I propose a new puzzle cache icon

[+Mudfrog]

It would even help to just have a couple more attributes. A challenge attribute and a power trail attribute would be immensely helpful for me, because those are cache types I would generally want to filter out.

 

Yes, having these would not only be practical, but also very nice. There would be times when i'd filter to include challenge caches but power trails would almost always be filtered out.

[+narcissa]

It would even help to just have a couple more attributes. A challenge attribute and a power trail attribute would be immensely helpful for me, because those are cache types I would generally want to filter out.

 

Yes, having these would not only be practical, but also very nice. There would be times when i'd filter to include challenge caches but power trails would almost always be filtered out.

 

And there are probably others who would really like to look at power trails exclusively, maybe for a bike trip or something. It would solve a lot of angst.

[+Semper Questio]

It would even help to just have a couple more attributes. A challenge attribute and a power trail attribute would be immensely helpful for me, because those are cache types I would generally want to filter out.

 

Do most folks actually use those things in your area? They are generally useless as any kind of selection criteria around here.

[+TopShelfRob]

It would even help to just have a couple more attributes. A challenge attribute and a power trail attribute would be immensely helpful for me, because those are cache types I would generally want to filter out.

 

Do most folks actually use those things in your area? They are generally useless as any kind of selection criteria around here.

Yeah, my suggestion was manily aimed at improving when viewing the map. Sorting with attributes, or GSAKing or other stuff like that isn't going to change the icons on the map. I generally don't even bother with the attributes, because who knows if they were applied properly or not. But, yes for sorting with a PQ, that could help too.

Edited June 23, 2014 by TopShelfRob

[+narcissa]

It would even help to just have a couple more attributes. A challenge attribute and a power trail attribute would be immensely helpful for me, because those are cache types I would generally want to filter out.

 

Do most folks actually use those things in your area? They are generally useless as any kind of selection criteria around here.

 

In some cases they can be useful when running PQs. They're not infallible.

 

If someone wants to squirt out 172522 caches every 1/10 mile along the newest rails-to-trails pathway, I think the local reviewers would encourage the use of a power trail icon for that and I would appreciate being able to filter those out.

[+M 5]

I think there is a big difference between a trail on a walking/biking path (we have a few here with all different hide styles and ratings, but are close to the 1/10), and the spew that has proliferated around the time of the nevada power trails, with all the same containers and hide styles and the extremely questionable maintenance and logging practices. The former was the original use for the term powertrail and now that term has morphed into any trail that is approximately 1/10th apart. I don't think they are the same animal.

[+J Grouchy]

I know I'm not the only one here who browses the map view looking for caches. For folks like me who rarely use pocket queries, a different TYPE would much more useful. You can't turn off a cache with a given attribute on the map...but you CAN turn off a particular type of cache on the map. I could turn off all the '?' icons, but I actually do go after puzzles occasionally, so turning it off so challenges don't show up also eliminates the puzzles I might want to find.

 

I just don't find as much consistency when it comes to applying attributes to a cache. One person's park and grab is another person's thirty minute hunt. Even those caches that ARE a true park and grab are often not labeled as such.

 

When it's the most important aspect of a cache (i.e., challenge, part of a long power trail series, etc.), to me it defines the type of cache. I see greater utility in defining a cache TYPE as a challenge than just sticking a standard mystery cache with a challenge attribute. It makes it filterable in both pocket queries and live map browsing. It makes it readily apparent to someone scrolling a list of hundreds of caches and it really helps paint a better picture for all those stats-junkies out there.

[+narcissa]

I think there is a big difference between a trail on a walking/biking path (we have a few here with all different hide styles and ratings, but are close to the 1/10), and the spew that has proliferated around the time of the nevada power trails, with all the same containers and hide styles and the extremely questionable maintenance and logging practices. The former was the original use for the term powertrail and now that term has morphed into any trail that is approximately 1/10th apart. I don't think they are the same animal.

 

If it shows up as a big boring line of caches every 1/10 of a mile apart along a trail, it's a powertrail and something I'd prefer to remove from my PQs. I'd be way less cranky about the whole issue if I could just filter them out.

[+M 5]

I think there is a big difference between a trail on a walking/biking path (we have a few here with all different hide styles and ratings, but are close to the 1/10), and the spew that has proliferated around the time of the nevada power trails, with all the same containers and hide styles and the extremely questionable maintenance and logging practices. The former was the original use for the term powertrail and now that term has morphed into any trail that is approximately 1/10th apart. I don't think they are the same animal.

 

If it shows up as a big boring line of caches every 1/10 of a mile apart along a trail, it's a powertrail and something I'd prefer to remove from my PQs. I'd be way less cranky about the whole issue if I could just filter them out.

 

They are not remotely the same at all. the only similarity is proximity to each other, noting else.

[+narcissa]

I think there is a big difference between a trail on a walking/biking path (we have a few here with all different hide styles and ratings, but are close to the 1/10), and the spew that has proliferated around the time of the nevada power trails, with all the same containers and hide styles and the extremely questionable maintenance and logging practices. The former was the original use for the term powertrail and now that term has morphed into any trail that is approximately 1/10th apart. I don't think they are the same animal.

 

If it shows up as a big boring line of caches every 1/10 of a mile apart along a trail, it's a powertrail and something I'd prefer to remove from my PQs. I'd be way less cranky about the whole issue if I could just filter them out.

 

They are not remotely the same at all. the only similarity is proximity to each other, noting else.

 

A big line of caches owned by the same person, published all at the same time, 1/10 of a mile apart looks like a powertrail to me.

 

While I recognize that these caches are enjoyable to some people, they are not enjoyable to me and I would prefer the option to filter them out of my pocket queries.

 

I'm sure that some powertrails are better than others, but I am not interested in any of them. A powertrail attribute would be useful for those who are interested as well. Some people really dig this kind of geocaching, and they could get more into a pocket query at a time with an attribute. It would also be useful for indicating that respect/maintenance/etiquette expectations on those caches are different than for traditional caches placed with care at interesting locations.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I think there is a big difference between a trail on a walking/biking path (we have a few here with all different hide styles and ratings, but are close to the 1/10), and the spew that has proliferated around the time of the nevada power trails, with all the same containers and hide styles and the extremely questionable maintenance and logging practices. The former was the original use for the term powertrail and now that term has morphed into any trail that is approximately 1/10th apart. I don't think they are the same animal.

 

If it shows up as a big boring line of caches every 1/10 of a mile apart along a trail, it's a powertrail and something I'd prefer to remove from my PQs. I'd be way less cranky about the whole issue if I could just filter them out.

 

They are not remotely the same at all. the only similarity is proximity to each other, noting else.

 

I disagree. Whether it's 1000 geocaches 528' a apart or several 50-60 cache mini power trails, both promote the notion of quantity over quality. Personally, I'd rather see a handful of 500+ cache power trails out in the middle of nowhere then the proliferation of 50-60 caches trails that are becoming commonplace in smaller cities all over the U.S. and Europe.

 

 

[+M 5]

I think there is a big difference between a trail on a walking/biking path (we have a few here with all different hide styles and ratings, but are close to the 1/10), and the spew that has proliferated around the time of the nevada power trails, with all the same containers and hide styles and the extremely questionable maintenance and logging practices. The former was the original use for the term powertrail and now that term has morphed into any trail that is approximately 1/10th apart. I don't think they are the same animal.

 

If it shows up as a big boring line of caches every 1/10 of a mile apart along a trail, it's a powertrail and something I'd prefer to remove from my PQs. I'd be way less cranky about the whole issue if I could just filter them out.

 

They are not remotely the same at all. the only similarity is proximity to each other, noting else.

 

A big line of caches owned by the same person, published all at the same time, 1/10 of a mile apart looks like a powertrail to me.

 

While I recognize that these caches are enjoyable to some people, they are not enjoyable to me and I would prefer the option to filter them out of my pocket queries.

 

I'm sure that some powertrails are better than others, but I am not interested in any of them. A powertrail attribute would be useful for those who are interested as well. Some people really dig this kind of geocaching, and they could get more into a pocket query at a time with an attribute. It would also be useful for indicating that respect/maintenance/etiquette expectations on those caches are different than for traditional caches placed with care at interesting locations.

 

Then I suggest corrective lenses. Close proximity caches, whether by one person or several, along a scenic location, with every cache a different container, size, cammo, difficly and terrain rating and hide style. Is no way the same as a film cannister alongside a road every 1/10 mile where it is expected that cachers do non-owner maint. throwdown, leapfrog, 3 cache monte, start at either end and meet in the middle, yet log all caches with a copy and paste log. If you see them as the same, you are WAY to narrow-minded for me to continue to engage in conversation. I just don't think they should be lumped together as a cache type. Apples and oranges

[+M 5]

I think there is a big difference between a trail on a walking/biking path (we have a few here with all different hide styles and ratings, but are close to the 1/10), and the spew that has proliferated around the time of the nevada power trails, with all the same containers and hide styles and the extremely questionable maintenance and logging practices. The former was the original use for the term powertrail and now that term has morphed into any trail that is approximately 1/10th apart. I don't think they are the same animal.

 

If it shows up as a big boring line of caches every 1/10 of a mile apart along a trail, it's a powertrail and something I'd prefer to remove from my PQs. I'd be way less cranky about the whole issue if I could just filter them out.

 

They are not remotely the same at all. the only similarity is proximity to each other, noting else.

 

I disagree. Whether it's 1000 geocaches 528' a apart or several 50-60 cache mini power trails, both promote the notion of quantity over quality. Personally, I'd rather see a handful of 500+ cache power trails out in the middle of nowhere then the proliferation of 50-60 caches trails that are becoming commonplace in smaller cities all over the U.S. and Europe.

 

To me, proximity is not the issue as much as monotony.

[+Mudfrog]

It would even help to just have a couple more attributes. A challenge attribute and a power trail attribute would be immensely helpful for me, because those are cache types I would generally want to filter out.

 

Yes, having these would not only be practical, but also very nice. There would be times when i'd filter to include challenge caches but power trails would almost always be filtered out.

 

And there are probably others who would really like to look at power trails exclusively, maybe for a bike trip or something. It would solve a lot of angst.

 

Right! I may choose not to seek out power trail caches but i would bet that most cachers enjoy finding them. Knowing this, i would imagine that a power trail owner would be happy to use a PT attribute on his caches. It would be a win win for all cachers.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I think there is a big difference between a trail on a walking/biking path (we have a few here with all different hide styles and ratings, but are close to the 1/10), and the spew that has proliferated around the time of the nevada power trails, with all the same containers and hide styles and the extremely questionable maintenance and logging practices. The former was the original use for the term powertrail and now that term has morphed into any trail that is approximately 1/10th apart. I don't think they are the same animal.

 

If it shows up as a big boring line of caches every 1/10 of a mile apart along a trail, it's a powertrail and something I'd prefer to remove from my PQs. I'd be way less cranky about the whole issue if I could just filter them out.

 

They are not remotely the same at all. the only similarity is proximity to each other, noting else.

 

I disagree. Whether it's 1000 geocaches 528' a apart or several 50-60 cache mini power trails, both promote the notion of quantity over quality. Personally, I'd rather see a handful of 500+ cache power trails out in the middle of nowhere then the proliferation of 50-60 caches trails that are becoming commonplace in smaller cities all over the U.S. and Europe.

 

To me, proximity is not the issue as much as monotony.

 

To me it's neither proximity nor monotony. It's a matter of contributing to the notion that geocaching is all about the numbers. If there is a nice 1-2 miles long biking or hiking trail, it's becoming more and more common to saturate the trail with as many caches as possible rather than place a few creating or interesting hide at some of the better places along the trail. To me, it's about (or least should be) about quality, not quantity.

[+M 5]

I think there is a big difference between a trail on a walking/biking path (we have a few here with all different hide styles and ratings, but are close to the 1/10), and the spew that has proliferated around the time of the nevada power trails, with all the same containers and hide styles and the extremely questionable maintenance and logging practices. The former was the original use for the term powertrail and now that term has morphed into any trail that is approximately 1/10th apart. I don't think they are the same animal.

 

If it shows up as a big boring line of caches every 1/10 of a mile apart along a trail, it's a powertrail and something I'd prefer to remove from my PQs. I'd be way less cranky about the whole issue if I could just filter them out.

 

They are not remotely the same at all. the only similarity is proximity to each other, noting else.

 

I disagree. Whether it's 1000 geocaches 528' a apart or several 50-60 cache mini power trails, both promote the notion of quantity over quality. Personally, I'd rather see a handful of 500+ cache power trails out in the middle of nowhere then the proliferation of 50-60 caches trails that are becoming commonplace in smaller cities all over the U.S. and Europe.

