Power Trails - pros and cons...

May 10, 2017

There's a fiery thread on that. Lots of interesting "discussion..."

May take a look at the discussion out of interest in the outcome, but will probably not participate lol

7.5k · May 11, 2017

I was asked to participate in a "power trail" over the weekend and actually agreed to do so.

- snip -

I think in this case I would have to opt for a copy and paste log, which I normally don't like, but since the cache owner basically did the same thing by placing "Copy and paste hides" I guess it would be justified.

Similar, we prefer a wordy log of our experience.

No "power trails" for me (yet), but if we find a few of the many "placed on my way to..." caches (every 530'...) while heading to the fun one at the end, they now get a copy/paste "found on the way to..." log from us.

Most know what kinda logs we normally write, haven't said anything, so I believe you're correct.

Here's my reciprocal log--in response to group caching cut n paste logs--when I find one of their caches I re-word the typical group caching log:

"Out caching with my dog. Thank you geodog for organizing this walk. Our goal was to find 2 caches today and we surpassed it by one. Thank you Tim Hortons for supplying the coffee. And thanks to the cache owners for our finds."

May 11, 2017

With few exceptions, power trail caches have the same cache container, the same cache page description, the same hide location and the same attachment method repeated an arbitrary number of times for a arbitrary number of miles. Florida's secondary highways are littered with this stuff: every .1m a small plastic bottle, by the side of the road hanging on a tree, bush, fence or sign, 35 feet from the edge of the roadway and rated a 2/2. Such a drone of a way to spend your time. It's as if you wrote a page of a narrative, then xeroxed it two hundred times, bound it up and called it a novel. Would you do it for a smilie?

Edited May 11, 2017 by edexter

May 11, 2017

I was asked to participate in a "power trail" over the weekend and actually agreed to do so. My main gripe with an undertaking like this is that I always try to write individual logs that talk about the experience of walking to a cache and searching for it. Since I don't just copy and paste those logs, logging usually takes a fair amount of time if I found more than a few caches a day. I just can't see myself doing this for 50+ caches that were basically almost the same hide with a cache listing that is just a few lines long. I think in this case I would have to opt for a copy and paste log, which I normally don't like, but since the cache owner basically did the same thing by placing "Copy and paste hides" I guess it would be justified.

I completely understand this but let me tell you: You neither have to search them and if you do because you enjoy the company you don't necessarily have to log all of them anyway

For me every C&P log would water down my log history so I strive to ignore caches where I'm not confident that I can write meaningful and unique logs.

I never ever will do a PT but it happens that I enjoy to accompany my cacher friend who don't want to be selective. When I'm home writing my online logs I then decide to simply skip those where I can't find anything worth to write about.

May 12, 2017

I've mixed feelings about PTs.

[*]They're frequently poorly maintained - as COs set them and forget them

The PTs in my area are maintained very well, and none that I know of are planted next to a busy highway.

The ones I've been on are on paved walking trails in forests.

May 16, 2017

Another "dumb" question....was thinking about this today.....so if someone puts out hundreds or thousands of caches for a PT...is it expected that after the initial placements that finders will then take care of replacing caches as they go missing or destroyed? Now I have to go check, but I thought part of placing geocaches are CO maintaining them??? Just curious.

Edited May 16, 2017 by nutlady

May 16, 2017

Another "dumb" question....was thinking about this today.....so if someone puts out hundreds or thousands of caches for a PT...is it expected that after the initial placements that finders will then take care of replacing caches as they go missing or destroyed? Now I have to go check, but I thought part of placing geocaches are CO maintaining them??? Just curious.

CO maintenance is discussed ad nausium in a couple other threads... pretty exciting discussions.

May 16, 2017

Another "dumb" question....was thinking about this today.....so if someone puts out hundreds or thousands of caches for a PT...is it expected that after the initial placements that finders will then take care of replacing caches as they go missing or destroyed? Now I have to go check, but I thought part of placing geocaches are CO maintaining them??? Just curious.

It should not be expected, it's the cache owner who is responsible for maintaining his caches.

Edited May 16, 2017 by Pontiac_CZ

2.6k · May 16, 2017

Another "dumb" question....was thinking about this today.....so if someone puts out hundreds or thousands of caches for a PT...is it expected that after the initial placements that finders will then take care of replacing caches as they go missing or destroyed? Now I have to go check, but I thought part of placing geocaches are CO maintaining them??? Just curious.

It should not be expected, it's the cache owner who is responsible for maintaining his caches.

That is of course the correct general answer. In reality, on many of the really large PTs, the COs encourage cachers to replace caches. E.g. ET Highway

Personally I don't have an issue with that. If there are 1000 or more caches and they are all the same, it will be clear if one is missing. And it stops the owners from having to drive hundreds of miles to replace a single cache.

7.5k · May 16, 2017

1494931290[/url]' post='5655341']
1494926485[/url]' post='5655326']
1494900958[/url]' post='5655287']
Another "dumb" question....was thinking about this today.....so if someone puts out hundreds or thousands of caches for a PT...is it expected that after the initial placements that finders will then take care of replacing caches as they go missing or destroyed? Now I have to go check, but I thought part of placing geocaches are CO maintaining them??? Just curious.

It should not be expected, it's the cache owner who is responsible for maintaining his caches.

That is of course the correct general answer. In reality, on many of the really large PTs, the COs encourage cachers to replace caches. E.g. ET Highway

Personally I don't have an issue with that. If there are 1000 or more caches and they are all the same, it will be clear if one is missing. And it stops the owners from having to drive hundreds of miles to replace a single cache.

