Power Trails

[+TEAM 360]

For a long time now, a very well-known cacher here in Arizona has been trying to start a Power Trail, but keeps getting turned down by TPTB on the issues of cache saturation, even though the caches would be .10 away from each other (completely within the guidelines for distance).

 

In light of the recent gas prices, I feel there should be looser restrictions on placing Power Trail caches. It could be a great financial help to cachers if they could park the car and walk to find many caches, rather than drive around town...

 

We have all seen threads about gas prices affecting how OFTEN you cache, but do you find yourself hitting more Power Trails, or concentrating on cache-dense areas in order to save more time and money? Or do you just go out and hit one or two, then go home?

[+Jhwk]

Although I'm not "all about the numbers" I do tend to concentrate my cache hunts on more target rich environments. Of course, I have cleared out all the caches within 37 miles of home, so any hunt becomes a caching trip right off the bat.

 

never really understood the whole "power trail" restriction anyway. Maybe you could put out 1/3 of the caches over a period of time and then expand a few months later. Of course that is how to get around the restriction versus answering the underlying problem.

[+briansnat]

We have all seen threads about gas prices affecting how OFTEN you cache, but do you find yourself hitting more Power Trails, or concentrating on cache-dense areas in order to save more time and money? Or do you just go out and hit one or two, then go home?

 

I'm just as happy finding one cache on a 5 mile walk as I would be finding 50 in that stretch. Actually I'd be happier with the one cache because I'm out there to enjoy the outdoors and I think stopping every 500 feet would be a distraction. I know nobody is forcing me to stop at every one, but hey, I'm a geocacher. If there's a cache there I'm looking for it.

[+treasure_hunter]

Well.. Nobody said that there would have to be a cache every .10 mi. Only that the restrictions be loosened up a little!

 

I recently experienced a similar problem when hiding caches along a trail! I dont understand how you can make a rule that says caches can be placed every .10 mi but then turn around and say you can saturate the area??? I dont understand, I agree that this rule should be loosened up a little!

[+Mule Ears]

Other than numbers, what's the benefit of finding, say, 20 cookie-cutter caches in the course of a 2-mile walk? I don't get it. The power-trail concept just supports the numbers mindset--if the angst-ridden threads here are any indication, that mindset is the major threat to the game.

 

That said, I think that spontaneous clusters of caches are generally a good thing. Want to increase cache density in a particular area? Place another cache there. Contact another cacher and encourage 'em to do the same. And so on.

[Trinity's Crew]

We have all seen threads about gas prices affecting how OFTEN you cache, but do you find yourself hitting more Power Trails, or concentrating on cache-dense areas in order to save more time and money? Or do you just go out and hit one or two, then go home?

 

I'm just as happy finding one cache on a 5 mile walk as I would be finding 50 in that stretch. Actually I'd be happier with the one cache because I'm out there to enjoy the outdoors and I think stopping every 500 feet would be a distraction. I know nobody is forcing me to stop at every one, but hey, I'm a geocacher. If there's a cache there I'm looking for it.

 

But finding five or six along that same five miles might be nice. I'm not sure what constitutes a "Power Trail" anyway. It seems to be one of those murky areas.

[+StarBrand]

...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.

 

 

Don't forget about the often forgotten second clause of the saturation rule. That covers "power trails". So it is in the guidelines.

 

Power trails in really interesting areas have ways of popping up all by themselves. In kearney Nebraska there is a walking path from one end of town to the other. Over time and with 10-15 cachers planting them - it is now definitly a power trail with 30 - 40 caches along the way. Took about 2 years.

Edited July 26, 2006 by StarBrand

[+Metaphor]

I'd rather do a well-staged multi cache, a well-placed single cache or a couple of caches hidden by a variety of different cachers than do 528 feet, stop, do 528 feet, stop, do 528 feet, stop... Of course, if quantity is the game you want to play, have fun with it. I, in all likelihood, wouldn't be interested in doing a power trail series.

[+Jhwk]

We have all seen threads about gas prices affecting how OFTEN you cache, but do you find yourself hitting more Power Trails, or concentrating on cache-dense areas in order to save more time and money? Or do you just go out and hit one or two, then go home?

