California Route 66 power trail road closures.

[+Sagefox]

I am posting here rather than in West/Southwest because most of the power trail topics seem to be here and because people travel from all over the country to do PTs in California and Nevada.

 

Bad news for anyone wanting to visit the National Trails Highway power trail (a.k.a. Route 66) in the near future. I received an email from the Mojave Desert Cultural and Heritage Association in Goffs, CA that most of this highway from Ludlow to Goffs is closed and that the Highway Patrol is ticketing anyone driving around barriers.

 

Best check road conditions before heading to this trail. My experience is that when bridges are washed out on this highway they can remain out for a long time.

 

Here is a link to San Bernardino County Public Works. Click on the Road Closures to get to a Word document that lists all highway section closures.

[jholly]

Wow, that is a big chunk. I bet some of the others along the dirt roads in the area are goners.

[+Roman!]

Wonder how many containers will be missing when it opens up again.

[+tozainamboku]

Wonder how many containers will be missing when it opens up again.

(hint pt->td)

 

(Sorry for the puzzle Roman!)

Edited September 26, 2014 by tozainamboku

[+Roman!]

Wonder how many containers will be missing when it opens up again.

(hint pt->td)

 

(Sorry for the puzzle Roman!)

 

No worries, it was an easy one.

 

When we did Route 66 I brought 50 replacements, I have a feeling 500 might not do it.

 

It's a shame, Route 66 was my favorite.

[+jellis]

Someone told me they were there and that they converted that stretch to a bike trail. Can anyone confirm that?

[+Sagefox]

Wow, that is a big chunk. I bet some of the others along the dirt roads in the area are goners.

 

It was a big rainstorm, especially for the desert. Goffs got two inches but Essex, in the power trail, is said to have had 5 to 6". With the road being closed along most of it's 109 miles the storm must have been wide spread.

 

The bummer for me is that I will be in Goffs for the schoolhouse centennial celebration on Oct 12 and I was planning on doing extensive history stops along the NTH. I have a highly detailed book on the history of towns and homesteads along that highway and railroad line and I was going to stop at many of those sites with book and photos in hand and explore the ground. It was to include one night camped out on the NTH before moving on to Goffs. This was to be my great excellent adventure - a desert walkabout.

 

Sure there are about 900 caches on that road but I was going to focus on history and benchmarks (historic markers) and then grab between 30 and 100 caches.

 

(We drove the ET Highway last May, spent the night at the Little Ale Inn in Rachel and only grabbed 8 caches by car and another 13 on foot. We were on a different mission that trip. It could be a record for the most caches passed up on that highway! :o )

 

If the road sections are still closed when we leave town I will throw on the bike and see what I can do by peddling. I can access the middle of the power trail by an open north-south highway.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Wonder how many containers will be missing when it opens up again.

(hint pt->td)

 

(Sorry for the puzzle Roman!)

 

No worries, it was an easy one.

 

When we did Route 66 I brought 50 replacements, I have a feeling 500 might not do it.

 

It's a shame, Route 66 was my favorite.

 

How many of those replacement did you use? Did you log a find on caches that you replaced? Presumably the CO allows throwdowns to replace missing containers, but I don't understand how that's different than a CO allowing a found it on a cache if a finder is unable to sign a pulpy mess of a log. Do the same rules you stand by regarding "no sign, no log" not apply because it's a power trail?

 

 

 

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

Wonder how many containers will be missing when it opens up again.

(hint pt->td)

 

(Sorry for the puzzle Roman!)

 

No worries, it was an easy one.

 

When we did Route 66 I brought 50 replacements, I have a feeling 500 might not do it.

 

It's a shame, Route 66 was my favorite.

 

How many of those replacement did you use? Did you log a find on caches that you replaced? Presumably the CO allows throwdowns to replace missing containers, but I don't understand how that's different than a CO allowing a found it on a cache if a finder is unable to sign a pulpy mess of a log. Do the same rules you stand by regarding "no sign, no log" not apply because it's a power trail?

 

(You beat me to it NYPC!)

[+dprovan]

How many of those replacement did you use? Did you log a find on caches that you replaced? Presumably the CO allows throwdowns to replace missing containers, but I don't understand how that's different than a CO allowing a found it on a cache if a finder is unable to sign a pulpy mess of a log. Do the same rules you stand by regarding "no sign, no log" not apply because it's a power trail?

The more I think about it, the more interesting this question gets. On the one hand, it's even easier in this case to see the logic of an exception to the rules. On the other hand, no one can deny that they're doing Route 66 for the numbers.

 

As hard as it is to believe someone would keep track of exactly which ones they replaced, my money is on Roman! not taking the finds, although he might cop out with some kind of "I was so much younger then" excuse.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

How many of those replacement did you use? Did you log a find on caches that you replaced? Presumably the CO allows throwdowns to replace missing containers, but I don't understand how that's different than a CO allowing a found it on a cache if a finder is unable to sign a pulpy mess of a log. Do the same rules you stand by regarding "no sign, no log" not apply because it's a power trail?

The more I think about it, the more interesting this question gets. On the one hand, it's even easier in this case to see the logic of an exception to the rules. On the other hand, no one can deny that they're doing Route 66 for the numbers.

 

One of the things I object to most about power trails is that often there seems to be one set of guidelines for non-PT caches and one set of guidelines for PT caches, and that sometimes practices which have become acceptable when doing a power trail have migrated over to non-PT caches.

 

 

 

[+tozainamboku]

Wonder how many containers will be missing when it opens up again.

(hint pt->td)

 

(Sorry for the puzzle Roman!)

 

No worries, it was an easy one.

 

When we did Route 66 I brought 50 replacements, I have a feeling 500 might not do it.

 

It's a shame, Route 66 was my favorite.

 

How many of those replacement did you use? Did you log a find on caches that you replaced? Presumably the CO allows throwdowns to replace missing containers, but I don't understand how that's different than a CO allowing a found it on a cache if a finder is unable to sign a pulpy mess of a log. Do the same rules you stand by regarding "no sign, no log" not apply because it's a power trail?

I will grant Roman! this. There is a difference between a cache owner saying that he welcomes replacements for missing caches on a powertrail and one who posts on the page "While the highway is closed, post a picture of the barricade and you can log the 392 caches on the closed section of the road."

[+Roman!]

Wonder how many containers will be missing when it opens up again.

(hint pt->td)

 

(Sorry for the puzzle Roman!)

 

No worries, it was an easy one.

 

When we did Route 66 I brought 50 replacements, I have a feeling 500 might not do it.

 

It's a shame, Route 66 was my favorite.

 

How many of those replacement did you use? Did you log a find on caches that you replaced? Presumably the CO allows throwdowns to replace missing containers, but I don't understand how that's different than a CO allowing a found it on a cache if a finder is unable to sign a pulpy mess of a log. Do the same rules you stand by regarding "no sign, no log" not apply because it's a power trail?

 

Firstly I used about 30 to replace cracked containers, when I did Route 66 not one was missing.

 

Secondly please show me where I said anything about not being able to log a find if the log is a pulpy mess.

[+Roman!]

How many of those replacement did you use? Did you log a find on caches that you replaced? Presumably the CO allows throwdowns to replace missing containers, but I don't understand how that's different than a CO allowing a found it on a cache if a finder is unable to sign a pulpy mess of a log. Do the same rules you stand by regarding "no sign, no log" not apply because it's a power trail?

The more I think about it, the more interesting this question gets. On the one hand, it's even easier in this case to see the logic of an exception to the rules. On the other hand, no one can deny that they're doing Route 66 for the numbers.

 

As hard as it is to believe someone would keep track of exactly which ones they replaced, my money is on Roman! not taking the finds, although he might cop out with some kind of "I was so much younger then" excuse.

 

I have taken finds on other PTs when we couldn't find the cache, the reasoning, we had the COs permission to replace missing caches thus we left a signed cache.

 

I have done a 130 cache bike trail where hides and containers were varied and there was no implied permision to replace missing containers, here I logged DNFs.

Edited September 26, 2014 by Roman!

[+Roman!]

How many of those replacement did you use? Did you log a find on caches that you replaced? Presumably the CO allows throwdowns to replace missing containers, but I don't understand how that's different than a CO allowing a found it on a cache if a finder is unable to sign a pulpy mess of a log. Do the same rules you stand by regarding "no sign, no log" not apply because it's a power trail?

The more I think about it, the more interesting this question gets. On the one hand, it's even easier in this case to see the logic of an exception to the rules. On the other hand, no one can deny that they're doing Route 66 for the numbers.

 

One of the things I object to most about power trails is that often there seems to be one set of guidelines for non-PT caches and one set of guidelines for PT caches, and that sometimes practices which have become acceptable when doing a power trail have migrated over to non-PT caches.

 

I think replacing any container, be it on a PT or not, if you have the COs permission is fine.

 

I agree throwdowns (to me a throwdown is a replacement cache with no permission from the CO to be left) are a detriment to the game.

[+NanCycle]

How many of those replacement did you use? Did you log a find on caches that you replaced? Presumably the CO allows throwdowns to replace missing containers, but I don't understand how that's different than a CO allowing a found it on a cache if a finder is unable to sign a pulpy mess of a log. Do the same rules you stand by regarding "no sign, no log" not apply because it's a power trail?

The more I think about it, the more interesting this question gets. On the one hand, it's even easier in this case to see the logic of an exception to the rules. On the other hand, no one can deny that they're doing Route 66 for the numbers.

 

One of the things I object to most about power trails is that often there seems to be one set of guidelines for non-PT caches and one set of guidelines for PT caches, and that sometimes practices which have become acceptable when doing a power trail have migrated over to non-PT caches.

 

Wholeheartedly agree! I heard that a group of 6 cachers from out-of-state flew into the Colorado Springs, CO, area, rented 6 cars, and drove off in 6 different directions. I heard that all cachers claimed finds on all caches that were found by any one of them. I heard that throw-downs were used liberally so that there were no DNFs. Worst of all, I heard that the practice of moving containers along from one location to another was employed, without regard to the type of container to the extent that ammo cans/lock&locks were replaced by film pots and vice versa, willy nilly. I heard that this trip included some very high numbers cachers. Note: This is only a rumor that I heard; I have no direct knowledge of any of any of it, in fact I saw no evidence of any of it when I was caching in the same area recently.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Wonder how many containers will be missing when it opens up again.

(hint pt->td)

 

(Sorry for the puzzle Roman!)

 

No worries, it was an easy one.

 

When we did Route 66 I brought 50 replacements, I have a feeling 500 might not do it.

 

It's a shame, Route 66 was my favorite.

 

How many of those replacement did you use? Did you log a find on caches that you replaced? Presumably the CO allows throwdowns to replace missing containers, but I don't understand how that's different than a CO allowing a found it on a cache if a finder is unable to sign a pulpy mess of a log. Do the same rules you stand by regarding "no sign, no log" not apply because it's a power trail?

 

Firstly I used about 30 to replace cracked containers, when I did Route 66 not one was missing.

 

Secondly please show me where I said anything about not being able to log a find if the log is a pulpy mess.

 

I don't believe that you said that so I'm not going to search for it. What I recall you saying is that even a log that a pulpy mess could be signed. Frankly, the act of poking a pulpy mess with a stick or opening a container, discovering that a log is a pulpy mess and closing it back up is not different enough to determine whether or not a found it log is justified. If a CO is justified in allowing a found log to be posted when someone can't find a cache and replaces the container, even with permission, I don't think that it would be unreasonable for a CO to allow the posting of a found it log, if for some other reason the log was not signable.

 

 

[+Roman!]

Wonder how many containers will be missing when it opens up again.

(hint pt->td)

 

(Sorry for the puzzle Roman!)

 

No worries, it was an easy one.

 

When we did Route 66 I brought 50 replacements, I have a feeling 500 might not do it.

 

 

It's a shame, Route 66 was my favorite.

 

How many of those replacement did you use? Did you log a find on caches that you replaced? Presumably the CO allows throwdowns to replace missing containers, but I don't understand how that's different than a CO allowing a found it on a cache if a finder is unable to sign a pulpy mess of a log. Do the same rules you stand by regarding "no sign, no log" not apply because it's a power trail?

 

Firstly I used about 30 to replace cracked containers, when I did Route 66 not one was missing.

 

Secondly please show me where I said anything about not being able to log a find if the log is a pulpy mess.

 

I don't believe that you said that so I'm not going to search for it. What I recall you saying is that even a log that a pulpy mess could be signed. Frankly, the act of poking a pulpy mess with a stick or opening a container, discovering that a log is a pulpy mess and closing it back up is not different enough to determine whether or not a found it log is justified. If a CO is justified in allowing a found log to be posted when someone can't find a cache and replaces the container, even with permission, I don't think that it would be unreasonable for a CO to allow the posting of a found it log, if for some other reason the log was not signable.

 

Here is what I think you remember:

 

Funny enough here is a log one of the finders of that "virtual" posted on their own cache today:

 

Temporarily Disable Listing 09/25/2014

If you cannot get this cache out, then you cannot sign the log and claim the find. Hopefully the next person to visit can fix it.

View Log

 

Here is what I said about signing logs: The definition of a signature is a mark that represents you be it an inked signature, a stamp, a thumb print of dirt or a runny ink blob due to a soaked log book or any other creative way a person may leave their mark.

 

 

You weren't the first person to hear what you wanted to here just so you can disagree with me

Edited September 26, 2014 by Roman!

[4wheelin_fool]

How many of those replacement did you use? Did you log a find on caches that you replaced? Presumably the CO allows throwdowns to replace missing containers, but I don't understand how that's different than a CO allowing a found it on a cache if a finder is unable to sign a pulpy mess of a log. Do the same rules you stand by regarding "no sign, no log" not apply because it's a power trail?

The more I think about it, the more interesting this question gets. On the one hand, it's even easier in this case to see the logic of an exception to the rules. On the other hand, no one can deny that they're doing Route 66 for the numbers.

 

One of the things I object to most about power trails is that often there seems to be one set of guidelines for non-PT caches and one set of guidelines for PT caches, and that sometimes practices which have become acceptable when doing a power trail have migrated over to non-PT caches.

