Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
DragonsWest

Power Trail Attribute - Please!

Recommended Posts

To Groundspeak Powers That Be (aka The Frog) -

 

Please, may we have a Power Trail / Power Caching Attribute added? I've been planning a trip for months and now I'm about to embark on it I find my Pocket Queries are constantly clobbered by these high density trails and desert artwork, meaning I get fewer of the caches I'm looking for in my query.

 

I'd really like an attribute, something like this pt.png That I can tick off and be spared these things (so long as Cache Owners use the attribute.)

 

(Please don't go on about GSAK and how I can spend a lot of time mucking about in it, because the whole Idea of Pocket Queries is convenience, with a simple tick I can get the wide ranging queries which will make my trip more enjoyable.)

 

Thanks for your consideration.

Share this post


Link to post

To Groundspeak Powers That Be (aka The Frog) -

 

Please, may we have a Power Trail / Power Caching Attribute added? I've been planning a trip for months and now I'm about to embark on it I find my Pocket Queries are constantly clobbered by these high density trails and desert artwork, meaning I get fewer of the caches I'm looking for in my query.

 

I'd really like an attribute, something like this pt.png That I can tick off and be spared these things (so long as Cache Owners use the attribute.)

 

(Please don't go on about GSAK and how I can spend a lot of time mucking about in it, because the whole Idea of Pocket Queries is convenience, with a simple tick I can get the wide ranging queries which will make my trip more enjoyable.)

 

Thanks for your consideration.

 

What a great idea. Of course the difficulty will be in the execution, especially marking the existing PTs.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

To Groundspeak Powers That Be (aka The Frog) -

 

Please, may we have a Power Trail / Power Caching Attribute added? I've been planning a trip for months and now I'm about to embark on it I find my Pocket Queries are constantly clobbered by these high density trails and desert artwork, meaning I get fewer of the caches I'm looking for in my query.

 

I'd really like an attribute, something like this pt.png That I can tick off and be spared these things (so long as Cache Owners use the attribute.)

 

(Please don't go on about GSAK and how I can spend a lot of time mucking about in it, because the whole Idea of Pocket Queries is convenience, with a simple tick I can get the wide ranging queries which will make my trip more enjoyable.)

 

Thanks for your consideration.

 

Someone will say....but what's the definition of a PT? We can't define it. Funny though, before the gates were open, Groundspeak had a definition, the reviewers worked with that definition and it worked quite well IMO.

 

"...so long as Cache Owners use the attribute" I think anyone who places a PT will be pressured into putting a PT attribute on their caches asap.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

What a great idea. Of course the difficulty will be in the execution, especially marking the existing PTs.

 

I don't expect everyone will leap to going back and tagging theirs, but hopefully we can get more of the new issue to bear such an attribute.

 

It really is aggrevating trying to build queries in some areas because I'm looking for a large radius, but wind up with hundreds in a small knot which reduces my effective radius to a chunk of one of these trails.

 

It would also be nice if I wanted to select only the power trail, some of these geo-art things look like fun (if I could get one done in a day's hiking) and being able to just pick them out would allow a Cacher opportunity to include or exclude at ones desire. I think we've reached the point where these Trails and Art are an established part of the game.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Someone will say....but what's the definition of a PT? We can't define it. Funny though, before the gates were open, Groundspeak had a definition, the reviewers worked with that definition and it worked quite well IMO.

 

"...so long as Cache Owners use the attribute" I think anyone who places a PT will be pressured into putting a PT attribute on their caches asap.

Well taken, but as with all attributes they are only so useful as cache owners make any of them.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Someone will say....but what's the definition of a PT? We can't define it. Funny though, before the gates were open, Groundspeak had a definition, the reviewers worked with that definition and it worked quite well IMO.

 

"...so long as Cache Owners use the attribute" I think anyone who places a PT will be pressured into putting a PT attribute on their caches asap.

Well taken, but as with all attributes they are only so useful as cache owners make any of them.

 

You can't mistake a power trail, especially a reviewer who approves them.

Although I enjoy doing pieces of power trails from time to time as they tend to be in isolated locations and I love solitude when caching , I have long thought that they should be in a separate geocaching category.

I also would like to see a seperate icon and finds of PT caches should give you a green smiley.....I would also like it to be retroactive.

