Jump to content

The death of Geocaching?


4x4van

Recommended Posts

CACHE

noun\ˈkash\

Definition of CACHE

1 a: a hiding place especially for concealing and preserving provisions or implements

b: a secure place of storage

2 : something hidden or stored in a cache

 

What has happened to geocaching? I think that many of the longer-term cachers (6-10 years) would agree that geocaching is a shell of what it once was, of what it could have been. Now before anyone jumps on my back and starts beating me down, just listen to why I make that statement.

 

When geocaching began, auto navigational GPS’s were still a few years off and smartphones were not even thought of, so GPS units were generally owned/used by outdoors types; hiking, fishing, etc. Consequently, “geocaches” were typically hidden off the beaten path, out in the woods (or desert, or beach, etc). Because they were hidden out in the wilderness, it was easy (and usually desired) to hide a container of significant size to actually hold an assortment of SWAG, as well as a log book, pen/pencil, and an explanation sheet. And because they actually required some energy to get to, they tended to maintain their quality longer. Cachers more often than not traded up or not at all, actually made an effort to rehide the cache well, and logged their finds (or DNFs). But the most important part was the fact that hiders took pride in bringing you to a spot that had something, other than the cache, to offer. It was about more than the cache; it was about the journey. Even when “urban” caches began to appear, and the sizes shrank due to the “public” nature of urban caches, hiders still took pride in those hides, taking us to interesting spots in our own cities.

 

Now, everyone and their brother has a smartphone, and can cache without any caching-specific investment at all. Unfortunately, that means that too many cachers don’t take it seriously. Way too many caches are placed for no reason other than that they can be placed. Take a tiny container, stick a piece of paper in it, and toss it along a roadway somewhere or stick it on the back of a sign, and you have a cache. No need to do any maintenance; just archive it when problems arise and toss a dozen more just like it out there! Does anyone really believe that a single cacher can adequately maintain 100's of caches?

 

One of the first things I read on this site when I discovered geocaching back in 2001 (that's right, 10 years ago!) was that just because a person could hide a cache somewhere, didn’t mean that they should hide one there. Back then, cachers actually took that statement seriously. In other words, when you hide a cache, don’t hide it just for the sake of hiding a cache. Take me to a location that I would enjoy even if I don’t find the cache. Show me a great view, or a unique geologic formation, or a site with some interesting fact or history behind it. In short, take me to a location that I would enjoy going to even if I DNF the cache. Make me smile just because of where I am, or what I learned, or what I saw. My kids and I used to enjoy caching, because we used to enjoy both the journey and the destination. I very seldom cache anymore, and am usually disappointed when I do, because nearly every cache has no purpose other than to “be”. The journey is thoughtless, and the destination is even worse.

 

Sorry if I ruffled anyone’s feathers here, but I just miss the quality that has seemingly disappeared in exchange for quantity.

Edited by 4x4van
Link to comment

Sorry if I ruffled anyone’s feathers here, but I just miss the quality that has seemingly disappeared in exchange for quantity.

 

No ruffled feathers. It's nothing new. I've heard rumors of geocaching's demise for a few years now despite it's continued explosion in membership.

Link to comment

What you say is very true not just in geocaching but in the world in general. I know I only got into this sport a few weeks ago, but I am already beginging to become more selective of the caches I go out to find. I am not fond of the small ones that contain a log and nothing else and to add insult to injury, the say Bring your own pen. How ever I did find one that was slightly interesting as I found something near the cache location. Still have to go back and take a picture of it.

 

I wish I could have gotten into this sport in it begining, but I was off galavanting the world with the US military at that time. Then heard of it a few years ago. At that time, I could not afford to purcahase a decent GPS unit to allow me to explore geocaching then. Now with me getting a smartphone, it allows me to get my foot in the door. I do plan on getting a decent deticated GPS eventually, but the urban caches are allowing me to hone my geosense as I learn the finer points of it.

 

As I plan out hiding caches, I plan on hiding them in the wilderness as far from people as possible. I already have a great location picked out for my 1st hide, but have to tie up a few loose ends. I hope to have it placed by mid spring.

