JamesOke

That sounds like a plan. As you say, the caches that have been archived are available for replacement - I went to the location of the mystery cache yesterday, so I can now re-set the clues for that one in any caches I replace in (or near) the original locations. I have no wish to upset anyone or bypass any process, but it does seem a bit of a pity to lose the history. Also it gives people an opportunity to visit the newly replaced cache and count that in their total too which seems a bit of a cheat! But I suppose in the grand scheme of things it is better that way than to create a problem with people taking over other peoples caches simply because they don't like they way they're run! Thanks for your advice! James.

I have a similar problem with a series of caches near home (Granite Trail 1 - 10, Okehampton, Devon, UK) They lead to a mystery cache, and they're all on a cycle trail - it'd be a shame to lose the series but some are missing now. My question is - if I were to set for example 'Granite Trail 3A' at or near the original location of 'Granite Trail 3' which has been archived, is that ok? The down side is that all of the history of Granite Trail 3 is lost, but I do at least get control of the cache. However since the owner of the cache hasn't logged in for nearly 2 years, I think it ought to be possible to for me to apply for a 'caretaker' status - the cache owner still owns the cache, but I can maintain it. Then if the owner re-appears they can say 'thank you and goodbye' to me. Clearly the original cache (container and contents) belongs to the cache owner, but the listing on GC.com belongs to GC.com. What do you think? JamesOke