Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9
elrojo14

Power Trails Disappearing from the Map?

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, colleda said:

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?

 

And if you knew that guy better, you'd charge him $23.900 retrospectively :ninja:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

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

Another reason to argue for a minimum of finds before being able to place a cache. (With exceptions, which have been suggested elsewhere.) It would stop someone doing what you suspect.

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:
10 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

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

Another reason to argue for a minimum of finds before being able to place a cache. (With exceptions, which have been suggested elsewhere.) It would stop someone doing what you suspect.

Why do you think it is a bad thing to use one account for listing caches, and another for logging finds?

Share this post


Link to post
47 minutes ago, niraD said:

Why do you think it is a bad thing to use one account for listing caches, and another for logging finds?

The context of this was the example being discussed here.

Having two accounts appears to encourage placing a huge amount of caches just for the purpose of being able to log them on another account. No consideration of maintaining them, just for easy number adding. It would be harder to do this if a geographer needed a minimum of finds before they were able to create a cache. Of course, if after a certain amount of publishing caches, in order to publish any more caches, a plan of maintenance had to be submitted and evidence of maintenance of existing caches in evidence, this might help stop what happened here.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

If they did something egregious enough to have their account locked, they should have all other accounts they own locked too.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post

So, who's setting up an unlisted event to go and do the power trails that were archived, so we can pick up the geo-litter and boost our numbers at the same time? Three cache monte, without steps 2 and 3! :drama:

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, TriciaG said:

So, who's setting up an unlisted event to go and do the power trails that were archived, so we can pick up the geo-litter and boost our numbers at the same time? Three cache monte, without steps 2 and 3! :drama:

I'd be in it, except perhaps it's a bit far for me :laughing:.

Edited by Goldenwattle
Typo

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, Mudfrog said:

 

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. 

 

 

I have a few hobbies with geocaching, metal detecting & ham radio to name a few. All of these hobbies offer an extremely varied set of ways to participate and I can find folks in each that would say their way of "playing" is the right way and some others are doing it wrong. In metal detecting, those that search parks and playgrounds vs relic hunting and ham radio would be contesting vs rag chewing, CW vs FT8, VHF vs HF, etc.   Everyone feels their aspect/approach to the hobby is impacted by how others decide to participate and it's really not.  Just my take where I can easily parallel this discussion to all my hobbies. 

Like I said in my initial post, if there's nothing but your own or other hobbyist's perceptions of what others are doing there's no harm. If we're getting evicted from Nevada and no geocaching is allowed due to some type of poor activity, that would be a very different discussion. But I don't think the latter is the case.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, TriciaG said:

So, who's setting up an unlisted event to go and do the power trails that were archived, so we can pick up the geo-litter and boost our numbers at the same time? Three cache monte, without steps 2 and 3! :drama:

Aren't the caches locked? If so, they can't be logged.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, TriciaG said:

So, who's setting up an unlisted event to go and do the power trails that were archived, so we can pick up the geo-litter and boost our numbers at the same time? Three cache monte, without steps 2 and 3! :drama:

This Idea was discussed before:

image.thumb.png.2d469f9279af461f4c3c332278aff024.png

 

I´ve over read "unlisted". So yea, go for it ;)

Edited by DerDiedler
readinG AGAIN

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, TriciaG said:

So, who's setting up an unlisted event to go and do the power trails that were archived, so we can pick up the geo-litter and boost our numbers at the same time? Three cache monte, without steps 2 and 3! :drama:

 

You're thinking unlisted event because of the rule against having an event to meet and go caching ?

How about making it a CITO ? Divide the trails into sections, send attendees out to pick their assigned section up.

Post in the listing that the erstwhile C.O. is welcome to come along and take the collected bags away at the end if they wish.

 

If Groundspeak won't allow it as a CITO, and deny that picking up our own games abandoned trash is a suitable occasion to bring folk together for an event , I despair .