 

I'm just as happy finding one cache on a 5 mile walk as I would be finding 50 in that stretch. Actually I'd be happier with the one cache because I'm out there to enjoy the outdoors and I think stopping every 500 feet would be a distraction. I know nobody is forcing me to stop at every one, but hey, I'm a geocacher. If there's a cache there I'm looking for it.

 

Done it, on a nine miler, with one cache and in a viscious thunderstorm. Also looking at This Monster which hasn't been found in over a year (another thread...), but again is the only cache in the area. What's wrong with encouraging the use of our scenic/historic trails? I understand the whole cache saturation argument, but a good trail series would only improve the enjoyment of the cacher and increase the use of some of our more remote locations.

[+briansnat]

What's wrong with encouraging the use of our scenic/historic trails? I understand the whole cache saturation argument, but a good trail series would only improve the enjoyment of the cacher and increase the use of some of our more remote locations.

 

There is nothing wrong with a good trail series. I have a series that I placed to highlight a new trail network in the area. It's 8 caches over an 8 mile walk. It's been quite popular considering that its an 8 mile walk and not an easy walk either.

 

Power trails are a different matter.

[+Monkeybrad]

I have run afoul of the power trail clause, when that was the farthest thing from my mind. I was trying to highlight an awesome, but underused trail system in my area so I went out and placed caches in interesting spots along the trail. I ended up with 9 caches on a ten mile trail. The approval was held up for a few days while I worked with my reviewer to hammer out their "power trail" concerns. I am not complaining, my reviewer was very helpful, but I agree with the OP. My Yanhali caches averaged out to less than one per mile for the trail, but they were still held up, while my reviewer made sure that he was not going to run afoul of the guideline by publishing them. I say that anything that gets folks out walking the trails is a good thing.l

[+TEAM 360]

A well-done power trail could only be a good thing, couldn't it?

Now, I just knew someone would come in here and say 'cookie-cutter' caches...but what if EACH cache along the trail was hidden in a different manner? (Fake rock, magnetic sheet, bison tube, ammo can, decon, etc...) Wouldn't that be a GREAT training ground for Newbies? And think of the added benefit of excercise? "Just 520 feet to the next cache, come on!", and then pretty soon, before you realize it, you've just hiked several miles!

[+Jhwk]

I have run afoul of the power trail clause, when that was the farthest thing from my mind. I was trying to highlight an awesome, but underused trail system in my area so I went out and placed caches in interesting spots along the trail. I ended up with 9 caches on a ten mile trail. The approval was held up for a few days while I worked with my reviewer to hammer out their "power trail" concerns. I am not complaining, my reviewer was very helpful, but I agree with the OP. My Yanhali caches averaged out to less than one per mile for the trail, but they were still held up, while my reviewer made sure that he was not going to run afoul of the guideline by publishing them. I say that anything that gets folks out walking the trails is a good thing.l

 

Which is the main reason I got into caching in the first place. It certainly wasn't so I could collect golf balls!

[ParentsofSAM]

So if say 3 cachers go and place caches along the trail then it is not a power trail but if one person places them all then it is? Am I understanding that....

 

If so then the OP should get together with some other cachers and then place the caches.

 

If the problem is that they are being published at one time then spread out the placements.

 

We have done a 1 mile trail and there are 3 caches along it all placed by different people over the period of 6 months or so. It was nice to be able to grab the caches along the walk. They were spread out enough that the kids needed/wanted a break by the time we got to each one.

[+Wander Lost]

We have all seen threads about gas prices affecting how OFTEN you cache, but do you find yourself hitting more Power Trails, or concentrating on cache-dense areas in order to save more time and money? Or do you just go out and hit one or two, then go home?

 

Last weekend we drove over 300 miles to attend a camping event. We got to add one 'found it' log to our count for the entire weekend. I don't even know how much it cost us in gas because I didn't care, gas prices are not going to stop me from caching the way I choose to cache.

 

I'd rather spend a bit more in gas and get a few higher quality caches than park my car in one spot and get a dozen or so copy cat hides along the same trail. Geocaching is supposed to take me to someplace new and different. A few caches along a trail that each highlight a unique vantage point or historical marker would be great. Having to be constantly looking at my GPS to make sure I don't walk past the next film can doesn't sound like a lot of fun to me. It also sounds like a good way to miss the whole point of bringing people to that trail.