 

Wholeheartedly agree! I heard that a group of 6 cachers from out-of-state flew into the Colorado Springs, CO, area, rented 6 cars, and drove off in 6 different directions. I heard that all cachers claimed finds on all caches that were found by any one of them. I heard that throw-downs were used liberally so that there were no DNFs. Worst of all, I heard that the practice of moving containers along from one location to another was employed, without regard to the type of container to the extent that ammo cans/lock&locks were replaced by film pots and vice versa, willy nilly. I heard that this trip included some very high numbers cachers. Note: This is only a rumor that I heard; I have no direct knowledge of any of any of it, in fact I saw no evidence of any of it when I was caching in the same area recently.

 

The sacred practice of signing the log was preserved at all costs, as everything else sounds ridiculous.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Wonder how many containers will be missing when it opens up again.

(hint pt->td)

 

(Sorry for the puzzle Roman!)

 

No worries, it was an easy one.

 

When we did Route 66 I brought 50 replacements, I have a feeling 500 might not do it.

 

 

It's a shame, Route 66 was my favorite.

 

How many of those replacement did you use? Did you log a find on caches that you replaced? Presumably the CO allows throwdowns to replace missing containers, but I don't understand how that's different than a CO allowing a found it on a cache if a finder is unable to sign a pulpy mess of a log. Do the same rules you stand by regarding "no sign, no log" not apply because it's a power trail?

 

Firstly I used about 30 to replace cracked containers, when I did Route 66 not one was missing.

 

Secondly please show me where I said anything about not being able to log a find if the log is a pulpy mess.

 

I don't believe that you said that so I'm not going to search for it. What I recall you saying is that even a log that a pulpy mess could be signed. Frankly, the act of poking a pulpy mess with a stick or opening a container, discovering that a log is a pulpy mess and closing it back up is not different enough to determine whether or not a found it log is justified. If a CO is justified in allowing a found log to be posted when someone can't find a cache and replaces the container, even with permission, I don't think that it would be unreasonable for a CO to allow the posting of a found it log, if for some other reason the log was not signable.

 

Here is what I think you remember:

 

Funny enough here is a log one of the finders of that "virtual" posted on their own cache today:

 

Temporarily Disable Listing 09/25/2014

If you cannot get this cache out, then you cannot sign the log and claim the find. Hopefully the next person to visit can fix it.

View Log

 

Here is what I said about signing logs: The definition of a signature is a mark that represents you be it an inked signature, a stamp, a thumb print of dirt or a runny ink blob due to a soaked log book or any other creative way a person may leave their mark.

 

 

You weren't the first person to hear what you wanted to here just so you can disagree with me

 

No, I didn't hear anything more that what you wrote. So what you're basically saying is that if I spend a week solving a puzzle, then hike five miles to GZ, find a container and open it to discover a pulpy mess of a log, if I poke it with a pen, leaving a unrecognizable blob of ink, I can log it as a find, but if I don't leave a mark I should log a DNF? Frankly, I think almost every reasonable person that owns a cache (ok, I can think of one exception) would allow a found it log, if I did everything else related to finding the cache except leaving a mark.

[+SwineFlew]

How many of those replacement did you use? Did you log a find on caches that you replaced? Presumably the CO allows throwdowns to replace missing containers, but I don't understand how that's different than a CO allowing a found it on a cache if a finder is unable to sign a pulpy mess of a log. Do the same rules you stand by regarding "no sign, no log" not apply because it's a power trail?

The more I think about it, the more interesting this question gets. On the one hand, it's even easier in this case to see the logic of an exception to the rules. On the other hand, no one can deny that they're doing Route 66 for the numbers.

 

One of the things I object to most about power trails is that often there seems to be one set of guidelines for non-PT caches and one set of guidelines for PT caches, and that sometimes practices which have become acceptable when doing a power trail have migrated over to non-PT caches.

 

Wholeheartedly agree! I heard that a group of 6 cachers from out-of-state flew into the Colorado Springs, CO, area, rented 6 cars, and drove off in 6 different directions. I heard that all cachers claimed finds on all caches that were found by any one of them. I heard that throw-downs were used liberally so that there were no DNFs. Worst of all, I heard that the practice of moving containers along from one location to another was employed, without regard to the type of container to the extent that ammo cans/lock&locks were replaced by film pots and vice versa, willy nilly. I heard that this trip included some very high numbers cachers. Note: This is only a rumor that I heard; I have no direct knowledge of any of any of it, in fact I saw no evidence of any of it when I was caching in the same area recently.

No worse than husband and wife team. Yes, I see this often. One will be on the east coast(for business), caching and the other will be on the west coast, caching too.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

How many of those replacement did you use? Did you log a find on caches that you replaced? Presumably the CO allows throwdowns to replace missing containers, but I don't understand how that's different than a CO allowing a found it on a cache if a finder is unable to sign a pulpy mess of a log. Do the same rules you stand by regarding "no sign, no log" not apply because it's a power trail?

