+Dan2099 Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Just another topic for debate: Do you think a cache owner should retire a cache after a number of years and replace it with a different size, type, or style....(this is for caches that do not have unique locations) Quote Link to comment
Pup Patrol Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Just another topic for debate: Do you think a cache owner should retire a cache after a number of years and replace it with a different size, type, or style....(this is for caches that do not have unique locations) If the reason to do that is nothing more than "just because", well then... NO. How many smilies does one want for the same location? "Finding" the same location over and over and over again is rather pointless, other than to pad one's find count. B. Quote Link to comment
+L0ne.R Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 In cache dense areas it's nice when a CO considers archiving a cache that has run its course. Opens up the area for other cachers who would like to hide a cache. Quote Link to comment
+BBWolf+3Pigs Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 In cache dense areas it's nice when a CO considers archiving a cache that has run its course. Opens up the area for other cachers who would like to hide a cache. What does "run its course" mean? As far as opening up an area, RI is the cache densest state, yet we still find places to hide caches. Not sure that's an issue. Quote Link to comment
knowschad Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 In cache dense areas it's nice when a CO considers archiving a cache that has run its course. Opens up the area for other cachers who would like to hide a cache. What does "run its course" mean? I think he answered that question already with... "when a CO considers" it. Quote Link to comment
+briansnat Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Provided he is still active and maintaining the cache I think a cache owner should replace or archive the cache when he feels like it. I know one cacher who every couple of years would archive all of his caches in a park and submit new ones, often with just a minor location change. Another I know retires most of his caches after a year or two. I also know other cachers who've hidden caches that are 8, 9 or more years old and who still take care of them. To each his own. As long as they are taking care of the caches I see no reason to force or even encourage cachers to retire caches after a certain amount of time. Quote Link to comment
+newcarsmell Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 (edited) NO!!!! unless it needs replacement..... Edited June 25, 2012 by newcarsmell Quote Link to comment
+Team Dennis Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 Why not? If that's what he wants to do then more power to him. BTW, I would not. But that's just me. Quote Link to comment
+ras_oscar Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 (edited) As far as opening up an area, RI is the cache densest state, yet we still find places to hide caches. Not sure that's an issue. Interesting statistic. How did you reach that conclusion? Edited June 27, 2012 by ras_oscar Quote Link to comment
+NYPaddleCacher Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 As far as opening up an area, RI is the cache densest state, yet we still find places to hide caches. Not sure that's an issue. Interesting statistic. How did you reach that conclusion? Number of caches in Rhode Island: 2318 Number of Square miles in Rhode Island: 1,033.81 Caches per Square mile: ~2.24 Although California has the most caches in any U.S. State (107315) the number of caches per sq. mile is only ~.69. One could do the math for the rest of the U.S. States but I'm guessing that RI would probably come out on top. However, while RI might be the U.S. State with the highest density there are probably regions that are ~1000 sq. miles. which have a higher density. Quote Link to comment
I! Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 Retire, quite possibly. Replace, no. Quote Link to comment
GOF and Bacall Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 No reason a cache should live forever.I like to archive a cache when I think it has "run its course". It may be because it has been found by all the locals I expect will ever find it. Or it could be because the area needs a break from the traffic. Or I may have just gotten bored with it. But when I do that I try to either let someone else have a whack at the location to see what they come up with or I try to mix things up a bit. Change some part or all of it. Make the experience new. So, while yes the regulars have been to the area before, they're going to find something new bringing them back. Not just the same cache with a new page and GC#. Quote Link to comment
I! Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 As far as opening up an area, RI is the cache densest state, yet we still find places to hide caches. Slightly off-topic, I found a while back that New Hampshire had the greatest excess of caches when one took into account (by some stats I pulled out of a hat) other factors like population density. Rhode Island was up there, but not top. I think maybe Utah was second. Quote Link to comment
+The VanDucks Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 It seems to me that the two major reasons for a cache owner to consider "retiring" or archiving a cache would be if the cache hasn't been found in a year or more, indicating that just about everybody in the local area has already found it, or if the CO owns so many caches that he or she needs to cut back just to keep current with the necessary maintenance issues of all the caches owned. Since new cachers are constantly coming into the game, and wanting to hide caches of their own, it would be a nice gesture for the CO retiring a cache to let someone else take that space and have the fun of coming up with a creative cache different from the first one. Quote Link to comment
+LightHouseSeekers Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 No reason a cache should live forever.I like to archive a cache when I think it has "run its course". It may be because it has been found by all the locals I expect will ever find it. Or it could be because the area needs a break from the traffic. Or I may have just gotten bored with it. But when I do that I try to either let someone else have a whack at the location to see what they come up with or I try to mix things up a bit. Change some part or all of it. Make the experience new. So, while yes the regulars have been to the area before, they're going to find something new bringing them back. Not just the same cache with a new page and GC#. The very first cache we found, we later adopted from the CO who had moved out of town. That cache was placed in 2004 and we found it in 2007. We have kept active for all the newer cachers joining the game. Even though most of the old-timers have already found it. Quote Link to comment
+WRASTRO Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 It seems to me that the two major reasons for a cache owner to consider "retiring" or archiving a cache would be if the cache hasn't been found in a year or more, indicating that just about everybody in the local area has already found it, or if the CO owns so many caches that he or she needs to cut back just to keep current with the necessary maintenance issues of all the caches owned. Since new cachers are constantly coming into the game, and wanting to hide caches of their own, it would be a nice gesture for the CO retiring a cache to let someone else take that space and have the fun of coming up with a creative cache different from the first one. If a cache hasn't been found in a year or more then clearly the new cachers who are constantly coming into the game are not finding it. Why would a new cache in the same area get any of those new cachers to hunt it? Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.