Jump to content

Cache Maintenance


GeoBain
Followers 3

Recommended Posts

The relevant listing guideline is the "Cache Maintenance" guideline. Asking others on the cache listing to maintain your cache (or trail full of caches) for you is not a maintenance plan. When I've seen this language on cache listings, I ask the owner to remove it. The wonderful Appeals team at Geocaching HQ has backed me up on that interpretation.

 

The linked blog post (not a listing guideline) is about a group of geocachers having fun on a power trail. The advice is given to other cache seekers. The listing guidelines do not attempt to regulate voluntary maintenance activities by finders.

 

So, "formal guidelines for hiders" and "informal advice to seekers" are easily distinguishable concepts.

Link to comment

The relevant listing guideline is the "Cache Maintenance" guideline. Asking others on the cache listing to maintain your cache (or trail full of caches) for you is not a maintenance plan. When I've seen this language on cache listings, I ask the owner to remove it. The wonderful Appeals team at Geocaching HQ has backed me up on that interpretation.

 

The linked blog post (not a listing guideline) is about a group of geocachers having fun on a power trail. The advice is given to other cache seekers. The listing guidelines do not attempt to regulate voluntary maintenance activities by finders.

 

So, "formal guidelines for hiders" and "informal advice to seekers" are easily distinguishable concepts.

 

Where would a note log by the cache owner requesting the next finder bring a replacement container fit into that spectrum?

Link to comment

The relevant listing guideline is the "Cache Maintenance" guideline. Asking others on the cache listing to maintain your cache (or trail full of caches) for you is not a maintenance plan. When I've seen this language on cache listings, I ask the owner to remove it. The wonderful Appeals team at Geocaching HQ has backed me up on that interpretation.

 

The linked blog post (not a listing guideline) is about a group of geocachers having fun on a power trail. The advice is given to other cache seekers. The listing guidelines do not attempt to regulate voluntary maintenance activities by finders.

 

So, "formal guidelines for hiders" and "informal advice to seekers" are easily distinguishable concepts.

 

No counselor, not easily distinguishable concepts when the blog post is written by an eight year employee of Groundspeak, involves another very well know GS employee and is published on the official website.

Calling this "voluntary cache maintenance" is tortured logic.

 

Here is a direct quote from the blog article author in the comments section:

 

"We used the method where you swap out the container and while we drove from cache to cache, someone stamped our group stamp in the log...the freshly stamped cache would be swapped out at the next cache. We brought 50 film canisters to help with maintaining caches along the way. This is a very typical method on the ET Highway. It's not my preferred method of geocaching, but the whole experience was pretty amazing."

 

To her credit she says it not her preferred way of geocaching but when a highly visible employee of an organization makes this statement (and other highly visible employee is complicit in the same activity) then other geocachers could certainly arrive at the conclusion that Groundspeak approves of this behavior regardless of what the guidelines say.

Edited by Michaelcycle
Link to comment

The relevant listing guideline is the "Cache Maintenance" guideline. Asking others on the cache listing to maintain your cache (or trail full of caches) for you is not a maintenance plan. When I've seen this language on cache listings, I ask the owner to remove it. The wonderful Appeals team at Geocaching HQ has backed me up on that interpretation.

 

The linked blog post (not a listing guideline) is about a group of geocachers having fun on a power trail. The advice is given to other cache seekers. The listing guidelines do not attempt to regulate voluntary maintenance activities by finders.

 

So, "formal guidelines for hiders" and "informal advice to seekers" are easily distinguishable concepts.

 

Where would a note log by the cache owner requesting the next finder bring a replacement container fit into that spectrum?

Since the Volunteer Reviewers don't police Log Entries (excluding TOU violations and turning Listing pages into Forums), I'm not sure I see the issue? I'm guessing that most Reviewers would ignore such Log Entries and address the issue at hand: is the cache going to be fixed or not?

 

To her credit she says it not her preferred way of geocaching but when a highly visible employee of an organization makes this statement (and other highly visible employee is complicit in the same activity) then other geocachers could certainly arrive at the conclusion that Groundspeak approves of this behavior regardless of what the guidelines say.

 

Or they could just read the Guidelines:

 

If you need to make special arrangements for a novel idea, contact Groundspeak before placing and reporting the geocache on Geocaching.com. If you need to appeal the decisions of our reviewers, contact Groundspeak and categorize your message for the Appeals group. We look forward to assisting you.

 

It's pretty clear reading the ET Hwy PT website that the concept had a rather twisted route to making it work (including the involvement of various State Agencies and local support). Sounds like Groundspeak was involved in the process and decided to give it a try. This doesn't necessarily mean that such practices become the norm, they just decided to make an exception. Annie could have easily left that detail out of the Blog, but she apparently decided honesty is the best policy. No good deed goes unpunished.

Edited by Touchstone
Link to comment

The relevant listing guideline is the "Cache Maintenance" guideline. Asking others on the cache listing to maintain your cache (or trail full of caches) for you is not a maintenance plan. When I've seen this language on cache listings, I ask the owner to remove it. The wonderful Appeals team at Geocaching HQ has backed me up on that interpretation.

 

The linked blog post (not a listing guideline) is about a group of geocachers having fun on a power trail. The advice is given to other cache seekers. The listing guidelines do not attempt to regulate voluntary maintenance activities by finders.

 

So, "formal guidelines for hiders" and "informal advice to seekers" are easily distinguishable concepts.

 

No counselor, not easily distinguishable concepts when the blog post is written by an eight year employee of Groundspeak, involves another very well know GS employee and is published on the official website.

Calling this "voluntary cache maintenance" is tortured logic.

 

Here is a direct quote from the blog article author in the comments section:

 

"We used the method where you swap out the container and while we drove from cache to cache, someone stamped our group stamp in the log...the freshly stamped cache would be swapped out at the next cache. We brought 50 film canisters to help with maintaining caches along the way. This is a very typical method on the ET Highway. It's not my preferred method of geocaching, but the whole experience was pretty amazing."

 

To her credit she says it not her preferred way of geocaching but when a highly visible employee of an organization makes this statement (and other highly visible employee is complicit in the same activity) then other geocachers could certainly arrive at the conclusion that Groundspeak approves of this behavior regardless of what the guidelines say.

 

Not the first time, and won't be the last time, that their marketing efforts have directly contradicted the cache placement guidelines and other communications about best practices.

 

I wish they'd be a little more careful about what they put out there. It's really hard to defend geocaching to skeptics when the head office does things like that. :(

Link to comment

The Power Trail Slippery Slope:

 

Stop/search/find/open/sign/close/reset/move-one/log 'em all

---> stop/search/find/open/log-swap/close/move-on/log 'em all

---> stop/search/find/container-swap/move-on/log 'em all

---> stop/search/find/move-on/log 'em all

---> stop/move-on/log 'em all

---> drive past and log 'em all without stopping.

Link to comment

Why is it forbidden for cache owners to ask people to help replace a missing cache but it is ok, even encouraged by tptb, to ask people to "-Plan to bring at least 50 film canisters with logs (for cache maintenance along the way)" on power trails?

 

I'm not saying right or wrong but almost from the beginning PT's were mostly maintained by PT seekers.....the dynamics of so many containers being hit so often would make it very hard for a single CO to keep it up so it was expected that you bring a sack of film cans and logs...if a throwdown happens its no problem to have 2 or 3 at GZ....like a spare tire.

PT's are really a subset of normal geocaching.

Link to comment

The Power Trail Slippery Slope:

 

Stop/search/find/open/sign/close/reset/move-one/log 'em all

---> stop/search/find/open/log-swap/close/move-on/log 'em all

---> stop/search/find/container-swap/move-on/log 'em all

---> stop/search/find/move-on/log 'em all

---> stop/move-on/log 'em all

---> drive past and log 'em all without stopping.

I wouldn't be surprised if this is the case already. After all, if you're just going to swap containers or drop your own anyway, why not? In our general area, I have seen Found It logs on power trails that stated "Container appeared to be missing but I want to claim the find anyway since we saw the spot it was hidden." Sure, there have been false finds on containers as long as there have been caches, but when it comes to PTs this stuff is becoming more and more mainstream.

Link to comment

I'm not saying right or wrong but almost from the beginning PT's were mostly maintained by PT seekers.....the dynamics of so many containers being hit so often would make it very hard for a single CO to keep it up so it was expected that you bring a sack of film cans and logs...if a throwdown happens its no problem to have 2 or 3 at GZ....like a spare tire.

PT's are really a subset of normal geocaching.

 

I just wonder why a co is allowed to put out a power trail when just as you point out it is very hard for a single CO to keep it up and finder maintenance is pretty much the accepted maintenance plan.

