Atempting to Start a GOOD Power Trail

[+The Jester]

8 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

Not only theoretically. I just made an adjustment for cache types when IceColdUK gave feedback about mystery power trails.

But there are a couple of 'power trails' of challenge caches I know of.  One is in Oregon starting with this one (on the map it's the blue line next to the matrix of trads on the other side of the canal). 

[+arisoft]

9 hours ago, niraD said:

Is there any test that the caches were found sequentially? Or even if they were found on the same day?

 

Not at this moment. The same day could be relevant for the finder. There is no "power" if you have to find them several days.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

14 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

Not only theoretically. I just made an adjustment for cache types when IceColdUK gave feedback about mystery power trails.

 

Here's another change you might consider.  To me,  one of the key criteria that differentiates a power trail from a bunch of caches along the trail is the ease in finding them.  The whole point of a power trail is to provide as many finds as possible in as short amount of time as possible, and do that all of the caches have to be easy to find.  Your checker should have an average D rating threshold (probably less than 2.0 or so).  

[+fuzziebear3]

Hmmm, for me the checker shows that a bunch of caches that I did at a mega event were a power trail.   I didn't really think of them that way.

 

Does the checker only find the most recent set of caches that might qualify?

 

Edited October 23, 2018 by fuzziebear3
Added a bit

[+arisoft]

3 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Here's another change you might consider.  To me,  one of the key criteria that differentiates a power trail from a bunch of caches along the trail is the ease in finding them.  The whole point of a power trail is to provide as many finds as possible in as short amount of time as possible, and do that all of the caches have to be easy to find.  Your checker should have an average D rating threshold (probably less than 2.0 or so).  

 

You were reading my mind. I had the same idea and now it is adjusted to the Power Trail checker  https://project-gc.com/Challenges//37898

 to accept only D1.0 and D1.5. Should I limit the terrain levels too?

 

The longest Power Trail which meets these requirements may be 281 caches and 28.6 miles long.

 

 

[+arisoft]

15 minutes ago, fuzziebear3 said:

Does the checker only find the most recent set of caches that might qualify?

 

It is using all your finds. Also archived ones.

[+fuzziebear3]

My biggest day, and it was what I considered most as a power trail was to do caches along route 127 -- here is a random one

https://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC44PY2

But that didn't show up in the checker for me.

 

By the way, I did over 100 that day -- it was fun to do -once-  because I was with friends, but in general I didn't prefer that kind of caching.

 

 

[+arisoft]

33 minutes ago, fuzziebear3 said:

Hmmm, for me the checker shows that a bunch of caches that I did at a mega event were a power trail.   I didn't really think of them that way.

 

If you click the green polygon on the map you will see some interesting facts.

 

This chain contains 103 caches in 0.3 miles² area
There are 9 caches around 2.3 miles long perimeter
Maximum distance is 0.9 miles long

 

It may not look like a trail because it is more like a Power Matrix ?

Edited October 23, 2018 by arisoft

[+arisoft]

8 minutes ago, fuzziebear3 said:

My biggest day, and it was what I considered most as a power trail was to do caches along route 127 -- here is a random one

https://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC44PY2

But that didn't show up in the checker for me.

 

 

Those caches are too far from each others. This definition requires maximum 0.11 miles between caches. What do you think, how far they should be allowed to be a Power Trail?

[+thebruce0]

I really don't agree that they should be limited to low D (or T). I've done a few powertrails - as in many more than a handful in a sequential closely-knit series - that were intended to be more difficult finds. Powertrails don't have to be super-easy quick finds, and I've always said that. What are those trails then when a group of caching friends head out to tackle a loooong stretch of difficult and super-closely-knit caches along a roadside that absolutely are intended to be found together, and everyone calls it a powertrail?

That's why I always describe them as having an intended theme - is it ease and speed for quantity of generic finds? Is it difficulty? Is it cache hide style?

 

The way I like to break it down is - they've got to form a 'trail' (sequential, a noticeable chain from one to the next for at least a handful but usually much more), and it should have some aspect of 'powering' (in the sense of a marathon; you set off and aim to finish a lofty goal along a defined or implied route. Like finding as many as possible, typically as fast as possible - another reason they're usually in lines or chains because that's the most efficient route from A to B, connected by least allowable distance - but that doesn't necessarily mean they're intrinsically "easy")

 

 

The problem with checkers is they only check proximity, so it could add nearby non-trail caches to the 'chain'. There are other challenge caches that qualify with this very thing, but they're not billed as "powertrail" checkers, rather the challenge typically reads as having two caches that are at least Nkm apart, connected by caches no more than some distance apart. There's no way for a checker to definitively claim a qualification is because of a powertrail.

 

Now, using the algorithm to show possible powertrails is certainly a benefit as it could show any selection of caches connected by some arbitrary distance parameters! But really, that's also the sort of layout you'd be able to see by visually scanning the map =P

[+fuzziebear3]

40 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

Those caches are too far from each others. This definition requires maximum 0.11 miles between caches. What do you think, how far they should be allowed to be a Power Trail?

 

Maybe go with .22 -- considering that a skip or a DNF (the horror!) or one that is temp disabled along the trail doesn't negate the fact that it is still a trail.

 

[+niraD]

43 minutes ago, fuzziebear3 said:

Maybe go with .22 -- considering that a skip or a DNF (the horror!) or one that is temp disabled along the trail doesn't negate the fact that it is still a trail.

That's a good point. I was thinking of naturally saturated trails (the kind that were called "power trails" before the modern numbers trails existed), where the distance could be anything less than .20 miles and the trail would still be saturated. But unless you define "power trail" to be only the modern numbers trails where throwdowns are expected and no one should ever log a DNF, allowing for a missing cache on the trail is probably a good idea.

[+IceColdUK]

@arisoft You’ll never get complete agreement on what constitutes a power trail, so I guess the question is what are YOU trying to identify with your checker?

 

I like the definition in the Geocaching glossary (https://www.geocaching.com/about/glossary.aspx) but it’s still pretty subjective:

 

Power Trail

A path with a large number of caches placed within close proximity to each other. Promotes players' ability to easily increase their find count.

 

For what it’s worth, a PT suggests to me a large number of identical, easy to find caches placed near enough every 10th of a mile along a wide road.  I imagine Hell to be quite similar. ? 

Edited October 23, 2018 by IceColdUK

[+thebruce0]

Yeah, exactly. I think powertrail caches are generally easy to find, but I (speaking for myself) wouldn't classify that as a required element to the definition

 

 

13 minutes ago, niraD said:

allowing for a missing cache on the trail is probably a good idea.

 

Additionally some trails have open stretches where there simply no place for a cache. Often come across hiking trails with series where there may be even more than a couple hundred meters of gap between caches.  (of course, sometimes COs have just dropped them at the side of the trail, or taken a big rock to put it in place, or used a fake stone in the trail, who knows)

[+arisoft]

1 hour ago, fuzziebear3 said:

Maybe go with .22 -- considering that a skip or a DNF (the horror!) or one that is temp disabled along the trail doesn't negate the fact that it is still a trail.

 

Using 0.22 you pass the one mile PT challenge. ?

 

Now the longest PT seems to be 404 caches and 70.8 miles long.

 

57 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:

I like the definition in the Geocaching glossary (https://www.geocaching.com/about/glossary.aspx) but it’s still pretty subjective:

 

Power Trail

A path with a large number of caches placed within close proximity to each other. Promotes players' ability to easily increase their find count.

 

That is how I define the PT.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

20 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

You were reading my mind. I had the same idea and now it is adjusted to the Power Trail checker  https://project-gc.com/Challenges//37898

 to accept only D1.0 and D1.5. Should I limit the terrain levels too?

 

The longest Power Trail which meets these requirements may be 281 caches and 28.6 miles long.

