Philosophy for cachers
- winterdragon
- 3500 or more caches found
- Posts: 308
- Joined: 05 March 07 9:50 pm
- Location: Adelaide
- Contact:
Philosophy for cachers
The forums have been quiet of late, so thought I'd liven things up with a bit of controversy. <br><br>The question is: If a cache is muggled, and the owner replaces it with a new container, with a new logbook and new swaps, in a different location, using a different hide, is it still the same cache? Should you be allowed to find and log it again?<br><br>I'm not going to give a specific example, it's a hypothetical question
Under the circumstances described, to me it would be a different cache. NOTHING is the same as it was originally (apart from the cache name and GC code, presumably!). It provides a significantly different experience from the original (container, hiding method and location).
(Now, on the subject of philosophy, if no one is looking for a cache, is it really there? On second thoughts, if I am looking for a cache is it there? If am looking AT the cache is it there? The answer to the last question, on some occasions, has been "no" ... until the cache's quantum state changed while I briefly looked away! )
(Now, on the subject of philosophy, if no one is looking for a cache, is it really there? On second thoughts, if I am looking for a cache is it there? If am looking AT the cache is it there? The answer to the last question, on some occasions, has been "no" ... until the cache's quantum state changed while I briefly looked away! )
Re: Philosophy for cachers
I think that's two separate questions. Is is still the same cache or not, I think depends on the nature of the cache. If a particular cache is more about going to the place, and the hide itself isn't what that cache has going for it then it's much of a muchness if it's under this park bench or in that hollow log. But for some cache it's about the hide itself, the contain is novel, or cunning disguised ect, and when that changes well you've got a whole new experience.winterdragon wrote:is it still the same cache? Should you be allowed to find and log it again?
Should you be free to log the cache again? Absolutely. I've logged a cache twice even though the cache hadn't changed at all. The first time I found it was during the day and we took the path straight to it. The second time I came from an entirely different direction through the bush, at night. It was a very different hunt the second time even though once I got to the actual GZ I knew exactly where to look for it.
- Jardry
- 600 or more caches found
- Posts: 295
- Joined: 23 June 07 9:52 pm
- Twitter: Jardry
- Location: Berri, SA
Re: Philosophy for cachers
1) NO - nothing about it apart from the vicinity to the "old" cache is the same. Original cache should be archived and new GC code generated.winterdragon wrote:is it still the same cache? Should you be allowed to find and log it again?
2) YES - It all depends on how you want to play the numbers game. If it is the same listing, I wouldn't bother, but, if it is a new listing, its a new find and should add to the numbers.
- Bundyrumandcoke
- 5000 or more caches found
- Posts: 1021
- Joined: 07 August 06 1:54 pm
- Location: Blackwater Queensland
I agree with Jardry. In the circumstances given, it should be a new cache, with new GC code, ect. Old one should be archived. BUT, this assumes the distance the new cache has moved is a significant one. If it has only moved a couple of metres to prevent remuggling, then I would class it as the same cache. If it has moved more than say, 20 metres or so, then it would have to be a pretty good case to remain the same cache, in my opinion.
I have just replaced a muggled cache, same container, same location, everything the same. Its the same cache as far as I am concerned.
Should you be able to relog a find in either circumstance? Not if it is still the same cache (ie same GC code) If it is a new cache with a new code, even in the same location, then its a new cache which can be logged. A cache can only ever be "found" once. Otherwise I could get my numbers up by refinding the cache outside my house again and again.
There is a new cache up in Rockhampton, that is roughly in the same location as an archived cache (same visitable feature anyhow) I have logged the archived cache as a find, and will be logging the new one as a find too, when I get up there. Same location, but 2 totally different caches.
Cheers
Bundy
I have just replaced a muggled cache, same container, same location, everything the same. Its the same cache as far as I am concerned.
Should you be able to relog a find in either circumstance? Not if it is still the same cache (ie same GC code) If it is a new cache with a new code, even in the same location, then its a new cache which can be logged. A cache can only ever be "found" once. Otherwise I could get my numbers up by refinding the cache outside my house again and again.
There is a new cache up in Rockhampton, that is roughly in the same location as an archived cache (same visitable feature anyhow) I have logged the archived cache as a find, and will be logging the new one as a find too, when I get up there. Same location, but 2 totally different caches.
Cheers
Bundy
- PesceVerde
- 700 or more Caches found
- Posts: 452
- Joined: 07 February 08 12:12 pm
- Location: Arana Hills.
- caughtatwork
- Posts: 17015
- Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
- Location: Melbourne
- Contact:
- solomonfamily
- 1700 or more caches found
- Posts: 238
- Joined: 28 September 05 9:02 am
- Bundyrumandcoke
- 5000 or more caches found
- Posts: 1021
- Joined: 07 August 06 1:54 pm
- Location: Blackwater Queensland
A move of more than a hundred metres or so would need a good explaination to a reviewer, as they are the only ones that can make such a big move possible. I have had a cache move about 2km once, but that was a cache on an object, and the object moved, so the cache hitchhiked along. Same cache, on the same object, so it remained in place.
- muzza
- 2500 or more caches found
- Posts: 354
- Joined: 05 April 03 7:00 pm
- Location: Melbourne Australia
I think it really boils down to what the cache owner wants to do. (All power to the owner). If they choose not to archive the original cache, then you shouldn't log it again, even if it is significantly different. If it is basically the same, but they do archive the old one and create a new cache, then go ahead and find it again and log it.