Jump to content

The death of Geocaching?


4x4van

Recommended Posts

I've only been playing for a few years now, and locally at least, the game has changed dramatically. Early on in my participation, the caches that popped up when I hit the "Find Next" button mostly took me to fairly interesting spots, and almost always utilized containers that kept the contents dry. That is certainly not the case today. Now there are so many numbers cachers spreading the Micro-Spew virus that quality caches are far outnumbered by those my highly biased caching aesthetics consider crappy ones. Thankfully, someone out there recognized that us players come from a very diverse field, and they've given us tools which help me separate the wheat from the trache.

 

Incidentally, the number of what I consider to be quality hides is also growing, though at a much slower rate. I am fortunate in this regard, as that rate of growth slightly exceeds my rate of finding them, giving me an end result of an ever increasing number of caches that I would enjoy. No complaints from my perspective.

 

Besides, it was my understanding that Snoogans' ODS Project would be the "Death Of Geocaching"... :unsure:

Link to comment
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.

 

Yes I know that. :huh: 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?) but rather about whether it can contain swag or not. Even a nano cache can contain swag, you just need swag small enough. And more precisely, it doesn't necessarily have to be swag of course, but things in general.

Link to comment
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.

Yes I know that. :huh: 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.

 

but rather about whether it can contain swag or not.

Also not correct. A cache that can only contain a logbook is still a geocache.

 

Even a nano cache can contain swag, you just need swag small enough. And more precisely, it doesn't necessarily have to be swag of course, but things in general.

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.

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.

Nonsense. A computer cache stores a copy of data that is prefetched from some slower storage device so it can be accessed more rapidly. An algorithm determines what data to fetch and how long to keep it in the cache. If the computer needs data that is not in the cache it goes an fetches it from the main storage location. If cache is simply a place where something is stored than main storage and cached storage should both be called cache. Generally whether data comes from cache or main memory is transparent to the software. If you somehow view this transparncy as meaning cache is hidden, I suppose you could say it is a hidden storage, but that seems far fetched (no pun intended).

 

It would be hard to claim the original meaning of cache had anything to do with storing a copy of something is some place to allow quicker retrieval. If anything the hidden nature of the original definition meant that items in a cache were harder to retrieve than perhaps the same item stored openly on a shelf. Though it may be true that if an item wasn't in the cache, the user would have to make a 3 week trek back to civilization to aquire that item. My guess is that this is the reason the word cache is used for computers. Like a cache of supplies prestored in a forward position, the items in cache can be retrieved more quickly than having to go to a distant supply depot many days away.

 

The original meaning of cache no more fits computer cache than it does geocache. At least a geocache really is hidden like a cache. In both the case of computer cache and geocache, an old word was used in an entirely new way. There may be ways in which the new thing is analogous to the original one that make the new use sensible. If I had my way we would call everything "ice cream". :mmraspberry:

Link to comment
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.

 

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.

 

Nonsense. A computer cache stores a copy of data that is prefetched from some slower storage device so it can be accessed more rapidly.

 

And a copy of data is still data, and so is still "stuff".

Link to comment

Geocaching has not died as of yet. I think it has gone from its infancy to little kids and is now stuck in the Teen Age Phase. Lots of activity with little to no thought pattern, all of it is dependent on some kind of technology gimmick. As for me I will look for them once in awhile and continue to hide them the way that I prefer to. Quality is better than quantity.

Link to comment
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.

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.

Link to comment
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.

 

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.

 

Are you confusing the word cache with the word container? I don't think the orignal meaning of cache has anything to do with containers. It's just a location where supplies are hidden. The definition of geocache in the guidelines however does include the container.

Link to comment
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.
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".

Link to comment

Can't speak to the old days. Have only been geocaching since June. My family loves it. We love the diversity. Hike a little, Hike alot, hang from climbing gear to get one in a tree, put a ladder in a canoe. There is so much there. We have discovered great places near our home and away that we would never have visited. Love the ammo cans, love TB's. love a nano when you find it, hate it when you don't. Like Hides in great places and some with great descriptions. I still love the one that talked about the family dog, loss of the dog after many years and how the cache was placed so the 3 year old could take care of the cache. The hide, on the ground by a tree in the front yard--but you have to love it. Not crazy about GR caches etc. But when it is my "Cache of the Day" thanks for putting it there. Also love that no matter the fitness level all can participate.