Share this post


Link to post

Since the biggest power trail is already misusing the SCUBA attribute for this reason. It would be nice if they had an attribute to use that made sense.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

Someone will say....but what's the definition of a PT? We can't define it. Funny though, before the gates were open, Groundspeak had a definition, the reviewers worked with that definition and it worked quite well IMO.

 

"...so long as Cache Owners use the attribute" I think anyone who places a PT will be pressured into putting a PT attribute on their caches asap.

Well taken, but as with all attributes they are only so useful as cache owners make any of them.

 

You can't mistake a power trail, especially a reviewer who approves them.

Although I enjoy doing pieces of power trails from time to time as they tend to be in isolated locations and I love solitude when caching , I have long thought that they should be in a separate geocaching category.

I also would like to see a seperate icon and finds of PT caches should give you a green smiley.....I would also like it to be retroactive.

 

Retroactive isn't new to TPTB as the Challenges vanished without a trace (unless you have a shirt or Geocoin showing the icon) but I think changing PT finds to some other kind would probably cause the sort of mutiny even TPTB wouldn't welcome.

 

I think if we could just get the attribute reviewers could give potential hiders a nudge "This looks like a Power Trail, please consider applying the Power Trail/Power Caching/High Density Cache Accretion attribute to hasten publishing" - or thereabouts.

 

 

Since the biggest power trail is already misusing the SCUBA attribute for this reason. It would be nice if they had an attribute to use that made sense.

 

Indeed, a strong case exists already.

Edited by DragonsWest

Share this post


Link to post

To Groundspeak Powers That Be (aka The Frog) -

 

Please, may we have a Power Trail / Power Caching Attribute added? I've been planning a trip for months and now I'm about to embark on it I find my Pocket Queries are constantly clobbered by these high density trails and desert artwork, meaning I get fewer of the caches I'm looking for in my query.

 

I'd really like an attribute, something like this pt.png That I can tick off and be spared these things (so long as Cache Owners use the attribute.)

 

(Please don't go on about GSAK and how I can spend a lot of time mucking about in it, because the whole Idea of Pocket Queries is convenience, with a simple tick I can get the wide ranging queries which will make my trip more enjoyable.)

 

Thanks for your consideration.

I agree. I have had this problem on trips and the only way I found around it was to exclude micros, works but not the best way. As I live near a power trail that I really don't wish to find, I've had to add them, one by one, to my ignore list.

 

So Lilly Pad please give us an attribute.

Share this post


Link to post

Someone will say....but what's the definition of a PT? We can't define it. Funny though, before the gates were open, Groundspeak had a definition, the reviewers worked with that definition and it worked quite well IMO.

The Swiss reviewers had a definition of a power trail (a complicated formula of how many caches an owner had place within some distance over a certain period). Other reviewers may or may not have had their own definition. Yes, reviewers would deny caches because someone place a series with the caches only 600 ft apart. But why did some reviewers allow a series of 3 caches and others allowed a series of 10 or more? Why did some reviewers allow more caches if the caches werer 601 ft apart and other reviewer wanted gaps of at least .2 mile. Why did some reviewers allow a group fo 3 or 4 cachers to place a "power trail" by alternating the ownership of caches along the trail?

 

There was never a Groundspeak definition of power trail that could be applied by the reviewers. Each was left to make their own decision over what was meant by "Please don't hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can."

 

Of course the cache owner generally chooses when to use an attribute like this. Since there are probably at least as many people who are looking for "power trails" as want to avoid them, I would guess that it would not take much for owners of series of caches that are meant to be done together to add the attribute. However if you are simply trying to declutter a pocket query to find the caches that are not placed for numbers you might try ignoring 1/1 micros. That ought to take care of the power trails (though not necessarily the geo-art). It may leave out a few caches that take you to some interesting or unique place like the Lil'Ale Inn. But you'd miss that if you ignored all the ET powertrail caches anyhow.

Share this post


Link to post

Someone will say....but what's the definition of a PT? We can't define it. Funny though, before the gates were open, Groundspeak had a definition, the reviewers worked with that definition and it worked quite well IMO.

The Swiss reviewers had a definition of a power trail (a complicated formula of how many caches an owner had place within some distance over a certain period). Other reviewers may or may not have had their own definition. Yes, reviewers would deny caches because someone place a series with the caches only 600 ft apart. But why did some reviewers allow a series of 3 caches and others allowed a series of 10 or more? Why did some reviewers allow more caches if the caches werer 601 ft apart and other reviewer wanted gaps of at least .2 mile. Why did some reviewers allow a group fo 3 or 4 cachers to place a "power trail" by alternating the ownership of caches along the trail?

