Jump to content

Power Trail Attribute - Please!


DragonsWest

Recommended Posts

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 disagree. There are many cache series that have characteristics more in common than a power trail (except for the matter of scale) than caches independently placed with no relation to other caches. The experience one has finding 75 caches on a duct tape series (and yes, that's a thing) isn't going to be much different than finding 75 caches on a 400 cache power trail. In many cases, a power trail is just a very long series. If someone places a series of caches, but tries to use a variety of hiding styles and containers, then don't use the part of series attribute.

 

 

Link to comment

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 realize that only people who don't like "power trails" view it as negative, that's a given :P. That was the point - there may be caches that are on a trail that don't necessarily provide the "power trail [negative]" experience, and so those who see it as negative might just filter it out without a second thought. If it were a more neutral definition, then it would be applicable to caches that provide the power trail experience, and caches that just share a trail which could be enjoyed by people who love power trails and those who despise them. it would merely then be a flag that "hey, this is one of a number of caches close to each other on a trail". It can be used to identify good hiking trails - per the example of one or two along a trail having the attribute, and thus showing on a map and potentially drawing people to that trail despite the other caches not having the attribute; and if someone filters such caches out, at least they're not under the impression that they're only hiding "power trails", but could also be hiding quality caches that happen to be on a cache trail.

 

Just saying, I think "power trail" has enough subjective connotations, good and bad, that a more neutral name/label might be better, since it will most likely be applied to more than just "power trail" caches, and would thus be more indicative of what it'd generally be used for.

 

And per my previous comment, no attribute is perfect; every attribute can be misused or misapplied, or not applied at all. But every attribute has an implied meaning, and that should be a sufficiently trustworthy definition, whether filtering for or filtering out. Whatever this one is called, I think it's unique enough in its purpose that its benefits and accuracy in use would far outweigh any potential issues.

Link to comment

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 realize that only people who don't like "power trails" view it as negative, that's a given :P. That was the point - there may be caches that are on a trail that don't necessarily provide the "power trail [negative]" experience, and so those who see it as negative might just filter it out without a second thought. If it were a more neutral definition, then it would be applicable to caches that provide the power trail experience, and caches that just share a trail which could be enjoyed by people who love power trails and those who despise them. it would merely then be a flag that "hey, this is one of a number of caches close to each other on a trail". It can be used to identify good hiking trails - per the example of one or two along a trail having the attribute, and thus showing on a map and potentially drawing people to that trail despite the other caches not having the attribute; and if someone filters such caches out, at least they're not under the impression that they're only hiding "power trails", but could also be hiding quality caches that happen to be on a cache trail.

 

Just saying, I think "power trail" has enough subjective connotations, good and bad, that a more neutral name/label might be better, since it will most likely be applied to more than just "power trail" caches, and would thus be more indicative of what it'd generally be used for.

 

And per my previous comment, no attribute is perfect; every attribute can be misused or misapplied, or not applied at all. But every attribute has an implied meaning, and that should be a sufficiently trustworthy definition, whether filtering for or filtering out. Whatever this one is called, I think it's unique enough in its purpose that its benefits and accuracy in use would far outweigh any potential issues.

 

I don't see why a cache owner, whose cache happens to be on a trail near other caches placed by different owners at different times, would add this attribute to their stand-alone cache.

 

It would obviously be used by owners who intend their caches to be done all together as a power/numbers trail. It would benefit those who want to do numbers runs and those who don't.

Edited by narcissa
Link to comment

Just saying, I think "power trail" has enough subjective connotations, good and bad, that a more neutral name/label might be better, since it will most likely be applied to more than just "power trail" caches, and would thus be more indicative of what it'd generally be used for.

I'm not really convinced "power trail" is all that subjective, but I don't really care because, as I just said, I think correct definition -- not only logically, but also in what people want to filter for -- is whether the CO intends the cache to be part of a power trail. Specifically, a power trail. Very few people are interested in filtering caches in or out based on whether they in some neutral term for series. That would make the attribute uselessly subjective.

Link to comment

I don't see why a cache owner, whose cache happens to be on a trail near other caches placed by different owners at different times, would add this attribute to their stand-alone cache.

 

It would obviously be used by owners who intend their caches to be done all together as a power/numbers trail. It would benefit those who want to do numbers runs and those who don't.

Yes, that's exactly what I said.

"the example of one or two along a trail having the attribute, and thus showing on a map and potentially drawing people to that trail despite the other caches not having the attribute"

You can infer that the ones not having the attribute are the COs who chose not to include it. If one or more others on the trail has it, then tha can identify the trail as having a number of closely knit caches to be found. Which, in turn, is beneficial to those who want to do numbers runs and those who don't.

 

I'm not really convinced "power trail" is all that subjective, but I don't really care because, as I just said, I think correct definition -- not only logically, but also in what people want to filter for -- is whether the CO intends the cache to be part of a power trail. Specifically, a power trail. Very few people are interested in filtering caches in or out based on whether they in some neutral term for series. That would make the attribute uselessly subjective.

Sure, I'm just saying, COs of caches along a trail that they don't intend to be considered a "power trail" may still use the attribute if it were just implying a "cache trail". I'd love to have the ability to filter and see trails of caches, then be able to judge for myself if they are indeed "power" (speedy, high numbers, likely run-of-the-mill) trails of caches, or a nice walk through a forest trail, or a geoart series that ends up being conveniently along a trail (as opposed to finals scattered all around a town), etc. I can think of a number of situations where caches may exist along a trail and not be considered a "power trail" necessarily, whether by the CO or finders. Also, for older caches on a trail for which the attribute hasn't been added (or won't be), if I see a lone cache out there with the atttribute, it might direct me to check for what that trail actually is like and find caches on a trail I otherwise might miss.

 

Now of course, practically speaking, all that can be done exactly the same whether called the "power trail" attribute "cache trail" or "pikachu trail" - but I think one of those labels would be more indicative of the variety of cache styles it represents :)

Perhaps another way to say it, I'd consider power trail to be a subset of cache trail.

Or, like the hazard attributes indicate what could be encountered nearby, cache trail can also be an indicator of numerous nearby caches =P

 

"power trail" implies how one is intended to find the cache, the intended experience (and thus people may ignore them because they dislike power trails on principle)

"cache trail" is a descriptor of the cache and its nearby environment (more akin to the purpose of attributes). You could ignore them if you want, but you could also be ignoring caches that wouldn't actually provide the "power trail" experience you dislike so much.

I think it would also be easier to determine what should/shouldn't have the attribute as it's more objective than the 'desire' to be associated with a power trail or not. -- even though there'd be no requirement that a cache have or not have it, or that the attribute status is accurate, just as with any other attribute.

 

Whatever it's called, I would be in support of having the attribute as its practical application seems, to me, to be quite clear and useful.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

I don't see why a cache owner, whose cache happens to be on a trail near other caches placed by different owners at different times, would add this attribute to their stand-alone cache.

 

It would obviously be used by owners who intend their caches to be done all together as a power/numbers trail. It would benefit those who want to do numbers runs and those who don't.

Yes, that's exactly what I said.

"the example of one or two along a trail having the attribute, and thus showing on a map and potentially drawing people to that trail despite the other caches not having the attribute"

You can infer that the ones not having the attribute are the COs who chose not to include it. If one or more others on the trail has it, then tha can identify the trail as having a number of closely knit caches to be found. Which, in turn, is beneficial to those who want to do numbers runs and those who don't.

 

Sorry, I misunderstood you!

 

It's never going to be perfect, but it sure would be nice to have.

 

And I think community feedback from both power trail enthusiasts and power trail avoiders would help it get implemented retroactively on many caches that have already been published.

Link to comment

Sure, I'm just saying, COs of caches along a trail that they don't intend to be considered a "power trail" may still use the attribute if it were just implying a "cache trail". I'd love to have the ability to filter and see trails of caches, then be able to judge for myself if they are indeed "power" (speedy, high numbers, likely run-of-the-mill) trails of caches, or a nice walk through a forest trail, or a geoart series that ends up being conveniently along a trail (as opposed to finals scattered all around a town), etc. I can think of a number of situations where caches may exist along a trail and not be considered a "power trail" necessarily, whether by the CO or finders. Also, for older caches on a trail for which the attribute hasn't been added (or won't be), if I see a lone cache out there with the atttribute, it might direct me to check for what that trail actually is like and find caches on a trail I otherwise might miss.

That might be an interesting attribute, but it's not the one requested. The OP wants an attribute that allows him to filter out caches that have no purposes other than to be part of a power trail. He has determined, as have many people, that those caches will be uninteresting. He's going somewhere where those caches dominate the area, so he doesn't want them to get in the way of his non-power trail geocaching. Your more general "cache trail" attribute would filtered out caches he'd be interested in. In fact, I'd go so far as to guess that someone caching out west where power trails dominate would be more interested in trails of normal caches than anything else.

Link to comment

That might be an interesting attribute, but it's not the one requested. The OP wants an attribute that allows him to filter out caches that have no purposes other than to be part of a power trail. He has determined, as have many people, that those caches will be uninteresting. He's going somewhere where those caches dominate the area, so he doesn't want them to get in the way of his non-power trail geocaching. Your more general "cache trail" attribute would filtered out caches he'd be interested in. In fact, I'd go so far as to guess that someone caching out west where power trails dominate would be more interested in trails of normal caches than anything else.

Exactly. So my point is that I don't think a "power trail" attribute would be as beneficial as a more widely applicable/informative "cache trail" type attribute. I don't think labeling only "power trail" caches would be a more positive help than an attribute identifying caches along a trail in general. But that's just my opinion. Though I'd just share it though here for a bit of discussion about what the attribute's practical use could look like.

 

If it's a "power trail" attribute, I see a lot of the criticism and annoyance happening that's been mentioned earlier in the thread. ...Not wanting to be associated with "power trails" despite being on a trail of other caches; not wanting to use the power trail attribute for fear of being excluded from searches, etc, etc.

I personally think that a "power trail" attribute could lead to more angst by its connotation than a more descriptive (than prescriptive) "cache trail" attribute. That's all I'm a-sayin'.

Link to comment
So my point is that I don't think a "power trail" attribute would be as beneficial as a more widely applicable/informative "cache trail" type attribute.

 

I disagree. Based on what the local power cachers have told me, they are far more interested in a power trail (tons of low-difficulty, low-terrain caches every 0.1 miles) than they are in a cache trail (potentially a hiking trail with higher difficulty and terrain).

 

I don't see the two kinds of trails as particularly similar.

Link to comment
So my point is that I don't think a "power trail" attribute would be as beneficial as a more widely applicable/informative "cache trail" type attribute.

 

I disagree. Based on what the local power cachers have told me, they are far more interested in a power trail (tons of low-difficulty, low-terrain caches every 0.1 miles) than they are in a cache trail (potentially a hiking trail with higher difficulty and terrain).

 

I don't see the two kinds of trails as particularly similar.

A search for the attribute would include power trails. It wouldn't be hard to spot a good power trail on the map with the search, or identify one by name/series, as one would typically do when seeking a place/trail to go caching. I'd wager that most caches using a 'cache trail' attribute would still indeed be generally considered power trails anyway.

 

It's not a significant difference, but again, it's more the difference between a prescriptive label and a descriptive label.

Link to comment

If someone places a series of caches, but tries to use a variety of hiding styles and containers, then don't use the part of series attribute.

It isn't that easy. How is that cacher supposed to know that applying an attribute that seems to match their caches could be detrimental (ie. could result in their caches being accidentally filtered out)? We've already seen that some attributes with ambiguous names (e.g. "Winter friendly") lose their effectiveness because everyone uses them differently and there's no clear definition of what they mean. Without any additional guidance (which doesn't exist for attributes except with a few rare exceptions), I don't see why someone would not apply "Part of a series" or a similarly-named attribute to their 10-cache series, because it seems to fit like a glove.

 

I really don't see why it needs to be so difficult. We need an attribute to cover caches that are part of a stereotypical powertrail. The owners of powertrails know that their caches are referred to as "powertrails", and often call them that themselves. Let's call it "Part of a powertrail". There's no need to muddy the waters by adding ambiguity and generalizing. The whole point of the attribute is to selectively identify a narrow style of cache. If it later becomes clear that an additional attribute is desired to cover non-powertrail series of caches, then one could be introduced later.

Link to comment

Exactly. So my point is that I don't think a "power trail" attribute would be as beneficial as a more widely applicable/informative "cache trail" type attribute.

And I think you're wrong. The point is to filter out power trails. An attribute that also filters out lots of other caches wouldn't be useful.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
We need an attribute to cover caches that are part of a stereotypical powertrail. The owners of powertrails know that their caches are referred to as "powertrails", and often call them that themselves. Let's call it "Part of a powertrail". There's no need to muddy the waters by adding ambiguity and generalizing. The whole point of the attribute is to selectively identify a narrow style of cache. If it later becomes clear that an additional attribute is desired to cover non-powertrail series of caches, then one could be introduced later.

+1 Yep.

Link to comment

Exactly. So my point is that I don't think a "power trail" attribute would be as beneficial as a more widely applicable/informative "cache trail" type attribute.

And I think you're wrong. The point is to filter out power trails. An attribute that also filters out lots of other caches wouldn't be useful.

 

Sure. If the sole point is to filter out power trails, then an attribute that offers a different purpose would not be as effective.

Man, I was just attempting to address some of the concerns mentioned in the thread by offering a variation on the theme. Looks like I'm in a minority and most people really really want to either get rid of just "power" trails or really only want to be able to identify "power" trails, and would just hate to see the ability to identify non-"power" trails with caches... Oh well. I'm good either way, as I've said. Whatever it's called, it would have its use. I'd prefer to see a more descriptive attribute than prescriptive, but maybe that really is just me.

Whatchagonnado.

:omnomnom:

Link to comment
We need an attribute to cover caches that are part of a stereotypical powertrail. The owners of powertrails know that their caches are referred to as "powertrails", and often call them that themselves. Let's call it "Part of a powertrail". There's no need to muddy the waters by adding ambiguity and generalizing. The whole point of the attribute is to selectively identify a narrow style of cache. If it later becomes clear that an additional attribute is desired to cover non-powertrail series of caches, then one could be introduced later.

+1 Yep.

Yep 2!

 

People are trying to over analyze this. Cache owners know pretty well when they're placing a power trail. Finders know too that a power trail is a number of caches placed in a way that makes them easier and quicker to find. There's no mystery here, this isn't that hard to figure out. An attribute won't make things perfect but it would certainly help many people to look for or avoid power trails.

Link to comment
The point is to filter out power trails. An attribute that also filters out lots of other caches wouldn't be useful.
I think the point could be also to filter in power trails, so people using techniques that are not appropriate for other caches could more easily restrict such techniques to power trail caches. Unique caches that happen to be near a power trail might not be treated like power trail caches as often. (Yeah, I know, wishful thinking...)

 

And if there is an inverse attribute ("Not part of a power trail"), then I'm sure some cache owners would like to use that as a way to indicate that such techniques are not acceptable for their caches. (Again, wishful thinking...)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
The point is to filter out power trails. An attribute that also filters out lots of other caches wouldn't be useful.
I think the point could be also to filter in power trails, so people using techniques that are not appropriate for other caches could more easily restrict such techniques to power trail caches. Unique caches that happen to be near a power trail might not be treated like power trail caches as often. (Yeah, I know, wishful thinking...)

 

And if there is an inverse attribute ("Not part of a power trail"), then I'm sure some cache owners would like to use that as a way to indicate that such techniques are not acceptable for their caches. (Again, wishful thinking...)

 

Good points. What some people seem to be missing is that "part of a power trail" and "not part of a power trail" are not statistically interchangeable.

 

Consider a PQ I did recently around GCKJDC. Unless I was very careful, more than 75% of the caches in the PQ were power trail caches. Other nearby locations, you easily hit 90%.

 

Now suppose you, like me, do not enjoy power trails. I had to get rid of the PT-like caches in GSAK by deleting caches along the roadway; but what if there were actually some good caches in there? No way for me to tell, so I was stuck with an unavoidable false negative rate.

 

On the other hand, if you enjoy power trails, then, to begin with, most of the caches in the PQ would be your style. Also, it would be very easy to eliminate most of the others with terrain and difficulty filters and a caches-along-a-route PQ. And then, even if you did include non-PT caches (low terrain, low difficulty, and right next to the road), I submit you would probably be happy to find them anyway.

 

That's why a power trail attribute would be so useful.

Link to comment

Sure. If the sole point is to filter out power trails, then an attribute that offers a different purpose would not be as effective.

My take on this thread is that that is, in fact, the sole point of the attribute being requested.

 

Man, I was just attempting to address some of the concerns mentioned in the thread by offering a variation on the theme.

As I said, you have an interesting idea for a useful attribute. I'm all for it. But it does something completely unlike the requested feature.

 

I think the point could be also to filter in power trails, so people using techniques that are not appropriate for other caches could more easily restrict such techniques to power trail caches.

If would also be useful for that, but I see no reason to think anyone would do that. Someone going after a power trail will still want other caches in the area. Even if they were inclined to skip the nearby non-power caches, they'd still want other caches so they'd see things like a cache in the parking lot when they stop for lunch. In the areas where this attribute would be useful, the number of non-power trail caches is comparatively small, so it wouldn't be interesting to filter them out.

 

And if there is an inverse attribute ("Not part of a power trail"), then I'm sure some cache owners would like to use that as a way to indicate that such techniques are not acceptable for their caches. (Again, wishful thinking...)

One hopes everyone understands that power trail techniques are not acceptable on non-power trail caches with or without a "not a power trail" attribute. On the other hand, perhaps this is the attribute thebruce0 is looking for: people with caches in a series that is not a power trail could clarify that even though this might look like a power trail, it's not.

Link to comment

Sure. If the sole point is to filter out power trails, then an attribute that offers a different purpose would not be as effective.

My take on this thread is that that is, in fact, the sole point of the attribute being requested.

Yes. I understand that. Which is why I discussed other ways something like that could be implemented, because there were concerns and drawbacks mentioned. Otherwise, what is there to discuss? Yes or no for the request and that's it? Can't allow suggesting any changes in an attempt to improve the idea and address any problems raised? That's all I was hoping to do. If I'm alone on it, then oh well, it was worth a shot ;)

 

Man, I was just attempting to address some of the concerns mentioned in the thread by offering a variation on the theme.

As I said, you have an interesting idea for a useful attribute. I'm all for it. But it does something completely unlike the requested feature.

I completely disagree. :P See below.

 

I think the point could be also to filter in power trails, so people using techniques that are not appropriate for other caches could more easily restrict such techniques to power trail caches.

Right, and "using techniques" is the prescriptive issue with the attribute specifically indicating "power trail" caches rather than the supserset of "caches along a trail"

 

And if there is an inverse attribute ("Not part of a power trail"), then I'm sure some cache owners would like to use that as a way to indicate that such techniques are not acceptable for their caches. (Again, wishful thinking...)

One hopes everyone understands that power trail techniques are not acceptable on non-power trail caches with or without a "not a power trail" attribute. On the other hand, perhaps this is the attribute thebruce0 is looking for: people with caches in a series that is not a power trail could clarify that even though this might look like a power trail, it's not.

Precisely. Or, well, if "not part of a power trail" was meant for the same instance of cache that might otherwise have the "cache trail" applied and not the "power trail".

 

Sort of like, there are three cases:

* Caches with no attribute (can't filter in or out, status unknown)

* Caches part of a power trail - either A] "power trail", or B] "cache trail"

* Caches on a trail, not "power" - either A] "power trail", or B] "cache trail"

If "Power trail" is an attribute, it would follow that there'd be a desire by many for the inverse.

+ With the PT attribute people could search for trails they'd want to power through.

- However caches not Power that are on a trail would remain unsearchable, unfilterable. Some of us might still like to see those trails though (not just long stretches of quick grabs), even though they're not considered Power by the CO. Can't do that for non-"power" trails

+ People who don't want to do Power trail caches can filter them out, but

- they would still get clumps and trails of caches on a trail even though they're not considered Power by the CO -- they can still take up precious PQ space.

- COs of those cache may get contacted with requests to add the PT attribute, though they don't want to because it's not a Power trail cache, just a trail of caches.

+ The benefits of the PT attribute would really be most useful for people searching for PTs specifically, owned by COs who accept and identify their PT caches as such.

- Filtering out may be useful in some places, but I'd wager not as effectively as we might think.

- I don't think a "Not part of a power trail" attribute would have any use alone, without the positive attribute, and even then, what does it indicate? Is it trying to tell people not to find it in certain cases? That won't go over well. It would likely only be used by COs who come to find that a cache of theirs that used to be alone on a trail is now surrounded by power trail caches. I don't see it being used as a filter attribute, but rather more of a "if you look at the attributes and see this attribute then you'll know I don't like the fact that it's in the middle of a power trail". I mean, if someone's filtering in Power trails, do you think they'd be 'kind' enough to also filter out the negative, just so they can skip that cache as they do the trail? ...almost certainly not. They're in it for the numbers; they won't care if it has the not attribute; if it's right by them on a trail they'll find it while they're there.

 

If "Cache trail" is an attribute, it doesn't imply a style of finding, only the environment in which the cache exists.

+ it would mean that people could search for series of caches along a trail that may or may not be considered "power", or just a nice series along a trail (which in turn may still be able to be "powered" through despite the CO not considering it a power trail).

- it wouldn't distinguish between "power" caches and non-power caches, so while it may not pose an issue for the once-lone trail cache (which will still get found by power cachers just for its proximity to the power trail), a non-power cache trail may still be targeted by power-trail cachers if they feel it's worth targeting as a power trail, which the CO may not like. So why would they apply the attribute in the first place?

+ For those wanting to filter out clumps of caches in a trail system because it takes up PQ space, it would effectively remove all power trail caches and any caches simply along a trail to which the COs may otherwise not have applied a "power trail" attribute, providing a much cleaner and wider PQ result.

- one other downfall I see if this slightly superset "cache trail" attribute existed would be people to searching for power trails specifically, who might end up with some maybe shorter forest trail loops, or strings of caches following a difficult theme that means less speedy finds. But being a power trail fan myself, if I want a day of numbers, I'm already checking for trails that would be condusive to that goal. I would see no practical difference, in my search, between a "cache trail" attribute and a "power trail" attribute. I'd be doing the same work anyway before heading out.

+ The benefits of the CT attribute would really be most useful for the PQ density issue

 

So, that at least is why I'd prefer the latter, but would certainly prefer either of the above to nothing :P Neither version is perfect, and I think that both versions address different wishes and concerns while still being applicable to the general theme - power trails.

Link to comment

+ The benefits of the PT attribute would really be most useful for people searching for PTs specifically, owned by COs who accept and identify their PT caches as such.

 

No. You are Just Plain Wrong.

 

The entire push for a power trail attribute is to allow people to avoid them.

 

As I tried to patiently explain in a previous post you must have skipped, there is little need for power-trail seekers to use such an attribute, because power trails completely dominate whatever area they occupy and power-trail seekers can easily eliminate caches they are not interested in, using attributes available already.

 

Power-trail avoiders, however, have no such tools at their disposal. That's why we need the attribute.

 

It is statistically not symmetric.

 

Your generic cache trail attribute will not be useful to those wishing to filter out power trails.

 

So start a new thread about it or something, because it does not address the concerns that brought about the request for a power trail attribute.

 

I don't know how to make it any clearer.

Link to comment

+ The benefits of the PT attribute would really be most useful for people searching for PTs specifically, owned by COs who accept and identify their PT caches as such.

 

No. You are Just Plain Wrong.

 

The entire push for a power trail attribute is to allow people to avoid them.

 

As I tried to patiently explain in a previous post you must have skipped, there is little need for power-trail seekers to use such an attribute, because power trails completely dominate whatever area they occupy and power-trail seekers can easily eliminate caches they are not interested in, using attributes available already.

I would also note that once a power trail seeker has found all the caches on a power trail in an area, they may not need to use the attribute again (unless another PT in the area is created). Finding the caches will remove them from future PQ runs. A non-pt seeker will have to use the attribute every time because all those pt caches will remain unfound and always be included in a PQ result unless the attribute is used.

Power-trail avoiders, however, have no such tools at their disposal. That's why we need the attribute.

 

It is statistically not symmetric.

 

Your generic cache trail attribute will not be useful to those wishing to filter out power trails.

 

So start a new thread about it or something, because it does not address the concerns that brought about the request for a power trail attribute.

 

I don't know how to make it any clearer.

 

 

Link to comment

Wow, just got hit by fizzymagic bluntness. Oh how it stings so.

 

+ The benefits of the PT attribute would really be most useful for people searching for PTs specifically, owned by COs who accept and identify their PT caches as such.

 

No. You are Just Plain Wrong.

 

The entire push for a power trail attribute is to allow people to avoid them.

Did you read the other +'s and -'s?

 

As I tried to patiently explain in a previous post you must have skipped, there is little need for power-trail seekers to use such an attribute, because power trails completely dominate whatever area they occupy and power-trail seekers can easily eliminate caches they are not interested in, using attributes available already.

I don't disagree, and never have. But a benefit of the attribute is that it will more precisely direct power-trail seeker to power trails. That's a fact. So no, I'm not "plain wrong". You simply disagree that my analysis of the benefits and drawbacks points to seekers being most benefitted by the attribute. And that's. Just. Fine.

 

Power-trail avoiders, however, have no such tools at their disposal. That's why we need the attribute.

Did I ever disagree?

 

Your generic cache trail attribute will not be useful to those wishing to filter out power trails.

If power trail owners tag their power trails as caches on a trail, then yes, it most certainly would be useful to those wishing to filter out power trails.

 

So start a new thread about it or something, because it does not address the concerns that brought about the request for a power trail attribute.

I hope no one suggests any change whatsoever to the initial request attempting to address any concern by adjusting the suggestion in an attempt to improve it, because that would just mean a new thread should be made. dry.gif Unless of course you're willing to draw the ire and angst of those who disagree vehemently.

 

And now I'm going to bid y'all adieu and step out of this thread because it's not one I really want to be a part of any more, and I don't want to be "that guy" again. Clearly my point of view doesn't belong here, but I've made my point, so I'll just take my ball and sneak away home (despite being entirely for the attribute in principle, in whatever form)

yeeshk.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

Yes. I understand that. Which is why I discussed other ways something like that could be implemented, because there were concerns and drawbacks mentioned. Otherwise, what is there to discuss? Yes or no for the request and that's it? Can't allow suggesting any changes in an attempt to improve the idea and address any problems raised? That's all I was hoping to do. If I'm alone on it, then oh well, it was worth a shot ;)

I do not understand why you consider my polite explanation for why your alteration would nullify the purpose of the the requested attribute as an attempt to shut down discussion. It is, in fact, engaging you in discussion.

 

Right, and "using techniques" is the prescriptive issue with the attribute specifically indicating "power trail" caches rather than the supserset of "caches along a trail"

But that's the difference people want to identify, so the fact that your concept of what an attribute should reflect is at odds with the functionality people are looking for calls your concept into question, not the proposed attribute.

 

+ With the PT attribute people could search for trails they'd want to power through.

- However caches not Power that are on a trail would remain unsearchable, unfilterable. Some of us might still like to see those trails though (not just long stretches of quick grabs), even though they're not considered Power by the CO. Can't do that for non-"power" trails

They could be searched and filtered with some other new attribute that accomplishes what you want.

 

+ The benefits of the PT attribute would really be most useful for people searching for PTs specifically, owned by COs who accept and identify their PT caches as such.

- Filtering out may be useful in some places, but I'd wager not as effectively as we might think.

Since this strikes me as counter intuitive, I'll have to ask for more than an assertion. If people don't want to see power trails, then I don't understand how it could possibly not be effective for them to be able to say, explicitly, "I don't want power trails."

 

If "Cache trail" is an attribute, it doesn't imply a style of finding, only the environment in which the cache exists.

...

- it wouldn't distinguish between "power" caches and non-power caches...

So the bottom line is that it doesn't achieve the requested goal.

Link to comment

Again, this isn't complicated. We don't need to try coming up with another name for this attribute. For the most part, most everyone knows what a power trail is. Let's just call it what it is.

 

I agree that filtering for the attribute will probably be utilized more by those trying to avoid power trail caches but there's no doubt many people will use it to filter for them.

Link to comment

Your generic cache trail attribute will not be useful to those wishing to filter out power trails.

If power trail owners tag their power trails as caches on a trail, then yes, it most certainly would be useful to those wishing to filter out power trails.

 

No, it will not be useful, because in addition to filtering out power trails, it will also filter out caches that the non-power-trail user might want to include that happen to lie on, for example, a hiking trail.

 

I don't understand how that is not obvious.

Link to comment

Am I wrong in thinking that the whole idea of an attribute is to exclude or include caches? So why is anyone worried about me using a power trail attribute to exclude caches? Maybe we should just get rid of attributes all together then. You wouldn't want someone using an attribute to exclude caches based on my included picture would you?

 

Then there are those that say it relies on cache owners to use the attribute, well that is to easy to fix, I'm sure there are many who would volunteer their time to send in lists of GC codes that could easily be reviewed by the proper people and attributes added in one click.

Capturegc.JPG

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, sdkonkle said:

....well that is to easy to fix, I'm sure there are many who would volunteer their time to send in lists of GC codes that could easily be reviewed by the proper people and attributes added in one click.

Yes, and about 2 seconds for the cache owner to activate it again with "one click".  Let's not go down that rabbit hole.

Link to comment
37 minutes ago, Touchstone said:

Yes, and about 2 seconds for the cache owner to activate it again with "one click".  Let's not go down that rabbit hole.

That rabbit hole needs to be gone down until TPTB listen.

I think you meant to say deactivate... that too would be easy to avoid with a locked attribute. But why would one deactivate when the attribute could be used to include only power trails. Let people decide what caches they want to see, it's also kinda the reason for a pocket query right.

Edited by sdkonkle
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, sdkonkle said:

Then there are those that say it relies on cache owners to use the attribute, well that is to easy to fix

I think the fix is even easier than you expect. Owners of power trails already add "nonsense" attributes (like Scuba Required in the desert) to their caches to help others find (or exclude) them. I'm sure they'd use a real power trail (or numbers trail, or mega trail, or whatever) attribute if one existed.

Edited by niraD
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, niraD said:
2 hours ago, sdkonkle said:

Then there are those that say it relies on cache owners to use the attribute, well that is to easy to fix

I think the fix is even easier than you expect. Owners of power trails already add "nonsense" attributes (like Scuba Required in the desert) to their caches to help others find (or exclude) them. I'm sure they'd use a real power trail (or numbers trail, or mega trail, or whatever) attribute if one existed.

Except when you consider that PT's, by most definitions, include a large number of caches and so it would be quite time-consuming for CO's to go through hundreds of cache listing edits. Attributes are currently optional.  Unless the proposal includes making the PT attribute 'mandatory'.

 

2 hours ago, sdkonkle said:

I think you meant to say deactivate... that too would be easy to avoid with a locked attribute. But why would one deactivate when the attribute could be used to include only power trails. Let people decide what caches they want to see, it's also kinda the reason for a pocket query right.

It's one of the benefits of using a PQ, but certainly not "the reason" for using PQ's. I've created dozens of PQ's and none of them incorporated attributes in the criteria.

 

2 hours ago, sdkonkle said:

Then there are those that say it relies on cache owners to use the attribute, well that is to easy to fix, I'm sure there are many who would volunteer their time to send in lists of GC codes that could easily be reviewed by the proper people and attributes added in one click.

Not sure if TPTB have adequate resources available to spend their time reviewing and adding an attribute to lists of caches, which would number in the hundreds to thousands. And then, of course, there will be an issue when some cachers consider a series of caches as a PT, while the lackey reviewing the series doesn't consider it to be a PT.  Which then circles back to the issue of "what defines a power trail". Seems like a slippery slope.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, cerberus1 said:

In the Help Center , it simply says, " Attributes communicate what to expect at a cache location".    :)

And that helps a whole lot when I'm not familiar with an area. Proper footwear, proper clothing, bug spray, oh wait...a boat ?  climbing gear ? no dogs allowed ?  I need to pay money to access this location (state parks are in some kind of guideline violation aren't they?)  Oh gawd......let's call the whole thing off!

This is funny to me because people seem to want things to be so ridiculously easy. But okay, if it makes the particular PQ user happy to weed out/add PTs ...live and let live, yes? Just don't set ALL attributes in stone for those who like/dislike PTs. 

Edited by Mama514
I mispeled
Link to comment
7 hours ago, niraD said:
8 hours ago, sdkonkle said:

Then there are those that say it relies on cache owners to use the attribute, well that is to easy to fix

I think the fix is even easier than you expect. Owners of power trails already add "nonsense" attributes (like Scuba Required in the desert) to their caches to help others find (or exclude) them. I'm sure they'd use a real power trail (or numbers trail, or mega trail, or whatever) attribute if one existed.

Edited 7 hours ago by niraD

While not every cache owner that has created a PT may used a new attribute for power trails, even if only 10% use a sensible attribute to indicate a cache is part of a PT, that's 10% more than what is happening now.   It's not a perfect solution that would work in every possible scenario, but IMHO, it doesn't have to be perfect to provide an improvement over having nothing at all or nonsense attributes for identify a type of cache we might to (or don't want to) find.

Link to comment
10 hours ago, niraD said:

I think the fix is even easier than you expect. Owners of power trails already add "nonsense" attributes (like Scuba Required in the desert) to their caches to help others find (or exclude) them. I'm sure they'd use a real power trail (or numbers trail, or mega trail, or whatever) attribute if one existed.

 

2 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

While not every cache owner that has created a PT may used a new attribute for power trails, even if only 10% use a sensible attribute to indicate a cache is part of a PT, that's 10% more than what is happening now.   It's not a perfect solution that would work in every possible scenario, but IMHO, it doesn't have to be perfect to provide an improvement over having nothing at all or nonsense attributes for identify a type of cache we might to (or don't want to) find.

Yes, any increase in power trail attribute usage would be helpful, to both seekers and avoiders. I have no doubt a lot of power trail owners would use the attribute because they know that many people like power trails.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
3 hours ago, sdkonkle said:

Just goes to show that this something that is really wanted by many.

Guess I see that differently...

I see seven people who started threads, and a mixture of those who like, or dislike the idea within those threads.

"Press" in the Help Center says there are more than 10 million annual active users worldwide. 

Seven threads of some  people doesn't seem like "many" when you really think about it.   :)

Link to comment
4 hours ago, sdkonkle said:

Just goes to show that this something that is really wanted by many.

 

 

48 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

Guess I see that differently...

I see seven people who started threads, and a mixture of those who like, or dislike the idea within those threads.

"Press" in the Help Center says there are more than 10 million annual active users worldwide. 

Seven threads of some  people doesn't seem like "many" when you really think about it.   :)

Out of the 10 million, how many come onto the forums? Of the 7 threads, how many different people posted to them? Of those posting, how many thought the attribute was a good idea?

I'd venture a guess and betcha that if asked, the majority of the 10 million would agree that it was a good idea, I'm really not sure how anyone could not think this was a win win for everyone.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, niraD said:

What about the non-power trail caches in the area?

And frankly, by the time you see them on the map, it's too late.

Obviously power trails are on a trail. If you have to go beyond the trail to get other caches then those are not on the power trail. At the end of the day who cares. The point is to find caches. 

I pre-plan my routes most of the time. So when I see a long string of caches I already know it's a PT. 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, SeattleWayne said:

Obviously power trails are on a trail.

Technically, not necessarily. Many powertrails are roadside series. Or clumped in a loop in a forest (though still a trail). Often it's not easy to make out which are just a series of closely knit caches for the sake of having a bunch of closely knit caches. "Powertrail" is more a term for that type of collection of hides, moreso than a literal "trail with a series of caches".

Additionally, a powertrail may swallow other caches that were on a trail, but were not intended to be part of the powertrail. Many COs express frustration when that happens, because it reduces the "quality" of the intended experience to just-another-cache-in-the-series by people who don't realize.

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Technically, not necessarily. Many powertrails are roadside series. Or clumped in a loop in a forest (though still a trail). Often it's not easy to make out which are just a series of closely knit caches for the sake of having a bunch of closely knit caches. "Powertrail" is more a term for that type of collection of hides, moreso than a literal "trail with a series of caches".

Additionally, a powertrail may swallow other caches that were on a trail, but were not intended to be part of the powertrail. Many COs express frustration when that happens, because it reduces the "quality" of the intended experience to just-another-cache-in-the-series by people who don't realize.

Yes technically, and necessarily. Why call it a power trail if it isn't on a trail? If it's not on a trail then it's not a power trail. 

Link to comment

Now you're arguing semantics. That won't change. Powertrail is a term absolutely used in the geocaching community in reference to cache series that are not necessarily physically along a walking trail.

 

But really where they're placed is irrelevant. The attribute most certainly would be used to identify "trails of caches" that anyone may consider a 'powertrail'. Would you police them to ensure that they are also physically along a walking trail?

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment
21 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Now you're arguing semantics. That won't change. Powertrail is a term absolutely used in the geocaching community in reference to cache series that are not necessarily physically along a walking trail.

 

But really where they're placed is irrelevant. The attribute most certainly would be used to identify "trails of caches" that anyone may consider a 'powertrail'. Would you police them to ensure that they are also physically along a walking trail?

I'm not the one who wants a new attribute so it doesn't matter all that much to me. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, SeattleWayne said:

I'm not the one who wants a new attribute so it doesn't matter all that much to me. 

You say it doesn't matter much but evidently there's something to it since you got in on the discussion. Just curious, would it bother you if Groundspeak came up with an attribute? If so, why?

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, Mudfrog said:

You say it doesn't matter much but evidently there's something to it since you got in on the discussion. Just curious, would it bother you if Groundspeak came up with an attribute? If so, why?

No, I would not be upset at all if Groundspeak came up with the attribute. If that's what the people want, I'm cool with it. In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't really matter to me because I'm going to try to find caches regardless of what attributes they have. 

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, Mudfrog said:

You say it doesn't matter much but evidently there's something to it since you got in on the discussion. Just curious, would it bother you if Groundspeak came up with an attribute? If so, why?

I am not advocating for it but I would probably use it only if it were already there. But at the end of the day I honestly don't care one way or the other.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...