[+Jhwk]

So if say 3 cachers go and place caches along the trail then it is not a power trail but if one person places them all then it is? Am I understanding that....

 

If so then the OP should get together with some other cachers and then place the caches.

 

If the problem is that they are being published at one time then spread out the placements.

 

We have done a 1 mile trail and there are 3 caches along it all placed by different people over the period of 6 months or so. It was nice to be able to grab the caches along the walk. They were spread out enough that the kids needed/wanted a break by the time we got to each one.

SHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

 

your giving it away!

[+Mule Ears]

A well-done power trail could only be a good thing, couldn't it?

Now, I just knew someone would come in here and say 'cookie-cutter' caches...but what if EACH cache along the trail was hidden in a different manner? (Fake rock, magnetic sheet, bison tube, ammo can, decon, etc...) Wouldn't that be a GREAT training ground for Newbies? And think of the added benefit of excercise? "Just 520 feet to the next cache, come on!", and then pretty soon, before you realize it, you've just hiked several miles!

 

If you anticipated that someone might say "cookie-cutter" that's because it's the first image elicited by the term "power trail." Look, I'm not saying that a good power trail can't be done, but it's reasonable for reviewers to be skeptical. I'm skeptical. Others here are skeptical.

 

Newbies need training? Can certification be far behind?

[+StarBrand]

A well-done power trail could only be a good thing, couldn't it?

If the goal is really to get people out on the trail and enjoying the area than work with your local geo-club and get a group together and set a goal of placing x number of caches along a trail over a 6 month period of time. In the end you get a power trail. The reviewers are happy, the caches are naturally diversified, everybody gets to go find each others caches and the trail sees more use. Problem solved???

[+Davispak]

If you have read my logs here, you know I am a proponate for a cache with a purpose. Putting one every 528 feet just because you can or along a trail does not make for good caches. Even if the cache hides are different it is still just cache spew. If the caches are placed at special locations, particular sites, or a historical spot, then that is a good cache. One at the trailhead, then another at the end, good caches. Please, whatever you do, don't slap one every 528 feet.

[+Renegade Knight]

Other than numbers, what's the benefit of finding, say, 20 cookie-cutter caches in the course of a 2-mile walk? I don't get it. The power-trail concept just supports the numbers mindset--if the angst-ridden threads here are any indication, that mindset is the major threat to the game.

 

That said, I think that spontaneous clusters of caches are generally a good thing. Want to increase cache density in a particular area? Place another cache there. Contact another cacher and encourage 'em to do the same. And so on.

 

Two things. First what's the benefit of finding 20 caches be they cookie cutter caches or any other kind. Fun. Is it about numbers if you enjoy finding caches? It's only about the numbers to the people who don't like numbers. (I love the Irony). If I plan a cache day then hell yes it's about finding a bunch of caches. If I plan a fishing day, it's not about casting my line, I can do that in the desert. It's about catching fish.

 

Second. The cache saturation rule applies to power trails regardless of who made them. One cacher or 200. The rule is bunk but it doesn't change that it applies to power trails regardless of how they are made formation.

[+Renegade Knight]

Cache saturation rules is the alternative minimum tax of placing caches. It's painful when you hit it. It's also a black box. Cache submittals go in one side, and approvals or "saturation" comes out the other. The box works differently for every reviewer. It can't be uniform because nobody has a firm grasp on what the heck 'saturation is'. Power trails are a single line of caches along a trail (like some people think we should place them) where the other 2000 acres to either side of the trail are cache free. Saturation? Hardly.

 

There is nothing wrong with a power trail. The numbers don't matter unless you reach an actual saturation. If a park says "we only want 3 caches in our park at any one time" and there are three caches, that's saturation. If in talking to a park manager you get the sence that they are starting to get uncomfortable with how many caches there are in their park and there is no actual rule on it but the 528' rule would allow 20 more, then that would be a saturation because more would potentially trigger something.

 

If you have nothing concrete, if you haven't talked to the land manager you have a black box and a stupid rule that exists for no other reason than so this site can deal with it's own feelings of 'comfort' in where this site would like (or more accuratly not like) caches.

 

If people are going to debate the saturation rule, you need to recognize it for what it is. Not what it isn't. Debating the issue of "gee I'd like to find one cache vs. 20 on a trail" is a personal preference, not saturation.

