Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7
ArtieD

Colorado Geo-Art to be Archived...

Recommended Posts

Then you add the dimension of numbers... hiding a lot of caches in an area is more likely to be noticed then just a few.

 

Hiding a lot of caches in a sparsely populated area not used to visitors = high chance of issues.

 

You do understand that there is a huge density here of a little more than one cache for every four square miles (1 every 10 square kilometers), right?

 

The art is in an area of roughly 60 square miles, but the actual caches cover an area of 4,000 square miles.

 

Austin

None of that matters when a land manager or property owner complains...repeatedly. And when the discussion wasn't clear with property owners about specific placements--just that "the art isn't the actual placement, it's on public roads..." yadda yadda. It all means nothing when not 100% of the property owners are on board for those 1000+ caches, and some have proven to be on/too near someones property boundary.

 

It's all about nuance, and these caches really shouldn't be missed. Just like any other cache, they should be handled on a case-by-case basis, and those caches which are causing problems should be archived. If that means the whole of the "geo-art" project, so be it.

 

Even less so than with Three-cache-monte on a true 528' power trail, these "spread out" caches should still be maintained. If a cache listing isn't acting on maintenance issues (missing caches, missing logs, etc.), land manager issues (neighbors/adjacent property owners are really not keen on the placements...), and so on, then the caches should be archived. Again, there's nothing to see here. It was the right decision by the "geo-art" owners, and action really should have been taken sooner (IMO).

Share this post


Link to post

Hmmmmmmmmm,

 

Remember the old song "Convoy"

 

Yep, and at times that forums remind me of the CB radio craze of the last 70's...that's not a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post

The art is in an area of roughly 60 square miles, but the actual caches cover an area of 4,000 square miles.

 

Austin

 

Please explain how this is works--how it is even possible.

Share this post


Link to post

The art is in an area of roughly 60 square miles, but the actual caches cover an area of 4,000 square miles.

 

Austin

 

Please explain how this is works--how it is even possible.

Top point on star (#0001) to bottom point on star (#0141) is aprox 59.5 miles.

Left point on star (#0491) to right point on star (#0351) is aprox. 60.9 miles.

 

So if we assume a square 60 miles on a side we come up with 3,600 square miles. I think the quoted statement is somewhat incorrect. I no longer have the art work loaded in GSAK so I can't give the exact solved coordinates, but the solved coordinate were not way far off the artwork. I suppose I could dig up an archive for the database if it is important.

Share this post


Link to post

The art is in an area of roughly 60 square miles, but the actual caches cover an area of 4,000 square miles.

 

Austin

 

Please explain how this is works--how it is even possible.

Top point on star (#0001) to bottom point on star (#0141) is aprox 59.5 miles.

Left point on star (#0491) to right point on star (#0351) is aprox. 60.9 miles.

 

So if we assume a square 60 miles on a side we come up with 3,600 square miles. I think the quoted statement is somewhat incorrect. I no longer have the art work loaded in GSAK so I can't give the exact solved coordinates, but the solved coordinate were not way far off the artwork. I suppose I could dig up an archive for the database if it is important.

 

So I'm understanding that you're saying that the art is in a box approx 60 miles on a side. Right? That's 60 miles squared, not 60 square miles; if so, the art is not in an area of 60 square miles; the art, and the actual caches, are in an area of 3600 square miles. And the quoted statement is not just "somewhat inaccurate"; it is completely wrong. The exact dimensions are not important; I didn't understand the quoted statement because it is just plain nonsense. Thanks for clearing that up.

Share this post


Link to post
So I'm understanding that you're saying that the art is in a box approx 60 miles on a side. Right? That's 60 miles squared, not 60 square miles; if so, the art is not in an area of 60 square miles; the art, and the actual caches, are in an area of 3600 square miles. And the quoted statement is not just "somewhat inaccurate"; it is completely wrong. The exact dimensions are not important; I didn't understand the quoted statement because it is just plain nonsense. Thanks for clearing that up.

And that's still not right. While the art is about 60 miles north to south, and 60 miles east to west, it's actually laid out in a diamond shape. The diagonal sides are only about 45 miles, which nets a coverage area of only 2,025 square miles.