If we insist on owner maintenance it stops COs from saturating areas leaving no room for anyone else. What about the cache owner who hides only a few quality containers, monitors and responds quickly? He gets shut out because someone hundreds of miles away dropped 1000 pill bottles in his town?

7.5k · May 16, 2017

Another "dumb" question....was thinking about this today.....so if someone puts out hundreds or thousands of caches for a PT...is it expected that after the initial placements that finders will then take care of replacing caches as they go missing or destroyed? Now I have to go check, but I thought part of placing geocaches are CO maintaining them??? Just curious.

It should not be expected, it's the cache owner who is responsible for maintaining his caches.

That is of course the correct general answer. In reality, on many of the really large PTs, the COs encourage cachers to replace caches. E.g. ET Highway

Personally I don't have an issue with that. If there are 1000 or more caches and they are all the same, it will be clear if one is missing. And it stops the owners from having to drive hundreds of miles to replace a single cache.

If we insist on owner maintenance it stops COs from saturating areas leaving no room for anyone else. What about the cache owner who hides only a few quality containers, monitors and responds quickly? He gets shut out because someone hundreds of miles away dropped 1000 pill bottles in his town?

And before anyone says....'Tough. First come first served.'... what if he just moved in to town? He never got a chance to participate.

What if the local finders would prefer a few of his quality caches along the only forest tract in town, rather than 50 pill bottles by a guy that won't be back and took up the whole trail? What if they would rather have 10 quality containers by several responsible cache owners?

Edited May 16, 2017 by L0ne.R

14k · May 16, 2017

Another "dumb" question....was thinking about this today.....so if someone puts out hundreds or thousands of caches for a PT...is it expected that after the initial placements that finders will then take care of replacing caches as they go missing or destroyed? Now I have to go check, but I thought part of placing geocaches are CO maintaining them??? Just curious.

It should not be expected, it's the cache owner who is responsible for maintaining his caches.

That is of course the correct general answer. In reality, on many of the really large PTs, the COs encourage cachers to replace caches.

That is just one example of what I consider to be the biggest con about PTs.

For some reason, some hiders and finders seem to think that if a cache is part of a PT is it somehow exempt from some guidelines and acceptable practices. There isn't one set of guidelines for geocaches in general and another if a cache is part of a power trail, yet practices such as "three cache monte" (container swapping), leapfrogging (forming an adhoc team that split up to find a different group of caches but logging a find on every cache "found" by the team), and throwdowns have become acceptable on a power trail, but not considered acceptable if the cache is not part of a PT. Even worse, some of those practices are used on caches that are not part of a PT if it it happens to be close to a PT.

May 16, 2017

That is just one example of what I consider to be the biggest con about PTs.

For some reason, some hiders and finders seem to think that if a cache is part of a PT is it somehow exempt from some guidelines and acceptable practices. There isn't one set of guidelines for geocaches in general and another if a cache is part of a power trail, yet practices such as "three cache monte" (container swapping), leapfrogging (forming an adhoc team that split up to find a different group of caches but logging a find on every cache "found" by the team), and throwdowns have become acceptable on a power trail, but not considered acceptable if the cache is not part of a PT. Even worse, some of those practices are used on caches that are not part of a PT if it it happens to be close to a PT.

To be honest, when I heard about the 3 items you mention, I couldn't believe cachers would do that. I would say to myself, "but you didn't actually find it, why are you logging that you did?"

Others here would disagree - "it's only a game" they say. I don't know... I don't reshuffle the deck in the middle of solitaire either...

But, in full disclosure, my 2 cacheing buddies and I have in fact succumbed to the dual standard.

On non GRC / LPC caches, we still get out and search. The last one to see the cache is the one who removes it - then we sign the log in the order of finding (hokey pokey / hinkey dinkey method as it's called elsewhere in the forums).

But only when we come to a LPC / GRC, there's no real way for all 3 of us to climb out of the car and do the hinkey dinkey... if we did that, then the first to locate would end up being the fastest runner or the one that hopped out while the car was still moving... so- we rotate between the non drivers for LPC/ GRC unless the seeker can't locate. Then all 3 get out and look - then we agree it's not there (dnf it) before heading out again.

The only time I've ever used a throwdown was on a PT in KY. We had dinner with the CO the night before. He told us that he was aware that several were actually missing, told us they were all GRCs on the ends, and gave us a handful of (those evil pill bottle) replacement containers and asked that we replace as needed. Other than that, I wouldn't consider throwing down and claiming a find.

2.6k · May 16, 2017

If we insist on owner maintenance it stops COs from saturating areas leaving no room for anyone else. What about the cache owner who hides only a few quality containers, monitors and responds quickly? He gets shut out because someone hundreds of miles away dropped 1000 pill bottles in his town?

If we want to stop PTs, then I think the only way to do that is change the guidelines so they don't get set in the first place. I don't think insisting on owner maintenance is the solution. It's not enforceable for one thing. If the CO is active responding to logs but others help with maintenance, how is this to be enforced? Well perhaps a reviewer searching for "keyword:replaced" and archiving any cache where someone admits replacing (or repairing) it.

7.5k · May 16, 2017

If we insist on owner maintenance it stops COs from saturating areas leaving no room for anyone else. What about the cache owner who hides only a few quality containers, monitors and responds quickly? He gets shut out because someone hundreds of miles away dropped 1000 pill bottles in his town?

If we want to stop PTs, then I think the only way to do that is change the guidelines so they don't get set in the first place. I don't think insisting on owner maintenance is the solution. It's not enforceable for one thing. If the CO is active responding to logs but others help with maintenance, how is this to be enforced? Well perhaps a reviewer searching for "keyword:replaced" and archiving any cache where someone admits replacing (or repairing) it.

If Groundspeak doesn't change the rules on PTs (which is quite unlikely), then it has to be done by the community --- no throwdowns, no replacing wet/full logs, post NMs, post NAs. Of course, that will never happen and the practice has seeped into the rest of the pastime. But a few of us will 'insist' on owner maintenance on PTs. A drop in the bucket but better then shrugging our shoulders and letting things get out of hand.

14k · May 16, 2017

That is just one example of what I consider to be the biggest con about PTs.

For some reason, some hiders and finders seem to think that if a cache is part of a PT is it somehow exempt from some guidelines and acceptable practices. There isn't one set of guidelines for geocaches in general and another if a cache is part of a power trail, yet practices such as "three cache monte" (container swapping), leapfrogging (forming an adhoc team that split up to find a different group of caches but logging a find on every cache "found" by the team), and throwdowns have become acceptable on a power trail, but not considered acceptable if the cache is not part of a PT. Even worse, some of those practices are used on caches that are not part of a PT if it it happens to be close to a PT.

To be honest, when I heard about the 3 items you mention, I couldn't believe cachers would do that. I would say to myself, "but you didn't actually find it, why are you logging that you did?"

There is also the all too frequent excuse for not posting a meaningful found it log: "When I find 200 caches on a PT, I don't have time to write a unique log for each one." Of course, power trail owners don't care about the text of the found it log for each cache, and some won't even read the logs posted on caches in their power trail at all.

Others here would disagree - "it's only a game" they say. I don't know... I don't reshuffle the deck in the middle of solitaire either...

But, in full disclosure, my 2 cacheing buddies and I have in fact succumbed to the dual standard.

On non GRC / LPC caches, we still get out and search. The last one to see the cache is the one who removes it - then we sign the log in the order of finding (hokey pokey / hinkey dinkey method as it's called elsewhere in the forums).

I think the term you're looking for is huckle buckle.

But only when we come to a LPC / GRC, there's no real way for all 3 of us to climb out of the car and do the hinkey dinkey... if we did that, then the first to locate would end up being the fastest runner or the one that hopped out while the car was still moving... so- we rotate between the non drivers for LPC/ GRC unless the seeker can't locate. Then all 3 get out and look - then we agree it's not there (dnf it) before heading out again.

On a power trail the driver of the car (unless it's a non-geocacher) will log a find on every cache found by "the team" even if they never get out of the car. For non-PT caches, when one or more geocachers are out together I think it's pretty much expected that everyone will at least participate in the actual search for each cache. To me, someone that is just driving the car, but never actively searches for a cache isn't geocaching, they're driving.

The only time I've ever used a throwdown was on a PT in KY. We had dinner with the CO the night before. He told us that he was aware that several were actually missing, told us they were all GRCs on the ends, and gave us a handful of (those evil pill bottle) replacement containers and asked that we replace as needed. Other than that, I wouldn't consider throwing down and claiming a find.

On a PT, the quality of the container doesn't matter. Just stamp the outside of the container if the log sheet is full or too wet.

7.5k · May 16, 2017

If we insist on owner maintenance it stops COs from saturating areas leaving no room for anyone else.

First of all, no it doesn't stop a CO from saturating an area, it just stops them from saturating it with unmaintained caches.

But ore to the point, the only justification for preventing saturation is that you don't like power trails. Why is your standard to only important one?

From what I've seen, it's actually pretty rare for a power trail to saturate an area that someone else wants to plant caches in. That's normally the point: there are no caches in this area, so it's wide open for someone to fill in the blank with a power trail. I'm sure there are exceptions, but they aren't brought up here in the forums very often. In fact, now that I think about it, I remember it being brought up just once, in the context of a power trail of challenge caches, and the example presented turned out to be a very popular series of caches that the local community has embraced.

What about the cache owner who hides only a few quality containers, monitors and responds quickly? He gets shut out because someone hundreds of miles away dropped 1000 pill bottles in his town?

That does sound like a bad case. Has that happened? It's hard for me to imagine since power trails are almost never placed where someone would want to plant a quality container. When it happened, didn't the CO acquiesce when someone brought it to their attention? That sounds like a great time for GS to step in and take specific action, not an excuse to shutdown all power trails everywhere just so this one obnoxious but easily identifiable case can't possibly happen.

For some reason, some hiders and finders seem to think that if a cache is part of a PT is it somehow exempt from some guidelines and acceptable practices.

Why can't you allow those hiders and finders that are somewhere you'll never go agree to some different rules that make what they're doing more fun for them? Yes, when bad practices leak out to good caches, complain out the wazoo, but this idea that there's one absolute standard that must be applied universally is fascist.

I don't even like power trails, but your arguments still don't convince me they must be stopped.

2.6k · May 16, 2017

But only when we come to a LPC / GRC, there's no real way for all 3 of us to climb out of the car and do the hinkey dinkey... if we did that, then the first to locate would end up being the fastest runner or the one that hopped out while the car was still moving... so- we rotate between the non drivers for LPC/ GRC unless the seeker can't locate. Then all 3 get out and look - then we agree it's not there (dnf it) before heading out again.

On a power trail the driver of the car (unless it's a non-geocacher) will log a find on every cache found by "the team" even if they never get out of the car. For non-PT caches, when one or more geocachers are out together I think it's pretty much expected that everyone will at least participate in the actual search for each cache. To me, someone that is just driving the car, but never actively searches for a cache isn't geocaching, they're driving.