 

But if a CO puts out a lot of individual non power trail caches and posts a maintenance log stating that a cache is good to go but if a future finder would replace if needed that a reviewer would then disable the cache and when questioned state that the CO can't maintain his caches.

 

It just seems there are 2 sets of rules.

 

Power trail: ok to ask others to do your maintenance/ finder maintenance is the maintenance plan

Individual caches: not ok to ask someone to replace a particular cache even though you otherwise do your own maintenance as a general rule.

Link to comment

It just seems there are 2 sets of rules.

 

Power trail: ok to ask others to do your maintenance/ finder maintenance is the maintenance plan

Individual caches: not ok to ask someone to replace a particular cache even though you otherwise do your own maintenance as a general rule.

 

It does seem so...

Link to comment
Power trail: ok to ask others to do your maintenance/ finder maintenance is the maintenance plan
As Keystone indicated, "Asking others on the cache listing to maintain your cache (or trail full of caches) for you is not a maintenance plan." But clearly, asking others to maintain your trail full of fungible caches is fine, as long as you don't do it on the cache listings.
Link to comment

Why is it forbidden for cache owners to ask people to help replace a missing cache but it is ok, even encouraged by tptb, to ask people to "-Plan to bring at least 50 film canisters with logs (for cache maintenance along the way)" on power trails?

 

I'm not saying right or wrong but almost from the beginning PT's were mostly maintained by PT seekers.....the dynamics of so many containers being hit so often would make it very hard for a single CO to keep it up so it was expected that you bring a sack of film cans and logs...if a throwdown happens its no problem to have 2 or 3 at GZ....like a spare tire.

PT's are really a subset of normal geocaching.

 

(see bolded) Yes, it sure would put a stop to unmaintainable power trails if the cache owner(s) had to do their own maintenance, wouldn't it?

Link to comment
Power trail: ok to ask others to do your maintenance/ finder maintenance is the maintenance plan
As Keystone indicated, "Asking others on the cache listing to maintain your cache (or trail full of caches) for you is not a maintenance plan." But clearly, asking others to maintain your trail full of fungible caches is fine, as long as you don't do it on the cache listings.

 

By listing do you mean the actual listing or notes posted?

Link to comment
Power trail: ok to ask others to do your maintenance/ finder maintenance is the maintenance plan
As Keystone indicated, "Asking others on the cache listing to maintain your cache (or trail full of caches) for you is not a maintenance plan." But clearly, asking others to maintain your trail full of fungible caches is fine, as long as you don't do it on the cache listings.

 

By listing do you mean the actual listing or notes posted?

In the Description would be a no I would think. Notes would be difficult to police unless someone followed up with an NA log.

Link to comment

 

Not the first time, and won't be the last time, that their marketing efforts have directly contradicted the cache placement guidelines and other communications about best practices.

 

I wish they'd be a little more careful about what they put out there. It's really hard to defend geocaching to skeptics when the head office does things like that. :(

 

Yeah--I felt exactly the same way about the 7 year old, never found, 5/5 cache that was replaced by a GS lackey instead of just being archived like another cache might have been. Marketing, marketing, marketing!

Link to comment

 

Not the first time, and won't be the last time, that their marketing efforts have directly contradicted the cache placement guidelines and other communications about best practices.

 

I wish they'd be a little more careful about what they put out there. It's really hard to defend geocaching to skeptics when the head office does things like that. :(

 

Yeah--I felt exactly the same way about the 7 year old, never found, 5/5 cache that was replaced by a GS lackey instead of just being archived like another cache might have been. Marketing, marketing, marketing!

 

Did a reviewer clear an NA log on that cache? I missed that.

Link to comment

The Power Trail Slippery Slope:

 

Stop/search/find/open/sign/close/reset/move-one/log 'em all

---> stop/search/find/open/log-swap/close/move-on/log 'em all

---> stop/search/find/container-swap/move-on/log 'em all

---> stop/search/find/move-on/log 'em all

---> stop/move-on/log 'em all

---> drive past and log 'em all without stopping.

I'd worry about this if it actually made any difference to me what other people thought was fun.

Link to comment

The Power Trail Slippery Slope:

 

Stop/search/find/open/sign/close/reset/move-one/log 'em all

---> stop/search/find/open/log-swap/close/move-on/log 'em all

---> stop/search/find/container-swap/move-on/log 'em all

---> stop/search/find/move-on/log 'em all

---> stop/move-on/log 'em all

---> drive past and log 'em all without stopping.

