Power Trails!

[+ventura_kids]

time to sleep.

Edited March 9, 2005 by ventura_kids

[+Renegade Knight]

I saw that...

 

It's just not approvable here.

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

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.

Keep messing with it. It honestly doesn't matter how many you chase away with your changes because new ones are coming in all the time.

 

I've been doing this four years now and I don't like what I'm seeing.

 

.25 miles is the new rule, what will it be next year? Any ideas?

[+wimseyguy]

Arizona does not need a powertrail is what the CoAdmin said to me!They are more trouble than they are worth!

Assuming I'm not quoting something taken out of context, that's a pretty broad statement to make about a very large state with an awful lot of open space; and much of that rocks and desert.

[+Mopar]

.25 miles is the new rule, what will it be next year? Any ideas?

.25 isn't a GC.com rule. It's part of a New York state parks rule, which I would assume applies equally to caches in that state listed on GC.com, Navicache, Terracaching, and any other listing sites.

It came about after they noticed one of "their" parks had several hundred caches crammed into it, and they decided that caches every 528ft was too much.

 

GC.com is listing thousands of new caches a week. At that rate, you can be sure land-managers everywhere will eventually take notice.

[+AtoZ]

Well after reading this off and on I have finally figured out what a power trail is. I guess I and a friend have done something sumular but it is 12 caches for one find so it is really just a big multi. But what I do not understand and I ask an approve to comment on this as I have had a email from a my local approver when I joking said i was going to put a cache evey 9.1 miles in a square mile area. He came back with the make it a multi. So what is the differance if you have a multi with twelve stage or 12 diffeant caches. It still has the same cache density. So what is the dirrerance????????????

cheers

[+Mopar]

Welcome Indiana!

I see in another thread that a 2000 acre park there decided 50 caches was too many and is actively removing them. They are going to allow a max of 5 caches in the park. What state will be next?

[+sbell111]

I think we've gotten way off topic from the original post. As I read it, the land manager was cool with the proposed power trail. If the park is OK with it, how does it affect caches in other parks or states?

[+AuntieWeasel]

Welcome Indiana!

I see in another thread that a 2000 acre park there decided 50 caches was too many and is actively removing them. They are going to allow a max of 5 caches in the park. What state will be next?

I call bullpoop!

 

I downloaded the new Indiana state policy, and...

 

Caches are limited to 25 per park, or the number of acres/200, whichever is smaller. No one person can hide more than two in any single park, and a one-year permit is required for each (I don't know if there's fee). If I've interpreted their language correctly, one permit covers a five-stage multi (ha! so they did figure out multis!). Part of the license requirement is that the hider visits the cache once every six months for a maintenance check and removes contraband. Virtuals needn't be licensed.

 

Okay, it isn't the happy-go-lucky freewheelin' days of geocaching past, but I don't think it's all that bad. It's probably inevitable that geocaching will mature into a sport that has restrictions and qualifications (or die, but I don't think that's likely). Something that is licensed is a little grown-up for my taste, but I can see the appeal to land managers. I could live with it. And it sure would cut down on crappy, neglected caches.

[+briansnat]

Welcome Indiana!

I see in another thread that a 2000 acre park there decided 50 caches was too many and is actively removing them. They are going to allow a max of 5 caches in the park. What state will be next?

50 caches are quite a lot in a 2,000 acre park . Parks of that size around here have around 5-6 caches. You'd practially be tripping over them with 50 caches in a park that size.

Edited March 9, 2005 by briansnat

[+Haffy]

This topic makes me appreciate the great state of Maine where we have approximately about 600 caches in the WHOLE state. You can have all those lamp post micros. I'll take a nice 2 or 3 mile hike for a simple cache any day if the view you get is worth it. And let me tell you there are a lot of views to be had in this state. Just my 2 cents.

[+Mopar]

Welcome Indiana!

I see in another thread that a 2000 acre park there decided 50 caches was too many and is actively removing them. They are going to allow a max of 5 caches in the park. What state will be next?

50 caches are quite a lot in a 2,000 acre park . Parks of that size around here have around 5-6 caches. You'd practially be tripping over them with 50 caches in a park that size.

Really, Brian?

Actually, the density of the Indiana park in question looks no different then the Harriman, NY area:

 

(btw, since the GC maps only id 25 caches max, I don't really know how many more archived caches are in either park)

 

Caches in both parks meet the .1 mile gc.com guidelines; and both parks have been cited by land-managers as a reason for stricter density laws on a state-wide level.

 

I really do think we as a whole need to rethink and define what's acceptable cache density.

Maybe like Lil Devil suggested it should be changed to .25 or even .5 miles.

Maybe a better way would be to leave it at .1 miles between caches, but a max of X caches per square mile.

As LB&MM pointed out, there are a lot more rules now then 4yrs ago. MOST of those rules seem to be a result of land manager complaints. If we don't do something ourselves, where is geocaching going to be in 4 more years?

[+Marky]

Actually, those two maps aren't on the same scale, so by my estimates, the top map is 4 times as cache dense as the bottom map.

 

--Marky

[+Mopar]

Actually, those two maps aren't on the same scale, so by my estimates, the top map is 4 times as cache dense as the bottom map.

 

--Marky

Oppps, you are correct (thought I zoomed in equally). Still, I'm sure Brian will admit that there are parts of Harriman with the same density level. Here's what that area looked like last year when concerns of cache density first started coming up:

 

I will admit once more, the one example of a power trail I did was quite enjoyable. For the most part they were not film canisters tossed every 600ft along the trail. Most were traditional caches or decent micros and they avged more like every .5-.7 miles for 10 miles. Any day I get to hike 10 miles in a beautiful SoCal canyon wearing shorts and a Tshirt while back home is getting 25inches of snow is a good day in my book.

Still, I'd rather see some sort of limits put in place here and now, then have places like that severely limit or ban geocaching in the future.

[+Mopar]

I think we've gotten way off topic from the original post. As I read it, the land manager was cool with the proposed power trail. If the park is OK with it, how does it affect caches in other parks or states?

Actually, I think it's staying pretty close to the original topic of if power trails should be approved or not.

 

And unless I missed something, the OP never said he had permission from the land-manager, he said he was told his powertrail wouldn't be approved even WITH permission.

 

Maybe this would be a solution. Maybe he should go to the ranger's office, with a map of all the caches in that park and all his proposed new caches, and SEE what the land-manager thinks. Of course, if he did do this, there is also a chance AZ would end up passing laws about cache density like so many other states are.

[+sbell111]

In that case, I'm going to resort to the old 'more rules are bad' argument.

[+tozainamboku]

I have to agree with the guideline that just because you can place a cache every 600 ft. doesn't mean you should. I recently did one of the power caching trails in Palm Springs that has been cited in this thread as an example of a good power caching trail. Frankly, I think I would have enjoyed it more if there were just 4 or 5 caches instead of 30. Its the type of hike I would have enjoyed without any caches. With 30 caches, we spent so much time running from one cache to the next that I didn't really get to enjoy the desert except for when we stopped at the oasis for a snack. And it took three days to log all my finds. I tried to write something for each cache, but soon it became cut and paste logs. I may have enjoyed it more if I had hiked alone at my own pace, but this was the type of hike that I would prefer to share with friends and at least I can say that I did that. Perhaps I should have just logged a few of the caches (those where I made a trade) and skipped the others but since I visited all the caches I think I ought to log them.

 

There are many power caching trails here in Southern California, so I will probably be doing some more but I suspect that I may find some where I will ask "Why? I would have done this hike with fewer caches and enjoyed it more." That said, I know many of the cachers that have argued in favor of power trails in this thread. I understand that geocaching is an activity that appeals to many people for different reasons. For some the appeal is numbers. And not just finding many caches but also hiding caches that will get many visitors. The power trails seem to be very successful in attracting both numbers addicts and those who prefer a hike over urban park and grabs. I hope this rule is not meant to ban all power caching trails but just to moderate them a bit so we don't have so many with 30 caches in 3 miles. I myself have been planing a series of caches on a trail that currently has only one cache on it. I guess I will now have to get a ruling from a local approver as to how many caches I can place there.

 

BTW, I don't see the conflict between the .1 mile rule and an additional limitation on the total number of caches on a trail. Consider a 2 mile trail with 5 caches. They don't have to be .4 miles apart. It might make a better experience to have a couple .1 miles apart and then a gap of a mile before the next one. In fact, depending on the trail, you might be able to get the approver to allow some caches even closer that .1 miles apart.

 

Perhaps a formula for the number of caches on a trail or in a park would make the guideline seem less arbitrary. I like the square root of the number of caches that would be allowed by the .1 mile rule. However, I can see why the total number of caches is left to the discretion of the approver. There are too many variables to give a formula (e.g. hiking trail vs. biking or driving, rural/wildnerness vs. urban/subrban, additional restrictions from the local land manager, etc.)

[+Kit Fox]

It doesn't really matter (to me) if a powertrail has a 1 cache every .1 miles or even further apart like every .25 to .5 miles. I'll still have fun if the area is scenic and the hides are creative.

 

All I want is a clear answer as to what is within the new guidelines. Say I hide caches on a 3 mile long fire road, how many caches is too many to hide. I didn't plan on placing caches every .1 miles. I was considering a cache ever .25 to .5 miles. I just want to know if it would be approved before I went to all the trouble to hide the caches.

Edited March 10, 2005 by Kit Fox

[+carleenp]

In addition to my previous comments in this thread, I am not sure what to think of power trails because I suspect that I would enjoy doing one (I enjoy all caching), but don't really want to see one near me in my territory (the NIMBY factor). I also suspect that unless done well, I would appreciate a trail and the cache(s) more if there were less caches involved. I do think my logging of various scenarios would be like this though (all are based on the idea of the same decently long trail):

 

(1) A nice long trail with one cache at the end: My log would likely state how I planned for the cache and a bunch about the trip to it. I would comment on the great hike I had and post many pictures of things I saw along the way. I wouldn't care that I got one cache out of it because I planned for it to be an adventure for that one cache. I would love that adventure even if the cache at the end had issues or I had a DNF. The cache could end up on my top 5-10% list.

 

(2) A nice long trail with 3-4 caches: I would likely log each with info about how I planned for the caches. I would appreciate each and post a pic or two that fit it and maybe link to the other cache logs. I would be happy that I had a great hike and got several caches on the way. A good adventure! Maybe the last one would make my fav list. If a loop trail, I would appreciate that the caches made me walk it.

 

(4) A nice long trail with 8 caches on it: I would likely log each with a short statement of how I planned the trip (cut and paste) and about the trail. I might post a pic on one or two, but probably not because logging would take up my time. I would have had fun, but I would get lazy logging and feel less adventure to it. So a personalized log would be only for caches that stood out in some way. A loop trail would still encourage more appreciation.

 

(5) A nice trail with caches every .1 to .2 miles (or think over 10-15): I would do it with the idea of doing a "power trail" in mind. That means I likely would take few to no pics or have time to load them up to pages if I did because of logging. I would find the caches and come home and leave very short (likely cut and paste) logs on each cache unless something stood out to me. I would have fun when doing it, but be annoyed when logging. In the end, it would have been an experience that I liked (because I don't go caching for angst), but it would likely not have been outstanding to me unless it was set out very well with with interesting caches at each stop or I did it with fun friends. Then the logs might get more personalized. I don't think a loop trail would make much difference at that point.

 

So, I don't see the need for a power trial. I will go the trail either way, but the fewer caches will actually make me appreciate it more because the work for the fewer caches is part of the adventure and the adventure is not as interrupted. That is more satisfying in the end. If a power trail is done, I suggest making it a good one. Make the caches unique, interesting and fulfilling. Place the caches at good spots, make some hard finds and vary the types. Then people like me will say "OK, this is cool" and the logs will change to not cut and paste, but to logs with pics and descriptions and thanks. But an easy cache every .1 is begging for cut and paste logs because people likely don't have time to comment and found nothing unique about the caches. Do you want a quantity of cut and paste logs or a quality of logs with pics?

 

I think I would have fun on a power trial because I don't go caching for angst and make it fun, but the most fun is a great adventure. And a cache every .1 is not as much of an adventure as it is just another day of finding caches in a high density area. Making that fun is more work for the finder. I can do that and have done it, but I prefer the scenic trails to have less. And my best caching experiences have been a great adventure for 1-3 caches. Only once have I rated a high density numbers run as a great adventure, and it had unique characteristics that I would have to put work into to duplicate on a power trail.

[+ventura_kids]

Nice.

I too would react differently to each scenario....

A long hike with one cache at the end. - I would not go.

A long hike with 3 or 4 caches on the way. - I would go if it was near my house, and I ran out of urban caches to grab.

A long hike with a cache every point one - I would bring friends along and we would all have a great time.

[+horsegeeks]

Nice.

I too would react differently to each scenario....

A long hike with one cache at the end. - I would not go.

A long hike with 3 or 4 caches on the way. - I would go if it was near my house, and I ran out of urban caches to grab.

A long hike with a cache every point one - I would bring friends along and we would all have a great time.

I'm just being nosy, what do you consider a long hike?

[+Mopar]

Nice.

I too would react differently to each scenario....

A long hike with one cache at the end. - I would not go.

A long hike with 3 or 4 caches on the way. - I would go if it was near my house, and I ran out of urban caches to grab.

A long hike with a cache every point one - I would bring friends along and we would all have a great time.

I'm just being nosy, what do you consider a long hike?

A long hike for VK? Anything over 100ft!

[+Wander Lost]

I do think my logging of various scenarios would be like this though (all are based on the idea of the same decently long trail):

 

*full text deleted for brevity*

I knew there was a reason I liked you!!!!! We think alike, you just have a better way of expressing those thoughts.

[+Team Perks]

A long hike for VK? Anything over 100ft!

Dang!! You beat me to it!

[+Allen_L]

A long hike with one cache at the end.

Not only will I do that, I have. In fact I drove 350 miles (one way) to do that at Virgin Falls Cache. I have also placed single geocaches like this.

 

A long hike with 3 or 4 caches on the way.

I have done that is well.

 

A long hike with a cache every .1 mile

No trails around here like that, but most likely I would log the first one and the one longest distance from the trailhead.

[+horsegeeks]

Nice.

I too would react differently to each scenario....

A long hike with one cache at the end. - I would not go.

A long hike with 3 or 4 caches on the way. - I would go if it was near my house, and I ran out of urban caches to grab.

A long hike with a cache every point one - I would bring friends along and we would all have a great time.

Me again. Last week we walked 4 miles for an ammo box, 5 miles for a bison tube and 5 miles for a virtual, then went with a friend and found 19 (3 DNFs) two hours south. We are trying to get some of the long walks done before the leaves return. It would have been neat to have some more along each trail to find.

[+Marky]

I recently did one of the power caching trails in Palm Springs that has been cited in this thread as an example of a good power caching trail. Frankly, I think I would have enjoyed it more if there were just 4 or 5 caches instead of 30. Its the type of hike I would have enjoyed without any caches. With 30 caches, we spent so much time running from one cache to the next that I didn't really get to enjoy the desert except for when we stopped at the oasis for a snack.

So here's my beef with the idea that a high denisty of caches spoils your enjoyment of the trail:

 

You could have picked 3 to 4 caches spread out along the trail just as easily as you picked all 30. If you know that you prefer this, then why do all 30? Why not save some for another time? Is the trail not worth a return trip? I bet it is different during different seasons, and would be enjoyable to revisit.

 

Just because you don't like a high cache density doesn't mean others don't. Why not taylor your caching to the way you like, and let others taylor their caching to what they enjoy. I don't see why both camps can't live peacefully together.

 

There is a trail the Joani and I hid some caches on (that already has a bunch of caches). Since it isn't a loop trail, I have been recommending that people skip every other cache on the way in and hit them on the way out. That way, you don't have a long hike back out without any caches. However, some people might enjoy the long hike back without caching. The great thing is that you get to do what you want. Nobody is twisting your arm to go caching (at least, I hope no one is).

 

If people don't like logging 30 caches in a day, don't find 30 caches in a day. Nobody is forcing you to do something in some particular way. I don't see why we need rules that prevent people from doing what they like to do, if it isn't a detriment to the pastime.

 

You could even use the ignore list to 'thin out' powercaching trails and then unignore 3 to 4 caches at a time. That way, you wouldn't see them on your gps until after you had found the previous group. There are other great tools for filtering out caches that you don't currently want to do.

 

--Marky

[+caderoux]

In New Orleans, we have three natural "power trails" with caches by multiple cachers - Lakelawn Cemetery, Lake Pontchartrain south shore, City Park circumference.

 

Never raised a comment or a problem before - I don't think anyone here views them as power trails. Bamboozle once placed 18 caches in a single day around City Park and like three other sites further to the east (most not much more than the .1 mile limit apart). Most people drive it, though - and the variation and difficulties of some of the hides makes it difficult to complete in a single day.

 

I personally think the "make a multi" is not appropriate in every situation, every cache has it's own merits, and I know our approver got it right.