Love the Sport!!!

Link to comment
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.

 

Honestly I can't follow you. The definition brought by the CO is "a hiding place especially for concealing and preserving provisions or implements" and "a secure place of storage". Cache in the sense of computer memory fits, because it's a hidden (transparent to the user or whatever components are layered on top of it) storage for things, even if it's empty. Geocache fits also, because it's a hidden place of storage for things, even if it's empty and even if it's a nano. I never said that any container that could contain something is a geocache, no idea where you got that part from.

 

Are you confusing the word cache with the word container? I don't think the orignal meaning of cache has anything to do with containers. It's just a location where supplies are hidden. The definition of geocache in the guidelines however does include the container.

 

Well, it can be both. If you just have a pile of stuff lying around somewhere, it could be a cache. Take the stuff away, and you have nothing left, ok. Would it still be a cache? I don't know. But put the stuff in a container, and it's still a cache. Remove the stuff, leave the container, it would still be a cache, just an empty one. At least that's how I see it, and that's how computer caches work also (they can be empty).

Link to comment

and they've given us tools which help me separate the wheat from the trache.

 

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

Link to comment
and they've given us tools which help me separate the wheat from the trache.
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.

Link to comment
For someone with terrain restrictions and who does not like to search for a longer time, this does not work, however.

Both my knees are blown out, and the sbell111 "Easy Peasy" method works astoundingly well for me, giving me a range of caches I almost always enjoy. A little filtering in the PQ build, combined with a bit of tweaking in GSAK gives me results that work, for me. I don't know your likes/dislikes, abilities, etc. so I can't recommend any steps which might ease your ability to locate caches which you would enjoy.

 

You are unique. Just like everyone else. B)

Link to comment
For someone with terrain restrictions and who does not like to search for a longer time, this does not work, however.

Both my knees are blown out, and the sbell111 "Easy Peasy" method works astoundingly well for me, giving me a range of caches I almost always enjoy. A little filtering in the PQ build, combined with a bit of tweaking in GSAK gives me results that work, for me. I don't know your likes/dislikes, abilities, etc. so I can't recommend any steps which might ease your ability to locate caches which you would enjoy.

 

Actually, in my home area I do not have problems to locate caches which I would enjoy (looking on the hides of certain hiders works very well in that regard). The problem comes in only if I need to locate a reasonable number of those I would enjoy *and* am able to do. The few that exist in that category need to be identified among the tons of boring caches. Of course the selection issue is only one aspect, the other is availability. Part of my troubles is due to the region where I live that has so much to offer for people loving the mountains that those who are sufficiently fit (more than 95% of the cachers interested into hiking caches) moved over to hiding caches that are safe from the caching masses. So their caches got more difficult terrain-wise and my capabilities dropped down with respect to when I started geocaching. That makes things difficult.

I guess the only solution for me would be to move to a new area (a flatter one), but that's not feasible at the moment.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

There are over 1,500,000 geocaches active right now. You have 322. That leaves you with over 1,500,000 Caches to choose from. Since you are averaging about 30 caches a year. that means just under three a month. Do you think you might be able to do some research and find three caches that will take you to somewhere cool or neat or worth going. You should be able to read the comments and see if people liked going to the spot. Yes there are stupid caches out there. Just as much as there are stupid tv shows and stupid cars. But we each choose what we want. According to this type of logic I would assume cars are dying because they now sale the smart car. I have been caching for over an year and one thing I have found is that when I choose to go caching, I get to decide what I plan to look for. You are in California. You have more caches than any state. Go get em. I think the death of Geocaching is only the death of some members. It is that way with all things. People who call themselves purists who only love what they originally saw, sometimes forget about the negative things and than only look at the negative things now. I agree with HZOI go make some caches that you think are worth it. Post in your local geocaching board asking where the truely great caches are.

