Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9
elrojo14

Power Trails Disappearing from the Map?

Recommended Posts

I was thinking of doing some PowerTrailing so I could build up my favorite points for the upcoming Cache Carnival and was looking at some nice trails in Nevada. Well when I zoomed in on the map, the caches disappeared. What gives? I can't tell if they are archived or not. Anyone else running into this problem or is it just my browser? Click the link below and then zoom in on some of the lines of caches. They just disappear. 

http://coord.info/map?ll=38.84506,-118.60565&z=10

 

Anyone know what is going on?

Share this post


Link to post

Some have been Archived very recently.

When we zoom in or zoom out, the layers have different speed of refresh... I imagine it could be the reason for your question.

While the closer maps are already updated, the farthest aren't yet.

Edited by RuideAlmeida
  • Helpful 3

Share this post


Link to post

If you've never done a power trail, fear not. They are tedious and become a chore quite quickly. Doesn't help that they are just a boring film canister dropped ever 0.1 miles. But... if you must, the E.T. Trail is still up and running.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

This is incredible. :o:mad:  Over 24,000 hides archived. 24,000 containers littering the land in the name of Geocaching! This is so wrong. Something can be done about this but Groundspeak turns a blind eye. They started this mess when they opened the flood gates to power trail style play. 

Edited by L0ne.R
  • Upvote 7
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

This is incredible. :o:mad:  Over 24,000 hides archived. 24,000 containers littering the land in the name of Geocaching! This is so wrong. Something can be done about this but Groundspeak turns a blind eye. They started this mess when they opened the flood gates to power trail style play. 

A couple of suggestions:

 

1. The CO could Publish them on an alternative site.

2. Slap a QR code on the containers and publish them on that alternative site.

 

 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Something can be done about this but Groundspeak turns a blind eye.

 

Like what?  Prohibiting the prolific power trail hider from publishing any more caches on Geocaching.com?  Because that was done by Geocaching HQ, years ago.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

We assume (probably accurately) that the containers are still left out there.

Which means, if we're attache to the power trail, someone could simply go through the coordinates and submit new caches and keep them going.

Or we could organize a clean-up party and pick up the containers.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Keystone said:

 

Like what?  Prohibiting the prolific power trail hider from publishing any more caches on Geocaching.com?  Because that was done by Geocaching HQ, years ago.

 

I have heard numerous (questionable) reasons why my cache can not be published but never that I have made too many of them. I am sure that HQ can invent set of rules to prevent power trails if they want. For example, you can not publish similar challenge caches. How it is possible?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

I have heard numerous (questionable) reasons why my cache can not be published but never that I have made too many of them. I am sure that HQ can invent set of rules to prevent power trails if they want. For example, you can not publish similar challenge caches. How it is possible?

You only have 144 hides. The CO in Nevada had over 24,000. I think that was the account which was banned from hiding more.

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, Mineral2 said:

You only have 144 hides. The CO in Nevada had over 24,000. I think that was the account which was banned from hiding more.

 

Stopping to publish more power trails do not require banning the user. We have already rules to prevent "power events". I am quite sure that someone in the HQ wants power trails. It is the only reasonable explanation why they are tolerated. Selling additional finds could be better solution for number players and for the business.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, arisoft said:

I am quite sure that someone in the HQ wants power trails. It is the only reasonable explanation why they are tolerated.

Huh... I came to a rather different conclusion.

 

For years, Groundspeak tried to stop numbers trails. Those who wanted to hide them found ways around every objective rule that was used to block numbers trails. They decided to tolerate them because they found themselves unable to block the effectively.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

I suppose it’s beyond the realm of possibilities that the CO was banned for some reason unrelated to hiding too many caches.  Hmmm...let me think.  Could it be related to the TOU, which explains about 99.9% of these types of situations?

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 3
  • Love 3

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, niraD said:

For years, Groundspeak tried to stop numbers trails. Those who wanted to hide them found ways around every objective rule that was used to block numbers trails. They decided to tolerate them because they found themselves unable to block the effectively.

 

For many years our local reviewer successfully prevented publishing any trails in Finland but suddenly they were all accepted and now there are plenty of them. I must say that they seems to be popular which may explain the decision to allow them.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

This is incredible. :o:mad:  Over 24,000 hides archived. 24,000 containers littering the land in the name of Geocaching! This is so wrong. Something can be done about this but Groundspeak turns a blind eye. They started this mess when they opened the flood gates to power trail style play. 

 

It's water under the bridge now but I agree, the mess started with Groundspeak's decision to allow power trails in force. What's worse in this situation is that Groundspeak allowed a single person to hide so many in the first place. It's pretty much a gimme that they knew that the CO couldn't keep up with maintenance.  

 

True power trails go against pretty much all the guidelines set up for stand alone caches. The allowance of container swapping, stupid logging techniques, dependence on finders to maintain the junky caches thrown out,  and their placements in usually very mediocre locations, are opposite of what geocaching used to be about. 

 

Caching has been real slow around here for the last year or so. But surprisingly, someone just placed a bunch of caches just north of us. I got a bit excited when the first batch came out but that excitement was short lived when I saw what they were. Most are strung along roads, have the same name with different number, and have copy and paste descriptions. I haven't looked at all of them but all are micros so far. Besides being placed just for numbers, Id bet money they won't stay in good shape long and won't be maintained well, if at all, when TLC is needed. I honestly hope I'm wrong but I have seen it too many times. Time will tell! ;)

  • Upvote 9

Share this post


Link to post

I've seen good power trails. They were placed along back roads or in the Forest Service, and while most of the containers were preforms and poptops, the adventure was spectacular. These trails were around 50 or so caches, so not excessively long. But aside from the desert roads in Nevada, there are also an abundance of trails outside of Walla Walla and the Tri Cities area that seem pointless - power trail for the sake of a power trail.

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

I've never done a power trail and never logged more than 42 caches in a day and that wasn't a power trail. So not having done a power trail, they being out there doesn't bother me. They don't appear to be preventing a better cache from being placed. If they aren't causing external harm to the hobby - government/commercial complaints - who cares? Are they really any different from a series of LPCs at a mall or any other placed and abandoned cache film canister?
 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post

My biggest peev with them is that they are hard/impossible to filter out of pocket queries, and a pain in the butt to add each one at a time to an ignore list. It's just a visual ocd when browsing the map or the GPS.

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

This is incredible. :o:mad:  Over 24,000 hides archived. 24,000 containers littering the land in the name of Geocaching! This is so wrong. Something can be done about this but Groundspeak turns a blind eye. They started this mess when they opened the flood gates to power trail style play. 

Unfortunately they were already littering the land even before they were archived.

  • Upvote 6
  • Funny 2
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Mermaid.Man said:

Unfortunately they were already littering the land even before they were archived.

If that's your view of geocaching, I'm not sure why you support the game. The containers aren't litter if they are still being found. I mean, ok, the occasional container gets washed away, even on a power trail. But it's not really litter until a cache is archived and not picked up, in which case it will sit there indefinitely until someone either finds it or the elements take their toll.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

ONLY 44 finds!! If there ever was a reason to require a minimum number of finds before placing caches, this is it.

 

I certainly hoped the poor 'Lackey' at HQ didn't have to archive them one by one and there was a bulk way to do this.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Team DEMP said:

I've never done a power trail and never logged more than 42 caches in a day and that wasn't a power trail. So not having done a power trail, they being out there doesn't bother me. They don't appear to be preventing a better cache from being placed. If they aren't causing external harm to the hobby - government/commercial complaints - who cares? Are they really any different from a series of LPCs at a mall or any other placed and abandoned cache film canister?
 

 

I care because I truly believe that they've had a big impact on how geocaching has turned out. Newer people see these and think this is what geocaching is supposed to be. In the big picture, it's only the tip of the iceberg with many people never realizing how much more our hobby can offer. A lot of people find these and automatically think geocaching is a numbers game. Some really enjoy finding numbers and stay with it awhile but my belief is that most people quit when they get bored finding the same stuff over and over. 

 

In my opinion, Groundspeak's condoning of these is not a good long term strategy for keeping geocaching going. 

 

Edited to add,, Nope! I would say that LPCs and abandoned caches have a very similar effect on geocaching. People go for them, get bored finding the same ole same ole, then find something else to get into.

Edited by Mudfrog
  • Upvote 5
  • Love 3

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Mineral2 said:

If that's your view of geocaching, I'm not sure why you support the game. The containers aren't litter if they are still being found. I mean, ok, the occasional container gets washed away, even on a power trail. But it's not really litter until a cache is archived and not picked up, in which case it will sit there indefinitely until someone either finds it or the elements take their toll.

