Time to retire a cache?

[sbukosky]

I’m going to make this easy and use one of my caches as an example. It is ”A Little Bit Of Paridise” located at Paradise Springs. It is in a very interesting area and has had many visitors. Not long ago another cache appeared, ”Beyond Paradise”. I admit to feeling a little encroached upon but after doing the whole cache, I thought it was top notch. So, would it be the right thing to archive my cache? Be honest as no feeling would be hurt. I would put a new logbook in the cache, tidy it up and rehide it somewhere else. This would give Jeff and Pharmteam something to look for that doesn’t cost them a tank of gas! Should this be something we consider doing? If a new cache pops up near and old cache, the cache owner voluntarily archives it and recycles the cache?

---

Steve Bukosky
Waukesha

[OuttaHand]

I don’t think the appearance of a new cache be the sole reason to discontinue an existing one. I don’t see any reason that the two of them can’t coexist. We did your cache last September. I see that it’s been found many times since then.
Your cache is a picture of what a cache should be. An interesting & beautiful area surrounding a well-hidden, worthwhile cache. Some of the nicest pictures I’ve taken while caching were taken while doing yours. It’s also the cache where we heard a wild turkey calling JUST inside the woods where we couldn’t see (wiley sucker!)
I think your cache has a lot to offer and it has definitely NOT run its course.
As for yours just being an example of what to do in general — it HAS to depend on the cache itself. Are there still a lot of people finding it? Are those finders leaving positive comments? Or are they just typing in “found it — thanks”?
And I think that if a new cache appears in the area of an older one, it may very well revive the older one. I’m more likely to hit a pair of caches that are near one another rather than just one that’s off by itself. People who have not yet visited yours might start now that there’s a second they can do right in the vicinity.

[GrouseTales]

I was the second one to find this cache and really loved the area. I loved being shown this little treasure in the Kettle Moraine.

I haven’t done the nearby cache that you mentioned, so I can’t make a judgement based on it’s proximity. It’s hard for me to say “archive it”, because this is one of my favorite caches. Not so much for the container, but I think it’s such a cool area. It’s one of those spots I wouldn’t have know about without Geocaching.

If the purpose of the cache was to bring people to see the spring, and, the other cache is accomplishing that mission, then why not remove yours?

Just food for thought.

[This message has been edited by GrouseTales (edited 02-04-2004).]

[Buy_The_Tie]

I really liked the place, and one of the reasons I went here was that there were two caches I could find in the same park. (More caches, less gas) I say you should leave it in, all the more reason to attract geocachers to this park.

[sidnaw]

Please leave it there! I haven’t found it yet! I really like it when there are a few caches to find in an area. It makes it more fun.

[The Snail]

I’ve done both of these at different times and enjoyed both. I see no reason to move “Little Bit of Paradise.” Some will like the straight foward one stop cache and others will opt for the longer multi of “Beyond.”
I took my 5 year old on Little Bit, but he’s not quite ready for the long haul of Beyond.
If proximity or density were an issue I’d say relocate.
There is room for both at this wonderful little park. Thanks for the caches!

[This message has been edited by The Snail (edited 02-04-2004).]

[cooney]

By all means keep it there. I’ll have to admit that I was surprised to learn of your cache when I was planning “Beyond.” Wasn’t even sure it would be approved. However, there certainly is enough space between the two. I would have to agree that it is nice to not have to drive extra to find a couple of caches which are near each other. Also, if one gets vandalized (like the 2nd) waypoint at “Beyond” has, a cacher can still find the other one. By the way, for at least the next couple of weeks, a cacher will have to start at waypoint # 3 for “Beyond.” The coordinates are on the description.

[Cashing Out]

I have to agree that it is nice to find multiple caches at the same location. It sometimes determines where we will go, or at least, where we will go first. Also, if one of the caches is a no find, it still leaves another to hunt. We’ve done both caches and think they each have their own flavor, and neither takes away from the other. Our cache is placed in a park that has 2 others also located there. Each one is different, and they all show different parts of the park. With the growing numbers of caches there will be more parks becoming home to multiple caches, and I for one don’t think this is at all a bad thing. Another plus is if both owners know each other and can make maintenence checks on each others caches while doing their own.
Bob

[Cathunter]

I agree with the others. I have been to Eagle a dozen times, and never knew of Paradise Springs. I loved your cache, but was not up to doing the other on the same night. I’ll get back there in due time- even sooner knowing that there is another in the vicinity I have yet to hunt. If there is any sign of a trail being made to the cache, move it a few hundred feet and re-stock it with prime trading items. It’s in a great area & I’d keep it. Thanks again for introducing me to the place!

[GrouseTales]

There you have it, sounds like it should stay

I have to admit that I also like to kill several birds with one stone (but usually my Browning O/U). It’s nice to be able to hit several caches in the same general area. It beats driving 40 mins for one cache.

Keep it.

[sbukosky]

I’m gratified by the nice comments on the cache. I was using it as a general example for a possible philosophy about the discussion of how long to keep a cache in place. One alternative I’ve thought of is to relocate and rename the cache. For example, A little bit of Paradise II. The cache would be relocated, submitted for approval and previous finders would have a reason to revisit the area, add to the stats and so forth. It’d also give that log a chance to decompose in piece.

[OuttaHand]

Now THAT’s an excellent idea! When we were looking for “Little Bit of Paradise”, and enjoying the area, we commented to each other that the area would be anice place to bring friends for a visit/picnic.
If you were to move your cache and make it a “new” one, we could revisit with friends, do a picnic, show them a beautiful area, and get your new cache to boot. Probably check out “Beyond Paradise” while there!
I think you would still want to have it up near “paradise”, if you know what I mean. You would want to bring people to the spring itself somehow. The area might even make a neat multi-cache. There are quite a few signs in the area that could be used for clues, etc.

[This message has been edited by OuttaHand (edited 02-06-2004).]

[wzbt03]

I have been changes my caches on a periodic basis and have had at least two that have had mulitple locations before I retired them. Most of those I have turned into a nice multi-cache in the same general area.
I think we all like to revisit spots and archiving older caches and making new ones seems to be both popular and serves a nice purpose too.

[Author]

Posts