+Q2XL Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 (edited) Hi All, I'm wondering about the "lifespan" off a cache. What I'm trying to get at isn't about abandoned (unmaintained) caches...but rather a cache which has been visited by the all "locals" and some interested visitors to an area. I recently archived a cache of mine for three reasons...the first was that the cache container had frozen into a block of ice (which would have been a (hopefully) temporary condition in northern WI))...and the second being that I wanted to free the area up for someone else to set a cache if they wanted, and the third was that the cache had few visitors after the initial rush of locals. I've noticed around here that very few people archive thier caches unless they are muggled, bear chewed, or otherwise destroyed. The overall cache density is pretty light in my area and the number of active geocachers appears relatively small so leaving older caches out is not a "problem" here, but what is it like in your area? Edited March 13, 2005 by Q2XL Quote Link to comment
+Boot Group Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 A while back, I read a post in my regional forum about a geocacher having a goal to find all the Y2K caches in Massachusetts. Those caches had been set out when geocaching was in it's infancy, and that particular cacher wanted to find all of the oldest caches in his/her "area". I then looked back at caches in my profile only to discover that I had found a few Y2K caches myself. So, as long as a geocache is maintained or is still in good condition, I think it's great to keep it active. <p> In my area, there is also the usual rush of all the active local geocachers finding your cache in the beginning, and then things slow up. However, in spurts new geocachers start to pop up and love finding your new or older geocache. Quote Link to comment
+Metaphor Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 March 13 by birchbeer (1 found)Our first find, and I cannot think of a better way to start. The walk through nature was a fantastic way to spend this beautiful day with our daughters. I highly recommend finding this cache. The walk alone was worth the trip. I think a good thing is a good thing. When my first cache placement,Wye Knot?, placed on April 13, 2002, stops getting logs like this, I'll archive it... As long as a cache is viable, and is regularly maintained, it should be left alone. If the cache is the only reason someone would come to a beautiful area like the Wye Island here in Maryland, then they might be missing the purpose behind the cache. I've found my favorite caches are ones that attract me back to an area for second, third or more visits, even if there isn't another or new cache to find. Quote Link to comment
+Q2XL Posted March 13, 2005 Author Share Posted March 13, 2005 I can see both Metaphor's and Boot Group's points and think they are valid. The cache I archived was, in my humble opinion, a scenic, out of the way, great wildlife viewing, etc area...the actual hide was nothing special (container in split tree), and the logs seemed to be mostly positive. Maybe, I was premature in permanently archiving it??? Anyhow, maybe someone who visited the area will set a new cache there if the enjoyed the hunt. The only downside I've seen for "older" (maintained) caches is when a worn cattle path leads you right to the hide. Quote Link to comment
+Kai Team Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 I agree that there's no arbitrary life span for a cache, provided it's a worthwhile cache (interesting description, fun hunt, scenic location, whatever), you're willing to maintain it, and it's not causing any environmental damage. Twenty of my finds were placed in 2001 - I'd hate to have missed them because the owner archived them before I started geocaching. Even abandoned caches may be worth salvaging - I adopted 4 great caches that were originally placed two years before I started geocaching - i.e. four of my "children" are two years older than I am. A ruined container can be replaced with a more durable one, or moved a small distance to a more durable location. All of the locals may have found a cache, but newcomers will still delight in discovering it! And archiving a cache doesn't mean that someone else will place a cache in that location. In an area with few caches, archiving a cache may simply mean that others don't find out about an interesting location. "Social trails" can be a problem in sensitive areas - if that's the case, I'd look to relocate the cache (you can move a cache a short distance just by editing it, longer distances require resubmission for approval), closer to an existing trail or to a less traffic sensitive area. Social trails aren't usually a problem unless a cache is seeing a high volume of visits. If a cache is damaging the environment and can't be moved to a better spot, then I'd archive it. Bottom line: IMO, if you no longer feel the cache is worth maintaining, then you should archive it and remove the container - as the owner, that's your call to make. Otherwise, I'd leave it in place and give the newcomers something to look for! Quote Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 Urban caches about a year. Remote caches, 3 years and running on some and they still have not been visited by most locals. Easy Access interestate cahes for travelers can last a long time with consistant finds. Quote Link to comment
+El Diablo Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 My take on this was mentioned in this issue of Today's Cacher El Diablo Quote Link to comment
+Lemon Fresh Dog Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 That's an interesting question! I think that caches can exist as long as they are maintained. Even if the locals have visited, the cache is still nice for new folks to discouver. I suppose if the cache density ever reached the point of being so high that my cache was "blocking" a new cache, then I'd consider removing it. One reason I like older caches in place is because I can always visit them for a quick Travel Bug drop-off. With some of my caches, the visits have definately dropped off after the initial rush by locals, but I still get visits and people seem to enjoy the locations. One thing I am trying to think about is how to "revitalize" an existing cache to encourage repeat visits. One of my caches -- the Coffee Cache, is one that I will occasionally throw a gift certificate into for coffee. Quote Link to comment
+briansnat Posted March 13, 2005 Share Posted March 13, 2005 (edited) I think they should stay as long as the owner is interested in maintaining them. From a personal standpoint many of my caches are placed to highlight an area. It could be an area of scenic, or historic interest, or just a pleasant place to hike. If my reason for placing the cache doesn't go away, I see no reason for my cache to, unless I'm tired of maintaining it.. I just archived my second oldest cache (placed in 2001) only because I've since placed other caches in the general area and it was reduntant. My oldest and many of my other older caches are still active because I think they're in cool spots. So what if they only get visited every 3-4 months. Edited March 13, 2005 by briansnat Quote Link to comment
WH Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 I will be archiving 2 of my existing caches this summer to make way for new caches. Its just so hard to find good areas that dont already have caches so Ill just recycle 2 of my oldest hides into some new and improved caches. Quote Link to comment
+Westerner Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 I would think if a cache went at least 6 months without being visited and somebody contacted me to take it offline so they could put one in the same area I would be inclined to do so. Otherwise I would let it go for years as newcomers like me who discover geocaching would have more options to look for. (of course this assumes it stays maintained). Quote Link to comment
+Baxter-MD Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 I will be archiving 2 of my existing caches this summer to make way for new caches. Its just so hard to find good areas that dont already have caches so Ill just recycle 2 of my oldest hides into some new and improved caches. While I am not advocating any time limits for caches, I do think WH has the correct approach. After a year or two move the cache to a new spot in the same general area. Not only will you attract new people to the area, but you will be bringing people who previously logged the cache back. Plus I think it is better for the area where the cache is located. I am amazed at how quickly a cacher’s trail is created in the bush. I was caching today and when it was time to leave the trail to hit the bush I could see a faint trail going right to the hide location. Quote Link to comment
+briansnat Posted March 14, 2005 Share Posted March 14, 2005 I am amazed at how quickly a cacher’s trail is created in the bush. I was caching today and when it was time to leave the trail to hit the bush I could see a faint trail going right to the hide location. Very often the trail predates the cache. Cache hiders tend to take the path of least resistance when heading into the bush and that path is often an existing game trail or social path. People come along later and see the trail and blame the cache, when in fact the trail is why the cache is there and not vice-versa. 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.