Jump to content

Ruling Requested


GO West

Recommended Posts

Posit: If a cache goes missing, and then is rehid in such a way that it bears little resemblance to the original other than the general location and the title, can an original finder post another find?

 

I was surprised that the system allowed me to post a second find on a cache today. I would not have re-hunted the cache, but for the the intriguing logs posted since the cache's recent rehide.

 

The cache was in the same general area, but with new coords, and a new hiding style. In fact, the style was so new and clever that I was very happy I took the time to check it out.

 

Opinions?

Link to comment

IMHO logging it twice would be acceptable unless it was hidden within a short distance (say GPS error distance) of the original, or required you to solve a puzzle that was the same for both, etc. As you stated that "it bears little resemblance to the original other than the general location and the title" I think you should be ok, especially if the cache page indicates that it was moved / replaced.

 

To address Sparkys concern that it has the same name and number... I don't see how that makes a difference. You still have to do a new search and a new "find". In my eyes this is the same as if the original hider had archived the original cache and then placed a new one exactly in the same spot as the old one. Would a cacher be able to log that new one even though they had already done the first? To me it's about the "find". If the name changed but it's still in the same spot = same find. Same name but different spot = new find.

 

Besides, it was stated that the cache went missing, so I doubt "it's the same cache" and doesn't fall under your reasoning for saying no.

 

JM2C and YMMV

 

Gloom

 

*****edited to reply to Sparky's post *****

Edited by Gloom
Link to comment
It's not really about the numbers. :lol:

 

Ask the cache owner. If he agrees with what you've posted here, go ahead and log it again.

 

Personally, I feel that such a change to the cache should have required archiving the old cache and creating a new cache page.

Not necessarily. Sometimes if the cache has been muggled, a relocation is done, in which case, it is a new hide and a new find. Case in point, this cache was in a hollow of a tree and it was plundered rather early on by animal or muggle... it was moved to a new location with a new container about 100 feet away from the original location. This allowed for a second find to be logged by any whom chose to do so.

Link to comment

The reason you would not archive the cache even though it has moved is to maintain the history, name and page. If it is moved a quite small distance, I would say no, don't log it. I a medium distance, yes log it again if ok with the owner. If a significant distance or major character change, the yes, I say archive the old and create a new page (and yes re-loggable). Of course, all this is up to the whim of the cache owner.

I once logged a find on one of my own caches as someone took it a re-hid it thinking that was what you were suppose to do. I being the owner, allowed such heresey. :lol:

Link to comment

Thank you Go West for asking. I am the owner and I was emailed to ask if it was ok to log as a find again. It's in the same area, but had been muggled twice before I made the change. Brazin and I discussed archiving and re-listing vs. moving a bit and changing containers. Brazin really wanted to archive and re-list, so more people would come back and find it. But since I'm the one who puts the caches together and creates the cache pages, I just wanted to get it back up and running so people could continue to search for it with out too much down time. Plus, a 'new' cache gets a lot more attention, which I don't want to draw.

 

Anyone else who would like to re-find and log this cache, please feel free. It's not just about the numbers, it's about the fun.

 

Fore!

 

Happy Caching!

Link to comment

Unless the owner has some compelling objection, go for it. After all, the whole idea of Geocaching is to find something that someone else has hidden. We had trouble with The Bog cache, relocated it and had the option to save the name or call it something else. We opted to rename it because it was in a completely different area and it is (was) a very interesting area to visit and for all practical purposes it was a new cache and renaming it would bingo it back to the new listing page. Woof, that’s a lot of ands.

Link to comment
Brazin and I discussed archiving and re-listing vs. moving a bit and changing containers. Brazin really wanted to archive and re-list, so more people would come back and find it. But since I'm the one who puts the caches together and creates the cache pages, I just wanted to get it back up and running so people could continue to search for it with out too much down time. Plus, a 'new' cache gets a lot more attention, which I don't want to draw.

It looks like the owners were aware of the ramifications of updating the cache or creating a new one. I have seen notes on updated caches indicating a second find was allowed.

 

For myself I will never see these since I alway filter out the caches that I have already found when looking at caches to hunt. I would hunt a re-hide if it had a new number assigned to it. In this case it appears the owners didn't want that type of attention.

Link to comment
Brazin and I discussed archiving and re-listing vs. moving a bit and changing containers.  Brazin really wanted to archive and re-list, so more people would come back and find it. But since I'm the one who puts the caches together and creates the cache pages, I just wanted to get it back up and running so people could continue to search for it with out too much down time. Plus, a 'new' cache gets a lot more attention, which I don't want to draw. 

It looks like the owners were aware of the ramifications of updating the cache or creating a new one. I have seen notes on updated caches indicating a second find was allowed.

 

For myself I will never see these since I alway filter out the caches that I have already found when looking at caches to hunt. I would hunt a re-hide if it had a new number assigned to it. In this case it appears the owners didn't want that type of attention.

