Caches archived then published as new?

[+yechsquared]

Recently a CO archived a large number of caches then republished them as new. When I saw this I thought it was a great chance for the Mrs. and I to get our first FTF. So I rearranged my day so we could go out and do some hunting. Now I'm seeing logs come in that these caches are the same, haven't even been visited by the CO prior to republishing - someone else even replaced a broken container and wet log, another person noted that the log still contained their entry from a year ago. I went back and looked - same cache names and coords. Is this normal? This is very frustrating.

 

BTW - This is my first forum post so if I've stepped on some toes, I didn't mean to. Thanks.

[knowschad]

Wow! if what you say is true, that is seriously lame behavior on the part of the cache owner! The logs (the physical log, in the caches) even not replaced? If not, I suspect the local reviewer would have issues with this. I know mine sure would.

 

You haven't stepped on any toes that I'm aware of. I think you have raised a good question. Next good question, though, is "what to do about it", and the answer to that is probably "nothing", but be prepared to see a wealth of different answers to that one.

Edited August 17, 2010 by knowschad

[+Castle Mischief]

That's a little strange. I'd just add them to my ignore list and move on.

 

I don't think there's any particular guideline violation, but if a local did this I'd point and whisper about them at events. Point and whisper.

 

The biggest annoyance for me is that it sounds like these caches have some real issues- broken containers and wet logs and perhaps this isn't being dealt with in a responsible manner.

[knowschad]

I don't think there's any particular guideline violation, but if a local did this I'd point and whisper about them at events. Point and whisper.

And I'd then have to look and snicker!!

[+geodarts]

Now I'm seeing logs come in that these caches are the same, haven't even been visited by the CO prior to republishing - someone else even replaced a broken container and wet log, another person noted that the log still contained their entry from a year ago. I went back and looked - same cache names and coords. Is this normal?

 

Welcome to the world of caching where strange things and abnormality are never that far away. I have seen this happen two or three times when a cache was republished because of some issues with the original listing. But . . . .

 

If you were after some firsts, I trust that you still got them. Its relatively rare to be able to do a first to find and a needs maintenance note at the same time, although that happens from time to time even with fresher caches.

Edited August 17, 2010 by mulvaney

[+DragonsWest]

I might expect someone to do such a thing in an area with very few geocachers, though not even replacing the logs or containers says something about just pumping numbers.

 

An active cacher in my area unexpectedly retired from the game and summarily archived all of his caches. As two were good locations I picked them up, because I liked the hides. I replaced containers with fresh ones, per GC regulations. Quite a few finders commented the hides looked quite familiar, but to the new cachers they were all new finds.

[+Team Luvbassn]

I think a reviewer needs to activate a cache that has been archived. And they need some info as to why they should.

[+Team Luvbassn]

I think a reviewer needs to activate a cache that has been archived. And they need some info as to why they should.

 

Sorry about the double post, gc.com was slow and i hit reply again

Edited August 17, 2010 by Team Luvbassn

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Wow! if what you say is true, that is seriously lame behavior on the part of the cache owner!

 

And the really sad part is there will probably be a few logs from geocachers which found the previous instances of the caches thanking the CO for the additional finds and smiley faces.

Edited August 17, 2010 by NYPaddleCacher

[knowschad]

I think a reviewer needs to activate a cache that has been archived. And they need some info as to why they should.

 

Sorry about the double post, gc.com was slow and i hit reply again

You are correct, but that isn't the case here. Apparently this guy archived his caches, just so he could get new GS numbers (and fresh visits because of that), while keeping the old hiding spots, containers, log books (and presumably without even revisiting the sites).

 

(Aside: To prevent double posts, if you get a timeout error, do not refresh. Just follow a link back to the forums. Your post will be there, and only one of them.)

[JohnX]

Wow! if what you say is true, that is seriously lame behavior on the part of the cache owner!

 

And the really sad part is there will probably be a few logs from geocachers which found the previous instances of the caches thanking the CO for the additional finds and smiley faces.

Not the sad part that you think. I archived a cache because I could not maintain it. A while later (probably a year,) I replaced it and asked the reviewer to reactivate it.I was told I need to re-list the the "new" cache and I ended up putting a cache in the exact same place and the exact same name and the exact same cache page.. What makes the story even better is that the reviewer came to an event I hosted a few weeks later and a bunch of people got to get another smiley because it was a different cache.

[+Prime Suspect]

I'd bet this has something to do with one or more challenge caches.

[+baloo&bd]

Sorry, in a mood tonight.

 

To make a point, if I had previously found one of the caches, I would post another found it log with the original date I found it. If it got deleted, head out and get a pic of cache and log to support my log being allowed.

 

Of course, this is a hypothetical.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

Recently a CO archived a large number of caches then republished them as new. When I saw this I thought it was a great chance for the Mrs. and I to get our first FTF. So I rearranged my day so we could go out and do some hunting. Now I'm seeing logs come in that these caches are the same, haven't even been visited by the CO prior to republishing - someone else even replaced a broken container and wet log, another person noted that the log still contained their entry from a year ago. I went back and looked - same cache names and coords. Is this normal? This is very frustrating.

 

BTW - This is my first forum post so if I've stepped on some toes, I didn't mean to. Thanks.

That's Ridiculous...

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...63-6ffd3d3bdeb9

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...cb-d3ba1e55b28a

[+thelanes]

I might expect someone to do such a thing in an area with very few geocachers, though not even replacing the logs or containers says something about just pumping numbers.

 

An active cacher in my area unexpectedly retired from the game and summarily archived all of his caches. As two were good locations I picked them up, because I liked the hides. I replaced containers with fresh ones, per GC regulations. Quite a few finders commented the hides looked quite familiar, but to the new cachers they were all new finds.

I have placed a cache near one that was archived a couple of years back. it is not in the exact same spot, just in the same part of the woods. Only one or two cachers noted there used to be one here. To everyone else, it is like a new cache, just like quoted above.

However, just archiving and reactivating without doing anything is wrong. If it wasn't worth finding before, why should it be any better this time around?

[+bittsen]

What the OP describes is sort of lame.

 

I had to check to make sure the OP wasn't talking about me. I just archived, then placed at the same coordinates but there was a backstory as to why. In my case it's a new hide. New container, new logsheet, new caching experience. Only the view from the cache stayed the same.

 

I can't imagine someone archiving then republishing the same cache with no changes. They probably did it to get visitors since the cache was stagnant. That's lame too.

[+power69]

Recently a CO archived a large number of caches then republished them as new. When I saw this I thought it was a great chance for the Mrs. and I to get our first FTF. So I rearranged my day so we could go out and do some hunting. Now I'm seeing logs come in that these caches are the same, haven't even been visited by the CO prior to republishing - someone else even replaced a broken container and wet log, another person noted that the log still contained their entry from a year ago. I went back and looked - same cache names and coords. Is this normal? This is very frustrating.

 

BTW - This is my first forum post so if I've stepped on some toes, I didn't mean to. Thanks.

Sounds like a lame way to get their hide counts up.

[+yechsquared]

 

I had to check to make sure the OP wasn't talking about me.

 

Not you bittsen.

 

I've been reading the forums for a while now and really shouldn't have been surprised or upset that something like this would happen. I've since gotten over it and moved on. I didn't go out to find any of the "new" caches, I want my first FTF to be a true FTF. I'll eventually track down these caches as some of them look like decent hides. I'm just not going to go out of my way right now.

 

Thanks everyone for the comments and now on to more important topics.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Recently a CO archived a large number of caches then republished them as new. When I saw this I thought it was a great chance for the Mrs. and I to get our first FTF. So I rearranged my day so we could go out and do some hunting. Now I'm seeing logs come in that these caches are the same, haven't even been visited by the CO prior to republishing - someone else even replaced a broken container and wet log, another person noted that the log still contained their entry from a year ago. I went back and looked - same cache names and coords. Is this normal? This is very frustrating.

 

BTW - This is my first forum post so if I've stepped on some toes, I didn't mean to. Thanks.

That's Ridiculous...

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...63-6ffd3d3bdeb9

 

 

That looks like a fun race. It was interesting to see how some of the TBs in the race haven't made it out of Florida while others have gone to Singapore, and one was even in Greece for awhile. I did however note the omission of a rediculous racer that should have been included, and a vehicle that I actually used to own: a 1975 Chevy Vega station wagon

[+Dragery]

We have a guy down in my area who, every year archives about 30-35 caches along a bike trail, and then replaced them in slightly new placements. It's part of an annual event he does for Halloween. 5+ years now a bunch of people on bicycles, usually about 25-30 people or so, and some even walking, start at one end of this bike trail and go 10 miles roughly to the end at a park for a BBQ. He keeps the listings active until October 20th, archives, then re-posts the new caches on October 25th.

 

Not sure how this scenario fits into this thread, but I'm sure someone will have fun debating it.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

We have a guy down in my area who, every year archives about 30-35 caches along a bike trail, and then replaced them in slightly new placements. It's part of an annual event he does for Halloween. 5+ years now a bunch of people on bicycles, usually about 25-30 people or so, and some even walking, start at one end of this bike trail and go 10 miles roughly to the end at a park for a BBQ. He keeps the listings active until October 20th, archives, then re-posts the new caches on October 25th.

 

Not sure how this scenario fits into this thread, but I'm sure someone will have fun debating it.

 

I'd be tempted to submit several difficult puzzle caches along the bike route on Oct. 21st