Threshold of Historic Caches

[+coachstahly]

MNTA posted, in a separate thread, an interesting question that spurred me to create this particular topic.  What do cachers believe is a threshold for a cache to be considered historic? 1 year?  5 years? 10 years? 15 years?

[+NanCycle]

From  2000 - 2001

[+barefootjeff]

For me it'd have to be something more than just age. A ten-year-old MHK in a guardrail is still just an MKH in a guardrail. There'd need to be something about the cache worthy of recording in the caching history books, if such things exist. A cache that has some historical significance (the first in the region, perhaps) or has some memorable and nostalgic aspect to it that appeals to the caching community.

[+cerberus1]

2 hours ago, coachstahly said:

MNTA posted, in a separate thread, an interesting question that spurred me to create this particular topic.  What do cachers believe is a threshold for a cache to be considered historic? 1 year?  5 years? 10 years? 15 years?

 

I don't think years have anything to do with a cache being "historic".  Historic usually means important to history.

 - In this case, important to this hobby.

As barefootjeff said,  a mkh in a guard rail (unless it's the first in a state maybe...) probably isn't too important to the history of this hobby.  

Original stash is historic, as it's the cache that got this hobby started.  That sorta thing...

[+Goldenwattle]

From 2000 -2002, plus the first cache in a country/state/etc, regardless of the date.

[+Optimist on the run]

I'd add first of a well-known series to the list - e.g. first SideTracked cache, first Church Micro, etc. - if the series is well established and been around a long time.

[+Goldenwattle]

10 minutes ago, Optimist on the run said:

I'd add first of a well-known series to the list - e.g. first SideTracked cache, first Church Micro, etc. - if the series is well established and been around a long time.

I agree with that, although Church Micros are unfortunately only in the UK. SideTracked is international (I have two caches myself, for the two nearest railway stations). Most SideTracked are in the UK though, with likely less than 20 in Australia.

[+MNTA]

23 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Original stash is historic, as it's the cache that got this hobby started.  That sorta thing...

 

Had to chime in being 30 miles from GC92 The Un-original Stash. This year I finally completed my last 2000 find in the state (GC12)  and frankly was a little disappointed. It's a bucket in the woods, the lid was cracked and filled with gallons of water. I notified the adopted owner of the problems and he thanked me. So glad it's being maintained. My point is GC12 if placed today would get a handful of visits a year but because it's the oldest active cache it gets A LOT of tourists and favorite points. Though to be honest GC17 is a totally awesome hike, with a great view of Mt. Hood on clear days and a favorite.  My point is some of the historic caches are really no different than any other hides, some are great some are just ok. Am I glad I did them all? Absolutely, though my kids were not excited to find GC12 the end goal did not excite them much both in destination and cache quality. Their favorite this summer has been a hike up to the glacier on Mt. Hood for a earthcache, and another where we had to wade across a river. 

 

Now take away the emotional generating caches. Let me use two examples. 

1) The most favorited cache in my county up until recently was a cache placed in 2013. Though a year ago the CO temporarily disabled it for some maintenance poof still down. It did involve some electronics and was heavily favored. Should this be preserved? I am speculating other random caches would have been archived by now. Hypothetically, if it was archived and the CO was ready to replace, they could unarchive or place it as a new cache. 

2) We have one of the largest urban forest parks in the country, Forest Park. This park has several hides from 2001, 2002, 2005 you get the point. The problem with many of these are they are abandoned and maintained by cachers. Our parks department has some very strict placement regulations on site and quantity of caches. When they went into play we lost at least 30 caches mostly in the northern part of the park which allow no caching, the great culling. These survived partially because cachers adopted them and because many were longer hikes so less popular and more remote. I have replaced logs and baggies on a couple of these. It would be great if these could be adopted to the local caching organization for stewardship and let the community take formal ownership with the ability to decide should a cache be archived to free up a new cache in the park. Would make a great cito/event to maintain some of these also ensure they are meeting park & rec requirements. 

