old active caches

[+tisourway]

I saw a thread yesterday that had the oldest active caches in each state listed, I cannot find it today. As it turns out, the one in Texas is not very far from my drive to work (less than 5 miles off the highway). Does anyone know what thread that list was in?

[AZcachemeister]

I saw a thread yesterday that had the oldest active caches in each state listed, I cannot find it today. As it turns out, the one in Texas is not very far from my drive to work (less than 5 miles off the highway). Does anyone know what thread that list was in?

 

No, but I will say you could probably get quicker results by creating a PQ by date placed, and only including caches placed in 2000.

[+dakboy]

I don't have a link to that thread, but a quick Google search turns these up:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/bookmarks/view.aspx?guid=958da935-3f79-4eb4-b6bf-849d20039244

http://stateofwilderness.com/2011/01/04/100-oldest-active-geocaches/

 

Note: these may be a bit out of date, and caches listed may have been archived since. The bookmark list (first link) will indicate such, the blog post may not.

[+baloo&bd]

I saw a thread yesterday that had the oldest active caches in each state listed, I cannot find it today. As it turns out, the one in Texas is not very far from my drive to work (less than 5 miles off the highway). Does anyone know what thread that list was in?

 

1st cache placed in every state regardless of current status

 

Oldest Unarchived cache placed in every state that is still active

[+tisourway]

 

No, but I will say you could probably get quicker results by creating a PQ by date placed, and only including caches placed in 2000.

I am somewhat new to this, I've dabbled with it over the last few years but I just became a premium member a couple of weeks ago. I don't know anything about pocket queries; what are they?

 

 

1st cache placed in every state regardless of current status

 

Oldest Unarchived cache placed in every state that is still active

Thanks, the second link got me where I wanted to go. It is a multi but somewhere along the way the originator published all of the answers.

[Pup Patrol]

I am somewhat new to this, I've dabbled with it over the last few years but I just became a premium member a couple of weeks ago. I don't know anything about pocket queries; what are they?

 

Help Center → Premium Membership

2. Pocket Queries

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=28

 

 

B.

[+Trucker Lee]

I saw a thread yesterday that had the oldest active caches in each state listed, I cannot find it today. As it turns out, the one in Texas is not very far from my drive to work (less than 5 miles off the highway). Does anyone know what thread that list was in?

 

1st cache placed in every state regardless of current status

 

Oldest Unarchived cache placed in every state that is still active

 

thanks for the second link from me as well. A milestone is approaching, and one of the oldest caches in Texas seem like a great way to mark this.

[Mr.Yuck]

I saw a thread yesterday that had the oldest active caches in each state listed, I cannot find it today. As it turns out, the one in Texas is not very far from my drive to work (less than 5 miles off the highway). Does anyone know what thread that list was in?

 

1st cache placed in every state regardless of current status

 

Oldest Unarchived cache placed in every state that is still active

 

thanks for the second link from me as well. A milestone is approaching, and one of the oldest caches in Texas seem like a great way to mark this.

 

Baloo, there are several oddball caches on the list on the first link!! At the top, before Alabama. Did you put them on the wrong bookmark list? Been there, done that one.

 

On the 2nd list, oldest active caches, it's nice to see that like me, you are of the opinion that what some consider the oldest active cache in Ohio has a typo in the date placed field, and was actually placed 11 months later. You have what I agree is the REAL oldest active cache in Ohio.

Edited July 29, 2012 by Mr.Yuck

[+K13]

I saw a thread yesterday that had the oldest active caches in each state listed, I cannot find it today. As it turns out, the one in Texas is not very far from my drive to work (less than 5 miles off the highway). Does anyone know what thread that list was in?

 

I saw one recently that had a link to this bookmark list US Oldest Active Traditional Caches by State

[+bflentje]

I saw a thread yesterday that had the oldest active caches in each state listed, I cannot find it today. As it turns out, the one in Texas is not very far from my drive to work (less than 5 miles off the highway). Does anyone know what thread that list was in?

 

1st cache placed in every state regardless of current status

 

Oldest Unarchived cache placed in every state that is still active

 

The second link is a nice list but it is not 100% accurate.. depending on how people like to argue.

[+baloo&bd]

I saw a thread yesterday that had the oldest active caches in each state listed, I cannot find it today. As it turns out, the one in Texas is not very far from my drive to work (less than 5 miles off the highway). Does anyone know what thread that list was in?

 

1st cache placed in every state regardless of current status

 

Oldest Unarchived cache placed in every state that is still active

 

The second link is a nice list but it is not 100% accurate.. depending on how people like to argue.

 

Been through this before, show me an inaccuracy and I will correct it.

 

However, keep in mind I do the list by the "Lincoln Axe" method. i.e. A man goes to a antique store to sell an axe handed down through his family that belonged to Abraham Lincoln and used for splitting rails. When asked to authenticate it, the man assures the clerk that it is authentic. "My greatgrandfather broke the handle and replace it. Other than that, the only other change was when the head became chipped my dad had another one he put on it. however, aside from those things, it is fully authentic."

 

As explained on the list description. If a cache disappears for several years and is then replaced and ether activated or unarchived (common in the early years), it is hardly the same cache and holds little or no "historical" value.

[Mr.Yuck]

I saw a thread yesterday that had the oldest active caches in each state listed, I cannot find it today. As it turns out, the one in Texas is not very far from my drive to work (less than 5 miles off the highway). Does anyone know what thread that list was in?

 

1st cache placed in every state regardless of current status

 

Oldest Unarchived cache placed in every state that is still active

 

The second link is a nice list but it is not 100% accurate.. depending on how people like to argue.

 

Seen through this before, show me an inaccuracy and I will correct it.

 

However, keep in mind I do the list by the "Lincoln Axe" method. i.e. A man goes to a antique store to sell an axe handed down through his family that belonged to Abraham Lincoln and used for splitting rails. When asked to authenticate it, the man assures the clerk that it is authentic. "My greatgrandfather broke the handle and replace it. Other than that, the only other change was when the head became chipped my dad had another one he put on it. however, aside from those things, it is fully authentic."

 

As explained on the list description. If a cache disappears for several years and is then replaced and ether activated or unarchived (common in the early years), it is hardly the same cache and holds little or no "historical" value.

 

Yes, sir, there have been controversies. I forgot about California, that one is brutal. Some guy "got away" getting an old 2000 placed cache unarchived, after replacing it with a different one of his own in 2004 or 2005. (Original was removed in 2002 by the original owner due to a forest fire). The replacer has now long since gone inactive from caching himself.

 

Then I brought up Ohio, whose alleged oldest active cache has a totally obvious typo in the date placed field. Unless you really believe some guy toted an ammo box 3/4 mile into the woods on a Tuesday in January, and left it sitting there for 11 months and 1 day before joining the website and submitting it on the same day as his only other hide a few miles away.

 

EDIT: Holy crap! It looks like about 60 accounts made the pilgrimage to the bogus "oldest cache" in Ohio over MWGB weekend. Fire up those Jasmer charts people.

 

You won't find these two caches on Baloo's bookmark list though, because he got it right, in my opinion. I'm with the Bear.

Edited August 2, 2012 by Mr.Yuck

[+bflentje]

I saw a thread yesterday that had the oldest active caches in each state listed, I cannot find it today. As it turns out, the one in Texas is not very far from my drive to work (less than 5 miles off the highway). Does anyone know what thread that list was in?

 

1st cache placed in every state regardless of current status

 

Oldest Unarchived cache placed in every state that is still active

 

The second link is a nice list but it is not 100% accurate.. depending on how people like to argue.

 

Seen through this before, show me an inaccuracy and I will correct it.

 

However, keep in mind I do the list by the "Lincoln Axe" method. i.e. A man goes to a antique store to sell an axe handed down through his family that belonged to Abraham Lincoln and used for splitting rails. When asked to authenticate it, the man assures the clerk that it is authentic. "My greatgrandfather broke the handle and replace it. Other than that, the only other change was when the head became chipped my dad had another one he put on it. however, aside from those things, it is fully authentic."

 

As explained on the list description. If a cache disappears for several years and is then replaced and ether activated or unarchived (common in the early years), it is hardly the same cache and holds little or no "historical" value.

 

Yes, sir, there have been controversies. I forgot about California, that one is brutal. Some guy "got away" getting an old 2000 placed cache unarchived, after replacing it with a different one of his own in 2004 or 2005. (Original was removed in 2002 by the original owner due to a forest fire). The replacer has now long since gone inactive from caching himself.

 

Then I brought up Ohio, whose alleged oldest active cache has a totally obvious typo in the date placed field. Unless you really believe some guy toted an ammo box a mile into the woods on a Tuesday in January, and left it sitting there for 11 months and 1 day before joining the website, and hiding his only other cache the day before joining a couple miles away.

 

You won't find these two caches on Baloo's bookmark list though, because he got it right, in my opinion. I'm with the Bear.

 

Not complaining mind you. Just saying. I solved the darn problem by finding both caches where there's controversy; Ohio, Indiana, Iowa. The one I think that really is wrong on the list is South Dakota.

[+Snoogans]

I saw a thread yesterday that had the oldest active caches in each state listed, I cannot find it today. As it turns out, the one in Texas is not very far from my drive to work (less than 5 miles off the highway).

 

Tombstone is on the campus of the University of Texas at Arlington. It's a nice location, but its nothing to get in a dither about. Park up the street or you will have to feed a meter.

 

Old caches are a curiosity and I get that, but I don't get all of the reverence. I did enjoy my time at Mingo, but my first time by it in 2005, I passed it up as uninteresting. It would have still been uninteresting if it hadn't been near sunset after a huge storm when I was there. I only stopped to see what the hubub was about.

 

Standing at the location of the Original Stash was a special moment for me, but the UN-original stash was just another cache in the woods and undeserving of the favorite points it gets because of proximity to the original stash plaque.

 

I've hidden caches that I know can last 100 years or more with very little maintenance, because they are in remote areas that will most probably never be developed.

 

When the first cache to make it to 50 is crowned, I will show proper awe and reverence, but I'll also be in my 80's if I'm still alive.... And I'm pretty certain it won't be Mingo.

 

But then I ramble on...

[Mr.Yuck]

 

 

Not complaining mind you. Just saying. I solved the darn problem by finding both caches where there's controversy; Ohio, Indiana, Iowa. The one I think that really is wrong on the list is South Dakota.

 

Not at all! You just wouldn't think this would be so complicated, and controversial. I was not aware of South Dakota. SD#1 was adopted, replaced and moved in 2010, so that one is out, although not as controversial as Ohio and California. Nest you have 2 caches in South Dakota eligible for oldest active cache placed on the same day by a non-validated account. I suppose you could say the one with the lower waypoint number, by one Hex digit, is older.

 

You could really take this to the extremes. Rhode Island's first placed (and obviously oldest active) cache has been adopted twice (original placer passed away), and replaced twice!

 

Like Snoogans, I'm babbling. I guess I like to pay reverence to the historic caches.

[+baloo&bd]

Not complaining mind you. Just saying. I solved the darn problem by finding both caches where there's controversy; Ohio, Indiana, Iowa. The one I think that really is wrong on the list is South Dakota.

 

Not at all! You just wouldn't think this would be so complicated, and controversial. I was not aware of South Dakota. SD#1 was adopted, replaced and moved in 2010, so that one is out, although not as controversial as Ohio and California. Nest you have 2 caches in South Dakota eligible for oldest active cache placed on the same day by a non-validated account. I suppose you could say the one with the lower waypoint number, by one Hex digit, is older.

 

You could really take this to the extremes. Rhode Island's first placed (and obviously oldest active) cache has been adopted twice (original placer passed away), and replaced twice!

 

Like Snoogans, I'm babbling. I guess I like to pay reverence to the historic caches.

 

I will check SD when I get a chance, however wanted to clarify something in this post.Adopted and/or replaced caches do not have a bearing for the purposes of my list UNLESS there was a significant amount of time that has past or they were archived.

 

While I know this is subjective (my list, my rules) most you may call "controversial" if yo go and look had 2 or 3 year lapses owhile disabled r even were archived that long.

[AZcachemeister]

When the first cache to make it to 50 is crowned, I will show proper awe and reverence, but I'll also be in my 80's if I'm still alive.... And I'm pretty certain it won't be Mingo.

 

I'll be in my late 90s, and probably won't care.

 

But, I'll bet it won't be Mingo either.

[Mr.Yuck]

Not complaining mind you. Just saying. I solved the darn problem by finding both caches where there's controversy; Ohio, Indiana, Iowa. The one I think that really is wrong on the list is South Dakota.

 

Not at all! You just wouldn't think this would be so complicated, and controversial. I was not aware of South Dakota. SD#1 was adopted, replaced and moved in 2010, so that one is out, although not as controversial as Ohio and California. Nest you have 2 caches in South Dakota eligible for oldest active cache placed on the same day by a non-validated account. I suppose you could say the one with the lower waypoint number, by one Hex digit, is older.

 

You could really take this to the extremes. Rhode Island's first placed (and obviously oldest active) cache has been adopted twice (original placer passed away), and replaced twice!

 

Like Snoogans, I'm babbling. I guess I like to pay reverence to the historic caches.

 

I will check SD when I get a chance, however wanted to clarify something in this post.Adopted and/or replaced caches do not have a bearing for the purposes of my list UNLESS there was a significant amount of time that has past or they were archived.

 

While I know this is subjective (my list, my rules) most you may call "controversial" if yo go and look had 2 or 3 year lapses owhile disabled r even were archived that long.

 

Oh, no problem, I didn't mean to dig that deeply into alleged "controversy". I figured you might have a problem with SD #1 (first cache in South Dakota), but maybe if you look at it again, you'll deem it oldest active cache. Seems to be a straightforward 2010 original owner willing adoption.

[+Funky Brian]

The Mingo Cache reaching 50 first sounds unlikely now but out in western Kansas, they get hardly any rain so the cache will not rust, and there is nobody to bother it so the cache might be there for quite a while.

[+SwineFlew]

The Mingo Cache reaching 50 first sounds unlikely now but out in western Kansas, they get hardly any rain so the cache will not rust, and there is nobody to bother it so the cache might be there for quite a while.

 

WRONG...DEAD WRONG! A quick search on this forum about Mingo will tell you alot about that cache history. Lets just say it had a very colorful history in the last year or two.

 

Maybe Mr Yucks would like to repeat about the history of Mingo in less than a few hours.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

 

You could really take this to the extremes. Rhode Island's first placed (and obviously oldest active) cache has been adopted twice (original placer passed away), and replaced twice!

 

 

And how many times has Mingo been replaced?

[Mr.Yuck]

 

You could really take this to the extremes. Rhode Island's first placed (and obviously oldest active) cache has been adopted twice (original placer passed away), and replaced twice!

 

 

And how many times has Mingo been replaced?

 

Hello, adoptive owner. I actually found it when it was Cool Librarian was the owner, and it was still the original container.

 

Actually, misunderstanding on both or our parts. I thought Baloo was "taking things to the extremes" because what appears to be the oldest active cache in South Dakota was not on his list, and I assumed it to be because it was adopted and replaced. And I was kind of opining that if you're getting that technical, you could make arguments against just about every State's oldest.

 

But it turns out he just somehow missed South Dakota, and is not taking things to the extremes. So you're good. And since there's a current thread on Mingo, I'll say 5. And only one by the cache owner, with about 50 people offering to replace it "when I'm there next week", or what not.

[Mr.Yuck]

The Mingo Cache reaching 50 first sounds unlikely now but out in western Kansas, they get hardly any rain so the cache will not rust, and there is nobody to bother it so the cache might be there for quite a while.

 

WRONG...DEAD WRONG! A quick search on this forum about Mingo will tell you alot about that cache history. Lets just say it had a very colorful history in the last year or two.

 

Maybe Mr Yucks would like to repeat about the history of Mingo in less than a few hours.

 

No I don't!! Well, I did up in the post above a little. I've read Funky Brian's log for Mingo, and I see now he is a young cacher not old enough to drive. So he doesn't know all that drama nonsense! Sorry if you thought I was giving you a hard time about the souvenir, Brian. Best of luck with that endeavor.

[+BackpacknJack]

I have a Bookmark List I keep current (the last update was 7/1/13) with some added info if I think it is needed.

--> OLDEST STATE GEOCACHES (updated 7-1-2013) http://www.geocaching.com/bookmarks/view.aspx?guid=7c2b674c-1b11-4440-8c13-ef0f4ddb6a84

I hope you find it useful in your quest to find the oldest in each State.

[Clan Riffster]

Not at all! You just wouldn't think this would be so complicated, and controversial.

I suspect it is only controversial and/or complicated to those who make it so. It is highly unlikely that I will ever own the oldest cache in Florida, so I really don't have a dog in this fight. For debate purposes, we can call my stance, "The Cheap Seats". With that in mind, from here in the cheap seats, it appears that Groundspeak only has one field, which cannot be edited by the owner, for determining the age of a particular cache, the GC number. It's when the GC number gets ignored that things get complicated. Silliness such as, "BillyBob's Ammo Can swapped owners, or has a different container, or spent time inactivated, etc" are what complicate this rather simple issue.

 

Were I to compile such a list, I would not nit pck every cache to see if it fit some convoluted, self imposed standard. It would be based on nothing more than the created date, as determined by the GC number. I would then defend the compilation by stating, "My list, my rules".

[Mr.Yuck]

Covered a lot of the same things twice, so see next post.

Edited August 17, 2013 by Mr.Yuck

[Mr.Yuck]

I have a Bookmark List I keep current (the last update was 7/1/13) with some added info if I think it is needed.

--> OLDEST STATE GEOCACHES (updated 7-1-2013) http://www.geocaching.com/bookmarks/view.aspx?guid=7c2b674c-1b11-4440-8c13-ef0f4ddb6a84

I hope you find it useful in your quest to find the oldest in each State.

 

Very good!! It's obvious I have the most posts to this old bumped thread. But as you can see if you look at the comments on the listings on backpacknjacks bookmark list, I am far from the only "oldest cache in every state geek". Not to call you a geek, Jack.

 

You were obviously aware of the Ohio controversy, and got it right, in my opinion. You wouldn't believe how many people don't read cache pages, and worship at the altar of the cache with the bogus placed date, driving hundreds of miles out of their way for it, though.

 

Did you know about California and Indiana? Both total replacements from cachers that were not the original owner, and the missing caches were "replaced" after a couple years, and unarchived for the "throwdowners". If so, what's your take? I mean sure, you're visiting the site of these caches.

 

There's a couple caches with Y2K placed GC numbers in Europe where people have pulled that same stunt too.

Edited August 17, 2013 by Mr.Yuck

[Keystone]

Which is why Geocaching.com now limits the ability to unarchive a cache long after it was archived.

[Mr.Yuck]

Which is why Geocaching.com now limits the ability to unarchive a cache long after it was archived.

 

Oh boy, I couldn't agree more with that one.

 

Indiana's first is brutal. A throwdown and unarchival 4 years and two months after the original went missing and was archived. Here's the lengths some people will go to for this throwdown (a relatively recent log)

 

Once I had found beverly and few others I took the south shore line to South bend Indiana and then hired a taxi to take me out to here. It was a glorious evening. This was a great location. Thank-you for bringing us here.

 

I explained geocaching to the taxi driver. She though I was crazy, but was happy to drive me around. It is hard to explain to muggles why willing to travel so far to find this location due to its history.

[Clan Riffster]

Which is why Geocaching.com now limits the ability to unarchive a cache long after it was archived.

 

Oh boy, I couldn't agree more with that one.

 

Indiana's first is brutal. A throwdown and unarchival 4 years and two months after the original went missing and was archived. Here's the lengths some people will go to for this throwdown (a relatively recent log)

 

Once I had found beverly and few others I took the south shore line to South bend Indiana and then hired a taxi to take me out to here. It was a glorious evening. This was a great location. Thank-you for bringing us here.

 

I explained geocaching to the taxi driver. She though I was crazy, but was happy to drive me around. It is hard to explain to muggles why willing to travel so far to find this location due to its history.

I also agree with the guidelines prohibiting unarchiving caches after an extended period. But since it was allowed back then, and the owner was apparently okay with the replacement, (they could have stoped it), then this one would be the oldest active cache in Indiana, right? Unless you want to get all confusing and convoluted on me. It has the oldest GC number, and no rules were violated in the making/remaking.

[+coachstahly]

Most people here in IN consider Indiana's First the first cache placed in our state (and therefore the oldest) but note that Turkey Run Stash is the oldest unarchived cache in the state. Personally, the location for Indiana's First is a rather boring area that does not have a lot going for it. Turkey Run Stash is in one of our most beautiful state parks and is a great hike with wonderful views, regardless of the season. I have found both of them so there's no question about it for me as to whether or not I have the oldest in IN. As to OH, I have a couple of friends, including a charter member, over in OH and all of them consider Shawnee Lookout as the oldest. I've had the opportunity to meet and talk with the CO of that one and he's a great guy and still active but we didn't discuss his cache.

[Mr.Yuck]

Most people here in IN consider Indiana's First the first cache placed in our state (and therefore the oldest) but note that Turkey Run Stash is the oldest unarchived cache in the state. Personally, the location for Indiana's First is a rather boring area that does not have a lot going for it. Turkey Run Stash is in one of our most beautiful state parks and is a great hike with wonderful views, regardless of the season. I have found both of them so there's no question about it for me as to whether or not I have the oldest in IN. As to OH, I have a couple of friends, including a charter member, over in OH and all of them consider Shawnee Lookout as the oldest. I've had the opportunity to meet and talk with the CO of that one and he's a great guy and still active but we didn't discuss his cache.

 

I decided to quote this post, and not CR's, but I'll address him too. Hi, CR!

 

Oh, crud, if you read the logs for the oldest cache in ANY State, you can see that people completely totally geek out over them. Myself included. I just wish there weren't at least 3 major controversies (Ohio, Indiana and California). Why do we need controversies? It should be pretty straight forward.

 

The "bogus" oldest cache in Ohio is in the Toledo area, and the *real* oldest cache in the Toledo area (March, 2001), and Shawnee Lookout both have the same text explaining how their caches are older. As a matter of fact, I checked once, and there were like 30 older active caches in Ohio than the phony one.

 

Most of my fellow geek-outster's aren't even aware of these controversies. And people probably think I'm an even bigger geek for pointing them out, and pontificating about them. So I'll sign off. So long, and thanks for all the fish.

[Clan Riffster]

Most people here in IN consider Indiana's First the first cache placed in our state (and therefore the oldest) but note that Turkey Run Stash is the oldest unarchived cache in the state. Personally, the location for Indiana's First is a rather boring area that does not have a lot going for it. Turkey Run Stash is in one of our most beautiful state parks and is a great hike with wonderful views, regardless of the season. I have found both of them so there's no question about it for me as to whether or not I have the oldest in IN. As to OH, I have a couple of friends, including a charter member, over in OH and all of them consider Shawnee Lookout as the oldest. I've had the opportunity to meet and talk with the CO of that one and he's a great guy and still active but we didn't discuss his cache.

 

I decided to quote this post, and not CR's, but I'll address him too. Hi, CR!

 

Oh, crud, if you read the logs for the oldest cache in ANY State, you can see that people completely totally geek out over them. Myself included. I just wish there weren't at least 3 major controversies (Ohio, Indiana and California). Why do we need controversies? It should be pretty straight forward.

 

The "bogus" oldest cache in Ohio is in the Toledo area, and the *real* oldest cache in the Toledo area (March, 2001), and Shawnee Lookout both have the same text explaining how their caches are older. As a matter of fact, I checked once, and there were like 30 older active caches in Ohio than the phony one.

 

Most of my fellow geek-outster's aren't even aware of these controversies. And people probably think I'm an even bigger geek for pointing them out, and pontificating about them. So I'll sign off. So long, and thanks for all the fish.

Unless you revel in the obfuscation of data, the only matrix used for measuring the age of the cache should be the GC number, created when the cache page was generated. Any other data is subject to skewed translations, confusion and outright deception. I'm currently building a new night cache Wherigo. I could add text to my cache page claiming that it is the oldest cache in Florida. I could even alter the placed by date to support my claim. But I suspect the 7 digit GC number would give away my ruse.

 

Would claiming my new cache as the oldest in Florida cause you any umbrage? If so, I have to ask why. Whilst such a deception might fool a handful of folks, the vast majority would see through it faster than Rosie O'Donnel gnawing through a tub of Ben & Jerry's. It would not be just a lie. It would be a stupid lie, hardly worth stressing over. By the same token, I could claim I was a 21 year old Rhodes Scholar, with the body of an Olympic god, but my claims won't make it so. All it would accomplish is for a few folks to approach an old, balding, crippled fat guy, asking if I knew Clan Riffster. I'm not supporting prevarication. Far from it. I am a staunch supporter of truth and individual accountability. Rather, I'm suggesting that in the case of some self deluded catcher claiming ownership of the oldest cache, when the GC number clearly shows otherwise, merits little more than a shake of the head and an eye roll.

 

Coming up with silly requirements which somehow qualify a claim of oldest active cache is simply promoting convolution and confusion. In the case of the aforementioned Indiana cache, I disagree with whoever allowed it to be reinstated, following a throw down, after an extended archival period. But apparently, at the time, Groundspeak did not agree with my stance. They allowed it, and the owner didn't step up and rectify it. Ergo, in accordance with the GC number, it is the oldest active cache in Indiana. Heck, even today Groundspeak could solve the dilemma by simply archiving and locking the listing. The fact that they won't do so speaks volumes.

 

Wanna know the oldest active cache in a given area?

Check the GC number. It's just that simple.

[+MKFmly]

The GC code is not a reliable indicator, other than in general. It only tells you when the cache page was started.

 

As you can reserve GC codes indefinitely, and publish a cache much later using one of the older codes. For example, a cacher could reserve a few GC codes playing with the cache creation pages when learning the geocaching.com site and/or have a few left over from caches that were never published (for whatever reason) dating back years.

 

Said cacher could then publish a cache with one of those codes and a date near when the GC code was issued and no one would be the wiser. Obviously, the logs would indicate a few things on the gross time scale but a matter of weeks or months would not show up very easily. It happens daily where a GC code is reserved and not published for some time (for whatever reason) and in the meantime later reserved GC codes are published inside a few days.

 

As a current example, I submitted four caches for publication on July 1st, and I am sure there have been many GC codes reserved and published since that time. The published caches with newer GC codes will always be "older" than my older GC Code caches.

[+MKFmly]

Double Post

Edited August 19, 2013 by MKFmly

[Clan Riffster]

The GC code is not a reliable indicator, other than in general. It only tells you when the cache page was started.

 

As you can reserve GC codes indefinitely, and publish a cache much later using one of the older codes. For example, a cacher could reserve a few GC codes playing with the cache creation pages when learning the geocaching.com site and/or have a few left over from caches that were never published (for whatever reason) dating back years.

 

Said cacher could then publish a cache with one of those codes and a date near when the GC code was issued and no one would be the wiser. Obviously, the logs would indicate a few things on the gross time scale but a matter of weeks or months would not show up very easily. It happens daily where a GC code is reserved and not published for some time (for whatever reason) and in the meantime later reserved GC codes are published inside a few days.

 

As a current example, I submitted four caches for publication on July 1st, and I am sure there have been many GC codes reserved and published since that time. The published caches with newer GC codes will always be "older" than my older GC Code caches.

Do you have any evidence that this affected any of the caches in the oldest bookmarks?

[+Roman!]

 

Wanna know the oldest active cache in a given area?

Check the GC number. It's just that simple.

 

When Groundspeak started listing caches they did not assign the GC codes by date placed, example is GCD, the only 1 character (asside from GC) cache still active, it's not older than mingo or a few other caches.

[+Roman!]

 

Yes, sir, there have been controversies. I forgot about California, that one is brutal. Some guy "got away" getting an old 2000 placed cache unarchived, after replacing it with a different one of his own in 2004 or 2005. (Original was removed in 2002 by the original owner due to a forest fire). The replacer has now long since gone inactive from caching himself.

 

Then I brought up Ohio, whose alleged oldest active cache has a totally obvious typo in the date placed field. Unless you really believe some guy toted an ammo box 3/4 mile into the woods on a Tuesday in January, and left it sitting there for 11 months and 1 day before joining the website and submitting it on the same day as his only other hide a few miles away.

 

EDIT: Holy crap! It looks like about 60 accounts made the pilgrimage to the bogus "oldest cache" in Ohio over MWGB weekend. Fire up those Jasmer charts people.

 

You won't find these two caches on Baloo's bookmark list though, because he got it right, in my opinion. I'm with the Bear.

 

I'm sure most if not all of those 60 are unaware of the error. On my road trip from Toronto to Vancouver I just completed the Ohio cache was on my todo list but I replaced it with and found Burlington Creek in Illinois to get my 01/2000 cache.

 

The only reason I did so is because I mentioned my intention on this forum and you informed me of the dating error, thanks but had you not I would have found the Ohio cache and been oblivious that I had not found an 01/2000 cache and probably been just as happy as I am now......until I some day may have figured out.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

The GC code is not a reliable indicator, other than in general. It only tells you when the cache page was started.

 

As you can reserve GC codes indefinitely, and publish a cache much later using one of the older codes. For example, a cacher could reserve a few GC codes playing with the cache creation pages when learning the geocaching.com site and/or have a few left over from caches that were never published (for whatever reason) dating back years.

 

Said cacher could then publish a cache with one of those codes and a date near when the GC code was issued and no one would be the wiser. Obviously, the logs would indicate a few things on the gross time scale but a matter of weeks or months would not show up very easily. It happens daily where a GC code is reserved and not published for some time (for whatever reason) and in the meantime later reserved GC codes are published inside a few days.

 

As a current example, I submitted four caches for publication on July 1st, and I am sure there have been many GC codes reserved and published since that time. The published caches with newer GC codes will always be "older" than my older GC Code caches.

Do you have any evidence that this affected any of the caches in the oldest bookmarks?

 

The first 100 or so caches have hidden dates that are not necessarily in sequential order, for example:

 

Mingo = GC30 placed May 11, 2000

The Spot = GC39 placed May 26, 2000

Tarryall = GC18 placed July 2, 2000

 

 

[Clan Riffster]

The GC code is not a reliable indicator, other than in general. It only tells you when the cache page was started.

 

As you can reserve GC codes indefinitely, and publish a cache much later using one of the older codes. For example, a cacher could reserve a few GC codes playing with the cache creation pages when learning the geocaching.com site and/or have a few left over from caches that were never published (for whatever reason) dating back years.

 

Said cacher could then publish a cache with one of those codes and a date near when the GC code was issued and no one would be the wiser. Obviously, the logs would indicate a few things on the gross time scale but a matter of weeks or months would not show up very easily. It happens daily where a GC code is reserved and not published for some time (for whatever reason) and in the meantime later reserved GC codes are published inside a few days.

 

As a current example, I submitted four caches for publication on July 1st, and I am sure there have been many GC codes reserved and published since that time. The published caches with newer GC codes will always be "older" than my older GC Code caches.

Do you have any evidence that this affected any of the caches in the oldest bookmarks?

 

The first 100 or so caches have hidden dates that are not necessarily in sequential order, for example:

 

Mingo = GC30 placed May 11, 2000

The Spot = GC39 placed May 26, 2000

Tarryall = GC18 placed July 2, 2000

We're the characters after the GC just randomly generated?

If not, can you use the data to determine which one was generated first?

[+Roman!]

The GC code is not a reliable indicator, other than in general. It only tells you when the cache page was started.

 

As you can reserve GC codes indefinitely, and publish a cache much later using one of the older codes. For example, a cacher could reserve a few GC codes playing with the cache creation pages when learning the geocaching.com site and/or have a few left over from caches that were never published (for whatever reason) dating back years.

 

Said cacher could then publish a cache with one of those codes and a date near when the GC code was issued and no one would be the wiser. Obviously, the logs would indicate a few things on the gross time scale but a matter of weeks or months would not show up very easily. It happens daily where a GC code is reserved and not published for some time (for whatever reason) and in the meantime later reserved GC codes are published inside a few days.

 

As a current example, I submitted four caches for publication on July 1st, and I am sure there have been many GC codes reserved and published since that time. The published caches with newer GC codes will always be "older" than my older GC Code caches.

Do you have any evidence that this affected any of the caches in the oldest bookmarks?

 

The first 100 or so caches have hidden dates that are not necessarily in sequential order, for example:

 

Mingo = GC30 placed May 11, 2000

The Spot = GC39 placed May 26, 2000

Tarryall = GC18 placed July 2, 2000

We're the characters after the GC just randomly generated?

If not, can you use the data to determine which one was generated first?

 

They are sequentially generated now based on when the cache page was submitted but the original I don't know how many caches existed before GC codes did so when GS listed them they did not assign the GC codes by the date the cache was placed but by when GS listed them so as a result you can not tell what the oldest cache is just by looking at the GC code.

[Clan Riffster]

The GC code is not a reliable indicator, other than in general. It only tells you when the cache page was started.

 

As you can reserve GC codes indefinitely, and publish a cache much later using one of the older codes. For example, a cacher could reserve a few GC codes playing with the cache creation pages when learning the geocaching.com site and/or have a few left over from caches that were never published (for whatever reason) dating back years.

 

Said cacher could then publish a cache with one of those codes and a date near when the GC code was issued and no one would be the wiser. Obviously, the logs would indicate a few things on the gross time scale but a matter of weeks or months would not show up very easily. It happens daily where a GC code is reserved and not published for some time (for whatever reason) and in the meantime later reserved GC codes are published inside a few days.

 

As a current example, I submitted four caches for publication on July 1st, and I am sure there have been many GC codes reserved and published since that time. The published caches with newer GC codes will always be "older" than my older GC Code caches.

Do you have any evidence that this affected any of the caches in the oldest bookmarks?

 

The first 100 or so caches have hidden dates that are not necessarily in sequential order, for example:

 

Mingo = GC30 placed May 11, 2000

The Spot = GC39 placed May 26, 2000

Tarryall = GC18 placed July 2, 2000

We're the characters after the GC just randomly generated?

If not, can you use the data to determine which one was generated first?

 

They are sequentially generated now based on when the cache page was submitted but the original I don't know how many caches existed before GC codes did so when GS listed them they did not assign the GC codes by the date the cache was placed but by when GS listed them so as a result you can not tell what the oldest cache is just by looking at the GC code.

So, someone sitting at a keyboard somewhere decided "This will be GCA, this one will be GCB, this one will be GCC", etc? Were there any criteria involved other than "Eany Meany Miny Mo"?

[+MKFmly]

Do you have any evidence that this affected any of the caches in the oldest bookmarks?

 

No, however it is a plausible theory with respect to these "Oldest Caches" and without significant investigation and more information it would be difficult to prove satisfactorily if this plausible event occurred or not.

[+Roman!]

The GC code is not a reliable indicator, other than in general. It only tells you when the cache page was started.

 

As you can reserve GC codes indefinitely, and publish a cache much later using one of the older codes. For example, a cacher could reserve a few GC codes playing with the cache creation pages when learning the geocaching.com site and/or have a few left over from caches that were never published (for whatever reason) dating back years.

 

Said cacher could then publish a cache with one of those codes and a date near when the GC code was issued and no one would be the wiser. Obviously, the logs would indicate a few things on the gross time scale but a matter of weeks or months would not show up very easily. It happens daily where a GC code is reserved and not published for some time (for whatever reason) and in the meantime later reserved GC codes are published inside a few days.

 

As a current example, I submitted four caches for publication on July 1st, and I am sure there have been many GC codes reserved and published since that time. The published caches with newer GC codes will always be "older" than my older GC Code caches.

Do you have any evidence that this affected any of the caches in the oldest bookmarks?

 

The first 100 or so caches have hidden dates that are not necessarily in sequential order, for example:

 

Mingo = GC30 placed May 11, 2000

The Spot = GC39 placed May 26, 2000

Tarryall = GC18 placed July 2, 2000

We're the characters after the GC just randomly generated?

If not, can you use the data to determine which one was generated first?

 

They are sequentially generated now based on when the cache page was submitted but the original I don't know how many caches existed before GC codes did so when GS listed them they did not assign the GC codes by the date the cache was placed but by when GS listed them so as a result you can not tell what the oldest cache is just by looking at the GC code.

So, someone sitting at a keyboard somewhere decided "This will be GCA, this one will be GCB, this one will be GCC", etc? Were there any criteria involved other than "Eany Meany Miny Mo"?

 

I'm sure there were but it wasn't date placed.

 

GCD - 06/21/2000

GC12 - 05/12/2000

[Clan Riffster]

The GC code is not a reliable indicator, other than in general. It only tells you when the cache page was started.

 

As you can reserve GC codes indefinitely, and publish a cache much later using one of the older codes. For example, a cacher could reserve a few GC codes playing with the cache creation pages when learning the geocaching.com site and/or have a few left over from caches that were never published (for whatever reason) dating back years.

 

Said cacher could then publish a cache with one of those codes and a date near when the GC code was issued and no one would be the wiser. Obviously, the logs would indicate a few things on the gross time scale but a matter of weeks or months would not show up very easily. It happens daily where a GC code is reserved and not published for some time (for whatever reason) and in the meantime later reserved GC codes are published inside a few days.

 

As a current example, I submitted four caches for publication on July 1st, and I am sure there have been many GC codes reserved and published since that time. The published caches with newer GC codes will always be "older" than my older GC Code caches.

Do you have any evidence that this affected any of the caches in the oldest bookmarks?

 

The first 100 or so caches have hidden dates that are not necessarily in sequential order, for example:

 

Mingo = GC30 placed May 11, 2000

The Spot = GC39 placed May 26, 2000

Tarryall = GC18 placed July 2, 2000

We're the characters after the GC just randomly generated?

If not, can you use the data to determine which one was generated first?

 

They are sequentially generated now based on when the cache page was submitted but the original I don't know how many caches existed before GC codes did so when GS listed them they did not assign the GC codes by the date the cache was placed but by when GS listed them so as a result you can not tell what the oldest cache is just by looking at the GC code.

So, someone sitting at a keyboard somewhere decided "This will be GCA, this one will be GCB, this one will be GCC", etc? Were there any criteria involved other than "Eany Meany Miny Mo"?

 

I'm sure there were but it wasn't date placed.

 

GCD - 06/21/2000

GC12 - 05/12/2000

Can you share the criteria which were used?

[+Roman!]

The GC code is not a reliable indicator, other than in general. It only tells you when the cache page was started.

 

As you can reserve GC codes indefinitely, and publish a cache much later using one of the older codes. For example, a cacher could reserve a few GC codes playing with the cache creation pages when learning the geocaching.com site and/or have a few left over from caches that were never published (for whatever reason) dating back years.

 

Said cacher could then publish a cache with one of those codes and a date near when the GC code was issued and no one would be the wiser. Obviously, the logs would indicate a few things on the gross time scale but a matter of weeks or months would not show up very easily. It happens daily where a GC code is reserved and not published for some time (for whatever reason) and in the meantime later reserved GC codes are published inside a few days.

 

As a current example, I submitted four caches for publication on July 1st, and I am sure there have been many GC codes reserved and published since that time. The published caches with newer GC codes will always be "older" than my older GC Code caches.

Do you have any evidence that this affected any of the caches in the oldest bookmarks?

 

The first 100 or so caches have hidden dates that are not necessarily in sequential order, for example:

 

Mingo = GC30 placed May 11, 2000

The Spot = GC39 placed May 26, 2000

Tarryall = GC18 placed July 2, 2000

We're the characters after the GC just randomly generated?

If not, can you use the data to determine which one was generated first?

 

They are sequentially generated now based on when the cache page was submitted but the original I don't know how many caches existed before GC codes did so when GS listed them they did not assign the GC codes by the date the cache was placed but by when GS listed them so as a result you can not tell what the oldest cache is just by looking at the GC code.

So, someone sitting at a keyboard somewhere decided "This will be GCA, this one will be GCB, this one will be GCC", etc? Were there any criteria involved other than "Eany Meany Miny Mo"?

 

I'm sure there were but it wasn't date placed.

 

GCD - 06/21/2000

GC12 - 05/12/2000

Can you share the criteria which were used?

 

Me? No, I have no clue just know it wasn't the date, perhaps one of the older oldtimers or mods might know.

[Clan Riffster]

The GC code is not a reliable indicator, other than in general. It only tells you when the cache page was started.

 

As you can reserve GC codes indefinitely, and publish a cache much later using one of the older codes. For example, a cacher could reserve a few GC codes playing with the cache creation pages when learning the geocaching.com site and/or have a few left over from caches that were never published (for whatever reason) dating back years.

 

Said cacher could then publish a cache with one of those codes and a date near when the GC code was issued and no one would be the wiser. Obviously, the logs would indicate a few things on the gross time scale but a matter of weeks or months would not show up very easily. It happens daily where a GC code is reserved and not published for some time (for whatever reason) and in the meantime later reserved GC codes are published inside a few days.

 

As a current example, I submitted four caches for publication on July 1st, and I am sure there have been many GC codes reserved and published since that time. The published caches with newer GC codes will always be "older" than my older GC Code caches.

Do you have any evidence that this affected any of the caches in the oldest bookmarks?

 

The first 100 or so caches have hidden dates that are not necessarily in sequential order, for example:

 

Mingo = GC30 placed May 11, 2000

The Spot = GC39 placed May 26, 2000

Tarryall = GC18 placed July 2, 2000

We're the characters after the GC just randomly generated?

If not, can you use the data to determine which one was generated first?

 

They are sequentially generated now based on when the cache page was submitted but the original I don't know how many caches existed before GC codes did so when GS listed them they did not assign the GC codes by the date the cache was placed but by when GS listed them so as a result you can not tell what the oldest cache is just by looking at the GC code.

So, someone sitting at a keyboard somewhere decided "This will be GCA, this one will be GCB, this one will be GCC", etc? Were there any criteria involved other than "Eany Meany Miny Mo"?

 

I'm sure there were but it wasn't date placed.

 

GCD - 06/21/2000

GC12 - 05/12/2000

Can you share the criteria which were used?

 

Me? No, I have no clue just know it wasn't the date, perhaps one of the older oldtimers or mods might know.

Dang... Well, if there were criteria other than random chance, I suppose one who understood the process could use it to determine the age of a cache.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

The GC code is not a reliable indicator, other than in general. It only tells you when the cache page was started.

 

As you can reserve GC codes indefinitely, and publish a cache much later using one of the older codes. For example, a cacher could reserve a few GC codes playing with the cache creation pages when learning the geocaching.com site and/or have a few left over from caches that were never published (for whatever reason) dating back years.

 

Said cacher could then publish a cache with one of those codes and a date near when the GC code was issued and no one would be the wiser. Obviously, the logs would indicate a few things on the gross time scale but a matter of weeks or months would not show up very easily. It happens daily where a GC code is reserved and not published for some time (for whatever reason) and in the meantime later reserved GC codes are published inside a few days.

 

As a current example, I submitted four caches for publication on July 1st, and I am sure there have been many GC codes reserved and published since that time. The published caches with newer GC codes will always be "older" than my older GC Code caches.

Do you have any evidence that this affected any of the caches in the oldest bookmarks?

 

The first 100 or so caches have hidden dates that are not necessarily in sequential order, for example:

 

Mingo = GC30 placed May 11, 2000

The Spot = GC39 placed May 26, 2000

Tarryall = GC18 placed July 2, 2000

We're the characters after the GC just randomly generated?

If not, can you use the data to determine which one was generated first?

 

They are sequentially generated now based on when the cache page was submitted but the original I don't know how many caches existed before GC codes did so when GS listed them they did not assign the GC codes by the date the cache was placed but by when GS listed them so as a result you can not tell what the oldest cache is just by looking at the GC code.

So, someone sitting at a keyboard somewhere decided "This will be GCA, this one will be GCB, this one will be GCC", etc? Were there any criteria involved other than "Eany Meany Miny Mo"?

 

I suspect that few people actually know the details of how GC codes were assigned. It is my understanding that there were about 100 caches that pre-existed the creation of the geocaching.com site, and thus did not have GC codes. The first caches were listed on a web site created by Mike Teague (archived here on web.archive.org). Also see this version where Mike announces the creation of the geocaching.com site. This link appears to be the earliest capture of the geocaching.com site though most of the links are broken.

 

Someone may know how the list of caches by State and Country on the "GPS Stash Hunt" site got migrated to the geocaching.com site and how GC codes were assigned. Jeremy probably knows. Maybe Moun10bike know and he'll chime in. I actually got email from Mike Teague once related to some geocaching history.

 

By the way, the lowest GC number I could find for a cache is GC4 (Mike's First), a cache owned by Mike Teague. The first found it log was by some user named Jeremy.

Edited August 20, 2013 by NYPaddleCacher