Power Trail Question for Groundspeak

[+3AMT]

On the Iowa Geocaching Forum, there has been lots of discussion on this topic. Basically, those cacher's with questions have been directed to Groundspeak and they direct you to here.

 

SOOO, here is the question for a Groundspeak person who makes the guidelines (or interprets them).

 

What is the distance caches along a trail must be spaced for them to no longer be considered a "Power Trail"? You are required to keep them 528 feet apart, but "the reviewer may require you to create a multi-cache, if the waypoints are close together. A series of caches that are generally intended to be found as a group are good candidates for submission as a single multicache." So what distance is "close together"?

 

How many caches make up a "Power Trail"? If I put 3 caches in an area 528 feet apart is it a "Power Trail" or does it take 10 or 15?

 

Finally, What is the difference (other than the number of caches that can be logged) in placing 10 caches and one 10 stage multi? Other than you will not get nearly as many people looking for the 10 stage multi as the 10 individual caches.

 

I know everyone has an opinion on this issue, but I would really like to hear from someone from Groundspeak.

[+erik88l-r]

I'm not from Groundspeak, didn't even stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night. But I am a cache reviewer.

 

Being guidelines, there is no hard and fast answer to your question. What may be considered a "Power Trail" in one spot, may not be in another. There are factors besides distance to consider too.

 

If your caches are all micros identically placed under benches along a trail they are much more likely to be viewed as part of a power trail then different containers hidden differently but the same distance apart.

 

As somewhat of a litmus test, if the intent is to put out caches so people log many smilies quickly rather than going out to experience what the majority feels geocaching should be all about, it's probably a power trail.

 

Park managers look at individual cache listings when they form their opinions on what would be too many for the area they manage. So in many cases a string of micros leading to one final cache would be viewed as one cache, even though the impact on the environment would theoretically be the same.

 

I'm on my way to do trail work at a preserve near here. The manager there has capped the number of caches in the preserve there at seven, but doesn't even count my seven micros along the trail that lead to the lock&lock just outside the preserve. I won't argue with her, since it allows me and others to place caches there.

 

That's not the total answer, just a bit of my input on the discussion. Maybe some of the other reviewers will pipe in too.

 

Cheers,

~erik~

[Team Misguided]

I'll paraphrase Justice Stewart and say "I can't define a power trail, but I know one when I see it"

 

If the caches have a similar hide style & container and the description is more about the series/trail and less about the individual locations then it's likely a power trail. This applies even in a non-linear fashion. You can saturate an area with a cache series that are not all along one single trail and still be asked to place a multi-cache instead.

[+Robespierre]

"Power Trail Question..." hmmm. I'll have to check back.

[+3AMT]

While I appriciate both replies, they say basically the same thing. If the caches are different, then it is not a power trail even if you place then every 528 feet. While you mention "the majority" of cachers, I am not so sure in Iowa the majority is not about the number of smilies. As one person stated, "I will skip a 5 stage multi if I can look for 5 individual caches that are in the same area."

 

I understand the guidelines are just that, but each reviewer has their interpretation of those guidelines. When asked, my reviewer directed us to Groundspeak for an explaination of the guideline. Thus the questions to Groundspeak (the keepers of the guidelines!). If a power trail is not really defined how are cachers to know what is and isn't a power trail.

 

If I place 10 caches all the same style a mile apart along a trail, is it a power trail? On the flip side, if I place 10 caches that are all different sizes and styles along a 1 mile stretch of a trail is it a power trail? Removing enviornmental impact as an issue (because you are placing 10 containers either way), what is the difference between a 10 stage multi and 10 individual caches except how they appear in the stats and on the map (and the fact that you will have less than half the number of people look for a multi)?

[+sTeamTraen]

If I place 10 caches all the same style a mile apart along a trail, is it a power trail? On the flip side, if I place 10 caches that are all different sizes and styles along a 1 mile stretch of a trail is it a power trail?

 

Yes and yes

 

Removing enviornmental impact as an issue (because you are placing 10 containers either way), what is the difference between a 10 stage multi and 10 individual caches except how they appear in the stats and on the map (and the fact that you will have less than half the number of people look for a multi)?

 

Environmental impact is not the issue here. Maintaining some semblance of quality about the game, is. This is why multicaches exist. Sometimes less is indeed more.

 

The guideline phrase which says it best is "On the same note, don't go cache crazy and hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can."

 

If the intention of the OP is to extract the "secret undocumented number of feet which the reviewers use to determine whether a bunch of caches is a power trail", well, I don't believe any such thing exists.

[Jeremy]

If you have to ask, it's probably a power trail.

[+3AMT]

If I place 10 caches all the same style a mile apart along a trail, is it a power trail? On the flip side, if I place 10 caches that are all different sizes and styles along a 1 mile stretch of a trail is it a power trail?

 

Yes and yes

 

But the first is being approved without a second thought.

 

Removing enviornmental impact as an issue (because you are placing 10 containers either way), what is the difference between a 10 stage multi and 10 individual caches except how they appear in the stats and on the map (and the fact that you will have less than half the number of people look for a multi)?

 

Environmental impact is not the issue here. Maintaining some semblance of quality about the game, is. This is why multicaches exist. Sometimes less is indeed more.

 

The guideline phrase which says it best is "On the same note, don't go cache crazy and hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can."

 

If the intention of the OP is to extract the "secret undocumented number of feet which the reviewers use to determine whether a bunch of caches is a power trail", well, I don't believe any such thing exists.

 

I guess I still don't understand how having 10 good hides is bad and having a 10 stage key holder multi is "quality".

 

But to the question, the OP is trying to get a "clarification" from Groundspeak so EVERYONE (reviewers and cachers) can know what is and isn't acceptable surrounding this issue. Or for that matter maybe exactly what the intent of the rule is. When our reviewer stated he was "going to start upholding the intent of the Groundspeak guidelines." We would like to know the intent and he sent us here.

 

I am not speaking badly of our reviewer, because it is a hard job and one that is greatly appriciated. He is doing what he feels he has been told to do by Groundspeak. I commend him for that. Iam simply trying to get answers for those that have asked the questions he doesn't feel are his questions to answer.

[+3AMT]

If you have to ask, it's probably a power trail.

 

Wow, that clears it up completely.

[+StarBrand]

If it is an interesting area that is worthy of caches and cache visitors - then go out and place 1 or 2 caches along it. Then given a few months or few years other cachers will come along and add more caches along the route. I've seen it happen several times over the years. No need for 1 person to plant them all on one weekend.

 

 

Net effect is the same - lots of caches along a trail system. Just takes longer. A Power caching trail.

[+3AMT]

If it is an interesting area that is worthy of caches and cache visitors - then go out and place 1 or 2 caches along it. Then given a few months or few years other cachers will come along and add more caches along the route. I've seen it happen several times over the years. No need for 1 person to plant them all on one weekend.

 

Net effect is the same - lots of caches along a trail system. Just takes longer. A Power caching trail.

 

Again, I thank you for your opinion. But it still does not answer the issue. If the issue is a single person taking up the prime caching area, why not make the guideline refect this. "distance between caches for a single cacher is 1 mile"? or whatever. If you look at the posts on different forums about this issue, you get alot of differing OPINIONS as to what the guideline really is and why it is in place. So far, what I have heard from Groundspeak is "If you have to ask, it's probably a power trail." which is a fun post, but does little to answer any of the questions about this issue.

[+PJPeters]

If you have to ask, it's probably a power trail.

Next question?

 

It seems that there is a lot of 'it depends' here. I suppose that's part of the fun of being a reviewer; unlimited power, unlimited hassles and headaches. I'd be willing to bet that one reviewer's power trail is another reviewer's 'nice series.'

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I certainly can't speak for Groundspeak, but I think what folks are trying to tell you is that there IS no hard-and-fast answer!

 

"It depends" can be frustrating, but it is often the answer in this game of ours.

 

Reviewers have some level of discretion and the Guidelines are somewhat open to interpretation for a number of reasons.

 

This means that any two Reviewers may call some situation a bit differently depending, in part, on their local area and their own interpretation.

 

That's why they are Guidelines, not Rules!

[+Miragee]

Two other cachers and I set out one day a few weeks ago to place caches along an incredible trail we discovered. Many of these caches are close to .1 apart, in fact, one is closer than that to another cache, but the terrain is spectacular and we picked awesome viewpoints for each of the caches. The 12 new caches along that trail offer incentive for people to check out the area, but I don't think anyone would call it a "Power Trail."

 

This is one of the caches along our trail.

 

And this is the kind of view our "Power Trail" offers.

 

[+yumitori]

I remember a bunch of caches we found all in one day, in an area we geocache in frequently. Someone had gone out and place a cache in a spot that required some walking, then someone else place another cache along the same trail with a completely different view, then a third person did something similar, and so forth. Someone even used the area to hide their puzzle container in. One of the locals had noticed that the number of caches along the trails were growing, so they helpfully went out and placed containers between some of the others, named Area Name 1, Area Name 2, etc.

 

So we decided to cache in the area. We hiked several miles, gained well over a 1000 feet of elevation (and lost it all again). We looked at big rocks, checked out tall TV towers, and dabbled in alchemistry. We had great fun. We also found several caches, hidden by several folks. That was a 'power caching loop' thanks to the filler caches.

 

Unfortunately the numbered 'series' placed in some of the gaps along the trail have turned out to be in inexpensive containers and poorly maintained. We found problems when we located them, and some three years later I'm seeing many of the same comments in recent logs. It would be sad if that bunch that were all hidden on the same day to create a 'power caching trail' turned out to be discouraging folks from hiding other geocaches in sturdier containers. Already one of the caches we found that day has been archived because the owner thought there was getting to be 'too many caches' along the trail. It's finally been replaced nearly three years later by a new geocache nearby, but in the intervening time what could have been a reasonably challenging hike with several fun hides along the way is instead decaying into a loop of mostly geotrash.

 

I appreciate the desire to provide a fulfilling geocaching experience for folks who come to an area, including placing lots of caches to find, but when the hides are rushed and hidden primarily to 'fill in' an area, the tendency seems to be to rush the containers as well. It's a lot easier in the short term to carry a bunch of film canisters or gladware containers than it is to carry a half dozen ammo cans, but ultimately the quick and easy route means either a lot more maintenance trips or more commonly a lot of abandoned and moldering caches.

[+3AMT]

I certainly can't speak for Groundspeak, but I think what folks are trying to tell you is that there IS no hard-and-fast answer!

 

"It depends" can be frustrating, but it is often the answer in this game of ours.

 

Reviewers have some level of discretion and the Guidelines are somewhat open to interpretation for a number of reasons.

 

This means that any two Reviewers may call some situation a bit differently depending, in part, on their local area and their own interpretation.

 

That's why they are Guidelines, not Rules!

 

yes, but it is my reviewer that sent me here because

 

"I don't have the authority to establish add-ons to the guidelines regarding what distances would be appropriate. "

 

and

 

"Some of them seem to think this is all about MY decision. I don't see it that way. It's a Groudspeak thing. [Please see the guidelines.] It would be pointless for me to weigh in officially on the arguments that a few geocachers have voiced, because I'm not the one making the rules. Groundspeak has voiced its displeasure and preference about having power trails approved. As a volunteer reviewer, I am required to abide by Groundspeak's guidelines."

 

SOOO, my reviewer says it is Groundspeak's call, and here, I am being told it is my reviewer's call. Like I said, all I am asking for is a bit of clarification on the "guideline" so everyone knows what the intent of the guideline is.

[Neos2]

I'm never in favor of asking anyone to pin down anything to an absolute 100% definitive answer. I like gray areas; it allows for exceptions to the rule.

 

Recently an local area opened up to the public near us. It had formerly been a private club, but was donated to the city for a park. Many local cachers took turns adding a cache to the area. Now there is a nice series of very different caches by a variety of local cachers in that park. If the first cacher who recognized the opportunity had placed ten caches there it might left him open to criticism; instead, we have a great area we can all take visitors to experience a taste of the area's top cache hiders.

 

One person "could" have created a wonderful series here, though. That's one reason I wouldn't want a hard and fast rule. What if the land manager had only granted permission to one person? Should we have lost out on the other hides just because there was a "no exceptions" rule at gc about power trails that specified against one person creating a cluster of caches of some certain size in some certain area?

Edited June 11, 2007 by Neos2

[+3AMT]

Two other cachers and I set out one day a few weeks ago to place caches along an incredible trail we discovered. Many of these caches are close to .1 apart, in fact, one is closer than that to another cache, but the terrain is spectacular and we picked awesome viewpoints for each of the caches. The 12 new caches along that trail offer incentive for people to check out the area, but I don't think anyone would call it a "Power Trail."

 

This is one of the caches along our trail.

 

And this is the kind of view our "Power Trail" offers.

 

 

What we are being told, our reviewer would consider this a power trail. It is in fact "A series of caches that are generally intended to be found as a group". Again, I am just asking for a "clarification" of the guideline. If the clarification is "If you have to ask, it's probably a power trail." and I don't ask, is it not a power trail?

[+Miragee]

Two other cachers and I set out one day a few weeks ago to place caches along an incredible trail we discovered. Many of these caches are close to .1 apart, in fact, one is closer than that to another cache, but the terrain is spectacular and we picked awesome viewpoints for each of the caches. The 12 new caches along that trail offer incentive for people to check out the area, but I don't think anyone would call it a "Power Trail."

 

This is one of the caches along our trail.

 

And this is the kind of view our "Power Trail" offers.

 

 

What we are being told, our reviewer would consider this a power trail. It is in fact "A series of caches that are generally intended to be found as a group". Again, I am just asking for a "clarification" of the guideline. If the clarification is "If you have to ask, it's probably a power trail." and I don't ask, is it not a power trail?

That seems like a strange comment. If a trail exists, and someone wants to hike it, is your Reviewer suggesting we shouldn't place caches along it because someone would find all the caches along the same narrow trail during their hike . . . ? I placed three caches along another trail where I found fantastic viewpoints. Those great locations happened to be about .1 apart. I didn't place them .1 apart just because I could . . .

 

That is very confusing . . . I can see why you came here to get some clarification.

[+3AMT]

I remember a bunch of caches we found all in one day, in an area we geocache in frequently. Someone had gone out and place a cache in a spot that required some walking, then someone else place another cache along the same trail with a completely different view, then a third person did something similar, and so forth. Someone even used the area to hide their puzzle container in. One of the locals had noticed that the number of caches along the trails were growing, so they helpfully went out and placed containers between some of the others, named Area Name 1, Area Name 2, etc.

 

So we decided to cache in the area. We hiked several miles, gained well over a 1000 feet of elevation (and lost it all again). We looked at big rocks, checked out tall TV towers, and dabbled in alchemistry. We had great fun. We also found several caches, hidden by several folks. That was a 'power caching loop' thanks to the filler caches.

 

Unfortunately the numbered 'series' placed in some of the gaps along the trail have turned out to be in inexpensive containers and poorly maintained. We found problems when we located them, and some three years later I'm seeing many of the same comments in recent logs. It would be sad if that bunch that were all hidden on the same day to create a 'power caching trail' turned out to be discouraging folks from hiding other geocaches in sturdier containers. Already one of the caches we found that day has been archived because the owner thought there was getting to be 'too many caches' along the trail. It's finally been replaced nearly three years later by a new geocache nearby, but in the intervening time what could have been a reasonably challenging hike with several fun hides along the way is instead decaying into a loop of mostly geotrash.

