Power Trails!

March 8, 2005

One problem with using the reasoning that "if one park manager doesn't like it - it's only a matter of time before they all don't" is that it seems inevitable that land managers in different states will reach differing and incompatible conclusions about cache placement in their area. For example, perhaps parks in California will decide "No more ammo cans - we want clear plastic containers so that no one mistakes the cache for a dangerous device." OK, this would upset a lot of people - but there's some merit to it. So a new guideline is passed taking this into account. Then a park manager in Texas decides "You know, those stupid plastic containers turn into litter too quickly - I think it was a lot better when metal containers were used. No more plastic caches in our parks - ammocans only." Well, when something like that happens, the only resolution is to leave matters like this to vary locally.

The truly unfortunate thing here is that by suggesting the owner change the cache to a multi-cache, the reviewer is really asking the fellow to put out a great deal of extra effort on a series of caches that he's already most likely put great effort into creating. This really is unfair to the hider. It's not like the policy change was widely communicated.

I understand that policies will have to change from time to time - that's inevitable. And it's true that no matter how well changes are communicated, there'll be somebody who just doesn't have a clue. Still, to make a change of this sort on a type of series cache that involves great effort on the part of the hider, and then only tell people about it AFTER the fact is really poor, in my opinion.

7.2k · March 8, 2005

It's not like the policy change was widely communicated.

I think you put an extra word in there--"widely."

Was it communicated to anyone other than the "good ol' boys" making policy behind closed doors? This thread is the first time I've heard of such a "problem."

Even after reading the whole thread I don't see where it should be a problem enough to warrant a site-wide policy change. If a land steward wants to limit the number of caches on his land, fine. But why make the whole geocaching world adhere to such a policy change? Where is the say of other land stewards? I know of some rangers that put out their own caches. Who is anyone here to say what they can and can't do on their own wards?

A lot of things going on in this thread and not many of them much good.

March 8, 2005

So, at this point, there've been a lot of ideas thrown in and lots of opinions on Power Trails, both for and against. Clearly they would be illegal in some places (because of the park rules) and perfectly fine in others. Obviously the approvers can't approve power trails where they are illegal. ‘Nuff said there.

However, for other situations where a power trail is not in violation of any rules of the park, that still leaves us in limbo. Lots of people have posted here saying they love them. Many have posted saying they don't. Obviously the people who don't like power trails can just avoid them and be done with it. However, they seem to be trying to force their tastes on those of us who do like a power trail once in a while. Geocaching is a voluntary sport, and a power trail that's not in violation of rules is not harming anyone.

Some people have mentioned that "you COULD place these caches, but SHOULD you?" That's a valid point, considering the fact that some power trails have caused extremism in land managers which has closed the trail in the future. This is something that should be factored into power trail placements before they are approved. In this situation, permission should be obtained from the managers.

None of the admins have thrown in a solution here. Power trails are still not defined clearly. Neither is the definition of a "trail"! In some cases, a "trail" is merely a long exercise path that might be adjacent to a lot of homes. Can anyone say that this is a better or worse place for high density cache placements? How does this type of "trail" compare to something actually out in a forest or other totally natural place?

So, there's obviously a need to modify the vague policy set forth by tptb. As it is, an approver has discretion to turn down a power trail without looking into it any more. We were turned down without any discussion of whether or not we contacted whomever manages the walking/exercise path we placed our caches on. We were turned down without any discussion of the quality of the caches we placed, or even the goal we had in placing this number of caches in one place (our goal was to make a haven of sorts for trickier caches without the cacher having to hike miles and miles to get the thrill of solving the hides).

This is probably because this new "guideline" does not offer the approver the tools s/he needs to further determine whether a power trail SHOULD be allowed depending on the facts of the case. The guideline is TOO vague, and should allow for the cache hider to enter into a good discussion with the approver, one which brings out the facts of the case at hand. Our biggest peeve is that the current policy lets (forces?) the approver to turn us down flat without considering that a power trail might be a neat thing in this instance!

Can some admins respond and maybe suggest a way for power trails to exist, based on a more stringent criteria? I.e. quality of cache hides, general theme of the caches along a path?

I'm not trying to flame the approver who shot us down, because I think s/he wasn't able to interpret the new rules any better than any of us are. But, it wasn't fair for him/her to just say power trails are outlawed altogether, because they aren't! It's up to the approver, but an approver who doesn't like power trails isn't going to be objective to cachers who want to place a power trail. Plus, an approver who doesn't have the time or authority to gather the salient details of the proposed trail will categorically deny them. That's not fair at all to the sport of Geocaching.

Should there be a "power-trail review board" that looks at all upcoming power trails in the queue to see if it's a worthwhile series? Is there some sort of appeal process members can take when they think they've been unfairly judged on a rule of Geocaching that is not even clear to anyone? We'd love to hear how to solve this problem. There's got to be a way to make it work, without denying them all outright.

We’re STILL not sure what make a high density area! Where in the world did the 600' figure come from, when it's always been 528'? If we hide the caches 600' apart, is that NOW not a dense trail? Isn't it ALWAYS going to be subjective? Until these questions are answered, placing caches is a huge risk to people who work very hard on good caches. Any time you place a decent cache within 1 mile of another, you have to sweat it out that it's suddenly fallen into someone's arbitrary definition of high density. Let's get some clear rules and procedures.

Finally, and I’m sorry this is soooo long, but we have to chime in and say that the whole idea of converting a power trail series to a multi is just ridiculous. Most multi-caches involve grabbing numbers somehow and moving on to the next stage of the cache to get more number, etc., until you’ve built the coordinates to the final cache. We would never want to waste each hide container of our series on a multi cache because each hide is worth its own credit. If we’re making a “clever” hide series, we think each find should be counted separately. That the cacher can also log each one separately and let us (and the future finders) know what they thought about that type of hide. If we want a multi cache, we’ll have the finders get numbers off poles, count trees, look at dates on gravestones, or some other method that doesn’t make it feel like they found a bunch of real caches but don’t get credit for more than one. We like multi’s plenty, but sometimes that’s NOT the purpose of a series of caches in a dense area.

And basically that just goes to show, again, that everyone has their own opinions on these issues, and we can’t/won’t/shouldn’t all have to agree in order to set forth a clear policy. It's going to be on a case-by-case basis, but let's let the approvers know that some power trails CAN be approved. Please remove the blanket guideline that is incredibly vague.

21.9k · March 8, 2005

The truly unfortunate thing here is that by suggesting the owner change the cache to a multi-cache, the reviewer is really asking the fellow to put out a great deal of extra effort on a series of caches that he's already most likely put great effort into creating. This really is unfair to the hider. It's not like the policy change was widely communicated.

I understand that policies will have to change from time to time - that's inevitable. And it's true that no matter how well changes are communicated, there'll be somebody who just doesn't have a clue. Still, to make a change of this sort on a type of series cache that involves great effort on the part of the hider, and then only tell people about it AFTER the fact is really poor, in my opinion.

Your point would be well-taken, had it been true.

The guideline change was a *one word* change... the word "suggest" was changed to "require" in the sentence about a multicache instead of a closely-spaced series. The concept's always been there.

The changes to the guidelines, though minor, were summarized in this announcement when those changes became effective.

The Link to the New Cache Report Form has a statement right below it which alerts the hider to check the guidelines, which were last updated on February 14, 2005.

The Guidelines themselves say the following about keeping up with any changes:

Prior to placing and submitting a cache you are expected to review the following guidelines. In order to post a new cache and submit it for review you must indicate that you have read the guidelines as required. Geocaching is a constantly changing and evolving sport, and as a result these guidelines are subject to change as the sport progresses. Please refer back to these guidelines prior to cache placement to ensure that no changes have been implemented that would adversely affect your planned cache placement.

To reinforce this, each time that a new cache is submitted to the site, the owner is asked to check a box acknowledging that their submission complies with the guidelines.

If you were to embark on something as ambitious as a series of 30 or more caches, wouldn't you want to check those updated guidelines before putting all the time and effort into it?

7.2k · March 8, 2005

...you want to check those updated guidelines before...

So, in other words, we need to hire a legal team to keep up with the changes and what they mean every time we submit a cache?

This is really getting ridiculous.

Folks just want to place caches and enjoy caches other folks put out. It really seems like it's becoming so watered down what you can do. It's already got to the point where when we're scouting locations we have to figure if we can get it listed on the site before we consider if it's going to be a decent cache. That's just wrong.

(Of course, if it's in a Wal-mart parking lot we know we pretty much got a rubber stamp on that. :rolleyes: )

March 8, 2005

The changes to the guidelines, though minor, were summarized in this announcement when those changes became effective.

The Link to the New Cache Report Form has a statement right below it which alerts the hider to check the guidelines, which were last updated on February 14, 2005.

If you were to embark on something as ambitious as a series of 30 or more caches, wouldn't you want to check those updated guidelines before putting all the time and effort into it?

I might, but then again I might not. I'd be quite unlikely to hide a series like this, so I'm not the best person to answer this question. I will say that parsing the fine-print of the guidelines is not what I look forward to before going out caching.

You ban this type of cache and that's a minor change? The change to the wording is minor, but the impact of the change is significant. I assert that the change in wording is pretty darn subtle to someone who didn't hash it out with the other approvers.

What's to stop someone from placing all 30, or 100 or whatever, and then submitting them, a few at a time, for the next few weeks or months, each one a mile or more apart, but eventually filling in most of the same space? It's not that I think that would be a *good* idea - I'm not convinced any of this is a *good* idea - but it would seem to be within the guidelines, and it beats suburban park-n-grabs. And you end up in the same place. Yeah, someone else could place some others along the same path, and the hider might lose a few from that and entropy - but he'd have his power path.

I continue to be amazed y'all play "Whack-a-mole" with the guidelines.

Edited March 8, 2005 by Mr.Benchmark

21.9k · March 8, 2005

I certainly think that a gradual pattern of cache hides, over a period of many months, and particularly by several unaffiliated hiders who are not acting in an orchestrated fashion, would not be at all affected by the paragraph of the guidelines being discussed. A geocacher intent on making her first hide in her favorite park is welcome to go to that park and add a cache 700 feet from the next nearest, even if the park has 20 caches in it already. A series of caches, placed with care at various points of interest around the city, would likewise be just fine. This paragraph gets at the situation where a large number of caches are placed in close proximity and in a relatively short timeframe. They will be dealt with on a case by case basis. As I've noted above, I've been very successful thus far in the limited circumstances (two) in which I've found a need to invoke this guideline. In particular, I ask about the hider's future plans for the area after the first round of hides shows up. In the meantime I've listed several of the other types of hides described above.

Thanks for the laugh about making "whack a mole" changes to the guidelines. A few months ago we were being criticized about not updating the guidelines frequently enough to correspond to actual practice. The guidelines are only updated occasionally -- once a year or so -- and only for good cause after discussion among the volunteer group and Groundspeak staff.

March 8, 2005

Thanks for the laugh about making "whack a mole" changes to the guidelines. A few months ago we were being criticized about not updating the guidelines frequently enough to correspond to actual practice. The guidelines are only updated occasionally -- once a year or so -- and only for good cause after discussion among the volunteer group and Groundspeak staff.

How's that working out? Y'all eliminating the root causes of most of the problems that have been identified? All the changes being viewed in a positive way by most folks?

It sure looks like you whack one problem, only to have a slightly different version of it pop up somewhere else. Virtuals->super abundant park-n-grabs->power paths all seems like a pretty logical progression to me. But then perhaps I'm seeing a pattern where there isn't one, and these are completely random, unrelated aberrations of cache hider behavior. People just discover ways to abuse the rules, you proclaim a ban on the practice, and after a while, all loopholes will be elminated and things will run quite smoothly.

2.6k · March 8, 2005

The guideline change was a *one word* change... the word "suggest" was changed to "require" in the sentence about a multicache instead of a closely-spaced series. The concept's always been there.

C'mon, KA..."yes" to "no" is a one-word, change, too, but a pretty definitive one. What does the number of words have to do with it?