Share this post


Link to post
So I'm understanding that you're saying that the art is in a box approx 60 miles on a side. Right? That's 60 miles squared, not 60 square miles; if so, the art is not in an area of 60 square miles; the art, and the actual caches, are in an area of 3600 square miles. And the quoted statement is not just "somewhat inaccurate"; it is completely wrong. The exact dimensions are not important; I didn't understand the quoted statement because it is just plain nonsense. Thanks for clearing that up.

And that's still not right. While the art is about 60 miles north to south, and 60 miles east to west, it's actually laid out in a diamond shape. The diagonal sides are only about 45 miles, which nets a coverage area of only 2,025 square miles.

Most of the caches are mystery and the finals are all over the place. I had the whole thing solved at one time. If folks want to discuss it some more I could see if can find an archived database.

Share this post


Link to post
Then you add the dimension of numbers... hiding a lot of caches in an area is more likely to be noticed then just a few.

 

Hiding a lot of caches in a sparsely populated area not used to visitors = high chance of issues.

 

You do understand that there is a huge density here of a little more than one cache for every four square miles (1 every 10 square kilometers), right?

 

The art is in an area of roughly 60 square miles, but the actual caches cover an area of 4,000 square miles.

 

Austin

 

I believe both the art and the caches are in an area approximately 60 miles by 60 miles (which is nearly 4,000 square miles). But the caches are of course not evenly spread across that whole area. I've not done the caches but there were posts which said they were typically 1/4 or 1/2 mile apart in sections.. though there are some larger distance between sections. There are enough clustered together to cause an issue.

Share this post


Link to post

I know it's a bit late, wouldn't have made any difference anyway, but,,, i'm curious to know how the GCCO knows that these notes/threats are actually from a land owner(s)? I took a look at the pictures of the notes and to be honest, they looked to be purposely scribbled to hide any resemblance of the person's hand writing. If it is indeed landowners doing the complaining, just how many are doing it? I realize there is probably miles of land owned by some owners where some of the caches were placed but it's still hard to believe that there would be enough to cause this much conflict. How many caches were threatened? As big a project as this was, i would think caches could be moved to keep conflict down. All this stuff sure seems fishy to me.

 

This being said and even though it may not be right, bottom line is that the caches needed to be archived to keep everyone safe.

Share this post


Link to post

Ooooopppsssssssss,

 

Here comes a ticked off land-owner. Paddle faster, I hear banjo music.

 

On a serious note ... rougue hot air balloonists irritating land owners who I had pleasantly dealt with for years was a factor in the closure of my hot air balloon ride business.

Share this post


Link to post

I know it's a bit late, wouldn't have made any difference anyway, but,,, i'm curious to know how the GCCO knows that these notes/threats are actually from a land owner(s)? I took a look at the pictures of the notes and to be honest, they looked to be purposely scribbled to hide any resemblance of the person's hand writing. If it is indeed landowners doing the complaining, just how many are doing it? I realize there is probably miles of land owned by some owners where some of the caches were placed but it's still hard to believe that there would be enough to cause this much conflict. How many caches were threatened? As big a project as this was, i would think caches could be moved to keep conflict down. All this stuff sure seems fishy to me.

 

This being said and even though it may not be right, bottom line is that the caches needed to be archived to keep everyone safe.

Even if it is disgruntled geocachers, that still renders the caches in need of routine maintenance. The owners will have to decide how to best deal with the required maintenance on their caches. In this case, it appears that the owners took the threat seriously (as they should) and archived the caches. Right move, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post

Just curious how many on here actually did any of these caches? The area I did, though maybe public roads, the most that is on these roads are the farms, orchards, ranches and the owners. Maybe a few non owners. No parks, no housing developments, no big stores, maybe a cemetery or two. So to me they aren't much of public roads, only there so farmers can get around on. So what I saw on the section I did, is like one big private property with a freeway running through it. So either the damage (possible threats) done by the landowners, workers or other cachers who don't like GeoArts.

Share this post


Link to post

And I really don't think they are good for the desert, either. Bad for the environment,

 

Wait.. what?? Aren't good for the desert? Did you really just write that? Bwa ha ha ha. ROTFLMAO.

Share this post


Link to post

Why are you laughing? Having carloads of people walking around on the same route to find caches is hard on a fragile environment.