 

So my question is should special treatment be made for a cache that is simple older and more likely abandoned? Are we willing to bend the rules for these caches giving them special status. either by age or favorite points? I'm not saying that all older caches should go away, I value history too and glad to see the plaque for GC92, and the return of the project ape cache. But some caches are simply a cracked/leaky container in the woods or worse missing.

 

This came up because i went on a caching binge last weekend to qualify for the world turtle.  Needed 36, the first day I found 31 with a lot of DNFs (12) and 8 NMs due to missing/abandoned caches most in the 3-10 year range urban hides. The next day one I went for in forest park 8 years old was clearly missing, the CO 2 finds 1 hide  all in 2010. Reading the logs of the older caches indicate multiple maintenance preformed by cachers including multiple throw downs of replacement caches. So the idea that the original CO has ownership of the container is usually incorrect, and if it is the original more correctly is  abandoned.

 

 

[+MNTA]

50 minutes ago, Optimist on the run said:

I'd add first of a well-known series to the list - e.g. first SideTracked cache, first Church Micro, etc. - if the series is well established and been around a long time.

 

What happens to these caches when the CO leaves the game without adopting them out?

 

BTW love train themed caches, we have several in our are with RR themes both old and new. Favorites include old trestles and a view of a tunnel that has been discontinued. 

[+Goldenwattle]

2 hours ago, MNTA said:

BTW love train themed caches

If you like train themed caches, the SideTracked series is an international series of train stations. Most of the caches are in the UK, but some are in other countries. I have two here near railway stations in Australia, giving the history of the station too. This is one of mine: GC7K10Z

[+colleda]

1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

If you like train themed caches, the SideTracked series is an international series of train stations. Most of the caches are in the UK, but some are in other countries. I have two here near railway stations in Australia, giving the history of the station too. This is one of mine: GC7K10Z

Found a couple in UK recently.

GC4C4VR

 

Sorry, A bit OT. Please resume normal programs.

[+J Grouchy]

Sorry.  "Historic" or not, if the person who created it is unwilling to maintain it, it should be archived.  I don't think there should be any exceptions.  People claim such an attitude ruins the spirit of the game...but I feel the opposite.  I feel that propping up dead caches ruins the spirit of the game.  You want a cache in a certain place, put one there and get it published.  You just want that particular listing because it fills a box on some grid.  That is the only justification.

[+Goldenwattle]

23 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

Sorry.  "Historic" or not, if the person who created it is unwilling to maintain it, it should be archived.  I don't think there should be any exceptions.  People claim such an attitude ruins the spirit of the game...but I feel the opposite.  I feel that propping up dead caches ruins the spirit of the game.  You want a cache in a certain place, put one there and get it published.  You just want that particular listing because it fills a box on some grid.  That is the only justification.

Then in some places there will be no caches, maybe not for 100s of kms. That would be sad. It is alright for people to say that when they live in areas with other caches. They are okay.

[+L0ne.R]

I’d say that it’s 10 years. I’ve seen many 10+ year old caches hang around despite long-gone COs, continual throwdowns, multiple NMs, and a long-standing NA or two.  From my observation, at 10+ years old is when many reviewers  have a tough time archiving a cache listing, especially if that cache listing is popular or is a grid-filler. 

Edited July 26, 2018 by L0ne.R
Clarity

[+J Grouchy]

1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

Then in some places there will be no caches, maybe not for 100s of kms. That would be sad. It is alright for people to say that when they live in areas with other caches. They are okay.

 

 

That argument makes no sense.

[+Lynx Humble]

In my book an oldie is from 2006 and before because you don't find lot of them anymore (around 4% of the cache in my area).

 

But like people said its no guarantee that the find will be more memorable but I always like it when I find the original logbook because people wrote stories of their find inside. 

[+Goldenwattle]

55 minutes ago, J Grouchy said:

 

 

That argument makes no sense.

Yes it does make sense. Okay maybe only a 100kms or so. I was trying to make a point that in some places there are very few caches and it's easy for someone to argue if the CO doesn't maintain it, it should be archived and the result leaves no caches for others to find in that part of the world, especially as these caches might be old historic ones. I'm in Australia, and reading comments on another (Australian) site there is some disquiet from some people about the rules being enforced from America and not respecting conditions in other places in the world that suits local conditions. What I read here is making me agree with that. There is a standing tradition in Australia that remote caches are serviced by travellers to keep them going. I hear very few people disagreeing with that in Australia. I am talking about remote caches; not those in urban areas with plenty of caches. There the CO should look after their caches and it's fine for unloved caches to be archived, as there are plenty more caches available, rather like in most of the USA. So, this rule is introduced suiting US conditions and foisted on everywhere else, even if it doesn't suit everywhere else. The caches, by the way, that are looked after by travellers (often grey nomads) are mostly maintained very well. It's a community effort.

[+Isonzo Karst]

To the OP, for me,  there's one historic cache,  and it's archived.

 

To the conversation about community maintained caches - community maintained is fine  - provided the community actually maintains.  A cache being kept up such that it never gathers NA logs  won't be archived.  Far commoner is that only after a cache has been disabled as missing or in very poor repair then locals take note.

 

Australia has had local reviewers for as long as I've been caching. I'm quite sure they're cognizant of unique situations in OZ.

[+Goldenwattle]

2 minutes ago, Isonzo Karst said:

TAustralia has had local reviewers for as long as I've been caching. I'm quite sure they're cognizant of unique situations in OZ.

I'm sure they are aware of local conditions, but I don't know what restrictions they operate under. However recently a US reviewer came and threatened to archive a cache in Australia.

[+Mudfrog]

5 hours ago, J Grouchy said:

Sorry.  "Historic" or not, if the person who created it is unwilling to maintain it, it should be archived.  I don't think there should be any exceptions.  People claim such an attitude ruins the spirit of the game...but I feel the opposite.  I feel that propping up dead caches ruins the spirit of the game.  You want a cache in a certain place, put one there and get it published.  You just want that particular listing because it fills a box on some grid.  That is the only justification.

 

I agree! No matter the age, the cache needs to be maintained by its owner. There are of course, caches with awol owners that seem to stay in good shape. I'm ok with those but they need to go when a problem comes up that isn't taken care of by their owners.

 

As an owner, I do have a couple of 2002 caches that I feel more attached to. The first one I found (I later adopted) and my first placed hide. I do tend to put more effort into keeping them going but it isn't because they are old. As with any other cache, they would need to go if I left the hobby and stopped maintaining them.

 

Like you, I figure the main reason people want those older placed caches is because they help them to complete a challenge cache or fill in voids in their stats.

 

No set number but i'd go with around the 15 year mark. A lot of it depends on how much of the original cache is still intact. To me, it's not the same cache when its hiding spot or container size has changed. 

Edited July 26, 2018 by Mudfrog
Edited to respond to the original question:

[+L0ne.R]

4 minutes ago, Mudfrog said:

they would need to go if I left the hobby and stopped maintaining them

 

I strongly feel the same way and have added a note to my profile to let the reviewer know that in the event that our account goes quiet and dormant, and we are not responding to NMs and NAs in a timely fashion, those caches should be archived by a reviewer. 

[+MNTA]

What about having a living will with GS? In the event of going dormant a plan for ownership that the reviewer could take into account?

 

As for Australia I think the same rules should apply, the local community should take ownership and a plan for maintenance be made. So Joe a member of your local club if you have one notifies the group that he is going to be in that remote are next month and will drop in on this one. The expectations might be lower for frequency due to remoteness but the job get done. The reviewer/owner could even solicit the next finder to do this as well so that the next finder does not go into the situation unknowing of a problem. 

[+cerberus1]

34 minutes ago, MNTA said:

What about having a living will with GS? In the event of going dormant a plan for ownership that the reviewer could take into account?

 

I'd think Groundspeak's not too interested on any possible legal challenges. 