And if you feel that this mindless power trail nonsense should be a part of the game then that's a shame.  It bears no resemblance at all to my idea of geocaching and yes I feel that it is simply littering.  These 24000 plastic containers weren't thoughtfully placed, nor were they ever going to be maintained, or picked up when they were archived.

 

You're not sure why I support the game?  Well I love the game but I think that perhaps my game is a lot different to yours.

 

  • Upvote 5
  • Love 3

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

Cache owners who do not maintain their existing caches in a timely manner may temporarily or permanently lose the right to list new caches on Geocaching.com.

 

^^^ This ^^^ is written in current Guidelines.

My interpretation: If someone submits new PT for review, it is natural that reviewer checks his maintenance history.

  • How many caches that account owns? 
  • Does he own & maintain some trails already?
  • Are they maintained as per expectations?

If answers are ~ many / yes / no, not really - I believe that reviewer should have concerns & consult next steps with HQ, possibly with ultimate decision not to publish new powertrail.

Or publish it later - only after existing caches will be properly maintained during certain period of time.

 

Under these conditions:

  • There will be less poorly maintained powertrails.
  • Well-maintained powertrails will continue to live & spread fun for us.
  • Very unlikely there'll be someone with 24K hides with no maintenance.

Bottom line - Guidelines are there and they are good enough. We just need to follow them properly.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

ONLY 44 finds!! If there ever was a reason to require a minimum number of finds before placing caches, this is it.

 

I certainly hoped the poor 'Lackey' at HQ didn't have to archive them one by one and there was a bulk way to do this.

I assumed that the account was created specifically for hiding and that some other account is used for finding caches.  I've seen a reference to another account which someone believed is the same user as the hider account and not surprisingly, has logged thousands of caches placed by Team Sagebrushers and if one looks at hides owned by  that account the placed by field is "Team Sage Brushers". 

 

Whether or not someone enjoys these power trails,  one of the main issues I have is not with any specific power trail but the all about the numbers mentality that has become so pervasive in the game, and how they seem to foster finding and hiding practices to the point that they've been an acceptable way to play the game.   It's become pretty much anything goes (or anything one can get away with) if caches are part of a power trail.  

 

When GS changed the guidelines with the removal of the "don't hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can" in 2010 (or was it 2009) I posted here that I thought it was the worst decision they every made.  I still stand by that post.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

I assumed that the account was created specifically for hiding and that some other account is used for finding caches.

And that also solves the "problem" that you can't "find" your own caches to boost your numbers.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

Looking at the C.O. profile, I read this:

" We are now the world record holder of the most hides ... "

There you go, it really is (or was ) all about the numbers .

 

I've seen similar boasts on a more local basis, which just have me thinking yep, you are the "top hider" of neglected unmaintained micros .Well done :rolleyes:

  • Upvote 6
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

I assumed that the account was created specifically for hiding and that some other account is used for finding caches. 

1 hour ago, on4bam said:

And that also solves the "problem" that you can't "find" your own caches to boost your numbers.

 

We see that at times, "team accounts" with members individual caching names already in the log when placed .

Just another example that "numbers" mean nada.  :)

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

We see that at times, "team accounts" with members individual caching names already in the log when placed .

Just another example that "numbers" mean nada. 

 

Every published physical cache should give an additional find the the hider as the most non physical caches (events) does. The current arrangement is groundless.

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

 

We see that at times, "team accounts" with members individual caching names already in the log when placed .

Just another example that "numbers" mean nada.  :)

 

1

 

Numbers mean nothing. 

Yet numbers mean everything. 

They are a huge motivating factor to geocaching as it is currently played, yet they have no real intrinsic value.

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

This is incredible. :o:mad:  Over 24,000 hides archived. 24,000 containers littering the land in the name of Geocaching! This is so wrong. Something can be done about this but Groundspeak turns a blind eye. They started this mess when they opened the flood gates to power trail style play. 

 

7.4. Maintenance expectations

To make sure your geocache is in good health, monitor the logs and visit the cache site periodically. Unmaintained caches may be archived.

