March 20, 2013 at 7:11 pm #1924
I have just worked out Dartmoor Dave’s ‘Explore the Dartmoor Archives’ and was amazed to see that archived caches can still be logged as found. I’m not complaining, i would log an archived cache if i found one and could work out what it was.
But it does pose some questions, like why are caches archived and left in place? and why can they still be logged?
This means that archived caches that are still in place are there to be found and logged, so why archive them?March 20, 2013 at 8:29 pm #1926
In my experience archived caches fall into 3 categories:
- Where a cache owner has decided that he wishes to archive a cache and goes and collects it – therefore can’t be found again
- Where a cache owner loses interest and just archives it – it may be there, but probably has already gone missing or is in a bad state of maintenance – possible to find again
- Where a reviewer notices that a cache has not been maintained or when somebody else has logged a “needs archive” he will normally give 14 days notice and then archive it. It appears to be this sort that can often be found, because the reviewer is not going to go and retrieve it!
I have found several archived caches in the last 12 months or so. One of the Granite Trail caches had been archived, replaced by another CO and I found both caches within 30 or 40m and logged them both. The first one should never have been archived, but once again a reviewer archived it because he had no reply from the CO, but the cache was still there!
I suspect that there may be several other archived caches out there as I know at least one cache owner who suddenly archived several active caches and I always wondered if he bothered to retrieve them!
I am currently maintaining one very old archived cache and hope one day to get it unarchived, but that is not easy. If I do, it will probably be Dartmoor’s oldest cache, but of course in name only as neither the log book or cache are original.March 22, 2013 at 8:23 am #1940
Thanks Dave for bringing the Oldest Cache on the moor to my attention. I will hopefully find and log it soon. I’m still on my current challenge of trying to log 100 of Devon’s Oldest caches before they are archived. So far I have found 1 placed in 2001, 13 in 2002, 14 in 2003, 26 in 2004 and 23 in 2005 totalling 77 caches placed in Devon before the end of June 2005.
Regarding your “very old archived cache”, I can see your problem in getting it back up and running. Good luck with your negotiations. GH.March 23, 2013 at 8:23 pm #1943
By my calculations the cache in question is about 75 feet from an active cache, which poses another question, when a cache is archived (and left in place) and another one is placed close by are people finding the right one?
Last year we were looking for a cache but there was nothing at the given coordinates, we widened our search and found a cache but it was obviously a much older cache. Then nearer to the right coordinates a cache was found and we assumed this was the right cache. But recently the cache owner has said the cache was indeed missing and has put a new cache in place. This means there are three caches very close together, are the other two archived caches or bonus caches?
Perhaps this is a good reason to label caches with its name and gc code.March 23, 2013 at 9:17 pm #1944
If we are talking about the same cache (which I would prefer was not named in this thread) I have moved it to a new location almost exactly 0.1 mile from the active cache, and I have noted the new location in my log. When I found it, it wasn’t at its original location, which of course is why it went missing and was archived.
Is your next example on the moor and if so, which cache are we referring to please?