Probably better to just form a Signal  "when I croak..."  maintenance plan of your own. 

I have passwords and stuff already in with paperwork, and one cache has a couple people now asking about putting them down for adoption with my family (it's in an area that won't allow another cache as well).

 - Though sometimes it seems they're hoping sooner than later.  

[+L0ne.R]

1 hour ago, MNTA said:

What about having a living will with GS? In the event of going dormant a plan for ownership that the reviewer could take into account?

 

I think it is assumed that once the CO doesn't respond, the cache listing gets archived. So there should be no need for a living will with GS.

 

We put one on our profile because I've seen too many caches propped up and always with substandard care.  Often the reason given in the forums is that propping is the right thing to do to deceased owner's caches. We have taken pride in the 15+ years of hiding caches and built up a decent CO reputation. People who know our hides expect a good experience.  To have our caches become a falling apart mess, or a film canister (we don't hide micros) would destroy what we've built up. The "living will" was added to hopefully prevent this from happening. 

[+The A-Team]

9 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

I’d say that it’s 10 years.

So, a pill bottle under a lamppost skirt in a Wal-mart parking lot that manages to make it past the 10-year mark is now somehow more special and worthy of inclusion in the annals of geocaching history?

 

Of course not. That cache is now just "old".

 

In reality, there are very few truly "historic" caches. The one at the original stash plaque is one. The first of each cache type would count. The first (note: not current oldest) in each geographical region are historic. Maybe, as mentioned earlier, the first in some of the widespread series like Church Micros or Sidetracked. A case could probably be made for a few dozen others on specific merits even if they weren't the first of something. Beyond that, the caches are less "historic" than they are simply "old".

[+MNTA]

12 minutes ago, The A-Team said:

So, a pill bottle under a lamppost skirt in a Wal-mart parking lot that manages to make it past the 10-year mark is now somehow more special and worthy of inclusion in the annals of geocaching history?

 

Of course not. That cache is now just "old".

 

 

Love it so true. Old and problem in disrepair.

[+dprovan]

13 minutes ago, The A-Team said:

So, a pill bottle under a lamppost skirt in a Wal-mart parking lot that manages to make it past the 10-year mark is now somehow more special and worthy of inclusion in the annals of geocaching history?

I'd be ok with someone saying that 10-year-old wal-mart cache is historic. You see a trivial LPC, which you hate just on principle. But it's been found and maintained for 10 years. That makes me suspect it has some positive attributes you don't appreciate.

 

18 hours ago, coachstahly said:

MNTA posted, in a separate thread, an interesting question that spurred me to create this particular topic.  What do cachers believe is a threshold for a cache to be considered historic? 1 year?  5 years? 10 years? 15 years?

I tend to think of anything planted within the first two or three years to be historic, although I'd also consider caches that are a bit newer historic if they're the first in some significant area, like the first in a town or in a large park.

 

Mind you, being "historic" doesn't mean it gets a free pass in my book. I'd like historic caches to be given some leeway by seekers, so a higher standard for NMs and NAs and perhaps more of tendency to fix instead of report, but that doesn't mean a cache I consider historic has to be preserved after it goes bad.

[+cerberus1]

56 minutes ago, The A-Team said:

So, a pill bottle under a lamppost skirt in a Wal-mart parking lot that manages to make it past the 10-year mark is now somehow more special and worthy of inclusion in the annals of geocaching history?

 

Of course not. That cache is now just "old".

 

Yeah... that's how I see it too.  If there was any agreement (IIRC there isn't...) which was  (as you say)  the First LPC, that'd be different.

All the oldest I'm aware of are archived a while now, so that hide style's out.    

[+The A-Team]

53 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I'd be ok with someone saying that 10-year-old wal-mart cache is historic. You see a trivial LPC, which you hate just on principle. But it's been found and maintained for 10 years. That makes me suspect it has some positive attributes you don't appreciate.

Sure, I'd agree that it has attained some positive attributes for lasting that long. I still don't feel it's in any way "historic" except in the "it's old" definition of that term.

[+The A-Team]

I should point out that the 10-year-old Wal-mart LPC I mentioned is purely hypothetical. Everyone knows that a cache like that would never actually last that long out in the wild.

 

...now, everyone post their local 10-year+ Wal-mart LPCs to prove me wrong!

[Keystone]

Here's one that has survived since October 2003.  You will see that it was maintained quite recently by the adoptive owner, which is why I remembered it.

[+Harry Dolphin]

22 minutes ago, Keystone said:

Here's one that has survived since October 2003.  You will see that it was maintained quite recently by the adoptive owner, which is why I remembered it.

 

Wow!  We found that one thirteen years ago!

[+MNTA]

49 minutes ago, Keystone said:

Here's one that has survived since October 2003.  You will see that it was maintained quite recently by the adoptive owner, which is why I remembered it.

 

This is great as it it was adopted and maintained. A placement problem existed and the new owner took care of it. This is awesome and working exactly as it is supposed to. The problem is when they don't get adopted out what would happen in this case? 

[+bflentje]

I'll stay on topic..

 

For me, right now, a historic cache without any of the other useless rhetorical BS is a cache with a 3 digit GC number (GC123). I suppose in a couple of years the four digit caches will be historic.. for me. I really don't care what the opinionated crowd that can't stay on topic has to say about it. ;-)

[+Isonzo Karst]

1 hour ago, The A-Team said:

..now, everyone post their local 10-year+ Wal-mart LPCs to prove me wrong!

  

Walmart LPC  https://coord.info/GCJYWB

 

The oldest urban micro around (though not Wal-mart LPC) will be 16 years old in another week. Owner still dealing with it. 

[+NYPaddleCacher]

9 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Yes it does make sense. Okay maybe only a 100kms or so. I was trying to make a point that in some places there are very few caches and it's easy for someone to argue if the CO doesn't maintain it, it should be archived and the result leaves no caches for others to find in that part of the world, especially as these caches might be old historic ones.

 

I can certainly see your point. But then, I have on a couple of occasions found a cache that was the only opportunity to find a cache within 100kms.  When I found a cache in Tanzania (the only cache I've found in the country)  to next closest cache was a 3 hour drive away.

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, MNTA said:

 

This is great as it it was adopted and maintained. A placement problem existed and the new owner took care of it. This is awesome and working exactly as it is supposed to. The problem is when they don't get adopted out what would happen in this case? 

 

Of my 900-odd finds, 30 predate 2005 and are still active and enabled. Most of those are the original container and logbook, too, and while there's a lot of caching history in those logbooks, I'm not sure I'd class them as historic, apart from GC3E, the first cache in Australia (and that one's now a virtual after the container was removed by the national park ranger early in its life). Possibly the most historically interesting one I found was one that had been archived in 2008, believed missing by its owner, but which turned up close to where I'd placed a new cache. The history was in the heaps of decade-old swag it contained, making it very much a time capsule of its era.

[+Bundyrumandcoke]

11 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I'm sure they are aware of local conditions, but I don't know what restrictions they operate under. However recently a US reviewer came and threatened to archive a cache in Australia.

The issue is, the local reviewers have taken a few months off to travel around Australia- no doubt to find lots of caches with their inside knowledge- and their duties have been farmed out to an (apparently) overseas reviewer who is taking, in my opinion, an over zealous approach to following the rules. 

 

I am the author of this discontent. I was the one who replaced the missing cache, that is now being threatened with archiving, because 1, it wasn't the CO who performed maintenance, and 2, because I am not the CO, I cannot remove the NM attribute. 

 

Its not the first cache here in Australia that I have performed maintenance on. It wont be the last. Its an Aussie thing to do. On my trips, I will do what is necessary to keep a cache maintained. It keeps caches alive. As GW says above, Australia isn't like the USA, sometimes we literally do travel hundreds on KMs to get to a cache. (A few years ago, I had no unfound caches within a 300km radius if were I was living at the time) Out of the cities, its rare for new caches to be published. A lone cacher, living in a small country town, is stuck. With no other cacher for hours around, he cannot just duck down the road, and pick up a FTF, or a few caches today. Caching trips become expeditions, sometimes covering a thousand kms in a weekend, to grab maybe a handful of caches. That's why, we tend to keep the ones we have in the country going, Technically, yes, its against the rules. But us Aussies never were very good at following rules anyway. 

 

Cheers

 

Bundy

[+Bundyrumandcoke]

Heres one of mine. Its a crappy old Eclipse tin in a guardrail. In about 3 weeks time, it will be 10 years old. 

 

The last remaining other 2 out of the original 15 in this series will also be the same age at the same time. 

 

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC1FDQH_bundys-commute-7?guid=86965e38-d4b3-4af0-ab70-a663ada34286

[+Goldenwattle]

12 minutes ago, Bundyrumandcoke said:

Eclipse tin

AH, mintie tins, my favourites not

 

But in a guardrail, they possibly will stay dry.

[+barefootjeff]

22 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

AH, mintie tins, my favourites not

 

But in a guardrail, they possibly will stay dry.

 

Yeah, I encountered two Eclipse tins recently, just a few hundred metres from each other and both hidden at the same time (2 years ago) by the same CO. The one out in the open had started rusting out but the one in the guardrail was, dare I say it, still pretty much in mint condition.

[Keystone]

40 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Yeah, I encountered two Eclipse tins recently, just a few hundred metres from each other and both hidden at the same time (2 years ago) by the same CO. The one out in the open had started rusting out but the one in the guardrail was, dare I say it, still pretty much in mint condition.

"I see what you did there," says the forum moderator whose southernmost cache find ever was a rusty Eclipse tin near Sydney Harbour.  To cleanse the palate, however, the next day I found Lane Cove as my "farthest from home coordinates" cache.  Considered along with "Queens land" and "Easterly Extreme," I'd say I found some historic caches.

Edited July 27, 2018 by Keystone
fixed a cache name

[+Goldenwattle]

17 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Yeah, I encountered two Eclipse tins recently, just a few hundred metres from each other and both hidden at the same time (2 years ago) by the same CO. The one out in the open had started rusting out but the one in the guardrail was, dare I say it, still pretty much in mint condition.

I found one attached underneath a bridge over salt water. You can imagine the condition of that one. That one seriously needed CO attention or be archived. (Not a remote area.)

Unless in a very protected area, all mintie tins rust and leak, and they are NOT smalls, but micros. (I suspect I am repeating myself there, but it's a bug bear of mine, mintie tins listed as smalls, especially when trying to find a home for a TB, which fit in smalls, but not micros (mintie tins).

[+niraD]

On 7/25/2018 at 6:31 PM, coachstahly said:

MNTA posted, in a separate thread, an interesting question that spurred me to create this particular topic.  What do cachers believe is a threshold for a cache to be considered historic? 1 year?  5 years? 10 years? 15 years?

Well, the The Landmark Society of Western New York generally requires that a landmark "must be at least 50 years old, must retain a high degree of integrity, and must have some level of historic significance."

 

I think we have a few decades before any geocache would qualify. And then we'd still have to answer the "high degree of integrity" and "level of historic significance" questions.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

9 hours ago, Isonzo Karst said:

To the OP, for me,  there's one historic cache,  and it's archived.

 

Since we're all just posting opinions,   as I see it "what makes a  cache historic" is likely influenced by how interested someone is  in history in general.  Coincidentally, I am currently on vacation in Colonial Williamsburg.   I found the few attractions we visited interesting but probably not nearly as interesting as whoever owns the car outside our hotel room with the "Rev War" personalized license plate, but probably more than my son who is only interested in the roller coasters at Busch Garden.   

 

Someone not really into history probably doesn't care if something is preserved, and and thus won't care if an old cache archived.  But there some that do care about history and want to preserve it so that others in the future can enjoy the history as well.   I'm glad that someone decided that the very old buildings I saw yesterday were preserved instead of torn down to make room for a strip mall just because the roof was leaking.

[+Isonzo Karst]

NYPaddleCacher, I may be misunderstanding the gist of your post, however, my preference on old (or not old ) caches is that they be archived once the CO stops handling them. To place in the archive IS to preserve.  Active on the site as long as they're findable of course.   I don't want to define "findable" - that's a heckuva discussion in itself.

 

In the early days of this site, there was "forced adoption". Caches transferred from the original account to some other interested user. This has made  a hash of the  history of some caches.  Oldest in North Carolina comes to mind as  a particular mess,  a couple of Florida's earliest became classic examples of "my grandfather's axe".  Moved many miles from original location as boat/paddle caches to become walk-in-the-park, multiple containers, multiple owners.  Preserved is GC Code and placed date..... nothing else. 

 

Thankfully, forced adoption is gone, and coords updates of over .1 miles need a reviewer. 

 oldest cache of each type, as best as I can determine, may be of interest to some re historic caches  -  first, mm I can't get the link to work so here's the URL

 

https://www.geocaching.com/bookmarks/view.aspx?guid=6fc27dc9-7ef4-4658-8d0e-8540e45b8222

 

 

Edited July 27, 2018 by Isonzo Karst

[+L0ne.R]

1 minute ago, Isonzo Karst said:

NYPaddleCacher, I may be misunderstanding the gist of your post, however, my preference on old (or not old ) caches is that they be archived once the CO stops handling them. To place in the archive IS to preserve.  Active on the site as long as they're findable of course.   I don't want to define "findable" - that's a heckuva discussion in itself.

 

In the early days of this site, there was "forced adoption". Caches transferred from the original account to some other interested user. This has made  a hash of the  history of some caches.  Oldest in North Carolina comes to mind as  a particular mess,  a couple of Florida's earliest became classic examples of "my grandfather's axe".  Moved many miles from original location as boat/paddle caches to become walk-in-the-park, multiple containers, multiple owners.  Preserved is GC Code and placed date..... nothing else. 

 

Thankfully, forced adoption is gone, and coords updates of over .1 miles need a reviewer. 

 

Firsts, a bookmark list I maintain may be of interest to some who are interested in historic caches. 

 

 

 

Very good point. Archiving a cache listing does preserve.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

 

Very good point. Archiving a cache listing does preserve.

It preserves the listing, but doesn't preserve the cache.  The oldest cache that I have found is The Spot.  I don't think I would have experienced the same feeling looking an archived listing than actually finding the cache and holding the original log book.

[+hzoi]

2 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Firsts, a bookmark list I maintain may be of interest to some who are interested in historic caches. 

 

 

https://www.geocaching.com/bookmarks/view.aspx?guid=6fc27dc9-7ef4-4658-8d0e-8540e45b8222

 

Great list. 

 

I know we can't bookmark lab caches, but is there a link to the first lab caches that could be thrown in to the list description up top?

[+Wet Pancake Touring Club]

The OP used the word 'historic'. I believe that this term is subjective, and will have different meanings to different people.

 

For some, it may be simply based on the age. Is Potters Pond historical? I've done Potters Pond, it is an ammo can in the woods. Nothing special about it, except for the fact it is one of 3 or 4 caches remaining that were placed in Aug 2000. To anyone attempting a Jasmer challenge today, this cache is important. MNTA used the example of GC12. Just a bucket in the woods behind a log, near a stream crossing. But it is old, and when I found it, it was not water filled, and had old log books.

 

For others, it is a significant milestone in the hobby of geocaching. For example, is the 1,000,000th cache historical? How about the 2,000,000th?

 

Tribute caches are used to mark something 'historic', either a location of a previous cache, or to highlight the deeds of a cacher. Do these fit the definition of 'historic'?

 

I really can't come up with a precise definition of what I would consider 'historic', I just know it when I see it. What ever it is, it will probably fit one or more of the examples I've listed above.