 

I appreciate the desire to provide a fulfilling geocaching experience for folks who come to an area, including placing lots of caches to find, but when the hides are rushed and hidden primarily to 'fill in' an area, the tendency seems to be to rush the containers as well. It's a lot easier in the short term to carry a bunch of film canisters or gladware containers than it is to carry a half dozen ammo cans, but ultimately the quick and easy route means either a lot more maintenance trips or more commonly a lot of abandoned and moldering caches.

 

And the fill-in caches would not have been considered a "Power Trail" because they were more than .1 mile apart. You are talking about quality of caches. I have seen where 12 caches were placed along 1.5 miles of a bike trail. 12 different styles of hides, 8 different containers, 3 different sizes. Each hide fun and challenging. And if they were placed by different cachers, there would be no questions asked. But because one cacher placed them and submitted them at the same time, it is a power trail and should not be approved.

 

I have also seen a "Power Trail" where all the caches were placed on the underside of bridges. All the containers were Magnetic Key holders or small tupperware and 5 different cachers placed them over a period of 2 years. Great for my numbers, but I'll take the quality the hides by one person over the copy cat hides of a bunch of cachers.

 

So you do have two sides to both sides of your issue.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Reminds me of when I was a kid and "Why" was answered with "Because I said so!"

 

Didn't have to make sense, but it did have to be the answer!

[+3AMT]

That seems like a strange comment. If a trail exists, and someone wants to hike it, is your Reviewer suggesting we shouldn't place caches along it because someone would find all the caches along the same narrow trail during their hike . . . ? I placed three caches along another trail where I found fantastic viewpoints. Those great locations happened to be about .1 apart. I didn't place them .1 apart just because I could . . .

 

That is very confusing . . . I can see why you came here to get some clarification.

 

But it does not seem like I will get any.

[+yumitori]

Two other cachers and I set out one day a few weeks ago to place caches along an incredible trail we discovered. Many of these caches are close to .1 apart, in fact, one is closer than that to another cache, but the terrain is spectacular and we picked awesome viewpoints for each of the caches. The 12 new caches along that trail offer incentive for people to check out the area, but I don't think anyone would call it a "Power Trail."

 

Um, wow.

 

That's an awful lot of caches along a very short trail. From end to end it's just couple of miles depending on how far you can drive up Carveacre Road and the forest service road it connects to. Hiking around will certainly add a bit of distance, but still it looks like as though you can park a vehicle at one end and then drive around to the other and hike end to end. Do folks in your area really not walk two or three miles if you don't place a cache container every 500 - 600 feet along a trail? I see that there's a few ammo cans in the mix, but most seem to be cheap, otherwise disposable containers. Do they not look at the sights and check out the viewpoints along the way if you don't place altoid tins at each one? Wouldn't hikers get the same experience if your group each hid one cache, spread out along the route to take folks to whatever ultimate destination you wanted to bring them to?

[+Robespierre]

Two other cachers and I set out one day a few weeks ago to place caches along an incredible trail we discovered. Many of these caches are close to .1 apart, in fact, one is closer than that to another cache, but the terrain is spectacular and we picked awesome viewpoints for each of the caches. The 12 new caches along that trail offer incentive for people to check out the area, but I don't think anyone would call it a "Power Trail."

 

This is one of the caches along our trail.

 

And this is the kind of view our "Power Trail" offers.

 

 

What we are being told, our reviewer would consider this a power trail. It is in fact "A series of caches that are generally intended to be found as a group". Again, I am just asking for a "clarification" of the guideline. If the clarification is "If you have to ask, it's probably a power trail." and I don't ask, is it not a power trail?

The reason I stated, way up above, that I intended to check back here, is that the OP seemed to be sincere, and I wanted to check that. However, as is usually the case in these types of threads, it would appear that the OP is disgruntled, not getting his/her own way, and wishing to spread a little of that spirit. While I agree that Jeremy's short answer seemed a little flippant to me at the time, I believe he understood this spirit better than I did when he penned it. Your comments now clearly reveal the truth. There are things in this sport which I do not prefer. I follow the rules, and I submit caches which comply, and ignore what I don't like, and enjoy geocaching a great deal. Please do the same.

[+3AMT]

Reminds me of when I was a kid and "Why" was answered with "Because I said so!"

 

Didn't have to make sense, but it did have to be the answer!

You know, I would even take that right now, I can't even get a because I said so. I am not even asking for a WHY to the guideline. I am asking for What...Define what it is we can't do better than a series of caches intended to be found as a group. because I have seen a bunch of series (99 BOB in chicago being one) meant to be found as a group. I know, it is up to the reviewer...unless the reviewer says it is up to Groundspeak....unless Groundspeak says it is up to the reviewer...

[+yumitori]

And the fill-in caches would not have been considered a "Power Trail" because they were more than .1 mile apart.

 

That's not necessarily true. That's the answer folks are getting here. What's the difference between a cacher hiding fifty film canisters a tenth of a mile apart along a ten mile bike trail, and fifty film canisters a mile apart along a fifty mile stretch of road? Both are hidden just to pump numbers and both can be hidden just as quickly with not thought or planning. Both can be considered power trails.

