Are you allowed to "update" a Cache?

[+Smilas]

The title might be a little confusing for what I mean, but basically, can you republish a cache with the same name(but maybe it says "v2" or smth) in a different location? Or in the same location? I might do this for one of my caches eventually.

[Pup Patrol]

44 minutes ago, Smilas said:

The title might be a little confusing for what I mean, but basically, can you republish a cache with the same name(but maybe it says "v2" or smth) in a different location? Or in the same location? I might do this for one of my caches eventually.

 

Basically, the answer is "yes" to recycling a cache name.

 

But the new listing would still need to go through the normal review procedure. 

 

 

Pup Patrol

[+arisoft]

13 hours ago, Smilas said:

The title might be a little confusing for what I mean, but basically, can you republish a cache with the same name(but maybe it says "v2" or smth) in a different location? Or in the same location? I might do this for one of my caches eventually.

 

You can publish all your caches with the same name, no problems. But, if you are going to archive a cache and then publish a new one to the same place, it is called churning and it is not guaranteed that you cache will be accepted again.

Edited May 20 by arisoft

[Keystone]

Re-publishing a cache in the same location or a very near location is called "churning" if it happens within 90 days of the first cache being published.  Doing the same thing after the original cache has been published for three years, rather than three months, is called "refreshing the gameboard."

[+Goldenwattle]

41 minutes ago, Keystone said:

Re-publishing a cache in the same location or a very near location is called "churning" if it happens within 90 days of the first cache being published.  Doing the same thing after the original cache has been published for three years, rather than three months, is called "refreshing the gameboard."

I would consider replacing a cache that doesn't need replacing after a mere three years "churning" too.

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

I would consider replacing a cache that doesn't need replacing after a mere three years "churning" too.

 

I was going to say something similar. One of my caches (GC6GMDK) is now nine years old and was last found nearly five years ago, but I have no desire to churn refresh it. It's a pretty tough terrain 4 hike to get to its scenic final location and I doubt many of its finders would be too keen on revisiting a churned refreshed cache there just for another smiley, as there are far easier ways to get those if that's your only motive. As long as it stays in good condition, I'm content to let it sit there in the hope that maybe someday a visitor to the area or (dare I wish) a new player prepared to venture more than a few steps from their car might take it on and enjoy it. It does after all have a 76% FP ratio.

 

A few times I've placed a new cache in a area where an older one was recently archived. In 2020 I created GC92WV1 at the Ironbark Creek waterfall after the very rusty 2009 mint tin was archived by its owner, who'd moved away from the area and couldn't maintain it. Mine's a bit more rugged than a mint tin and has had 33 finds in the four and a half years since, so it's not doing too bad, but few of those finders are return visitors who'd done the original.

 

It's a similar story for GC9M6X5 on a headland overlooking Phegans Bay at Woy Woy, which I created in early 2022 after the 2012 traditional there was archived by its owner when a hazard reduction burn-off consumed it. My new one is a multi and offers quite a different experience to the tradtional, but it's only had 13 finds (and 12 FPs), with the last one in October 2023 by the owner of the original trad. It's not an overly tough cache (terrain 3.5) and can be completed in under an hour with less than a kilometre of hiking, but it's not a P&G and requires a fair bit of rock scrambling so is mostly ignored by modern-day cachers.

 

My latest hide, The Real Middle Sea Diamond (GCB6TVF), is on another headland above Phegans Bay, in an area that was opened up when a couple of older caches were archived by their owner a few months ago. This one is sort of a churn refresh of my own 2015 cache Quest for the Middle Sea Diamond (GC62WZJ), which I archived last year when it got muggled. At the time I created it, I purchased a spare glass diamond prop in case of such an eventuality, but it was getting less than one find a year so I decided to archive rather than replace it. Since then, I'd been mulling over a use for the spare diamond, with the storyline for the new cache eventually taking form. It's a very different experience to the old one, as well as being in a different area, with about the only thing they have in common being the diamond and a hiding place you have to crawl into. It's only had one find (and an FP) in the week since it was published, but the weather's been pretty abysmal so I'll give it a bit more time before I think about churning refreshing it.

[+Goldenwattle]

2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

One of my caches (GC6GMDK) is now nine years old

Red Hill

This, my oldest existing cache was published in 2013. Last check it was in great condition, and I doubt any replacement cache would be as good. 43% favourite points. Chances are any replacement would likely be a same old, same old cache; maybe a rusting mintie micro cache...something 'exciting' - not, like that... Anyway, still room in the area without archiving caches.

 

 

With maybe the exception of my first ever cache; naive enough then to think a nano was exciting, I have only archived caches when they have become problematic. My last one to be archived, Fyshwick Choo Choo, had the roof crash (a large, heavy slab of concrete) down on it for example.

I wrote the story of its demise, not that now it's archived many people will get to read it.

 

 

Unless a cache is problematic or not maintained, I don't like "churning" for the sake of just doing that.

[Keystone]

9 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I would consider replacing a cache that doesn't need replacing after a mere three years "churning" too.

 

Then don't replace it.  Each cache is different.  If a cache has lots of favorite points, is still being found regularly, and there's lots of room for others to place caches nearby, then leave it well alone.  But if a single hider has filled every 161m circle in Veterans Park, effectively meaning "geocachers don't ever need to revisit Veterans Park" once they've found those caches, it could be good to reshuffle the gameboard after a few years.

 

I face this decision regularly with the caches owned by my player account, because I moved to a different city, making maintenance more challenging for me.  I've become more choosy about which caches to maintain during my regular business trips back to my former hometown.  I concentrate on keeping up (1) caches that have lots of favorite points and keep getting visited, (2) my challenge caches (since some of the challenges are not allowed under current guidelines), and (3) very old (2001-2003) caches that are important for "geocaching history" purposes (plus a little grid called Jasmer).  If one of my caches is just taking up space, and is hard for me to get to, it gets archived when there's a maintenance problem.