Reviving archived G$ virtual caches
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2016 3:08 pm
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.
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.