New trend - more caches archived than new caches published?

[+CAVinoGal]

TL;NGR (Too Long;Not Gonna Read) – Has anyone else noticed a recent trend of more caches being archived than new caches being published?  Or is it a local thing?

 

A fairly recent trend seems to be occurring in my area (Northern California, SF Bay Area in general) and it’s really beginning to get to me.  It’s something I’m hoping to turn into something positive, but it will take some effort and right now it’s just something I need to talk about and see if it is just me! Maybe it's just part of the natural flow of things - survivial of the fittest (caches) and it's time for a purge?

 

I have notifications set up for newly published caches and archived caches in my local area.  It’s pretty cache “rich”, there are a lot of caches by many CO’s, and lots of variety, and we don’t have to go too far to find enough caches to meet whatever souvenir or promo HQ comes up with.  Typically, (based on my 5 years of geocaching experience) the newly published caches outnumber the archives by a good margin; 10-12 new caches a week vs maybe 1 archived is a good estimate (discounting events, and within my home radius of 25 miles).

 

The past several months have seen a reversal – I’ll get more archive notifications than new caches.  In September for example, 24 caches have been archived by CO’s, and 3 by Reviewers “cleaning up” and the explanation is that the CO has not responded to DNF’s or requests to check on the status.  Of those archived by the CO’s, some don’t give a reason, but of those that do, it’s due to the area not being a good place anymore – homeless camps, trash dumps, construction – whatever, there seem to be many areas no longer conducive to hosting a geocache.  And the new cache notifications?  There have been 7 new caches, and 4 events published so far this month.

 

So, is it just this area?  Are others seeing this?  I recently archived one of my hides due to homeless activity too close to the previously good hiding spot, and changed another to a different style hide to hopefully make it less attractive to vandals – but it’s not the experience I wanted for that final on the mystery series.  And my reaction, other than being frustrated and feeling the need to archive hides, is to find better places to hide caches.  But better places and better caches take time and effort, which I am willing to do – as long as people still enjoy finding what I hide!  My newest cache has only one find to date (published Aug. 30), and it’s a puzzle, so I know it’s not one that will be found by casual cachers.  Still, 1 find in nearly a month is unusual for this area.

[Moun10Bike]

I'm not seeing too much to be concerned about in your area. The chart below shows non-event caches within 25 miles of your home area by month. It is decreasing from the high that was hit in May, but overall the trend is upward.

 

[+fuzziebear3]

I too have noticed a lot more archivals.  Around here it is more by the reviewers.  I think a few things are going on:

1.)  A lot of newer players are more likely to request Needs Archived*

2.)  The reviewers are taking a stronger look and action, possibly because of 1.

 

*Newer players don't have the depth of experience; they are more likely not to find things.   And, they are more likely to select needs archived for things that they don't find.  More experienced players will think twice before submitting needs archived.  Especially if it is an older or favorite cache.  Additionally, I think newer players are also more likely to submit needs maintenance for things that they do find -- if the log is just slightly damp or conditions are less than perfect, they use needs maintenance when an experienced cacher may help it a bit (add a logsheet) or just accept that things get dirty.

 

 

 

[Keystone]

1 hour ago, fuzziebear3 said:

I too have noticed a lot more archivals.  Around here it is more by the reviewers. 

 

I think what you're seeing in your area is more attributable to a "catch-up" effort by your local reviewers, after a glitch was fixed earlier this year in the automated tools used to bring caches with maintenance issues to a reviewer's attention.  Things should normalize if they haven't already.

 

The issue of new players using the "Needs Maintenance" and "Needs Archived" options is a broader issue.  That's why, before action is taken against a cache listing, manual intervention by a Reviewer is required.  I can easily see that some of those logs ought to have been simple "DNF" logs.  Often I will post that on the cache page (as a response to a "Needs Archived" request) or I will skip over it in the tool we use to monitor caches with low Health Scores.  The Health Score algorithm cannot differentiate between an experienced and inexperienced geocacher, but I can.

[+barefootjeff]

4 hours ago, CAVinoGal said:

Has anyone else noticed a recent trend of more caches being archived than new caches being published?  Or is it a local thing?

 

It's been like that here for the last four or five years. When I started in 2013, there were between 100 and 200 new caches being published in my region each year but that's now down to a couple of dozen. The spate of natural disasters in recent years hasn't helped either. This region (the NSW Central Coast, Australia) was largely spared from the fires of 2019 but the almost constant rain and flooding since then has taken its toll. I've archived five of my hides so far this year, about half due to rain damage destroying access to the cache, and have another two long-term disabled due to trail closures which will likely end up archived too.

 

Last year there were just 16 new caches in this region, one of which has already been archived. This year's doing a bit better, with 25 new caches so far (1 already archived). I have a new one that's nearly ready to submit, although in visiting the location yesterday I ended up collecting about a dozen leeches so I might have to wait for some drier weather before placing it. The total number of caches in the region is currently 506, down from about 550 a year or two back.

[+Isonzo Karst]

There's a long running thread, Number of new caches decreasing? I'll link to my post of roughly a year ago.

https://forums.geocaching.com/GC/index.php?/topic/346539-number-of-new-caches-decreasing/&do=findComment&comment=5926444

 

in some areas, like mine, state of Florida, cache numbers peaked in 2018, declined for a while, and now for a couple of years are stable. Worldwide, there's still growth, but it's very very modest.  Currently there are 3,362,350 active caches worldwide.  World hit 3,000.000 April 2017.

 

[+lee737]

Maybe they have just run out of space?

 

[+CAVinoGal]

5 hours ago, Moun10Bike said:

I'm not seeing too much to be concerned about in your area. The chart below shows non-event caches within 25 miles of your home area by month. It is decreasing from the high that was hit in May, but overall the trend is upward.

 

OK, that's helpful.  It's not my imagination that archives outnumber hides for the past few months!  However, overall, it's not a significant drop in total caches (as I said, my area is pretty cache dense.)  Guess it's part of the normal ebb and flow...

[+CAVinoGal]

1 hour ago, lee737 said:

Maybe they have just run out of space?

 

LOL! I said it was a cache rich area - yet there are still places to hide things.  The trick is making them attractive enough for geocachers but safe from curious muggles and vandals (and construction crews).  And the ratio of archives to new hides seemed unusually high recently, hence my post.  But Moun10Bike's graph shows it's really not significant, so I'll just keep watching.

 

I am concerned by the # of archives due to homeless activity and/or new construction; guess we just have to venture further out away from suburbia.

 

BTW, here is a more accurate pic of caches within 25 miles of my home area (the arrow points to my home coordinates), and a second within about 15 miles to show the ones I have yet to find:

 

 

 

[+GeoElmo6000]

13 hours ago, CAVinoGal said:

BTW, here is a more accurate pic of caches within 25 miles of my home area (the arrow points to my home coordinates), and a second within about 15 miles to show the ones I have yet to find

 

You have a few nearby to find, including a couple Wherigos!  Those are fun.

 

My issue is that I have lots of caches nearby to find, but none that are interesting.  I only have around 25 finds this year because the caches nearby don't pull me out to find them like they used to.  Before the pandemic I used to travel for work a lot and I did most of my geocaching on business trips, discovering new areas and new geocaches.  I'm fine with finding a lamp post cache in a new state but a lamp post cache near my house won't get me searching for it.  I have too many other hobbies competing for my time now, including learning a foreign language, video production, etc.  

[+JL_HSTRE]

On 9/30/2022 at 8:44 AM, GeoElmo6000 said:

My issue is that I have lots of caches nearby to find, but none that are interesting.  I only have around 25 finds this year because the caches nearby don't pull me out to find them like they used to.

