Archiving an active cache.

[+Charlie The Ant]

Hi all,

We've had a cache go missing in shrubby bush a few times, so we've moved it 90 metres from where it was to a little further up the road where there is less muggle traffic. The cache has been replaced by placing it (being an oversized tennis ball) in a dead tree stump in a pipe so it's not as likely to go missing (it's a camo). The problem is now the reviewer has suggested as it is so far away from its original location it could be too much change and be either a disadvantage or an advantage to the coming and past cachers for a number of reasons. The reviewer is suggesting it be archived and to start up a new one. My question is can we archive this cache and set up a new one in its place? I thought I'd read somewhere that if the owner archives a cache that the same person couldn't put a new one in its place but anyone else could. Am I right or making this up?

TIA.

[+SageTracey]

Your reviewer is your best guide on this and as they have suggested you take this course of action, then it is obviously allowed.

 

I have never heard of an owner not being allowed to place a new cache in the area where they have previously archived one, but, again, work with your reviewer.

[+Charlie The Ant]

No worries thanks for that. Just wanted to be sure

[+MartyBartfast]

My question is can we archive this cache and set up a new one in its place? I thought I'd read somewhere that if the owner archives a cache that the same person couldn't put a new one in its place but anyone else could.

 

I don't think that's ever been the case, many people have done it so you should be good to go. What you can't do is un-archive a cache which has been archived (maybe by a reviewer because the CO didn't perform maintenance), but even in that situation the CO would be allowed to place a new cache in the same spot.

[+T.D.M.22]

Hi all,

We've had a cache go missing in shrubby bush a few times, so we've moved it 90 metres from where it was to a little further up the road where there is less muggle traffic. The cache has been replaced by placing it (being an oversized tennis ball) in a dead tree stump in a pipe so it's not as likely to go missing (it's a camo). The problem is now the reviewer has suggested as it is so far away from its original location it could be too much change and be either a disadvantage or an advantage to the coming and past cachers for a number of reasons. The reviewer is suggesting it be archived and to start up a new one. My question is can we archive this cache and set up a new one in its place? I thought I'd read somewhere that if the owner archives a cache that the same person couldn't put a new one in its place but anyone else could. Am I right or making this up?

TIA.

 

If the reviewer wants you to archive it and create a new cache, why are you asking us? Why not just do what the reviewer tells you? They are the ones who make the decision in the end?

[Keystone]

I have never heard of an owner not being allowed to place a new cache in the area where they have previously archived one, but, again, work with your reviewer.

That would be the "Cache Permanence" guideline at work. You can't have a cache published and then archive it a week later because you came up with a better idea for the same immediate area.

 

What I don't understand is the need for reviewer involvement at this distance of a move. Typically a reviewer would intervene only if 1) the move is more than the 161 metres allowed an owner using the "Update Coordinates" log, 2) the new spot is less than the required distance away from a neighboring cache, or 3) the owner "walks" the coordinates through multiple moves to overcome the limits of the "Update Coordinates" log.

[+Touchstone]

Am I right or making this up?

 

I think you're making it up

 

As Keystone pointed out, the Cache Permanence section of the Guidelines would be about the only thing that would prevent such a scenario. In the common geocaching vernacular, it's referred to as "churning", and I have heard of situations in which a Reviewer would reject a Listing if the previous Listing at the same location was active for < 3 months.

 

None of your active caches seem to fit in this category (all placed in June of this year), so if your Reviewer suggests a new Listing, that is what I would do. As a rule of thumb, I personally would submit a new Listing if the container or hiding style had changed significantly.

[Pup Patrol]

What I don't understand is the need for reviewer involvement at this distance of a move. Typically a reviewer would intervene only if 1) the move is more than the 161 metres allowed an owner using the "Update Coordinates" log, 2) the new spot is less than the required distance away from a neighboring cache, or 3) the owner "walks" the coordinates through multiple moves to overcome the limits of the "Update Coordinates" log.

 

I was wondering that myself. Moving a cache 90 metres should not involve the Reviewer, unless its new location violates the saturation guideline.

 

Regardless, if the Reviewer tells you to archive the missing (not "active") cache, then do it. Communicate with the Reviewer. I don't think the Reviewer would lead you astray with his/her advice.

 

And we are just sideline viewers, without the relevant information. No need to ask "us" what you should do.

 

B.

[+ORKY99]

 

If the reviewer wants you to archive it and create a new cache, why are you asking us? Why not just do what the reviewer tells you? They are the ones who make the decision in the end?

 

The reviewer did say he "suggesting". Why should the owner automatically archive just because of a suggestion? Others have said that nothing appears to meet the criteria of having to archive so it seems a valid question from the OP.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

"The cache has been replaced by placing it (being an oversized tennis ball) in a dead tree stump in a pipe so it's not as likely to go missing (it's a camo)."

 

Was the pipe already there, or did you place the tennis ball in the pipe in the dead tree? I hope it doesn't look like an IED!

[+J Grouchy]

 

If the reviewer wants you to archive it and create a new cache, why are you asking us? Why not just do what the reviewer tells you? They are the ones who make the decision in the end?

 

The reviewer did say he "suggesting". Why should the owner automatically archive just because of a suggestion? Others have said that nothing appears to meet the criteria of having to archive so it seems a valid question from the OP.

 

To me, it sort of depends on a few things. The hide container: I assume it's the same? The hide style: same style or is it changing drastically. The hide location: is it changing drastically? was there something unique about the original GZ that is not present at the new location?

If we're just talking about moving a pill bottle from one tree stump to another, I see no reason at all to archive and re-list it. If it's a dramatic enough difference that it's essentially a completely different cache, yeah...maybe archive and re-list it. Up to you, really. Sounds like the reviewer only gave advice, not a demand or requirement.