Jump to content

What constitutes a Power Trail?


Recommended Posts

I'll start.

 

Someone wanted to see s specific number of caches to determine a power trail.   Personally I don't think a specific number is the right metric.  To me, a power trail is more about intent/purpose.  That defines what the experience will be like when finding a group of caches more than a specific number.   To me, a power trail was a few specific attributes.

 

1.   Caches are part of a group of caches placed by a single CO or a group of owners getting together to create a group of caches.

2.  The number of caches in the group should be high enough that it will take at least a good portion of day to find them all.  

3.  The caches need to be easily found.  If the purpose of the group of caches is to provide as many finds as possible in a short amount of time, they all need to be easy to find.  That often means that they're all hidden in a similar manner using the same type of container.

4.  The caches should be placed to minimize the amount of time in between finds.   The typically means that they're very close to a road and spaced the minimum proximity allowed apart. 

 

A group of caches many have one or more of those attributes and not be a power trail if the intent but the CO(s) is not to create a bunch of caches that can facilitate finding as many as possible in a short amount of time.   There may also be groups of caches for which the CO will claim is not a power trail but the experience on the ground will be indistinguishable from a large group of caches intended to be a PT.   Giving a series of cache names which follows some sort of theme doesn't make it a "series" rather than a power trail.   Creating geoart consisting of 300 puzzle caches, with physical locations every 600', all placed such that they are easy to find results in an on the group experience not dissimilar from large power trails.  

 

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

To me, a power trail was a few specific attributes.

 

1.   Caches are part of a group of caches placed by a single CO or a group of owners getting together to create a group of caches.

2.  The number of caches in the group should be high enough that it will take at least a good portion of day to find them all.  

3.  The caches need to be easily found.  If the purpose of the group of caches is to provide as many finds as possible in a short amount of time, they all need to be easy to find.  That often means that they're all hidden in a similar manner using the same type of container.

4.  The caches should be placed to minimize the amount of time in between finds.   The typically means that they're very close to a road and spaced the minimum proximity allowed apart. 

 

That sounds like a good summary of what makes a numbers trail, which is what the "Power trail" attribute seems intended for.

 

Of course, back when the guidelines still included the phrase, "Please don't hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can," we used to call a popular trail that had become saturated with caches a "power trail", even though the caches were hidden by different owners and were hidden in different ways that weren't necessarily easy to find. This happened naturally on popular trails, especially in parks that restricted caches to a certain distance from established trails. I helped with some "Intro to Geocaching" classes organized by a county parks department, classes that used a power trail so the class members could find 8 or 10 varied caches over the course of a couple hours, and make it back to the trailhead by lunchtime.

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

3.  The caches need to be easily found.  If the purpose of the group of caches is to provide as many finds as possible in a short amount of time, they all need to be easy to find.  That often means that they're all hidden in a similar manner using the same type of container.

Not necessarily. I did part of a power trail that stretches for about 140km with 300 caches. The caches I found were very varied; certainly not all the same container. I was amazed at the imagination of the CO. Varying levels of difficulty, different cache sizes and type. Many power-trails might be as you described them, but not all power trails are. To me a power trail is a long line of caches along a road, path, or even though the bush, not too far apart. They don't need to have all the same size and style of caches.

Then there are mini power-trails, where there might be, as an example, six caches, not far apart in a line.

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Funny 1
Link to comment
23 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

To me a power trail is a long line of caches along a road, path, or even though the bush, not too far apart. They don't need to have all the same size and style of caches.

This is why I use the term "numbers trail" to refer to the kind of situation NYPaddleCacher described. The term "power trail" was and is used to describe other situations. But since people started hiding hundreds of fungible film canisters in the desert, that has become the typical "power trail" in many geocachers' minds.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:
2 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

3.  The caches need to be easily found.  If the purpose of the group of caches is to provide as many finds as possible in a short amount of time, they all need to be easy to find.  That often means that they're all hidden in a similar manner using the same type of container.

Not necessarily. I did part of a power trail that stretches for about 140km with 300 caches. The caches I found were very varied; certainly not all the same container. I was amazed at the imagination of the CO. Varying levels of difficulty, different cache sizes and type. Many power-trails might be as you described them, but not all power trails are. To me a power trail is a long line of caches along a road, path, or even though the bush, not too far apart. They don't need to have all the same size and style of caches.

Then there are mini power-trails, where there might be, as an example, six caches, not far apart in a line.

 

I'm in agreement here. We've had discussions about power trails in past threads in the forum, and I still consider it more of a themed string of caches, not a series of "easy" or "quick" finds, necessarily.  I've been through a powertrail of very difficult caches, as well as a full 81-grid trail of high D and T caches, all roadside, which we attempted to complete in a day. I have a powertrail of tree climb caches, certainly not quick or easy in entirety.

None of these are fast, but they are intended to be found in rapid/consecutive succession (as in a caching outing to grab at least a few at a time, if not all). 

I wouldn't consider "ease" or "speed" essential properties of a power trail.

(and we are talking about "power trails" per the attribute name =), but I can understand the existence of the 'numbers trail' term people may use differently and intentionally)

  • Funny 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

I'll start.

 

Someone wanted to see s specific number of caches to determine a power trail.   Personally I don't think a specific number is the right metric.  To me, a power trail is more about intent/purpose.  That defines what the experience will be like when finding a group of caches more than a specific number.   To me, a power trail was a few specific attributes.

 

1.   Caches are part of a group of caches placed by a single CO or a group of owners getting together to create a group of caches.

2.  The number of caches in the group should be high enough that it will take at least a good portion of day to find them all.  

3.  The caches need to be easily found.  If the purpose of the group of caches is to provide as many finds as possible in a short amount of time, they all need to be easy to find.  That often means that they're all hidden in a similar manner using the same type of container.

4.  The caches should be placed to minimize the amount of time in between finds.   The typically means that they're very close to a road and spaced the minimum proximity allowed apart. 

 

A group of caches many have one or more of those attributes and not be a power trail if the intent but the CO(s) is not to create a bunch of caches that can facilitate finding as many as possible in a short amount of time.   There may also be groups of caches for which the CO will claim is not a power trail but the experience on the ground will be indistinguishable from a large group of caches intended to be a PT.   Giving a series of cache names which follows some sort of theme doesn't make it a "series" rather than a power trail.   Creating geoart consisting of 300 puzzle caches, with physical locations every 600', all placed such that they are easy to find results in an on the group experience not dissimilar from large power trails.  

 

 

 

Agree with 1 & 2 for sure. But not with 3 or 4. But that's my useless opinion.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

To paraphrase Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart...

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of caches I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["power trail"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it..."

 

(Emphasis mine)

  • Upvote 7
  • Funny 1
  • Love 2
Link to comment
2 hours ago, IceColdUK said:

I think intent is everything here.  If the intention is to help people find as many caches as they can in the shortest time possible, it's a power trail.

 

That's basically what I am saying.  Some use a broader definition to include a string of cache that may be a range of difficulties or hiding styles.   The term "power trail", to me, implies that one can "power" through a group of caches quickly.   A group of caches with a variety of hiding styles difficulties might be with close proximity to each other and *look* like a power trail on a map but it takes several days to find 80 caches, I would contend that it's not a power trail (thus why the attribute is useful). 

 

I know that niraD likes to use the term numbers trail, and it does suggest that it's a group of caches created for  "numbers hounds", but I think is just adds to the confusion because it's not a phrase commonly used.

Link to comment

When I think "power through" I think... I'm pushing through something difficult, something that takes effort :)  I don't think power trails need to be difficult of course, but "power through" and "lots of quick easy finds" don't quite click in my mind. 

 

Alas, this is the variation of understandings that plagues many attributes, and why there's no strict definition, leaving it up to the cache owner.

The more you cache in a region, the more you understand local cache hiders and their understandings of relatively vague concepts.  Oh how often I've been to a new area with my understanding of difficulty and terrain that's even vastly different there.

 

I would say there is a general understanding, then a somewhat grey area, and then what that thing is certainly not.

 

From what I see I think the generally understood and accepted definition of power trail is at the very least a linear/consecutive collection of a handful (vague term) or more of caches, owned by 1 - or more - users. Whether they're easy or hard, fast or slow, big or little, mundane or creative, series, geoart, or individual ideas, that'll all depend on the cache owner and how they decide to apply the attribute or not.

