Mushtang

I've hidden one in Gwinnett County, very close to the Civic Center called A Box of ZnS that is night only. It's not the one you're describing but you'd probably have fun with it!

Huh? What makes you think that I don't like it? I have no problem with accepting the fact that not everything listed on gc.com is a geocache. I also don't have a problem with the fact that my "find count" doesn't reflect how many caches I've actually found, but merely how many smiley logs I've written. It's just how the site works. That's what I figured. Exactly. So the word means what it means, and it means what it was created to mean. You can use it to refer to other things, not a problem, but that doesn't change the meaning of the word, you're just using it wrong then. Even if a million people do the same thing, they're still all just using it wrong. End of discussion, thank you. It used to mean one thing, but has been expanded to mean other things too. You can deny it all you want, but that's what happened. I wonder what's more likely, a million people are wrong, or you're wrong? You're welcome.

And I don't see how you can do that. Well, I do see how, but it's very wrong. Just out of curiosity, why did you find and log 36 virtual caches, 26 event caches, 6 web cam caches, and 55 earthcaches if they're not really geocaches due to a lack of a container??? You'll get my respect if you go and remove your finds from all of those. But until you do then you're coming across as a total hypocrite. You'll log them, you'll take the credit for finding them, but you just won't like it. Almost. It's more like, "This website is the biggest geocaching site, and it started from the first caches ever placed needing a good place to be listed, so anything that they list as a geocache, is a geocache. So anyone that believes an earthcache is a geocache is insane? Wow, that's a pretty big leap. And I still don't see what it matters that the term geocache was invented by someone other than those that run this website. There's no copyright on the word, there's no rule or law against applying a word that means one thing to also mean another. Dude, I'm not the only one that thinks earthcaches are geocaches. If it were just me you might have something, but it's pretty much the other way around. I'd guess that nearly everyone that geocaches understands that if something is listed as a geocache on this site then it's a geocache. If a few people disagree, that doesn't make it any less true.

You still don't get it. First of all, the first cache placed wasn't called geocache then, because the word didn't exist yet. But that's not the point. The first cache was placed, people found it, people liked the idea and did the same. They went, placed a container somewhere, published the coordinates on the net, and other people went looking for them. That's the activity, and it was a new thing at that time, so it needed a name. First it was called "GPS stash hunt", but after a few months or so and after some debate, they thought "geocaching" was a better name. So this is it, geocaching, it's this new activity, placing a container somewhere, posting the coordinates and looking for those containers. The containers used therein are thus called "geocaches". Oh I totally get it, and I'm aware of the history of how the game started, and I'm also aware of the many changes that have been made since it started. One of the changes was to the name. According to you the word geocaching was invented to describe the hidden container, and since that's what it meant at the time of the invention that's what it forever will be and nobody can ever change that. But you pointed out that the name was "stash" before it was "geocache", so apparently changes ARE allowed. They changed what the game piece is called, they can also change what is allowed to be a game piece. When web-cam caches were created, the web-cam location became a geocache and you were able to find it using your GPS. The activity is to use your GPS and go to a location and find whatever it is that the listing is leading you there to find. If you're looking for an earthcache, you might be there to find a rare rock. Once you do, and once you log it properly, you've gotten yourself another Earthcache find. So, the activity can be to go to some location, read something off a plaque and then send an email (if that's the requirement of the earthcache). The activity can also be to find a container. Both are geocaches. I don't see how you can go find an earthcache that is listed on geocaching.com and still say that you haven't found a geocache just because something wasn't there (a container) that was part of the original cache.

I hope it's okay to disagree with you. But I don't think geocaches are a subset of caches. That's what I've been saying. A geocache doesn't have to fit the definition of the word cache just because it was built on it. They're two different words that mean two different (but sometimes very similar) things.

Nope. The listing is the earthcache, and the listing was the locationless cache. A mountain is a mountain. The listing is the page on the web site. The mountain is the earthcache. An earthcache IS a geocache. None of those are a container. Nope. Not even the CEO of this website thinks that virtual caches are (or were) geocaches. Whether or not he thinks they should have been listed (maybe they shouldn't), he still listed them as geocaches. Web-cam caches WERE geocaches. Virtuals ARE geocaches (the ones that survived). Earthcaches ARE geocaches. If they're listed, and people use their GPS to go find them, and then come back and log their find on the listing, then they're geocaches. That's how it works. Sure I can. It's complete nonsense. As I said, you're confusing geocaches with geocache listing. You can make geocache listings for all kinds of things, but that doesn't turn those things into geocaches. There's no magical transformation going on anywhere. Every geocache has a listing, but not everything that has a listing is a geocache. (Just like every geocache is a container, but not every container is a geocache.) The listing is the thing on the web site. The geocache is the thing outside that you go to with your GPS. "Geocaching" is a made-up word that was created to stand for a particular activity, which involves hidden containers. As such, it doesn't "evolve". It means that and nothing else, because it was created to mean that and nothing else. Now who is the one arguing just to argue?? It sounds like you're saying that anything that didn't fit the idea of a geocache at the moment that the word geocache was invented, can never ever be considered a geocache. I'm glad the rest of us playing the game don't feel the same way, otherwise all game pieces would be 5 gallon buckets buried to the lid dangerously close to the side of a road. Afterall, that's what the first game piece was when the game was invented. Agreed, just calling something a thing doesn't make it that thing. But if you treat it as that thing then it can be. I can't imagine your dog ever becoming a geocahe, but if you abandon your car in the woods, leave a logbook in the glove box, and list it on the site, then you've got yourself a geocache!!

So you can take a jab like that and if I try and defend myself I "just have something to say anyway" and I "just like to argue". Well done sir! For the record I'm a He. And I'm having a debate with DFX about why the definition for Cache can or can't be applied to Geocache. I'd love to hear your point of view on it so you're on topic. I'll even promise not to reply to you if you'd like.

You're confusing geocache listings with geocaches. Am I? The mountain isn't the listing, it's the earthcache. The elephant wasn't the listing, it was the locationless cache. Both were geocaches at some point. Neither were caches that could contain stuff, and neither were listings. I'll give you that, as I didn't say that the community had to agree unanimously. However since this site is far and above the largest site, and whoever is second isn't even a close second, then whatever this site calls a Geocache IS "generally accepted as a geocache by the geocaching community". Inventing the game or the term isn't the only way you're allowed to define something. If something here is listed as a Geocache, then it's a Geocache. You can't really argue that one, or can you? Things change dude, words evolve to have new meanings. Words are also created that use other words to mean new things. The word Geocache was invented to describe something that at the time did contain SWAG. But over time Geocache was used to refer to all the game pieces used to play the game, even large elephants that don't contain anything and aren't Caches. It's just the path the game took, and there's nothing that you can do to change that.

He is a part of the community. The same community that can hardly agree on anything. Okay, well it doesn't have to be a unanimous acceptance.

A geocache is a special case of a cache, meaning that all geocaches are caches (in some sense of meaning of the word). It's nonsense to insist that something which isn't a cache can still be a geocache. Nope, wrong again. Geocaches are not a subset of Caches. Words can have different meanings. Geocaches are anything that is accepted by the geocaching community as a geocache. Back when Locationless caches were running I logged a large fake elephant. At the time it was a Geocache. Today it is not a Geocache. I don't think anyone would ever think that the large fake elephant was ever a cache that could hold stuff, I only used it for a game piece. Today I can walk up to the top of Stone Mountain in Georgia and log it as an Earthcache. As of today Earthcaches are considered to be Geocaches. They are not Caches that hold stuff, they are game pieces. So I don't think it's nonsense to insist that something which can't hold stuff is still a geocache. It's nonsense to insist that the definition for Cache has to also hold for anything that is considered to be a Geocache. They're two different things.

They're not "Caches" at all (using the definition in the Original Post), but they ARE Geocaches. That was pretty much the point of my 1st post to this thread where I said that bringing up the definition of Cache to discuss a Geocache is a waste of time. They're not the same objects so they obviously don't have the same definition.

It appears to me that apart from filtering on the container size, most methods work on filtering by D and T and concentrating on higher ratings.For someone with terrain restrictions and who does not like to search for a longer time, this does not work, however. Some colleagues have decided quite some time ago to concentrate on caches above 1500m - that works quite well for them, but you need to be able to go there and not be hindered by knee pains. Cezanne There's a lot of ways to find caches that you're more likely to enjoy. Filtering on Size, D, and T are just some of the options. You can check out people's bookmarks of caches they recommend. You can sort nearest caches by number of Favorites and have a GREAT caching day. Ignore the 1/1 micro that is a half mile from a cache with 35 Favorite votes and you'll be happier.

Well, you can't really know that, can you? I mean, someone who did have that complaint about computer memory wouldn't come here to say so. Maybe I should have phrased it, "They never seem to mind, since they complain about one usage but not the other".

You disagree with everything just on principle, don't you? We were talking about caches in general, not geocaches. And if you can make a log fit in a geocache, then you can also make other things fit. No, I disagree with the things you're saying that are not correct. The things that you keep removing from the quoted posts I might add. We were talking about why people that pull out definitions of Cache to complain about Geocaches don't seem to mind that the word Cache is also applied to a kind of computer memory. According to the OP, a container could only be a geocache if it met the definition of Cache and contained swag. At first it sounded like you disagreed with him and agreed with me, then it became clear that you believed any container that could contain anything is a geocache, even if it was empty. If you keep saying things that are wrong, I'll keep disagreeing.

Yes I know that. My point was that it's not about whether a container contains swag or not (an empty ammo can would still be a geocache, right?) Nope. Unless it contains a logbook it's not a geocache. Also not correct. A cache that can only contain a logbook is still a geocache. No again. To be a geocache a container doesn't have to be able to contain things in general. It specifically has to contain a logbook. If other stuff can fit, that's fine, but that has nothing to do with whether or not it is considered to be a geocache.

No? As I understand it, a geocache needs to contain a logbook. And that should be enough to meet the definition flingers requirements. I think you've missed my point on the memory cache. The OP was saying that some geocaches don't contain SWAG, which doesn't meet his definition of Cache, and therefore SWAGless containers shouldn't be geocaches either. I was asking why these folks never complain about the word Cache being used for computer memory since it also doesn't contain SWAG. Micro caches, and computer memory, do contain other things, just not SWAG. The micro contains a logbook, the memory contains data.

The cache in a computer does store things. It's a hidden storage of stuff. Not a log book or swag, but information, data. It perfectly matches the definition of a cache.Thanks for agreeing with me. Like I said, computer cache can't hold SWAG, but folks that pull out definitions of Cache to complain about a Geocache ignore computer memory cache. Micro caches can't hold SWAG, but that doesn't mean that they're not a geocache. They contain a logbook. Yup. Actually, even nano caches can contain swag. It just needs to be microscopic swag. So now you're saying a geocache needs to contain SWAG in order to be a geocache?

The cache in a computer does store things. It's a hidden storage of stuff. Not a log book or swag, but information, data. It perfectly matches the definition of a cache. Thanks for agreeing with me. Like I said, computer cache can't hold SWAG, but folks that pull out definitions of Cache to complain about a Geocache ignore computer memory cache. Micro caches can't hold SWAG, but that doesn't mean that they're not a geocache. They contain a logbook.

First, it cracks me up whenever someone gives the definition of Cache in order to complain about what a Geocache is. On one hand a geocache does contain a logbook. So that right there fits the definition of cache. But even if you ignore that, it's a different word that describes a completely different thing. These people never seem to bring up the fact that computer memory (part of which is designated as a cache) can't even hold a logbook, much less any SWAG. Second, if you don't like finding caches that don't contain swag, then filter out all the micro and small caches. If you don't like finding caches that don't take you somewhere neat, then filter out all the low difficulty and low terrain ratings. This won't eliminate only caches you don't like, but it will definitely increase the ratio of caches that you do like, and you're sure to enjoy geocaching a lot more!! It's really not that hard.

Yawn. Here's what I just read from you, "I don't like reading this thread, therefore it must have no value to anyone else. I should tell people to stop posting to it so that I no longer have to read it. To get them to stop, I'll be creative and tell them to go geocaching."

That's like saying nobody like Jusin Bieber. I've never heard any of his music, but from what I can tell he's sold a LOT of CDs to somebody. And if nobody likes LPCs, why are there so many of them out there that get a LOT of finds? I've found several that I thought were creative. Not just a film canister under the skirt.

It is the lack of care about being such. Huh? Decency is a trait that is not keeping with standards of right and proper, because it is the lack of care about being such? It sounds like there are a lot of words that don't mean what you think they mean.

When you get the container hidden, come back and edit the page, and only then should you check the box to Enable Cache Listing. Don't submit the page for review without the container being hidden!!!

I don't think that word means what you think it means.Yes I do: un·be·com·ingadjective /ˌənbiˈkəmiNG/  (esp. of clothing or a color) Not flattering- a stout lady in an unbecoming striped sundress <li>(of a person's attitude or behavior) Not fitting or appropriate; unseemly Web definitions indecent: not in keeping with accepted standards of what is right or proper in polite society; "was buried with indecent haste"; "indecorous behavior"; "language unbecoming to a lady"; "unseemly to use profanity"; "moved to curb their untoward ribaldry" So why is decency a trait that is not keeping with the standards of what is right and proper in polite society?

I'm too curious not to ask, but what did you find so unacceptable in your original post that you had to go back and edit to fix? I mean, considering what you ended up with I just had to ask.