True treasure hunt about to be archived.

7.2k · February 27, 2010

This cache is about to be archived. Go take a look to get a feel of the cache.

Some points:

Last found: almost 6 years ago.
Very remote cache for the Eastern Seaboard. It's hard to have very remote caches this side of the country and I believe this very much qualifies. Not near a major cacher population and a 30 minute motor boat ride in good weather from the nearest ramp.
Absentee owner. Community-based maintenance.
In an ammo can and hidden in vines. It's safe, dry, and secure.
Those that have attempted this cache and failed aren't (weren't) experienced cachers.
The person requested the archival has only logged 10 caches none of which are remotely difficult. He hasn't even attempted the cache, or apparently any cache outside Arizona for that matter.

I have high confidence this cache is still completely viable including dry contents (which is better than a lot caches we find right?). It hasn't been attempted by any serious experienced adventures in a long while. It's sitting there patiently waiting for the next worthy finder.

I know of several cachers who have been trying to plan a trip out there. I'm hoping they didn't procrastinate long enough to see it archived due to, basically, apparent lack of interest, a busy-body with no cause to put his nose where it didn't belong, and an absentee owner of a community-maintained cache.

Oh, and the timing of the archival is really wonderful, as well. You're not going to want to get on that water this time of the year. You have to wade the last bit to get to the beach. A month in February to check on a boat and wading required cache? That's simply not feasible.

Note: Before you ask, I no longer have a motor boat otherwise I would have been out there. Human powered should only by attempted by serious sea kayak enthusiasts, which I'm not.

Fodder for the archival button? Setting the upper limit of age of last find before a cache is no longer a viable cache? Can a cache be too hard?

EDIT TO ADD: By "true treasure hunt" I mean a cache that is not found very often, you don't know it is really there (part of the thrill), and, well, the antithesis of a PnG.

Edited February 27, 2010 by CoyoteRed

February 27, 2010

Just amazing. The archive'er has never attempted to look for the cache. Just assumes its not there.

8.6k · February 27, 2010

Compelling argument.

Just how is it that somebody many miles away, never even having attempted the cache, have any rights whatsoever to file an SBA? Based solely upon what other people have logged?

February 27, 2010

Just a very quick 2p's worth or cents as it is in America.

It does not meet the cache maintenance guidelines it has to go.

As the cache owner, you are also responsible for physically checking your cache periodically,

If people give up caching or a 'long break' they should either get them adopted or archive them otherwise it sets a bad example.

February 27, 2010

Makes for a good case that if you don't reside in the state or town that the cache is in.You shouldn't be allowed to log a SBA but you could log a NM log.just a thought

7.9k · February 27, 2010

I suspect there are more than a few such caches just waiting to end up in a similar situation.

Too bad a 12-14 Y/O kid went poking around where he had no business...yes, I know him.

I wonder if the OP would be quite so passionate if they weren't the ones having done the 'community maintenance'?

3.2k · February 27, 2010

7 weeks of experience and 3000 miles away and he submits a SBA? I'd think the local reviewers would consider the source and leave it up until a local cacher can check it out.

2k · February 27, 2010

No active owner. It probably should be archived but I wouldn't have posted a SBA from afar.

6.1k · February 27, 2010

*sigh*

Perhaps we could have an automatic system in place which would archive caches once the owner hasn't logged on in a year. Many remote caches which haven't been found in awhile, would never be found.

However there would be a very sharp increase of archived caches that are never removed, which could then inspire some Leave No Trace folks to remove many more active caches themselves..

4.8k · February 27, 2010

Mixed feelings.

People shouldn't armchair log SBA notes.

Cache owners should pick up their toys when they are done.

The community can only maintain a cache, not save it.

Reviewers should "consider the source" especially when armchair SBA's are posted.

A cache that has no owner will go away eventually.

An abandoned, yet still viable, cache that gets archived can easily be "adopted" after it's archived if you just give it a new GC##### (in other words, submit the old cache as a new cache after it's archived)

If a CO cares about their cache, no matter how old or historic it is, the CO would take steps to insure it's survival.

There should be a minimum age limit and/or find count for submitting SBA logs (or at least for reviewers to take them seriously.

And last, but not least, if a cache is in a particularly difficult to access location, there should be extra time allowed for checking on a cache before archival.

8k · February 27, 2010

Just a very quick 2p's worth or cents as it is in America.

It does not meet the cache maintenance guidelines it has to go.

As the cache owner, you are also responsible for physically checking your cache periodically,

If people give up caching or a 'long break' they should either get them adopted or archive them otherwise it sets a bad example.

When Groundspeak announce the policy that non-consensual adoptions would no longer be allowed, I specifically asked as question about caches being maintained by the community. If a cache is findable and the regular maintenance (replacing logs, replacing container if damaged or missing, etc.) is being done by other cachers would the cache be archived? Bryan replied as follows

Generally, if someone reports that a cache needs maintenance and then someone from the community reports that the maintenance has been completed, I believe that it is well within the volunteer reviewer's discretion to remove the needs maintenance attribute. That said, there are a variety of other reasons why the cache owner would need to be involved in active maintenance of the cache (land permit renewals, for example) and if the cache owner is unable to perform those functions, then I believe that it would be proper, and within the discretion of the volunteer reviewer, to archive the cache. Note that this is being written with a view towards providing discretion to the reviewers so that they can best handle the wide variety of cache maintenance related issues. But, it does not stand to say that because a cache needs maintenance and the owner is absent that it 'must' be archived.

So the fact that an owner has left the game does not necessarily mean the cache must be archived.

One problem with this cache is that it hasn't been found in nearly six years. Partly that is because is it hard to get to. However there are two DNF's that are somewhat difficult to interpret. One cacher claims to have not found the item in the hint. It seems likely that the location had changes somewhat over the years, so even if the cache is here in may be difficult to find. The other log, by a cacher with zero finds, indicates they left a replacement cache buried at some new waypoint.

I can't see the point in archiving this cache, even with a absent owner. It isn't blocking someone from placing another cache. It likely isn't showing up on anyone's nearest unfound list. It certainly isn't showing up on bobair1's nearest unfound list. It might as well be a cache on the International Space Station. Except that a few people might actually decide to take boat out to the cache site and look for it. Caches that get visited so rarely are often a special adventure for those that seek them. So much so that it doesn't even matter if they find the cache. The adventure of looking for it is enough.

However, Groundspeak has made it clear that there must be a cache to find and they have in the past archived caches like this if there was evidence the cache was missing. The couple of DNFs may be enough to indicate to the reviewer this cache is missing. I didn't check, but given the location there could have been a hurricane or other severe storm in the past six years and even an ammo can might not have survived the storm surge. Hopefully, gpsfun will allow more than on month for someone from the community to check this cache when a trip out to the location is more reasonable. Or better will decide that there isn't real evidence this cache is missing and it doesn't need to be archived.

Unfortunately, newbie cachers often see the effects of caches abandoned by cache owners who have left the game. When they are asked what to do about there are told to post a Needs Archive. Some then take it upon themselves to post Needs Archiving for caches in other parts of the world when they discover the cache owner hasn't logged in for a while. Reviewers ought to consider the source of these Needs Archive notes before taking action.

2.4k · February 27, 2010

Interesting to note, that in addition to the OP(s?) there was another container with new coordinates

posted August 24, 2008 by marsjess (0 found). Not that find counts are important all the time, but

the description says a bit... aside from not matching the OP's. Sounds like a good box to recover with or without the OP's ammo box. Sorry I'm not likely to get out there... my kind of cache! Lost cause...

On the other hand life might someday let my see my sister, up in Rowesville, not that far away... just need money and a passport, possibly appropriate securtity clearance, a boat of some sort... etc.

Seriously, is there any chance a storm ate away the shore? There have been a few over the years.

As to archiving, it's an older cache, but sounds a bit like a classic, at least worth preserving... Of course, there is nothing to stop you from waiting patiently. Then reposting the cache in SnC name... after verifying of course.. and finding that other box, buried out there.

Doug

February 27, 2010

Seems like the proper way to deal with this, if the OP really feels strongly, is to let the archive happen, then go check the container, and post a new cache in the same spot. If it feels right, then talk about the original in the new cache description.

A cache needs someone to maintain it- I would argue against archiving them just because they haven't been found (though I know it's been done), but I have no argument with archiving them if someone won't step up and own them.

February 27, 2010

Hey, since it's not going to be "found" anytime soon, lets sba the cache on the ISS! =P

6.1k · February 27, 2010

Hey, since it's not going to be "found" anytime soon, lets sba the cache on the ISS! =P

So should the Russians run out to do maintenence and verify it's existence for Mr Garriot? What if it was muggled by aliens? What if the Chinese place a throwdown film can in it's place? So many questions..

3.8k · February 27, 2010

Two of my favorite finds have been caches just like this one. Both in Sitka Alaska.

One of them http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GCA78B hadn't been found in three years. After I found it many others started looking for it.

The other one http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC68 hadn't been found in four years.

Both of them took some careful looking to find and both of them had owners that hadn't looked at them in a while

I say keep the cache.

10.1k · February 27, 2010

I agree. There are no grounds for archiving this cache. No valid DNFs. No reason to think that it might not still be there. Keep this cache active!

2.4k · February 27, 2010

Hey, since it's not going to be "found" anytime soon, lets sba the cache on the ISS! =P

I bet a lot more people visit the ISS, including tourists!

Doug

5.8k · February 27, 2010

Hey, since it's not going to be "found" anytime soon, lets sba the cache on the ISS! =P

I bet a lot more people visit the ISS, including tourists!

Doug

That's true. Just because not many people are likely to visit just for that, doesn't mean that none will find it, and maybe even come here to log the find. I'm guessing they have already found it.

3.3k · February 27, 2010

I agree. There are no grounds for archiving this cache. No valid DNFs. No reason to think that it might not still be there. Keep this cache active!

+1

5.8k · February 27, 2010

I agree. There are no grounds for archiving this cache. No valid DNFs. No reason to think that it might not still be there. Keep this cache active!

+1

+1

2k · February 28, 2010

I about spit soda all over the computer when I saw the name of the kid who logged the 'NA'. I haven't met him, but his actions here in AZ (and now in SC) suggest he could learn a little geo-ettiquette. I gave him one lesson via e-mail because he was posting invalid logs on one of my caches. He's probably a great kid he just doesn't know what he's doing.

I think the cache should stay active.

18.9k · February 28, 2010

I hope all the extra time needed will be granted to prove it is still a viable experience.

February 28, 2010

The individual who posted the NA had one of his two caches archived involuntarily. Maybe he was trying to spread the pain.

I agree that it sounds like a really interesting cache. Practically though, unless someone could go find it, it probably will be archived. Maybe a new listing with a new owner is the best way to resolve the situation.

Or we could all just post armchair finds. ; )

I agree. There are no grounds for archiving this cache. No valid DNFs. No reason to think that it might not still be there. Keep this cache active!

+1

+1

4.8k · February 28, 2010

The individual who posted the NA had one of his two caches archived involuntarily. Maybe he was trying to spread the pain.

I agree that it sounds like a really interesting cache. Practically though, unless someone could go find it, it probably will be archived. Maybe a new listing with a new owner is the best way to resolve the situation.

Or we could all just post armchair finds. ; )

You make a valid argument for why the reviewers should back off of archiving viable caches, just because the owners aren't around and the cache hasn't been found in a long time.

This behavior encourages armchair caching since the logger won't have to worry about having their log deleted. People would be logging armchair just to keep caches alive.

Hmmm. Something to ponder.

5.8k · February 28, 2010

The individual who posted the NA had one of his two caches archived involuntarily. Maybe he was trying to spread the pain.

I agree that it sounds like a really interesting cache. Practically though, unless someone could go find it, it probably will be archived. Maybe a new listing with a new owner is the best way to resolve the situation.

Or we could all just post armchair finds. ; )

Oh?? Looks like only an error needs to be corrected to get that one back up and running. I emailed the guy with a note that he can get his Cache page fixed and relisted. Hopefully he will work on it.

Edited February 28, 2010 by WRITE SHOP ROBERT

19k · February 28, 2010

CR... your note on the cache page is awesome, and is sure to help, but have you also tried emailing GPSFUN directly with your concerns? I think the odds are good that he'd be willing to listen, at least, and hopefully engage in a dialog with you before pulling the trigger.

February 28, 2010

Seems like the proper way to deal with this, if the OP really feels strongly, is to let the archive happen, then go check the container, and post a new cache in the same spot. If it feels right, then talk about the original in the new cache description.

In that situation, if the container is found to be still in place, the reviewer would probably un-archive it.

As for archiving caches whose owners haven't checked them per the guidelines, I have about 900,000 candidates. While I don't propose changing the guidelines, many caches, probably the majority, don't need checkups on the recommended schedule.

Edward

4.2k · February 28, 2010

while it seems to be a wonderful cache, since the owner has not logged in the website for 6 years, it should be archived and the OP than can place a new one

the reason hasn't been found in 6 years is due to difficulty of accessing it, also from the location sounds like there is a very high chance the container is not accessible, sand has a bad habit of moving quite fast and covering up anything in its path, in 6 years there would have been a lot of movement

unless someone goes and checks on this cache and posts a note as to the availability of it, i don't think its fair to have people plan and travel there for nothing

5.3k · February 28, 2010

Seems like the proper way to deal with this, if the OP really feels strongly, is to let the archive happen, then go check the container, and post a new cache in the same spot. If it feels right, then talk about the original in the new cache description.

And lose a nice bit of caching history in the meantime.

Old, difficult, classic caches like this one deserve the benefit of the doubt. If it's not interfering with another placement and it's not been DNFed legitimately, I'd leave it be.

5.8k · February 28, 2010

Seems like the proper way to deal with this, if the OP really feels strongly, is to let the archive happen, then go check the container, and post a new cache in the same spot. If it feels right, then talk about the original in the new cache description.

I just can't understand where this kind of thinking comes from. Oh, look the Liberty Bell is cracked, we should just make a copy and throw it away. Just because an owner appears to be missing from the site should not be reason enough to archive a Cache. The truth is probably that the one who posted that note is just lashing out for whatever reason. The reviewers should be able to see that for themselves.

5.8k · February 28, 2010

Seems like the proper way to deal with this, if the OP really feels strongly, is to let the archive happen, then go check the container, and post a new cache in the same spot. If it feels right, then talk about the original in the new cache description.

A cache needs someone to maintain it- I would argue against archiving them just because they haven't been found (though I know it's been done), but I have no argument with archiving them if someone won't step up and own them.

What stepping up is needed here?? There's never even a note that anything is wrong with the Cache.

Do you even see the contradiction in your statement??

"If you really think it shouldn't be archived, then you should let it be archived" Umm...What???

4.8k · February 28, 2010

Comparing a cache to the liberty bell is a hyperbole.

A cache listing has very little historical value. If it had historical value, you would think the creator would do something to protect it.

This sentimental attachment to ownerless caches is silly.

But, I wouldn't say it should be archived within 30 days unless someone actually goes out to look for it and logs a DNF. Old DNF logs from inexperienced cachers should carry very little weight. SBA archives by noobs 3000 miles away should be laughed at.

2k · February 28, 2010

Comparing a cache to the liberty bell is a hyperbole.

A cache listing has very little historical value. If it had historical value, you would think the creator would do something to protect it.

This sentimental attachment to ownerless caches is silly.

But, I wouldn't say it should be archived within 30 days unless someone actually goes out to look for it and logs a DNF. Old DNF logs from inexperienced cachers should carry very little weight. SBA archives by noobs 3000 miles away should be laughed at.

True. True. True.

And this 'historical value' is even still there for viewing. Thats why the cache listing is 'archived' and not 'deleted'. But people are convinced that if a listing is archived all the 'history' has been lost forever or burned in a fire or something. No matter what happens, the history of the listing ain't going anywhere. The only history that IS threatened is the cache container, the logbook, and the swag. In the OPs find log, the original cache container was replaced or at least, what was salvagable, was put in to the replacement container and the OP insists that the cache is still there. All the history is still safe and preserved regardless of wether the listing is archived or not.

Edited February 28, 2010 by simpjkee

5.8k · February 28, 2010

Yeah, Yeah...don't mind me...That kind of language just leaves a bad taste in my mouth ever since I tried to adopt(at the begging of the original owner) the first Cache I ever found. Rather than put the adoption through, the reviewer just archived it, and told me to hide a new one. I don't care what everyone says, it's just not the same to own some new Cache in the same location as it is to see the original kept active. It's not even about History. It's just about the continuation of the story. It just bugs me.

2k · February 28, 2010

Yeah, Yeah...don't mind me...That kind of language just leaves a bad taste in my mouth ever since I tried to adopt(at the begging of the original owner) the first Cache I ever found. Rather than put the adoption through, the reviewer just archived it, and told me to hide a new one. I don't care what everyone says, it's just not the same to own some new Cache in the same location as it is to see the original kept active. It's not even about History. It's just about the continuation of the story. It just bugs me.

I hear ya. They shoulda let you adopt it. But I don't think it's as bad as it seems. You could place a new cache, call it the same thing, and post a link to the original cache in your cache description. Add some wording about why it was important to you to place a new cache there, etc, etc. You could even post a note on the cache back dated to the day you made your first find or something. Make some lemonade out of it ya know

You could ask people to post the GC code of their first find in their log too. Then people would tell you how good of a job you did turning it in to a positive.

Edited February 28, 2010 by simpjkee

February 28, 2010

CR, your note on the cache page was well taken, and we're going to leave it active until someone actually visits the site and says that it is not there.

-Brad

9.3k · February 28, 2010

But people are convinced that if a listing is archived all the 'history' has been lost forever or burned in a fire or something.

Can you link me to a single person who stated such a belief? I'm not greedy. Just one will suffice.

For what it's worth, I've found that arguing via exaggeration is only effective in Congress.

2k · February 28, 2010

But people are convinced that if a listing is archived all the 'history' has been lost forever or burned in a fire or something.

Can you link me to a single person who stated such a belief? I'm not greedy. Just one will suffice.

For what it's worth, I've found that arguing via exaggeration is only effective in Congress.

Seems like the proper way to deal with this, if the OP really feels strongly, is to let the archive happen, then go check the container, and post a new cache in the same spot. If it feels right, then talk about the original in the new cache description.

And lose a nice bit of caching history in the meantime.

Will this suffice?

1.8k · February 28, 2010

Looks like the cache is getting benefit of the doubt thanks to CoyoteRed and Brad/gpsfun. Pretty cool.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...90-c9fb5b290e23

9.3k · February 28, 2010

Will this suffice?

I think if you check with Fizzy, you'll discover that his statement reflects the belief that, if such a cache is archived, current cachers will no longer be able to become part of that history. The lineage is snipped as soon as the "Archived" log is posted. While little things like becoming part of history are not important for some, (gotta appease the P&G number hounds), judging by this thread, (including your statement that the cache should stay active), it is important to others. Thankfully, JoeGPS was able to see the value in letting this one stay until its condition can be verified. Thanx Brad!

Regarding the Liberty Bell reference: Those who are interested in history like to experience it in as direct a manner as possible. Given the choice between reading about the bell or visiting it firsthand, I'll pick the latter every time. For me, the same is true with caches. While it's certainly true that I can delve deep into the bowels of Groundspeak, dredging up old, archived cache listings from the past, that activity is not nearly as satisfying as reading an old, active listing, and adding my moniker to the list of folks who have found it in the past. Heck, whilst we're slinging hyperbole, why not push the envelope? Consider the developer who wanted to bulldoze the historical courthouse in Anytown USA, so they could build a Wally World. So long as someone snapped a few pics before the blades did their dirty work, and wrote a couple paragraphs about the building, the history is not lost, right? Only the direct access and interaction with the history is lost. Which, as I've stated earlier, is just not important to some.

Still waiting for the link to the folks who think the history is lost "forever or burned in a fire or something"

Edited February 28, 2010 by Clan Riffster

2k · February 28, 2010

I think if you check with Fizzy, you'll discover that his statement reflects the belief that, if such a cache is archived, current cachers will no longer be able to become part of that history. The lineage is snipped as soon as the "Archived" log is posted. While little things like becoming part of history are not important for some, (gotta appease the P&G number hounds), judging by this thread, (including your statement that the cache should stay active), it is important to others. Thankfully, JoeGPS was able to see the value in letting this one stay until its condition can be verified. Thanx Brad!

Regarding the Liberty Bell reference: Those who are interested in history like to experience it in as direct a manner as possible. Given the choice between reading about the bell or visiting it firsthand, I'll pick the latter every time. For me, the same is true with caches. While it's certainly true that I can delve deep into the bowels of Groundspeak, dredging up old, archived cache listings from the past, that activity is not nearly as satisfying as reading an old, active listing, and adding my moniker to the list of folks who have found it in the past.

Still waiting for the link to the folks who think the history is lost "forever or burned in a fire or something"

So Fizzy exagerated a little by saying the history was 'lost', and I exagerated a little by saying cachers think that the history is 'burned in a fire or something'.

Seriously though, Groundspeak should make it easier to view archived caches. I'm a big advocate for that and I even dedicated one of my caches to the idea. If it was easier to view archived caches, maybe people wouldn't feel that the way to preserve history is to keep a cache from being archived.

2.7k · February 28, 2010

... Seriously though, Groundspeak should make it easier to view archived caches. I'm a big advocate for that and I even dedicated one of my caches to the idea. If it was easier to view archived caches, maybe people wouldn't feel that the way to preserve history is to keep a cache from being archived.

You espouse heresy. Do you really want to destroy the known universe?

7.2k · February 28, 2010

CR, your note on the cache page was well taken, and we're going to leave it active until someone actually visits the site and says that it is not there.

-Brad

Yea! Thank you, Brad!

Now, I need to put a fire under the butts of these locals to get out there! If I can cadge a ride I'll make sure they're looking in the right spot.

...after the appropriate amount of time looking, that is.

As for the idea of archiving and placing a new cache, it's not as good as finding this cache. The reason being this cache hasn't been found in 6 years. The new cache was just placed. The history is the cache sitting there that length of time unfound. The new cache would have to sit there a like amount of time to get the same feel, the same satisfaction of finding a cache that had not been visited in that length of time. It's extremely rare for a cache to have that kind of age on its last Found It log. Archiving and replacing is simply taking that rare gem and tossing it in the trash.

February 28, 2010

...As for the idea of archiving and placing a new cache, it's not as good as finding this cache. The reason being this cache hasn't been found in 6 years. The new cache was just placed. The history is the cache sitting there that length of time unfound. The new cache would have to sit there a like amount of time to get the same feel, the same satisfaction of finding a cache that had not been visited in that length of time. It's extremely rare for a cache to have that kind of age on its last Found It log. Archiving and replacing is simply taking that rare gem and tossing it in the trash.

Very nicely put response to why this cache, though not the Liberty Bell, has a strong sense of historical value.

I'd love to have the chance to go look for such an unusual cache.

5.3k · February 28, 2010

Will this suffice?

Nope. Please don't misrepresent what I said. Thanks.

9.3k · February 28, 2010

So Fizzy exagerated a little by saying the history was 'lost'

He'll have to answer for himself, but that certainly wasn't my observation. I think he was choosing a different interpretation of the "lost history" concept. For instance, the Liberty Bell is one of our nation's most documented artifacts. If I were to recycle it, melting it down to its basic elements, what you call "history" would still be intact, as anyone could look through the historical documents to see images and data about the bell. However, what I call "history" would be lost, as folks would no longer be able to interact with the bell itself. This is not an exaggeration, it's just a different use of the word "lost".

5.3k · February 28, 2010

So Fizzy exagerated a little by saying the history was 'lost'

He'll have to answer for himself, but that certainly wasn't my observation. I think he was choosing a different interpretation of the "lost history" concept. For instance, the Liberty Bell is one of our nation's most documented artifacts. If I were to recycle it, melting it down to its basic elements, what you call "history" would still be intact, as anyone could look through the historical documents to see images and data about the bell. However, what I call "history" would be lost, as folks would no longer be able to interact with the bell itself. This is not an exaggeration, it's just a different use of the word "lost".

Yes. What CR said.

There is a great satisfaction in finding a difficult-to-access or difficult-to-find cache that has remained unfound for several years. I've had a couple of chances to do so, and it's always a neat experience. Archiving the old cache does destroy history -- new finders won't get to experience the original cache, to see and touch the container that may have been there for many years. A written record on the web is no substitute for finding and opening a long-unfound cache.

In addition, archiving an old cache and replacing it with a new one has other impacts:

The cache may no longer be eligible for some challenges, such as the "oldest caches" and Fizzy challenges.
Archiving and replacing a cache placed in an extremely difficult-to-reach location means somebody has to go there and place the new container, even if the old one is still perfectly serviceable.
Trackable items in the old cache may be lost forever if the placer of the new cache doesn't find and remove the old one.

The people who are advocating the archiving of this cache and think it's "no big deal" sound to me like cachers who have never actually found a high-terrain remote cache.

Edited February 28, 2010 by fizzymagic

5.8k · February 28, 2010

CR, your note on the cache page was well taken, and we're going to leave it active until someone actually visits the site and says that it is not there.

-Brad

Yea! Thank you, Brad!

Now, I need to put a fire under the butts of these locals to get out there! If I can cadge a ride I'll make sure they're looking in the right spot.

...after the appropriate amount of time looking, that is.

As for the idea of archiving and placing a new cache, it's not as good as finding this cache. The reason being this cache hasn't been found in 6 years. The new cache was just placed. The history is the cache sitting there that length of time unfound. The new cache would have to sit there a like amount of time to get the same feel, the same satisfaction of finding a cache that had not been visited in that length of time. It's extremely rare for a cache to have that kind of age on its last Found It log. Archiving and replacing is simply taking that rare gem and tossing it in the trash.

Not to mention...Archiving Caches that are likely still in place, and have non responsive owners will leave a Cache out there as litter, not good for the game in the long run, especially after it happens thousands of times over the years. I know the box on the ground is not Groundspeaks responsibility, but removing the listing from view, serves to aid in turning it into litter.

5.8k · February 28, 2010

Yeah...so...I was exagerating with the whole Liberty Bell thing...The first thought I had was an analogy of replacing a famous artwork with a replica, just because the original had been torn. Of course, at this early stage in the game, there's really no comparison, but the theory is the same.

People used to get things like Shoes, Luggage, Electrinics, and Furniture repaired...I always find it a bit sad that the most common action nowadays is to dispose and replace.

True treasure hunt about to be archived.

Recommended Posts

Join the conversation