Thanks Thanks:  0
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 16

Thread: When is a new cache not a new cache?

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    We(s)t Cumbria
    Posts
    42

    Question When is a new cache not a new cache?

    A local cacher offered his caches up for adoption last autumn but now isn't responding to emails and hasn't logged into his account for months. Since forced adoption is a thing of the past the only option for getting one going again is for it to be archived and the adopter submitting a new listing and this is starting to happen. So it's same cache name, container (maybe) and coordinates but a different waypoint - if you had found the original cache would you log the 'new' one?

    We all play the game differently, just interested in opinions.

    MBF

  2. #2
    keehotee Guest

    Default

    Yes

    Have done before when a local cache was "rereleased" as a trad rather than a puzzle.
    I came at it from a different direction and didn't realise it was the same cache until I was on top of it.
    If it's got a new waypoint, and you revisit it, then log it again.

  3. #3
    Alan White Guest

    Default

    Yes, I'd log it "again". Actually, I don't think of it as "again" as I operate a "one GC# = one find" principle.

    I think this new policy of Groundspeak's is daft. There's little value in encouraging cachers back to the same place, and having to submit a new cache just causes extra work for the reviewers.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Land of the Bear and Ragged Staff!
    Posts
    843

    Default

    It's same cache name, container (maybe) and coordinates but a different waypoint - if you had found the original cache would you log the 'new' one?
    If it was a local one, yes. To clear my 'local unfound' list.

    If it was further away, yes, but only if it was 'in passing' to/from other caches.
    I have a Geocaching problem...
    Work gets in the way!

    * Cache Walker -Caching by byway, not highway! CacheWalker.co.uk
    Walking and Caching in Warwickshire, Worcestershire, Gloucestershire areas

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    S. E. Wales
    Posts
    1,223

    Default

    Yes - If it has a new waypoint then as far as I'm concerned it's a new cache and we'll happily log it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan White View Post
    Yes, I'd log it "again". Actually, I don't think of it as "again" as I operate a "one GC# = one find" principle.

    I think this new policy of Groundspeak's is daft. There's little value in encouraging cachers back to the same place, and having to submit a new cache just causes extra work for the reviewers.
    I'm quite happy to visit the same place again because almost all the caches we've visited have been in "worthwhile" spots... and if I knew the "new" cache location wasn't particularly "worthwhile" (IMO) then we just wouldn't bother with it, unless we happened to be passing nearby.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    South East Wales
    Posts
    277

    Default

    From the beak of The Big Green Bird:
    Re the adoption question. Basically geocaching.com is a listing site and they (groundspeak) do not own the caches placed, these remain the property of the person who placed them. If the cache is still fine but the owner has apparantly abandoned it we cannot transfer it nor can anyone apply to adopt it unless the owner agrees. If they won't respond there is nothing that can be done. There was a case where a cache owner had died and the cache, as his property passed to his next of kin and they would have had to give permission. If the cache has gone missing it can be archived within the guidelines. This does free up the 'space' it occupies for another cache to be placed. If the cache is still physically there but badly damaged so it is in effect no longer a cache the same rules apply and whilst it may be considered 'geolitter' it still belongs to the owner. If another cacher out of a sense of responsibility for the environment decided to remove it and request that it be archived we would consider the case based on the guidelines.

    The arguement for putting another cache in the same place is that it may be a special location either for the views, the history or even significance of a very old cache placement and people would like that spot to 'live on' with another cache placed there.

    As for finding a 'new' cache and logging it I think that is down to individual preferences. We all have our own way of caching.

    It doesn't really cause us much more work apart from a few extra emails. Archiving takes a second to do (as does unarchiving if asked ).

    I hope this provides some clarification of the issue.

    Chris - Mr Blorenge

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Longformacus
    Posts
    316

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Blorenge View Post
    From the beak of The Big Green Bird:
    Re the adoption question. Basically geocaching.com is a listing site and they (groundspeak) do not own the caches placed, these remain the property of the person who placed them. If the cache is still fine but the owner has apparantly abandoned it we cannot transfer it nor can anyone apply to adopt it unless the owner agrees. If they won't respond there is nothing that can be done. There was a case where a cache owner had died and the cache, as his property passed to his next of kin and they would have had to give permission. If the cache has gone missing it can be archived within the guidelines. This does free up the 'space' it occupies for another cache to be placed. If the cache is still physically there but badly damaged so it is in effect no longer a cache the same rules apply and whilst it may be considered 'geolitter' it still belongs to the owner. If another cacher out of a sense of responsibility for the environment decided to remove it and request that it be archived we would consider the case based on the guidelines.

    The arguement for putting another cache in the same place is that it may be a special location either for the views, the history or even significance of a very old cache placement and people would like that spot to 'live on' with another cache placed there.

    As for finding a 'new' cache and logging it I think that is down to individual preferences. We all have our own way of caching.

    It doesn't really cause us much more work apart from a few extra emails. Archiving takes a second to do (as does unarchiving if asked ).

    I hope this provides some clarification of the issue.

    Chris - Mr Blorenge
    Your response has got me thinking about my caches. My caches will soon be archived on GC.com, and will be listed on my own site. Do GSP reveiwers take into account caches that are already hidden, but aren't listed on GC.com (eg: terracaches, navicaches, or my caches)?, or do you just look at GSP listed caches, and allow another cache to be placed regardless of it's close proximity to a non-GSP cache?