Here is a list of your responsibilities as a cache owner:

  • Choose an appropriate container that is watertight.
  • Replace broken or missing containers.
  • Clean out your cache if contents become wet.
  • Replace full or wet logbooks.
  • Temporarily disable your cache if it’s not accessible due to weather or seasonal changes.
  • Mark trackables as missing if they are listed in the inventory but no longer are in the cache.
  • Delete inappropriate logs.
  • Update coordinates if cache location has changed.

After you maintain your cache, make sure to remove the "Needs Maintenance" icon.

If you no longer want to maintain your cache, retrieve the container and archive your cache page.

 

GS isn't the one that put out the caches.  As Bruce so often likes to state, they're just the listing service.  They can archive a cache (and halt a cacher's ability to hide more caches) if they feel it's warranted and it appears they've done so.   Are you blaming GS for doing something that was never their responsibility?  They've upheld their end of the bargain; the CO has not.  You continually refer to the maintenance expectations of a CO in many of your other posts in other threads so why not here?  You don't like PTs, this one is gone now, and you complain that they've not done anything about it.  You're the one that wants unmaintained caches in bad shape removed from the game but then this happens and you complain about TPTB doing exactly what you want them to do.  

 

8 hours ago, Mermaid.Man said:

And if you feel that this mindless power trail nonsense should be a part of the game then that's a shame.  It bears no resemblance at all to my idea of geocaching and yes I feel that it is simply littering.  These 24000 plastic containers weren't thoughtfully placed, nor were they ever going to be maintained, or picked up when they were archived.

 

You're not sure why I support the game?  Well I love the game but I think that perhaps my game is a lot different to yours.

 

PTs ARE part of the game, regardless of whether you like it or not.  We're past the point of should or should not.  While I share the view of many on here that they're probably not that great for the overall health of this activity, they still have their place, just as LPCs and GRCs do, even though those aren't probably that great for the overall health either, because that's typically what new cachers have access to in the free app and like begets like.  While I"m not going to find many of them, I"m not going to say that they shouldn't be allowed to be placed.  Some people enjoy them and enjoy that style of caching so who am I to prevent them from having their fun.

 

Are you saying that someone who enjoys PTs shouldn't be allowed to do PTs because it doesn't mesh with what your idea of geocaching is?  Is your way the "right" way for everyone?  It's the right way for you but are you really saying that your way is the best way and PTs are therefore wrong and shouldn't be allowed?  

 

If you consider PTs the equivalent of litter, then why aren't the caches you find litter as well?  What differentiates them from PT caches?  Just because they're not every 528 ft?  If each cache along that PT was owned by a different CO, would you still consider them litter?  Is every cache you find thoughtfully placed and maintained regularly or do you find the occasional 1.5/1.5 LPC or GRC in order to get you closer to a benchmark cache you've targeted?  Not every cache is thoughtfully placed and not every cache is maintained in a manner it should be so are those litter?  Are they inherently "better" than PT caches simply because they're not part of a PT?

 

The nice thing about this activity is that there are so many ways to enjoy it.  While I don't do many PTs, I have done some geo-arts that are similar in nature.  I've done some rails to trails caches that some might consider a PT while others would not, seeing as how each hide is different, each cache page has different information and the D/T changes from cache to cache.  I've done some rails to trails that I would consider a PT because there really wasn't much change from cache to cache and from cache page to cache page.  All that being said, I don't know if anyone really plays the exact same way and I'm fine with that.  There isn't any "right" or "wrong" way to play, although there are certainly some that might claim otherwise.  There are some general guidelines but they're not hard and fast rules, as evidenced by some of the threads that debate the merits of what constitutes a find, "regular" visits for maintenance, what a DNF is, etc...

 

 

 

  • Upvote 2
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

There isn't any "right" or "wrong" way to play

Nonsense.

 

Replacing the geocache container in its original location is the right way to play. Carrying the geocache container down the road and placing it where you found the next one is the wrong way to play.

 

Numbers trails don't change that.

  • Upvote 5
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

Every published physical cache should give an additional find the the hider as the most non physical caches (events) does. The current arrangement is groundless.

Apples and Oranges.

Hosting an event is like hosting a party. You invite other people, and of course also attend the party. In fact, it would be considered rude if the host does not show up. OTOH, hiding a geocache is like hiding a treasure (like a pirate ;) ). You give others "hints" how to find (a map in old times, GPS coordinates in modern geocaching). And you as the hider are not taking part in the hunt. Therefore, adding a hide to your find count doesn't make sense.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, baer2006 said:

Apples and Oranges.

