Jump to content

Archiving Old "stale" Caches To Freshen Up Game


TeamAO
Followers 0

Recommended Posts

I was reading the online version of "Todays Cacher" and came across this letter.

 

"Hi Jerry,

 

I got the first printed Today's Cacher today and just wanted to give you a digital pat on the back. It really looks great. Please relay how impressed I am to your crew. Really fine job.

 

Also, just wanted to say I totally agree with you. I've actually been considering archiving a couple of my older caches that rarely get visited anymore. Most of them were hunted by the active locals some time ago and they do seem to become stale over time.

 

Your discussion with Brian in the magazine made a lot of sense. I have often thought it would be nice if some of the really old caches in the area weren't there anymore so I would have more ares to choose from for new caches. New cachers really do have very little unused area in Winston-Salem to hide their own.

 

I think I'm going to consider a limit on the amount of time I leave my caches out there. Even if no others use the areas I free up, I can always come up with something else fresh and new to do in those areas.

 

Anyway, I really just wanted to let you know how great I think the magazine looks. Nice work!

 

Dave "

 

 

I'm torn up by this topic. Should it be considered destroying a part of "geocaching history" per se? Or should it be done to keep the game fun for people running out of news caches in the local area?

Link to comment

I've heard this idea before. I thought it was a bad idea then, and I still do.

 

If I archive my cache so someone can place another in the same place, how does that give anyone something new to do?

 

edit: This site has guidelines, darn it.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

Quite frankly, I doubt that there is such a huge amount of caches in any area that caches need to be archived to provide hiding opportunities for other cachers. I mean, my area is no where near being considered cache-dense, but I can't even fathom running out of places, but other locales may be different.

 

I don't think archiving a cache to allow others is destroying a part of "geocaching history" but one thought pops into my head.

 

Let's say for example there's a cache at this really cool overlook that I've always wanted to have a cache there, but someone else has had one since before I had started caching. If that person were to archive their cache to allow new caches, I'd surely leap at the opportunity. But would my cache be much different than the one that was archived to make room for it?

 

I dunno...

 

It depends on how you look at it.

Link to comment

I went to a very cool cache location last spring when I was visiting the Yucca Valley area. The cache hadn't been visited since September. :lol:

 

I wrote a glowing log about how beautiful the spot was, but realized that all the local cachers had visited that cache soon after it was placed. Now only the occasional traveler seeks it.

 

I still wouldn't want that cache to be archived . . . but if it was, and a new cache placed there, all the locals would have to get back out to that beautiful spot again. :lol:

Link to comment

I don't like having old caches archived, unless they weren't very good in the first place. I like a sense of permanance. I feel sad when I look at my list of favorite caches, and a few of them are archived now. Sure, someone may have put another one nearby, but it doesn't have quite the feel of the first one.

 

There are a couple of cachers in my area who like to archive their caches every once in a while. I can't tell you how frustrating it is to eye a cache for a while, and then have it archived before you even get to it, just "because"! I don't have my own gps, and it's hard for me to get time to cache, and we have so many in my area, that this has happened to me several times.

 

I try to hide caches that I feel are good enough to last forever, so I never feel the need to archive them. Like K-9 said, if they are good caches, then you archive them, then someone puts up a new one in it's place, was there really a point? :lol:

Link to comment

I can see botth sides of the argument / discussion. Personally, I think you have to use discernment for YOUR locale.

 

I have archived a number of my caches due to the age. But, these were also low on the difficulty level. They had been attained by most everyone within a 100 miles (and furrther )

who were likely to travel.

 

My first cache placed is still active, albeit for a short time more. Why still there after 3 years ? Because it is one of the more difficult hikes in the area. Its scenic, and goes for long stretches between visits.

 

Why then will I soon archive it ? Because it can be better. There is a more scenic site, further yet than where I've placed it. The original cache mentions it, tells how to get there, but only one person ever went there. Guess what: want a Found It ! Smiley ? You're gonna visit the general area again, with a different view as the reason for going there.

 

I had a cache hidden in a historic bell for a couple years. I placed it after the local cacher for that town moved away, archiving the only cache around for miles before she left. Now, the town has a number of great cachers, so I've archived that cache so a local can put their own twist on the area.

 

If you have a seldom visited, awesome location cache, with no crowding, I'd leave the thing there forever. But, if its just another box of stuff sitting under a bush, where everyone has signed TNLNSL TFTC, come up with something new and creative.

 

Hide a new cache in another spot, with a cool storyline, theme, or other "gimmick" that gives the locals an excuse to visit again. After all, hiding the caches is supposed to be for others to find, and give ya a cool log and thumbs up.

Link to comment

If a cache is under a log after a nice hike in the woods then archiving it could make sense to open up the area for new caches. If a cache is located in a very special place, then archiving it makes less sense. Another cache would only be placed in the 'same' spot.

 

If one is concerned about letting new cachers in on the game, you should consider adopting out some of your caches to newer players.

 

Since my caches tend to be urban/suburban I don't see a need to archive. Some of the very special ones will take on a life of their own as cacher after cacher experience the same smile and surprise.

Link to comment

 

There are a couple of cachers in my area who like to archive their caches every once in a while. I can't tell you how frustrating it is to eye a cache for a while, and then have it archived before you even get to it, just "because"! I don't have my own gps, and it's hard for me to get time to cache, and we have so many in my area, that this has happened to me several times.

 

Just another habit - i usually post to the page ahead of time that I'm planning to archive a cache. I try to give a specific date by which I plan on archiving, usually a month or so.

 

That way, if anyomne has it on their watchlist, they can let me know they are still interested in getting it first.

 

my 2 cents.

Link to comment
Other than getting the local cachers back out to that location to get another "smilie," there isn't a point that I can see . . .

We've had that happen a few times here. It's always nice to get another smilie, and be nostalgic for the old cache and caching experience, but other than that, I kinda feel like I'm cheating.

Link to comment

 

There are a couple of cachers in my area who like to archive their caches every once in a while.  I can't tell you how frustrating it is to eye a cache for a while, and then have it archived before you even get to it, just "because"!  I don't have my own gps, and it's hard for me to get time to cache, and we have so many in my area, that this has happened to me several times.

 

Just another habit - i usually post to the page ahead of time that I'm planning to archive a cache. I try to give a specific date by which I plan on archiving, usually a month or so.

 

That way, if anyomne has it on their watchlist, they can let me know they are still interested in getting it first.

 

my 2 cents.

That's a good idea, and very thoughtful to area cachers. :lol:

 

I couldn't put all the caches in my area on watch lists, tho, cause there are too many! :lol:

Link to comment

I think this idea would work, but only in areas, where uninspired caches are replaced with nice caches.

 

For example: Cacher A hides an altoids tin on a guardrail at the entrance to a beautiful park. People log the micro, but no one knows about the hidden gem (Waterfall, cave, scenic overlook) 500 feet away. The unique feature is not mentioned on the cache page. Cacher B wants to hide an ammo can filled with trade items and travel bugs, next to the hidden gem, but can't because of the uninspired cache.

 

 

Normally I don't archive my caches, because they are "old". I have only archived two of my caches. One cache location was tilled for farming, and the second location was destroyed by cachers, searching for the cache container. They destroyed the cache also.

Link to comment

Hide a cache 28 feet past the waterfall and be happy.

 

You gave a rather extreme example. I doubt that there are very many occasions that a stinker blocks a great location. Here again, who's to decide whether the first cache was bad. If the cache owner thinks its bad and decides to archive it, that is totally different than archiving a cache just because its old.

Link to comment
Hide a cache 28 feet past the waterfall and be happy.

 

You gave a rather extreme example. I doubt that there are very many occasions that a stinker blocks a great location. Here again, who's to decide whether the first cache was bad. If the cache owner thinks its bad and decides to archive it, that is totally different than archiving a cache just because its old.

Yes.

Link to comment

I'm of the opinion that many caches could be replaced to the benefit of the caching community.

 

After two years a cache is only found by new cachers and revisited by veterans still willing to retrieve the occasional travel bugs.

 

I have visited many nice locations due to geocaching. So, if it's moved 528 feet it won't be worth visiting again? It was one turn in the trail that was the whole thrilling experience? A quarter mile away is just not worth it? Yeah the place might be great, but if I have free time it'll be spent looking for other geocaches, not revisiting the same cache I found last summer. Give me a reason to come back please.

 

And don't assume I'm advocating mandatory archiving, nor do ALL geocaches need to be archived. The way I see it, if you have a cache in a nice place with a container stuck behind a log, why not give people a chance to revisit the nice place and look for another cache stuck behind a log. What kind of history are we preserving here exactly? Every single cache was that one worthy cache? Doubtful.

 

Oh, and I'll answer the expected reply now. You're talking about the top 5%.

Edited by BlueDeuce
Link to comment
I'm of the opinion that many caches could be replaced to the benefit of the caching community.

 

After two years a cache is only found by new cachers and revisited by veterans still willing to retrieve the occasional travel bugs.

 

I have visited many nice locations due to geocaching. So, if it's moved 528 feet it won't be worth visiting again? It was one turn in the trail that was the whole thrilling experience? A quarter mile away is just not worth it? Yeah the place might be great, but if I have free time it'll be spent looking for other geocaches, not revisiting the same cache I found last summer. Give me a reason to come back please.

 

And don't assume I'm advocating mandatory archiving, nor do ALL geocaches need to be archived. The way I see it, if you have a cache in a nice place with a container stuck behind a log, why not give people a chance to revisit the nice place and look for another cache stuck behind a log. What kind of history are we preserving here exactly? Every single cache was that one worthy cache? Doubtful.

 

Oh, and I'll answer the expected reply now. You're talking about the top 5%.

I guess you just have to take each cache individually to decide that.

Link to comment
I'm of the opinion that many caches could be replaced to the benefit of the caching community.

 

After two years a cache is only found by new cachers and revisited by veterans still willing to retrieve the occasional travel bugs.

 

I have visited many nice locations due to geocaching. So, if it's moved 528 feet it won't be worth visiting again? It was one turn in the trail that was the whole thrilling experience? A quarter mile away is just not worth it? Yeah the place might be great, but if I have free time it'll be spent looking for other geocaches, not revisiting the same cache I found last summer. Give me a reason to come back please.

 

And don't assume I'm advocating mandatory archiving, nor do ALL geocaches need to be archived. The way I see it, if you have a cache in a nice place with a container stuck behind a log, why not give people a chance to revisit the nice place and look for another cache stuck behind a log. What kind of history are we preserving here exactly? Every single cache was that one worthy cache?  Doubtful.

 

Oh, and I'll answer the expected reply now. You're talking about the top 5%.

I guess you just have to take each cache individually to decide that.

Exactly! You are now in the top 5%. :lol:

Link to comment

You might consider that what was once new, refreshing & unique 'in the past' is now old news and boring . . . hide methods, containers, places and environs change in such a way as to make some older hides archaic, unchallenging and, perhaps, a waste of time.

 

If new and refreshing idea will serve better . . . why not archive the old and allow for a better idea, a greater challenge and added flavor?

 

If it allows locals to get some fresh smilies without a lot of travel, this is an added bonus that is certainly fair and reasonable :lol: .

Link to comment
You might consider that what was once new, refreshing & unique 'in the past' is now old news and boring . . . hide methods, containers, places and environs change in such a way as to make some older hides archaic, unchallenging and, perhaps, a waste of time.

 

If new and refreshing idea will serve better . . . why not archive the old and allow for a better idea, a greater challenge and added flavor?

 

If it allows locals to get some fresh smilies without a lot of travel, this is an added bonus that is certainly fair and reasonable :lol: .

The place I saw in the Yucca Valley was spectacular. It was this cache, "The way it was as a natural desert."

 

You cannot ask for anything better in that area than a natural desert that has never been touched by development. The variety of plants was amazing.

