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

Attribute: Power Trail

Recommended Posts

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.

 

Ah, someone took my bait.

 

Honesty, I don't think a power trail necessarily has to consists only of park-n-grabs, but I suspect that few people would consider walking the entire trail on most of the big ones. This did make me wonder if anyone want to claim any sort of record for the number of caches found on foot in a single day.

 

The E.T. trail has something like 2000 caches and is longer than what anyone could cover (assuming that they stopped at every cache) in a single day. So, looking a few web sources, most tend to agree that the average walking speak is about 3MPH, multipled by 24 hours, and thus if one maintains a 3MHP average over a 24 hours period they could conceivably cover 72 miles. With 10 caches .1 of a mile apart, that's 720 finds (assuming that no time is spend finding, logging, and replacing each container). If I've got my math right, if each cache required .30 seconds, you're probably looking at about 600 finds in a 24 hours period at an average walking speed. If you want to better, try jogging (average ~5mph). Try jogging for 24 hours straight, bending over ever .1 of a miles to grab and replace a cache.

 

There have been records claimed of 1500 or so cache in a day. Of course, using a (or more than one) vehicle allows groups of cachers to work as a team (and all claim 1500 finds) and has been shown to lead to some pretty creating methods for "finding a cache".

Share this post


Link to post

There's at least one PT which is along an old rail grade, which is now a walking trail. Looks to be about 40, one every 528 feet or so. So much for the ol' P&G attribute.

 

Come to that, there's another one I can think of along a pair of levees. Bike or hike, no driving.

Share this post


Link to post
There's at least one PT which is along an old rail grade, which is now a walking trail. Looks to be about 40, one every 528 feet or so. So much for the ol' P&G attribute.
Are hiking/cycling power trails like this (which can develop organically along popular trails, especially in parks that restrict geocaches to a certain distance from the trail) really the kind of "power trails" that prompt people to call for a new attribute/type? I was under the impression that the demand for a new attribute/type was driven ;) by the modern numbers run trails (fungible containers along a road, like the ET Highway trail or the Route 66 trail).

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.

 

Ah, someone took my bait.

 

Honesty, I don't think a power trail necessarily has to consists only of park-n-grabs, but I suspect that few people would consider walking the entire trail on most of the big ones. This did make me wonder if anyone want to claim any sort of record for the number of caches found on foot in a single day.

 

The E.T. trail has something like 2000 caches and is longer than what anyone could cover (assuming that they stopped at every cache) in a single day. So, looking a few web sources, most tend to agree that the average walking speak is about 3MPH, multipled by 24 hours, and thus if one maintains a 3MHP average over a 24 hours period they could conceivably cover 72 miles. With 10 caches .1 of a mile apart, that's 720 finds (assuming that no time is spend finding, logging, and replacing each container). If I've got my math right, if each cache required .30 seconds, you're probably looking at about 600 finds in a 24 hours period at an average walking speed. If you want to better, try jogging (average ~5mph). Try jogging for 24 hours straight, bending over ever .1 of a miles to grab and replace a cache.

 

There have been records claimed of 1500 or so cache in a day. Of course, using a (or more than one) vehicle allows groups of cachers to work as a team (and all claim 1500 finds) and has been shown to lead to some pretty creating methods for "finding a cache".

 

I suppose if you could reach a long way out of a car you could have one person driving along the trail very slowly, another reaching out to grab a cache and replace it with the previous one, then signing the one they grabbed during the 528 feet to the next one.

 

Why anyone would spend a day doing that is beyond me, but I guess it's the way some play the game.

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe we need a new term. "Speed Caching Trail'.

 

I have no problem taking a leisurely hike on a scenic trail and finding a cache every .1 mile. I also have no desire to race down a highway, or a dirt road, finding caches every .1 mile, as fast as I possibly can. I see these as two different things and I hate to see them lumped together. Those who create these speed trails know that that is exactly what they are doing. I honestly don't know why it would be so confusing to give them an attribute to separate their caches out from the others.

Share this post


Link to post
Maybe we need a new term. "Speed Caching Trail'.
That works for me. I've been using the term "numbers run trail", but "speed caching trail" is just as descriptive (and "speed" may be more universally understood than "numbers run"). And then we can go back to using the term "power trail" only for the hiking/cycling trails that are saturated with caches.

 

Oh, and a pony. I also want a pony. Thanks.

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".

 

I have have to say that a power trail does not necessarily have all the same type containers, nor necessarily be "quick and easy"

 

I have a power trail here in middle TN, the Team Trunk Monkey Turnpike, (search for TTMT if you want to look it up) And while many of the hides are what I would consider a "traditional power trail hide" with a simple filmcan hidden in a guardrail or at the base of a signpost, I have hidden several small and regular containers in interesting locations, as they made themselves available... just to break up the monotony. There are even a couple of evil little nanos in pretty tough spots, and some magnetic keyholders in unlikely locations... as appropriate to the locale.

 

I would definitely call it a power trail, but perhaps a bit "above average" for the quality of hides wherever possible, and people have commented on the special ones, and even given some of them favorite points. If the attribute were implemented, I would surely use it for the whole trail... Just to help folks filter it in or out of their search results.

Share this post


Link to post
There's at least one PT which is along an old rail grade, which is now a walking trail. Looks to be about 40, one every 528 feet or so. So much for the ol' P&G attribute.
Are hiking/cycling power trails like this (which can develop organically along popular trails, especially in parks that restrict geocaches to a certain distance from the trail) really the kind of "power trails" that prompt people to call for a new attribute/type? I was under the impression that the demand for a new attribute/type was driven ;) by the modern numbers run trails (fungible containers along a road, like the ET Highway trail or the Route 66 trail).

 

Here's an example of a rail-trail power trail - no cars, just walk or bike.

Share this post


Link to post
Maybe we need a new term. "Speed Caching Trail'.
That works for me. I've been using the term "numbers run trail", but "speed caching trail" is just as descriptive (and "speed" may be more universally understood than "numbers run"). And then we can go back to using the term "power trail" only for the hiking/cycling trails that are saturated with caches.

 

Oh, and a pony. I also want a pony. Thanks.

 

I've generally agree with the distinction you make with "numbers run trail" or "speed caching trail" but for me, it kind of makes "power trail" a misnomer if a hiking/cycling trail containing a lot of caches isn't designed to "power through" a lot of finds. I've seen series of 100 more caches that saturate a trail, but include a variety of types of hides and difficult. I just won't feel like "power caches" if it included a lot of 3 and 4 star difficulty hides, someone went out for a few hours and came back with a dozen finds.

Share this post


Link to post

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

http://forums.Ground...howtopic=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.

 

I like that. I tried to improve on it a bit.

494db861-6853-4a9e-ba15-8896dd9dcdce.png

 

Nice icons, but this one better applies to the feelings of most cachers, no? 0f6899e6-8610-4e68-9109-3dc1c010a683.gif?rnd=0.6007959

Edited by fbingha

Share this post


Link to post
I've generally agree with the distinction you make with "numbers run trail" or "speed caching trail" but for me, it kind of makes "power trail" a misnomer if a hiking/cycling trail containing a lot of caches isn't designed to "power through" a lot of finds. I've seen series of 100 more caches that saturate a trail, but include a variety of types of hides and difficult. I just won't feel like "power caches" if it included a lot of 3 and 4 star difficulty hides, someone went out for a few hours and came back with a dozen finds.
Well, yes. But back when people started calling saturated hiking trails "power trails", no one had the slightest inkling that there would ever be such a thing as modern "numbers run trails", "speed caching trails", or "mega power trails". And hiking a few hours and finding a dozen caches was HUGE.

 

There's an old-school power trail that the Santa Clara County Parks District uses for its geocaching classes. I helped lead a group of new geocachers on one of the classes. It's really convenient to be able to show them a dozen caches of widely varying styles and be back at the trailhead in time for lunch.

Share this post


Link to post
Nice icons, but this one better applies to the feelings of most cachers, no? 0f6899e6-8610-4e68-9109-3dc1c010a683.gif?rnd=0.6007959
Perhaps. But as I wrote earlier, 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

<snip>

 

I like that. I tried to improve on it a bit.

494db861-6853-4a9e-ba15-8896dd9dcdce.png

 

Nice icons, but this one better applies to the feelings of most cachers, no? 0f6899e6-8610-4e68-9109-3dc1c010a683.gif?rnd=0.6007959

 

If you look at the stats of these known power trail caches, you will notice a lot of finds compared to those onsie-twosie caches in similar areas; especially in the case of the ET highway and the number of favorite points give to ET-0001. I would argue that the number of geocachers that enjoy power trails is higher than the number of geocachers that do not like them. The highest number is likely from those that are indifferent to the whole thing and just like to get out and have fun, however they define that.