 

Edited to say, this would be different to the example cited above, that was a straightforward event . This is not  bring along an archived cache, but organise to go out and recover ( not 'find') bagfuls of archived cache trash. If cachers find this unattractive because they can't get a smiley for each and every bit of rubbish they pick up at the cito, then I'm despairing all over again.

Edited by hal-an-tow
oops, hadn't seen the previous few messages
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Corfman Clan said:
10 hours ago, TriciaG said:

So, who's setting up an unlisted event to go and do the power trails that were archived, so we can pick up the geo-litter and boost our numbers at the same time? Three cache monte, without steps 2 and 3! :drama:

Aren't the caches locked? If so, they can't be logged.

 

Doesn't look like they are locked.  

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, niraD said:

So, is the locking of the account owning a numbers trail on topic?

 

It might be, but I don't think the reason for locking accounts is generally made public.  So, not much to be said about it.

Share this post


Link to post

Unless someone actually has info on why the PT was archived and the account locked we only have largely baseless speculation. 

 

19 hours ago, papu66 said:

 

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

 

It has changed since 2010 when I started: smartphones went from new and uncommon to common, power trails became allowed, lots more non-PT hides, and lots of people who had been active since the early days (2005 or earlier) quit.

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, Touchstone said:

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. 

 

Did the CO post the archive logs for all 24K cache or did they request that the reviewer do all the work?

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, niraD said:

Why do you think it is a bad thing to use one account for listing caches, and another for logging finds?

 

I don't, and know of a few others that do that.  Creating separate accounts, then taking advantage of a loophole that would allow the same person to both hide and find the same cache is really cheezy though.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post

If they are just traditional caches, I wouldn't call finding your own caches cheating (getting FTF would be another thing). When you have 24000 caches, you don't remember were you hid each and every one of those, so they might just as well be someone else's caches.

 

The reason for having two accounts is to keep your CO email separate from caching email. Again, with 24000 caches you are not going to read the "found it" logs much so pretty much everything except NA go to dustbin.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, papu66 said:

If they are just traditional caches, I wouldn't call finding your own caches cheating

 

Out of curiosity, do you believe there a threshold for when it's OK and when it's not?  Fine if you log one or two of your own, but not if you log 1,000 of your own?  Where's the line?

 

Full disclosure, I logged a find on our own traditional cache, back when you could.  It seemed like a good idea at the time.  It no longer does, but I've based dozens of milestones on that particular lapse in judgment, as well as a couple others.  Like actual history, my caching history ain't perfect, but I have tried to learn from it.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, hzoi said:

Out of curiosity, do you believe there a threshold for when it's OK and when it's not?  Fine if you log one or two of your own, but not if you log 1,000 of your own?  Where's the line?

Agreed.  "No line drawn" may be why the site finally ended that silliness.

We remember when some would log their cache found just before they archived them.

Many here probably remember threads where "COs" were logging their caches found every time they did OM.   Sheesh...

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, papu66 said:

...The reason for having two accounts is to keep your CO email separate from caching email. Again, with 24000 caches you are not going to read the "found it" logs much so pretty much everything except NA go to dustbin.

 

You may be correct...     :)

In the OP's example, there were eight other "helpers" along with the co  to maintain hides.

Some are assuming (none of us know for sure...) that one of those eight was the "co".  

None of the eight had the caches on watch, to track when/whether any of them were needed to head out for maintenance. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, hzoi said:

 

Out of curiosity, do you believe there a threshold for when it's OK and when it's not?  Fine if you log one or two of your own, but not if you log 1,000 of your own?  Where's the line?

 

 

No, there is no threshold. But TBH, I was thinking that if you are honest cacher and go find your own cache like it was any other cache, I don't see problem. You don't gain much advantage by owning it, so it's just as much achievement.

 

Sadly, we all know what would happen if it was generally accepted: COs would just log their own caches without visiting because, hey, I found it when I hid it.

 

So I wouldn't allow it, but IMO there are worse and much easier ways to cheat in this game than making a bunch of PT caches for yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

The context of this was the example being discussed here.

Having two accounts appears to encourage placing a huge amount of caches just for the purpose of being able to log them on another account. No consideration of maintaining them, just for easy number adding. It would be harder to do this if a geographer needed a minimum of finds before they were able to create a cache. Of course, if after a certain amount of publishing caches, in order to publish any more caches, a plan of maintenance had to be submitted and evidence of maintenance of existing caches in evidence, this might help stop what happened here.

I read your comment as meaning that having one account "specifically for hiding" and another account "for finding caches" was in itself somehow a bad thing. I'm sorry if that was not what you intended.

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/25/2019 at 9:17 AM, hal-an-tow said:

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:

 

So what if it was about numbers? Everyone caches for their own reasons. The amount of judging that happens in these forums never ceases to amaze me.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, hzoi said:

Full disclosure, I logged a find on our own traditional cache, back when you could.  It seemed like a good idea at the time.  It no longer does, but I've based dozens of milestones on that particular lapse in judgment, as well as a couple others.  Like actual history, my caching history ain't perfect, but I have tried to learn from it.

 

I have also found my own cache after another geocacher hide it a different place. Later I decided to remove this extra found because it aroused great aggravation among some geocachers even it was a genuine find. Another incident happened when I found FTF and the cache was under my sock puppet account but I did not hide the cache myself. For me it was a genuine FTF.

 

5 hours ago, hal-an-tow said:

How about making it a CITO ? Divide the trails into sections, send attendees out to pick their assigned section up.

 

CiTO means Cache In Trash Out. CITO event could reinstate all archived caches back online without problems.

Edited by arisoft

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

Did the CO post the archive logs for all 24K cache or did they request that the reviewer do all the work?

The chain of events as I can see it:

 

1. Per Keystone, the CO was restricted from submitting new Listing pages, "years ago" (if I'm recalling the phrasing correctly).

 

2. Something happened more recently that precipitated  the banning of the CO's account.  You can insert whatever speculation suits your fancy, although I'm leaning towards a TOU violation, as that accounts for the vast majority of these actions.   Things get a bit muddled with the advent of GDPR, although the handful of cases that I've seen, there appears to be a bit of "scrubbing" that goes on with those requests, to remove any/all references of the original User to comply with the request.

 

3. All active Listings were Archived with the following entry:

 

image.thumb.png.aa9bb8d4342ab8037b0a83fecdaa204e.png

 

The Account for the above User is labeled as a "Lackey", not a Reviewer.  Perhaps the request went through a local Reviewer, but I would imagine that the task of Archiving that number of Listings is far simpler for someone with direct Admin Privileges on the website, rather than the simplified functions that a Reviewer would have access to.

  • Helpful 5

Share this post


Link to post

The CO has posted a version of events on Facebook that does not agree with any speculation above.  He claims to not have requested any of the archivals.  I remain skeptical of everything.  It would be a poor business decision on the part of Groundspeak to post misleading or mendacious reasons for archival, though.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Reading the Cache Owner's account presents one side of the story.  There are always two sides.  Geocaching HQ does not comment on the specifics of an individual's account privileges being terminated. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

I have already seen earlier that during disputes the truth is the first victim. Banned player may give statements that does not comply with statements from the authority. But who is lying? It may never be solved.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, arisoft said:

But who is lying? It may never be solved.

Why would anyone necessarily be lying? They may just have different versions of the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, colleda said:

Why would anyone necessarily be lying? They may just have different versions of the truth.

 

Is that like "alternative facts"?

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
49 minutes ago, on4bam said:

 

Is that like "alternative facts"?

 

Consider that the truth is the total collection of facts. Each party might be privy to a sample of those facts. It could be 50%, 25%, 80%. Nonetheless, nobody has 100% of the facts. And some of the facts may be shared among parties, and many may not, leading to different perspectives or estimates of the truth when extrapolating based on each sample of facts. This also leads to differences in interpretation of facts.

In which case, neither party is necessarily lying.

Alternative facts are "facts" that directly contradict the facts that are backed up by direct evidence. Use of alternative facts is only lying if you are aware of the actual facts and still use the alternative "facts" as a way to manipulate your end goal.

 

On the other hand, you might use alternative facts if 1.) you are unaware of the reality - say, brought up in an environment to think or believe about the world that contradicts our empirical observations, or 2.) are of an unsound mind that is incapable of processing the reality. Consider patients and or presidents with dementia, alzheimer's, paranoia, or schizophrenia among other neurocognitive diseases that alter the perspective of reality. In which case, I'm not sure it's really lying, even though it's not truth either.

Now, the only truth that any of us are privy to is that 1.) The Power Trails were archived at the request of the CO, and 2.) The CO's account has been locked (as noted on his profile). Anything else is hearsay. Although I did come across this tidbit in Groundspeak's TOU:

 

Quote

Restrictions. Permission to use our services is subject to the following restrictions. Whether these restrictions have been violated shall be determined in our sole discretion.

...

Suspension and Termination. We may suspend or terminate your access to our services, including your account, at any time for any reason without notice and without liability. As an example, we may suspend or terminate your account if we suspect you or someone using your account has violated the terms of this Agreement or any other terms, guidelines or policies associated with our services or are otherwise not being a good member of the geocaching community. Any suspension or termination of your account for these reasons applies to you personally; you may not access our services through any other account that you own or create or through accounts owned or created by others. We also reserve the right to terminate or suspend user accounts that are inactive for an extended period of time. You can stop using our services and terminate this Agreement at any time. All provisions of this Agreement which by their nature should survive termination shall survive termination, including, without limitation, ownership provisions, warranty disclaimers, indemnity and limitations of liability.

from https://www.geocaching.com/account/documents/termsofuse. Underlined emphasis is mine.

Edited by Mineral2

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

Unless someone actually has info on why the PT was archived and the account locked we only have largely baseless speculation. 

 

This is the foundation for almost every forum thread with over 3 posts. Take this away and the forums would die! :antenna:

  • Funny 4

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Keystone said:

Reading the Cache Owner's account presents one side of the story.  There are always two sides.  Geocaching HQ does not comment on the specifics of an individual's account privileges being terminated. 

 

A police officer once told me there are 3 sides to a situation - Person A's story, Person B's story & the truth

 

 

Edited by Team DEMP
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, Team DEMP said:

 

A police officer once told me there are 3 sides to a situation - Person A's story, Person B's story & the truth

 

 

See my post above. :-)

Share this post


Link to post

A number of off-topic posts have been hidden from view, so that the thread remains on-topic.

 

EDIT:  something went amiss, or I made a mistake, when hiding a small number of posts.  The entire thread was hidden from view for several hours.  This was not intended, and I apologize for the glitch in the matrix.

Edited by Keystone
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

I just looked at my map this morning and got this wonderful surprise. It's like Christmas morning, I'm so excited. I live out here where all these garbage pill bottle trails are. It makes geocaching tough. Hard to filter out without filtering something worthwhile. I'm just so happy to see the map again. Glorious, glorious day! I'm goIng caching! 

  • Upvote 5
  • Helpful 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

Huh... So I just did a whole state of nevada search which turned back 22,860 geocaches in the state, after the PT archive. The CO of these trails, who owned 24,000 caches, owned around half of the caches in the state until a week ago. I mention this only for the impressiveness, and not with any judgement for or against the CO or the caches he owned.

Edited by Mineral2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Please note, in terms of impact, not all of the 24000 caches were archived last week.  I believe it was less than 15000 Nevada caches.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Good to know. I didn't have a total number of nevada caches from before the archives to compare with. Still, it's impressive that one account owned such a high proportion of a state's total cache placements.

Edited by Mineral2

Share this post


Link to post

For comparison, in Idaho, there are a total of 18,574 caches currently listed. The League of ID Cachers owns 4038, or about 22% of them as power trails and geo art. Not too shabby either. Though there is an actual geocaching club with that name, so I can only assume at this point that the account is shared and that maintenance of the caches doesn't fall under the responsibility of one person.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Mineral2 said:

For comparison, in Idaho, there are a total of 18,574 caches currently listed. The League of ID Cachers owns 4038, or about 22% of them as power trails and geo art. Not too shabby either. Though there is an actual geocaching club with that name, so I can only assume at this point that the account is shared and that maintenance of the caches doesn't fall under the responsibility of one person.

I consider most of the League of Idaho Cachers caches as not being in the 'power trail' category. Their geoart caches (which will take a number of days to complete) are at the actual location, and most of caches that do follow a trail are on seasonal gravel roads. They do appear to be a highly organized group, I've seen a list of all the cachers that help out with maintenance. They have changed out the geo-art at least once. It used to be an airplane, currently it is a locomotive. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Mineral2 said:

For comparison, in Idaho, there are a total of 18,574 caches currently listed. The League of ID Cachers owns 4038, or about 22% of them as power trails and geo art. Not too shabby either. Though there is an actual geocaching club with that name, so I can only assume at this point that the account is shared and that maintenance of the caches doesn't fall under the responsibility of one person.

 

Interesting. For comparison, here in New South Wales (Australia) there are currently 17,524 caches, so similar to Idaho, but the highest number by a single owner is 339, mostly spread out along minor roads in the hinterland around Canberra. That owner lived on the Central Coast until moving a few years ago and had similar series along the hinterland roads here (although not as many, I think there were about 150). All the ones I found were in good condition and she archived and collected them all before moving.

 

image.thumb.png.4266a8783e4e477d0cb913e6e0c968d9.png

 

Next on the list has 332.

Edited by barefootjeff
Corrected number to exclude archived caches

Share this post


Link to post

Project-GC has a function for ranking users by number of hides for a given area. I don't see a world-wide ranking, but here are the top stats for the whole US (these include archived caches):

 

314263577_ScreenShot2019-03-01at3_31_50PM.png.3e1b956d9ca6ec8d57e047aa2a691184.png

I checked Germany and the UK as my next suspects for countries that might have large placers, but they top out at <2000 and >3000 respectively. So, at this point, I suspect that Room104 is the new record holder as far as active accounts go. I can't imagine hiding over 1000... nay, even several hundred, without there being power trails. We had a local couple that had over 300 lifetime hides between them, but many of those were power trails.

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, Mineral2 said:

nay, even several hundred, without there being power trails

There is a local geocacher here in Canberra who has hidden about 700 caches. I think less than ten of his geocaches would be part of a power trail (a shared trail, laid by individual geocachers); the rest are laid as individual caches, many in remote bushland.

Edited by Goldenwattle

Share this post


Link to post

That's impressive. I have about 30 hidden, and I think hard about putting more out, focusing on caches in the woods that require a hike and are safe to hide an ammo can or other relatively maintenance-free container. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Interesting. For comparison, here in New South Wales (Australia) there are currently 17,524 caches, so similar to Idaho, but the highest number by a single owner is 589, mostly spread out along minor roads in the hinterland around Canberra. That owner lived on the Central Coast until moving a few years ago and had similar series along the hinterland roads here (although not as many, I think there were about 150). All the ones I found were in good condition and she archived and collected them all before moving.

 

image.thumb.png.4266a8783e4e477d0cb913e6e0c968d9.png

 

Next on the list has 339.

I know who you mean. I have mixed feelings about those caches. There are more than that image shows, as that blank area in the middle of NSW, is the ACT, and the geocacher has also placed power trails there. I have had a fun day out in company finding some of them, but it has turned me a bit of geocaching at the same time and since they were laid I have done less geocaching. I felt I had the local geocaches under control; most local traditionals found,and my bulk load stretched a wide distance, but now the spread of the bulk load has been about halved.

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

...the rest are laid as individual caches, many in remote bushland.

 

Cool !  That's probably the only way this smoker would suffer the long flight over.     :)

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Cool !  That's probably the only way this smoker would suffer the long flight over.     :)

Some of them involve steep hills. Not too much for a smoker?:) Many are nice places to visit though.

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...