 

I find geocaching's value is mostly traveling, even daytrips. If I stayed close to home all the time I would have quit geocaching entirely by now.

[+Mudfrog]

On 9/30/2022 at 7:44 AM, GeoElmo6000 said:

 

You have a few nearby to find, including a couple Wherigos!  Those are fun.

 

My issue is that I have lots of caches nearby to find, but none that are interesting.  I only have around 25 finds this year because the caches nearby don't pull me out to find them like they used to.  Before the pandemic I used to travel for work a lot and I did most of my geocaching on business trips, discovering new areas and new geocaches.  I'm fine with finding a lamp post cache in a new state but a lamp post cache near my house won't get me searching for it.  I have too many other hobbies competing for my time now, including learning a foreign language, video production, etc.  

 

2 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

 

I find geocaching's value is mostly traveling, even daytrips. If I stayed close to home all the time I would have quit geocaching entirely by now.

 

I'm still interested in geocaching but can't bring myself to actually go for any of the caches around our area. There are plenty (I've let them stack up over the last few years) but none that are interesting to me.

 

The archival rate has been greater than the published rate in the last couple of years around our area. I'm thinking, mainly because new "gung ho" cachers hide but then lose interest after a short time. Maintenance doesn't happen and the caches get archived by the reviewer.

[+lee737]

4 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

I find geocaching's value is mostly traveling, even daytrips. If I stayed close to home all the time I would have quit geocaching entirely by now.

Definitely. We would have no choice but to quit as we would have exactly nothing to do..... 

[+barefootjeff]

4 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

 

I find geocaching's value is mostly traveling, even daytrips. If I stayed close to home all the time I would have quit geocaching entirely by now.

 

Most of my caching time these days is devoted to my hides, either doing routine checks, occasional repairs or constructing new ones. During September I had four cache-finding days: a train trip to Sydney (1 cache), a train trip to Newcastle (3 caches and an AL), a drive 150km north to Bulahdelah where I was placing a new cache and stopped off on the way past to find the one and only cache in Karuah (I'd cleared out the 3 caches in Bulahdelah on an earlier trip this year), and a find on a new cache close to home (the second one this year!). I also attended two events (one near Newcastle and the other on Sydney's northern beaches) but there were no unfound caches near those.

 

The weather isn't helping. Not only is the almost constant rain and flooding from three consecutive la Nina events destroying existing caches or making them inaccessible, it's also making it difficult to plan longer trips away as they're likely to be rained out. Even the new cache I'm working on is becoming a battle against mud, leeches and paint that won't dry.

[+JL_HSTRE]

In Florida, a lot of caches fell victim to Hurricane Irma in 2017, which affected almost the entire state.

 

Hurricane Ian, between the storm surge and rain-induced flooding, will take out many more. 

 

Before 2017, Florida didn't have any serious hurricane impacts since 2005, when caches were few and far between.

 

Edited October 2, 2022 by JL_HSTRE

[+MNTA]

I too have noticed the trend. Fortunately no longer care about the F2F streak. If able I'll still try but that game is few and far between now.

 

In the 2827 sq. miles (30 mile radius) surrounding my home location there were 22 new caches (2 currently disabled) this past month. Only a few within 10 miles of my house.  The funny thing is currently 22 caches within 10 miles that are currently disabled. 123 disabled at 30 miles. Now some will not be archived but the trend `appears to me going down. This does not include the caches on my unsolvable (to me) ignore list. Granted this is still a small percentage of the active caches 6000ish.

 

 

[+Mysterion604]

Geocacher lifecycle factor:

I'm sure some academic could do a long term study on factors like geocachers dropping out of the hobby after and average of X number of years, resulting in a correlation in Z percentage of caches falling into disrepeair and getting archived after and average of Y amount of time since last known maintenance. But basically, if you're looking at more geocaching retirements than committed new memberships, you will (with some lag time) get more caches shutting down than popping up. 

