Jump to content

Suggested feature: "Revisited" log type


Recommended Posts

51 minutes ago, JeepGPS said:

So I revisited a cache today that I had found 6 years ago. Since then, it has been moved which I thought qualifies it as a new cache. When was this changed? BTW, I didn't find the cache today but I noticed on the log drop-down menu there is no longer a Found It option on previously found caches. 

Yes, you can update the coordinates for a geocache up to a certain distance. You haven't been able to log a find twice for a long time:)

 

Edited by TmdAndGG
  • Helpful 2
Link to post
6 hours ago, JeepGPS said:

So I revisited a cache today that I had found 6 years ago.

Since then, it has been moved which I thought qualifies it as a new cache. When was this changed?

 

BTW, I didn't find the cache today but I noticed on the log drop-down menu there is no longer a Found It option on previously found caches. 

 

We moved a 2005 cache 300' in 2007.    Same cache, different location...   :)

We received notice in March 2017 that double logging was going to go bye-bye, and it was finalized in May.

Link to post
15 hours ago, JeepGPS said:

So I revisited a cache today that I had found 6 years ago. Since then, it has been moved which I thought qualifies it as a new cache. When was this changed?


It’s been possible to change coords (within limits) for as long as I’ve been playing, and I’d assume since the beginning.  And there’s no distinction between simply correcting inaccurate coordinates and actually moving a cache.

 

Moving a cache and deciding whether or not to re-list, is a judgement call for the CO.  Has the ‘nature’ of the experience changed significantly?  If not, then just updating the coords and retaining the cache's history is reasonable.  If a tree climb has become a gadget cache, re-listing is probably in order.  Plenty of grey in between...

  • Helpful 1
Link to post
On 6/13/2020 at 11:02 PM, SwineFlew said:

The problem with geocaching,  once you clean out an area, the game is over for most people. 

 

We began geocaching in March 2017, and pretty much "cached out" our local area in 2018 when we set a goal to find a cache each and every day.  Things slowed for us considerably in 2019, but did not STOP.  The game is far from over for us, as we cache when we travel - just this past weekend I was on the East Coast and added 4 new states to my stats.  And we hide caches for others to find, and local cachers are hiding new caches - we are lucky to live in an area with an active geocaching community.

 

Back on topic, I don't see a need for a "revisit" log type - unless you are all about stats.  If I need a +1 as an incentive to revisit an area/cache, well, I just don't see the point.  Caching has helped us to visit and discover new places that are worth revisiting all on their own, smilie or not.  If the only reason I am going to "revisit" someplace is to log another visit/stat, then no thanks!  Maybe Waymarking will suit, as I believe you can revisit the same waymark multiple times.

  • Upvote 2
  • Surprised 1
  • Love 1
Link to post
On 6/14/2020 at 4:02 PM, SwineFlew said:

The problem with geocaching,  once you clean out an area, the game is over for most people. 

I agree with CAVinoGal, unless it's just numbers you are after this isn't necessary, as you can revisit as much as you like, whether you bother to make a write note or not. In a sense, during the stay at home suggestion for Covid 19 (where I live it was just a suggestion, but fortunately we got it down to zero), I was visiting my own caches to check up on them. I didn't get an extra number for visiting my own cache, but I was okay with this, as it was an exercise outing and pleasant to visit these areas again. Even the one in a grotty alleyway, as the bike ride there was pleasant.

 

I suppose for normal times when I can get about I am spoiled for caches, as locally they keep getting published and I can't keep up with them. I like travelling though, and I do find a lot of caches while away from home. I am about to go for another short trip away in my car, taking my mother on a trip to where she was born. I shall be caching going and coming.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post

Ideally I'd like to live in a geocaching utopia where the number of new caches is the same as my find rate, even better if the archival rate is about the same too so the region would never become saturated or depleted. When I started caching in 2013 that was pretty much the case as there were well over a hundred new caches being published each year in my region, but in the last few years that's dried up to just a trickle and, having found nearly all the local caches, most of my cache-finding trips now are further afield.

