Archived caches

[+YBNORMAL@54]

Hello I have created a piece of geoart and archived about a dozen caches to incorporate into the art. I can find no info about how long a archived cache needs to be gone before the new 1 in the same place but different container needs to be dormant

 

the closest i have seen is 60/90 days but can find nothing on ground speak site

[+coachstahly]

I would assume that once the cache is archived, the spot is free game immediately. Anyone else know differently?

[+BCandMsKitty]

I would assume that once the cache is archived, the spot is free game immediately. Anyone else know differently?

That's my understanding too

[Pup Patrol]

Hello I have created a piece of geoart and archived about a dozen caches to incorporate into the art. I can find no info about how long a archived cache needs to be gone before the new 1 in the same place but different container needs to be dormant

 

the closest i have seen is 60/90 days but can find nothing on ground speak site

 

Once a cache has been archived, the location is immediately free for another cache placement submission.

 

The new cache submission for that location would go through the normal Review procedure.

 

I'm not sure what you mean about "60/90 days". Caches that are temporarily disabled might get a warning from the Reviewer and might get a time limit for responding to the Reviewer. But that has nothing to do with an archival process.

 

Maybe you're thinking of posts in the forum where people suggest waiting a certain time after logging a "Needs Maintenance" before proceeding to post a "Needs Archived"?

 

 

B.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Pup Patrol

[+YBNORMAL@54]

Yes once the cache is archived it is open to other cachers to hide in the same spot

I had archived 2 when I first started hiding containers and was told by the reviewer that not enough time had elapsed there for I could not rehide in the same location I don't remember how long I had to wait

the caches I archived will be 60 days old on April 5

 

The Art project has been done and submitted for 3 weeks and as I submitted them the reviewer looked at them and gave feedback when there was a problem

The Art project has taken over 3 months to create and now I'm just waiting for it to be published the reviewer agreed that they would all be published at the same time

There is no clear definition about archived caches

[Pup Patrol]

Yes once the cache is archived it is open to other cachers to hide in the same spot

I had archived 2 when I first started hiding containers and was told by the reviewer that not enough time had elapsed there for I could not rehide in the same location I don't remember how long I had to wait

the caches I archived will be 60 days old on April 5

 

The Art project has been done and submitted for 3 weeks and as I submitted them the reviewer looked at them and gave feedback when there was a problem

The Art project has taken over 3 months to create and now I'm just waiting for it to be published the reviewer agreed that they would all be published at the same time

There is no clear definition about archived caches

 

That's news to me.

 

If there is such a rule/guideline re archived caches, there needs to be something "official" from Groundspeak.

 

As far as I have ever known, once a cache is archived, that location is immediately open for other caches to be placed there. Those new caches would, of course, need to go through the Review process.

 

Once a cache is archived, it is removed from the map and the listings. If I come along 10 minutes after the archival, and see that empty spot on the map, there's no way I would know whether a cache had been archived 10 minutes ago, or 6 months ago.

 

If other people had placed caches in the spots where you archived yours, essentially beating you to the location, would the Reviewer then tell them that they would need to wait a certain period for some reason?

 

This doesn't make sense to me.

 

B.

[+coachstahly]

+1 to Pup's post. Not sure why that's an issue brought up by the reviewer.

[+cerberus1]

Yeah, that's weird.

The only time I've heard of something similar was a CO had a bad rapport (infractions of guidelines, and/or lying to the Reviewer).

Yep, I'd like to see the why too.

[+Team Taran]

How long had the caches you archived been there? The 60 to 90 days is the expected minimum life of a cache. There may be a waiting time for the owner to replace a cache in the same place where he archived a very recently placed cache to prevent what are essentially a series of temporary caches. I expect someone else could place one there immediately.

[+Cardinal Red]

Yes once the cache is archived it is open to other cachers to hide in the same spot

I had archived 2 when I first started hiding containers and was told by the reviewer that not enough time had elapsed there for I could not rehide in the same location I don't remember how long I had to wait

the caches I archived will be 60 days old on April 5

 

The Art project has been done and submitted for 3 weeks and as I submitted them the reviewer looked at them and gave feedback when there was a problem

The Art project has taken over 3 months to create and now I'm just waiting for it to be published the reviewer agreed that they would all be published at the same time

There is no clear definition about archived caches

 

We both submit our hides to the same Reviewer. Your join date goes back about a year and a half. My experiences go back a bit farther than that. If there is now some form of "dormant period" before rehide guideline (we don't have rules), it is news to me. Reviewers do not make the guidelines. They follow the guidelines laid down by Groundspeak. On some occasions new guidelines are given a full public airing. But other times only the Reviewers are notified by way of their secure Hamster Club network. So we find out about it when we enable a submission, and it is denied because of the new unpublished guideline. We sort of catch up later when it eventually becomes public knowledge. You might think a normal company would not conduct business this way, but heck, why be normal?

 

If you had ask our Reviewer about this, he would have told you as much as he could. He still will if you don't get a clear answer here. But since you brought it up here, I would be most interested to read any clarification statement that might be issued by the Western Pennsylvania Bureau Chief.

 

I can only imagine two possibilities. Either "yes this is new - now you know" with possible additional clarification, or you are somehow mistaken in your understanding of what you thought you were told.

[+palmetto]

I speculate that the original poster placed a cache it was published.

Then in less than 3 months, he archived the cache and submitted a new cache of the same type at the same coords.

 

A reviewer likely tell him that if the location is viable, then the original cache should have been placed and maintained for 3 months, per the cache permanence guideline.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#permanence

 

From time to time, a hider will place a cache and have it published, then in very short order have a new idea, archive the cache and submit a new one.

 

=

[Pup Patrol]

How long had the caches you archived been there? The 60 to 90 days is the expected minimum life of a cache. There may be a waiting time for the owner to replace a cache in the same place where he archived a very recently placed cache to prevent what are essentially a series of temporary caches. I expect someone else could place one there immediately.

 

The caches that are being archived were in place for more than 60/90 days. All of his caches have been in place for more than 3 months.

 

Here's hoping that the Reviewer chimes in on this thread.

 

 

B.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Pup Patrol

[+palmetto]

I still think this is confusion over cache permanence, per this statement by YBNORMAL@54

 

I had archived 2 when I first started hiding containers and was told by the reviewer that not enough time had elapsed there for I could not rehide in the same location I don't remember how long I had to wait

 

Early in his hiding career, he archived a short lived cache, and came back with a new hide in the same spot. Reviewer told him no, per cache permanence.

 

YBNORMAL@54, if the caches that you've archived recently for your geo-art project were active for at least 3 months, then you can archive and place in the same location again immediately.

Edited April 1, 2015 by palmetto

[Pup Patrol]

I still think this is confusion over cache permanence, per this statement by YBNORMAL@54

 

I had archived 2 when I first started hiding containers and was told by the reviewer that not enough time had elapsed there for I could not rehide in the same location I don't remember how long I had to wait

 

Early in his hiding career, he archived a short lived cache, and came back with a new hide in the same spot. Reviewer told him no, per cache permanence.

 

aha, so this is about a different set of caches that happened a while ago? Got it.

 

Thanks.

 

 

B.

[+narcissa]

Hello I have created a piece of geoart and archived about a dozen caches to incorporate into the art. I can find no info about how long a archived cache needs to be gone before the new 1 in the same place but different container needs to be dormant

 

the closest i have seen is 60/90 days but can find nothing on ground speak site

 

If the cache is in the same place as the previous cache, won't it still show up as part of the geoart whether it's a new or old cache? What is the utility of archiving and relisting a cache in the exact same place?

[+NeverSummer]

Hello I have created a piece of geoart and archived about a dozen caches to incorporate into the art. I can find no info about how long a archived cache needs to be gone before the new 1 in the same place but different container needs to be dormant

 

the closest i have seen is 60/90 days but can find nothing on ground speak site

 

If the cache is in the same place as the previous cache, won't it still show up as part of the geoart whether it's a new or old cache? What is the utility of archiving and relisting a cache in the exact same place?

Yeah...

I'd think unarchival/reenabling is a possibility that the OP should be looking into, not placement of a new cache and creation of a new listing.

 

Listings can be edited for D/T, cache size, attributes, description, etc. Perhaps this site needed to be a Puzzle/Unknown and it was a Traditional? I don't know...but if a container was at that site before and permanence wasn't considered, then the OP should think about just using the former listing at that same site and asking for the cache to reenabled.