Link to comment

<snip>

 

A week ago I found a dozen caches while canoeing around the Arboretum area on Lake Washington.

 

Yes I was there too!!

Hi Jester!!

 

It was a blast!!!

 

Yesterday I found a newly placed cache on an island in a lake. Spent all afternoon and got one cache from it. That cache was not even there a year ago.

 

I've found 35 caches now that are 5 terrain.

Most of those are boat caches. I have had an absolute blast finding these.

 

The longer geocaching is around, the more these interesting places get caches.

 

Sure, the more wally world caches you get too, but they are increasing in numbers in interesting places as well.

 

I went though my "WA State Island Challenge" list of caches.

This is just a small sampling of the boat caches I've gotten. These are ones I listed for the challenge where you have to get caches on 23 islands in WA state. I've done so many more boat caches (obviously). Where there were more than two caches on an island I picked the oldest that I found, to list for the challenge.

 

These are the dates of those:

12/02, 3/09, 7/04, 8/04,12/05, 2/09, 6/05,6/11, 8/05, 8/05, 7/03, 5/09,3/05, 7/09, 2/06,8/11

 

Actually I was surprised that there were as many older ones as there are.

I guess they last longer when they're harder to get to, but I didn't realize there were so many older ones in the water. But older is still not that old, considering you're talking about 2001 and the oldest here is 12/02.

There are also a lot of newer ones.

 

It has turned into a "numbers game". I notice that every time someone gets mad at me and calls me a "newbie". I guess I'll be a "newbie" until I've found 10,000 and been at this 8 years. I guess I'll always be a newbie. :laughing:

Link to comment

All very interesting. I have had the signature line of "It's all about the Journey!" since I started. Not that is a big deal.. But it is how I cache and how I hide.

 

If you want change you have to make change happen. Will you change the world? Probably not. Like most have said in their own way. It is what YOU make of it, nothing more and nothing less. It is entirely up to you.

 

I like all kinds of caches. Urban and nipple deep in a swamp. All have their place and serve their purpose as far as I'm concerned. If in urban setting and the cache isn't all that to me then I move on to the next one and hope for improvement. Those Gems of a cache can be almost anywhere you never really know where or when, so in a way it adds another element to the game.

 

I like everyone else don't like wet logs or MIAs but it comes with the game. Sure I wish folks would consider the main purpose of a container is to protect and preserve the log but that has been an issue sense day one so I suspect it will probably not change much.

 

I do my part. I try to hide quality caches or at the minimum interesting ones. Are they all perfect, nope. I've adopted a few that I'm not proud of. I've hidden a couple that in hindsight that were probably crappy but I do maintain all of them. I'm not perfect and I know I'm not alone.

 

I also repair most caches that have issues much to the aggravation of some of the people I cache with. But I look at it as a good deed that I hope someone would do for one of mine should it need it.

 

IMHO I'm doing something about it.

 

BTW I did the Original Stash and it really isn't all that great of a spot. The only really cool thing about it is that it has a placard stating it is the Original Stash. We totally enjoyed the trip and the way back we found a pull off with a beautiful view of rolling hills filled with Christmas trees and the back drop was Mt St. Helens, Mt Rainier and Mt Hood, the sky was crystal clear... Then further down the road in an old broken down shed we found a barrel full of film canisters, a young Canadian lady with a portion laid out before her.. Even though this I would consider this my worst nightmare we stayed and helped until we finally all gave up. You know what we actually ended up have fun and got to know her and talk for a bit. It is what it is and what you make out of it.

 

I was once told by a cacher I highly respect "there is no whining in Geocaching" no truer words on the subject have ever been spoken. The Cacher was Clan Riffster. I hold him to it every chance I get.. :laughing:

Link to comment

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.

Fair enough. And since you went to the trouble of checking up on my "stats", I'm sure you also checked those caches (and their logs) as well, to see what kind of "quality" they are, right? So let's be honest; they have lasted many years, and every single log is multiple sentences, positive feedback...Not a single "#7 of 27 today, TFTC!" or other meaningless logs. Even my one micro, which had to be archived when the trailhead sign was removed by the forest service, generated good logs. My caches have generated logs that are actually interesting reading, along with multiple pictures. They also continue to contain quality SWAG, even after many years, without my having to re-stock them.

 

Yes, I've only hidden 3 in 10 years. They were hidden early on, when my kids & I still enjoyed caching. As I've already stated, I seldom cache anymore. That's why my numbers have stagnated and I haven't hidden more. Yes, there are still good caches out there; but they are more difficult to filter.

 

It's also quite humorous to read those of you who think you know what I "mean" by my definition of cache. There was no hidden meaning in that, it was simply pulled directly from a dictionary. And contrary to some comments, I've never claimed that a geocache "must" contain SWAG, although if you want the truth, IMO that WOULD match the dictionary definition of cache better. Perhaps a more acurate term nowadays would be "geologging" for micros & nanos. See, I remember when micros and nanos were ONLY placed if the location made a larger container impossible or impractical. Yes, caches reflect the general "body/membership" of geocachers, and that body has grown (in numbers) & changed (in attitude & desires).

Edited by 4x4van
Link to comment

For a long time I had the same concern as the OP but hanging around these forums convinced me that it's OK for different people to play different variations of the same game. I no longer find every cache and I don't bother driving around for hours doing suburban geocaches anymore because I don't generally find that fun (especially by myself).

 

One thing that I do think changed quite a lot over the years is how much each cache is valued. When there were a lot fewer caches people appreciated each cache a lot more. There are so many caches now in most urban/suburban areas that each cache seems to get a lot less attention. Caches are treated more of a commodity and less like a gift.

 

If you hike to the top of a hill or mountain for one cache I think you appreciate that one cache a lot more than if there are caches ever quarter mile (or more) along the way. When there are a lot of caches your appreciation gets divided across all of the caches that you find along the way.

Link to comment

I noticed a change about the time caches started to appear with descriptions about how there were a lack of caches so this parking lot called out for one. But like sdarken I do not feel as compelled to seek them all. I may eventually find myself at a shopping center where someone put a nano in front of a business, or I may not. It does not matter.

 

On a recent trip, where my finds were almost all earthcaches and old virtuals, I told my wife that there was no need to stop for just another smiley. Now that I am home I see no reason to change my mind. Letterboxes and wherigos will get my attention. An ammo can on a nice trail is of interest. Sometimes a cache will show me something new and remind me of the reasons I first started to play this game.

 

But if people actually like lifting lamp skirts, there is probably room for us all. I might even lift one myself if I happen to be in the area with nothing else to do.

Edited by geodarts
Link to comment

Very interesting topic! I'm a total newbie, but I'm going to give my opinion anyway. Warning: tl;dr :P

 

GPS:

My husband started in 2003 and I went on a handful of excursions with him. I didn't get geocaching though. He wasn't really a logger; he just loved the hunt and using his GPS. He wouldn't sign logbooks or anything. Weirdo. Anyway, I liked the GPS system, but I am definitely okay with using a smartphone. He prefers the old way, including wilderness finds > urban.

 

Size Matters:

Here I am 100% with you! Yes, I just started, but still. About a month ago I finally understood the game. We discovered a TB hotel (kayaking only cache) when OH was showing his nephew geocaching. Then I started asking questions and became pretty fascinated, but I had no idea how much geocaching had evolved. For instance, I assumed micros and urbans were always around. Once I got excited about geocaching, husband got giddy and started a shared account. Throughout my limited experiences, I've come to learn that I cannot stand micros. They are pointless and boring. I want SWAG, baby! And a TB is icing on the cake! Love me some TB's.

 

But I compromise. The husband is okay with micros if they are really hard to find, or if they are convenient (we happen to be near one). I know, two ends of the spectrum. He puts up with my 'shopping for loot' and purchasing loot to trade (I finally have a reason to buy useless nicknacks), so I suffer the micros. However, he's not a power trail guy, thankfully. I think those are a pain and it isn't fair to those who want to hide real caches, but can't because there are too many lame ones nearby. Plus I would rather spend an entire day (or night!) finding an unforgettable cache, than finding a bunch of lame ones just to increase our numbers. Do. Not. Comprehend.

 

I heard some great advice on a podcast I listened to recently: Drink microbrews, hide macro caches. Word. I guess I don't like crap on tap or as a cache. ;)

 

Location, location, location:

Wilderness and hiking caches are my favorite, but I am okay with cool, urban caches. I like the 'secret mission' feel of it, I guess. I also like being able to find them after a busy day. Two of my 'favorites' were super fun urban caches: large, great theme, and very diabolically clever hides.

 

As far as giving up due to the rise in craptastic caches/cachers, why not just ignore the bad ones? There are still plenty of really good ones out there worth supporting.

Edited by TheBearPack
Link to comment
I was once told by a cacher I highly respect "there is no whining in Geocaching"

Shhh!!! :lol:

 

What's somehow interesting is that when looking at your hides I observed the same tendendy that is present with respect to the hides of most early time cachers in my area who are still hiding caches from time to time: The terrain ratings have gone up considerably. Has this happened in your case as reaction to the change in the geocaching szene or is it just a coincidence?

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment
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.

 

I know exactly what you mean. The other day I saw a newly published cache. It had only been found five times or so and it already had a Favorite point. The description mentioned it was a nice area for dogs. Hey, this sounds great!

 

Then I started reading the logs. The seekers mentioned how badly the area needed a CITO, how they had to poke through the empty bottles and trash to find the cache and how they hoped the cache would survive in this "party" area. This hardly sounds like an area I want to bring my dog or cache.

 

The only positive I can see from the growth of caching is the ability to run up tremendous numbers. If I were the sort of cacher who loved running up numbers it would be a great time to be a cacher, but since I am not I have to agree with you -- no positive aspect for me.

Link to comment

All these cache sizes make my head spin as a newbie. Yes the small to nano are a PITA, but they can be just as difficult as a regular and bigger out in the middle of nowhere. The only main difference is the location and the fact that you are not looking like a fool in the urban areas chasing your GPS when "muggles" are known to frequent that cache location. With a wilderness cache, you can chase the GPS to your hearts content and not draw attention to yourself, an urban cache you have to be more stealthy and creative to find the cache and not draw attention to yourself.

 

I have run into a few situation either while searching or after the find were I have been approached by a non geocacher and asked what it was that I was doing. I tell them exactly what I was doing, geocaching. Then on cue, what is geocaching gets asked. I simply give them the quick version and offer a flyer with more info and a link to find out even more about it.

 

Of all the caches out there, I would love the chance to go and find the original one that started this whole thing off.

 

As far as I am concerned, a cache is a cache is a cache regardless of the container size or location. the point is that it was hidden for you to find IF you want to look for it.

 

If buy the understanding of this whole argument, a cache is a cache if it can contain things, ie a log at minimum, then what about Earthcaches or the virtual caches? Are those really caches or do they not count because they do not have a container with a log to sign?

 

Just some fuel for the fire...

Edited by Bandit1979
Link to comment
If buy the understanding of this whole argument, a cache is a cache if it can contain things, ie a log at minimum, then what about Earthcaches or the virtual caches? Are those really caches or do they not count because they do not have a container with a log to sign?

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.

Link to comment
Has this happened in your case as reaction to the change in the geocaching szene or is it just a coincidence?

I can't speak for Vince's motivation, but my desire to increase the D/T ratings has come from a few things. I can say that each of my motivators revolves around self interest and my highly biased caching aesthetic. By factually increasing the average D/T ratings, as opposed to simply inflating them, my needs are met.

 

First, I am a huge fan of swag. I love pawing through it, even though I almost never trade, opting instead to just leave a few things behind for others. Yeah, it's a quirk. I know. In comparing a couple of my caches, one fairly easy, and one fairly hard, I noticed a remarkable difference in swag degradation. The ammo can that was just a short tromp from parking was emptied, repeatedly. The ammo can that was way back in a swamp had more swag, and better swag, than when I hid it. I thought that might be because of the increase in numbers of finds between the two, so I decided to experiment. I replaced the swag (again) in the easy cache, then monitored both caches, inventorying them both after 10 finds. The easy cache was full of junk, again, whilst the hard cache once again had an increase in overall swag value. I started paying closer attention to the swag in my other caches, noticing a definite trend: The easier a cache is to get to, the greater the odds are that the finders won't adhere to the 'Trade Up, Trade Even or Don't Trade' axiom. Or, in other words, lazy people take without giving back.

 

Also, I love lengthy logs. I found that those caches which offer the greatest sense of adventure and/or accomplishment tend to get longer logs than those which take little effort to find. Certainly there are exceptions, as some mook could conceivably spew out a "TNLNSL" on a 5/5, but the trend still stands.

 

Lastly, (is that a word?), I follow the advice posted throughout these forums; Hide what you like to find. This aspect is an entirely selfish one, as it is my hope that these hides will inspire others to hide similar ones. It has worked well so far.

Link to comment
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.

 

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.

 

But I generally agree: the definition of "cache" is irrelevant to the definition of "geocache". Instead, one should look at the history and origins of geocaching - why geocaching is called geocaching. You'll find that it's all about the container, and that the container is the cache.

Edited by dfx
Link to comment
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.

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.

Link to comment
Has this happened in your case as reaction to the change in the geocaching szene or is it just a coincidence?

I can't speak for Vince's motivation, but my desire to increase the D/T ratings has come from a few things.

 

I meant your motivation anyway as I had a look at your hides.

 

I started paying closer attention to the swag in my other caches, noticing a definite trend: The easier a cache is to get to, the greater the odds are that the finders won't adhere to the 'Trade Up, Trade Even or Don't Trade' axiom. Or, in other words, lazy people take without giving back.

 

Also, I love lengthy logs. I found that those caches which offer the greatest sense of adventure and/or accomplishment tend to get longer logs than those which take little effort to find. Certainly there are exceptions, as some mook could conceivably spew out a "TNLNSL" on a 5/5, but the trend still stands.

 

Did you make these observations from the beginning or has the behaviour changed? In my area in the early years also easier caches got decent logs on average and I could not recognize a significant difference between a 2.5* terrain hike that I am able to manage and the 4* ones I cannot manage.

 

I do not regard myself as lazy and many caches with T=2.5* and higher have made me invest a lot of effort. I guess that is part of my problem that many caches that are hard for me are easy for others and so many hiders decided to move their hiding activities to more extreme areas where the number of finders is comparable to the number of finders all caches had in the early years.

 

Lastly, (is that a word?), I follow the advice posted throughout these forums; Hide what you like to find. This aspect is an entirely selfish one, as it is my hope that these hides will inspire others to hide similar ones.

 

There is no reason to justify yourself for the type of caches you hide. I was just curious why the difficulty increased. Your answer shows me that your reasons are similar to the reasons of hiders in my area.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

I've only been playing for a few years now, and locally at least, the game has changed dramatically. Early on in my participation, the caches that popped up when I hit the "Find Next" button mostly took me to fairly interesting spots, and almost always utilized containers that kept the contents dry. That is certainly not the case today. Now there are so many numbers cachers spreading the Micro-Spew virus that quality caches are far outnumbered by those my highly biased caching aesthetics consider crappy ones. Thankfully, someone out there recognized that us players come from a very diverse field, and they've given us tools which help me separate the wheat from the trache.

 

Incidentally, the number of what I consider to be quality hides is also growing, though at a much slower rate. I am fortunate in this regard, as that rate of growth slightly exceeds my rate of finding them, giving me an end result of an ever increasing number of caches that I would enjoy. No complaints from my perspective.

 

Besides, it was my understanding that Snoogans' ODS Project would be the "Death Of Geocaching"... :unsure:

 

I agree but yet quality caches still exist !

GPS are now a commodity and therefore anyone is a potential cacher not like the former ones who were technology savvy and curious about this new wonder, the GPS, spending time to learn and understand how it worked. It is natural that these were more inclined to design smart caches.

 

The issue is not that much easy or poor quality caches, but how to pick the interesting ones. Difficulty levels are a way but not enough as an easy cache can be an interesting one in term of location for ex.

