When to archive a cache

[+nyhof]

I need the opinions of my experienced geocaching peers. I have a geocache that is coming up on 10 years of service. Although this cache is in a popular and crowded city park, there is only 1 DNF and it has never been muggled and is in its original container and original log. I was thinking about archiving this one and replacing it with another cache. The years have taken a toll on the container and I probably need to replace the container soon. (Hilton Wet or Dry GCK7ZK)

[+cwgrizz]

In my opinion it is entirely up to you. Why would you want to change it? The container can be changed without changing the cache ID. If you have a specific reason, go for it. If it is just to get a "New" cache to find, that would be up to you, however a 10 year old cache can have some "historic" value.

[+T.D.M.22]

If your just replacing the container there's no need to archive it. If there's still regular finds there's no need to archive it either.

[+Manville Possum]

Wow. That cache is a relic.

[4wheelin_fool]

After a certain amount of time it becomes iconic and a geo reference point. I would probably replace the container with an identical one and save the original logbook.

[+L0ne.R]

We have archived old caches when they become a chore to take care of. After visiting the spot at least a couple of times for 7+ years, the novelty wears off. But we haven't replaced a cache in the same spot (or even close). Left it open for others to plant and others have.

 

If you are going to plant another container in that spot, you might consider not putting something in that exact same spot. As a finder I'd be disappointed if someone archived their cache just to provide the exact same caching experience, at the exact same spot.

[+The_Incredibles_]

I wouldn't archive it. I think it's great that it's been there for so long. I would just replace the container and keep it going for as long as possible.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

I wouldn't archive it. I think it's great that it's been there for so long. I would just replace the container and keep it going for as long as possible.

 

+ 1 absolutely !

[+DragonsWest]

My 3 cents (adjusted for inflation)

 

Replace container, log and swag as needed - it's called Owner Maintenance

 

Keep that alive as long as you are comfortable with maintaining it.

[+wimseyguy]

Cache maintenance is a routine part of cache ownership.

Owning a 10 year old hide is something to be proud of.

Keep it going!

 

PS-the day I found it was one of my more memorable caching adventures.

[+BlackRose67]

As others have said, change the container, etc. but keep it going.

 

Older caches are great for milestones.

 

When I made find #1000, I chose to find a local cache that just happens to be the oldest active multi-cache in Ontario (Canada), and is still the oldest cache I have found to date.

It was just over 12 years old (placed in June 2001) when I found it last July.

[+dprovan]

Since you're asking, I definitely vote for keeping the old gal going.

[+J Grouchy]

I need the opinions of my experienced geocaching peers. I have a geocache that is coming up on 10 years of service. Although this cache is in a popular and crowded city park, there is only 1 DNF and it has never been muggled and is in its original container and original log. I was thinking about archiving this one and replacing it with another cache. The years have taken a toll on the container and I probably need to replace the container soon. (Hilton Wet or Dry GCK7ZK)

 

Cool...don't archive it! Just do maintenance!

I used to live in Hickory...went to Granite Falls elementary for first and second grade. My father has a house up in the mountains now and I drive through that area sometimes. Next time I'm in the area I may even go for this cache.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Cache maintenance is a routine part of cache ownership.

Owning a 10 year old hide is something to be proud of.

Keep it going!

 

Hmm... Make me feel old! My oldest cache is about the same age. Still going strong!

It did hit me last year when someone said: "Wow! The oldest cache in the area!" (Different area, but also from 2004...)

[+macatac1961]

Since you're asking, I definitely vote for keeping the old gal going.

...I agree, let it ride.

[+NeverSummer]

I need the opinions of my experienced geocaching peers. I have a geocache that is coming up on 10 years of service. Although this cache is in a popular and crowded city park, there is only 1 DNF and it has never been muggled and is in its original container and original log. I was thinking about archiving this one and replacing it with another cache. The years have taken a toll on the container and I probably need to replace the container soon. (Hilton Wet or Dry GCK7ZK)

Everything you say here makes it seem like all it needs is a new container and it is good to go.

 

Don't give in to the urge to "create another hide" that will add to anyone's find count, or your hide count. There is a guideline about cache permanence, and you've outlined why this cache should keep on living--it's just old, and hasn't been muggled or DNFed.

 

New container, same logbook, update the swag, keep it running.

 

You wouldn't just sell a running collectible car because it needs an oil change, would you?

