+Team Perks Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 (edited) After some discussion with Mopar and GeoHo this evening, we talked more about this type of trail and it sounds like it's not one right after the other, and it's a really long trail, and I will say, that while I think that say 10 caches would be enough to get you down the trail, this may not be as bad as it first sounded. So since I am a woman, and it's a woman's perogative to change her mind, I might just change my mind. From that map it looked like they were all squished up in one area. If it's actually a 25 mile long trail, it's a different story. The map was what threw me off. But still, what a logging nightmare! As a point of clarification: What you see is actually in Dan-Oh's screen shot is three separate trails. The fourth (longest and most heavily populated) is not pictured. Altogether there are about 90 caches on the 4 trails (one has roughly 30, one has 25, one has 20, and one has 15). Total length of all of the trails is about 15 miles. That averages out to 6 caches per mile, or roughly one every 880 feet (0.17 mi). While that may seem saturated, bear in mind that there are easily enough caches in the vicinity to do 90 urban caches in the same length of time it would take you to do all of the trail caches. They're not all 880 feet apart, but you could easily drive from one to the other in the few minutes that it would take you to walk from one trail cache to the next. (edit: grammar) Edited June 24, 2004 by Team PerkyPerks Link to comment
+LukeH Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 No offense, but I think it is lame. Probably the reason I only have 13 finds... I usually only look for a cache if I think it will be an interesting hunt. But to each his own; if that's your thing, cool. It's why we have a million caches and they are all different. Link to comment
BassoonPilot Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 (edited) So since I am a woman, and it's a woman's perogative to change her mind, I might just change my mind. Because you are a woman, I wish you would change your mind about the spelling of "prerogative." I'm one of those people who does not favor "power trails." Once upon a time, multicaches were used to "entice" cachers to follow a particular route. The quality of the hike itself was the primary reason to do the cache. Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine cache placements would eventually resemble Hansel+Gretel's trail of bread crumbs. Interestingly, I mentioned in these forums a year or two ago a phenomenon I had noticed: That the original cache along any given trail usually turned out to be the farthest from parking; the second person to place a cache along the trail would typically place it approximately 1/2 way between parking and the original cache, the third person 1/4 of the way, etc. ... I hadn't envisioned that phenomenon would eventually develop into the standard (and expected) method for one geocacher to hide caches along a trail, superseding (and perhaps marginalizing) multicaches. The first time I saw a forum posting that read along the lines of "why would anyone hike 5 miles for one find," it was clear that "the goal" of geocaching had changed dramatically. Depending on one's perspective, that may or may not be a good thing. Edited June 24, 2004 by BassoonPilot Link to comment
+Robespierre Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 I'm thinking that someone has touched a nerve here. QUOTE (PandyBat @ Jun 23 2004, 02:50 PM)QUOTE (prettynwitty @ Jun 23 2004, 04:26 PM) As long as you're not logging fake finds, I totally love you. I agree. And as long as a person doesn't go on a big ego trip by claiming that they know more than me because they have 300 more finds, I'm fine with them doing a power trail. It's when they got those extra 300 on a power trail and then try to belittle everyone with their knowledge of all things geocaching that gets to me. We're all the same whether we have 50 finds or 500 finds. It's not about the numbers, it's about the fun you had and the stories you can tell about getting those numbers. Why are so many egos threatened?? A number of comments besides the above leads me to conclude that there may be some "threatened" people out there. Relax. I have to admit that IF THIS THING REALLY EXISTED and was in Ohio, I'd likely check it out. But I STILL think it's April 1st. Link to comment
+RuffRidr Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 I also think that the power trails are kinda lame. I would much rather do a cache to see a cool location, than do a bunch to up my numbers. And yes this is coming from a person who is very interested in stats and would like to see them on this site. Now if it was in my area, I'd probably still do all the caches. Not because I'd like it, but just because I try to do all of the caches in my area. I'd definitely let the owner know in the log that I thought it was kinda lame, however. --RuffRidr Link to comment
+Planet Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 So since I am a woman, and it's a woman's perogative to change her mind, I might just change my mind. Because you are a woman, I wish you would change your mind about the spelling of "prerogative." OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm so sorry!!!! Oh geez I'll never live this down. I am placing myself in the Spellers Hall of Shame. Darned lazy typing fingers. Boy is my face red! Could someone please forgive me? This has ruined my whole day! Link to comment
