When does a replacement cache become a new cache

[+nikcap]

The recent discussion about MINGO being in jeopardy got me thinking about this question.

When does a replacement cache become a new cache and should be re-listed.

 

In the MINGO thread, I noted that there are three key elements to a Geocache: Location, Hide and Container. As these elements change, the original cache become less like itself and more like a new placement. Changing two of these elements should result in re-listing of the cache.

 

Another post suggests that "A cache is made up of 4 specs; Difficulty, Terrain, Size, and Location. Any major change in any of those specs and you've fundamentally changed the nature of the cache."

 

Examples to consider:

- A regular size cache is replaced with a bison tube,

- A well camo-ed cache is replaced with a non-camoed container.

- A cache is moved from a hole in the bottom of a tree where bees live, to a couple of logs 30-40 feet away.

- A cache is moved 200ft away from a flooding area to higher ground.

- A cache is moved from a high location 6 or 7 feet up in a tree, to a pile of sticks at the base of a tree.

 

All of these changes can significantly change the experience that a finder has for each of these caches.

 

How much of a change makes it a new cache?

 

I'm sure some of are going to say, "The is entirely up to the cache owner."

I wont argue that libertarian point of view. Heck, wouldn't it be great if CO's could still change the cache type too, as well as edit the cache description post archiving?

 

But, as far as "unwritten rules"; the law of the land if you will, what are good guidelines for re-listing a replacement cache as a new listing?

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

A new cache ID #!

[+Totem Clan]

To me I would say it is when the experience of the cache has changed.

 

If the point of the cache was the great view over the lookout point, but the regular size container was muggled more than once so it became a micro, it's still the same cache, because the view is still there.

 

If hide and/or the container were the main emphasis of the cache then a change in either would mean it's not the same cache.

 

I think the questioned should be, "Why was this cache placed." If the cache still meets that goal it's still the same cache. If that changes, then it's time for it to go and a new cache to be placed.

[+The A-Team]

If the point of the cache was the great view over the lookout point, but the regular size container was muggled more than once so it became a micro, it's still the same cache, because the view is still there.

 

If hide and/or the container were the main emphasis of the cache then a change in either would mean it's not the same cache.

 

I think the questioned should be, "Why was this cache placed." If the cache still meets that goal it's still the same cache. If that changes, then it's time for it to go and a new cache to be placed.

This.

 

I don't think anyone can just say that if difficulty, terrain, location or size change, the cache should be re-listed. It all depends on what the point of the cache is.

Even moving it hundreds of feet may not necessarily warrant a new cache. Using Totem Clan's first example, if the new location has pretty much the same view, it probably doesn't need to be a new cache.

I don't think there's any way to come up with hard-and-fast rules to determine when to list as a new cache, because there are just too many different variables and exceptions involved.

[+CanadianRockies]

In the MINGO thread, I noted that there are three key elements to a Geocache: Location, Hide and Container. As these elements change, the original cache become less like itself and more like a new placement. Changing two of these elements should result in re-listing of the cache.

I was with you until that last sentence. As others have noted, a cache probably should get a new GC code if the overall experience changes sufficiently. But when exactly that change occurs isn't black-and-white.

 

If I significantly change the puzzle for a mystery cache, for example, I might create a new GC code even if the location, hide, and container remained the same.

 

On the other hand, if have a cache on top of a mountain, I might change the location, hide, and container but opt to keep the same GC code if the experience of getting to that cache didn't change much. Similarly, night caches, challenge caches (not geocaching Challenges), tree-climbing caches, island caches, and many others are much more about experiences that have little to do with specific locations, hides, or containers.

Edited February 1, 2012 by CanadianRockies

[+Moose Mob]

To me I would say it is when the experience of the cache has changed.

<snip>

Exactly.

 

At this point, it should change. The cache contaioner may change, for example.. the purpose of the cache was to bring a person to a statue of Thomas Jefferson, then the contianer is not as relevant as others.

 

A LPC that goes from a film canister to small lock-n-lock is really not a big deal.

 

Also factor in the cache owner's status. If a cache is disabled by the local reviewer because it needs attention, then the cache owner should enable it once the maintenance is performed. If a generous cacher replaces a broken cache or full log book because the CO is no longer active, the reviewer 'could' enable the cache, but needs to consider the long term effects. Should the cache be archived and allow an active cache to place one? Many caches need to complete their life cycle to allow new fresh caches to grow. Many times I have recieved a note from a cacher asking a cache to be enabled, and I will (more often than not) reply to state that I will archive the long disabled cache and they are welcome to submit a new listing.

[+ras_oscar]

If I approach the site, after having found the cache previously, and know where it is without searching, its the same cache. If I have to search, I have a new experience and its a new cache. FYI, I filter out my previous finds from my PQs, so if its a new GC code its a new find and a new smiley. I have been to areas (a couple years apart)where my previous find had been archived and a new cache (by somebody else?) placed. Always a new experience, so far.

[+briansnat]

Anything that substantially changes the experience of the hunt should warrant a new listing.

 

I'd say changing it from an ammo box to a bison tube would do that.

 

As far as distance, it depends. A move of 300 feet on a road fronting a rural Iowa cornfield might not change the experience all that much, where a 30 foot move from a guardrail to rock formation would be a substantial change

 

A camoed cache replaced by a non camo container would also depend. A Lock and Lock painted green replaced by an unpainted one, probably not. A fake rock replaced by a Lock n Lock, probably yes.

[+niraD]

I think the questioned should be, "Why was this cache placed." If the cache still meets that goal it's still the same cache. If that changes, then it's time for it to go and a new cache to be placed.

+1

 

I've seen caches where the purpose was the puzzle. The location, hide, and container could all change, but the puzzle remained the same, and the intended experience remained the same. Or the location, hide and container could all remain the same, but the puzzle changed so the intended experience changed.

 

I've seen caches where the purpose was the location. Other aspects could change, but as long as the location remained the same, the intended experience remained the same.

 

I've seen caches where the purpose was the camouflaged container. Again, other aspects could change, but as long as the container remained the same, the intended experience remained the same.

 

And so on...

[+nikcap]

... Changing two of these elements should result in re-listing of the cache.

I was with you until that last sentence. As others have noted, a cache probably should get a new GC code if the overall experience changes sufficiently. But when exactly that change occurs isn't black-and-white.

 

...

 

For this thread, that should have been more of a rhetorical question then a statement.

 

For reference, I was saying the since MINGO was change from a traditional to bison tube and from buried along a fence to hanging on the fence, this was a different caching experience.

 

Looking at this in a different light, what is the incentive for keeping a cache listing going. If it's a great location, wouldn't you want to re-list a cache so player can visit a location again?

Or, is this just a sly attempt at helping others pad their numbers?

[+hzoi]

I look at the big picture to judge how much, if at all, the listing changed.

 

If I'm using the same cache container (or replacing with the same size) and just moving it a bit, as long as the same general description applies (including difficulty and terrain), I just update the coordinates and keep the old listing.

 

If it's a different container, or it's in a fundamentally different place, or the difficulty/terrain rating change based on how I rehide it, or a combination of these, then I archive the old listing and publish a new one.

 

(This isn't the way I have always done it, mind you but it's how I do it now.)

[+DanOCan]

My general rule of thumb is "If it is something I, as the cache owner, can change on my own then it doesn't need a new listing. If it is something that would require a reviewer to me involved with then re-list it."

 

So, changes to the Difficulty/Terrain, Size, small location adjustments? Same listing.

Converting a Traditional to a Puzzle? Relist.

 

I fully agree with the 'experience' idea, but the 'experience' is subjective and I prefer to try and have some sort of concrete benchmark from which to start basing my decision.

 

As an example: I was caching with a group and we went looking for a cache in a parking lot. When I found it it was originally a micro stuck to a sign. The CO had changed it to an ammo can hidden in the bush nearby and kept the same GC code. The owner was with us and invited those who had originally found the micro to log a Find on the ammocan. I declined because to me it was the same experience. Same parking lot, same location. Others in the group ended up logging it a second time because they felt the size difference changed the experience enough to justify it.

 

There are a couple of times where I have violated my own guideline:

 

- Back when ownerless adoptions were allowed I adopted a cache that was listed as a Mystery/Unknown despite being hidden at the posted coordinates. I requested to have it changed to a Traditional. This was back in the days before people were so worried about their stats and qualifying for challenges -- you know, when things were simpler and you could still do things like that.

 

-- I had a three stage Multi but when the sign used at Stage 1 was removed I requested to have the posted coordinates changed to point at the original Stage Two. The move was too far for me to do on my own so I asked a reviewer to do it.

[+CanadianRockies]

Looking at this in a different light, what is the incentive for keeping a cache listing going. If it's a great location, wouldn't you want to re-list a cache so player can visit a location again?

 

Or, is this just a sly attempt at helping others pad their numbers?

Personally, I'd probably look at this as an assist in numbers-padding, assuming the overall experience was basically the same.

 

If I place a cache at a great location, then people still can revisit that location without finding a "new" cache there. I often return to my favorite locations, even when I've already found the caches that are there (or even if no caches ever were there).

[+SwineFlew]

We got two cachers in my area that archived any caches that go missing and submit a new one. They always try new interesting things so its fun to go back and find it again. Its not always in the same place but within a distance. In a way, they are keeping things fresh.

Edited February 1, 2012 by SwineFlew

[+NYPaddleCacher]

To me I would say it is when the experience of the cache has changed.

<snip>

Exactly.

 

At this point, it should change. The cache contaioner may change, for example.. the purpose of the cache was to bring a person to a statue of Thomas Jefferson, then the contianer is not as relevant as others.

 

I definitely agree with this. I disagree that a cache can be boiled down to a set of "specs" (Difficulty/Terrain/Size/Location), that each can be treated equally, and that significantly changing any one of them warrants creating a new cache listing. As you suggest, the CO's reason for placing a cache might be even more important. For example, I have a cache that I placed for essentially one reason; the view. If I replaced the container (a small) with a regular cache it's not going to change the experience as I intended. The view is going to be the same and that is the experience I am trying to promote.

[+Glenn]

- Back when ownerless adoptions were allowed I adopted a cache that was listed as a Mystery/Unknown despite being hidden at the posted coordinates. I requested to have it changed to a Traditional. This was back in the days before people were so worried about their stats and qualifying for challenges -- you know, when things were simpler and you could still do things like that.

You bring up a good point here with changing peoples stats and qualifications for challenges.

I'm trying to think of a situation where I would change a cache in such a way that it go from a Difficulty or Terrain of 5 to a Difficulty or Terrain of 1 thru 2 and not re-list the cache.

[Moun10Bike]

To me I would say it is when the experience of the cache has changed.

<snip>

Exactly.

 

At this point, it should change. The cache contaioner may change, for example.. the purpose of the cache was to bring a person to a statue of Thomas Jefferson, then the contianer is not as relevant as others.

 

I definitely agree with this

 

+1. I've always said to myself that the three main components to a cache are location, container, and owner; should any two change, it warrants a new listing. I should maybe add "experience" to that mix, or perhaps experience is just a way of describing combinations of the other parameters.

[Clan Riffster]

To me I would say it is when the experience of the cache has changed.

<snip>

Exactly.

 

I definitely agree with this

 

+1.

+2... (With +7 against UnDead)

Change the experience in a significant way, and you should change the GC number.

[+Totem Clan]

+2... (With +7 against UnDead)

 

Your inner geek is showing.

 

Oh wait.... so is mine.

[Clan Riffster]

+2... (With +7 against UnDead)

 

Your inner geek is showing.

 

Oh wait.... so is mine.

[+dfx]

To me personally, there's a strict distinction between cache listing and actual (physical) cache. Therefore, strictly speaking, a replacement cache is never the same cache, but the same cache listing can still be used for it, in the same manner that the same cache can be used for a different cache listing (not necessarily at the same time, but even that is possible with different listing sites).

 

So the question should really be: when should a cache (be it the same one or a different one) get a new listing made for it? I vaguely agree with the "experience" aspect, but I'd rather call it the setup. The setup as intended by the CO.