Republishing identical caches

[+josua]

Hi,

 

Is it allowed in geocaching the practice of archiving a cache and republishing an identical one in exactly the same place, just in order to achieve that the new cache appears as it has never been found by anybody?

 

Thanks

[+eusty]

Not against any guidelines.

[+T.D.M.22]

It is allowed although some people think you should do something different. Maybe move it across the street. or instead of a micro make it a small LnL, or even make the new cache a puzzle cache. Just something as it's not the EXACT same cache at the EXACT same location. I've done it before and people didn't enjoy it, it was just a number booster for them. Now if you do something different that's good. I replaced a 5 gallon bucket (that got lots of regular visits) with a custom painted and themed ammo can for a Halloween event. People liked it because it was different, somewhat new experience.

[+stijnhommes]

Hi,

 

Is it allowed in geocaching the practice of archiving a cache and republishing an identical one in exactly the same place, just in order to achieve that the new cache appears as it has never been found by anybody?

 

Thanks

It might not be against the rules, but if I was a reviewer, I wouldn't enjoy people filling up the server with archived caches. If you were to place more caches nearby the chances of this particular cache being found increase tenfold.

[+Mudfrog]

Just another way to boost numbers.

[+simpjkee]

Last night, I found 5 caches that were identical, but just relisted. It's a cache so I'll find it, but is it really necessary? I don't think so. I wouldn't do it.

[+simpjkee]

...on second thought, I suppose there may be a good reason to do this, but I'm not sure what it would be.

 

Josua, why do you want to do this? Simply so that people re find it?

[+the4dirtydogs]

...on second thought, I suppose there may be a good reason to do this, but I'm not sure what it would be.

 

Josua, why do you want to do this? Simply so that people re find it?

I know some players who use this practice with the yearly events that they put on. Archive last years and relist the new ones in the same spot for the new event. Heck some caches even had the same old logs in them. I also remember finding 2 caches in the same spot a few times. We stopped looking for the event caches after the second year attending.

[Keystone]

Not against any guidelines.

The "Cache Permanence" guideline is relevant here.

[AZcachemeister]

Not against any guidelines.

The "Cache Permanence" guideline is relevant here.

 

Which is (IMNSHO) something of a joke around here.

We have a team who tosses out a cache, and then archives it at the first sign of a problem.

 

Correct the bad/wrong co-ordinates? Too much trouble.

 

Move the cache so it is off the private property they didn't notice when placing the cache? Too much trouble.

 

Yeah, I know...take it up with the local reviewer. Too much trouble!

[+Huntleigh]

...on second thought, I suppose there may be a good reason to do this, but I'm not sure what it would be.

 

Josua, why do you want to do this? Simply so that people re find it?

 

How about it's a good cache but the CO has disappeared from the scene?

 

Some folk are trying to keep it going by replacing logbooks etc but the best solution is to archive it and recreate it as a Mk II version with a CO who is willing to maintain. (If the numbers freaks want to find it again to boost their total then more power to their elbow).

 

I have a replacement cache where the original was a 4.5T as it was a steep scramble down a scrub covered bank to an old 1885 gun emplacement. Since the cache placement the site had been done up so it was a 2T tops. The cache had been muggled, the CO was no longer in the game so I asked him to archive, which he did and I created an "identical" cache.

 

Identical that is except for the terrain rating, the actual location, (and a better write up IMHO).

 

I could have adopted it but that would have meant changing the terrain rating and that wouldn't have been fair for earlier finders.

 

On the other hand I also adopted a cache at a railway station, where the only real difference is the location and container type.

Edited January 21, 2013 by Huntleigh

[+simpjkee]

...on second thought, I suppose there may be a good reason to do this, but I'm not sure what it would be.

 

Josua, why do you want to do this? Simply so that people re find it?

 

How about it's a good cache but the CO has disappeared from the scene?

 

Some folk are trying to keep it going by replacing logbooks etc but the best solution is to archive it and recreate it as a Mk II version with a CO who is willing to maintain. (If the numbers freaks want to find it again to boost their total then more power to their elbow).

 

I have a replacement cache where the original was a 4.5T as it was a steep scramble down a scrub covered bank to an old 1885 gun emplacement. Since the cache placement the site had been done up so it was a 2T tops. The cache had been muggled, the CO was no longer in the game so I asked him to archive, which he did and I created an "identical" cache.

 

Identical that is except for the terrain rating, the actual location, (and a better write up IMHO).

 

I could have adopted it but that would have meant changing the terrain rating and that wouldn't have been fair for earlier finders.

 

On the other hand I also adopted a cache at a railway station, where the only real difference is the location and container type.

 

yeah I thought of this, but I got the impression from the OP that it was his own cache that he was archiving and then relisting.

Edited January 21, 2013 by simpjkee

[+The A-Team]

How about it's a good cache but the CO has disappeared from the scene?

I'd be fine with that. Heck, many of us here in the forums suggest exactly this whenever someone posts that they want to adopt an abandoned cache.

 

However, a single CO archiving a cache and then re-listing it without any changes? Some words that come to mind:

 

Cheesy

 

Lame

 

Boring

 

Lazy

 

Any others I'm missing?

[+tozainamboku]

While not against the guidelines per se, the reviewers have denied the cache to published by using the cache permanence guideline.

 

If people begin to regularly republish caches to get a new GC and allow "refinds", it could be that TPTB will call this out specifically as against the guidelines. Clearly the idea is for there to be new caches, preferably in new places rather that just repeat finding the same ones over and over because they have a new GC code.

 

However, one would also like it to be relatively easy for a cache owner who whats to replace a cache with something significantly different to do so. For example, if a regular or small container keeps going missing the cache owner may want to hide a micro; or replace as easy hide with something more difficult.

 

Just what the guideline would be that would allow a new cache listing by the same owner is difficult to say. My suspicion is that in order to save the reviewers any grief, they will not allow any replacements (for some specified period of time). This will result in some cache owners making significant changes using the existing GC number - or leaving poorer quality caches around longer because the cache owner does not want to loose the location by leaving it unoccupied for whatever the waiting period may be.

[+josua]

No, I am not thinking about archiving and republishing some of my caches. The fact is that I found several caches and now they have been archived and republished in exactly the same location, just to make them appear as they had never been found. When I asked the owner, he told me that I can't log it as Found because I have to give the opportunity to other people to do the FTF.

 

The caches are the following:

GC405XP (identical to GC344P9)

GC405XZ (identical to GC345CV)

GC405XG (identical to GC345CE)

GC405XM (identical to GC345CQ)

GC405X0 (identical to GC345C2)

 

Jordi

Edited January 21, 2013 by josua

[+OZ2CPU]

use common sense and own brain power, where no normal guidelines apply.

[+BCandMsKitty]

No, I am not thinking about archiving and republishing some of my caches. The fact is that I found several caches and now they have been archived and republished in exactly the same location, just to make them appear as they had never been found. When I asked the owner, he told me that I can't log it as Found because I have to give the opportunity to other people to do the FTF.

 

The caches are the following:

GC405XP (identical to GC344P9)

GC405XZ (identical to GC345CV)

GC405XG (identical to GC345CE)

GC405XM (identical to GC345CQ)

GC405X0 (identical to GC345C2)

 

Jordi

 

I don't think so.....

 

This is a bit of a different issue from your original question.

 

If you've loaded the new GC# coords and actually gone out to look for them, only to find this situation, the CO can't refuse you to log as found just to give someone else the chance for FTF!

If you want to log the cache(s) and he deletes them, email Groundspeak for reinstatement of your legitimate found it logs, and the whole can of worms will be exposed to them.

 

If he wants to put out more FTF opportunities, then he should be hiding new caches.

Edited January 21, 2013 by BC & MsKitty

[+redsox_mark]

No, I am not thinking about archiving and republishing some of my caches. The fact is that I found several caches and now they have been archived and republished in exactly the same location, just to make them appear as they had never been found. When I asked the owner, he told me that I can't log it as Found because I have to give the opportunity to other people to do the FTF.

 

The caches are the following:

GC405XP (identical to GC344P9)

GC405XZ (identical to GC345CV)

GC405XG (identical to GC345CE)

GC405XM (identical to GC345CQ)

GC405X0 (identical to GC345C2)

 

Jordi

 

Only looked at the first one; looks like a nice cache location!

The earlier version lasted more than 1 year, but still it doesn't seem right archive and republish the same cache like this.. and you should be able to find it.

 

I've not yet seen an owner doing this. I found one which was archived (because the owner believed it was missing).. then later it was found and he republished the old cache as a new one, which I thought was fine.

[Mr.Yuck]

No, I am not thinking about archiving and republishing some of my caches. The fact is that I found several caches and now they have been archived and republished in exactly the same location, just to make them appear as they had never been found. When I asked the owner, he told me that I can't log it as Found because I have to give the opportunity to other people to do the FTF.

 

The caches are the following:

GC405XP (identical to GC344P9)

GC405XZ (identical to GC345CV)

GC405XG (identical to GC345CE)

GC405XM (identical to GC345CQ)

GC405X0 (identical to GC345C2)

 

Jordi

 

Only looked at the first one; looks like a nice cache location!

 

 

Me too. And I only want to know one thing; how did she get up on top of that rock? This is kind of strange. You're not allowed to log, so someone else can be FTF? Wrong. If you were to log these caches as FTF, and find your log deleted, I'm quite certain appeals@geocaching.com would side with you, and have your logs reinstated.

[+K13]

I only looked at the first "pair" GC405XP (identical to GC344P9) and they were placed by two different cache owners. The original cache placer should have removed their cache after archival. Then the second (current) cache owner should have placed another container at the location. If CO#2 didn't go out and at least place another log in the old container, I do not believe he could deny you the FTF on the new listing.

[+simpjkee]

I only looked at the first "pair" GC405XP (identical to GC344P9) and they were placed by two different cache owners. The original cache placer should have removed their cache after archival. Then the second (current) cache owner should have placed another container at the location. If CO#2 didn't go out and at least place another log in the old container, I do not believe he could deny you the FTF on the new listing.

 

You can't have a cache listed on gc.com and then tell certain cachers that they can't find it or that they have to wait to find it. That's ridiculous, regardless of wether he put a new log in it or not.

 

On the same token the CO can proclaim one person FTF over another, but you can also proclaim you were FTF over the other person, because who cares? The cachers involved can sort or not sort that out among themselves if they really want to.

[+josua]

> I only looked at the first "pair" GC405XP (identical to GC344P9) and they were placed by two different cache owners. The original cache placer should have removed their cache after archival. Then the second (current) cache owner should have placed another container at the location. If CO#2 didn't go out and at least place another log in the old container, I do not believe he could deny you the FTF on the new listing.

 

That is exactly the situation. The second (current) cache owner has not changed absolutely anything, but he is denying my log in the new listing because he wants to give to other users the possibility of doing the FTF. It's important to take into account that we are talking about several Terrain 5 caches, and our team is the only one who has logged them since they were initially published in September 2011.

 

The reviewer has told me that the cache owners have not done anything against any guideline, so he has nothing to say about the situation, and I have to talk directly to Groundspeak if I disagree.

[+briansnat]

> I only looked at the first "pair" GC405XP (identical to GC344P9) and they were placed by two different cache owners. The original cache placer should have removed their cache after archival. Then the second (current) cache owner should have placed another container at the location. If CO#2 didn't go out and at least place another log in the old container, I do not believe he could deny you the FTF on the new listing.

 

That is exactly the situation. The second (current) cache owner has not changed absolutely anything, but he is denying my log in the new listing because he wants to give to other users the possibility of doing the FTF. It's important to take into account that we are talking about several Terrain 5 caches, and our team is the only one who has logged them since they were initially published in September 2011.

 

The reviewer has told me that the cache owners have not done anything against any guideline, so he has nothing to say about the situation, and I have to talk directly to Groundspeak if I disagree.

 

I'm not clear on this. You made a visit to the site for each cache and the new cache owner is denying your log, or you just logged a find on the second cache without a second visit? If it is the former, you have a legit beef and I would ask Groundspeak to reinstate your log. If it's the latter I'd delete your log too if I was the CO.

[+briansnat]

How about it's a good cache but the CO has disappeared from the scene?

I'd be fine with that. Heck, many of us here in the forums suggest exactly this whenever someone posts that they want to adopt an abandoned cache.

 

However, a single CO archiving a cache and then re-listing it without any changes? Some words that come to mind:

 

Cheesy

 

Lame

 

Boring

 

Lazy

 

Any others I'm missing?

 

We had a name for this at one time, "cache churning".

[+Ike 13]

I think it highly depends on how strict your reviewer is with the cache permanence guideline and why you are doing it. If it's just so everyone can log that LPC multiple times then I doubt the reviewer would be ok with that. If it's a completly different cache experience (maybe you found a spot for an ammo can that's 15 feet away) then they should be open to that.

[+Ike 13]

No, I am not thinking about archiving and republishing some of my caches. The fact is that I found several caches and now they have been archived and republished in exactly the same location, just to make them appear as they had never been found. When I asked the owner, he told me that I can't log it as Found because I have to give the opportunity to other people to do the FTF.

 

The caches are the following:

GC405XP (identical to GC344P9)

GC405XZ (identical to GC345CV)

GC405XG (identical to GC345CE)

GC405XM (identical to GC345CQ)

GC405X0 (identical to GC345C2)

 

Jordi

 

Since this looks like 2 different owners where owner 1 archived all their caches, and owner 2 decided they were perfectly good spots and the cache was still there that they should get them back so more people could do them then yes it is okay that they were published.

 

But if you redo that hike and sign the 'new' cache the new owner cannot deny your find.

[+josua]

These are a series of caches that were initially published by two users. I visited and logged them as found, and afterwards they decided to archive some of the caches, that in few days were identically published by the other user. So, instead of just changing the ownership of the caches, they did it by archiving and republishing the caches. When I asked the owner about this and asked him if I was allowed to also log into the new listing, he told me that in his opinion these were new caches, so I was not allowed to log into the new listings also as found (without visiting them again). But to visit these caches it is necessary to do a pretty hard and exposed mountain excursion, so it's not easy at all (these caches have not had any other visitors since they were published more than a year ago)

 

If the user has not changed the logbook (the most probable thing), do I have to sign twice in the same logbook? Isn't this quite absurd? And in case he has changed the logbooks, just changing the logbooks make them new caches? Really?

 

If this practice is allowed, I suppose that it should be perfectly valid to publish a cache in a pretty difficult place and as soon as it is found, archive it and republish it again (without changing the container or the logbook, everything identical), so when anybody looks at the map, they would always believe that this cache has never been found...

[nonaeroterraqueous]

If the user has not changed the logbook (the most probable thing), do I have to sign twice in the same logbook? Isn't this quite absurd? And in case he has changed the logbooks, just changing the logbooks make them new caches? Really?

 

You don't have to sign twice. When you go back and make that FTF, just rip out all of the previously signed pages of the log book, and then you'll have a new log book. Then you won't have to worry about signing the same book twice. If you do actually decide to do this, remember that sarcasm doesn't work well on the internet, and there might have been a misunderstanding.

 

If you want a second smiley for the same hide, then you get to hike out there a second time. If it's not worth that to you, then put it on your ignore list. You already got credit for it once. You don't need to get an extra smiley while sitting in your armchair, sipping on a latte, plunking away at your laptop.

[+K13]

Just imagine how PI%^&*ED aggravated the next finder will be. They make the difficult climb, expecting a clean log and (if the 'new' cache owner hasn't replaced the log) they see "josua" written there already.

 

OR:

 

Just go back and find them again, sign the log (presumably under your prior signature) and get a second FTF on the same cache (and log). And take a photo of the log.

[+CanadianRockies]

These are a series of caches that were initially published by two users. I visited and logged them as found, and afterwards they decided to archive some of the caches, that in few days were identically published by the other user. So, instead of just changing the ownership of the caches, they did it by archiving and republishing the caches. When I asked the owner about this and asked him if I was allowed to also log into the new listing, he told me that in his opinion these were new caches, so I was not allowed to log into the new listings also as found (without visiting them again).

It's possible that the cache owners archived this set of caches and republished them so the FTF honors are available again, which might be an extra incentive to encourage visitors. Since the original caches remained for over a year, they easily met the letter of the cache permanence guideline. Whether they met the spirit of that guideline is open to interpretation. The local reviewer appears to think they could be republished.

 

If the user has not changed the logbook (the most probable thing), do I have to sign twice in the same logbook? Isn't this quite absurd? And in case he has changed the logbooks, just changing the logbooks make them new caches? Really?

Groundspeak only requires that a cache have a log. They don't require a new logbook. It's less confusing if new caches have new logs, but it's not required.

 

Changing the log doesn't make a cache a new cache. Lots of old caches have new logs and continue to exist as the same cache. Archiving an old cache and republishing it creates a new GC code for the cache. It's the new GC code that makes it a new cache (at least for listing purposes).

 

If this practice is allowed, I suppose that it should be perfectly valid to publish a cache in a pretty difficult place and as soon as it is found, archive it and republish it again (without changing the container or the logbook, everything identical), so when anybody looks at the map, they would always believe that this cache has never been found...

The new cache never has been found. The old cache has, but not the new one.

 

I'm not sure if your reviewer finds such a practice to be "perfectly valid," but they appear to find the new caches to be publishable, at least in this instance.

 

You have received credit (a smiley) for finding the caches in these difficult-to-reach locations. More importantly, you have the memories of getting to those places and probably enjoyed some great scenery while doing so. That should be very satisfying. If your accomplishments must continue showing up on a map for you to appreciate them, then I find that to be unfortunate.

[+hzoi]

A few of our cache listings in Germany were republished by other cache owners. Same container, same location, and for the puzzle caches, same puzzle to solve for final coordinates. We specifically worked with those cachers, because they didn't want us to just archive the caches.

 

But even if we hadn't worked with them and had archived the caches and taken the containers with us, there would be no practical way to stop someone from putting their own cache in the same place and recreating the listing. (I suppose I could make a copyright claim if they weren't doing it with my permission, but I can't imagine why I'd bother.)

[+dprovan]

If the user has not changed the logbook (the most probable thing), do I have to sign twice in the same logbook?

Yes, you have to go back and sign the same logbook a second time.

 

Isn't this quite absurd?

It's quite absurd to republish the cache, that's true. But having republished the cache, it's perfectly reasonable to assert that you haven't visited the new cache, since you haven't: the new cache didn't exist when you were there signing that logbook that you took from that container.

 

If you enjoyed finding it the first time, you shouldn't have any trouble going back to find it again if you really want to claim it again. Why would you want to claim it otherwise?

[+tozainamboku]

Here's my story.

 

A cacher hid a challenge cache. I did not qualify for the challenge but I did go and sign the log (FTF position). Later the challenge cache was retracted as it did not meet the guidelines for a challenge (find 100 caches on a particular date in the future). The owner then relisted the cache as a traditional. I claimed the find (as my name was in the log and I sure wasn't going to bother lifting the lampost skirt down the street a 2nd time). But I did not claim FTF.

 

If the OP is trying to claim a find or a FTF on the cache because his name is in the log already from the previous find, it seems the consensus is that he should visit and sign the log again.

 

One might argue that since the log is signed, you can go ahead and log a find. After all the guidelines say "Physical caches can be logged online as 'Found' once the physical log has been signed." However, this statement was origianlly added to the guidelines to remove the ability of cache owners have additional requirements for logging a find online beyond finding the cache and signing the log. Not to define find as being equivalent to your name being in the log.

 

Sounds to me that cache owner is requiring the OP to find the new cache. After all there is a new GC code so it's a new cache to find (even if is exactly the same container in the same location). One can debate if it is possible to find something if you already know where it is hidden, but that does not seem to be part of any guideline.

[+simpjkee]

Yep. You found the original (now archived) cache and logged your find. If you want to log a find on the new caches, you need to go find them.

[+The A-Team]

It's possible that the cache owners archived this set of caches and republished them so the FTF honors are available again, which might be an extra incentive to encourage visitors.

I hope the OP goes back out and revisits the caches again so they can claim FTF on the new caches, too! Take a newspaper with the date on it and take a picture of yourself at GZ to prove that you did find it again and that you aren't just using a photo from the first visit. I wonder, if this happened, would the CO archive the caches and republish yet again?

[+Moose Mob]

The process of archiving and resubmitting a new cache page for an identical cache hide is called 'churning'.

 

Generaly frowned upon and expect some resistance/refusal from the reviewer, especially if it has been less than the permanancy period.

 

The catch here is that when a cache has changed significantly... replace micro with small, LPC with magnetitized electical box, hanging pill bottle with ammo can under a bush; then you *should* archive and resubmit a new listing since it has a different 'feel'.

[+josua]

So, is there any official position of Groundspeak about churning when everything is identical? I think that this practice doesn't make any good to this game, and that's simply what I wanted to debate.

[+hzoi]

So, is there any official position of Groundspeak about churning when everything is identical? I think that this practice doesn't make any good to this game, and that's simply what I wanted to debate.

 

I think this is as close as you're going to get:

 

Generaly frowned upon and expect some resistance/refusal from the reviewer, especially if it has been less than the permanancy period.

[+StarBrand]

So, is there any official position of Groundspeak about churning when everything is identical? I think that this practice doesn't make any good to this game, and that's simply what I wanted to debate.

 

I think this is as close as you're going to get:

 

Generaly frowned upon and expect some resistance/refusal from the reviewer, especially if it has been less than the permanancy period.

I think that sums it up nicely.

 

I have been known to slightly move a recently archived cache location of my own and replace with a new different container after some kind of serious muggle incident and a small period of time but that isn't really what is being talked about here.

[+briansnat]

So, is there any official position of Groundspeak about churning when everything is identical? I think that this practice doesn't make any good to this game, and that's simply what I wanted to debate.

 

There is no Groundspeak policy other than the cache permanence guideline. If it is apparent to your reviewer that your cache is meant to last a short time you may get push back from your reviewer.