"POWER TRAILS"

[RGS]

Chuck makes many good points about power trails. I don't think that you
would want to turn this trail (or any trail) into anything that
Chuck describes. [assuming that CW described anything] What Groundspeak
seems to really want to avoid is to have a trail filled up with a
zillion little identical stupid un-inspiring caches that end up being
placed at the minimum distance for no other reason other than to rack up
a bunch of numbers. Believe me, that would turn a wonderful walk and
caching opportunity along a trail into something much less than wonderful.

I don't think tho, that Groundspeak is apposed to a trail "developing"
naturally over time filling in with caches that were well thought out,
of a diverse hiding style, including a mix of all the different types of
caches using all different kinds of cache containers. What if you and
fellow cachers got together and decide basically that the trail would be
a showcase of cache hides for the area. Decide which cachers that are
interested in placing caches on the trail and try to follow a few informal
guidelines that enhance what you would like to do on the trail. If
someone hides a micro, make the next one a different kind, if one is a
film can, make the next one down the line some sort of cammo container. a multi or an offset. etc.

Dont hide the same container more than a couple times along the
length of the trail and never next to each other. Go find the forum of
Cool cache containers and get some neat ideas and use them also. If a
single cacher is going to hide more than two or three caches, don't
place them together, place one and go down the trail a mile. You have a
whole trail, use all of it. Mix it up, get as creative as possible and
OVER TIME the trail will fill in with a bunch of really good caches
that will really highlight the creativity of the cachers in the area and
it WILL be a place the visitors will want to go to see the best that the
area has to offer and not just for the numbers.

Of course you cant keep others from hiding stuff on the trail but
hopefully everyone will "play along" with the project and bring out
their best stuff.

I really think you will get better responses from the cachers if there is a nice variety and styles to choose from, even some difficult ones that might not be found on the first try.

RGS - St. Louis

[Team_Pink]

That is a nice thought out response and very clear. But everyone does not share that view of the "correct" way. To some, it IS about the numbers. That is one of the appeals of geocaching in that you can play the game how you choose. What is the point of a lamp post skirt or a cemetery cache? For some they are in fact pointless. For others, lamp post skirt or cemetery caches are a little shot of adrenaline. I think the "correct" way to play the game is however it is desired (with common sense and asking permission of course). I just hope Geocaching.com doesn't force us to play "their"
vision of what geocaching should be. Geocaching.com is only a database, not the overseers of the sport.

[redink]

The reviewers use a rule of thumb that caches placed within .10 miles (528 feet or 161 metres) of another cache may not be published on the site. This is an arbitrary distance and is just a guideline, but the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area and to reduce confusion that might otherwise result when one cache is found while looking for another.

This is not a guideline, but a hard and fast rule as applied by Chuck Walla and explained to me in an email. Trying to get something started in Mountain View ( a cache starved place with only a couple in a 15 mile radius at the time) I place a micro in a city park/amphitheater and a regular cache on a hiking trail. The immediate areas of each cache were vastly different, and one a micro and one a regular--- there was no possibility of getting them confused. To go from one to the other required a walk of much more than 528 feet in order to cross a creek and enter the trails area. The expressed reason for the rule did not come into play here. But I had failed to check the separation distince and it was slightly under 528 feet. Even so, as for similarities they were miles apart. I made an appeal to have them both approved and was denied.

I can understand that they don't want to relax the rule to the point of abuse, but such was not the case here. So don't expect to ever get one approved under 528 feet from another regardless of the circumstances.

I had a cache listed that was under the 528ft rule.The cache is
GCKOW1. I ask Chuck for a variance and received one for my cache GC16CRG. I stated the follwing reasons and he granted me the variance.
The cache was placed in a business with seasonal hours,the cache was placed bt someone from CA, that was not active in caching any longer(by looking at their profile)and the coords were bad,I also asked him to read the logs of the cache stating about business hours and such,and he granted me the variance. So maybe the system will work ? I certainly respect Chuck and his decisions,let me also add that he has denied one of mine also,so I redid the cache . Thanks RED INK

[Geezer_Veazey]

I ask Chuck for a variance and received one for my cache GC16CRG.

If Chuck is now going by the spirit of the rule, that's good. When a person abides by the spirit of the rule but gets denied by a technicality, and that person sees dozens of "power trails" micros just over the limit, it's discouraging, which is why I no longer put out caches and seldom hunt them unless asked by someone to go with them.

[B62GTAWK]

In regards to RGS the 7 caches I had notice past tense were all in different containers and even some of my own creations. The containers or the way they were hidden made no difference in her desision.
Signed
Frustrated but not quiting

[B62GTAWK]

This is my response from Chuck Walla

I cannot tell you how far apart they have to be to not be a power trail because that
is too subjective, but 7 caches (including your 6 new ones) in that area is far too
many. Quantity does not equal quality.

Chuck Walla

[oenavigator]

[OldRiverRunner]

Geocaching.com is only a database, not the overseers of the sport.

I respectfully disagree. All of this discussion is about caches posted on Geocaching.com (GC.com) and we have ALL chosen on our own free will to use that website. Any geocache listed on GC.com must conform to their rules / guidelines for listing. We all have to check a box at the bottom of a new cache submittal stating that we have read and understand the rules / guidelines and that our new caches comply. And we understand that our new cache submittals must be reviewed by a GC.com reviewer for compliance to the rules / guidelines prior to being listed. So GC.com is very much an overseer of the sport.

I seem to remember that the guidelines state something like there is no precedent for placing a cache and just because a similar cache was approved in the past, it doesn't mean yours will be approved now. That may be why GC.com calls them "guidelines" -- things change and what was acceptable yesterday may not be acceptable today.

No one is forced to list their geocaches on GC.com. They can submit them to another geocaching website. They can list them here in the AGA forums. They can create their own geocaching website and list them there. Or they can just share the coordinates with friends and family. There are many ways to play the game that do not involve GC.com and can avoid the restrictions placed on us by GC.com and their reviewers. For those of you who “do not like to be dictated to”, use one of these alternative methods and place as many caches as you would like 20 feet apart. No one will stop you.

[AR-HICK]

I have learned a lot on this thread of how other cachers think. My question was originally posed to find out if cachers were having trouble other than the ones I knew about, this did not happen nor did I get answer from our Reviewer(as far as I know).
This being said I will take some of the things to heart and try my best as a cacher to place caches that fall within the guidelines. It is not my intent to inflame or cause malice towards anyone.

I just was wanting to learn of what has changed if any and why this was.

The best advice I can give is keep on placing caches how you think they should be placed. I would like to see something in black and white, but the world is made up of many shades of gray and this is a matter for someone smarter than me to decide. For anyone who has not checked it out you might want to look at Chuck Walla's profile, it is a lot different than the last time I checked it out. I can only assume that each cache will be handled on a cache by cache basis.

[Team_Pink]

GC.com is very much an overseer of the sport.

I agree. I used the wrong word. Just like a word becomes a word, through usage, GC.com has became the overseer of geocaching. I happen to admire the quality of their website and I personally have no problems with their guidelines.

What I meant to say is that GC.com does not "own" geocaching. If Jeremy and company decide to quit tomorrow, geocaching will live on. If they tighten the guidelines to the point that people feel constrained, people will vote with their feet. We may see the day that another whiz kid programmer sees the potential of making some money. Don't forget that GC.com is a for-profit company providing a service to people in a sport (game) just like Wilson makes products for baseball. If there is a competitor that comes along with a better service geocachers can and will migrate.

That's the reason they use the word guidelines. They have no right to create "rules". And probably some of the issues are on advice of legal counsel.

If you research the history of geocaching, you will see that there was quite a bit of controversy when GC.com started. It was against the belief of many at the time that a for-profit company would be a good idea. I think it turned out to be in most ways. The big disadvantage is the lack of data portability. If I should decide to "do business elsewhere" their policy on pocket queries would prevent me from moving my data.

Again, I have no problem with GC.com, I just think it helps to step back once in a while to keep things in perspective.