I totally agree with your last point and this is why I have said several times in this forum that I consider that all caches should be labelled correctly, at least with a geocaching sticker. They are very cheap and in my opinion turn a piece of litter into a geocache! On Dartmoor it is even more important as the moor is littered with so-called letterboxes which are no more than a broken ice cream carton with a soggy notebook in. Several times caches have been logged as found when I know very well that they are really these ice cream cartons that have been found. Judy and I cleared about 9 of them from Hound Tor before I placed my cache there, but even then we missed one very close by!March 23, 2013 at 9:37 pm #1946
Yes its on the moor and its one of yours, Beardown Man (GC2W3VF).March 23, 2013 at 11:00 pm #1950
Oh what a shame. Now you’ve moved the old cache how can it be the original cache any longer?? Surely the way forward should have been to negotiate with the nearby newer cache owner to get his required information, if you see what I’m alluding to, placed in the oldest cache and then either move or archive the newer cache. This would leave the space free to either unarchive the old cache or lay a multicache to lead cachers to it so they could log it even if it’s archived and collect the information they are looking for. GH.March 24, 2013 at 12:24 am #1951
What defines a cache? Surely it’s the cache number and nothing else. Clearly you can’t expect an original log book in a cache 10 years old and probably not the cache container. Caches also often get moved for one reason or another. In this particular case the cache had already gone missing which is why it was archived. However, it had actually been moved to a new location and was found and logged there long before I came across it. I couldn’t move it back to the original location as a new cache had been placed there and I couldn’t leave it where it was as it was exposed and in a very wet location. I have moved it away from the new cache so that if we could unarchive it, it would be in an acceptable location. When I found this cache it was smashed and saturated. However, the original label was still in place on the container which is how we identified it as a cache and not a letterbox. I have preserved this, but that was all that was left. Even with hindsight I don’t think I would have done anything differently.March 24, 2013 at 12:36 am #1952
With regard to Beardown Man I went there recently but had not realised that my cache had been found nearby. It was getting very late and I didn’t have much time to get home, in fact I arrive back in the pitch black anyway. I knew the cache was not where it should have been and I had a quick look round and then placed another. If reb10 is correct, there are indeed 3 containers there, possibly two of mine and a much older one. I will need to return and investigate.
Another possibility is that some caches have not been logged with Groundspeak but with say Open Caching. In this case we may find a cache and assume that it is an old archived one, but is actually live on another system. I don’t think this is true of Beardown Man as I think the log had not been signed recently, at least not until it was mistaken for my cache.March 24, 2013 at 6:37 am #1954
Yes, you are right. A groundspeak cache is defined by it’s GC code number.
However, I like the dictionary definition. (Each to his own definition of course). Maybe I’m just being awkward.
Cache [kash] noun, verb, cached, cach·ing.
Noun 1. a hiding place, especially one in the ground, for ammunition, food, treasures, etc.
2. anything so hidden.
Verb (used with object) 3. to put in a cache; conceal; hide.
By the way. I’m just about to drive down to the moor so, please don’t move it again until I’ve logged it!! GH.March 24, 2013 at 7:12 pm #1956
When we found the Beardown Man cache i am pretty certain that the second cache we found was labelled and had your name on it Dave, which is why we were certain we had the right one.March 24, 2013 at 8:37 pm #1962
You are right again Dave, you can’t expect an original log book in a cache 10 years old nor the same cache container. It’s a bit like Trigger’s broom (Only Fools and Horses) which he had cherished for many years, it was the same broom even though it had had seven new heads and four new handles. However, I still disagree that a container can be moved moved 0.1 miles and be the same cache. A few oddities still remain such as The Cuckoo Cache but whilst I will enjoy finding your moved cache, in my mind it can not be the original. GH.March 31, 2013 at 12:32 am #1987
I think that cache containers that are left in place after being archived should be removed by passing cachers rather than left where they are. If the cache is still in place after a few months or so then obviously the cache owner is not going to remove it.
I did this a few months ago to a cache that had been archived for months but was still in place, so i took it and reused it.
I see this as ok if the cache has been abandoned for some time.March 31, 2013 at 12:50 am #1989
I somewhat agree with you, but care is needed. Just because a cache has been archived with Groundspeak is does NOT mean it has been archived on other systems, such as Open Caching. Groundspeak also take the view (wrongly in my opinion) that an archived cache still belongs to the original cacher who placed the cache, so by removing it you are actually stealing it!
My view is to preserve archived caches so that they can continue to be logged by those who haven’t already found them. I see nothing wrong in this and it is allowed by Groundspeak – or at least they haven’t prevented you from doing so, which they could quite easily.
Maybe I should add a new section to this web site listing archived caches that are still available to be logged 😉March 31, 2013 at 1:04 am #1990
I did check the log and it had not been signed since being archived and i did check on open caching to see if there was a cache there and there wasn’t, but i see what you mean about stealing it.
