[n2life]

medoug, on 03 June 2012 - 12:20 PM, said:

It seems like a new power trail pops up in my caching range almost weekly. I wish we could get back to quality*, not quantity, caches.

*Note, when I mention "quality", I'm not neccessarily indicating just water-tight, maintenance-free containers, but rather caches that are interesting (scenic, clever, humorous, historic, educational, etc.), ie., the type that usually receives a lot of "favorites" points. I'd LOVE to find a power trail that is made entirely of such interesting caches, but unfortunately I've yet to find one that isn't more than a points booster with very oridinary hides taking me to very ordinary places.

I guess I have the thinking that just because you "can" place caches 0.1 miles apart, does not mean that you "should".

I know everyone likes to play the game differently, but honestly, I see very few favorite points assigned to power trail caches. This seems to indicate that although cachers will seek power trail caches, they usually aren't their preferred type of hide.

Anyone care to comment?.......

The few power trails we've got in Idaho start out nice enough and then they need owner maintenance. If a power trail isn't maintained (and I don't think many people with over 300 hides will do good maintenance) it gets old real fast finding wet and/or moldy, dirty, cracked, broken caches.

[jellis]

For the numbers cachers, it use to be "how many can you find in one day" It will be now "how many Power Trails can you do in one month". Cachers who recently started and have high number due to PTs, well let's say they didn't really earn them caching. I did one real Power Trail. The ET of course. One car, 4 cachers, and guess who did the majority of the running?
Yes I am glad I can say I did 877 in one day. Do another one like that? NO! I felt like a kid saying, Are we done yet? But I did enjoy seeing those baby lizards and horn toads under the rocks.

The latest power trail I did was not like that. For one I had to solve close to 200 puzzles. I can say I solved more then 84 in one day. Then DavidT21& Fisherwoman and I found most of them. But it wasn't a race, each one was alnost a different hide. Plus they threw in a letterbox too.
If you look at my stats I have slowed down a lot...for 3 reasons.
One I'm not caching with you know who. I am still recovering from surgery. And I am trying to reach my milestone in August for the Block Party and going for (yes I know it is no longer the original)GCD. If you thought I was going to say APE cache, well I did that in 2008 when I lived in WA.

This post has been edited by jellis: 04 June 2012 - 08:28 PM

[medoug]

Roman!, on 04 June 2012 - 04:13 PM, said:

Go 161 meters either side of the trail and wow, what do you know, lots of room. As for your impact argument, then just 1 cache has an impact, is 10 OK?, is 100?, is 500?, who's gonna judge? Like I said, the earth is a big place. And yes, too bad, I got there first, be it 1 spot or 1000, someone got affected, that's life.

161 meters on either side of the trail is private farmland. Power trails are most often on rails-to-trails which constitutes a narrow strip of trail and treeline which was earlier owned by the railroads.

[medoug]

briansnat, on 03 June 2012 - 08:59 PM, said:

Mark my words, power trails will ultimately have a negative impact on this sport. They take a low impact, low visibility activity and turn it into a high impact, high visibility activity. Bad, bad for geoaching.

cezanne, on 04 June 2012 - 05:39 AM, said:

Sooner or later geocaching will be legally restricted in several countries due to the negative effects caused by power trails and similar developments. Then it is not any longer about accepting how others are playing as noone will be able to play any longer.

OZ2CPU, on 04 June 2012 - 06:28 AM, said:

you are VERY right (as usual)
no caches should be placed where they generate negative attention to this sport/hobby..
if you feel a specific trail or cache do this, then contact local reviewers
complain and ask for disable / archive

Let me take you back to around 2006 in Winnebago county, Illinois. Because the county felt that their parks were becoming oversaturated with geocaches, they hired someone to find all the hidden containers, then sent a note to only a small handful of cachers active in the community stating what was done. This was their "clean start" for geocaching. (No, no means of obtaining the confiscated containers was allowed.)

They then set up a geocaching permit system. If I remember correctly, a cacher could purchase just 1 permit to place caches which cost $15 per year. With that permit, you were allowed to hide no more the 2 caches in the Winnebago county parks. No park was allowed any more than 3 total caches maximum. There were also strict guidelines on what the container must be and how it was to be maintained.

The most disturbing thing about this was no one was given any warning. It just happened overnight. There was no warning to the caching community that it needed to change or there was to be a enforce policy enacted. I know of one park (wooded area of several acres) which had 8 caches in it. That was their definition of oversaturation. Obviously, I didn't agree with what had happened or any reasons why, but this is just an example of what could happen by at least a local government if geocaching becomes a high-traffic, high-visibility activity.

This post has been edited by medoug: 04 June 2012 - 10:48 PM

[Roman!]

medoug, on 04 June 2012 - 10:22 PM, said:

Roman!, on 04 June 2012 - 04:13 PM, said:

Go 161 meters either side of the trail and wow, what do you know, lots of room. As for your impact argument, then just 1 cache has an impact, is 10 OK?, is 100?, is 500?, who's gonna judge? Like I said, the earth is a big place. And yes, too bad, I got there first, be it 1 spot or 1000, someone got affected, that's life.

161 meters on either side of the trail is private farmland. Power trails are most often on rails-to-trails which constitutes a narrow strip of trail and treeline which was earlier owned by the railroads.

Then find another trail, life's not fair suck it up, they got there first. If you want to live your life not negatively impacting the earth or other people your only option is to stop living, anything else makes you a hypocrite.

[nthacker66]

Here is my concern about power trails but please please PLEASE let me preface this before I write anything else - I am not in any way shape or form knocking them, its another style the way people play and I am all for that. It is not my thing but I staunchly advocate those who wish to play it that way.

That being said - here is why I think they can be detrimental. Usually power trails are going to be on some sort of state owned land, be it gameland, be it easement lines, whatever. Let us be very aware that if the state finds a potential reveue stream somewhere, they will epxloit it. State parks, most of them will allow caches provided you pay the. In NC is is something like $35 for a permit to hide one cache in a state park. What is to stop them from doing the same thing in gamelands? Nothing at all. We have a wonderful couple who created the "bling trail" inb a large gameland shelter. CLose to 500 caches now. Do you not think some comptroller in the government may look at this and say "wow, we could charge $20 per cache and potentially make 10 grand off of this line alone. How many other caches dont we know about?" Nothing is to stop them from logging onto GC and listing all of the caches and seeing dollar signs. As well nothing is to stop a park commisioner from logging and and simply saying "no more of this, I dont like the idea of cachers running up and down this place" or any number of other things.

Once of the concerns that many in the state parks in NC had with caches earlier on was the disturbance of ecologically sensitive areas. I used to point to the trivial amount of traffic a cache would bring. The same thing cannot be said about power trails. Large numbers of caches every 500+ feet will bring much traffic that will eventually become noticable, on so many levels.

Power trails among roads, so called GRC's (gaurd rail caches) can be dnagerous. All it will take is one van full of cachers to be doing a numbers run and a tired truck driver at dusk who slams into the back of that van killing 6 or 7 people and what will the news report "these 7 people were particpating in a game called geocaching where people hide..." and this will bring attention we really do not want or need to this game. Because what does everyone do? They jump to conclusions without getting all of the facts, every single time.

Power trails on rails to trails areas to me is just fine. In fact i totally encourage it. It promotes long hikes without a lot of bush whacking, or bike rides, which all prmote physical fitness. It brings traffic to these areas which in turn promotes more of these r-to-t projects to take place.

[NYPaddleCacher]

Roman!, on 04 June 2012 - 11:35 PM, said:

medoug, on 04 June 2012 - 10:22 PM, said:

Roman!, on 04 June 2012 - 04:13 PM, said:

Go 161 meters either side of the trail and wow, what do you know, lots of room. As for your impact argument, then just 1 cache has an impact, is 10 OK?, is 100?, is 500?, who's gonna judge? Like I said, the earth is a big place. And yes, too bad, I got there first, be it 1 spot or 1000, someone got affected, that's life.

161 meters on either side of the trail is private farmland. Power trails are most often on rails-to-trails which constitutes a narrow strip of trail and treeline which was earlier owned by the railroads.

Then find another trail, life's not fair suck it up, they got there first. If you want to live your life not negatively impacting the earth or other people your only option is to stop living, anything else makes you a hypocrite.

The levels of hypocrisy are getting deeper and deeper.

First you categorize a few people which did nothing more than write that doing power trails is not their preferential way to geocache as "dictating how others play the game". When I point out that a proliferation of power trails dictates how others play the game to a far greater extent, you don't have any rebuttal other than "who's going to judge how much impact it has". I'm not going to do the math, but it seems to me that 1000 caches are going to use about 100 times as much real estate as 10 caches. How can that not have a significantly greater impact? Nevermind. You've already answered that by suggesting that those that don't want to have any impact (completely ignoring the fact that there any sense of scale involved) should commit suicide. I think at this point any expectation of rationale discussion on this issue would be fruitless, but I'll add one last thought.

Apparently you object to someone dictating how you play the game but have no qualms dictating how others play it. That, to me, it the epitome of hypocricy. Thanks for reaffirming one of the reasons that has caused me to object to power trails; that it seems that some power trail advocates have a selfish view of geocaching where their personal found count is more important than the impact that PTs have on the community. I have to wonder how those with such a viewpoint reconcile the fact that they would not be able to achieve a high find count, or that geocaching would not exist at all but for the fact there is a community of people that freely volunteer their time and effort to places caches for others to find.

[Roman!]

NYPaddleCacher, on 05 June 2012 - 08:28 AM, said:

Roman!, on 04 June 2012 - 11:35 PM, said:

medoug, on 04 June 2012 - 10:22 PM, said:

Roman!, on 04 June 2012 - 04:13 PM, said:

Go 161 meters either side of the trail and wow, what do you know, lots of room. As for your impact argument, then just 1 cache has an impact, is 10 OK?, is 100?, is 500?, who's gonna judge? Like I said, the earth is a big place. And yes, too bad, I got there first, be it 1 spot or 1000, someone got affected, that's life.

161 meters on either side of the trail is private farmland. Power trails are most often on rails-to-trails which constitutes a narrow strip of trail and treeline which was earlier owned by the railroads.

Then find another trail, life's not fair suck it up, they got there first. If you want to live your life not negatively impacting the earth or other people your only option is to stop living, anything else makes you a hypocrite.

The levels of hypocrisy are getting deeper and deeper.

First you categorize a few people which did nothing more than write that doing power trails is not their preferential way to geocache as "dictating how others play the game". When I point out that a proliferation of power trails dictates how others play the game to a far greater extent, you don't have any rebuttal other than "who's going to judge how much impact it has". I'm not going to do the math, but it seems to me that 1000 caches are going to use about 100 times as much real estate as 10 caches. How can that not have a significantly greater impact? Nevermind. You've already answered that by suggesting that those that don't want to have any impact (completely ignoring the fact that there any sense of scale involved) should commit suicide. I think at this point any expectation of rationale discussion on this issue would be fruitless, but I'll add one last thought.

Apparently you object to someone dictating how you play the game but have no qualms dictating how others play it. That, to me, it the epitome of hypocricy. Thanks for reaffirming one of the reasons that has caused me to object to power trails; that it seems that some power trail advocates have a selfish view of geocaching where their personal found count is more important than the impact that PTs have on the community. I have to wonder how those with such a viewpoint reconcile the fact that they would not be able to achieve a high find count, or that geocaching would not exist at all but for the fact there is a community of people that freely volunteer their time and effort to places caches for others to find.

And yet you want to deny others the right to place caches based on the fact that in your opinion x number is too many, that is hypocracy no?

As for suicide, I'm just pointing out everything we do impacts others, some negatively, some positively, placing power trails is the same, just go ask the people that own businesses on the ET highway and what impact that power trail had on them. If an area is taken by 1 cache or a thousand, tough luck and move on and quit whinning that someone beat you to it.

[nthacker66]

NYPaddleCacher, on 05 June 2012 - 08:28 AM, said:

Roman!, on 04 June 2012 - 11:35 PM, said:

medoug, on 04 June 2012 - 10:22 PM, said:

Roman!, on 04 June 2012 - 04:13 PM, said:

Go 161 meters either side of the trail and wow, what do you know, lots of room. As for your impact argument, then just 1 cache has an impact, is 10 OK?, is 100?, is 500?, who's gonna judge? Like I said, the earth is a big place. And yes, too bad, I got there first, be it 1 spot or 1000, someone got affected, that's life.

161 meters on either side of the trail is private farmland. Power trails are most often on rails-to-trails which constitutes a narrow strip of trail and treeline which was earlier owned by the railroads.

Then find another trail, life's not fair suck it up, they got there first. If you want to live your life not negatively impacting the earth or other people your only option is to stop living, anything else makes you a hypocrite.

The levels of hypocrisy are getting deeper and deeper.

First you categorize a few people which did nothing more than write that doing power trails is not their preferential way to geocache as "dictating how others play the game". When I point out that a proliferation of power trails dictates how others play the game to a far greater extent, you don't have any rebuttal other than "who's going to judge how much impact it has". I'm not going to do the math, but it seems to me that 1000 caches are going to use about 100 times as much real estate as 10 caches. How can that not have a significantly greater impact? Nevermind. You've already answered that by suggesting that those that don't want to have any impact (completely ignoring the fact that there any sense of scale involved) should commit suicide. I think at this point any expectation of rationale discussion on this issue would be fruitless, but I'll add one last thought.

Apparently you object to someone dictating how you play the game but have no qualms dictating how others play it. That, to me, it the epitome of hypocricy. Thanks for reaffirming one of the reasons that has caused me to object to power trails; that it seems that some power trail advocates have a selfish view of geocaching where their personal found count is more important than the impact that PTs have on the community. I have to wonder how those with such a viewpoint reconcile the fact that they would not be able to achieve a high find count, or that geocaching would not exist at all but for the fact there is a community of people that freely volunteer their time and effort to places caches for others to find.

+1

[NYPaddleCacher]

Roman!, on 05 June 2012 - 11:20 AM, said:

NYPaddleCacher, on 05 June 2012 - 08:28 AM, said:

Roman!, on 04 June 2012 - 11:35 PM, said:

medoug, on 04 June 2012 - 10:22 PM, said:

Roman!, on 04 June 2012 - 04:13 PM, said:

Go 161 meters either side of the trail and wow, what do you know, lots of room. As for your impact argument, then just 1 cache has an impact, is 10 OK?, is 100?, is 500?, who's gonna judge? Like I said, the earth is a big place. And yes, too bad, I got there first, be it 1 spot or 1000, someone got affected, that's life.

161 meters on either side of the trail is private farmland. Power trails are most often on rails-to-trails which constitutes a narrow strip of trail and treeline which was earlier owned by the railroads.

Then find another trail, life's not fair suck it up, they got there first. If you want to live your life not negatively impacting the earth or other people your only option is to stop living, anything else makes you a hypocrite.

The levels of hypocrisy are getting deeper and deeper.

First you categorize a few people which did nothing more than write that doing power trails is not their preferential way to geocache as "dictating how others play the game". When I point out that a proliferation of power trails dictates how others play the game to a far greater extent, you don't have any rebuttal other than "who's going to judge how much impact it has". I'm not going to do the math, but it seems to me that 1000 caches are going to use about 100 times as much real estate as 10 caches. How can that not have a significantly greater impact? Nevermind. You've already answered that by suggesting that those that don't want to have any impact (completely ignoring the fact that there any sense of scale involved) should commit suicide. I think at this point any expectation of rationale discussion on this issue would be fruitless, but I'll add one last thought.

Apparently you object to someone dictating how you play the game but have no qualms dictating how others play it. That, to me, it the epitome of hypocricy. Thanks for reaffirming one of the reasons that has caused me to object to power trails; that it seems that some power trail advocates have a selfish view of geocaching where their personal found count is more important than the impact that PTs have on the community. I have to wonder how those with such a viewpoint reconcile the fact that they would not be able to achieve a high find count, or that geocaching would not exist at all but for the fact there is a community of people that freely volunteer their time and effort to places caches for others to find.

And yet you want to deny others the right to place caches based on the fact that in your opinion x number is too many, that is hypocracy no?

No, it's not hypocrisy. If I want to place 10 caches of the type I prefer along a 10 mile long trail that still lives 100 or so locations free from someone else to place the type of cache that they prefer. If someone places a cache ever .1 of a mile on a trail that leaves zero locations along the trail for other cachers to place the type of cache that they prefer. In other words, someone that only places a few caches along a trail is not denying the right of others to place other cachers, whereas the cachers that insist on placing one ever .1 of a mile is prevent anyone else from placing anything else.

You keep on accusing others of denying your right to play the game as you'd like without presenting any tangible evidence or logical reasoning, when when others do support the contention that those placing power trail significantly impacts how others play the game, the best you have come up with is "that's life, get over it".

Quote

As for suicide, I'm just pointing out everything we do impacts others, some negatively, some positively, placing power trails is the same, just go ask the people that own businesses on the ET highway and what impact that power trail had on them. If an area is taken by 1 cache or a thousand, tough luck and move on and quit whinning that someone beat you to it.

I'd appreciate it you didn't characterize my responses here as whining, because it's not. You made a claim that others here are denying your right to play the game as you when. My response was based on logic, and without emotion, but rather than present a compelling rebuttal all you've done is belittle others by calling us whiners and telling us to "get over it."

[Roman!]

NYPaddleCacher, on 05 June 2012 - 02:56 PM, said:

Roman!, on 05 June 2012 - 11:20 AM, said:

NYPaddleCacher, on 05 June 2012 - 08:28 AM, said:

Roman!, on 04 June 2012 - 11:35 PM, said:

medoug, on 04 June 2012 - 10:22 PM, said:

Roman!, on 04 June 2012 - 04:13 PM, said:

Go 161 meters either side of the trail and wow, what do you know, lots of room. As for your impact argument, then just 1 cache has an impact, is 10 OK?, is 100?, is 500?, who's gonna judge? Like I said, the earth is a big place. And yes, too bad, I got there first, be it 1 spot or 1000, someone got affected, that's life.

161 meters on either side of the trail is private farmland. Power trails are most often on rails-to-trails which constitutes a narrow strip of trail and treeline which was earlier owned by the railroads.

Then find another trail, life's not fair suck it up, they got there first. If you want to live your life not negatively impacting the earth or other people your only option is to stop living, anything else makes you a hypocrite.

The levels of hypocrisy are getting deeper and deeper.

First you categorize a few people which did nothing more than write that doing power trails is not their preferential way to geocache as "dictating how others play the game". When I point out that a proliferation of power trails dictates how others play the game to a far greater extent, you don't have any rebuttal other than "who's going to judge how much impact it has". I'm not going to do the math, but it seems to me that 1000 caches are going to use about 100 times as much real estate as 10 caches. How can that not have a significantly greater impact? Nevermind. You've already answered that by suggesting that those that don't want to have any impact (completely ignoring the fact that there any sense of scale involved) should commit suicide. I think at this point any expectation of rationale discussion on this issue would be fruitless, but I'll add one last thought.

Apparently you object to someone dictating how you play the game but have no qualms dictating how others play it. That, to me, it the epitome of hypocricy. Thanks for reaffirming one of the reasons that has caused me to object to power trails; that it seems that some power trail advocates have a selfish view of geocaching where their personal found count is more important than the impact that PTs have on the community. I have to wonder how those with such a viewpoint reconcile the fact that they would not be able to achieve a high find count, or that geocaching would not exist at all but for the fact there is a community of people that freely volunteer their time and effort to places caches for others to find.

And yet you want to deny others the right to place caches based on the fact that in your opinion x number is too many, that is hypocracy no?

No, it's not hypocrisy. If I want to place 10 caches of the type I prefer along a 10 mile long trail that still lives 100 or so locations free from someone else to place the type of cache that they prefer. If someone places a cache ever .1 of a mile on a trail that leaves zero locations along the trail for other cachers to place the type of cache that they prefer. In other words, someone that only places a few caches along a trail is not denying the right of others to place other cachers, whereas the cachers that insist on placing one ever .1 of a mile is prevent anyone else from placing anything else.

You keep on accusing others of denying your right to play the game as you'd like without presenting any tangible evidence or logical reasoning, when when others do support the contention that those placing power trail significantly impacts how others play the game, the best you have come up with is "that's life, get over it".

Quote

As for suicide, I'm just pointing out everything we do impacts others, some negatively, some positively, placing power trails is the same, just go ask the people that own businesses on the ET highway and what impact that power trail had on them. If an area is taken by 1 cache or a thousand, tough luck and move on and quit whinning that someone beat you to it.

I'd appreciate it you didn't characterize my responses here as whining, because it's not. You made a claim that others here are denying your right to play the game as you when. My response was based on logic, and without emotion, but rather than present a compelling rebuttal all you've done is belittle others by calling us whiners and telling us to "get over it."

Every action you do affects others in one way or another, you want a line to be drawn in the sand based on how you play the game. If someone beats you to a spot or spots they beat you but you want to impose rules as to how others play without any regard for thosE who enjoy placing trails, caching trails or even make a living from the trails.

Luckily Groundspeak is not stupid enough to alienate a good chunk of their customer base.

And yes I see your comments a whining, people that place power trails play within the rules but you complain they aren't playing the way you like.

This post has been edited by Roman!: 05 June 2012 - 05:34 PM

[AZcachemeister]

Roman!, on 05 June 2012 - 05:29 PM, said:

Luckily Groundspeak is not stupid enough to alienate a good chunk of their customer base.

Exactly.
Groundspeak has realized that a significant number of geocachers are number-oriented, and they want to accrue the maximum number of smilies in the minimum time.

Given that Groundspeak wants to make money by memberships and app sales, allowing powertrails was an obvious short-term plan to maximize cash flow.

Time will tell if this was a good decision in the long run, but I have my doubts.

[Roman!]

AZcachemeister, on 05 June 2012 - 06:02 PM, said:

Roman!, on 05 June 2012 - 05:29 PM, said:

Luckily Groundspeak is not stupid enough to alienate a good chunk of their customer base.

Exactly.
Groundspeak has realized that a significant number of geocachers are number-oriented, and they want to accrue the maximum number of smilies in the minimum time.

Given that Groundspeak wants to make money by memberships and app sales, allowing powertrails was an obvious short-term plan to maximize cash flow.

Time will tell if this was a good decision in the long run, but I have my doubts.

I don't, in fact there may be a new specialized industry, geotourism, again, check with the business owners along the ET highway, heck, just look how many finds those caches have.

But, like I have said, the earth is a big pace with lots of room for all types of hides.

[knowschad]

Roman!, on 05 June 2012 - 06:07 PM, said:

check with the business owners along the ET highway

That should be singular, shouldn't it?

[Roman!]

knowschad, on 05 June 2012 - 06:12 PM, said:

Roman!, on 05 June 2012 - 06:07 PM, said:

check with the business owners along the ET highway

That should be singular, shouldn't it?

I believe there is a hotel and a gas station, that's two, that's plural.

[knowschad]

Roman!, on 05 June 2012 - 06:19 PM, said:

knowschad, on 05 June 2012 - 06:12 PM, said:

Roman!, on 05 June 2012 - 06:07 PM, said:

check with the business owners along the ET highway

That should be singular, shouldn't it?

I believe there is a hotel and a gas station, that's two, that's plural.

Don't they have the same owner(s)?

[jholly]

Roman!, on 05 June 2012 - 06:19 PM, said:

knowschad, on 05 June 2012 - 06:12 PM, said:

Roman!, on 05 June 2012 - 06:07 PM, said:

check with the business owners along the ET highway

That should be singular, shouldn't it?

I believe there is a hotel and a gas station, that's two, that's plural.

That would have been sweet if there was a gas station. Well there is, sort of, the 5 gallon cans you carry with you. There is a bar/grill and the hotel is, without a doubt, at least a quarter star. I would not call it a hotel or motel.

At both ends you have the gas station at Crystal Springs, a gas station and a several motels in Alamo and at the Tonopah end are several gas stations, motels and restaurants. At least the bar/grill in Rachael definitely feels the business. I'm sure the motels in Alamo and the gas stations feel the business. Not sure about Tonopah since it is a bit bigger and has more traffic.

[humboldt flier]

Roman!, on 05 June 2012 - 06:19 PM, said:

knowschad, on 05 June 2012 - 06:12 PM, said:

Roman!, on 05 June 2012 - 06:07 PM, said:

check with the business owners along the ET highway

That should be singular, shouldn't it?

I believe there is a hotel and a gas station, that's two, that's plural.

No gas station ... thus one of the challenges to be factored in

[jellis]

humboldt flier, on 05 June 2012 - 09:14 PM, said:

Roman!, on 05 June 2012 - 06:19 PM, said:

knowschad, on 05 June 2012 - 06:12 PM, said:

Roman!, on 05 June 2012 - 06:07 PM, said:

check with the business owners along the ET highway

That should be singular, shouldn't it?

I believe there is a hotel and a gas station, that's two, that's plural.

No gas station ... thus one of the challenges to be factored in

Nope no gas station or motel in Rachel. But I believe there are camping spots.

[jellis]

humboldt flier, on 05 June 2012 - 09:14 PM, said:

Roman!, on 05 June 2012 - 06:19 PM, said:

knowschad, on 05 June 2012 - 06:12 PM, said:

Roman!, on 05 June 2012 - 06:07 PM, said:

check with the business owners along the ET highway

That should be singular, shouldn't it?

I believe there is a hotel and a gas station, that's two, that's plural.

No gas station ... thus one of the challenges to be factored in

Nope no gas station or motel in Rachel. But I believe there are camping spots, since we spotted TeamSnook's camper and shower there during the 2nd opening.

[jholly]

jellis, on 05 June 2012 - 09:26 PM, said:

humboldt flier, on 05 June 2012 - 09:14 PM, said:

Roman!, on 05 June 2012 - 06:19 PM, said:

knowschad, on 05 June 2012 - 06:12 PM, said:

Roman!, on 05 June 2012 - 06:07 PM, said:

check with the business owners along the ET highway

That should be singular, shouldn't it?

I believe there is a hotel and a gas station, that's two, that's plural.

No gas station ... thus one of the challenges to be factored in

Nope no gas station or motel in Rachel. But I believe there are camping spots.

There is a motel (?) of sorts. It is not listed in the AAA books.

[Roman!]

Who said in Rachel? There is a gas station at the beginning of the run and close to the end of the run. On average 2 people a day do the trail. And I'm sure most stop before the run, at rachel, and at the end. But what do I know, I've never done the ET highway but you could always ask those that live and work along it what they think.

[knowschad]

Roman!, on 05 June 2012 - 11:52 PM, said:

Who said in Rachel? There is a gas station at the beginning of the run and close to the end of the run. On average 2 people a day do the trail. And I'm sure most stop before the run, at rachel, and at the end. But what do I know, I've never done the ET highway but you could always ask those that live and work along it what they think.

If those towns at either end of the trail (or Rachel itself, for that matter) need the ET trail powertrail for their survival, I'd say that something is basicall wrong to begin with, and that those towns probably should fail.

[The Jester]

NYPaddleCacher, on 04 June 2012 - 03:27 PM, said:

CanadianRockies, on 04 June 2012 - 02:40 PM, said:

NYPaddleCacher, on 04 June 2012 - 10:43 AM, said:

Do they enjoy the caches find along the trail or do they enjoy seeing their find count go up several hundreds and the ability to claim "I found 700 caches in a single day"?

I'm sure some enjoy seeing their find counts go up. I'm sure others enjoy the challenge of finding a large number of caches in a single day. Others probably enjoy the socialization and camaraderie.

I've never quite understood the socialization and camaraderie argument. It seems to me that if a group of people go out geocaching for the day and goes on a hike to find a dozen caches there is a *lot* more time for socialization and camaraderie then if every minute of the day is spent racing from cache to cache.

Socialization and camaraderie isn't time dependent. The working together to accomplish a hard task is sometimes the goal - whether is gives you a bunch of smilies, bragging rights, or some other 'perk'. I'm a climber and working with a team to get up a mountain is filled with socialization and comaraderie - but not always while climbing (at least as you seem to define it). Spending 8 hours (or more) on a rope team, at least 75 feet from your partners in conditions where chatting isn't always possible, is a big part of it. You are focused on what you are doing and need to accomplish together - that's socializing and comaraderie. In camp, or the bar/resturant afterwards, you get to look back at what you did that day/climb.

There are many people who don't understand why some would like to a climb mountain (or bike across the USA, or cache a PT), but that doesn't mean the people who do like it shouldn't continue to enjoy it. I think the classic response to "why climb a mountain" is as useful to "why do a PT" - "Because it's there!"

[NYPaddleCacher]

Roman!, on 05 June 2012 - 05:29 PM, said:

Every action you do affects others in one way or another, you want a line to be drawn in the sand based on how you play the game. If someone beats you to a spot or spots they beat you but you want to impose rules as to how others play without any regard for thosE who enjoy placing trails, caching trails or even make a living from the trails.

The point you keep on missing is that different actions can have different levels of impact. If someone places 10 caches along a trail, the impact in negligible on someone that wants to place a lot more. If someone saturates an area, the impact is absolute.

I'm not suggesting that a line be drawn. I have not suggested that rules be imposed. I've read the responses in this thread and don't recall a single response calling for the abolishment or curtailing of power trails. Your assertion that people in this thread are trying to dictate how you want to play the game has no basis in fact.

A rule or guideline regarding the number and type of caches one places should not be necessary. It's a matter of common courtesy. The hider that places 10 caches along a trail has the common courtesy to allow others to places the type of cache they prefer along the trail. The hider that saturates the trail from end to end, and then writes "I got here first, too bad, go find somewhere else to play the game" is *not* being courteous.

Quote

Luckily Groundspeak is not stupid enough to alienate a good chunk of their customer base.

And yes I see your comments a whining, people that place power trails play within the rules but you complain they aren't playing the way you like.

I'm neither whining nor complaining. Period.

[badger10]

I have not been on any of the famous power trails but we do have quite a few mini power trails along lightly/seldom used roads (around 260 caches at last count I think) in the Tri-Cities Washington. These roads have been around quite a while and before the mini PT were put in there were very few caches placed. I do not see how putting a PT along a seldom used road with very few caches is considered being not courteous. Are the other PT around the US placed on prime geocaching realestate? The ones around our area have very few places that would lead someone to say "this is a great place for a cache". The few that were placed are already in the prime caching areas along those roads. I am not addressing the power trails on rails to trails only those along lonely roads.

[knowschad]

NYPaddleCacher, on 06 June 2012 - 08:51 AM, said:

I'm neither whining nor complaining. Period.

Would you please quit whining about that?

[Roman!]

knowschad, on 06 June 2012 - 06:29 AM, said:

Roman!, on 05 June 2012 - 11:52 PM, said:

Who said in Rachel? There is a gas station at the beginning of the run and close to the end of the run. On average 2 people a day do the trail. And I'm sure most stop before the run, at rachel, and at the end. But what do I know, I've never done the ET highway but you could always ask those that live and work along it what they think.

If those towns at either end of the trail (or Rachel itself, for that matter) need the ET trail powertrail for their survival, I'd say that something is basicall wrong to begin with, and that those towns probably should fail.

So we kill power trails, then a few towns fail, then a few more. Next thing you know the whole country fails. Canada and Mexico soon follow suit and Europe, already well on its way fails too. Soon after the remaining countries fail and war breaks out, nukes are launched and mankind is wiped off the face of the earth.

Happy now?

At least there will never be another LPC placed so all is not lost.

This post has been edited by Roman!: 06 June 2012 - 10:50 PM

[B+L]

AZcachemeister, on 05 June 2012 - 06:02 PM, said:

Groundspeak has realized that a significant number of geocachers are number-oriented, and they want to accrue the maximum number of smilies in the minimum time.

Significant, or vocal and unrelenting? Easing the reviewer's pain is the most likely motivation for eliminating the "don't go cache crazy and hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can" guideline.

Quote

Time will tell if this was a good decision in the long run, but I have my doubts.

ditto

[Team Geo-Rangers]

For what it is worth, the new ET Highway caches are posted and extend that power trail to 2000!

[humboldt flier]

Leaving SJC shortly and will be there in ~ six hours. Another logistical challenge to be met.

[knowschad]

Roman!, on 06 June 2012 - 11:31 AM, said:

knowschad, on 06 June 2012 - 06:29 AM, said:

Roman!, on 05 June 2012 - 11:52 PM, said:

Who said in Rachel? There is a gas station at the beginning of the run and close to the end of the run. On average 2 people a day do the trail. And I'm sure most stop before the run, at rachel, and at the end. But what do I know, I've never done the ET highway but you could always ask those that live and work along it what they think.

If those towns at either end of the trail (or Rachel itself, for that matter) need the ET trail powertrail for their survival, I'd say that something is basicall wrong to begin with, and that those towns probably should fail.

So we kill power trails, then a few towns fail, then a few more. Next thing you know the whole country fails. Canada and Mexico soon follow suit and Europe, already well on its way fails too. Soon after the remaining countries fail and war breaks out, nukes are launched and mankind is wiped off the face of the earth.

Happy now?

At least there will never be another LPC placed so all is not lost.

Gee... I never looked at it quite like that!

[briansnat]

B+L, on 06 June 2012 - 01:11 PM, said:

AZcachemeister, on 05 June 2012 - 06:02 PM, said:

Groundspeak has realized that a significant number of geocachers are number-oriented, and they want to accrue the maximum number of smilies in the minimum time.

Significant, or vocal and unrelenting? Easing the reviewer's pain is the most likely motivation for eliminating the "don't go cache crazy and hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can" guideline.

Removing that clause certainly did nothing to ease the reviewer's pain. Yeah it was subjective and a bit of a pain to enforce. But imagine working three or four hours on Sunday night to process the weekend queue and going to bed happy that it's all taken care of. Then waking up the next morning to find a 500 cache power trail waiting for you. THAT's pain.

Quote

Time will tell if this was a good decision in the long run, but I have my doubts.

Personally, I'm positive it was a bad decision and there will be a long term negative impact. A town in Germany has already moved to ban geocaching due to the the impact of a power trail. We're going to see more of that as we see more power trails.

This post has been edited by briansnat: 07 June 2012 - 08:35 AM

[S & A Norton]

I don't mind the power trails at all. I used to cache in Wisconsin, where I'm from and did a lot around there. Now I live in Maryland and after a messy divorce, I introduced my boyfriend to caching and he loves it. (We don't have a lot of finds on our account because we started a new one. Didn't want any attachment to the old life and so on).

I have some disabilities that require me to walk and get exercise in my legs so power trails are great for me. I do prefer the unique caches though. I love seeing what people come up with to hide.

My favorite was a massive canister, about a yard long hidden 20 feet in the air in a nature preserve. SO. DANG. AWESOME!!

[B+L]

briansnat, on 07 June 2012 - 08:27 AM, said:

B+L, on 06 June 2012 - 01:11 PM, said:

AZcachemeister, on 05 June 2012 - 06:02 PM, said:

Groundspeak has realized that a significant number of geocachers are number-oriented, and they want to accrue the maximum number of smilies in the minimum time.

Significant, or vocal and unrelenting? Easing the reviewer's pain is the most likely motivation for eliminating the "don't go cache crazy and hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can" guideline.

Removing that clause certainly did nothing to ease the reviewer's pain. Yeah it was subjective and a bit of a pain to enforce. But imagine working three or four hours on Sunday night to process the weekend queue and going to bed happy that it's all taken care of. Then waking up the next morning to find a 500 cache power trail waiting for you. THAT's pain.

That it backfired doesn't mean it wasn't the motivation, or a least a part of it. If the reviewers are getting overrun, throwing more volunteers into the trenches is always an option, well that, and giving them better tools. The pain I was referring to is not the pain enforcing something so vague, but the hostile reaction some people have when they think they've been the victim of selective enforcement.

Anyway, it does seem like a pretty short-sighted thing to do, unless the goal is simply to grow the numbers in the short term.

[the4dirtydogs]

Team Geo-Rangers, on 06 June 2012 - 09:00 PM, said:

For what it is worth, the new ET Highway caches are posted and extend that power trail to 2000!

I heard about this last night at an event. Road trip. Keep an eye out in the RT 66 area too, I had a sneak peak.

[Don_J]

badger10, on 06 June 2012 - 09:47 AM, said:

I have not been on any of the famous power trails but we do have quite a few mini power trails along lightly/seldom used roads (around 260 caches at last count I think) in the Tri-Cities Washington. These roads have been around quite a while and before the mini PT were put in there were very few caches placed. I do not see how putting a PT along a seldom used road with very few caches is considered being not courteous. Are the other PT around the US placed on prime geocaching realestate? The ones around our area have very few places that would lead someone to say "this is a great place for a cache". The few that were placed are already in the prime caching areas along those roads. I am not addressing the power trails on rails to trails only those along lonely roads.

I can only speak of the ET HWY and RT 66. Each had about ten caches along their entire distances. The ones on the ET HWY had been there for years and it was clear that no one was rushing out there to place new caches.

[cezanne]

Don_J, on 08 June 2012 - 12:38 AM, said:

badger10, on 06 June 2012 - 09:47 AM, said:

I have not been on any of the famous power trails but we do have quite a few mini power trails along lightly/seldom used roads (around 260 caches at last count I think) in the Tri-Cities Washington. These roads have been around quite a while and before the mini PT were put in there were very few caches placed. I do not see how putting a PT along a seldom used road with very few caches is considered being not courteous. Are the other PT around the US placed on prime geocaching realestate? The ones around our area have very few places that would lead someone to say "this is a great place for a cache". The few that were placed are already in the prime caching areas along those roads. I am not addressing the power trails on rails to trails only those along lonely roads.

I can only speak of the ET HWY and RT 66. Each had about ten caches along their entire distances. The ones on the ET HWY had been there for years and it was clear that no one was rushing out there to place new caches.

Of course it depends on the area.
The two series by this cacher
http://www.geocachin...x?u=Heinzspeedy
are located in areas where other cachers would like to hide caches, but already answering all these questions is a chore.

Cezanne

[DragonsWest]

The last two power trails I sampled had almost no parking, no parking at all or were along heavily travelled roads where pulling off to the side is something which should only be done in emergency.

I'm tempted to report at least one as they should ALL be archived because the road is a stupid choice to place caches.

[badger10]

I just doubled my power trail. That makes my PT 9 caches long. He he he.

[W7WT]

badger10, on 08 June 2012 - 05:14 PM, said:

I just doubled my power trail. That makes my PT 9 caches long. He he he.

WoW, We have done about half the power caches near you and will look for HY 397, Nine Mile and Kirk Road on around the 27th or 28th. For some reason I am unable to bring up your caches. I found your road. I can't bring up just caches in the area using a search of Kennewick. I can however bring up all the caches that I have in my PQ. I have just loaded 5 GPSs with all the caches we have on our trip. May have to just use send to GPS to add those. We will be lucky to
find all the caches in the other PT. May just wait until you get a hundred or so in your string. Thanks Dick

Just tried again searching Kennewick and all the caches showed up showing all of your caches.
If we have time we will look for them. This is part of a trip we are taking to see our Grandson near Jackson, Wy and on the return we will look for a short power trail in Bliss, Id and then drive to Kennewick to hopefully find the power trails mentioned above before heading to Bremerton

This post has been edited by W7WT: 08 June 2012 - 06:16 PM

[badger10]

W7WT, on 08 June 2012 - 06:04 PM, said:

badger10, on 08 June 2012 - 05:14 PM, said:

I just doubled my power trail. That makes my PT 9 caches long. He he he.

WoW, We have done about half the power caches near you and will look for HY 397, Nine Mile and Kirk Road on around the 27th or 28th. For some reason I am unable to bring up your caches. I found your road. I can't bring up just caches in the area using a search of Kennewick. I can however bring up all the caches that I have in my PQ. I have just loaded 5 GPSs with all the caches we have on our trip. May have to just use send to GPS to add those. We will be lucky to
find all the caches in the other PT. May just wait until you get a hundred or so in your string. Thanks Dick

Just tried again searching Kennewick and all the caches showed up showing all of your caches.
If we have time we will look for them. This is part of a trip we are taking to see our Grandson near Jackson, Wy and on the return we will look for a short power trail in Bliss, Id and then drive to Kennewick to hopefully find the power trails mentioned above before heading to Bremerton

I have 5 caches out right now. One regular and four as part of our ever growing power trails. I just put out five more (not published yet). I think currently there are 240 caches on the power trails but they are mostly backcountry roads and they are not on a straight line. I think the longest string on one road is 55. We are also having a geocoin challenge (30 caches in three cities equals three geocoin puzzle pieces that form one coin). I am sure between now and the 21st of this month more caches will be added to the power trails.

[mckeefamily8]

So in some cases I would say power trails aren't the best. On the other hand if the "power trail" has lets says multiple roads that are rarely traveled and take you to great views and some really cool places that you never would have gone is that bad? I will use Hood River, Oregon as an example on the one series they have about six caches that have over several favorites because of the location and type of cache. On the one series I believe there isn't a single film can almost 80% are small or regular and one large. They have various types of caches from ones that you have to figure out how to get it to tree climbing to a little hike to many other things. Other people have hidden along there and they have even archived a cache because someone else had a better idea and asked for the spot. Is it really considered a power trail if you are giving more than one favorite in a 60 cache run? Also before placing they checked with local officials to make sure they didn't see issues and also check in with them to make sure that there are no problems. I just checked and only one of TEAM ESP 333 hides has a needs maintenance which was just recently posted on it.

Also what about the Bike Paths in Portland, Oregon they get maintained very well I will us M.D. Path as an example which is by the airport. It gets people out and walking (as there really isn't parking along the majority of the trail). Just curious on thoughts? I know no matter how could a long stretch of caches is some people won't like it.

[PattiNH]

How about "to each his own"? If power trails weren't popular, there wouldn't be so many copycats out there.

We have a number of rail trails in our area. The one I've enjoyed the best was a progressive rail trail where different people put out the caches. Added a lot of variety to the caches.

But I enjoy the trails, getting out there and walking along them (sometimes with my dog) instead of driving from place to place and jumping out to log the cache. Everyone gets something different out of it. If you're that set on grabbing the # of caches that are in the trail but don't want the monotony, then do a few at a time. The largest rail trail here I've been working on since I started caching nearly 2 years ago and I still have a good number to get on it.

Patti

[Roman!]

PattiNH, on 24 June 2012 - 03:50 PM, said:

How about "to each his own"?

That's been tried but unless your doing it some other person's way that other person is going to complain how you play the game but if you do do it some other person's way then many others will complain how you play the game.

[L0ne R]

PattiNH, on 24 June 2012 - 03:50 PM, said:

The one I've enjoyed the best was a progressive rail trail where different people put out the caches. Added a lot of variety to the caches.

Those are the kind that I prefer.

The only one-owner (or own group CO) power trail that I really enjoyed, has been a rail-to-trail where the CO only took approx. a 5 mile section of the trail (leaving room for others to plant). They didn't plant every .1 miles but rather where the container or location best suited a cache (some were .1, some were further apart). They planted mostly peanut butter jars - swag size and water tight. Just a few micro caches and not film canisters. They even made the extra effort to spray paint them. Each pb jar had a logbook, not a logsheet. The caches are maintained.

The other rail to trail caches that I've found were disappointing - miles and miles and miles of cheap leaky micro containers (a few cheap leaky small containers) with wet, full logs that were generally neglected by the CO or group-CO. Often tossed into a ditch or culvert because it was the best spot at the .1 mile mark.

I think the complaint is not so much about cache density as it is about cache quality when it comes to the typical Power Trail, and cache practices that are frowned upon - leap frogging, driving from cache to cache when directed to walk (ET highway alien head), throw downs, etc.

This post has been edited by L0ne R: 24 June 2012 - 06:39 PM

[Manville Possum Hunters]

I there a way to filter out power trails when running a PQ? I would like to put users on a ignore list, but that's not possible is it?

[OZ2CPU]

where is the LIKE, LOneR :-)
a power trail is not per defination = always all is bad,
if made as you mention, it could be great,
just too bad to many people dont care to make a good trail of different and funny to find
and maintained containers..

so how to encurage people to make things better ?
education ?
or peole who think they know better get together and show how it is done ?

[cezanne]

OZ2CPU, on 27 June 2012 - 04:58 AM, said:

where is the LIKE, LOneR :-)
a power trail is not per defination = always all is bad,

It depends on what you have in mind, the individual experience for a cacher or or the overall
effect on geocaching as a whole. With respect to the latter, it does not play that much of
a role whether the hides are creative or not. Too much geocaching traffic is drawn to a certain area and
that will always have negative effects as well that could be partially avoided by a lower cache density.

Quote

just too bad to many people dont care to make a good trail of different and funny to find
and maintained containers..

There are different caching preferences and different reasons for liking power trails.
Some people enjoy power trails because they can easily increase their find count which
does not work out if they have to invest lots of efforts into each cache.

I do not like power trails, but I'm not interested into lots of different and funny containers in the first place.
For me it is about the walk/hike/bicycle tour and the location and the shorter the search for the container is and
the more standard it is to handle, the better for me.

Quote

so how to encurage people to make things better ?
education ?
or peole who think they know better get together and show how it is done ?

There is no unique definition of good/better.



Cezanne

[W7WT]

Last year I had open heart surgery and Arlene had a stroke, we try to go visit our Grandson in Wilson,Wy. We just cached along the road from Bremerton to Driggs Id and enjoyed it. After visiting him we drove to Bliss, Id to do a relative short pwr cache. As, I said we are in our mid-eightys and so was the temperature. Being from the Wet side we were not use to the dry hot weather. Just about done us in when we just let the Scion run with the air conditioner wide open. Caches south of town was mostlly in the sage bush and we missed finding a few. North of town was much easier usually near a pwr pole. Next day we drove to Kennewick and found 29 in the HWy 397 series. Easy and great views of the Columbia River.We quit early because we wanted to leave the Nine Mile and Kirk road series for Tuesday. Got up early Tuesday morning and we were having a driving rain storm. Drove up in the Wind generators where they were turnin out mega watts. Sunday we had the air conitioning on full blast. Tuesday we let it run with the heat on full. Opening and closing the door was the hardest part. Found all except one. Great day and we got back to the motel to log all the caches. We did enjoy all the caches. Nice trip to the wet side yesterday. dick and arlene

This post has been edited by W7WT: 28 June 2012 - 02:59 PM