Share this post


Link to post

This did make me wonder if anyone want to claim any sort of record for the number of caches found on foot in a single day.

 

I and AZgeckogirl will lay at least a temporary claim as the record holders for that stat. :)

 

11/19/2011, 117 caches found while traveling on foot, 0920-1859 Hrs.

Share this post


Link to post

<snip>

 

I like that. I tried to improve on it a bit.

494db861-6853-4a9e-ba15-8896dd9dcdce.png

 

Nice icons, but this one better applies to the feelings of most cachers, no? 0f6899e6-8610-4e68-9109-3dc1c010a683.gif?rnd=0.6007959

 

If you look at the stats of these known power trail caches, you will notice a lot of finds compared to those onsie-twosie caches in similar areas; especially in the case of the ET highway and the number of favorite points give to ET-0001. I would argue that the number of geocachers that enjoy power trails is higher than the number of geocachers that do not like them. The highest number is likely from those that are indifferent to the whole thing and just like to get out and have fun, however they define that.

I was being cheeky, obviously, but I still suspect that if you placed all geocachers at the start of the E.T. highway, more would find it boring than those who find it enjoyable.

 

Saying that something is popular because people choose to go there does not discount that yet more people may still be choosing not to go there.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

I wonder if, rather than an attribute, if there would be an easier way to group a series or trail of caches in general. Think bookmark, but more prominent in a cache listing for users to see. That way, if the goal is to find all of the caches in a series (whether this is a PT or not), the "series link" could be paired with an attribute to make picking those caches out of a query or map search a little easier.

 

I suppose a currently possible process would be to use html code to embed a link that brings people to a bookmark list. But, some searchable aspects would be nice. More so for series of caches in general, as opposed to power trails only.

 

Hmmm...

Share this post


Link to post
I wonder if, rather than an attribute, if there would be an easier way to group a series or trail of caches in general. Think bookmark, but more prominent in a cache listing for users to see. That way, if the goal is to find all of the caches in a series (whether this is a PT or not), the "series link" could be paired with an attribute to make picking those caches out of a query or map search a little easier.

 

I suppose a currently possible process would be to use html code to embed a link that brings people to a bookmark list. But, some searchable aspects would be nice. More so for series of caches in general, as opposed to power trails only.

Bookmark lists are already used to identify caches on a particular numbers run tail. However, currently PQs can't do much with a bookmark list, other than list all the caches on it. Perhaps if the new, improved PQ system could search a bookmark list based on various criteria (e.g., "I haven't found"), or could filter other PQs based on whether a cache is in (or not in) specified bookmark list(s), then it could work.

Share this post


Link to post
I wonder if, rather than an attribute, if there would be an easier way to group a series or trail of caches in general. Think bookmark, but more prominent in a cache listing for users to see. That way, if the goal is to find all of the caches in a series (whether this is a PT or not), the "series link" could be paired with an attribute to make picking those caches out of a query or map search a little easier.

 

I suppose a currently possible process would be to use html code to embed a link that brings people to a bookmark list. But, some searchable aspects would be nice. More so for series of caches in general, as opposed to power trails only.

Bookmark lists are already used to identify caches on a particular numbers run tail. However, currently PQs can't do much with a bookmark list, other than list all the caches on it. Perhaps if the new, improved PQ system could search a bookmark list based on various criteria (e.g., "I haven't found"), or could filter other PQs based on whether a cache is in (or not in) specified bookmark list(s), then it could work.

That's what I'm getting at. See bolded above.

 

If there is an attribute, we can filter in a PQ.

If there is an easy way to link the series for ease of navigation, quick discovery of all in a designated series (ie: my "12 Days" series in Oregon), etc on the cache page, cachers can move smoothly from listing to listing within a specific series or trail. (Be it online via computer, PDA, tablet or smartphone)

 

I'm trying to imagine the process, logistics and method to make it more straight forward to locate listings online at geocaching.com that are a series. Some way to query that set would be nice, once you have found what you want to go for.

Share this post


Link to post

pt.png

 

*BUMP*

 

Bumping again.

 

I think having an attribute for power trails would be of great help for both those who want to search for them and those who want to filter them out. I realize there is no set definition of what constitutes a power trail. My opinion is to offer up the attribute and let cache owners decide when they want to use it. This would be much better than using incorrect attributes, scuba for example, on these groups of caches.

 

Tha attribute above is simple yet informative!

Share this post


Link to post

pt.png

 

*BUMP*

 

Bumping again.

 

I think having an attribute for power trails would be of great help for both those who want to search for them and those who want to filter them out. I realize there is no set definition of what constitutes a power trail. My opinion is to offer up the attribute and let cache owners decide when they want to use it. This would be much better than using incorrect attributes, scuba for example, on these groups of caches.

 

Tha attribute above is simple yet informative!

 

I would also like to see this attribute, including the negative-option version:

 

27df5069-6186-42ed-a79c-4efbe659f713.png

 

This could be used on a set of caches in a series -- looks like a power trail, but with unique containers and individualized cache pages with a common theme. If it existed, I would apply it to these.

Share this post


Link to post

pt.png

 

*BUMP*

 

Bumping again.

 

I think having an attribute for power trails would be of great help for both those who want to search for them and those who want to filter them out. I realize there is no set definition of what constitutes a power trail. My opinion is to offer up the attribute and let cache owners decide when they want to use it. This would be much better than using incorrect attributes, scuba for example, on these groups of caches.

 

Tha attribute above is simple yet informative!

 

I would also like to see this attribute, including the negative-option version:

 

27df5069-6186-42ed-a79c-4efbe659f713.png

 

This could be used on a set of caches in a series -- looks like a power trail, but with unique containers and individualized cache pages with a common theme. If it existed, I would apply it to these.

 

Yes, i didn't think of that. Very good idea! B)

Share this post


Link to post

I was going to post a similar feature request but fortunately I see others want the same thing! Some may want to search specifically for these, though I would love the ability to completely hide from my account the 'numbers run trails' or whatever the terminology is determined to be.

 

I would like to see it work where caches can be marked as part of a group, with groups being classified in a few different ways "numbers run", "theme series", "power trail", etc... This would make it easy to find the other parts of an interesting series or for those that want to do numbers, they can easily seek those out.

 

In my case I would want to hide the 'numbers run' type of groups completely. I don't want them to clutter my map view, I don't want them in my search results, I just want them all completely invisible to me. I realized how annoying these were to me when I was looking at the map view of a rural area I am going to be traveling through and wanted to pick out a couple caches... I was having a hard time because one resident has completely saturated the whole area with over 150 micro caches, mostly as part of numbers series, and several others have also added in numbers series...making it tedious to find the one or two that might be placed in an old cemetery or site of interest.

 

The classic definition of the 'power trail' along a hike sounds like something I would like, so I would not want to lump them together. I just have no interest in driving and getting out of my car every .1 miles to grab a magnet from a guardrail or sign post. A lot of people may enjoy that, and that's great, but it's just not for me.

Share this post


Link to post
In my case I would want to hide the 'numbers run' type of groups completely. I don't want them to clutter my map view, I don't want them in my search results, I just want them all completely invisible to me. I realized how annoying these were to me when I was looking at the map view of a rural area I am going to be traveling through and wanted to pick out a couple caches... I was having a hard time because one resident has completely saturated the whole area with over 150 micro caches, mostly as part of numbers series, and several others have also added in numbers series...making it tedious to find the one or two that might be placed in an old cemetery or site of interest.

Maybe even more than an attribute we just need a quick way to bulk add a large number of caches to our ignore list.

Share this post


Link to post
In my case I would want to hide the 'numbers run' type of groups completely. I don't want them to clutter my map view, I don't want them in my search results, I just want them all completely invisible to me. I realized how annoying these were to me when I was looking at the map view of a rural area I am going to be traveling through and wanted to pick out a couple caches... I was having a hard time because one resident has completely saturated the whole area with over 150 micro caches, mostly as part of numbers series, and several others have also added in numbers series...making it tedious to find the one or two that might be placed in an old cemetery or site of interest.

Maybe even more than an attribute we just need a quick way to bulk add a large number of caches to our ignore list.

 

That already exists. It is called GSAK.

Share this post


Link to post
Maybe even more than an attribute we just need a quick way to bulk add a large number of caches to our ignore list.
Well, some people need/want a quick way to ignore these caches. Others need/want a quick way to download these caches (in preparation for a numbers run).