Link to comment

"Power Trail" is whatever the CO wants it to be in the same way "Recommended for kids" is whatever the CO thinks it should mean. And I don't mean this in the legalistic sense: I mean that what the Power Trail attribute should reflect is whether the CO wants you to think of this string of caches as a Power Trail. A discussion about "what constitutes a power trail" strikes me about as useful as a discussion of "what constitutes pornography": the general ideas are already well understood, and the differences are just matter of opinion. If you don't agree that a CO's series is or isn't a Power Trail, that just reflects a difference of opinion. It does not mean that the CO used the attribute wrong, yet that's exactly what a discussion like this encourages us to think.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment

I've done a couple of trails of Challenge Caches (one outside Redmond, OR, the other near Concrete, WA).  Yes, they were about 1/10 mile apart, not all placed the same, but easy to find.  One I did as fast as possible, I got there late and was chasing dark so I didn't always turn the car off or dismount the GPSr (just looked where it was pointing, generally a tree).  I guess I'd call them Power Trails but not "number trails" due to the qualifying needed (tho many sign them all and worry about logging later).

 

Another thing to consider, does a Power Trail have to driven?  What about walking trails, or bicycle trails?  There one up north of here that's half and half.  The trail is along a road, but part way it's closed to vehicles, so you have to walk/bike the rest.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, The Jester said:

To me, it looks like fun.  Unless they are all 'play anywhere' that's not a "number trail" in that you can't really do a speed run.

I have never been able to get Wherigo to work on my phone, and I don't want to need to have to buy a new phone just for caching. Adventure caches work fine on it. The rest of the time I use a GPS.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, The Jester said:

To me, it looks like fun.  Unless they are all 'play anywhere' that's not a "number trail" in that you can't really do a speed run.

 

" Additionally, each one has been developed in the play anywhere style. In case you are unfamiliar, this means you can play the games at home, then come out and cache until your heart is content."

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, niraD said:

A numbers trail is driven. A power trail (as I described above) is usually along a regular hiking/cycling trail.


I guess this is why we’re having this discussion but...

 

What will cachers be expecting if they search for or - more importantly (for me) - search to exclude caches with the Power Trail attribute?

 

I’d like to avoid anything like what you refer to as a ‘number trail’ (not a term I’m really familiar with).  It would be a shame to miss out on a good hike...

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:

What will cachers be expecting if they search for or - more importantly (for me) - search to exclude caches with the Power Trail attribute?

 

I’d like to avoid anything like what you refer to as a ‘number trail’ (not a term I’m really familiar with).  It would be a shame to miss out on a good hike...

 

I expect two uses for the new power trail attribute. One is people like you are not interested in numbers runs, or in caches placed to facilitate numbers runs. The other is the reverse, people who want to do a numbers run, who are interested in caches placed to facilitate numbers runs.

 

If owners place the attribute on caches that aren't really designed to facilitate numbers runs, then one group will just ignore those caches. The other group may or may not encourage the owners to remove the attribute.

 

But eventually, I expect the attribute to be used for something close to what I call a "numbers trail".

Link to comment
45 minutes ago, niraD said:

A numbers trail is driven. A power trail (as I described above) is usually along a regular hiking/cycling trail.

 

Looking at what caches in this part of the world have had that attribute set by their owners so far, there's the Dog's Head trail near Maitland that's meant to be driven:

 

image.png.c1e23faf3a90810bc7f94e28263b57eb.png

 

and a water-access trail along the Colo River north-west of Sydney that's meant to be paddled:

 

image.png.8348dbce80b4368d0364e1c98f5ac9ad.png

 

Link to comment
23 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Looking at what caches in this part of the world have had that attribute set by their owners so far, there's the Dog's Head trail near Maitland that's meant to be driven:

 

image.png.c1e23faf3a90810bc7f94e28263b57eb.png

 

and a water-access trail along the Colo River north-west of Sydney that's meant to be paddled:

 

image.png.8348dbce80b4368d0364e1c98f5ac9ad.png

 

I would expect the PT attribute on both of them.

From the map, both trails look to me as if the sheer number of caches is the primary purpose of the trail. For me, the intended method of travel (driving, biking, hiking, kayaking, whatever...) is not relevant here. There are other attributes for that.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
8 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

All Wherigos...horrible. :tongue:

Yeah, that one would be particularly tedious, I would think.  That cache type is certainly the exception, but I've even seen mystery cache power trails where all of the caches are 1.5 with fairly lame questions behind them.  Not something I would prefer to add to my collection of smileys, that's for sure.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

I think the definition will also vary by country/region.

 

Over in the 'States you have massive trails such as the ET SuperHighway (is that still alive?), that would be impossible in the UK. I reckon over here a CO who places a series of associated caches with some sort of logical path between them (either by foot or by car)  containing more than ~20 caches may well add the power trail attribute - an a quick search here  https://www.geocaching.com/play/search?ot=4&c=11&utr=false&att=70 seems to support that supposition.