Edited July 26, 2006 by Renegade Knight

[+niraD]

FWIW, around here, there's a concept of a "demonstration trail". Basically, every 0.1 mile or so, there's another cache, but they're all different, created and owned by different cachers, and designed to show off different hide styles, different camouflage techniques, etc.

[+briansnat]

Two things. First what's the benefit of finding 20 caches be they cookie cutter caches or any other kind. Fun. Is it about numbers if you enjoy finding caches?

 

If it was just about fun and the joy of finding caches, a 20 stage multi would serve the purpose just as well as 20 individual caches.

[+Mule Ears]

I'll bet that it wouldn't be hard to gain approval for a series of closely spaced caches along a trail provided that each cache had a thoughtful, non-cut-and-paste writeup that somehow gave it a distinct personality. If each cache is part of a series, then it's more appropriately a multi.

[+budd-rdc]

July 26 by Hemlock (1 found)

 

I just looked at your energy policy and will have to suspend lucrative contracts until you find better ways to encourage alternative transportation and energy sources. Once you find ways to give voters and consumers better choices in retaining their freedom of movement without unnecessary cost increases, I'll be happy to enable your listing.

 

If you have any questions, feel free to email me at hemlock@geocachingadmin.com or go to your cache page and email me via the link to my profile on the log entry. Please be sure to include the cache name and GCxxxx number, or better yet, the URL of the cache page.

 

Thanks for the understanding.

Hemlock

Volunteer Cache Reviewer

 

Maybe it's time we scrutinize the higher authorities instead of making the reviewer's (non-paying) job more difficult.

 

DISCLAIMER: Hemlock's name used without permission.

Edited July 26, 2006 by budd-rdc

[+Renegade Knight]

Two things. First what's the benefit of finding 20 caches be they cookie cutter caches or any other kind. Fun. Is it about numbers if you enjoy finding caches?

 

If it was just about fun and the joy of finding caches, a 20 stage multi would serve the purpose just as well as 20 individual caches.

 

Only if you happen to enjoy multi caches as much or more than regular caches. You could say the same about virtuals, waymarks, and no caches at all since it's all about discovering new areas. One cache type over another is the owners preference and it's not really part of the Power Trail debate. What saturation is and isn't is.

 

A 20 point multi and 20 caches locks up the same amount of ground. The only real difference for saturation is that less will look for the 20 stage multi. I don't blame them either, I have to many unfinished multi caches that I won't get back to avenge.

[+Renegade Knight]

I'll bet that it wouldn't be hard to gain approval for a series of closely spaced caches along a trail provided that each cache had a thoughtful, non-cut-and-paste writeup that somehow gave it a distinct personality. If each cache is part of a series, then it's more appropriately a multi.

 

Again, cache type (series as several related caches vs. multi) is the owners choice. If saturation is the true issue then it shouldn't matter that one person vs. 20 placed the caches once saturation was reached the answer should be "no" on approvals.

 

As an aside there is or was a guideline that said a person should not dominate their area leaving no room for other cachers to place caches. I agree with the spirit of this guideline and would rather see 20 people place 20 caches on the trail than one person place 20.

 

I'd love to see a reviewer or better yet TPTB explain clearly what exactly saturation is. Something better than some people use to define porn over erotic art. "I'm not sure how to describe it but I know it when I see it". That answer applied to saturation was the best answer we got last time it came up. That's just a black box and makes it hard to plan a sub-power trail.

[+Renegade Knight]

...We have all seen threads about gas prices affecting how OFTEN you cache, but do you find yourself hitting more Power Trails, or concentrating on cache-dense areas in order to save more time and money? Or do you just go out and hit one or two, then go home?

Back in the day I'd plan a cache day on a route to get at least 5 caches spread over 200 miles or so. Now I pick a spot, go, see whats there and drive smaller routes. Less miles overall but a lot more stop and go. Finding time to cache is the hard part.

[+SG-MIN]

I'd love to see a reviewer or better yet TPTB explain clearly what exactly saturation is. Something better than some people use to define porn over erotic art. "I'm not sure how to describe it but I know it when I see it". That answer applied to saturation was the best answer we got last time it came up. That's just a black box and makes it hard to plan a sub-power trail.

 

 

NOTICE: OFF-TOPIC POST!!