Swagger Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 I can't speak for any of the other "power caching trails," but I was FTF on a bunch of the caches along the Thousand Oaks PCT. Those who think that these caches are just about the numbers should try one before they form an opinion about them. I've never been snow skiing and I don't think I'd like it, but I can't say for sure because I've never been. The Thousand Oaks trail is a great hike and each hide is unique in placement and the container chosen. Just because the ability to log a lot of finds in a relatively short period of time exists doesn't mean that the trail/caches are lame. Team Dakiba (the hider of the T.O. series) is almost legandary in these parts for both creative urban hides and exceptional trail hides. The reputation is well deserved and it bothers me to see people putting these cache series' down without ever having been on the trail looking for them. If you don't like the idea of a PCT, you're free to avoid those trails, but you'll never know what you missed if you do. Just my $.02. Link to comment
+Dan-oh Posted June 24, 2004 Author Share Posted June 24, 2004 <snip> I really don't like these bread-crumb trails, and try to push hiders towards doing a multi. However, the caches do meet the letter of the current guidelines, but not the spirit. I think Hemlock nails it for me. Then again, I AM a rules guy. I'm bothered when someone jumps in line or somehow circumvents an intended procedure. BTW, I didn't imply the caches were lame. The placement is odd but not necessarily lame. Link to comment
+carleenp Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 (edited) I think that despite what people say, it often is about the numbers and I also think that it is OK for it to be about the numbers. Any comments I have for this thread are in my linked post. Edited June 24, 2004 by carleenp Link to comment
BassoonPilot Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 (edited) Just because the ability to log a lot of finds in a relatively short period of time exists doesn't mean that the trail/caches are lame. Right. It merely means that the caches are placed very close together and are very easy to find. Oh, and that finders will remember absolutely nothing about 90% of the caches by the time they arrive home. But they WILL have their 128 "smilies," and that is a good thing ... in fact, the ONLY thing that matters. I agree that there are many ways to play the game, and that people should geocache in the manner they enjoy. But from my perspective, "power trails" are a waste of time. Edited June 24, 2004 by BassoonPilot Link to comment
+Team Perks Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 Then again, I AM a rules guy. I'm bothered when someone jumps in line or somehow circumvents an intended procedure. So as long as the caches are more than 528 feet apart, who is breaking any rules? Hemlock has expressed his opinion that they violate the spirit, and while I respect his opinion, the idea of meeting the "spirit" of the guidelines heads down that same slippery slope of defining what the "WOW" factor is. So then, what IS the spirit of geocaching? How is loading a trail with caches different from filling every parking lot in town up with Altoids tins under lamp posts? I agree with RuffRidr's comment that a cache SHOULD take you to a cool location. If that is what the essence geocaching is about, then frankly, I think most urban hides are less into the spirit of geocaching than a power trail is. That's just my opinion, and I will never try to dissuade someone from hiding or looking for a lamp post cache if that's what they are into. Should EVERY trail be turned into a power trail? Absolutely and unequivocally not. Too many are too unspoiled or too sensitive to handle the traffic. The ones I have seen are already well-traveled but beautiful trails, and all of the caches have been carefully placed to avoid any destruction of the environment while getting to and searching for the caches. A lot of thought has gone into them. But then, those rules should apply to ANY cache along a trail, whether it's 1 cache or 100 of them. Link to comment
+The BeeGees Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 It's been said before. If you don't like logging multiple caches on one hike, then don't. When I visit a park with multiple caches, I rarely do them all in one shot. I just do one or two. This way it gives me something to do on my next visit. Link to comment
+Marky Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 (edited) It merely means that the caches are placed very close together and are very easy to find. You have no idea how easy or hard to find the caches are unless you have been there. On the power caching trail we went on, many of the caches get DNFs because they are creative, well hidden caches. Some of them took us a good long search to find, and we almost gave up on one (we usually tend to give up if we have searched 15 per star difficulty, i.e. on a 2* cache, we would give up after 30 minutes of searching). Just because caches are placed near each other doesn't mean that they are easy hides, nor does it mean that they are less enjoyable to search. Since searching for creatively hidden caches is one of the things I really enjoy, I loved the trail we went on down in Thousand Oaks. There were 24 caches on the trail we were on. We found our first cache at 9:01am and found our last cache at 4:40pm. That's nearly 8 hours on the trail. It was a great experience and showed us a very neat area of a park, gave us a lot of ideas on creative placements and was in general a total blast. I really can't imagine anyone doing this series and not enjoying it (unless they aren't up for a 7+ mile hike, or didn't prepare for it with water, food, etc.) Until I get the chance to do others, I have no idea what they are like. I hope to be able to get down there to do them some day. Edited June 24, 2004 by Marky Link to comment
BassoonPilot Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 (edited) You have no idea how easy or hard to find the caches are unless you have been there. I was not referring to any specific "power trail," but it doesn't matter ... if 5-10 minutes is the average elapsed time between finds, then the degree of difficulty the caches present is self-evident. The same can be said if the average elapsed time between finds is 20 minutes ... or an hour. Edited June 24, 2004 by BassoonPilot Link to comment
+Team Perks Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 I was not referring to any specific "power trail," but it doesn't matter ... if 5- 10 minutes is the elapsed time between finds, then the degree of difficulty the caches present is self-evident. That doesn't mean everyone will find them in 5-10 minutes, and doesn't necessarily speak to the difficulty either. If you have four people searching, it cuts down dramatically on the amount of time you'll spend at each cache. Sure there were ones that we found in 1-2 minutes on the power caching trails, but that's certainly balanced by the ones that took 15-20 minutes to spot. That's no different from what we'd expect to encounter anywhere else. Link to comment
BassoonPilot Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 (edited) That doesn't mean everyone will find them in 5-10 minutes, and doesn't necessarily speak to the difficulty either. It does. It is an excellent indication of "the average difficulty." If you have four people searching, it cuts down dramatically on the amount of time you'll spend at each cache. I don't necessarily agree ... from the many logs I have read, it appears to me that in most groups, only one or two people are responsible for almost all of the finds. Sure there were ones that we found in 1-2 minutes on the power caching trails, but that's certainly balanced by the ones that took 15-20 minutes to spot. I edited the earlier post to more clearly indicate that I was referring to "average elapsed time." If one cache took you 5 minutes to find, and the next took you 15 minutes, your average elapsed time was 10 minutes for each cache found. The average elapsed time would also be 10 minutes per found cache if you spent 1 minute on one cache and 19 on the next. That's no different from what we'd expect to encounter anywhere else. So you agree, then, that it is "self-evident?" Edited June 24, 2004 by BassoonPilot Link to comment
AC Student Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 The power trails look like great fun. I wish they were in my area. I'll bet even my wife would hike with me if we could look for a cache every 0.1-0.2 mile or so. I'd probably need to bring a notepad and make a few notes to refer to when logging online later. Some of the concerns that others have expressed regarding the power trails seem to be easily solvable. If you don't like the idea of so many caches so close together, just look for the ones 1 mile apart. Or just the one at the end of a trail. The power trail lets you pick and choose so you can cache how you want to cache. I'd look for 'em all. Link to comment
+Team Perks Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 It does. It is an excellent indication of "the average difficulty." I'm one of those people who's excellent at spotting 3* caches right away, yet can spend half an hour trying to find an ammo can that's out in the open right under my nose. I might find caches easy that you don't, and vice versa. Often, of course, you just luck out and look in the right spot first (or last). I don't necessarily agree ... from the many logs I have read, it appears to me that in most groups, only one or two people are responsible for almost all of the finds. That doesn't mean it applies to every group. I was with three other outstanding local cachers, and we all about averaged out in terms of finds. So you agree, then, that it is "self-evident?" No. The "average elapsed time" is based on the number of cachers we had, and the experience level of the cachers. PLUS the fact that 2-4 other cachers who had either placed or found all of the caches were with us to guide us down the right trails. Would I have been able to keep that pace myself, or with one other person? Heck no. Link to comment
BassoonPilot Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 (edited) It's been said before. If you don't like logging multiple caches on one hike, then don't. Some of the concerns that others have expressed regarding the power trails seem to be easily solvable. If you don't like the idea of so many caches so close together, just look for the ones 1 mile apart. That's a great solution. So, what should we who prefer long hikes and fewer caches (as well as those who favor "power trails") do should all geocaching be banned, or tightly regulated, in a region when an authority/agency takes umbrage with (what they may consider to be) the gross abuse of the area under their control due to (what the authority/controlling agency may consider to be) over saturation? Edited June 24, 2004 by BassoonPilot Link to comment
+Team Perks Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 So what should we do should all geocaching be banned, or tightly regulated, in an area when an authority/agency takes umbrage with (what they may consider) the gross abuse of the area under their control? That's why it's important to NOT place caches on sensitive lands, and to work with the managers to identify areas that should be off-limits. Link to comment
BassoonPilot Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 (edited) That's why it's important to NOT place caches on sensitive lands, and to work with the managers to identify areas that should be off-limits. Are you suggesting that the typical "power trail" has been established with the permission and/or knowledge, cooperation and support of a controlling agency? That's too far-fetched for me to accept. Edited June 24, 2004 by BassoonPilot Link to comment
+rusty_tlc Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 It's been said before. If you don't like logging multiple caches on one hike, then don't. Some of the concerns that others have expressed regarding the power trails seem to be easily solvable. If you don't like the idea of so many caches so close together, just look for the ones 1 mile apart. That's a great solution. So, what should we who prefer long hikes and fewer caches (as well as those who favor "power trails") do should all geocaching be banned, or tightly regulated, in a region when an authority/agency takes umbrage with (what they may consider to be) the gross abuse of the area under their control due to (what the authority/controlling agency may consider to be) over saturation? Since we are pointing out typos: Link to comment
+Team Perks Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 Are you suggesting that the typical "power trail" has been established with the permission and/or knowledge, cooperation and support of a controlling agency? That's too far-fetched for me to accept. Since I'm not familiar with the permission/permitting requirements for where the other trails are, I can't make any judgment. However, many jurisdictions out here have no formal restrictions on placing geocaches, so formal permission is not necessary. The mini-power trail I've placed (10 caches along 1.3 miles of trail) was placed with the consent of the local parks department. Link to comment
BassoonPilot Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 (edited) Typo? Nope. Edited June 24, 2004 by BassoonPilot Link to comment
+Marky Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 PLUS the fact that 2-4 other cachers who had either placed or found all of the caches were with us to guide us down the right trails. Would I have been able to keep that pace myself, or with one other person? Heck no. Now that is interesting. This would take away a major part of the fun in geocaching for me. I like the struggle, and eventual satisfying reward of the find(or hard fought DNF). Having someone with me who has found or hid the cache would take that fun away. --Marky Link to comment
+Team Perks Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 Now that is interesting. This would take away a major part of the fun in geocaching for me. I like the struggle, and eventual satisfying reward of the find(or hard fought DNF). Having someone with me who has found or hid the cache would take that fun away. Since we didn't know the area, they were with us to 1) get some hiking in and 2) make sure we stayed on the trail, not to point us straight to the cache (though we did have to cry for help a couple of times). Link to comment
+rusty_tlc Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 Thanks, but what "typo?" If you are looking for subject/verb agreement, "should do" is the proper form for the subject "we." Either it was the excessive use of parents or the lack of a comma that made it appear wrong, sorry my bad. Link to comment
+Planet Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 I am back on the fence. I'm not fond of saturation. Oh and BassoonPilot, here's your "r" r Link to comment
BassoonPilot Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 PLUS the fact that 2-4 other cachers who had either placed or found all of the caches were with us to guide us down the right trails. Now that is interesting. This would take away a major part of the fun in geocaching for me. I like the struggle, and eventual satisfying reward of the find(or hard fought DNF). Having someone with me who has found or hid the cache would take that fun away. I agree with Marky. This has occurred with some frequency in my region, and I have read about it occurring in several other regions. I understand it's a real time-saver. Link to comment
+Woof! Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 Now that is interesting. This would take away a major part of the fun in geocaching for me. I like the struggle, and eventual satisfying reward of the find(or hard fought DNF). Having someone with me who has found or hid the cache would take that fun away. Since we didn't know the area, they were with us to 1) get some hiking in and 2) make sure we stayed on the trail, not to point us straight to the cache (though we did have to cry for help a couple of times). With caches every 880 feet, there was a question you wouldn't stay on the trail? Link to comment
+Team Perks Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 (edited) With caches every 880 feet, there was a question you wouldn't stay on the trail? If you ever cached with me, you'd know I could get lost in my own living room. Seriously, these aren't straight lines, and it's easy to get turned around--especially when you're caching in the dark. Edited June 24, 2004 by Team PerkyPerks Link to comment
+rusty_tlc Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 With caches every 880 feet, there was a question you wouldn't stay on the trail? If you ever cached with me, you'd know I could get lost in my own living room. I have a few of questions. 1) Was there a lot of laughing? 2) Did everyone have a good time? 3) Was everyone safe and considerate? If the answers are yes, in my opinion, you were doing it right. Link to comment
+Team Perks Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 I have a few of questions.1) Was there a lot of laughing? 2) Did everyone have a good time? 3) Was everyone safe and considerate? If the answers are yes, in my opinion, you were doing it right. I plead guilty to all counts. It was a blast. I forgot to mention that the cachers we were with are all friends, and it would have not been nearly as much fun without them. Caching is about the camaraderie, the good times, and the challenge. Link to comment
uperdooper Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 I have a few of questions.1) Was there a lot of laughing? 2) Did everyone have a good time? 3) Was everyone safe and considerate? If the answers are yes, in my opinion, you were doing it right. I plead guilty to all counts. It was a blast. I forgot to mention that the cachers we were with are all friends, and it would have not been nearly as much fun without them. Caching is about the camaraderie, the good times, and the challenge. then you did it right. that's all that matters. Link to comment
+Perthos Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 I gotta add my two cents' worth. I am in favor of any kind of caching, but I definitely prefer physical rather than virtual caches. I'm not a big fan of multi caches either, and I usually avoid the ones with puzzles and all that. I got into this hobby/sport because I enjoy the outdoors and hiking, and finding caches along the way was incidental. Now I look for places to visit or trails to hike with caches on them, not so much for the numbers, but because I am part of a community of like-minded people, and I get to read their logs and add my own as well. Recently I enjoyed a 10-mile walk down Sycamore Canyon with 3 other cachers, where I think we bagged 10 caches on the way. Mind you, we didn't find all the caches in the Canyon, but we got most of them. The main point was the hike and the side benefit was doing it with other people. I like this canyon and have hiked or biked it over the years. It was a nice bonus to pause every mile or so and use our brains to find someone's cleverly hidden cache! I never gave much thought to power trails, and I would like to tackle the Team Dakiba power trail in Thousand Oaks, but only because everyone said it was fun. It's nice that I can also bag some caches on the way, but I would feel OK about the hike even if I found zero. So, I will eventually get out to La Quinta and Thousand Oaks and other power trail locations, just to see what the excitement is all about, and to enjoy the hikes, but also to see if I can find all the caches. For me, it just adds to the fun, challenges me mentally, and gets me outdoors on hots days. What could be better than that? Link to comment
+briansnat Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 (edited) PLUS the fact that 2-4 other cachers who had either placed or found all of the caches were with us to guide us down the right trails. Now that is interesting. This would take away a major part of the fun in geocaching for me. I like the struggle, and eventual satisfying reward of the find(or hard fought DNF). Having someone with me who has found or hid the cache would take that fun away. I agree with Marky. This has occurred with some frequency in my region, and I have read about it occurring in several other regions. I understand it's a real time-saver. How would it be a time saver? I've accompanied people to caches I've planted, or caches I've found and I don't think my presence has any effect on the amount of time it takes for them to find the cache. I just plop down on a log , or rock and watch the hunt. It's not like I sit there and say "You're getting warmer. Oops, now you're getting colder" Edited June 24, 2004 by briansnat Link to comment
+rusty_tlc Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 PLUS the fact that 2-4 other cachers who had either placed or found all of the caches were with us to guide us down the right trails. Now that is interesting. This would take away a major part of the fun in geocaching for me. I like the struggle, and eventual satisfying reward of the find(or hard fought DNF). Having someone with me who has found or hid the cache would take that fun away. I agree with Marky. This has occurred with some frequency in my region, and I have read about it occurring in several other regions. I understand it's a real time-saver. How would it be a time saver? I've accompanied people to caches I've planted, or caches I've found and I don't think my presence has any effect on the amount of time it takes for them to find the cache. I just plop down on a log , or rock and watch the hunt. It's not like I sit there and say "You're getting warmer. Oops, now you're getting colder" When visiting a cache with the owner or somebody who has already found it my advice is to figure out where they aren't looking and start there. Link to comment
BassoonPilot Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 How would it be a time saver? Well, as Yogi Berra said, "When you come to a fork in the road, take it." I presume that being "guided down the proper paths" could be a significant time-saver, as could, as we have witnessed in our region, being chauffered directly to caches. Link to comment
+ShowStop Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 Right. It merely means that the caches are placed very close together and are very easy to find. I will disagree with this statement. Having been on one of the power caching trails, the hides were all creative, consisted of different hiding methods and camo and most were very challenging. My g/f searched for one of the caches for about 15 minutes and it was staring her in the face. (And she normally finds the tricky ones I don't find) Oh, and that finders will remember absolutely nothing about 90% of the caches by the time they arrive home. But they WILL have their 128 "smilies," and that is a good thing ... in fact, the ONLY thing that matters. I have cached the power trails and done caching days with over 60 caches in a single day. Granted I usually don't write a whole novel for each log, but I personalize each log with a comment pertaining to that cache. I do this primarily from memory. I do keep a log book in those situations and make some shorthand notes about what I traded. Yes, I do make trades while power caching. I do all this because I too hate to see those people out there that write a generic log from their cache-and-dash spree. Why are you so against these trails? I think in some ways they are much better then urban caches. Before I discovered geocaching, I rarely hiked or rode a mountain bike. Now I hike every other weekend and bought a new mountain bike to use while Geocaching. I'd rather that then driving around burning gasoline at $2.50/gallon. Link to comment
+Accident Prone Hiker Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 Are those of you who "power cache" that insecure with yourselves that you need to log 100 finds a day to make yourselves feel better about your meaningless lives? Link to comment
+Team Perks Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 (edited) Are those of you who "power cache" that insecure with yourselves that you need to log 100 finds a day to make yourselves feel better about your meaningless lives? Unlike some people, I prefer to stick to productive commentary rather than half-witted personal insults. However, I will add this: Why should it matter to you how many caches I or anyone else choose to find in a day? Edited June 24, 2004 by Team PerkyPerks Link to comment
+The Commissar! Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 If I'm going caching, I want to find or at least look for caches, so for caching it looks like a good place. But if I'm going hiking it doesn't matter if there is one or one hundred caches along the route. I usually discover cool hiking places by caching there first... Link to comment
+PandyBat Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 I do all this because I too hate to see those people out there that write a generic log from their cache-and-dash spree. I do too. I like to write a little more than the usual "TNLNSL". I feel bad for the cache owner when people do that. They took their time to hide a cache for YOU to find. I feel like in a small way, that I am giving back to them something for doing that for me by telling them of my adventure on their hunt, no matter how insignificant the hunt was or how uneventful it was. There's a story in every cache hunt if you will just take the time to enjoy it. I think cache owners appreciate and deserve a good log on their caches. I wouldn't want to deter them from hiding more in the future. I do have a hard time writing logs on micro caches if they aren't placed in interesting places, but I still write them the best I can. Link to comment
+Harrald Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 As Hemlock stated this is well within the guidelines. It is not in the spirit of the game. It is solely placed for someone to rack up a large number of finds with a minimal amount of effort. If it wasn’t, then less than a dozen caches would suffice. There once was a time when finding 100 caches (something that would take a great deal of time) was something to be personally proud of. You got a great sense of accomplishment reaching that milestone. This power trail (and most number crunching caches) cheapens it. If you enjoy playing the game that way, then more power to you. But be aware that it is not in the spirit of the game. Link to comment
+Team Perks Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 As Hemlock stated this is well within the guidelines. It is not in the spirit of the game. It is solely placed for someone to rack up a large number of finds with a minimal amount of effort. If it wasn’t, then less than a dozen caches would suffice. There once was a time when finding 100 caches (something that would take a great deal of time) was something to be personally proud of. You got a great sense of accomplishment reaching that milestone. This power trail (and most number crunching caches) cheapens it. If you enjoy playing the game that way, then more power to you. But be aware that it is not in the spirit of the game. If it were about minimal amount of effort, then why not just go and grab all the drive-ups in town? Sure they aren't impossible, but they are definitely not easy trails. I was so tired I could barely walk at the end of the day, and I was sick for three days from the exertion. More and more people are joining the sport. Consequently, more and more people are placing caches. Existence of power trails aside, it's STILL easy to get 100 caches in a couple of days. If that's your concern, eliminating power trails won't do anything to restrain the number of caches that are out there. Short of limiting caches to a mile apart across the board, I don't know of anything that will. I'm still not clear on what you consider the "spirit" of geocaching to be. For us, it's about having fun. We accomplished that, and so has everyone I know who has done a power trail. Tell me, who is really being harmed? Link to comment
AC Student Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 I think that the game is broad enough and flexible enough for each of us to decide for ourselves what is within the spirit of the game. And I think that we should all respect each other's decision to play the game the way we prefer, as long as it is with courtesy, respect for others, and within the guidelines. Link to comment
