Power Trails!

March 5, 2005

What the hell,I guess I'll open up another can of worms!Power trails, are you for them or against them?Another question I have is whats defines a power trail?Recently I tried to put a power trail together consisting of 20 caches spaced at least a 1/4 mile apart over a 7 mile trail in Phoenix,Arizona and was told by the local approvers that they would not approve it even if I got the approval from Phoenix Parks and Recreation to place the trail!Am I wrong for being upset about it?How would you feel if this was done to you?

Does anyone have any idea's and or solutions to this Dilemma?

9.4k · March 5, 2005

Why not make it a multicache? :blink:

2.7k · March 5, 2005

the rules only state caches need to be .1 apart. Quarter mile apart is great. I would have approved them if an approver. More caches the merrier assuming it's ok with park people and such. Yep, I think I would be upset. Not consistent application of rules.

Did you ask them why? And what did they say?

Edited March 5, 2005 by evergreenhiker!

24.7k · March 5, 2005

I like the idea of a power trail. Sort of a carrot and stick approach to a long and pleasant hike.

If each individual cache is viable and approvable and is 528' from the others then there is no reason at all why the caches can't be approved. Not unless there is new guideline that says "power trails should be a multi cache".

The decision for single caches vs. multi caches rests with the cache owner.

I have no answer for your dilema. They have said they won't approve your power trail. It leaves you in the position of negotiating separation, but once past 528' it should not even be part of the discussion. If the park itself has a separation rule of 1000' then that would take precidence over GC.com's rule of 528'.

Good luck.

Edit: I'd be peeved in your shoes. I also don't load multi caches when I'm on trips and so I'd miss out on your trail if I was in town. Last time I was in AZ I ended up lising my cache on Navicache.

Edited March 5, 2005 by Renegade Knight

March 5, 2005

Did you ask them why? I see no conflicts with the guidelines.

March 5, 2005

What did they say?Power trails are against the guidelines period!It does not matter if I get the parks approval to place this trail!Sax, interest drops off big time with mullticaches and most cachers like credit for each cache find!

March 5, 2005

Before saying anything about this particular series of caches, I would have to know more about them. Perhaps there is a good reason the approver did not approve them. However, if they were not approved just because they are a "power trail" then I disagree with that. I don't see anything in the guidelines that prohibit such a string of caches.

More information, please.....can you tell us what specifically the approver didn't like about it and what guideline section was quoted as the reason for disapproval? Can you tell us more about the caches? Type? Were any buried or in any other way in violation of the guidelines?

24.7k · March 5, 2005

I did a search for "Power" hoping to pick up power trails in the guidelines and got nothing. BigHanks got a point. Very often there is something else that comes out and that can change everyones answers. It's important to have complete information on the cache and all the reasons given for the non approval.

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

Edited March 5, 2005 by Renegade Knight

March 5, 2005

Try getting only one or two approved at a time. You might of overwelmed them with 20 at once.

March 5, 2005

Why not make it a multicache?

20 stage multi. Think about it. I just spent the last 3 hours, walked 4 miles only to find out stage 18 has been muggled.

March 5, 2005

There is no more info to tell you!None of the caches have been placed yet!I was looking for pre-approval!Also I'm not the only cacher involved with placing these 20 caches,there are 3 other teams that were going to be involved with this trail!Each of us was going to place 5 caches in high quality waterproof containers within 10 feet of the exsisting trail!I WAS trying to follow the rules as I knew them to the letter that why I was shocked to see my plan shot down!If you look at my profile you can see I'm no newbie at this!

March 5, 2005

here's an option.... I'm sure it won't go far with tptb.

list it as a multi, but allow each step to be logged seperately. You'd have to post your find a couple of times, but isn't that what cut and paste is for?

which brings a new category of "Power Trail Cache" If they are all bigger than a 35mm film canister, so something can be traded in each container. maybe each could have a different theme.

The log page could have a drop menu to allow you show how many of the caches on the trail you found.

