Why Do Chachers "Fill in Gaps"?

[+wmpastor]

Only by virtue of the miles cycled. If you cycle 20 miles you'll burn 20 miles' worth of calories. If you cycle 20 miles but stop 150 times for caches you won't burn any more caches because you kept stopping. If you accelerate furiously and then brake hard you might be able to get some harder training in place but if you're stopping that frequently the chances are you'll never get up to any speed and so your overall calorie burn rate will be lower.

I'm going to hit the report button on this, since the number of calories you burn stopping vs. not stopping a bicycle is not on topic for a geocaching forum. The moderator may think differently however.

Tisri andI will gladly debate any reviewer as to whether this is on point. It is.

 

The issue is filling in gaps. There has been endless discussion of whether it is good or bad. I say that in addition to providing cachers options to find or not find caches, there's a fitness benefit. Cycling the 20 miles, with or without caches, burns "x" calories. If you stop, walk even a short distance and seek a cache, you burn extra calories. When you get back on the bike and accelerate to "cruising speed," you burn more calories than if you simply maintained cruising speed and did not stop and start.

 

Fitness is part of the reason I cache, & in fact I might cache more if I incorporated more intensity into it. Today I did not cache, but did another activity - 2.5 hrs., burning 1,100 calories with about 1.5 hrs. zone time, according to my Polar monitor.

 

I have gotten similar intensity with caching, but not very close to home. This aspect matters to me and other cachers. Also, a trail with gaps filled in encourages people to walk the trail.

[Keystone]

Yes, let's get back to discussing "filling in the gaps."

[+wmpastor]

Yes, let's get back to discussing "filling in the gaps."

Filling in gaps (with decent caches, not junk) is good because it encourages people to walk, ride a bike, etc. People can choose to visit some, all or none of the caches. Their choice can be influenced by their caching preferences and their fitness goals.

 

By the way , we could debate what workout style is best in another forum, but a fitness monitor (eg, Polar or Fitbit) will give you the objective facts if you compare activities. It can be surprising.

[+sbell111]

Only by virtue of the miles cycled. If you cycle 20 miles you'll burn 20 miles' worth of calories. If you cycle 20 miles but stop 150 times for caches you won't burn any more caches because you kept stopping. If you accelerate furiously and then brake hard you might be able to get some harder training in place but if you're stopping that frequently the chances are you'll never get up to any speed and so your overall calorie burn rate will be lower.

I'm going to hit the report button on this, since the number of calories you burn stopping vs. not stopping a bicycle is not on topic for a geocaching forum. The moderator may think differently however.

I'm the one who drove that post off-topic by asking a question.

[+wmpastor]

Only by virtue of the miles cycled. If you cycle 20 miles you'll burn 20 miles' worth of calories. If you cycle 20 miles but stop 150 times for caches you won't burn any more caches because you kept stopping. If you accelerate furiously and then brake hard you might be able to get some harder training in place but if you're stopping that frequently the chances are you'll never get up to any speed and so your overall calorie burn rate will be lower.

I'm going to hit the report button on this, since the number of calories you burn stopping vs. not stopping a bicycle is not on topic for a geocaching forum. The moderator may think differently however.

I'm the one who drove that post off-topic by asking a question.

No prob. I joined the discussion of closely-related fitness issues. Now there's a separate thread.

[team tisri]

Only by virtue of the miles cycled. If you cycle 20 miles you'll burn 20 miles' worth of calories. If you cycle 20 miles but stop 150 times for caches you won't burn any more caches because you kept stopping. If you accelerate furiously and then brake hard you might be able to get some harder training in place but if you're stopping that frequently the chances are you'll never get up to any speed and so your overall calorie burn rate will be lower.

I'm going to hit the report button on this, since the number of calories you burn stopping vs. not stopping a bicycle is not on topic for a geocaching forum. The moderator may think differently however.

Tisri andI will gladly debate any reviewer as to whether this is on point. It is.

 

I'd accept it's a secondary point, it's loosely related but more about exercise in general than geocaching as such, so I'm happy to let it lie.

 

The issue is filling in gaps. There has been endless discussion of whether it is good or bad. I say that in addition to providing cachers options to find or not find caches, there's a fitness benefit. Cycling the 20 miles, with or without caches, burns "x" calories. If you stop, walk even a short distance and seek a cache, you burn extra calories. When you get back on the bike and accelerate to "cruising speed," you burn more calories than if you simply maintained cruising speed and did not stop and start.

 

From a caching perspective it provides options, but also makes it harder to figure which caches are likely to be interesting and which ones are just fillers.

 

From a fitness perspective I think having them too close together makes the exercise less useful simply because if you're stopping to find them all the chances are you're not really getting up to speed between them. But I imagine some people will all but freewheel between them while others will sprint and brake. The fitness perspective is really secondary to the caching perspective because if you want to constantly stop and start to gain the exercise benefits of constantly accelerating you can do that with or without caches. All I need to do is ride into central London where I get to stop at junctions and traffic lights every 100 yards or so. It might give some fitness benefits but frankly I'd rather do intervals in the local park.

 

I have gotten similar intensity with caching, but not very close to home. This aspect matters to me and other cachers. Also, a trail with gaps filled in encourages people to walk the trail.

 

I'm not sure it does. If you're looking for a trail to hike than a series of caches might highlight the trail but you can do the same by looking at a trail map. For me if I see a trail on a map with a couple of caches near what are obviously overlooks I'm more likely to go and look for them, than if I see a trail on a map littered with caches. The latter trail may have a couple of awesome caches and a load of filler, but it could just as easily be a load of fluff just to populate the whole of the trail with none of the caches being particularly interesting. If you're into chasing numbers (as I was for a short time) it might encourage you but if you're the sort of cacher that would rather have a good walk to a scenic vista and grab a couple of good caches along the way you might well be put off by a trail of micros.

[+DanOCan]

Another old time story, and I don't know if anyone cares about either, but it was apparently "bad etiquette" in my area to place a cache in the same park as someone else in 2001 or 2002. Then I came along, and was one of the first people to put the 2nd cache in a couple parks. I'm talking big parks that have 20 or more today.

Funny! Early in 2004 I found a cache inside a big park -- one of those classic "I never would have found out about this place if not for caching." I remember when the second cache in the park was published and I thought "I never would have thought to put another one in there...I guess there's no reason not to."

 

That park today likely has more than a dozen caches too, including one of mine.

 

It's like the first time I went caching with someone and they did multiple caches in a day. My mind couldn't wrap around the concept. Up until then I thought caching was "Search the website for one that looks interesting, go find it, and then you were done caching for that day.

Edited August 11, 2014 by DanOCan

[+cerberus1]

"Up until then I thought caching was, 'Search the website for one that looks interesting, go find it, and then you were done caching for that day."

- I still do that.

Today I did two (oooh). One 4+ miler , the other 6. Different areas. No "fill ins".

- Had fun.

[+wmpastor]

"Up until then I thought caching was, 'Search the website for one that looks interesting, go find it, and then you were done caching for that day."

- I still do that.

Today I did two (oooh). One 4+ miler , the other 6. Different areas. No "fill ins".

- Had fun.

Sincere kudos! A 10-mile day is unfortunately very rare ( but not unheard-of) for me.

[+Roman!]

Show me a gap that needs filling and I'll show you someone willing to fill it.

 

It's just human nature to fill gaps.

[+narcissa]

I have no need to stop 150 times along a bike path so I can find one of twenty-five throw-downs that are littering a 50 foot radius around the GZ.