The more I think about it, the more interesting this question gets. On the one hand, it's even easier in this case to see the logic of an exception to the rules. On the other hand, no one can deny that they're doing Route 66 for the numbers.

 

One of the things I object to most about power trails is that often there seems to be one set of guidelines for non-PT caches and one set of guidelines for PT caches, and that sometimes practices which have become acceptable when doing a power trail have migrated over to non-PT caches.

 

Wholeheartedly agree! I heard that a group of 6 cachers from out-of-state flew into the Colorado Springs, CO, area, rented 6 cars, and drove off in 6 different directions. I heard that all cachers claimed finds on all caches that were found by any one of them. I heard that throw-downs were used liberally so that there were no DNFs. Worst of all, I heard that the practice of moving containers along from one location to another was employed, without regard to the type of container to the extent that ammo cans/lock&locks were replaced by film pots and vice versa, willy nilly. I heard that this trip included some very high numbers cachers. Note: This is only a rumor that I heard; I have no direct knowledge of any of any of it, in fact I saw no evidence of any of it when I was caching in the same area recently.

No worse than husband and wife team. Yes, I see this often. One will be on the east coast(for business), caching and the other will be on the west coast, caching too.

 

I know of a husband and wife team where the wife was out doing power trails in Nevada the same time the husband was in Australia finding a few caches.

 

 

[+DadOf6Furrballs]

No worse than husband and wife team. Yes, I see this often. One will be on the east coast(for business), caching and the other will be on the west coast, caching too.

Yes, we've done that. Fairly recently too. And there's nothing wrong with that. We cache as a team, the vast majority of the time we're together, with a few exceptions.

 

For example, the Furrball momma went to visit her brother in Austin TX, while I stayed up here in South Dakota. She found caches that week, as did I. There was no way I was going to sit around on my hiney all week and refuse to find / log caches while she was down there having a blast.

 

We log all our finds under one account, together or separate. It's easier, we don't have to duplicate the work in writing logs.

[+Roman!]

Wonder how many containers will be missing when it opens up again.

(hint pt->td)

 

(Sorry for the puzzle Roman!)

 

No worries, it was an easy one.

 

When we did Route 66 I brought 50 replacements, I have a feeling 500 might not do it.

 

 

It's a shame, Route 66 was my favorite.

 

How many of those replacement did you use? Did you log a find on caches that you replaced? Presumably the CO allows throwdowns to replace missing containers, but I don't understand how that's different than a CO allowing a found it on a cache if a finder is unable to sign a pulpy mess of a log. Do the same rules you stand by regarding "no sign, no log" not apply because it's a power trail?

 

Firstly I used about 30 to replace cracked containers, when I did Route 66 not one was missing.

 

Secondly please show me where I said anything about not being able to log a find if the log is a pulpy mess.

 

I don't believe that you said that so I'm not going to search for it. What I recall you saying is that even a log that a pulpy mess could be signed. Frankly, the act of poking a pulpy mess with a stick or opening a container, discovering that a log is a pulpy mess and closing it back up is not different enough to determine whether or not a found it log is justified. If a CO is justified in allowing a found log to be posted when someone can't find a cache and replaces the container, even with permission, I don't think that it would be unreasonable for a CO to allow the posting of a found it log, if for some other reason the log was not signable.

 

Here is what I think you remember:

 

Funny enough here is a log one of the finders of that "virtual" posted on their own cache today:

 

Temporarily Disable Listing 09/25/2014

If you cannot get this cache out, then you cannot sign the log and claim the find. Hopefully the next person to visit can fix it.

View Log

 

Here is what I said about signing logs: The definition of a signature is a mark that represents you be it an inked signature, a stamp, a thumb print of dirt or a runny ink blob due to a soaked log book or any other creative way a person may leave their mark.

 

 

You weren't the first person to hear what you wanted to here just so you can disagree with me

 

No, I didn't hear anything more that what you wrote. So what you're basically saying is that if I spend a week solving a puzzle, then hike five miles to GZ, find a container and open it to discover a pulpy mess of a log, if I poke it with a pen, leaving a unrecognizable blob of ink, I can log it as a find, but if I don't leave a mark I should log a DNF? Frankly, I think almost every reasonable person that owns a cache (ok, I can think of one exception) would allow a found it log, if I did everything else related to finding the cache except leaving a mark.

 

If you did that I'd be willing to be one of skin cells you shed or one of the cells that left your body while breathing or some other piece of you would have found it's way into the log sheet so if you posted what you said in your log, no I wouldn't delete it but if I did and you protested I'm sure GS would side with me unless someone brought up leaving parts of your body behind.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

Wonder how many containers will be missing when it opens up again.

(hint pt->td)

 

(Sorry for the puzzle Roman!)

