Power trails vs. High Gas Prices

[+rnrgrl]

If a cacher follows the 528 ft (plus) guideline in setting caches along a trail in order to cut down driving a car when gas is 3.50 plus a gallon, why is this frowned upon and considered a power run?

How many people would rather drive to one spot (parking coords) and walk or bike a few miles to get 5-10 (plus or minus) caches rather than drive ???miles to get the same when the cost of gas continues to rise?

Any comments?

[Kyul_and_Carbon]

My guess is because its the same person hiding them all. A local park here has 5 caches in it and clearly could have had more but the individual owners didn't pace it off "just right" to fit more.

 

If I'm just gonna find - I don't care I don't hunt more than 4 or 5 a day usually so I always use the "nearby cache" link to find them. I don't care who hides them as long as they are good hides I don't want someone with 10 film canisters going out and just walking and dropping every .1 mile just to get the hide counts. I like it better when each cache is made to hide in a specific place and I can see that thought and time went into it... perhaps its only because it has taken me forever to get 3 hides out LOL

 

So.. dunno if its a "power run" for the finder because one way or another, there will eventually be multiple caches in the one spot anywho......

 

dunno.

[+briansnat]

How many people would rather drive to one spot (parking coords) and walk or bike a few miles to get 5-10 (plus or minus) caches rather than drive

 

I don't give a hoot about numbers so I'll walk those few miles to get one cache. I don't need 5-10 smileys to bring me there.

[+Zolgar]

How many people would rather drive to one spot (parking coords) and walk or bike a few miles to get 5-10 (plus or minus) caches rather than drive

 

I don't give a hoot about numbers so I'll walk those few miles to get one cache. I don't need 5-10 smileys to bring me there.

 

Amens.

 

Honestly, a power trail is boooring to me.

 

Why? because it's usually going to be half a dozen identical(ly lame) hides, exactly 530 feet apart (plus or minus a few based on the local spacing of lamp posts). Where's the entertainment in that?

 

A trail of 6 caches within 2650 feet, would be fine (in my book, RAW maybe not). If each and every one of those was an interesting hide and brought you to a separately interesting place.

[+Team_CSG]

Some cachers are unable to walk that distance with out physical issues.

[+TrailGators]

How many people would rather drive to one spot (parking coords) and walk or bike a few miles to get 5-10 (plus or minus) caches rather than drive

 

I don't give a hoot about numbers so I'll walk those few miles to get one cache. I don't need 5-10 smileys to bring me there.

Exactly. Plus having power trails are a good way to annoy good-natured park rangers.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Some cachers are unable to walk that distance with out physical issues.

True, but isn't asking them to change the guidelines to accomodate us a bit much?

 

The power trail issue isn't about how far the hike is, it's about do you want all of the caches along that trail to be by one cacher.

 

It's about should one cacher dominate any one area.

 

No power trails is a good and helpful guideline.

 

As far as going to one parking place and getting several caches, I am all for it... they just don't all have to be by one cacher.

Edited March 27, 2008 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+rnrgrl]

Thanks for the comments and insight...and I do agree about the lame hides problem...I would have to agree with that one. If the hides were differerent and placed by different cachers, that would be better.

[tttedzeins]

I would rather take a nice drive and then hike for a few hours to find a great cache and come back with a few good stories than do those.

 

Even with our gas prices currently around US$9/gallon

[CoyoteRed]

I have to jump on the bandwagon of not liking power trails because of factor that relate to them being more about the smilie and not about the adventure. If one person can put out 12 caches along a trail, then it would be easier to make it a multi or split into 2 or 3 multis.

 

If one is looking to get more entertainment for their driving dollar then higher rated caches should be in order.

[+SixDogTeam]

You people are just a teeny, tiny, teeny sanctimonious for our taste on this subject.

 

We LOVE power trails in the woods, especially the hard terrain bushwacky ones, and have hidden a bunch

 

around here. A number have sprung up as various cachers hide "piggyback caches" to add to the group.

 

I have NEVER read in a log:

 

"This was a nice hike, thanks for showing us so many neat places, but there were really way too many caches along the way..."

 

[+BlueDeuce]

I'm against high gas prices. Especially if its responsible for creating power trails.

[CoyoteRed]

I have NEVER read in a log:

 

"This was a nice hike, thanks for showing us so many neat places, but there were really way too many caches along the way..."