 

In particular, advocates of the multi are right about the multi maintenance problem, but have ignored the finder's perspective. Multi's require the same maintenance and the same effort to find. The problem is that with a multi, you conceivably have to make n days/trips to an n-stage multi if the next stage is always out of commission (assuming power trail-type proximity - each day is 1 trip, since obviously the caches are close, otherwise a power trail would not be the point of debate here). With a n-cache traditional, each cache found is immediately removed, so assuming that each day/trip you get only 50% (or whatever your find rate is - 50% is pretty bad, I would think) of the caches, then the number of days/trips is log n. Obviously the decay rate (this is the old half-life problem) to complete the cache is pretty much always better (unless your find rate is real bad) for multiple traditionals instead of a multi - which accounts for the gut feeling that most cachers have about being able to complete the run quicker if it's structured that way. You could work out a full statistic assuming random rate of muggling etc, but it should stand up pretty well. Breaking it up into several multis does help in finder satisfaction - but each is subject to the same effect.

 

Also, making it a open book multi (in terms of exposing all the coordinates at once or in bursts) where the stages are not in a mandatory sequence can also eliminate the problem to a certain degree, but this requires a design of a reliable starting point which always has all the coordinates or the users being sure to have the coordinates of all the caches rom the web page before arriving at the first location. I would not have a problem with either of these techniques - although unless redundancy is built in and "Find" requires every stage, they will still not have as good of a decay rate - however the trips will decay similarly to the multi-traditional approach. Unfortunately, having so many stages will still hinder the hiding of other caches according to my reading of the guidelines, and this is a drawback of the multi - it places a strain on the approvers to keep track of the stages or on hiders who don't realize they may overlap a multi.

 

With the rule change, I don't know if the approver would have done things differently or not. I hope not for our cases.

 

This is not meant to be an advocacy for or against power trails - just for some reasonable judgement in cases which do not violate the spirit of the guidelines.

[+carleenp]

Something I mentioned in an earlier post (not my last one) was the concern for the future. I hate to see a power trail shut out an area for other caches. In some areas that might not be a problem, but in others it could. Here in Nebraska a power trail of sorts is forming in a smaller city where some very active cachers have started running out of room and are expanding by placing hides along a long bike trail. We don't have the large public open spaces with trails that other areas have largely because rural parks tend to run in square mile sections with only one trail. So the new trail is "prime caching real estate" so to speak. The trail here is "accidental" in the sense that it is not planned, it is just a new open space for them to place caches in. So a new one pops up every week, often by different cachers, or the same person simply looking for a new spot to put a cache. What if one of them had decided to fill it up all at once with a power trail of 30 caches when it opened? Then the others would be stuck with less places to hide.

 

So I think it can really depend on the area. I don't mind the accidental trail in Nebraska, but could see why other local cachers would be annoyed if one person filled the whole area up at once and shut them out of placing their own caches there in one fell swoop. As it is now, it is filling slowly by several people over time so there is room for others to keep placing caches. Of course that is likely unique to that area.

[+wimseyguy]

In New Orleans, we have three natural "power trails" with caches by multiple cachers - Lakelawn Cemetery, Lake Pontchartrain south shore, City Park circumference.

 

Oooh I can't wait! My brother is moving there in a few months, and I know I'll be visiting a lot. (Did I mention that I like great food? )

I'll also ditto Marky's comment that just because they are there doesn't mean you have to hunt them all, especially if it will diminish your experience. It's the same thought as the complaints about there not being enough 'long hike to the cache' experiences; don't park so close! I generally park as far away from the entry to a store as I can, just to get the extra 500' of walking in when I can.

You have the power to make these choices. Don't take away the choice of those who do prefer the power trail experience.

Edited March 11, 2005 by wimseyguy

[+Tevis Clan]

Don't take away the choice of those who do prefer the power trail experience

Too late, they did. We can't get any trail approved, even if further apart. No trails Period. But it's ok to make it a multi, go figure. Whats up with that?

[+horsegeeks]

Don't take away the choice of those who do prefer the power trail experience

Too late, they did. We can't get any trail approved, even if further apart. No trails Period. But it's ok to make it a multi, go figure. Whats up with that?

I think the theory is if the park managers see only one cache (multi) rather than 6 caches it will take away the notion that goecachers are trying to take over the park and destroy the environment. HMMMMM

[+Tevis Clan]

How could geocaching "destroy the environment" on an approved OHV trail in the National Forest. It should be on a case by case situation.