21.9k · March 5, 2005

Several of you who have said that the guidelines don't address this issue, other than the 528 foot rule, may wish to go back and read the entire text of the Cache Saturation Guideline, as revised last month. I imagine that the volunteer for the OP's area is citing to the boldfaced text below, where the word "suggest" was changed to "require" in the February update:

Cache Saturation

The reviewers use a rule of thumb that caches placed within .10 miles (528 feet or 161 meters) of another cache may not be listed on the site. This is an arbitrary distance and is just a guideline, but the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area and to reduce confusion that might otherwise result when one cache is found while looking for another.

On the same note, don't go cache crazy and hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can. If you want to create a series of caches, the reviewer may require you to create a multi-cache, if the waypoints are close together.

I have worked with a couple of hiders where I've questioned several caches spaced 528 feet apart or slightly more. Thus far, those efforts have produced one high quality multicache tour of a cemetery, ending at an ammo box with excellent swag, instead of three separate micros. Another series is on hold while the owner evaluates which way to proceed. We're happy to work with cache owners on this point.

4.2k · March 5, 2005

Personally, I don't need a cache everey .1/mile or .25/mile to gete me to take a long or scenic hike.

The last cache I placed (I think) required about a a9-mile round trip hike for 1 cache. Not the norm, but well worth it when you have a quiet spot with a waterfall all to yourself.

March 5, 2005

I'm in the prosses of doing just that and so for the responce has been, when will their be more placed. We are at 7 over about 3 miles of trail. Keep trying. As long as their is a good veriety thay will come.My Webpage

March 5, 2005

Jake,I would do a multi IF each segment could be logged as a find!They the local approves suggested a multi that was 12 segments and only 4 finds over this 7 mile trail.That will not generate any interest!I wanted to do a trail that cachers REALLY wanted to do!Just so you all know everything was going to be at least the size of a decon container.

Edited March 5, 2005 by graldrich

9.4k · March 5, 2005

Sax, interest drops off big time with mullticaches and most cachers like credit for each cache find!

I see...it's all about the numbers :blink:

24.7k · March 5, 2005

If you can't hide caches 528' apart why have a 528' rule? It just opens up the guidelines to yet more subjective interpretation.

Now the question is when should reviewers step in and say “you are hiding these close together just because you can, so you need to do a multi cache”. It puts reviewers in a bad position because they have to figure out what "just because you can" means. I also don’t agree a many stage multi cache is better than a power trail. I have more than one of those that for one reason or another I could not complete and all my work ends up in a skunk log.

24.7k · March 5, 2005

Sax, interest drops off big time with mullticaches and most cachers like credit for each cache find!

I see...it's all about the numbers

What's wrong with enjoying a find over a skunk?

Also so what if it is about the numbers? That doesn't matter one whit in any way of looking at this game.

March 5, 2005

I guess I didn't stress the point that I realized that your caches were going to be of the larger size.

My point was for "other" Power Trails that were just a long line of micro's that only have room for the log... not even the something to write with.

sorry for the confusion.

March 5, 2005

Keystone Approver,there is no logical reason to request a multicache when the cahes will be placed .25 to .33 apart!Do you agree? If not please explain why?We have conversed before I know you to be a very reasonable person.I'm listening!

March 5, 2005

For once I'm in agreement with everything you have to say RK!Keep it up!

4.8k · March 5, 2005

I have mixed feelings about "power trails." In one sense, they often to seem to be put out there simply as a way to up people's numbers. Not just the finders, but the hider's too. Seems kind of icky to me. They also shut out other hiders from the area because of the proximity rules. So, I think a multi is a good thing there, although that can shut others out as well. If a multi, I recommend only a few stages. That makes them go the length without shutting people out becuase of proximity to stages. Let others fill in if they want with other caches.

Yet, I have always been one to say "so what if it is about the numbers?" A pet peeve of mine is seeing that line: "it is not about the numbers". That link will show that. Who are others to judge there? Is it really all that bad to be "about the numbers?" If that is what makes it fun for some, why should people who don't see it that way sweat it?

I also know of a "power trail" of sorts in Nebraska that came about because some really great and enthusiastic cachers who filled an entire small city with creative caches then filled one of the last spaces left to them -- a new trial that opened. But it was not one cacher looking for easy numbers, it was several eager and prolific hiders over a length of time. So a "power trail" of sorts just happened.

In the end, while I understand and even can respect setting up a power trail, I prefer my later example. I suggest that you don't make a power trail, but that you let it happen. Place a cache or two on the trail or place a multi. Let others see how cool the trail is and maybe fill it in. That gives people incentive to walk the trail and also go back as caches are added. It also leaves space for other cachers to add to it.

1.6k · March 5, 2005

There is no more info to tell you!None of the caches have been placed yet!I was looking for pre-approval!Also I'm not the only cacher involved with placing these 20 caches,there are 3 other teams that were going to be involved with this trail!Each of us was going to place 5 caches in high quality waterproof containers within 10 feet of the exsisting trail!I WAS trying to follow the rules as I knew them to the letter that why I was shocked to see my plan shot down!If you look at my profile you can see I'm no newbie at this!

Maybe you shouldn't call it a Power Trail , maybe if you just place your 5 caches , them your other players , just place and submit theirs' individually ..... Then let whomever place the final and make it a really good one, thus creating a power trail without , creating a power trail ? sorta ... just make sure you have the proper permission for your submissions !

Star

March 5, 2005

Carleenp, there is going to be lots of space for others to add to this trail with cache placement 25. to .33 apart!Also there is 3 other cachers involved with putting this together!I just feel with claimable caches .25 to .33 will be incentive to complete the trail!I want to do something special for the area,not something ordinary!I had such a great time doing a few power trails in California that I just wanted to share that experience with the local cachers!I think they would have a great time doing it!

24.7k · March 5, 2005

Funny thing. As I was watching TV an add for the Honda Ridgeline came on. That jogged my memory for an idea I've had for a power trail.

My town is in a valley between two small mountain ranges. I've had the idea of putting together an event to walk one of the ridgelines and make a power trail out of it. It's the only thing that would attract people to make that very hike. It would be unique, it would be fun, and in a very real way, doing something like that, something you would not normally do, but something worth it, is a big part of this game.

Some power trails can just evolve and that's fine. But some can be made just to share an experience.

9.4k · March 5, 2005

I'd call this over-hiding and I'd be again' it.

1.5k · March 5, 2005

I would be inclined to support a power trail type cache concept in an area where there was a low number of caches. But with the additional info that the intended concept is for 4 teams being involved in a multi-multi concept, it sounds kinda cool. If there's a way to get this one approved, I think it would be awesome to incorporate all 20 caches in a separate multi all its own, or even two multis.

The idea is simple. Inside each cache is a value. That value corresponds to a portion of the N or W coords. If diligent, one can find the cache without all 10, but the effort in finding that 10 results in an 11th. If you split it into 2 multi's (the idea in my mind is truly evil), you could ultimately have 22 finds if desired. It would make a great day hike, and depending on how cruel you want to be (I know you Guy, so I can just imagine what you'd come up with), you could spread the multi's quite a ways from one another.

In other words, I do like the idea, but wonder if there aren't already too many caches in that area. Looking at just the trailhead alone, there are 100 caches within 5.1 miles.

March 5, 2005

I don't see any problem with power trails. On the Pushawalla power path the caches are almost exactly .1 mile apart - 30 caches along a 5 mile trail. It is a very scenic trail and I probably never would have gone there (it is almost 80 miles away) if there were just a couple of caches on the trail. As it is it was one of the best cache experiences I have had yet.

Edited March 5, 2005 by Blind Avocado

March 5, 2005

I think there is actually 3 caches in close proximity to the trail!Brian, are you saying you can log 22 finds with your plan?