[+Cardinal Red]

Listings can be edited for D/T, cache size, attributes, description, etc. Perhaps this site needed to be a Puzzle/Unknown and it was a Traditional? I don't know...but if a container was at that site before and permanence wasn't considered, then the OP should think about just using the former listing at that same site and asking for the cache to reenabled.

 

So your proposal is to scrap the find history of all those original finds just so they will now fit into this geo-art project? For what it is worth, I think that is horrible advice. Of course I don't understand the fascination with geo-art either. At least don't allow it to mess up regular Geocaches.

[+narcissa]

Listings can be edited for D/T, cache size, attributes, description, etc. Perhaps this site needed to be a Puzzle/Unknown and it was a Traditional? I don't know...but if a container was at that site before and permanence wasn't considered, then the OP should think about just using the former listing at that same site and asking for the cache to reenabled.

 

So your proposal is to scrap the find history of all those original finds just so they will now fit into this geo-art project? For what it is worth, I think that is horrible advice. Of course I don't understand the fascination with geo-art either. At least don't allow it to mess up regular Geocaches.

 

If it's in the same place as the previous cache, how much would any of that change? Why change the cache at all if it's in the right place for the geoart?

[+YBNORMAL@54]

The caches I archived were there for 8 to 10 months and where traditional to make the art I used mystery caches and the archived ones were used for final locations its no big deal I was just wondering because i could not find any info about it

[+NeverSummer]

Listings can be edited for D/T, cache size, attributes, description, etc. Perhaps this site needed to be a Puzzle/Unknown and it was a Traditional? I don't know...but if a container was at that site before and permanence wasn't considered, then the OP should think about just using the former listing at that same site and asking for the cache to reenabled.

 

So your proposal is to scrap the find history of all those original finds just so they will now fit into this geo-art project? For what it is worth, I think that is horrible advice. Of course I don't understand the fascination with geo-art either. At least don't allow it to mess up regular Geocaches.

Is that directed toward me??

 

I was saying that, if the OP wants to create geo-art and their own previous caches are where they'd like an art point to be, I don't see why they would have to archive the previous cache and make a new listing. They can just change the previous listing to include that cache into the new "art project".

 

But, in the case of trying to use a different cache type, like a puzzle (? icon with final location not at the art point coordinates), they would have to create a new listing. If that's the case, I'm not sure why there would be an issue with reusing the location of an archived cache for the final of a new Puzzle/Mystery or even a Multicache.

Edited April 1, 2015 by NeverSummer

[+The A-Team]

If that's the case, I'm not sure why there would be an issue with reusing the location of an archived cache for the final of a new Puzzle/Mystery or even a Multicache.

In the end, there isn't an issue. The OP thought there was some kind of restriction, but their past experience that led them to believe this was with a cache archived soon after publication.

 

There's nothing in the guidelines* that would prevent a CO from getting a new cache published in the same location as one of their archived caches, as long as the archived cache had been in place for more than 3 months. Heck, you could even replace it with the same type, though people will probably start to look at you a bit funny if you kept doing that.

 

*well, related to the discussion at hand, of course. There are many other guidelines that control whether a cache can be published.

[+T.D.M.22]

If that's the case, I'm not sure why there would be an issue with reusing the location of an archived cache for the final of a new Puzzle/Mystery or even a Multicache.

In the end, there isn't an issue. The OP thought there was some kind of restriction, but their past experience that led them to believe this was with a cache archived soon after publication.

 

There's nothing in the guidelines* that would prevent a CO from getting a new cache published in the same location as one of their archived caches, as long as the archived cache had been in place for more than 3 months. Heck, you could even replace it with the same type, though people will probably start to look at you a bit funny if you kept doing that.

 

*well, related to the discussion at hand, of course. There are many other guidelines that control whether a cache can be published.

 

But the no precedent rule (previous approval or denial does not equal future approval or denial) and the vagueness of some guidelines, and I'm pretty sure the inclusion of the "including but not limited to" means reviewers have freedom. For example even though there is no specific rule saying you can't archive a cache every 3 months and publish a new one with the exact same container, location, and logbook, the reviewers would start denying those "new" caches.

 

The occasional time, OK, but constantly, no.

[+jellis]

I don't know how long but I did experience a friend who tried to archive a cache then put another in the same place soon after and the reviewer said NO. I believe if it is a traditional and you decide to put a mystery it's different. Or if a different cacher puts one there it's okay.