In this case, though, the ambiguous word was left in place, making the change entirely undefinitive. "May suggest" was changed to "may require". But, surely, if they "may" require such a thing, they also "may not"? And may or may not depending on what? Pigeon entrails? Woman's intuition?

You might as well have re-worded it, "...here's a big ol' decision process we left entirely up to individual reviewers' discretion. They're all volunteers, you know..."

21.9k · March 8, 2005

All the changes being viewed in a positive way by most folks?

Well, the loosening of the rules on event caches -- so that the subject matter of the event can be totally unrelated to geocaching -- has been very popular. I understand that was a sore subject in Texas.

You speak as though the only changes are to tighten the rules. Both the 2003 and 2004 updates have also had changes that loosened rules.

2.2k · March 8, 2005

Im not asking for more rules, but I think it would hep if the existing guidelins were more black and white with regards to what is and is not allowed. Leaving the guidleines ambiguous and open to interpretation can cause quite a stir when the approver and the hider interperet them differently.

1.4k · March 8, 2005

(Of course, if it's in a Wal-mart parking lot we know we pretty much got a rubber stamp on that. )

Hehe, sad but true. :lol:

1.5k · March 8, 2005

Powercaching trails and Cache Density.

Interesting subject.

I was wondering how big of an issue this is.

Obviously I'm gonna be on the side of "Yes we want higher Density".

But then some of us are already pretty dense.

I would love to see a 200 cache powercaching trail :lol: , with all the caches point one apart. :lol:

If placed out in the desert, no one should care.

So....

How many powercaching trails have been DISapproved?

How many COMPLAINTS have been received because of approved powertrails?

I just can't imagine someone complaining about something they don't have to go find! :rolleyes:

March 8, 2005

I just can't imagine someone complaining about something they don't have to go find!

It seems that some people are more worried about future impact/response from power trails, and not from whether cachers who don't like them should just ignore them.

This IS a valid issue... and maybe the only solution is to get permission from the land managers before saturating their park/land area with too many caches? Clearly this is a case-by-case thing... some land managers are happy with geocachers... some fear them!

The hard part in some cases is finding the persons in charge of land. I.e. an exercise trail along a creek... is that the parks and recs dept? I really don't know. But, as responsible geocachers, maybe we have a duty to check it out, especially when we're going to create such an impact on their territory.

1.8k · March 8, 2005

...especially when we're going to create such an impact on their territory.

I think the best tactic, to take this a little further, is to make sure there ISN'T a significant impact. This applies, of course, whether it's one cache or fifty along that trail.

Most land managers will welcome any environmentally friendly activity that brings extra people to their parks (and consequently, help them get more funding). The key is convincing them, both in principle (CITO) and fact (sensible cache placement), that this activity is environmentally friendly.

When I did a power-trail in Thousand Oaks last year (my first attempt at finding such a series), I was pleasantly surprised to discover that I didn't have to leave the established trail at all.

When the land managers go out to check on all those caches that pop up on their maps and discover that they have to trample through the brush to get to the cache, that's definitely going to turn them off. On the other hand, when they visit all 20 or 30 caches and they can reach them from the trail, I'm willing to bet their attitudes toward geocaching will not be as sour.

March 8, 2005

After months of scouting a good location, weeks of planning, and 2 days placing hard worked caches, and then told sorry the rules changed. I can say I'm pissed. It would have been nice to have a heads up that the rules will change.

I will say i'm not a numbers person, and will never be. Location, location, location has always been my reward for a cahe. I have made a 96 mile drive to walk a five mile trail and get 30 caches. It made the drive worth it. Multiple caches keep the geocacher on the trail. They take you to very interesting places that I wouldn't have gone on my own. Too many times I would try to do a multi, and find a stage missing. Not fun at all.

Living in a remote area, were only the locals visit your caches then sit for months till someone new joins. I wanted to do my own trail. A 14.5 mile off road forestry trail. No cross roads. Just a winding trail going east to west. The forest service has marked this as an OHV trail. What better place for a "power" trail. Call it what you want. If done right whats the problem? Certainly better than geocaching in walmart parking lots or behind Vons. Come on whats the game all about anyways.