But does this apply to letterboxes as well? I see you have admitted to removing them, after all they were put out by someone.
Good idea about an archived cache section, but who does own an archived cache if the owner has abandoned it?March 31, 2013 at 9:58 am #1991
Re stealing the abandoned caches – I did say that I didn’t agree with the Groundspeak view, but you can understand why they say it. It is up to each individual what action they want to take.
I have never removed a proper letterbox from the moor, that is, one with a stamp. What I have removed are saturated ice cream boxes that have clearly been abandoned. In my view these are only litter and should be removed. The National Park Rangers also take this view and will remove them.
However, this brings me back to something I have said many times before – the only thing that distinguishes our geocaches from litter is when they have been properly labelled as such, clearly indicating that they are recognised game pieces. Without a label they also are just litter.March 31, 2013 at 2:53 pm #1992MissBlocked
Dave, you may list Archived Caches that are still in situ but they will NOT qualify anyone for “Re-awakening”! That is stated in the cache description.April 3, 2013 at 8:36 pm #1996
I agree that abandoned letterboxes should be removed from the moor, i said this in my log for the now archived HayTor views – Saddle Tor cache ( GC11KJB) back in april 2011.
The area was littered with uncared for letterboxes and also said I hoped geocaches didn’t end up like this which is why i feel that whenever possible archived caches should also be removed.April 4, 2013 at 6:20 am #1997
I don’t see the point in keeping archived caches servicable. Nobody will know they’re there, or care.
If you particularly want to, why not re-list them as a new cache?April 4, 2013 at 6:50 am #1999
In 90% of cases I agree, archived caches should go and a new one placed. However, I became interested in this as a very old cache suddenly turned up and was found. It is probably the oldest cache on Dartmoor and I would like to see it preserved. Several cachers have now logged it as found but I would like to see the owner unarchived it, which is allowed.
I notice that the cache on Heltor Rock has now been archived. I support this only because the CO had a stupid statement in the listing saying that if you couldn’t find it log it as a virtual, which several have! But, I bet that this cache is still there as it was really well hidden when I found it last year.April 4, 2013 at 7:44 am #2000
Careful……. I’m Mr Grumpy this morning.
The Heltor cache was on my list of Devon’s Oldest and Virtual caches were still allowed when it was set.
In my opinion the CO is far from stupid. He has layed out several fine, interesting and clever caches. Please do not degrade him.
I DNF’d it a few months ago as I had left all the spoiler and virtual information on the kitchen table and so couldn’t complete it.
Maybe we should all calm down a bit and get off our high horses to prevent some of these fine old caches being lost forever. GH.April 4, 2013 at 12:44 pm #2001
When working out the ‘Explore the Dartmoor Archives’ i did notice that the old archived cache had a DNF then the next person to log it logged it as a virtual find because they found the right spot and the cache was ‘indeed missing’. The cache was then archived, then some four years later turned up again.
I think them Dartmoor Pixies are moving caches to fool us.
But it just goes to show that even with gps’s sometimes even the cache owners can’t locate their own caches, then either the cache is archived or replaced when the original is only a few metres away.April 4, 2013 at 4:24 pm #2004
DD – I claimed a virtual on Heltor, as you’ll have seen. I thought, wrote and justified it in the log. I think the hide might have been better off the rock itself, but then some may not have climbed up and seen a superb view and interesting holes.
GH – well said, and Wildebeest has placed many caches in interesting places and created a series in the valley where I live. The third cache I ever found was one. (Warty Chin, now adjacent to another trail of mine!). I owe thanks.
But the problem here is not the description, nor that it probably moved away from the spoiler or gone entirely (there was evidence of drinkers using Heltor last week, including a glass bottle entirely frozen in the solid ice of one of the rockpools), and burnt wood from either a bonfire or the Jubilee beacons)
This cache has had more searchers in the past week than for some time, and for all of them to produce DNFs I do have to think it has gone. (But then I thought the same of Blackinstone rock, claimed a virtual there as per the CO’s wishes – and he made it clear that’s what he wanted done, and it later turned up – although how I have no idea as I gave a very thorough inspection.)
The problem is that Wildebeest no longer caches and that all his hides are slowly being archived through lack of maintenance. I emailed him a couple of times and never got a response so I couldn’t even adopt them.April 4, 2013 at 8:05 pm #2007
Wow, I love it when we get some real opinions and discussions 🙂
First Mr Grumpy – I didn’t say that the CO was stupid I said the statement re virtuals was stupid. This is a traditional cache NOT a virtual. Traditional caches need to be found and the log signed, the CO cannot make his own rules re logging the cache. Find the cache and it’s a Found, don’t and its a DNF. It was there to be found and I am mystified why you didn’t?
I too have enjoyed Wildebeest caches, but the truth is that for whatever reason, he has abandoned his caches and if it wasn’t for the statement re logging as virtuals I would fight to save them, but that statement makes them untenable.
I agree with Pumpkin Patrol who asked for it to be archived. He said too many cachers were logging it as found when clearly they hadn’t found it and I have to agree. It was a real cop out, spend 2 minutes looking and log it as Found 🙁
Now the truth: I visited Heltor Rock today and very quickly found the cache that has been found only ONCE since I found it over a year ago! It was exactly where I had left it then. The ONLY cacher to find it since February 2012 were Broyle Boxers on 2nd october 2012. Several who logged it during the last year admitted they hadn’t found it, but several didn’t admit it and just logged it anyway.
What else can I say but “It’s all about the numbers :(!”April 4, 2013 at 9:39 pm #2008
Having checked my horse for nits, I stand by my entry above. GH.April 7, 2013 at 4:08 pm #2017HoboBlocked
If one finds an archived cache, one should feel free to log it as a find but one should also remove it as it has become geolitter. The argument that it belongs to the CO only serves to convict the CO of littering. The cache should be removed and the log should include a note to the CO to arrange return if wanted.
Intentionally keeping open archived caches could be negating the controlling benefits of the 161 metre rule and may also lead to reviewers asking about archived caches in the vicinity of new ones submitted for review.April 7, 2013 at 5:51 pm #2022
If you were not a geocacher you would have a very valid argument that says active geocaches are as much litter as archived ones, its only geocachers who can tell the difference. Even geocachers can often not tell the difference as we have all found several that have been geocaches disguised as litter, but what is the difference between that and litter disguised as a geocache!
Environmentally, I have to admit that ALL geocaches (and letterboxes) are litter, but they only form a minute part of the overall litter and many of us do try to hide them 🙂
I think the argument re the 176 yard rule 🙂 is not valid as once a cache has been archived it is off everybody’s radar including the reviewers, otherwise replacement caches at the same spot would not be allowed.April 7, 2013 at 9:48 pm #2025AnonymousInactive
The cache in question (GC5FFC) has been archived. If DD did not want this cache to be named in this thread, then he should not have led me to it via another of his caches. As far as I am aware the new cache placed by DD is not listed on open caching or any other geocache websites. The new cache is placed approx. 180m from the original now archived cache. So therefore, is a new cache which is not listed?
All geocaches, those that are clearly labelled as such by lovely stickers and those that are just unidentified clip and lock boxes or other types of containers are just litter. But at least listed geocaches identified or not, are known and available to be found.
GC5FFC has been archived, and its replacement is no longer even near the original location that it was placed in. If I come across the new cache which has not been listed, I will view it as litter and remove it. I will not log it as found and will hand the litter back to the owner of this unlisted cache.April 7, 2013 at 11:41 pm #2027
I am mystified and somewhat saddened by the motivation and tone of PR’s post? I just don’t understand what is going on here. However, this cache has been now published on OpenCaching and is available to be found and logged there: http://www.opencaching.org.uk/viewcache.php?cacheid=797
Hopefully this will prevent it from being removed by PR.April 16, 2013 at 7:51 pm #2085
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.