 

On the other hand, easy if not crappy caches can stay for there are easy if not crappy cachers :)

Edited by Suscrofa
Link to comment
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.

 

You're confusing geocache listings with geocaches. You're also confusing a particular listing site with the community. Groundspeak has not invented the activity of geocaching and they also haven't come up with the name for it, so they're in no position to define what a geocache is or what geocaching is. Geocaching is called geocaching because a bunch of people at some point in the past thought it was a very fitting name for the activity (which was a new thing and thus needed a name), and it is, because the containers hidden as part of the activity do fit the original definition of the word "cache". There's nothing you, or Groundspeak, or anyone else can do to change that. The word was created with a certain definition in mind, and that's what it means and nothing else.

Edited by dfx
Link to comment
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.

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.

 

You're also confusing a particular listing site with the community.
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".

 

Groundspeak has not invented the activity of geocaching and they also haven't come up with the name for it, so they're in no position to define what a geocache is or what geocaching is.
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?

 

Geocaching is called geocaching because a bunch of people at some point in the past thought it was a very fitting name for the activity (which was a new thing and thus needed a name), and it is, because the containers hidden as part of the activity do fit the original definition of the word "cache". There's nothing you, or Groundspeak, or anyone else can do to change that. The word was created with a certain definition in mind, and that's what it means and nothing else.
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.
Link to comment

I think Mushtang just like to argue with people. There seems to be no reasoning with him/her. No matter what you say you will be wrong in Mushtang's eyes and will tell you that you are wrong and that he/she is right and why he/she seems to think so EVEN IF Mushtang is in fact the one that is wrong. It is like dealing with my 10 year old... No daddy you didnt see me do what you saw me do...

 

Mushtang: No need to comment, anyone can see by your previous posts that I am right on this one. However I know you will have some thing to say anyway. You feel the overwelming need to try and get the last word on everything.

 

Yes this post is a direct jab at Mushtang... This was said and done intentionally. Let the onslaught begin.

Link to comment
Did you make these observations from the beginning or has the behaviour changed?

I'm not sure when I made the observations and subsequent conclusions, but it was fairly early on in my caching career. Maybe late 2005? Early 2006? :unsure: While I have no hard data to point to, I have noticed that locally, at least, the trend has become more defined. The percentage of cachers who will not, or can not, hike more than 50' away from their air conditioned minivans has apparently increased, and these are seemingly the same folks who don't follow the accepted trading practices. Incidentally, they are also the folks most likely to leave an acronym as their log. I should stress that I don't make any kind of moral judgement on these folks. They play the way they wish, and they have fun doing so. But I do wish to avoid having my hides subjected to that particular caching style, so I make them a little harder to reach than what is average, locally.

 

I do not regard myself as lazy and many caches with T=2.5* and higher have made me invest a lot of effort.

"Lazy" was probably a bad choice of words on my part. I have a physical disability that keeps me from making hikes in excess of 3 or 4 miles. My knees feel like someone is jabbing knives under the caps, twisting them around with each step. This has placed a lot of caches outside my physical limitations, and I don't consider myself lazy. Fortunately, on a local level, the demarcation line between those caches which suffer swag degradation and those that don't is below that distance.

Edited by Clan Riffster
Link to comment

were are they, I have not seen any rules posted anywhere in here... got a link?

 

I am not politically correct, I just say what others are afraid to say, if I hurt your feelings, oh well, get over it, I dont and will not sugar coat what I say. I will say it as I see it.

 

If you dont like it report me. I was not mean, I did not swear. I called it as I saw it. in just about every post mushtang has had in this tread was to say that someone was wrong and why they were right. I pointed out the obvious, nothing more. Like I said, I fully expect that it will P!@# off some people, so Let the onslaught begin!!

Edited by Bandit1979
Link to comment
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.

Nope. The listing is the earthcache, and the listing was the locationless cache. A mountain is a mountain.

 

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".

Nope. Not even the CEO of this website thinks that virtual caches are (or were) geocaches.

 

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?

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.)

 

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.

