To replace or archive and replace

[+justintim1999]

I have a unique hide that's right in the middle of a series.   It's made of natural materials that have degraded over time and needs to be replaced.

 

The resources to duplicate the original hide are not available in that location.    The cache has 68 favorite points primarily based on the uniqueness of the hide.  

 

The replacement container will also be a unique hide but not quite the same.

 

Should I just replace the cache and keep the listing or archive it and place the new one? 
   

[+niraD]

10 minutes ago, justintim1999 said:

The replacement container will also be a unique hide but not quite the same.

 

Should I just replace the cache and keep the listing or archive it and place the new one? 

If the replacement is the same basic hide style, but just not quite the same because you had to use resources that were a little different, then I'd keep the listing.

 

If the replacement completely changes the hide style, then it's a different cache, and I'd archive and list a new cache.

[+cerberus1]

We see a lot in stumps, as if that stump will be there forever.  One actually lugged a stump from home in, and it had a swing-away top.  

I can see that one remaining, as it's now an improvement, but maintaining the same hide style.  

Setting up a new spot alongside a downed tree nearby (I feel) isn't the same hide style, and they can go bye-bye.

[+justintim1999]

The original is on the top of a 3 foot stump which lasted about 7 years.   I'm sure a larger stump would have lasted longer but that's what was available in the area.    

[+terratin]

If it's the same hide with the same something to see then I would just replace it. Types of containers change all the time. If it was a different puzzle or multi but the same final location then I would archive and rehide.

[+L0ne.R]

2 hours ago, justintim1999 said:

I have a unique hide

The cache has 68 favorite points primarily based on the uniqueness of the hide.  

 

Should I just replace the cache and keep the listing or archive it and place the new one? 
   

 

Archive it and list a new one. The fav points were for the original unique cache.

 

Keep the history accurate by archiving it and starting fresh with the new different unique container. 

[+dprovan]

First, in case this isn't obvious, it's entirely up to you. Neither choice is bad.

 

If it were me, I'd keep the replacement as a new day in the life of the original cache. While I appreciate the logic behind different-hide/different-cache, to me that's trumped by keeping the history of the original cache alive. Archive it, essentially no one hears about it ever again. Replace the momentously cool hide with a merely very cool hide, and people looking at the new merely cool hide can read any history of the original hide you put into the description and might go back into the logs to read about its finds.

[+GeoElmo6000]

On 4/15/2021 at 10:18 AM, justintim1999 said:

The original is on the top of a 3 foot stump which lasted about 7 years.   I'm sure a larger stump would have lasted longer but that's what was available in the area.    

 

I don't have any advice for you but wanted to say great job on the cache containers!  Well done.

[+justintim1999]

On 4/19/2021 at 9:10 AM, GeoElmo6000 said:

 

I don't have any advice for you but wanted to say great job on the cache containers!  Well done.

Thank you for the comment.   There seems to be no right or wrong answer to this question so please feel free to let me know what you would do. 

[+Ragnemalm]

Some would say archive and re-submit because new caches are desirabe, but I did that once with a cache that I wasn't totallt happy with. I improved it significantly, which I thought would qualify for archive and re-submit. The response to my new better cache has been totally underwhelming, so I will not do that again.

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, Ragnemalm said:

Some would say archive and re-submit because new caches are desirabe, but I did that once with a cache that I wasn't totallt happy with. I improved it significantly, which I thought would qualify for archive and re-submit. The response to my new better cache has been totally underwhelming, so I will not do that again.

 

Yes, I've had something similar here. There was an old (circa 2009) cache at a waterfall, an Eclipse mint tin that was well on the way to reverting to its natural iron oxide state, which the owner archived last year since he no longer lived in the area and couldn't maintain it. I thought the location would make a good addition to my Chasing Waterfalls series and placed a new cache there (something more substantial than a mint tin too) which was published in November. It had a three-way joint FTF the next day from a group of Sydney cachers who were in the area at the time but has had no finds since. There seems to be little appetite, around here at least, for new caches in old locations, especially if that location is a little bit out of the way, though the waterfall is only a half hour drive from Gosford City and a short 2.5T walk down from the road so it's not really that remote.

 

Edited May 8, 2021 by barefootjeff