Share this post


Link to post

And I really don't think they are good for the desert, either. Bad for the environment,

 

Wait.. what?? Aren't good for the desert? Did you really just write that? Bwa ha ha ha. ROTFLMAO.

Deserts are one of the most fragile ecosystems on earth. Due to limited precipitation, some deserts have remained unchanged for millions of years. Thousands of years from now archeologists are going to speculate why there are piles of rocks spaced 500 feet apart for miles and miles.

Share this post


Link to post
Deserts are one of the most fragile ecosystems on earth. Due to limited precipitation, some deserts have remained unchanged for millions of years.

 

I agree.

 

Thousands of years from now archeologists are going to speculate why there are piles of rocks spaced 500 feet apart for miles and miles.

 

No they won't. Some of them will still have caches, and they will still be able to read some of the log entries, even thousands of years from now. Some of the log entries will be faded to nothing, some of the logs will be crumbled, some of the containers will be broken down, but enough will still be there even a thousand years from now that they will be wondering who these people were and why they came here to the desert to worship these "Official Geocaches." :blink:

 

Austin

Share this post


Link to post

I think it is funny that there are small towns in West Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania actively working with Geocachers to build trails and attract tourists (and their money), while these folks apparently don't need or want it.

Share this post


Link to post

I think it is funny that there are small towns in West Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania actively working with Geocachers to build trails and attract tourists (and their money), while these folks apparently don't need or want it.

 

I'm thinking that the ones who are experiencing the inconvenience are not seeing the benefit. Farmers and ranchers generally are not involved with retail sales. What little benefit they see from potential tax revenue for the county may not be worth the costs to them. From what I'm experiencing the people who live in the cities around me expect the rural people to take the hit in quality of life for things that mostly benefit the cities and those who live there.

Share this post


Link to post

I vote for a moratorium on new power trails until Groundspeak comes up with some new guidelines to better suit the power caching community as well as the local residents that it affects.

Share this post


Link to post
Deserts are one of the most fragile ecosystems on earth. Due to limited precipitation, some deserts have remained unchanged for millions of years.

 

I agree.

 

Thousands of years from now archeologists are going to speculate why there are piles of rocks spaced 500 feet apart for miles and miles.

 

No they won't. Some of them will still have caches, and they will still be able to read some of the log entries, even thousands of years from now. Some of the log entries will be faded to nothing, some of the logs will be crumbled, some of the containers will be broken down, but enough will still be there even a thousand years from now that they will be wondering who these people were and why they came here to the desert to worship these "Official Geocaches." :blink:

 

Austin

 

Hmmmmmmmmmm,

 

Perhaps someone has been reading "OZYMANDIAS" by P.B. Shelley

Share this post


Link to post

Deserts, the kind we have in the west, are often BLM land where cattle roam free. Cattle have done more damage to the environment than hikers ever will. Now if you are using an SUV to establish trails that didn't exist before, or are seriously degrading unmaintained track, there's a point against power trails, too.

 

Those which I have seen in Nevada aren't going to come close to the amount of damage one new subdivision or mall parking lot will do.

 

So let's keep some perspective.

Share this post


Link to post

Those which I have seen in Nevada aren't going to come close to the amount of damage one new subdivision or mall parking lot will do.

 

So let's keep some perspective.

 

Yes well...for additional perspective, remember that cachers don't own the property they cache on, but the developers DO own the land they legally build on. The latter can do all the damage they choose, provided it is not by illegal activity like dumping and such. The former do not have such protections.

Share this post


Link to post

Deserts, the kind we have in the west, are often BLM land where cattle roam free. Cattle have done more damage to the environment than hikers ever will. Now if you are using an SUV to establish trails that didn't exist before, or are seriously degrading unmaintained track, there's a point against power trails, too.

 

Those which I have seen in Nevada aren't going to come close to the amount of damage one new subdivision or mall parking lot will do.

 

So let's keep some perspective.

My post was not to start a debate on which human activity causes the most enviromental damage. My response was to educate some of the posters that implied the desert is not fragile.

Share this post


Link to post

Colorado is such a gorgeous place with two July 2000 caches, the mountains, and lots of other great caches and places too go, I've always really scratched my head over anyone spending 3 or 4 days where they put that geoart then turing around and going home. It always seemed nuts to me.

