Can I edit cache type?

[+limpfish]

I had a short series which gave clues to a mystery/puzzle final. Other caches now closed, final still in place. Would be nice to just convert final into a regular cache so those that haven't found it get a chance to. If I archive the final and reopen as a new cache I just know all the locals will refind for the numbers. Seems mad that I can't just convert it to a regular but the option is greyed out!?

Edited January 18, 2009 by limpfish

[+KoosKoos]

If I found the original cache, the original way, and received a count in my "mystery" cache count, why does it make sense to change that type?

 

You're fundamentally changing the experience of the cache, so I'd recommend archiving it. It's no longer the cache you placed (even though the final location and container is the same).

 

Archive the existing listing and if you'd like to relist the final location, go for it. If you're worried about previous finders having fun visiting the location again "just for the numbers", move it to a different location as you're changing things out.

[+Tequila]

If I found the original cache, the original way, and received a count in my "mystery" cache count, why does it make sense to change that type?

 

You're fundamentally changing the experience of the cache, so I'd recommend archiving it. It's no longer the cache you placed (even though the final location and container is the same).

 

Archive the existing listing and if you'd like to relist the final location, go for it. If you're worried about previous finders having fun visiting the location again "just for the numbers", move it to a different location as you're changing things out.

 

Good advice.

[+limpfish]

move it to a different location as you're changing things out.

 

Well, the point was that I'm not trying to change things about. It's is the same physical cache with same log, same items, same hiding place, same clue. I can edit everything about it, even change its location and title, just not its type.

 

If I found the original cache, the original way, and received a count in my "mystery" cache count, why does it make sense to change that type?

 

Hmm... Suppose you're right. I'll archive and relist the exact same cache, there'll be awkward FTFs and refinds in a log book that's already half full - that'll be fun to watch.

[Neos2]

Perhaps I am not understanding you? If the spot is that great that you want to keep it, I would think that you would also want to encourage the locals to have a good reason to go back there again.

 

I don't understand why you seem disdainful of the local cachers who might want to go after the "new" cache in the area.

 

You want to leave the final portion of a cache just as it is now and relist it as a "new" cache, right? Without changing the experience in any way, including not even putting in a fresh log book?

 

Some folks like to keep their radius clear. If a cache appears there with a new GC number, many of them will see it as "fair game" and go back to the cache again. Of course, it won't be much fun for them, considering there is nothing new there to see--In fact, their name will already be in the "old" logbook.

 

I don't understand why you wouldn't want to go out there and make a few changes. A new logbook at the bare minimum, to avoid all the confusion about whether a person has already found it or not and to get the new GC on the cache. If it were mine, I would also change something else about the experience, just to entertain the folks who did find it before. It doesn't have to be anything radical---perhaps a slightly different placement (placed up high if it used to be down low) or in a different container and moved a bit away from where it was hidden before.

 

We have a lot of local caches put out by new cachers in locations that were used in the past by some of the early cachers. If you think about it, this isn't much different--it's just that you are the owner of both the original cache in that spot and the new cache.

[+limpfish]

Perhaps I am not understanding you? If the spot is that great that you want to keep it, I would think that you would also want to encourage the locals to have a good reason to go back there again.

No, the spot is quite boring. What is interesting about the location is that it contains a geocache that I thought some people (who had missed the chance before) might want to grab.

 

You want to leave the final portion of a cache just as it is now and relist it as a "new" cache, right?

No, certainly not. I just want to update to final coords (easy) and change the type from mystery to regular (no can do), it is not a new cache.

 

Some folks like to keep their radius clear. If a cache appears there with a new GC number, many of them will see it as "fair game" and go back to the cache again. Of course, it won't be much fun for them, considering there is nothing new there to see--In fact, their name will already be in the "old" logbook.

 

Indeed! You seem to have stumbled on my point exactly! It isn't a new cache. In fact absolutely nothing about it is new. You're right, it won't be much fun. It is the same boring old cache that they've already found. So why do I have to repost it as if it is new, knowing that doing so will recall all the old cachers right on back, kinda wasting their time.

 

I don't understand why you wouldn't want to go out there and make a few changes.

 

Why?

It's perfectly fine as it is

It isn't a new cache.

I'm lazy...

 

A new logbook at the bare minimum, to avoid all the confusion about whether a person has already found it or not.

Surely that would add to confusion? Anyway, never mind. I'm just going to archive it and forget all about it. I was just trying to be a considerate geocacher and open this up for new cachers that hadn't already found it. But *** it

Edited January 18, 2009 by limpfish

[+niraD]

Indeed! You seem to have stumbled on my point exactly! It isn't a new cache. In fact absolutely nothing about it is new.

I disagree. Before, it was a Mystery/Puzzle final that required finding several Traditional caches in a series. The new cache would be a Traditional cache at the posted coordinates. Those are very different caching experiences.

 

I know you've decided to just archive it, but for the benefit of anyone else reading...

 

I'd post a note to the Mystery/Puzzle final, announcing that I planned to archive it. This gives anyone who is working on the series a chance to finish it, assuming that they've already found the now-missing Traditional caches, and need to find only caches in the series that are still there. After archiving the Mystery/Puzzle final, I'd submit a new Traditional cache.

Edited January 18, 2009 by niraD

[+limpfish]

Indeed! You seem to have stumbled on my point exactly! It isn't a new cache. In fact absolutely nothing about it is new. You're right, it won't be much fun. It is the same boring old cache that they've already found.

I disagree. Before, it was a Mystery/Puzzle... The new cache would be a Traditional cache... Those are very different caching experiences.

 

You think? Lets say I archive it then instantly relist it as a brand new traditional - oh but it's in the same place, park in the same layby, walk the same muddy path, turn over the same rock, open the same box, flick through the same log to find your name already in it -- I dunno, I might start to recognise some similarities to a previous caching experience.

[+The Blorenges]

We've dealt with this situation a couple of times: To archive totally, or do a new cache at the same spot? Generally, the reviewers will not simply change the cache type (and for good reasons).

 

It's the nature of this game that once mystery/puzzle caches have been found by your local cachers then the 'find rate' for the caches drops off as then casual visitors to the area tend to do the straightforward Trad caches.

 

A couple of ours we had no hesitation in archiving because they had served their purpose and we were happy to free up that location for any one else to use (they haven't, as yet ).

 

But then there was Slimy. Our Slimy Trail multi had come to the end of its natural cachelife, but I couldn't bear to part with the 'final container', he was too cute. So I archived the multi but gave Slimy a new lease of life by creating "Slimy's home".

 

Yes, it's a similar cache experience in that it's a trad in the same spot as the previous multi cache but it's in an interesting area which is well worth a second visit. I've made it clear on the cache description that it's "Slimy re-visited" and from their appreciative logs it seems folks are happy to get another smiley from him.

 

MrsB

[+Great Scott!]

Simple fix:

Edit the final cache page and give the answer for the archived cache. Cachers will still be required to visit the other cache to figure out the other half of the coordinates.

[AZcachemeister]

As has already been stated, I would NOT appreciate a cache I found as one type to be changed to another type.

Given the bumper-crop of 'Fizzy Challenge' caches popping up, just changing the terrain or difficulty ratings can earn you an in-box full of hate-mail.

I would, however, most likely be quite interested to re-find it if it has been re-listed as a 'new' cache, and I would strongly suggest you replace the log if it is re-listed.

 

I live in a capitol of mundane caches, so I wouldn't be too concerned about that aspect of the issue.

[+WRASTRO]

Indeed! You seem to have stumbled on my point exactly! It isn't a new cache. In fact absolutely nothing about it is new. You're right, it won't be much fun. It is the same boring old cache that they've already found.

I disagree. Before, it was a Mystery/Puzzle... The new cache would be a Traditional cache... Those are very different caching experiences.

 

You think? Lets say I archive it then instantly relist it as a brand new traditional - oh but it's in the same place, park in the same layby, walk the same muddy path, turn over the same rock, open the same box, flick through the same log to find your name already in it -- I dunno, I might start to recognise some similarities to a previous caching experience.

Seems like this should be a pretty straight forward question. You can't change the type of cache because that affects everyone who found the cache before you decided it needed to be changed (for whatever reason it needs to be changed). TPTB understand this and won't let you do it. If you don't see any value in creating a new cache for the final location then archive it and move on. If you think it is a location worthy of having a cache then archive the original and list a new cache. If it is a boring old cache then why would you want to keep something going at that spot anyway?

[+limpfish]

If it is a boring old cache then why would you want to keep something going at that spot anyway?

'boring old cache' for those that would be compelled to refind it...

 

I would, however, most likely be quite interested to re-find it if it has been re-listed as a 'new' cache,

Wwwwwwhy? This is my problem. I simply cannot get my head round refinding the same 'boring old' cache. At what point do you stop refinding? At what point does 'caching experience' become more important than refinding the same cache, unless you're just after quick refinds for the numbers, I guess.

 

You can't change the type of cache because that affects everyone who found the cache

 

As has already been stated, I would NOT appreciate a cache I found as one type to be changed to another type.

Ok, sorry, I get the picture - though maybe I'm being an absolute idiot, I still don't understand why type is any more important to you than any other attribute. Unless it's just that type fundamentally upsets the precious stats in some way or another, and changing it would invoke scary geocache paradox to your archive perhaps, but then what about difficulty, size, actual location? They would too I suppose, but probably less so.. or not? Who knows, or cares. bah.

Edited January 19, 2009 by limpfish

[+tomturtle]

This happens too often with both puzzles and multis where the earlier stages disappear and the owner wants to keep the final around. The situation is bad for the finders because either I lose my multi or puzzle find if they change the cache type or I end up with a cache on my to do list that I essentially have already found. I usually end up going out and logging it again to get it off the list, but it is not that much fun to go find it again. I could put it on my ignore list, but I try to keep those to a minimum.

 

It would be nice if the cache owners would just archive the caches, pick up their container and hide it elsewhere for a totally different caching experience for the finders. Those that didn't find it first time round had their chance and if I am one of those who didn't get out there to find it, that is OK with me. I'm perfectly happy just to find the new one.

[+Zor]

Although this may not be a popular solution, why not just change the coords of the "puzzle" cache to be the final location, and indicate that at one time it was a real mystery cache but is no longer. The coords posted are in fact the coords to the final.

 

All local cachers aren't going to bother with it since it's off their radar anyway and new folks will have an easy unknown cache to get.

 

If the locals don't like the fact you've "changed" the experience, then that's their problem, not yours. It's your cache. Do what you want with it.

[Keystone]

Although this may not be a popular solution, why not just change the coords of the "puzzle" cache to be the final location, and indicate that at one time it was a real mystery cache but is no longer. The coords posted are in fact the coords to the final.

This would no longer meet the requirements for a mystery/unknown cache, would it? Thus, it's subject to archival for being modified post-publication. No different than saying "the container went missing, so this is now a virtual."

[+tozainamboku]

I would, however, most likely be quite interested to re-find it if it has been re-listed as a 'new' cache,

Wwwwwwhy? This is my problem. I simply cannot get my head round refinding the same 'boring old' cache. At what point do you stop refinding? At what point does 'caching experience' become more important than refinding the same cache, unless you're just after quick refinds for the numbers, I guess.

You seem to be overly concerned about other people's find count. So what if you relist it as a new cache and the people who already found it log it again? If some who found it before does not want to find "the same old boring cache", they aren't compelled to find this one (unless they have some silly personal rule to "find" all the caches in their area). If they are premium members, they can even ignore the cache.

You can't change the type of cache because that affects everyone who found the cache

 

As has already been stated, I would NOT appreciate a cache I found as one type to be changed to another type.

Ok, sorry, I get the picture - though maybe I'm being an absolute idiot, I still don't understand why type is any more important to you than any other attribute. Unless it's just that type fundamentally upsets the precious stats in some way or another, and changing it would invoke scary geocache paradox to your archive perhaps, but then what about difficulty, size, actual location? They would too I suppose, but probably less so.. or not? Who knows, or cares. bah.

I tend to agree that changing the type of the cache doesn't really affect the people who found it in the original configuration. However, there are these silly challenge caches that require you to find different cache types and if the cache type is changed that could mean that a person trying to complete a challenge is left with the wrong type cache.

 

The simple response is that it used to be easy to change the type of your cache and also to move it more than .1 miles after it was published. This capability was abused. Before virtuals were grandfathered, it was common for people to change their caches to virtual cache if the container went missing. Some people would keep the same name and container and move their caches around from place to place - without getting reviewed to see the new location met the guidelines. The site changed what was allowed. Sometimes a reviewer can make the change for you. However, the reviewers have started to take the position that any substantial change is a new cache.

 

Although this may not be a popular solution, why not just change the coords of the "puzzle" cache to be the final location, and indicate that at one time it was a real mystery cache but is no longer. The coords posted are in fact the coords to the final.

This would no longer meet the requirements for a mystery/unknown cache, would it? Thus, it's subject to archival for being modified post-publication. No different than saying "the container went missing, so this is now a virtual."

There is nothing about the mystery/unknown type that says it can't be at the posted coordinates or that the puzzle can't be a trivial "The cache is at the following coordinates". I don't think this would violate the guidelines for a mystery/unknown cache the way turning a traditional into some sort of virtual would. If the reviewers and Groundspeak want to have requirements on the difficulty of a puzzle or that mystery/unknown caches can't be at the posted coordinates or even that you can't substantially change the puzzle once the cache is published they are going to have to change the guidelines first. Edited January 19, 2009 by tozainamboku

[jholly]

I'll throw my $0.02 in. Changing in mid stream in my opinion is not cool. I adopted a cache that was listed as a D/T 3/3. I reality it is more like a 1.5/1.5-2. I could have easily changed the D/T rating but it would distort all the previous loggers history. I left it as is but added a note to the description. Your changing the whole caching experience, therefore I think a new cache is warranted. If your to lazy to go out an put a new logbook in the cache perhaps the correct action to take is archive it and be done with it. Can't be any lazier than that.

 

Jim

[+Markwell]

I don't see changing difficulty and terrain in the same vein as changing type. If you have a cache with a difficulty and terrain mislabeled (especially under-rated), it becomes a safety issue.

Heck, this is only rated at a 1.5 terrain. There must be a path down this muddy slope. I think it's just over that rise - AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHhhhhhhh

[+WRASTRO]

If it is a boring old cache then why would you want to keep something going at that spot anyway?

'boring old cache' for those that would be compelled to refind it...

 

I would, however, most likely be quite interested to re-find it if it has been re-listed as a 'new' cache,

Wwwwwwhy? This is my problem. I simply cannot get my head round refinding the same 'boring old' cache. At what point do you stop refinding? At what point does 'caching experience' become more important than refinding the same cache, unless you're just after quick refinds for the numbers, I guess.

 

You can't change the type of cache because that affects everyone who found the cache

 

As has already been stated, I would NOT appreciate a cache I found as one type to be changed to another type.

Ok, sorry, I get the picture - though maybe I'm being an absolute idiot, I still don't understand why type is any more important to you than any other attribute. Unless it's just that type fundamentally upsets the precious stats in some way or another, and changing it would invoke scary geocache paradox to your archive perhaps, but then what about difficulty, size, actual location? They would too I suppose, but probably less so.. or not? Who knows, or cares. bah.

Quick and easy answer (hopefully). Lots of people keep stats and changing the cache size or type could potentially change the stats for lots of people. Lots of people care and lots of people don't. For those who care it does make a difference.

[+Dgwphotos]

It's not possible to do that. Once the cache has been published, the cache type pulldown menu is greyed out and locked.

[+limpfish]

It's not possible to do that. Once the cache has been published, the cache type pulldown menu is greyed out and locked.

 

I noticed.

[Neos2]

Indeed! You seem to have stumbled on my point exactly! It isn't a new cache. In fact absolutely nothing about it is new. You're right, it won't be much fun. It is the same boring old cache that they've already found.

I disagree. Before, it was a Mystery/Puzzle... The new cache would be a Traditional cache... Those are very different caching experiences.

 

You think? Lets say I archive it then instantly relist it as a brand new traditional - oh but it's in the same place, park in the same layby, walk the same muddy path, turn over the same rock, open the same box, flick through the same log to find your name already in it -- I dunno, I might start to recognise some similarities to a previous caching experience.

I know you've already said you are lazy...but...

 

I looked at the cache in question. It looks like it's at one end of a perfectly serviceable walking path, with loads of trees about. It's probably a nice enough spot for a geocache.

 

If it were my cache, I'd archive the old cache and list a new one. I'd move the container to a new spot (there must be dozens of suitable places about), I'd add a new logbook. I might even trade out to a new container (I know, that is starting to verge on madness and it might even sound like far too much effort!). I'd even get credit for hiding yet one more cache.

 

Otherwise, I'd just go pick up my old cache and archive it--and let someone else have the spot for their hide. Then I'd be able to go find a new cache there.

 

I understand why you don't want the folks who have already found that particular "end experience" cache to find it again, but I do not understand why you don't want them to be able to find a different geocache in that general area?

 

You've been at this game long enough to know that caches get archived and later some new person puts another cache in almost the same spot. Sometimes the new hide is eerily similar to the one that was there before it, other times it is amusing to see how creatively the new cache owner uses the spot.

 

This may not be your intention, but you seem unwilling to let go of that location and that mystifies me. It can't be just to keep that spot for yourself, or you would have already made the change and put out the new cache. Am I missing something?

Edited January 25, 2009 by Neos2

[+webscouter.]

Am I the only one who read this thread and wondered why a cache owner would want to keep a self proclaimed "boring cache" in a spot that is "is quite boring" on a "muddy path"?

 

I would think that better time would be spent creating a new "exciting cache" in a spot that is "spectacular" on a "great trail"

[+paleolith]

This would no longer meet the requirements for a mystery/unknown cache, would it?

Hnn? I'm with toz -- where is a mystery cache required to include some element not allowed for a traditional cache? Allowed yes, but required, not that I know of. As for the coordinates, I own two Mystery caches which are located at the published coordinates. In fact, the description emphasizes this to avoid confusion. They are ALRs. Anything which makes a cache ineligible for Traditional drops it into Mystery -- including, in my mind, a history of being a Mystery.

 

To the OP: don't worry too much about "awkward FTFs". Those who don't want to find it again, won't. Those who don't feel awkward about it, will find it.

 

The first cache I placed was in the same spot as a popular one which had been abandoned by its owner and archived. When I placed it, I wondered whether the local cachers would treat it as a new cache. They emphatically did, with the FTF a couple of hours after publication, and I think all the regulars in the area have now revisited it. Often with comments of "I was here before" and the like, but no disapproval voiced.

 

Edward

[+StaticTank]

I didn't read all of the responses so I apologize if this has been suggested. Archive the original and make a new one with the same container just replace the log.

 

StaticTank