 

 

 

My first thought was no, the terrain level shouldn't be a factor but then I changed my mind.  To me, the most general criteria for a PT is that it is optimized for finding as many caches as possible.  If one can drive to within 30 feet of every cache, that minimizes the amount of time traveling between each cache and they'd all have a 1.5 (or possibly a T1) terrain rating.  However, for a couple hundred caches on a rail trail,  where one has to walk or bike to each cache,  the T rating might increase the farther one has to go on a trail.  Because walking or biking would take far more time between caches, such a trail would not be optimized for finding all of the caches in the trail as quickly as possible, therefore, I wouldn't characterize it as a PT.  

[+Goldenwattle]

My favourite power trails are those on long bicycle paths with easy terrain and the caches not much further than 161 metres apart, and hopefully with somewhere to lean the bike at each stop. Those can be covered very fast.

[+arisoft]

1 hour ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

My first thought was no, the terrain level shouldn't be a factor but then I changed my mind.  To me, the most general criteria for a PT is that it is optimized for finding as many caches as possible.

 

Now it is T1.5 max. The challenge checker is almost ready for someone to make a Power Trail Challenge Cache.

[+thebruce0]

If the powertrail is explicitly defined with a limited D and T, then I'm sorry but I can't support it as THE powertrail definition.

A script restricting it to that is just like any other challenge script - for a challenge cache that has its own defined set rules for qualifying for its challenge. That's fine, I'd love to do that challenge cache, but this is about "attempting to start a GOOD power trail". I think perhaps "GOOD" is the point of contention, since it's completely arbitrary.  There are powertrails that by this D and T limitation wouldn't be classified as a "powertrail".  But to some people they are, to others they may not be.

 

I think the thread's intent should be for the CO to see what other people consider to be a 'good' powertrail, and then decide for themself what they want their powertrail to be like.  And that may well be a line of 100x 1.5/1.5 easy roadside or trail caches. But as soon as there's an arbitrary rule bandied about, the argument becomes one just like trying to absolutely define the "FTF".  The term has no authority, just partially applicable component terms that can be interpreted and applied to varying degrees depending on whom you ask.

 

If we're here attempting to objectively define "powertrail" by some arbitrary limiting factors beyond its literal terms (let alone write a script to 'identify' powertrails as such), then, well, good luck with that

[+arisoft]

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

I think the thread's intent should be for the CO to see what other people consider to be a 'good' powertrail

 

We must start by defining the Power Trail first. Then we can compare different Power Trails. I think that faster Power Trails are better than slower ones. It could be possible to classify Power Trails by a number, finds per hour or seconds per find.

 

I fear that OP is trying to make the trail more popular by calling it a Power Trail. It may turn against the goal if caches are too good in the wrong way.

[+dprovan]

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

I think the thread's intent should be for the CO to see what other people consider to be a 'good' powertrail, and then decide for themself what they want their powertrail to be like.

It's hard to say without knowing what the OP was really thinking, but my money is still on explaining to the CO that he's thinking of a series, not a power trail. While I agree there are good and bad power trails, what the CO describes doesn't seem to be anything like either.

[+thebruce0]

2 hours ago, arisoft said:

We must start by defining the Power Trail first.

Again I say, good luck.

 

You (any of us) can't objectively define "power trail", universally, globally, applicable to everyone. It doesn't have a defined edge. It is something. Different people will have different opinion. As soon as you draw the line (as you have by explicitly defining parameters in the algorithm that excludes what others can/might/do consider powertrails) you've overstepped an are no longer actually helping the initial question. What is a powertrail? Oh that guy thinks it's something else -- but isn't that what the question is asking?

 

There is no objective definition. If you write an algorithm, it needs to adapt to how people define it. Unless you want to set up some unofficial authority to define it that everyone can point to and say - "that checker says this is a powertrail and that isn't". You'd just better hope that everyone agrees with however you define it.

 

That's my point.

Groundspeak doesn't define FTF. Groundspeak doesn't define powertrail (and that why the guidelines for them and for proximity have changed over the years). It's undefinable because it's a community concept.

You know it when you see it.

 

 

What your checker algorithm does is show most likely powertrails. It misses some. It includes some that are not.  It's not definitive.

 

--> Pertaining to the OP, all it does is point out sequences of closely-knit low DT caches; Not necessarily "good power trails"

 

1 hour ago, dprovan said:

It's hard to say without knowing what the OP was really thinking, but my money is still on explaining to the CO that he's thinking of a series, not a power trail. While I agree there are good and bad power trails, what the CO describes doesn't seem to be anything like either. 

 

Exactly, we're not here to define power trails. We're here to help answer the OPs question. Figure out what they mean by "powertrail", and help figure out what a "GOOD" one is, to help them "attempt to start one" =P

[+NYPaddleCacher]

4 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

We must start by defining the Power Trail first. Then we can compare different Power Trails. I think that faster Power Trails are better than slower ones. It could be possible to classify Power Trails by a number, finds per hour or seconds per find.

 

I fear that OP is trying to make the trail more popular by calling it a Power Trail. It may turn against the goal if caches are too good in the wrong way.

 

Calling a series of caches a power trail might provide an incentive for many geocachers to attempt it, but there are also a fair number of cachers for which calling it a power trail might make them less inclined to do it.  

 

While I agree that we'll ever be able come with a universally accepted definition of a power trail, but in my attempts to define one, I consider the objective of the cache owner, and the required criteria necessary to meet that objective.  If a CO places a few hundred caches with the objective of providing an opportunity to find as many caches as possible in a short amount of time as possible,  the caches would need to have a low D/T rating and be as close as possible to each other.   In that case, I would consider that series of caches a power trail.  If another CO places a few hundred caches, and calls it a power trail, but the difficult and terrain ratings average in the 2.5  or higher range, those looking for an opportunity to find as many caches as possible in a short amount of time are going to be disappointed if they're taking 5-10 minutes to find each cache and  a longer amount of time between cache.  

[+thebruce0]

2 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

If a CO places a few hundred caches with the objective of providing an opportunity to find as many caches as possible in a short amount of time as possible,  the caches would need to have a low D/T rating and be as close as possible to each other.   In that case, I would consider that series of caches a power trail.  If another CO places a few hundred caches, and calls it a power trail, but the difficult and terrain ratings average in the 2.5  or higher range, those looking for an opportunity to find as many caches as possible in a short amount of time are going to be disappointed if they're taking 5-10 minutes to find each cache and  a longer amount of time between cache.  

 

This I can agree with entirely

In this case the meaning of "power" is slightly different between the two - in the former, it's overall find count increased as fast as possible with no challenge but speed. In the latter it's overall find count increased as fast as possible given a consistent theme of (whatever the reason is for) difficulty. Kind of like the latter is a challenge that's more than a mere smiley count, but some people still find value in powering through the chained/connected series. (even though of course the former is more popular, for obvious reasons =P)

[+dprovan]

11 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Calling a series of caches a power trail might provide an incentive for many geocachers to attempt it, but there are also a fair number of cachers for which calling it a power trail might make them less inclined to do it.

I agree with this, although I think either effect would be minimal: most people will decide more by looking at the caches than by which term the description uses. I'm more worried about calling it a power trail when most people wouldn't call it a power trail, since that makes a generally understood term confusing.

 

13 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

While I agree that we'll ever be able come with a universally accepted definition of a power trail, but in my attempts to define one, I consider the objective of the cache owner, and the required criteria necessary to meet that objective.  If a CO places a few hundred caches with the objective of providing an opportunity to find as many caches as possible in a short amount of time as possible,  the caches would need to have a low D/T rating and be as close as possible to each other.   In that case, I would consider that series of caches a power trail.  If another CO places a few hundred caches, and calls it a power trail, but the difficult and terrain ratings average in the 2.5  or higher range, those looking for an opportunity to find as many caches as possible in a short amount of time are going to be disappointed if they're taking 5-10 minutes to find each cache and  a longer amount of time between cache. 

Your definitions are close enough that I wouldn't argue with them. My definition would just be a little less extreme. I agree the goal is to find a lot of caches, but not necessarily "as many caches as possible", and, similarly, while there's a time element, I'd be open to calling it a power trail even if the goal was for the caches to be found in a predictable amount of time, not necessarily "a short amount of time as possible".