 

It may seem nuts to some people but to the geocacher who thoroughly enjoys it, it is an actual vacation. For example, perhaps one enjoys fishing, so they take a few days to fish a specific spot on a lake but never venture into the city to visit the museums, galleries, restaurants, etc. It doesn't make the fishing trip a negative venture.

 

Also, maybe they only have three or four days available for the geoart/power trail and no extra time for other things. It's all relative.

Share this post


Link to post

I think one of the problems with this particular kind of geoart is that you have to use mystery caches to accomplish it. Mystery caches may, or may not, be at the listed coordinates. In my area, for mystery caches that are not at the posted coordinates, most CO's will emphasize, right at the beginning of the description, that the cache is not located at the posted coordinates. Looking at the cache description, it is not obvious in this case.

 

My point... For new cachers, they may not realize that that they have to solve something, and/or they don't know how to enter new coordinates into their GPSr. They just go traipsing off over the fields, damaging crops, or upsetting cattle, looking in the wrong place. A couple of instances like this, and I can see why the locals would get angry.

 

I have no statistics or research on whether or not this is happening, its just a hunch. I know of one time where I did just that. Another time, I thought I had corrected the coordinates, but I didn't. (I've since changed my procedures because, frankly, I hate when I do that.)

 

Another thought, something that Groundspeak should be able to add fairly easily, is a notice at the top of all Mystery Caches, that the cache might not be at the posted coordinates, and you should carefully read the description.

 

Thanks, Skye.

Share this post


Link to post

I had no problem figuring out these UNKNOWN caches they were not at the posted coords just by looking at the map and seeing on the cache page you have to solve the puzzle. I have seen many puzzles not mention they were not at the posted coords.

Share this post


Link to post

Groundspeak needs to stop publishing power trails. They are giving caching a bad name.

 

As I've been saying since the first power trails started appearing, no good would come out of taking a low impact, low visibility activity and turning it into a high impact, high visibility one. And that's precisely what these PTs and most of the "geo art" have done.

 

I was pretty much a voice in the wilderness in the beginning. Glad to see that more and more people are starting see this nonsense for what it is, a threat to the long term viability of our game. We're already seeing the fallout from power caching in NJ with a new, draconian state parks policy and a total ban on some state lands.

Share this post


Link to post

Groundspeak needs to stop publishing power trails. They are giving caching a bad name.

 

As I've been saying since the first power trails started appearing, no good would come out of taking a low impact, low visibility activity and turning it into a high impact, high visibility one. And that's precisely what these PTs and most of the "geo art" have done.

 

I was pretty much a voice in the wilderness in the beginning. Glad to see that more and more people are starting see this nonsense for what it is, a threat to the long term viability of our game. We're already seeing the fallout from power caching in NJ with a new, draconian state parks policy and a total ban on some state lands.

 

+1 (or more)

Share this post


Link to post
As I've been saying since the first power trails started appearing, no good would come out of taking a low impact, low visibility activity and turning it into a high impact, high visibility one. And that's precisely what these PTs and most of the "geo art" have done.

 

I guess that's exactly what GC wants. More players means more $$. (short term, that is).

Share this post


Link to post

I had no problem figuring out these UNKNOWN caches they were not at the posted coords just by looking at the map and seeing on the cache page you have to solve the puzzle. I have seen many puzzles not mention they were not at the posted coords.

 

In today instant gratification world, there are going to be people that don't take the time to read all of the cache page. Hey, look, its in the shape of a star. Let's try this. Got the coordinates, lets go, don't bother reading about it, its just boring history stuff. My suggestion is aimed at trying to get the attention of those few.

 

Looking at your profile, I see you have found over 29,000 caches. So, I think its safe to say you have a little more experience in these things than most. :-)

 

Thanks, Skye.

Share this post


Link to post

I had no problem figuring out these UNKNOWN caches they were not at the posted coords just by looking at the map and seeing on the cache page you have to solve the puzzle. I have seen many puzzles not mention they were not at the posted coords.

 

In today instant gratification world, there are going to be people that don't take the time to read all of the cache page. Hey, look, its in the shape of a star. Let's try this. Got the coordinates, lets go, don't bother reading about it, its just boring history stuff. My suggestion is aimed at trying to get the attention of those few.

