New caches

[+BlueDeuce]

I've seen caches destroyed by nature, other cachers, construction equipment, lawn mowers. Caches removed by land owners, city console, parks department, police, muggles. Caches removed by angry cachers, cachers moving away, cachers giving up the sport. Caches moved by policy.

 

But to even suggest, that after four, eight, ten years that maybe we should consider re-listing the cache in a near location to bring people back - We're destroying the history and also offering nothing new to the experience. We're looking to cycle the cache placement just for stats.

 

Okay, I understand but just not enough.

 

bd

Edited March 7, 2013 by BlueDeuce

[+The A-Team]

Sorry, what?

It sounds like there's some back-story being left out.

What's being suggested, by whom, and what's the problem?

[+BlueDeuce]

Suggesting that old caches be re-listed. That's it.

[+Don_J]

Suggesting that old caches be re-listed. That's it.

 

Your topic looks like a reply that got orphaned from an existing topic. A bit confusing. Did someone actually suggest this to you?

 

If I had a cache that had pretty much run it's course and someone else wanted to use the area, I might consider archiving it. But I agree with you that I see no point in archiving and re-listing my own cache just so people can find it again.

[+Legochugglers]

I can only assume that a suggestion has been made that it would be a good idea for a CO to archive a cache and then resubmit it to provoke some increased activity.

 

The motivation for this could be that someone has what they consider to be an interesting hide in a nice location however all the local cachers have already found the cache and if it's a bit off the beaten track any non locals are passing it by considering it too much hassle to go and look for it. The result is that the longer it goes unfound then the less likely cachers are going to go for it just in case it is no longer there. Some COs then may be willing to dispose of the cache history purely to relist the cache to gain some additional activity.

 

I think I agree with the OP that this doesn't feel right.

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

I think it's dumb, but I have not seen it suggested...probably because it's dumb.

[+wimseyguy]

The idea percolates up every now and then. I agree with the OP.

If a spot was worth returning to, I will do so without needing the reward of another smiley.

If a spot isn't worth returning to, it doesn't need a new cache there simply because they have term limits.

That doesn't mean I won't enjoy visiting once to get that smiley.

[+AKStafford]

The result is that the longer it goes unfound then the less likely cachers are going to go for it just in case it is no longer there.

 

I have a cache that's off the beaten path and doesn't get many visits. If there hasn't been any finds after a while, I try and give it a visit and post a note assuring future finders that the cache is still there and in good shape. Speaking of which... It's about time for a visit...

[+Legochugglers]

The result is that the longer it goes unfound then the less likely cachers are going to go for it just in case it is no longer there.

 

I have a cache that's off the beaten path and doesn't get many visits. If there hasn't been any finds after a while, I try and give it a visit and post a note assuring future finders that the cache is still there and in good shape. Speaking of which... It's about time for a visit...

I do the same, it's a good practice and it's quite interesting to regularly see a few finds shortly after the note is written. Another reason for promoting a good maintenance regime.

[GOF and Bacall]

I have archived caches that I thought had run their course. But I would not just re-list the same cache on a new page. I could see archiving a cache and creating a whole new cache in the same area. But it would have to be something totally different. A new experience.