Link to comment

Ho hum. The only thing that never changes is that all things change. To expect this hobby to be the way it was years ago is somewhat naive. I used to do a lot of country dancing which was almost all couples. The line dancers took over and pushed us off the floor so I found a new hobby. If you arent happy with the way it is now then maybe you should look for another hobby. It is not healthy to participate in an activity you don't like.

Link to comment

In reality, had geocaching not changed through the years. it would not be here now.

 

Smartphones, cheaper GPSs, etc are all good things that will keep the hobby going. Sure, you may have to filter to find the caches you consider quality, but the abundance of choices now is excellent and should assure caching will be around for some time to come.

 

To paraphrase Samuel Clemens, the reports of geocaching demise may be greatly exaggerated.

Link to comment

In olden times most cachers would hide caches in places that were special to them. Interesting places like scenic views, hidden waterfalls, historic sites, offbeat places. Now they hide caches "because there was no cache here".

 

Yeah, the quality is diluted to the point where it's becoming a chore to separate the gems from the chaff. When I traveled I used to use geocaching as a travel guide of sorts, to discover interesting places in the areas I visited. I now rarely geocache when I travel because I long ago got tired of flitting between strip malls and guardrails.

 

Is it the death of geocaching? No way. In fact geocaching is more popular than ever. The focus has changed though. It's no longer about discovery, it's about +1.

Link to comment

Ho hum. The only thing that never changes is that all things change. To expect this hobby to be the way it was years ago is somewhat naive. I used to do a lot of country dancing which was almost all couples. The line dancers took over and pushed us off the floor so I found a new hobby. If you arent happy with the way it is now then maybe you should look for another hobby. It is not healthy to participate in an activity you don't like.

I've only been geocaching for one year and I really enjoy it! Because I'm not as healthy as I once was, and not for the reasons 4x4Van states, I wish I had discovered it 10 years ago. I agree, nothing stays the same and if 4x4Van feels things were way better back then, why am I wasting my time having so much fun? BTW, I like your little caption line under your post. I agree with that, too!

Link to comment

My guess is there are more great caches than there were back in the day and mountains more of the caches you do not want to find. I wish GS would enhance our ability to ignore caches (i.e. based upon hider, terrain or difficulty etc). PMs can do alot w/ PQs, but sometimes I like to just look at the map and decide where to go.

Agreed. I have been around a while and also don't care for much of the "new" stuff that's happened. :sad: However, one of the great thing about Geocaching is I can play it my way. :P

 

Did a power trail, didn't care for it so I won't do another. Have only found one nano that required such a small container to work so I am very careful before I go looking for one. The point is I do what I like, am not afraid to try out something new, and avoid what I don't like. There are lots and lots of caches still out there that I will enjoy finding. :D

Edited by captnemo
Link to comment

In olden times most cachers would hide caches in places that were special to them. Interesting places like scenic views, hidden waterfalls, historic sites, offbeat places. Now they hide caches "because there was no cache here".

 

Yeah, the quality is diluted to the point where it's becoming a chore to separate the gems from the chaff. When I traveled I used to use geocaching as a travel guide of sorts, to discover interesting places in the areas I visited. I now rarely geocache when I travel because I long ago got tired of flitting between strip malls and guardrails.

 

Is it the death of geocaching? No way. In fact geocaching is more popular than ever. The focus has changed though. It's no longer about discovery, it's about +1.

I think you hit the nail on the head. It's no longer about discovery, it's about +1. I understand (and even grudgingly accept) that everything changes with time. But shouldn't we at least strive to make that change better?

 

As an example, there is a road near my home that has a section that is straight for about 1.5 miles. There is nothing there; no buildings, no trees, no rock formations, no guardrails, no signs...every inch of that 1.5 miles is exactly like the previous inch, and exactly like the next inch. There is no unique trivia about it, no nice view, nothing happened there in history...and yet there is now 12 small or micro geocaches along that stretch. I could take a picture of one of the cache sites, and the cache owner himself would not be able to identify which of those 12 it is, since they are all the same.

 

Now, obviously the argument can be made that it is a power-trail, and is specifically for those who are looking for fast numbers, but can the argument also be made that any of them are actually "quality" caches?

 

I wonder how many of the newer cachers have ever actually read any of the tutorials on the geocahing website on "how to hide a cache", or Listing requirements & guidelines before throwing out 2 dozen park & grab micros every month?

Edited by 4x4van
Link to comment

Sure - I like to find the gem caches as well, and Briansnat's definitions of what is good closely match mine. But there are plenty of tools out there to help in weeding the wheat from the chaff. I've got a pretty good system down to weeding out about 94.9% (actual number) of the caches in my area, and it would still leave me with enough caches to more than double my find count. It's a combination of recently found, size, terrain and difficulty ranges, type of cache and some attributes. All things considered, that's pretty good weeding.

Link to comment

All the more reason the spectacular caches are so ... spectacular!

 

Still utterly dumbfounded people aren't flocking to the great, classic caches - seems they want the Wally World or the Power Trails of Geocaching.

 

There are some on my wish list. In fact, I almost killed myself last year to DNF a cache I had been wanting to hunt since it was published. I paid for that one for about a week. But it was worth every bit of it.

Link to comment

Got me thinking.

 

I hold my hands up and say I am guilty of hiding a cache that others might find pointless, however in my defense I have explained the reason in the listing.

 

When I first got into this malerky I was dog walking a lot, this meant I was was pounding the streets in my area where there is not reall much of intrest, so I hid a couple of caches that were there as a point of intrest to other dog walker in my position.

 

These were not designed to pique the intrest of travelling seekers, although one has gathered a bit of intrest, something I am proud of.

 

The point I am trying to explain is that perhaps that there are cahes for everybody, different people have different intrests.

I love the unique caches that have me treking miles but I also love the buzz of a quick hitter in the middle of town, or in a town I am visiting.

 

Is it possible that Geocaching can be all thing to all people if they want it to be?

Link to comment

I always laugh at these threads about the "good old days of caching" where everything was great views, special places, great journeys. The very first cache was along side of a small road with nothing special about the site and no view. Looking at the first ten caches I found (six months before you started) I see:

1. A nice hike with good views, picked because I used that trail for training.

2. A cache by a couple of trees in a park that has history and views - but elsewhere in the park. This was by a field next to the road, which is about all you could see.

3. A cache in the mud next to a creek in a state park, no view, nothing special about site.

4. Ammo can (first one) in a stump down a abandoned road, no view, no history.

5. Intersting multi along a paved bike path, ending under a road bridge - good view of the underside and dirt.

6. Under a bush a few feet off another bike path just off downtown. View of the slough thru trees and more trees.

7. A box stuck behind a small log in sticker bushes in an undeveloped park, no views or anything.

8. Plastic easter egg in roots of tree just off the side of a road in a park - so special.

9. Another one behind a log in a swampy area, across field. No views, no history.

10. A multi (kind of cute pun at one stage - population of Poland=count poles in area) in a city park with the final in a concrete pipe section in pile of other debris.

Of course, all of these were special because it was new & fun finding hidden 'treasures', but a lot of them wouldn't be considered 'quality' these day as there wasn't any special reason for most of them, except you could hide a cache there.

I'm still finding caches in interesting places - along trails, rivers, up mountains - bacause I look for caches there, not in the downtown parts of town I travel to/thru. I've been working at mapping trails along a couple of rivers in a small town, and enjoyed the cache (some very new) hidden along them - and skipped the caches in town (twice as many at least). So, no, I don't see the death of geocaching. There are a lot more interesting caches for me to find now then back then. Those first 10 cache were mostly 10 to 30 (one over 200) miles from home. A week ago I found a dozen caches while canoeing around the Arboretum area on Lake Washington.

Link to comment

First 20 caches I found in 2003 were out of town - seemed to be unthinkable doing urban hides. Some weren't spectacular, but others were and make no mistake there are still some grand places to put a cache, for those who are hauling around one in their pack looking for a spot.

 

I've certainly picked up a lot of history and found some great spots on the way to 4,000 finds. Granted there were a lot of ordinary (and a few dangerous or disgusting places) But that's going to be the nature of the game. Good chance if you head out of metro areas you'll find some interesting stuff.

Link to comment

The OP probably remembers more caches of the type he likes because a higher percentage of hides were of the type he liked back then. As he pointed out, the typical geocacher was someone who already had a GPSr for hiking, backpacking, cycling, hunting, etc. So caches were in more outdoorsy places and even the ones with lower terrain were in what he calls interesting places. For many of these early cachers, geocaching was something to do in conjunction with your other hobbies; so numbers of caches weren't important. If you found one or two one your hike or bike ride you were happy.

 

Over the years the mix of cacher types changed. It wasn't only because of the advent of crossover auto units that could be used for geocaching or of smartphones, though that might be part of it. Geocaching appealed to certain urbanites as a way to get outdoors and have fun. These included retired seniors, stay-at-home moms with small kids, and busy gen-Xers. While the outdoorsy hikes and caches in interesting locations got them started, these new cachers didn't always have time for these activities. So they began to hide more caches in urban areas, including places that some old timers considered uninteresting. And they began to hide in quantity, so there would be more caches to find close by to where they lived or worked. These new cachers also contributed to more caches in hiking areas and in interesting locations as well.

 

I think there was always a few geocachers who had a competitive streak. They would spent lots of time caching and find almost every cache that came out. However with the numbers of urban hides some of these competitors found they could get higher numbers by ignoring high terrain caches and instead spending time looking for areas with a high density of easy caches. Now even though they may be a small minority of cachers, these numbers cachers find so many caches that they account for a high percentage of found logs. Cachers also organized "cache machines" to go into these areas and spend a day a group finding caches. Cache hiders (particularly those who hid slightly higher terrain caches) realized that hiding a series of caches along one trail could entice people to find these caches who might not otherwise look for caches here. The original power trails tended to be along hiking and bike trails. But the numbers people were always looking for a greater "challenge". Soon series appeared along rural roads with nearly identical caches place every 528 ft or so. These would attract numbers cachers from far and wide. And many who were not typically into numbers would take a personal challenge of seeing how many caches they could find in a day or in participating the in social aspect of a group assault on these trails.

 

Clearly for people like the OP, this in not the kind of geocaching they enjoyed 10 years ago. But it is hardly the death of geocaching. For one, it reflects the make up of the geocaching community today, which is different than it was 10 years ago. However, geocaching still attracts many outdoors people (and it introduces many formerly sedentary people to the outdoors). There are usually geocaches to find now anywhere you might go hiking or biking. If there is a big series, you don't have to find every cache. Split up the trail or find every other cache. Then come back at a different time of year to find the rest. It's a bit harder to find the lower terrain caches that took you to a surprising new place. One hope is the new favorite point feature. Those caches that are special in some way - an interesting location or an especially cool camouflage job - hopefully will have a higher favorite score than those that were placed simply to have another cache. So far this appears to be what is happening.

Link to comment

Isn't it great that everyone has a choice to find what they like? Those 12 caches thrown along side a road are heaven for some people, why should not they be able to have the fun. Me I prefer hiking 10 miles to find a cache on the peak of some mountain and there are many of those available too but heck, I'd do and have done power trails and the cool thing is that if I want to do another there are lots out there.

 

No my friend, this is not the end of geocaching, this is just the beginning.

Link to comment

It's no longer about discovery, it's about +1.

 

From my perspective, there's still a lot of discovery, but there's nothing wrong with enjoying your find count go up too. We have been geocaching less than a year, however, we have found that geocaching takes us to all sorts of places we would never normally go. We also live in a really fabulous area with lots of parks, so this is part of it. I do not enjoy urban hides much, but will go for them if in the area or otherwise looking just to increase numbers.

Link to comment

I very seldom cache anymore, and am usually disappointed when I do, because nearly every cache has no purpose other than to “be”. The journey is thoughtless, and the destination is even worse.

 

 

No feathers ruffled here, I just can't quite understand your statement. Maybe because we still have lots of caches left to find in our area and also lots of parks we have yet to explore.

 

Maybe if you've cached your area well, you'll need to travel to find your adventure? What we typically do as a family is to geocache in parks/locations that interest us and that we would go to even without geocaching.