 

An attribute can serve both groups of people. And we've already had several suggested icons:

87e51363-91ea-4854-aef5-085496172408.jpg4fed2019-2391-42fa-af53-c6b02863399b.pngpt.png494db861-6853-4a9e-ba15-8896dd9dcdce.png

Share this post


Link to post

That already exists. It is called GSAK.

+1 to that, for a variety of reasons.

 

I keep a separate GSAK database for 'problem' caches - including those that should have archived for lack of attention by the CO long ago. I re-run logs on that database once a week, same as for the others, and until I spot change activity, that list with flags is copied to my full regular merged PQ list to delete them from the full list. It certainly wouldn't be hard to incorporate a separate database of power trail caches that need to be ignored.

Share this post


Link to post
I keep a separate GSAK database for 'problem' caches - including those that should have archived for lack of attention by the CO long ago.

I hope you also do your due diligence by logging NM and NA logs. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, I certainly do. As often as not, the ones flagged in my 'problem' database are either replaced by the owner or get deleted when the admin eventually archives them.

Share this post


Link to post
In my case I would want to hide the 'numbers run' type of groups completely. I don't want them to clutter my map view, I don't want them in my search results, I just want them all completely invisible to me. I realized how annoying these were to me when I was looking at the map view of a rural area I am going to be traveling through and wanted to pick out a couple caches... I was having a hard time because one resident has completely saturated the whole area with over 150 micro caches, mostly as part of numbers series, and several others have also added in numbers series...making it tedious to find the one or two that might be placed in an old cemetery or site of interest.

Maybe even more than an attribute we just need a quick way to bulk add a large number of caches to our ignore list.

 

That already exists. It is called GSAK.

 

Not everyone wants to invest more time & money to learn & use GSAK ;)

It's easy to get a list & coords for a series or group of caches I'd like to find on Groundspeak, either by PQ, or doing a general search using a series name & clicking 'check all'& 'download waypoints' ...

But I'd like it to be just as easy to ignore a series or group of caches I'm not interested in. Is there a way Groundspeak could add an 'ignore' button next to the 'download waypoint' button as another option after 'check all'?

Or is there already any easy way (without GSAK) that I've overlooked?

Share this post


Link to post
In my case I would want to hide the 'numbers run' type of groups completely. I don't want them to clutter my map view, I don't want them in my search results, I just want them all completely invisible to me. I realized how annoying these were to me when I was looking at the map view of a rural area I am going to be traveling through and wanted to pick out a couple caches... I was having a hard time because one resident has completely saturated the whole area with over 150 micro caches, mostly as part of numbers series, and several others have also added in numbers series...making it tedious to find the one or two that might be placed in an old cemetery or site of interest.

Maybe even more than an attribute we just need a quick way to bulk add a large number of caches to our ignore list.

 

That already exists. It is called GSAK.

 

Not everyone wants to invest more time & money to learn & use GSAK ;)

It's easy to get a list & coords for a series or group of caches I'd like to find on Groundspeak, either by PQ, or doing a general search using a series name & clicking 'check all'& 'download waypoints' ...

But I'd like it to be just as easy to ignore a series or group of caches I'm not interested in. Is there a way Groundspeak could add an 'ignore' button next to the 'download waypoint' button as another option after 'check all'?

Or is there already any easy way (without GSAK) that I've overlooked?

 

I have been advocating that Groundspeak give us the ability to set any Bookmark list as an Ignore list by simply checking a box in it's options. This way, we could build lists of common caches that we wish to ignore, such as a power trail that is overwhelming a PQ that is in the same area. Then, if we later want to to go for those caches, we can simply run a PQ on that list, or un-check the, "ignore this list" box.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm putting my two cents in again in favor of a power trail attribute. It's becoming more and more important to me because it seems that a significant portion of caches being published around here these days are power trails and they have been creeping into my PQs. My latest PQ had over 200 power trail caches on it and that is 200 caches I have no interest in finding crowding out 200 that I might want to find. I'm sure I'm not alone in this.

 

And I think the numbers hounds will appreciate the attribute too so they can easily identify these things. I don't see any downside and a great deal of benefit to the community.

Edited by briansnat

Share this post


Link to post

I see your point but wouldn't take more than a couple of minutes in gsak to make sure they never show up in a pq again. Pretty simple really.

Share this post


Link to post

I see your point but wouldn't take more than a couple of minutes in gsak to make sure they never show up in a pq again. Pretty simple really.