[+GarminArmin]

This power caching trail we did this past Sunday was the highlight of our caching experience this year. Are you listening Jeremy? Enough said…

 

[+horsegeeks]

This power caching trail we did this past Sunday was the highlight of our caching experience this year. Are you listening Jeremy? Enough said…

 

That looks fantastic

[+Team GPSaxophone]

This power caching trail we did this past Sunday was the highlight of our caching experience this year. Are you listening Jeremy? Enough said…

 

Ah...so instead of getting to enjoy finding caches hidden by several different hiders, each having a unique style, you just ran from cache to cache finding the equivalent of lame lamp post micros instead. Nice

[WH]

To each their own. Just because you wouldnt find a power trail fun, doesnt mean that others don't.

 

Then again, this narrow minded way of thinking doesnt suprise me considering the source.

[Jeremy]

This power caching trail we did this past Sunday was the highlight of our caching experience this year. Are you listening Jeremy? Enough said…

I'm appalled. Thanks for asking.

[+Kit Fox]

Ah...so instead of getting to enjoy finding caches hidden by several different hiders, each having a unique style, you just ran from cache to cache finding the equivalent of lame lamp post micros instead. Nice [/color]

 

The majority of those caches are small containers up to ammo boxes. The caches were hidden be three different cachers/teams. If you look at the TOPO map, this is no walk in the park.

 

Here is the description of the trail, there isn't one lampost micro.

 

One of the Pushawalla Power Path Series

 

 

This scenic desert hiking trail follows an uplifted section of the Mission Creek Fault, which is part of the San Andreas Fault system. It returns via a section of sandy desert wash.

At the end of the trail is the beautiful Pushawalla Palms Oasis, located in a deep canyon carved by flash floods over the years. Here the trees obtain water from where seismic action has breached underlying rock and directed water to the surface.

 

Best suited for early morning or evening hikes, this trail loop is 5 miles, and difficulty level ranges from easy to moderate. Having hiked this trail both ways, it is recommended that you start your hunt in reverse order as it is somewhat easier to take the high route in. It can take about four hours to complete. TAKE PLENTY OF WATER! Enjoy the unique desert Flora and Fauna along the way.

 

This trail has been on my to do list for quite some time. Note the interesting geological features to see.

Edited March 11, 2005 by Kit Fox

[+GarminArmin]

Ah...so instead of getting to enjoy finding caches hidden by several different hiders, each having a unique style, you just ran from cache to cache finding the equivalent of lame lamp post micros instead. Nice

BTW, I failed to mention that this power trail was not in a Wal-Mart parking lot. Each cache had its own unique hide. The power caching trail took us upon a mountain ridge and down into a real true to life desert oasis with palm trees and water then back out again. This is a far cry from lamp post hides.

[+Tevis Clan]

To keep up with the cost of bandwidth, machine upgrades and maintainence, and maintain our inventory of frozen burritos and Eazy Cheese, we need to move to a subscription basis for newer features for the web site. Ultimately it benefits you since we can better provide new ideas and features to improve the Geocaching experience.

I think someone's eating too much cheese

Edited March 11, 2005 by Tevis Clan

[+sbell111]

I think that the lessen to be learned is never, ever call anything a power trail.

 

Seriously, I think something like this would be fun. Perhaps it would get my lazy butt hiking more. I don't see how having a power trail would reduce my enjoyment of a hike. Everything to be seen would still be there, right?

 

The issue of approved power trails hurting caching in other areas is a bunch of hooey, in my opinion.

[+ibycus]

Ah...so instead of getting to enjoy finding caches hidden by several different hiders, each having a unique style, you just ran from cache to cache finding the equivalent of lame lamp post micros instead. Nice

I don't know the age of these caches, but in my experience, after enough finders come through, a cache becomes unique regardless of who placed it. Even if they start out identical, they each have a unique history, so the contents, and even the precise way in which they are hidden becomes less and less dependent on who hid it in the first place.

 

As far as power trails in general go, my feeling is that as long as they are each a decent cache in their own right, I have no problem with it.

Why not make it a multi?

Personally I don't like long multis without a page for each cache, and no it isn't because of the numbers. The reason is quite a bit simpler than that. I'm lazy, and disorganized. With a page for each cache, it is quite a bit easier to search for the cache, and to load up the GPS. With caches where you need the cache page on the trail with you, again you need to be more organized in advance if you want to actually find the darned thing.