 

I don't consider my example a power trail, but the attempts of one cacher to turn it into something more like a power trail led to several poorly designed geocaches. That's the problem. If your special trail is indeed so special, bring folks back to it again and again by hiding a nice container every few months. Or just hide one at the end, and people will see the entire trail as they hike to it.

[+Miragee]

Two other cachers and I set out one day a few weeks ago to place caches along an incredible trail we discovered. Many of these caches are close to .1 apart, in fact, one is closer than that to another cache, but the terrain is spectacular and we picked awesome viewpoints for each of the caches. The 12 new caches along that trail offer incentive for people to check out the area, but I don't think anyone would call it a "Power Trail."

 

Um, wow.

 

That's an awful lot of caches along a very short trail. From end to end it's just couple of miles depending on how far you can drive up Carveacre Road and the forest service road it connects to. Hiking around will certainly add a bit of distance, but still it looks like as though you can park a vehicle at one end and then drive around to the other and hike end to end. Do folks in your area really not walk two or three miles if you don't place a cache container every 500 - 600 feet along a trail? I see that there's a few ammo cans in the mix, but most seem to be cheap, otherwise disposable containers. Do they not look at the sights and check out the viewpoints along the way if you don't place altoid tins at each one? Wouldn't hikers get the same experience if your group each hid one cache, spread out along the route to take folks to whatever ultimate destination you wanted to bring them to?

If you look at the caches that were placed there a year ago, you will see they got very, very few visits. It is a difficult area to get to involving a long drive for people who live in the big city.

 

Our hope was that that number of caches would bring people out to the area. It takes several hours to hike from end to end, and I think we were the first people to ever make that hike, except for the Illegal Aliens who use it regularly.

 

As for the smaller containers we placed, you cannot put an ammo can everywhere . . .

[+3AMT]

The reason I stated, way up above, that I intended to check back here, is that the OP seemed to be sincere, and I wanted to check that. However, as is usually the case in these types of threads, it would appear that the OP is disgruntled, not getting his/her own way, and wishing to spread a little of that spirit. While I agree that Jeremy's short answer seemed a little flippant to me at the time, I believe he understood this spirit better than I did when he penned it. Your comments now clearly reveal the truth. There are things in this sport which I do not prefer. I follow the rules, and I submit caches which comply, and ignore what I don't like, and enjoy geocaching a great deal. Please do the same.

 

Actually, I have not had anything disapproved. I truely have nothing in the works. This is an issue that was brought up by our reviewer on the Iowa Forums. I am just trying to find an answer, not for me, but for those here in Iowa that have enjoyed placing caches. I have limited myself to having 25 active caches as that is all I feel I can maintain. But there are alot of people in Iowa who do have plans for great series of caches. I guess I am trying to be their voice.

 

But I agree completely. Follow the rules...Clarify this rule is what I am asking.

[+StarBrand]

If it is an interesting area that is worthy of caches and cache visitors - then go out and place 1 or 2 caches along it. Then given a few months or few years other cachers will come along and add more caches along the route. I've seen it happen several times over the years. No need for 1 person to plant them all on one weekend.

 

Net effect is the same - lots of caches along a trail system. Just takes longer. A Power caching trail.

 

Again, I thank you for your opinion. But it still does not answer the issue. If the issue is a single person taking up the prime caching area, why not make the guideline refect this. "distance between caches for a single cacher is 1 mile"? or whatever. If you look at the posts on different forums about this issue, you get alot of differing OPINIONS as to what the guideline really is and why it is in place. So far, what I have heard from Groundspeak is "If you have to ask, it's probably a power trail." which is a fun post, but does little to answer any of the questions about this issue.

 

I was simply trying to offer a solution to the "problem" at hand.

[+welch]

This should be some interesting, though maybe redundant, reading.

[+Snifferhound]

I'll weigh in on this, for what it's worth. I know the series that 3AMT is talking about. They bring attention to a function called "Trail Daze" where the parks departments want to get people out on the trail system.

I've found two of these caches, and tried to find three others (DNF). No two of them are alike, in container, size, name, or type of placement. They are also on different trails, but some of the trails are interconnected. They couldn't be made into a multi because of being so different and haveing nothing in common.

I think they are all great hides (some I would even call evil) and are fun to hunt one at a time, or pick a general area and see how many you can find.

[+3AMT]

If it is an interesting area that is worthy of caches and cache visitors - then go out and place 1 or 2 caches along it. Then given a few months or few years other cachers will come along and add more caches along the route. I've seen it happen several times over the years. No need for 1 person to plant them all on one weekend.

 

Net effect is the same - lots of caches along a trail system. Just takes longer. A Power caching trail.

 

Again, I thank you for your opinion. But it still does not answer the issue. If the issue is a single person taking up the prime caching area, why not make the guideline refect this. "distance between caches for a single cacher is 1 mile"? or whatever. If you look at the posts on different forums about this issue, you get alot of differing OPINIONS as to what the guideline really is and why it is in place. So far, what I have heard from Groundspeak is "If you have to ask, it's probably a power trail." which is a fun post, but does little to answer any of the questions about this issue.

