I!

This works for the published coordinates, but won't give you the hidden final coords.

Seems CacheBadgerMan's going to do just that! I did, too, a while back: my Leckhampton Ridge cache is in precisely the same position as one that was archived years earlier. I was amazed that no-one else had bagged the spot, as the view from there is tremendous.

Like GC16VYN, for example? Let's see a photo!

Great! Thanks for getting us started, CaveBadgerMan

Really? Go on then, let's hear a bit more about that ... No, let's not. Thanks. So we can have 10+ pages discussion of new users' habits, not Groundspeak's? What are you afraid of?

Really? Go on then, let's hear a bit more about that ...

SP has it right: go to the final coordinates of a cache listing that was finally archived pre-2010. The aim is to discover sites that ye venerable cachers of olde had singled-out, not cleaning-up any junk that may remain. Apologies for being unclear. I can't update the head post, hence the highlighting. I'm not shouting, I promise. Edited to change "published" coordinates to "final" coordinates. So, yep, if it's a puzzle then you have to solve it, too ...! For example, it looks like Eggs & Cherry (GC15KWW, archived June 2009) might be a good one for Seaglass Pirates to visit, but they'll have to crack the puzzle first

Thank you, my undead friend I figured that, what with the weather being so grotty, a bit of historical research (safely indoors, wrapped in duvet, drinking hot chocolate) might quite appeal. I enjoyed compiling this list in exactly the manner described in the opening post. As a local, you might find it useful! Edit to add: if anyone wants a hand identifying old archived listings near to home then let me know - I'd be happy to help.

Thanks to sussamb for putting me in the hot seat for January 2014. This month's theme is "lost treasures" and the rules are a little non-standard ... Short version Find a cache that was finally archived in 2009 or earlier. Take a photo; upload it as a "write note" log on the archived cache page. Post a link to the photo here. Photos must be taken in January 2014. The competition closes on 1st February. This competition is as much about the historical interest of discovering an abandoned cache site as it is about your ability with a camera. The more interesting the cache site or circumstances of its creation or destruction, the better your chances! Long version Discovering archived caches Unless you've retained years of PQs in your GSAK database (in which case stop reading - you don't need further help), it can be tricky to identify caches that have been off the grid for 4+ years. Here's one way to do it: find old caches placed by the original finders of old caches placed by the original finders of ...(etc). Let's say we're looking for old caches near Wincanton. Start with an active cache (GC22FP8, say) and, on the listing page, click on "Find ... all nearby caches" (try it!). You'll get a list like this. We want to find local players that have been caching a while, so page down through that list until we identify some oldish active caches. GC160Y1, currently on page 3, is one such cache: Great, so now we know that the CO, "Witches Cat", was active locally before 2010. And, clicking on the listing, we see that the early finders, Achaos, Lydlinch Glovers, and more, were also caching locally in 2007. Maybe one of these placed a local cache that has since been archived? Let's check their profiles! Witches Cat ... no old ones archived. Achaos ... lots of old ones archived, none very close to Wincanton. Lydlinch Glovers ... no. La Doderies ... no. Dorset land-rovers ... no. PurplePenguin ... no. darapotter ... no. diddaroo ... no. RodentNoir ... no. Oh dear, this is looking difficult! Perhaps we should have started with an older listing. So instead of working from Cucklington Ridge, let's try GCPF38: Round we go again, checking profiiles: merecats ... no 2MMs ... bingo! Several old archived caches are fairly close to Wincanton, e.g. Tumulus View (GCNJWP). So there we have it. With some pain, we identified Tumulus View, archived in 2007, as a place to visit for this month's photo competition.

Nice idea, but unnecessary: a really good cache will attract really appreciative logs, and those are much more satisfying to read than any number of favourite points.

Interested to know if deferred publication would have saved you some pain in this case. You have an idea for a cache, quickly draft a bare listing with the correct cache type + waypoints (but little else), then submit with a marker saying "publish no sooner than 4 weeks from now". The reviewer has enough info to accept or reject your listing immediately, and you hear back a couple of days later that you're good to go (or that the other guy beat you to it; oh well, at least you found out quickly). You spend the next 2-3 weeks leisurely updating the listing text (not the coords - they're now locked) and crafting the containers then, "ta-da!", your listing springs into life at the appointed time. Or would it not typically work that way?

I should try to be constructive, but all I can say is ... IBTL

But it seems you have met them, as they have blogged very enthusiastically about visiting your caches in the company of you and others. And, with a finds count above 10K, should you be surprised that they've joined a forum away from their home area? (Your trackables quote was enough to identify them ___) Edited to add: it's a pity you're leaving. Good luck with whatever's next.

Refer all you like. I'm questioning the logic of using the (arbitrary) GC code as a tie-breaker: I have a few oldish listings I could keep alive, just to give me precedence on the local beauty spots if I wanted to ... which hardly seems fair. Deferred publication might have been a cleaner solution to what is obviously a tricky issue: you'd have the coordinates claimed (and locked) at the time of submission, but allow the CO to say "publish no sooner than X". Your mega-event would be safe and the basics of a multi-cache (that is, the locations) could be set in stone months before the gloriously detailed listings were finished.

Oh, my, that's poor design. Can't it be fixed so that unsubmitted caches don't act as blockers?

Then I misunderstood. How does non-submitted listing contribute to reviewer workload? If it's not been submitted yet then it shouldn't be a blocker for others that have.

Then settle coordinate conflicts by the date the listing was submitted, not the date it was opened.

Forum

Has anyone mentioned the cache note (here) yet? I doubt most newbie finders bother to read it. It's rather long and likely to be found printed on a dog-eared piece of paper or on a card with font too small to read. Something with more impact would be helpful. If, instead, a newbie opened a cache box and found, attached to the inside of the lid ... a pouch with a big on it emblazoned with "new to this? please take a card" containing cards printed with the most basic tenets of geocaching ... then perhaps they'd treat the container with a little more reverence.

The API permits anonymous discovery of the published coordinates for any cache. So any PM traditional cache can be considered publicly available. The logbook and gallery are also wide open, potentially giving clues to assist in the discovery of non-traditional cache types.

At Ford Popular (GC3MBPR) ...

You could start by looking at caches hidden by Nawtcher and The Crinklys, then seeing if any of the original finders of the oldest of those caches has, themselves, placed an old cache in Cornwall. I used a similar technique, i.e. find old caches placed by the original finders of old caches placed by the original finders of ...(repeat)..., to map out GCxxxx series caches near me. It takes a little while, but the results can be fascinating.

Seems they're changing from hosting their own image server (img.geocaching.com) to using the services of cloudfront.net (imgcdn.geocaching.com -> d1qqxh9zzqprtj.cloudfront.net), with the (same?) server at both sites currently reporting: Hopefully no existing images (in cache pages, logs, the forum, ...) will be harmed in the making of that change

Very interesting; I wonder if it was spurred by this discussion? I think I pointed the project-gc people at this thread a while back, but I don't recall getting a reply. A pity that "Focus on home coordinates has been temporary disabled due to lack of performance with the database backend", as the map's rather sparsely populated. Perhaps a slightly more magical algorithm is needed ...

Great idea re GSAK - thanks!