 

To me, proximity is not the issue as much as monotony.

 

To me it's neither proximity nor monotony. It's a matter of contributing to the notion that geocaching is all about the numbers. If there is a nice 1-2 miles long biking or hiking trail, it's becoming more and more common to saturate the trail with as many caches as possible rather than place a few creating or interesting hide at some of the better places along the trail. To me, it's about (or least should be) about quality, not quantity.

 

The caches I'm refering to are NOT about the numbers, its about using the nice places for caches. I actually proposed and adopt-a-mile series along the 30+ miles of trails, with all differnt owners, part of my reasoning, was to promote good hides and take the spots BEFORE someone came thru and put a bison every 1/10 on the fenceline. Which is where this hobby is heading. I assure you, that the purely numbers cachers, quickly tire of the trails I speak of, since they can't find most in seconds. I also assure you that I'm about as old school as you can get, and HATE the new style powertrails and have had many arguments on here and within our local group against them. I also feel that actually given them there own icon/attribute in some way legitimizes them. Which I don't like at all, although i see the filtering argument as well. ALso, most of the trail powertrail caches around here, are not exaclty 1/10, that is just when the co starts looking for a good spot. It might be quite a bit further

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I think there is a big difference between a trail on a walking/biking path (we have a few here with all different hide styles and ratings, but are close to the 1/10), and the spew that has proliferated around the time of the nevada power trails, with all the same containers and hide styles and the extremely questionable maintenance and logging practices. The former was the original use for the term powertrail and now that term has morphed into any trail that is approximately 1/10th apart. I don't think they are the same animal.

 

If it shows up as a big boring line of caches every 1/10 of a mile apart along a trail, it's a powertrail and something I'd prefer to remove from my PQs. I'd be way less cranky about the whole issue if I could just filter them out.

 

They are not remotely the same at all. the only similarity is proximity to each other, noting else.

 

I disagree. Whether it's 1000 geocaches 528' a apart or several 50-60 cache mini power trails, both promote the notion of quantity over quality. Personally, I'd rather see a handful of 500+ cache power trails out in the middle of nowhere then the proliferation of 50-60 caches trails that are becoming commonplace in smaller cities all over the U.S. and Europe.

 

To me, proximity is not the issue as much as monotony.

 

To me it's neither proximity nor monotony. It's a matter of contributing to the notion that geocaching is all about the numbers. If there is a nice 1-2 miles long biking or hiking trail, it's becoming more and more common to saturate the trail with as many caches as possible rather than place a few creating or interesting hide at some of the better places along the trail. To me, it's about (or least should be) about quality, not quantity.

 

The caches I'm refering to are NOT about the numbers, its about using the nice places for caches. I actually proposed and adopt-a-mile series along the 30+ miles of trails, with all differnt owners, part of my reasoning, was to promote good hides and take the spots BEFORE someone came thru and put a bison every 1/10 on the fenceline. Which is where this hobby is heading. I assure you, that the purely numbers cachers, quickly tire of the trails I speak of, since they can't find most in seconds. I also assure you that I'm about as old school as you can get, and HATE the new style powertrails and have had many arguments on here and within our local group against them. I also feel that actually given them there own icon/attribute in some way legitimizes them. Which I don't like at all, although i see the filtering argument as well. ALso, most of the trail powertrail caches around here, are not exaclty 1/10, that is just when the co starts looking for a good spot. It might be quite a bit further

 

That's good to hear but from looking at many different areas, the type of mini power trail you're describing seems to be the exception. From what I've seen, there are many areas with smaller PTs that appear just be a bunch of low difficulty hides spaced as close together as possible, and then tend to breed like rabbits. Someone creates a 30 cache "trail" and someone has to copy with with another 30 caches trail, or one-up it with a 40 caches trails. As I said, I'm really not bothered by these massive power trails out in the desert. It's unfortunate that those that had caches in those areas that pre-dated the PT are treated as if they are part of the PT, but the fact that they're out in remote areas make them easier to ignore. However, all these short 30-50 cache trails that are encroaching large and small cites are having an impact on larger local geocaching communities.

