Cache lifespan

[BugznElm'r]

Hi all!

I thought it would be interesting to have a chat about what others think of what the lifespan of a cache should be. I'm thinking specifically about impact to the area surrounding and general decay/loss of interest in a cache.

Do you think that there is any validity in the idea that a cache should be moved (or removed) after a period of time (say 12 - 18 months) even if the move is just 100 m or so, or do you just leave them until they get missing?

The reason I ask is that I'm finding that one of out caches is developing a bit of a "motorway" to it ... nothing significant but just more than the others.

Any ideas/suggestions/tips/thoughts are welcome!

Thanks!

[John Stead]

Horses for courses - in the circumstances described where there is too much access to a particular spot then yes a move or removal is desirable, but if there is no environmental disturbance and the cache is remaining in good condition then I see no reason why it should not remain in position indefinitely.

[Summerlightning]

Hello!
I hope you don't mind me sticking my oar in but I concur with Jstead
I am very new to this game so every cache is a new challenge.
New people join our happy band almost daily so I see nothing wrong with leaving a cache if it is still in good condition.
I notice that many caches seem to have a steady stream of visits for the first few months than they may lay undisturbed for some time before their next opening.
Isn't part of the fun finding something that non-cachers aren't aware of but was right under their nose?

Just my tuppeneth FWIW
SL

[bbqbetty]

what are the rules on logging finds that you've already found? some people say "feel free to log this cache again" after they've moved/replaced it, but isn't logging twice frowned upon generally?

[Bill D (wwh)]

Originally posted by bbqbetty@Jan 12 2004, 08:20 PM
what are the rules on logging finds that you've already found? some people say "feel free to log this cache again" after they've moved/replaced it, but isn't logging twice frowned upon generally?
Generally, yes, posting a 'found' log on a cache should only be done once. If you go back to a cache you've already found, for example to drop off a travel bug, you should post a 'note' not a 'found'. But if a cache is moved to a new position, and the owner feels that finding it there is a significantly different experience to finding it in its old position, then they'll invite people who've found it before to go back then log it as a find again.

[Kouros]

My personal opinion reflects that of Jstead's - Sometime it's worth moving a cache on after a set time, sometimes it isn't.

Someitmes you might get a little wear and tear in an area, which is worth avoiding - but this can be easily remedied in many cases by simply moving the cache a little (but not so much as to create a vastly different experience).

For some caches, there is only a limited amount of interest - some of the harder ones will often get a lot of interest from the hardcore cachers straight-off, but dip in poularity immediately after.

Personally, I think that if a cache is visited relatively regularly, it's worth keeping out there.