Philosophy for cachers

For all your general chit chat, caching or not.

Is it the same cache?

[Yes] It's still the same cache
20
31%
[No] It's a different cache
33
51%
[Apathy] Who cares, I'm going caching
5
8%
[Zen] The cache never existed, so how could it have changed?
3
5%
[Inattentive] Huh? There's a new cache? Where abouts?
4
6%
 
Total votes: 65

User avatar
winterdragon
3500 or more caches found
3500 or more caches found
Posts: 308
Joined: 05 March 07 9:50 pm
Location: Adelaide
Contact:

Philosophy for cachers

Post by winterdragon » 26 January 09 1:18 pm

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 :)

User avatar
SamCarter
1400 or more caches found
1400 or more caches found
Posts: 650
Joined: 13 March 07 10:32 am
Location: Hobart

Post by SamCarter » 26 January 09 1:25 pm

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! :D )

User avatar
Mloe
250 or more caches found
250 or more caches found
Posts: 44
Joined: 09 July 05 9:43 pm
Location: Keperra

Re: Philosophy for cachers

Post by Mloe » 26 January 09 3:07 pm

winterdragon wrote:is it still the same cache? Should you be allowed to find and log it again?
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.

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.

User avatar
Jardry
600 or more caches found
600 or more caches found
Posts: 295
Joined: 23 June 07 9:52 pm
Twitter: Jardry
Location: Berri, SA

Re: Philosophy for cachers

Post by Jardry » 26 January 09 4:18 pm

winterdragon wrote:is it still the same cache? Should you be allowed to find and log it again?
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.

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.

User avatar
Bundyrumandcoke
5000 or more caches found
5000 or more caches found
Posts: 1021
Joined: 07 August 06 1:54 pm
Location: Blackwater Queensland

Post by Bundyrumandcoke » 26 January 09 5:43 pm

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

petan
850 or more found!!!
850 or more found!!!
Posts: 164
Joined: 30 August 08 8:56 am
Location: One foot on either side of the border (SE Qld/NE NSW)
Contact:

Post by petan » 26 January 09 6:01 pm

Sounds like my grandfather's axe ... I've replaced the handle and I've replaced the head but I still have my grandfather's axe.

User avatar
PesceVerde
700 or more Caches found
700 or more Caches  found
Posts: 452
Joined: 07 February 08 12:12 pm
Location: Arana Hills.

Post by PesceVerde » 26 January 09 6:50 pm

I must be old fashioned. I say it's the same!
If the cache is muggled and I [or the hider] chose to make the replacement up differently, it's still the same cache just different.

User avatar
Mr Router
1500 or more caches found
1500 or more caches found
Posts: 2782
Joined: 22 May 05 11:59 am
Location: Bathurst

Post by Mr Router » 26 January 09 6:52 pm

PesceVerde wrote: it's still the same cache just different.
That makes sense :? :shock:

User avatar
dadegroot
100 or more tracks walked
100 or more tracks walked
Posts: 19
Joined: 17 May 06 10:25 am
Location: Cedar Creek, Qld, Australia
Contact:

Post by dadegroot » 26 January 09 9:16 pm

I'd agree with Mloe for the most part.

Yes, if the cache is still of the same sort, and the change in location minor, then it's the same cache.

If it's been moved more than 50m (or so), or the size / type has changed, then no, it's not the same cache.

User avatar
caughtatwork
Posts: 17015
Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Post by caughtatwork » 26 January 09 10:01 pm

There can be only one.

User avatar
solomonfamily
1700 or more caches found
1700 or more caches found
Posts: 238
Joined: 28 September 05 9:02 am

Post by solomonfamily » 27 January 09 8:41 am

We tried to research this with our GC11G85 - it boggles the mind. Does a cache existence require someone to find it?

rhinogeo
2700 or more caches found
2700 or more caches found
Posts: 1213
Joined: 31 October 03 11:45 am
Twitter: rhinogeo
Location: Benalla, VIC

Post by rhinogeo » 27 January 09 2:52 pm

If it's the end of a multi that has been relocated to a safer location to avoid muggles then it probably is the same cache

If it's a traditional that bears no resemblance physically or experientially to the original cache then it is a new cache and should be archived and re-listed

YMMV :wink:

Adrian Mc
Posts: 114
Joined: 17 December 06 1:35 pm
Location: Adelaide

Post by Adrian Mc » 27 January 09 6:22 pm

I can think of a few caches locally that have been in one spot and have then been moved for one reason or another, some more than a few hundred metres (one example a few kilometres). To me they really should be classed as new caches.

User avatar
Bundyrumandcoke
5000 or more caches found
5000 or more caches found
Posts: 1021
Joined: 07 August 06 1:54 pm
Location: Blackwater Queensland

Post by Bundyrumandcoke » 27 January 09 6:45 pm

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.

User avatar
muzza
2500 or more caches found
2500 or more caches found
Posts: 354
Joined: 05 April 03 7:00 pm
Location: Melbourne Australia

Post by muzza » 27 January 09 8:29 pm

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.

Post Reply