Jump to content

String caches


HTC3

Recommended Posts

I think that it really detracts from the fun of geocaching when someone or some group walk down a country road for miles throwing out identical caches every 528 feet. They don't show any originality and take away from the "Hide and Seek" portion of geocaching. They also tie up miles of places where really cool caches could be hidden in really cool places. Once while following one of these endless strings my 4 and 6 year grandkids just ran ahead and found the next cache. The caches were obvious and predictable. I enjoy geo-art caches, even though they are by definition a string cache because it requires some skill, time and talent to lay one out. I don't think Groundspeak should have ever let string caches into the club. String caches are perfect for lazy people who just want drive slowly down a road, grab cache after endless cache just to pad their stats.

Link to comment

Powertrail, not string cache. And I don't find any fun in them either, but some people do. You know what I do? Ignore them, and go find other caches.

 

Those who do like them, like them very much. So much so that people travel to find them. There are a few powertrails here, and it brings in people from out of town. They buy gas, and eat at restaurants. They stay in hotels or campgrounds. It might only average out to less than $20,000 in our local economy, but it's down, and that's helping people out here. We even have the City and tourism board helping us out for some projects including a geocoin. Now without the trails, none of this would happen.

 

IMO you're just as bad as those who place powertrails, because you saying they should not be allowed. Or in other words, they should go by what you like, not what others like.

 

So you don't like them, that's perfectly fine, I dont either. But don't bash them, say they are useless or shouldn't be allowed. There are benifits to them, both economic and recreational.

Edited by T.D.M.22
Link to comment
I think that it really detracts from the fun of geocaching when someone or some group walk down a country road for miles throwing out identical caches every 528 feet. They don't show any originality and take away from the "Hide and Seek" portion of geocaching. They also tie up miles of places where really cool caches could be hidden in really cool places... snip...

Though I kinda agree, and it's rare for me to do a roadside hide, if these nondescript caches are already covering the same areas, then aren't some already located at the really cool places you speak of?

So the issue is uninspiring containers?

Link to comment

I find these sort of caches useful for harvesting favourite points to give to the good ones..... :)

Exactly what I do. When I spend time in Yuma I always do some of the many power trails and pick up 300-400 whose favorite points I could use other places although I would always use one on the origin of the trail.

 

As to not liking them there are many way to get them on your ignore list using programs like GSAK.

Link to comment

Powertrail, not string cache. And I don't find any fun in them either, but some people do. You know what I do? Ignore them, and go find other caches.

 

Those who do like them, like them very much. So much so that people travel to find them. There are a few powertrails here, and it brings in people from out of town. They buy gas, and eat at restaurants. They stay in hotels or campgrounds. It might only average out to less than $20,000 in our local economy, but it's down, and that's helping people out here. We even have the City and tourism board helping us out for some projects including a geocoin. Now without the trails, none of this would happen.

 

IMO you're just as bad as those who place powertrails, because you saying they should not be allowed. Or in other words, they should go by what you like, not what others like.

 

So you don't like them, that's perfectly fine, I dont either. But don't bash them, say they are useless or shouldn't be allowed. There are benifits to them, both economic and recreational.

I dislike power trails as well and wish they had never came into existence. But, they became poopular with others and it was no surprise when Groundspeak changed their minds, their philosophy as well, and began allowing them a few years back. I do realize that people like them which makes them good for business at the present time but if it were up to me, there'd be a limit on how many could be placed. Maybe something like, 1 powertrail containing no more than 100 caches total, per 20,000 square mile area. ;)

Link to comment

Powertrail, not string cache. And I don't find any fun in them either, but some people do. You know what I do? Ignore them, and go find other caches.

 

I ignore them, I like multis, WherIgos... a lot better but "meaningless thrown around traditionals" make me drive ever further away from home. So, eventhough ignoring PTs and the likes has an affect on how and where people who don't like them go caching.

 

They buy gas, and eat at restaurants. They stay in hotels or campgrounds. It might only average out to less than $20,000 in our local economy, but it's down, and that's helping people out here.

 

There are benifits to them, both economic and recreational.

 

Mmmm, PTs are commercial then :ph34r:

Link to comment

I normally do not do power trails. The biggest exception was in October 2011, when I wanted to celebrate our 4000th cache as our first find in Japan and needed to up our find count, so I hit some PTs in Alabama national forests over the Columbus Day weekend. It got pretty tiresome, pretty fast, and I have not done any from a car since.

 

Over the past couple months, I have been chipping away at a power trail that is set along a gas pipeline road in southern New Mexico, but not by car. The main purpose of those trips was to do training hikes for the Bataan Memorial Death March next month, which is mostly on rolling sand/dirt roads in the White Sands Missile Range. Since the pipeline road is also on rolling sand/dirt roads at a similar altitude, it was perfect for training hikes with my 35 lb ruck. I'll be going for a 15-mile hike this weekend along another section. Snagging a cache every half mile or so definitely helps break up the hike.

Link to comment

I'm not sure if I have the definition of a power trail nailed down. There are a few 'trails' near me, I would call them walks, that are 4-8 miles long. Some of them have about 30-40 caches whereas others, of similar length, might get you less than 10 caches.