March 5, 2005

There is no more info to tell you!None of the caches have been placed yet!I was looking for pre-approval!Also I'm not the only cacher involved with placing these 20 caches,there are 3 other teams that were going to be involved with this trail!Each of us was going to place 5 caches in high quality waterproof containers within 10 feet of the exsisting trail!I WAS trying to follow the rules as I knew them to the letter that why I was shocked to see my plan shot down!If you look at my profile you can see I'm no newbie at this!

I believe there is a lot more information that is not being given.

From what has been said in our local listserv versus the information provided here. It would appear galdrich is trying to open a fight without giving the community of cachers all the information that has been provided to most of the locals.

Like the example of breaking it into stages of multi caches

Like his desire to create a geotax of 'you should leave another cache' and other things the reviewer posted to our listserv.

So this will be fun to watch a one sided argument. :blink:

1.5k · March 5, 2005

Good point Dirk. I was thinking the same thing regarding the listserv info as opposed to this. It's like little bits of info are being leaked when every bit of it should have come out initially in order to put it all on the table for us to evaluate properly.

4.8k · March 5, 2005

Carleenp, there is going to be lots of space for others to add to this trail with cache placement 25. to .33 apart!Also there is 3 other cachers involved with putting this together!I just feel with claimable caches .25 to .33 will be incentive to complete the trail!I want to do something special for the area,not something ordinary!I had such a great time doing a few power trails in California that I just wanted to share that experience with the local cachers!I think they would have a great time doing it!

Yeah, I see your point. I also like that others are involved. But think to the far future where you really could shut out an area. Even if there are room for more, people might shy away from placing caches thinking there are enough there already or that it seems like one (or a few) person's territory. If it is a cool trail (and I assume it is or else then I would ask why bother taking people there), why not spread it out some with the future in mind? So, do one multi with a few stages that run the length. Then have your friends put some individual or multi caches in between. In the meantime leave lots of space (not just .25-.5 apart) to let others jump in if they want. If you do a multi and your friends throw a few more out there too, you will find that people wil still flock to it. It will be a power trail of sorts, but will not be so heavy handed because it will be a variety of caches by different people with room for more. Personally, I prefer to get caches along a a trail that are hidden by many over a power trail hidden by one. I like the idea of spreading the wealth, so to speak. Of course that is just a personal preference. :blink:

I suppose also that an alternative is to ask the reviewer if you could lessen the trail some. E.g. instead of placing a ton of caches, just place three or four over the length. Then you get the "carrot" effect of getting people to go the length without maybe creating something that could be viewed as a multi-cache in disguise that is just meant to increase smilies. This would especially be true if there are different parking areas where people could choose to do one of the series and not all.

24.7k · March 5, 2005

I'd call this over-hiding and I'd be again' it.

What exactly does this mean? How is the next cacher going to know when he's over-hiding? What would make it so that it wasn't over-hiding?

March 5, 2005

carleenp,You know what is strange even cachers that are not concerned about the numbers don't like finding a cache without getting credit for it!I've already cut it down 66% of what I'd really like to do!There is lots of other trails that tie into this trail so it's not like me and my friends are hogging the area!

March 5, 2005

Ask yourself what you're REALLY trying to do by placing a power trail ---

... Drawing cachers to enjoy the scenic beauty of the trail itself...

... or attracting cachers to enjoy writing their name in a throw down decon container every 600 feet.

Two different audiences here. Which set are you trying to attract?

4.8k · March 5, 2005

carleenp,You know what is strange even cachers that are not concerned about the numbers don't like finding a cache without getting credit for it!I've already cut it down 66% of what I'd really like to do!There is lots of other trails that tie into this trail so it's not like me and my friends are hogging the area!

