Replacing archived caches.

[+Totem Clan]

I'm planning in series of caches that will be "Flashback caches". There are a growing number of cachers up here now. Up until the past year, cachers were few and far between. Many of the "first cachers" here have quit, moved away, or were university students that have graduated and move on. Because of this there are a fair number of archived caches around town. I would like to bring many of them back. The question is, what is the best way?

 

Some of the cachers here have found the "old" caches but there are many new cachers that never saw them even listed, much less went out and found them. Therefore I could approach this two ways.

 

The first would be to simply put a brand new cache in the old location. This way the older cachers could find a totally new cache but revisit an old spot.

 

The second way is to try to be as true to the original cache as possible. I would word the cache page almost identically to the original. I would hide the cache in almost the same spot. The point being to make a 'Flashback' to the old archived cache. With this the few older cachers can relive an old hunt, and the new cachers can hunt some of the caches that have drifted away.

 

I would like to hear from both cachers that have been caching for awhile, and from the new ones. What would you think of this kind of cache? Who would you as the cacher like to see it done if it was near you?

 

 

(BTW, none of the caches I have listed to be 'replace' were archive due to guideline infractions or safety reasons.)

[+sbell111]

... The second way is to try to be as true to the original cache as possible. I would word the cache page almost identically to the original. I would hide the cache in almost the same spot. The point being to make a 'Flashback' to the old archived cache. With this the few older cachers can relive an old hunt, and the new cachers can hunt some of the caches that have drifted away. ...

I like the second option. It would be a nice homage to good caches that are now gone. Edited April 26, 2007 by sbell111

[+The Leprechauns]

I would much rather find a new cache in the same general area, with a different hiding style. If someone re-hides a cache in the exact same spot as one I've previously found, I say "been there, done that" as there is less thrill when you know the hiding spot.

[+Markwell]

Take a look at this one.

[+sbell111]

After my accident, I could no handle the maintenance that my caches required, so I archived around twenty of them. Three of them were replaced by another cacher as an homage to the original. I was a little touched and everyone seems to have enjoyed the replacements.

[+Thegreenparty]

I would have to say I would prefer the placement of a new cache also. In our area there seems to be a decline in cache lately, one cacher who had quite a few caches in the area seems to have "retired" or something because he/she has archived all of their caches but the virtuals. So I think this is a great idea.

[+egami]

I'd say it's up to you...however, if I understand your intention correctly the second option seems the most logical. Otherwise, imo, it's just a new cache in an old location.

 

I would think most cachers that are still around and remember them would appreciate the effort and be overall supportive of the idea.

[+halffast]

Anyway you decide will be great for the sport.

[+Renegade Knight]

We have a lot of churn in my area. I've had the change to visti new caches in old spots and find I enjoy it. What I enjoy most though isn't the history so much as I find that I like seeing what the new cacher did in the old spot. Sometimes they hide it in the same locaiton. Sometimes they find a new and better spot, and sometimes they don't do quite as well as the orginal. I like seeing the dynamic contrast.

 

If I were a newbie I'd not know the history well enough to care though. So...

I'd take your hontest best shot at the "Totem Clan" version of each of those recycled locations. The old timers can see if your spin was better, worse, of agreed wiht the orignalal. The newbies get some of the old locations which did tend to be better than urban micros.

[+egami]

If I were a newbie I'd not know the history well enough to care though.

 

I think this is generally true, but as a relatively "new" cacher still myself, I know that I personally would be interested that someone had taken the time to do something like this and would have an appreciation for it.

[+Totem Clan]

If I were a newbie I'd not know the history well enough to care though.

 

I think this is generally true, but as a relatively "new" cacher still myself, I know that I personally would be interested that someone had taken the time to do something like this and would have an appreciation for it.

Also if I do 'replace' the orginal caches, the name and the cache page will state that it is a 'flashback cache'. For example if the old name was "A Bridge to Nowhere', the new name would be "Flashback to.... 'A Bridge to Nowhere'". Also in cache description I would include the name of the orginal cache's owner, and maybe the GC#. That way even new cachers would know that it's a bit of caching history.

 

 

I'm still milling it all over in my head. I'm not sure if I'm going to do it, and if so how.

[+egami]

Also if I do 'replace' the orginal caches, the name and the cache page will state that it is a 'flashback cache'. For example if the old name was "A Bridge to Nowhere', the new name would be "Flashback to.... 'A Bridge to Nowhere'". Also in cache description I would include the name of the orginal cache's owner, and maybe the GC#. That way even new cachers would know that it's a bit of caching history.

 

That's kind of what I was expecting from you description. Neat idea.

 

I'm still milling it all over in my head. I'm not sure if I'm going to do it, and if so how.

 

Win - win, really. I think either way it's a good thing.

[+briansnat]

Also if I do 'replace' the orginal caches, the name and the cache page will state that it is a 'flashback cache'. For example if the old name was "A Bridge to Nowhere', the new name would be "Flashback to.... 'A Bridge to Nowhere'". Also in cache description I would include the name of the orginal cache's owner, and maybe the GC#. That way even new cachers would know that it's a bit of caching history.

 

I think that's a great way to do it. Go for it!

[+StarBrand]

Please keep in mind that the "original" may be long gone because - it was just a bad location for a cache. Sometimes what looked like a good spot turns out not to be.

 

Neat idea and I like that you are honoring some older caches but it may not work out quite right.

[+Totem Clan]

Please keep in mind that the "original" may be long gone because - it was just a bad location for a cache. Sometimes what looked like a good spot turns out not to be.

 

Neat idea and I like that you are honoring some older caches but it may not work out quite right.

Most of the archived caches were just abandoned and left to languish. There are some that were in 'bad spot', and those will not be replaced.

 

This will not be done halfway or with much thought. If I'm going to hide a cache, I will do right. If I do this, I will give it even more thought and planning. That's one reason I'm trying to get some opinions and advise.

 

 

*** I will hide no cache before it's time. ***

[+CentralCArn]

If I were a newbie I'd not know the history well enough to care though.

 

I think this is generally true, but as a relatively "new" cacher still myself, I know that I personally would be interested that someone had taken the time to do something like this and would have an appreciation for it.

Also if I do 'replace' the orginal caches, the name and the cache page will state that it is a 'flashback cache'. For example if the old name was "A Bridge to Nowhere', the new name would be "Flashback to.... 'A Bridge to Nowhere'". Also in cache description I would include the name of the orginal cache's owner, and maybe the GC#. That way even new cachers would know that it's a bit of caching history.

 

 

I'm still milling it all over in my head. I'm not sure if I'm going to do it, and if so how.

 

Just a suggestion: If you are unarchiving lots of caches, it would be nice to put the "Flashback" portion at the end of the cache name. When I run into a series of caches, it is difficult for me to decipher the names of the cache because the beginning portion is all the same. (Maybe I need a better GPSr).

 

I like the idea. When we first started caching there were lots of caches in a nearby town, but by the time we were ready to find them they were archived.

[+Totem Clan]

Just a suggestion: If you are unarchiving lots of caches, it would be nice to put the "Flashback" portion at the end of the cache name. When I run into a series of caches, it is difficult for me to decipher the names of the cache because the beginning portion is all the same. (Maybe I need a better GPSr).

Very good idea. I hadn't thought about that.

[+Miragee]

Just a suggestion: If you are unarchiving lots of caches, it would be nice to put the "Flashback" portion at the end of the cache name. When I run into a series of caches, it is difficult for me to decipher the names of the cache because the beginning portion is all the same. (Maybe I need a better GPSr).

Very good idea. I hadn't thought about that.

I have a 10-cache series and put the series name at the end of the cache name to avoid the problem CentralCArn mentions.

 

Also, I put a new cache near where an Archived cache had been. I used the name of the old cache in my cache name and linked to the Archived cache in my description.

 

I really like your idea!

[+dkwolf]

TC, I like the idea. In fact, I'm doing something similar this weekend. There was a cache near here in a beautiful little county park, but the cache wasn't particularily well done. It had major maintenance issues, and the owner has not logged into the site in a year and a half. The cache was archived 6+ months ago, and had a string of DNF's before that indicating it (once again) had gone missing. I plan to visit the park, search the old location to verify the cache is gone, and then using what I know about the problems, rehide a new cache in the general vicinity. The new cache will be named entirely different, but on the same theme.

