Jump to content

Cache moved to new location, can't be logged again


Recommended Posts

So there is a cache near me which I found and logged long ago. It was in a tree trunk but the tree has sadly now been cut down. The CO has made a new cache and hidden it near the original location, and has amended the original cache page with new coords and hint.  To me, this is a new cache and if I find it I should be able to log it as a new find. But of course the option to log it as a find is not available to me as I logged the original cache long ago. 

 

This must come up fairly regularly. Is it reasonable?

Link to comment

the CO could have archived the old one and published the new one as it has changed somewhat from the old listing. There's nothing you can do about it but move on. Its not uncommon. I recently did something similar on one of our muggled caches. i had second thoughts so i archived it and listed the new hide.

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4R3RW_bison-trail-17

 

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC7RT9A_bison-trail-17

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, viennesewaltz said:

This must come up fairly regularly. Is it reasonable?

 

I could see a variety of reasons for NOT putting out a new listing and I could see a variety of reasons for publishing a new cache.  It all comes down to the CO's reasoning for doing what they decide.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
1 hour ago, viennesewaltz said:

This must come up fairly regularly. Is it reasonable?

It depends on the specifics of the case.

If the new hide is fundamentally the same as the original, and it's only a few metres away (e.g. moved from the base of one tree to the behind a rock), then I would say it's reasonable to retain the original GC code and you only get to log it once.

If the new hide is fundamentally different (e.g. moved from the top of the tree which was a T5 climb, to hidden at the base of the tree which is now a T1) then it's a different cache and should be re-listed with a new GC code.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 2
Link to comment

I recently ran into one similar case, the original cache I found a while ago, then it was missing, I think maybe a car hit the sign and it flew away. After a lengthy time, the CO replaced the cache, different type of container, different log or course, different spot but only about a foot away. A lot more difficult though due to the container. I actually went to see thew replacement , the CO said it was replaced and none apparently looked for to found it. No logs, so to let him know someone noticed I looked. Actually took me a lot longer than it should have. he had the log marked 2nd log, and I signed it, I logged the find and of course the option to "Find" was missing. No big deal but it did bother someone in the area I guess. With a different type of container and different method of hiding, how far would be reasonable to archive and make a new cache? The same distance as between caches? 

 

The original cache was a bison tube hanging off a bolt on the side of the sign , easily seen from a parking spot 20-30 feet away, The new one is very close to that spot, but a lot more difficult to notice.

Link to comment
59 minutes ago, Jayeffel said:

With a different type of container and different method of hiding, how far would be reasonable to archive and make a new cache? The same distance as between caches? 

 

Again, it depends on the CO's desires.  If it were my cache and the experience was significantly harder or significantly easier than the original cache that was there, I'd be inclined to publish a new cache.  If the containers are similar, probably not.  Based on your description, it sounds like the D rating would have gone up a bit (1-1.5 stars), so I would have published a new one.  That being said, it's the CO's cache and they can choose to keep it or archive it and publish a new one.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, coachstahly said:

 

Again, it depends on the CO's desires.  If it were my cache and the experience was significantly harder or significantly easier than the original cache that was there, I'd be inclined to publish a new cache.  If the containers are similar, probably not.  Based on your description, it sounds like the D rating would have gone up a bit (1-1.5 stars), so I would have published a new one.  That being said, it's the CO's cache and they can choose to keep it or archive it and publish a new one.

 

With the 1 GC code = 1 find rule, the CO's decision for when to archive and publish a new one or to reuse the GC code makes a dictates whether one can post a subsequent find on a cache or not.   Before that rule was in place, a CO might have felt that they were not fundamentally changing a hide by changing a container and placing it close to the original hiding spot.  Then some finder comes along and thinks they were entitled to another found it log because the cache was in a different hiding spot.  The CO deletes the subsequent log.  Drama ensues.  An appeal is logged.   The 1 GC code = 1 find rule avoids all that.  

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
3 hours ago, viennesewaltz said:

This must come up fairly regularly. Is it reasonable?

 

It is more than reasonable for me. Placing new caches (with a new GC-code) repeatedly to the same place by the same CO is called churning and it is not allowed.

 

Personally I do not care visiting the same place just because the cache code changed. If I like the place, I can visit there as many times as I want and play with travellers etc. but for some reason, I can not "find" the cache again, only make a new note.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

With the 1 GC code = 1 find rule, the CO's decision for when to archive and publish a new one or to reuse the GC code makes a dictates whether one can post a subsequent find on a cache or not.   Before that rule was in place, a CO might have felt that they were not fundamentally changing a hide by changing a container and placing it close to the original hiding spot.  Then some finder comes along and thinks they were entitled to another found it log because the cache was in a different hiding spot.  The CO deletes the subsequent log.  Drama ensues.  An appeal is logged.   The 1 GC code = 1 find rule avoids all that.  

 

I know that.  My answer was in response to the question I quoted. They wanted to know thoughts based on the scenario they described so I gave them mine as if I were the CO.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, coachstahly said:

 

I know that.  My answer was in response to the question I quoted. They wanted to know thoughts based on the scenario they described so I gave them mine as if I were the CO.

 

I saw nothing wrong with your answer.  I was just elaborating on how the rule change removes the drama and hard feelings between cache owners and cache finders when one party feels that only one found it log is reasonable and the other feels that they're entitle to log a subsequent found on a cache that the CO has determined not to be fundamentally different.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
31 minutes ago, arisoft said:

It is more than reasonable for me. Placing new caches (with a new GC-code) repeatedly to the same place by the same CO is called churning and it is not allowed.

 

Good point about churning. Churning is not good for the pastime. It supports a game culture where find counts are the primary reason to hide and find caches. 

Edited by L0ne.R
extraneous words
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
3 hours ago, viennesewaltz said:
4 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

Same GC# = same cache. You can only log it once.

 

Yes, I get that. My question was whether this is reasonable.  Thanks to others for their more helpful replies.

 

Yes, it is reasonable for the cache owner to do this.

 

Max and 99's answer was equally reasonable and really not deserving of snark.

 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
58 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Max and 99's answer was equally reasonable and really not deserving of snark.

 

Eh, not really. Max and 99's post merely restated what I had said in the OP, and even in the title of the thread.

Edited by viennesewaltz
format
Link to comment

There used to be a type of mystery cache called "catch the cat" where a magkey was placed on a guardrail post. Each finder moved the cache one post over in either direction. Under the OP's logic, if I went back after each find by another person should I log a new find because the cache was in a new location each time?

 

What if the cache was a Traditional and the CO moved the magkey once per month (updating coords as appropriate) - should some log a new find each month, again by the OP logic?

Edited by JL_HSTRE
Link to comment
18 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

What if the cache was a Traditional and the CO moved the magkey once per month (updating coords as appropriate) - should some log a new find each month, again by the OP logic?

 

I have heard that locationless caches were logged every time a player found the cache at different places.

 

For me the goal is to find and sign the logbook. It does not matter where it is. Should I log a new find every time the CO replaces the logbook?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
24 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

There used to be a type of mystery cache called "catch the cat" where a magkey was placed on a guardrail post. Each finder moved the cache one post over in either direction. Under the OP's logic, if I went back after each find by another person should I log a new find because the cache was in a new location each time?

Traveling caches were rehidden by each finder in a new location. It was normal to log multiple Finds as long as someone had rehidden the traveling cache in a new location since you had hidden it.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, viennesewaltz said:

So there is a cache near me which I found and logged long ago. It was in a tree trunk but the tree has sadly now been cut down. The CO has made a new cache and hidden it near the original location, and has amended the original cache page with new coords and hint.  To me, this is a new cache and if I find it I should be able to log it as a new find. But of course the option to log it as a find is not available to me as I logged the original cache long ago. 

 

This must come up fairly regularly. Is it reasonable?

 

If you are not in it for the numbers, simply post a Write note log saying "I found the new container at the new location" -- and problem solved.

If you are in it for the numbers, sorry, I can't help you.

Edited by Team Christiansen
spelling - again
  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
21 hours ago, niraD said:

Traveling caches were rehidden by each finder in a new location. It was normal to log multiple Finds as long as someone had rehidden the traveling cache in a new location since you had hidden it.

 

How far did a traveling cache have to move before it was in a "new location"?

 

Day 1: place moving cache next to large tree.

Day 2: finder moves cache to other side of tree.

Day 3: first cacher returns, logs another find

 

Couple of geocachers with separate accounts find a traveling cache. 

A logs find, moves cache.

B logs find, moves cache.

A logs find, moves cache.

B logs find, moves cache.

Repeat ad naseum. Could add another account in the mix (kid/pet/teammate).

 

I'm starting to see why traveling caches were discontinued...

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
22 hours ago, arisoft said:

I have heard that locationless caches were logged every time a player found the cache at different places.

 

I know that one couldn't log the same location that another found, but I don't recall multiple logs.

 - Of course we were still new enough that we wouldn't have thought of something so silly (logging over-n-over) anyway.   :)

Link to comment
On 7/6/2018 at 1:13 PM, arisoft said:

have heard that locationless caches were logged every time a player found the cache at different places.

Most locationless owners limited finders to one log.

ALL locationless limited finders to one log per item - once a particular thing had been logged by someone, you could not also log it. 

Some locationless allowed as many unique logs as you could discover unique,  not previously logged items  (Carillon was like that - I only noticed that after I told a friend of mine about an unlogged carillon I'd noticed ;-) had I realized that the CO would allow more than one find per user, I'd have just logged another find.  Although he later told me where to find an unlogged Carnegie library, that I doubt I'd have found)

Some locations changed targets, and users could log each new target, once.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

How far did a traveling cache have to move before it was in a "new location"?

The churning that you imagine never happened on the traveling caches that I saw. Generally each move was measured in miles, not inches, and each new location was effectively a new FTF race. The first person to find the new hide got a Find, and everyone else got to wait until the cache was rehidden.

 

4 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

I'm starting to see why traveling caches were discontinued...

It wasn't the kind of abuse you imagine. If people wanted to churn finds, they tended to take them to events, either as "pocket caches", or as an opportunity for a big group find (after which, one person would take it and rehide it normally.) A bigger issue is the fact that no one was reviewing the new hide locations. But there are more details in the Help Center article The history of traveling caches

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
On 7/6/2018 at 6:20 AM, viennesewaltz said:

So there is a cache near me which I found and logged long ago. It was in a tree trunk but the tree has sadly now been cut down. The CO has made a new cache and hidden it near the original location, and has amended the original cache page with new coords and hint.  To me, this is a new cache and if I find it I should be able to log it as a new find. But of course the option to log it as a find is not available to me as I logged the original cache long ago. 

 

This must come up fairly regularly. Is it reasonable?

 

The geocaching guidelines allow a cache owner to replace a cache in a new location within 528 feet/161 meters, and even further as long as a reviewer approves.  It's up to the owner (and, if the move is far enough, the reviewer) to determine whether "the nature of the hide and hunt has fundamentally changed." 

 

If the nature of the hide has fundamentally changed in your view, then it would not seem reasonable to just move the cache, rather than create a new listing.  But, reasonable or unreasonable, it's not your call unless it's your geocache (or if you're a reviewer).

 

If you feel strongly enough about it, politely bring it up to the cache owner (perhaps they are unaware of the guideline) and suggest they create a new cache listing.

 

As for logging more than one find on a geocache, the system no longer allows it, so I'd say Groundspeak has determined it is per se unreasonable.

Link to comment
On 7/6/2018 at 10:25 AM, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

I saw nothing wrong with your answer.  I was just elaborating on how the rule change removes the drama and hard feelings between cache owners and cache finders when one party feels that only one found it log is reasonable and the other feels that they're entitle to log a subsequent found on a cache that the CO has determined not to be fundamentally different.  

 

Got it.

Link to comment

From a guidelines/Groundspeak perspective:  I think the one found log per GC code rule is reasonable.   It keeps things simple.

 

In this case, was it reasonable for the CO to move the cache, rather than archive and submit a new listing?   It is the CO's call, I don't have an opinion here.

 

I've found quite  a few which were the opposite.. cache was archived and a new replacement submitted, but the physical cache didn't change at all.   Not even the log.   Usually I realise this in advance.  Once I didn't, I saw a new listing and headed out to find it.  I knew I had been in the area before, but only realised at GZ that I'd found this exact box before.   I found my name on the log from several years before.   And signed it again of course. 

 

 

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...
×
×
  • Create New...