Jump to content

Replacing old geocaches


Followers 3

Recommended Posts

I've had a few series of geocaches out there now for about 4 years. I was thinking the other day about archiving and replacing them with new hides. I am interested in what the geocaching public thinks about this.

 

I'm trying to balance stale caches which have been found by most of the local cachers with keeping them active and allowing others (especially new cachers) the opportunity to enjoy them.

 

Should caches be "re-cycled" on a regular basis and if so how long before you should consider doing so.

 

Thanks

Link to comment

I've seen cache locations recycled, when the owner decides to do something different with the location. It isn't terribly common, but I've seen it happen. I don't think it's a big deal. If you think the current cache has run its course, and if you want to recycle the location for a new and different cache, then go for it.

 

And if the new cache is even better than the current one, then new cachers will benefit too.

Link to comment

Most redone caches, especially series, that we've "found again" weren't that big a deal.

Seemed the CO did 'em just so locals had more smileys to gather.

One area could have been really cool redone, but it turned out the same locations with the same carpy containers, and after a couple, we went elsewhere.

 

Do you have hides with another?

Caches have run their course in only two years?.

Link to comment

I'd say go for it if your idea is to improve on the hide is some way or change to a completely different cache type. Making the cache more challenging for instance, would mean changing the D or T ratings. Changing to a different size container would also be something to think about. Both of there would be grounds for submission of a new cache. However, if the plan is simply to archive and resubmit the same ole thing just to get repeat traffic, then no.

Link to comment

I've had a few series of geocaches out there now for about 4 years. I was thinking the other day about archiving and replacing them with new hides. I am interested in what the geocaching public thinks about this.

 

I'm trying to balance stale caches which have been found by most of the local cachers with keeping them active and allowing others (especially new cachers) the opportunity to enjoy them.

 

Should caches be "re-cycled" on a regular basis and if so how long before you should consider doing so.

 

Thanks

 

I like the idea and have been thinking of a redo on some of mine to help spur local interest. Any that are really old or special to you in some way I'd leave as is.

Link to comment

Another consideration is that there are very few places around my area to hide caches. When I say places I mean wooded areas with trails. We have some great trails around here but most of them already have caches that have been around for years (more than 5). I thought it would be nice to have new caches in those areas so I could enjoy caching along those trails again. That got me thinking about my own caches and weather or not to just leave them indefinitely or hide new caches every 3 to 5 years or so. Maybe even swap locations with another cacher to keep things fresh.

 

I enjoy a nice hike so guardrail caches are really not my thing. If your like me you've "cached out" most of these areas around where you live and are always looking for the next great adventure further and further from home.

Link to comment

I know some people who do this but I never got the point. Some call it "cache churning". If the area is cool, I think let the cache ride as long as you're willing to maintain it. Besides some cachers love finding older caches and seek them out.

 

There are still cachers in the game who aren't in it for numbers, but to explore new places. Going to the same location over and over again might appeal to the numbers hounds, but the majority of the game has already been bent to accommodate them. Do we need to place even more emphasis on the numbers side of the sport?

Link to comment

I know some people who do this but I never got the point. Some call it "cache churning". If the area is cool, I think let the cache ride as long as you're willing to maintain it. Besides some cachers love finding older caches and seek them out.

 

There are still cachers in the game who aren't in it for numbers, but to explore new places. Going to the same location over and over again might appeal to the numbers hounds, but the majority of the game has already been bent to accommodate them. Do we need to place even more emphasis on the numbers side of the sport?

 

There are some nice parks and locations that are nice for a re-visit but I need the incentive of a geocache to spur me on to make the drive. Otherwise I could just stay local to walk my dog, save some gas money. I like to find a cache in a nice trail/park that I haven't been back to in a couple of years.

 

If the OP archives then plants new let it not be about giving cachers another smiley, but about bringing cachers back to a nice location for a fun new geocaching experience. Make the cache experience this time a little different - perhaps in a different spot, an a different hide (e.g. if it was in a stump, maybe this time it's in a hollow tree), maybe even a different cache type. If it was a traditional, maybe this time a multi or puzzle cache.

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment

Should caches be "re-cycled" on a regular basis and if so how long before you should consider doing so.

No, definitely not. If you're bored with them, be my guest to take them out and put in something better. Or take them out and leave the area for someone else to use. But don't do it just so people can log the same caches again. That's pointless.

 

Personally, I have a soft spot for the good caches I've found, so (assuming these are good caches), I'd be a little sad to see the old ones go, and new caches of the same ilk wouldn't do much to cheer me up about it. As the CO, I don't think you should worry about that, but I thought I'd mention it just to show that ripping a series out and replacing it isn't necessarily an entirely good thing.

Link to comment

I know some people who do this but I never got the point. Some call it "cache churning". If the area is cool, I think let the cache ride as long as you're willing to maintain it. Besides some cachers love finding older caches and seek them out.

 

There are still cachers in the game who aren't in it for numbers, but to explore new places. Going to the same location over and over again might appeal to the numbers hounds, but the majority of the game has already been bent to accommodate them. Do we need to place even more emphasis on the numbers side of the sport?

 

There are some nice parks and locations that are nice for a re-visit but I need the incentive of a geocache to spur me on to make the drive. Otherwise I could just stay local to walk my dog, save some gas money. I like to find a cache in a nice trail/park that I haven't been back to in a couple of years.

 

If the OP archives then plants new let it not be about giving cachers another smiley, but about bringing cachers back to a nice location for a fun new geocaching experience. Make the cache experience this time - perhaps in a different spot, an a different hide (e.g. if it was in a stump, maybe this time it's in a hollow tree), maybe even a different cache type. If it was a traditional, maybe this time a multi or puzzle cache.

 

You got it. It's more about bringing people back and giving them something new, not about numbers.

Link to comment

I know some people who do this but I never got the point. Some call it "cache churning". If the area is cool, I think let the cache ride as long as you're willing to maintain it. Besides some cachers love finding older caches and seek them out.

 

There are still cachers in the game who aren't in it for numbers, but to explore new places. Going to the same location over and over again might appeal to the numbers hounds, but the majority of the game has already been bent to accommodate them. Do we need to place even more emphasis on the numbers side of the sport?

 

But if the cache IS in a great location, putting out a new cache in that same area will tend to bring back those people that found the old one. Otherwise, you are just attracting new cachers to the area. (not saying that the older cachers can't come back for reasons other than caching... but we both know that they seldom do that)

Link to comment

Should caches be "re-cycled" on a regular basis and if so how long before you should consider doing so.

No. If the area is nice, I don't need a cache as an excuse to revisit. On the other hand, revisiting the same area just to find essentially the same caches again is kind of annoying.

 

We had a local who did this to a majority of his hides a few years back. His motivation seemed to be to double the number of hidden caches on his profile. It was a bit of a joke in the local community because it was "What's the point?" He hid a 5-star Difficulty puzzle and I still haven't found anyone who knows how to solve it, but everyone knew where it was hidden because he had a Traditional in the same area and he recycled the location, container, and even the logbook for his "new" cache.

 

Cache churn happens naturally anyway, there is no need to artifically accelerate the process.

Link to comment

Haven't recycled our old hides with new hides of our own, because we have not stayed in one place long enough to do so. The Army moves us too often for our hides to get stale; we've lived five places since we got started in 2007, from Germany to Virginia to Alabama to Oklahoma to Texas. And we'll move again next summer.

 

We have, in the past, done something similar, by offering local cachers the chance to publish a new listing using the same location and container. But the last time we did that was at our second caching home in Virginia. Our hides in Alabama and Oklahoma were mostly just archived when we left, save for a couple that are being watched over by locals.

Link to comment

It'd be a bit annoying to 'have' to re log all the green dots that started to appear around me. Geocaching is enjoyable and all that but finding the same cache a second time doesn't seem that cool.

 

I'd imagine you wouldn't regain many of the favorite points on your caches and the overall visits would decline rather than increase with less favorite points.

Link to comment

Yeah, we have a local who does that. New event! Gotta change out all the caches! I guess the old hides weren't very important. Numbers. Most of those go on my Ignore List. If your old caches weren't worth keeping around, why should I bother with the new ones? They'll probably be gone in two years anyway.

Link to comment

 

If the OP archives then plants new let it not be about giving cachers another smiley, but about bringing cachers back to a nice location for a fun new geocaching experience. Make the cache experience this time a little different - perhaps in a different spot, an a different hide (e.g. if it was in a stump, maybe this time it's in a hollow tree), maybe even a different cache type. If it was a traditional, maybe this time a multi or puzzle cache.

 

This exactly.

Link to comment

I'll ask another question that I think the OP should consider when deciding whether or not to refresh a cache location. Will refreshing a cache in a nice park help to turn the park into a not quite so nice park?

 

Some areas are more fragile than others. If the caches are in such an area and area refreshed what will be the impact to the environment. Has the environment recovered from the impact caused by the original cache? There may be new geotrails, and areas may be trampled. A very small percentage of geocachers will even go so far as to literally tear an area apart searching.

 

Skye.

Link to comment

It's not common where I am for owners to "refresh" with similar caches, just for the sake of refreshing. Most of the reuse happens when caches get archived, then someone else hides caches there.

 

I've seen a few cases where an owner archives cache(es), and replaces with something much different.

Link to comment

It looks like the responses are getting a little off track. From what I'm reading most people seem to be stuck on the idea that the caches would be the same containers in the same locations. I myself would find that senseless. The caches I'm thinking about replacing are very well liked but this isn't about favorite points.

 

It took me about 3 years before I finally placed my own caches. Not only did I want to get a little more experience caching first but I had a hard time finding a spot I liked that didn't already have caches placed there. I started caching in 2010 and as you can imagine most of the great areas and trails had already been taken.

 

I've met many new cachers and I wonder where are they going to be able to place there first cache. It's a good thing that many of the older caches are still alive and being maintained. I'm just not sure if having the same cache in the same place indefinitely is good for our game. I'm sure it good for all the new cachers who are just starting out but the map is getting thinner and thinner for the veterans.

 

Another question along the same lines. I found a cache that was in bad shape about a year ago. I replaced the broken lock n lock with a new one the same size, I happened to have with me. I sent an e-mail to the cache owner letting them know what I did. The CO thanked me and indicated that they were going to archive that cache because they didn't have the time anymore to maintain it. I asked if I could adopt it and the other two caches they had along the trail. They happily agreed. I was able to place 9 new caches in the area.

 

First. I was surprised at how many cachers, who enjoyed finding the original hides, also enjoyed returning to find the new series. Granted many of them had found the originals over 5 years ago but it seemed to me that returning to the same area was actually enjoyable provided there were new caches to find.

 

Second. I always wondered why ground speak doesn't have a searchable database by zip code for caches that are up for adoption or going to be archived. Maybe they do. I lucked into the above situation because of a chance visit and e-mail. It would have been nice to be able to search the area for sites that were going to become available and ask to adopt the caches. I could begin the process of developing the new caches and archive the old ones when they were ready.

 

I know that the natural progression of things will "eventually" open areas up to new caches but from what I've seen that process takes quite a lot of time especially when there is a question of neglected caches and owners maintenance.

Link to comment

I don't really see the point. New cachers, at least the good ones, seem to appreciate the opportunity to find older caches. Serious veteran cachers - the ones who have actually cleared their map - don't want to visit the same tree every three years, they want new geocaching experiences. You can pretty this up any way you'd like, but it's obviously about numbers.

Link to comment

I don't really see the point. New cachers, at least the good ones, seem to appreciate the opportunity to find older caches. Serious veteran cachers - the ones who have actually cleared their map - don't want to visit the same tree every three years, they want new geocaching experiences. You can pretty this up any way you'd like, but it's obviously about numbers.

 

That's my point exactly. How do we get those new caching experiences without having to travel hours away?

 

When you say "same tree" do you mean same general area or the same hide in the same tree?

 

I guess when I said it wasn't about the numbers I didn't mean it.

Link to comment

I don't really see the point. New cachers, at least the good ones, seem to appreciate the opportunity to find older caches. Serious veteran cachers - the ones who have actually cleared their map - don't want to visit the same tree every three years, they want new geocaching experiences. You can pretty this up any way you'd like, but it's obviously about numbers.

 

That's my point exactly. How do we get those new caching experiences without having to travel hours away?

 

When you say "same tree" do you mean same general area or the same hide in the same tree?

 

I guess when I said it wasn't about the numbers I didn't mean it.

 

If you're so fussy about the caches you find that you're all tapped out after 1,000 finds, then travelling is likely an inevitability even if you convince a few others to keep churning caches for you.

Link to comment

I don't really see the point. New cachers, at least the good ones, seem to appreciate the opportunity to find older caches. Serious veteran cachers - the ones who have actually cleared their map - don't want to visit the same tree every three years, they want new geocaching experiences. You can pretty this up any way you'd like, but it's obviously about numbers.

 

That's my point exactly. How do we get those new caching experiences without having to travel hours away?

 

When you say "same tree" do you mean same general area or the same hide in the same tree?

 

I guess when I said it wasn't about the numbers I didn't mean it.

 

If you're so fussy about the caches you find that you're all tapped out after 1,000 finds, then travelling is likely an inevitability even if you convince a few others to keep churning caches for you.

 

You presume to know me. you've obviously look at my profile so you must be able to determine that numbers are not what it's all about for me. I have plenty of caches in my area I haven't found. That being said why would I be so concerned about new caches in my area? Only one answer. It's not about me, it's about keeping things new and interesting for others. I appreciate your comment but saying I'm "sugar coating it" and It's all about the numbers is not what I said and is not my intention. If you think that re-cycling caches is a bad idea than great, that's the kind of input I'm looking for. I honestly don't know if it's a good idea or not. From what I've read so far people are against the idea and apart from the numbers issue I'm not sure why.

Link to comment

It looks like the responses are getting a little off track. From what I'm reading most people seem to be stuck on the idea that the caches would be the same containers in the same locations. I myself would find that senseless. The caches I'm thinking about replacing are very well liked but this isn't about favorite points.

 

My view: If the overall caching experience is very similar, I would not archive and republish. For example, if I had 20 caches on a 6 mile walk. If I replaced it with 22 caches on the same route; even with different containers and hides, to me that is similar.

 

If I changed the route, changed cache types, or other major changes, then yes I would do it.

Link to comment

I don't really see the point. New cachers, at least the good ones, seem to appreciate the opportunity to find older caches. Serious veteran cachers - the ones who have actually cleared their map - don't want to visit the same tree every three years, they want new geocaching experiences. You can pretty this up any way you'd like, but it's obviously about numbers.

 

That's my point exactly. How do we get those new caching experiences without having to travel hours away?

 

When you say "same tree" do you mean same general area or the same hide in the same tree?

 

I guess when I said it wasn't about the numbers I didn't mean it.

 

If you're so fussy about the caches you find that you're all tapped out after 1,000 finds, then travelling is likely an inevitability even if you convince a few others to keep churning caches for you.

 

You presume to know me. you've obviously look at my profile so you must be able to determine that numbers are not what it's all about for me. I have plenty of caches in my area I haven't found. That being said why would I be so concerned about new caches in my area? Only one answer. It's not about me, it's about keeping things new and interesting for others. I appreciate your comment but saying I'm "sugar coating it" and It's all about the numbers is not what I said and is not my intention. If you think that re-cycling caches is a bad idea than great, that's the kind of input I'm looking for. I honestly don't know if it's a good idea or not. From what I've read so far people are against the idea and apart from the numbers issue I'm not sure why.

 

If you're actually keen on providing new and interesting experiences for other cachers, get out there and find new places to hide them.

Link to comment

It looks like the responses are getting a little off track. From what I'm reading most people seem to be stuck on the idea that the caches would be the same containers in the same locations. I myself would find that senseless. The caches I'm thinking about replacing are very well liked but this isn't about favorite points.

 

My view: If the overall caching experience is very similar, I would not archive and republish. For example, if I had 20 caches on a 6 mile walk. If I replaced it with 22 caches on the same route; even with different containers and hides, to me that is similar.

 

If I changed the route, changed cache types, or other major changes, then yes I would do it.

 

Thanks

Link to comment

I don't really see the point. New cachers, at least the good ones, seem to appreciate the opportunity to find older caches. Serious veteran cachers - the ones who have actually cleared their map - don't want to visit the same tree every three years, they want new geocaching experiences. You can pretty this up any way you'd like, but it's obviously about numbers.

 

That's my point exactly. How do we get those new caching experiences without having to travel hours away?

 

When you say "same tree" do you mean same general area or the same hide in the same tree?

 

I guess when I said it wasn't about the numbers I didn't mean it.

 

If you're so fussy about the caches you find that you're all tapped out after 1,000 finds, then travelling is likely an inevitability even if you convince a few others to keep churning caches for you.

 

You presume to know me. you've obviously look at my profile so you must be able to determine that numbers are not what it's all about for me. I have plenty of caches in my area I haven't found. That being said why would I be so concerned about new caches in my area? Only one answer. It's not about me, it's about keeping things new and interesting for others. I appreciate your comment but saying I'm "sugar coating it" and It's all about the numbers is not what I said and is not my intention. If you think that re-cycling caches is a bad idea than great, that's the kind of input I'm looking for. I honestly don't know if it's a good idea or not. From what I've read so far people are against the idea and apart from the numbers issue I'm not sure why.

 

If you're actually keen on providing new and interesting experiences for other cachers, get out there and find new places to hide them.

 

That's the issue. I'd have no problem putting a micro on a guardrail, plenty of those around here (micros and guardrails). But placing a cache in a location that requires you to actually get out of your car and walk for any distance is a challenge. Filling in spots between existing caches is an option and may be the only way to do it. If your interested in placing a series, there's just not enough available space to do so unless your interested in traveling any distance which would make maintaining the caches quite difficult. As it is most of the caches I have require a half hour drive as it is. I know I make it sound like I'm driving to another state or something but if your serious about maintaining your caches it's defiantly a consideration.

Link to comment

 

That's the issue. I'd have no problem putting a micro on a guardrail, plenty of those around here (micros and guardrails). But placing a cache in a location that requires you to actually get out of your car and walk for any distance is a challenge. Filling in spots between existing caches is an option and may be the only way to do it. If your interested in placing a series, there's just not enough available space to do so unless your interested in traveling any distance which would make maintaining the caches quite difficult. As it is most of the caches I have require a half hour drive as it is. I know I make it sound like I'm driving to another state or something but if your serious about maintaining your caches it's defiantly a consideration.

 

If the area is well-served with geocaches in those locations, then maybe it's not really necessary to place new ones.

Link to comment

 

That's the issue. I'd have no problem putting a micro on a guardrail, plenty of those around here (micros and guardrails). But placing a cache in a location that requires you to actually get out of your car and walk for any distance is a challenge. Filling in spots between existing caches is an option and may be the only way to do it. If your interested in placing a series, there's just not enough available space to do so unless your interested in traveling any distance which would make maintaining the caches quite difficult. As it is most of the caches I have require a half hour drive as it is. I know I make it sound like I'm driving to another state or something but if your serious about maintaining your caches it's defiantly a consideration.

 

If the area is well-served with geocaches in those locations, then maybe it's not really necessary to place new ones.

 

You just clarified the question. Are cachers happy with keeping the same caches in the same areas indefinitely or would they like to see new "different" caches in those same areas?

Link to comment

 

That's the issue. I'd have no problem putting a micro on a guardrail, plenty of those around here (micros and guardrails). But placing a cache in a location that requires you to actually get out of your car and walk for any distance is a challenge. Filling in spots between existing caches is an option and may be the only way to do it. If your interested in placing a series, there's just not enough available space to do so unless your interested in traveling any distance which would make maintaining the caches quite difficult. As it is most of the caches I have require a half hour drive as it is. I know I make it sound like I'm driving to another state or something but if your serious about maintaining your caches it's defiantly a consideration.

 

If the area is well-served with geocaches in those locations, then maybe it's not really necessary to place new ones.

 

You just clarified the question. Are cachers happy with keeping the same caches in the same areas indefinitely or would they like to see new "different" caches in those same areas?

 

We aren't The Borg.

 

Ultimately, the question is this: What kind of geocacher do you want to be?

Link to comment

I rescued an old archived one that was located in a really cool park (http://coord.info/GC5PBCJ)...

I've also revived one that I had to archive because I misjudged the problems that would befall it in its hiding spot (http://coord.info/GC4TK1V)...

 

But I don't think I would just archive and recycle a hide simply because the find rate slows down. As long as there is no problem with how it's already hidden, I'll keep it going as long as I'm still in the game.

Link to comment

 

That's the issue. I'd have no problem putting a micro on a guardrail, plenty of those around here (micros and guardrails). But placing a cache in a location that requires you to actually get out of your car and walk for any distance is a challenge. Filling in spots between existing caches is an option and may be the only way to do it. If your interested in placing a series, there's just not enough available space to do so unless your interested in traveling any distance which would make maintaining the caches quite difficult. As it is most of the caches I have require a half hour drive as it is. I know I make it sound like I'm driving to another state or something but if your serious about maintaining your caches it's defiantly a consideration.

 

If the area is well-served with geocaches in those locations, then maybe it's not really necessary to place new ones.

 

You just clarified the question. Are cachers happy with keeping the same caches in the same areas indefinitely or would they like to see new "different" caches in those same areas?

 

Cachers in it for the numbers don't care if replacements are exact duplicates of the archived cache or something new and unique. They just want the replacement to have a new GC number and be easy to find. If it seems most of the cachers in your area are of this type, then doing this helps only them. My feelings are that most cachers in it for numbers won't stay with geocaching very long. It may be fun for them now but it'll get boring after a while, especially when they see that big number count doesn't benefit them in any way. Cachers looking for quality probably won't visit these "new" caches if they're placed too similarly to their predecessors.

 

If you have an old cache that is fairly mundane with bunches of TFTCs and such, then by all means, think about replacing with something you think will be better and more fun to find. If your idea is to simply recycle the cache page into a new GC number for the numbers hounds, then nah...

Link to comment

I rescued an old archived one that was located in a really cool park (http://coord.info/GC5PBCJ)...

I've also revived one that I had to archive because I misjudged the problems that would befall it in its hiding spot (http://coord.info/GC4TK1V)...

 

But I don't think I would just archive and recycle a hide simply because the find rate slows down. As long as there is no problem with how it's already hidden, I'll keep it going as long as I'm still in the game.

 

Well stated. I'm sure the find count is one of the reasons I'm even thinking about this. The reason I decided to hide my own caches in the first place was to give back to the game and the people who hid all the caches I enjoyed finding. It's about giving the people a reason to keep getting out and having fun. Believe me it took a lot of time and effort to place the caches I did. It would be easier to just leave them and maintain them when need be.

Link to comment
Second. I always wondered why ground speak doesn't have a searchable database by zip code for caches that are up for adoption or going to be archived. Maybe they do. I lucked into the above situation because of a chance visit and e-mail. It would have been nice to be able to search the area for sites that were going to become available and ask to adopt the caches. I could begin the process of developing the new caches and archive the old ones when they were ready.

 

I'd also be interested in finding out if there are caches nearby which are up for adoption. Is there any way of finding this out?

Link to comment

That's the issue. I'd have no problem putting a micro on a guardrail, plenty of those around here (micros and guardrails). But placing a cache in a location that requires you to actually get out of your car and walk for any distance is a challenge. Filling in spots between existing caches is an option and may be the only way to do it. If your interested in placing a series, there's just not enough available space to do so unless your interested in traveling any distance which would make maintaining the caches quite difficult. As it is most of the caches I have require a half hour drive as it is. I know I make it sound like I'm driving to another state or something but if your serious about maintaining your caches it's defiantly a consideration.

 

If the area is well-served with geocaches in those locations, then maybe it's not really necessary to place new ones.

 

You just clarified the question. Are cachers happy with keeping the same caches in the same areas indefinitely or would they like to see new "different" caches in those same areas?

 

We aren't The Borg.

 

Ultimately, the question is this: What kind of geocacher do you want to be?

 

So far, if you look at his profile, he looks like a very good and responsible cache hider. Lots of favourite points. Maintains his caches and cache listings. It looks to me, like he is trying to create something fun for the caching community and make ownership fun for himself as well.

Link to comment
Second. I always wondered why ground speak doesn't have a searchable database by zip code for caches that are up for adoption or going to be archived. Maybe they do. I lucked into the above situation because of a chance visit and e-mail. It would have been nice to be able to search the area for sites that were going to become available and ask to adopt the caches. I could begin the process of developing the new caches and archive the old ones when they were ready.

 

I'd also be interested in finding out if there are caches nearby which are up for adoption. Is there any way of finding this out?

 

Yes. Wouldn't it be nice to list caches as up for adoption or going to be archived and give those caches a month or so to find new owners or people who would like to place new caches in those areas. The list could be searched by zip code and the transfer process could stay the same as it is now. If nothing else you could adopt a cache and have time to figure out a good hide without worrying about another cacher dropping a cache there after you've spent a couple of weeks putting something together.

Link to comment

That's the issue. I'd have no problem putting a micro on a guardrail, plenty of those around here (micros and guardrails). But placing a cache in a location that requires you to actually get out of your car and walk for any distance is a challenge. Filling in spots between existing caches is an option and may be the only way to do it. If your interested in placing a series, there's just not enough available space to do so unless your interested in traveling any distance which would make maintaining the caches quite difficult. As it is most of the caches I have require a half hour drive as it is. I know I make it sound like I'm driving to another state or something but if your serious about maintaining your caches it's defiantly a consideration.

 

If the area is well-served with geocaches in those locations, then maybe it's not really necessary to place new ones.

 

You just clarified the question. Are cachers happy with keeping the same caches in the same areas indefinitely or would they like to see new "different" caches in those same areas?

 

We aren't The Borg.

 

Ultimately, the question is this: What kind of geocacher do you want to be?

 

So far, if you look at his profile, he looks like a very good and responsible cache hider. Lots of favourite points. Maintains his caches and cache listings. It looks to me, like he is trying to create something fun for the caching community and make ownership fun for himself as well.

 

That doesn't mean that his caches appeal to everybody. At a certain point, we all have to decide for ourselves what our priorities are. I'd rather find a grungy, remote cache that's been sitting there since 2002 and gets one visitor a year than a brand new lock n' lock in the same tree I found a cache in last year. That point system has no bearing on my cache choice. Seeing the word "series" in a cache description makes me roll my eyes. But that's me. Not everyone is me.

Link to comment
Second. I always wondered why ground speak doesn't have a searchable database by zip code for caches that are up for adoption or going to be archived. Maybe they do. I lucked into the above situation because of a chance visit and e-mail. It would have been nice to be able to search the area for sites that were going to become available and ask to adopt the caches. I could begin the process of developing the new caches and archive the old ones when they were ready.

 

I'd also be interested in finding out if there are caches nearby which are up for adoption. Is there any way of finding this out?

 

Not really. You can check around for those that seem to be languishing in "Needs Maintenance" limbo. If the COs appear to be inactive, you can try contacting them to see if they are willing to adopt it out (assuming they even respond). Personally, I would only bother with that if the hide itself is worth keeping around. If it's just a nice location, you can just try to push things along - either get the CO to do maintenance or bring it to the reviewer's attention if there seems to be a real problem with it. In the example I gave, the CO just archived it and when I went back to the park for another cache I checked to see if the ammo can was still there and it was.

Link to comment

I think a number of people are arguing about apples and oranges. Justintime has said he does not intend to hide caches in the exact same spot or necessarily in the same style. Yet people keep saying he shouldn't do it because they don't want to find another cache in the same tree. Personally I would enjoy visiting a nice hiking trail with the option of finding a new and different cache.

Link to comment
How do we get those new caching experiences without having to travel hours away?
Well, one approach is for seekers to drop the "gotta find 'em all" mindset. When I was new, I fell into it, and cleared significant blast radii around home, around work, around church, etc.

 

Now, I'm perfectly happy to hike an area, find a couple caches along the way, walk past all the others, and return to find a couple more some other day.

 

Filling in spots between existing caches is an option and may be the only way to do it.
That isn't new. There's an old-school power trail that the county parks department uses for its beginning geocaching classes. It was created by people filling in the spaces between other caches, and now it is completely saturated. And that's fine.

 

If your interested in placing a series, there's just not enough available space to do so unless your interested in traveling any distance which would make maintaining the caches quite difficult.
Does a series have to be a cache every 528ft/161m along a trail? A number of the series that I've found have been united in theme, but the caches themselves haven't been near each other (other than the basic requirement that they all had to be within the area the owner could maintain).

 

Wouldn't it be nice to list caches as up for adoption or going to be archived and give those caches a month or so to find new owners or people who would like to place new caches in those areas.
Around here, my experience is that the responsible cache owners who have caches worth adopting will offer them up for adoption in the local forums, or on Facebook, or via email (e.g., to finders who have awarded Favorites points). If a cache owner can't be bothered to do that, then I don't think they're likely to initiate any other adoption process, and Groundspeak won't adopt a cache without the owner initiating the process.

 

And given the saturation of the local area, there are a number of cache owners who set a notification for Archived messages, so they get notification when an area becomes available. It might also be possible to create a notification for Reviewer Note messages, which would give you the "30 day warning" messages for caches about to be archived. Of course, not all of those are archived, and the Reviewer Note messages are used for other communication besides "30 day warning" messages, so there will be some false positives. But it could give you more advance warning than just setting a notification for Archived messages.

Link to comment
How do we get those new caching experiences without having to travel hours away?
Well, one approach is for seekers to drop the "gotta find 'em all" mindset. When I was new, I fell into it, and cleared significant blast radii around home, around work, around church, etc.

 

Now, I'm perfectly happy to hike an area, find a couple caches along the way, walk past all the others, and return to find a couple more some other day.

 

Filling in spots between existing caches is an option and may be the only way to do it.
That isn't new. There's an old-school power trail that the county parks department uses for its beginning geocaching classes. It was created by people filling in the spaces between other caches, and now it is completely saturated. And that's fine.

 

If your interested in placing a series, there's just not enough available space to do so unless your interested in traveling any distance which would make maintaining the caches quite difficult.
Does a series have to be a cache every 528ft/161m along a trail? A number of the series that I've found have been united in theme, but the caches themselves haven't been near each other (other than the basic requirement that they all had to be within the area the owner could maintain).

 

Wouldn't it be nice to list caches as up for adoption or going to be archived and give those caches a month or so to find new owners or people who would like to place new caches in those areas.
Around here, my experience is that the responsible cache owners who have caches worth adopting will offer them up for adoption in the local forums, or on Facebook, or via email (e.g., to finders who have awarded Favorites points). If a cache owner can't be bothered to do that, then I don't think they're likely to initiate any other adoption process, and Groundspeak won't adopt a cache without the owner initiating the process.

 

And given the saturation of the local area, there are a number of cache owners who set a notification for Archived messages, so they get notification when an area becomes available. It might also be possible to create a notification for Reviewer Note messages, which would give you the "30 day warning" messages for caches about to be archived. Of course, not all of those are archived, and the Reviewer Note messages are used for other communication besides "30 day warning" messages, so there will be some false positives. But it could give you more advance warning than just setting a notification for Archived messages.

 

Excellent opinions. Didn't know about the notification for archived caches. The only issue I have is adoption in the local forums. It's been my experience that geocachers can be clicky (if that's a word). It would be nice if those caches were put up for all to take advantage of. I do see the benefit of the cache owner choosing who takes over the cache or location and it is the owners right to do with the cache as he/she wishes.

 

I am guilty of the cache every 528 feet. I guess I enjoy being able to find 10 or 12 caches along a nice long walk especially on a good trail.

 

I've tried the contacting the cache owner thing but you know how that goes. Once a cache owner get to that point they've pretty much abandoned the whole thing. I know that reviewers are very busy and I wish the archive process could somehow be moved along especially when it's obvious that the cache is abandoned.

Link to comment
Second. I always wondered why ground speak doesn't have a searchable database by zip code for caches that are up for adoption or going to be archived. Maybe they do. I lucked into the above situation because of a chance visit and e-mail. It would have been nice to be able to search the area for sites that were going to become available and ask to adopt the caches. I could begin the process of developing the new caches and archive the old ones when they were ready.

 

I'd also be interested in finding out if there are caches nearby which are up for adoption. Is there any way of finding this out?

 

Not really. You can check around for those that seem to be languishing in "Needs Maintenance" limbo. If the COs appear to be inactive, you can try contacting them to see if they are willing to adopt it out (assuming they even respond). Personally, I would only bother with that if the hide itself is worth keeping around. If it's just a nice location, you can just try to push things along - either get the CO to do maintenance or bring it to the reviewer's attention if there seems to be a real problem with it. In the example I gave, the CO just archived it and when I went back to the park for another cache I checked to see if the ammo can was still there and it was.

 

Around here, my experience is that the responsible cache owners who have caches worth adopting will offer them up for adoption in the local forums, or on Facebook, or via email (e.g., to finders who have awarded Favorites points). If a cache owner can't be bothered to do that, then I don't think they're likely to initiate any other adoption process, and Groundspeak won't adopt a cache without the owner initiating the process.<br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px; background-color: rgb(250, 251, 252);"><br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-size: 13px; line-height: 19.5px; background-color: rgb(250, 251, 252);">And given the saturation of the local area, there are a number of cache owners who set a notification for Archived messages, so they get notification when an area becomes available. It might also be possible to create a notification for Reviewer Note messages, which would give you the "30 day warning" messages for caches about to be archived. Of course, not all of those are archived, and the Reviewer Note messages are used for other communication besides "30 day warning" messages, so there will be some false positives. But it could give you more advance warning than just setting a notification for Archived messages.

I agree with J Grouchy and niraD.

Responsible owners will seek out adopters if that's what they want to do.

Most caches have a shelf life. Let them go. Plant your own cache and let it be your own creation.

Personally I would never adopt out our caches. We take pride in them and I would hate for them to morph into something else (from a handcrafted birdhouse to a leaky dollar store container), or not get maintained to our standards (from a logbook with lots of room to sign, to a tattered almost full logsheet that the new owner might consider satisfactory), or have someone else get the credit for the work I put into them.

I have done what niraD suggests, watch a cache and wait for the spot to open up. Recently I waited 3 years - the abandoned cache was planted by an out-of-towner and abandoned as soon as it was planted. It started to deteriorate around year 2. We created a cache listing around year 2.5 to hold the spot until it's likely eventual demise. Takes patience but it's one way to get spots rather then adopt abandoned caches. I've got 2 more listings near caches owned by COs that do little to no maintenance. I'm hoping they (or a reviewer) will archive their caches eventually and open up these good spots. I don't want to ask to adopt their caches because then I can't in all fairness archive their cache and plant our cache (which would would be a different experience for cachers and hopefully people would find it fun and interesting).

Adopting abandoned caches seems to reward less responsible cache ownership, doesn't open up areas, and doesn't provide opportunities for new and hopefully interesting cache placements (especially in nice but small locations (e.g. pioneer cemeteries) that have been occupied by an abandoned cache for 5+ years).

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment

I've tried the contacting the cache owner thing but you know how that goes. Once a cache owner get to that point they've pretty much abandoned the whole thing. I know that reviewers are very busy and I wish the archive process could somehow be moved along especially when it's obvious that the cache is abandoned.

 

That's why people have to be less hesitant about posting NMs and NAs. Help the process move along. In my area, once a legitimate NA is posted, the reviewer gives the cache owner a month to respond before archiving it. So the month isn't too long, it's often the months and sometimes years that go by before someone is willing to stick their neck out and post the NM and then the NA, that are the problem.

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to comment
I know that reviewers are very busy and I wish the archive process could somehow be moved along especially when it's obvious that the cache is abandoned.
How would you move it along? Would you significantly shorten the "30 day warning"? What about cache owners who are offline (e.g., backpacking) for a week or two at a time? What about cache owners who don't check their geocaching.com email for several days at a time?

 

Other than the "30 day warning" and the actual archival, the rest of the process depends on the geocaching community. If the local geocachers won't post NM or NA logs, then there isn't much that Groundspeak or the volunteer reviewers can do to move the process along.

Link to comment
I know that reviewers are very busy and I wish the archive process could somehow be moved along especially when it's obvious that the cache is abandoned.
How would you move it along? Would you significantly shorten the "30 day warning"? What about cache owners who are offline (e.g., backpacking) for a week or two at a time? What about cache owners who don't check their geocaching.com email for several days at a time?

 

Other than the "30 day warning" and the actual archival, the rest of the process depends on the geocaching community. If the local geocachers won't post NM or NA logs, then there isn't much that Groundspeak or the volunteer reviewers can do to move the process along.

 

That's true. It is up to us to make sure other cache owners live up to there commitment. I guess if everyone followed the rules and did things the right way the system is set up to take care of itself. I guess the consensus is that most people are happy keeping the original cache for as long as they are able to maintain it and have no interest in changing things up.

Link to comment

Some years ago I hid very difficult multi-caches with long hikes, many stages up high in the mountains. Some of these caches have been found only once per year, so it was pretty clear to me that these hides are not the hides most of the geocachers really like. The few geocachers who searched them have been very happy, but I felt not good blocking great locations for a long time. I listed the finals as traditionals. The few cachers who already found the multis got the permission to log the traditionals because they have been up already. 99% of these cachers did the hiking again, because they said that the places were so beautiful that a second visit would be nice. I also did the same with very difficult unknwon caches. In the beginning I thought "Hey, hard mysteries are great", but over the years I changed my mind, often the finals are really great locations so I opened them to a bigger audience.

Link to comment

I don't really see the point. New cachers, at least the good ones, seem to appreciate the opportunity to find older caches. Serious veteran cachers - the ones who have actually cleared their map - don't want to visit the same tree every three years, they want new geocaching experiences. You can pretty this up any way you'd like, but it's obviously about numbers.

 

I am not suggesting that hides be stirred up to draw new interest to boring locations, I wouldn't do it. But SO WHAT if it WERE about the numbers.. the world doesn't revolve around those claiming that numbers don't matter.

Link to comment

I don't really see the point. New cachers, at least the good ones, seem to appreciate the opportunity to find older caches. Serious veteran cachers - the ones who have actually cleared their map - don't want to visit the same tree every three years, they want new geocaching experiences. You can pretty this up any way you'd like, but it's obviously about numbers.

 

I am not suggesting that hides be stirred up to draw new interest to boring locations, I wouldn't do it. But SO WHAT if it WERE about the numbers.. the world doesn't revolve around those claiming that numbers don't matter.

 

I agree. I could care less How someone chooses to play the game. As long as there getting out and having some fun.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 3
×
×
  • Create New...