We'd love to see the photo of the 25 throwdowns! That would be a classic.

 

Also, let's say that getting on and off a bike burns 10 extra calories. 10 x 150 = 1,500 calories. I'm going to that trail immediately!

 

Again, different strokes. Getting on and off a bicycle every 160 metres is not fun for me. All I want is a better way to filter out these power trails so I can see the caches that are worthwhile for me. As it is, they generally get lost in the rest of the trail unless I spend a lot of time with third-party software.

Skip some then you don't have to find every cache. Instead you do one out of every 5, then the next time you come to the trail you will still have caches to grab.

 

I don't have to find any of these, ever. When I see one of those boring lines of caches on a bike trail, I just avoid it and quietly curse when it reduces the radius of my pocket query.

 

I would prefer to be able to filter out these junky, uninteresting caches according to my own personal criteria so it's easier to spot an old, good quality cache that's on the trail that is actually appealing to me. I can do this with GSAK, but it's a shame that I can't do it right on the website.

[cezanne]

One solution is to simply not stop for ANY of the micros. Alternatively, you could look for every fifth cache. The next time that you are hiking that trail, go for every fourth cache. Then three, then two, then every one. You'll get to hike that great trail five times and each time find the number of caches that you like to find while hiking.

 

All these solutions will not deal with the following issues:

 

(1) If gaps are filled in the described manner, it gives easily away the finals for multi caches and mystery caches. The more caches exist in an area, the more the placement of more complex caches is discouraged or if they pre-existed the danger that they get archived becomes higher.

 

(2) On trails with many caches one will typically meet geocachers on the way regardless of whether one is going for a cache or not. I do not like regular encounters of that type. When I meet hikers, they do not expect me to perform smalltalk. That's different for the majority of trail cachers.

 

(3) On trails with many caches, the local people typically already are alerted about the caches and one gets approached by them easily. Again something I do not feel comfortable with. It gets harder and harder to find relatively lonesome caches in particular if one cannot do very hard terrain caches.

 

Cezanne

[+dprovan]

Certainly if there are too many caches you aren't enjoying you can be more selective about the caches you seek and continue to enjoy the game. But to argue that too many caches has no effect and therefore it's a silly thing to complain about is not quite right either.

 

When there are very few caches, one does not have to be selective.

I see it precisely the other way: if there are few caches, you want to be more selective to make sure your 3 mile hike doesn't end at a piece of trash.

 

It seems to me like most of the people complaining are complaining because the gap fillers are bad caches. That's fine, but complain about bad caches. Good caches can be put in gaps, too, and the arguments presented here lead to the conclusion that a good cache in a gap is bad. I say that's hokum.

 

Geocaching used to be something that enhanced hiking. Now more often hiking is used to enhance geocaching. In my area, that works great, but it sounds like a lot of other areas have mostly bad caches, and that leads to an attitude that every cache is bad until proven otherwise. I don't think you'll ever get people to stop planting caches, so maybe it would be more productive to encourage better caches regardless of whether they're in a gap or not.

[nonaeroterraqueous]

It seems to me like most of the people complaining are complaining because the gap fillers are bad caches. That's fine, but complain about bad caches. Good caches can be put in gaps, too, and the arguments presented here lead to the conclusion that a good cache in a gap is bad. I say that's hokum.

 

The argument is that if the reason for placing a cache is simply to fill in a gap, then the cache is probably bad, because the primary motivation for placing it is insufficient. Yes, a good cache can fill a gap, but that is not the argument made by the OP. The problem, according to this side of the argument, is that filling a gap for the sake of filling a gap is insufficient reason for placing a cache, as it does not, in itself, make for a good cache.

[+tozainamboku]

Certainly if there are too many caches you aren't enjoying you can be more selective about the caches you seek and continue to enjoy the game. But to argue that too many caches has no effect and therefore it's a silly thing to complain about is not quite right either.

 

When there are very few caches, one does not have to be selective.

I see it precisely the other way: if there are few caches, you want to be more selective to make sure your 3 mile hike doesn't end at a piece of trash.

 

It seems to me like most of the people complaining are complaining because the gap fillers are bad caches. That's fine, but complain about bad caches. Good caches can be put in gaps, too, and the arguments presented here lead to the conclusion that a good cache in a gap is bad. I say that's hokum.

 

Geocaching used to be something that enhanced hiking. Now more often hiking is used to enhance geocaching. In my area, that works great, but it sounds like a lot of other areas have mostly bad caches, and that leads to an attitude that every cache is bad until proven otherwise. I don't think you'll ever get people to stop planting caches, so maybe it would be more productive to encourage better caches regardless of whether they're in a gap or not.

There are certainly people who are more happy with 10 caches on the trail instead of 1 because they can get at least a few finds even if some caches are missing. (See thread on why people don't do multi caches). What disturbs me is that with 10 caches is seems far more likely that any missing caches will be replaced by throwdowns. I think a preference for few caches is not necessarily because one expects better quality, but because the joy of caching is in the trip and the search and not in collecting smileys. When a cache is missing or a cache is disappointing, a person can still say "I had fun geocaching today". In the fill-in-the-gaps mentality it's all about the numbers; any individual caches that are missing or disappointing are magnified to "I didn't have as much fun as I could have had".

[+dprovan]

The argument is that if the reason for placing a cache is simply to fill in a gap, then the cache is probably bad, because the primary motivation for placing it is insufficient. Yes, a good cache can fill a gap, but that is not the argument made by the OP. The problem, according to this side of the argument, is that filling a gap for the sake of filling a gap is insufficient reason for placing a cache, as it does not, in itself, make for a good cache.

So you're saying that if the reason for placing a cache is other than placing a good cache, then it won't be a good cache. Well, duh. The solution is still to encourage people to place caches.

 

What disturbs me is that with 10 caches is seems far more likely that any missing caches will be replaced by throwdowns.

Must be cultural. Around here, if there are 10 caches and one's missing, the one will normally be DNF'd. But if there's 1 cache at the end of a 2 mile hike, sometimes someone will succumb to the temptation to throwdown if they can't find it.

 

I think a preference for few caches is not necessarily because one expects better quality, but because the joy of caching is in the trip and the search and not in collecting smileys.

I'm sorry, but I cannot see the journey being worse because there are more caches, all things being equal. So I conclude that the argument is precisely that one expects better quality when there are fewer caches.

 

When a cache is missing or a cache is disappointing, a person can still say "I had fun geocaching today". In the fill-in-the-gaps mentality it's all about the numbers; any individual caches that are missing or disappointing are magnified to "I didn't have as much fun as I could have had".

Look down your nose at people with that attitude all you want, just don't assume everyone that places caches densely must have that attitude.

[team tisri]

Certainly if there are too many caches you aren't enjoying you can be more selective about the caches you seek and continue to enjoy the game. But to argue that too many caches has no effect and therefore it's a silly thing to complain about is not quite right either.

 

When there are very few caches, one does not have to be selective.

I see it precisely the other way: if there are few caches, you want to be more selective to make sure your 3 mile hike doesn't end at a piece of trash.

 

Back in the days where finding a single cache would typically mean a decent hike it was quite rare to find a piece of trash. I remember one day when I decided to aim at a fairly ambitious target of maybe 5 caches in a day where I'd park up, walk a mile or so to find the cache, enjoy the views from the cache, walk back to the car and drive on to the next cache.

 

It seems to me like most of the people complaining are complaining because the gap fillers are bad caches. That's fine, but complain about bad caches. Good caches can be put in gaps, too, and the arguments presented here lead to the conclusion that a good cache in a gap is bad. I say that's hokum.

