Jump to content

New Powertrail cache type


wally_k
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

I am not sure how hard its being worked on. A Repetitive Trail attribute seems to be requested fairly regularly. It's effectiveness, of course, would depend on whether it was required, but in many areas the containers are already out there. Unless there was an easy way to retroactively apply the attribute, it might not change that much. The ability to filter out users might be more effective than an attribute. So far I have been able to avoid loading repetitive trails into my gpsr and caching app, or putting them on my ignore list, but that is mostly because I am very selective or rely upon excluding attributes that are used in certain trails.

Edited by geodarts
Link to comment

 

It's been requested often here in the forums, but that don't mean that the company is working on it. :) Ignoring the request is more like it. :o

Link to comment

Lots of Power Trail CO's use a certain attribute so you can load just the PT caches. Like a scuba attribute in the desert. You can use that same attribute to ignore caches on your PQs.

 

If we could use attributes when creating notifications it would allow us to stop hundreds or thousands of email notifications on caches we never intend on finding. PT CO's that use attributes such as a scuba attribute in the desert are just misusing attributes.

 

 

Link to comment
It's been requested often here in the forums, but that don't mean that the company is working on it.

 

They must be working on it -- why else would they change the subject line of a request to include SUBMITTED and include what I presume is a helpdesk-like ticket number? (24998)

 

Eventually the subject line should be changed to COMPLETED and there will be much rejoicing.

 

f16917e3-19dd-4667-97da-34d179c56c5a.gif

Link to comment
It's been requested often here in the forums, but that don't mean that the company is working on it.

 

They must be working on it -- why else would they change the subject line of a request to include SUBMITTED and include what I presume is a helpdesk-like ticket number? (24998)

 

All true, but that thread was posted 07 December 2011. Look at their phone app, it's their bread and butter and it has been ages in the making and still is not a finished product. :P

Link to comment
it has been ages in the making and still is not a finished product

 

Tru dat, but it isn't a fair comparison, project-scope-wise.

 

Besides, as we have seen, if they were going to explicitly NOT implement the feature, its subject line would have been prefaced with DECLINED

 

EDIT: typo

Edited by frinklabs
Link to comment
It's been requested often here in the forums, but that don't mean that the company is working on it.

They must be working on it -- why else would they change the subject line of a request to include SUBMITTED and include what I presume is a helpdesk-like ticket number? (24998)

"SUBMITTED" just indicates that they've acknowledged the request and entered it into their tracking system, where it could potentially sit until the end of time. It doesn't mean the request is actively being worked on. If a request was actively being worked on, I would expect the title to be updated to something like "IN PROGRESS" or similar. Of course, that won't happen either. They stopped tagging the thread titles long ago, likely because that could be considered "responding" and...

... Since responding seems to lead to unrealistic expectations, we have cut back on doing so.

In short, a more accurate way to introduce your list of links would have been, "This has been requested before." Saying it's being worked on is inaccurate and gives false hope.

Link to comment

And who would decide that a series is a Power Trail? The CO, or the Reviewer?

The GeoArt that I've done, I do not consider to be Power Trails. I certainly did not consider mine a Power Trail! Yet some cachers considered it such. About a five mile walk/bike ride along the Hudson River. Very beautiful (if you like views of New York City.) But some cachers considered it a Power Trail, and moved the containers. The MKH was traded for the nano, which was traded for the magnetic bolt. I have no idea where that ended up! Probably traded it for a bison tube! But each container was specific to the location. An MKH does not work on that bench! That's why it was a nano!

Albeit, many forum users here would not seem to enjoy this series. But many cachers did.

Link to comment
And who would decide that a series is a Power Trail? The CO, or the Reviewer?
IMHO, it should be completely up to the CO, as with most other attributes.

 

The GeoArt that I've done, I do not consider to be Power Trails. I certainly did not consider mine a Power Trail! Yet some cachers considered it such. About a five mile walk/bike ride along the Hudson River. Very beautiful (if you like views of New York City.) But some cachers considered it a Power Trail, and moved the containers.
This is part of the problem with the current approach of allowing the three cache monte, without actually recognizing it as an official part of the game. The cache owners who allow it can't come out and say that they approve of the three cache monte on their caches. So seekers are left to assume, and we all know what happens when you assume...

 

Personally, I'd rather see the three cache monte abolished, but if that isn't going to happen, then we need a clear indication of where it is allowed. Expecting cache owners to specify where it is not allowed is backwards. The default behavior should be to "return the geocache to its original location".

Link to comment
It's been requested often here in the forums, but that don't mean that the company is working on it.

They must be working on it -- why else would they change the subject line of a request to include SUBMITTED and include what I presume is a helpdesk-like ticket number? (24998)

"SUBMITTED" just indicates that they've acknowledged the request and entered it into their tracking system, where it could potentially sit until the end of time. It doesn't mean the request is actively being worked on. If a request was actively being worked on, I would expect the title to be updated to something like "IN PROGRESS" or similar. Of course, that won't happen either. They stopped tagging the thread titles long ago, likely because that could be considered "responding" and...

... Since responding seems to lead to unrealistic expectations, we have cut back on doing so.

In short, a more accurate way to introduce your list of links would have been, "This has been requested before." Saying it's being worked on is inaccurate and gives false hope.

 

False hope is better than none at all.

 

Until they come back and explicitly say that they are NOT working on a feature, I have to give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

Here's an example of a request that appears to be working its way through their system, based on the alteration of forum topic subject lines:

 

SUBMITTED (32023) - [FEATURE] Allow user-corrected co-ordinates on ALL caches

STARTED (32023) - [FEATURE] Update Traditional Coordinates

 

Interesting (to me) that they'd use two different topics to show progress on the same ticket number.

 

Meanwhile,

... Since responding seems to lead to unrealistic expectations, we have cut back on doing so.

 

I think it is fair to say that I have unrealistic expectations regardless of whether they respond or not.

Link to comment

False hope is better than none at all.

 

Until they come back and explicitly say that they are NOT working on a feature, I have to give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

When does false hope turn into none at all? It's been nearly 5 years! I imagine a team of professionals could hammer this idea out in a couple days. Okay, maybe it's more work than I imagine, but it's not like they're reinventing the wheel or anything. It's just an attribute, but it would be a major help both to those looking for powertrails and those looking to avoid powertrails.

 

Here's an example of a request that appears to be working its way through their system, based on the alteration of forum topic subject lines:

 

SUBMITTED (32023) - [FEATURE] Allow user-corrected co-ordinates on ALL caches

STARTED (32023) - [FEATURE] Update Traditional Coordinates

 

Ditto. It's been 5 years. I would think the framework for this would already be in place from mystery caches, and the implementation would be straight-forward.

 

I don't think anyone would argue that either of these requests are "unrealistic". In fact, they seem rather logical and would be helpful to many.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

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