I saw an interesting comment from a friend earlier today "How can I have accumulated only 1 Power Trail attribute", pretty much by definition if you have 1 PT attribute you should have many (unless you just randomly found 1 cache out of a series).

 

Link to comment

I think the definition goes back to pre-2010 before the PT rule was lifted. What was the definition outlined by GCHQ to reviewers? 

Perhaps, caches owned by the same CO, more than 2 caches close together, related to each other by some theme, along a trail/roadside/small area. I remember hiding a fairytale story series of 6 caches along a trail, each at least 200m apart taking up about a kilometer section of the trail. I was told they they could be listed as a multi-cache, not 6 individual cache listings. There had to be a GCHQ definition that was followed by reviewers pre-2010. Perhaps a reviewer can fill us in.  

  • Helpful 2
Link to comment
2 hours ago, niraD said:

A numbers trail is driven. A power trail (as I described above) is usually along a regular hiking/cycling trail.

 

I'm not sure about this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the term came from the first such trail, the infamous Trail of the Gods. It was a series of caches located along a massive line of power towers running between LA and Las Vegas - hence "power" trail (a sort of double entendre that also hinted at the numbers that could be racked up). The caches were accessed via a service road following the towers, which was typically driven.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 4
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

I think the definition goes back to pre-2010 before the PT rule was lifted. What was the definition outlined by GCHQ to reviewers? 

Perhaps, caches owned by the same CO, more than 2 caches close together, related to each other by some theme, along a trail/roadside/small area. I remember hiding a fairytale story series of 6 caches along a trail, each at least 200m apart taking up about a kilometer section of the trail. I was told they they could be listed as a multi-cache, not 6 individual cache listings. There had to be a GCHQ definition that was followed by reviewers pre-2010. Perhaps a reviewer can fill us in.  

 

That's odd, we had a "different hide styles" series with seven caches on 3/4 of a mile trail in 2006and didn't have an issue.  :)

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Moun10Bike said:

I'm not sure about this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the term came from the first such trail, the infamous Trail of the Gods. It was a series of caches located along a massive line of power towers running between LA and Las Vegas - hence "power" trail (a sort of double entendre that also hinted at the numbers that could be racked up). The caches were accessed via a service road following the towers, which was typically driven.

 

We were using the term "power trail" to refer to saturated hiking trails before the Trail of the Gods caches were placed, back when the guidelines still included the phrase, "Please don't hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can." 

Edited by niraD
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
4 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Same here. I have never heard this term before, but I guess it is what some trails are in effect.

 

I think most people here are at least familiar with the ET trail.  Looking at just a few logs, everyone refers to it as a power trail.  The Route 66 trail,  Highway to H.E.L.L. and EL Dorado trails in California/Nevada are all similar, in have an additional time saving device by putting all caches on the same side of the road.  I believe all have a cache or more that has containers which can be used as replacements.   All of them are frequently referred to as power trails.  If someone encountered a series of a tree climbing caches, or basically caches that might typically take 5-10 minutes or more to find each cache, based on the existence of a PT attribute they're going to be disappointed if they were thinking that it was going to be anything like the E.T power trail or one of the hundreds other like it.  

Link to comment
3 hours ago, MartyBartfast said:

I saw an interesting comment from a friend earlier today "How can I have accumulated only 1 Power Trail attribute", pretty much by definition if you have 1 PT attribute you should have many (unless you just randomly found 1 cache out of a series).

 

 

Since the attribute was just added and the PT owner has to update each pages attribute, it might take time before they are updated (or they may never be).

 

I found the first of a PT in the desert -- but since I was not out to do a PT that day, I just did the one, without doing the rest.

 

Link to comment
52 minutes ago, fuzziebear3 said:

and the PT owner has to update each pages attribute

 

Turns out GCHQ thought about that and will help PT owners. Below is in the Release Notes announcement -- although I think Sept 30th is a quick deadline, not everyone reads the release notes.

 

j1pQWERISYydIJEmjGpx1Mzh-nI6fda74bZ8PbGK

 

Note to cache owners: As a one-time community service, we offer cache owners the opportunity to email us a list of GC-codes of their currently published & active power trail caches where they would like the attribute added retroactively. Please email a comma-separated list of the GC-codes to us via the Help Center (choose Appeals) by September 30, 2020. 

 

 

 

  • Helpful 2
Link to comment
5 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Perhaps, caches owned by the same CO, more than 2 caches close together, related to each other by some theme, along a trail/roadside/small area.

