Unarchive or new cache?

[+XGrunt]

I have 3 caches that I archived due to the hosts being removed and because I was out of the game for a while due to health issues. So now I am caching again and I would like to place caches at these locations again. So ...1 cache the host has been replaced so I'm thinking unarchive...the other two would be placed a short distance away from the originals. Of these two 1 is a completely different container and new style of hide. I have emailed my local reviewer but gotten no response. What say the masses??

[+stijnhommes]

What do you mean when you say host? A webhost to supply part of the cache details or a person on whose private property the cache was? Or perhaps something different...

[+XGrunt]

The location the cache was attached to...ie the pay phone, the lightpole and the entire wooded area for one.

[AZcachemeister]

I would say if they have been archived for more than about a month, you should go ahead and post new listings on all of them.

That is unless one is from 2001, in which case it should be un-archived as a national treasure.

[+ngrrfan]

Put out a new cache. What is dead is dead and buried. Don't raise the dead.

[+The_Incredibles_]

New caches for all 3. The locals will be happy because they will get 3 more smilies. Also, archiving is supposed to permanent, except for special circumstances. Your reviewer will tell you this when they get back to you.

[+Cache O'Plenty]

Concur with the other responses. Make them new caches. Only one of them is actually a duplicate of the original anyway. You said the others would be "placed a short distance away from the originals". And one of those isn't even the same container. Yep, new caches = new smilies.

[+roundnround we go]

I say if it is hidden exactly the same, as in same location, container and style of hide then unarchive. no reason to get two smileys for the same cache. if there are any changes to container, style or location then resubmit for a new GC# and make it a new cache

[+J the Goat]

If they've been archived for very long, the chance that the reviewer will unarchive them simply because you're back is slim. Make new caches. Change them all up just a touch if it makes you feel better about calling them new

[+Don_J]

If they've been archived for very long, the chance that the reviewer will unarchive them simply because you're back is slim. Make new caches. Change them all up just a touch if it makes you feel better about calling them new

 

I have seen our reviewers unarchive a cache after six months. It really didn't make a lot of sense to me as the cache in question had been missing for a year prior to that and was just the average urban micro, and the CO is not a very active or involved cacher. Not that I think that it is the case with the the original poster, but I took it that they were just lazy, popped a new film can under the lamp skirt and then wanted the reviewer to do the work, instead of going through the effort of writing a new listing.

 

I'd say if it is more than a few weeks, make new listings. The only one I would even consider unarchiving is the one that is absolutely identical to the original.

[+wimseyguy]

I disagree with most of the posters to this thread. If it's going to be a new geocaching experience then it should be a new listing. If it is pretty much the same as before then I would ask the reviewer to unarchive it. The length of time that it was archived is irrelevant.

 

I don't need to revisit the location for another smiley unless my visit will be different than the first time.

And cachers who started after the cache was archived will see it as a new cache to find no matter what the gc# was.

[+fuzziebear3]

New listings.

 

Hopefully, there was a reason you brought cachers to this place. Therefore, it is worthwhile to go back again, and get another smiley for the effort.

[+MartyBartfast]

The length of time that it was archived is irrelevant.

It may be irrelevant to you (and me for that matter) but over in the UK the reviewers won't normally unarchive a cache if it's been archived for long.

[I!]

the pay phone, the lightpole and the entire wooded area for one

The first two - keep archived; think of somewhere better. The third - new listing.

[Pup Patrol]

It's best to get in contact with your local reviewer.

 

Help Center → Geocaching → Cache Ownership: A Long-Term Relationship

 

6.14. Unarchiving a Cache

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.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.

 

However, if you accidentally archived it, please contact the reviewer who originally published your cache with the cache name, GC Code and the explanation for unarchiving it. You'll find a link to the reviewer's profile at the bottom of your cache page. You may also send a message to contact@geocaching.com in cases where you are unable to reach the correct reviewer.

 

For any cache to be unarchived, it must first meet the current Cache Listing Guidelines.

 

 

B.

[+Don_J]

It's best to get in contact with your local reviewer.

 

Help Center → Geocaching → Cache Ownership: A Long-Term Relationship

 

6.14. Unarchiving a Cache

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.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.

 

However, if you accidentally archived it, please contact the reviewer who originally published your cache with the cache name, GC Code and the explanation for unarchiving it. You'll find a link to the reviewer's profile at the bottom of your cache page. You may also send a message to contact@geocaching.com in cases where you are unable to reach the correct reviewer.

 

For any cache to be unarchived, it must first meet the current Cache Listing Guidelines.

 

 

B.

 

About a year ago, the canned message that our local reviewers use when archiving a cache was changed to offer unarchiving, provided that the cache can pass review using the current guidelines. I have read the messages used by reviewers in other areas and note the same offer. I see this as some sort of policy change and wonder about the phrase in the KB "The archiving of a cache by the owner is supposed to be a permanent status." I realize that it is talking about caches archived by the owner, not a reviewer, but I wonder if that too isn't outdated. It seems that it is not as permanent as we used to think it is.

Edited September 5, 2012 by Don_J