View Full Version : Power Trails



lexmano
01-19-2010, 09:27 AM
Around the country some reviewers have placed additional restrictions on the placement of large series of caches along a route, similar to our Stud Mill Road or the Star Wars caches. While I can understand that issues are presented, it would seem like excessive regulation of these placements is not wise.

I am planning a 4 state swing next weekend which will take me into Arkansas. In planning the caches I was excited to find the Main Haul series of caches, 29 caches along a former logging road. I corresponded with the cache owner and he advised me he was extending the series and would finish it before our visit. He advised me yesterday that his reviewer has adopted some "power trail" review standards and he cannot finish the series as planned.

I joined the Arkansas geocachers site to see what I could learn and here it is


Due to the number of power trails I have started to receive for review, I have decided to implement a few “rules” and limitations for the publishing of these power trails. These limitations are not explicitly covered by the Cache Listing Guidelines / Requirements, but Groundspeak has advised the reviewers that these types of rules can be used at the discretion of the reviewer.

1) I will limit publishing caches from each power trail owner to only 5 caches per day.:eek:

2) I will not publish the caches in their numerical or geographical order. If you have any particular order that you want me to publish these caches, you should submit them in the desired order, but only 5 per day. Otherwise, I will select the 5 each day at random so that they are spread out over the entire course.:eek:

3) When you submit the first caches for the power trail, please tell me the total length of the power trail. In other words, how many miles will it cover? Also, I need to know the total number of caches that will make up the power trail. Currently, I am not limiting the length or number of caches, but a limit may be set later.

4) Caches in a power trail should be separated at least 0.25 mile. This separation is to allow another cacher to place a cache in between, if they choose. However, using this to intermix two separate power trails will not be allowed.

5) I will not publish more than one power trail by a cache owner in a 6 month period.:eek:

The basis for many of these limitations may be found in the section on cache saturation in the Cache Listing Guidelines / Requirements, which states,

Please don't hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can. The ultimate goals of the saturation guideline are to encourage you to seek out new places to hide caches rather than putting them in areas where caches already exist and to limit the number of caches hidden in a particular area, especially by the same hider. Groundspeak may further restrict cache listings in areas where cache saturation becomes a concern.

I appreciate your cooperation in the submitting of future power trails.

Chuck Walla
Geocaching.com Volunteer Cache Reviewer

(The emoticons were added by me at the most offensive areas in my opinion.)

I take my hat off to and raise a toast to MainePublisher, Long May He Review!!!

brdad
01-19-2010, 10:02 AM
It only makes sense to me it is coming to this, and even Maine Reviewer may have to take similar action here in the future. These are a lot of caches in a short time, and I'll take my chances at being criticized for making assumptions, but I am guessing most likely without permission. And it is a lot of work for the reviewer, they can't make an assumption that just because cache #1 is placed within the guidelines that cache #150 or any in between are. I'd bet it takes longer for many of these caches to be reviewed than it does for the finders to find them, it's almost like the reviewer should get extra credit for the caches they review!

I do find the 5 per day limit a bit odd, only in the fact that he is singling out those placing power caches. While I may not be in favor of power caches, power cache hiders have as much right to hide caches as anyone else. It'd be more fair to limit to X number of caches per day per any cache hider.

TRF
01-19-2010, 11:09 AM
Interesting "self imposed" rule. Glad they qualified their personal decision by saying it was sanctioned by geocaching.com. Now it looks like geocaching.com will have to revise their guidelines else contridict themselves.

Next thing we'll see is that a reviewer will feel it is not right to publish more than 2 nanos in a 2 mile square area justifying THEIR decision by saying it, would encourage other types of hides. I see no end to the restrictions coming in the future.

Thank goodness that I still have the CHOICE of paying for a membership or not.

cano
01-19-2010, 12:28 PM
Interesting "self imposed" rule. Glad they qualified their personal decision by saying it was sanctioned by geocaching.com. Now it looks like geocaching.com will have to revise their guidelines else contridict themselves.

Next thing we'll see is that a reviewer will feel it is not right to publish more than 2 nanos in a 2 mile square area justifying THEIR decision by saying it, would encourage other types of hides. I see no end to the restrictions coming in the future.

Thank goodness that I still have the CHOICE of paying for a membership or not.

if gc and reviewers will start doing more restrictions a new geocaching site with new reviewers will emerge. Totality is never good in long term run :)

Ekidokai
01-19-2010, 01:06 PM
I see there is more activity on a couple of other sites I look at. They are also getting more customer friendly as GC is going the other way.

brdad
01-19-2010, 01:36 PM
Interesting "self imposed" rule. Glad they qualified their personal decision by saying it was sanctioned by geocaching.com. Now it looks like geocaching.com will have to revise their guidelines else contridict themselves.

Next thing we'll see is that a reviewer will feel it is not right to publish more than 2 nanos in a 2 mile square area justifying THEIR decision by saying it, would encourage other types of hides. I see no end to the restrictions coming in the future.

Thank goodness that I still have the CHOICE of paying for a membership or not.

Reviewers have always been given the opportunity to use their own discretion (within limits) when reviewing caches. This is a good thing, different areas require slightly different guidelines. There is no contradiction, and cache hiders always have the right to discuss issues directly with groundspeak. What's the alternative, forgo the reviewers and just let caches be published automatically?

I'd pay more if they would take steps to insure better quality caches - and more strict standards regarding permission. And yes, that means better quality according to my standards. It would not make sense for me to offer to pay more for caches that don't meet my ideals!


if gc and reviewers will start doing more restrictions a new geocaching site with new reviewers will emerge. Totality is never good in long term run :)

This has been tried and is being tried, and you are free to make your own site. Most of them fail within a year. There are many facets of gc.com I would change if it were mine, but still no other site currently compares to the services they can provide.

A successful alternative for all of us is letterboxing. That has survived 156 years and is worldwide.

lexmano
01-19-2010, 01:49 PM
In response to a thread asking some hiders to commit to hiding a cache a day during November folks commented that the proposer would not be getting a Christmas card from Chuck Walla or would get put on his "chit list"

He dropped his effort and stated his reason below.


Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:48 pm Post subject: http://www.arkgeocaching.org/themes/Chronicles/forums/images/lang_english/icon_quote.gif (http://www.arkgeocaching.org/modules.php?name=Forums&file=posting&mode=quote&p=18812&sid=4e42a24ba1238558dfe511ecbdf93246) http://www.arkgeocaching.org/themes/Chronicles/forums/images/lang_english/icon_edit.gif (http://www.arkgeocaching.org/modules.php?name=Forums&file=posting&mode=editpost&p=18812&sid=4e42a24ba1238558dfe511ecbdf93246) http://www.arkgeocaching.org/themes/Chronicles/forums/images/icon_delete.gif (http://www.arkgeocaching.org/modules.php?name=Forums&file=posting&mode=delete&p=18812&sid=4e42a24ba1238558dfe511ecbdf93246) "drmo913 wrote: However, I didn't give consideration to our beloved reviewer with the thought of one a day."


My posted response is below.

"Man, I am glad I live in Maine! In my caching career, we have been fairly and graciously served by GPSfun and MainePublisher.

I am pleased that in placing caches I have never had to have second thoughts about the reviewer's willingness to accommodate my creativity.

Ed Daggett

Lexmano"

brdad
01-19-2010, 02:02 PM
I don't fully understand that - the reviewer was not going to approve caches from people he didn't get a Christmas card from? Or he didn't get a card because he refused to approve a cache every day? I hope it wasn't the first one, that would be bad. The second I could swing wither way on.

And I think you'll find GPSfun and MaineReviewer have denied their fair share of cache ideas, including a creative idea I had. You've evidently just done your homework so far before placing yours.

TRF
01-19-2010, 02:11 PM
Reviewers have always been given the opportunity to use their own discretion (within limits) when reviewing caches. This is a good thing, different areas require slightly different guidelines. There is no contradiction, and cache hiders always have the right to discuss issues directly with groundspeak. What's the alternative, forgo the reviewers and just let caches be published automatically?


Within Limits. So your saying that a reviewer can act outside the "guidelines" based on a personal agenda? This reviewer would appear not to like "power runs" but to me he/she has singled out an individual cacher. In no way did the reviewer limit the caches only the individuals ability to place caches. This reviewer didn't ensure quality(in any sense or definition) only that one individual cacher could not hide more than 5 caches in one day and that one individual should not place them 600 feet apart that way other cachers could fill in the area between hides. This is discrimination, not a betterment of the sport.

I did in fact email Groundspeak. I even tried to email the reviewer in question but to no avail.

To answer your question, auto-review. No, I don't agree with that but I also don't agree that a reviewer can broadly interpret the intent of Geocaching.com's guidelines to suit a personal agenda.




I'd pay more if they would take steps to insure better quality caches - and more strict standards regarding permission. And yes, that means better quality according to my standards. It would not make sense for me to want to pay more for caches that don't meet my ideals!

Do you think paying more will make your experience better? LOL Most of the issues you've pointed out are by people who don't pay for memberships. The "one find, one hide" folks. Besides, your membership shouldn't negate or mean more than any others' membership. Why is it your $30.00 should get you more than anyone else? To make a point, I pay $30.00 for geo-puzzles that I don't like. Applying your logic, we should get rid of puzzles. Applying my logic, I just don't do them and do all the others that I do like.



This has been tried and is being tried, and you are free to make your own site. Most of them fail within a year. There are many facets of gc.com I would change if it were mine, but still no other site currently compares to the services they can provide.

This has been tried. They are not necessarily failing either. Others that have tried to duplicate Geocaching.com in one manner or another have failed. I would say that the chances for another similar site may flourish if Geocaching.com becomes tyrannical in its pursuit of "improvement." Geocaching.com WAS the benchmark. I'm afraid that tide may change if they allow individual reviewers to apply their own "interpretations" to the guidelines.

This has become a circular debate. Other than the fact that this reviewer apparently is targeting an individual versus actual cache saturation and or placement, I think we have come back to the beginning. :) My take: Let folks cache the way they like too. Don't like a cache, don't do it.

robt
01-19-2010, 02:40 PM
And I think you'll find GPSfun and MaineReviewer have denied their fair share of cache ideas, including a creative idea I had. You've evidently just done your homework so far before placing yours.

Who is MaineReviewer? I have met MainePublisher...... :D:D:D:D:D:D I refuse to comment further as I do not want ot be off his christmas card list... :D:D:D:D

brdad
01-19-2010, 03:17 PM
Who is MaineReviewer? I have met MainePublisher...... :D:D:D:D:D:D I refuse to comment further as I do not want ot be off his christmas card list... :D:D:D:D

Oh sure, I just copy what someone else wrote, and I get heck for the error! :D

brdad
01-19-2010, 04:42 PM
Within Limits. So your saying that a reviewer can act outside the "guidelines" based on a personal agenda? This reviewer would appear not to like "power runs" but to me he/she has singled out an individual cacher. In no way did the reviewer limit the caches only the individuals ability to place caches. This reviewer didn't ensure quality(in any sense or definition) only that one individual cacher could not hide more than 5 caches in one day and that one individual should not place them 600 feet apart that way other cachers could fill in the area between hides. This is discrimination, not a betterment of the sport.

It definitely should not be allowed on a personal agenda, and as I stated earlier It is unfair to limit only power hiders to 5 a day. If he wanted to limit the number any one cacher placed and/or limit how close any one hider could hide caches I probably would not object. In my opinion it probably is better for the sport if a variety of hiders hid caches in a given area as opposed to one doing them all.

It appears to me (only by reading the post) that gc.com is ok with his choice. I am pretty sure this subject has already been discussed in the reviewer's forum. As in many cases, probably none of us know the full story and should consider that when backing or criticizing those involved. I am sure if I were a reviewer and placed restrictions or denied any of these caches I too would be accused of doing so for a personal agenda.

CARoperPhotography
01-19-2010, 06:38 PM
I sure hope Grounspeak doesn't go down the road of the Federal Government..... like anyBureaucracy, it will continue to grow, regulate more, and grow, and regulate even more.... don't get me started on my favorite political analogies on this.... ha ha

dubord207
01-19-2010, 06:39 PM
Just got home and read this thread.

First, we have a thorough, fair and non-controversial Publisher in Maine. Tat is a true gentleman and certainly not a pushover or rubber stamp to submitted caches. If you have something that's an issue, he explains it, what you need to do and then your cache will be approved.

So the reviewer that lexmano writes about is what we would call an "activist" judge if he was a lawyer. Activists judges are not well received in most areas unless it's a fringe group looking to make a point or buck the establishment. We're a relatively small state. I personally know 90% of the judges and more then half of Maine's attorneys. With those tight knit demographics it is not wise to be an activist judge or a dishonest lawyer because the word gets out fast. Plus, I'll see that judge again. Even if Tom stops doing the reviewing in the future, it will be hard for somebody with an "agenda" to derail the fair methods by which caches are reviewed in the good ol' State of Maine.

Not so in a huge state. That reviewer may never meet the cachers who's efforts he wants to limit for some prejudice he obviously has. Like activists judges, his days as a judge of others' caches will be limited. Notice his comments begin with "I." It's all about him. Groundspeak should do what the judicial review committee does in Maine with activist judges...give him the hook. What a bad precedent but our man Tom is a cacher first and reviewer second so I don't think we should worry about that type of crap finding its way to Maine.

tat
01-19-2010, 10:06 PM
Thanks, Lexmano for posting this! And thanks to all for the kind words! :)

The guidelines are a list of what cache finders should and do expect cache hiders to do. When a reviewer quotes a guideline, they are trying to explain cache finder expectations, not regulate.

Caching for the sake of numbers is not as objectionable as in the past. Groundspeak listened and relaxed the "Power Trail" wording.

I hope I never get so involved in keeping up with power trail series that other cachers have to wait too long.

pm28570
01-19-2010, 10:28 PM
Ed, thanks for starting this thread. It's generated some good discussion. And to echo Dan's comments, we are quite fortunate to have top-notch reviewers.
Regardless of one's personal opinions on how this activity should be or is played, regardless of whether you approve of "power" caching or bagging one cache after a 2 mile hike or paddle, regardless of all of our opinions......and boy do we have them!.......for Groundspeak, it is a business. A for-profit business. And like any successful business, they most likely have a business model that is followed. Included in this model could very well be rules, restrictions and guidelines.....guidelines for placement, guidelines for reviewers. While we don't have all of the information in this particular case, it doesn't bode well and has the appearance of impropriety. However, I think there is a system of checks and balances here. We are, in essence, a self-policing activity and I would like to think that Groundspeak as well as cache owners in that area would place enough pressure to resolve a problem. And then there is the ultimate solution and that is one "votes" with their wallet....as pointed out by Cano.....and takes their business else where.

There have been a number of comments woven into this discussion that very well could stand to be their own thread. Landowner permissions, power runs, cache placement standards and so on. I hope that more members contribute to the discussion.....a discussion we all can learn from.

My opinion? Why would I ever do a puzzle cache? I just want to go for a walk in the woods! :D

brdad
01-20-2010, 08:08 AM
Paul, I had that same thought last night. It is a business, and they have to balance their operation for the best profit they can get while keeping their customer base as high as possible. They are not big enough to have every cache hand checked, so they have to rely on their volunteers to make fair decisions based on their local area and local growth. We as customers can complain and go elsewhere, but in the grand scheme of the business there may be just as many local paying customers happy with this restriction as there are against it.

I say that coming to one realization of my own. I joined into this sport when it was not a business. There was no fee. It was all run from someone's basement who had a real job outside of the hobby. There were no employees, and probably fewer than 5 reviewers at that time. I have always felt I was a small part of it's growth by contributing to many of the discussions that shaped the game and testing out any new features that were announced. I think that may be one of the reasons I get overly verbal about issues I feel are bad for the game. Truth be told, my voice probably does not mean any more than any others now.

That doesn't mean a lot to this subject other than while it is a business, it is backed by many people that volunteer, not just those that approve our caches, but those that moderate the forums and those that give feedback to gc.com concerning their database and programming so that third party programs can make use of the data. These volunteers are passionate enough about the sport to volunteer their time and are doing what they do because they want the sport to move on. Before we condemn this approver, realize he probably doesn't want gc.com to fail any more than the rest of us, he is doing what he thinks need to be done.

lexmano
04-02-2010, 11:22 AM
All hail to MainePublisher!! Once again his accommodation of the recent April Fool's day series of caches in Waldo county show how fortunate we are to have him as our reviewer. It would have taken ChuckWalla a month to publish these caches under his proposed rules!

LaughingTerry
04-02-2010, 01:01 PM
I can understand a reviewer placing limits on power caches but not for personal reasons. The reviewers are volunteer and I as I understand it they don't get paid. The reviewer may not have the time to review and activate 100 caches in one day for some reason. That seems to me to be a good reason for limiting them. "I don't like them" however does not seem to me to be a good reason.

But hey,
That's just me.

dubord207
04-02-2010, 05:28 PM
We put a lot of thought into all aspects of this series, including what Tom has to do to review these caches.

Most were submitted quite some time ago. A cache placer can put a new proposed cache in his queu and request it be published on a certain date. This is what we did and it worked out well for all us. I think Tom still got an "early" start on April Fool's day, but he's not a guy that sleeps in anyway!

But you're all correct, we have a great Reviewer here in Maine

shuman road searchers
04-02-2010, 06:30 PM
When we thought up the idea we contacted Tat and asked his advice as the reviewer. He simply asked that we submit them early so that he would have time to review them. We did and also asked that they all be published at once and they were. I again want to thank Tat for all that he did!

Mapachi
04-02-2010, 08:20 PM
Yea, I slipped 8 more caches to review at the last minute, on the evening of March 31st. The guy, never complained. We are all lucky we have such a great pubisher.

Ekidokai
04-03-2010, 12:10 AM
Well, he didn't kill me, punch me or even say a bad word that I heard. After springing 125 caches on him out of the blue, he would have been justified, so he's OK by me.

brdad
04-03-2010, 12:20 AM
Well, he didn't kill me, punch me or even say a bad word that I heard. After springing 125 caches on him out of the blue, he would have been justified, so he's OK by me.

He wasn't the one you had to worry about. :D:D:D


Truthfully, I do my best to separate my opinions of hides from owners. While I may not agree with the placements, you're great guy and proved yourself a valuable member of the community. Of course that doesn't protect you from a "What were you thinking!?!?!" comment on occasion. :p

Hikenfish
04-05-2010, 08:56 AM
I never minded the park and grab caches, as long as it was one or two here and there. This past week I was driving back home with the gps on. The road was prob 30 miles of roads with no power lines. Every few tenths of a mile there was a film canister hanging from a tree. I stopped at most of them, but as i was driving I was actually getting angry that there was so many film canisters hanging from trees when a better cache could have been placed, in a nearby spot with a view. I debated driving past them all, but then I found a really cool cache mixed in. It was at a nice brook, and had a ledge with lot of cracks. It was a lock-n-lock. Awesome.

After a few more film canisters hanging from trees, I just said the heck with it and drove on.

This makes me think, Is there a way to create an attribute for a power run series, that way I can filter it out of my caches.

brdad
04-05-2010, 09:26 AM
This makes me think, Is there a way to create an attribute for a power run series, that way I can filter it out of my caches.

There is no attribute, and I think it would be hard to define caches which are not part of a power trail but which are in the same area and are relatively easy.
I have on a few occasions in cache dense areas just driven until I was at a nice location and then checked for a nearby cache, skipping over all the others.

One Idea posted to the UK forums a while back was to have an attribute set which would specify what the cache was placed for (Power Run, tricky hide, long hike, quick find, scenic or historical, etc.), which I thought was a decent idea. It would still be up to the cache owner to provide accurate information. While some of the attributes are similar to the current attributes, WHY the cache was placed might better define whether you want to do a cache or not.

Hikenfish
04-05-2010, 09:55 AM
One Idea posted to the UK forums a while back was to have an attribute set which would specify what the cache was placed for (Power Run, tricky hide, long hike, quick find, scenic or historical, etc.), which I thought was a decent idea. It would still be up to the cache owner to provide accurate information. While some of the attributes are similar to the current attributes, WHY the cache was placed might better define whether you want to do a cache or not.

This is exactly the type of thing I was thinking. That way if I feel like doing a run of caches, I can leave it in the filter. I do not I can filter it out.

To be clear, this string of caches was not a "power run" It was just a bunch of film canisters hidden in trees about 6 feet up, over and over, With very few actual sights. There was an old truck that was neat. Thats it. There were a few cool caches mixed in that I would have missed if i had driven past all the caches.

CARoperPhotography
04-05-2010, 06:37 PM
what caches were these?

hollora
04-05-2010, 08:23 PM
Perhaps some of lacyndiesels up in the Abbot area are the ones being mentioned. Love the area and was thrilled to see them posted - regardless of film cannister or not. These made me go on many roads I had not taken! (Usually just use the main route straight through.)

I went with my daughter to do part of the series and finished it with Mainiac1957 and hiram357. Saw nothing wrong with the series and actually enjoyed it pushing us to tour the area.

There are other cool caches in the area but not a lot which are winter friendly. We did this with major snow in the area and believe me with the snow this was not just a film cannister park N grab (perhaps it is now).

If I wanted to limit my search - I would try cache size and select something for a size larger than a micro - and presume I would get bigger caches which would not be film cannisters.

@CARoperPhotography - if you have not cached in the Abbot area - download your PQs, put on your boots, pack your kayak, get out your gaters and head on up...........and if you go over Memorial Day weekend - visit the yardsale at VicBiker's house for the JD Foundation! And they have camping for cachers over the weekend - oh yes, bring your tent and pot luck!

Hikenfish
04-05-2010, 09:12 PM
Hollora, You are correct with the caches that I am talking about. This is a perfect example of why I would like to filter out some caches like this, I do not enjoy them but other cachers do. There is no need to say that the caches should not be published or banned. I just did not like them becuse the type of hide was similar over and over and each hide was at no significant landmark (other than that cool truck). I am certainly not against micros, I enjoy most micros. This is why a size filter would not work for me. I also like the easier caches, as long as they bring me somewhere neat or have a cool discription.

CARoperPhotography
04-05-2010, 11:51 PM
By the way HikenFish, thank you for your comment in your log for MarshMello! Much appreciated

LaughingTerry
04-06-2010, 06:53 AM
but as i was driving I was actually getting angry that there was so many film canisters hanging from trees when a better cache could have been placed, in a nearby spot with a view. I debated driving past them all, but then I found a really cool cache mixed in. It was at a nice brook, and had a ledge with lot of cracks. It was a lock-n-lock. Awesome.


That has been a pet peeve of mine since I started caching. To come to a great area and look in the perfect spot for a nice cache and then finally find a film canister a few feet away.

I do have a lot of match safe micros hanging from trees but they are my snowmobile series. Every one of them is meant to be grabbed while sitting on the sled. Of course nobody ever gets them on snowmobiles. LOL

firefighterjake
04-06-2010, 07:29 AM
That has been a pet peeve of mine since I started caching. To come to a great area and look in the perfect spot for a nice cache and then finally find a film canister a few feet away.

I do have a lot of match safe micros hanging from trees but they are my snowmobile series. Every one of them is meant to be grabbed while sitting on the sled. Of course nobody ever gets them on snowmobiles. LOL

Kind of hard to do Terry when the snow all disappears by late January. ;) :) Not the best of years to do local riding, was it? I was hoping to put another 1,000 miles on my sled to bring it up to 11,000 . . . only ended up riding a little over 100.

Hiram357
04-06-2010, 07:15 PM
That has been a pet peeve of mine since I started caching. To come to a great area and look in the perfect spot for a nice cache and then finally find a film canister a few feet away.

I do have a lot of match safe micros hanging from trees but they are my snowmobile series. Every one of them is meant to be grabbed while sitting on the sled. Of course nobody ever gets them on snowmobiles. LOL

what about the "hiram" cache? I thought that was an ATV to cache??? :D;)

LaughingTerry
04-25-2010, 10:36 AM
Jake, You put more miles on your sled than I did mine. I was glad there wasn't a lot of snow after I broke my heel. I would have been out trying to ride anyway. LOL

Aaron, it was. That is until it got muggled. I'm not sure how either because you couldn't see the cache from the trail. It wasn't a micro either.

firefighterjake
04-26-2010, 07:55 AM
Jake, You put more miles on your sled than I did mine. I was glad there wasn't a lot of snow after I broke my heel. I would have been out trying to ride anyway. LOL

Aaron, it was. That is until it got muggled. I'm not sure how either because you couldn't see the cache from the trail. It wasn't a micro either.

I don't know Terry . . . this was one of my poorest years . . . I broke down in late January after only getting maybe 200 miles if I was lucky (of course with as many miles that I have on this sled it was kind of expected) . . . I didn't really keep a good track of the odometer to be honest . . . this was the day before all the rain came melting everything away . . . but then again, maybe I did do better since it was the sled, not me, which was broken. ;):D Hope you're all mended up . . . or close to it.