 

You missed next step

---> log 'em all without driving past

Link to comment

The Power Trail Slippery Slope:

 

Stop/search/find/open/sign/close/reset/move-one/log 'em all

---> stop/search/find/open/log-swap/close/move-on/log 'em all

---> stop/search/find/container-swap/move-on/log 'em all

---> stop/search/find/move-on/log 'em all

---> stop/move-on/log 'em all

---> drive past and log 'em all without stopping.

I'd worry about this if it actually made any difference to me what other people thought was fun.

 

That comes across as "it doesn't bother me so it shouldn't bother anyone else".

 

I suspect it *does* make a different when some start applying that slippery slope to non-PT caches. Personally, I don't think it's acceptable for a CO to allow some of the things they do on their cache with the excuse that it's a PT, but when cachers start doing those same things on cache owned by CO which would not allow those same practices (and there have been numerous examples posted where this has happened) it's just wrong.

Link to comment

The Power Trail Slippery Slope:

 

Stop/search/find/open/sign/close/reset/move-one/log 'em all

---> stop/search/find/open/log-swap/close/move-on/log 'em all

---> stop/search/find/container-swap/move-on/log 'em all

---> stop/search/find/move-on/log 'em all

---> stop/move-on/log 'em all

---> drive past and log 'em all without stopping.

 

You missed next step

---> log 'em all without driving past

Missed also photolog somewhere in there

Link to comment

The Power Trail Slippery Slope:

 

Stop/search/find/open/sign/close/reset/move-one/log 'em all

---> stop/search/find/open/log-swap/close/move-on/log 'em all

---> stop/search/find/container-swap/move-on/log 'em all

---> stop/search/find/move-on/log 'em all

---> stop/move-on/log 'em all

---> drive past and log 'em all without stopping.

 

You missed next step

---> log 'em all without driving past

 

True. True.

 

Looks like I've got my work cut out for me. :laughing:

1,141 today...tomorrow 11,000!!!

Link to comment

I been scouting locations for a series of Fly Fishing caches... some of the fisheries I want to bring people to are rivers which happen to have good road access... but unfortunately the roads have PTs on them! When I travel out then to see where I might squeeze in my caches, I plan to find a sample of the "blocking" power caches. I'm guessing I'll find nearly empty logs in some poorly placed hiding locations (from map view imagery it appears that some are placed on guard rails on blind turns in areas with no to little road shoulders). I think these PT caches, if not out right banned, need to have some special hiding guidelines, like at least 1 mile apart, not placed near road-side "attractions" (such as "point of interest" signs), etc.

 

For now, going to focus on my first hide (which fortunately is not blocked by PTs).

 

I like the ones near roadside attractions, points of interest, scenic views. Why would we deny those? Somebody else just got there first.

 

Sure, some caches are placed poorly. Go after them or decide not to. The reviewers don't 'police' the placements based on quality or safety.

The guideline is .1 miles. That will be enforced by the reviewer. Some people actually like those guard rail caches.

Link to comment

I think these PT caches, if not out right banned, need to have some special hiding guidelines, like at least 1 mile apart, not placed near road-side "attractions" (such as "point of interest" signs), etc.

 

There used to be some semblance of control placed on apparent PT submissions, but that went away as their popularity grew and in the interest of giving the customer what they want, the attitude was relaxed. Customer Service is not something you hear about in these Forums too much, but it does happen. Oh well, now we have PT hater threads. Can't win them all.

Link to comment

 

I like the ones near roadside attractions, points of interest, scenic views. Why would we deny those? Somebody else just got there first.

 

 

The reason of the individual caches in a PT (at least those I've looked at) seem not to bring you near "road attractions, points of interests, scenic views"... as if that were the reason, I would think the caches' description would mention these.

Link to comment

 

I like the ones near roadside attractions, points of interest, scenic views. Why would we deny those? Somebody else just got there first.

 

 

The reason of the individual caches in a PT (at least those I've looked at) seem not to bring you near "road attractions, points of interests, scenic views"... as if that were the reason, I would think the caches' description would mention these.

 

Power trails have one purpose and one purpose only and that is to inflate the meaningless smiley count of those cachers who decide to log them.

Link to comment

I'd worry about this if it actually made any difference to me what other people thought was fun.

That comes across as "it doesn't bother me so it shouldn't bother anyone else".

I suppose that's about right, although I'd express it as, "I can't see a legitimate reason for it to concern you, so I'm not going to support your attempts to make GS change the rules to prevent it."

 

I suspect it *does* make a different when some start applying that slippery slope to non-PT caches. Personally, I don't think it's acceptable for a CO to allow some of the things they do on their cache with the excuse that it's a PT, but when cachers start doing those same things on cache owned by CO which would not allow those same practices (and there have been numerous examples posted where this has happened) it's just wrong.

Absolutely. We're obviously talking about the case where the CO finds it acceptable. I'm certainly not saying that COs should be forced to allow such shenanigans.

Link to comment
Power trail: ok to ask others to do your maintenance/ finder maintenance is the maintenance plan
As Keystone indicated, "Asking others on the cache listing to maintain your cache (or trail full of caches) for you is not a maintenance plan." But clearly, asking others to maintain your trail full of fungible caches is fine, as long as you don't do it on the cache listings.

 

By listing do you mean the actual listing or notes posted?

In the Description would be a no I would think. Notes would be difficult to police unless someone followed up with an NA log.

 

So if this were not a power trail, then telling people to "NOTE: there should NOT be any DNF's. Take a few spare micro containers and logs with you. If you find a cache is missing, just replace it (claiming a find) and move on--better for you and much less work for the Commission!" would not be allowed?

Link to comment

The relevant listing guideline is the "Cache Maintenance" guideline. Asking others on the cache listing to maintain your cache (or trail full of caches) for you is not a maintenance plan. When I've seen this language on cache listings, I ask the owner to remove it. The wonderful Appeals team at Geocaching HQ has backed me up on that interpretation.

 

The linked blog post (not a listing guideline) is about a group of geocachers having fun on a power trail. The advice is given to other cache seekers. The listing guidelines do not attempt to regulate voluntary maintenance activities by finders.

 

So, "formal guidelines for hiders" and "informal advice to seekers" are easily distinguishable concepts.

 

Power trail: ok to ask others to do your maintenance/ finder maintenance is the maintenance plan
As Keystone indicated, "Asking others on the cache listing to maintain your cache (or trail full of caches) for you is not a maintenance plan." But clearly, asking others to maintain your trail full of fungible caches is fine, as long as you don't do it on the cache listings.

 

By listing do you mean the actual listing or notes posted?

In the Description would be a no I would think. Notes would be difficult to police unless someone followed up with an NA log.

 

http://coord.info/GC2T6KY

 

First cache of the series

 

NOTE: there should NOT be any DNF's. Take a few spare micro containers and logs with you. If you find a cache is missing, just replace it (claiming a find) and move on--better for you and much less work for the Commission!

 

These trails were built for speed and numbers. Teams could sustain finding 60-75 caches per hour. You could do it as an individual, but 3 person teams gave the maximum speed.

 

Log all of your informatin only for C&D 01 or 54 (first and last cache) and just do a simple cut and paste log for the other caches. Generally The Commission does not pay any attention to the high volume of logs on the other caches.

 

The first project of the Commission was the C&D Canal Speed Trail with 54 caches

 

The second project in cooperation with the state of Maryland will be the Trans-Penensular Trail near/on Delaware's southern boundary with Maryland running from Fenwick Lighthouse to the Mason-Dixon Double Crown Stone marking the SW corner of Delaware. This will span about 30 miles and have about 250 caches

 

Currently in preliminary evaluations is the 91 mile Trans-Delaware Power Geo-Trail with more than 850 caches.

 

Waiting to hear the "edited after publication" chestnut. :rolleyes:

 

B.

Edited by Pup Patrol
Link to comment

Power trails have one purpose and one purpose only and that is to inflate the meaningless smiley count of those cachers who decide to log them.

Eh. Either the numbers don't mean anything to you, in which case you won't worry about someone else having more than you by caching for numbers, or numbers do mean something to you, so you can't really fault someone for racking them up.

 

Numbers don't mean anything to me, but I've thought about doing a power trail, so apparently there's some other purpose to them that you're not recognizing.

Link to comment

Power trails have one purpose and one purpose only and that is to inflate the meaningless smiley count of those cachers who decide to log them.

Eh. Either the numbers don't mean anything to you, in which case you won't worry about someone else having more than you by caching for numbers, or numbers do mean something to you, so you can't really fault someone for racking them up.

 

Numbers don't mean anything to me, but I've thought about doing a power trail, so apparently there's some other purpose to them that you're not recognizing.

 

You mean like being able to say "I did a PT," or maybe "Just once, I'd like to log 350 caches in one day, just to see if I can?"