 

 

This isn't the first time I have seen issues where cachers do not know the official stance. I know there is a reviewer handbook - is there anyway for use normal geocachers to view that. I mean I often feel like I am stumbling blind trying to interpert the guidelines, when the reviewers have a cheatsheet with information that clearly spells out what is murky to me. I think that would cut down on tension between reviewers and cache placers (we would be looking at the same document).

[Keystone]

This isn't the first time I have seen issues where cachers do not know the official stance. I know there is a reviewer handbook - is there anyway for use normal geocachers to view that. I mean I often feel like I am stumbling blind trying to interpert the guidelines, when the reviewers have a cheatsheet with information that clearly spells out what is murky to me. I think that would cut down on tension between reviewers and cache placers (we would be looking at the same document).

While there is a written training manual of sorts for volunteer cache reviewers, it mainly covers how to use the special tools provided on the Admin side of the website, and the process for reviewing a cache submission. Apart from a "cheat sheet" bullet point list of the issues covered by the guidelines -- which I've posted here publicly on two occasions -- there is no expanded and annotated version of the geocache listing guidelines.

 

The volunteer group and Groundspeak have talked from time to time about putting together just such a "guide to the guidelines." The challenges include finding time to do it, splitting up the work, and then keeping it up to date. A wiki might make for an ideal format. We have not made much progress beyond saying that it might be a good idea. If we ever did that project, I'd be happy to write the Power Trail section since I authored both the guideline language and a template for the reviewer note that many volunteers use to send to cache owners who end up on the wrong side of the guideline. I suppose I could post that template, but I don't have access to it here at my office.

Edited July 26, 2006 by Keystone

[+sbell111]

If it was just about fun and the joy of finding caches, a 20 stage multi would serve the purpose just as well as 20 individual caches.

The thing is, everyone isn't like you.

 

I would enjoy a power train because it gives me incentive for walking further. However, even with this incentive, I am not physically up to a long hike. Therefore, a 20-stage multi wouldn't work for me; while you could easily choose to find all twenty individual caches, or not.

[+SG-MIN]

Thanks Keystone,

 

I am always impressed with your contributions to the community. You seem to have unlimited patience, and a great command of the guidelines.

 

I just often wonder if some issues come up often enough, or are explicit enough to warrent an "offical stance." Those that come to mind from the recent past are: "sticker on stopsign," "posted signs," "power trails," "series caches (AKA: the santa and reindeer problem)," "buried caches," etc...

[+Mule Ears]

I'll bet that it wouldn't be hard to gain approval for a series of closely spaced caches along a trail provided that each cache had a thoughtful, non-cut-and-paste writeup that somehow gave it a distinct personality. If each cache is part of a series, then it's more appropriately a multi.

 

Again, cache type (series as several related caches vs. multi) is the owners choice. If saturation is the true issue then it shouldn't matter that one person vs. 20 placed the caches once saturation was reached the answer should be "no" on approvals.

 

As an aside there is or was a guideline that said a person should not dominate their area leaving no room for other cachers to place caches. I agree with the spirit of this guideline and would rather see 20 people place 20 caches on the trail than one person place 20.

 

I'd love to see a reviewer or better yet TPTB explain clearly what exactly saturation is. Something better than some people use to define porn over erotic art. "I'm not sure how to describe it but I know it when I see it". That answer applied to saturation was the best answer we got last time it came up. That's just a black box and makes it hard to plan a sub-power trail.

 

The difference between porn and art is lighting. And the difference between a power trail and a series of caches is individuality of the constituent caches.

 

Power Trail:

PT #3

This is the 3rd in the PT series. It's 0.1-mile from PT #2 and also a film can in a pile of rocks by the side of the trail.

 

PT #4

This is the 4th in the PT series. It's 0.1-mile from PT #3 and also a film can in a pile of sticks by the side of the trail.

 

Cache Series:

Trail Overlook

As the trail winds around the mountain, it emerges from the forest to reveal a great view. The cache is hidden near this overlook.

 

Hidden Spring

Farther down the trail, about 1/10th-mile from the Trail Overlook cache, is a rarely visited spring. The cache is nearby.

 

I'm betting that the "Cache Series" would have a much better chance of approval than the "Power Trail."

[+KKTH3]

If it was just about fun and the joy of finding caches, a 20 stage multi would serve the purpose just as well as 20 individual caches.