 

Not at all. Participating or hosting an event is not a find but it increments the number of finds. It is just matter of defining that hiding also increments the number of finds as attending does. If you really want to separate apples and oranges you should keep hides, finds and attends as separate numbers.

Edited by arisoft

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, niraD said:

Nonsense.

 

Replacing the geocache container in its original location is the right way to play. Carrying the geocache container down the road and placing it where you found the next one is the wrong way to play.

 

Numbers trails don't change that.

 

I was referring to the manner in which a person chooses to go caching, be it PTs, high D/T caching, omni-caching, virtual only, hiking only, smalls or larger only, etc...

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, arisoft said:

If you really want to separate apples and oranges you should keep hides, finds and attends as separate numbers.

Sure. Would be fine for me.

Share this post


Link to post

Let's stick to discussing power trails and the recent mass archival action that was taken in regards to several power trails when the owner's account was locked.  Thanks for remaining on topic.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Eight other cachers.  besides the "CO'', were on that "maintenance assist list" , yet many logs from finders stated they did what they could to keep the trail afloat on multiple hides. 

Doesn't seem maintenance was much of a concern ,  but then finders were at fault too, by not using NMs (some not having one), when it's even stated to do so on the cache page. 

 

 

 

Edited by cerberus1
be nice...
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

So, what do you call the archiving of 24,000 power trail caches? A good start! :lol:      Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

There's only one trail (and it is not really a power trail) that I might consider doing. https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC3JQ03_001-owyhee-uplands-byway This trail is well maintained by a group of cachers. Looking at the map, the there are some gaps in the 'every 528 feet' trail. These are generally private property. Still, 826 caches over a 106 mile seasonal road.

 

This same group does real geo-art, no mysteries with all the caches along a road. These caches are at their coordinates. And, they change up the geo-art every couple of years. It used to be a Thunderbird, now it is a locomotive.

 

My main complaint with power trails is the one mentioned by lots of people. We need a way to include/exclude them from pocket queries.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/24/2019 at 4:51 PM, elrojo14 said:

I was thinking of doing some PowerTrailing so I could build up my favorite points for the upcoming Cache Carnival

 

Caching today is so different to how it was sold to me back in 2015.

Share this post


Link to post

We would not see hiders trying to break records if they could not put more than 100 active cache hides on an account. 

 

Now some team will try to break the 24,000 record. Maybe the same team under a different name. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, papu66 said:

 

Caching today is so different to how it was sold to me back in 2015.

huh? Not much has changed in 3 years.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Keystone said:

Let's stick to discussing power trails and the recent mass archival action that was taken in regards to several power trails when the owner's account was locked.  Thanks for remaining on topic.

So, is the locking of the account owning a numbers trail on topic? Can opponents of numbers trails discuss ways to encourage that locking? Can proponents of numbers trails discuss ways to discourage that locking?

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

We would not see hiders trying to break records if they could not put more than 100 active cache hides on an account. 

 

There's still the adoption process to circumvent that rule, Is it possible to make 250 accounts?

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, niraD said:

So, is the locking of the account owning a numbers trail on topic? Can opponents of numbers trails discuss ways to encourage that locking? Can proponents of numbers trails discuss ways to discourage that locking?

I think the two are unrelated, and to link the two actions is a bit misguided IMO. Most likely, like many of these instances, the CO was banned for some sort of TOU violation. Like other similar cases, since the CO no longer has access to the Listing pages, it makes it difficult, if not impossible to properly maintain their caches. Although, I’ll concede that the Archive Note makes it sound like the Listings were Archived at the request of the CO in this case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, papu66 said:

 

There's still the adoption process to circumvent that rule, Is it possible to make 250 accounts?

 

They could but they wouldn't hold a record for most number of hides. And I doubt that 250 accounts with 250 different email accounts would be something anyone would undertake.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

We would not see hiders trying to break records if they could not put more than 100 active cache hides on an account. 

 

Now some team will try to break the 24,000 record. Maybe the same team under a different name. 

How keen would they, the COs, be to set new PTs if GS introduced a placement fee of, say, $1 per cache for numbers over 100 per user account? A little extra revenue wouldn't go astray would it?

  • Upvote 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post

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...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9

×
×
  • Create New...