It is likely either that they really are "about the numbers" or that they don't have the time for a multi (although I question that when they will run out to a power trail and not a multi, but again I don't think that is all that bad). I will admit that I skip multis at times because of time factors. I would likely hit a power trail in parts over a long length of time for the same reason. Regardless, the finds on your cache are not a value of worth. In fact, the best caches I have have seen have less finds because they are not so easy. I know that even if I put it off for some time, that if I found a cool multi on a trail that I would likely get more satisfaction from it and leave a great log. With a power trail, I would likely find it in peices over time and leave tnlnsl type logs. There is little adventure in finding many different caches along a trail, while the idea of a hiking muti seems different. I know that technically they should be the same, but the "feel" of it is different to me. I have a hard time describing that. Anyway, in the end it comes down to personal preference. I have stated mine. I suspect your's differs. That is OK. :blink:

March 5, 2005

Dave ,I guess I must want to attract both!I just wanted to share the enjoyment I got doing the powers trails I've done!!

March 5, 2005

Carleenp, there is going to be lots of space for others to add to this trail with cache placement 25. to .33 apart!Also there is 3 other cachers involved with putting this together!I just feel with claimable caches .25 to .33 will be incentive to complete the trail!I want to do something special for the area,not something ordinary!I had such a great time doing a few power trails in California that I just wanted to share that experience with the local cachers!I think they would have a great time doing it!

So at this rate you could easily get 40 caches and probable as many as 60 caches on the 7 mile trail!

I Just don't get the point???

With a cache ever .25 to .33 the searcher will already be missing too much of the scenery looking at their GPS. If twice that many caches get placed it is no longer about the trail, it is all eyes on the GPS and watching out for thing that will trip you.

Even at 20 caches the attractions of the trail are lost because the numbers on the GPS are going down so rapidly( that is over-hiding). I can not imagine what is so interesting every .25 that it warrants a cache, not to mention all the excess room in between the every .25 mile cache?

How many times do you want people to hike this trail?

If there are enough nice places for caches than spread them out and hide 14 now. Save some secret treasure spots and in one years change it all up with an all new cache arrangement. This way everyone that finds the caches this year can look forward to the new adventure next year. This will give you 4 years of hiding before you use up all 60 great hiding spots then you can mix and match the spots, themes, hiding methods etc. Every.5 mile will hopefully appease the approver and leave ample hiding spots for new cachers and the new adventure each year will please the area cachers. You get a power trail and the visitors get to see a great trail and knock out 14 caches to boot.

If a person is not willing to hike a great trail to get 14 caches then they do not need to be on the trail to begin with and they can be content to stick with the park and grabs.

As Carleenp has said leave something for the future.

GEO.JOE

38.2k · March 5, 2005

Did you ask them why? I see no conflicts with the guidelines.

I don't see anything in the guidelines that prohibit such a string of caches

From the guidelines:

Cache Saturation

The reviewers use a rule of thumb that caches placed within .10 miles (528 feet or 161 meters) of another cache may not be listed on the site. This is an arbitrary distance and is just a guideline, but the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area and to reduce confusion that might otherwise result when one cache is found while looking for another.

On the same note, don't go cache crazy and hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can. If you want to create a series of caches, the reviewer may require you to create a multi-cache, if the waypoints are close together.

edit: oops, I see KA already pointed this out.

most cachers like credit for each cache find!

Really? Did you take a poll? Many cachers enjoy multicaches and don't give a rats patootie about numbers.

I wanted to do a trail that cachers REALLY wanted to do!

You don't have to place a cache every 500 feet for people to want to do the route. The Four Cache Loop in Texas is a 10 mile hike with only four caches over its length that draws people from hundreds of miles away. The Africa Loop in NY state has 6 caches over the course of a 5 mile hike and its extremely popular. And there are others like these that are very popular. Make it a quality hunt in an interesting area and people will REALLY want to do it

Edited March 5, 2005 by briansnat

1.2k · March 5, 2005

Speaking of the Listserv that started this. After looking at all the comments there more people are against the idea of a power trail in this area than are for it. Most seemed to like the idea of a few multis instead. But Like Brian and ShadowAce pointed out we are not getting the complete story here. Like the fact that it was reviewed by 2 separate reviewers and both said no and now a third has indicated he would be against it. You have to love one sided stories. Sure makes for fun reading. Even the OPs comment on the list serv that he posted it here is interesting, "I just posted this mess to the main forums at geocaching com!So get your popcorn ready sit back and watch, this might get very interesting!". Doesnt sound like someone looking for answers, just wanting to stir the pot. O well.