 

No worries, it was an easy one.

 

When we did Route 66 I brought 50 replacements, I have a feeling 500 might not do it.

 

It's a shame, Route 66 was my favorite.

 

I enjoyed the day we spent on Route 66......some of the containers you found were probably left by me as replacements for damaged containers we found.

By the way, I love that cafe in Ludlow with the pointy roof....good food !

[+uccacher]

What happened to the original topic about the road being closed? A group of us from Pennsylvania did the Route 66 trail a little over three and a half years ago. We did it over two days and had a great time. It was only a couple of months old at the time and as I recall all of the containers were in place and in good shape. Hopefully the road will be reopened since there were a lot of sites to see along the way. We especially enjoyed our stop in Amboy.

[+Sagefox]

I enjoyed the day we spent on Route 66...

By the way, I love that cafe in Ludlow with the pointy roof....good food !

 

That was probably Roy's in Amboy which is about halfway through the route.

[+uccacher]

I enjoyed the day we spent on Route 66...

By the way, I love that cafe in Ludlow with the pointy roof....good food !

 

That was probably Roy's in Amboy which is about halfway through the route.

 

We stayed at the motel in Ludlow but the pointy roof was probably Roy's.

Edited September 26, 2014 by uccacher

[+Sagefox]

No worse than husband and wife team. Yes, I see this often. One will be on the east coast(for business), caching and the other will be on the west coast, caching too.

 

Actually, it is quite a different issue. The husband and wife "team" are typically always a team and their account shows their team activity rather than individual accomplishments. Some couple-teams do a lot of separate caching and some only cache together. Either way it is easy to make the adjustment when viewing their stats.

[+Roman!]

What happened to the original topic about the road being closed? A group of us from Pennsylvania did the Route 66 trail a little over three and a half years ago. We did it over two days and had a great time. It was only a couple of months old at the time and as I recall all of the containers were in place and in good shape. Hopefully the road will be reopened since there were a lot of sites to see along the way. We especially enjoyed our stop in Amboy.

 

Soon as I post something, doesn't matter what, there's a bunch of people that want to disagree with me.

 

Route 66 was my favorite PT I did, Amboy crater is a very cool spot. I have travelled over a lot of Route 66 and good chunks more will be lost. I hope the fix the damage rather than decommission this section.

[+uccacher]

What happened to the original topic about the road being closed? A group of us from Pennsylvania did the Route 66 trail a little over three and a half years ago. We did it over two days and had a great time. It was only a couple of months old at the time and as I recall all of the containers were in place and in good shape. Hopefully the road will be reopened since there were a lot of sites to see along the way. We especially enjoyed our stop in Amboy.

 

Soon as I post something, doesn't matter what, there's a bunch of people that want to disagree with me.

 

Route 66 was my favorite PT I did, Amboy crater is a very cool spot. I have travelled over a lot of Route 66 and good chunks more will be lost. I hope the fix the damage rather than decommission this section.

 

Very well said Roman. This was my first and also my favorite power trail. The crater was awesome and the abandoned buildings and towns were a piece of history that very few people get to see.

[+DadOf6Furrballs]

Back OT, we have about 3/4 of the highway done, stopping at 581. We had previously done the last 30 + about 25 extras on the back side on a fast drive out and back from Phoenix one day the previous Fall. On our final trip Memorial Day weekend 2012, it was about 110º in the shade according to the thermometer, our rental was in the red-zone of overheating due to the repeated stop and go, and we were verging on heat exhaustion. Since we were on a hard time schedule, we elected to bag it at that point and head back to LV so we could be alive in the morning to head up and start ET.

 

It was fun. Seriously. A lot of good memories, laughs, and cranky moments. Maybe someday, if the trail and the road are still around, and we find ourselves nearby we'll finish it.

[+geodarts]

Sure there are about 900 caches on that road but I was going to focus on history and benchmarks (historic markers) and then grab between 30 and 100 caches.

 

(We drove the ET Highway last May, spent the night at the Little Ale Inn in Rachel and only grabbed 8 caches by car and another 13 on foot. We were on a different mission that trip. It could be a record for the most caches passed up on that highway! :o )

 

If the road sections are still closed when we leave town I will throw on the bike and see what I can do by peddling. I can access the middle of the power trail by an open north-south highway.

 

I hope it opens. I have been wanting to take a Route 66 road trip, but It probably won't be this year and I may not even get 30 caches. I passed by the ET caches when we went there a couple of years ago. It was interesting to see people along the highway with their heads down, but between the Inn, Camo Dudes, the "lunar crater," trilobites, ghost towns, and the Pahranagat Man . . . . I suspect that Route 66 would be similar.

[+SwineFlew]

Sure there are about 900 caches on that road but I was going to focus on history and benchmarks (historic markers) and then grab between 30 and 100 caches.

 

(We drove the ET Highway last May, spent the night at the Little Ale Inn in Rachel and only grabbed 8 caches by car and another 13 on foot. We were on a different mission that trip. It could be a record for the most caches passed up on that highway! :o )

 

If the road sections are still closed when we leave town I will throw on the bike and see what I can do by peddling. I can access the middle of the power trail by an open north-south highway.

 

I hope it opens. I have been wanting to take a Route 66 road trip, but It probably won't be this year and I may not even get 30 caches. I passed by the ET caches when we went there a couple of years ago. It was interesting to see people along the highway with their heads down, but between the Inn, Camo Dudes, the "lunar crater," trilobites, ghost towns, and the Pahranagat Man . . . . I suspect that Route 66 would be similar.

OH yea... I thought most cachers are in the area for the scenery.

[+Roman!]

Sure there are about 900 caches on that road but I was going to focus on history and benchmarks (historic markers) and then grab between 30 and 100 caches.

 

(We drove the ET Highway last May, spent the night at the Little Ale Inn in Rachel and only grabbed 8 caches by car and another 13 on foot. We were on a different mission that trip. It could be a record for the most caches passed up on that highway! :o )

 

If the road sections are still closed when we leave town I will throw on the bike and see what I can do by peddling. I can access the middle of the power trail by an open north-south highway.

 

I hope it opens. I have been wanting to take a Route 66 road trip, but It probably won't be this year and I may not even get 30 caches. I passed by the ET caches when we went there a couple of years ago. It was interesting to see people along the highway with their heads down, but between the Inn, Camo Dudes, the "lunar crater," trilobites, ghost towns, and the Pahranagat Man . . . . I suspect that Route 66 would be similar.

OH yea... I thought most cachers are in the area for the scenery.

 

I sure was, even though we did Route 66 in 2 days we spent a good 2 hours at amboy crater and took several hundred photos as well.

 

I'm sure there are a few cachers that zip through a PT as fast as possible without noticing a thing around them but I'd bet most, like me enjoy the experience which includes finding lots of caches, spending fun time with friends or family and enjoying the scenery.

 

I have done a few PTs now, I have thousands of photos and so many cool memories. If geocaching were to end today forever I'd probably go to cool places like Route 66 and ride it on my bike or hike it so just like geocaching I could slow down and enjoy it instead of driving through at 70 mph.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

I enjoyed the day we spent on Route 66...

By the way, I love that cafe in Ludlow with the pointy roof....good food !

 

That was probably Roy's in Amboy which is about halfway through the route.

 

We stayed at the motel in Ludlow but the pointy roof was probably Roy's.

 

I just looked it up...it was the Ludlow Cafe., I think it has a cache in front of it on some miming equip.

[+captnemo]

It is in Ludlow and the food is great, I know as I'm sort of a local.

 

It also interesting that nobody local that I've talked to knew National Trails was closed? I learned about the closure here.

Edited September 27, 2014 by captnemo

[+Sagefox]

I enjoyed the day we spent on Route 66...

By the way, I love that cafe in Ludlow with the pointy roof....good food !

 

That was probably Roy's in Amboy which is about halfway through the route.

 

We stayed at the motel in Ludlow but the pointy roof was probably Roy's.

 

I just looked it up...it was the Ludlow Cafe., I think it has a cache in front of it on some miming equip.

 

Yes, I've got that mining equipment cache in my bookmark. I remember the Ludlow Cafe building now that I've seen the photo. We've driven by it several times over the past 25 years but never stopped in. Maybe I'll stop by this time for a breakfast. Roy's has a different kind of pointy roof - very early 60s-ish.

[+uccacher]

I enjoyed the day we spent on Route 66...

By the way, I love that cafe in Ludlow with the pointy roof....good food !

 

That was probably Roy's in Amboy which is about halfway through the route.

 

We stayed at the motel in Ludlow but the pointy roof was probably Roy's.

 

I just looked it up...it was the Ludlow Cafe., I think it has a cache in front of it on some miming equip.

 

Yes, I've got that mining equipment cache in my bookmark. I remember the Ludlow Cafe building now that I've seen the photo. We've driven by it several times over the past 25 years but never stopped in. Maybe I'll stop by this time for a breakfast. Roy's has a different kind of pointy roof - very early 60s-ish.

 

I stand corrected and we even ate breakfast at the Ludlow Cafe. I guess I don't remember the roof but do remember the mining equipment, the cache, the elderly waitress, the excellent French toast, and the E Clampus Vitus Historical Markers Waymark dedicated to Project Plowshare that I posted.

[vagabond]

Sure there are about 900 caches on that road but I was going to focus on history and benchmarks (historic markers) and then grab between 30 and 100 caches.

