Power Trail Attribute - Please!

[+Mudfrog]

2 hours ago, bflentje said:

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.

Of course i figured there'd be some "meh, it doesn't matter to me one way or the other" out there. Actually, that this would be the majority of the feelings for this suggestion. What i'm trying to get a handle on is what the negatives would be if there was an attribute? A reason why a person might not want it?

I've tried to put myself in both shoes, someone who seeks power trails and someone who wishes to ignore them. It just seems to me that a pt attribute would be helpful to both, I'm pretty sure there would be times that even the "meh" cachers would find it to be of help.

[+cerberus1]

17 hours 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.  

16 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

 

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.

Add in the "lurkers" to the tally here, I'd think if the rest of the 10 million other cachers hadn't thought it was important enough to flood the Help Center by now  , they probably could care less. 

 

[+geocat_]

I am too lazy to read this entire thread (just being honest), but my question would be what constitutes a power trail?  I mean, does it have to be one of 5, 10, 100 caches in a series?  Or what if it is a "power trail" on a bike path?  Or I've seen a trail that is along a road but the grabs are 2-3T hides.  I think a power trail can be seen on a map view.  Then any competent user can look to see if it meets their definition of a power trail. 

[+niraD]

10 minutes ago, geocat_ said:

I am too lazy to read this entire thread (just being honest), but my question would be what constitutes a power trail?  I mean, does it have to be one of 5, 10, 100 caches in a series?  Or what if it is a "power trail" on a bike path?  Or I've seen a trail that is along a road but the grabs are 2-3T hides.  I think a power trail can be seen on a map view.  Then any competent user can look to see if it meets their definition of a power trail. 

What defines Recommended for Kids? What constitutes a Scenic View or a Significant Hike? What kinds of caches are Available During Winter?

I think the local community can sort out what is or is not a power trail, or a mega trail, or a numbers trail, or whatever the attribute ends up being called. But the interest in this attribute seems to be directed mostly at essentially identical caches placed closely along a route, with little distinction between the caches in the group.

Personally, I think the defining characteristic for the attribute should be that the caches are fungible and that the three cache monte is accepted (and even encouraged) by the cache owner. But that would require Groundspeak to acknowledge the three cache monte, which I don't think is going to happen.

I've also proposed a separate cache type for these fungible caches along a trail, but that was not popular with those who enjoy and support these types of trails.

[+geocat_]

46 minutes ago, niraD said:

What defines Recommended for Kids? What constitutes a Scenic View or a Significant Hike? What kinds of caches are Available During Winter?

I think the local community can sort out what is or is not a power trail, or a mega trail, or a numbers trail, or whatever the attribute ends up being called. But the interest in this attribute seems to be directed mostly at essentially identical caches placed closely along a route, with little distinction between the caches in the group.

Personally, I think the defining characteristic for the attribute should be that the caches are fungible and that the three cache monte is accepted (and even encouraged) by the cache owner. But that would require Groundspeak to acknowledge the three cache monte, which I don't think is going to happen.

I've also proposed a separate cache type for these fungible caches along a trail, but that was not popular with those who enjoy and support these types of trails.

Correct. I misread the OP and thought they meant cache icon rather than attribute. Ignore my mini rant 

[+Mama514]

On 11/11/2013 at 8:47 AM, DragonsWest said:

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 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.

Maybe things were different 4 years ago, but I still see no use for this yesterday or today.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

20 hours ago, SeattleWayne said:

On 8/30/2017 at 4:25 AM, 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. 

For some, the point is *not* simply to find caches.   Some prefer certain types of caches, perhaps those that offer a bit of a challenge and demonstrate creativity and don't see the appeal of finding a bunch of cookie cutter hides just to increase their find count.  If you don't care about what caches you find, as long as it gives you a find then a PT attribute offers no value.  Some do care, and a PT attribute could improve their experience without any negative impact whatsoever on those that just want to find a cache.

Since you pre-plan your routes,  and assuming that one doesn't want to find caches on a PT, how to you filter them out.  Currently, there isn't a reliable set of filters that can be used to filter out (or select) a long string of caches.  That's why many have asked for an attribute that will help do just that.  

[+kunarion]

13 hours ago, geocat_ said:

I am too lazy to read this entire thread (just being honest), but my question would be what constitutes a power trail?  I mean, does it have to be one of 5, 10, 100 caches in a series?  Or what if it is a "power trail" on a bike path?  Or I've seen a trail that is along a road but the grabs are 2-3T hides.  I think a power trail can be seen on a map view.  Then any competent user can look to see if it meets their definition of a power trail. 

 

I'm guessing the "Power Trail" is as niraD says, the Three Car Monte with a pile of micros at each end, where the idea is to divide into teams, find a bottle in a couple of seconds, trade out bottles, insist that you personally found them all regardless, and nobody cares.  You see the string on the map, and you see only a familiar chain, a Power Trail.  But non-PT caches can be in that same string, caches that are not P&G, where there's a hunt involved and a story to tell at that place, pictures and a specific hide and container and log to sign, it could take a while and may even be a DNF.  But there are also cache strings that are in no way this PT P&G deal, but might appear to be "just another PT", and may therefore also end up getting The Attribute.  So, yeah, whatever the definition is, let's get it defined.

When I'm considering a "cache series", one thing I've done, as many do, is make a bookmark list for my convenience and post it.  If I were to make an Official Groundspeak Three Car Monte Power Trail bookmark for the purpose of hunting a specific chain of caches all the same, I'd exclude the caches in the string that are not part of the series, essential if you've got a group in those cars and you're trying to "get all caches in this PT in record time" -- you'd want to skip the non-PT caches.  I'm thinking that's also what an "attribute" would do.  The non-PT caches are also all spaced along the road, and all caches, PT or non-PT, have the same cache icon, but in different lists (or different attributes in the suggestion).  I think.  Makes sense?

Anyway, while we wait for an Attribute, I'd like to see bookmark lists of what the idea of the Attribute is.  And remember, we may still need such "lists" even if Attributes happened, since COs would use them or not in various ways, and make the point of "Attributes" less useful.  I can't even imagine bothering with a textbook PT, flinging hundreds of bottles for hours, and if I did, I'd want them all in a list, perhaps a ready-made list available on one of the PT cache pages.  Most often I simply look at GyPSy and go get the nearest cache that is a cache I'd hunt, not "attributes".

 

 

Edited August 31, 2017 by kunarion

[+DragonsWest]

9 hours ago, Mama514 said:

Maybe things were different 4 years ago, but I still see no use for this yesterday or today.

Having chased the eclipse a couple weeks back I can say this would have been enormously useful in building my cross country collection of pocket queries.  Too many areas along the route were saturated with powertrails I had no interest in, but would tie up 40-70% of a query.  So I had to make several very small queries to try to keep the PT content to a minimum.  The problem there is I may have not pursued a very worthy cache or two along the way because it was buried in the middle of a PT.  The ability to run a query of All But These would be a great boon.

 

Bear in mind I was traveling across Nevada, Utah and Idaho, locations which are conducive to PT placement.  If you do not reside in such an area or infrequently travel through such I can understand your indifference.

 

There may be times you would like to have all caches, all PT caches or all but PT caches.  It's probably one of the more useful attributes to some of us.

[+cerberus1]

37 minutes ago, kunarion said:

...When I'm considering a "cache series", one thing I've done, as many do, is make a bookmark list for my convenience and post it.  If I were to make an Official Groundspeak Three Car Monte Power Trail bookmark for the purpose of hunting a specific chain of caches all the same, I'd exclude the caches in the string that are not part of the series, essential if you've got a group in those cars and you're trying to "get all caches in this PT in record time" -- you'd want to skip the non-PT caches.  I'm thinking that's also what an "attribute" would do.  The non-PT caches are also all spaced along the road, and all caches, PT or non-PT, have the same cache icon, but in different lists (or different attributes in the suggestion).  I think.  Makes sense?

Not to me I guess...   Folks today gottacacheemall, and many today want to grab all along the way.  So guess I don't see many "skipping over" those not on their "required-for-this-PT"  list.    A search by attribute would just show all as a PT , wouldn't it?  

A Lackey said (in '11)  they were looking into a "part of a series" attribute, and forum folks looking for only a PT attribute kinda said that wasn't good enough ( I thought it fit nicely), and it appears that naysayers either got their way, or Groundspeak was finally tired of the bickering.

I personally don't see the sense to either anymore, now that many series have caches placed in-between simply because someone could.

[+kunarion]

19 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

1 hour ago, kunarion said:

...When I'm considering a "cache series", one thing I've done, as many do, is make a bookmark list for my convenience and post it.  If I were to make an Official Groundspeak Three Car Monte Power Trail bookmark for the purpose of hunting a specific chain of caches all the same, I'd exclude the caches in the string that are not part of the series, essential if you've got a group in those cars and you're trying to "get all caches in this PT in record time" -- you'd want to skip the non-PT caches.  I'm thinking that's also what an "attribute" would do.  The non-PT caches are also all spaced along the road, and all caches, PT or non-PT, have the same cache icon, but in different lists (or different attributes in the suggestion).  I think.  Makes sense?

Not to me I guess...   Folks today gottacacheemall, and many today want to grab all along the way.  So guess I don't see many "skipping over" those not on their "required-for-this-PT"  list.    A search by attribute would just show all as a PT , wouldn't it?  

 

That means that a nice cache gets absorbed into the Power Trail, merely by being part of the line.  And yes, I did wonder what the CO does in that case.  Mark it with the suggested "PT Attribute"?  Does it become just another pile of bottles?  That CO must be banging his head on a wall.

But where does that leave the cachers who are not Pokeymen?  I would hope that those who are trying to avoid PTs would make lists of hand-picked caches for all, using whatever plan they find most useful.  "List with everything", "List Without PT Bottle Caches", whatever.  But not just "Power Trails", make lists of the caches you love to find (yeah, as this Thread goes, also post lists of caches that you don't hunt).  Now use these lists to set up your cache trips.  Not by attributes that the COs set or didn't set, but by curated lists.  If the search filters don't work well with lists, that's what could be fixed.

Edited August 31, 2017 by kunarion

[+fuzziebear3]

I still don't think we have a consensus on what a power trail is.  Some consider a loop hike in a park with regularly spaced containers a power trail, others don't.  Most consider a quick stop along the road every .1 for a similar container a PT.  Some don't consider it a PT when the containers are different or the terrain/difficulty are higher, or when hidden by different hiders.   How many in a row would it take to be a power trail -- 5? 50? more?  What about geoart?

Having an attribute would be okay, but realize that not everyone is going to use it consistently, and I doubt that owners are going to go back and edit their series to add the attribute.  Searching/filtering based on the attribute will only be as good as the usage of the attribute.

So overall, I think seeing the groupings on the map is probably the best way to find them, and curating the lists for your run is actually the only effective way to choose or filter them.

 

[+NYPaddleCacher]

2 hours ago, kunarion said:

That means that a nice cache gets absorbed into the Power Trail, merely by being part of the line.  And yes, I did wonder what the CO does in that case.  Mark it with the suggested "PT Attribute"?  Does it become just another pile of bottles?  That CO must be banging his head on a wall.

And typically, that cache pre-existed the PT.  Once a PT is placed, there isn't any room for anything else.  I recall seeing logs on an Earthcache near the route 66.  A few were cut-n-paste logs, thanking the owner of the PT, and it was pretty clear from the log that they didn't meet the criteria for logging a find on the EC.

[+cerberus1]

3 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

Not to me I guess...   Folks today gottacacheemall, and many today want to grab all along the way.  So guess I don't see many "skipping over" those not on their "required-for-this-PT"  list.    A search by attribute would just show all as a PT , wouldn't it?  

2 hours ago, kunarion said:

That means that a nice cache gets absorbed into the Power Trail, merely by being part of the line.  And yes, I did wonder what the CO does in that case.  Mark it with the suggested "PT Attribute"?  Does it become just another pile of bottles?  That CO must be banging his head on a wall.

Though being "absorbed" just because you're in line is a consideration, what I'm talking about are two, separate PTs within each other, why I emphasized "for this". 

We've noticed a couple like that in a state close by.  Two different series/PTs almost staggering each other.

I just can't see a person who goes after PTs (numbers...) picking only those caches of a certain series, when there's another almost every-other in the same line.

Mix that with the couple of caches that aren't included in either, and it's simply "just caching" like many folks already do today ...  no "PT attribute" needed.  

 

[+bflentje]

22 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

Of course i figured there'd be some "meh, it doesn't matter to me one way or the other" out there. Actually, that this would be the majority of the feelings for this suggestion. What i'm trying to get a handle on is what the negatives would be if there was an attribute? A reason why a person might not want it?

I've tried to put myself in both shoes, someone who seeks power trails and someone who wishes to ignore them. It just seems to me that a pt attribute would be helpful to both, I'm pretty sure there would be times that even the "meh" cachers would find it to be of help.

I was speaking strictly on my own behalf. I fully understand others have their own valid opinions.

[+Wet Pancake Touring Club]

On 8/31/2017 at 9:55 AM, cerberus1 said:

Though being "absorbed" just because you're in line is a consideration, what I'm talking about are two, separate PTs within each other, why I emphasized "for this". 

We've noticed a couple like that in a state close by.  Two different series/PTs almost staggering each other.

I just can't see a person who goes after PTs (numbers...) picking only those caches of a certain series, when there's another almost every-other in the same line.

Mix that with the couple of caches that aren't included in either, and it's simply "just caching" like many folks already do today ...  no "PT attribute" needed.  

 

I can see see a person that goes after PTs picking only those caches of a certain series, but it is a corner case. I've seen a number of overlapping PTs where one series is designed if you are going in one direction on the highway, and the other in the other direction. The CO doesn't want you weaving back and forth across the road. If my return is not back on the same road, I wouldn't want to see the caches designed to be found in the other direction.

[+thebruce0]

The only time I could see someone specifically picking certain caches along a trail and not others, despite them being found in the same manner (ie, effectively walking past them), would be if said cacher were aiming to complete a target series and each cache was directly identifiable as such (like a geoart); and more than likely they'd either be on a time crunch or logging them in a specific order which they wouldn't want disrupted by non-series caches.

Of course that's just what I'd perceive, who knows what habits people out there have... but, I can't really seem to fathom a regular or common situation in which someone caching along a trail would wilfully skip over a trail cache for the next one whether it was part of a series or an independent cache...