Request to Archive a Cache

[Jardry]

I have received an email from a fellow cacher (who is no longer caching) requesting that I archive one of my caches.

Having not been active on this site for a while I just noticed youve put the "(CACHE NAME)" back up. You may feel that what we did in removing it was unwarranted but if you read the cache logs and visit the sit you should understand that many cachers are driving off track etc. in an effort to access it. This is why it was removed. This area is a National park and people driving innappropriately within it do not help preserve the environment. It is a lovely spot but I now regret ever posting on this site and feel you should respect our decision to remove it. This is the main reason why we've not placed futher caches as we do not want to contribute to this type of behaviour. Thanks (cacher)

According to the logs for the initial cache placement one team "bush bashed" to GZ, no other team noted that they had difficulty locating GZ.
The original cache was archived in August 2008 and I then resurrected the location and included a number of additional waypoints so that getting to GZ would not require anyone to "bush bash".

The original cache had 9 finds in three months before it was disabled and ultimately archived. The new cache has has a total of 35 finds since being published in August 2008 - just over 2 per month. Again, no cacher has logged any difficulty getting to GZ.

Whilst I do not want to get "off side" with local cachers, the reason for requesting that the cache be archived is not supported by the amount of traffic that GZ is getting. The cache is approximately 250 metres from a designated National Parks camp site and could easily be walked or driven without needing to go off track at all.

What is the general consensus regarding "ownership" of a cache location.

Should I leave the cache where it is, or should I archive the cache as I have been requested to do?

[matmob]

From what we can read from the cache logs, you should definitely NOT remove it. These are the type of caches that we love - out of the way, scenic, somewhere you wouldn't perhaps see otherwise. And as you point out, the current logs do not suggest that cachers are being irresponsible with their access. Until that occurs, leave it.

[nomad_penguin]

I am arguably (definitely?) one of the visitors who precipitated the archiving of the original cache (due to the manner in which we approached the cache).

Jardry, I don't think the point is whether or not they 'own' the cache location, but in the provision of information on the cache page. There was no mention on the original cache page that the location is a National Park. There were no suggested access points given. On the other hand, you have provided good access information for the subsequent cache placement.

I'm rather embarrassed that this continues to come up and I can see in retrospect how we should have approached the cache. However, if a cache is placed in what is considered to be a sensitive area, then that is all the more reason to provide detailed information on the cache page.

I don't like to be offside with anyone either, however I suggest leaving the cache in situ; this is a beautiful cache location. The photo proves it!


Edited 'was a National Park' to 'is a National Park'. Silly me!

[Jardry]

I'm rather embarrassed that this continues to come up and I can see in retrospect how we should have approached the cache. However, if a cache is placed in what is considered to be a sensitive area, then that is all the more reason to provide detailed information on the cache page.

I don't like to be offside with anyone either, however I suggest leaving the cache in situ; this is a beautiful cache location.

You and me both! I hope this now doesn't result in a flood of visits to the cache to see what all the fuss is about.

I'd like to leave it in place as well.

If approached correctly there is minimal damage (if any) to the environment, no more than anyone camping at the designated camp site would be likely to create!

[gypsycacher]

If approached correctly there is minimal damage (if any) to the environment, no more than anyone camping at the designated camp site would be likely to create!

I think that is the issue, people tend to form their own tracks at times (to the point of driving the straightest route or as close as possible to GZ following that arrow); even if you explicitly state in the description page where (or where not) to go. Being a national park this could create issues, as in other states, if "cacher" wanted to take it further. It is a nice cache, enjoyed it when I found it, but the bigger picture also needs to be taken into consideration.

Whilst I do not want to get "off side" with local cachers, the reason for requesting that the cache be archived is not supported by the amount of traffic that GZ is getting

it is close to a historic SA cache and adds to the journey... I'd like to see it stay also.....

[Rabbitto]

It took me about 5 minutes of checking up to work out what the cache in question was here and the history of the old cache. (It was the cache that I thought it looked like and I can't see the harm in naming it but that is up to you).

I have completed the cache earlier this year. I had no trouble getting to the cache but having said that, I know the area well from many years before any of this area was National Park and tracks used to criss cross the entire area - ie I knew the way in so I can't really comment there.

The track petered out at a bit of a turn around about 250m to 300m to the west. We parked there and walked that short distance along the river. Nice. There were campers where we parked.

Had it rained (in any of the 8 out of the 365 days in a year that the Riverland actually does get rain) I would not have attempted the cache as the river flats around there turn to glue.

So, is there anything wrong with this cache? No. It is a great spot.
There are directions on the cache page to assist finders on the correct way in.

Do people wreck bush land and parks getting to caches? Yes they do, but this is not specific to this cache. These people need to be gently educated wherever we get the opportunity.

If feel pressured to archive this one, note that the reasons listed would take out about 25% of the caches in Australia. I see it as an opportunity to promote smart finding.

[grahamf72]

Do people wreck bush land and parks getting to caches? Yes they do, but this is not specific to this cache. These people need to be gently educated wherever we get the opportunity.

I'll add that that attitude isn't exclusive to cachers either. You'll get the minority who trash things in almost every outdoor activity - hiking, mountain-biking, motorcycling, 4wd'ing, boating, fishing etc. The majority of people are respectful of their surrounds, but you have a small minority who will stuff up. Unfortunately it seems to be the MO of governments and government organisations that if a minority does something wrong the whole activity needs to be banned, instead of trying to stop the wrong actions.

"Oh no, a 4WD'er went through this bush track too soon after rain and caused considerable damage to the track - we better ban 4WD's from this area altogether".
"A geocacher trampled a small area of a National park -we better ban all geocaching in all national parks."

Unfortunately all of us suffer, just because there are a few idiots out there, and the law makers think we are all that bad.

Getting back to the topic of caches in the bush, I've seen a little bit of trampling of areas, but I've also seen what happens when a mob of Kangaroos moves into an area. The trampling caused by a few people every few weeks, has negligible effect on the bush.