 

I guess that means I don't have to add the PT attribute to these two traditionals of mine, placed 210 metres apart along the Bumble Hill section of the Great North Walk and both themed to the history of that track as a logging route traversed by bullock-drawn drays:

 

image.png.f4bca2c2533b17651e6a4d69dca9ea85.png

 

I sometimes jokingly refer to them as my power trail, so maybe I should add a third cache sometime to make it official.

  • Funny 2
Link to comment

For those in search of a definition for "Power Trail," I offer the following non-binding words from yesterday's Geocaching Blog post:

 

Quote

A geocaching power trail is a large number of caches, often placed at minimum distance (0.1 miles, 161 meters) to each other, hidden along a walking, biking, or driving route. It often promotes a player’s ability to easily increase their find count.

 

  • Helpful 5
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Keystone said:

For those in search of a practical definition for "Power Trail," I offer the age-old analogy that if it looks like a duck, it swims like a duck and it quacks like a duck, then it's probably a duck.  Adapting this to the question at hand, If you see a flock of ducks lined up all in a row, and all the ducks are small and wet, and people can bring an extra duck to leave with the flock if a duck is missing, then it's probably a power trail.

 

And if that's not a mic drop, I don't know what is. Well said!

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
9 hours ago, MartyBartfast said:

I think the definition will also vary by country/region.

 

Maybe in those grey areas, but I'm pretty sure (ie confident) there is a common understanding that spans all countries/regions.

You know, a bunch of caches of similar theme/ownership all placed with the intent to be found by a common means - walking/biking/driving/atving/kayaking/canoeing/whistling...

 

9 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Perhaps, caches owned by the same CO, more than 2 caches close together, related to each other by some theme, along a trail/roadside/small area.

 

Or river. Yep. Always felt this was the best way to consider it. Of course cache owners can use their own discretion since there's no definitive rule about when or when not to use the attribute.

 

8 hours ago, Moun10Bike said:

a series of caches located along a massive line of power towers running between LA and Las Vegas - hence "power" trail (a sort of double entendre that also hinted at the numbers that could be racked up). The caches were accessed via a service road following the towers, which was typically driven.

 

I've heard this one too... there's also "rails to trails" that some people call them, which I think is a relative mouthful when you 'powertrail' just rolls off the tongue :P

Rails-to-trails are trails (of various qualities) that use to be railways, or may stretch alongside an old or abandoned railway.  Often popular for geocache placements. 

 

Undoubtedly, there are many terms for this concept in general.  And what's the commonality? .....

 

2 hours ago, Keystone said:

For those in search of a definition for "Power Trail," I offer the following non-binding words from yesterday's Geocaching Blog post:

 

Quote

A geocaching power trail is a large number of caches, often placed at minimum distance (0.1 miles, 161 meters) to each other, hidden along a walking, biking, or driving route. It often promotes a player’s ability to easily increase their find count.

 

I think this is about the best we can get :) (just add water route in there too, heh)

Link to comment
3 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

I've heard this one too... there's also "rails to trails" that some people call them, which I think is a relative mouthful when you 'powertrail' just rolls off the tongue :P

Rails-to-trails are trails (of various qualities) that use to be railways, or may stretch alongside an old or abandoned railway.  Often popular for geocache placements.

 

There's a rails-to-trails type bike path along an old railway corridor near Belmont which I've done most of. There are 21 caches in all, with a variety of container types and difficulty rating, and the spacings are generally well above the minimum 161 metres so, while it's probably one of those grey areas, I really wouldn't consider it to be a power trail. From end to end it's about 10km so it's an average of 500 metres per cache, with the trail itself done on either bike or foot, although there are a few road access points along the way.

 

image.png.644b601d74300ff99abcf95faf123ecd.png

 

Which reminds me, I must try to go back and have another go at the one I DNFed.

Edited by barefootjeff
Link to comment
4 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

There's a rails-to-trails type bike path along an old railway corridor near Belmont which I've done most of. There are 21 caches in all, with a variety of container types and difficulty rating, and the spacings are generally well above the minimum 161 metres so, while it's probably one of those grey areas, I really wouldn't consider it to be a power trail. From end to end it's about 10km so it's an average of 500 metres per cache, with the trail itself done on either bike or foot, although there are a few road access points along the way.