 

I'm kinda quibbling, but I go back to the first power trail I ever noticed, and it wasn't a drive by grab fest, it was along an actual trail that was a terrain challenge in itself. The idea was caches pretty much as close as possible and hidden all same way. But at the same time, it would still take some time just to get from one to the next as you climbed up or down the steep terrain. I don't actually remember what the terrain rating was, but in my imagination, I can see a power trail with a terrain rating above 3 and rather than it wasn't a power trail, I'd rather say it puts the "power" in power trail.

 

So, yes, people that were just out for the numbers would be disappointed, but I think the term "power trail" doesn't have to be limited to caches only for people out for numbers. Yes, the goal is a lot of caches, but I don't think we have to limit power trails to caches that can be found 3 per minute.

[+thebruce0]

That.

 

Similarly, an example power trail I can refer to for this situation was archived a while back, was called the Pink Poofy Pie roadside series covering 43 DTs. A group of us went to complete the series - having a number of gaps and proximities farther than 161m - and ended with 1 DNF.  Powertrail. Just not hiking, not easy DTs, not packed as close as allowed...

I'm still just going to look at the powertrail definition as 'know it when you see it'.

[+niraD]

2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

I'm still just going to look at the powertrail definition as 'know it when you see it'.

Part of my understanding of a numbers trail is that the trail is more important than any individual cache within the trail. That would certainly apply to the "fill your D-T grid" caches, for example. In that case, the numbers aren't find count, but the D-T ratings. But the numbers are more important than the individual caches.

[+TwistedCube]

Ok, maybe I should clarify.

 

I am wanting to hide a string of favorite point worthy caches along a designated route. None of the caches have to be related to each other or numbered, nor will the trail be longer than 15-20 caches long.

 

A power trail, by my terms, is a string of caches on a straight path just over 528 feet apart hidden by the same 1-2 CO's.

An example of something like what I want to do (shorter though) would be cschooner's trail caches in Phoenix AZ. Most of them have 10+ FP's and include a variety of containers and hiding methods.

 

[+thebruce0]

I'd still call that a power trail. Your intent isn't for speedy finds, but rather an enjoyable outing to find a bunch in sequence (trail sequence, depending on where you start). Your concept falls almost squarely in my preferred definition which is somewhat loose in the grand scheme; contained, multiple cache finding experience taking you from A to B via closely knit chained caches based on a theme I see no problem with that (if that wasn't obvious) heh. I'd "power" through a trail like that by saying I'm going to start at A, and enjoy finding as many as possible before I have to call it. Even if that's only 5 of the 20 caches. Hopefully I think they are indeed creative enough to be awarded a FP each! (I have enough that I wouldn't default to award one to a specific cache for the series)

[+Harry Dolphin]

12 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

Now it is T1.5 max. The challenge checker is almost ready for someone to make a Power Trail Challenge Cache.

 

It's good to see that I now qualify for the C&D (Chesapeake and Delaware) series in Delaware.  Hiking/biking trail.  Ever hide the same.  

[+dprovan]

7 hours ago, TwistedCube said:

I am wanting to hide a string of favorite point worthy caches along a designated route. None of the caches have to be related to each other or numbered, nor will the trail be longer than 15-20 caches long.

My suggestion is just to approach each cache individually. There's no reason to worry about them as a group if you aren't going to make a group out of them. It doesn't sound like the fact that they happen to be strung along a straight line is just a detail that you don't find that interesting, so I'd just ignore it. In particular, I see no reason why you shouldn't just publish them one at a time, as their each ready.

[+thebruce0]

Yeah, and I mean it may so happen that you've got great spots for them that happen to be along a trail. If you want them to each be appreciated, it may be actually detrimental to them to place them in a manner that other might aproach them like a powertrail and rush through them instead of taking their time.  Another option if you want them near each other is to find a public woodlot with a trail system and place them all there (in theory you could approach existing COs if the forest is already claimed and see if they'd be willing to archive and let you publish; but that could be a little touchy). That kind of location is less likely to attract 'numbers' folk, and moreso people out for a good afternoon walk and to nab some geocaches.

