[Harry Dolphin]

Here's something I thought I'd never see: An EarthCache Power Trail!
I was checking the maps for new caches to hunt this weekend, and I came across a series of ten EarthCaches in one park. The distance between the two furthest is .5 mile. Two are at the exact same coordinates.
One of my caching companions loves EarthCaches, so we'll probably hit these ths weekend. (Unless I can talk my caching companions into a series of regulars that I want to find soon...)
Ten geologically interesting, and different, lessons in less than a mile? I know the area, and I'm a bit sceptical. Stay tuned for an update after the weekend (if I manage to talk my Geocaching companions into this one...)

[Carbon Hunter]

!?!

[kvhollis]

Thought would be a change from the regular pace of things. Hard to do and of course duplicate. But for the hard core earth cacher's - a lot of fun.

[LewisClan77]

There is a group of 9 near me...RVET

[Konnarock Kid & Marge]

Why not? If they are different geologically and have been approved, which they have, sounds great. Are they near us? Location, location, location...................please!
Thanks.

[Konnarock Kid & Marge]

Harry Dolphin, on 27 April 2011 - 02:06 AM, said:

Here's something I thought I'd never see: An EarthCache Power Trail!
I was checking the maps for new caches to hunt this weekend, and I came across a series of ten EarthCaches in one park. The distance between the two furthest is .5 mile. Two are at the exact same coordinates.
One of my caching companions loves EarthCaches, so we'll probably hit these ths weekend. (Unless I can talk my caching companions into a series of regulars that I want to find soon...)
Ten geologically interesting, and different, lessons in less than a mile? I know the area, and I'm a bit sceptical. Stay tuned for an update after the weekend (if I manage to talk my Geocaching companions into this one...)

All right Harry, I can't wait any longer.................give up the location. Hint, hint, hint!

[geoawareHQ]

Just wanted to interject that these caches are a special project of Groundspeak and a non-profit environmental education organization, with assistance provided by GSA. They have been published, and are in the process of being tested out by local cachers. Visitors to these caches are encouraged to provide feedback to the cache owner, and/or to me at earthcache@geosociety.org.

[Lostby7]

geoawareHQ, on 27 April 2011 - 06:46 AM, said:

Just wanted to interject that these caches are a special project of Groundspeak and a non-profit environmental education organization, with assistance provided by GSA....

Now that IS cool. I love seeing special project related to ECs. BRAVO.

[Harry Dolphin]

Konnarock Kid & Marge, on 27 April 2011 - 06:16 AM, said:

All right Harry, I can't wait any longer.................give up the location. Hint, hint, hint!

OK KK. First one: Liberty State Park Nature Interpretive Center

[Harry Dolphin]

geoawareHQ, on 27 April 2011 - 06:46 AM, said:

Just wanted to interject that these caches are a special project of Groundspeak and a non-profit environmental education organization, with assistance provided by GSA. They have been published, and are in the process of being tested out by local cachers. Visitors to these caches are encouraged to provide feedback to the cache owner, and/or to me at earthcache@geosociety.org.

Okay. I'll let you know Sunday!

[Konnarock Kid & Marge]

Thanks Harry. Interesting, but I haven't taken the time to read them all yet and I will do that. Ten within .5 miles, WOW! Too bad they are not a little further South.

This post has been edited by Konnarock Kid & Marge: 27 April 2011 - 06:42 PM

[GEO WALKER]

I hope this works out... It's a very interesting concept.

[geoaware]

These will be worth a visit on your way to the EarthCache (Mega?) Event in September 2012!

[Harry Dolphin]

Okay. I did the series today. Definitely a Power Trail. It would probably make three good EarthCaches. Critique sent to CO, and geoaware.
I was hoping for the best, but it was not to be.

[cezanne]

geoaware, on 28 April 2011 - 02:08 PM, said:

These will be worth a visit on your way to the EarthCache (Mega?) Event in September 2012!

Why? Have you visited these caches yourself and know them? Can you explain why all these 10 caches are worth a visit?
It appears to me that some have no real connection to geology.
As per your wish, I cannot provide a link to an example cache.