 

Here people would likely generally consider that a powertrail, especially if it's bikeable. People go for all day trail caching; biking, hiking, driving, paddling - distance between them doesn't matter much.  But again, that's why the attribute use isn't strictly defined; it's up to the cache owner. I'd bet if the owner got enough pushback from the community believing such a series should have the attribute, the CO might cave (or vice versa) :)  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Here people would likely generally consider that a powertrail, especially if it's bikeable. People go for all day trail caching; biking, hiking, driving, paddling - distance between them doesn't matter much.  But again, that's why the attribute use isn't strictly defined; it's up to the cache owner. I'd bet if the owner got enough pushback from the community believing such a series should have the attribute, the CO might cave (or vice versa) :)  

 

The CO is a regular here on the forums so he'll probably chime in with his own thoughts, but the way I look at it, I got 17 of the 21 on my first attempt and they were the only caches I did that day, so it was an 85km drive up there, the 20km bike ride with pull-overs at each cache location, then the drive back home, but one could readily get 17 finds in a day cycling around any reasonably cache-dense area so there's no real "power" aspect to that series. The 232-cache Dog's Head trail, which is a driving PT, is likely to net you a lot more caches in a day than you'd get anywhere else in the region. Likewise with the 51-cache Colo River series, you'll likely get heaps more caches paddling that than you would kayaking anywhere else around here.

 

So I guess for me it's the concentration of caches relative to the surrounding region that would distinguish a power trail from any other series.

Link to comment

My definition:

Put the description of two adjacent caches of the group side by side.

When the description is (almost) identical or the vast majority of the logs are interchangeable with each other then the whole group constitutes a power trail (and will be ignored by me).

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
4 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Here people would likely generally consider that a powertrail, especially if it's bikeable. People go for all day trail caching; biking, hiking, driving, paddling - distance between them doesn't matter much.  But again, that's why the attribute use isn't strictly defined; it's up to the cache owner. I'd bet if the owner got enough pushback from the community believing such a series should have the attribute, the CO might cave (or vice versa) :)  

It's not a Power Trail just a series. It wont be getting the PT attribute.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
4 hours ago, thebruce0 said:
8 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

There's a rails-to-trails type bike path along an old railway corridor near Belmont which I've done most of. There are 21 caches in all, with a variety of container types and difficulty rating, and the spacings are generally well above the minimum 161 metres so, while it's probably one of those grey areas, I really wouldn't consider it to be a power trail. From end to end it's about 10km so it's an average of 500 metres per cache, with the trail itself done on either bike or foot, although there are a few road access points along the way.

 

Here people would likely generally consider that a powertrail, especially if it's bikeable.

 

But were people like that the ones demanding a power trail attribute? It seems like the demand for the attribute/type came from people who define "power trail" the way Hynz does:

1 hour ago, Hynz said:

Put the description of two adjacent caches of the group side by side.

When the description is (almost) identical or the vast majority of the logs are interchangeable with each other then the whole group constitutes a power trail (and will be ignored by me).

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
14 hours ago, thebruce0 said:
23 hours ago, Moun10Bike said:

a series of caches located along a massive line of power towers running between LA and Las Vegas - hence "power" trail (a sort of double entendre that also hinted at the numbers that could be racked up). The caches were accessed via a service road following the towers, which was typically driven.

 

I've heard this one too... there's also "rails to trails" that some people call them, which I think is a relative mouthful when you 'powertrail' just rolls off the tongue :P

Rails-to-trails are trails (of various qualities) that use to be railways, or may stretch alongside an old or abandoned railway.  Often popular for geocache placements. 

 

Undoubtedly, there are many terms for this concept in general.  And what's the commonality? .....

 

17 hours ago, Keystone said:

For those in search of a definition for "Power Trail," I offer the following non-binding words from yesterday's Geocaching Blog post:

 

Quote

A geocaching power trail is a large number of caches, often placed at minimum distance (0.1 miles, 161 meters) to each other, hidden along a walking, biking, or driving route. It often promotes a player’s ability to easily increase their find count.

 

I think this is about the best we can get :) (just add water route in there too, heh)

 

I hadn't though about the "power" element for the one that Moun10Bike is describing (Trail of the Gods).  That may have been the first reference I'd seen for a "power trail" to there was a large grouping of caches just outside of Denver that pre-dated that and was the source of a claimed "world record" for the number of caches found.   If I recall, that was for about 235 caches placed along a bunch of rural roads.  

 

My only quibble with the definition that keystone posted is with the last statement.  A series of caches which promotes a players ability to *easily* increase their find count is going to be quite a different experience than a series of caches for which facilitating a large increase in find counts is not the primary intent.   

Edited by NYPaddleCacher
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...