 

Looking at your profile, I see you have found over 29,000 caches. So, I think its safe to say you have a little more experience in these things than most. :-)

 

Thanks, Skye.

 

Did you look at the logs? Practically without exception the finders all have been around the block more than once. There were no single digit weekend wonders. Just the location (and probably cell reception ) alone is enough to keep newbie smartphone crowd at bay. Except for the most neophyte most know a mystery cache is not at the location posted and you have to read the description to figure out the puzzle. Do mysteries even show up in the intro app?

 

I put the problems down to a) since it is a puzzle and you have to figure out numbers and do math there were errors that made, it is normal human mistakes. This resulted in bad coordinates that caused interaction with locals. b ) there were some that live out there that resented and did not want outsiders driving down "their" road or walking up to their fences. c} Maybe a bit of cache maggot. I seriously doubt it is because folks loaded a PQ and took off.

Edited by jholly

Share this post


Link to post
As I've been saying since the first power trails started appearing, no good would come out of taking a low impact, low visibility activity and turning it into a high impact, high visibility one. And that's precisely what these PTs and most of the "geo art" have done.

Agreed!

 

Now I just wish I knew what to do about it. I'm trying to make quiet statements by not participating in power trail madeness -- I'll log a few of the caches at a time, or log every tenth one while skipping the rest. I'll write individual logs as if they were just another cache and not part of a trail. I'm trying to demonstrate a different way of caching to a generation of cachers who have "grown up" in the "more more more" caching world we currently seem to be stuck in.

Share this post


Link to post

Groundspeak needs to stop publishing power trails. They are giving caching a bad name.

 

As I've been saying since the first power trails started appearing, no good would come out of taking a low impact, low visibility activity and turning it into a high impact, high visibility one. And that's precisely what these PTs and most of the "geo art" have done.

 

I was pretty much a voice in the wilderness in the beginning. Glad to see that more and more people are starting see this nonsense for what it is, a threat to the long term viability of our game. We're already seeing the fallout from power caching in NJ with a new, draconian state parks policy and a total ban on some state lands.

 

+ million or so

 

It really sucks to see caching banned on NJ state lands. I don't know the history of this policy, but if it was caused by the geoart and power trail crud, we really need to take a deep look at all aspects of our game.

Share this post


Link to post

Here is the link to the log that did it -- which has photos.

 

Log with pics

I was shocked to read this part of the log

 

We replaced approximately 300 missing containers until we ran out. Threatening signs are being put up.

He writes that the neighbours are angry, removing caches and leaving angry notes (which includes expletives) but they throw down 300 containers to replace the caches removed by angry property owners. Wow! Gives power caching a bad name yet again.

Not only that, but of the 1,005 geo-art caches, they "found 1013 caches (a few extra that we passed along while finding the GCCO's.)"

 

That certainly gives the impression that, after they ran out of throwdowns, they also "found" the missing caches that they didn't replace.

Really? That's what bothers you?

 

I'll tell you about the *two* things that bother me. First, the cachers' failure to try to understand the locals. Second, the locals' failure to accept a perfectly legal recreational activity in their neighborhood. Ownership of land gives you certain rights. It does *not* give other rights - despite what locals may think.

Share this post


Link to post

Groundspeak needs to stop publishing power trails. They are giving caching a bad name.

 

As I've been saying since the first power trails started appearing, no good would come out of taking a low impact, low visibility activity and turning it into a high impact, high visibility one. And that's precisely what these PTs and most of the "geo art" have done.

 

I was pretty much a voice in the wilderness in the beginning. Glad to see that more and more people are starting see this nonsense for what it is, a threat to the long term viability of our game. We're already seeing the fallout from power caching in NJ with a new, draconian state parks policy and a total ban on some state lands.

 

If this is a poll, I'm casting my vote with you! Very well put.

Share this post


Link to post

Groundspeak needs to stop publishing power trails. They are giving caching a bad name.

 

As I've been saying since the first power trails started appearing, no good would come out of taking a low impact, low visibility activity and turning it into a high impact, high visibility one. And that's precisely what these PTs and most of the "geo art" have done.

 

I was pretty much a voice in the wilderness in the beginning. Glad to see that more and more people are starting see this nonsense for what it is, a threat to the long term viability of our game. We're already seeing the fallout from power caching in NJ with a new, draconian state parks policy and a total ban on some state lands.

 

+ million or so

 

It really sucks to see caching banned on NJ state lands. I don't know the history of this policy, but if it was caused by the geoart and power trail crud, we really need to take a deep look at all aspects of our game.

 

From what I read, it wasn't power trails or geo-art, but it was the same sort of "hide it because you can" mentality. There were simply too many caches for the land managers to keep an eye on... they were overwhelmed by it all. Somebody from that area can probably state it more accurately, or you can find the thread in the regional forum.

Share this post


Link to post

Groundspeak needs to stop publishing power trails. They are giving caching a bad name.

 

As I've been saying since the first power trails started appearing, no good would come out of taking a low impact, low visibility activity and turning it into a high impact, high visibility one. And that's precisely what these PTs and most of the "geo art" have done.

 

I was pretty much a voice in the wilderness in the beginning. Glad to see that more and more people are starting see this nonsense for what it is, a threat to the long term viability of our game. We're already seeing the fallout from power caching in NJ with a new, draconian state parks policy and a total ban on some state lands.

 

If you ever start your own geocaching site, I'm signing up!

Share this post


Link to post
As I've been saying since the first power trails started appearing, no good would come out of taking a low impact, low visibility activity and turning it into a high impact, high visibility one. And that's precisely what these PTs and most of the "geo art" have done.

Agreed!

 

Now I just wish I knew what to do about it. I'm trying to make quiet statements by not participating in power trail madeness -- I'll log a few of the caches at a time, or log every tenth one while skipping the rest. I'll write individual logs as if they were just another cache and not part of a trail. I'm trying to demonstrate a different way of caching to a generation of cachers who have "grown up" in the "more more more" caching world we currently seem to be stuck in.

 

That's sort of how I'm doing it. I don't do power trails. I drove a friend around on a series of .1 mile caches at GWXIII, but sat in the car and didn't log any. She was into it, but I'm not. Just the idea of stopping every .1 miles for a smiley was against my grain, but I drove her there and figured let her enjoy herself. I enjoyed driving her around, she is fun company, but I think we could have had easily as much fun driving around to a few cool caches, which we did the day after the event. I don't need a smiley every 50 seconds to have fun. Two years ago I was about 2 hours from the ET highway for a week and thought of driving out there one day just to find one and leave. But I figured that statement would have lost on anyone and a total waste of my time.

Share this post


Link to post

Groundspeak needs to stop publishing power trails. They are giving caching a bad name.

 

As I've been saying since the first power trails started appearing, no good would come out of taking a low impact, low visibility activity and turning it into a high impact, high visibility one. And that's precisely what these PTs and most of the "geo art" have done.

 

I was pretty much a voice in the wilderness in the beginning. Glad to see that more and more people are starting see this nonsense for what it is, a threat to the long term viability of our game. We're already seeing the fallout from power caching in NJ with a new, draconian state parks policy and a total ban on some state lands.

 

+ million or so

 

It really sucks to see caching banned on NJ state lands. I don't know the history of this policy, but if it was caused by the geoart and power trail crud, we really need to take a deep look at all aspects of our game.

 

From what I read, it wasn't power trails or geo-art, but it was the same sort of "hide it because you can" mentality. There were simply too many caches for the land managers to keep an eye on... they were overwhelmed by it all. Somebody from that area can probably state it more accurately, or you can find the thread in the regional forum.

 

Some people like to blame a single person and a "cache war" that started what happened in NJ, but it had more to do with the parks management seeing a few dozen caches sprinkled around the parks, to nearly overnight seeing hundreds, and in one park, over a thousand. After nearly 14 years of geocaching being a relatively benign activity and not worthy of attention, the state took notice when the number of caches skyrocketed in just a year or two. And most of them were power trails. Not the ET highway sort of a cache a minute power trail, but the sort where someone could find dozens in an afternoon. Any land manager is going to start paying attention when that happens.

Edited by briansnat

Share this post


Link to post

Groundspeak needs to stop publishing power trails. They are giving caching a bad name.

