Redo existing or Archive and Publish new?

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

On the subject of refurbishing/upgrading existing geocache hides, whether that be out of necessity or just out of wanting to do it better, which is a better way to go about it:

 

Should the existing cache be archived and the improved be published as new, allowing the geocaching community to see the new cache (email notification) and giving people a chance to log a new find?

 

Should the existing cache be reworked, using the same cache page in the already approved location, and leave the reviewers alone so they don't have to review something that doesn't need to be reviewed?

 

This is, of course, assuming no major changes to theme, location or content are made.

 

- Elle

[+9Key]

 

This is, of course, assuming no major changes to theme, location or content are made.

 

- Elle

No changes to the location or content? Then why create a new cache? Just so your locals and log another smiley?

[+StarBrand]

If you move the cache more than 100 feet (or so) and change the container type or style of hide. Its a new GC number.

 

New container like the old one in the same spot = same GC with a maintenance log.

[+Renegade Knight]

On the subject of refurbishing/upgrading existing geocache hides, whether that be out of necessity or just out of wanting to do it better, which is a better way to go about it:...

 

Same cache experience = same listing.

 

If you change the cache expereince that's a new listing.

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

If you move the cache more than 100 feet (or so) and change the container type or style of hide. Its a new GC number.

 

New container like the old one in the same spot = same GC with a maintenance log.

 

Mix those variables up a bit.

 

Example: Fire Tower (GC1ADR8)

This used to be a micro. It was a poorly done thing and, like all other poorly done things, it died and the log suffered. It was actually riddled with termites when I did the full replacement. It is now a Regular and very nicely set up. Coords are the same. It's just better now. Fire Tower is done and I've handled it how I've handled it, but I am curious what the general consensus is for situations like this for the future.

 

Should this have been done the way that I did it? Or should I have provided geocachers with another opportunity to find/experience using the archive/publish process?

 

- Elle

[Clan Riffster]

Should this have been done the way that I did it?

For me, changing from a micro to a regular would've rated a new GC number. If for some reason I opted to change the size of the container, utilizing the same GC number, I would've edited out the initial post stating that it was a micro. In the upper part of the paragraph I would identify the existing container, and somewhere toward the bottom I would've added an excerpt discussing the history and the changes I made.

 

Neither way is "right", and the method you employed is not "wrong", it's just not how I would've done it.

[CoyoteRed]

Personally, I think it refreshing that someone replaced a micro with a regular. It's usually the other way around.

 

I think the way you did it was fine. It does change the finder's stats: one less micro and one more regular. But those of us who cache for the experience and not the stats won't care.

 

One thing I don't care for from a finder's point of view is someone drawing me back to an nondescript location for a nondescript cache simply because the owner thought the smilie was worth more than the experience.

[+Lag Pins]

We had done that cache back in August, and it definitely was a great area that needed better than what was there. We enjoyed the tower and even having the water right near by, but when we logged our visit, the log was basically pulp. We may revisit the cache area the next time we're up there to help keep a steady TB stream go through.

 

As to whether or not we need another smilie.....what you have done is perfectly fine with chaning the size and keeping it as the same GC. There really isn't a right or wrong, and if people complain, oh well.

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

Clan Riffster:

For me, changing from a micro to a regular would've rated a new GC number. If for some reason I opted to change the size of the container, utilizing the same GC number, I would've edited out the initial post stating that it was a micro. In the upper part of the paragraph I would identify the existing container, and somewhere toward the bottom I would've added an excerpt discussing the history and the changes I made.

 

For some reason, I never caught that I was still telling people they were looking for a micro. I struck that text. Thanks for pointing it out!

 

Lag Pins:

We had done that cache back in August, and it definitely was a great area that needed better than what was there. We enjoyed the tower and even having the water right near by, but when we logged our visit, the log was basically pulp. We may revisit the cache area the next time we're up there to help keep a steady TB stream go through.

 

It was absolutely horrible and there's no excuse. It's a good lesson for why hides should never be done this way. Your log was extremely polite for what you found! I am glad you enjoyed the area and that you're willing to come back to help circulate TBs.

 

- Elle

Edited November 18, 2008 by Redneck Parrotheads

[Skippermark]

I don't like it when caches get changed that effect terrain/difficulty ratings. Changing the size doesn't matter much to me. We found a cache in a tree that was rated a 4. Problems developed later on, and the owner brought the container down to ground level and lowered the terrain to a 1.5.

 

That's a bummer if you're using that cache for one of the grids in a matrix.