 

There was never a Groundspeak definition of power trail that could be applied by the reviewers. Each was left to make their own decision over what was meant by "Please don't hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can."

 

Of course the cache owner generally chooses when to use an attribute like this. Since there are probably at least as many people who are looking for "power trails" as want to avoid them, I would guess that it would not take much for owners of series of caches that are meant to be done together to add the attribute. However if you are simply trying to declutter a pocket query to find the caches that are not placed for numbers you might try ignoring 1/1 micros. That ought to take care of the power trails (though not necessarily the geo-art). It may leave out a few caches that take you to some interesting or unique place like the Lil'Ale Inn. But you'd miss that if you ignored all the ET powertrail caches anyhow.

 

I really have tried, but there's little consistency between PT stashers.

 

Someone uses a scuba/no scuba, others have scant to none. I don't expect this to appeal to everyone, but it can always be encouraged - which goes for pretty much all other attributes.

 

I shudder to think some nutcase would ASPIRE to a power trail, hiding two or three in a short distance and using the attribute, but worse things have happened (and do.)

 

HAI! LOOKIT MY WORLDZ SHORTEST POWER TRAIL! LOL!

Share this post


Link to post
I'd really like an attribute, something like this pt.png
+1

 

Here are a couple more ideas for the icon, from past forum threads:

494db861-6853-4a9e-ba15-8896dd9dcdce.png4fed2019-2391-42fa-af53-c6b02863399b.png

 

I shudder to think some nutcase would ASPIRE to a power trail, hiding two or three in a short distance and using the attribute, but worse things have happened (and do.)
Yeah, I recently noticed a short trail that isn't much longer than 600ft. There is a cache at each end. I could see the owners of those caches using the attribute as a joke, much the way the No Snowmobiles attribute is used as a joke in parts of the SF Bay area where it never snows.

snowmobiles-no.gif

 

But if a CO wants to do that, then more power [rimshot] to them.

 

One possible issue of contention is that the new attribute may become associated with numbers run trails with fungible containers, where the CO encourages throwdowns and cache shuffling (aka the three cache monte). If so, then cache owners who do not want their containers replaced or shuffled may be reluctant to use the new attribute. Meanwhile, those who don't want such caches in their PQ data will pressure the owners to use the attribute anyway.

 

Maybe we need two attributes, one for each kind of numbers run trail.

Share this post


Link to post
One possible issue of contention is that the new attribute may become associated with numbers run trails with fungible containers, where the CO encourages throwdowns and cache shuffling (aka the three cache monte). If so, then cache owners who do not want their containers replaced or shuffled may be reluctant to use the new attribute. Meanwhile, those who don't want such caches in their PQ data will pressure the owners to use the attribute anyway.

 

Maybe we need two attributes, one for each kind of numbers run trail.

 

Wouldn't think this would be too much of a problem. In my mind, i just don't think that throwing down would automatically be associated with the attribute. I may be wrong on this too but i betcha that the majority of power trail owners wouldn't mind even if it did.

 

To the Groundspeak, at least give it a try. PTs are popular right now so i think owners of them would use the attribute. It would benefit both, those who are looking for trails and those who are not.

Share this post


Link to post

Huge PT was published in the past two days, right in the middle of an area I'm passing through. No tags I can use to eliminate then, unless I filter by date. These things can be a real pain.

Share this post


Link to post

I've been on the power trail attribute bandwagon since the first power trails started. I have no interest in them and would love to be able to filter them out. Maybe it wasn't such a problem when there were a few power trails out there, but it seems that most areas have a few these days these days and more are being published every week.

 

I foresee a day when caches that are part of a power trail outnumber "solo" caches.

Edited by briansnat

Share this post


Link to post
I foresee a day when caches that are part of a power trail outnumber "solo" caches.

I believe it.

Many good-hike solo caches in our area have started to become power trails after a few numbers folks realize there's none "in between" it and parking.

Share this post


Link to post

I have never understood the use of the term "power trail" since it seems to be a euphemism for repetition, which has never seemed particularly powerful to me. But it has always seemed to me that defining a repetitive trail is not that difficult. As Justice Stewart said in another context, "I know it when I see it." An attribute, then, could easily be applied. Even if someone chose to misuse it with only one or two caches, I could ignore those as easily as I could ignore a repetitive trail. And If I wanted to find a trail, it would not be difficult to determine if I wanted to look for two caches, two hundred, or two thousand.

Share this post


Link to post
I foresee a day when caches that are part of a power trail outnumber "solo" caches.

I believe it.

Many good-hike solo caches in our area have started to become power trails after a few numbers folks realize there's none "in between" it and parking.

 

I agree here although I would enjoy having the caches to find as I hike to the " solo " cache.

Share this post


Link to post

I have never understood the use of the term "power trail" since it seems to be a euphemism for repetition, which has never seemed particularly powerful to me. But it has always seemed to me that defining a repetitive trail is not that difficult. As Justice Stewart said in another context, "I know it when I see it." An attribute, then, could easily be applied. Even if someone chose to misuse it with only one or two caches, I could ignore those as easily as I could ignore a repetitive trail. And If I wanted to find a trail, it would not be difficult to determine if I wanted to look for two caches, two hundred, or two thousand.

 

I've wondered where the term came from also......power in numbers ??

Share this post


Link to post

I have never understood the use of the term "power trail" since it seems to be a euphemism for repetition, which has never seemed particularly powerful to me.

 

I guess it sounds better than Tedium Trail.

Share this post


Link to post
I have never understood the use of the term "power trail" [...]
I've wondered where the term came from also......power in numbers ??
Originally, the term "power trail" didn't imply repetition. It did mean a trail with densely placed caches, but not the kind of numbers we think of today. One of the early power trails around here is still used for the geocaching classes organized by the county parks department. Over the course of two or three hours, new geocachers can visit a dozen different caches, encountering a variety of containers, sizes, camouflage techniques, and hide styles in the process.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm guessing the term came into use after some people began calling cachers who were very active 'power cachers'.

These trails would be attractive to those cachers who wanted to find a lot of caches in a short period of time.

 

I think this would be a valuable attribute to add to the selection.

Share this post


Link to post
I have never understood the use of the term "power trail" [...]
I've wondered where the term came from also......power in numbers ??
Originally, the term "power trail" didn't imply repetition. It did mean a trail with densely placed caches, but not the kind of numbers we think of today. One of the early power trails around here is still used for the geocaching classes organized by the county parks department. Over the course of two or three hours, new geocachers can visit a dozen different caches, encountering a variety of containers, sizes, camouflage techniques, and hide styles in the process.

 

Due to the guideline prohibiting power trails, the early power trails formed haphazardly. Often someone would place a cache or two along a trail and others came along and filled in the gaps over time. At least that resulted in some variety and they were on actual trails.

Edited by briansnat

Share this post


Link to post

I'd really like an attribute, something like this pt.png That I can tick off and be spared these things (so long as Cache Owners use the attribute.)

 

I guess the issue is right there. <_<

 

Personally I usually don't rely on attributes to find caches which suit my taste. As for powertrails, they simply don't show up in my Pocket Queries. Like all other microcaches.

Share this post


Link to post

I, too, have been on th ebandwagon for a new cache type or an attribute for power trails ever since they started. Jeremy stated it would never happen because he did not want to include anything that would be exclusionary. I guess he never really got that folks that WANT to do power trails could use it also.

 

In any case, as for using the attribute, it is an issue but there are couple of ways to deal with it. One, which I am not too kene on, would be to require it to be used on any series of caches of a set criteria unless an exception is granted by the reviewer. Another would be to keep it voluntary, but cachers could get a list of waypoints and email that to Groundspeak, their reviewer, or the cache owner(s) to encourage the PT attribute be included on the PT caches.

 

If we had the PT attribute, I can guarantee that I would use the 2nd option and send emails to the COs to ask that they add the attribute to their caches.

 

To get them on retroactively, especially for the long PTs, Groundspeak could help COs by accepting lists of cache ID's and going in behind the scenes and applying the attributes in batches.

 

And, unfortunately, I have to agree with briansnat. Not that I don't want to agree with him, but I, too, feel like the game is being overrun with PTs, at least in the rural settings. Instead of just having the occasional cache in interesting or scenic spots along backroads, there are strings and strings of mundane hides. There may still be sme good ones mixed among the PT hides, but who wants to go through what it takes to isolate them? It's a shame that otherwise good caches are likely being ignored because they are overwhelmed by surrounding PTs. I know some folks enjoy these things, but I can't help wishing that the guidelines had been enforced and that these things had never come about.

