Cache life span

[+Pharisee]

It’s already been noted that the distribution of caches across the country is far from evenly spread. Some areas have very few while others are very popular and have many. Tim & June have said that they are now looking seriously at new caches that are placed too close to those that already exist.

With regard to these densely populated (with caches) areas, does anyone foresee a time when the ‘active life’ of a cache should be considered?

Another thread revealed that the first UK cache was placed in December 2000 so the earliest caches have been in place for something like two years now. Could it be that perhaps, in the not-too-distant future, a cache that hasn’t had a visit logged for, oh I don’t know… let’s say a year, should be archived and physically removed (if it’s still there) to make room for a new one?

I’m not suggesting that this should happen now. It was just a thought for the future and I’ve no idea if there ARE any caches that would fall into that category. Maybe the database number crunchers would be able to find out, just out of curiosity, you understand.

What does anyone else think?

 

John

 

__________________________________________________

 

Where did all the sunshine go?

[+Tim & June]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pharisee:

Tim & June have said that they are now looking seriously at new caches that are placed too close to those that already exist.

John

 

---

 

Just want to point out that this is not our decision, it's part of the guidelines approvers are given.

 

Tim & June (Winchester)

 

See June, I told you that sign which said 'Unsuitable for Motor Vehicles' was wrong !

[+dylanhayes]

Sounds like a sensible idea, although I bet the person placing the cache will not feel happy about being told that their cache should archived, as its one of the those common good vs. individual good situations.

 

Natural attrition will take it's toll on some caches, and eventually old caches become unvisited as all the nearby cachers have logged it already. Looking at the logs and frequency of visitation would probably give you an idea of a cache that is past it's sell by date.

 

To cut to the chased: So who would be happy to volunteer a cache they have placed for archival and removal? Prehaps if some concensus was reached the guidelines could include some suggestions for cache lifespan.

 

It also occured to me a removed cache can of course by recycled into a new cache, so it's not like the time and effort of making the cache is wasted, so it allows the cache owner to dream up new caches and may in the end improve the standard of the caches which is good for everyone.

 

*******************************************************

Don't mention the mushrooms

*******************************************************

[+Icenians]

quote:

---

Originally posted by dylanhayes:

Sounds like a sensible idea, although I bet the person placing the cache will not feel happy about being told that their cache should archived, as its one of the those common good vs. individual good situations.

 

Natural attrition will take it's toll on some caches, and eventually old caches become unvisited as all the nearby cachers have logged it already. Looking at the logs and frequency of visitation would probably give you an idea of a cache that is past it's sell by date.

 

To cut to the chased: So who would be happy to volunteer a cache they have placed for archival and removal? Prehaps if some concensus was reached the guidelines could include some suggestions for cache lifespan.

 

It also occured to me a removed cache can of course by recycled into a new cache, so it's not like the time and effort of making the cache is wasted, so it allows the cache owner to dream up new caches and may in the end improve the standard of the caches which is good for everyone.

 

*******************************************************

Don't mention the mushrooms

*******************************************************

---

 

I think you have to be careful about making one rule for all caches and basing it on time.

 

If you took away all the old caches in Norfolk for example it wouldn't be long before there are none at all. Anyone new to the sport would have none to find locally.

 

I plan to put a few on top of mountains. I don't expect them to be visited very often but that doesn't make them any less valid.

 

Kev

 

Statistics show that those with the most birthdays live longest.

[el10t]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pharisee:

...should be archived and physically removed (if it’s still there) to make room for a new one?

---

 

Its an interesting thought to keep the area fresh for local hunters but there are a couple of other considerations I think:

 

- Older caches have a lengthy history. The log book would be full of interesting comments from early cachers and therefore make fascinating reading, more so than a newer cache with only one or two log entries.

 

- By the fact that they have survived so long it could be inferred that older caches are less likely to be trashed (e.g. they have been better hidden) and so form a reliable, solid core of quality finds.

 

(Actually this second point is my new theory of "Survival of the Fittest for Caches". We need these older caches to remain alive in the cache population to avoid extinction. Or something like that.)

 

[Edited after reading previous posts a bit more closely!]

 

Rich

mobilis in mobili

[MCL]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pharisee:

Could it be that perhaps, in the not-too-distant future, a cache that hasn’t had a visit logged for, oh I don’t know… let’s say a year, should be archived and physically removed (if it’s still there) to make room for a new one?

 

---

 

No.

 

No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....

[+Naefearjustbeer]

I wish there was an abundance of caches near me to even consider the options what to do with old caches. There are only 4 caches in my county and I hid 3 of them! So if any of you are suffering from overcrowding please feel free to relocate to Caithness with your caches. The next nearest cache to me (that I havent found or placed) is about 90 minutes drive. Or 60 minute ferry crossing. I also think I am the only cacher in a 100 miles so my caches dont get found very often .Never mind I hope to hide a few more over the winter so when the tourists start coming next summer they might spend a bit of time hunting round Caithness, that way they might hide a few on there travels for me to find. I have had no luck trying to persuade any of my friends to take up the sport they all think I am some sort of weird anorak type!!!

 

Hear about the 2 blondes that walked into a bar?

You would of thought at least one of them would of seen it!!

[+welch]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pharisee:

With regard to these densely populated (with caches) areas, does anyone foresee a time when the ‘active life’ of a cache should be considered?

Another thread revealed that the first UK cache was placed in December 2000 so the earliest caches have been in place for something like two years now. Could it be that perhaps, in the not-too-distant future, a cache that hasn’t had a visit logged for, oh I don’t know… let’s say a year, should be archived and physically removed (if it’s still there) to make room for a new one?

---

Placing "time limits" or "expiration dates" on caches has been discussed before.

I dont want to drag you out of the UK forum but:here, then rehashed over there, ....There are others but im having a brain fart at the moment

 

One of the big sticky points was, should it be a hard fast rule?

the pro being that being removed in a set time would keep paths from being worn in, the con was that that some caches have NEVER gotten enough visits to matter, while others get huge trails trampled out in no time....

 

 

[This message was edited by welch on December 05, 2002 at 09:46 AM.]

[+John Stead]

I too would not like to see automatic removal of caches after a certain time because there are still areas where they are thin on the ground. I have one on a mountain (well high hill) top and will be surprised if it gets more than the odd visit each year apart from my own checking. But its still a well worthwhile place to visit.

[+Pharisee]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jstead:

I too would not like to see automatic removal of caches after a certain time because there are still areas where they are thin on the ground. I have one on a mountain (well high hill) top and will be surprised if it gets more than the odd visit each year apart from my own checking. But its still a well worthwhile place to visit.

---

 

I wasn't actually proposing that we implement a scheme like that. It was just a thought that I had and wondered what anybody else thought about it for areas that were 'cache rich' not for the lonely ones on mountain tops

 

Sorry Welch, Didn't know that there had been previous threads. Both the threads you indicated were before 'my time' and in the General Forum. As that seems to advance at the rate of a page every few days, I'd have quite a bit to wade through to find them. If it bored you, I appologise but that's what happens when new geocachers start posting on forums. I don't suppose I was the first and I really don't think I'll be the last to start a thread that's been dealt with previously. I'll do a bit more research before I start another one

 

John

 

_______________________________________________

 

Where did all the sunshine go?

[+John Stead]

Don't let it put you off. Fresh ideas are always welcome as even if the topic has been explored before there will always be new contributors. Their notes are worth reading so long as they don't keep going over the same ground - isn't that a bit like what I do when I can't find a cache!

In the short time you've been on this forum you have made contributions that I've enjoyed - perhaps its because you're another John. Am I a crawler or what? That should get the non-Johns having a go at us!

[+welch]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pharisee:

Sorry Welch, Didn't know that there had been previous threads. Both the threads you indicated were before 'my time' and in the General Forum. As that seems to advance at the rate of a page every few days, I'd have quite a bit to wade through to find them. If it bored you, I appologise but that's what happens when new geocachers start posting on forums.

---

Nah, thats ok. Just dont post a "what GPS should i buy?, what GPS should i buy?, wha..." or a "How old are you TODAY?" thread, those get annoying really fast.

 

quote:

---

I don't suppose I was the first and I really don't think I'll be the last to start a thread that's been dealt with previously. I'll do a bit more research before I start another one

---

Some threads deserve to be discussed time and again, and probly will as similar events/or ideas occur. But i think its good to have an easy link to other related threads(and the important ideas and info. scattered within ).

 

[+Teasel]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pharisee:

Maybe the database number crunchers would be able to find out, just out of curiosity, you understand.

---

From reading this and previous threads on the subject, the problem seems to be that no one can decide whether it's frequently visited, or infrequently visited caches which should be archived, or whether virtual caches should be more or less 'ripe for destruction', or...

 

Personally I'm against archiving any cache that obeys the guidelines for placing caches. I also don't like to judge anything by a single metric (take the cacherstats pages on GeocacheUK for example!), and that goes for caches as much as cachers.

 

As a "database number cruncher", I'd suggest a system which flags up "unusual" caches for further investigation. Eg caches which have not been found for an unusually long time (considering their terrain/difficulty, type, county, proximity to other caches, the time of year etc), or which have been found unusually frequently, or whose last n visits have all been failures, or whose "couldn't find" count is abnormally high for the stated difficulty, or ...

 

By looking for differences from the norm, you should get better results than applying blind rules such as 'anything which hasn't been found for 90 days'.

[el10t]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teasel:

...I also don't like to judge anything by a single metric...

 

As a "database number cruncher", I'd suggest a system which flags up "unusual" caches for further investigation.

 

By looking for differences from the norm, you should get better results than applying blind rules...

---

As a statistician I agree with everything you have said.

 

Rich

mobilis in mobili

[MCL]

quote:

---

Originally posted by el10t:

As a statistician I agree with everything you have said.

---

 

As an analyst I'd say that is perfectly normal behaviour for a statistician....

 

No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....