Jump to content

Suggestion for an attribute.


ThePetrifiedWood
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

I think it would be helpful to have a "power trail" attribute, so that power trail caches can be selected for, or filtered out of pocket queries.

 

Power trails are (for most people, anyway) a means to pad their find count. So if one is going out caching for that purpose, it would make sense to be able to filter out other caches.

 

By the same logic, if one isn't interested in logging finds just for the sake of logging finds, then it would be nice to filter out the power trails to make room in the GPS memory for more of the cache types they prefer. Since they often involve a very large number of caches very close together, they can make up a significant percentage of caches within a given radius.

 

Since power trail caches really aren't a different "cache type", it would make sense to use an attribute as a way to enable filtering them.

 

And I hope this doesn't come across as either a promotion or condemnation of power trail caches. It's just that I think they different enough from regular caches that the option to filter them (in or out) of pocket queries would be useful.

Link to comment

It's such a good idea, that it's been suggest, lots of times before. And like you said, it would be helpful both for those who like, and dislike doing them. Groundspeak is in the middle of doing upgrades - the search function, website appearances, and such. We may see this, but don't hold your breath.

Link to comment
While you are waiting for this to become available for your grandchildren you can use gsak to do an Api call by Owned By and then add them all to your ignore list using another API call. Never see them again.
Wouldn't that eliminate all caches by that owner and not just the power trails?
Yes, but many numbers run trails are "owned" by sock puppet accounts that were created just for the numbers run trails.
Link to comment
While you are waiting for this to become available for your grandchildren you can use gsak to do an Api call by Owned By and then add them all to your ignore list using another API call. Never see them again.
Wouldn't that eliminate all caches by that owner and not just the power trails?
Yes, but many numbers run trails are "owned" by sock puppet accounts that were created just for the numbers run trails.

 

So are these folks placing the caches with the sock puppet account so they can then "find" them with their primary account?

 

I have been reading the thread you linked. There are a lot of persuasive arguments for and against, and it seems to hinge on defining what a power trail is, and the fact that it would require COs to add the attribute. I think most of the people hiding power trails probably have some sense that they are, in fact hiding a power trail that meets my definition below.

 

I think the answer is simple. A power trail is a series of closely spaced caches placed by one owner for the purpose of boosting find counts by maximizing the number of caches along a route, using similar containers, and similar hides. It intentionally lacks variety as well.

 

A trail made up of a variety of different caches by different owners that eventually reaches saturation wasn't created by one owner for the purpose of boosting finds. It just happens that the area reached saturation. It might be useful for boosting find counts, but it wasn't created for the purpose. And the different owners, cache pages, hiding styles, containers, etc. add enough variety to make each find experience unique.

 

The other issue raised in that thread was whether or not the ability to filter out power trails would even be useful. Certainly it seems there is a demand for the feature.

 

The ability to filter caches by type, rating and attribute already exists. Clearly there is a recognized need for the ability to filter caches for all of the existing attributes. For example, parking nearby. Of course if the CO doesn't add the attribute, you might filter some caches out that had easy parking, but that's the risk in using filters for ANY attribute.

 

So I think it makes sense to be able to filter out caches that are (similarly hidden, similar containers, closely spaced, placed by one owner, and designed to boost finds) power trails. The argument that some owners won't use the attribute can be said of all of the possible attributes. And yet we have many attributes to choose from.

 

And the fact that some caches will not be caught by the filter if they don't have the attribute added, doesn't diminish the utility of adding or removing those that do. If you had a 100 cache trail (20% of the space in my 60csx) that was filtered out and another that wasn't, it still saves a ton of space, and that's 100 less that you'd have to manually remove.

 

If we don't get the feature it really isn't a big deal. But it sure seems like a way more useful attribute than something like the horses attribute, which would only be useful to people who own or rent horses. I would venture a guess that a power trails attribute would appear in many, many more PQ filters than the horses attribute.

 

Anyhow, caching is a blast, filters or no filters. :D

Link to comment

While you are waiting for this to become available for your grandchildren you can use gsak to do an Api call by Owned By and then add them all to your ignore list using another API call. Never see them again.

 

Wouldn't that eliminate all caches by that owner and not just the power trails?

 

As mentioned most power trails are owned and maintained by a group so they have a unique Placed By. Identifier. If not then you sub filter by name to get what you want and then with a couple of clicks they are never seen again.

Link to comment
So are these folks placing the caches with the sock puppet account so they can then "find" them with their primary account?
You say to-may-to, I say to-mah-to...

 

Some of them do, but I'm not sure that's the reason for the sock-puppet account. I think the main reason for the sock-puppet account is more likely to be the need to manage hundreds of email notifications from geocaching.com every time someone does the numbers run trail.

Link to comment

[...]

I thought it was 500 on the 60 series, and 1000 in the 64 series units. That is good news if it can hold 1000!

 

Yes, that's right for the beginning of the 60/76's series. A firmware update gives (I don't know exactly when that happened) us 1000.

 

Hans

Edited by HHL
Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...