 

BTW, neither of those are on my list.

Edited by AustinMN
Link to comment
Power trail: ok to ask others to do your maintenance/ finder maintenance is the maintenance plan
As Keystone indicated, "Asking others on the cache listing to maintain your cache (or trail full of caches) for you is not a maintenance plan." But clearly, asking others to maintain your trail full of fungible caches is fine, as long as you don't do it on the cache listings.

 

By listing do you mean the actual listing or notes posted?

In the Description would be a no I would think. Notes would be difficult to police unless someone followed up with an NA log.

 

So if this were not a power trail, then telling people to "NOTE: there should NOT be any DNF's. Take a few spare micro containers and logs with you. If you find a cache is missing, just replace it (claiming a find) and move on--better for you and much less work for the Commission!" would not be allowed?

In my area, that kind of wording would not be allowed. Before you jump on the "Consistency" bandwagon, I'll point out the obvious and state that the "Note" could have been added post-Publication.

 

Waiting to hear the "edited after publication" chestnut.

 

My back up was Reviewer fatigue ;)

 

Edit to add:

 

Looking at the handful of nearby Listings in the series, I'm not seeing the same wording, which supports my original conclusion.

Edited by Touchstone
Link to comment

Power trails have one purpose and one purpose only and that is to inflate the meaningless smiley count of those cachers who decide to log them.

Eh. Either the numbers don't mean anything to you, in which case you won't worry about someone else having more than you by caching for numbers, or numbers do mean something to you, so you can't really fault someone for racking them up.

 

Numbers don't mean anything to me, but I've thought about doing a power trail, so apparently there's some other purpose to them that you're not recognizing.

 

You mean like being able to say "I did a PT," or maybe "Just once, I'd like to log 350 caches in one day, just to see if I can?"

 

BTW, neither of those are on my list.

 

If I did a PT, I would insist on stopping at every one and signing it and returning it to its original spot (no swapping), logging a DNF on any I didn't find, posting NM logs on damaged caches and writing a unique log for every one.

Link to comment

If I did a PT, I would insist on stopping at every one and signing it and returning it to its original spot (no swapping), logging a DNF on any I didn't find, posting NM logs on damaged caches and writing a unique log for every one.

I'd be using my normal technique, too, although I'm thinking I would not log DNFs or NMs since no one cares, although it would depend: if I had one or two DNFs, I might log them, but many more than than, and I think I'd just not post any log for those caches. Oh, and I suspect my experience at each cache will be the same, so the logs would be similarly uniform. Besides, no one reads logs on power trails, anyway, so there's not much point in being unique for uniqueness's sake, but if something unusual happened, I'd write about it if I could remember which cache it was.

Link to comment

You mean like being able to say "I did a PT," or maybe "Just once, I'd like to log 350 caches in one day, just to see if I can?"

No, neither of those. Just interested in what the experience will be like.

 

I did both the above....after reading all the hype and watching video clips we went to the desert in 114 deg heat and did 303 ( my perm. all time high )before I got tired of it...you can really do them in a minute or so.I loved the desert and solitude but I can't imagine a steady diet of that kind of caching.

At an event I held years ago a very nice out of state couple told me they already had found 11,000 caches for the year ( it was early December )....I really had to catch myself as I got kind of sad and started to say, " oh, I'm so sorry " before realizing, hey, this is supposed to be a good thing.

By all means try out some trails....just don't be lost to the dark side B)

Link to comment

You mean like being able to say "I did a PT," or maybe "Just once, I'd like to log 350 caches in one day, just to see if I can?"

No, neither of those. Just interested in what the experience will be like.

I was thinking it might be cool to do one to rack up some extra favorite points so I could hand them out more easily. I know it isn't a good reason but would be kind of nice to have.

 

I have stopped by a couple of power trails but only picked up around 6 on our way out and about 6 on the way back.

Edited by WarNinjas
Link to comment

The Power Trail Slippery Slope:

 

Stop/search/find/open/sign/close/reset/move-one/log 'em all

---> stop/search/find/open/log-swap/close/move-on/log 'em all

---> stop/search/find/container-swap/move-on/log 'em all

---> stop/search/find/move-on/log 'em all

---> stop/move-on/log 'em all

---> drive past and log 'em all without stopping.

 

Since this post got a lot of mileage I will add my bit:

 

The percentage of power-trail cachers who slip down this slope past the second step is approximately...??

 

Is it more than 1%, 5%?

 

It is popular to say this stuff here and to agree with it but does it happen at any kind of rate that could be really be considered alarming? That's what I would like to know before I get concerned.

 

We drove the entire ET Highway a couple of years back and found a whopping 10 by car and 10 on foot after dark when we stayed overnight at The Little A'Le'Inn. It was a blast. I really wanted to swap containers during the walking part but I just didn't have a starter container with me. :DB)

Link to comment

I'm not saying right or wrong but almost from the beginning PT's were mostly maintained by PT seekers.....the dynamics of so many containers being hit so often would make it very hard for a single CO to keep it up so it was expected that you bring a sack of film cans and logs...if a throwdown happens its no problem to have 2 or 3 at GZ....like a spare tire.

PT's are really a subset of normal geocaching.

 

I just wonder why a co is allowed to put out a power trail when just as you point out it is very hard for a single CO to keep it up and finder maintenance is pretty much the accepted maintenance plan.

 

But if a CO puts out a lot of individual non power trail caches and posts a maintenance log stating that a cache is good to go but if a future finder would replace if needed that a reviewer would then disable the cache and when questioned state that the CO can't maintain his caches.

 

It just seems there are 2 sets of rules.

 

Power trail: ok to ask others to do your maintenance/ finder maintenance is the maintenance plan

Individual caches: not ok to ask someone to replace a particular cache even though you otherwise do your own maintenance as a general rule.

Though I've not yet cached in a deployed environment, I was glad to see that rule 1 has been applied to caches in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm not a huge fan of power trails, but now and again some flexibility is not a bad thing, n'est-ce pas?

Link to comment

Why is it forbidden for cache owners to ask people to help replace a missing cache but it is ok, even encouraged by tptb, to ask people to "-Plan to bring at least 50 film canisters with logs (for cache maintenance along the way)" on power trails?

 

I'm not saying right or wrong but almost from the beginning PT's were mostly maintained by PT seekers.....the dynamics of so many containers being hit so often would make it very hard for a single CO to keep it up so it was expected that you bring a sack of film cans and logs...if a throwdown happens its no problem to have 2 or 3 at GZ....like a spare tire.

PT's are really a subset of normal geocaching.

I agree. PT's are a different style of geocaching. But we only replace containers that are damaged, logs that are full or too wet to sign. That's just how we cache, no offense to other cachers. BTW it took us three trips to finish the Hang 'Em High on 51 PT, mostly because we had to stop for that thin-fried catfish every time we went. That's how we cache. :)

Link to comment

The Power Trail Slippery Slope:

 

Stop/search/find/open/sign/close/reset/move-one/log 'em all

---> stop/search/find/open/log-swap/close/move-on/log 'em all

---> stop/search/find/container-swap/move-on/log 'em all

---> stop/search/find/move-on/log 'em all

---> stop/move-on/log 'em all

---> drive past and log 'em all without stopping.

 

Since this post got a lot of mileage I will add my bit:

 

The percentage of power-trail cachers who slip down this slope past the second step is approximately...??

 

Is it more than 1%, 5%?

 

It is popular to say this stuff here and to agree with it but does it happen at any kind of rate that could be really be considered alarming? That's what I would like to know before I get concerned.

 

We drove the entire ET Highway a couple of years back and found a whopping 10 by car and 10 on foot after dark when we stayed overnight at The Little A'Le'Inn. It was a blast. I really wanted to swap containers during the walking part but I just didn't have a starter container with me. :DB)

 

If I was going to plan on container swapping...there might come a point (maybe after 50 or 60 caches) when I realized "What am I doing? All I really have to do is see the cache to log it."

Then, after maybe another 100 or 200 of the same cache over and over again, I might even think to myself "What am I doing? They're all the same? Do I really even need to see them to log them?"

 

Not saying I would do that...but offering a scenario where the reward no longer appears to warrant the amount of effort necessary under the guidelines. Not only that, I would know that even if the cache isn't there, the next person to come along will fix that problem anyway, so what is the point in logging a DNF?...in fact, the CO doesn't WANT me to log a DNF.

 

I would argue the PTCOs are asking everyone else to share ownership of their caches, relieving them of any real authority in monitoring/policing their logs.

Link to comment

If I was going to plan on container swapping...there might come a point (maybe after 50 or 60 caches) when I realized "What am I doing? All I really have to do is see the cache to log it."

Then, after maybe another 100 or 200 of the same cache over and over again, I might even think to myself "What am I doing? They're all the same? Do I really even need to see them to log them?"

 

Not saying I would do that...but offering a scenario where the reward no longer appears to warrant the amount of effort necessary under the guidelines. Not only that, I would know that even if the cache isn't there, the next person to come along will fix that problem anyway, so what is the point in logging a DNF?...in fact, the CO doesn't WANT me to log a DNF.

 

So you haven't heard this actually happens?

 

I would not be surprised if some people did it this way but there sure are a lot of signatures in those containers on the ET and R66 trails.

 

I think most people don't make the pilgrimage to the major power trails just to drive by and log them all without stopping and opening the containers.

 

I would argue the PTCOs are asking everyone else to share ownership of their caches, relieving them of any real authority in monitoring/policing their logs.

 

It seems it is more of a mutually beneficial activity and finders are fully willing partners.

 

It is not like the CO's didn't or don't do any work. Can you imagine the effort that goes into collecting all those containers, preparing the logsheets, finding and recording the locations, filling out the submittal forms and then receiving all that email and sorting through it to make sure you don't miss important messages?

 

The CO's did this so cachers could have a different kind of fun and the finders respond by keeping the containers viable.

Link to comment

It is not like the CO's didn't or don't do any work. Can you imagine the effort that goes into collecting all those containers, preparing the logsheets, finding and recording the locations, filling out the submittal forms and then receiving all that email and sorting through it to make sure you don't miss important messages?

 

The CO's did this so cachers could have a different kind of fun and the finders respond by keeping the containers viable.

 

The very same argument can be made for cachers like Briansnat. I can just imagine the effort that went into all the caches he put out, collecting all the containers, preparing all the logsheets, finding and recording this unique locations, filling and submitting all those forms and sorting through the emails to make sure he doesn't miss any important emails.

 

So why does someone who puts out a string of identical, uninventive caches get a pass on maintenance while someone who puts out a lot of unique caches is held to the same standard as someone who puts out 1 cache?

 

I think everyone should be held to the maintenance of their caches. You should not be allowed to out more than you can personally maintain.

 

But if you're going to allow power trail owners to use finder maintenance as their maintenance plan, then when someone who puts out unique caches asks someone to help replace one, it should not wind up with a 6 month ban.

Link to comment

It is not like the CO's didn't or don't do any work. Can you imagine the effort that goes into collecting all those containers, preparing the logsheets, finding and recording the locations, filling out the submittal forms and then receiving all that email and sorting through it to make sure you don't miss important messages?

 

The CO's did this so cachers could have a different kind of fun and the finders respond by keeping the containers viable.

 

The very same argument can be made for cachers like Briansnat. I can just imagine the effort that went into all the caches he put out, collecting all the containers, preparing all the logsheets, finding and recording this unique locations, filling and submitting all those forms and sorting through the emails to make sure he doesn't miss any important emails.

 

So why does someone who puts out a string of identical, uninventive caches get a pass on maintenance while someone who puts out a lot of unique caches is held to the same standard as someone who puts out 1 cache?

 

I think everyone should be held to the maintenance of their caches. You should not be allowed to out more than you can personally maintain.

 

But if you're going to allow power trail owners to use finder maintenance as their maintenance plan, then when someone who puts out unique caches asks someone to help replace one, it should not wind up with a 6 month ban.

 

Exactly. Monumental effort or no, publication is not - and should not be - the end of CO's responsibility. Why should anyone get a pass just because they did a lot of up-front work creating 500 caches at once or setting up some silly geo-art? We all put forth some amount of effort when we create a cache listing. Only difference is when I do, it's one or two at a time, spread out over years. In fact, on a per cache basis, I'd be willing to bet non-PTCOs put forth MORE effort since we aren't copy/pasting cache descriptions and only updating coordinates.

Link to comment

Why should anyone get a pass just because they did a lot of up-front work creating 500 caches at once or setting up some silly geo-art?

I know it doesn't sound right. It's the perception of a problem that seems to be the reason for all the flak.

 

PTs are a different animal from regular geocaching and people seem happy to visit them and are more than willing to replace damaged or missing containers.

 

I'm not intending to be a PT defender by any means. I just think the maintenance angle is not the same for a PT as for regular caching and probably not worth all this concern. I didn't care for the PT cache linked above where the CO requested that people replace missing caches but I have no problem with people wanting to do that.

 

It seems that if you build a PT they will come... and they will replace.

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 3
×
×
  • Create New...