A Bit Of Advice Needed

[+Us 4 and Jess]

twice in the last week i have visited caches that i have already done (i visited them to drop off TBs i collected in the lakes at the camping weekwnd)

 

anyway both the caches i am refering to still have the same names they did originally, but both have been muggled and replaced in slightly different areas with different coordinates

 

what i wanted to know if you go back to a cache that has been moved from its original position , would you count it again as another cache or not

 

let me know what you would do

 

mandy

[+John Stead]

If it has been moved to a new location I believe it is completely in order to log it as a new find.

[+Pharisee]

I kinda think it depends on how far it's actually been moved and how you feel about logging it again personally. I've had to move a couple of my caches in the past but in both cases the distance moved was probably no more than 20 feet. I did amend the co-ordinates but wouldn't have expected anyone to go out and log it again and to the best of my knowledge, no one did. If the distance moved is significant then log it again..... if the cache owner doesn't object then it's highly unlikely that anyone else will. It will show up the the G:UK search for cachers that have logged the same cache more than once, however.

[+wildlifewriter]

Just my 2 euro worth... I wouldn't agree - and that's based on your use of the word "slightly".

 

If this is a mere adjustment, and the cache is close to the original location, with the same terrain and type of hiding place, then I wouldn't log a find twice.

 

Come to think of it... I can't think of any circumstances in which I would log the same physical cache twice.

 

The onus here rests with the cache owner: if the "new" location is some distance away, and the terrain, difficulty, approach - if everything is different, then it should be a brand new cache with a new waypoint identifier.

 

-Wlw.

[+jochta]

If it has the same waypoint code (GCXXXX) then I wouldn't - it is effectively still the same cache as this is what uniquely identifies the cache.

[+John Stead]

I fear I was too brief in my reply. It is surely a matter of degree as to what is slight and what is substantial. If a cache owner considers he has changed the cache enough to justify it as a new find I think he should say so when he edits the description. I don't think it needs to have a new identity unless it is completely different from the original.

[+jochta]

If the owner has moved it and changed the cache significantly then the original should be archived and a new one created IMO

 

If the cache is much as was but the box is a few metres different then same cache and one find only.

 

That's how I would do it. But it's pretty much how the player wants to play the game.

[Nediam]

I think if it still has the same name, GC code and is within sight of the original location, then it should only count as one find (especially if it's still the same container and/or logbook).

 

If the cache owner opens it up to all previous finders as a "new" cache and invites re-logs then go for it!

 

If it has new co-ords then I think a new find is justified

 

Just check with the owner if you're unsure. After all, it's up to them in the end

[+CuplaKiwis]

Odd one this...

 

I recently was FTF on a very well hidden cache, which was then unknowingly concreted in place by the local coucil! I kid you not...

 

Cache was taken off line for a few weeks, and has since been reactiviated, in a slightly different place, but in the same area. Method of hiding this one is crucial to its difficulty level - and this remains the same.

 

Upshot of all this: I was the only person to find the cache as the hider intended it, and I now have little idea of where it is. If I was to try to find the cache, it would pretty much be as if I had never found it before. I think I will go and check it out, if only for curiosity's sake, but I won't be logging it again.

[Nediam]

Odd one this...

 

I recently was FTF on a very well hidden cache, which was then unknowingly concreted in place by the local coucil! I kid you not...

 

Cache was taken off line for a few weeks, and has since been reactiviated, in a slightly different place, but in the same area.  Method of hiding this one is crucial to its difficulty level - and this remains the same.

 

Upshot of all this: I was the only person to find the cache as the hider intended it, and I now have little idea of where it is.  If I was to try to find the cache, it would pretty much be as if I had never found it before.  I think I will go and check it out, if only for curiosity's sake, but I won't be logging it again.

Check with the owner before you "don't log" it. After all, it'll have a new container, logbook and location, so it's really a new cache

Edited June 21, 2005 by nediam

[+Us 4 and Jess]

hi kiwis

 

i found that one today (NEW ONE).....after i forgot my pnematic drill (OLD ONE)

 

i logged a first to find on that one as it is a new conatiner and a new place......the other one i was talking about is very close to me

 

anyway the general concensus is to not log again so i will leave it at that and not log and go with the flow

 

i'm sure i will find another 3 soon to make my 200th lol

 

mandy

Edited June 21, 2005 by Us 4 and Jess

[+Tupperware Hunters]

owwww but your just 1 away as well

[+Bill D (wwh)]

I'll only log a find on a cache that's been moved if the owner says that's ok. I've been back to two caches that had been moved to completely new hiding places but I only posted notes, even though I felt that they should have counted as fresh finds.