 

(some of the maintenance issues on the old cache were, it was a folgers coffee can in an area prone to high water in the spring, and was not camo'd at all. The new cache will be a painted ammo can hidden securely above the high water line)

[+ke6n]

The idea is good. Personally, I would prefer not just a clone, but if possible a different kind of hide at the same location. Sure, some people have moved on and some have recently arrived. There are still a lot of people who have been there all along. For them, it might be kind of boring to visit an exact clone. For the new people, they have nothing to compare it to, so why not hide a new style or make some part of it different?

[+jackratt]

I like the idea and considered this a couple of times (didn't do it because the originals were archived because they kept getting muggled). Anyway, I used to be able to find achived caches using the check box on the 'map it' feature but since it's gone to Google maps I don't know how to find archived caches. Any suggestions?

[+The Jester]

I like the idea and considered this a couple of times (didn't do it because the originals were archived because they kept getting muggled). Anyway, I used to be able to find achived caches using the check box on the 'map it' feature but since it's gone to Google maps I don't know how to find archived caches. Any suggestions?

You can still get the "old" GC maps from the first link on a cache page list of maps. So just grab the closest cache to the center point you want and go from there.

[+Too Tall John]

This past winter a local cacher archived a bunch of caches, some in some really cool spots. I tried to adopt them, but since the owner wouldn't respond to emails, they couldn't be unarchived. I suspected that the containers were left to become geolitter, so I decided to kill 2 birds with one stone: go find the old caches, replace logs & containers as needed, and start a new cache based on the original.

Mountain Throne: Redux

Eastern Belknap Overlook: Redux

Both are the original containers in the original locations, I've already gotten feedback from cachers who are happy that the old caches live on... in one way or another...

[+007BigD]

I just brought THIS CACHE out of Archive for Dgreno...It was placed just down the road and was for Team Alamo's 10,000th find!!! I did some research for him and BAM...Reactivated and LOGGED!

 

But that was for an active cacher...I am currently trying to adopt two killer spots that have come up missing and the owners are long gone!- One I already replaced!... I just gotta see what I gotta do to either get permission to place and maintain it or Adopt it...I havent logged the find yet.

 

The rules may be similar, but bringing an Archived cache out of Archive might be somethin else...They are Archived for a reason...and its not the owners cache anymore...so I would think it would be harder to rekindle the dead ones, rather than the MIA ones (Whos owners have dropped out)...Not sure if this helps, but Just my 2 cents...If anything happens with the ones im workin on and I find somethin on the Archived ones I will post it here.

 

I wonder why the Mods dont help with this question????...I see they have,but what about the Archive Uprival

Edited May 12, 2007 by 007BigD

[+Isonzo Karst]

I'll agree with The Leprechauns and give this idea a gentle no. Though that seems to be the minority view, and if you like that's all that matters. I personally don't think the "history" of something that's only been around a few years merits this level of sentimentality.

Caches that were the first finds for cachers tend to be much beloved by them - not necessarily because they were great hides, but because the finders were still all aglow with the fresh discovery of geocaching. I'd rather go find something new.

 

007BigD you seem to have misunderstood the topic. It's not about unarchiving old hides, it's about placing new "flashback" or copycat caches in the exact place and style of old hides. Generally old archived caches will not be unarchived, except perhaps to the original owner.

[+Totem Clan]

I'll agree with The Leprechauns and give this idea a gentle no. Though that seems to be the minority view, and if you like that's all that matters. I personally don't think the "history" of something that's only been around a few years merits this level of sentimentality.

Caches that were the first finds for cachers tend to be much beloved by them - not necessarily because they were great hides, but because the finders were still all aglow with the fresh discovery of geocaching. I'd rather go find something new.

To tell you the truth the more I think of about the more I'm inclined to agree with you. I'm going to place some new caches at or near the old hides but they will be mine. I think that would just be the best way to do it.

 

Thank you for all the advise and ideas that were offered.