 

I don't expect anyone to be out there now when it is 110 degrees, but during the winter, and in the spring when the cactus and wildflowers are blooming, it should be visited. And, it isn't that far a walk from where you can drive the average sedan.

 

Maybe someone could place a cache 528 feet away, and then in a circle around that, place another cache another 528 feet away. The area really should be seen. :lol:

Link to comment

I've been going after a lot of "stale" older caches lately. Not all of them are "Wow" caches, and a lot of them are in bad shape or contain nothing but junk. But I enjoy doing these ones anyway, because I generally have the whole area completely to myself. I have none of the dread of running into another cacher that I generally feel when looking for a newer cache.

Link to comment
:lol: I don't post much in the forum, but I would like to put my two cents in here. I went to a cache today that hadn't been visited since Dec. 04, and I thought it was way cool that I was the only person to see it in that long of a time. I think the lack of cachers is because of the five star rating for terrain. Now if that had been a 1 star and hadn't been visited in that period of time, I could see justification for archiving. Another thing I had on my mind was that if you're thinking of archiving a cache, maybe it's time you did. Just maybe post a date when the last chance to find it will be. :lol:
Link to comment
What constitutes a nice cache?

 

There are many "nice" older caches around. Now on the other hand, there are some "lame" ones where the cache owner has stopped maintaining it and the "swag" is less than desirable.

Nice, as in nice but not great. Just your normal (but perfectly okay) caches that wouldn't lose or gain anything by being replaced after a couple years.

Link to comment
:lol: I don't post much in the forum, but I would like to put my two cents in here. I went to a cache today that hadn't been visited since Dec. 04, and I thought it was way cool that I was the only person to see it in that long of a time. I think the lack of cachers is because of the five star rating for terrain. Now if that had been a 1 star and hadn't been visited in that period of time, I could see justification for archiving. Another thing I had on my mind was that if you're thinking of archiving a cache, maybe it's time you did. Just maybe post a date when the last chance to find it will be. :lol:

I hear ya. I like to see an old cache found and enjoyed, but not simply because it's old. There has to be more than that.

 

Here's the flip side, as to why SOME caches could be made new. Say you found it in July of 2005 would you be disappointed that someone found another cache 100 feet away in 2002? Or you would just enjoy your experience?

Link to comment

Wow. I found this topic interesting because I'm talking to another local cacher about this right now. We placed a 1/1 cache at a local memorial that was just dedicated this week. Our thinking was to get people to come out to view the memorial (not trample the grounds), so we did it as a 1/1 just off the actual memorial site. Here another local cache had been planning a 3-star cache (also off the site a bit). He expressed his disappointment but was gracious and said "first come first serve". We're now discussing with him the possibility that after a few months when most locals have come to do ours, we'll archive it so he can place his 3-star. In exchange, he'll archive one of his easier caches in a local park and let us place one there! We're in a cache-dense area and we thought that this would be to both of our advantages because we'll get to place some new caches and give the locals new caches to find (when gas is $2.xx it's nice to be able to get some local caches!)

Link to comment
Wow. I found this topic interesting because I'm talking to another local cacher about this right now. We placed a 1/1 cache at a local memorial that was just dedicated this week. Our thinking was to get people to come out to view the memorial (not trample the grounds), so we did it as a 1/1 just off the actual memorial site. Here another local cache had been planning a 3-star cache (also off the site a bit). He expressed his disappointment but was gracious and said "first come first serve". We're now discussing with him the possibility that after a few months when most locals have come to do ours, we'll archive it so he can place his 3-star. In exchange, he'll archive one of his easier caches in a local park and let us place one there! We're in a cache-dense area and we thought that this would be to both of our advantages because we'll get to place some new caches and give the locals new caches to find (when gas is $2.xx it's nice to be able to get some local caches!)

God Bless the community.

Link to comment

I'm strongly against the idea of encouraging old caches to be archived so new ones can be placed:

 

Cache Permanence

 

Although this guideline may not specifically encourage longevity, it sure implies it the way I interpret it.

 

I propose a compromise solution: If we are going to encourage the archiving "for the good of the sport" then we should also take the time and effort to designate "protected caches" for historical, locational, and popularity reasons.

 

Otherwise, I see old caches get overrun (both good and bad) by exuberant hiders who want to get their hide-to-find ratio up. :lol:

Link to comment
I'm strongly against the idea of encouraging old caches to be archived so new ones can be placed:

 

Cache Permanence

 

Although this guideline may not specifically encourage longevity, it sure implies it the way I interpret it.

 

I propose a compromise solution: If we are going to encourage the archiving "for the good of the sport" then we should also take the time and effort to designate "protected caches" for historical, locational, and popularity reasons.

 

Otherwise, I see old caches get overrun (both good and bad) by exuberant hiders who want to get their hide-to-find ratio up. :lol:

Ah yes, the extremes.

 

Let's make some rules. :lol:

Link to comment

It's nice to see this debated. Briansnat and I debated this in the print version of the magazine. Much like that debate I see some good points brought up.

 

I don't believe there should be a mandatory archival, but I do believe that after the majority of the locals have found a cache it should be archived and opened to a new cache.

 

There are exceptions to this thought, such as a 5/5 cache or a cache that isn't in a cache dense area. My thoughts behind this is that those of us that came early were able to claim all the great spots. I think it's only fair to open the area to new cachers and we can all have fun.

 

I also believe that the reason for the explosion of micros is directly related to the lack of space to place a regular cache, same with lame caches.

 

My friend Briansnat disagrees with some of the statements and I respect his thoughts. He brings up some good points.

 

We are a community of individuals, with individual thoughts. Not all are wrong, not all are right.

 

El Diablo

Link to comment
I've heard this idea before. I thought it was a bad idea then, and I still do.

 

If I archive my cache so someone can place another in the same place, how does that give anyone something new to do?

 

edit: This site has guidelines, darn it.

 

now THERE is some real logic - and I agree completely.

 

If there is a cache placed somewhere and it is removed so someone else can put there cache in the same place, where is the net gain? Sounds the same as the owner posting a note on the cache saying he has replaced the cache with a brand new container and new stuff in it.

 

cc\

Link to comment
It's nice to see this debated. Briansnat and I debated this in the print version of the magazine. Much like that debate I see some good points brought up.

 

I don't believe there should be a mandatory archival, but I do believe that after the majority of the locals have found a cache it should be archived and opened to a new cache.

 

There are exceptions to this thought, such as a 5/5 cache or a cache that isn't in a cache dense area. My thoughts behind this is that those of us that came early were able to claim all the great spots. I think it's only fair to open the area to new cachers and we can all have fun.

 

I also believe that the reason for the explosion of micros is directly related to the lack of space to place a regular cache, same with lame caches.

 

My friend Briansnat disagrees with some of the statements and I respect his thoughts. He brings up some good points.

 

We are a community of individuals, with individual thoughts. Not all are wrong, not all are right.

 

El Diablo

a-yep. I think that each cache owner should review their caches in terms of what they are offering to the community. I'm not suggesting a cookie cutter plan to archive any old cache. If your cache is adequate and only being found by the latest newbie, consider something new maybe even improved.

 

If there is a cache placed somewhere and it is removed so someone else can put there cache in the same place, where is the net gain?

 

Is that really what is being suggested here? Hey, archive your cache because someone placing a cache in the same stump is great caching. Doubtful.

Edited by BlueDeuce
Link to comment
I've heard this idea before.  I thought it was a bad idea then, and I still do.

 

If I archive my cache so someone can place another in the same place, how does that give anyone something new to do?

 

edit:  This site has guidelines, darn it.

 

now THERE is some real logic - and I agree completely.

 

If there is a cache placed somewhere and it is removed so someone else can put there cache in the same place, where is the net gain? Sounds the same as the owner posting a note on the cache saying he has replaced the cache with a brand new container and new stuff in it.

 

cc\

I am in the planning stage of many caches. One place that I would love to place a cache is within the 528 mark of this beautiful rock formation called honeycomb rocks. The cache in it's way is frequently trafficked, however. I don't think it should be archived, but maybe it could be moved.

 

Then the cacher could come out to find my new cache, and on their way back find the new location of the "old" cache. I'm a "newbie" here, so alot of the better spots are taken, but I think maybe the point to person who would fight for wanting the caches archived is that if a newer cacher could go out and hide a cache in the area, at another interesting point that you wouldn't have noticed at the "original" cache unless you nebbed around after the find, and the cacher would have a good time in the process. And they would get an email when someone found it, and hear their story, and get the satisfaction the "original hider" recieved. And maybe the satisfaction would cause the hider to go out and hide more interesting caches to get more good feedback. :lol:

Link to comment
I've heard this idea before.  I thought it was a bad idea then, and I still do.

 

If I archive my cache so someone can place another in the same place, how does that give anyone something new to do?

 

edit:  This site has guidelines, darn it.

 

now THERE is some real logic - and I agree completely.

 

If there is a cache placed somewhere and it is removed so someone else can put there cache in the same place, where is the net gain? Sounds the same as the owner posting a note on the cache saying he has replaced the cache with a brand new container and new stuff in it.

 

cc\

This is a passion of mine, so please bear with me. Flame me if you want, but at least read what I say first.

 

You can move a cache 100 to 200 feet and it becomes a brand new hunt. If you change containers and methods of a hide, it becomes a brand new hunt.

 

I feel sorry for the newbies to the game. They want to hide a cache and they look around to put it in a nice spot, guess what? There's one already there. It's been there 3 years and maybe once a month or every other month someone logs it.

 

So they are left with very little alternatives. They have to hide lame caches. Let's face it. There are only so many good spots to place a cache. At the explosion rate of this sport, they are disapearing fast.

 

I'm trying to explain my thoughts, not sure I'm doing it right.

 

El Diablo

Edited by El Diablo
Link to comment
I've heard this idea before.  I thought it was a bad idea then, and I still do.

 

If I archive my cache so someone can place another in the same place, how does that give anyone something new to do?

 

edit:  This site has guidelines, darn it.

 

now THERE is some real logic - and I agree completely.

 

If there is a cache placed somewhere and it is removed so someone else can put there cache in the same place, where is the net gain? Sounds the same as the owner posting a note on the cache saying he has replaced the cache with a brand new container and new stuff in it.

 

cc\

This is a passion of mine, so please bear with me. Flame me if you want, but at least read what I say first.

 

You can move a cache 100 to 200 feet and it becomes a brand new hunt. If you change containers and methods of a hide, it becomes a brand new hunt.

 

I feel sorry for the newbies to the game. They want to hide a cache and they look around to put it in a nice spot, guess what? There's one already there. It's been there 3 years and maybe one a month or every other month someone logs it.

 

So they are left with very little alternatives. They have to hide lame caches. Let's face it. There are only so many good spots to place a cache. A the explosion rate of this sport, they are disapearing fast.

 

I'm trying to explain my thoughts, not sure I'm doing it right.

 

El Diablo

You said it perfectly. That's my situation right now, so I'm understanding everything you're saying completely.

Link to comment
There are exceptions to this thought, such as a 5/5 cache or a cache that isn't in a cache dense area. My thoughts behind this is that those of us that came early were able to claim all the great spots. I think it's only fair to open the area to new cachers and we can all have fun.

 

I also believe that the reason for the explosion of micros is directly related to the lack of space to place a regular cache, same with lame caches.

 

El Diablo

I'd like to mention a cache that's not a difficult hike, and not a 5/5 but would still qualify as an exception:

 

Sounds of the Bay

 

I know that some of the hiders in our area eventually archive caches, mainly for maintenance/muggle reasons but sometimes because they feel the caches have outlived their usefulness. In some cases, unfortunately, a newbie comes along and places new caches right nearby, and most likely another dreaded "lame micro" :lol:

 

I enjoy visiting old waypoints, because they give me an idea on how the sport started. I'm hoping that in the process of freshening up the game, we don't archive some of them - most are placed in interesting locations, and very few (if any) are "lame micros". Newbies ought to enjoy these oldies, too.