 

I've been fortunate to live in area where, except for a few, it doesn't feel like it's all about the numbers. However, an event was recently posted with a note about a new geoart that someone is going to place. It sounds like it's going to be all mystery caches (about 50 or so) with the art in the sound end of our local lake. That will effectively mean that in order to place a cache in my town, one will have to solve these 50 puzzles, which, I suspect are just placeholders for 50 or so unremarkable caches. Even if I completely ignore these new caches after they're placed (since I've pretty much stopped placing caches in my area) I can look forward to having 50 email message arrive in my inbox when they're published.

 

 

[+narcissa]

 

The caches I'm refering to are NOT about the numbers, its about using the nice places for caches.

 

Seems rather suspicious when all these great hiding places are exactly 1/10 of a mile apart.

 

Anyway, it would be nice to be able to filter out the power trails. Around here, it would add many miles to the radius my close to home pocket query for traditionals covers if I could just weed out the straight line power trails.

Edited June 24, 2014 by narcissa

[+M 5]

 

The caches I'm refering to are NOT about the numbers, its about using the nice places for caches.

 

Seems rather suspicious when all these great hiding places are exactly 1/10 of a mile apart.

 

Anyway, it would be nice to be able to filter out the power trails. Around here, it would add many miles to the radius my close to home pocket query for traditionals covers if I could just weed out the straight line power trails.

 

nice selective quoting and reading comprehension

[+narcissa]

 

The caches I'm refering to are NOT about the numbers, its about using the nice places for caches.

 

Seems rather suspicious when all these great hiding places are exactly 1/10 of a mile apart.

 

Anyway, it would be nice to be able to filter out the power trails. Around here, it would add many miles to the radius my close to home pocket query for traditionals covers if I could just weed out the straight line power trails.

 

nice selective quoting and reading comprehension

 

I understand that some people enjoy hiding and/or finding that type of cache. It's not necessary to defend it. I think there's just as much value in identifying them for finding them as for avoiding them.

 

Anyway, I'm sure there's some way I could do this myself in GSAK since these caches tend to be repetitively named. It just seems like Geocaching should take the additional step of letting us identify them if they're going to condone this type of geocaching now.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

I think there is a big difference between a trail on a walking/biking path (we have a few here with all different hide styles and ratings, but are close to the 1/10), and the spew that has proliferated around the time of the nevada power trails, with all the same containers and hide styles and the extremely questionable maintenance and logging practices. The former was the original use for the term powertrail and now that term has morphed into any trail that is approximately 1/10th apart. I don't think they are the same animal.

 

If it shows up as a big boring line of caches every 1/10 of a mile apart along a trail, it's a powertrail and something I'd prefer to remove from my PQs. I'd be way less cranky about the whole issue if I could just filter them out.

 

They are not remotely the same at all. the only similarity is proximity to each other, noting else.

 

I disagree. Whether it's 1000 geocaches 528' a apart or several 50-60 cache mini power trails, both promote the notion of quantity over quality. Personally, I'd rather see a handful of 500+ cache power trails out in the middle of nowhere then the proliferation of 50-60 caches trails that are becoming commonplace in smaller cities all over the U.S. and Europe.

 

To me, proximity is not the issue as much as monotony.

 

To me, stoppng every 528' on a nice scenic trail, regardless of cache size, is monotony.

 

[Edit to correct nesting]

Edited June 24, 2014 by BBWolf+3Pigs

[+J Grouchy]

I think there is a big difference between a trail on a walking/biking path (we have a few here with all different hide styles and ratings, but are close to the 1/10), and the spew that has proliferated around the time of the nevada power trails, with all the same containers and hide styles and the extremely questionable maintenance and logging practices. The former was the original use for the term powertrail and now that term has morphed into any trail that is approximately 1/10th apart. I don't think they are the same animal.

 

If it shows up as a big boring line of caches every 1/10 of a mile apart along a trail, it's a powertrail and something I'd prefer to remove from my PQs. I'd be way less cranky about the whole issue if I could just filter them out.

 

They are not remotely the same at all. the only similarity is proximity to each other, noting else.

 

I disagree. Whether it's 1000 geocaches 528' a apart or several 50-60 cache mini power trails, both promote the notion of quantity over quality. Personally, I'd rather see a handful of 500+ cache power trails out in the middle of nowhere then the proliferation of 50-60 caches trails that are becoming commonplace in smaller cities all over the U.S. and Europe.

 

To me, proximity is not the issue as much as monotony.