The thing is, everyone isn't like you.

 

I would enjoy a power train because it gives me incentive for walking further. However, even with this incentive, I am not physically up to a long hike. Therefore, a 20-stage multi wouldn't work for me; while you could easily choose to find all twenty individual caches, or not.

 

And there is the issue of those that want to do the whole length, but cannot find stage 3. If it is a 20 stage multi, the trip is over (at least the finding caches part of it) - but 20 individually placed caches keeps the project going. Also from an owner perspective, if word comes up that one stage may or may not be missing - the owner may have to temp disable the whole thing to investigate. with 20 individual caches, 19 of them can stay active and still provide reasons for people to geocache in the area, rather than block the whole trail from any caching until the issue is resolved. In these ways a 20 stage multi would not serve the purpose just as well as 20 individual caches.

[+Mule Ears]

If it was just about fun and the joy of finding caches, a 20 stage multi would serve the purpose just as well as 20 individual caches.

The thing is, everyone isn't like you.

 

I would enjoy a power train because it gives me incentive for walking further. However, even with this incentive, I am not physically up to a long hike. Therefore, a 20-stage multi wouldn't work for me; while you could easily choose to find all twenty individual caches, or not.

 

And there is the issue of those that want to do the whole length, but cannot find stage 3. If it is a 20 stage multi, the trip is over (at least the finding caches part of it) - but 20 individually placed caches keeps the project going. Also from an owner perspective, if word comes up that one stage may or may not be missing - the owner may have to temp disable the whole thing to investigate. with 20 individual caches, 19 of them can stay active and still provide reasons for people to geocache in the area, rather than block the whole trail from any caching until the issue is resolved. In these ways a 20 stage multi would not serve the purpose just as well as 20 individual caches.

 

This makes sense. Multis are pretty fragile. Though I think that a multi on a 2-mile trail would be unlikely to have stages at 0.1-mile intervals. The only reason to space them that closely would be to pack the maximum smilies-per-mile into the trail. I'm still not sold on the idea of making it easier to get approval for Power Trails, though. I think having a high hurdle to clear helps ensure quality.

[+Kit Fox]

You're making a huge assumption with what a powertrail really looks like. Everyone here keeps assuming they are nothing but a bunch of "1/1" lame micros, when in reality, they can be a combination of ammo cans, decon containers, micros, and even a few large caches.

 

Of all the "power trails" that I have visited, none were cookie cutter caches. Each was hidden differently, and would stand alone as a good location for a cache.

 

Ask yourself this, would you rather find 20 lamppost / guardrail caches within a couple of square miles, or a bunch of small to regular sized caches, hidden along a scenic trail? Would you rather find 20 caches in less than an hour, or take almost four hours, and hike five miles?

 

Edited July 26, 2006 by Kit Fox

[+CYBret]

You're making a huge assumption with what a powertrail really looks like. Everyone here keeps assuming they are nothing but a bunch of "1/1" lame micros, when in reality, they can be a combination of ammo cans, decon containers, micros, and even a few large caches.

 

I think you're hitting on exactly why reviewers don't have a uniform standard for what is/isn't a power trail.

 

Personally, I've seen the cookie cutters, I've also seen the unique combinations. I've seen some in fragile environments and others in very accommodating locations. While more definition from the reviewing community would be a good thing, I don't think uniformity among different environments should be the goal here.

 

Bret

[+Mule Ears]

You're making a huge assumption with what a powertrail really looks like. Everyone here keeps assuming they are nothing but a bunch of "1/1" lame micros, when in reality, they can be a combination of ammo cans, decon containers, micros, and even a few large caches.

 

Of all the "power trails" that I have visited, none were cookie cutter caches. Each was hidden differently, and would stand alone as a good location for a cache.

 

Ask yourself this, would you rather find 20 lamppost / guardrail caches within a couple of square miles, or a bunch of small to regular sized caches, hidden along a scenic trail? Would you rather find 20 caches in less than an hour, or take almost four hours, and hike five miles?

 

 

The thread is about "loosening restrictions" for power trails. If it's currently difficult to get a PT approved, I'd expect the quality to be better than under a looser standard.

[+Monkeybrad]

I have to agree with Kit Fox here, the ones I placed were all traditional fullsize caches at scenic spots with cache pages that helped explain the history of the area, but they were still held up, while we established whether or not they were part of a "power trail". I would also like to echo the earlier sentiment that most of us are not sure what consitutes a "power trail". If it were more clearly defined it would be easier for us to avoid making them.

[+briansnat]

If it was just about fun and the joy of finding caches, a 20 stage multi would serve the purpose just as well as 20 individual caches.

The thing is, everyone isn't like you.

 

I would enjoy a power train because it gives me incentive for walking further. However, even with this incentive, I am not physically up to a long hike. Therefore, a 20-stage multi wouldn't work for me; while you could easily choose to find all twenty individual caches, or not.

 

Then you would find a few stages one day, then go back and do more on another. I've done multis over several days many times. Heck one took me two years to complete.

 

Admit it, the real key is that people only get one "found it" for a multi. People want those smiley faces.

 

Anyway its a moot point. The guidelines don't allow for power trails and they do allow for multis, so if you want to place a bunch of closely spaced caches along a trail you have to go with a multi. Same amount of fun but fewer smileys.

[+tozainamboku]

Ask yourself this, would you rather find 20 lamppost / guardrail caches within a couple of square miles, or a bunch of small to regular sized caches, hidden along a scenic trail? Would you rather find 20 caches in less than an hour, or take almost four hours, and hike five miles?

 

I knew someone (probably KitFox) would post this as example of a good power trail. I did this power trail and personally think it was a good hike ruined (and I don't mean golf). Its a great desert hike on a loop along an earthquake fault and down a desert wash with a highlight of a desert palm oasis. Instead of looking around and enjoying the scenery and viewing desert wildlife, I found myself looking at my GPSr as I walked to the next decon container .1 mile away from the last. I can't even recall one hide that stood out. If there were 10 to 15 caches instead of 31, I would have at least looked up once and awhile. If there were only 4 or 5 caches, this probably would have made my favorites list. But I really think this one overdid it. Of course if I lived closer, I would probably have done this two or three times and only looked for every other or every third cache on any given trip.

 

If was in Palm Springs this week (only 108 degrees today - its cooling off) I would rather find 20 lampost/guardrail caches that would require the minimum time out of my air conditioned car, than do this hike.

[+SG-MIN]

Admit it, the real key is that people only get one "found it" for a multi. People want those smiley faces.

 

Anyway its a moot point. The guidelines don't allow for power trails and they do allow for multis, so if you want to place a bunch of closely spaced caches along a trail you have to go with a multi. Same amount of fun but fewer smileys.

 

I belive you are partially right. It is also nice to be able to skip some in a series if others are around, or if you are just having rotten luck that day. With a multi, one missed, and you are out of luck for that day.

 

That being said, I do love multi's and wish there were more of them.

[+Moore9KSUcats]

You're making a huge assumption with what a powertrail really looks like. Everyone here keeps assuming they are nothing but a bunch of "1/1" lame micros, when in reality, they can be a combination of ammo cans, decon containers, micros, and even a few large caches.

 

Of all the "power trails" that I have visited, none were cookie cutter caches. Each was hidden differently, and would stand alone as a good location for a cache.

 

Ask yourself this, would you rather find 20 lamppost / guardrail caches within a couple of square miles, or a bunch of small to regular sized caches, hidden along a scenic trail? Would you rather find 20 caches in less than an hour, or take almost four hours, and hike five miles?

 

What appears to be a "power trail" is being 'established' right around my town. I believe the cacher intends to put out a bunch more of them in the next couple of weeks. So far, about 30 caches (many with the same type of hide, or theme) have been published, within my 10 mile notification. No, I haven't found many (only 2 so far) because they really aren't my kind of find. I'm not really interested in finding a cache on the bottom of a postal box, or on a utility box, or a lamppost skirt. I would much rather have a cache that takes me to an interesting place, or has a creative hide.

 

I would MUCH prefer to do a "power trail" of the type that Kit Fox describes, because it is a hike, rather than a park 'n grab. I realize that micros do have a place, especially for the person that is unable to hike a trail, but do we really need 100 in a fairly small area? No, I am not looking to increase my smilie count, or I would have gone out and gotten every one of them. I prefer to look at my cache found list and remember what was special about the hike or the hide. But... that is how I play the game, and others play it differently. I just hope people play by the guidelines that are established.