Share this post


Link to post
I have never understood the use of the term "power trail" [...]
I've wondered where the term came from also......power in numbers ??
Originally, the term "power trail" didn't imply repetition. It did mean a trail with densely placed caches, but not the kind of numbers we think of today. One of the early power trails around here is still used for the geocaching classes organized by the county parks department. Over the course of two or three hours, new geocachers can visit a dozen different caches, encountering a variety of containers, sizes, camouflage techniques, and hide styles in the process.

 

Due to the guideline prohibiting power trails, the early power trails formed haphazardly. Often someone would place a cache or two along a trail and others came along and filled in the gaps over time. At least that resulted in some variety and they were on actual trails.

 

Yes....I don't mind the "power trails" that grow organically. At least there's some variety in containers and hides and COs. One individual or group doesn't hog the whole rail-to-trail with free leaky pill bottles or rusty coffee tins every .1 miles. Usually people can invest a little more money in a quality container if they're planting one or two caches along a trail that may already have a few caches. And usually those caches are a variety of distances apart, not predictably one every .1 miles.

Share this post


Link to post

I'd vote no. Any class of cache that would rely on an attribute seems destined to not be selected by COs and personally I think the definition can vary greatly so it would be hard to implement. I will save my opinion on power trails in general and not say that here. I mean, someone could list 30 lamp post parking lots in a row and call that a power trail. 10 in a row? Scattered in a desert but a high volume of caches but not on a trail is a power trail? Geo Art? I am not sure I even understand a definition.

Share this post


Link to post

Any class of cache that would rely on an attribute seems destined to not be selected by COs

 

They may not select it, but I bet they'd get plenty of emails and online comments asking why their PT caches don't have the attribute. Perhaps that would convince them to add the attribute.

Share this post


Link to post

To Groundspeak Powers That Be (aka The Frog) -

 

Please, may we have a Power Trail / Power Caching Attribute added? I've been planning a trip for months and now I'm about to embark on it I find my Pocket Queries are constantly clobbered by these high density trails and desert artwork, meaning I get fewer of the caches I'm looking for in my query.

 

I'd really like an attribute, something like this pt.png That I can tick off and be spared these things (so long as Cache Owners use the attribute.)

 

(Please don't go on about GSAK and how I can spend a lot of time mucking about in it, because the whole Idea of Pocket Queries is convenience, with a simple tick I can get the wide ranging queries which will make my trip more enjoyable.)

 

Thanks for your consideration.

I agree. I have had this problem on trips and the only way I found around it was to exclude micros, works but not the best way. As I live near a power trail that I really don't wish to find, I've had to add them, one by one, to my ignore list.

 

So Lilly Pad please give us an attribute.

I know the OP mentioned he has issues or it reads like that with GSAK but power trails are set by one cacher, so just delete that cachers hides with GSAK. It is easy to spot PT on the map this would give the name of the cacher that own hide that you want to ignore. Now I lknow a lot of cacher may not like my next idea. I have seen PT that have been made up of illegal hides, in these cases a cacher should post a NA log. How ever most cachers are affraid to post a NA log

Share this post


Link to post

To Groundspeak Powers That Be (aka The Frog) -

 

Please, may we have a Power Trail / Power Caching Attribute added? I've been planning a trip for months and now I'm about to embark on it I find my Pocket Queries are constantly clobbered by these high density trails and desert artwork, meaning I get fewer of the caches I'm looking for in my query.

 

I'd really like an attribute, something like this pt.png That I can tick off and be spared these things (so long as Cache Owners use the attribute.)

 

(Please don't go on about GSAK and how I can spend a lot of time mucking about in it, because the whole Idea of Pocket Queries is convenience, with a simple tick I can get the wide ranging queries which will make my trip more enjoyable.)

 

Thanks for your consideration.

I agree. I have had this problem on trips and the only way I found around it was to exclude micros, works but not the best way. As I live near a power trail that I really don't wish to find, I've had to add them, one by one, to my ignore list.

 

So Lilly Pad please give us an attribute.