But consider reality, as described in the quoted part about LPC/GRC. On a typical driving power trail, the caches will be easy. Someone in the team will be able to jump out faster than the driver, so the driver would never get to find it. It seems a bit silly to me to say the driver needs to unbuckle their belt and start to get out each time (until his team member shouts they found it). I guess they could say "I'm going to get out of the car now" 1000 times, but stop as by the time they get to the end of the sentence the cache would be found.

I've done a 100+ cache driving power trail with a friend. With these, the caches were not all the same, and also were generally some ways away from the road. So it made sense for us both to get out and look. But 1000 or more in the desert, it's different.

May 16, 2017

If we insist on owner maintenance it stops COs from saturating areas leaving no room for anyone else. What about the cache owner who hides only a few quality containers, monitors and responds quickly? He gets shut out because someone hundreds of miles away dropped 1000 pill bottles in his town?

If we want to stop PTs, then I think the only way to do that is change the guidelines so they don't get set in the first place. I don't think insisting on owner maintenance is the solution. It's not enforceable for one thing. If the CO is active responding to logs but others help with maintenance, how is this to be enforced? Well perhaps a reviewer searching for "keyword:replaced" and archiving any cache where someone admits replacing (or repairing) it.

If Groundspeak doesn't change the rules on PTs (which is quite unlikely), then it has to be done by the community --- no throwdowns, no replacing wet/full logs, post NMs, post NAs. Of course, that will never happen and the practice has seeped into the rest of the pastime. But a few of us will 'insist' on owner maintenance on PTs. A drop in the bucket but better then shrugging our shoulders and letting things get out of hand.

Wow, you just gave me the only reason that I would ever consider doing a part of any PT, just to log MN or NA. :laughing: BUT, then someone else would come along and throwdown behind me. :mad:

9k · May 16, 2017

To me, someone that is just driving the car, but never actively searches for a cache isn't geocaching, they're driving.

If you take your ladder to a tree so your friend can make the climb and sign in where they otherwise wouldn't have done so, and you then don't do the climb, are you geocaching?

I think many people consider "taking part" in the find, especially if it otherwise wouldn't have happened, as sufficient to claim a find. Many will take it a step further - if they don't at least see the cache, they may not log it found; or touch the cache; or sign their own name. All of this is entirely subjective, of course.

And before you agree (assuming you do), I'll just point out the reason I replied to this was your pronoun use - "someone", "they" - whereas if you agree that in this case it's up to the cacher, I likely wouldn't have replied if you'd said "To me, if I'm just driving the car but never actively search for a cache, I'm not geocaching, I'm driving".

Edited May 16, 2017 by thebruce0

15.3k · May 16, 2017

The last one to see the cache is the one who removes it - then we sign the log in the order of finding (hokey pokey / hinkey dinkey method as it's called elsewhere in the forums).
I think the term you're looking for is huckle buckle.

Technically, the game this style of geocaching is based on is called "Huckle Buckle Beanstalk". But people who didn't grow up with the game find the words confusing.

In practice, the groups I've geocached with haven't worried much about the actual phrases used. "Hokey Pokey" or "Hinkey Dinkey" or "Knick Knack Paddywack" or even a simple "Found It" would all get the point across.

But I digress...

7.5k · May 16, 2017

To me, someone that is just driving the car, but never actively searches for a cache isn't geocaching, they're driving.

If you take your ladder to a tree so your friend can make the climb and sign in where they otherwise wouldn't have done so, and you then don't do the climb, are you geocaching?

No. You are carrying a ladder to a tree and watching someone else geocache.

Edit to add: Do we tell folks we bungee jumped, when stand beside a friend and watch as he jumps off the platform?

Edited May 16, 2017 by L0ne.R

9k · May 16, 2017

To me, someone that is just driving the car, but never actively searches for a cache isn't geocaching, they're driving.

If you take your ladder to a tree so your friend can make the climb and sign in where they otherwise wouldn't have done so, and you then don't do the climb, are you geocaching?

No. You are carrying a ladder to a tree and watching someone else geocache.

Umm.

Now you're getting into the territory of telling cachers they must climb a tree to log a find. Sorry, no. YOU may not log the find, but you can't tell others "you're not geocaching." Argumentative and ludicrous.

But back to the topic at hand...

13.7k · May 16, 2017

I think many people consider "taking part" in the find, especially if it otherwise wouldn't have happened, as sufficient to claim a find.

Still OT, but we do similar.

If someone is a spotter, equipment wrangler, or even photographer, and they don't wanna/can't climb afterwards, that's (to me) fine.

I feel they're there to resolve/prevent equipment issues, and cover this old fart's can.

Everyone knows ahead of time that those just hangin' out don't get squat.

Most times caching with others, I bring the container/log down, the next person puts it back.

7.5k · May 16, 2017

No. You are carrying a ladder to a tree and watching someone else geocache.

Edit to add: Do we tell folks we bungee jumped, when stand beside a friend and watch as he jumps off the platform?

I've never run into anyone that considers "geocaching" to be, precisely, picking up the cache, opening it, and signing the log. Everyone I've ever talked to is fine with one person picking up the cache and opening it, even the huckle-buckle crowd that waits for everyone to figure out where it is first. Your standard, that one has to climb up the ladder in order to be considered to be geocaching, is arbitrary. The point of the ladder example is that anyone could go up the ladder to get the cache, which makes it different than a tree climb where there's no reason to think everyone could make the assent.

