|
Post by southeastalaska on Feb 11, 2015 18:38:51 GMT -9
It doesn't happen often but sometimes a CO moves a cache for various reasons. No problem there but if the new hide is easier or harder than the original I've seen CO's change the the D/T rating. I feel that if there is a valid reason to change the rating the original cache should be archived and a new cache placed. It hasn't happened to me yet but a fair number of cachers are working on a goal that requires specific D/T combos and when a cache they have found gets altered it messes up their stats.
I happened to notice a cache here in Anchorage last fall that this happened to. I'm curious if there is any thoughts regarding this.
|
|
|
Post by akgh519 on Feb 11, 2015 18:45:37 GMT -9
If you change the cache enough to change D/T, might be enough reason to 'archive and publish anew'...definitely something to ponder.
|
|
|
Post by ladybugkids on Feb 11, 2015 21:21:10 GMT -9
If something changes to make hunting the cache a different experience such as a location change, a hide style change, or something else that changes the D/T, I agree with akgh519. This is especially true for caches that were initially higher D/T rating, say for instance above 2.5/2.5 or 3/3, which are more rare than lower D/T ratings. Downgrading the D/T rating of a cache after replacing it can goof up a cacher's Fizzy Challenge/Well-Balanced Cacher grid (find all 81 combinations of D/T).
This is also why Reviewers generally won't change the cache type from multi-cache to traditional or something else when Cache Owners make the request. It's a different hunt experience and changing the type messes with prior finders' statistics.
|
|
|
Post by NorthWes on Feb 18, 2015 8:55:58 GMT -9
I agree; I'm also trying to remember if I altered a cache terrain rating recently... sigh... my memory is so bad!
|
|
|
Post by akerdoc on Feb 27, 2015 23:35:53 GMT -9
I would agree as well. You should not be able to change the D/T rating on a cache. It that happens the old one should be archived and a new cache placed. IMHO
|
|