 

(We drove the ET Highway last May, spent the night at the Little Ale Inn in Rachel and only grabbed 8 caches by car and another 13 on foot. We were on a different mission that trip. It could be a record for the most caches passed up on that highway! :o )

 

If the road sections are still closed when we leave town I will throw on the bike and see what I can do by peddling. I can access the middle of the power trail by an open north-south highway.

 

I hope it opens. I have been wanting to take a Route 66 road trip, but It probably won't be this year and I may not even get 30 caches. I passed by the ET caches when we went there a couple of years ago. It was interesting to see people along the highway with their heads down, but between the Inn, Camo Dudes, the "lunar crater," trilobites, ghost towns, and the Pahranagat Man . . . . I suspect that Route 66 would be similar.

OH yea... I thought most cachers are in the area for the scenery.

 

I sure was, even though we did Route 66 in 2 days we spent a good 2 hours at amboy crater and took several hundred photos as well.

 

I'm sure there are a few cachers that zip through a PT as fast as possible without noticing a thing around them but I'd bet most, like me enjoy the experience which includes finding lots of caches, spending fun time with friends or family and enjoying the scenery.

 

I have done a few PTs now, I have thousands of photos and so many cool memories. If geocaching were to end today forever I'd probably go to cool places like Route 66 and ride it on my bike or hike it so just like geocaching I could slow down and enjoy it instead of driving through at 70 mph.

It's said that years ago the locals would take tires out to the crater and burn them and tell the tourist that it was still active

Edited October 6, 2014 by vagabond

[+The Jester]

I enjoyed the day we spent on Route 66...

By the way, I love that cafe in Ludlow with the pointy roof....good food !

 

That was probably Roy's in Amboy which is about halfway through the route.

 

We stayed at the motel in Ludlow but the pointy roof was probably Roy's.

 

I just looked it up...it was the Ludlow Cafe., I think it has a cache in front of it on some miming equip.

I always thought mime's didn't use equipment, just their hands and body...

[jholly]

I enjoyed the day we spent on Route 66...

By the way, I love that cafe in Ludlow with the pointy roof....good food !

 

That was probably Roy's in Amboy which is about halfway through the route.

 

We stayed at the motel in Ludlow but the pointy roof was probably Roy's.

 

I just looked it up...it was the Ludlow Cafe., I think it has a cache in front of it on some miming equip.

I always thought mime's didn't use equipment, just their hands and body...

These are California Mime's, there a bit different.

[+captnemo]

New report states that when this part of Route 66 reopens some of the bridges will have a 3 ton limit. Parts of the road may be closed for up to 2 months.

 

Kind of rules out RVs

Edited October 9, 2014 by captnemo

[+Sagefox]

New report states that when this part of Route 66 reopens some of the bridges will have a 3 ton limit. Parts of the road may be closed for up to 2 months.

 

Kind of rules out RVs

 

My trip has been delayed about one month so maybe more road will be open by then. The SAGEFOX RV van only weighs 4750 lbs when loaded for travel so we would make the cut but I don't expect the bridges will be in place by then. I expect to be doing a lot of backtracking to get onto the road from different access points.

[+captnemo]

Newest update is there is no anticipated time for reopening.

[vagabond]

New report states that when this part of Route 66 reopens some of the bridges will have a 3 ton limit. Parts of the road may be closed for up to 2 months.

 

Kind of rules out RVs

 

My trip has been delayed about one month so maybe more road will be open by then. The SAGEFOX RV van only weighs 4750 lbs when loaded for travel so we would make the cut but I don't expect the bridges will be in place by then. I expect to be doing a lot of backtracking to get onto the road from different access points.

You might take a look at the caches between Earp and 29 Palms, plus there are quite a few north of there

[+Sagefox]

You might take a look at the caches between Earp and 29 Palms, plus there are quite a few north of there

 

Thanks for the tip. This trip is primarily for visiting significant history spots along the National Trails Highway rather than strictly caching. I am bringing a bike along so I can get to some places that might be blocked to cars. Power trail caching on a bike is a hoot!

[+humboldt flier]

Hey Sagefox,

 

Caution in the Amboy area between Amboy Rd. and Kelbaker Rd. The "Misguided Children" beating feet from the 29 Palms facility to the interstate really know how to get their feet on the accelerator.

 

Caution also east of Essex as well for similar lead foot reasons, but locals headed east on the "Mother Road".

 

Keep your head on a swivel and your eyes open.

[+Sagefox]

Hey Sagefox,

 

Caution in the Amboy area between Amboy Rd. and Kelbaker Rd. The "Misguided Children" beating feet from the 29 Palms facility to the interstate really know how to get their feet on the accelerator.

 

Caution also east of Essex as well for similar lead foot reasons, but locals headed east on the "Mother Road".

 

Keep your head on a swivel and your eyes open.

 

Will do. It has always been quiet and sleepy when we've driven through Amboy but it has always been mid-day. This time I'm hoping to get a meal at Roy's cafe if the road closures haven't shut the place down.