[+FIREWALKER438]

I would keep this going, just replace the container...it's been there for 10 years..that's a big deal! I archived a cache that didn't last and tried to list another cache near the same spot a few weeks later and was declined by the reviewer because there is a geocache time placement rule which requires a 90 day wait between cache listings. The reasoning was it keeps geocachers from placing caches for their friends and then archiving them and doing it again over and over.

[+The_Incredibles_]

I archived a cache that didn't last and tried to list another cache near the same spot a few weeks later and was declined by the reviewer because there is a geocache time placement rule which requires a 90 day wait between cache listings. The reasoning was it keeps geocachers from placing caches for their friends and then archiving them and doing it again over and over.

 

Interesting. Our reviewers here don't seem to follow that rule. I have seen many people archive a cache, then place a new one in the same area shortly after.

[+BlackRose67]

I would keep this going, just replace the container...it's been there for 10 years..that's a big deal! I archived a cache that didn't last and tried to list another cache near the same spot a few weeks later and was declined by the reviewer because there is a geocache time placement rule which requires a 90 day wait between cache listings. The reasoning was it keeps geocachers from placing caches for their friends and then archiving them and doing it again over and over.

Maybe by the same person, but I placed a cache at the exact spot another cacher had one before he commited geocide.

I waited 30 days and then placed one and it was approved.

[+niraD]

I archived a cache that didn't last and tried to list another cache near the same spot a few weeks later and was declined by the reviewer because there is a geocache time placement rule which requires a 90 day wait between cache listings.

That's one way I've heard of the volunteer reviewers enforcing the geocache permanence guideline. The problem isn't the short time period between archiving a cache and listing a new one at the same location. The problem is the short time period between listing a short-lived cache and listing a new one at the same location.

[Cascade Reviewer]

NiraD is correct. Caches are expected to be in place for at least three months. If a cache owner places a cache, archives it before three months are up, just to create a new listing for the same exact place, a lot of Reviewers will not publish until those three months are up. We don't want people to abuse the permanence guideline.

[4wheelin_fool]

NiraD is correct. Caches are expected to be in place for at least three months. If a cache owner places a cache, archives it before three months are up, just to create a new listing for the same exact place, a lot of Reviewers will not publish until those three months are up. We don't want people to abuse the permanence guideline.

 

Hiding a new cache in the same spot every 90 days is certainly abusing that guideline anyhow.

[+nyhof]

UPDATE- I decided to update the container with an ammo can, new logbook that is waterproof and some new swag. I had considered archiving it to turn it into a multi or unknown cache. But after hearing the arguments of how cool it is to have a 10 year old cache, i decided to keep it running 10 more.

[+nyhof]

My 3 cents (adjusted for inflation)

 

Replace container, log and swag as needed - it's called Owner Maintenance

 

Keep that alive as long as you are comfortable with maintaining it.

I own over well 100 caches and I am the top hider in my county- I am familiar with this concept. .

[+WarNinjas]

Very cool keep it going!

[4wheelin_fool]

UPDATE- I decided to update the container with an ammo can, new logbook that is waterproof and some new swag. I had considered archiving it to turn it into a multi or unknown cache. But after hearing the arguments of how cool it is to have a 10 year old cache, i decided to keep it running 10 more.

 

Ammo can in a crowded city park? Bad idea, as there is a very good chance it could get stolen, or misidentified as something dangerous. I hope you painted over the markings on the side. A new logbook is good, but I hope you kept the old one in there, otherwise its just not the same. I wish you good luck! But suspect you may have messed it all up..

[+nyhof]

UPDATE- I decided to update the container with an ammo can, new logbook that is waterproof and some new swag. I had considered archiving it to turn it into a multi or unknown cache. But after hearing the arguments of how cool it is to have a 10 year old cache, i decided to keep it running 10 more.

 

Ammo can in a crowded city park? Bad idea, as there is a very good chance it could get stolen, or misidentified as something dangerous. I hope you painted over the markings on the side. A new logbook is good, but I hope you kept the old one in there, otherwise its just not the same. I wish you good luck! But suspect you may have messed it all up..

I don't think so. There is a reason this cache has had such a good luck streak. Even though it is in a crowded park, it is on the other side of a fairly deep creek and hidden inside a hollow log on an ivy covered hillside. It is well marked as a geocache just in case. It is not in an area that gets traffic other than geocachers.

[GPS-Hermit]

Do not archive it just because it is old - that is bragging rights and something to be proud of, especially if the logs are good and folks are having fun! Add some good stuff to the cache and take an hour and read your logs again. Put something in the cache to say how old it is! Put an old man figurine in there and a tag that says been sittin here since Clinton changed the signal!

Edited April 19, 2014 by GPS-Hermit