+rusty_tlc Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 As Hemlock stated this is well within the guidelines. It is not in the spirit of the game. It is solely placed for someone to rack up a large number of finds with a minimal amount of effort. If it wasn’t, then less than a dozen caches would suffice. There once was a time when finding 100 caches (something that would take a great deal of time) was something to be personally proud of. You got a great sense of accomplishment reaching that milestone. This power trail (and most number crunching caches) cheapens it. If you enjoy playing the game that way, then more power to you. But be aware that it is not in the spirit of the game. Understand that I don't play for numbers. But I have a problem with carte blanc statements about what is or isn't the spirit of the game. We as a community form the spirit of the game by our actions. One individual or group of individuals can not. This game is growing and changing, this is the nature of all things. Is through hiking the pacific coast trail more in the spirit of backpacking than enjoying a single section? They are different experiences, for different personalities. Some people are about challenges, let them enjoy that. Meanwhile enjoy life your own way. Link to comment
+Salvelinus Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 Are those of you who "power cache" that insecure with yourselves that you need to log 100 finds a day to make yourselves feel better about your meaningless lives? Unlike some people, I prefer to stick to productive commentary rather than half-witted personal insults. However, I will add this: Why should it matter to you how many caches I or anyone else choose to find in a day? I dont think it matters how many you find in a day. I'm in my fourth year of geocaching. Some already call me "Old School". I've seen geocaching grow exponentially in that time...but I don't necessarily think that growth has always been for the good of the sport. It's been good for GC.com, but not necessarily the sport. Geocaching was attractive to me because it always took me to interesting places or showed me something I never saw before. It was always, and still is, about the experience...not the numbers. Although I see caches popping up around me all the time. There are fewer and fewer of them (as a percentage) that sound remotely interesting. I eventually find most of them, but the desire to run out and check out that cool spot where there is now a geocache, is dwindling. This is what really concerns me, and cachers like myself. We see the game as diverging way too far from what it initially was all about and some of our passion is waning. It seems that as more people become involved in this sport, the less caches are placed with cache experience and cache quality as major factors. Those things use to be the roots of this game. Frankly, I'm stupified by this power trail concept and only see it as another divergence from inital concepts of geocaching. Some cachers may not care about that, but many of us still do. If this is what caching was like when I started. I never would have started. Having a cache every 0.1 mile is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard of. Why does it need to be that way? Why can't 3 or 4 along these trail be enough? Because the rules say you can? I just don't get it? I can only believe that, no matter how you may justify the "experience", its just for the numbers. Period. Can you still be "doing it right" and having a good time on those trails if only 3 or 4 caches were present? I bet I could! But nothing would aggrevate me more than acting like that idiot cell phone guy, "Can you see the cache yet?...Good!"..."Can you see the cache yet?...Good!"... I guess your response to me, as it has to others, would be "Well then don't do them". Believe me, I won't be doing them. But that dosn't eliminate the concept. How soon until these become the new "rage" causing more and more "Power trails" becoming filled wth poor hides, lousy containers, soggy logs, and frequent muggling. How soon until we debate the need to increase the distance between caches just to keep the numbers crowd from creating lame "Power Trails" just to up their counts. At one time I thought key holder caches on rest stop guard rails would never reach my caching area...but, unfortunatly they have. I expect one of these Power Trails to follow soon. Grrrrrrrrrr What if I, as a non-numbers geocacher, wanted to place a cache way back on those trails. Yeah, the rules say I can. But why would I? My cache would certainly get lost amongst the 130 others along the trail. Personally, I consider saturating an area with 50, 60, 70 ...100 caches is totally selfish to other cachers who may want to hide one there. I guess if your playing for numbers, those of us who play for the experience don't matter much. But heaven forbid if anyone bad mouths a numbers player For the most part, I don't really care what motivates people to cache. I just wish that when these off-shoot caching concepts form in someone'sr head that they take a moment and think back to the roots of geocaching and remember why it started and what it USE to be about. I also hope the roots that formed this game are strong enough to support so much "branching out". Can geocaching survive? <Rant Off> Salvelinus Link to comment
+Salvelinus Posted June 24, 2004 Share Posted June 24, 2004 Tell me, who is really being harmed? Maybe another cacher who may have wanted to place a well thought out cache a long ways back on the now dubbed "Power Trail"? I know, I know, the rules say they still can...but they won't and you know it. Salvelinus Link to comment
Recommended Posts