 

If you're filling in a trail with a cache every 0.1 miles the chances are you're not doing it with dozens of ammo cans. A good cache in a gap would be fine, but a dozen film pots put in a gap because "it's not worth hiking a couple of miles without a dozen film pots to find" just means there's a dozen more lame caches out there. Each one of those caches would probably struggle against the guideline of old asking "why are you bringing people here?" because the best answer they could come up with would be "because there wasn't a cache within 528 feet".

 

Geocaching used to be something that enhanced hiking. Now more often hiking is used to enhance geocaching. In my area, that works great, but it sounds like a lot of other areas have mostly bad caches, and that leads to an attitude that every cache is bad until proven otherwise. I don't think you'll ever get people to stop planting caches, so maybe it would be more productive to encourage better caches regardless of whether they're in a gap or not.

 

I guess a lot depends on the area. I've lost interest in urban caching because I just got bored of finding film pots and keysafes behind signs, and in an urban area there are only so many variations on the theme that are possible because larger caches will typically get muggled. Caching in rural areas can still be fun - even if a cache turns out to be a film pot in a tree it's more likely to involve an enjoyable walk than a trudge along a busy main road.

[team tisri]

The argument is that if the reason for placing a cache is simply to fill in a gap, then the cache is probably bad, because the primary motivation for placing it is insufficient. Yes, a good cache can fill a gap, but that is not the argument made by the OP. The problem, according to this side of the argument, is that filling a gap for the sake of filling a gap is insufficient reason for placing a cache, as it does not, in itself, make for a good cache.

So you're saying that if the reason for placing a cache is other than placing a good cache, then it won't be a good cache. Well, duh. The solution is still to encourage people to place caches.

 

The solution is to encourage people to place good caches, not just place caches. It keeps coming back to the fundamental question of "why would you bring someone here?".

 

If the idea is to bring someone to the trail that can be done with a small number of good hides, maybe with extra waypoints to indicate key places where the trail might be harder to follow. Presumably the trail is there for a reason, and if there's a single point of interest along the trail that's the obvious place to place a cache. If the trail is nothing more than a means to get from A to B and has nothing of note anywhere along its length then there's no particular reason to place a cache there.

 

What disturbs me is that with 10 caches is seems far more likely that any missing caches will be replaced by throwdowns.

Must be cultural. Around here, if there are 10 caches and one's missing, the one will normally be DNF'd. But if there's 1 cache at the end of a 2 mile hike, sometimes someone will succumb to the temptation to throwdown if they can't find it.

 

Maybe it's the instant gratification mentality at work. I've said for a while that I'll regard a cache as a good hide if I can go to GZ, spend half an hour looking, not find the cache and still consider it a trip worth making. If I go to GZ, find the cache within 30 seconds and wonder why I bothered with it then I regard it as a lame hide.

 

I think a preference for few caches is not necessarily because one expects better quality, but because the joy of caching is in the trip and the search and not in collecting smileys.

I'm sorry, but I cannot see the journey being worse because there are more caches, all things being equal. So I conclude that the argument is precisely that one expects better quality when there are fewer caches.

 

The journey in and of itself is the same however many film pots you walk past on the way. The trouble with filling in every gap is that it gets harder to differentiate the good cache placed at the end of the trail to indicate a stunning vista from the dozens of others placed every 528 feet just because someone thinks it's not worth hiking two miles to get a single smiley. The filler caches also use up space in pocket queries, rendering them less useful. If they result in the one good cache at the end getting a load of "find #43 of 75 today" type generic logs, or people placing yet another film pot throwdown because they couldn't find the ammo can within 30 seconds, it increases the likelihood that the one good cache will be archived. So even if you are ignoring the filler caches they still have an impact.

 

When a cache is missing or a cache is disappointing, a person can still say "I had fun geocaching today". In the fill-in-the-gaps mentality it's all about the numbers; any individual caches that are missing or disappointing are magnified to "I didn't have as much fun as I could have had".

Look down your nose at people with that attitude all you want, just don't assume everyone that places caches densely must have that attitude.

 

I guess the fundamental issue here is that people playing the game one way do have an impact on people who are trying to play the game the way it used to be played. If you have two teams of people playing soccer and someone decides to join in but they prefer rugby you end up with chaos, as one person is constantly trying to pick up the ball and run with it. No amount of saying that everybody can play the game their own way will make the problems go away.

[+sbell111]

There are certainly people who are more happy with 10 caches on the trail instead of 1 because they can get at least a few finds even if some caches are missing. (See thread on why people don't do multi caches).

 

What disturbs me is that with 10 caches is seems far more likely that any missing caches will be replaced by throwdowns.

I'm not seeing how this statement follows. It seems that a person who is going to replace a cache is going to do it regardless of whether their were other caches on the trail. In fact, it seems that the person might be more likely to do it if there are few caches on the trail because those geocachers might think that they are rescuing future cachers' fun by giving them a cache to find at the end of the long trail while individual caches missing along a trail that holds several caches do not risk ruining someone's caching adventure.

I think a preference for few caches is not necessarily because one expects better quality, but because the joy of caching is in the trip and the search and not in collecting smileys.

I would suspect that you are correct that a person is far more likely to find a single cache way down a trail if he enjoys hiking. Conversely, people who don't care for hiking for hiking's sake may certainly choose to walk a trail if there are a number of caches on it because geocaching is the thing that they enjoy. On one hand, you have a hiker who is willing to find a geocache while hiking. On the other, you have geocachers who are willing to hike while geocaching.

When a cache is missing or a cache is disappointing, a person can still say "I had fun geocaching today". In the fill-in-the-gaps mentality it's all about the numbers; any individual caches that are missing or disappointing are magnified to "I didn't have as much fun as I could have had".

I don't know. From this thread, it seems that the hiker who is going to look for the one cache on the trail is going to say "I had fun hiking today", but I suspect that few people are completely fulfilled by NOT finding the cache at the end of a long hike. Geocachers who are kooing for several cachers along a trail, on the other hand, are still going to have fun even if they are unable to find every one.

[+sbell111]

Back in the days where finding a single cache would typically mean a decent hike it was quite rare to find a piece of trash.

Those days really only exist in our rose colored memories, in my opinion.

 

Three of the earliest caches that I found required a short hike. One was in a sandwich container that was full of water. One had really, really bad coordinates and was actually archived and 'removed' by the cache owner a few days prior to my finding it intact. The third was unfindable. Nothing but a few scraps of trash at the location.

 

If you're filling in a trail with a cache every 0.1 miles the chances are you're not doing it with dozens of ammo cans. A good cache in a gap would be fine, but a dozen film pots put in a gap because "it's not worth hiking a couple of miles without a dozen film pots to find" just means there's a dozen more lame caches out there. Each one of those caches would probably struggle against the guideline of old asking "why are you bringing people here?" because the best answer they could come up with would be "because there wasn't a cache within 528 feet".

First, that wasn't a guideline. If anyone ever had a traditional cache listing declined because the reviewer didn't care for the reason to hide the cache, then the reviewer should have been corrected.

 

Second, loads of people enjoy finding these caches along the trail. For these people, it's not the size of the cache container that makes the fun. In fact, some people actually enjoy looking for smaller caches because they are harder to find. Of course, the solution to the problem as you state it is super simple. Easy peasey, even. If you want to find larger caches that are out in nature, when you build your PQs, up your terrain and container size. Bing, bang, boom. Done.

