Sirdi's Walk, RIP [GC22FD]

[+Eclectic Penguin]

I put a quite some effort into getting this cache (first published in 2001 by Gordon Jones, one of Wales' first caches) back on-line after it was archived at the end of last year (by Gordon after a couple of non-finds), including a 4 mile walk to place a new large ammo cache container, logbook. toys, etc. but it seems, despite all my efforts, I and Gordon get a kick in the teeth as it's no longer acceptable, despite going through weeks of getting new permission granted in writing from the Forestry Comission which wasn't needed the first time round.

 

We were prepared to manage this as a joint cache but Groundspeak clearly thought it would be adopted to me within weeks based on their rejection to unarchive (and I always thought that if the original cache setter asked for a cache to be unarchived it would be if an explanation was given - clearly not, it seems)

 

I suppose the next course of action is to get a new cache published at the same location (as I now have all the permissions) but I feel really sad that one of Wales' first caches is being rejected by Groundspeak because of stupid bloody minded rules about the original cacher not having maintained the cache for a while.

 

At the moment I really don't want to place a brand new cache there - I'd rather get the original re-instated or replaced, in whatever form - but for some reason this was rejected, despite being a historic cache. Anyone agree?

Edited March 27, 2010 by Eclectic Penguin

[+Eclectic Penguin]

deleted - double post

Edited March 27, 2010 by Eclectic Penguin

[+rutson]

What a shame I just don't get it...

 

Newbie flings a filmpot in a rubbish infested verge. "Fine! nice one, more!"

 

Experienced cacher goes to a lot of effort to resurrect a historic cache. "No, no, no!"

[+dino-irl]

If the location is so good why not just list a new cache at that location and give everyone a new smiley?

 

It's also the responsibility of the cache "owner" to maintain their own cache. Looking at the original CO's profile they haven't been caching since 2005

Edited March 27, 2010 by dinö

[+Eclectic Penguin]

I'll probably have to do that now... but it's such a shame that a cache placed in 2001 and was on the bookmark list of "earliest caches" bites the dust.

 

Thankfully, the written permission from the Forestry Commission is worded in such a way that a new cache is allowed to be placed in the same location as well as unarchiving an old one.

[norsch]

I'll probably have to do that now... but it's such a shame that a cache placed in 2001 and was on the bookmark list of "earliest caches" bites the dust.

 

Thankfully, the written permission from the Forestry Commission is worded in such a way that a new cache is allowed to be placed in the same location as well as unarchiving an old one.

Would it be possible to use the old cache name? Or would it need a new name? Something like "Sirdi's Walk, RIP"

[+Stuey]

What a shame I just don't get it...

 

Newbie flings a filmpot in a rubbish infested verge. "Fine! nice one, more!"

 

Experienced cacher goes to a lot of effort to resurrect a historic cache. "No, no, no!"

 

Ian, you've hit the nail on the head. A very silly situation, which should easily be resolved by someone at Groundspeak with some sort of pride for these diminishing original caches.

[+GAZ]

What a shame I just don't get it...

 

Newbie flings a filmpot in a rubbish infested verge. "Fine! nice one, more!"

 

Experienced cacher goes to a lot of effort to resurrect a historic cache. "No, no, no!"

 

Ian, you've hit the nail on the head. A very silly situation, which should easily be resolved by someone at Groundspeak with some sort of pride for these diminishing original caches.

 

Yeah, got to agree here. There is something about original caches. It just wouldn't be the same with a new listing, although I suppose there is that extra smiley with a new "found" log.

[+Eclectic Penguin]

The matter is at an end as far as I'm concerned.

 

I've submitted a new cache with a new name and theme near to where the old one was hidden, however the cache entry also gives a nod to the original cache as well (since the new logbook still has the old cache name written on it!).

 

I did consider using the original name or a variation thereon, but at the end of the day, I figured that if I'm going to make this cache "my own", I may as well create a fresh cache in my own style. Having it launched as a new cache this way also means that the local cachers get to find it again.

 

Plus, as far as I can tell, the new location is a distance from the original hiding place and also a few metres from where I originally found it, now being a large ammo can.

 

I appreciate that our reviewer has to stick to the letter of the law which is now quite clear in that once archived, there needs to be special circumstances for unarchiving, one of which being that the cache is unarchived and maintained by the original cacher - and in this case, having not been active since 2005...

 

At the end of the day, I still question why this rule has been introduced - surely there's a place for keeping some of Geocaching history alive even if extraordinary steps need to be taken to do so?

 

I'm glad I stepped in just in time to save Carreg Cennen Castle Cache which was nearly archived around the same time as this one (Not quite as old but still one of the earliest in the area).

[+dino-irl]

At the end of the day, I still question why this rule has been introduced - surely there's a place for keeping some of Geocaching history alive even if extraordinary steps need to be taken to do so?

Then you should bring it up on the main forum where the discussion is more likely to get an audience and get noticed by GSP

[+NickandAliandEliza]

What a shame I just don't get it...

 

Newbie flings a filmpot in a rubbish infested verge. "Fine! nice one, more!"

 

Experienced cacher goes to a lot of effort to resurrect a historic cache. "No, no, no!"

 

Totally agree.

[+Delta68]

We always look out for old caches while caching in a different area and would certainly do a 2 mile round walk for a cache set in 2001

 

We almost certainly wouldn't bother for a new cache...

 

 

 

Mark

[+dino-irl]

We always look out for old caches while caching in a different area and would certainly do a 2 mile round walk for a cache set in 2001

 

We almost certainly wouldn't bother for a new cache...

I really don't understand the mentality of this. If the cache is worth doing then what difference does the date make?

[+*mouse*]

We always look out for old caches while caching in a different area and would certainly do a 2 mile round walk for a cache set in 2001

 

We almost certainly wouldn't bother for a new cache...

I really don't understand the mentality of this. If the cache is worth doing then what difference does the date make?

 

Me neither. If a cache is good it's worth finding, if it's not good then it's not. Don't really see where age comes into it.....

 

It's always nice to see cachers put effort in to a cache, but old or new it's quality that is important to me.

[+Delta68]

I really don't understand the mentality of this. If the cache is worth doing then what difference does the date make?

 

With all due respect that's a daft thing to say.

I would go to Ireland specifically find 'Europe's First' but I wouldn't go just for another new one in the same location!

 

You don't know if it's worth doing until you've done it, but you can almost guarantee that one that has been around for years is going to be worth visiting.

 

Like a many other folk, we're also trying to fill the month set grid... this is a good reason to go the extra mile for an old cache

 

 

Mark

[+Eclectic Penguin]

You don't know if it's worth doing until you've done it, but you can almost guarantee that one that has been around for years is going to be worth visiting.

 

It was a great location, but the original (when I found it) had a number of problems - it was buried, in a manky plastic bag, it was quite a distance from the given coordinates and the clue image was next to useless due to nearly 10 years of forestry growth. I also acknowledge some of these conditions weren't the same when it was originally placed.

 

It's now reactivated under a new name and theme - talk of personal caches discouraged here so you'll have to work out the rest yourselves

[markandlynn]

I really don't understand the mentality of this. If the cache is worth doing then what difference does the date make?

 

With all due respect that's a daft thing to say.

I would go to Ireland specifically find 'Europe's First' but I wouldn't go just for another new one in the same location!

 

You don't know if it's worth doing until you've done it, but you can almost guarantee that one that has been around for years is going to be worth visiting.

 

Like a many other folk, we're also trying to fill the month set grid... this is a good reason to go the extra mile for an old cache

 

 

Mark

History is important i agree with this ^^^

[+Stuey]

We always look out for old caches while caching in a different area and would certainly do a 2 mile round walk for a cache set in 2001

 

We almost certainly wouldn't bother for a new cache...

I really don't understand the mentality of this. If the cache is worth doing then what difference does the date make?

 

I always flag up old caches so they stand out on the map whenever I go caching. I like getting old caches, and have found some really really old ones (GC40, GC43) so the older ones will often take priority over new caches. I don't understand that you don't understand the mentality of this

[Puppy Socks]

We always look out for old caches while caching in a different area and would certainly do a 2 mile round walk for a cache set in 2001

 

We almost certainly wouldn't bother for a new cache...

I really don't understand the mentality of this. If the cache is worth doing then what difference does the date make?

 

Me neither. If a cache is good it's worth finding, if it's not good then it's not. Don't really see where age comes into it.....

 

It's always nice to see cachers put effort in to a cache, but old or new it's quality that is important to me.

 

Most of the "Oldies" on here hark back to "The Good Old Days" of caching where you hiked 3 miles for an ammo box in the woods, then they come on here and say that age has nothing to do with it? Surprising!

 

How can you tell quality until you've done a cache, and that goes for old ones as well as new ones?

 

It has always been assumed that the older caches have always been placed with more care, etc.

It is refreshing to see an "Oldie" realising that new ones can be good too!

[+dino-irl]

I really don't understand the mentality of this. If the cache is worth doing then what difference does the date make?

 

With all due respect that's a daft thing to say.

I would go to Ireland specifically find 'Europe's First' but I wouldn't go just for another new one in the same location!

 

You don't know if it's worth doing until you've done it, but you can almost guarantee that one that has been around for years is going to be worth visiting.

Come back and tell me what you think when you've found it. I have a feeling you'll be underwhelmed. I've found it and it was nothing special. In fact the best thing about it was the group that I was on the coastal walk with.

 

I stand by my statement above that a good cache is a good cache and a bad cache a bad cache regardless of their age.

 

As to how you gauge a cache quality before you visit then I'm sure you could read the logs? If it was a 2 mile round trip like the OP stated here then I'd be making sure I did that before starting regardless of the cache age.

 

Like a many other folk, we're also trying to fill the month set grid... this is a good reason to go the extra mile for an old cache

That is a valid reason to be interested in older caches but it doesn't make them better caches than newer ones.

[+dino-irl]

We always look out for old caches while caching in a different area and would certainly do a 2 mile round walk for a cache set in 2001

 

We almost certainly wouldn't bother for a new cache...

I really don't understand the mentality of this. If the cache is worth doing then what difference does the date make?

 

Me neither. If a cache is good it's worth finding, if it's not good then it's not. Don't really see where age comes into it.....

 

It's always nice to see cachers put effort in to a cache, but old or new it's quality that is important to me.

 

Most of the "Oldies" on here hark back to "The Good Old Days" of caching where you hiked 3 miles for an ammo box in the woods, then they come on here and say that age has nothing to do with it? Surprising!

 

How can you tell quality until you've done a cache, and that goes for old ones as well as new ones?

 

It has always been assumed that the older caches have always been placed with more care, etc.

It is refreshing to see an "Oldie" realising that new ones can be good too!

Are you referring to *mouse* or me as I don't think I ever "hark back to "The Good Old Days" of caching where you hiked 3 miles for an ammo box in the woods"?

[Puppy Socks]

Are you referring to *mouse* or me as I don't think I ever "hark back to "The Good Old Days" of caching where you hiked 3 miles for an ammo box in the woods"?

 

Sorry for the misunderstanding dino, I hadn't edited the multi quote boxes enough!

 

It wasn't referring to any one particular cacher, just the "Oldies" in general who do " hark back! "

 

They know who they are !

Edited April 9, 2010 by Puppy Socks

[+Morton]

I've come late to this, but is there any chance one of the reviewers known to frequent these forums could explain the actual rule here?

 

I'd always understood that an archived cache could be unarchived provided it would meet the guidelines for a brand-new cache - that's certainly what it says in some of the standard wording I've seen when used caches get archived. And I wasn't aware of any kind of restriction on the right of one cache owner to transfer a cache over to another. So on the facts presented, it's hard to understand why there was any sort of problem.

 

I'm not asking for a discussion of this particular cache, which I know for very good reasons isn't possible. If the answer is "yes, that would all be possible, but there's a reason it was more complicated than that" then that would make sense to me.

 

Thanks

Richard

[+dino-irl]

http://support.Groundspeak.com//index.php?....page&id=70

 

The archiving of a cache by the owner is supposed to be a permanent status. That is why only the site administrators and volunteers have the capability to unarchive it. This is done only in rare circumstances.

http://support.Groundspeak.com//index.php?....page&id=54

 

Grandfathered cache types cannot be transferred to a new owner. Neither the adoption tool on the website nor Groundspeak will be able to make the transfer for Virtual, Webcam or Locationless caches. Archived caches cannot be transferred, either.

[+Morton]

Hmm... well, then I guess this is another case where local precedent has grown up which is a bit at odds with the official policy. Certainly (at least some of) the UK reviewers have routinely used wording along the lines of "if or when the cache is resurrected I'll unarchive it, provided it meets current guidelines" or some such.

 

Which seems reasonable and proportionate, to be honest, but that's a separate debate. And I've watched such debates enough times to know that they have zero chance of getting any buy-in from Groundspeak.

 

On a point of order though, saying "archived caches cannot be transferred" is not at all the same as saying "archived caches cannot be unarchived and then transferred". It's an important distinction, since the latter implies more involvement on the part of the original owner.

[+dino-irl]

Hmm... well, then I guess this is another case where local precedent has grown up which is a bit at odds with the official policy. Certainly (at least some of) the UK reviewers have routinely used wording along the lines of "if or when the cache is resurrected I'll unarchive it, provided it meets current guidelines" or some such.

 

Which seems reasonable and proportionate, to be honest, but that's a separate debate. And I've watched such debates enough times to know that they have zero chance of getting any buy-in from Groundspeak.

Which is the same approach that I take. However, it shouldn't be taken for granted that an archived cache will be automatically unarchived as that isn't the case. Many will be but not all.

 

On a point of order though, saying "archived caches cannot be transferred" is not at all the same as saying "archived caches cannot be unarchived and then transferred". It's an important distinction, since the latter implies more involvement on the part of the original owner.

It means the same in my book

 

I've yet to see an example of a UK reviewer unarchiving a cache so that it can be adopted by another unless they were misled as to the CO's intentions.