Indetifying Older Caches

[+gsix5666]

I have an idea to distinguish the older cache hides on a map page or list. Now that some caches are 10 to 15 years old I think it would be an awesome idea to create a Gold ring around caches that are 15 years old or older and a silver ring around caches that are 10 years old or older. The Gold or Silver ring would show up on the map page and on the cache list.

Who thinks this would be a good idea? I know I like to look for the older caches and it would help to distinguish them on a map or list.

 

Glenn

gsix5666

Roseville, MI

[+cerberus1]

I like many of the older caches too.

A few folks have those caches on bookmarks, sometimes by age (as a lotta lonely-cache challenge folks do).

Often they seem to be the cache that's actually a good walk to get to.

- But I kinda like the idea that some people don't pay attention to them (fewer FPs than a new cache alongside the road close by), since many are a bit of a walk.

 

Some now have mini power trails leading to 'em.

I call them, "while I was on my way to this great cache, I left these..." caches (simple pill bottles along the way).

Not really sure I'd want to call any more attention to them.

Edited August 21, 2016 by cerberus1

[+Harry Dolphin]

In "Search for geocaches" "Near your home location" "(Filter out finds)" there is the option to "filter by placed". That arranges (my) 12000 nearest caches by "Placed". Also available on GSAK. With such an easy solution, I see no reason to change the programming. Hmm... There's a cache placed in 11/2000 only 33 miles northeast! But, I don't need that for my Jasmer Challenge. And I don't like crossing the Hudson River often for finding caches.

[+Isonzo Karst]

to distinguish them on a map or list.

 

Caches placed in year 2000 will have 3 and 4 digit GC Codes (GCFA)

Early 2001 to roughly July 2001 will have 5 digit GC Codes

Sometime in July 2001, the first 6 digit codes appear

Early summer 2007, 7 digit GC Codes appeared.

 

Most caches with 6 digit GC Codes are 8 - 15 years old. Numbers come first, then letters.

GC1xxx is older than GC8xxx, and GCFxxx is older than GCZxxx

 

Literally GCXXxx caches date from mid late August 2006, and will be near or over 10 years old.

Edited August 22, 2016 by Isonzo Karst

[+NYPaddleCacher]

In "Search for geocaches" "Near your home location" "(Filter out finds)" there is the option to "filter by placed". That arranges (my) 12000 nearest caches by "Placed". Also available on GSAK. With such an easy solution, I see no reason to change the programming. Hmm... There's a cache placed in 11/2000 only 33 miles northeast! But, I don't need that for my Jasmer Challenge. And I don't like crossing the Hudson River often for finding caches.

 

With a pocket query one can exclude caches after any arbitrary date then view the result on a map. The caches won't have a special icon but, instead, the map will only show caches older than a specific date. Once the PQ is set up, it can be selected on the maps page to easily identify the old ones.

 

 

[+TriciaG]

No, because that's just one more incentive to keep unmaintained, abaondoned caches around simply because of their age.

[+gsix5666]

Myself if I find an older cache that is in need of repair I will do my best to fix it up. Many people like the older caches, I have also adopted them to keep them active. It is just good caching karma to help out with repairs in my book. Pay it forward.

[+L0ne.R]

2 hours ago, gsix5666 said:

Myself if I find an older cache that is in need of repair I will do my best to fix it up. Many people like the older caches, I have also adopted them to keep them active. It is just good caching karma to help out with repairs in my book. Pay it forward.

 

My personal opinion is this promotes a set-em-and-forgot-em ownership, and a numbers mentality. The cache doesn't matter, keeping an old listing alive matters. No other redeeming value, at least no other redeeming value is given in the OP except the age of the listing. 

When you fix up these caches do you use good quality containers--ammo cans, pelican boxes, authentic Lock & Locks(TM), plano boxes? Or do you instead use free leaky containers - pill bottles, aspirin jars, former food containers, medical specimen bottles, bulk poorly milled bison tubes, dollar store containers? Do you regularly check what you've left behind, or do you set-it-and-forget-it too?

I'm with Tricia on this subject:

Quote

... that's just one more incentive to keep unmaintained, abandoned caches around simply because of their age.

 

Edited March 25, 2018 by L0ne.R

[+cerberus1]

Similar to TriciaG maybe ... though I appreciate a cache far into the woods (and often the oldies were...), I wouldn't "help along" a moldy piece of carp just for it's age.  We've seen the "help" some have given, from a piece of tape on a corner of a LNL  (leaving the contents still wet) to the addition of a cardboard bottom from a mini-donut pack - a replacement meant as the new log.  That's not maintenance.  That's just claiming a smiley and moving on. Was fun to see the "Thanks for placing and maintaining this cache"  cut n paste on their logs after...

We see this "good to help" thinking a lot with folks who just have to log that smiley, and by COs who have more caches than they can maintain. (To me) both have motives in their thinking, neither is "helping"... 

[richlv]

I like older caches. I also try to help with the maintenance of them, and with as god container as I possibly can. While I can see the argument of drop-and-forget caches seeming to be encouraged, in most cases it's a good reason why the owner might be unable to do so - it's often moving away, health issues or death (yes, GC has been around enough for many members to have... expired).

I like those caches because I see the opposite - drop-forget-drop-a-new-one - as a much bigger issue. There are some prolific cache authors who, while their efforts are appreciated, do not seem to care for the longevity of their caches at all. You can find cache comments like "oh, archiving this one so I can hide a new one at this same place so my friends can get a new find". Wat?

Old caches are great and highlighting them would be nice.

Perhaps the opposite is needed, too. GC recently offered a chance to place new virtual caches to cache owners whose caches had many favourites (or something, the criteria was secret). That seemed like a great idea to discourage the "cache droppers". Perhaps something opposite could happen to cache "unmaintainers" - if many of your caches get disabled/archived, you don't get to hide new ones, or your find number is halved, or something