Archiving Caches

[+Awkward Socks]

Don't know if this has already been brought up as I don't frequent the forums, but couldn't find anything right off.

 

I notice that several caches placed 2-3 years ago have gone months without being found. If a cache goes an extended period without being found or checked up on, I think that the reviewers should request an archive. Most likely, all serious cachers in the area have already found it, so open up space for more placement! Maybe base the time on difficulty/terrain, so a 1/1 that goes two months without being found be archived, while a 3/5 goes for over a year.

 

While the cache may still be there, it serves no purpose when everyone has found it. Just an idea.

 

Thanks,

Awkward Socks

[+KoosKoos]

So there will never be a new geocacher in that area? or someone visiting from another area??

 

If the cache is in good shape, why archive it just because it hasn't been found in a while? I have a puzzle cache that often goes 2-3 months without a find cause it's "tough". Why should a reviewer archive my cache?

[+ReadyOrNot]

I just did a rather difficult night cache that hadn't been found in quite a few months and only has a handful of finds per year. I think before requesting archival, it would need to be checked on. If it's still a viable cache, then it ought to remain available.

[+Klatch]

If the cache hasn't been found and IF there are several DNF's with no response from the cache owner, it is the persons seeking the cache that have the ability to request an archive of the cache.

The reviewer could then attempt to contact the owner to have the cache repaired/replaced.

 

I agree with the others, some of the best caches go months without being found. Generally, because they aren't drive-up easy smiley faces.

[+Mopar]

Guess they can start with this cache that has been out over 2yrs with no (*logged) finds in over 5 months. Then they could kill this one, which hasn't been logged (online) in over 3 months.

According to you they serve no useful purpose and should be archived by the admins ASAP. Hopefully after the reviewers archive it, the owner will go out and pick them up, so they aren't just litter.

 

*Not everyone logs online. It's quite possible someone (like myself) has visited the cache recently and signed the logbook but hasn't posted an online log. Since there only "requirement" to finding a cache is to sign the logbook (not log online) Perhaps the reviewers should have to go out and read the logbook first before assuming the cache hasn't been found for x months and is no longer serving a useful purpose.

[+markp99]

I found a cache last weekend that had not been found since last October.

 

The last several logs listed the cache as a DNF. In fact, the last seeker (464 finds) categorized this one: DNATFEAC (Do not attempt to find ever again caches). He all but called the previous finders "liars"

 

I found the cache after about 45 minutes of hunting; turned out to be almost exactly where the coordinates said it should be. The very dense tree cover provided some squirrely results initially, but after setting a bit, there it was.

 

The hint suggested the cache would be in a location some distance off the ground, but it was actually found at the base of a tree.

 

It was a pretty sweet find! (for a musty old canning jar full of geo-trash )

[+Team_Talisman]

wrong forumn

Edited May 14, 2006 by Team_Talisman

[+Mopar]

Mopar,

 

In your profile you say "I'm usually several months behind logging,". Others that have searched or found the two listed caches in you reply could be the same way..

 

Since the owner of these caches was online today, and both caches have two people watching them, I am sure he is aware of situation.

 

Stating that you have cached in Colorado, you realize how many of the Rocky Mountain caches lie dormant longer than your listed ones in the post... Shall we kill all of those also....

Sorry, I thought there was enough sarcasm dripping off from my previous post for everyone to pick up on it. Guess not.

I'm now actually over 1yr behind in logging online, and in fact I know plenty of others that are far behind or don't log online at all. That was my point. The OP states that caches that go without finds for more then a few months are useless, yet 2 of his own caches (the ones mentioned in my previous post) fit that description. How does he know without reading the logbook that people really are not still finding and enjoying his caches? Should they be autoarchived as useless as he himself suggests, even though it's possible someone like me was there last week?

Edited May 14, 2006 by Mopar

[+Team_Talisman]

MOPar,

I want to apologize, I did not see who started this forumn.....

 

He started the forumn and then has caches that sets there like he is against...

[CoyoteRed]

While the cache may still be there, it serves no purpose when everyone has found it. Just an idea.

 

I hope this would never be implemented. Otherwise, this cache would not be available for us to find. This cache wouldn't have been listed for us to go after, either.

[+Kit Fox]

While your at it, why don't we archive the The Oldest UnArchived Cache in each State?

[+JakeBond]

Absolutly not. Only archive caches that aren't around anymore. I love being the first to find a cache that hasn't been found in 6+ months. 600' is not that much area. Try finding new places to put caches instead of piling them on top of places that cachers have already been to...

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

. . .I agree with the others, some of the best caches go months without being found. Generally, because they aren't drive-up easy smiley faces.

I muchly agree with Klatch. Particularly for extreme caches or for wilderness (backcountry) caches, or for caches in sparsely-populated areas, perhaps only a few finds per year (or less) is the norm, not the exception. How, if a cache has not been found in two years, AND it also has a string of ten DNFs, then there is some possibility that it is missing in action, and in such a case, an unsuccessful seeker, if they have been unable to get a decent and clear reply from the cache owner in response to their inquiry regarding the status of the cache, would then be perfectly fair in filing an SBA.

Edited May 14, 2006 by Vinny & Sue Team

[+Isonzo Karst]

I have a couple of caches with only one find. I don't expect them to be found again until next fall either, and they may well never get more than one or two finds per year. Ammo cans in the woods, a bit of a drive from where most folks live, and either a 'yak or a swamp hike to get to 'em. No reason to archive them. I'll get out to each of them sometime next fall, see if they survived the late summer high water - though they were placed with that in mind. I'm sure there are many many similar caches. Their owner's weren't expecting 3 logs a week.

[+Runaround]

Maybe the OP should organize a "lonely cache club" in their area. I know it was done locally and have heard of it done in other parts of the country.

[+dkwolf]

In my area, almost all caches go several months without finds. Within 30 miles of my home, there's probably fewer than 20 active cachers--that is, cachers that log online and cache frequently. People don't just run out and grab one cache, the distances are to prohibitive for that (today I hunted 4 caches and put over 110 miles on my truck in doing so)

 

After placing a new cache, there's a group of about 4 or 5 from the area that one of us will be the FTF within a week (yes, week) of publishing. After that, it'll take a couple months for all the locals to be in that area to log it. Once that happens, the cache really only gets logged if someone new joins the sport, one of us needs to drop off a TB, or a situation like myself today--had nothing else to do, and picked a direction I hadn't cached in for a while and tried to hit as many caches as I could; find one, look up the next nearest on the Garmin and hit the road.

 

Basically, if every cache that went several months without a find was archived, there would be NO caches within 20 miles of my home. Now, if it's an urban area very saturated with caches, maybe archiving older, less active caches would be a more viable idea to free up room for new caches, but in rural areas it would seriously hurt the caching community.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

In my area, almost all caches go several months without finds. Within 30 miles of my home, there's probably fewer than 20 active cachers--that is, cachers that log online and cache frequently. People don't just run out and grab one cache, the distances are to prohibitive for that (today I hunted 4 caches and put over 110 miles on my truck in doing so)

 

After placing a new cache, there's a group of about 4 or 5 from the area that one of us will be the FTF within a week (yes, week) of publishing. After that, it'll take a couple months for all the locals to be in that area to log it. Once that happens, the cache really only gets logged if someone new joins the sport, one of us needs to drop off a TB, or a situation like myself today--had nothing else to do, and picked a direction I hadn't cached in for a while and tried to hit as many caches as I could; find one, look up the next nearest on the Garmin and hit the road.

 

Basically, if every cache that went several months without a find was archived, there would be NO caches within 20 miles of my home. Now, if it's an urban area very saturated with caches, maybe archiving older, less active caches would be a more viable idea to free up room for new caches, but in rural areas it would seriously hurt the caching community.

 

Very good points, and I feel that they were well presented! Thanks for saying it better than I could have!

[+wesleykey]

GCKZ84 - THis is my cache, and it has not been found in a year. No reason to achive, it's still fun for me to go back and enjoy the national forest again and check on the cache...

[+briansnat]

Some of what I think are my best caches go 3, 6 or more months between finds. I'd be really ticked if there was some sort of auto archival process.

 

Its also a way to guarantee that the caches will become geo-litter. At least if they are still listed, someone will eventually visit.

[+ThePropers]

Ditto everybody else's comments.

 

In addition, I'll just say that I enjoy hiking, but the main enjoyment of geocaching is to go to places I haven't been before....not hike to the same place every year or two to find another cache hidden 50 feet away from an old cache.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Some of what I think are my best caches go 3, 6 or more months between finds. I'd be really ticked if there was some sort of auto archival process.

 

Its also a way to guarantee that the caches will become geo-litter. At least if they are still listed, someone will eventually visit.

 

Yes, some of the best (and often concomitantly, most extreme) caches in the world are visited only once per year or less. Any artificial standard regarding frequency of finds would eliminate many of the best caches overnite!

[+Jhwk]

Heck, these are the caches I go for! I tell myself it will be a great challenge to find, but most of the time the cache is sitting there, just as it should be.

 

Let me decide when to archive my caches. Just because all of the "old-timers" have found it, doesn't mean it isn't still a good cache.

[+Renegade Knight]

Caches have different life spans. Urban caches can use up everone who is likely to find it in a few months. Urban caches with easy intersate access will see travelers come though and find them virtually forever.

 

Remote cache vary but as more and more are placed and geocachers can't possible go find them all their life span can be decades before everyone interested had a shot.

 

Some legendary caches will also have a life span of decades. True the locals will have found it but travelers will go out of their way to seek out the cache. The original tribute cache, Tube Torcher and a host of others could stay around a heck of a long time.

 

Also No find doens't mean no cache. If a cache is not being found odds are it's still there. Especially if it's remote. I don't need to check up on my cache at lady face falls. It's a two mike hike to get to it, it gets few finds and nobody has reported on any problems. I suppose when the ammo can rusts through in another 10 years...

[+Henki]

Quite a few caches in this area haven’t been found since before last August’s hurricane. Many also haven’t been checked by the owners due to the fact that some have relocated and some are just too blasted busy repairing their homes to check on these caches – priorities, you know.

 

I’ve been tickled pink to find some that hadn’t been found in over a year, which somehow survived Katrina’s wrath. It would be a shame to archive these without someone checking on them.

 

I also have some of my own that haven’t been found in over a month. I live in a small urban area which doesn’t see a whole lot of activity. I also have an urban cache that’s had a few DNFs and hasn’t been found for a while, but it’s still there.

 

Archiving caches that are still viable just because people haven’t found them is ludicrous, especially since you’re proposing making room for new caches. To me this game is all about the CHALLENGE of finding the cache, and not just about racking up numbers.

 

If you don’t’ want to be challenged, perhaps you should look into another game.

[+StarBrand]

I have a cache that sits at 10,800 feet - during 3 short summer months a year it rates a 2/2. During the winter - snowmobilers report that it has about 25 feet of snow on it. Didn't thaw out of the snow until late July one year. Every year sees it go 8 months without a find.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Caches have different life spans. Urban caches can use up everone who is likely to find it in a few months. Urban caches with easy intersate access will see travelers come though and find them virtually forever.

 

Even this isn't necessarily true. I have a series on the north Hudson Palisades in New Jersey. The intent is to bring people to see the glorious views of New York. Okay, most of the locals have found them. They can go months without a find. And, yet, some of the most recent finders have been from Sweden, The Finger Lakes, Philadelphia, and Germany. (I have no idea what they were doing there!) But, they all loved the views.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I have a cache that sits at 10,800 feet - during 3 short summer months a year it rates a 2/2. During the winter - snowmobilers report that it has about 25 feet of snow on it. Didn't thaw out of the snow until late July one year. Every year sees it go 8 months without a find.

 

Yes, same! We have two backcountry caches at high altitudes along theWI/ID border, and -- due to deep snow and ice accumulations -- they are essentialy totally inaccessible for at least 7 months of the year. Of course, the same is true of many backcountry caches in that area!

[+yumitori]

 

Yes, same! We have two backcountry caches at high altitudes along theWI/ID border, and -- due to deep snow and ice accumulations -- they are essentialy totally inaccessible for at least 7 months of the year. Of course, the same is true of many backcountry caches in that area!

 

The Wisconsin / Idaho border? No wonder it doesn't get many finds; that's a hard area to reach....

 

But I agree. If the cache is otherwise fine, there's no reason at all to archive it just because there have not been many finds. There's one in our area that was hidden near the end of the normal caching season in 2004, and no one found it before the snows flew or any time last year either. The drive is fairly substantial as well, which no doubt contributed. We were quite busy ourselves and planned to make our journey this summer, but now I see that just as the snows are receding once more the owner archived it.

 

We could still visit the location, but given the number of caches still out there I doubt we will. It's really too bad we've missed out on this one, for no other reason than no one has visited it yet. What harm would there had been in leaving it be?

[+KKTH3]

The Wisconsin / Idaho border? No wonder it doesn't get many finds; that's a hard area to reach....

 

Fun Fact of the day... Idaho boarders more states that begin with the letter "W" than any other state in the USA!

 

We recently had to archive our cache that had gone the longest time without a find. It was placed a couple weeks short of a year ago and was first found last 4th of July by a group of cachers. It was found only one more time the very next day and had remained unfound since then. However, it was a themed cache and the reason for it being what it was themed after was removed by the city over the past couple weeks, so yesterday I picked up the cache and archived it. I had hoped at least there would be some signage by some of those that dont log caches online, but had no such luck. Oh well - at least we still have 20 caches active out in the field and only our mountain caches, our one remaining puzzle cache, and one cache that is a bit off the beaten path have not been found in the last month.

[+Awkward Socks]

OK, wow...

Appreciate all the attacks, lol. I do not think that the island cache should be archived because no one has found it. I think the downtown cache that has been found by the 80 cachers within the area will very rarely be visited. It takes up a good chunk of the surrounding area.

 

The "easy drive up caches" are generally not visited after the first few months. There are different levels of caches, the 10 mile hike to find a regular cache with a spectacular view is my favorite. But the skirt caches in the tram-law parking lot are more for the finds. Maybe I didn't explain correctly?

 

BTW, I'm sorry if I offended or angered anyone out there, but some of you definitely overreacted...

 

Awkward Socks

[+Mary&Dave]

Guess they can start with this cache

 

Briar Patch in Tennessee? That reminds me of this race.

 

There are lots of out of the way caches that don't get many visits. I was happy to find one whose log book hadn't been signed in almost a year. It was a great cache! Just because something is a 1/1 doesn't mean it'll get a lot of traffic.

Edited May 19, 2006 by Mary&Dave

[Tahosa and Sons]

Many of my back country caches only get a few visits per year. And the area that is 4 wheel country, the roads are still closed. If the caches are still in a viable location why archive them, doesn't make much sense at all.

[ImpalaBob]

The true responsibility lies with the cache owners. If a cache is placed at a great remote location .... then it will not be visited often, but those who make the trek will certainly appreciate it. If a cache is a simple .... non clever hide, that has been tapped out by all the local cachers, then the owner should show some interest in the game and come up with something new!

 

I have a lot more respect for those hiders that constantly improve the quality of their caches instead of just increasing their numbers. We all have our favorite hiders ..... and when they place a new cache it stirs a lot of excitement among the local caching community.

 

I really hate going to caches that have poor owner maintenance. If you are not enthusiastic .... for what ever reason .... get out of the game and let some new people come in.

 

Koikeeper and I recently cached on Cape Cod, Mass. They are not into micros on the Cape. We did have a great time hiking into the Conservancy areas every day. The hides were mostly basic, with a handful of "clever" caches. We did ask for 2 archives during our trip. The first was totally not there and had not been found for months. The second ..... we probably should have asked for maintenance instead of an archive. It was found a few days later ..... but we did do a thorough search, got some local info that lead us to believe it was missing, and the area was full of litter, trash and dog crap. Speaking of dog crap ..... we found it on EVERY trail we hiked on while visiting Cape Cod. I attribute it to so many older residents who just do not clean up after their dogs.

 

Enough ImpalaBob

[+Ed & Julie]

I think long disabled caches are more in need of reviewer attention and caches that go unfound.

 

My area (Northern California) has a very high disabled cache rate (the highest, as compaired to other areas in another thread), and our reviewers are very hands-off about it. Disabled 3 months? 6 Months? More? The reviewers will not interviene unless a SBA is logged (which I have, and the local cache community roars disapproval).

 

If a cache just goes unfound, then it is still very much still in play...no worries.

 

Ed

[+Team Perks]

Here's my take:

 

Caches that go months without a find are most likely to be in more remote areas where their presence isn't going to have any impact on the ability of anyone to hide another cache nearby.

 

Caches in tightly packed areas where density is an issue are more likely to get a lot of finds since it's a more active area.

 

The OP's proposal would, therefore, accomplish virtually nothing. Simple as that.

[+1stimestar]

Some of our caches are socked in for 7 months at a time...

[+Renegade Knight]

...BTW, I'm sorry if I offended or angered anyone out there, but some of you definitely overreacted...

 

I don't think you offended anyone. Some ideas not only get a "no" they get a "hell no" and this is one of them. It wasn't personal, just the passion have about the topic.

[+brodiebunch]

Drop a TB off in those rarely found caches. Check the owners profile, if they have been around in awhile perhaps you could adopt it, restock it with newer swag and give it some fresh life.

[+Snoogans]

 

I'm now actually over 1yr behind in logging online, and in fact I know plenty of others that are far behind or don't log online at all. That was my point.

 

I'm headed to GW4 and I haven't logged all my caches from GW3.

[Clan Riffster]

they may well never get more than one or two finds per year.

Like Isonzo Karst, several of my hides are what are considered "lonely" caches. I tend to hide the kind of caches I like to find, which for me means a wet, nasty, smelly tromp through a wild hog infested swamp. By creating caches that are more difficult than driving up to a Burger King and pawing through the shrubbery, I feel I'm giving the players a more interesting experience. I'd hate to see my caches archived for no other reason than they are too difficult for the "average" cacher.