Cache Type Changes

[+AB4N]

I have a micro-cache that I risked placing in a very public park. But instead of having problems with geomugles I have been having problems with geocachers themselves Once the cache container was damaged when it was returned it to its hiding place, and now someone decided to move it; evidently because they wanted to "help" the next cacher

 

I am not a fan of archiving caches, instead I would prefer to change the description and cache type, but leave the waypoint and cache name the same. So, I am planning to change the cache and make the original location one step of a multi-cache.

 

I would like some input as to what the geocaching community thinks about changing a cache type as opposed to archiving and starting a new cache.

Edited December 31, 2003 by AB4N

[+Sparky-Watts]

Need more information. Why is the archive a possibility (I may have missed your point on this, forgive me if so)?

 

If you make it a multi, will there still be any type of container in the original spot? And, if there is, then how is making it a multi going to change the way it is treated by cachers?

 

Just curious.....please shed some light on this for me.

[+Stunod]

Make a new multi instead. That way the previous finders still have an accurate history of their find, and they can hunt the NEW multi also.

 

EDIT: spelling

Edited December 31, 2003 by Stunod

[+Polgara]

I've done it! It worked for me. I had a surprise cache that encouraged cachers to plant a little flower or sapling instead of making a trade in a little cemetary cache that I have. The cemetary is a county cemetary that is rarely visited, the people buried there are unidentified people, murder victims, etc. Unfortunately the gardner kept mowing the flowers over, so I changed it to a letterbox. However, I wasn't able to do it on my own, admins had to do the actual change of cache type.

 

I posted in my regional forum also before changing it to make sure anyone who already found it as a surprise cache wouldn't mind if it got changed over to a letterbox in their stats instead of the surprise cache find. So far, no complaints.

[Keystone]

Stunod and Ce'Nedra are both correct.

 

In general, the thinking is that if you change the cache's "experience" significantly, you are really creating a different cache from the one that was logged by prior finders. That is the primary reason why the cache page programming was changed, so that it now requires consultation with a cache reviewer before your cache type can be changed over. For example, a large number of caches that started off as traditionals had their containers go missing, and were converted over to virtuals... many of which did not comply with the past or present guidelines for virtual caches. Numerous complaints about this were made by geocachers who did not want these caches to show as virtuals in their cache totals, since they actually found a traditional cache.

 

In Ce'Nedra's case, converting a single stage cache in the same general location from one type to another could not reasonably be viewed as altering the cache experience, she was considerate enough to ask in advance, and she contacted her area's reviewer (me) to change the cache type. It is one of just a small handful of such requests that I've received since the programming change was made.

 

In the case inquired about, changing from a single stage to a multicache is rather a different cache experience. Normally I would advise the geocacher to archive the single stage cache and create a new multicache. I approved such a cache here in Pennsylvania just this afternoon.

[+FarSideX]

I am also considering changing the first multi I placed into a traditional since the difficulty of finding the final stage has proved to be more difficult then I thought it would be. Also the trails the first part goes through would be a good place to place a winter friendly multi. I guess I should take this up with my approver after I place the multi this winter. (Crossing lakes is easier in the winter then going around in the summer, too bad for summer only cachers)

[+AB4N]

Need more information. Why is the archive a possibility (I may have missed your point on this, forgive me if so)?

 

If you make it a multi, will there still be any type of container in the original spot? And, if there is, then how is making it a multi going to change the way it is treated by cachers?

 

Just curious.....please shed some light on this for me.

I thought of elaborating on this, but my main point was on changing cache types not locations. In this case, yes I plan to keep the same location as part of the multi. There has been another problem that I did not mention that is related to the careless handling of the cache, and that is that the log book gets wet once the container is compromised.

 

The container is an Altoids can magnetically attached, and nominally protected from water. In the first incident the can was smashed so that the lid could hardly be taken on or off and water started getting in. After replacing the can it was later moved to a location that did not provide the same protection and it was mounted vertically instead of horizontally letting water get in.

 

So this time I plan to put a laminated sheet in the can with the coords to the next stage of a multi so that water won't be an issue.

 

I agree that it would probably be best to start a new cache and archive the first listing for the same reason mentioned. I guess I am just hesitant to do so because this will be the first cache that I have archived, and I don't really like the idea of having an archived cache Guess I'll have to get over it.

 

The only reason that I have resigned myself to going ahead and archiving the cache is that it has had 18 finders. I already changed another cache type after it was compromised, but in that case it was early on and there had only been two finders. After I changed the cache type one of the two initial finders came back and found the second version. At that time I didn’t know that their first find would be changed to the type of cache that I made the cache into the second go around, and it is for that reason that I started this thread.

 

Thanks for everyone’s input.