 

I was simply trying to offer a solution to the "problem" at hand.

And I do truely thank you for your help. As I have said, I have nothing at stake here. I have no caches being disapproved. I have none that I plan to put out in the near future...Oh wait, I have one, if/when I find the right spot for it. It is about hearing from Groundspeak on the issue. That is it. And it looks like I have heard all I will hear from them.

[+tozainamboku]

Like I said, all I am asking for is a bit of clarification on the "guideline" so everyone knows what the intent of the guideline is.

Guidelines are not developed in a vacuum. They have come about over time to address certain problems or to prevent problems from developing. I often imagine that the reviewers have a manual that provides the rationale for the guidelines. At the very least they have reviewer meetings and discussion where they get input from Groundspeak on the rationale for specific guidelines. That allows them to interpret the guidelines as needed on a case by case basis.

 

The saturation guidelines are among the hardest to pin down. Reviewers have the capability to allow caches closer than 528 ft. apart. They also have the ability to require additional separation or to limit the overall number of caches when a hider places a lot of caches at once (or over a short period of time). I would like to hear from the reviewers and Groundspeak a little more of what the guideline's intent is. It may help explain why there isn't a specific number of caches that is too many or a minimum distance beteween cache for them not be considered a power trail.

 

We can make some educated attempts at the rationale for these guidelines.

1. We have heard that in some cases a land manager wants to limit the number of caches in his area. Whether this is to limit some perceived impact or just to keep the number of caches to what the land manager feels is reasonable we can't say. Reviewers may already know of the land manager's desires, or they may just be looking at similar situations that have occured in the past and are restricting the number caches to avoid a potential conflict with a land manager.
   
2. Some cachers complain that a power trail has taken up all the available spots for hiding caches. If there is a nice trail were you can have many caches, the guideline is meant to keep some areas opened for cachers who come along later and want to hide a cache. A reviewer is more likely to approve caches placed a greater distance apart as this will provide places for other to place caches. But it would be very specific to the terrain, the existence of other places to hide caches nearby, etc. If this is a short trail with only room for one or two caches, a reviewer might allow the first person to come by hide one or two caches just like any other area where the first to hide gets the spoils. If the trail has room for 10 cache and the first person want to place 5 or 6 caches, a reviewer may ask for the number to be reduced. You don't really need to own that many caches in one place and someone else may want to fill in the area after you. A 5 part multi, might be allowed as it is just one cache, but I have also seen reviewers suggest having fewer stage so that others could hide on the same trail.
   
3. Despite the fact that is somewhat subjective the reviewers might also be using the guidelines to control cache quality. Someone tossing out ten caches that are in identical containers all hidden in a similar matter may not get all of them approved, while a cacher who has several different style hides on a trail may be able to get them approved. The reviewers may consider that variety is a good thing but that quantity, by itself, is not. A multi may also get approved because that is seen as a fitting way to highlight a trail. Some cachers prefer separate caches because the get several finds, while if there is a multi and they are just unable to find one stage they get zero. TPTB probably wouldn't give much weight to this argurment as they would say the numbers don't matter. There may be some that feel a well done multi is worth more than the sum of the stages.
   

[Clan Riffster]

If you have to ask, it's probably a power trail.

Those were my thoughts from the begining of this thread.

If you are looking for a definitive answer which covers every possible scenario, you won't find one. There is no absolute definition. Erik summed it up the best:

What may be considered a "Power Trail" in one spot, may not be in another. There are factors besides distance to consider too.

 

If your caches are all micros identically placed under benches along a trail they are much more likely to be viewed as part of a power trail then different containers hidden differently but the same distance apart.

 

As somewhat of a litmus test, if the intent is to put out caches so people log many smilies quickly rather than going out to experience what the majority feels geocaching should be all about, it's probably a power trail.

If you still have doubts, contact your reviewer, tell them exactly what you want to do, and where, along with the coordinates.

They will tell you "Yea" or "Nay".

[+erik88l-r]

If you still have doubts, contact your reviewer, tell them exactly what you want to do, and where, along with the coordinates.

They will tell you "Yea" or "Nay".

 

Or they will present the proposal to the other reviewers for input on whether they would give it a "yea" or "nay" or suggest ways to make it workable.

 

One solution we've suggested to people who put out caches A, B, C, D, E, and F to form a power trail is to combine A, C, and E to form a multi going one way, and F, D, and B to form a second multi going back the other way along the trail. Two smilies instead of six, but probably a more memorable geocaching experience.

 

The cache reviewers really aren't in the cache prevention business. We want to work with you to publish your cache(s), but don't want to do something to the detriment of the game.

 

Here's another litmus test for you: If you're contacted by a TV or newspaper reporter to do a story about our sport would you take them to find a series of identical hide-a-keys hidden behind the guard rail at every highway pull off along a road, or take them into the woods to find a single cache that really represents what we consider to be the best of our sport?

 

~erik~

[+3AMT]

Here's another litmus test for you: If you're contacted by a TV or newspaper reporter to do a story about our sport would you take them to find a series of identical hide-a-keys hidden behind the guard rail at every highway pull off along a road, or take them into the woods to find a single cache that really represents what we consider to be the best of our sport?

 

~erik~

 

Or would you take them to a bike trail in the city with good quality hides every 1000 to 1500 feet to show them a variety of caches? A good cache does not have to be a half mile hike in the woods. And not every half mile hike into the woods brings you to a good quality cache.

 

But I do get your point. I completely agree that I would rather find great quality hides, but does the fact that one person put out the caches preclude them from being good hides?

 

Thanks to everyone for the input. I guess the answers from the other reviewers were as good as answers from Groundspeak itself.

[+erik88l-r]

Or would you take them to a bike trail in the city with good quality hides every 1000 to 1500 feet to show them a variety of caches? A good cache does not have to be a half mile hike in the woods. And not every half mile hike into the woods brings you to a good quality cache.

 

A bike trail in the city with good quality hides every 1000 to 1500 sounds pretty darn inviting to me. If they're put out be different people I think you'd get a better variety of hides though than if one person put them out with the intent of creating a power trail.

 

Not every half mile hike in the woods has taken me to a good quality cache either, but in most cases the hike itself has been the memorable part of the adventure, not what's hidden at the end of it.

 

Cheers,

 

~erik~

 

edited to fix typo

Edited June 11, 2007 by erik88l-r

[+briansnat]

If I place 10 caches all the same style a mile apart along a trail, is it a power trail? On the flip side, if I place 10 caches that are all different sizes and styles along a 1 mile stretch of a trail is it a power trail?

 

Short answer - what is your intent? The reviewer will try to determine that. If your intent is to place a power trail, then it's a power trail. The reviewers aren't stupid and will figure that out.

 

Of all the guidelines this one is the grayest of all gray areas, so Team Misguided (paraphrasing SCJ Potter Stewart) said it best: "I can't define a power trail, but I know one when I see it".

[+ReadyOrNot]

You know, I would even take that right now, I can't even get a because I said so. I am not even asking for a WHY to the guideline. I am asking for What...Define what it is we can't do ...

 

Why don't you describe what it is you are wanting to do and then maybe someone could give you a definitive answer. Your question is not very clear, so the answers have not been very clear. If the answer depends on the situation, then how can anyone give you an exact answer without knowing the situation?

[+Happy Humphrey]

The answer to the OP appears to be that there are no exact measurements in use for defining power trails, but if the intention was to create a power trail, then that's most likely how it will be received by the reviewer.

 

I must say that I don't really like the inference that power trails should be banned because they are not "quality" geocaches. The Quality level is dependent on the expectations of the finder, and whether that meets the intentions of the setter. There are several sub-games in geocaching and the sub-games that you don't play should be respected.

 

There is a weakness in the site design, in that caches can only be very roughly categorised (multi, mystery etc). If the cache owner was able to better convey their intention when submitting the cache, then the "quality" would improve. In that you wouldn't be disappointed to find no more than an easy magnetic micro in an indifferent spot, when the cache was clearly defined as a "power trail micro". Those that look forward to a day collecting as many caches as possible would find such a cache top quality: those that don't can filter it out. Just like those that don't like puzzle caches filter them out.

[+3AMT]

 

Why don't you describe what it is you are wanting to do and then maybe someone could give you a definitive answer. Your question is not very clear, so the answers have not been very clear. If the answer depends on the situation, then how can anyone give you an exact answer without knowing the situation?

 

As I stated before, I have nothing planned and am not wanting to do anything. Our reviewer started a thread on our local forum with a statement that he was going to have to "start upholding the intent of the Groundspeak guidelines" but then could not really define a Power Trail. I was sent here with my questions.

[+3AMT]

The answer to the OP appears to be that there are no exact measurements in use for defining power trails, but if the intention was to create a power trail, then that's most likely how it will be received by the reviewer.

 

I must say that I don't really like the inference that power trails should be banned because they are not "quality" geocaches. The Quality level is dependent on the expectations of the finder, and whether that meets the intentions of the setter. There are several sub-games in geocaching and the sub-games that you don't play should be respected.

 

I agree. There is really no answer to the question. If a reviewer decides he doesn't like it, it will not get approved. It is solely the opinion of the reviewer as to whether it is or is not a "Power Trail" and whether it is or is not approved.

 

I also agree that the blanket statement that power trails are lower quality caches is not always true. I am not sure that they it is even true a majority of times. The ones I have done in Iowa are all very good quality caches. I have seen many more individual caches that were a waste of time than I have seen power trail caches be a waste of time. But that is me. I think hiking a a half mile round trip to find an ammo can hidden in a homeless person's shanty is not a real quality cache.

 

The quality of the cache is more about the person placing it than how many and how close they are placing them. If the hider cares, they have quality hides. They are not creating a "Power Trail", they are placing a nice group of caches (they can maintain easily) that will get lots of cachers because they can get lots of smilies without having to spend $50 in gas money.

[Keystone]

There is really no answer to the question. If a reviewer decides he doesn't like it, it will not get approved. It is solely the opinion of the reviewer as to whether it is or is not a "Power Trail" and whether it is or is not approved.

Wow, where did you get that? There have been several posts from cache reviewers describing what factors they consider when presented with a possible power trail, and that's what you conclude from the posts? I am sure glad I didn't waste my time answering in this thread or in the e-mail you sent to me last week or so.

 

You really need to work this out with your local reviewer.

[+Team Perks]

If a reviewer decides he doesn't like it, it will not get approved. It is solely the opinion of the reviewer as to whether it is or is not a "Power Trail" and whether it is or is not approved.

The reviewers don't operate in a vacuum. Anything that might be questionable (i.e., maybe not a clear violation of the listing guidelines but in enough of a gray area to warrant further consideration) is generally bounced up to the super-secret reviewer forum for consensus. The ultimate determination may not always be the one you or I might like, but it at least helps maintain a level of consistency throughout the various regions.

[+Packanack]

Perhaps if the rationale for the guideline was stated, it would be easier to understand the apparent proscription for "Power Trails"--Is it environmental soundness, is it to maintain some connection with physical activity, is it because philosophically it is not all about the numbers. Is it aesthetics.

 

Along with a group, on Sunday we placed three new caches that complemented two others recently placed on the same trail-- hike the 8 miles over varied terrain and pick up 5 numbers--it doesn't seem like a powertrail to me. 3 months of discussion with the owner of the other two caches lead us to the conclusion that the trail could use some caches just for the purpose of exposing it to the public as a great location. And we decided jointly that we would give it a whirl. It also gives him some to go look for, just as I went to search for his.

 

This thread was called to my attention by one of our group, whose comment on Sunday was along the lines that we as geocachers in the forums can find almost any excuse to fight over a game which is supposed to give enjoyment. If our caches had not been approved, it is doubtful any of us would have lost sleep over it, we were too tired from the hike. Have a pleasant day.

Edited June 12, 2007 by Packanack

[+9Key]

So are "power trails" allowed or not? Seems like there's plenty of them around so I guess they're ok.

The sentence in the guidelines doesn't implicitly prohibit them, it just suggests that you create a multi instead.

[+Kit Fox]

 

Um, wow.

 

That's an awful lot of caches along a very short trail. From end to end it's just couple of miles depending on how far you can drive up Carveacre Road and the forest service road it connects to. Hiking around will certainly add a bit of distance, but still it looks like as though you can park a vehicle at one end and then drive around to the other and hike end to end. Do folks in your area really not walk two or three miles if you don't place a cache container every 500 - 600 feet along a trail?I see that there's a few ammo cans in the mix, but most seem to be cheap, otherwise disposable containers. Do they not look at the sights and check out the viewpoints along the way if you don't place altoid tins at each one? Wouldn't hikers get the same experience if your group each hid one cache, spread out along the route to take folks to whatever ultimate destination you wanted to bring them to?

 

Welcome to my world. Caches that require any physical effort for one cache get skipped more often then they get found. My Geocache The Real "Lost World" Cache was placed in January. It has been found three times (two finders grouped up). Had I placed half a dozen caches leading up to this cache, it would easily have ten to twenty finds in the same time period.

 

In defense of power trails:

 

I'd rather hike on a nice trail finding caches every .1 to 1 miles rather than finding parking lot micros every .1 mile. But I don't mind long hikes for single caches either.

[+Miragee]

<snip>

 

In defense of power trails:

 

I'd rather hike on a nice trail finding caches every .1 to 1 miles rather than finding parking lot micros every .1 mile. But I don't mind long hikes for single caches either.

Exactly! Especially with the price of gas these days, having several caches along a trail, all placed at the same time, will help lure people to the area.

 

I found a cache recently that involved a two-mile hike. That cache hadn't been found for more than a year. If that cache owner would place a few small caches along the trail, as "breadcrumbs," more people would make the hike.

 

It is a sad reality . . . but that is the way it is . . .

[+tozainamboku]

In defense of power trails:

 

I'd rather hike on a nice trail finding caches every .1 to 1 miles rather than finding parking lot micros every .1 mile. But I don't mind long hikes for single caches either.

This is one of the difficulties many people have with understanding the power trail rule. Someone can put out a series of 20 to 30 caches in an urban area of micros hidden in parking lots or hanging in bushes. These caches are spread over an area of a few square miles and with a little planning you can come up with a way to drive from cache to cache and find them all in a few hours. Yet if someone places 10 to 15 caches along the same hiking trail over a 2 mile stretch some caches you will be asked to make some of them into a multi-cache or to place fewer and leave some space. It seems like the rule discourages certain kinds of hiking caches while being neutral or even encouraging microSpew in urban areas.

[+Kit Fox]

In defense of power trails:

 

I'd rather hike on a nice trail finding caches every .1 to 1 miles rather than finding parking lot micros every .1 mile. But I don't mind long hikes for single caches either.

This is one of the difficulties many people have with understanding the power trail rule. Someone can put out a series of 20 to 30 caches in an urban area of micros hidden in parking lots or hanging in bushes. These caches are spread over an area of a few square miles and with a little planning you can come up with a way to drive from cache to cache and find them all in a few hours. Yet if someone places 10 to 15 caches along the same hiking trail over a 2 mile stretch some caches you will be asked to make some of them into a multi-cache or to place fewer and leave some space. It seems like the rule discourages certain kinds of hiking caches while being neutral or even encouraging microSpew in urban areas.

 

Maybe it's time for a "Parking Lot Saturation Rule."