About a year ago I noticed A famous geocaher in Southern California archived all his wonderful caches, only saying "got to political". I thought how can this game get so political? I know now. I won't archive mine. But I will be sadden that a very cool geocaching trail will not happen. I have to agree with Kit Fox, don't bite the hand that feeds you.

24.7k · March 9, 2005

Tevis Clan, when I place a cache I take into account the good rules like no burial. I factor in lessons learned like the imapact a geocacher will have on the area, and place the cache. What I don't worry about is if GC.com will list it. Were I to do a power trail, and I do want to do one along a ridgeline, I'll be perfectly happy if the team lists 1/6 of the caches on each of 6 different listing sites.

38.2k · March 9, 2005

But I will be sadden that a very cool geocaching trail will not happen.

And why won't it happen? You can't tweak it to get it into compliance? You can't work with your approver to see what they would accept? You can't list them on another website?

1.3k · March 9, 2005

I agree with others in this thread who point out that a 20 part multi-cache causes as much (potential) damage to the environment as 20 regular caches. (maybe more because micros CAN be harder to locate) Also, suggesting (or requiring) a multi-cache in favor of traditional caches is, as previously stated, dishonest and dangerous because once land managers figure out that twenty caches (usually clues hidden in micro containers) are actually placed in the park they will be furious that the GC.COM website misled them.

Seeking permission from Land Managers prior to placing caches for the purpose of creating "power trails" is advisable and should satisfy GC.COM and anyone else who might object.

In addition, I must agree that once a single part of a multi cache goes missing, the entire cache is out of commision. Not so with 20 individual caches. In that case, one missing cache is just that. ONE missing cache. A disabled stage of a multi-cache requires IMMEDIATE attention if the intent of the placement was to encourage others to enjoy a beautiful hike. One missing traditional cache could be disabled until you could get to it (one to two weeks) with no impact on the rest of the caches.

I am NOT about numbers, but I must tell you that my family (specifically, my 12 year old son and his friends who frequently cache with us) enjoys finding traditional caches much more than multis or micros.. We love the thrill of the hunt, and (hopefully) the find of a traditional cache. We love to poke around inside the container to see what might be in there, what might be worth trading for, or maybe just leaving treasures for the next cacher to find.

I don't believe that there are any "Power Trails" particularly close to where I live, but I'm going to start looking for them. They look like a LOT of fun!

1.3k · March 9, 2005

We have a park in my general area that has that sort of density. Based largely on the example set in that one park, the entire state park system in New York recently enacted a policy of only 5 caches per park. As far as the parks are concerned, each stage of a multi counts toward the 5 cache total, and they all must be at least .25 apart.
5 caches.

Doesn't matter if its a 10 acre pocket park, or 100,000 acres.

5 caches.

Geocaching is too big to continue under the radar with land managers. Either we police the game ourselves internally, or more and more land managers are going to do it for us.

Mopar,

I think I know the answer from subsequent posts, but do you mean (5) caches per cacher per park or (as I interpreted your post as written) (5) caches per park? There is a huge difference. Please clarify. (If you already have and I missed it in my haste, oops, sorry!)

21.9k · March 9, 2005

New York's State Park policy is 5 caches per cacher (including each waypoint of a multicache) and a .25 mile separation. There are other park systems with limits of one cache per park or two caches per park. You need to be the first in line, or the one lucky enough to be chosen from competing applications.

3.3k · March 9, 2005

Here are the things that get my blood pressure up.

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!

Even with permission, he got shot down.

My opinion is hiding 20 caches along the same stretch of trail is overkill, if I would be diplomatic about it. It's making me reconsider the idea to remove cache finds from cache listings to discourage this kind of activity. I for one would like to see less "3rd find of 20" such logs from these kinds of ideas, thank you.

Jeremy doesn't like geocachers logging multple caches in the same trip, and on the same trail, therefore he wants to restrict the amount of caches that can be placed on a trail to prevent someone from logging 20 to 100 in a day. Now geocachers (who chase numbers) have to drive 100 to 200 miles, visit 10 cities, use 20 gallons of gas, pollute the air with exhaust emissions, to do the same thing.

I spent almost six hours driving through suburbia yesterday, and I found 13 caches for a 120 mile round trip. When I was on a power trail (March 5th) I found 13 caches on the same trail, in under an hour. Logic tells me that power trails are better for the enviroment, than a micro in every shopping center, hidden throughout multiple cities.

This only encourages the placement of piss poor caches in cities. But this is ok because there aren't any land managers to deal with :rolleyes:

Mopar,

Citing your example, New York prefers draconian rules regarding cache placement. This shouldn't effect how caches are placed on trails in other states, where permission has been granted the land managers.

If permission has been granted, why can't a cache be placed every .25 miles?

I'll be perfectly happy if the team lists 1/6 of the caches on each of 6 different listing sites.

You can't list them on another website?

The majority of cachers I know are "brand loyal." They don't want to list caches on other websites, they want to play the game here.

This logic is like Coca Cola giving free samples of Pepsi. This is nothing more than telling customers to take their business elsewhere.

Edited March 9, 2005 by Kit Fox

March 9, 2005

Okay, I just read through 4 pages of discussion on Power Trails and I have this to say:

Keystone Approver, you have done a great job monitoring this discussion.

I mean that. Kudos to you. Keep up the great work as a custodian for this great pastime.

1.3k · March 9, 2005

Okay, I just read through 4 pages of discussion on Power Trails and I have this to say:

Keystone Approver, you have done a great job monitoring this discussion.

I mean that. Kudos to you. Keep up the great work as a custodian for this great pastime.

What? Are you kidding you suck-up? Are you waiting for KA to approve a power trail that you submitted?

Just kidding! KA you are doing an admirable job of keeping the posters on topic and keeping us all in bounds. (And do you think you could approve my cache? It's been over 82 hours! :rolleyes: ) Also, for the most part, the posters have not needed a lot of moderation. Kudos to them as well.

Edit: Time for approval

Edited March 9, 2005 by Trinity's Crew

1.5k · March 9, 2005

Powercaching trails and Cache Density.

So....

How many powercaching trails have been DISapproved?

How many COMPLAINTS have been received because of approved powertrails?

I loved that association.... I never would have gone there....

Check this out.....

Jeremy hates Powercaching trails because it slows the website down when they log all those finds.....lol

oops... sorry Jeremy. :rolleyes: But it sure made me laugh! :lol:

38.2k · March 9, 2005

eremy doesn't like geocachers logging multple caches in the same trip, and on the same trail, therefore he wants to restrict the amount of caches that can be placed on a trail to prevent someone from logging 20 to 100 in a day.

Where the flock did you get this from? :lol: :rolleyes:

1.3k · March 9, 2005

Who's eremy? :rolleyes:

But on that same note, where the FORK did that come form?

3.3k · March 9, 2005

eremy doesn't like geocachers logging multple caches in the same trip, and on the same trail, therefore he wants to restrict the amount of caches that can be placed on a trail to prevent someone from logging 20 to 100 in a day.

Where the flock did you get this from?

You cut the J of when you quoted me.

It's making me reconsider the idea to remove cache finds from cache listings to discourage this kind of activity. I for one would like to see less "3rd find of 20" such logs from these kinds of ideas, thank you.

"These kinds of ideas" refers to power trails.

I have always respected Jeremy and the decisions made here. However, this particular stance on multiple caches (power trails) irks me. I'd much rather push myself, and enjoy a 5 mile trail with 10 to 20 caches, rather than drive around all day, to find micros in parking lots.

Edited March 9, 2005 by Kit Fox

3.1k · March 9, 2005

It's getting silly with these monthly revised rules. I laughed at the suggestion of a 20 stage multi.

Multils around these parts die a lonely death. I certainly won't spend an entire day or weekend to log one. I'm sure others will but at least I'm not crying for a ban on multis.

My suggestion is to quit screwing around with a perfectly good game. It's not as good as it once was and I don't see it getting better any time soon.

March 9, 2005

How about trails for premium members only?

3.3k · March 9, 2005

How about trails for premium members only?

Now that would reduce the number of finders drastically. I have toyed with the idea of a "Puzzle Path". Picture a trail map with nothing but blue question marks.

The only problem is I would hate to hide caches, design puzzles, then find out the caches werent approved because they aren't 100 miles apart.

March 9, 2005

Now that would reduce the number of finders drastically.

Would it?

If I was a non member and saw a trail of 30 caches, I might pay to do them.

March 9, 2005

How about trails for premium members only?

Now that would reduce the number of finders drastically. I have toyed with the idea of a "Puzzle Path". Picture a trail map with nothing but blue question marks.

The only problem is I would hate to hide caches, design puzzles, then find out the caches werent approved because they aren't 100 miles apart.

Since most puzzle caches have bogus coords listed, you could still create your "puzzle path" and have the actual caches within the new guidelines, and leave clues down this Question Mark Path so they'll have to walk the trail :rolleyes:

March 9, 2005

My suggestion is to quit screwing around with a perfectly good game. It's not as good as it once was and I don't see it getting better any time soon.

Yeah, what he said. :rolleyes:

1.3k · March 9, 2005

Jeremy,

You may (or may not) want to limit the number of finds for any given cacher on any given day, but ultimately that upper limit is defined by the cache saturation in a given area and any given cachers ambition.

Is your desire/goal to limit/prohibit "power trails" driven by your concern over recent decisions by some jurisdictions to limit/prohibit cache placements?

If so, that is understandable given the position you are in.

However, a pro-active stance (one in which you involve active, responsible Geocachers) that allays the fears of land managers would be much more productive in solving future disputes. (Let's face it... disguising 10-20 caches as a multi-cache is going to bite you sooner or later.)

The parkland that we are fretting over is designed for public use. The addition of geocaches does not substantially add to the number of people who will frequent these parks. (Even frequently visited caches probably don't average more than two or three logs a day.) If we encourage/sponsor CITO events in any given park, or try to educate the decision makers as to who we are and what we do, we are more likely to win allies than create enemies.

Any thoughts or rebuttals are welcome! (I have my flame retardant PJs on!)

Edit: added _ or try to educate the decision makers as to who we are and what we do,

Edited March 9, 2005 by Trinity's Crew

1.8k · March 9, 2005

How about trails for premium members only?

Now that would reduce the number of finders drastically.

...

The only problem is I would hate to hide caches, design puzzles, then find out the caches werent approved because they aren't 100 miles apart.

That wouldn't do anything to reduce the number of caches in a given area, which is what land managers are most concerned about.

And if you're going through all the trouble to hide a bunch of caches to draw people to an area, why make them subscriber-only or puzzles to restrict them?

I have toyed with the idea of a "Puzzle Path". Picture a trail map with nothing but blue question marks.

You mean like this?

Spending an hour trying to figure out every cache wouldn't draw very many people in. I know I'd be inclined to skip that.

Neither of those options are really viable alternatives to the original scenario, since you'd still have a bunch of caches along a path...and neither addresses the question of what is intrinsically wrong with doing so such that they have to be effectively banned altogether.

March 9, 2005

I'm confused of what the real problem is. Is it about the parks, server space or not liking how some people play the game? :rolleyes:

1.3k · March 9, 2005

Yes, (Depending on who you talk to...)

:rolleyes:

1.5k · March 9, 2005

The problem is NOT server space. I was being sarcastic.

I firmly believe multi caches suck! :rolleyes: They don't reduce the destruction in the area, and they don't reduce the number of caches along the trail. This is the most suggested solution you hear from the admins :lol: .

So, the issue has to be land management. Maybe you can list whatever the maximum number of caches they will approve, and we can pick up the rest for you as we find the approved ones. (on Sunday)

No high density trails?...

I think it is a terrible policy, but that's what the admins feel is right for 'today' .

There are many existing trails out there already that have NO complaints.

I'm confident yours would be a good trail too.

21.9k · March 9, 2005

It's getting silly with these monthly revised rules. I laughed at the suggestion of a 20 stage multi.

Multils around these parts die a lonely death. I certainly won't spend an entire day or weekend to log one. I'm sure others will but at least I'm not crying for a ban on multis.

My suggestion is to quit screwing around with a perfectly good game. It's not as good as it once was and I don't see it getting better any time soon.

Hello,

Permit me to note two facts for the record. The first fact is that the history of guideline changes is as follows:

1. The guidelines were revised in mid-February 2005.

2. The guidelines were revised in November 2003.

I could go back further, but hopefully most will see my point.

Second, please note what the reviewers have said about suggested solutions when concerns under the cache saturation rule have been identified. In the case at issue, a 20-stage multicache was not the solution suggested. Or in the case I've described here in Pennsylvania, I worked with a hider to make what I regarded as minor tweaks to an eight-cache series. Five stood well on their own, but when combined with three micros clustered nearby in a cemetery, this raised saturation concerns. I worked with the hider to transform the three micros into a multicache ending with an ammo box in the woods behind the cemetery. It is getting great reviews and the overall experience of the five standalone caches plus the multicache as a "finale" seems to be quite positive. There are any number of ways to address the saturation issues as they are identified. Each case will vary a bit due to the unique characteristics of the local area, and the pattern of hides submitted for review.

1.5k · March 9, 2005

What? Lot's of words and NO answer.

How many point one caches next to each other are saturation? 8, 20 or 50?

What is allowed?

21.9k · March 9, 2005

The answer to your question is 8, 20 and 50... depending on the area and the pattern of caches submitted for review.

24.7k · March 9, 2005

....There are any number of ways to address the saturation issues as they are identified....

The first step is to answer the question of just what the heck cache saturation is. If everyone knows it when they see it, then everyone is going to see it different. This thread will then be the first of many. 528' is fairly clear as a rule. We don't get a lot of threads. WOW! isn't, a lot of threads result.

Edited March 9, 2005 by Renegade Knight

5.2k · March 9, 2005

How about if we just increase the proximity limit from 0.1 mile to 0.25 or even 0.5 mile. I think with that kind of limit, few parks would ever get overcrowded enough for the land manager to be concerned.

1.5k · March 9, 2005

The answer to your question is 8, 20 and 50... depending on the area and the pattern of caches submitted for review.

And THAT is exactly what makes everyone mad. :rolleyes: :lol:

Switch chairs and see it from the cache hiders seat.

It is Very arbitrary.... very, very arbitrary.

climbing down off my soapbox now.... gotta go finish my 1 cache powercaching trail.

Edited March 9, 2005 by ventura_kids

1.8k · March 9, 2005

climbing down off my soapbox now.... gotta go finish my 1 cache powercaching trail.

Steve, will there be a bonus cache if I complete the series? :rolleyes:

1.5k · March 9, 2005

climbing down off my soapbox now.... gotta go finish my 1 cache powercaching trail.

Steve, will there be a bonus cache if I complete the series?

NO! That would be saturation. :lol:

March 9, 2005

So, the issue has to be land management. Maybe you can list whatever the maximum number of caches they will approve,

When I visited the local Ranger Station to buy an adventure pass. I explained to them why I needed one(geocaching). They said, they never heard of geocaching and were very interested. I have had a ranger log two of my caches, not a geocacher, he shared his delight in finding more. No one has ever mentioned limits in the National Forest. As a former volunteer for the foerest service, I don't see the issue here. They invite off road vehicles to ride here, why not a cache trail along the way?

1.3k · March 9, 2005

I am not SURE that the administrators of GC.COM WERE advocating a multicache in this particular instance, but I certainly got that impression.

Many of these posts, and the guideline itself, lead one to believe that if you place too many traditionals (or micros) along a defined path (or trail) the approver MAY REQUIRE (changed from MAY SUGGEST) that you place a multi-cache.

In any event. how many is too many? How many stages are too many when setting up a multi? How many traditional caches constitute "too many" caches when placing caches for others to find?

March 9, 2005

Arizona does not need a powertrail is what the CoAdmin said to me!They are more trouble than they are worth! I think that should be judged on a case by case basis!

Even I think powertrails might not be a good idea in some area's!In the area I wanted to place it and how they were going be placed I believe my trail would not hurt the area

at all!I'm very willing to work with the local land managers to keep them happy!

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