Relogging Moved Caches

[TygerD]

A cache gets muggled, or is found to be on private property, or someother reason. but was already logged as found, and then is moved to correct the problem, be it 5 feet or a 100 feet. and the coord's are changed on the page,

is it cool to refind it and log it again?

 

This happened to me today and the cache was immeadiatly archived. They plan on moving the cache to a new location. Depending on where they move it to, I just might go to where they move it to, and log it again.

 

Just looking for thoughts on the subject.

 

TygerD

[+briansnat]

If they move it far enough, it should be a new cache page. That's probably what the owner should do in your case. If its just a matter of a few feet and its the same cache I wouldn't log it twice.

[AZcachemeister]

One found log per GCID# for me. I don't care how much they move it or change it.

Now it has happened that a cache was archived and re-submitted (and approved), same container, location and everything. The owner even left the old logbook in the cache! I felt weird on that one, but logged it as found.

[+Semper Questio]

It is very situational (is that a word?). I would normally agree with AZcachemeister on 1 ID 1 find, but there are exceptions.

 

For instance, we have one here that was a simple regular cache that got changed to a 3-stage multi and the owner invited previous finders to come and find the revamped cache again. In this case, since the find was so different, I did it again.

[+Miragee]

There was a cache here, "Springreen," that I found in a neighborhood canyon. A few months later, while caching with a friend, they had that cache in their GPSr. I was confused because the location of the cache was so different.

 

Turned out it had to be moved because of complaints by the neighbors around the canyon. Since it was more than a mile away from the original location, and the search was completely different, I logged it a second time.

 

If a cache has only been moved a few feet, I would not log it again.

[+Sagefox]

This is an interesting condition that always generates interesting responses. Now days most everyone agrees that when a cache is moved substantially or changed from regular to a multi or puzzle the original should be archived and the changed one listed as new.

 

But if not then making these changes to a cache can present an interesting contradiction:

 

Hide type 1. If the contaner is moved or changed substantially but is still listed under the old ID number many won't log it because it would result in two finds posted on one cache page.

 

Hide type 2. If the container is not moved or changed substantially but relisted under a new ID number most previous finders will log it again.

 

Type 1 is physically a new cache and type 2 is an existing cache. Seems to me that logging type 1 as a second find is appropriate and logging type 2 might be somewhat questionable.

 

But... I have logged both types as a find and have done both types as a cache owner. I never had a problem with people logging my type 1's twice and definitely intended that people could log my type 2 hide as a find again even though the cache location or type had not changed.

 

Logging either one as Found is ok by me because they both have technical merits. And we should keep in mind that these not common occurances.

[+sbell111]

There was a cache here, "Springreen," that I found in a neighborhood canyon. A few months later, while caching with a friend, they had that cache in their GPSr. I was confused because the location of the cache was so different.

 

Turned out it had to be moved because of complaints by the neighbors around the canyon. Since it was more than a mile away from the original location, and the search was completely different, I logged it a second time.

 

If a cache has only been moved a few feet, I would not log it again.

You bring up a very important point. Most cachers will not log a cache twice. The decision not to do so is not based on ethics. It is based on the fact that after a cache is found, its generally no longer on the cacher's radar.

 

Also, unless the owner of the cache gives his/her OK, no one should relog a cache, even if it has moved. This is really a private matter between cache owners and seakers, in my opinion.

[+JDandDD]

I've only logged one cache twice and that was because of its nature it should have been archived and a new listing put out. In this case substantial was .5km (over 500 yds) and was in a completely different location and was a very different hunt. That would be the only occasion I would consider and agree that moves of that size should be considered a new cache. It was outside the 528ft cache radius rule used on the site.

 

JDandDD

[+RoyalRed]

I would say it depends on the cache owner's wishes. I adopted an abandoned regular cache, changed it's name, moved its location significantly and changed it into a night cache. I'm begging past finders to back!

 

Had I just repaired the cache, left it where it was and kept the same name then I don't think I would want return cachers.

Edited April 6, 2006 by RoyalRed

[salmoned]

It doesn't really matter one way or the other. However, I play by AZcachemeister's policy even for a cache drastically altered/moved. If I find it again, and I WILL look for it (...MUST find every cache...), I post a note.

[nobby.nobbs]

if moved any significant distance should be a new cache page. if only moved a few feet then i'd not re log personally, ultimately up to you and the cache holder.

 

are you here for the experience or the numbers??

 

i favour the first but don't criticise the second

[+caderoux]

We had a local case of a cache placed and eventually archived, then another cache by a different hider showing up within a couple feet.

 

There's always going to be lots of kinds of valid exceptions to the no double-logging idea.

[TygerD]

Thanks for all youe replies. Depending on how/where/if, the cache is relocated, I may or may not, refind and relog this cache.

 

TygerD