[+tozainamboku]

This power caching trail we did this past Sunday was the highlight of our caching experience this year. Are you listening Jeremy? Enough said…

 

Funny, that was the same I hike I said I would have enjoyed more with fewer caches. However, I would have enjoyed a lot less had I not done it with Mark and the others. BTW, the trail was placed by 3 different teams from the area. Each placed 10 of the caches. The hides were all ammo cans or decon containers. Again, what makes this a great trail is not the number of caches or the particular types of hides but the great desert trail (including an isolated palm oasis).

 

I suspect TPTB are cracking down on power trails for the same reason that they cracked down on virtuals - they just became too common so that in some areas they pushed out other types of caches. A mix of caches is what keeps this game interesting. I just wish that Jeremy would change the guideline to limit micros in lamposts in strip mall parking lots (I would also like to ban puzzles that use the resistor code - there are too many of these as well ).

 

In any case, I would hope that approvers could make exceptions to guidelines when a power trail or a virtual would be something that many cachers is their area would like to do (if there aren't too many of them in the area already).

[+Kit Fox]

Funny, that was the same I hike I said I would have enjoyed more with fewer caches.

 

What the majority of us (pro trails) have not got from TPTB is how many caches are now acceptable on a path, road or trail. Every .1 miles is not allowed. what about every .25, or every .5 to 1 mile. ?

 

Are 3 caches on a 3 mile long trail approvable, how about 6 caches on the same trail?

 

When will this question be answered ?

[+tozainamboku]

Funny, that was the same I hike I said I would have enjoyed more with fewer caches.

 

What the majority of us (pro trails) have not got from TPTB is how many caches are now acceptable on a path, road or trail. Every .1 miles is not allowed. what about every .25, or every .5 to 1 mile. ?

 

Are 3 caches on a 3 mile long trail approvable, how about 6 caches on the same trail?

 

When will this question be answered ?

In my previous post, I humourously suggested the square root of the number of caches that could be placed per the .1 mile rule. I also pointed out that a formula like this might not work because there would be other factors. Eg. park rules, bike or drive vs. hike, etc.) It might just be that we will have to get pre-approval for any plans to place a series of caches in the same trail.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Funny, that was the same I hike I said I would have enjoyed more with fewer caches.

 

What the majority of us (pro trails) have not got from TPTB is how many caches are now acceptable on a path, road or trail. Every .1 miles is not allowed. what about every .25, or every .5 to 1 mile. ?

 

Are 3 caches on a 3 mile long trail approvable, how about 6 caches on the same trail?

 

When will this question be answered ?

Why does there need to be a hard answer? We have guidelines for a reason. If the cache reviewer feels your 5 cache submissions in one day is saturating an area, he or she may require that you make it a multi cache.

 

Why not place one cache there and wait? After a month, you could place another cache a half mile away to encourage people to return to the area. After another month goes by, place another cache. This way, people will make return trips to see this area again and again. You also give others the chance to place caches nearby.

 

With a power trail, someone's only going to visit one time. They'll never come back to see the area again.

[+Team Perks]

What the majority of us (pro trails) have not got from TPTB is how many caches are now acceptable on a path, road or trail. Every .1 miles is not allowed. what about every .25, or every .5 to 1 mile. ?

 

Are 3 caches on a 3 mile long trail approvable, how about 6 caches on the same trail?

 

When will this question be answered ?

Bill, I think your question has already been answered. The answer is: It won't be answered.

 

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

However, I think the solution is here: Instead of hiding 30 caches all at once, gather a few friends together to "informally" populate the trail over a few months. Sounds like that would far more easily pass muster. (Sorry, Keystone, you said it!)

 

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.

[+AuntieWeasel]

With a power trail, someone's only going to visit one time. They'll never come back to see the area again.

Says who? There's a really excellent state forest near me with three caches in it. I did it in three separate trips. Come to think of it, I did that at another nearby state forest, too. On the other hand, there's another with four in it, three traditionals and a multi, and pushed myself to do all of them in one trip and came home happy and stumbling tired.

 

We have many large parks with only one cache in each around here. Seems like a waste to me.

[+Kit Fox]

With a power trail, someone's only going to visit one time. They'll never come back to see the area again.

 

It took me five trips to this wonderful little trail in order to log all the caches. Time contraints, solving puzzles and honey dos prevented me from logging them all at once. Every time I went back to the trail, I enjoyed the scenery, and the hunt for caches.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/map/getmap.aspx?...&lon=-118.10448