 

To me, stoppng every 528' on a nice scenic trail, regardless of cache size, is monotony.

 

[Edit to correct nesting]

 

This is the inevitable point where someone jumps in with some cold, hard logic: why not just enjoy the scenery and not stop at every one?

 

I'm not interested in power trails...be it a 200 mile drive through the desert with a film canister every 600 feet or a scenic walking trail with a different container every 600 to 800 feet (there's a good example of this in the southeast part of Atlanta). The latter I am FAR more likely to do, though...but if I'm enjoying the walk, I may decide to come back another day and pick up those that I skipped the first time. Best of both worlds, really. I get the smilies AND I get to enjoy the walk. With the former example, the only thing really going for it is the numbers and I'd likely grab a handful and move on, skipping the rest.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

 

This is the inevitable point where someone jumps in with some cold, hard logic: why not just enjoy the scenery and not stop at every one?

 

 

And they would be correct, of course. And it's something I would do.

 

There's a rails-to-trails bikepath that goes from Brattleboro, VT to Keene, NH (~26 miles long). There are 100 or so caches (I don't have the exact count). I would like to bike it one day, and would skip most of the caches, maybe stopping every one to two miles.

[nonaeroterraqueous]

I disagree. Whether it's 1000 geocaches 528' a apart or several 50-60 cache mini power trails, both promote the notion of quantity over quality. Personally, I'd rather see a handful of 500+ cache power trails out in the middle of nowhere then the proliferation of 50-60 caches trails that are becoming commonplace in smaller cities all over the U.S. and Europe.

 

Except that that road out in the middle of nowhere might actually pass right by some remarkable hidden points of interest. I recently visited a place called Maddalena Ranch, in the middle of the Sierra Valley. It has a long line of film cannisters blasting right past it. Few people know about the ranch, but it's open to the public, with a well maintained privy, nature trails, and educational signs. It's also the only place to access the Feather River for miles around without tresspassing, and they allow canoe access (though I'm still trying to figure out how that works). They've even got a canoe gate on the waterway to let the paddlers in and out. The person who placed the power trail likely thought this was just some aimless road out in the middle of nowhere, with nothing interesting on it. The geocachers who come by here will never find this discrete little place. The problem is that when people stop placing geocaches at interesting places and start placing them in places that they think have no points of interest, they act on ignorance, making decisions based on what they don't know. Just because you don't know of any hidden gem in the area doesn't mean that there isn't one, and placing caches where there doesn't seem to be anything interesting sometimes prevents a person who knows better from leading people to a point of interest.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I disagree. Whether it's 1000 geocaches 528' a apart or several 50-60 cache mini power trails, both promote the notion of quantity over quality. Personally, I'd rather see a handful of 500+ cache power trails out in the middle of nowhere then the proliferation of 50-60 caches trails that are becoming commonplace in smaller cities all over the U.S. and Europe.

 

Except that that road out in the middle of nowhere might actually pass right by some remarkable hidden points of interest. I recently visited a place called Maddalena Ranch, in the middle of the Sierra Valley. It has a long line of film cannisters blasting right past it. Few people know about the ranch, but it's open to the public, with a well maintained privy, nature trails, and educational signs. It's also the only place to access the Feather River for miles around without tresspassing, and they allow canoe access (though I'm still trying to figure out how that works). They've even got a canoe gate on the waterway to let the paddlers in and out. The person who placed the power trail likely thought this was just some aimless road out in the middle of nowhere, with nothing interesting on it. The geocachers who come by here will never find this discrete little place. The problem is that when people stop placing geocaches at interesting places and start placing them in places that they think have no points of interest, they act on ignorance, making decisions based on what they don't know. Just because you don't know of any hidden gem in the area doesn't mean that there isn't one, and placing caches where there doesn't seem to be anything interesting sometimes prevents a person who knows better from leading people to a point of interest.

 

Completely agree with you on this, although if the massive PT is really out in the middle of nowhere, there might not be any remarkable hidden points of interest. On the other hand, if there is, the PT (whether it's a large or smaller one) would effectively block the creation of a new cache at the remarkable hidden POI, and if there *was* a cache at that location that pre-dated the PT, many would just log it as if it was part of the PT.

[cezanne]

 

This is the inevitable point where someone jumps in with some cold, hard logic: why not just enjoy the scenery and not stop at every one?

 

 

And they would be correct, of course. And it's something I would do.

 

There's a rails-to-trails bikepath that goes from Brattleboro, VT to Keene, NH (~26 miles long). There are 100 or so caches (I don't have the exact count). I would like to bike it one day, and would skip most of the caches, maybe stopping every one to two miles.

 

Of course one can decide to stop only for some of the caches. What will not change is however the fact that typically all the cache descriptions and the logs of almost all cachers will be copy and paste logs not taking account the specific cache (except for things like a hint in the cache description). The mass logging unfortunately even is applied to caches along or close to the route which are not part of what I call a powertrail and happened to be there before the powertrail was established.

 

While it is certainly true that there are cache trails where the individual caches are quite diverse as D/T-ratings and containers are regarded and trails where the caches are all about the same, this typically does not have a huge effect on the cache descriptions and logs. Meanwhile the situation got so worse in my area that often one cannot even deduce any longer from the logs which caches of a series might have issues or are missing as all caches of the series get the same logs and it does not help me that much to get to know that 2 caches were off and difficult to find if I do not know which 2 out of 50.

 

I prefer by much if someone sets up a multi cache along such a bike path and takes away only a single location. The logs for such caches are also much more informative and enjoying to read.

Selecting 1-2 caches along a trail does not give me an equivalent experience.

 

Cezanne

Edited June 24, 2014 by cezanne

[+L0ne.R]

It would even help to just have a couple more attributes. A challenge attribute and a power trail attribute would be immensely helpful for me, because those are cache types I would generally want to filter out.

 

Yes to more attributes to help filter out certain types of mystery/puzzles. A challenge power trail could then have 2 attributes - a challenge attribute and a power trail attribute. Then either/or could be filtered.

 

I'd like to see an attribute for puzzle caches where you have to find x number of caches and collect numbers/codes in order to get the final. I never remember to collect all of the codes, so filtering the finals out of the puzzle category would be useful for me.

[nonaeroterraqueous]

I disagree. Whether it's 1000 geocaches 528' a apart or several 50-60 cache mini power trails, both promote the notion of quantity over quality. Personally, I'd rather see a handful of 500+ cache power trails out in the middle of nowhere then the proliferation of 50-60 caches trails that are becoming commonplace in smaller cities all over the U.S. and Europe.

 

Except that that road out in the middle of nowhere might actually pass right by some remarkable hidden points of interest. I recently visited a place called Maddalena Ranch, in the middle of the Sierra Valley. It has a long line of film cannisters blasting right past it. Few people know about the ranch, but it's open to the public, with a well maintained privy, nature trails, and educational signs. It's also the only place to access the Feather River for miles around without tresspassing, and they allow canoe access (though I'm still trying to figure out how that works). They've even got a canoe gate on the waterway to let the paddlers in and out. The person who placed the power trail likely thought this was just some aimless road out in the middle of nowhere, with nothing interesting on it. The geocachers who come by here will never find this discrete little place. The problem is that when people stop placing geocaches at interesting places and start placing them in places that they think have no points of interest, they act on ignorance, making decisions based on what they don't know. Just because you don't know of any hidden gem in the area doesn't mean that there isn't one, and placing caches where there doesn't seem to be anything interesting sometimes prevents a person who knows better from leading people to a point of interest.

 

Completely agree with you on this, although if the massive PT is really out in the middle of nowhere, there might not be any remarkable hidden points of interest. On the other hand, if there is, the PT (whether it's a large or smaller one) would effectively block the creation of a new cache at the remarkable hidden POI, and if there *was* a cache at that location that pre-dated the PT, many would just log it as if it was part of the PT.

 

I think that sums it up very well.

[+narcissa]

It would even help to just have a couple more attributes. A challenge attribute and a power trail attribute would be immensely helpful for me, because those are cache types I would generally want to filter out.

 

Yes to more attributes to help filter out certain types of mystery/puzzles. A challenge power trail could then have 2 attributes - a challenge attribute and a power trail attribute. Then either/or could be filtered.

 

I'd like to see an attribute for puzzle caches where you have to find x number of caches and collect numbers/codes in order to get the final. I never remember to collect all of the codes, so filtering the finals out of the puzzle category would be useful for me.

 

I can rarely keep track of those either. When I try, there's always a missing cache in the series or some nonsense so I can't finish it anyway.