Hide It or Fix It

This article was originally published on Cache Up NB. It has been mirrored here for archive purposes only.

One of the many topics that has come up here on Cache Up NB, whether it be through a commentary item like this, the scribbles, or the podcast, is the issue of cache maintenance and the use of the Needs Archive log. We’ve discussed it before and I am sure it will get discussed again. But for today, I’m thinking about the merits of whether or not someone should fix up a cache that needs fixed, or archive it, and have someone else list a new cache in the same area.

The last big run I did in Moncton I found 20-30 caches in the city. Of those caches, there was at least two or three of them which were new hides where an old hide had been before. This got me to thinking about whether or not it is better to maintain an existing cache, or hide a new one in it’s place.

It seems the trend I have seen lately is that if a cache is just plain “rotten” or abandoned by it’s owner, folks seem to be simply removing the trash from the location, and tag it for archiving. Once the cache is actually archived, another one appears in either the same location, or very nearby. Depending on the location, this may happen several times. I know of a cache near the causeway in Moncton that I am sure I have found three times over the course of the four years I have been caching. Listed, found, archived, then re-listed. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

What comes to mind is why caches are simply just not maintained versus removed and tagged for archival. What I suspect is the root of this trend is that folks seem to be more interested in getting a “new” hide then keeping an older one active. If you archive an existing cache, hide a new one, then you can get another find for a location you have already been to. To me, it seems like this is an easy way to snag a new find and increment your find count easily.

On the other hand, there are plenty of older caches in our province that have been around for ages and in many cases have actually been maintained quite well, despite the fact that the owners have long since abandoned the hobby. It seems that for these caches, the idea of maintaining them is more important than simply getting them archived so a new cache can be listed. What makes these caches so different? It’s typically the location.

If you look around any of the areas where there is a cycle of hide/find/archive/re-hide, you’ll typically notice that the cycle exists almost exclusively for urban caches (from what I have seen). Caches that are located outside the city limits, on rural trails, and other such places seem to receive more of the traditional TLC than we would find within the cities boundary. In many cases, those rural caches are a lot older and can be found in pretty nice spots. It seems people don’t want those older “nice” caches to be archived, but for the city ones, it’s no big deal to cycle through them.

Is this because there is more of a demand for people to cache in an urban area and thusly when you’ve cached an area out, you need new finds? Is it really about just trying to get new finds to get a higher find count? Or is it really just a matter of limited space and trying to keep an area more active by having new caches listed for new people to find. Locals who cache quite a bit tend to have very little to find in their local area so archiving some of these less-maintained caches and re-hiding new ones does help to keep the area a bit more fresh and active. So although you could say it’s about trying to inflate numbers, it can also be said that this cycle helps to keep an area from becoming stale and boring with very little new activity.

So what do you think? Do you think it’s better to maintain or to archive and re-hide? Do you think this cycle is unique to urban caching, or do you see it on the outskirts as well?