 

And again, the ability to put a set of caches on a Bookmark list and then toggle on or off that list as an, "Ignore list", would give us the ultimate ability to decide what shows up in our pocket queries.

Share this post


Link to post

I see your point but wouldn't take more than a couple of minutes in gsak to make sure they never show up in a pq again. Pretty simple really.

 

That can be said for many of the attributes we already have, and what about those who don't use GSAK.

 

The problem is that first I have to identify the fact that it's a PT. I often don't know it is until I'm out in the field, which means it's already too late for that caching trip. So each time I'm updating GSAK after the PQ would have been useful to me. An attribute would be a heck of a lot easier.

 

Also PT owners will no longer need to misuse other attributes (like the SCUBA attribute used for some) to identify power trails. That alone is reason enough for a PT attribute.

 

And again, the ability to put a set of caches on a Bookmark list and then toggle on or off that list as an, "Ignore list", would give us the ultimate ability to decide what shows up in our pocket queries.

 

Having to create and update bookmark lists is not an answer either, especially if you live near one of these monster PTs where you may have to add hundreds to the list. One of my PQs has a 160 cache PT in the middle of it, that's a lot of bookmarking.

Edited by briansnat

Share this post


Link to post

I am assuming you don't use GSAK by your response. I can do 160 caches to ignore in under two minutes so it isn't really a lot of bookmarking. Actually I could do 1600 in about the same amount of time.

 

I guess my thought for many of the feature requests is users can discuss them until the cows come home or use currently available technology to accomplish the task now. A $30 investment would handle 90% of the requests I see posted.

Share this post


Link to post

I am assuming you don't use GSAK by your response. I can do 160 caches to ignore in under two minutes so it isn't really a lot of bookmarking. Actually I could do 1600 in about the same amount of time.

 

I guess my thought for many of the feature requests is users can discuss them until the cows come home or use currently available technology to accomplish the task now. A $30 investment would handle 90% of the requests I see posted.

 

As I mentioned, I usually don't know something is a power trail until I run the PQ and encounter it while caching. When I first run a PQ there is nothing to tell me it's a PT, so GSAK is useless until I arrive home AFTER I've been caching to update it.

 

And again, not everyone uses GSAK. Why should people be forced to purchase and learn a 3rd party software when it can be handled with the simple addition of an attribute?

Edited by briansnat

Share this post


Link to post

I would like to see the icons show drive by vs must hike or bike

Edited by meandmydogs

Share this post


Link to post

I would like to see the icons show drive by vs must hike or bike

 

Already exists.

 

The Park 'n Grab attribute:

 

parkngrab-yes.gif

 

The Hike attributes:

 

hike_short-yes.gifhike_med-yes.gifhike_long-yes.gif

 

The Bicycle attribute:

 

bicycles-yes.gif

Share this post


Link to post

I totally agree and think a Geo Art attribute would be wonderful as well! I live in an area that because of Power Trails (Rails to Trails, Food Series, etc) and Geo Arts (Signal, Dice, GS Symbol, etc) the 1,000 limit is easily hit within a 20 mile radius. And we have a small town! Within a 50 mile radius we have the PTA and Marine Corp Emblem. If people could eliminate those, they could create a PQ for each attribute (Power Trail, Geo Art, one with those eliminated) and get so many more results!

 

Please consider this.

Share this post


Link to post

I am assuming you don't use GSAK by your response. I can do 160 caches to ignore in under two minutes so it isn't really a lot of bookmarking. Actually I could do 1600 in about the same amount of time.

 

I guess my thought for many of the feature requests is users can discuss them until the cows come home or use currently available technology to accomplish the task now. A $30 investment would handle 90% of the requests I see posted.

 

As I mentioned, I usually don't know something is a power trail until I run the PQ and encounter it while caching. When I first run a PQ there is nothing to tell me it's a PT, so GSAK is useless until I arrive home AFTER I've been caching to update it.

 

And again, not everyone uses GSAK. Why should people be forced to purchase and learn a 3rd party software when it can be handled with the simple addition of an attribute?

 

Also some of us use Mac's and GSAK does not work for Mac's.

Share this post


Link to post

Can any of the naysayers explain why such an attribute would be a bad idea? I don't want to hear about flawed alternatives such as third party software, or "just look at a map". How can such an attribute harm the geocaching experience?

 

When this first came up I thought it was a good idea but I really had no stake in it because there were no power trails here. Things have changed dramatically in the past two years thanks to the explosion in power trails.

Share this post


Link to post

Can any of the naysayers explain why such an attribute would be a bad idea? I don't want to hear about flawed alternatives such as third party software, or "just look at a map". How can such an attribute harm the geocaching experience?

 

When this first came up I thought it was a good idea but I really had no stake in it because there were no power trails here. Things have changed dramatically in the past two years thanks to the explosion in power trails.

 

Since the thread was bumped, I don't think that anyone has said that it is a bad idea. In fact, it's a great idea, and it should have been implemented years ago. The fact that it hasn't been leads most of us to believe that it will never be implemented, therefore, I'll use what you call a flawed alternative to do exactly what I need to do.

Share this post


Link to post

Can any of the naysayers explain why such an attribute would be a bad idea? I don't want to hear about flawed alternatives such as third party software, or "just look at a map". How can such an attribute harm the geocaching experience?

 

When this first came up I thought it was a good idea but I really had no stake in it because there were no power trails here. Things have changed dramatically in the past two years thanks to the explosion in power trails.

 

Since the thread was bumped, I don't think that anyone has said that it is a bad idea. In fact, it's a great idea, and it should have been implemented years ago. The fact that it hasn't been leads most of us to believe that it will never be implemented, therefore, I'll use what you call a flawed alternative to do exactly what I need to do.

The only problem I see with this suggestion is what is the definition of power trail? I sure briansnat would consider any two caches within half a mile of each other along a bike trail by the same CO to be a power trail. And there is a good point. Over time along bike trails a nice collection of caches can evolve that one could consider to be a power trail. Except they are hidden by 20 different CO's. Others would not want to consider anything less than Route 66 a power trail. I've never seen anyone give a really good definition of a power trail. Until such a definition can be given some CO's won't use the attribute because what they have is not a power trail while others will argue the 5 or 8 caches do comprise a power trail and should be so labeled.

Share this post


Link to post
Also some of us use Mac's and GSAK does not work for Mac's.
And in addition to those of us who use Macs or other computers that run non-Microsoft operating systems, some of us don't want to add yet another step to the process of getting cache data on our devices. It's nice to be able to download the cache data in a PQ and go geocaching, without needing to filter it through GSAK (or any other third-party software) first. Edited by niraD

Share this post


Link to post

Drop and go is a perfectly fine way to cache. I use GSAK to delete those caches where the last two logs weren't finds (5-10%) and go through unknowns to see if I want to do them and if not place them all on my ignore list. Also really handy after a 50 cache day for logging and giving favorites.

Share this post


Link to post

 

The only problem I see with this suggestion is what is the definition of power trail? I sure briansnat would consider any two caches within half a mile of each other along a bike trail by the same CO to be a power trail. And there is a good point. Over time along bike trails a nice collection of caches can evolve that one could consider to be a power trail. Except they are hidden by 20 different CO's. Others would not want to consider anything less than Route 66 a power trail. I've never seen anyone give a really good definition of a power trail. Until such a definition can be given some CO's won't use the attribute because what they have is not a power trail while others will argue the 5 or 8 caches do comprise a power trail and should be so labeled.

 

The same could be said for many of the other attributes. What is the definition of a "significant hike" or "winter accessible"? How about "secnic veiw?" If boat required attribute is used does it mean I can't swim to it? Just because attribute can have subjective definitions it doesn't mean they aren't useful.

Share this post


Link to post

The only problem I see with this suggestion is what is the definition of power trail? I sure briansnat would consider any two caches within half a mile of each other along a bike trail by the same CO to be a power trail. And there is a good point. Over time along bike trails a nice collection of caches can evolve that one could consider to be a power trail. Except they are hidden by 20 different CO's. Others would not want to consider anything less than Route 66 a power trail. I've never seen anyone give a really good definition of a power trail. Until such a definition can be given some CO's won't use the attribute because what they have is not a power trail while others will argue the 5 or 8 caches do comprise a power trail and should be so labeled.

 

Groundspeak and the reviewers had a definition for PTs before the gate was open. They can use that definition. It did not include a trail that gradually saturates with caches planted at different times by various owners - the .1 mile rule applies to those.

 

Regarding COs not using the attribute, I think there will be a great deal of public pressure to use it.

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

×