[Az-Geocaching] Re: Power Trail not approved!

[Artemis Approver]

One of the failed mentioned parts I believe is the GEOTAX concept of
having cachers who find the cache are supposed to hide one of there
own to add to the powertrail. As it was explained this creates
geolitter and people from other states will try to throw out a micro
as well and be real upset when it is not listed because they live to
far away to maintain it.

A multi cache does not have to involve a container or cache box at
ever spot. Many of you have seen them to be small tags or simple
information from the area. When you hide a micro within 10 feet of a
trail you will have one of two things.
1) it is in the open and will go missing often as people pick it up to
see what it is or
2) it is hidden so well that people will tear up the area to find it.

I tried to bring the 04/04/04 cache up as a conversation and never
heard a response back, but we know how some of the Phoenix cache hides
are. Do you expect to do no damage to the area? Look at some of the
bush areas in town where a micro is hidden and see all the damage to
the area, the broken sticks and the limbs torn off branches and bark.
All the torn up plants and removed bricks from walls.

Nobody is misleading you graldrich or giving you a circular answer. As
for why it was listed in California? Well two years ago you could make
that man hole cover a virtual, but guidelines were changed. the
guidelines were changed and cache saturation was brought up. Power
Trails lead to cache saturation. Cache saturation leads to land
managers getting upset. Land managers getting upset leads to caches
being banned.

A few years ago you could put caches in the Superstition mountains.
Today the rangers remove it and try to impose fines for littering.

As it has been explained to graldrich who himself said "It is not
about the numbers", if it is not about the numbers, why not a multi
cache? Maybe because it is about the numbers after all?

I am not trying to open a flame war, but I do want you all to
understand this has been a many day process and many emails were
involved. graldrich says instead of single caches he will do it in a
fashion where you have to find caches listed as puzzles and find one
to get to the next. Well groundspeak has a type of cache called a
Multi-Cache and that is what it is. Find one to get the next.

We were told he did not want a multi because if you cannot find a
middle stage you will never find it. Well guess what the puzzle cache
concept will have the same problem except your finding a way to pump
numbers to do a multi cache.

After explaining the guidelines (that were changed in the last few
months) I asked him to contact one of the most experienced reviewers
and it could be discussed. the other reviewers have all agreed that it
is a powertrail and that powertrails are a direct challenge to the
guidelines of cache saturation.

I hope this helps, but I am sure it will open more cans of worms. I
have my fishing pole ready so... Lets fish. :)

Artemis

On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 13:41:28 -0700, Guy Aldrich <graldrich at gmail.com> wrote:
> I tried to be honest and let the approvers know my intentions before
> putting this trail together maybe I would have been better off just
> doing it,maybe not!Scott,They will not approve a power trail anywhere
> in the state,power trails are now against their guidelines! I just
> finally recieved a detailed explanation of why they will not approve a
> power trail! I will post it when Artemis gives me permission to do so!
> 
> Guy