Link to comment

I've only been caching for 2.5 years, so I can't speak for the "old days" of 2001.

 

Most of the caches I look for are off trails and involve a hike, and usually take me to interesting places. It's about the journey.

 

I will do urban/suburban caches if they are convenient - e.g. if I'm shopping and there happens to be a cache nearby, I'll probably find it. Here it's not about the journey; it's just that I'm there, and there is a cache there. Also when traveling, urban hides in cities often bring me to interesting parts of a city.

 

The one change I've seen over the past couple of years in my area (England) is an increase in "rings" or small series of caches; e.g. a 5 mile walk with 20 caches. These existed 2 years ago, but are much more common now. And these caches are popular - such a ring which involves a 3 hour walk and 20 caches will get many more finds than a single more difficult cache (e.g. a multi cache) which takes 3 hours for a single find. Personally, I like both types. The cache containers themselves in the "rings" tend to be fairly ordinary, but if it is a nice walk with caches I'm happy. I'm also happy spending a half a day or more on a single cache if it's a good one.

 

I don't have any special algorithm to find caches I like; I just look at the map and find areas which are in the countryside; and also read the cache pages and logs, and look at the favorite points. Even when traveling in areas I don't know, this generally works. For example, last month I was in New Jersey for work, and had a few hours available for caching. There was one very ordinary cache in a nearby Starbucks; which I found as I went there for coffee anyway. But the others I found were all in the woods; I looked for the green areas/parks on the map. They were in lovely places.

Link to comment
The death of Geocaching? Quantity skyrockets, Quality plummets

 

The first time I ever encountered this sentiment was in an email exchange with Anton ("and now there's a hide behind every rock"). This was in early '03 ;-)

I just thought I'd add that as a bit of humor(particularly for those who recall Anton.)

 

I mostly agree with OP that the hides for the numbers now dominate, but I also agree with those who've posted that there are still plenty of good hides out there. It IS much more difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff, no doubt. Particularly in urban and suburban hides. I don't do them at all any more, and I don't doubt I miss some nice stuff.

 

As a hider, I find myself conflicted as some of my older caches are now being lost in power trails. I consider archiving them, as "1 of 127, TFTC" isn't the kind of log I'm used to. Alternately I figure that 3 years from now, I'll still be maintaining my ammo can, and all those free (lousy) micro containers will be junk. Sadly, the standard of "if you can't find it, replace it" also now dominates, so the powertrails may well be eternal, more so then my ammo can....

Link to comment

As the number of caches has grown, so have the number of caches I enjoy finding. It seems every mountain top, every hiking trail now has at least one cache on it.

 

I know even now there are those who are not happy about how many hiking caches there are. They feel having one cache at the end of the trail is the "proper" way to do things. I'll never understand why they don't simply skip the others in that case and just do the one at the end.

 

One of the best lessons I learned in the fourms is that "If you aren't having fun caching you only have yourself to blame." Seek out that which you enjoy and ignore the rest.

Link to comment

Although things are not as they were what choice is there? Either carry on or give up?

 

I guess like you said that the people who go geocaching has changed. whereas most people years ago would be the hunting type who would go out in the middle of nowhere anyway, now for me anyway it's just something which will take me on a nice walk (or bike) at the weekend in the countryside for 5 or 6 miles. Often great places nearby that I've never even noticed even though I've lived in the same place over 40 years.

 

For others it's just a number game.

 

I disagree about the maintaining of caches though, there is a cacher near me who has over 500, but very active about maintenance, not only when a NM is logged but if there are more than a couple DNF's he will go out and check everything is OK.

 

Link to comment

Soon the world will be a grid of geocaches. the rule states "Physical elements of different geocaches should generally be at least 0.10 miles apart. This separation is 528 ft or 161 m"

 

eventually there will be no place to hide a cache left and all you have to do is walk 528 feet in any direction from finding a cache to find the next. The other problem I see is that as people multiply they need a place to live. This means the cutting down of forests and wilderness to make room for "civilized" life to intrude. As we loose those special places that meant something to us, they are building a mini mall or parking lot. So what does the cacher do? The cacher hides a small, micro, or nano cache in that parking lot somewhere for you to find. You moved to the area AFTER it has been a parking lot and find it pointless, however to the person that hid it there, they have fond memories of what that piece of land was before the parking lot was paved. This is not the case for every cache placed in a parking lot, but this is an example of how the game has evolved to what it is today.

 

I agree that it may not be what it was when it began and cant speak for what it use to be as I just started a few weeks ago. Though I am not a fan of the dime a dozen urban caches, they are allowing me the chance to hone my geosense as I find the ones that are between my home and work. I would prefer more in the more remote locations, but for the reasons stated in the last paragraph, i know they wont be as common as the micro urban caches. But that is the life of the game, to survive one must adapt or be lost to the ages.

 

This is the same with the other sport I enjoy, 4x4 Offroading in my Jeep. This sport has changed as much as it has stayed the same. Like geocaching, offroading tools have remained the same, but the rules have changed as well as the people that partake in the sport itself. Just as the 4x4 has evolved changing the sport, the GPS has also evolved. In the beginning for offroading, you had only Jeeps that were accepted 4x4s to go with, then other companies offered other models and some people liked them and brought them into the sport. This is the same case with geocaching. The GPS has evolved and now you have cell phones with GPS in them. This is the case with myself, I dont have the money to buy a good dedicated GPS for geocaching. With my smartphone I have a GPS to play the game allowing me to do what I have wanted to do for a number of years now.

Edited by Bandit1979
Link to comment

Sure - I like to find the gem caches as well, and Briansnat's definitions of what is good closely match mine. But there are plenty of tools out there to help in weeding the wheat from the chaff. I've got a pretty good system down to weeding out about 94.9% (actual number) of the caches in my area, and it would still leave me with enough caches to more than double my find count. It's a combination of recently found, size, terrain and difficulty ranges, type of cache and some attributes. All things considered, that's pretty good weeding.

Yes, the tools are there. But time was, you didn't need to waste time with tools. If there was a cache, chances were pretty good that the spot was worth visiting.

 

I was in a relatively cache-light area this weekend, and it was nice to just load the GPS and go. I randomly hit two of the most convenient caches, and they were both great spots. Both 1/1s, too (though I take issue with at least one of those ratings).

 

This isn't to say that I think the changes have killed or are killing geocaching. Toz's assessment sounds pretty accurate to me. But I personally participated and enjoyed it more when it was focused on parks and interesting areas. Contrary to other posters, my first year of finds were 80% great.

Edited by Dinoprophet
Link to comment

This entire thread reminds me of a line in the movie Vanilla Sky. "Just remember, the sweet is never as sweet without the sour, and I know the sour."

 

Yes there are cache all over the place now, even here in Germany, but that does not mean you have to go out and find them all.

 

What I don't understand is why the OP thinks that the death of Geocaching is near. It is getting larger and large and I for one am happy about it. Now I have an excuse to get off the couch and go out to see a new place.

 

For me Gecaching is more about seeing a new place and maybe meeting new people then it is about finding the cache. The cache it just a destination, but the hunt, no matter where it is, is the journey.

 

Sometimes the cache itself is not so spectacular which makes find the spectacular ones even that much sweeter.

Edited by GermanyBert
Link to comment

We've been at it for 8+ years and visited all parts of the country and, in general, we've been finding a nice mix of various caches not unlike when we started. The only difference is some urban areas can become dense and there are powertrails. More and more we enjoy caching in the country both on backroads and small towns. There are new things to be seen everywhere and we also love the woods and critters.

If you were to be super-selective about placements there wouldn't be many out there.....after a few weeks/months they would all be found and you'd need another hobby.

Link to comment

I know even now there are those who are not happy about how many hiking caches there are.

 

I have never heard that sort of complaint in my area.

 

They feel having one cache at the end of the trail is the "proper" way to do things. I'll never understand why they don't simply skip the others in that case and just do the one at the end.

 

There are a lot of reasons why this does not deliver the same experience.

 

For example, there is a multi cache that invites for a hike of at least 120 km around my home town (which can

split up in many individual legs)

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=6d831ec0-e0b0-40a0-ba52-3cb2e630de33

 

Certainly there are many individual caches on this 120km route, but that's not at all comparable to the experience of that cache. Nearly all the logs for the cache above are special and are not of the "Cache 45 or 73 today with xy, abc, eqwrte and zqetqwzf" type that I find so annoying.

 

If I am visiting just the last cache of a series of caches on a trail, I am not feeling it appropriate to write a long, praising log as it is not the specific cache at the end that makes up the special experience and there will be hardly any interesting logs for the last cache along the trail.

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

I don't think it'll ever die. Yay! I do see a lot of not so great caches, but that has inspired me to put out some good ones. I have 5 in the works. My containers are gonna be cool! Different! I got into the habit of ignoring caches hidden by one cacher in particular. Just not my kinda cache. Maybe there's a way to educate people a bit more about waterproofing and guiding them on not sticking a micro in the woods? I don't know the answer, but I'm so glad to have found this awesome hobby! And I'll keep caching and finding some good ones (just did some GREAT ones over the weekend) and finding some not so great ones (micro in the woods). Cache on! :D :D :D

Link to comment

Is geocaching dying again? Sheesh, it's like a character in a bad soap opera.

 

Geocaching's not dying. It's growing. Some of that growth is good, some of it's bad. Yes, there are lots of park and grab micros that aren't very original. But there are still fiendish puzzles, lengthy multis, and good old traditional caches at the end of a challenging hike/climb/crawl. As other folks point out, it's harder to separate the wheat from the chaff, but they're still there.

 

This next part may ruffle your feathers a bit, but I'm going to go ahead and make a suggestion anyway. Not doing it to point fingers, just to make a point.

 

If there aren't enough quality caches around for your liking, go hide some. You've hidden just three caches in the last ten years, and only two are still active. Don't get me wrong, I recognize the effort it takes to keep caches going for extended periods of time, and that's great. But if you think that geocaching could use some more quality hides, perhaps it's time to put your money where your mouth is and go contribute some more to the quality of the game. It may inspire others to do the same.

Link to comment

Geocaching's not dying. It's growing.

 

I agree, but I guess that what was meant rather was that geocaching in the form the OP likes it is dying.

Modern geocaching has got so much different from what it used to be. When I look at the caches that receive nowadays

positive comments in logs, I most often think that what these people are for has no common intersection with what I am interested into.

 

BTW:

I have not yet encountered any positive aspect of the fast growth of geocaching in my area from my personal point of view.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

Geocaching's not dying. It's growing.

 

I agree, but I guess that what was meant rather was that geocaching in the form the OP likes it is dying.

Modern geocaching has got so much different from what it used to be. When I look at the caches that receive nowadays

positive comments in logs, I most often think that what these people are for has no common intersection with what I am interested into.

 

BTW:

I have not yet encountered any positive aspect of the fast growth of geocaching in my area from my personal point of view.

 

Cezanne

I wouldn't say that way of caching is dying. It's just more work upfront than it was ten years ago, and that makes it less appealing. At least that's true for me.

Link to comment

I wouldn't say that way of caching is dying. It's just more work upfront than it was ten years ago, and that makes it less appealing. At least that's true for me.

 

I agree to the extent that there are still caches that I enjoy. Their absolute number (not relative) is however going down considerably and longer multi caches are almost dying out in my area and are replaced by agglomerations of many single caches to appeal to those who enjoy if there find count goes up by at least 10 per tour. Moreover, amnong the most favourited caches in my area many involve tricky hideouts/container constructions in muggled areas. When I started geocaching in my area hardly anyone cared about the container and the hideout - it was about the journey to the container and the location. There are caches where I like the location, but get frustrated by the search and there are many easy to find caches where the location is boring. The caches that are easy to find, are not in difficult terrain and where the location is beautiful are in the clear minority and are hard to identify by any filtering procedure. (Setting up the D/T ratings would eliminate also those I am interested into.)

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

CACHE

noun\ˈkash\

Definition of CACHE

:rolleyes:

 

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.

Link to comment

 

I wonder how many of the newer cachers have ever actually read any of the tutorials on the geocahing website on "how to hide a cache", or Listing requirements & guidelines before throwing out 2 dozen park & grab micros every month?

 

Great point. Sorry I didn't read the manual on how to have fun while geocaching before I started having fun geocaching. My bad.

 

This thread reminds me of the quote how no one goes to the fantastic restaurant anymore because it's too crowded.

Link to comment

I don't really understand your point.

 

Back then

There weren't many caches. They were hard to find and you had to work for them. When you found one, you felt rewarded.

There weren't many cachers. You felt camradre when you found one.

 

Now

There aren't many good caches (by your definition). They are hard to find and you have to work for them. When you find one, you feel rewarded.

There aren't many cachers who see things your way. You feel camradre when you find one.

 

It seems to me that the main difference is that, before, you liked a majority of the caches. Now, you like a minority, but the number of caches you like has probably risen rather than declined. It's just that you're in a minority now instead of a majority. It's not so bad. If you use GSAK, you can sort out the caches you like and don't like. Just ignore the ones you don't like and you might find things are just as rewarding as they used to be. Now, if the problem is that you don't like being in the minority, I don't think that things will be getting better for you any time soon.

Link to comment

Back then

There weren't many caches. They were hard to find and you had to work for them.

 

Most of the caches in my area back then have not been hard to find! (at least not intentionally - the idea was not to hide something from the cachers)

 

 

If you use GSAK, you can sort out the caches you like and don't like.

 

I cannot see how GSAK or any automatic approach will work for me. I am aware of that it works well for many others, however. So it might work well for you as well.

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

Geocaching's not dying. It's growing.

 

I agree, but I guess that what was meant rather was that geocaching in the form the OP likes it is dying.

 

I fully realize that. I proposed that the OP take some measures to resuscitate geocaching as he likes it, rather than sit back, watch it die, and say that someone should really do something about that. Call it leading from the front, or leading by example, if you will.

Link to comment
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.

 

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.

Link to comment

Geocaching's not dying. It's growing.

 

I agree, but I guess that what was meant rather was that geocaching in the form the OP likes it is dying.

 

I fully realize that. I proposed that the OP take some measures to resuscitate geocaching as he likes it, rather than sit back, watch it die, and say that someone should really do something about that. Call it leading from the front, or leading by example, if you will.

 

I only commented on your statement that geocaching is not dying, but growing. That somehow sounded like something that grows cannot die.

 

As leading by example is regarded, I agree that this works in certain cases. For example, I have realized that some cachers who started with hides that were just thrown away film canisters moved over to very creative hides because they have learnt from the examples of others and got bored by their early hides themselves.

 

I do not think however that those who do not enjoy hiking will become fans of hiking (there are a few exceptions). The majority of the cachers who started with geocaching in my area in the early years are not very active any longer and only go for some high terrain hiking caches once in a while if they happen to be in the area. The majority of cachers who is very active in my area mainly either cares about numbers or about creative hideouts.

Hiding caches of the type I like and I am able to do from the physical point of view, will neither please those people nor the ones that do not enjoy hiking at all. In the earlier years when these people went for more caches, they have also been active in hiding hiking and walking caches which are less extreme and it was also possible to hide caches at a larger distance from one's home coordinates as much less cachers visited a cache and the expectations on the speed of maintenance have been much lower back then.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

There really are a lot of choices, especially if you are a premium member. Once in a while I will do a PQ of ONLY caches that are D/T of 3 X 3, and sometimes 4 X 4 and above. Believe me, around here most of these are definitely a discovery and then some. Sometimes I just want to find a bunch of caches to get ahead of my best friend in caching, so I do an easy series of a bunch of 1.5 X 1.5 caches. What ever lights your smiley is what you should do, and in most places it is easy to do 1 X 1's or 5 X 5's.

Link to comment
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.

 

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.

Link to comment
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.

 

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. :lol:

Link to comment
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.

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. :lol:

So now you're saying a geocache needs to contain SWAG in order to be a geocache?

Link to comment
So now you're saying a geocache needs to contain SWAG in order 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.

Link to comment
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.

 

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. :lol:

 

Rodger that. I found two with swag. Not microscopic but pretty darn small.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...