 

Would these be considered power trails?

 

I should add that one of the walks will get you 30 caches over 7 miles but within those are multis, field puzzle and traditional caches. I'm not sure this would be a power trail?

Link to comment

Powertrail, not string cache.

 

 

IMO you're just as bad as those who place powertrails, because you saying they should not be allowed. Or in other words, they should go by what you like, not what others like.

 

 

I usually ignore these discussions, but this is so unfair and inaccurate that I had to respond. String caches (I like that term better!) are actually harmful to the game as some of us knew it. Ignoring them does not make the ugly green slime on the maps go away. I am embarrassed to introduce anyone to geocaching anymore because I have to answer the inevitable questions about why people would do this...

 

***There is no "power" in power trails***

Edited by hukilaulau
Link to comment

I'm not sure if I have the definition of a power trail nailed down. There are a few 'trails' near me, I would call them walks, that are 4-8 miles long. Some of them have about 30-40 caches whereas others, of similar length, might get you less than 10 caches.

I can't claim there's a specific definition, and I certainly would be in not position to tell you what it is if there were, my attitude is that powertrails are strings of caches that are as close as possible, so 40 caches in 4 miles would probably qualify, but 30 caches over 8 miles would likely not. Powertrails are also all about the numbers, so the hides are not merely identical, but so much alike that you immediately know where it's going to be and how it's going to be hidden, if at all.

 

We have a few places around here where people have strung caches along roads, but with each hide being different, and some strings focused on making the hides hard to find. Even though some of these are close to the 1 cache each tenth of a mile standard for a powertrail, I consider each to be just a series, not a true powertrail.

Link to comment
1455923494[/url]' post='5566137']
1455921099[/url]' post='5566121']
1455920235[/url]' post='5566119']
1455877277[/url]' post='5565981']

I find these sort of caches useful for harvesting favourite points to give to the good ones..... :)

Dandy idea! I like your style! (:

Nooooooo, it will only encourage more! :o

There's a few here I've been avoiding. May at least have a benefit from then.

 

At least copy and paste: "I find these sort of caches useful for harvesting favourite points to give to the good ones."to each of your PT finds so the CO(s) doesn't get the idea that people like PTs because they are good caching experiences.

Link to comment

I'm not sure if I have the definition of a power trail nailed down. There are a few 'trails' near me, I would call them walks, that are 4-8 miles long. Some of them have about 30-40 caches whereas others, of similar length, might get you less than 10 caches.

Powertrails are also all about the numbers...

IMO, this is the most important part of any definition of powertrails. I personally don't consider walking or cycling trails to be powertrails, because it takes "too long" to get through them and thus isn't the most efficient way for someone to rack up the numbers.

 

I consider the ET Highway to be the poster child of powertrails and the one that defines the term: identical containers hidden in an identical manner every 0.1-mile along a road you can drive.

Link to comment

At least copy and paste: "I find these sort of caches useful for harvesting favourite points to give to the good ones."to each of your PT finds so the CO(s) doesn't get the idea that people like PTs because they are good caching experiences.

Oh come on, you don't seriously believe that the CO will read those logs, do you? It's a powertrail! :anibad::laughing:

Link to comment

At least copy and paste: "I find these sort of caches useful for harvesting favourite points to give to the good ones."to each of your PT finds so the CO(s) doesn't get the idea that people like PTs because they are good caching experiences.

Oh come on, you don't seriously believe that the CO will read those logs, do you? It's a powertrail! :anibad::laughing:

Surprising enough, some do. I was mucking about with GSAK and needed to log some caches. I would run my GSAK

experiment and then delete the find on the cache. I did this several times on caches in the 300 range on Route 66. I got an email from the CO asking if I was having a problem with their caches. :o

Link to comment

I think that it really detracts from the fun of geocaching when someone or some group walk down a country road for miles throwing out identical caches every 528 feet.

 

I don't like them either, but then there are people who don't like the caches I like. To each his or her own. I ignore "string caches" and happily drive by them to find the kinds of caches I like.

Link to comment

I'm not sure if I have the definition of a power trail nailed down. There are a few 'trails' near me, I would call them walks, that are 4-8 miles long. Some of them have about 30-40 caches whereas others, of similar length, might get you less than 10 caches.

Powertrails are also all about the numbers...

IMO, this is the most important part of any definition of powertrails. I personally don't consider walking or cycling trails to be powertrails, because it takes "too long" to get through them and thus isn't the most efficient way for someone to rack up the numbers.

 

I consider the ET Highway to be the poster child of powertrails and the one that defines the term: identical containers hidden in an identical manner every 0.1-mile along a road you can drive.

 

Thank you both for the clarification.

 

In that case, I don't think we have any in my area. There is a trail nearby that will get you over 100 caches but it covers 15 miles and you are required to walk it. So I don't think even that can count.

Link to comment

Although having said that, the owners (at least the original ones) consider it to be a PT:

 

Your walk will take you through some fantastic Dorset countryside and the route has been chosen for the views. However, this is a power trail and most of the caches are micros with a handful of larger caches thrown in. The terrain rating has been set for the walk in its entirety but there is a tree climb involved at #22 and the terrain rating for that cache reflects this.

