Clarification on cache "permanence"

[+DarkZen_EvilCowPie]

Over in this thread,  Keystone says:

 

"One thing to keep in mind is the cache permanence guideline.  Caches are intended to remain in place for the long term.  The minimum expectation is three months."

 

Is 3 months an official time duration? The reason I ask is because I know pushing permanence has been a thing for GS for a while. But in my town, some caches have been out for ages (mine included) and all of the local finders have found them and they get found maybe once or twice a year now. They are taking up valuable real-estate - I would like to archive some to make way for new hides for our community - as it's stagnating - but I don't want to run afoul of my reviewer by simply saying, "archiving to put new hides out".

 

So what's the consensus, and how does everyone else feel about this? 

[+Smitherington]

In my opinion, if they are ordinary - replace them. Think about replacing with something better.

[+Goldenwattle]

11 minutes ago, DarkZen_EvilCowPie said:

Over in this thread,  Keystone says:

 

"One thing to keep in mind is the cache permanence guideline.  Caches are intended to remain in place for the long term.  The minimum expectation is three months."

 

Is 3 months an official time duration? The reason I ask is because I know pushing permanence has been a thing for GS for a while. But in my town, some caches have been out for ages (mine included) and all of the local finders have found them and they get found maybe once or twice a year now. They are taking up valuable real-estate - I would like to archive some to make way for new hides for our community - as it's stagnating - but I don't want to run afoul of my reviewer by simply saying, "archiving to put new hides out".

 

So what's the consensus, and how does everyone else feel about this? 

My personal opinion, leave them alone if still okay. As a finder I take joy from knowing I have found all the caches in a town. When I know I can't keep up and do this, I go out to find caches less often. As I said, my personal opinion. I actually don't do much caching at home now. Most of my caching is when travelling.

[+barefootjeff]

4 hours ago, DarkZen_EvilCowPie said:

Is 3 months an official time duration?

 

The Guidelines certainly infer that:

 

 

4 hours ago, DarkZen_EvilCowPie said:

The reason I ask is because I know pushing permanence has been a thing for GS for a while. But in my town, some caches have been out for ages (mine included) and all of the local finders have found them and they get found maybe once or twice a year now. They are taking up valuable real-estate - I would like to archive some to make way for new hides for our community - as it's stagnating - but I don't want to run afoul of my reviewer by simply saying, "archiving to put new hides out".

 

In 2022, officially dubbed the "Year of the Hide", this podcast from HQ talked about the need to refresh the gameboard, with this in particular from HQ President Bryan Roth:

 

Quote

0:29:01.3 Bryan: If everybody’s found it already or if most people have found it, if you archive that cache and that cache gets replaced with something new, maybe something more creative or even at the same level of creativity, all of a sudden, everybody in town’s got something new to find. It not only… Refreshing the game board essentially refreshes the game for the players, because now there are new experiences that are available. And as old geocachers know, the nature of this game is about people who have hidden these boxes out there, hidden these geocachers, to create an experience for other people to enjoy. And once those experiences have been enjoyed, you really have to look at, “Well, what is the value of this now?” Certainly this represents the potential for the next geocacher to come along, but at some point a certain area only gets so much traffic, or again, everybody in the area has already been there, and then it’s sort of diminishing returns. The value of that cache to the community isn’t as significant as it was on day one. A brand new cache, you’ve got the first to find, you’ve got the second to find, you’ve got, “Oh well, I haven’t found that one yet. Tell me about it. Let’s go out together.”

 

None of my caches are in cache-dense areas and it's unlikely anyone else would put a new cache there if I archived them, so they'd just become more empty space on an already sparse cache map. A few times I've created a new cache close to where one was recently archived but those haven't attracted much interest from previous finders of the archived ones. There's still plenty of room here for new caches without having to archive the older ones, with the natural cycle of publications and archivals providing a good balance of new and older caches.

Edited April 22 by barefootjeff

[Keystone]

Normally, when I post about a Geocache Hiding Guideline, I'm stating fact, based on having been a Reviewer for 22 years and watching the Guidelines evolve.

 

It always amuses me when someone discovers a "new" guideline.  The Cache Permanence Guideline has been around since March 2003.  The original text of that Guideline section read as follows:

 

Quote

As the Frequently Asked Questions indicate, geocaches can be hidden in a location for a finite period of time, depending on the environment and the decision of the cache owner.

However, when you report a cache on the web site, geocachers should (and will) expect the cache to be there for a realistic and extended period of time. Therefore, caches that have the goal to move, or temporary caches (ex: Caches hidden for events) will not be approved. If you wish to hide caches for an event, bring printouts to the event and hand them out there.

 

The 90 day presumption for "permanence" vs. "temporary" was added in the very next update, in November 2003.

 

The problems that the Guideline intends to solve were moving caches (which used to be a thing) and temporary caches hidden for events or private competitions.  The Guideline is not intended to discourage healthy turnover, like when a CO notices that all the locals have found their caches that take up all of the available space in Memorial Park.  Archive those after a few years and give people a new reason to enjoy hiking in Memorial Park, to find new caches.

 

There is a difference between "churning" and "refreshing the gameboard."

Edited April 22 by Keystone

[+JL_HSTRE]

IMO archiving to "refresh the game board" should be involve something that is actually fresh.

 

Moving the container to the next tree or lamp post and publishing a new cache listing allows the locals to +1 their Find count but doesn't really refresh anything. 

 

Archiving instead of replacing a worn out or damaged container, thus opening the area to a different CO is something fresh.

 

A CO changing up their cache(s) in a park to reflect changes to the park since original placement is something fresh. Maybe there's a new trail or monument to spotlight. Maybe a tornado came through and changed what the most scenic places are so caches shift around to reflect that. Maybe moving the cache 100 feet places it on s completely different trail.

 

Don't change it just because it's old. Don't keep it just because it's old. Change meaningfully, for a good reason. 

[+barefootjeff]

3 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

Archiving instead of replacing a worn out or damaged container, thus opening the area to a different CO is something fresh.

 

Only if a different CO comes along and puts something there, otherwise it just becomes more empty space on the map. Of the 24 caches I've archived over my 12 years in the game, none of those locations have seen a new cache appear by another CO. A few times I've placed a new cache nearby myself, with a different theme or highlighting a different feature of the location, but the rest have just stayed empty spaces.

 

I've also stated on my profile that "If you have a good idea for a cache but one of mine is blocking it, just let me know and I'll happily archive it" and I mean that because my motivation for placing caches is to bring players to interesting locations and I'd enjoy seeing how someone else might weave a cache into those places, but no one has ever taken up that offer.

[+DarkZen_EvilCowPie]

On 4/21/2025 at 5:35 PM, barefootjeff said:

The Guidelines certainly infer that:

Thank BFJeff. 

 

On 4/21/2025 at 7:41 PM, Keystone said:

It always amuses me when someone discovers a "new" guideline. 

I wouldn't characterize my post as "discovering",  I thought I was clear that I understood the intention of permanence. The 90 day minimum language is loose, at best. I was just looking for a consensus about whether archiving after , say,  a year or two when traffic grinds to a halt would be OK or frowned upon by reviewers (and community members alike). I appreciate your expounding on your original post.

 

And thanks to others for your input. 

[Keystone]

I was referring to the linked thread, where the concept of cache permanence was "new news" to the OP.  Thank you for posting this follow-up thread, to discuss the details about "cache churning" vs. "refreshing the gameboard."