Reviving archived G$ virtual caches

[Bon Echo]

Cross-posting this to a number of forums and facebook groups, since they seem to each have their own cluster of users (also because at best I might get two responses from each of those forums) If you see this more than once – great! Well done, you are a well-rounded multi-website-using-geocacher!

Earlier this month I visited a cairn which marked the northern terminus of the Bruce Trail (“Canada’s oldest and longest marked footpath”) – it’s a really great trail along the Niagara Escarpment. There are cairns at both ends (with nearly 900kms of trail in-between). At one time both of those cairns were used as subjects for virtual caches on the G$ site. Currently, one of those listings is still active (GC9639) and the other one (GC7AFA, 2002-2008) was archived as per G$ policy on Virtuals (owners must log in, logging requirements, etc).
So, I took the opportunity to create an OCNA virtual (OU0A1B) at the Northern terminus (the location of the archived G$ virtual). I didn’t create the OCNA virtual just because it was once a G$ virtual – I would have created a virtual anyway. It’s a location that just calls out to be a virtual cache IMO.

Yes I’m going somewhere with this.

I noticed that the famous Four Corners is now an OCNA virtual (OU0122). It too was a G$ virtual (GC6A98; 2002-2011) that bit the dust due to CO inactivity. Clearly a lot of disappointment that it was archived but that’s the written policy.
Now I will add that the Four Corners is also the subject of a virtual on Terracaching.com (TCECF), created in 2012 – therefore after the G$ was archived and years before the OCNA was created.

Finally, I know of at least one virtual caches created on TC and OCNA that pretty much duplicate a still-active G$ virtual – same place, same “focal point” or “Subject”, different CO (and of course the ability to use a logging password on TC and OCNA). Here’s the example: GCB8F6 vs. TC3X1C. I’m sure there are others but that’s besides the point.
What do you think? Is it cool that archived-but-otherwise-appreciated G$ virtual caches can be given a new lease on life on the alternative caching sites? Or should they be left to RIP. What do you think about having multiple (active) virtual’s for the same location but by difference CO (and obviously on different websites)? To be clear, I’m not talking about someone cross-listing their virtual to multiple sites. Is this spreading the joy or stealing the spotlight?

Not looking to start a dialogue about what OCNA or TC should or should not allow (and there’s of course no point at all in discussing what G$ should or should not do, that is a waste of words). Just wondering what you would do.

As for me, I think it’s great that an archived G$ virtual can be brought back from the dead as an OCNA or TC virtual – granted the one listing it has actually visited the location. But I also don’t feel right about listing something as a virtual if it’s the subject of an active virtual on any of the other sites.

[TermiteHunter]

I think it is great that you can bring an old virtual back to life on other sites. I also have no issues with a different CO listing the same location on another site whether the first listing is archived or not. Each could take a slightly differing point of view on the same subject directing attention to other aspects of that location. What I am thinking of here would be something like, say, a famous light house. One could ask for a photo view from the top while another could ask for a password obtained from a historic plaque near the structure while another could be informative about the construction history or the type of lens used for the light. Sure some or even most are "virtually" identical in practice due to limitations of the subject but there can be variety as well.

Why would we as cachers want to be confined to any one site for logging a particularly interesting location just because one site got there first. The more the merrier. I only log a cache on one site and post notes on the others if there are any but in the case of a virtual with different logging requirements I would have to decide if they are different enough to be considered different caches and log accordingly.

[KnowsOpie]

I'm guessing that there are no archived Groundspeak virtuals that are not already listed as a Waymark. I see no reason to not list them here as a virtual cache type.

[Mr.Yuck]

I'm guessing that there are no archived Groundspeak virtuals that are not already listed as a Waymark. I see no reason to not list them here as a virtual cache type.

Yes, we know.

[Mr.Yuck]

DG famously brought back A weary traveler revived in D.C. Woohoo, I was FTF, baby.

And if I'm not mistaken, he brought it back within a week or two of the owner archiving it on Geocaching.com. I'm certain he contacted them and told them, not so sure he got a response. But he can answer that.

[KnowsOpie]

DG famously brought back A weary traveler revived in D.C. Woohoo, I was FTF, baby.

And if I'm not mistaken, he brought it back within a week or two of the owner archiving it on Geocaching.com. I'm certain he contacted them and told them, not so sure he got a response. But he can answer that.

I think here is something that we do not agree on, and that is copy cating a Groundspeak listing on OCNA and calling it a 'replacement" or bringing back an archived listing from another service.

Offering a similar listing on a different listing service is not a replacement. It's a new listing on OCNA. I don't see any reason to wait until a virtual on another site is archived before recreating a similar listing on another geocaching site.

[Mr.Yuck]

DG famously brought back A weary traveler revived in D.C. Woohoo, I was FTF, baby.

And if I'm not mistaken, he brought it back within a week or two of the owner archiving it on Geocaching.com. I'm certain he contacted them and told them, not so sure he got a response. But he can answer that.

I think here is something that we do not agree on, and that is copy cating a Groundspeak listing on OCNA and calling it a 'replacement" or bringing back an archived listing from another service.

Offering a similar listing on a different listing service is not a replacement. It's a new listing on OCNA. I don't see any reason to wait until a virtual on another site is archived before recreating a similar listing on another geocaching site.

I deleted one of your double post. Because here at the OCNA forums, we do not delete posts without explanation, like Big Green (or Big White, these days).

I also apologize, I misread your post I replied to earlier. I thought you meant you see no reason to list them as a virtual here if they're already a Waymark.

[KnowsOpie]

I meant that the Waymarking site has already spoiled most GS virtuals that require an answer, and I don't see any harm recreating a similar listing for OCNA.

I posted my find log to one of TermiteHunters virtuals yesterday that I visited while on vacation. I stopped by for the GS traditional cache and Waymarks, may as well log it here also.

[KnowsOpie]

I think it is great that you can bring an old virtual back to life on other sites. I also have no issues with a different CO listing the same location on another site whether the first listing is archived or not. Each could take a slightly differing point of view on the same subject directing attention to other aspects of that location. What I am thinking of here would be something like, say, a famous light house. One could ask for a photo view from the top while another could ask for a password obtained from a historic plaque near the structure while another could be informative about the construction history or the type of lens used for the light. Sure some or even most are "virtually" identical in practice due to limitations of the subject but there can be variety as well.

Why would we as cachers want to be confined to any one site for logging a particularly interesting location just because one site got there first. The more the merrier. I only log a cache on one site and post notes on the others if there are any but in the case of a virtual with different logging requirements I would have to decide if they are different enough to be considered different caches and log accordingly.

I just wanted you to know that this post had nothing to do with my new listing at Cape Hatteras. I had my idea already in the works with another virtual on OBX.

[Bon Echo]

So I see another archived GS virtual is now listed on OCNA. This is one of the First Post virtuals, a cool collection of virtual's in each Canadian provincial capital city.
http://www.opencaching.us/viewcache.php?wp=OU0A31
I am confused however that the listing is linked to the archived GS listing and does not have the OCNA attribute. If it's archived on GS it ain't never coming back, and it seems to be listed here by a different user.
Still, glad to see it. I found two of the First Post caches so far (Toronto and Edmonton) and hope to find others in time.
(as a side note, this does raise one issue for the pending Benchmark cache type: if a particular benchmark is already listed on OCNA as a virtual, can it be listed as a Benchmark? Or changed over?).