- This topic has 6 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I am once again disappointed to see yet another Dartmoor cache archived, this time because “the log is wet”! See link here. Am I alone in thinking that we should try to preserve caches on Dartmoor in great locations? Surely all this cache requires is for somebody walking that way to replace the log book. The CO is supposed to remove an archived cache, it would be just as easy for him to replace the log book. Please post your views on this – as this was a major raison d’être of the web site.
I do think it’s a shame, and it could be viewed as littering. I’d be happy to swap the log or even remove the cache next time I’m in that area if the CO wants it. It’s very close to the road and was one of my first caches.
Funnily enough, I was caching only half a mile away on saturday, doing the lovely widdecombe views series. One of the logs in that was sopping and from comments had been for some time. I replaced the log (saw your mark there Dave, once I’d dried it out) as I didn’t want to give the CO’s an excuse to archive and spoil it for others (as they’ve done with one at Saddle Tor which is still there and fine)
Couple of extra questions:
Is archiving like this a sign the cacher is getting bored of the hobby?
Is replacing a wet or missing log always a good thing to do?
Archiving and Care and Maintenance of Caches
Many of us carry out small repairs to caches as we go about our normal cache finding trips, most often putting in a dry log. Sometimes it is not the best solution in the case of problem caches.
If a cache has been neglected for a long time and its owner appears to have moved on, it should be archived unless there is a strong reason for keeping it. The advantage of archiving is that the location or its area is then freed up for someone else to hide a cache. A disadvantage of someone adopting a cache is that people who have already found it cannot find it again but if replaced by a new cache we are all encouraged to go to the place again. Caches should only be adopted if there are strong reasons for doing so such as a particularly good hide or puzzle. I would quote our adoption of Spannerman’s “Conspiracy Theory” as a good example of this.
The main danger of encouraging others to maintain caches is that they are tempted to “improve” them. We have had caches completely ruined by one or two well intentioned cachers who thought they should “improve” them. We have also been very grateful to those who have replaced logs.
On a different topic, how many of us “find” our own caches? If this is an acceptable practice we could add 120 to our score instantly!!
Please continue this new discussion here.
Some good points there. The only real negative I can think from that is – what if nobody else does put a new cache in that area and there’s one less cache? (I’m not all about the numbers by any means, but if it’s not a waste-of-time cache then it does add to the hobby)
Finding your own… I’ve been told this is bad form so haven’t done it, but the temptation of fluffing my own numbers is there, and I /have/ found them!
Please continue this new discussion here.
I have no problem with caches being archived when the owner has moved on from geocaching, as a new cache will generate renewed interest in the area, and I think the whole of geocaching in general is benefitted by the dynamism of new caches. Turning over new caches keeps interest fresh.
There are some situations where adoption is desirable, however, such as granfathered cache types. If these are not adopted then we will gradually lose all those Virtuals, moving caches and caches placed in locations that would no longer be tolerated by our masters at GC.com. (I think we can blame MAGIC for this last problem).
The only difficulty is that there is no mechanism in place for taking over a cache without the owner actively giving it to you, and if they’ve lost interest in caching then that won’t happen and the cache will be lost.
At lot of the time it seems to be “newbies” on the learning curve…..set a cache…ok that wasn’t as good a spot as I thought. We have all been there. Some deservedly “die” quickly, other should be saved. Like many others we carry spare logs etc.
Absolutely muddypuddles. There is one that springs to mind – Ide Tunnel. Disabled for a very very long time after it went missing, then finally archived and disappeared. Within a week a new cache had appeared to honour the original and a great location.
It took me a little while, having been used to letterboxes, to understand the sometimes ephemeral nature and short lifespans of geocaches, but it definitely is a good thing in my mind. The system creates a shared responsibility that is often missing in many letterboxes (I’m thinking of the “kids boxes” that do tend to litter some tors which are left out and seemingly abandoned, not so much the registered boxes). Even with the maintained ones, unless found by a friend the owner won’t know of any problem until they go and check themselves.
(That said, I did get a FTF from a Geocacher on my only letterbox who recognised my nick, which had been out for some four months without a single find!)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
