Finding re-located caches as new?

[+lomocacher]

Hey all. . .

 

I was wondering about the protocol for finding previously logged caches that have been moved. . .for instance, there's a local cache GC164JP that I found in April. Damage to the cache's location required a new hide which was completed in August. This got me to wondering whether I could re-log this cache as a new find because of its new coordinates, which are about 125ft difference from the old.

 

Any official rules, or etiquette?

[+briansnat]

I think most cachers subscribe to the 1 cache 1 find school of thought, even if the cache has been moved. But in the end it is between you and the cache owner. If he lets you log it again then who is anybody else to tell you no.

[Laserion]

I would just post a Note with "Found it! ...again!"

[+Isonzo Karst]

Any official rules, or etiquette?

 

Strictly between you and the cache owner. If it's okay with the cache owner, it's okay.

[+goodwrench00]

I have the same type of situation near me, the original cache, GCW2DY, was found (by me) then later it disappeared and was adopted by someone else and moved. It's in the same area and with the same name, just a new hiding place. I just don't know the protocol of logging it.

Edited September 13, 2010 by goodwrench00

[+hukilaulau]

Not everyone will agree, but here's my answer:

If it was archived and given a new GC# then yes.

If it's moved a little but has the same GC# then no.

I realize it could be in exactly the same spot with either of the above actions by the cache owner.

We each have to make our own rules and limits... that's how I do it.

[+Semper Questio]

If it was moved and the nature of the hide is "significantly" changed - and the cache owner has said to come and find it again accordingly - I'd claim a new find. If it was a guardrail hide and was just moved to another guardrail, no.

 

For instance, one of mine was in a tree. The tree got cut down so it was on the ground next to the stump for a while until I changed it. Now it is about 20 ft away and a different style of hide so I'm allowing re-logs on it.

[+cron]

Hiders are probably making it harder for everyone.

 

You move the cache "significantly"? Archive and create a new GC#. Most people will be just happy to log another cache and up their stats.

 

You move the cache slightly? Update the coordinates and it's still the same cache.

 

New GC#? New find. Same GC#? Not a new find. There you go. Of course, you can log any caches found any number of times. It's just between you and your stats table.

[+The Blorenges]

Not everyone will agree, but here's my answer:

If it was archived and given a new GC# then yes.

If it's moved a little but has the same GC# then no.

I realize it could be in exactly the same spot with either of the above actions by the cache owner.

We each have to make our own rules and limits... that's how I do it.

 

Ditto here.

 

MrsB

[crawil]

Not everyone will agree, but here's my answer:

If it was archived and given a new GC# then yes.

If it's moved a little but has the same GC# then no.

I realize it could be in exactly the same spot with either of the above actions by the cache owner.

We each have to make our own rules and limits... that's how I do it.

My thoughts exactly.

[+lomocacher]

Wow--thanks for all the responses!

 

I've been thinking about this and reading your replies. I decided that what I'll do is keep within the spirit of caching and hunt the cache again, but just not log it. For me, it's not about the numbers anyway, so now I get to enjoy a cache all over again.

 

After all, geocaching is about getting out and playing, and enjoying the game--not necessarily building up stats