That doesn't make the "must climb the ladder" standard wrong, it just makes it your personal choice. Similarly, whether the driver is geocaching even though he never touches the cache is arbitrary. Lots of people claim finds in which they don't touch the cache just because it's convenient to let one person sign everyone in instead of passing it around for everyone to sign personally. You're declaring the driver to be "not geocaching" because he's 10' away instead of 2' away. It's OK if you think that makes sense, but you're presenting it as not open to question.

The bottom line in my opinion is that the question shouldn't be "is he geocaching?" but, rather, is he having fun? If he's having fun, and he wants to call it geocaching, why should I care?

May 18, 2017

But only when we come to a LPC / GRC, there's no real way for all 3 of us to climb out of the car and do the hinkey dinkey... if we did that, then the first to locate would end up being the fastest runner or the one that hopped out while the car was still moving... so- we rotate between the non drivers for LPC/ GRC unless the seeker can't locate. Then all 3 get out and look - then we agree it's not there (dnf it) before heading out again.

On a power trail the driver of the car (unless it's a non-geocacher) will log a find on every cache found by "the team" even if they never get out of the car. For non-PT caches, when one or more geocachers are out together I think it's pretty much expected that everyone will at least participate in the actual search for each cache. To me, someone that is just driving the car, but never actively searches for a cache isn't geocaching, they're driving.

But consider reality, as described in the quoted part about LPC/GRC. On a typical driving power trail, the caches will be easy. Someone in the team will be able to jump out faster than the driver, so the driver would never get to find it. It seems a bit silly to me to say the driver needs to unbuckle their belt and start to get out each time (until his team member shouts they found it). I guess they could say "I'm going to get out of the car now" 1000 times, but stop as by the time they get to the end of the sentence the cache would be found.

I've done a 100+ cache driving power trail with a friend. With these, the caches were not all the same, and also were generally some ways away from the road. So it made sense for us both to get out and look. But 1000 or more in the desert, it's different.

The 100+ cache driving power trails can get a little boring after awhile, but I haven't trail any of those so I don't know for sure. I tried a driving power trail of 9 caches and only found 4 of them but 2 of them were right near each other so I parked between to two places. I love the idea of Power Trails, but think there should be some sort of overall theme and a limit on how many caches for each one.

May 18, 2017

I have one more thought into this...I know, I am thinking too much! LOL. But if these power trail finders are switching containers and such...there really is no way to prove that you found the cache among hundreds. I was thinking about this today as I found a few caches that stated if you do not sign the log.....and I started thinking heck, I could find hundreds of geocaches from a PT without leaving my house! Nobody would would know better! Ok, just my snarkiness. But true, no?

7.5k · May 18, 2017

1495076408[/url]' post='5655956']
I have one more thought into this...I know, I am thinking too much! LOL. But if these power trail finders are switching containers and such...there really is no way to prove that you found the cache among hundreds. I was thinking about this today as I found a few caches that stated if you do not sign the log.....and I started thinking heck, I could find hundreds of geocaches from a PT without leaving my house! Nobody would would know better! Ok, just my snarkiness. But true, no?

True yes. PTs seem like a lot of pointless effort to me.

7.5k · May 18, 2017

I have one more thought into this...I know, I am thinking too much! LOL. But if these power trail finders are switching containers and such...there really is no way to prove that you found the cache among hundreds. I was thinking about this today as I found a few caches that stated if you do not sign the log.....and I started thinking heck, I could find hundreds of geocaches from a PT without leaving my house! Nobody would would know better! Ok, just my snarkiness. But true, no?

Yes, I think it's fair to say that power trail owners are leaving the seeker's integrity up to the seeker. I know! It's hard to believe someone would expect everyone to be honest in this day and age!

2.6k · May 18, 2017

The 100+ cache driving power trails can get a little boring after awhile, but I haven't trail any of those so I don't know for sure. I tried a driving power trail of 9 caches and only found 4 of them but 2 of them were right near each other so I parked between to two places. I love the idea of Power Trails, but think there should be some sort of overall theme and a limit on how many caches for each one.

You've hit on something I often say - there are a large range of what people call power trails. One extreme is the 1000+ driving trail. These you generally don't have the driver getting out of the car (there isn't time), and finder maintenance and even sometimes container swapping.

But some consider 20 walking/cycling caches along a trail as a power trail.

The ones I've done which were around 100 were fun. They had a theme and a variety of hides. Not quick finds. They had a theme. Caches were not 0.1 miles apart, more like a mile or 2 apart on average. No long walks - most were within 0.1 miles of parking, but they weren't step out of the car and find either.

2.6k · May 18, 2017

If we insist on owner maintenance it stops COs from saturating areas leaving no room for anyone else. What about the cache owner who hides only a few quality containers, monitors and responds quickly? He gets shut out because someone hundreds of miles away dropped 1000 pill bottles in his town?

I suppose it can happen, but I don't think this is a common scenario. If you are talking 1000 caches, that generally is along a road, in the middle of nowhere, stretching 100 miles or more. That road is blocked out, but not a town. Take the ET trail, it doesn't stop anyone hiding caches in the desert more than 0.1 miles from the road. And if you are worried about PT finders finding, it, move it 2 miles from the road, very few will bother.

Around here, the more common scenario is with small walking trails/series. If there is a nice circular walk on footpaths, and a CO puts out 30 caches on a 5 mile walk, it does block or limit others placing caches along that trail. But, the reality is, such trails are popular. I'm not making a judgement here, but numbers show this. Take my 5 mile circle example. Put a single cache halfway round, so a 5 mile walk is needed. In my area, it will get found about twice a year. Set 30 caches on the same trail, it will get found 100 or more times a year. Is such a trail good or bad? It depends on your preferences.

14k · May 18, 2017

For some reason, some hiders and finders seem to think that if a cache is part of a PT is it somehow exempt from some guidelines and acceptable practices.

Why can't you allow those hiders and finders that are somewhere you'll never go agree to some different rules that make what they're doing more fun for them? Yes, when bad practices leak out to good caches, complain out the wazoo, but this idea that there's one absolute standard that must be applied universally is fascist.

I don't even like power trails, but your arguments still don't convince me they must be stopped.

Why do you assume that I'll never go to a place where treating PT caches in a different way than every other cache? Although, you won't find PTs everywhere, they've become common in many places all over the world. Although they'ret as long as some of them out in the Nevada desert, there are many of them. Take a look at geocaching map of Seoul, South Korea sometime.

The OP of this thread specifically asked for comments on the Pros and Cons of power trails. That's all I did. No where did I call for the elimination of power trails, suggest that they should be stopped, or that those that hide and find caches on power trails should not be allowed to enjoy them.

When I express an opinion about an aspect of the game, how that aspect effects me personally does not influence my opinion. I don't agree with the "if it's not a problem for me, it's not a problem" mentality that seems to find it's way into many threads. I also don't think that if a problem impacts me that it impacts everyone else the same way.

7.5k · May 18, 2017

But some consider 20 walking/cycling caches along a trail as a power trail.

In the days before the no-PTs guideline was lifted, reviewers would have considered it a PT too and asked to owner to create a multi.

2.6k · May 18, 2017

But some consider 20 walking/cycling caches along a trail as a power trail.

In the days before the no-PTs guideline was lifted, reviewers would have considered it a PT too and asked to owner to create a multi.

That's true. And it is debatable if that decision to remove that guideline was a good idea or not. But much of the replies on this thread (about throwdown containers etc) applies to larger trails but probably not a trail of 20 caches. I might think 1 multi is better than a walking series of 20 caches, but it is a much different experience than 1000 identical drive-by caches.

It's hard to have a debate on pros and cons of something which we don't have a common definition of what "it" is.

9k · May 18, 2017

much of the replies on this thread (about throwdown containers etc) applies to larger trails but probably not a trail of 20 caches. I might think 1 multi is better than a walking series of 20 caches, but it is a much different experience than 1000 identical drive-by caches.

It's hard to have a debate on pros and cons of something which we don't have a common definition of what "it" is.

Exactly.

"Power trail" is a very, very broad categorization. The individual caches in a power trail, whether it's 1000+ or 20, can still each individually be amazing, or bland. It is impossible to make a single generalized description of "power trails" as a whole and have it be anywhere accurate or informative.

One because everyone prefers different things (one may hate a style, another may love it) and two because the actually styles per hide themselves span the entire gamut of geocaches!

More informative would be to provide a specific example of a power trail you've experienced, and describe what you personally liked/disliked about it.

I can't help but sigh and skip past vague "I hate power trails on principle" comments. Why? What experiences led you to that? Is there any experience that would not fit in with that view? Do you dislike every positive experience, for yourself, that others claim they enjoyed? Or there indeed some universal aspect of power trails you can identify that pulls you away from them across the board, and if so, what is it and why?

With a broad OP, responses have to be detailed or it'll always come back to arguing about being offended by someone else's opinion that doesn't apply in your context

7.5k · May 18, 2017

Why do you assume that I'll never go to a place where treating PT caches in a different way than every other cache? Although, you won't find PTs everywhere, they've become common in many places all over the world. Although they'ret as long as some of them out in the Nevada desert, there are many of them. Take a look at geocaching map of Seoul, South Korea sometime.

I said you'd never go there because you don't like power trails. It never occurred to me you'd go somewhere, look to see what caches were available, and then complain about the hundred caches just outside your door because they aren't good enough for you.

When I express an opinion about an aspect of the game, how that aspect effects me personally does not influence my opinion. I don't agree with the "if it's not a problem for me, it's not a problem" mentality that seems to find it's way into many threads. I also don't think that if a problem impacts me that it impacts everyone else the same way. [/size]

When you express an opinion that says a class of caches that lots of people enjoy is not up to your standards, I have a hard time seeing it as anything but a comment about how those caches will affect you personally. You are explicitly discounting the opinions of the people planting and finding those power trails in favor of your own opinion. It strikes me that you're specifically ignoring how those caches affect other people, not magnanimously taking it into account.

5.7k · May 18, 2017

I have one more thought into this...I know, I am thinking too much! LOL. But if these power trail finders are switching containers and such...there really is no way to prove that you found the cache among hundreds. I was thinking about this today as I found a few caches that stated if you do not sign the log.....and I started thinking heck, I could find hundreds of geocaches from a PT without leaving my house! Nobody would would know better! Ok, just my snarkiness. But true, no?

Pretty much. Cache-swapping (or "three cache monte") makes it impossible to trust the authenticity of any given cache log. Not that I imagine those PT owners ever contemplated auditing the online log against the paper log, but still.

When I was training for a ruck march, I twice went out to the same desert dirt road to do a power trail. The first time I went out there, I only did every fourth cache or so on my way out and then did every second cache on my way back -- that way I would still have caches left to leapfrog and log on my last visit in two weeks. Meanwhile, some teams came in and cache-swapped their way through the entire series. So the next time I came back, I found that my signature was in at least half of the logs, even though I hadn't found the cache at that location. Which means if the CO ever goes back, they're going to find that my name is missing from many log books. Again, I don't anticipate an audit, but it got pretty annoying to keep sticking my hands in thorny mesquite bushes only to find I'd already signed the log. I did make sure to specify that in the logs I left for those caches affected (not that I expect anyone bothered to read 'em).

7.5k · May 18, 2017

I have one more thought into this...I know, I am thinking too much! LOL. But if these power trail finders are switching containers and such...there really is no way to prove that you found the cache among hundreds. I was thinking about this today as I found a few caches that stated if you do not sign the log.....and I started thinking heck, I could find hundreds of geocaches from a PT without leaving my house! Nobody would would know better! Ok, just my snarkiness. But true, no?

Pretty much. Cache-swapping (or "three cache monte") makes it impossible to trust the authenticity of any given cache log. Not that I imagine those PT owners ever contemplated auditing the online log against the paper log, but still.

That's why it seems so futile. Why do people bother signing those PT logs? No one cares. The owner doesn't care, the other finders don't care, it's impossible to use as a ledger as to who actually found any of the PT caches. What a waste of time.

You see the cache, you found it (unless it's a high terrain cache where the intent was to have the cacher climb a tree, or row/swim/wade over to an island, rock climb--highly unlikely in those poopular PT-style repetitive caching experiences).

2.6k · May 18, 2017

That's why it seems so futile. Why do people bother signing those PT logs? No one cares. The owner doesn't care, the other finders don't care, it's impossible to use as a ledger as to who actually found any of the PT caches. What a waste of time.

Why do people geocache?

Lots of caches are easy, not just PTs. Most owners don't check the logs on any cache. Most other finders don't care if I sign any log or not. We find the caches and sign the logs because that is what we do.

14k · May 18, 2017

Why do you assume that I'll never go to a place where treating PT caches in a different way than every other cache? Although, you won't find PTs everywhere, they've become common in many places all over the world. Although they'ret as long as some of them out in the Nevada desert, there are many of them. Take a look at geocaching map of Seoul, South Korea sometime.

I said you'd never go there because you don't like power trails. It never occurred to me you'd go somewhere, look to see what caches were available, and then complain about the hundred caches just outside your door because they aren't good enough for you.

No. I have never said I wouldn't go anywhere because I don't like power trails. Once again, this thread is about Pros and Cons. I posted what I consider cons, with respect to the game in general. Whether or not I like or dislike is irrelevant. You're, like you've often done before, responded to point I'm making using the logical fallacy. Instead of refuting or agreeing that one of the cons regarding power trails is that many hider and seekers treat them as if it's a different game, you ignore what I wrote and claim that it's all because I don't like power trails.

When I express an opinion about an aspect of the game, how that aspect effects me personally does not influence my opinion. I don't agree with the "if it's not a problem for me, it's not a problem" mentality that seems to find it's way into many threads. I also don't think that if a problem impacts me that it impacts everyone else the same way. [/size]

When you express an opinion that says a class of caches that lots of people enjoy is not up to your standards, I have a hard time seeing it as anything but a comment about how those caches will affect you personally. You are explicitly discounting the opinions of the people planting and finding those power trails in favor of your own opinion. It strikes me that you're specifically ignoring how those caches affect other people, not magnanimously taking it into account.

I never wrote that a class of caches wasn't up to my standards, nor am I suggesting that anyone else should play the game according to my standards.

May 18, 2017

If we insist on owner maintenance it stops COs from saturating areas leaving no room for anyone else. What about the cache owner who hides only a few quality containers, monitors and responds quickly? He gets shut out because someone hundreds of miles away dropped 1000 pill bottles in his town?

I suppose it can happen, but I don't think this is a common scenario. If you are talking 1000 caches, that generally is along a road, in the middle of nowhere, stretching 100 miles or more. That road is blocked out, but not a town. Take the ET trail, it doesn't stop anyone hiding caches in the desert more than 0.1 miles from the road. And if you are worried about PT finders finding, it, move it 2 miles from the road, very few will bother.

Around here, the more common scenario is with small walking trails/series. If there is a nice circular walk on footpaths, and a CO puts out 30 caches on a 5 mile walk, it does block or limit others placing caches along that trail. But, the reality is, such trails are popular. I'm not making a judgement here, but numbers show this. Take my 5 mile circle example. Put a single cache halfway round, so a 5 mile walk is needed. In my area, it will get found about twice a year. Set 30 caches on the same trail, it will get found 100 or more times a year. Is such a trail good or bad? It depends on your preferences.

I can definitely see the difference between a highway PT (spring run) and the foot path PT. Two different animals with different appeals.

May 18, 2017

That's why it seems so futile. Why do people bother signing those PT logs? No one cares. The owner doesn't care, the other finders don't care, it's impossible to use as a ledger as to who actually found any of the PT caches. What a waste of time.

You see the cache, you found it (unless it's a high terrain cache where the intent was to have the cacher climb a tree, or row/swim/wade over to an island, rock climb--highly unlikely in those poopular PT-style repetitive caching experiences).

Just for me - I sign the log for every cache I find. It's just "what's right to do" for my caching style. Or at least I'm standing with the signer while on a GRC PT. That's just me... I never wore a HD t shirt till I owned one or a USMC shirt till I earned it. Just me...

If the log is there, I sign it. If i can't, and can't replace it, I log that in the find log...

And I agree that PT COs often don't care and check the integrity of the logs. But it's also up to finders to have integrity...

7.5k · May 18, 2017

Why do people bother signing those PT logs? No one cares.

I sign logs because I care, not because I care whether anyone else cares. I assume PT seekers are signing the logs for the same reason.

hzoi's example is an amusing scenario where what signatures were where actually made a difference, but if I were him, I wouldn't give it a second thought because the point would be to put my signature at the end of the log. The fact that there was a past signature of mine earlier in the log is immaterial.

(Just for the record, I think any kind of container shifting is pretty lame, and COs that encourage it are also lame. But I don't think it causes any actual problem of note. What's important is that the CO doesn't care who signs what, so the fact that the CO can't prove who signed what is uninteresting.)

10.1k · May 18, 2017

(Just for the record, I think any kind of container shifting is pretty lame, and COs that encourage it are also lame. But I don't think it causes any actual problem of note. What's important is that the CO doesn't care who signs what, so the fact that the CO can't prove who signed what is uninteresting.)

Or you could confuse cachers even more by putting the cache name and code at the top of the log...

15.3k · May 19, 2017

(Just for the record, I think any kind of container shifting is pretty lame, and COs that encourage it are also lame. But I don't think it causes any actual problem of note. What's important is that the CO doesn't care who signs what, so the fact that the CO can't prove who signed what is uninteresting.)

I don't think the three cache monte causes any actual problem of note on numbers run trails where the CO condones it. The three cache monte is not (IMHO) geocaching, but the practice doesn't cause any actual problem of note when confined to places where it is condoned.

The problems of note come when the practice is applied where it is NOT condoned.

3.5k · May 19, 2017

I've done portions of some PT's, although I did them the unconventional way - on a bike, signing and dating each cache. All the other 'signatures' in the caches I found were stamps, without any dates. I had a good time riding along the deserted roads, passed by only 1 logging truck and 1 camper truck the entire time. Had some nice views, enjoyed good weather, and got a good amount of exercise. None of the caches I found were in 'bad shape' or wet. One of my favorite pics from that trail

That's why it seems so futile. Why do people bother signing those PT logs? No one cares. The owner doesn't care, the other finders don't care, it's impossible to use as a ledger as to who actually found any of the PT caches. What a waste of time.

Why did I sign and date all of the log sheets? My answer mirrors those of redsox_mark, WearyTraveler, and dprovan - that's how I cache. I sign the logs of all the caches I find, unless they're so wet that I can't sign them. If the CO doesn't care about my signature, then that's up to them. That could be the case for Regular-size caches I find along mountain hiking trails, so I'm not going to worry about whether the CO cares or not. The CO hid a cache, so I "found" it - and if my definition of "found" is different than others' definitions, then so be it. The only difference in my 'caching style' was that I didn't log DNF's for the PT caches that I couldn't find. I keep a bookmark list of my DNF's and I didn't want to clutter it with PT caches that I'll never visit again.

Edited May 19, 2017 by noncentric

5.7k · May 19, 2017

hzoi's example is an amusing scenario where what signatures were where actually made a difference, but if I were him, I wouldn't give it a second thought because the point would be to put my signature at the end of the log. The fact that there was a past signature of mine earlier in the log is immaterial.

Don't worry -- it's not keeping me up nights. :anibad: Just brought it up as I was reminded of it.

2.6k · June 4, 2017

Nine times outta ten, if I want to go to a nice hike-to cache, there's a "dropped on my way to..." power trail to it now.

Depends on my mood whether I hit some, or skip 'em entirely.

Yeah, it's nice when a good trail fills in over time with a variety of interesting caches, but 15 identical caches hidden at identical intervals isn't particularly interesting. I don't mind power trails as much when they're along bike paths or roads. Personally I can take them or leave them, but they're in spaces that otherwise wouldn't have geocaches anyway so it doesn't feel like such a waste.

+1.

September 13, 2017

I love the end of the rainbow in geocaching. It is what brought me here to begin with, 10 years ago. To find the other side of that dirt road in the desert. To learn a little bit of local history in a place I thought I already knew. To find a new way to approach things.

Now, there is a new different thing. It seems there is a run to chalk up numbers of finds. Powertrails may or may not be a way to do this. But here is my thing. I LOVE to walk, and run in between. Some call it Interval Training, meh, whatever. But I find a buncha caches in a line, I need my workout, so I park my car, and go.

And I still treat each cache tenderly and lovingly, while keeping up my heart rate. I might jog in place while replacing a soaked wet log. But that it how I utilize the Power Trail.

This weekend when I take my little girl out to see the world, we might catch one or five caches, but we got them in a totally different way. We smelled the air, touched the cactus (gloves, yeah) and saw a new path. We learned something about why that little hole in the cement is there, or saw a new mountain.

...3 sides to every story...

Edited September 13, 2017 by TumbleweedDeb

September 13, 2017

7 hours ago, TumbleweedDeb said:

I love the end of the rainbow in geocaching. It is what brought me here to begin with, 10 years ago. To find the other side of that dirt road in the desert. To learn a little bit of local history in a place I thought I already knew. To find a new way to approach things.

Now, there is a new different thing. It seems there is a run to chalk up numbers of finds. Powertrails may or may not be a way to do this. But here is my thing. I LOVE to walk, and run in between. Some call it Interval Training, meh, whatever. But I find a buncha caches in a line, I need my workout, so I park my car, and go.

And I still treat each cache tenderly and lovingly, while keeping up my heart rate. I might jog in place while replacing a soaked wet log. But that it how I utilize the Power Trail.

This weekend when I take my little girl out to see the world, we might catch one or five caches, but we got them in a totally different way. We smelled the air, touched the cactus (gloves, yeah) and saw a new path. We learned something about why that little hole in the cement is there, or saw a new mountain.

...3 sides to every story...

This pretty much says it all. A power trail hide is like any other hide....if someone enjoys it, then it is a good thing.

Power Trails - pros and cons...

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment