New cache, old hide

[+ExtremeNorthWales]

Apologies if this has already been covered, but I can't find an answer to my question.

 

A cache near to my home was archived and a new cache has now been hidden at the same place.

 

I had logged the original cache as a find, but can I log the new cache, which has been hidden by a different person?

 

I found a guideline, which states that you can't log a new find if you return to a cache, but it's not clear if this also applies to a new cache at the old location?

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

Apologies if this has already been covered, but I can't find an answer to my question.

 

A cache near to my home was archived and a new cache has now been hidden at the same place.

 

I had logged the original cache as a find, but can I log the new cache, which has been hidden by a different person?

 

I found a guideline, which states that you can't log a new find if you return to a cache, but it's not clear if this also applies to a new cache at the old location?

 

Absolutely.

Edited January 14, 2013 by Sharks-N-Beans

[+ExtremeNorthWales]

I've noticed that people have been logging the new cache, stating that they also found the old one. I wasn't sure if this would make me feel like I've cheated, as I know exactly where to look now! It's just bugging me that it's "undiscovered" on my map :S What are other people's feelings on this? Would you claim a new find?

[+Team Hugs]

Absolutely.

 

Since that's a little ambiguous (because you asked two questions), let me chime in.

 

New cache at an old location is a new cache. You can certainly log a find on the new cache, even if you logged a find on some other archived cache. After all ... it's entirely possible that the new cache at the old location was hidden differently than the original cache. (There's more than one way to hide an ammo can in a log, or hide a micro under a lamppost skirt.)

 

The guideline to which you refer talks about logging multiple finds on the same cache (i.e. continuous life of one GC#, sometime between "published" and "archived").

 

I see this occasionally up here ... no worries.

[+MartyBartfast]

 

Would you claim a new find?

Yes.

[+T.D.M.22]

I think you are asking if you can log a new find without visiting the new cache? If so then no, you should visit the cache again and sign a new logbook. Now of course if you visit the cache and sign the logbook you can absolutely claim another smiley. That may be what was intended. Perhaps the old cache hadn't any visits for a long time and the CO thought it be appropriate to archive the old one and put a new one in it's place to get more people there.

[AZcachemeister]

Previously used locations get re-used all the time.

If it's a new GC#, then it is a new cache, and you can certainly find the new cache and log it.

 

Having found the now archived cache is not a passport to log the new one, however.

[Mr.Yuck]

I don't think you're going to find anyone who will say to not log the new cache. Even I would, and I'm about one of the most obnoxious of the old-school as you'll ever find. It isn't much of an adventure though, I'll admit. I think I've done it 3 or 4 times. One was kind of exciting, it was 300 miles from home in a different State, so at least I didn't know it was going to be the exact same hiding spot until I physically got there.

[+The_Incredibles_]

If I was the new cache owner, I'd be very annoyed if you logged a find just because you found the old one. I don't normally check the physical log against the online one, but I would in this case and would delete online logs as necessary.

 

It may be the same location, but it's a different container, different GC code, different owner.

 

It's a separate cache.

 

Incidentally, I hid one of my geocaches just meters from where a previous one was. Not a single person claimed a find just because they found the old one.

[Mr.Yuck]

If I was the new cache owner, I'd be very annoyed if you logged a find just because you found the old one. I don't normally check the physical log against the online one, but I would in this case and would delete online logs as necessary.

 

It may be the same location, but it's a different container, different GC code, different owner.

 

It's a separate cache.

 

Incidentally, I hid one of my geocaches just meters from where a previous one was. Not a single person claimed a find just because they found the old one.

 

I could be wrong, but I'm of the opinion the OP would go there again, and sign the log for the new cache. I'm not reading anything that indicates a "log from home because I was there before" situation.

[+tozainamboku]

I found a guideline, which states that you can't log a new find if you return to a cache, but it's not clear if this also applies to a new cache at the old location?

I wonder where you found this guideline. I just took a quick look and can't find it. I imagine there may be FAQ or a comment somewhere indicating that you can use a Write Note log to move a travel bug or to report on the status of a cache you previously found. Common practice is to log a cache as 'Found' only one time. There may however be some exceptions. It is up to you to decide what you think is right.

 

In addition to someone placing a new cache where a now archived cache previously exited, there are also cases where a cache owner has to move a cache or change the hide in a significant way. Sometimes this can be done without reviewer involvement. While the suggestion it to archive the cache and create a new one, this is not always done. If the cache owner says you can log the cache again if you already found the old version, you are free to do so if you want.

 

Some cache owners have been known to archive a cache and publish the same cache with a new GC code because of a very minor change. I know that some reviewers have denied some caches like this and have required that the cache owner demonstrate that the cache hide is significantly different. I'm not sure what guideline they base it on, but clearly the intent is to not recycle the same cache with a new GC code just so people can revisit and log it again.

 

On thing to remember is "There's no prize, no leaderboard, and no trophy, so there's no reason to get your knickers in a twist about anyone else's definition of a find." Some people like easy rules like one Found log per GC code. Other people may prefer to look for the cache and if it not significantly different than what they found before they won't log it while if it is different - even if the GC code is the same - they will log it.

[+simpjkee]

Log your find on the old cache (as you have already done so). Find the new cache and then log your find on the new cache.

 

I know a cache that has rwecently been going the exact opposite. A new cache has been listed in the same spot as a now archived cache. People are finding and logging the new cache as found AND logging the archived cache as found. That's their business, but I don't play that way.

[+lamoracke]

Unless its a situation where a different cacher say found the old container at the same spot after the old one got archived and did not even change out the log books (ie your signature is still in the log book)...can't see any other reason to not go there again if you want a new smiley. Even then, some would argue you should sign again.

 

Personally its not a fun feeling to visit a cache and suddenly be surprised to see your name already on the same log sheet and then wonder, um, do I sign this again?

[+WarNinjas]

Log it! I am assuming you found the new one.

[+MartyBartfast]

This phrase:

 

... I know exactly where to look now! ...

 

made me think you're intending to go and look for the new one, which is why I said log it. As others have said I think you should only log the new one if you go and find it.

[+ExtremeNorthWales]

I'd like to clarify that I would definitely be visiting the new cache and signing the log. I would never claim a find on a new cache, just because I had found the archived one. If the name's not in the log, then it doesn't count.

[+OZ2CPU]

All PHYSICAL caches, no matter name, age, GC number, location, type, active or archived,

can be logged online as found, when the log book with correct name and GC number is found and signed.

 

----

 

archived, and disabled caches are forgotten or left intentionally out there,

when they are found, people can claim their find online too..

[+ras_oscar]

New GC number = new cache and a new smiley once you sign the log sheet.

Old GC number = old cache and you can't relog it. You can however revisit and post a note.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

New GC number = new cache and a new smiley once you sign the log sheet.

Old GC number = old cache and you can't relog it. You can however revisit and post a note.

 

That's an opnion, not a rule. Nothing prevents you from logging a cache more than once. See the thread on the Brass Cap Cache in Alberta.

[+uxorious]

New GC number = new cache and a new smiley once you sign the log sheet.

Old GC number = old cache and you can't relog it. You can however revisit and post a note.

 

Someone gets a new GC# for a hide that is in the same spot, with the same basic container, and it is OK to log it. Someone else uses the same GC# and container, but moves it 1600 ft. to another spot in the park, on a different trail, and you can't log it?

 

I think in either case, do what you find comfortable.

 

I have gone to find caches that have been moved a couple hundred feet, but are the same hide really. When I have, I have logged a note. However, when I get around to finding the one that is a new container, in a different part of the park, on a different trail, I plan to log it as a found. Even though it is the same GC#.

 

If I revisited a cache that wasn't moved nor had the container changed, I wouldn't log it as a find just a note. Whether it had the same GC# or not.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Log your find on the old cache (as you have already done so). Find the new cache and then log your find on the new cache.

 

I know a cache that has rwecently been going the exact opposite. A new cache has been listed in the same spot as a now archived cache. People are finding and logging the new cache as found AND logging the archived cache as found. That's their business, but I don't play that way.

 

There is one nearby where the CO moved and archived the cache, but did not remove it. New cache, new CO, same location, has the old cache and log inside it. Some people are logging both.

Don't know what to think about his one...

[+uxorious]

Log your find on the old cache (as you have already done so). Find the new cache and then log your find on the new cache.

 

I know a cache that has rwecently been going the exact opposite. A new cache has been listed in the same spot as a now archived cache. People are finding and logging the new cache as found AND logging the archived cache as found. That's their business, but I don't play that way.

 

There is one nearby where the CO moved and archived the cache, but did not remove it. New cache, new CO, same location, has the old cache and log inside it. Some people are logging both.

Don't know what to think about his one...

 

I've seen this also, the old cache either inside the new or just beside the new. It does lead to some interesting logs.

 

I will sign both logs,(if I haven't signed one of them before.) However, I will only log once on line.

[+The_Incredibles_]

If I was the new cache owner, I'd be very annoyed if you logged a find just because you found the old one. I don't normally check the physical log against the online one, but I would in this case and would delete online logs as necessary.

 

It may be the same location, but it's a different container, different GC code, different owner.

 

It's a separate cache.

 

Incidentally, I hid one of my geocaches just meters from where a previous one was. Not a single person claimed a find just because they found the old one.

 

I could be wrong, but I'm of the opinion the OP would go there again, and sign the log for the new cache. I'm not reading anything that indicates a "log from home because I was there before" situation.

 

Thanks for setting me straight, Mr Y. I don't know how I was the only one to interpret the OP's post that way.

[+simpjkee]

Log your find on the old cache (as you have already done so). Find the new cache and then log your find on the new cache.

 

I know a cache that has rwecently been going the exact opposite. A new cache has been listed in the same spot as a now archived cache. People are finding and logging the new cache as found AND logging the archived cache as found. That's their business, but I don't play that way.

 

There is one nearby where the CO moved and archived the cache, but did not remove it. New cache, new CO, same location, has the old cache and log inside it. Some people are logging both.

Don't know what to think about his one...

In simpjkee's rules of geocaching (which apply only to simpjkee) that is one find and one smiley on the new cache. If I hadn't previously logged the old one while it was active, I've missed my chance.

[joesdolphins]

Apologies if this has already been covered, but I can't find an answer to my question.

 

A cache near to my home was archived and a new cache has now been hidden at the same place.

 

I had logged the original cache as a find, but can I log the new cache, which has been hidden by a different person?

 

I found a guideline, which states that you can't log a new find if you return to a cache, but it's not clear if this also applies to a new cache at the old location?

[joesdolphins]

If it has a new gc code its classified as a different cache.log it.

[joesdolphins]

If it has a new gc number its a different cache go find it again and log it.

[GPS-Hermit]

It is a new cache but not a new find it - I would not bother - the numbers mean nothing. I see no point in finding the same location again. If you are just curious about the container or something that is fine. Yes, you can do it but a new cache at a new location is GeoCaching the way it was intended to be. Whatever floats your boat!

[+wmpastor]

Apologies if this has already been covered, but I can't find an answer to my question.

 

A cache near to my home was archived and a new cache has now been hidden at the same place.

 

I had logged the original cache as a find, but can I log the new cache, which has been hidden by a different person?

 

I found a guideline, which states that you can't log a new find if you return to a cache, but it's not clear if this also applies to a new cache at the old location?

With voting, some say "Vote early and often." Others disagree. The same holds for multi-logging.

[+ExtremeNorthWales]

After much consideration, I went to the cache and found it in exactly the same place, in a near identical container. I signed the log and was initially pleased to have got the smiley back on the map. The next couple of days, I was bothered by the fact that I'd only achieved a, "cheap find". It hadn't been a new experience. Just because it was a new cache number, didn't make it a new cache. I ended up deleting my log and adding the cache to my ignore list. That way, the cache doesn't taunt me from the map and I still have the original cache counted in my total finds.

[+Don_J]

After much consideration, I went to the cache and found it in exactly the same place, in a near identical container. I signed the log and was initially pleased to have got the smiley back on the map. The next couple of days, I was bothered by the fact that I'd only achieved a, "cheap find". It hadn't been a new experience. Just because it was a new cache number, didn't make it a new cache. I ended up deleting my log and adding the cache to my ignore list. That way, the cache doesn't taunt me from the map and I still have the original cache counted in my total finds.

 

If it was such a cheap find, perhaps you should delete the log for the first listing as well.

 

There is a hill around here overlooking a park. It's a quick but steep jaunt up the hill and it really gets the blood pumping and makes you enjoy the view all the more. Over the years, there have been four different caches on top of that hill, three in the exact same spot. I've logged all four. I don't care if it was the same experience as long as the experience was worth it.

[+ExtremeNorthWales]

 

If it was such a cheap find, perhaps you should delete the log for the first listing as well.

 

I was very happy with the experience of the original find. The container is on a support, underneath a low bridge. You had to crawl underneath it, which was good fun.

 

It was only the second time which didn't hold any value for me.

[+fbingha]

You should log the cache if you visited and signed the log again. Leave some swag in it, make it more than an easy find and rest easy.

[+dprovan]

After much consideration, I went to the cache and found it in exactly the same place, in a near identical container. I signed the log and was initially pleased to have got the smiley back on the map. The next couple of days, I was bothered by the fact that I'd only achieved a, "cheap find". It hadn't been a new experience. Just because it was a new cache number, didn't make it a new cache. I ended up deleting my log and adding the cache to my ignore list. That way, the cache doesn't taunt me from the map and I still have the original cache counted in my total finds.

I have no problem if that's the way you want to do it. Do you follow that logic to the point where you don't log finds on LPCs, since every one is a cheap find and not a new experience?

 

Personally, I might consider a redux cache a cheap find, although I'd tend to find rate it the same as the original find, instead. And it might not be a new experience, although to me each caching experience is new even if the physical location is the same. But even if I rated the find cheap and the experience not new, I'd still consider it a find. To me, a find is a binary yes/no, not something that has to be quantified through some measure of the uniqueness of the experience. If it's a legit find, I'll still count it no matter how lousy or pointless the cache is.

[+ExtremeNorthWales]

Do you follow that logic to the point where you don't log finds on LPCs, since every one is a cheap find and not a new experience?

 

I'm happy to log finds on all sorts of caches, even lousy ones. A nano on a bench, in the city centre, is still a fun experience for me. We don't really have LPCs here in the U.K. (if you mean the skirt lifter ones?) but I would be happy to find those too.

 

In this instance, it was because I had found the archived cache before, in the same location, in an identical container. It made me feel that I was cheating myself a bit to add that to my total finds, so I deleted it.

 

I understand that others will have a different view. As mentioned previously; some feel that a new cache number counts as a new find, no matter what. To some extent I agree. It's just not for me. I'd be interested to see if anyone else shares my view.

[+redsox_mark]

This has happened to me once. I saw a new cache published which was replacing a previously archived one in the area. I could not remember the details of the archived cache (it was a couple of years prior), but I did remember it was a nice walk. So I went out and found it. When I found the "new" cache I recongised the hide location, it was the same. I could not remember if it was the same container or not, I think it probably was. Was the same log as I found my signature on it.

I did feel a bit odd about it, but logging it as found made the most sense to me. I went out to find the cache and I found it.