New Location, New Container, Same Old Cache?

[AC Student]

I was looking for new caches in my area and came across GCJ9H9. It has the "New" icon on the list of caches, but is a listed as a replacement for a cache that had gone missing. I was one of the few finders of the old cache before it disappeared. According to a note from the approver, the "Cache has been replaced a few hundred feet away in a new location". So, it is a new location (a few hundred feet from the original location), a new container, the "hidden" date is 6/27/04, it is flagged as "New" on the listing of caches, but it is the same cache!

 

When I saw the "New" icon I was looking forward to a new cache to hunt, so I was disappointed to see that according to the cache listing I have already found it. I guess the only real difference is that if I find (re-find?) it I'll post a note rather than a smiley, but I'm curious - when is a new cache really new? If a few hundred feet away isn't enough to merit a new cache, how far would be far enough - does the 0.1 mile rule apply?

[+Ambrosia]

A few hundred feet sounds like a new cache to me!

[+TEAM D & D]

I figure if you have to search for it, you find it, and it's not in the same general area you found it last time and it's posted as a replacement in a differnet location it's a new find. If it was moved a few feet for some reason than no. If it shows on the site as new go ahead and log it if you want. I doubt I would travel 30 miles or so to log a replaced cache I had previously found but i would go back if I didn't find it the first time because it had been missing.

[AZcachemeister]

I.M.H.O. the owner determines whether it's a 'new' cache or not. If they use the same waypoint ID and replace the stolen/missing container, either at the same location or a slightly different spot, it's not a 'new' cache. On the other hand, if a new waypoint is created, and a container placed at or near an archived cache location, it's a new cache. The fact that a previous cache had been hidden nearby is irrelevant, even if the new cache is described as a replacement for the old one.

[+Team DEMP]

Maybe there's a guideline on this, but if a cache goes missing and is far enough away from the original coords that it could have been a new cache, then it should be created as a new cache and not unarchived as the old cache. If the cache is replaced within the distance limit that prevents another cache from being placed, then it should remain the same.

 

When in doubt, email the cache owner and ask if it is appropriate to find it again.

 

David

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

The owner decides if it's new or not. I find it curious why they didn't make it a new cache. I've archived old plundered caches and rehid it as a new cache in the same general area.

[BassoonPilot]

Actually, I suppose the volunteer cache reviewer gets to decide if it's a new cache or not; aren't we restricted from altering cache coordinates?

 

I noticed a couple of months back, however, that whenever a cache page was edited, it would appear in the listings as a "new" cache. I do not know if that is still the case.

Edited June 29, 2004 by BassoonPilot

[+2Est8Attys]

Edit: In the words of Miss Emily Latella, "Never mind."

Edited June 29, 2004 by 2Est8Attys

[+briansnat]

Actually, I suppose the volunteer cache reviewer gets to decide if it's a new cache or not; aren't we restricted from altering cache coordinates?

 

Moves of under certain distance do not require a reviewer's involvement. I'm not sure what that distance is, but someone told me it was .1 mile. I haven't experimented, so I can't say for sure. I do know that recently I moved a cache of mine just about .1 mile and I needed the approver to edit the coordianates

 

If the cache has a 'new' icon next to it, that means the cache owner recycled his cache page and changed the hidden date. If in doubt, ask him if he considers it to be a new cache and will accept re-logs.

Edited June 29, 2004 by briansnat

[+tirediron]

I have to agree with AC... sounds like a note vice a smiley to me. Is there any reason given for the move?

[+shunra]

The owner decides if it's new or not. I find it curious why they didn't make it a new cache. I've archived old plundered caches and rehid it as a new cache in the same general area.

I'd refine that statement:

 

The owner gets to decide if he wants to relist it as a new cache, or just change coords and container of the old one. But as soon as it's a new listing, it's a new cache, and you can log it no matter what.

This even applies if the new listing is for the same container, and the same coords. The bottom line is that a unique listing is a unique cache.

[+PandyBat]

This even applies if the new listing is for the same container, and the same coords. The bottom line is that a unique listing is a unique cache.