 

Rules complexity factor: the rules regarding caches are over time becoming more complex & stringent. Older caches may rely on "grandfathered" permission to remain active under conditions which are not allowed anymore. As those caches gradually disappear, the new caches must meet new & tougher requirements, increasing development time and decreasing the total number of approved caches.

 

Territorial exclusion factor: Simply put, all the prime areas for caches are already claimed. A scarcity of good places to hide a cache means a lack of new caches being created. This is very significant for creating a series of caches or power trails.

 

Reviewer interpretational strictness factor: Reviewers considering all of the above might have also recently gotten more serious about how strict they are in approvals or on the other end, how quickly they pounce on those "needs maintenance" / "needs archived" notices. Could be a seasonal thing, could also be that after events and forums amongst themselves, that there is a general push towards more conformity in application of the rules & timely action being taken against caches that have fallen into disrepeair/disuse.

 

 

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, mysterion604 said:

Rules complexity factor: the rules regarding caches are over time becoming more complex & stringent. Older caches may rely on "grandfathered" permission to remain active under conditions which are not allowed anymore. As those caches gradually disappear, the new caches must meet new & tougher requirements, increasing development time and decreasing the total number of approved caches.

 

Apart from challenge caches, is this really the case? The saturation guideline has been in place for a long time, maybe there are some land managers who have become more stringent about permissions (around here, the opposite has happened with national parks removing a total ban on caches in favour of an approval process), but I'm struggling to think of what other guidelines have become more complex and stringent. If a cache is in a place where caches are allowed, is not too close to any other caches or physical waypoints and isn't nailed to a tree, it will likely be published.

[+GearHeadAZ]

On 11/5/2022 at 5:58 PM, mysterion604 said:

Geocacher lifecycle factor:

I'm sure some academic could do a long term study on factors like geocachers dropping out of the hobby after and average of X number of years, resulting in a correlation in Z percentage of caches falling into disrepeair and getting archived after and average of Y amount of time since last known maintenance. But basically, if you're looking at more geocaching retirements than committed new memberships, you will (with some lag time) get more caches shutting down than popping up. 

 

Rules complexity factor: the rules regarding caches are over time becoming more complex & stringent. Older caches may rely on "grandfathered" permission to remain active under conditions which are not allowed anymore. As those caches gradually disappear, the new caches must meet new & tougher requirements, increasing development time and decreasing the total number of approved caches.

 

I actually think more abandoned and NM caches getting archived is a good thing. How is the next generation of cachers supposed to get invested in the game if a high percentage of caches they look for are in disrepair or legitimately missing? Or if they can't find any special hiding places for their own hide because they're already taken up by a hide in disrepair and the CO is either inactive or just doesn't want to maintain it?

 

The rules can be a good thing. If you're made to jump through hoops for approval from the land manager then it will be less likely that a newb will dump out a bunch of crappy caches in a nice park then quit the game after a few months.

[+edexter]

I believe mysterion604 is correct on all four factors:  I have observed an obvious decline in "cache quality" over the years (specifically fewer hiking caches vs more roadside micros) as older cachers give up the game.  I find that my personal experience with the rules complexity and reviewer interpretation factors have definitely changed over the years.  For instance, where once it was fine to place a cache in a public park no questions asked,  then a statement that you had specific permission was required and presently I am asked to identify the authority, a specific contact person, and specific contact information (phone number or email).  (Meanwhile roadside guardrails appear to require none of the above)  A proliferation of caches would decrease the available new placement areas but that is less of an issue.  I think the primary factor for the increase in archival over new caches however can best be understood as mathematical and behavioral.  The math is direct:  If the "decay rate" of old caches remains unchanged (say 15-20% a year) as the number of caches increases, so after a lag, will the number of archived caches.  Unless an increasing number of caches are placed each year (which is less likely as their absolute number climbs) their percentage of the total cache universe decreases.  At a certain point more are archived than placed.   The behavioral part is more straight forward:  caches are archived 85% of the time because of lack of maintenance, that is, the COs never fix them.  With the end of the "loose interpretation" of necessary maintenance by Reviewers as Covid19 restrictions relax, the purge of the deadwood is on.  This is a good thing as it means the real world accuracy of the listing service increases and "opens up" the space for theoretical new placements.  