Same for me. I just noticed today that I have found all but 2 caches within 30 miles from home that don't require a ferry, but maybe I should check out all the old ones again, perhaps I could squeeze in a second hide somewhere!

 

Just kidding.

 

Yesterday I found This cache. It hadn't been logged online for 26 months. Someone who (probably correctly) assumed that it was muggled at some point placed an alternative cache nearby. The owner later replaced his own cache, without removing the replacement. And when I found it yesterday, it was in plain sight, leaning against a tree, so obvious that it took me an hour in the rain to find it. the log had some signatures by muggles, none of whom had logged online. I rehid the cache where I think it was supposed to be, and encourage the owner to update the coordinates on the page, and to replace the container with something more sturdy when he gets here next. Still, after all this, I don't think this is a new cache that can be logged again...

Link to comment

The numbers don't have any significance to anyone but you. If you feel that this was legitimately a new cache, then by all means log it. If you're trying to inflate your numbers, then good for you too. I look at my stats and get personal satisfaction. There are many, many cachers who I could never match but that doesn't matter to me. I do this because I enjoy it. The numbers (my numbers) are interesting to me. There's no payoff for artifically inflating them. I do find it interesting when I see friends reaching milestones. 100 finds. 1000 finds. 2000 finds.

 

My (personal) policies:

 

If I visit a cache more than once (maybe the second visit is part of a group) I log the subsequent visit as a note only.

 

Unless a specific instruction exists I log all event caches as notes. (How hard can it be to find "Picnic shelter #1 on so-and-so park when there are 30 people hanging around holding GPS receivers?) (I didn't always do this.)

 

If one of my hidden caches needs a significant modification (for whatever reason) such that the final waypoint (cache location) changes, I will archive that cache and create a new one. The new cache may be nearly identical to the original but since it's a new location it's a new find for seekers. The key is the final waypoint. If it changes, new cache.

 

I haven't encountered the case you mention but if the cache was significantly changed from when you first found it I'd log the find. (Again, they're your numbers!) One reason for a cache owner not submitting a new cache in the event of a significant change might to be to avoid the approval cycle (assuming that the posted coordinates do not change very much).

 

Keep it in perspective. Most of the rules are those you set for yourself. If feel that you're being fair to yourself then don't sweat it.

Link to comment

Often the cache owner will suggest that it is ok to log a second find in these circumstances Personally, I feel that if the cache has chanced enough that the hider feels you can log it again, then it should be a new cache.

 

Before I will log a second find, the original page should be archived and a new one created. Perhaps someday someone will change my mind.

Link to comment
It's not really about the numbers.  :)

 

Ask the cache owner. If he agrees with what you've posted here, go ahead and log it again.

 

Personally, I feel that such a change to the cache should have required archiving the old cache and creating a new cache page.

Not necessarily. Sometimes if the cache has been muggled, a relocation is done, in which case, it is a new hide and a new find. Case in point, this cache was in a hollow of a tree and it was plundered rather early on by animal or muggle... it was moved to a new location with a new container about 100 feet away from the original location. This allowed for a second find to be logged by any whom chose to do so.

My first cache was plundered. I replaced it with a micro and changed the cache page because it was in the same location as the original. At the time, I felt that it was about the location and not about the cache. Looking back, I wish I would have archived the original and made a new page for the second cache.

Link to comment

The Baby Talk Cache was hidden and then found by many people and then my permission to the locatoin fell through. It has been in my garage for over a year. The idea and work that went into the original cache has not changed just the location.

 

it does not make sense to archive it since I want the same cache to remain active. I will be hiding it elsewhere, probably a half of mile form the original spot and hopefully in a new creative way. Same container, some name, same reason. new locaiton.

 

If people see it on there list and want to re-log it then more power to them.

 

I just need to get the thing out in the wild again!!!!!

 

I have seen to many GC number thrown away and not reused to the best ability to not waist resources. If a cache is created and then archived with no finds there is no reason to keep it alive and waste a number. I have one that fits that category also but will hopefully get it approved one day :)

Link to comment
The Baby Talk Cache was hidden and then found by many people and then my permission to the locatoin fell through.  It has been in my garage for over a year.  The idea and work that went into the original cache has not changed just the location.

 

it does not make sense to archive it since I want the same cache to remain active.  I will be  hiding it elsewhere, probably a half of mile form the original spot and hopefully in a new creative way.  Same container, some name, same reason.  new locaiton.

 

If people see it on there list and want to re-log it then more power to them.

 

I just need to get the thing out in the wild again!!!!!

 

I have seen to many GC number thrown away and not reused to the best ability to not waist resources.  If a cache is created and then archived with no finds there is no reason to keep it alive and waste a number.  I have one that fits that category also but will hopefully get it approved one day B)

The strange thing about numbers is that there are so darn many of them! Not like when I was a kid and we had to make due with just a few (in the snow.... uphill both ways)! :D:)

Edited by Right Wing Wacko
Link to comment

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...