FISH ----- Original Message ----- From: "Artemis Approver" To: ; "Guy Aldrich" Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 2:24 PM Subject: Re: [Az-Geocaching] Re: Power Trail not approved! > 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 > 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 > ____________________________________________________________ > Az-Geocaching mailing list listserv@azgeocaching.com > To edit your setting, subscribe or unsubscribe visit: > http://listserv.azgeocaching.com/mailman/listinfo/az-geocaching > > Arizona's Geocaching Resource > http://www.azgeocaching.com