 

As I've been saying since the first power trails started appearing, no good would come out of taking a low impact, low visibility activity and turning it into a high impact, high visibility one. And that's precisely what these PTs and most of the "geo art" have done.

 

I was pretty much a voice in the wilderness in the beginning. Glad to see that more and more people are starting see this nonsense for what it is, a threat to the long term viability of our game. We're already seeing the fallout from power caching in NJ with a new, draconian state parks policy and a total ban on some state lands.

 

+1

Well stated

Share this post


Link to post
As I've been saying since the first power trails started appearing, no good would come out of taking a low impact, low visibility activity and turning it into a high impact, high visibility one. And that's precisely what these PTs and most of the "geo art" have done.

 

I guess that's exactly what GC wants. More players means more $$. (short term, that is).

And there you've hit the nail on the head. Follow the money. It's not about what's best for the game; it's about how much money power trails make for Groundspeak. Knowing that, it doesn't matter how many people speak against them, they're here to stay until land managers ban all geocaching on their property and someone starts an underground geocaching site.

Share this post


Link to post
As I've been saying since the first power trails started appearing, no good would come out of taking a low impact, low visibility activity and turning it into a high impact, high visibility one. And that's precisely what these PTs and most of the "geo art" have done.

 

I guess that's exactly what GC wants. More players means more $. (short term, that is).

And there you've hit the nail on the head. Follow the money. It's not about what's best for the game; it's about how much money power trails make for Groundspeak. Knowing that, it doesn't matter how many people speak against them, they're here to stay until land managers ban all geocaching on their property and someone starts an underground geocaching site.

I have to disagree with that. Or, perhaps I should say, I hope that you are wrong, and that Groundspeak is looking beyond the immediate dollar. They want this game to be able to continue as long as possible. If they feel that they are shooting themselves in the corporate foot by the existence of power trails & carpet bombing, I think we will see a return to the "just because you can" philosophy of the past. Of course, it may be too late to close that barn door.

Share this post


Link to post
Two years ago I was about 2 hours from the ET highway for a week and thought of driving out there one day just to find one and leave. But I figured that statement would have lost on anyone and a total waste of my time.

Our statement was to do 51 caches on the ET power trail (period)...and then go visit Area 51.

Share this post


Link to post
Two years ago I was about 2 hours from the ET highway for a week and thought of driving out there one day just to find one and leave. But I figured that statement would have lost on anyone and a total waste of my time.
I'm not worried about making a statement. If the owners of the ET Highway numbers run trail cared about my opinion, then they'd stop promoting the three cache monte and throwdowns.

 

But if I were in the area, I might do the non-micro caches in the series. I wouldn't bother with any of the fungible film canisters though. And I'd definitely seek out some of the other caches in the area that aren't part of the numbers run trail.

Share this post


Link to post

I have to disagree with that. Or, perhaps I should say, I hope that you are wrong, and that Groundspeak is looking beyond the immediate dollar. They want this game to be able to continue as long as possible. If they feel that they are shooting themselves in the corporate foot by the existence of power trails & carpet bombing, I think we will see a return to the "just because you can" philosophy of the past. Of course, it may be too late to close that barn door.

 

Looking at the way things change, I at least get the impression that decisions are made with $$ in mind instead of geocaching as an activity. Changes are made to make it easier to start from zero by making access "phone friendly" even if that means it's less userfriendly for other users (think MC while the older e-mail send message is "discouraged" by design).

 

Fortunately there's the API so most activity can be done outside of the website.

 

There's also the "other type" of cacher that get's into the hobby. Before caching we would go cycling or hiking when the weather was fine. When we started caching we continued to do that but the places to go to were decided upon by the caches available. Talking to "oldtimers" it looks like they to went outdoors before they started geocaching so it was an add-on for what they already did. These days most people start the hobby for the caches only. They already have the smartphone so it's costing them nearly nothing (except for the paid app (they could be using a better, free alternative but are not aware of them).

Share this post


Link to post

Groundspeak needs to stop publishing power trails. They are giving caching a bad name.

 

As I've been saying since the first power trails started appearing, no good would come out of taking a low impact, low visibility activity and turning it into a high impact, high visibility one. And that's precisely what these PTs and most of the "geo art" have done.

