Same cache, different number

[+spyderman]

I am writing this in response to those who log a cache twice. I had a multi-cache out that was not getting many hits but ended up at a very historic location, well in order to enlighten more folks to the local history I wanted to make this a regular cache. But then the almighty reviewer steps in and says I have to disable the multi and make a new cache at the same cords as the multi would have tken you to. Same cache, same cords just a different GC. When here comes a fellow who had found the cache by "phone a friend" so he jumped on this to claim another "number. Does this seem right, is it the cache or the "numbers" should this be allowed? What is your opinion?

[+TexasGringo]

It is a different GC number...so it could be considered another cache.

 

If I did a search and it came up as "New", then I'd probably go.

[+Rockin Roddy]

I'm assuming you replaced the logbook...if so, did this person sign the new logbook?

[+gpsfun]

There are two questions here.

 

If the character or design of a cache is changed significantly, such as changing a multistage cache to a single stage (traditional) cache, then a new cache page is in order. Since many persons are concerned with the numbers, finding a single stage cache should not count as finding a multistage cache.

 

The second question has already been answered - if it is a new cache, even at the same location as an archived cache, it counts as another find. This is not uncommon when a geocacher leaves the game, picking up and archiving their caches. Someone may place a new cache at or near a previously used location.

[Trinity's Crew]

It seems benign to me. Seriously, you'll probably get some more overlap from cachers who found it when it was a multi. Don't sweat it. It actually IS a different cache since you changed it.

Edited February 12, 2008 by Trinity's Crew

[+spyderman]

There are two questions here.

 

If the character or design of a cache is changed significantly, such as changing a multistage cache to a single stage (traditional) cache, then a new cache page is in order. Since many persons are concerned with the numbers, finding a single stage cache should not count as finding a multistage cache.

 

The second question has already been answered - if it is a new cache, even at the same location as an archived cache, it counts as another find. This is not uncommon when a geocacher leaves the game, picking up and archiving their caches. Someone may place a new cache at or near a previously used location.

Same cords, same container, same log book. Only difference is I wanted to make it a regular cache and reviewer wanted a new name (Miners dig it-Miners dig it #2) and GC.

[+The Leprechauns]

I would like my multicache statistics to reflect the multicaches I found. I would like to look back at that cache page and remember that hike from stage one to stage two, and the puzzle I had to solve to figure out where to go. A person who goes directly to stage two did not find the same cache.

 

Saying that it's the same cache is like saying that 1 = 2.

 

Your volunteer cache reviewer is just doing his or her job. I appreciate the effort to keep the records accurate.

[+Sagefox]

When here comes a fellow who had found the cache by "phone a friend" so he jumped on this to claim another "number. Does this seem right, is it the cache or the "numbers" should this be allowed? What is your opinion?

 

My opinion is that almost everyone will tell you that a new gc listing equals a new cache find regardless if it is the same container in the same location as the old one and someone previously found it. There is no other way to deal with this and be fair to people.

 

Some of my other opinions, which almost everyone might not agree with:

 

The "phone-a-friend" or any other method of being told where to find a cache container is irrelevant (something I've done about 16 times in 2600 finds). Being at the container site with the container present and, if possible, signing the log is what constitutes a cache find.

 

Finding a multi-cache final without doing the intermediate steps (which I often try to do because it is a fun challenge) only changes the experience. And it doesn't necessarily make it a lesser or even greater experience. It is just different.

Edited February 12, 2008 by Team Sagefox

[+briansnat]

Multi vs traditional is an entirely different experience. The reviewer was right to ask you to create a new listing.

 

The experience is different and the listing is different, so it's not really the same cache even if the container is the same. If people revisit it, they should be able to log a find.

Edited February 12, 2008 by briansnat

[Neos2]

If I had changed a cache from one type to another, I would have expected cachers who had done the previous cache would return to find the 'new' cache. Since I like to write the cache ID on my logbook, I probably would even have put out a fresh logbook.

 

Really, it would be the same thing as if you had archived your multi cache and later I put a single stage cache in the same place your final had been. The only difference is that you are/were the owner of both caches.

 

I'm not sure why you seem upset with the reviewer over the new cache ID, also? If the cache type changed because the hunt experience changed (traditional instead of multi), the reviewer was correct to provide a new cache ID. Think of it the other way around: Let's say I had a traditional cache there and you found it, then I archived that cache and someone else put a five-stage mystery cache out that had it's final in the same spot. Would you feel the reviewer should insist that the cache keep my old cache ID just because it had the same final location?

[+StarBrand]

Multi vs traditional is an entirely different experience. The reviewer was right to ask you to create a new listing.

 

The experience is different and the listing is different, so it's not really the same cache even if the container is the same. If people revisit it, they should be able to log a find.

Agreed fully.

[gonegeofishing]

Unltimately, are you introducing a greater number of cachers to a spot you think is cool? Enjoy all the new logs you recieve. I would.

[+ar_kayaker]

 

The "phone-a-friend" or any other method of being told where to find a cache container is irrelevant (something I've done about 16 times in 2600 finds). Being at the container site with the container present and, if possible, signing the log is what constitutes a cache find.

 

It might be irrelevant as to the archiving and re-submitting of this cache, but the "phone-a-friend" option is NOT geocaching, it's being told where to go to sign the log. You haven't really succeded at anything other than signing your name.

 

AK

[nobby.nobbs]

 

The "phone-a-friend" or any other method of being told where to find a cache container is irrelevant (something I've done about 16 times in 2600 finds). Being at the container site with the container present and, if possible, signing the log is what constitutes a cache find.

 

It might be irrelevant as to the archiving and re-submitting of this cache, but the "phone-a-friend" option is NOT geocaching, it's being told where to go to sign the log. You haven't really succeded at anything other than signing your name.

 

AK

 

IMO the object is to go out to where the cache is and see what there is around the cache. So asking a friend how to get to the location is fine. I'm useless at puzzle caches just can't do most of them, without help and often just the solution from friends I'd never end up doing them meaning that I miss out on seeing some excellent locations.

 

I'd have claimed the new one as I don't like having an unfound cache on a listing, new GC new cache.

 

Really though just relax and enjoy the fact that they thought it was worth the second trip wasn't that what you were hoping the achieve , more visitors?

[+OzGuff]

Since only two cachers have found the new/traditional version and only one of them also found the old/multi version, you must be talking about me! And, in my defense, I visited every stop for the multi, and some more than once. I called you once to verify the location of one of the stops as the info appeared to be missing. (It wasn't, but what I was looking for was not the same as listed on the cache page.) Once I was told to look for something different, I found it and continued on with the multi. Lots of driving and lots of fun!

 

And as those above have mentioned, the experience IS different! [And in this case it is even more so! Your listed coordinates for the new/traditional are on one side of the street and the cache is on the other side.]

 

But expect more cachers who found the original to also find/log the new. I don't think it is about the numbers; I think it is about finding caches.

 

Thanks for the caches!

[+Peconic Bay Sailors]

I would think, since it has a new Geocaching number...

It is essentially a new cache... regardless of the history...

It would show up on my search of "Caches nearby that I have not found"...

So deserves a new smiley... and a log as a new find is OK...

[+Stargazer22]

Since the cache is no longer a multicache, I believe that a new GC number was in order.

New finds and new logs are appropriate for the new GC number.

 

It's all good.

[+infiniteMPG]

Same cords, same container, same log book. Only difference is I wanted to make it a regular cache and reviewer wanted a new name (Miners dig it-Miners dig it #2) and GC.

New GC# = new cache and new finds. I have several caches that have gone missing and thru experience I made them tougher camo jobs in the same basic location. Hated depriving all the people who found it before from experiencing a totally new camo job (and even if they found it before, it's a totally new hide) so I archive the old one and create a new one. Nothing wrong with that and if you want to make it a challenge again for people who found it before, change the hide a bit so they're caught off guard

[+BlueDeuce]

Multi vs traditional is an entirely different experience. The reviewer was right to ask you to create a new listing.

 

The experience is different and the listing is different, so it's not really the same cache even if the container is the same. If people revisit it, they should be able to log a find.

Agreed fully.

 

fully Agreed.

[+briansnat]

One thing I learned. If it's a new listing, always put in a new log book. I did something similar to what the OP did changing a multi into a traditional. The old logbook only had a few entries in it, so I just re-used it and wrote the new GC number on the first blank page.

 

I was promptly reamed out by the FTF.

[+Shawn&Holly]

One thing I learned. If it's a new listing, always put in a new log book. I did something similar to what the OP did changing a multi into a traditional. The old logbook only had a few entries in it, so I just re-used it and wrote the new GC number on the first blank page.

 

I was promptly reamed out by the FTF.

I do agree that different cache type deserves a new listing and I would go and find the new listing even if I had found the original multi cache, with my memory, it would be a new cache as well . As for the new logbook, there are a few near me that have archived, picked up and relocated their cache, leaving the original logbook. We were FTF on one I think, I found it cool to read through the original entries, but then this was a really old original cache and the logs and names were actually on the historic side around here.

[+Prime Suspect]

As the cache owner, it was your right to determine whether or not people would be allowed to log it again. However, you should clearly note this on the cache page. If someone logs it who has already found it, as cache owner you are within your rights to delete those logs.

[+OzGuff]

As the cache owner, it was your right to determine whether or not people would be allowed to log it again. However, you should clearly note this on the cache page. If someone logs it who has already found it, as cache owner you are within your rights to delete those logs.

Here is the language from spyderman's new/traditional cache:

Some folks who have logged the original will probably log this for the "numbers" even tho it is in the same location. But to each their own.

Sounds like he has given de facto permission for previous finders to find it again.

[+Shawn&Holly]

Per the note on the cache page and if it were on my closest list, I would go and find it again, signing the log book again. I filter founds out of my PQ, if unfound, it would be loaded along with every other traditional cache nearby into my GPS. While I do like my numbers, the second trip to the cache would be the same for me, a reason to get out for a walk and fresh air with my family in an area I hope we enjoyed the first time around, thus the reason we go caching.