Most calendars never face this decision. They get published, run for a season, and stop being relevant. No replacement needed.
Some calendars do face it. A trainer who runs the same summer program next year. A school that publishes a new fall schedule. A team that adds a winter season. Whether you edit the existing calendar or publish a new one is a small decision with a big downstream effect.
The rule of thumb is one sentence. Same audience equals same calendar. Different audience equals new calendar.
Same audience, same calendar
If the same parents are watching the same kids do the same sport next season, edit the existing calendar.
Open the calendar in the dashboard. Clear the old events. Add the new ones. Save. Every subscriber will see the new season on their next refresh. No re-sharing. No "the link changed" message. No churn.
This is the case Calfeed is built for. The first calendar you ever publish should outlive every individual season inside it.
The subscriber count is the asset. Protect it.
Different audience, new calendar
If the audience is different, publish a separate calendar.
A trainer who runs a summer program and a winter program publishes two calendars, not one. The two audiences overlap but are not identical. Some families do summer only. Some do winter only. Mixing them produces a calendar where every subscriber sees half-irrelevant events.
A school that publishes a calendar for each grade publishes a separate calendar per grade. The parents of a 5th grader and the parents of a 9th grader are different audiences. They should not subscribe to one merged feed.
This is the case where a new calendar wins. Every calendar should have one audience.
Edit cases that look like new-calendar cases (but are not)
A few situations look like they call for a new calendar but do not.
Name change. A "Summer 2026 Training" calendar that should now be called "Year-Round Training" can be renamed in place. The link is unchanged. Subscribers see the new name on the next refresh.
Time change for the entire schedule. Every event moves an hour later. Edit in place. The calendar is the same calendar.
Big visual refresh. New logo, new brand color, new public-page layout. Edit in place. The chrome can change. The link cannot.
Adding a new event type. Adding game days to a calendar that previously only had practices. Same audience. Edit in place.
Cases where a new calendar wins
A few that look small but actually call for a new calendar.
Splitting one audience into two. "I had one program, now I have a beginner group and an advanced group." Make a new calendar for each group. Email both audiences with their new links.
Going from private to public (or back). A calendar that was previously shared inside one family now needs to be visible to a broader audience, or vice versa. The audience boundary changed. New calendar.
Selling to a different organization. The original audience has nothing to do with the new audience. New calendar.
The cost of getting it wrong
Publishing a new calendar when an edit would do means re-sharing. Re-sharing means subscribers do nothing or unsubscribe. The audience count resets to zero. Every viral coefficient and every share-message reply lands you back where you started.
Editing in place when a new calendar would be cleaner is a lower-cost mistake. Subscribers see a slightly weird feed for a season. Audience does not churn.
When in doubt, edit.
Edit an existing calendar and watch the refresh land.