 

I guess a lot depends on the area. I've lost interest in urban caching because I just got bored of finding film pots and keysafes behind signs, and in an urban area there are only so many variations on the theme that are possible because larger caches will typically get muggled. Caching in rural areas can still be fun - even if a cache turns out to be a film pot in a tree it's more likely to involve an enjoyable walk than a trudge along a busy main road.

So here we're back to the other solution. Don't look for all of the caches on the trail. Look for the larger ones first. You like those.

 

After that, you can go back to the idea that I expressed before where you simply skip X number of caches and enjoy the caching hike. The next time on that trail, you skip X-1 caches and you repeat until you run out of caches or find a new trail to hike.

 

Alternatively, you can hike the trail and when you are in the mood to find a cache, pull out your GPSr and go get the nearest one.

Edited August 12, 2014 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

The journey in and of itself is the same however many film pots you walk past on the way. The trouble with filling in every gap is that it gets harder to differentiate the good cache placed at the end of the trail to indicate a stunning vista from the dozens of others placed every 528 feet just because someone thinks it's not worth hiking two miles to get a single smiley.

Wouldn't those 'good caches placed at the end of the trail' be the ones at the end of the trail?

 

That being said, TPTB created 'favorite points' to help you identify these 'good' caches. If that 'good cache at the end of the trail' doesn't catch more favorite points than the 'lame fill-in caches', then perhaps it isnt that awesome, after all.

The filler caches also use up space in pocket queries, rendering them less useful. If they result in the one good cache at the end getting a load of "find #43 of 75 today" type generic logs, or people placing yet another film pot throwdown because they couldn't find the ammo can within 30 seconds, it increases the likelihood that the one good cache will be archived. So even if you are ignoring the filler caches they still have an impact.

How do finds increase the chance of archival again?

 

I can only assume that you are arguing that the 'good' caches owners are vain and if every log they receive is not a glowing account of the cache then they are going to archive the cache. This is odd to me as you argued that the owners of the lame fill-in caches were the people who were all about instant gratification, not the owners of the 'good' caches.

 

I guess the fundamental issue here is that people playing the game one way do have an impact on people who are trying to play the game the way it used to be played. If you have two teams of people playing soccer and someone decides to join in but they prefer rugby you end up with chaos, as one person is constantly trying to pick up the ball and run with it. No amount of saying that everybody can play the game their own way will make the problems go away.

Be careful with this analogy as you might find that you are the one trying to play rugby.

 

You see, this game, at it's core, has always been about hiding something, posting coordinates online, and using online coordinates to find stuff that other people have hidden. While a person has had the ability to take a nice hike to some caches, that has never been true about all caches; not even the very first cache. Perhaps you are the one trying to play rugby.

 

It's fine that you want to take a nice hilke to find a cache, but those additional caches aren't taking away your ability to do that. It's just making it necessary for you to do additional work in order to locate those caches that you would tend to enjoy.

 

Given that you can get what you want out of the game, I see no need to change how others are playing the game. They are actually playing more of a 'pure' geocaching game than you are, after all. They are hiding and seeking and having fun doing it. They are not necessarily complicating the game by making it subordinate to another hobby (hiking).

Edited August 12, 2014 by sbell111

[cezanne]

That being said, TPTB created 'favorite points' to help you identify these 'good' caches. If that 'good cache at the end of the trail' doesn't catch more favorite points than the 'lame fill-in caches', then perhaps it isnt that awesome, after all.

 

Maybe what you suggest works in your area and for you. It does not work for me in my area at all.

 

One of the issues is that one cannot recognize why the favourite points are awarded. Back then almost all cachers in my area cared about the location and the journey, now many cachers (probably the majority of them) care a lot about the creativity of the container and the hideout. A traditional with a classical ammo box at a scenic location will get much less favourite points than a traditional at a lame location with a creative container.

 

Moreover, since cache series/cache trails/power trails became so frequent, something else skews the information obtained from favourite points considerably.

If someone hides a series of 20 micro caches along a trail, it is very likely that at least two of the caches (often the first and the last one) are awarded a FP by at least every second to third finder which can mean a lot if FPs if these caches get 200 and more finds within a few months. These points are awarded (according to the logs) for the effort to hide a series of caches. A ammo can with nice swag which is hidden at the nicest place along the trail has no chance at all to compete in terms of FPs with these series. Some complex multi and/or mystery caches might have some chance in terms of the FP ratio, but a single traditional has no chance whatsoever to compete against these series as a large number of the newer cachers appreciate finding many caches to find per trip and automatically will prefer a set up with 20 caches to one with 1-2 caches.

The message to cache owners is "Better hide a larger number of caches per cache hiding session and you will automatically be awarded FPs".

If someone finds a series of 20 new caches, he/she can easily afford to award 2 FPs to this series. Cachers do not need to be selective and can just spend the 2 FPs they earn for the 20 finds to encourage the hiders to hide new such series.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited August 12, 2014 by cezanne

[Keystone]

If you're filling in a trail with a cache every 0.1 miles the chances are you're not doing it with dozens of ammo cans. A good cache in a gap would be fine, but a dozen film pots put in a gap because "it's not worth hiking a couple of miles without a dozen film pots to find" just means there's a dozen more lame caches out there. Each one of those caches would probably struggle against the guideline of old asking "why are you bringing people here?" because the best answer they could come up with would be "because there wasn't a cache within 528 feet".

First, that wasn't a guideline. If anyone ever had a traditional cache listing declined because the reviewer didn't care for the reason to hide the cache, then the reviewer should have been corrected.

 

Second, loads of people enjoy finding these caches along the trail. {snip}

I think both of you are correct, to an extent. I believe team tisri is referencing the former "power trail" concept in the Cache Saturation guideline, which said not to hide a cache every 600 feet "just because you can." I would use this guideline to ask hiders to space out their placements some more - like every quarter mile -- when they submitted a large number of caches spaced closely apart. This made me VERY unpopular, as not all reviewers applied the guideline in the same way. My request that a CO scale back the dozen caches they hid 529 feet apart in a cemetery was, in fact, a key point in one of the "impeach Keystone" threads that pop up every few years. My action was supported by the guidelines in effect at the time. But, I cannot do that anymore. 529 feet apart is fine. It makes the review process go faster. Conversely, I've stopped giving so many exceptions for caches at distances below 528 feet. it makes the review process go faster.

 

sbell is correct, in that the power trail guideline was based solely on distance, not on the reason for the cache placement. He is also correct in stating that loads of people enjoy finding these caches. It was the pressure of that large caching population that led to the abolishment of the power trail guideline.

Edited August 12, 2014 by Keystone

[+L0ne.R]

So you're saying that if the reason for placing a cache is other than placing a good cache, then it won't be a good cache. Well, duh. The solution is still to encourage people to place caches.

 

The solution is to encourage people to place good caches, not just place caches.

 

That summarizes the issue for me.

Edited August 12, 2014 by L0ne.R

[team tisri]

The journey in and of itself is the same however many film pots you walk past on the way. The trouble with filling in every gap is that it gets harder to differentiate the good cache placed at the end of the trail to indicate a stunning vista from the dozens of others placed every 528 feet just because someone thinks it's not worth hiking two miles to get a single smiley.

Wouldn't those 'good caches placed at the end of the trail' be the ones at the end of the trail?

 

In theory, it's just that all the filler makes it harder to find the good ones. It's like throwing bigger and bigger piles of chaff when trying to sort the wheat from the chaff.