 

In the current Memory Lane promotion I've so far scored 170 points from 24 finds, all but one of which were more than 50km from home as the crow flies and an hour and a half's drive. The exception was a new one near Cowan on the Sydney side of the Hawkesbury River, 11km from home in a straight line but just over 40km by road.

 

5 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I agree with CAVinoGal, unless it's just numbers you are after this isn't necessary, as you can revisit as much as you like, whether you bother to make a write note or not. In a sense, during the stay at home suggestion for Covid 19 (where I live it was just a suggestion, but fortunately we got it down to zero), I was visiting my own caches to check up on them. I didn't get an extra number for visiting my own cache, but I was okay with this, as it was an exercise outing and pleasant to visit these areas again. Even the one in a grotty alleyway, as the bike ride there was pleasant.

 

During the lock-down here, all non-essential travel was prohibited and we were only allowed exercise in our local area, so for me much of that was walking the local bushland trails and checking on my caches that happened to be along the way. I also kept an eye out for possible new cache locations and, since the restrictions were eased late last month, I've had two published (GC8RTKC and GC8TAFN).

 

With 40 active hides, a lot of my caching activity now is doing routine visits to those, with the remainder being trips away to either Newcastle or Sydney and the occasional new cache that pops up closer to home.

Edited by barefootjeff
Link to post
On 6/18/2020 at 10:44 PM, cerberus1 said:

I'm glad I'm not like "most people" (if that's really true), I've passed hundreds of caches in "my area" for ones I'll do outside of it for about ten years now.  :)

 

LOL. This. I pass more caches on a cache outing than I actually find. A sweet problem to have I guess.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1
Link to post
On 6/14/2020 at 8:02 AM, SwineFlew said:

The problem with geocaching,  once you clean out an area, the game is over for most people.  I live next door to a pokemon point and I been seeing the same people  daily since day one!!  

 

And that is exactly the point. If "revisiting" was a thing, it would extend the game's longevity for many people. Just being able to make a log by revisiting caches once after over 2 years is a mild extension in comparison.

  • Funny 1
Link to post
On 6/12/2020 at 6:04 AM, cerberus1 said:

We received notice in March 2017 that double logging was going to go bye-bye, and it was finalized in May.

 

Removing double loggging is a logical move, because the second visit should not count as a find but as a revisit. However, revisiting after several years is often more exciting that you may expect.

Edited by Ragnemalm
mistyping
Link to post
5 minutes ago, Ragnemalm said:

Removing double loggging is a logical move, because the second visit should not count as a find but as a revisit.

However, revisiting after several years is often more exciting that you may expect.

 

I've "revisited" areas numerous times, as explained back on page one...

We note areas that are unique, or present hunting/fishing opportunities, and stop when seasons/time permit. 

When we "revisit" that area, I might stop at a cache there if I have the time, letting the CO know if it's still in play... and that's it.

 

Finding the same caches numerous times isn't why we're there...

 

Link to post
2 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

However, revisiting after several years is often more exciting that you may expect.

Go for it! I've revisited a number of caches that I had found previously. I've even logged my revisits (using the existing Write Note functionality).

 

I've also revisited parks and other locations multiple times, finding a cache or two at a time. I like that approach much better than finding a couple dozen caches in a day and "clearing out" the park. But if you're into "clearing out" a park, then you have to expect that you won't be able to find as many new caches in that park later.

Link to post

Update: In order to test my idea and revive my caching in my home area, I have been revisiting over 200 caches during 2020! I do that with the rules that I have set up for myself:

  • Must be at least 2 years since original find.
  • Mysts and multis should be solved again.
  • Only once per cache (or maybe after another 2 years, but that is irrelevant now).
  • All revisits are properly recorded in a revisit history.

Conclusion: In most cases, it feels like new! Caches are moved, vegetation has changed, I have often forgotten about the hiding place and/or the surroundings (especially when 7-8 years have passed). And I gave myself over 200 extra reasons to go out caching, often including cycling or walking long enough to be decent exercise. My own home area is suddenly fresh and new to explore as caching area. And I can do caching without travelling long distances to find ones I havn't logged.

  • Helpful 2
  • Love 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Ragnemalm said:

Update: In order to test my idea and revive my caching in my home area, I have been revisiting over 200 caches during 2020! I do that with the rules that I have set up for myself:

  • Must be at least 2 years since original find.
  • Mysts and multis should be solved again.
  • Only once per cache (or maybe after another 2 years, but that is irrelevant now).
  • All revisits are properly recorded in a revisit history.

Conclusion: In most cases, it feels like new! Caches are moved, vegetation has changed, I have often forgotten about the hiding place and/or the surroundings (especially when 7-8 years have passed). And I gave myself over 200 extra reasons to go out caching, often including cycling or walking long enough to be decent exercise. My own home area is suddenly fresh and new to explore as caching area. And I can do caching without travelling long distances to find ones I havn't logged.

 

This is awesome way to go! Glad you figured out something that works for you and gets you out and enjoying this game. Like you I have found most of my immediate area the nearest easy traditional for me is 6.6 miles though the road distance is further. I think the problem you highlight is precisely why GS is encouraging folks to archive some of their older caches to make room for new ones in an area. The thing about your endeavor is that it does not give the gratification factor on the web site (yet) of an incremental new find which some folks (me included) like to see. Personally would love to see more caches near my home possibly an expiration date for maintenance and renewal.

 

For me 2020 I started the year out deciding I was going to find 1000 in a year challenge, So it became a numbers game (not fun) I had to find caches to increment that counter. In early January decided I'd try a power trail solo and get 100 finds in a day. Ugh man it was not fun but I did it. Then said ok 900 more to go I can do this. All these challenges simply make a fun task work. I have to go out today. So glad it is done and now I can go have fun. Yesterday went out into the mountains for a newly placed caches along the logging roads and unfortunately could not find it. Though four hours later and a car covered in dirt and mud I had a great time, I did stop closer to home and make a find wanted that silly souvenir lol.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
12 hours ago, MNTA said:

Yesterday went out into the mountains for a newly placed caches along the logging roads and unfortunately could not find it. Though four hours later and a car covered in dirt and mud I had a great time, I did stop closer to home and make a find wanted that silly souvenir lol.

 

Different topic, but that is what I personally call real caching! Some year ago we were three who went out to log some pretty tough caches a bit out in the wilderness, one of which we had tried twice before! We needed rope for safety, despite T3 and T3.5! (Very steep places, could have been climbed without rope but that would have been very dangerous.) Took several hours, only two caches, but we were happy! Overcoming a true challenge is worth so much more than logging for numbers.

 

The caches are gone now, but I hope to be able to replace when with some even better ones this summer, if I can find the motivation. Great place, and I already have permission of the land owner.

  • Love 1
Link to post
On 11/24/2019 at 3:38 AM, barefootjeff said:

I've revisited some of my finds for various reasons, sometimes to drop TBs, sometimes because I'm close by while doing other caches in the area, or sometimes just because it's a nice place to revisit, stretch my legs and soak up the scenery. Posting a note seems perfectly adequate for logging such visits.

Gs said to archived your caches and place new one.  

  • Surprised 1
Link to post
6 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

 

In what context? When, why? After how long?

(Sighs...) There's a whole argument discussion on it, which is what I assume SwineFlew is mentioning...

 

Edited by TmdAndGG
Link to post
2 hours ago, TmdAndGG said:

(Sighs...) There's a whole argument discussion on it, which is what I assume SwineFlew is mentioning...

 

That's what I asked for, a reference! That explains the comment.

Link to post
On 1/3/2021 at 2:01 PM, SwineFlew said:

Gs said to archived your caches and place new one.  

 

Okay, here's a real world example of where that's recently happened. There was an old (2009) cache at a waterfall 23km west of here that was archived by its owner in early November, as he's no longer living in the area and the cache fell into disrepair (a mint tin that's reverted to its natural iron oxide state). Thinking, naively perhaps, that this would be a good spot for a new cache in my Chasing Waterfalls series, I created GC92WV1 which was published on the 21st of November.

 

696dd142-cda2-4f02-9e11-7269fd228d55.jpg

 

The next day three Sydney cachers, who were in the vicinity doing other caches, claimed a joint FTF. Since then, nothing, no interest, even though it's now the middle of summer and, with all the recent rain, the waterfall is putting on a fine show.

 

This region doesn't have many caches, just 540 spread over 1680 square kilometres, so if there was ever going to be a place where cachers would be crying out for old ones to be archived and replaced by new ones, this would be it. But no, none of those finders of the old cache have wanted to go back and grab another smiley at that location. Where is this pent-up demand for revisiting cache locations?

 

The thing is, the waterfall is this cache's (and it predecessor's) prime attraction and that hasn't changed with the change of cache. A new cache that brings you to a beautiful waterfall that you never knew about is great, but one at a place you've already visited, perhaps not. For those who have already seen the falls, it's just another boring-old regular-sized Sistema hidden in the bush.

 

So perhaps in hindsight my cache was a bad idea and I should have just left the location as geocaching fallow, to be discovered by the next generation of cachers in 10, 20 or 30 years time when all the previous finders have died out.

Link to post
4 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Okay, here's a real world example of where that's recently happened. There was an old (2009) cache at a waterfall 23km west of here that was archived by its owner in early November, as he's no longer living in the area and the cache fell into disrepair (a mint tin that's reverted to its natural iron oxide state). Thinking, naively perhaps, that this would be a good spot for a new cache in my Chasing Waterfalls series, I created GC92WV1 which was published on the 21st of November.

 

696dd142-cda2-4f02-9e11-7269fd228d55.jpg

 

The next day three Sydney cachers, who were in the vicinity doing other caches, claimed a joint FTF. Since then, nothing, no interest, even though it's now the middle of summer and, with all the recent rain, the waterfall is putting on a fine show.

 

Good example of a cache that you should not archive because of few finds. Some of the best caching experiences are made on these caches. It is more an issue for the other thread, though, a cache that hopefully gets a good FP percentage, although never high numbers. (Percentages with few finds are, however, very sensitive to downvotes.)

  • Funny 1
Link to post
9 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

Good example of a cache that you should not archive because of few finds. Some of the best caching experiences are made on these caches. It is more an issue for the other thread, though, a cache that hopefully gets a good FP percentage, although never high numbers. (Percentages with few finds are, however, very sensitive to downvotes.)

 

That cache isn't being considered for archival, it replaced one that was archived. The whole point of my post was that the replacement hasn't resulted in a rush of previous finders coming back to revisit the location and grab another smiley. Quite the opposite. And it's not a remote wilderness cache either, it's a 30-minute drive from the centre of Gosford City with bitumen all the way and a short terrain-2.5 walk from the road down a constructed path to the falls.

 

Maybe it's different for parking lot caches. Maybe there's a huge demand for those to be revisited, although I don't understand why.

Link to post

Nobody has mentioned streaks yet. If revisits became doctrine it would kerfuffle the current balance of streaks. Glad i'm not in HQ's challenging shoes laying down the rules. I'd be happy either way but i'm convinced it'll remain single find only per GC code per user account.

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, CheekyBrit said:

Nobody has mentioned streaks yet. If revisits became doctrine it would kerfuffle the current balance of streaks. Glad i'm not in HQ's challenging shoes laying down the rules. I'd be happy either way but i'm convinced it'll remain single find only per GC code per user account.

 

As per the original post..."I propose that "revisited" would be a useful log type, to go back to a cache that you found long ago and log it again, not as "found" but as "revisited".  

  • Helpful 1
Link to post

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...