based on their intent. If their intention is to put out a bunch of caches as close to each other as possible, that are easily accessible and easily found for the purpose of providing others the opportunity to quickly increase find counts or as a test to see how many caches they can find in a short period, they should use the attribute. If that was not their intent, it's probably not a power trail. The only complications that I see is for trails that grow organically and may have several different cachers placing caches at different times.

Share this post


Link to post

So, we can use several criteria to help identify geocaches that have the same characteristics as power trails.

Park and Grab

stealth required (stealth not required)

Difficulty 1.5 or less.

 

Things we cannot search for and may or not meet anyone's definition of a power trail are "has same placement date" and/or "has same owner" as at least one cache within 600 feet.

 

This will also remove those powertrails disguised as geoart.

Share this post


Link to post

Without having to define 'power trail', perhaps the use of Park and Grab would fit the general catagory of 'lame cache' that folks seem to be trying to avoid. To be useful, this attribute needs to be set by folks that find it, not just by the CO. Perhaps it could be catagorized by the lack of/low ratio of favorite points?

 

Granted, it could be just one cache at a rest stop on the freeway. Without defintion of 'trail', it's tough to distiguish.

 

Not all P&G caches are part of a power trail, but (at least using my definition) power trails are made up from a lot of P&G caches.

 

I'm not convinced that "power trail" needs to be specifically defined in order for an PT attribute to be useful. The guidelines contain numerous instance where a term or phrase is not defined and is open to interpretation. I suspect that most cachers that submit "a bunch" of cache listing know whether or not they're creating a power trail simply based on their intent. If their intention is to put out a bunch of caches as close to each other as possible, that are easily accessible and easily found for the purpose of providing others the opportunity to quickly increase find counts or as a test to see how many caches they can find in a short period, they should use the attribute. If that was not their intent, it's probably not a power trail. The only complications that I see is for trails that grow organically and may have several different cachers placing caches at different times.

 

Does a power trail have to consist of park-n-grab caches? How about a trail where you park and then walk a 10-mile circuit with a cache as close as possible to every 528 feet? You'd be looking at the best part of 100 caches in a walk you could do in an afternoon. Given the time it takes to stop the car, remove seatbelt, get out of car etc it could even be a faster powertrail than a micro on a guard rail every 528 feet along the crash barrier beside the road.

Share this post


Link to post

I'd quite like to see the Power Trail or Numbers Trail attribute - Back in November I took a trip though the desert SW and had a great time, however, of the several pocket queries I had loaded many were saturated with power trails I had no interest in seeking out. I did sample a few here and there, but my 950 cache PQs ended up highly concentrated in certain areas.

 

Using exclusion of P&G or 1.5 would ultimately eliminate many P&G caches (including some very fine Moose Mob caches) along the way.

 

I had a tiny laptop I used to manage the dozen or so PQs I had with me (as Garmin doesn't seem to see fit to let me swap them in and out on the Oregon, wouldn't that be the bee's knees?) so I could run around on area, return to camp and swap out a query or two so I could focus on another area next day.

 

If I so wanted to exclude power trails around Trona, which was along my way in to DVNP I would have had a bit fewer PQs for the trip. Same goes for the area up around the ET highway. There are some cool locations to visit, but I end up with a PQ excluding them as it is crammed with dense lines across the desert. I did spend a couple hours noodling through some of the ET caches, all the while dreading the clerical work of logging them when I'd get home.

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

×