 

Maybe the definition in the UK is different?

Link to comment
1455961554[/url]' post='5566207']

Although having said that, the owners (at least the original ones) consider it to be a PT:

 

Your walk will take you through some fantastic Dorset countryside and the route has been chosen for the views. However, this is a power trail and most of the caches are micros with a handful of larger caches thrown in. The terrain rating has been set for the walk in its entirety but there is a tree climb involved at #22 and the terrain rating for that cache reflects this.

 

Maybe the definition in the UK is different?

 

I would consider it a PT too. A cache approximately every 161 meters designed to provide people with many smileys. Same owner or team. Published at the same time. Saturates a trail. Something that would not have been allowed when there was a no-PT guideline (it would have had to have been published as a multi).

Link to comment

Although having said that, the owners (at least the original ones) consider it to be a PT:

 

Your walk will take you through some fantastic Dorset countryside and the route has been chosen for the views. However, this is a power trail and most of the caches are micros with a handful of larger caches thrown in. The terrain rating has been set for the walk in its entirety but there is a tree climb involved at #22 and the terrain rating for that cache reflects this.

 

Maybe the definition in the UK is different?

 

I would consider it a PT too. A cache approximately every 161 meters designed to provide people with many smileys. Same owner or team. Published at the same time. Saturates a trail. Something that would not have been allowed when there was a no-PT guideline (it would have had to have been published as a multi).

 

We'll probably never get an universally agreed upon definition of of a power trail but this is a pretty good one.

 

For me, the bolded section above is the gist of it. It's a "large" group of caches designed to provide people with many finds in as short a period as possible. To do that it would need to meet a few criteria.

 

The caches need to be placed as close to each other as possible to minimize the travel time in between finds.

 

The path one takes from cache to cache needs to have a low terrain rating, which also minimizes the travel time in between. A group of caches that requires a significant elevation change or is in some way not easily navigable. This where a series of caches which is only accessible by foot or bike might not meet the criteria for a PT.

 

The caches need to be easy to "find". The less time it takes to locate each container and sign the log the more caches can be found. A trail of caches with difficult hides isn't designed to provide people with many smileys in a short period.

 

 

 

Link to comment

I personally don't consider walking or cycling trails to be powertrails, because it takes "too long" to get through them and thus isn't the most efficient way for someone to rack up the numbers.

Interesting take. I don't have any personal experience with them, but my impression was that the concept of the powertrail started along hiking trails and only later envolved into the huge driving trails that now make the concept both famous and infamous.

 

I would consider it a PT too. A cache approximately every 161 meters designed to provide people with many smileys. Same owner or team. Published at the same time. Saturates a trail. Something that would not have been allowed when there was a no-PT guideline (it would have had to have been published as a multi).

For me, the bolded section above is the gist of it. It's a "large" group of caches designed to provide people with many finds in as short a period as possible. To do that it would need to meet a few criteria.

I think the definition would work better when we don't have to guess what motivated the hiders. For example, the CO of the route 66 powertrail could have been motivated by and designed the trail for celebrating the highway without really caring a bit about anyone's found count, yet we'd still want to call it a powertrail.

Link to comment

I personally don't consider walking or cycling trails to be powertrails, because it takes "too long" to get through them and thus isn't the most efficient way for someone to rack up the numbers.

Interesting take. I don't have any personal experience with them, but my impression was that the concept of the powertrail started along hiking trails and only later envolved into the huge driving trails that now make the concept both famous and infamous.

 

I would consider it a PT too. A cache approximately every 161 meters designed to provide people with many smileys. Same owner or team. Published at the same time. Saturates a trail. Something that would not have been allowed when there was a no-PT guideline (it would have had to have been published as a multi).

For me, the bolded section above is the gist of it. It's a "large" group of caches designed to provide people with many finds in as short a period as possible. To do that it would need to meet a few criteria.

I think the definition would work better when we don't have to guess what motivated the hiders. For example, the CO of the route 66 powertrail could have been motivated by and designed the trail for celebrating the highway without really caring a bit about anyone's found count, yet we'd still want to call it a powertrail.

 

I think we should go with whatever the reviewers were told a power trail was, before the PT guidelines were dropped. Back in 2005 I was denied a series of 6 letterbox caches along a trail. Each stage was about 200m apart from the next stage. I was told it had to be a multi.

Link to comment

Powertrail, not string cache.

 

 

IMO you're just as bad as those who place powertrails, because you saying they should not be allowed. Or in other words, they should go by what you like, not what others like.

 

 

I usually ignore these discussions, but this is so unfair and inaccurate that I had to respond. String caches (I like that term better!) are actually harmful to the game as some of us knew it. Ignoring them does not make the ugly green slime on the maps go away. I am embarrassed to introduce anyone to geocaching anymore because I have to answer the inevitable questions about why people would do this...

 

***There is no "power" in power trails***

 

I couldn't have said it better. There are many discussions concerning these power trails and they all fall on deaf ears. There needs to be something in the pocket query setup and some rules made defining them so we can block them out.

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...
×
×
  • Create New...