Edited July 26, 2006 by Moore9KSUcats

[+Packanack]

Thinking about it a little further, I too enjoy multi's, haven't done so many , but they are among the ones that I had the most fun doing. Especially a couple of bike ride multis done recently on Cape Cod. I find that I usually target a cache by the area--either it is close to the office or it is close to home or it is saved for my Sunday morning hike/bike outing. I can not go out for an all day excursion--the most time I can devote is 5 or 6 hours the latter if I leave at 5AM on Sunday. So for me finding one makes me happy. One Smiley at a time.

 

I suppose it will only be a matter of time before we have a pocket power trail cache.

[+Kit Fox]

The cache I found for my 900th find used to stand alone, on it's own merit. Additional caches were added "along the way." I'd like to point out that none of these additional caches detracted from my experience whatsoever.

 

Edited July 26, 2006 by Kit Fox

[+Team Neos]

Two things. First what's the benefit of finding 20 caches be they cookie cutter caches or any other kind. Fun. Is it about numbers if you enjoy finding caches?

 

If it was just about fun and the joy of finding caches, a 20 stage multi would serve the purpose just as well as 20 individual caches.

I don't feel that way. In fact, I feel exactly the opposite. Twenty individual caches would pull me out to that trail at least twice, but a 20 stage multi would go on my ignore list.

 

Once I start something, I like to finish it. If I set out to do a 20 stage multi it would annoy me to stop that often for "one" cache.

 

I like to take walks, and I like to geocache. Persecute me if you wish, but I see nothing wrong with enjoying getting a "found it" reminder (smiley) and a chance to log a good story on each geocache I find.

 

We often go out to trails or parks that have multiple caches. We choose which caches to do that day and deliberately save some for the next time we go back there.

 

Oh sure, it sounds noble to say that the sheer beauty of the place will draw me back again, but I know myself. Given the chance to go back to somewhere I have been before or go somewhere I haven't been and find a few caches too, I will choose to find the new caches.

 

There have been a few threads asking how many caches people have done in one day--our usual good day is twelve caches. A six mile trail with 20 caches on it would not inspire me to try to finish it in one day--that is too much for me and my two ruptured discs--but it would take me to that trail twice or maybe even three times, depending on the access available.

[+Mule Ears]

This discussion has touched on something more important than power trails, and that's the uncertainty of approval. The procedure of placing a cache and then submitting it makes sense for a single, relatively simple cache. But a complex puzzle, involved multi, or a related series of caches are big projects to perform "on spec" with the possibility of not receiving approval.

 

Is there any possibility of a mechanism for "provisional approval" of big projects? You'd write up the whole thing, provide locations (to a certain tolerance for final placement) and get approval-in-principle before placing the cache(s). The approver could identify problems and they could be corrected before final construction of the cache or series. It would encourage more ambitious caches and might make people less combative about the shortcomings of the guidelines.

[+Wander Lost]

This discussion has touched on something more important than power trails, and that's the uncertainty of approval. The procedure of placing a cache and then submitting it makes sense for a single, relatively simple cache. But a complex puzzle, involved multi, or a related series of caches are big projects to perform "on spec" with the possibility of not receiving approval.

 

Is there any possibility of a mechanism for "provisional approval" of big projects? You'd write up the whole thing, provide locations (to a certain tolerance for final placement) and get approval-in-principle before placing the cache(s). The approver could identify problems and they could be corrected before final construction of the cache or series. It would encourage more ambitious caches and might make people less combative about the shortcomings of the guidelines.

 

It's already in place. Simply email your local reviewer with your idea. They'll help you make it publishable.

[+Mule Ears]

It's already in place. Simply email your local reviewer with your idea. They'll help you make it publishable.

 

Cool. I didn't know that.

[+AuntieWeasel]

We don't have that many multiple caches along trails in my area, let alone power trails. More's the pity. Four to six along one long trail is my ideal day out.

 

It's not about the smiley. It's about the way the smiley makes me push myself harder and farther than I would have thought possible. It's about the exhaustion.

 

I would've stuck to doing multi's, but I hit a whole series of them last year with a stage missing (or DNF'ed). I got in a bunch of halfway good hikes with NO smilies. Buzzkill.