  8. #8
    keehotee Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jacobite View Post
    Your response has got me thinking about my caches. My caches will soon be archived on GC.com, and will be listed on my own site. Do GSP reveiwers take into account caches that are already hidden, but aren't listed on GC.com (eg: terracaches, navicaches, or my caches)?, or do you just look at GSP listed caches, and allow another cache to be placed regardless of it's close proximity to a non-GSP cache?
    How would the reviewers know?
    If your own caches are going to be archived and moved across to your own site, will you be notifying GSP every time you add a new cache to your site? Or would you expect the Groundspeak reviewers to routinely trawl your site just in case?
    How many other sites are there out there doing exactly what you intend - including Navicache and Terracaching?

    I would imagine GSP reviewers would ONLY look at GSP caches for proximity. In fact, I know that Terracache locations have absolutely no bearing on GSP proximity rules.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jacobite View Post
    Do GSP reveiwers take into account caches that are already hidden, but aren't listed on GC.com (eg: terracaches, navicaches, or my caches)?,
    No
    Quote Originally Posted by jacobite View Post
    or do you just look at GSP listed caches, and allow another cache to be placed regardless of it's close proximity to a non-GSP cache?
    Yes


  10. #10

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Exeter
    Posts
    90

    Default

    I've always thought that logging a cache twice would personally be a no no, I did move one of mine approx 300ft, same cache name, same container and log book and onle 1 local cacher logged it a second time, same gc number.

    If it is just adjusted co-ords, unless you have a watch on it.....you wouldnt know it had moved.
    If it is as in op, with a new gc number then i would log it again.:socool:

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Cambridge
    Posts
    572

    Default

    That happened near me. A series of 6 caches based on the Cambridge park & ride sites was archived due to permission problems.

    Several months later the series reappeared (with the same names but new GC numbers) but in locations outside of the P&R sites.

    Quite rightly I did the series again....

    but when you look at my list of caches it looks like I have done the same cache by name - twice

    Happy Caching

    Gazooks

    - Setting a good example for children takes all the fun out of middle age.

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Longformacus
    Posts
    316

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by keehotee View Post
    How would the reviewers know?
    If your own caches are going to be archived and moved across to your own site, will you be notifying GSP every time you add a new cache to your site? Or would you expect the Groundspeak reviewers to routinely trawl your site just in case?
    How many other sites are there out there doing exactly what you intend - including Navicache and Terracaching?

    I would imagine GSP reviewers would ONLY look at GSP caches for proximity. In fact, I know that Terracache locations have absolutely no bearing on GSP proximity rules.
    I can see how checking for non-GSP caches would seriously slow down the publication of GSP caches, taking far more of a UK reviewers time if they considered these caches.
    It's a lot easier for me to do a quick check on the main sites, and make sure there isn't a cache close by.
    If a cache was place near one of my caches in future, maybe a polite email to the cache setter, drawing their attention to a cache already there might help resolve this issue.

  13. #13
    keehotee Guest

    Default

    If a cache was place near one of my caches in future, maybe a polite email to the cache setter, drawing their attention to a cache already there might help resolve this issue.
    I wouldn't worry. 99.95% of the time people looking for the GSP cache would have no idea you had a privately listed cache nearby anyway. Would you expect owners of Terracaches to email GSP cache owners in the same circumstances?
    The sad fact of the matter is, people are so numbers obsessed nowadays I doubt they'd put in the 5 minutes effort to find a nearby non-GSP cache if it didn't up their tally...

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Longformacus
    Posts
    316

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by keehotee View Post
    I wouldn't worry. 99.95% of the time people looking for the GSP cache would have no idea you had a privately listed cache nearby anyway. Would you expect owners of Terracaches to email GSP cache owners in the same circumstances?
    The sad fact of the matter is, people are so numbers obsessed nowadays I doubt they'd put in the 5 minutes effort to find a nearby non-GSP cache if it didn't up their tally...
    Exactly keehotee, the number hunters aren't going to give my caches a second look (even if they knew they were there). When I started caching in 2005 there were far fewer caches about, but the percentage of quality caches was far higher than that of today. Hopefully some cachers who just enjoy the hunt, and want to be taken to an interesting place will find them of some use.

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Church Warsop, Notts
    Posts
    518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Blorenge View Post
    From the beak of The Big Green Bird:
    Re the adoption question. Basically geocaching.com is a listing site and they (groundspeak) do not own the caches placed, these remain the property of the person who placed them. If the cache is still fine but the owner has apparantly abandoned it we cannot transfer it nor can anyone apply to adopt it unless the owner agrees. If they won't respond there is nothing that can be done. There was a case where a cache owner had died and the cache, as his property passed to his next of kin and they would have had to give permission.
    Just to try and clarify this: as well as Groundspeak not owning the physical caches (which I think most of us would have assumed would be the case), I believe that they also don't claim to own the cache listings. That's what you're really talking about here.

    So cache descriptions remain the property of the original author, which is why they can only be archived (not deleted, amended or transferred) unless the author has given permission.

    Groundspeak cannot do anything about a physical cache, but could archive a listing on the basis that there's evidence that the owner has abandoned the listing and is not responding to e-mails. That's as far as Groundspeak can go.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •