Hide It or Fix It
One of the many topics that has come up here on Cache Up NB, whether it be through a commentary item like this, the scribbles, or the podcast, is the issue of cache maintenance and the use of the Needs Archive log. We’ve discussed it before and I am sure it will get discussed again. But for today, I’m thinking about the merits of whether or not someone should fix up a cache that needs fixed, or archive it, and have someone else list a new cache in the same area.
The last big run I did in Moncton I found 20-30 caches in the city. Of those caches, there was at least two or three of them which were new hides where an old hide had been before. This got me to thinking about whether or not it is better to maintain an existing cache, or hide a new one in it’s place.
It seems the trend I have seen lately is that if a cache is just plain “rotten” or abandoned by it’s owner, folks seem to be simply removing the trash from the location, and tag it for archiving. Once the cache is actually archived, another one appears in either the same location, or very nearby. Depending on the location, this may happen several times. I know of a cache near the causeway in Moncton that I am sure I have found three times over the course of the four years I have been caching. Listed, found, archived, then re-listed. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
What comes to mind is why caches are simply just not maintained versus removed and tagged for archival. What I suspect is the root of this trend is that folks seem to be more interested in getting a “new” hide then keeping an older one active. If you archive an existing cache, hide a new one, then you can get another find for a location you have already been to. To me, it seems like this is an easy way to snag a new find and increment your find count easily.
On the other hand, there are plenty of older caches in our province that have been around for ages and in many cases have actually been maintained quite well, despite the fact that the owners have long since abandoned the hobby. It seems that for these caches, the idea of maintaining them is more important than simply getting them archived so a new cache can be listed. What makes these caches so different? It’s typically the location.
If you look around any of the areas where there is a cycle of hide/find/archive/re-hide, you’ll typically notice that the cycle exists almost exclusively for urban caches (from what I have seen). Caches that are located outside the city limits, on rural trails, and other such places seem to receive more of the traditional TLC than we would find within the cities boundary. In many cases, those rural caches are a lot older and can be found in pretty nice spots. It seems people don’t want those older “nice” caches to be archived, but for the city ones, it’s no big deal to cycle through them.
Is this because there is more of a demand for people to cache in an urban area and thusly when you’ve cached an area out, you need new finds? Is it really about just trying to get new finds to get a higher find count? Or is it really just a matter of limited space and trying to keep an area more active by having new caches listed for new people to find. Locals who cache quite a bit tend to have very little to find in their local area so archiving some of these less-maintained caches and re-hiding new ones does help to keep the area a bit more fresh and active. So although you could say it’s about trying to inflate numbers, it can also be said that this cycle helps to keep an area from becoming stale and boring with very little new activity.
So what do you think? Do you think it’s better to maintain or to archive and re-hide? Do you think this cycle is unique to urban caching, or do you see it on the outskirts as well?
I understand why people would want to archive caches in town when all the locals have found them and there are rarely any new finds on them.
In our case, we have a lot of caches in tourist areas which get a lot of hits every summer from the tourists. And in winter, we get a lot of visits by cachers coming for the ice walk. So we tend to maintain the caches that we have.
I do sometimes remove caches that are just garbage when the cache owner is no longer active. Urban or rural.
Well, I actually don’t do a lot of urban caching. But I do sometimes go and remove containers that have been left behind after archiving.
If it’s in a rural area and in a nice spot I may fix it up, just because of the location and because it may have been around a while and have some caching history. Older caches are slowly disappearing.
A cache that has been abandon by its owner really ticks me off at times. But I do not remove a cache so another can be placed in the same location. I think about new cachers going to find it and finding nothing but junk. How does this make them perceive geocaching. A “trash hunt”. I would rather then not find the container at all.
And the same could be said for cachers travelling from outside our caching area. I would like them to thing Moncton and the surrounding area has some really nice caches. Not lots of caches that need maintenance.
So when I find geojunk it’s a judgement call. To repair or remove.
I know some people may not remove caches as it SHOULD be the responsibility of the cache owner. But if they ane no longer active that’s not going to happen. And though I am not the Geocaching Police I use what common sense and logic I have to make the decision. I do not leave garbage behind.
So there it is. Like it or not, that’s my two cents on the subject. This is how I do it and I have no problem with the decisions I make.
I have reused spots in some cases up to 4 times. Usually never the exact same spot but somewhat close. When caches no longer get finds because all the locals have found it and it is getting a find a month from visitors I feel it’s life span has expired. Because of the nature of the Town of Riverview geocoin challenges and the fact that Riverview is really used up it forces me to archive and reuse some areas to keep the challenges going.
I think it is healthy to remove cache and freshen up the area every so often or caching activity will dwindle down and it also prevents new cachers from putting out their own hides. I don’t have any hides that I think are so good that they have to stay and I don’t get attached to them for sentimental value. I just archived two of my own and one of Cacheupnb’s older hides to make room for some new ones, c’est la vie.
I don’t know when the right time is to archive my own caches. Take GC2CGJZ. This is the very first cache that I ever hid. I think at this point that most of the locals have found this one, but it’s in a nice little hiding spot that brings people to a place of historic interest that no one knows about. When should I archive it? Or my Ivy League series out the Salisbury Road, it only gets found about once a month. The caches are still in good shape, but there is a subdivision nearby and maybe if I archived it, some would appear there.
The only other caches that I argue that should be out there for awhile and be maintained are challenge caches. If I had been working on the challenge for “200 days in a row of caching” and due to maintenance issues, it got archived on my day 199, I’d be ticked. Similarly, I have a challenge cache for finding caches in 4 different countries. I think people put these on their radar and when they’ve met the requirements, they want to go claim them. I think they need to stay around longer than some others.
Easy don’t put out challenge caches 😛
Well Heath I kinda feel about puzzles the way you feel about challenges.
Every year a number of people from out of town show up on vacation with the results of our micro logic puzzles. So if they spent all that time solving, I would hate to ruin it. I also notice that about a dozen out of towners have come thru this summer to grab Belladan’s dog series.
Over the last 12 months we have found over 250 puzzle caches, mostly in PEI and in QC, but also K57’s series near Fredericton. We have an inventory of solved puzzles in PEI, QC and Ottawa (150 in Ottawa) that we hope to pick up and we would be disappointed if they got archived.
I also hate archiving the ML puzzles because I am kind of attached to them. I also know their presence on the map aggravates some cachers. LOL
I have a certain disdain for people that give up on caching but don’t archive and clean up their hides.
But if it’s a nice location, I may, and have, do some maintenance on it.
I replaced this one recently, a 2004 Insp Gadget hide, at an old abandoned air strip. GCJ7R7
Well worth keeping alive, and the next finder acknowledged the repair work. Rewarding.
I also fixed up this one for Funky. GCMMYA
Both great locations, well worth the care.
Heathtree what is the GC for the 4 countries? Just got 6 on my trip last month so I’ll make note of it, Thanks
GC3CN1Y
Actually, cableguy1, Hyper-1s is still an active cacher. He just ignores any maintenance logs or emails inquiring about caches he owns. So which is worse? Abandoning, or ignoring?
As for abandoning, one that has me a bit riled up are the caches archived when a cacher moved from Fredericton to Truro, NS. He left all of his caches out on the trails; some were adopted (very few), but many more were left as garbage. I have removed a few on my travels, I know others have discovered some. Worse still, this person is a hiking enthusiast-long treks, wilderness hikes, you name it. So, do they show respect and pack out their trash on these hikes, or do they leave it like they did when they archived their caches? If they don’t, where does the distinction lay?