[+TwistedCube]

8 hours ago, dprovan said:

My suggestion is just to approach each cache individually. There's no reason to worry about them as a group if you aren't going to make a group out of them. It doesn't sound like the fact that they happen to be strung along a straight line is just a detail that you don't find that interesting, so I'd just ignore it. In particular, I see no reason why you shouldn't just publish them one at a time, as their each ready.

Good idea! I'll probably just hide 3 at a time, for ease sake. That way, I can work on making them top-notch. 

 

Another thing is that I've noticed the title also plays a role in FP amounts. What I mean is that if each cache is on it's own, it may get more FP's. Maybe if I just hide them individually (without numbering them) it'll attract FP seekers and casual walkers. Of course, it can cater to folks who are ruled by numbers, due to the ease of accessing them.

[+TeamRabbitRun]

52 minutes ago, TwistedCube said:

Good idea! I'll probably just hide 3 at a time, for ease sake. That way, I can work on making them top-notch. 

 

Another thing is that I've noticed the title also plays a role in FP amounts. What I mean is that if each cache is on it's own, it may get more FP's. Maybe if I just hide them individually (without numbering them) it'll attract FP seekers and casual walkers. Of course, it can cater to folks who are ruled by numbers, due to the ease of accessing them.

 

If you 'number' them or title them similarly, you run much more of a risk of people treating them like a PT.

Throwdowns and three-cache-monte are more likely.

 

Also, and this is rarely talked about, you might discourage other hiders, and that's not fair. I wouldn't hide anything anywhere NEAR a Power Trail lest my hide be lumped in.

 

Your plan for a great bunch of standalone caches that happen to be on the same trail is great.

 

USED TO see 'series' caches on trails; some of those were great. Near me, there was a series of "Railroad" caches on a local RailTrail, with each one dedicated to a different RR company or line that used the railroad when it was still in service. Each ammo box was painted with the colors and logo of the line.

Edited October 25, 2018 by TeamRabbitRun

[+dprovan]

50 minutes ago, TwistedCube said:

Another thing is that I've noticed the title also plays a role in FP amounts. What I mean is that if each cache is on it's own, it may get more FP's. Maybe if I just hide them individually (without numbering them) it'll attract FP seekers and casual walkers.

I think your observation is correct, but I suggest not worrying about FPs. Worry about making the caches good. If you make the caches good, you've succeeded. FPs have no value in themselves, only in that they reflect your success. The more you do things specifically because of how many FPs you think you'l get, the more you'll have to wonder if the FPs are truly representing the quality of your caches or are just reflecting the tricks you pulled to "get more FPs".

[+L0ne.R]

4 minutes ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

Also, and this is rarely talked about, you might discourage other hiders, and that's not fair. I wouldn't hide anything anywhere NEAR a Power Trail lest my hide be lumped in.

 

This is a really good point. A power trail discourages organic growth of a trail, i.e. multiple owners with different hiding styles and various containers.  You end up with many hiders avoiding hiding on that trail, even when spots open up. 

Edited October 25, 2018 by L0ne.R
grammar

[+nericksx]

On 10/18/2018 at 4:11 PM, Korichnovui said:

I recently hiked a trail to Cape Falcon in Oregon, and there were a string of top-notch caches along the trail, made by Seawind. In retrospect I realize it was a "power trail" of sorts. At least, I think it's what you're getting at. The key here was two-fold:

 

1. it was along a great hike, not some random road

2. each cache was highest quality and a lot of thought went into the hides. It was perfectly done, really. They were hidden well enough that they wouldn't get muggled by the considerable foot traffic on the trail, but not so well that they were very difficult to find. After all, I was there to do the hike, not spend all day looking for well-hidden caches. The description pages had very useful hints, that was part of how he did it.

 

To Seawind, again, hats off to you and thanks for an enjoyable caching experience.

 

I did some of those. I agree that is was surprisingly satisfying for being a "powertrail". Nice job, Seawind.