PS:  I realize that the "rules" relating to land owner permission have not changed in theory, but in practice, they have.  

[+A J Pombo]

I think something important is missing here: Adventure Lab Caches
They don't need maintenance, they don't go through the revision process, and they don't have saturation issues either.

In very busy places and with many possible visits, they are the ideal solution to show a place worthy of a cache.

So, why should I put a physical cache when I can put an Adventure Lab cache?

[+MNTA]

7 hours ago, A J Pombo said:

I think something important is missing here: Adventure Lab Caches
They don't need maintenance, they don't go through the revision process, and they don't have saturation issues either.

In very busy places and with many possible visits, they are the ideal solution to show a place worthy of a cache.

So, why should I put a physical cache when I can put an Adventure Lab cache?

 

First they do occasionally need maintenance. Signs disappear all the time. I have found this once and I don't do a lot of them.

 

Second I did not start this hobby to get excited about virtual caches and a lot of ECs annoy me as I don't want to get a PHD in the subject matter. I do them but only out of necessity or curiosity. 

 

My opinion is for ALs really need to be integrated into the same platform both website and app. I should be able to be at a location and see stages available near me and physical caches. I use the website to plan my outings specially on longer trips. I also enjoy seeing where I found all of my caches. Reminds me of past trips and experiences.

 

How does AL work in areas with spotty or no cell coverage?

 

Also like physical caches there are good ones, ok ones and poor ones. At least with a poor physical cache I feel like I accomplished something I can't say the same thing about AL. At least with a PNG you got to get out of the car. I did one AL recently where all I needed to do was stop the car. 

 

 

 

 

 

[+barefootjeff]

11 hours ago, A J Pombo said:

So, why should I put a physical cache when I can put an Adventure Lab cache?

 

I can think of lots of reasons, but the one that sticks out when I look through my list of favourites is this. With an AL, you're just looking at the environment, reading words or numbers off signs or counting fence posts, but with a physical cache you're interacting with that environment, climbing on the rocks, looking in all the nooks and crannies, getting your hands and knees dirty, then there's that moment of joy when you finally spot the cache, reach out, grab it, open it and sign the log. You got there, you overcame all the obstacles the CO had put in your path and achieved your goal.

 

 

In an AL you're a spectator, but with a physical cache you're a participant.

[+MNTA]

19 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

In an AL you're a spectator, but with a physical cache you're a participant.

 

Well put!

[+baer2006]

23 hours ago, A J Pombo said:

I think something important is missing here: Adventure Lab Caches
They don't need maintenance,

Yes, they do. Whatever you base your questions on, can change or disappear. And other than with real geocache listings, the AL owner won't ever know about it unless one (non-)finder takes the effort to contact the owner via geocaching.com. There are no DNF/NM logs for AL. This might be a side-line issue, but the pro-AL argument, that they "don't need maintenance" is simply not true.

Edited December 5, 2022 by baer2006
Fixed the wrong quote

[+MNTA]

1 hour ago, baer2006 said:

Yes, they do. Whatever you base your questions on, can change or disappear. And other than with real geocache listings, the AL owner won't ever know about it unless one (non-)finder takes the effort to contact the owner via geocaching.com. There are no DNF/NM logs for AL. This might be a side-line issue, but the pro-AL argument, that they "don't need maintenance" is simply not true.

Sorry you quoted the wrong person. I 100% agree maintenance is occasionally required as I've experienced a problems and as you pointed out there is a serious flaw with them on how to report problems.

[+baer2006]

7 hours ago, MNTA said:

Sorry you quoted the wrong person.

Oops!! You're right, I apologize. I don't even know how I managed to screw this up .

{ETA: I fixed the wrong quote in my posting, which needed some fiddling around in the editing window. }

Edited December 5, 2022 by baer2006
Edited to add something

[+Max and 99]

On 9/29/2022 at 11:08 AM, CAVinoGal said:

Has anyone else noticed a recent trend of more caches being archived than new caches being published?  Or is it a local thing?

 

A fairly recent trend seems to be occurring in my area (Northern California, SF Bay Area in general) and it’s really beginning to get to me.  It’s something I’m hoping to turn into something positive, but it will take some effort and right now it’s just something I need to talk about and see if it is just me! Maybe it's just part of the natural flow of things - survivial of the fittest (caches) and it's time for a purge?

I thought of this discussion today when I read this: (I know, you're in N. Cal)

Maybe not relevant per se regarding more archives than published, but I thought related.

 

Please note that since Geocaching HQ declared 2022 to be "The Year of the Hide," greater emphasis has been placed on "refreshing the gameboard" which means that our SoCal volunteer Reviewers will be more aggressively freeing up space for new caches to replace old ones that are not being properly maintained.

[+barefootjeff]

6 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

I thought of this discussion today when I read this: (I know, you're in N. Cal)

Maybe not relevant per se regarding more archives than published, but I thought related.

 

Please note that since Geocaching HQ declared 2022 to be "The Year of the Hide," greater emphasis has been placed on "refreshing the gameboard" which means that our SoCal volunteer Reviewers will be more aggressively freeing up space for new caches to replace old ones that are not being properly maintained.

 

I did my bit for the Year of the Hide, archiving 7 of my caches last year. Only once did a new cache appear within 161 metres of an archived one, and that was where archiving a multi at the bottom of a waterfall opened up a nice spot near the top where I placed a new traditional. The rest, and the other 8 caches I archived in earlier years, are just more empty space on the map.

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

I did my bit for the Year of the Hide, archiving 7 of my caches last year. Only once did a new cache appear within 161 metres of an archived one, and that was where archiving a multi at the bottom of a waterfall opened up a nice spot near the top where I placed a new traditional. The rest, and the other 8 caches I archived in earlier years, are just more empty space on the map.

[+Mysterion604]

On 12/4/2022 at 8:35 AM, MNTA said:

 

How does AL work in areas with spotty or no cell coverage?

 

 

 

 

Indeed. Good question. I hid a cache recently in an area where cel-coverage definitely cuts out, so I slapped the "no phones" attribute on it as an extra warning about that. Most people people probably have some way of dealing with that, but offline functionality is an issue generally for caching in the wild areas (with a phone; I'm sure dedicated GPS devices work fine).

 

I shut off the wifi and cellular data functions to save power in areas like that - save as much as I can for caching / navigation apps, otherwise the phone will just keep trying to search for signals that are just not there.  As for Adventure Labs, I imagine that would prevent the app from working, though I have never tried.

 

I find the AL app eats power like a [bad word]  on my phone, so I would not want to even risk opening it if I was going into an area where I need to save power / work offline for a long period of time.

 

 

Edited March 26, 2023 by mysterion604
Did I even make sense???

[+niraD]

17 hours ago, mysterion604 said:

Most people people probably have some way of dealing with that, but offline functionality is an issue generally for caching in the wild areas (with a phone; I'm sure dedicated GPS devices work fine).

Actually, the other geocaching apps that I've used have worked just fine in areas where my data connection cut out. For some reason, Groundspeak's app needs you to save cache data for offline use as a separate step, but as long as you've done that, even it works just fine without a data connection. Or at least, it did the last time I tried using it in such an area.