I'd refine that even more and say, a new listing with the same container, same coords can be a unique listing but is not always a unique cache.

 

We had a multi cache here that was made into a new cache. Same container, same location but the first leg of the multi was taken off and the coords go straight to the cache now. I found it previously when it was the old cache. The same but new cache kept coming up in my searches of new cache listings. So I had to go back to the old archived cache, turn that log into a note and log a FOUND IT on the new cache. Some people logged both as finds though. I don't understand that nor why the owner didn't just redesign the cache page to reflect that it was no longer a multi. I think it's because once you set a cache as a certain type of cache, you can't change it to another type of cache. That's the only reason I can think of. But allowing people to log both caches is not right either.

[+shunra]

This even applies if the new listing is for the same container, and the same coords. The bottom line is that a unique listing is a unique cache.

I'd refine that even more and say, a new listing with the same container, same coords can be a unique listing but is not always a unique cache.

 

We had a multi cache here that was made into a new cache. Same container, same location but the first leg of the multi was taken off and the coords go straight to the cache now. I found it previously when it was the old cache. The same but new cache kept coming up in my searches of new cache listings. So I had to go back to the old archived cache, turn that log into a note and log a FOUND IT on the new cache.

If the original was a blah cache, and if I wouldn't mind it not showing up in my profile, I'd do the same thing, just to get the new thing off my nearest list. But:

 

Some people logged both as finds though.

 

That's what I would do if the new listing would be a wonderful excuse to go back to the place. I would obviously only do this after I went to the location a second time, and signed the log sheet again.

 

Particularly, I would not want to lose my Find log on a multi, just to get one for a Traditional in return. This is why cache types are not usually changed.

 

I don't understand that nor why the owner didn't just redesign the cache page to reflect that it was no longer a multi. I think it's because once you set a cache as a certain type of cache, you can't change it to another type of cache. That's the only reason I can think of. But allowing people to log both caches is not right either.

 

If they physically go there and find it again, why not?

[+PandyBat]

If they physically go there and find it again, why not?

Because they already found it once. We are talking about the same cache, same coords, same location, just a slightly different name and cache type. They would be logging the same logbook that they signed before. I guess I don't see the point in that, but others can do what they want, I suppose.

[+Beta Test]

From reading other threads on this subject, I have thought that to legaly log a cache as found, it has to have moved 300 feet or so. I'm not sure if this is correct but to me "a few" of anything means three. So if it was moved "a few hundred feet" it should be fair game.

[+shunra]

From reading other threads on this subject, I have thought that to legaly log a cache as found, it has to have moved 300 feet or so. I'm not sure if this is correct but to me "a few" of anything means three. So if it was moved "a few hundred feet" it should be fair game.

Where have you found THAT rule? I have not heard about ANY rule that tells you which cache one is allowed to log.

 

All I have ever read in these forums is that a new listing defines a new cache. I'm refering, among other things, to this thread.

 

And think of it: what would be the rationale behind a rule that would stop you from finding and logging a cache near your house, and keeping it stuck at the top of your todo list forever?

[+PandyBat]

And think of it: what would be the rationale behind a rule that would stop you from finding and logging a cache near your house, and keeping it stuck at the top of your todo list forever?

Unless the cache owner doesn't want you to log both, I don't think there is any set rule. But if you are logging the same cache in the same location only under a different name, then is it really a new find?

I prefer not to log them both because its really only one cache. I would be cheating myself if I took credit on two logs for the same cache. Must be the personal numbers stickler in me...lol

[+Beta Test]

From reading other threads on this subject, I have thought that to legaly log a cache as found, it has to have moved 300 feet or so.  I'm not sure if this is correct but to me "a few" of anything means three.  So if it was moved "a few hundred feet" it should be fair game.

Where have you found THAT rule? I have not heard about ANY rule that tells you which cache one is allowed to log.

 

All I have ever read in these forums is that a new listing defines a new cache. I'm refering, among other things, to this thread.

 

And think of it: what would be the rationale behind a rule that would stop you from finding and logging a cache near your house, and keeping it stuck at the top of your todo list forever?

Never said I liked or follow that rule.