 

That being said, TPTB created 'favorite points' to help you identify these 'good' caches. If that 'good cache at the end of the trail' doesn't catch more favorite points than the 'lame fill-in caches', then perhaps it isnt that awesome, after all.

 

It still makes it more work to figure which caches are more likely to be interesting. Throw in the idea that "favourite" is such a subjective concept and and it becomes all but meaningless. I once gave a favourite point to a nano cache simply because it was a puzzle and I thought it was a cool puzzle. Given that my normal stance is not to bother looking for a nano anyone who saw me give a favourite point would probably (and reasonably) assume it wasn't a nano.

 

The filler caches also use up space in pocket queries, rendering them less useful. If they result in the one good cache at the end getting a load of "find #43 of 75 today" type generic logs, or people placing yet another film pot throwdown because they couldn't find the ammo can within 30 seconds, it increases the likelihood that the one good cache will be archived. So even if you are ignoring the filler caches they still have an impact.

How do finds increase the chance of archival again?

 

Just going by the comments people have made on the forums about growing weary of "that's one more find for me" generic logs, logs thanking the owner of the fillers for another one in the series when it wasn't another one in the series, and similar things.

 

I can only assume that you are arguing that the 'good' caches owners are vain and if every log they receive is not a glowing account of the cache then they are going to archive the cache. This is odd to me as you argued that the owners of the lame fill-in caches were the people who were all about instant gratification, not the owners of the 'good' caches.

 

I was saying that the desire for ever-more caches seems to be part of the "instant gratification" culture.

 

I guess the fundamental issue here is that people playing the game one way do have an impact on people who are trying to play the game the way it used to be played. If you have two teams of people playing soccer and someone decides to join in but they prefer rugby you end up with chaos, as one person is constantly trying to pick up the ball and run with it. No amount of saying that everybody can play the game their own way will make the problems go away.

Be careful with this analogy as you might find that you are the one trying to play rugby.

 

I'm under no illusions, the way the game has changed over the years leaves me thinking I'm the one trying to play rugby while more and more people around have decided they'd rather play soccer. Which is why I haven't looked for any caches in a few months and have only found three this year.

 

You see, this game, at it's core, has always been about hiding something, posting coordinates online, and using online coordinates to find stuff that other people have hidden. While a person has had the ability to take a nice hike to some caches, that has never been true about all caches; not even the very first cache. Perhaps you are the one trying to play rugby.

 

It's fine that you want to take a nice hilke to find a cache, but those additional caches aren't taking away your ability to do that. It's just making it necessary for you to do additional work in order to locate those caches that you would tend to enjoy.

 

And the whole point of what I'm saying is that I really have little interest in trying to sort the wheat from the chaff when the owners of the site appear to be focussed on throwing ever-more chaff into the mixture.

 

Given that you can get what you want out of the game, I see no need to change how others are playing the game. They are actually playing more of a 'pure' geocaching game than you are, after all. They are hiding and seeking and having fun doing it. They are not necessarily complicating the game by making it subordinate to another hobby (hiking).

 

In which case I wish them good luck in doing so, and hope they continue to have fun doing it. Personally I found it less and less fun digging through the spider webs behind signs, to the point I pretty much gave up on geocaching. From what people say here it seems there's a divide between folks like me who are losing interest, folks who have been around for years and who still enjoy it, and new people giving it a try. So on that basis I guess it's just down to things changing and some people moving on because they don't like what it's become.

[team tisri]

If you're filling in a trail with a cache every 0.1 miles the chances are you're not doing it with dozens of ammo cans. A good cache in a gap would be fine, but a dozen film pots put in a gap because "it's not worth hiking a couple of miles without a dozen film pots to find" just means there's a dozen more lame caches out there. Each one of those caches would probably struggle against the guideline of old asking "why are you bringing people here?" because the best answer they could come up with would be "because there wasn't a cache within 528 feet".

First, that wasn't a guideline. If anyone ever had a traditional cache listing declined because the reviewer didn't care for the reason to hide the cache, then the reviewer should have been corrected.

 

Second, loads of people enjoy finding these caches along the trail. {snip}

I think both of you are correct, to an extent. I believe team tisri is referencing the former "power trail" concept in the Cache Saturation guideline, which said not to hide a cache every 600 feet "just because you can." I would use this guideline to ask hiders to space out their placements some more - like every quarter mile -- when they submitted a large number of caches spaced closely apart. This made me VERY unpopular, as not all reviewers applied the guideline in the same way. My request that a CO scale back the dozen caches they hid 529 feet apart in a cemetery was, in fact, a key point in one of the "impeach Keystone" threads that pop up every few years. My action was supported by the guidelines in effect at the time. But, I cannot do that anymore. 529 feet apart is fine. It makes the review process go faster. Conversely, I've stopped giving so many exceptions for caches at distances below 528 feet. it makes the review process go faster.

 

I remember the hiding guidelines that said something along the lines of "if the only reason to bring someone to the place is to find the cache, consider hiding it somewhere else". It may well be that it wasn't part of the review process and more an encouragement to look for inspiring locations.

 

sbell is correct, in that the power trail guideline was based solely on distance, not on the reason for the cache placement. He is also correct in stating that loads of people enjoy finding these caches. It was the pressure of that large caching population that led to the abolishment of the power trail guideline.

 

I guess enough people like power trails that the game evolves to suit the majority. As a member of what appears to be a minority that finds them uninteresting and without an easy way to filter them out (the "power trail" attribute that has been suggested many times keeps getting rejected because it's all but impossible to define a "power trail") I guess the best thing for me to do is find another game to play.

[+wmpastor]

If you're filling in a trail with a cache every 0.1 miles the chances are you're not doing it with dozens of ammo cans. A good cache in a gap would be fine, but a dozen film pots put in a gap because "it's not worth hiking a couple of miles without a dozen film pots to find" just means there's a dozen more lame caches out there. Each one of those caches would probably struggle against the guideline of old asking "why are you bringing people here?" because the best answer they could come up with would be "because there wasn't a cache within 528 feet".

First, that wasn't a guideline. If anyone ever had a traditional cache listing declined because the reviewer didn't care for the reason to hide the cache, then the reviewer should have been corrected.

 

Second, loads of people enjoy finding these caches along the trail. {snip}

I think both of you are correct, to an extent. I believe team tisri is referencing the former "power trail" concept in the Cache Saturation guideline, which said not to hide a cache every 600 feet "just because you can." I would use this guideline to ask hiders to space out their placements some more - like every quarter mile -- when they submitted a large number of caches spaced closely apart. This made me VERY unpopular, as not all reviewers applied the guideline in the same way. My request that a CO scale back the dozen caches they hid 529 feet apart in a cemetery was, in fact, a key point in one of the "impeach Keystone" threads that pop up every few years. My action was supported by the guidelines in effect at the time. But, I cannot do that anymore. 529 feet apart is fine. It makes the review process go faster. Conversely, I've stopped giving so many exceptions for caches at distances below 528 feet. it makes the review process go faster.

 

I remember the hiding guidelines that said something along the lines of "if the only reason to bring someone to the place is to find the cache, consider hiding it somewhere else". It may well be that it wasn't part of the review process and more an encouragement to look for inspiring locations.

 

sbell is correct, in that the power trail guideline was based solely on distance, not on the reason for the cache placement. He is also correct in stating that loads of people enjoy finding these caches. It was the pressure of that large caching population that led to the abolishment of the power trail guideline.