Edited March 26, 2023 by niraD
typo

[+NanCycle]

When this thread was started we had just recently had a lot of new caches posted by new cachers.  By now many of those new caches have been archived and still more are on their way to archival for lack of maintenance by the new cachers.  Specific example, one new cacher created 14 caches in May 2022; 5 have already been archived.  She announced a plan to create a series of 50 but quit after 6.  And hasn't posted a Find since July.  A few other new cachers placed 2 or 3 caches each; about half of these are already gone, archived or at least disabled for months.  

[+Capanna Family]

Most of the Active cachers around here are good about maintaining their caches, but many popular cachers in the area have gotten too old or have moved away and their caches have recently been targeted by reviewers, I personally can name a handful of caches that are still in place but have been archived.  I wonder how many caches are still in place that have been archived.

[+edexter]

 If you read the logs you can get a good idea of the likely fate of the cache.  If the CO archived it and says they pulled the cache, it's gone.  If the CO archived it because it was missing, especially if they decided to archive it after they couldn't find it, it's also likely gone.  Otherwise, it's still there, though most likely in rough shape.  The smaller the cache, the more likely it is to be there but on the ground, under debris.  Very few of my woods cache containers ever "go missing" but in-town caches have a much shorter lifespan before they are "muggled" (vandalized or stolen).  Caches that are subject to natural forces also "disappear" with some frequency due to storms and floods.  I have on rare occasion come across an abandoned archived cache still in place and still intact (ammo boxes) and removed and recycled them but mostly the earth recycles them.  

edexter

[+CAVinoGal]

8 minutes ago, edexter said:

Caches that are subject to natural forces also "disappear" with some frequency due to storms and floods.

 And critters...we've lost a couple due to curious racoons, or squirrels...

[+NanCycle]

2 hours ago, CAVinoGal said:

 And critters...we've lost a couple due to curious racoons, or squirrels...

 

I had one "safely" tucked into the fork of a tree, but it kept getting thrown out onto the ground.  I suspected squirrels. 

[+cerberus1]

On 9/29/2023 at 2:27 PM, Capanna Family said:

Most of the Active cachers around here are good about maintaining their caches, but many popular cachers in the area have gotten too old or have moved away and their caches have recently been targeted by reviewers, I personally can name a handful of caches that are still in place but have been archived.  I wonder how many caches are still in place that have been archived.

Pretty-much the only time a friend asks me to tag along is when she's in uncomfortable locations or terrain, or I bring my pack frame with me.

Any other time I'm taken too long, "picking up stuff...".           She marks locations of new caches and keeps old, archived caches in her GPSr. 

 - Any time she's in the area, she'll call the CO of those archived caches to see if they want them ... and me. 

She's created entire series with ammo cans that way.   Ammo cans left in the woods...

[+Om_and_Nom]

On 11/22/2022 at 6:18 PM, GearHeadAZ said:

 

I actually think more abandoned and NM caches getting archived is a good thing. How is the next generation of cachers supposed to get invested in the game if a high percentage of caches they look for are in disrepair or legitimately missing? Or if they can't find any special hiding places for their own hide because they're already taken up by a hide in disrepair and the CO is either inactive or just doesn't want to maintain it?

 

The rules can be a good thing. If you're made to jump through hoops for approval from the land manager then it will be less likely that a newb will dump out a bunch of crappy caches in a nice park then quit the game after a few months.

100% agree.  This is a non-issue for active CO's who follow the cache placing recommendations.  I was trying to introduce my bro to the game and find some super simple cache's...and they weren't there and he checked out immediately, thinking the game was nonsense and a waste of time.  I have no clue why some players support crappy cache's and/or inactive CO's.  I don't care if you placed 200 cache's 10 years ago, if you haven't been active in the last 5 years...if one of your cache's has not been found in two years and you haven't bothered putting up any notes confirming it's still there, dang right you are going to get an OM request from me if I can't find it.  I want the game to GROW, and inactive cache owners who don't maintain their cache's prevent this.