Hmm... I'm wondering if it's like the virts folks are always praising. Are the virts good because they are virts or because virts were limited to a "wow factor" for so long? It could be you don't see your quoted statement because of the restriction.

 

In fact, I have heard complaints about piggy-back caches and were described as a distraction. This was about a cache being dropped near the trailhead of a very nice, near legendary cache. "More caches the merrier" is not universal. Just saying, is all.

[+SixDogTeam]

I have NEVER read in a log:

 

"This was a nice hike, thanks for showing us so many neat places, but there were really way too many caches along the way..."

Hmm... I'm wondering if it's like the virts folks are always praising. Are the virts good because they are virts or because virts were limited to a "wow factor" for so long? It could be you don't see your quoted statement because of the restriction.

 

In fact, I have heard complaints about piggy-back caches and were described as a distraction. This was about a cache being dropped near the trailhead of a very nice, near legendary cache. "More caches the merrier" is not universal. Just saying, is all.

 

Can you please provide a link to the legendary cache page and the distraction cache page--would be interesting to see the comments on both caches...

[+briansnat]

You people are just a teeny, tiny, teeny sanctimonious for our taste on this subject

 

So having an opinion that varies with yours is sanctimonious? Doesn't an attitude like that display just a teeny, tiny, teeny bit of haughtiness?

 

I've done a power trail and actually I find I prefer to enjoy the scenery rather than have my nosed buried in my GPS the entire walk.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

You people are just a teeny, tiny, teeny sanctimonious for our taste on this subject

 

So having an opinion that varies with yours is sanctimonious? Doesn't an attitude like that display just a teeny, tiny, teeny bit of haughtiness?

 

I've done a power trail and actually I find I prefer to enjoy the scenery rather than have my nosed buried in my GPS the entire walk.

Fine, get your nose out of your GPS and walk on by, nobody's forcing you to stop at every cache.

[+SixDogTeam]

You people are just a teeny, tiny, teeny sanctimonious for our taste on this subject

 

So having an opinion that varies with yours is sanctimonious? Doesn't an attitude like that display just a teeny, tiny, teeny bit of haughtiness?

 

I've done a power trail and actually I find I prefer to enjoy the scenery rather than have my nosed buried in my GPS the entire walk.

 

I'll cop to the haughtiness rap, Brian, no problem. But to answer your question, no, an opinion that varies with mine is not necessarily sanctimonious, usually merely wrong. In this case, I think the opinions are not necessarily wrong, but it was the TONE I was referring to... including your (clever, I admit) sarcasm that I probably deserve.

 

But I think dissing a particular type of cache that does nobody harm is not useful, and suggesting they be banned by more rules, does the hobby no good.

 

BTW, coincidentally, a number of us are meeting up informally to do some power trail caching at Salamonie Reservoir this Saturday--Love to have you join us, seriously--I'll keep my nose glued to my GPSr so you can enjoy the beautiful scenery, which is considerable and just may include a Bald Eagle or two... I hear donuts are involved, as well...

[Clan Riffster]

I think dissing a particular type of cache that does nobody harm is not useful, and suggesting they be banned by more rules, does the hobby no good.

Plopping out a carpy cache every 529' is a blight on the land and does harm, in that it can lead to negative perceptions by land managers. Fortunately, there is no need to suggest they be banned by more rules, as they are already banned.

[+currykev]

gas is 3.50 plus a gallon,

Any comments?

 

Count yourselves lucky! here in the UK, 1 gallon currently works out to about 9 of your $$$'s at the moment.

In fact most things here are at least double what you'd pay in the US of A.Would you pay over $500 for a 60cx??

[CoyoteRed]

Can you please provide a link to the legendary cache page and the distraction cache page--would be interesting to see the comments on both caches...

Nope. I'm not going to call out either the person who placed the cache, or the person who made the statement for that matter. BTW, it was not a log, the person who made the statement has more class than to write it in a log. So, just because a feeling is not in a log doesn't mean it is not felt.

 

...and before you start complaining about folks trying to ban piggy-backing caches, I'm not. I am pointing out that it is not universally liked and can be seen as poaching a spot (though, admittedly, at a distance) and an attempt to steal a bit of thunder from another cache. Carefully done then it shouldn't be a problem. Done in a less than careful way, then it could cause problems. Just like trails with a bunch of caches on it.

[+SixDogTeam]

Can you please provide a link to the legendary cache page and the distraction cache page--would be interesting to see the comments on both caches...

Nope. I'm not going to call out either the person who placed the cache, or the person who made the statement for that matter. BTW, it was not a log, the person who made the statement has more class than to write it in a log. So, just because a feeling is not in a log doesn't mean it is not felt.

 

...and before you start complaining about folks trying to ban piggy-backing caches, I'm not. I am pointing out that it is not universally liked and can be seen as poaching a spot (though, admittedly, at a distance) and an attempt to steal a bit of thunder from another cache. Carefully done then it shouldn't be a problem. Done in a less than careful way, then it could cause problems. Just like trails with a bunch of caches on it.

 

OK then.

[+sbell111]

I have to jump on the bandwagon of not liking power trails because of factor that relate to them being more about the smilie and not about the adventure. If one person can put out 12 caches along a trail, then it would be easier to make it a multi or split into 2 or 3 multis.

That solution would only be preferable if all potential cache seekers enjoyed mulits as much as they enjoy regular caches.

 

To those that have stated that they would prefer only to hunt a single cache per trail so they could better enjoy the trail, I wonder why they don't just enjoy the trail and find one cache. They could return on another day for more trail enjoyment and a different cache. Heck, they could come back and enjoy the trail again and find no caches at all. Alternatively, they could choose to not come back and leave any remaining caches unfound. No one is forcing anyone to find every placed cache, after all.

If one is looking to get more entertainment for their driving dollar then higher rated caches should be in order.

Perhaps the OP, and other cachers, have already decided that they would enjoy finding more than one cache on the trail. Personally, I don't need a rating system to look at caches plotted on a map and decide that I'd like to go after a particular grouping.

 

That being said, as I recall, the power trail guideline was put in place to assuage land manager concerns. I'm not sure that it matters if one cacher is placing all the caches on a trail or if they are placed by numerous cachers. I don't think that power trails are being denied to 'give other cachers a chance to place some' or 'to allow more variety'. These are red herrings, in my opinion. I do believe that power trails should be listed if they are sanctioned by land management. I suspect that they are.

[+Stargazer22]

I really don't consider the price of gas vs. the number of caches I can find in an area.

For me, it's all about going to a nice place and enjoying the area.

I actually prefer fewer caches in a given area so I'm not just hopping from one cache to another.

I enjoy being able to give some attention to the landscape in between.

 

There are some areas here that have been done as power trails and I am not impressed by them. The hides are done by the same hiders and the caches are all pretty much the same. Either a lock and lock or ammo can hidden 15 feet off the road under a couple of palm leaves. I guess when you are concerned with cranking out 10 or 12 caches to put on 1.5 miles of road, it's hard to be creative.

At least if they were hidden by different cachers, there might be a chance that some of them would be a little different than all the others.

Whenever I have cached with others on these power trails, I hear the same comments from almost everybody. That it's hard when logging the caches to remember which one was which.

For me, when it gets to the point that I can't even remember the caches because there were so many in so short a distance, most of the fun is gone.

[CoyoteRed]

These are red herrings, in my opinion. I do believe that power trails should be listed if they are sanctioned by land management. I suspect that they are.

Of course, some land managers might approve of power trails. That's not the issue in this respect. It's the land managers that one may try to convince to allow caches on his land. When he sees a massive number of caches (versus stages) he may balk. We do know of land managers who restrict the number of caches well beyond the minimum Groundspeak sets. So we do know there are limits.

 

If one person can put out 12 caches along a trail, then it would be easier to make it a multi or split into 2 or 3 multis.

That solution would only be preferable if all potential cache seekers enjoyed mulits as much as they enjoy regular caches.

So, what's the difference between 12 individual caches and a single 12 stage multi?

 

Here's a for-instance for ya. You place a 12 stage multi on one trail and 12 individual caches on another identical trail. The stages of the multi are pretty much identical to the corresponding individual caches. The kicker is this, in the first stage of the multi you allow the cacher a choice; go and find all of the other stages or go directly to the last stage. How much activity do you suppose the intermediate stages of that multi would see compared to the intermediate caches on the power trail? Answer that question of why without it coming down to being able to individually log each of those caches.

[+PrincessBTigress]

I fall in the "hard to walk long distances" category (bad knees run in the family) and in the "can't afford the gas to drive to all the caches" category.

Personally I perfer to stop at a park and be able to park and get out and walk to a half dozen caches. If my knees hurt the next couple days well I know I had fun so it was worth it.

If I see theres multiple in walking distance on a trail you can bet I'll go to those first over just a park and grab micro at the local store.

[+sbell111]

If one person can put out 12 caches along a trail, then it would be easier to make it a multi or split into 2 or 3 multis.

That solution would only be preferable if all potential cache seekers enjoyed mulits as much as they enjoy regular caches.

So, what's the difference between 12 individual caches and a single 12 stage multi?

I thought I made myself clear. Some people don't care for multis.

Here's a for-instance for ya. You place a 12 stage multi on one trail and 12 individual caches on another identical trail. The stages of the multi are pretty much identical to the corresponding individual caches. The kicker is this, in the first stage of the multi you allow the cacher a choice; go and find all of the other stages or go directly to the last stage. How much activity do you suppose the intermediate stages of that multi would see compared to the intermediate caches on the power trail? Answer that question of why without it coming down to being able to individually log each of those caches.

I just did. Also, with the caches on the trail, I can go find a cache or two and turn around when I start to hurt too bad, whereas I would never be able to walk the entire trail to find the twelve-stage multi. (Don't even get me started on what happens when stage eleven goes missing.)

[+tozainamboku]

You people are just a teeny, tiny, teeny sanctimonious for our taste on this subject.

 

We LOVE power trails in the woods, especially the hard terrain bushwacky ones, and have hidden a bunch

 

around here. A number have sprung up as various cachers hide "piggyback caches" to add to the group.

 

I have NEVER read in a log:

"This was a nice hike, thanks for showing us so many neat places, but there were really way too many caches along the way..."

 

In a earlier thread on power trails I posted about one famous power trail in Palm Springs which I thought I would have enjoyed more if instead of 30 caches there were no more than about six or seven. Like briansnat, I thought I would have enjoyed the hike more if I could enjoy the scenery instead of running from one cache to the next.

 

Power trails exist just as another way to run up big numbers. You can spend the afternoon finding one or two caches and enjoying a nice hike or you can spend the afternoon doing the same hike and finding 10 or 20 caches. Certainly you can take TARs approach and decide to look for only one or two cache and just skip by the others. I have seen many people take this approach especially if the hike is one they know they will come back to do. Sometimes having a lot of caches along a trail is a pleasant way to break up a hike, so not all power trails are bad. This makes a problem for the reviewers, because similar to "Wow" for virtuals, they have to decided how many caches is too many.

 

The map below is not a classic power trail. The caches got added by different people as they each hiked up to find the oldest cache in Los Angeles county.

For the longest time is was the only cache on the mountain. It was a challenging cache to find, the hike is not easy nor was finding the route. Not only did I hike up the mountain for just one cache, I went back the next week to replace the deteriorated Tupperware container with an ammo can. About a year ago a group of cachers who went to find the cache place a few more caches up near the summit just beyond the original cache. Their intentions were good. They hoped that if there were more caches up on the mountain more people would go to find the oldest cache in LA county. I'm not sure way you need more caches to encourage people to find a classic like this. Later other groups and individuals followed with more caches along the trail. No longer must you find the route up the mountain, just follow the row of caches. There is even one at the trailhead now which is unmarked so even that challenge is gone. No longer must you dedicate several hours to achieve finding one cache, you now can find a cache every 10 to 15 minutes. The whole experience has been changed. I am thinking about doing this hike in the next few weeks - before the weather gets too hot - and have been considering leaving a cut and paste log for each cache "Thanks for all the caches showing the way to God's Eye View. They have changed the experience of doing this cache and not everyone thinks for the better."

Edited March 27, 2008 by tozainamboku

[+StarBrand]

Since when have any of the guidelines been about protecting our collective pocketbooks from getting smaller?? Choose to go or choose not to - should never be about the number of smilies we get in a day.

 

Powertrails fall under the saturation guideline. Thats the reason - nothing to do with your MPG.

 

Powertrails tend to build themselves over time with the efforts of many cachers and the benefits of time. If the area is really worth of so many caches - it will naturally happen without a single cacher doing it over some particular weekend.

Edited March 27, 2008 by StarBrand

[+sbell111]

... I am thinking about doing this hike in the next few weeks - before the weather gets too hot - and have been considering leaving a cut and paste log for each cache "Thanks for all the caches showing the way to God's Eye View. They have changed the experience of doing this cache and not everyone thinks for the better."

Are the people who are finding them currently enjoying the experience?

[+TrailGators]

You people are just a teeny, tiny, teeny sanctimonious for our taste on this subject.

 

We LOVE power trails in the woods, especially the hard terrain bushwacky ones, and have hidden a bunch

 

around here. A number have sprung up as various cachers hide "piggyback caches" to add to the group.

 

I have NEVER read in a log:

"This was a nice hike, thanks for showing us so many neat places, but there were really way too many caches along the way..."

 

In a earlier thread on power trails I posted about one famous power trail in Palm Springs which I thought I would have enjoyed more if instead of 30 caches there were no more than about six or seven. Like briansnat, I thought I would have enjoyed the hike more if I could enjoy the scenery instead of running from one cache to the next.

 

Power trails exist just as another way to run up big numbers. You can spend the afternoon finding one or two caches and enjoying a nice hike or you can spend the afternoon doing the same hike and finding 10 or 20 caches. Certainly you can take TARs approach and decide to look for only one or two cache and just skip by the others. I have seen many people take this approach especially if the hike is one they know they will come back to do. Sometimes having a lot of caches along a trail is a pleasant way to break up a hike, so not all power trails are bad. This makes a problem for the reviewers, because similar to "Wow" for virtuals, they have to decided how many caches is too many.

 

The map below is not a classic power trail. The caches got added by different people as they each hiked up to find the oldest cache in Los Angeles county.

For the longest time is was the only cache on the mountain. It was a challenging cache to find, the hike is not easy nor was finding the route. Not only did I hike up the mountain for just one cache, I went back the next week to replace the deteriorated Tupperware container with an ammo can. About a year ago a group of cachers who went to find the cache place a few more caches up near the summit just beyond the original cache. Their intentions were good. They hoped that if there were more caches up on the mountain more people would go to find the oldest cache in LA county. I'm not sure way you need more caches to encourage people to find a classic like this. Later other groups and individuals followed with more caches along the trail. No longer must you find the route up the mountain, just follow the row of caches. There is even one at the trailhead now which is unmarked so even that challenge is gone. No longer must you dedicate several hours to achieve finding one cache, you now can find a cache every 10 to 15 minutes. The whole experience has been changed. I am thinking about doing this hike in the next few weeks - before the weather gets too hot - and have been considering leaving a cut and paste log for each cache "Thanks for all the caches showing the way to God's Eye View. They have changed the experience of doing this cache and not everyone thinks for the better."

We have areas exactly like that but as you and TAR mentioned there is nothing making anybody stop for these. I program my GPS to show a code for the type and size of the caches. So if I see a bunch of TMs (Traditional micros) on a trail I can just keep going and decide to only stop for the TRs (Traditional regulars). When you get out of the mind-lock of having to clear out an area it opens up a lot of flexibility. As Briansnat mentioned, I want to enjoy the hike and not stare at my GPS the whole time. So I'm ready for a break, I can also look at my GPS and see if a cache is coming up to take a break. It's the same logic I use when I'm on a long drive and I'm hungry. I don't stop at every fast food restaurant along the way. I only stop when I feel like stopping and I only stop at places I prefer. However, my problem with power trails is that I think we are pressing our luck in some parks and it could have a backlash.

[+Tresco]

I do like a good hike in nice to visit area. I like the idea of several caches in an area. I like to walk around and explore. I also like to cache from the back of my mule. If I can trailer her in and then spend a few hours riding hither and yonn caching, thats my idea of a good time. I would not like to climb up and down every 500 feet though. That seems a bit excessive to me. If the area were saturated with caches I would pick which ones I wanted to visit and ignore the rest.

[+sbell111]

I do like a good hike in nice to visit area. I like the idea of several caches in an area. I like to walk around and explore. I also like to cache from the back of my mule. If I can trailer her in and then spend a few hours riding hither and yonn caching, thats my idea of a good time. I would not like to climb up and down every 500 feet though. That seems a bit excessive to me. If the area were saturated with caches I would pick which ones I wanted to visit and ignore the rest.

You could find one every thousand feet and be able to look for them coming and going. Alternatively, you could look for caches every 2000 feet and find them coming and going and come back next weekend to enjoy the trail again.

Edited March 27, 2008 by sbell111

[+briansnat]

To those that have stated that they would prefer only to hunt a single cache per trail so they could better enjoy the trail, I wonder why they don't just enjoy the trail and find one cache. They could return on another day for more trail enjoyment and a different cache.

 

When alone that is precisely what I would do. When caching with others though it's often really tough to convince another geocacher walk past a cache.

[+Kealia]

Count me in the "one cache is enough" crowd.

 

Tuesday night I did a group hike with 14 other people. 7 miles, 2,000 foot climb to a peak with awesome views of the Bay Area sunset. I think there were something like 25 caches on the route.

 

Most of these were part of a series with the final being near the top, but even so the hides were just there as encouragement to get to the top. I couldn't write individual logs for most of them because they just blended into one another and offered nothing unique.

 

There were caches on the way down too, but we skipped most of them because we were lost in conversation. I would have been happy to just nab the few at the top but I was in the minority so the group kept stopping.

 

Getting back on topic, the price of gas won't make me enjoy power trails more. I don't define my caching experience as being good by using a formula like # of caches/price of gas.

 

Mine is more like: # of smiles (not cache-found smilies) / cache.

[+TrailGators]

What matters is enjoyment/gallon and not smileys/gallon!

Let's get the metric right!

[+nthacker66]

What matters is enjoyment/gallon and not smileys/gallon!

Let's get the metric right!

 

Exactly. I think instead of worrying about the quantity of the finds, more focus should be put on the quality of the hunt.

 

Instead of getting Jeep's and other 4x4, buy a little honda - much better on gas mileage, means you spend less on gas and more time and radius caching.

[+Mule Ears]

What matters is enjoyment/gallon and not smileys/gallon!

Let's get the metric right!

 

Exactly. I think instead of worrying about the quantity of the finds, more focus should be put on the quality of the hunt.

 

Instead of getting Jeep's and other 4x4, buy a little honda - much better on gas mileage, means you spend less on gas and more time and radius caching.

 

Not so fast. I use my Jeep to get to remote trailheads (or trailless areas) to hunt wilderness caches. Driving a non-4x4 would rule out most of the caches I consider worthwhile. I conserve gas by driving stingily (wringing 19-20mpg city/hwy combined out of a 2007 Wrangler Rubicon) and commuting to work on foot or by bike. And if I didn't, it'd be nobody's business but my own.

 

Making a case for maximizing smilies/gallon by encouraging power trails does strike me as pretty silly, I'll agree with you there.

[+root1657]

What matters is enjoyment/gallon and not smileys/gallon!

Let's get the metric right!

 

OK, I have to throw this in...

 

I saw a cartoon the other day that said the difference between good work and shotty work is the number of WTFs/minute when your work is reviewed. Hows that for a metric?

[Clan Riffster]

Instead of getting Jeep's and other 4x4, buy a little honda

Not a sea foam Prius?

[+PhxChem]

 

That's one of the ugliest things I've ever seen.

 

The one powertrail I've ever done, was the SAME HIDE 4 times in a row.....pretty much spaced exactly to the rules.

 

 

Why would anyone approve of such as mess anyway?

 

POWER IS INVERSLY PROPORTIONAL TO FUN YOU'LL HAVE CACHING!!

[+sbell111]

To those that have stated that they would prefer only to hunt a single cache per trail so they could better enjoy the trail, I wonder why they don't just enjoy the trail and find one cache. They could return on another day for more trail enjoyment and a different cache.

 

When alone that is precisely what I would do. When caching with others though it's often really tough to convince another geocacher walk past a cache.

I see no difference then if the cache was a LPM that the other person wanted to stop for and you didn't or a cache that you had already found and he had not. It's not really a power trail issue.

[+sbell111]

 

That's one of the ugliest things I've ever seen.

 

The one powertrail I've ever done, was the SAME HIDE 4 times in a row.....pretty much spaced exactly to the rules.

 

 

Why would anyone approve of such as mess anyway?

 

POWER IS INVERSLY PROPORTIONAL TO FUN YOU'LL HAVE CACHING!!

From the map alone, how can you say it's ugly? THey might all be great caches that are completely different from one another. I've only experienced two power trails, but both were made up of a great assortment of caches.

 

People complain that there are two many micros or too many caches that don't allow for a walk in teh woods. People complain.

[+sbell111]

Instead of getting Jeep's and other 4x4, buy a little honda - much better on gas mileage, means you spend less on gas and more time and radius caching.

I'd rather stick with a vehicle that's survivable. Thanks.

[J.A.R.S.]

If one person can put out 12 caches along a trail, then it would be easier to make it a multi or split into 2 or 3 multis.

That solution would only be preferable if all potential cache seekers enjoyed mulits as much as they enjoy regular caches.

So, what's the difference between 12 individual caches and a single 12 stage multi?

I thought I made myself clear. Some people don't care for multis.

 

I agree, there are many people who avoid them for many varied and good reasons. See the "Why are multis less popular?" thread.

[+nthacker66]

Instead of getting Jeep's and other 4x4, buy a little honda - much better on gas mileage, means you spend less on gas and more time and radius caching.

I'd rather stick with a vehicle that's survivable. Thanks.

 

survivable by what standards? most people do not go off roading to get to caches. if you must do that, go buy a atv. it can easily be towed behind a honda pilot, element or their pickup - ridgeway.

 

And for those who PM's me saying the honda's arent "amreican" enough - i used to buy american brand cars like it was a religious thing. My father and his father owned american brand vehicles. Then one day, when I was tired of having my transmissions break down at 75K miles and paying $3000 to have it replaced (which at that point is more than the car is worth because chevy's and fords lose their value so fast) I decided it was time to buy a honda. They are more economical, much better on gas mileage and best of all, are probably the most "american" made vehicles on the road. I would rather pay a japanese company my moeny for their cars so they can pay the american works who will keep their jobs, unlike GM.

 

But back to the point, the honda suv's and pickup are very good "survivable" vehicles.

[+gof1]

Could someone give me a definition of a power trail?

 

As I see it a power trail is a stretch of same same caches every 528 feet with no purpose other than the fact that they meet the proximity rules and give those finding a quick bunch of smiles. If that is what we are talking about then keep 'em. I'm looking for quality, not quantity.

 

If the definition is broad enough to include a grouping of caches each with a unique reason or being the what's the problem? I enjoy finding an area that has a bunch of caches that each is interesting in its own way.

 

I think it is a fine line between cache rich and cache dense.

[+geomann1]

 

I think it is a fine line between cache rich and cache dense.

 

I totally agree, In my neck of the woods there are some parks that are prime cache hiding locations, but are already at about saturation. I see no harm in waiving the 500 ft rule to allow for more clever caches, so long as they would not interfere with existing caches.

[+sbell111]

Instead of getting Jeep's and other 4x4, buy a little honda - much better on gas mileage, means you spend less on gas and more time and radius caching.

I'd rather stick with a vehicle that's survivable. Thanks.

 

survivable by what standards? most people do not go off roading to get to caches. if you must do that, go buy a atv. it can easily be towed behind a honda pilot, element or their pickup - ridgeway.

 

And for those who PM's me saying the honda's arent "amreican" enough - i used to buy american brand cars like it was a religious thing. My father and his father owned american brand vehicles. Then one day, when I was tired of having my transmissions break down at 75K miles and paying $3000 to have it replaced (which at that point is more than the car is worth because chevy's and fords lose their value so fast) I decided it was time to buy a honda. They are more economical, much better on gas mileage and best of all, are probably the most "american" made vehicles on the road. I would rather pay a japanese company my moeny for their cars so they can pay the american works who will keep their jobs, unlike GM.

 

But back to the point, the honda suv's and pickup are very good "survivable" vehicles.

If I have to buy the (ugly) pickup or SUV, why can't I just keep my Grand Cherokee?

 

The reason I drive a Grand Cherokee is because my last one gave it's all protecting me from a head on collision at interstate speeds with a full-sized pickup. I'm certain that I wouldn't have survived the adventure in an Accord.

 

The reason I drive an Allante around town on nice weekends is because I really, really like it.

[+sbell111]

 

I think it is a fine line between cache rich and cache dense.

 

I totally agree, In my neck of the woods there are some parks that are prime cache hiding locations, but are already at about saturation. I see no harm in waiving the 500 ft rule to allow for more clever caches, so long as they would not interfere with existing caches.

I don't think that the OP is requesting that the .1 mile rule be waived.

[+gof1]

 

I think it is a fine line between cache rich and cache dense.

 

I totally agree, In my neck of the woods there are some parks that are prime cache hiding locations, but are already at about saturation. I see no harm in waiving the 500 ft rule to allow for more clever caches, so long as they would not interfere with existing caches.

I don't think that the OP is requesting that the .1 mile rule be waived.

I agree with Sbell111. I'll add that a number has to exist for the proximity rule(guideline, whatever) to work. It is a good rule (do I need to do this again?) I see no reason to mess with it as it stands. Without it we would have caches heaped in piles around the base of every lamp post.