 

I guess enough people like power trails that the game evolves to suit the majority. As a member of what appears to be a minority that finds them uninteresting and without an easy way to filter them out (the "power trail" attribute that has been suggested many times keeps getting rejected because it's all but impossible to define a "power trail") I guess the best thing for me to do is find another game to play.

 

C'mon! Power trails are a small part of the game. Stick around.

 

But if you do leave for another game, try "2048." It doesn't give much exercise though.

Edited August 12, 2014 by wmpastor

[+wmpastor]

Even as we speak, the dreaded curse of "gap-filling" rears its ugly head. Here is an excerpt from a cache just published:

 

This is number 4 in the Herd of Bison series. Agent [x] is doing his best to relieve the monotony of micros in the woods with his excellent geopuzzles, so in the meantime I'll continue to perpetuate the monotony of the micros.

[+dprovan]

Back in the days where finding a single cache would typically mean a decent hike it was quite rare to find a piece of trash.

I hate to break the news to you, but 10 years later, some of those caches you found after a decent hike are now pieces of trash.

 

If you're filling in a trail with a cache every 0.1 miles the chances are you're not doing it with dozens of ammo cans.

If I did do it with dozens of ammo cans, would you admit that they were good caches? Or would you still say they're lame because they're 0.1 miles apart?

 

Geocaching used to be something that enhanced hiking. Now more often hiking is used to enhance geocaching. In my area, that works great, but it sounds like a lot of other areas have mostly bad caches, and that leads to an attitude that every cache is bad until proven otherwise. I don't think you'll ever get people to stop planting caches, so maybe it would be more productive to encourage better caches regardless of whether they're in a gap or not.

I guess a lot depends on the area. I've lost interest in urban caching because I just got bored of finding film pots and keysafes behind signs, and in an urban area there are only so many variations on the theme that are possible because larger caches will typically get muggled. Caching in rural areas can still be fun - even if a cache turns out to be a film pot in a tree it's more likely to involve an enjoyable walk than a trudge along a busy main road.

I'm not sure where this non sequitur came from. When I wrote that comment, I was thinking exclusively of caches away from urban environments.

 

The solution is still to encourage people to place caches.

The solution is to encourage people to place good caches, not just place caches.

Oops. Yes, that's exactly what I meant to say. Somehow "good" got lost in the editing.

 

It keeps coming back to the fundamental question of "why would you bring someone here?".

Nowadays there are many more reasons to plant a cache than simple location. But one interesting answer I've run into a few times to the question of why they brought me there was that I was 0.1 or 0.25 or whatever miles further along the trail, and those 0.1's or 0.25's or whatevers were exactly what I needed to get me to the cache at the end of the trail.

 

Must be cultural. Around here, if there are 10 caches and one's missing, the one will normally be DNF'd. But if there's 1 cache at the end of a 2 mile hike, sometimes someone will succumb to the temptation to throwdown if they can't find it.

Maybe it's the instant gratification mentality at work.

I don't think you can accuse someone that walked 2 miles for a single cache of having an instant gratification mentality.

 

I guess the fundamental issue here is that people playing the game one way do have an impact on people who are trying to play the game the way it used to be played.

No, sorry, I really don't think that's the fundamental issue. I think the fundamental issue is that people are equating more with worse, then complaining about more when they should be complaining about worse.

[+sholomar]

I found im not a numbers person... after about the 15 or 20th cache on a power trail Im done... it starts to feel like work.... Im there to ride.... but I appreciate the work that goes into them. Its nice when in a hurry they are easy to find....but really i have no desire at all to pump up my find count for its own sake.... most caches are remarkably similar in composition.. i like it when the cache takes me to a location i otherwise would not have found.

Edited August 25, 2014 by sholomar

[+Roman!]

I found im not a numbers person... after about the 15 or 20th cache on a power trail Im done... it starts to feel like work.... Im there to ride.... but I appreciate the work that goes into them. Its nice when in a hurry they are easy to find....but really i have no desire at all to pump up my find count for its own sake.... most caches are remarkably similar in composition.. i like it when the cache takes me to a location i otherwise would not have found.

 

I have been to many cool places and seen many cool things and have had awesome experiences with both my family and friends thanks to power trails.

 

I love the desert and spending a day covering 60 to 80 miles and getting to know the area quite well is enjoyable, the numbers are a bonus.

 

If you think a PT is all about racing to the next cache without seeing or experiencing your environment then my best guess is you've never done one.

Edited August 25, 2014 by Roman!

[+wmpastor]

I found im not a numbers person... after about the 15 or 20th cache on a power trail Im done... it starts to feel like work.... Im there to ride.... but I appreciate the work that goes into them. Its nice when in a hurry they are easy to find....but really i have no desire at all to pump up my find count for its own sake.... most caches are remarkably similar in composition.. i like it when the cache takes me to a location i otherwise would not have found.

 

I have been to many cool places and seen many cool things and have had awesome experiences with both my family and friends thanks to power trails.

 

I love the desert and spending a day covering 60 to 80 miles and getting to know the area quite well is enjoyable, the numbers are a bonus.

 

If you think a PT is all about racing to the next cache without seeing or experiencing your environment then my best guess is you've never done one.

 

Interesting twist. We picture people zooming through a PT. Why NOT go slow and enjoy and relax?!

[+Roman!]

I found im not a numbers person... after about the 15 or 20th cache on a power trail Im done... it starts to feel like work.... Im there to ride.... but I appreciate the work that goes into them. Its nice when in a hurry they are easy to find....but really i have no desire at all to pump up my find count for its own sake.... most caches are remarkably similar in composition.. i like it when the cache takes me to a location i otherwise would not have found.

 

I have been to many cool places and seen many cool things and have had awesome experiences with both my family and friends thanks to power trails.

 

I love the desert and spending a day covering 60 to 80 miles and getting to know the area quite well is enjoyable, the numbers are a bonus.

 

If you think a PT is all about racing to the next cache without seeing or experiencing your environment then my best guess is you've never done one.

 

Interesting twist. We picture people zooming through a PT. Why NOT go slow and enjoy and relax?!

 

You don't have to go slow to enjoy it, my record is 786 caches in one day and I think that day I also set a record for the most pictures I have taken.

 

I have done over 500 caches several times with both friends and my kids and they are some of my best memories and favorite pictures.

 

Some people can have fun sitting on their butts watching tv all day, some people can have fun spending the day on and off their butts hundreds of times on a PT, me, I can have fun doing both.

[team tisri]

C'mon! Power trails are a small part of the game. Stick around.

 

But if you do leave for another game, try "2048." It doesn't give much exercise though.

 

Where I live micros are about all the game is any more. Powertrail or otherwise, I just got bored of looking for them.

 

I do like 2048. I think my high score is something like 52000. After some battling I managed to get the elusive 4096 tile.

[+Dame Deco]

I have no need to stop 150 times along a bike path so I can find one of twenty-five throw-downs that are littering a 50 foot radius around the GZ.

We'd love to see the photo of the 25 throwdowns! That would be a classic.

 

Also, let's say that getting on and off a bike burns 10 extra calories. 10 x 150 = 1,500 calories. I'm going to that trail immediately!

 

Again, different strokes. Getting on and off a bicycle every 160 metres is not fun for me. All I want is a better way to filter out these power trails so I can see the caches that are worthwhile for me. As it is, they generally get lost in the rest of the trail unless I spend a lot of time with third-party software.

 

Actually, just do a PQ of the area or look at a map of the bike trail, then look at the names of the caches--the Power Trail names are usually all similar or identical instead of numbers. Just the check the caches with different names to see if you want them. No software needed.