 

I was pretty much a voice in the wilderness in the beginning. Glad to see that more and more people are starting see this nonsense for what it is, a threat to the long term viability of our game. We're already seeing the fallout from power caching in NJ with a new, draconian state parks policy and a total ban on some state lands.

 

If this is a poll, I'm casting my vote with you! Very well put.

 

When the "please don't place a cache every 600' just because you can" language was removed from the guidelines in 2009 I wrote here that it was the worst decision GS has ever made. I still stand by that statement.

Edited by NYPaddleCacher

Share this post


Link to post

Groundspeak needs to stop publishing power trails. They are giving caching a bad name.

 

As I've been saying since the first power trails started appearing, no good would come out of taking a low impact, low visibility activity and turning it into a high impact, high visibility one. And that's precisely what these PTs and most of the "geo art" have done.

 

I was pretty much a voice in the wilderness in the beginning. Glad to see that more and more people are starting see this nonsense for what it is, a threat to the long term viability of our game. We're already seeing the fallout from power caching in NJ with a new, draconian state parks policy and a total ban on some state lands.

 

If this is a poll, I'm casting my vote with you! Very well put.

 

When the "please don't place a cache every 600' just because you can" language was removed from the guidelines in 2009 I wrote here that it was the worst decision GS has ever made. I still stand by that statement.

I started caching in 2009 and that language was still in the guidelines, they must have removed it later. A quick search yielded this post, otherwise I agree with all of you.

Share this post


Link to post
As I've been saying since the first power trails started appearing, no good would come out of taking a low impact, low visibility activity and turning it into a high impact, high visibility one. And that's precisely what these PTs and most of the "geo art" have done.

 

I guess that's exactly what GC wants. More players means more $. (short term, that is).

And there you've hit the nail on the head. Follow the money. It's not about what's best for the game; it's about how much money power trails make for Groundspeak. Knowing that, it doesn't matter how many people speak against them, they're here to stay until land managers ban all geocaching on their property and someone starts an underground geocaching site.

I have to disagree with that. Or, perhaps I should say, I hope that you are wrong, and that Groundspeak is looking beyond the immediate dollar. They want this game to be able to continue as long as possible. If they feel that they are shooting themselves in the corporate foot by the existence of power trails & carpet bombing, I think we will see a return to the "just because you can" philosophy of the past. Of course, it may be too late to close that barn door.

 

Unfortunately, i think Path Pacer is right. Groundspeak is seeing dollar signs right this minute. We've all see companies fold after making bad decisions chasing that all mighty dollar. GS may be making more money now but this will taper down when more and more people begin realizing how much time, effort, and fuel they're wasting going for smiley count alone. People brag about how high their count is but guess what, that count is pretty much worthless in the grand scheme of things. In the meanwhile, geocaching is being looked down upon by some US states, land managers, and private property owners because of the rediculous amounts of junk being placed every 530 feet.

Share this post


Link to post

When the "please don't place a cache every 600' just because you can" language was removed from the guidelines in 2009 I wrote here that it was the worst decision GS has ever made. I still stand by that statement.

 

+1

Share this post


Link to post

The way Geocaching is structured this is bound to happen. Numbers over quality, disregard of public opinion and destruction of the environment is occurring at an increasing rate. The numbers game is not only about caches, but about the large number of inexperienced and ignorant new cachers who are now in abundance. Add to them the numbers hounds and you get this. Groundspeak should set standards to be met before new cachers be allowed to hide caches. Caches should not be placed just because they can be. Instances like this and the fiasco near Ocala, Florida can and should be avoided. If these problems are not reined in, geocaching as we know it will not survive in the long run.

The problem is just not the geo-art and power trails, it is caches period. Many single caches had to be archived because of irate neighbors. The only sure fire way to prevent these problems is to put a moratorium on all cache placements.

 

I don't recall problems of this magnitude in the "old days" when we were told to not hide a cache every 528' just because we could. We have seen problems of this magnitude repeatedly since. However, I think the horse it out of the barn, and probably won't be getting her back in.

 

It's almost as if at one time there was a reason for not doing these things and then somebody said "but think of the page views, man" and then all heck broke loose.

Share this post


Link to post

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...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7

×
×
  • Create New...