I know the OP mentioned he has issues or it reads like that with GSAK but power trails are set by one cacher, so just delete that cachers hides with GSAK. It is easy to spot PT on the map this would give the name of the cacher that own hide that you want to ignore. Now I lknow a lot of cacher may not like my next idea. I have seen PT that have been made up of illegal hides, in these cases a cacher should post a NA log. How ever most cachers are affraid to post a NA log

 

Yes, the GSAK technique will normally work as we've heard many times before. The exception being those PTs put out as a cooperative effort of mutiple cache hiders. In any case, that does not not any good in how the PT caches impact PQs. It should not be necessary to run some combination of PQs to be able to get the caches you want after using GSAK to filter out those you don't, especially when there are a variety of solutions that can be put in place to be able to filter them out (or in, for that matter) at the PQ level.

Share this post


Link to post

I know the OP mentioned he has issues or it reads like that with GSAK but power trails are set by one cacher, so just delete that cachers hides with GSAK. It is easy to spot PT on the map this would give the name of the cacher that own hide that you want to ignore. Now I lknow a lot of cacher may not like my next idea. I have seen PT that have been made up of illegal hides, in these cases a cacher should post a NA log. How ever most cachers are affraid to post a NA log

 

The bigger issue is having multiple queries to cover an area so I can use some tool to weed them out. I can easily write a script without GSAK to filter anything, I'm a systems developer when not caching. I'd just prefer not to get them at all in a PQ, or perhaps I feel slightly numbers-ish and wish to run a section of a trail. I have done parts of trails before, usually not entire ones because it does start to feel like work at some point or I suffer a repetitive stress injury from scribbling "DragonsWest xx/xx/xx" too many times and have to retire to my beer cooler.

 

Above all, I don't ask this merely for myself, but for the benefit of others.

Share this post


Link to post

Perhaps there is a little better option along the lines of the "Beginner Cache highlight" that GC.com already does.

 

How about some king of automatic option or flag that turns on when there are 3+ caches within a 1000ft proximity of a cache?

 

This would exactly filter out power trails, but perhaps in conjunction with another attribute (or favorite points percentage) this could work.

 

One of the advantages is in non PT dense areas, you can find a small cluster of caches that you can hike to when you have some time to kill.

Edited by nikcap

Share this post


Link to post

Power Trail Attribute totally forgotten and buried thought, or is the time now ripe for a new attribute. In fact, I often longed for this attribute.

Share this post


Link to post

Power Trail Attribute totally forgotten and buried thought, or is the time now ripe for a new attribute. In fact, I often longed for this attribute.

Probably not forgotten, just not something seen as all that pressing. Much more support for some sort of change to Challenge Listings, whether it's an attribute or a new cache type.

Share this post


Link to post

Power Trail Attribute totally forgotten and buried thought, or is the time now ripe for a new attribute. In fact, I often longed for this attribute.

Probably not forgotten, just not something seen as all that pressing. Much more support for some sort of change to Challenge Listings, whether it's an attribute or a new cache type.

Yep,, the more important, helpful, and might i say, logical ideas, seem to always be put on the back burner. Actually, i doubt this one is even on the stove. :(

 

Since i'm here though, i'll go ahead and add my request for a power trail attribute one more time.

Share this post


Link to post

Power Trail Attribute totally forgotten and buried thought, or is the time now ripe for a new attribute. In fact, I often longed for this attribute.

Probably not forgotten, just not something seen as all that pressing. Much more support for some sort of change to Challenge Listings, whether it's an attribute or a new cache type.

Yep,, the more important, helpful, and might i say, logical ideas, seem to always be put on the back burner. Actually, i doubt this one is even on the stove. :(

 

Since i'm here though, i'll go ahead and add my request for a power trail attribute one more time.

 

It would be so useful for those who are power trails enthusiasts, and those who wish to avoid power trails.

 

I've long accepted that this form of the game is here to stay, but I really wish we could draw a sharper line where we can say this power trail behaviour is acceptable on those caches, but not these. An attribute would be a step in the right direction.

Share this post


Link to post

Power Trail Attribute totally forgotten and buried thought, or is the time now ripe for a new attribute. In fact, I often longed for this attribute.

Probably not forgotten, just not something seen as all that pressing. Much more support for some sort of change to Challenge Listings, whether it's an attribute or a new cache type.

Yep,, the more important, helpful, and might i say, logical ideas, seem to always be put on the back burner. Actually, i doubt this one is even on the stove. :(

 

Since i'm here though, i'll go ahead and add my request for a power trail attribute one more time.

 

It would be so useful for those who are power trails enthusiasts, and those who wish to avoid power trails.

 

I've long accepted that this form of the game is here to stay, but I really wish we could draw a sharper line where we can say this power trail behaviour is acceptable on those caches, but not these. An attribute would be a step in the right direction.

Precisely! Having this attribute available would be a win win for most everyone.

 

Would be nice to hear from Groundspeak as to why they are so resistant to implementing this.

Share this post


Link to post

Last time someone was curious enough to bring it up (once...) at an event, most said it wouldn't be used there because a "power trail" (to them) is the ET highway and similar.

 

There's quite a few trails that have "filled themselves in" over time with different cachers, but looks like many here don't look at 'em as power trails. :)

Share this post


Link to post

Since "power trail" could be seen as negative, what if it's a litlte more neutral like labeling it "cache trail" or something more literal than symbolic or subjective. That is, a cache with the attribute is considered (by the CO) to be amongst others along the same trail. In my mind that would refer to caches that in order to get to them you'd be passing at least a couple of other nearby caches (as opposed to a roadside series).

That could I think more appropriately refer to 'organically' grown trails (one cache on the trail could have the attribute and a search would indicate a trail of caches for those looking for a hike/bike/etc trail), or a difficult cache trail series, or a cut'n'paste power trail, or geoart caches placed along a trail, or a series composed of a variety of hides intended to take time to find each, etc. Essentially, "to get this cache, you could have a 'trail' experience by finding others while on your trip to find this one".

 

If someone infers that "cache trail" means "power trail" (negatively) they could ignore them but easily be missing out on some great caches. But I think the sense for them is that they'd want to ignore closely knit caches, either on principle or for practical PQ queries and whatnot.

 

Also "power trail" apparently isn't a global term, whereas something like "cache trail" is more indicative of what it actually is :P

*shrug* just thinking aloud. In text.

Share this post


Link to post

Don't worry -- this feature is already in the system

 

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

I believe the post was, "We have the request in our database to create a "part of a series" attribute.

 

That's not quite the same...

 

I believe there is cogent discussion about those very differences in that thread, and subsequent request threads:

 

Share this post


Link to post

Last time someone was curious enough to bring it up (once...) at an event, most said it wouldn't be used there because a "power trail" (to them) is the ET highway and similar.

 

There's quite a few trails that have "filled themselves in" over time with different cachers, but looks like many here don't look at 'em as power trails. :)

 

I have seen that "but not everyone will use it" argument before. To me, it doesn't matter if a large collection of caches is called a power trail, a number trail, or a series. The fact is, we don't have any way of identifying a large group of caches, placed by the person (or group of people) for the purposes of providing a large number of caches that can be found in a short amount of time. Even if only some use the attribute (and I don't care what it's called....it could be Attribute #47) that's more than are using it now. Rather than waiting for everyone to agree on the definition of a power trail so that the perfect solution can be created, a lot of cachers would still benefit from an imperfect solution that identifies a very large number of caches.

Edited by NYPaddleCacher

Share this post


Link to post

Last time someone was curious enough to bring it up (once...) at an event, most said it wouldn't be used there because a "power trail" (to them) is the ET highway and similar.

 

There's quite a few trails that have "filled themselves in" over time with different cachers, but looks like many here don't look at 'em as power trails. :)

I have seen that "but not everyone will use it" argument before. To me, it doesn't matter if a large collection of caches is called a power trail, a number trail, or a series. The fact is, we don't have any way of identifying a large group of caches, placed by the person (or group of people) for the purposes of providing a large number of caches that can be found in a short amount of time. Even if only some use the attribute (and I don't care what it's called....it could be Attribute #47) that's more than are using it now. Rather than waiting for everyone to agree on the definition of a power trail so that the perfect solution can be created, a lot of cachers would still benefit from an imperfect solution that identifies a very large number of caches.

And you still won't have that identification if folks won't/don't/differ how they use it. :laughing:

 

To you it may not matter, but I'd bet there's many who believe there's a World of difference between PTs, numbers runs, and a series.