Michael

2.7k · March 5, 2005

If you can't hide caches 528' apart why have a 528' rule? It just opens up the guidelines to yet more subjective interpretation.

Now the question is when should reviewers step in and say “you are hiding these close together just because you can, so you need to do a multi cache”. It puts reviewers in a bad position because they have to figure out what "just because you can" means. I also don’t agree a many stage multi cache is better than a power trail. I have more than one of those that for one reason or another I could not complete and all my work ends up in a skunk log.

Did you have fun on the way?

March 5, 2005

carleenp,You know what is strange even cachers that are not concerned about the numbers don't like finding a cache without getting credit for it!I've already cut it down 66% of what I'd really like to do!There is lots of other trails that tie into this trail so it's not like me and my friends are hogging the area!

Odd, I thought the majority of the responses on your listserv told you making multi's was a better idea.

6.4k · March 5, 2005

So, is someone going to post the full story for us non-locals?

I'm reserving comments until I understand the real situation here.

2.4k · March 5, 2005

So, is someone going to post the full story for us non-locals?
I'm reserving comments until I understand the real situation here.

Come on Mopar....you've been around long enough to know you NEVER get the full story on anything in the forums :blink:

March 5, 2005

There really is no more to tell,on the local forums I think I neglected to say that others were involved in putting the trail together!

March 5, 2005

Speaking of the Listserv that started this. After looking at all the comments there more people are against the idea of a power trail in this area than are for it. Most seemed to like the idea of a few multis instead. But Like Brian and ShadowAce pointed out we are not getting the complete story here. Like the fact that it was reviewed by 2 separate reviewers and both said no and now a third has indicated he would be against it. You have to love one sided stories. Sure makes for fun reading. Even the OPs comment on the list serv that he posted it here is interesting, "I just posted this mess to the main forums at geocaching com!So get your popcorn ready sit back and watch, this might get very interesting!". Doesnt sound like someone looking for answers, just wanting to stir the pot. O well.

Michael

You bet I'm gonna stir the pot when I feel my request to put this trail together was turned down even if I had the parks approval! That is the whole point of my post!Also the first post says "local approvers"that looks like plural to me meaning more than one!

So go ahead please tell people what I'm leaving out! Michael,I understand that you are just doing your job as you are told to do it but I don't have to agree with it!

1.3k · March 5, 2005

I'd call this over-hiding and I'd be again' it.

Would you also be against people hiding and listing MANY caches in a short span of time (I'd guess it's actually one day but the approvers can't always approve 10, 15, 20, or more caches at a time).

sd

21.9k · March 5, 2005

Southdeltan,

The answer to your question depends on how close together the caches are. If they're scattered all over the county where the hider lives, and are sufficiently distanced from each other and from existing caches, then there's no guideline that prevents someone from listing 20 caches all at once.

Perhaps what you're getting at is the frequent complaint about low-quality caches being placed willy-nilly in an area. It's difficult for a cache reviewer to make a determination about the quality of a spot without actually visiting. The quality of those 20 cache placements could be fantastic or crappy; that is up to the hider.

Also please note that caches may show up with a uniform hidden date when, in fact, the hider has been working with the reviewer for several weeks in order to hide a series of caches in a responsible fashion. The dates are then changed so that all the caches can be listed at once.

1.8k · March 5, 2005

Why not make it a multicache?

20 stage multi. Think about it. I just spent the last 3 hours, walked 4 miles only to find out stage 18 has been muggled.

SO TRUE!

I see nothing wrong with the concept. Oh my gosh it's long hike in and of it's self. Sounds like something I would enjoy. I did somthing like that here in WA and it got approved. All be on a much smaller scale.

I did Trail Head cache, another one called "about a half a mile in" and the third one was call "about a mile in" all on a two mile trail. This was a lead in to get folks out to the cache at end of the trail and it worked.

Good fun!

Pepper

Power Trails!

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment