Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 36

Thread: Power Trails

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Falmouth, Maine
    Posts
    246

    Default Power Trails

    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

    Quote Originally Posted by ChuckWalla
    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.

    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.

    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.

    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!!!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Bangor, ME
    Posts
    6,059

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by brdad; 01-19-2010 at 10:05 AM.
    DNFTT! DNFTT! DNFTT!

    "The funniest thing about this particular signature is that by the time you realize it doesn't say anything it's to late to stop reading it..."

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Albion, Maine
    Posts
    324

    Default

    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.
    There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.~~Albert Einstein
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Many wise words are spoken in jest, but they don't compare with the number of stupid words spoken in earnest. - Sam Levenson (1911 - 1980)

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    [x, y, z, t]
    Posts
    668

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TRF View Post
    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
    Moo

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,539

    Default

    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.
    I have no enemies, but I'm intensely disliked by my friends.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Bangor, ME
    Posts
    6,059

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TRF View Post
    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!

    Quote Originally Posted by cano View Post
    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.
    Last edited by brdad; 01-19-2010 at 01:44 PM.
    DNFTT! DNFTT! DNFTT!

    "The funniest thing about this particular signature is that by the time you realize it doesn't say anything it's to late to stop reading it..."

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Falmouth, Maine
    Posts
    246

    Default Hide a cache a day.

    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: "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"

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Bangor, ME
    Posts
    6,059

    Default

    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.
    DNFTT! DNFTT! DNFTT!

    "The funniest thing about this particular signature is that by the time you realize it doesn't say anything it's to late to stop reading it..."

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Albion, Maine
    Posts
    324

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brdad View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by brdad View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by brdad View Post
    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.
    There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.~~Albert Einstein
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Many wise words are spoken in jest, but they don't compare with the number of stupid words spoken in earnest. - Sam Levenson (1911 - 1980)

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Brunswick, Maine
    Posts
    548

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brdad View Post
    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...... I refuse to comment further as I do not want ot be off his christmas card list...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •