+unclerojelio Posted April 25, 2002 Share Posted April 25, 2002 A cache in my area has recently been moved. It has the same name and same date placed. It didn't move far either. But if I wanted to visit it I would have to enter the new coords in my GPSr, go to the spot and search for it just like I'd never found it before. The question is: If I did visit this cache again, should I log it as a new find? ... Two roads diverged in a wood, and I-- I took the one less traveled by, ... unclerojelio Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted April 25, 2002 Share Posted April 25, 2002 I think this has been recently discussed. As I recall, the concensus was that if it was moved in such a way that it is basically a new hunt, logging as a new find was appropriate. If it was merely moved a short distance (to avoid casual trails, etc) then a new 'found' log would not be appropriate. When it comes right down to it, however, it is between the finder and the owner. Whatever is agreed upon is what should be done. Quote Link to comment
Zuckerruebensirup Posted April 25, 2002 Share Posted April 25, 2002 I recently relocated a couple of my caches due to vulernability to exposure. In both cases, they were moved to new hiding spots within the same park they had originally been placed in. For one of them, I felt that the new hiding place involved enough new scenery and different hike from the previous location, that I encouraged previous finders to come back and log a new find. On the other, I left the first leg of the multi-cache relatively the same, and then moved the cache box to a slightly different hiding place than its original one. I didn't feel that a new visit would feel a whole lot different than before the cache was updated, so I didn't do anything to flag the cache as having moved (other than to put a note in the log, saying that the cache was secure again, after it had previously been exposed). ------- Join us at our first "geo-gathering" on 4/27/02! Quote Link to comment
BassoonPilot Posted April 25, 2002 Share Posted April 25, 2002 That happened around here once . . . the cache owner didn't like the original location, and moved the cache 1/2 mile. He re-used the same page, but renamed the cache, posted the new coordinates and new description. (So the only thing left from the old cache was the container and the geocaching.com waypoint.) Definitely qualifies as a new find. Quote Link to comment
+parkrrrr Posted April 25, 2002 Share Posted April 25, 2002 What if it moved but nobody knows who moved it and it wasn't supposed to have moved? Should I log this as another find? (I won't, for the record, but I'm sure there's an interesting story there somewhere.) Quote Link to comment
BassoonPilot Posted April 25, 2002 Share Posted April 25, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy: What if it moved but nobody knows who moved it and it wasn't supposed to have moved? Should I log http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=6812#306076 as another find? (I won't, for the record, but I'm sure there's an interesting story there somewhere.) 159 feet?? Nah, lots of caches are placed with coordinates not that accurate in the first place! Quote Link to comment
+Web-ling Posted April 25, 2002 Share Posted April 25, 2002 I would contact the cache owner. If they say it's ok, then go for it. Also, you might ask them to make a note on the cache page saying it's ok to relog. Otherwise, nope, don't log it again. We have several in the area that have been relocated. In each case, the owner has noted their wishes regarding additional logs on the cache page. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.