"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. I can call my dog geocache, or I can call my car geocache, and it's not gonna change anything.

Link to comment
I think Mushtang just like to argue with people. There seems to be no reasoning with him/her. No matter what you say you will be wrong in Mushtang's eyes and will tell you that you are wrong and that he/she is right and why he/she seems to think so EVEN IF Mushtang is in fact the one that is wrong. It is like dealing with my 10 year old... No daddy you didnt see me do what you saw me do...

 

Mushtang: No need to comment, anyone can see by your previous posts that I am right on this one. However I know you will have some thing to say anyway. You feel the overwelming need to try and get the last word on everything.

 

Yes this post is a direct jab at Mushtang... This was said and done intentionally. Let the onslaught begin.

 

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.

Link to comment
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.
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.

 

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".
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.

 

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?

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.

 

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.
"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.

 

I can call my dog geocache, or I can call my car geocache, and it's not gonna change anything.

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!!

Edited by Mushtang
Link to comment

I certinly can take a jab, I take them all the time on other forums I am on.

 

If buy the understanding of this whole argument, a cache is a cache if it can contain things, ie a log at minimum, then what about Earthcaches or the virtual caches? Are those really caches or do they not count because they do not have a container with a log to sign?

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.

 

I already said my opinion... the definition dont matter. You both are correct, however the word cache has been adapted as a slang term or short hand for geocaches in general. A geocache is a cache. Its just like trying to argue that leather and suede are the same thing... suede is leather, but leather is not suede. Just as a geocache is a cache but a cache is not a geocache.

 

Here is why I say that... Cache is the larger term that encompasses all things hidden, while a geocache is a specific type of hidden object regardless if it contains SWAG or not.

 

Also in my opinion, if you have the time to sit here and get all technical about the definition or meaning of a word and how it pertains to the sport then you need to spend more time outside hunting. Again As I have pointed out in other posts of mine, I have only been in this sport for a few weeks now and it is ashame to see people fighting that have the same goal and common cause just because there is a slight difference in the POV. The different types of caches exist because someone liked them and others followed.

 

You can comment on what I have to say, I know I am not always right, so have at it, if I am wrong, I can admit to it.

Link to comment

(ignoring the rest of your post, as it can all be explained by this:)

 

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.

 

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".

 

The activity is not to go to some location, read something off a plaque and then send an email. It's not to go to some location, estimate the height of a boulder and send an email. The containers are essential and integral part of the activity that was once given the name "geocaching" - take them away and it's not geocaching.

Link to comment
Here is why I say that... Cache is the larger term that encompasses all things hidden, while a geocache is a specific type of hidden object regardless if it contains SWAG or not.

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.

Link to comment

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.

Fair enough. And since you went to the trouble of checking up on my "stats", I'm sure you also checked those caches (and their logs) as well, to see what kind of "quality" they are, right? So let's be honest; they have lasted many years, and every single log is multiple sentences, positive feedback...Not a single "#7 of 27 today, TFTC!" or other meaningless logs. Even my one micro, which had to be archived when the trailhead sign was removed by the forest service, generated good logs. My caches have generated logs that are actually interesting reading, along with multiple pictures. They also continue to contain quality SWAG, even after many years, without my having to re-stock them.

 

Yes, I've only hidden 3 in 10 years. They were hidden early on, when my kids & I still enjoyed caching. As I've already stated, I seldom cache anymore. That's why my numbers have stagnated and I haven't hidden more.

 

I did see that they appeared to be quality caches, yes. They look like fun. I'm always up for a good mountain hike to a cache. (Especially since I moved to flat central Alabama last year.)

 

And though I could have written a little more to acknowledge the caches you have placed, I will note that I challenged you to "contribute some more to the quality of the game" -- regognizing that you already had done so.

 

It's unfortunate that they don't get more visits -- which arguably supports your view that folks just aren't as interested in quality caches as they are park and grabs these days.

 

Yes, there are still good caches out there; but they are more difficult to filter.

 

I completely agree. I was disagreeing more with your blanket statement that geocaching is dying. Other than that statement, I think we're on the same sheet of music, for the most part.

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...