[+narcissa]

Actually, just do a PQ of the area or look at a map of the bike trail, then look at the names of the caches--the Power Trail names are usually all similar or identical instead of numbers. Just the check the caches with different names to see if you want them. No software needed.

 

You don't seem to understand that I don't want them in the pocket query to begin with, because they reduce the total radius of the pocket query. I don't want them in my GPS, at all.

[+sbell111]

I found im not a numbers person... after about the 15 or 20th cache on a power trail Im done... it starts to feel like work.... Im there to ride.... but I appreciate the work that goes into them. Its nice when in a hurry they are easy to find....but really i have no desire at all to pump up my find count for its own sake.... most caches are remarkably similar in composition.. i like it when the cache takes me to a location i otherwise would not have found.

 

I have been to many cool places and seen many cool things and have had awesome experiences with both my family and friends thanks to power trails.

 

I love the desert and spending a day covering 60 to 80 miles and getting to know the area quite well is enjoyable, the numbers are a bonus.

 

If you think a PT is all about racing to the next cache without seeing or experiencing your environment then my best guess is you've never done one.

 

Interesting twist. We picture people zooming through a PT. Why NOT go slow and enjoy and relax?!

Because that's not how they want to do it. Why does it matter?

[+sbell111]

Actually, just do a PQ of the area or look at a map of the bike trail, then look at the names of the caches--the Power Trail names are usually all similar or identical instead of numbers. Just the check the caches with different names to see if you want them. No software needed.

 

You don't seem to understand that I don't want them in the pocket query to begin with, because they reduce the total radius of the pocket query. I don't want them in my GPS, at all.

Some people can have fun looking for every single cache that comes up. Some people want to only look for a small subset of caches that meet their definition of 'fun'. It is not unreasonable for that second group of people to have to do a little bit of extra work to get what they want.

 

To the issue of these caches reducing your PQ's radius, just build a second query.

Edited August 25, 2014 by sbell111

[+narcissa]

Some people can have fun looking for every single cache that come up. Some people want to only look for a small subset of caches that meet their definition of 'fun'. It is not unreasonable for that second group of people to have to do a little bit of extra work to get what they want.

 

To the issue of these caches reducing your PQ's radius, just build a second query.

 

There are many ways that I can work around the issue. That's not the point.

 

The fact remains that I would really prefer to see Groundspeak take some initiative and add a "power trail" attribute so that I can easily remove these junky caches from my life with one click and no after-the-fact work-arounds.

 

It's a point I will continue to raise until my voice is heard. I'm not asking people to stop hiding them, or finding them. I just want to see the company show *me* a little loyalty for once by doing something simple that would improve my experience with the site.

[+sbell111]

Some people can have fun looking for every single cache that come up. Some people want to only look for a small subset of caches that meet their definition of 'fun'. It is not unreasonable for that second group of people to have to do a little bit of extra work to get what they want.

 

To the issue of these caches reducing your PQ's radius, just build a second query.

 

There are many ways that I can work around the issue. That's not the point.

 

The fact remains that I would really prefer to see Groundspeak take some initiative and add a "power trail" attribute so that I can easily remove these junky caches from my life with one click and no after-the-fact work-arounds.

 

It's a point I will continue to raise until my voice is heard. I'm not asking people to stop hiding them, or finding them. I just want to see the company show *me* a little loyalty for once by doing something simple that would improve my experience with the site.

Fight the good fight, then.

 

Personally, I don't think that your proposed solution would actually fix your problem, but that just my opinion.

[+narcissa]

Personally, I don't think that your proposed solution would actually fix your problem, but that just my opinion.

 

I think that with a bit of pressure from the community, we could get the owners of those ridiculous straight lines of caches to use the attribute. Those are the ones I want to filter out. It just sucks to have my PQ radius reduced by 20km because someone felt a need to barf out 300 caches along an old rail trail. It's a nuisance trying to run additional PQs because they are circular so there's a lot of overlap required to get coverage of an area.

[+sbell111]

Personally, I don't think that your proposed solution would actually fix your problem, but that just my opinion.

 

I think that with a bit of pressure from the community, we could get the owners of those ridiculous straight lines of caches to use the attribute. Those are the ones I want to filter out. It just sucks to have my PQ radius reduced by 20km because someone felt a need to barf out 300 caches along an old rail trail. It's a nuisance trying to run additional PQs because they are circular so there's a lot of overlap required to get coverage of an area.

I'm in favor of that hypothetical owner using the attribute. I think that it will actually do a service for those cachers who, unlike you, actually enjoy finding these caches. That being said, I'm not a huge fan of making such attribute usage mandatory. Further, I suspect that you will have many owner of smaller grouping not use the attribute simply because their caches are not a 'power trail' in their opinion.

[+Zepp914]

I have a 5 year old boy I take with me hiking. He is not interested in signing his name on paper. He wants to find plastic treasure in the woods. I use pocket queries and only look for caches that are regular or large sized. Most of the gap fillers are smalls, micros, or "size not chosen" so I don't even see them. I will never understand why someone would want to find a tiny pill bottle in a forest or drive through a desert finding 1 thousand of them. But what do I know? They never show up for me. The $30 premium fee was worth it for pocket queries alone. I'm sure we will miss out on some great areas highlited by smalls and micros, but we will also miss out on a lot of nothing.

 

That being said, I am guilty of checking for caches of any size if I go somewhere new. I'll spend 2 minutes signing a LPC if I happened to be there anyway.

Edited August 25, 2014 by Zepp914

[+narcissa]

I'm in favor of that hypothetical owner using the attribute. I think that it will actually do a service for those cachers who, unlike you, actually enjoy finding these caches. That being said, I'm not a huge fan of making such attribute usage mandatory. Further, I suspect that you will have many owner of smaller grouping not use the attribute simply because their caches are not a 'power trail' in their opinion.

 

Yes, it will help power cachers find those caches too.

 

Attributes have never been mandatory.

 

I'm not really concerned about smaller groupings. I think community norms will ensure that the attribute is used well, as others generally are.

[+L0ne.R]

I found im not a numbers person... after about the 15 or 20th cache on a power trail Im done... it starts to feel like work.... Im there to ride.... but I appreciate the work that goes into them. Its nice when in a hurry they are easy to find....but really i have no desire at all to pump up my find count for its own sake.... most caches are remarkably similar in composition.. i like it when the cache takes me to a location i otherwise would not have found.

 

I have been to many cool places and seen many cool things and have had awesome experiences with both my family and friends thanks to power trails.

 

I love the desert and spending a day covering 60 to 80 miles and getting to know the area quite well is enjoyable, the numbers are a bonus.

 

If you think a PT is all about racing to the next cache without seeing or experiencing your environment then my best guess is you've never done one.

 

Interesting twist. We picture people zooming through a PT. Why NOT go slow and enjoy and relax?!

Because that's not how they want to do it. Why does it matter?

 

It matters because the Power Trail mentality starts to dominate the game. Everything becomes a popcorn kernel in the big geocaching bowl. Cache owners who invest their time and money to place a nice cache, get the power trail response, even when their cache isn't on a power trail, because people get used to a quicker easier way to score points.

 

No slowing down to notice the surroundings, to write something in the log, to compose something for the online log when you get back home, to thank the owner for that particular cache, to tell the other finders what you thought of that particular cache. It all becomes...."Had a blast with BillyBob finding 700 caches today. Yours was one of them. I love smileys!" copy and pasted into each of the day's 700 finds.

[+Corfman Clan]

Except if you're stopping every 200 yards the chances are you're never going to accelerate up to a meaningful speed. I'd say holding a consistent 20mph takes a lot more effort than accelerating from stopped to single-digit speeds only to stop again. And in 200 yards you're only going to get to a decent speed if you do the "accelerate furiously" thing I mentioned in my post.

Cycle much? Evidently not. I'll get to double digit (ooh, 10+ mph) speeds with a couple of turns of the pedals. Whatever.

[+sbell111]

I found im not a numbers person... after about the 15 or 20th cache on a power trail Im done... it starts to feel like work.... Im there to ride.... but I appreciate the work that goes into them. Its nice when in a hurry they are easy to find....but really i have no desire at all to pump up my find count for its own sake.... most caches are remarkably similar in composition.. i like it when the cache takes me to a location i otherwise would not have found.

 

I have been to many cool places and seen many cool things and have had awesome experiences with both my family and friends thanks to power trails.

 

I love the desert and spending a day covering 60 to 80 miles and getting to know the area quite well is enjoyable, the numbers are a bonus.

 

If you think a PT is all about racing to the next cache without seeing or experiencing your environment then my best guess is you've never done one.

 

Interesting twist. We picture people zooming through a PT. Why NOT go slow and enjoy and relax?!

Because that's not how they want to do it. Why does it matter?

 

It matters because the Power Trail mentality starts to dominate the game. Everything becomes a popcorn kernel in the big geocaching bowl. Cache owners who invest their time and money to place a nice cache, get the power trail response, even when their cache isn't on a power trail, because people get used to a quicker easier way to score points.

 

No slowing down to notice the surroundings, to write something in the log, to compose something for the online log when you get back home, to thank the owner for that particular cache, to tell the other finders what you thought of that particular cache. It all becomes...."Had a blast with BillyBob finding 700 caches today. Yours was one of them. I love smileys!" copy and pasted into each of the day's 700 finds.

Some people want to rush around and find as many caches as they can. Others want to carefully select that one perfect cache to look for.

 

It has been this way since day 1.

[team tisri]

Except if you're stopping every 200 yards the chances are you're never going to accelerate up to a meaningful speed. I'd say holding a consistent 20mph takes a lot more effort than accelerating from stopped to single-digit speeds only to stop again. And in 200 yards you're only going to get to a decent speed if you do the "accelerate furiously" thing I mentioned in my post.

Cycle much? Evidently not. I'll get to double digit (ooh, 10+ mph) speeds with a couple of turns of the pedals. Whatever.

 

I don't cycle much? That's comical

 

I overtake an awful lot of people who look like they never get very far into double digit speeds however far they cycle. If I'm only going to cycle 200 yards it's easy enough to get up to a good speed but there just doesn't seem a whole lot of point in accelerating hard and then stopping again.

[team tisri]

I found im not a numbers person... after about the 15 or 20th cache on a power trail Im done... it starts to feel like work.... Im there to ride.... but I appreciate the work that goes into them. Its nice when in a hurry they are easy to find....but really i have no desire at all to pump up my find count for its own sake.... most caches are remarkably similar in composition.. i like it when the cache takes me to a location i otherwise would not have found.

 

I have been to many cool places and seen many cool things and have had awesome experiences with both my family and friends thanks to power trails.

 

I love the desert and spending a day covering 60 to 80 miles and getting to know the area quite well is enjoyable, the numbers are a bonus.

 

If you think a PT is all about racing to the next cache without seeing or experiencing your environment then my best guess is you've never done one.

 

Interesting twist. We picture people zooming through a PT. Why NOT go slow and enjoy and relax?!

Because that's not how they want to do it. Why does it matter?

 

It matters because the Power Trail mentality starts to dominate the game. Everything becomes a popcorn kernel in the big geocaching bowl. Cache owners who invest their time and money to place a nice cache, get the power trail response, even when their cache isn't on a power trail, because people get used to a quicker easier way to score points.

 

No slowing down to notice the surroundings, to write something in the log, to compose something for the online log when you get back home, to thank the owner for that particular cache, to tell the other finders what you thought of that particular cache. It all becomes...."Had a blast with BillyBob finding 700 caches today. Yours was one of them. I love smileys!" copy and pasted into each of the day's 700 finds.

Some people want to rush around and find as many caches as they can. Others want to carefully select that one perfect cache to look for.

 

It has been this way since day 1.

 

Except that these days if you're in the latter group it gets ever-harder to pick out the one that you'd go and find from the growing numbers that you wouldn't.

 

And therein lies the problem. The fact that hundreds of film pots litter the countryside doesn't force me to find any of them. But their presence does make it harder for me to pick out the caches that might be of interest. If it were as easy as running a pocket query to only show caches that were Small or larger that would be fine, but sometimes there's a good cache in a nice location that happens to be a micro. So unless you want to find dozens of micros it's harder to play a game that involves selecting them.

[+sbell111]

I found im not a numbers person... after about the 15 or 20th cache on a power trail Im done... it starts to feel like work.... Im there to ride.... but I appreciate the work that goes into them. Its nice when in a hurry they are easy to find....but really i have no desire at all to pump up my find count for its own sake.... most caches are remarkably similar in composition.. i like it when the cache takes me to a location i otherwise would not have found.

 

I have been to many cool places and seen many cool things and have had awesome experiences with both my family and friends thanks to power trails.

 

I love the desert and spending a day covering 60 to 80 miles and getting to know the area quite well is enjoyable, the numbers are a bonus.

 

If you think a PT is all about racing to the next cache without seeing or experiencing your environment then my best guess is you've never done one.

 

Interesting twist. We picture people zooming through a PT. Why NOT go slow and enjoy and relax?!

Because that's not how they want to do it. Why does it matter?

 

It matters because the Power Trail mentality starts to dominate the game. Everything becomes a popcorn kernel in the big geocaching bowl. Cache owners who invest their time and money to place a nice cache, get the power trail response, even when their cache isn't on a power trail, because people get used to a quicker easier way to score points.

 

No slowing down to notice the surroundings, to write something in the log, to compose something for the online log when you get back home, to thank the owner for that particular cache, to tell the other finders what you thought of that particular cache. It all becomes...."Had a blast with BillyBob finding 700 caches today. Yours was one of them. I love smileys!" copy and pasted into each of the day's 700 finds.

Some people want to rush around and find as many caches as they can. Others want to carefully select that one perfect cache to look for.

 

It has been this way since day 1.

 

Except that these days if you're in the latter group it gets ever-harder to pick out the one that you'd go and find from the growing numbers that you wouldn't.

 

And therein lies the problem. The fact that hundreds of film pots litter the countryside doesn't force me to find any of them. But their presence does make it harder for me to pick out the caches that might be of interest. If it were as easy as running a pocket query to only show caches that were Small or larger that would be fine, but sometimes there's a good cache in a nice location that happens to be a micro. So unless you want to find dozens of micros it's harder to play a game that involves selecting them.

It's still not a new thing. In fact, your post could have been cut and pasted from threads from several years ago.

 

At the end of the day, there are a few truths that cannot be ignored:

• There are going to be caches that you don't want to find and caches that you do.
  
• No one but you can determine which caches belong in which group.
  
• There are ways to sort out loads of the caches that you don't want to find.
  
• Even the best of these 'easy peasey' sorts will filter in a few caches that you don't want to find and/or filter out a few caches that you would like to find.
  
• Anyone who expects that he should be able to get a list of every cache in his area that he would like to find without having any caches on it that he wouldn't like to find and to get it without putting in any effort is being unreasonable, in my opinion.