 

Guess I don't see any "benefit" of a search that differs by location. :)

Share this post


Link to post

No attribute is perfect. Every attribute can be abused. The question is is the implied definition of the attribute sufficient to provide more benefit with its existence than troubles? I think a lot of us here believe that it would in the case of a whatever-you-want-to-call-it attribute identifying a closely-knit collection of caches along a trail.

Share this post


Link to post

Last time someone was curious enough to bring it up (once...) at an event, most said it wouldn't be used there because a "power trail" (to them) is the ET highway and similar.

 

There's quite a few trails that have "filled themselves in" over time with different cachers, but looks like many here don't look at 'em as power trails. :)

I have seen that "but not everyone will use it" argument before. To me, it doesn't matter if a large collection of caches is called a power trail, a number trail, or a series. The fact is, we don't have any way of identifying a large group of caches, placed by the person (or group of people) for the purposes of providing a large number of caches that can be found in a short amount of time. Even if only some use the attribute (and I don't care what it's called....it could be Attribute #47) that's more than are using it now. Rather than waiting for everyone to agree on the definition of a power trail so that the perfect solution can be created, a lot of cachers would still benefit from an imperfect solution that identifies a very large number of caches.

And you still won't have that identification if folks won't/don't/differ how they use it. :laughing:

 

To you it may not matter, but I'd bet there's many who believe there's a World of difference between PTs, numbers runs, and a series.

 

Guess I don't see any "benefit" of a search that differs by location. :)

 

My point is that even if the attribute does not perfectly identify every power trail, numbers run, or series it's better than nothing at all. If a small percentage, say 10% of all power trails used a power trail attribute, that's 10% more than what we have now.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

My point is that even if the attribute does not perfectly identify every power trail, numbers run, or series it's better than nothing at all. If a small percentage, say 10% of all power trails used a power trail attribute, that's 10% more than what we have now.

However, if that attribute was called "Part of a series" and was thus applied to non-power-trail series of caches in addition to the power trails, it becomes useless because it loses its selectivity. If there's going to be a "series" attribute, there also needs to be a "power trail" attribute in conjunction. Conflating the two into one attribute wouldn't help.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
My point is that even if the attribute does not perfectly identify every power trail, numbers run, or series it's better than nothing at all. If a small percentage, say 10% of all power trails used a power trail attribute, that's 10% more than what we have now.
However, if that attribute was called "Part of a series" and was thus applied to non-power-trail series of caches in addition to the power trails, it becomes useless because it loses its selectivity. If there's going to be a "series" attribute, there also needs to be a "power trail" attribute in conjunction. Conflating the two into one attribute wouldn't help.
I think a "Part of a Series" attribute is completely pointless, if taken at face value. I never want to select caches that are part of a series, any series, whatever series might be out there. And that's all the "Part of a Series" attribute would be, if taken at face value.

 

But if Groundspeak does create a "Part of a Series" attribute, then I expect that it will be used to identify large groups of fungible caches placed to allow geocachers to maximize their find rate during numbers runs. Its use to identify other caches that happen to be part of some other series will be minimal, in part because using the attribute that way is pointless, and in part because cache owners will figure out that using it that way causes geocachers to treat their caches as though they were fungible caches placed to allow geocachers to maximize their find rate during numbers runs.

Share this post


Link to post

Since "power trail" could be seen as negative, what if it's a litlte more neutral like labeling it "cache trail" or something more literal than symbolic or subjective.

Only people that don't like power trails view "power trail" as a negative. People that own power trails obviously see them as a positive. I would expect them to want to flag their power trails appropriately. Using a more neutral label works against the goals both by discouraging power trail owners from thinking the flag is meant for them and encouraging non-power trail owners to think their cache series should be flagged.

 

I have seen that "but not everyone will use it" argument before. To me, it doesn't matter if a large collection of caches is called a power trail, a number trail, or a series. The fact is, we don't have any way of identifying a large group of caches, placed by the person (or group of people) for the purposes of providing a large number of caches that can be found in a short amount of time. Even if only some use the attribute (and I don't care what it's called....it could be Attribute #47) that's more than are using it now. Rather than waiting for everyone to agree on the definition of a power trail so that the perfect solution can be created, a lot of cachers would still benefit from an imperfect solution that identifies a very large number of caches.

I agree with you, but, on the other hand, I don't really think the definition is hard to pin down at all: I consider "a series of caches that the CO considers to be a power trail" to be the perfect definition of "power trail". Happily, that also means that, by definition, it cannot be abused.

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 5

×