 

And Blue Deuce, no rules. Just additional encouragements. :lol:

Edited by budd-rdc
Link to comment

Two things come to mind.

 

Typical post that someone is moving their cache and should they submit a new page. Usual response: If the caching experince is different then yes submit a new page.

 

Adopting Archived caches. So where's the cry for protecting the history? Place a new cache already, okay?

Link to comment
Two things come to mind.

 

Typical post that someone is moving their cache and should they submit a new page. Usual response: If the caching experince is different then yes submit a new page.

 

Adopting Archived caches. So where's the cry for protecting the history? Place a new cache already, okay?

I think the "cry for history" is more of less trying to keep the caches that are "near and dear" to our hearts and ones we have great experiences finding, unarchived, and out there for new cachers to have the same experience.

Link to comment
Two things come to mind.

 

Typical post that someone is moving their cache and should they submit a new page. Usual response: If the caching experince is different then yes submit a new page.

 

Adopting Archived caches. So where's the cry for protecting the history? Place a new cache already, okay?

That's a good question about protecting the history of caching. I think the logs, both on line and in the original logbook records the history of a cache. You don't have to leave a seldom visited cache in place.

 

El Diablo

Link to comment
Two things come to mind.

 

Typical post that someone is moving their cache and should they submit a new page. Usual response: If the caching experince is different then yes submit a new page.

 

Adopting Archived caches. So where's the cry for protecting the history? Place a new cache already, okay?

I think the "cry for history" is more of less trying to keep the caches that are "near and dear" to our hearts and ones we have great experiences finding, unarchived, and out there for new cachers to have the same experience.

I completely agree about those caches that are near and dear, but they got archived didn't they? Follow me? Regardless of protecting those special caches, I'm still talking about the common ones.

Edited by BlueDeuce
Link to comment
Two things come to mind.

 

Typical post that someone is moving their cache and should they submit a new page. Usual response: If the caching experince is different then yes submit a new page.

 

Adopting Archived caches. So where's the cry for protecting the history? Place a new cache already, okay?

That's a good question about protecting the history of caching. I think the logs, both on line and in the original logbook records the history of a cache. You don't have to leave a seldom visited cache in place.

 

El Diablo

I don't want to get flamed for this metaphor, so if you feel the urge, resist.

 

Getting rid of some old caches that would be very worthwhile would be senseless. Archiving it because it is old, is like pushing elderly people out of society because they do not have as much production as younger people do. In Europe, they think that when an elder in the community dies, it is like a library burning down. Alot of knowledge and history fades. Don't archive a cache because it's old, archive it because it no longer, or possibly never has, been suffice to call itself a geocache. If it's an old Gatorade container from 2001 placed in a stump, where the cache has sustained substantial water damage, the log hasn't been replaced, "swag" value has depleted, then archiving it and waiting for a new cache to come along may be a good idea. We can't be selfish with our 528 foot circles and lay claim on them forever, but sometimes a cache is so good, the locals wouldn't want that cache archived for the world.

Link to comment
Two things come to mind.

 

Typical post that someone is moving their cache and should they submit a new page. Usual response: If the caching experince is different then yes submit a new page.

 

Adopting Archived caches. So where's the cry for protecting the history? Place a new cache already, okay?

That's a good question about protecting the history of caching. I think the logs, both on line and in the original logbook records the history of a cache. You don't have to leave a seldom visited cache in place.

 

El Diablo

I don't want to get flamed for this metaphor, so if you feel the urge, resist.

 

Getting rid of some old caches that would be very worthwhile would be senseless. Archiving it because it is old, is like pushing elderly people out of society because they do not have as much production as younger people do. In Europe, they think that when an elder in the community dies, it is like a library burning down. Alot of knowledge and history fades. Don't archive a cache because it's old, archive it because it no longer, or possibly never has, been suffice to call itself a geocache. If it's an old Gatorade container from 2001 placed in a stump, where the cache has sustained substantial water damage, the log hasn't been replaced, "swag" value has depleted, then archiving it and waiting for a new cache to come along may be a good idea. We can't be selfish with our 528 foot circles and lay claim on them forever, but sometimes a cache is so good, the locals wouldn't want that cache archived for the world.

No, you've got it. People are special so are some caches. If the cache (which is not a person) has out-lived it's usefulness look for ways to make it new.

Link to comment
Two things come to mind.

 

Typical post that someone is moving their cache and should they submit a new page. Usual response: If the caching experince is different then yes submit a new page.

 

Adopting Archived caches. So where's the cry for protecting the history? Place a new cache already, okay?

I think the "cry for history" is more of less trying to keep the caches that are "near and dear" to our hearts and ones we have great experiences finding, unarchived, and out there for new cachers to have the same experience.

I completely agree about those caches that are near and dear, but they got archived didn't they? Follow me? Regardless of protecting those special caches, I'm still talking about the common ones.

That's absolutely correct.

 

But, in the respect, take this into respective. Cachers who keep a close eye on their caches and keep frequent maintenance on them seem to be the cachers who say, this cache has overwelcomed it's stay, and they archive it. And the cache may be a great cache, that is well taken care of and is a fun adventure for the whole family. And locals revisit on a regular basis they had so much fun on the adventure.

 

And the cachers who hide some, I'm sorry to say, "lame" caches, never perfrom maintenance on the cache, and usually are "anti-climatic" caches to find, seem never to be archived. No matter how destroyed, waterlogged, and stuffed with pokemon cards they are.

 

The irony. :lol:

Link to comment
Two things come to mind.

 

Typical post that someone is moving their cache and should they submit a new page. Usual response: If the caching experince is different then yes submit a new page.

 

Adopting Archived caches. So where's the cry for protecting the history? Place a new cache already, okay?

That's a good question about protecting the history of caching. I think the logs, both on line and in the original logbook records the history of a cache. You don't have to leave a seldom visited cache in place.

 

El Diablo

I don't want to get flamed for this metaphor, so if you feel the urge, resist.

 

Getting rid of some old caches that would be very worthwhile would be senseless. Archiving it because it is old, is like pushing elderly people out of society because they do not have as much production as younger people do. In Europe, they think that when an elder in the community dies, it is like a library burning down. Alot of knowledge and history fades. Don't archive a cache because it's old, archive it because it no longer, or possibly never has, been suffice to call itself a geocache. If it's an old Gatorade container from 2001 placed in a stump, where the cache has sustained substantial water damage, the log hasn't been replaced, "swag" value has depleted, then archiving it and waiting for a new cache to come along may be a good idea. We can't be selfish with our 528 foot circles and lay claim on them forever, but sometimes a cache is so good, the locals wouldn't want that cache archived for the world.

I'm not talking about archiving a cache because it's old. There are a lot of caches out there that are old and still viable.

 

My thought is that if the cache has been found by the majority of the locals, then it has lived it's life.

 

The very first cache I ever found is still in place, I even help maintain it. There are great seniments attached to that cache. It is owned by a very good friend. Now the question is, should it be archived to open up the area? Yes! As much as I would miss seeing the very first cache that I found archived, I think it should be. It gets less than a log every month or two.

 

El Diablo

Link to comment
But, in the respect, take this into respective. Cachers who keep a close eye on their caches and keep frequent maintenance on them seem to be the cachers who say, this cache has overwelcomed it's stay, and they archive it. And the cache may be a great cache, that is well taken care of and is a fun adventure for the whole family. And locals revisit on a regular basis they had so much fun on the adventure.

 

And the cachers who hide some, I'm sorry to say, "lame" caches, never perfrom maintenance on the cache, and usually are "anti-climatic" caches to find, seem never to be archived. No matter how destroyed, waterlogged, and stuffed with pokemon cards they are.

AMEN to that! I've even been party to maintaining these abandoned caches. (and will probably do it again)

Edited by BlueDeuce
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 0
×
×
  • Create New...