Cezanne

[Konnarock Kid & Marge]

Harry Dolphin, on 01 May 2011 - 04:40 PM, said:

Okay. I did the series today. Definitely a Power Trail. It would probably make three good EarthCaches. Critique sent to CO, and geoaware.
I was hoping for the best, but it was not to be.

Thanks Harry. I finally read all 10 EC write ups and your and your buddies logs. It sounds like you had fun but left plenty of doubt as to the geological implications. I also noticed a nearby EC regarding the New York Harbor Estuary. Even with the non-geological aspects, it still looks like fun to do the trail!
Thanks again. I know you and your friends have been to some of our ECs and are serious reviewers, (not the official kind!)
P.S. I still wish the trail was closer!

[geoawareHQ]

Thank you to those who have visited these caches and provided helpful feedback to the cache owner and me. The cache owner reports they will be working with local geology students and cachers to further improve the caching experience for all.

[Chokecherry]

cezanne, on 03 May 2011 - 04:11 AM, said:

geoaware, on 28 April 2011 - 02:08 PM, said:

These will be worth a visit on your way to the EarthCache (Mega?) Event in September 2012!

Why? Have you visited these caches yourself and know them? Can you explain why all these 10 caches are worth a visit?
It appears to me that some have no real connection to geology.
As per your wish, I cannot provide a link to an example cache.


Cezanne

I have to agree with you there. Some of them seem like just advertising for the park with no geological lessons involved. With all the difficulty other people have getting earth caches published because of having to explain some geological feature I would hope that this organization is held to that same standard.

[Harry Dolphin]

Okay. Now I'm really confused. The eleventh in the EarthCache Power Trail has been published. Muddy Waters vs. Heavy Metal

I had thought that EarthCaching was about teaching geology. I've seen several caches archived for not providing that education. (I'd contemplted put out an EarthCache, but the educational part can be tough.) It was obvious from the first ten caches in this power trail that geology is at a minimum, if it appears at all. This is a landfill for goodness sakes! So, now we look at the back of the salt marsh, for muddy waters! (I had suggested this as a better place for the salt marsh cache, since you can actually see the marsh from here.) Oksy, so we're looking at the marsh again! Same questions (none of which have anything to do with geology.) Is the tide rising? What birds are here? (Same as at the salt marsh?) Oh! The answers are given in the hints! Hunh?!?!?
The extreme irony is the title: Muddy Waters vs. Heavy Metal. Yes, I've heard of the group Muddy Waters. Ha ha. What is being ignored with the title is the very large area of the park that is closed due to toxic chemicals. This IS a landfill on an old shipyard. Nothing here is natural.
Wait! I admire the view from here, and can answer the questions. Can I log it?!?
Secondly, and worst, a precedent has been set: What is the water level, and what birds do you see are now acceptable as questions for an EarthCache! That should make life much easier!
This series is an excellent nature trail. Two of the eleven did make fairly interesting EarthCaches. The rest should be archived for not fitting the guidelines.
This is really sad!

[Jumpin' Jack Cache]

Harry Dolphin, on 10 May 2011 - 03:48 PM, said:

Okay. Now I'm really confused. The eleventh in the EarthCache Power Trail has been published. Muddy Waters vs. Heavy Metal

I had thought that EarthCaching was about teaching geology. I've seen several caches archived for not providing that education. (I'd contemplted put out an EarthCache, but the educational part can be tough.) It was obvious from the first ten caches in this power trail that geology is at a minimum, if it appears at all. This is a landfill for goodness sakes! So, now we look at the back of the salt marsh, for muddy waters! (I had suggested this as a better place for the salt marsh cache, since you can actually see the marsh from here.) Oksy, so we're looking at the marsh again! Same questions (none of which have anything to do with geology.) Is the tide rising? What birds are here? (Same as at the salt marsh?) Oh! The answers are given in the hints! Hunh?!?!?
The extreme irony is the title: Muddy Waters vs. Heavy Metal. Yes, I've heard of the group Muddy Waters. Ha ha. What is being ignored with the title is the very large area of the park that is closed due to toxic chemicals. This IS a landfill on an old shipyard. Nothing here is natural.
Wait! I admire the view from here, and can answer the questions. Can I log it?!?
Secondly, and worst, a precedent has been set: What is the water level, and what birds do you see are now acceptable as questions for an EarthCache! That should make life much easier!
This series is an excellent nature trail. Two of the eleven did make fairly interesting EarthCaches. The rest should be archived for not fitting the guidelines.
This is really sad!

Muddy Waters was a person, not a group.
Muddy Waters

[sword fern]

I was at that exact same park in my visit to NY a few years ago stainding at the exact same locations of these ECs. Just two years b4 I started caching! Bummer!

[cincol]

I have been reading this thread with interest since it started. IMHO a power trail for EC's is not on! I do not believe that justice is being done to the "cause" here at all. If doing 365 telephone pole micros 160m apart on an open stretch of desert highway blows your hair back then so be it. But an EC power trail - no thank you.

The majority of Earthcachers are fortunate enough to live in areas that have an abundance of EC's to find. Others have to travel vast distances to find EC's. I am one of the unfortunate ones that falls into the latter category. As an example, I was recently in Cape Town for a very short visit. I managed 3 traditional caches and 4 EC's while there. I will go out of my way to do an EC wherever I am in the world. The only opportunity that I get to do them is when I travel.

At the end of the day it will always be a case of doing what suits your style. One of the reasons I really LOVE this sport/game - you can do it YOUR way rather than abiding by reams amd reams of "rules". Do what floats your boat and enjoy.

Happy Earthcaching folks.

My 2c worth.

This post has been edited by cincol: 10 May 2011 - 09:13 PM

[Carbon Hunter]

HHhhmmmm - initially I was a little anti-the power trail concept for EC's. Then on second thoughts; a well documented trail of "sponsored" {for this I read well researched and presented as a best of breed} caches providing a series of ECs, produced in a park with plenty of geological deveristy - and used to promote Earthcaching, caching in general and more importantly a love of Earth Sciences. Well that made more sense and I thought it was acceptable.

So I have warmed to the idea - but my rant now is that this particular cache is really not very geological - and if most cachers had submitted this as a potential EC - the reviewers, I'm sure, would have sent it back for a lack of Earth Science (read geological) content.

I know there are a number of similar (older) EC for salt flats, mangroves etc. - but more recently these have not been approved. And even geological caches have been sent back to include more geology related observations on site, remove or ammend the life science/ecosystem type tasks during review.

This seems a little like mixed standards - unless I am missing something? I must say, I would love ECs to be expanded to more general earth science rather than geology only.

[geoaware]

EarthCaches are about teaching about Earth Science (not just geology) and through this program we have been working with another professional group and Groundspeak to look at possibilities. As mentioned earlier, this is trial program and your feedback is valuable - but also give us some scope to test the concepts.

This process was not started with the concept of creating a power trail. A series of EC being created in one diverse area is open to all...and we have no plans to promote or to discourage those efforts.

[cezanne]

geoaware, on 11 May 2011 - 06:49 AM, said:

EarthCaches are about teaching about Earth Science (not just geology) and through this program we have been working with another professional group and Groundspeak to look at possibilities. As mentioned earlier, this is trial program and your feedback is valuable - but also give us some scope to test the concepts.

I looked through some of the caches and obtained the feeling that there are some among them where the main focus is not on Earth science.
I know several examples of EC listings that have been rejected because the main focus was not on Earth science, but e.g. on biology, ecology etc.
(The guidelines state "Please note that sites with a major focus on biological, ecological, or archeological features, will not be published.")

It is certainly up to the EC reviewer team to decide which caches to accept and which to reject. I cannot help myself, but when seeing some of these caches and reading your reply, I still have the impression that these Earth caches have been treated differently because they have delevopped by a a group with which you established a sort of cooperation and not by an anonymous geocacher. There is nothing wrong with this approach as you are governing the EC program, but it would help to clarify whether you think that the ECs in this form would have been published also under different circumstances.

Quote

This process was not started with the concept of creating a power trail. A series of EC being created in one diverse area is open to all...and we have no plans to promote or to discourage those efforts.

I guess this depends on one's definition of a powertrail. For me 10 ECs in such a small area are are kind of powertrail and I think that encouraging the organisation behind the ECs by accepting so many ECs within such a small area, can be seen as kind of promotion.
Until relatively recently, the non EC reviewers would have reacted to such a series of caches set up the same owner at the same time that instead of so many individual caches one or a few multi stage caches should be set up. I certainly would not like to see a series of ECs where each of them is devoted to yet another information board of a common themed trail.


Cezanne

[geoawareHQ]

That is a good point, Cezanne, about how one defines a power trail. I can certainly say this -- this set of caches was absolutely not developed with the purpose of giving people an opportunity to inflate their number of finds. I can also say that seriously legitimate effort was put into the development of these caches, with education and awareness as the number one goal. Also, as these are a special project, we will continue to work with the cache owner to make a good caching experience for all.

[Chokecherry]

Some of the caches seem to have very little scientific "stuff" in them in general. As though it's an afterthought to the advertisement for the park.

I also agree that while you say earth caches are for all earth sciences that there seems to be much emphasis on geology/soil science versus all the other earth sciences. In fact if you reference the knowledge book on earth caches it states: "2.2 EarthCache Description
The EarthCache write-up must include substantial information about the local geology or geological processes. The text must provide accurate but simple explanations of what visitors will experience at the site. The logging tasks must also be geology-related. It should assume no prior knowledge of geology and be written at an age 14 reading level." This theme continues into section 3.3 where it noted what is and is not acceptable which pretty much eliminates everything but geology.

I get that you're working with this organization but it does kind of stink that anonymous cache owners are being held to another standard than the organization you're making nice with. And that the rules seem to be flexed in favor of the organization.

[Carbon Hunter]

geoawareHQ, on 11 May 2011 - 02:23 PM, said:

That is a good point, Cezanne, about how one defines a power trail. I can certainly say this -- this set of caches was absolutely not developed with the purpose of giving people an opportunity to inflate their number of finds. I can also say that seriously legitimate effort was put into the development of these caches, with education and awareness as the number one goal. Also, as these are a special project, we will continue to work with the cache owner to make a good caching experience for all.

agree with you here Geoaware - and this is what really changed my view on the concept - that it was NOT about chasing numbers - but about exploring different aspects of the earth and having a dedicated cache for each aspect - rather than a single cache where aspects of the area could have gone missing - or became so difficult or long winded that it became unpleasant to log because one is trying to cover too much ground in a single cache - so I changed my mind - and I agree the "power trail" moniker should be dropped by us as it had a numbers driven connotation from the traditional cache application. Similar to ECs - we do not see puzzzle or multi power trails either.

I am also fine with the concept of working with another group who can assit and add to the EC and overall caching experience by using this as an educational and outreach activity too. And I am glad that earthcache.org team is working with them on this.

geoaware, on 11 May 2011 - 06:49 AM, said:

EarthCaches are about teaching about Earth Science (not just geology)

This is now confusing as I have had more than one EC that I have been developing or helping other cachers with get a message similar to this from EC-central:
"This note is to inform you that we cannot publish this EarthCache as is.
An EarthCache listing must contain substantial educational information regarding the geology of the site. Please include more details of the site's specific geological background."

So although Earth Science is mentioned in general - there has always been an emphsis on geology - and there are many forum posts to corroborate this - so are you now saying that less geological based caches will now be accepted?

[cezanne]

geoawareHQ, on 11 May 2011 - 02:23 PM, said:

That is a good point, Cezanne, about how one defines a power trail. I can certainly say this -- this set of caches was absolutely not developed with the purpose of giving people an opportunity to inflate their number of finds.

Although I have not been involved into the project, I agree with you as about ten caches where for each one needs to read a text and to answer some questions certainly does not amount to producing as many finds as possible in a given time.

I still feel that a smaller number of caches could haven been set up by using the same locations, but that's of course a subjective matter.
If someone is hiding at the same time ten traditionals along a 8km hiking trail instead of hiding one or at most two multi caches along the trail,
this is already something which I regard as powertrail in my personal point of view. One nice cache should suffice to get people into an area.

I do not like the trend that new cachers get the impression that they need to come up with more than one cache in one area to get people there at all. What's behind is still the numbers' motivation. Many cachers now rather travel 200 km to get 10 caches of a particular type than 20km to get one cache. That puts too much importance on numbers and quantity, even in cases where the quality of all the involved caches is reasonable. This numbers aspect is also the reason why I do not like the EC masters program.

Quote

I can also say that seriously legitimate effort was put into the development of these caches, with education and awareness as the number one goal.

I also agree on that. The same was true, however, also for quite a number of rejected ECs that did not have enough geology focus.
I would love to see e.g. caches on ecological topics along the lines of the EC program. So caches of that kind are certainly interesting.

I am just wondering whether the same criteria have been used for this special project that for normal ECs. That's the only point I am not sure about.


Cezanne

This post has been edited by cezanne: 12 May 2011 - 07:41 AM

[cezanne]

Carbon Hunter, on 11 May 2011 - 08:26 PM, said:

Similar to ECs - we do not see puzzzle or multi power trails either.

I disagree.
For me, e.g. this series is a puzzle cache power trail.
http://www.geocachin...perl&submit4=Go

The area is much larger than in the case of the ECs we talk about here and still I feel that one or at most two caches
in a multi style are approriate and not 25 to create a hat on the map and to lead much more cachers to the area than if just one or two caches
were hidden there.

Cezanne

[Harry Dolphin]

geoawareHQ, on 11 May 2011 - 02:23 PM, said:

That is a good point, Cezanne, about how one defines a power trail. I can certainly say this -- this set of caches was absolutely not developed with the purpose of giving people an opportunity to inflate their number of finds. I can also say that seriously legitimate effort was put into the development of these caches, with education and awareness as the number one goal. Also, as these are a special project, we will continue to work with the cache owner to make a good caching experience for all.

It took us about an hour to do the first ten EarthCaches. About a half mile walk. I've done short power trails that took a lot longer than that. Distances between caches: 81', 415', 242', 257', 341', 500', 438', 1000', 513'.
Perhaps not intended as a power trail, but that's what is going to attract cachers here: 11 EarthCaches in an hour! (I will not be going for the other Power Trail at Inwood Park.)
As I said, this is a very nice nature trail. But not an EarthCache series. What earth sciences are we supposed to be learning here?
The entire area is landfill. When DOT blasted Ramapo Mountain for I-287, Liberty State Park got the landfill!


1891 map of the waterfront


Recent map of the waterfront.
Note that the entire area is landfill


This is what the area looked like after the explosion at Black Tom in 1916.

The entire area is landfill!

We are asked to visit the visitors center, or the nearby pergola. Okay. Visitors centers are sources of information.

81' to a fresh water pond. Okay. Completely artifical. What am I learning? The level of the water?

415' to a 'forest'. Yup. The land is higher here, and not wet. That's the way bulldozers doze?

242' to a 'seashore'. Very pretty, but it is artificial

257' to a 'wetlands'. Looked pretty dry to me. And it is artificial.

341' to a view of Lady Liberty. What earth science does that demonstrate? Oh! We're supposed to check if the tide is heading upstream or downstream. Sorry. Not waiting six hours for the tide to change.

500' to a landfill. Oh, great. We knew that. Which way is the wind blowing? You've got the be kidding. Even sillier than which way is the tree casting its shadow!

The view of the bight was actually very good! At least there was something natural here, and a lesson.

And that's my problem here. It's a nice nature trail. But what am I learning about earth science? 9 of the 10 caches are landfill! Perhaps if it were redone as the earth science of reclamation, there might be something worthwhile. But 11 EarthCaches??? Maybe three if worked properly.

Yup. It's a power trail! If you are still working wth the CO, there is a lot of work yet to do. (And you might want to mention to the CO that she should not send e-mail to cachers...)

Incidentally, I've done two other EarthCaches recently. Both were educational, fun, interesting, and hands on. Both earned a 'favorite' from me.

[PathfinderMark]

I love earthcaches and earthcaching. I figure, if I learn SOMETHING (even if not a lot) it was worth the walk/hike/drive/ etc. So there are 11 earthcaches in a narea...does it REALLY matter? I guess I trust Geoaware team a lot more than i do armchair commentators...So far I see only one on this thread who has actually visited the powertrail...and his opinions Geoaware team seems to be listening to!

I really DO HOPE that this series is here in 2012 for the Mega? Earthcache event in Maine. If it is, I will visit it.

RVET series in Northern California (GC2418J, GC2417X, GC24182, GC24184, GC2418C, GC2418F, GC2418R, GC2418T, and GC24195) is a HIGH QUALITY series that examines several unique aspects of the Northern California Bay area. From Basalt "gas bubbles" to a mercury mine and a fault line, and an ephemeral pool" this is a quality set. I walked through the 2.8 mile "powertrail" with MartinRabbit and the park Rangers. The Rangers loved being able to "publish" the unique geology of the area, and hoped it would bring more visitors. So, if you don't like the NY version, go to the Bay!

[cezanne]

PathfinderMark, on 21 May 2011 - 07:46 PM, said:

I guess I trust Geoaware team a lot more than i do armchair commentators...So far I see only one on this thread who has actually visited the powertrail...and his opinions Geoaware team seems to be listening to!

I did not get the impression that the geoaware team reacted to what Harry Dolphin wrote. His last posting is very detailed, very clear, but still unanswered. The claim that these caches have been treated differently than ECs of normal cachers has not yet been falsified.

As airchair comments are regarded: For ECs the writeup is essential and even when the locations are all unique (which does not seem to be the case here) a lot can be judged just by reading the writeups. BTW this is also what the geoware team is doing - they normally do not visit the ECs before publication.

Cezanne

[PathfinderMark]

cezanne, on 22 May 2011 - 01:53 AM, said:

I did not get the impression that the geoaware team reacted to what Harry Dolphin wrote. His last posting is very detailed, very clear, but still unanswered. The claim that these caches have been treated differently than ECs of normal cachers has not yet been falsified.

As airchair comments are regarded: For ECs the writeup is essential and even when the locations are all unique (which does not seem to be the case here) a lot can be judged just by reading the writeups. BTW this is also what the geoware team is doing - they normally do not visit the ECs before publication.

Cezanne

Agreed, the write-ups are not high quality...yet in the normal caching world, neither are some of those hides....I hope the write ups are improved, but if Geoaware team is okay with 11 earthcaches in 1/2 mile, then I choose to be okay with it too. (Even though Harry Dolphin's posts caste serious question on the "geological experience AND the CO's earthcache writing abilities).

[Carbon Hunter]

I suppose consistency is key. Fine that these are published, but this must then be fine elsewhere? Or was there a special dispensation?

[Corfmania]

This is a bit odd, since I myself spent a huge amount of time and community outreach for a quality EC that has been rejected because it was biologically oriented (I was a new EC developer and had misunderstood the guidelines). I'm psyched about the possibility of having the subject matter broadened a bit, but I don't think these quite meet the spirit of an EarthCache.

Back on TOPIC,
I was blown away when I had a chance to visit the Falls of the Ohio area. I have never seen a higher concentration of EC's anywhere (Currently 28 in the general area). The ones that CS had have mostly been replaced so I have a fresh crop when I go back I suppose...

This post has been edited by Corfmania: 03 June 2011 - 06:49 AM

[Ashallond]

Everytime I go to the Falls of the Ohio, the water is too high and I can't get half of them. ...I really want to get those as they are fascinating.

[Neos2]

Ashallond, on 03 June 2011 - 05:30 PM, said:

Everytime I go to the Falls of the Ohio, the water is too high and I can't get half of them. ...I really want to get those as they are fascinating.

Typically, the late summer-early fall months of August to October are when the water levels are the lowest. That gives time for the dry summer months to allow the water levels to fall.

Some years, the entire beds can be walked as late as December, but when the Fall rains start, the water levels start creeping up again. Once the winter snows upstream start melting and the spring rains fall, you can forget about visiting the outermost EarthCaches for several months.

[TeamGeo15]

Carbon Hunter, on 22 May 2011 - 08:24 AM, said:

I suppose consistency is key. Fine that these are published, but this must then be fine elsewhere? Or was there a special dispensation?

I think earthcaches should be about life sciences and relating to the earth as a whole - for example at the only Earthcache i have been too i was asked to estimate the height of the viewing platform on a rock face to the river below - And the most exciting thing was the wild nesting/breeding pair of peregrine falcons that you could view with thier recently hatched chicks on a near by rock face, we answered a question about them from information boards.

the rock face height was a pure guess and a bit irrelavant but the falcons were magnificent and as these are a great success story of reintroduction to wild breeding after a population crash. why cant the earth cache be about them?

[Lostby7]

There are always "shoulds" and "I'd like's" in life. The sponsoring entity for EarthCaches is the GSA. Here is their mission statement:
GSA’s mission is to be a leader in advancing the geosciences, enhancing the professional growth of its members, and promoting the geosciences in the service to humankind and stewardship of the Earth.

Here is a definition of geoscience:
Geoscientists study the composition, structure, and other physical aspects of the Earth, and the Earth's geologic past and present by using sophisticated instruments to analyze the composition of earth, rock, and water.

While I'd love for there to be a category for live features of planet earth and one for conservationism efforts, EarthCaches are not the place for them. We should be opening new threads asking for a new cache type(s) to be created.

[Neos2]

Just dropping in with a reminder that this thread is about EarthCache "Power Trails" and it would be best to stick to that topic in our discussions. Thanks!

[Coldgears]

I saw mention of this in my other thread, and I did google searching and found this.

Honestly? I think that you should let it be. At least until I get up that way, I plan on going within 3 - 4 weeks to do this series of earth caches, I love earthcaches and i want a higher found count of them!

[I!]

Coldgears, on 17 June 2011 - 06:11 PM, said:

I love earthcaches and i want a higher found count of them!

Translation: I love the earthcache icon and want a bigger number next to it on my profile.

Or do you actually enjoy earth science? I'd think not, judging by your enthusiasm for this trail.

[Coldgears]

I!, on 18 June 2011 - 10:54 AM, said:

Coldgears, on 17 June 2011 - 06:11 PM, said:

I love earthcaches and i want a higher found count of them!

Translation: I love the earthcache icon and want a bigger number next to it on my profile.

Or do you actually enjoy earth science? I'd think not, judging by your enthusiasm for this trail.

Not true, there is a trail of earthcaches in valley forge but I only did one of them. I just think every earth cache in this situation is well done.

[ArmyFanGeo]

Coldgears, on 18 June 2011 - 11:14 AM, said:

I!, on 18 June 2011 - 10:54 AM, said:

Coldgears, on 17 June 2011 - 06:11 PM, said:

I love earthcaches and i want a higher found count of them!

Translation: I love the earthcache icon and want a bigger number next to it on my profile.

Or do you actually enjoy earth science? I'd think not, judging by your enthusiasm for this trail.

Not true, there is a trail of earthcaches in valley forge but I only did one of them. I just think every earth cache in this situation is well done.

There is no "trail" in Valley Forge. Its a series of 4 EarthCaches. Been there, done that - not a trail.

Also, a new set of ECs popped up on my map, at Inwood Park - with 10 of them by the same Going Coastal? Anybody got thoughts on these? I know this is an old forum but an interesting one.

[Harry Dolphin]

ArmyFanGeo, on 03 June 2012 - 10:23 AM, said:

Also, a new set of ECs popped up on my map, at Inwood Park - with 10 of them by the same Going Coastal? Anybody got thoughts on these? I know this is an old forum but an interesting one.

Raises fin. May I?
I've been to Inwood Park several times, but not for this Power Trail. (And with the terrain, it migh not qualify as a power trail.) Inwood Park is a very interesting area, with significant geological interest. And it's not a landfill! And this series has been out for over a year. I have not looked too far into the EarthCaches here. But the Spuyten Duyvil is an very interesting waterway. I see mentions of pot holes. They're always interesting. (Though some finders cannot figure out which were meant.) I will not be impressed by a power trail so hungry for numbers that you visit the visitor's center and take coords. Some very interesting areas, but, again, some very cheap ones to enhance their numbers. My question is: Would EarthCaching have published a power trail like this if anyone else had developed the caches? I doubt it very much.

Quote

1. Step outside the Nature Center onto the landing overlooking the lagoon. Use your GPS unit to mark the spot. What are the coordinates.Why is it important to know your location? Where you are?
2. Name two geological processes that are visible in the environment today.
3. Water is an important natural resource. The Harlem Ship Canal/Spuyten Duyvil Creek is used for navigation. Can you name two other uses of the waterways?

Not terribly informative, or Earth Science related.
When I get the nerve to drive back into the city, and have the time, I may give this series a search.

This post has been edited by Neos2: 09 June 2012 - 04:52 AM

[Terpen Tijn]

Harry Dolphin, on 10 May 2011 - 03:48 PM, said:

Secondly, and worst, a precedent has been set: What is the water level, and what birds do you see are now acceptable as questions for an EarthCache! That should make life much easier!
This series is an excellent nature trail. Two of the eleven did make fairly interesting EarthCaches. The rest should be archived for not fitting the guidelines.
This is really sad!

Actually, there is a whole series of earthcaches around where I live, all located at meters for the ground water level (so they are repetitive too), with the single logging task of recording the ground water level (and including a photograph which is now optional).
So standards are not applied very consistently around the world.

[hzoi]

Terpen Tijn, on 06 June 2012 - 03:39 AM, said:

Harry Dolphin, on 10 May 2011 - 03:48 PM, said:

Secondly, and worst, a precedent has been set: What is the water level, and what birds do you see are now acceptable as questions for an EarthCache! That should make life much easier!
This series is an excellent nature trail. Two of the eleven did make fairly interesting EarthCaches. The rest should be archived for not fitting the guidelines.
This is really sad!

Actually, there is a whole series of earthcaches around where I live, all located at meters for the ground water level (so they are repetitive too), with the single logging task of recording the ground water level (and including a photograph which is now optional).
So standards are not applied very consistently around the world.

Wow. I found a location with 13 groundwater meter caches, all near each other and all pretty much identical. How...exciting. And I see the last one was published in September 2011 and is only 4 miles away from another groundwater meter earthcache. So much for the "no similar earthcaches within an hour's travel" rule.

This post has been edited by Neos2: 09 June 2012 - 04:51 AM

[Neos2]

OK folks, I think we've crossed a couple of lines here. Calling out particular cachers or specific EarthCaches as negative examples is really not cool. It goes against the forum guidelines as well.

At Geowoodstock X I gave a little talk about how to get your EarthCache published. Interestingly enough, one of the concerns people spoke to me about was the way this forum used to be so brutal. I sang the praises of the forum recently, and assured folks this was a safe place to come get good information, lots of helpful hints, and great support.

I'd appreciate it if each of you you took it upon yourself to alter your posts in this thread so they don't point to specific EC's.

Do feel free to discuss the merits of creating great EarthCaches, just don't insult EarthCaches that already exist. Each reviewer might interpret the guidelines a bit differently; existing EarthCaches do not set precedence for new ones.

[Troutonthebrain]

I don't know about everyone else, but it sounds like earthcaches are looking down the Waymarking trail.