Jump to content

The death of Geocaching?


4x4van

Recommended Posts

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

 

 

It's right up there at the top of the page:

fa047905-5de9-40eb-9809-c5ab4d948057.jpg

 

Here's a link, since you can't seem to see it:

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules

 

And here's the relevant bit:

3. Personal attacks and inflammatory behavior will not be tolerated. If you want to praise or criticize, give examples as to why it is good or bad. General attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated.
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.

I thinke dfx just likes to argue with people. There seems to be no reasoning with him/her. No matter what you say you will be wrong in dfx'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 dfx is in fact the one that is wrong. It is like dealing with my 10 year old... No daddy you didnt seem do what you saw me do.

 

The real issue is that these two are debating something completely irrelevant to this thread. It really doesn't matter whether a geocache is a kind of cache or if it something completely different.

 

The OP used the rhetorical device of quoting the dictionary definition of cache and then arguing that more and more geocaches don't meet this definition as a way to explain why he feels geocaching is dying. Mushtang responded with reasons he felt this device is a poor argument. Basically Mushtang feels that geocaches are unrelated to caches other than the term geocache was derived from cache. Geocachers use the term cache sometimes as a shorthand for geocache but that doesn't imply that gecaches necessarily meet the dictionary definition of cache. dfx then argues that geocaches are in fact a type cache and that is how geocachers use the word.

 

There are probably points to made on both sides of the argument as to whether geocaches are caches or something entirely different. But this debate has nothing to do with whether or not geoaching has changed from the early days and whether or not that is good or bad for geocaching. Still it is fun to watch and even fun to put in your 2 cents worth (as I did when the debate wandered further afield to discuss whether computer cache fits the original meaing of cache).

Link to comment

As long as it continues to evolve and as long as it continues to invite creative people to "hide" or "challenge" I believe the reports of its death are ,to paraphrase Twain, an exaggeration.

 

The one thing that I think will kill it is when there is a refusal to participate in the creative hide process. I was soundly and loundly castigated by one prominent local geocacher with many thousands of finds when I suggested that perhaps he might consider making a hide or two. Others within earshot, then announced that they no longer would even consider making hides if their efforts were being solely made for the pleasure of a man who pronounced himself a "finder" not a "hider" as if one were the superior of the other.

 

So as long as there are those who seek out and make the quality hide the game will thrive. You can not expect it to do so without some willingness on your part to be conscious of your hide to find ratio.

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".

Oh I totally get it, and I'm aware of the history of how the game started, and I'm also aware of the many changes that have been made since it started. One of the changes was to the name. According to you the word geocaching was invented to describe the hidden container, and since that's what it meant at the time of the invention that's what it forever will be and nobody can ever change that. But you pointed out that the name was "stash" before it was "geocache", so apparently changes ARE allowed. They changed what the game piece is called, they can also change what is allowed to be a game piece.

 

When web-cam caches were created, the web-cam location became a geocache and you were able to find it using your GPS.

 

The activity is 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.

The activity is to use your GPS and go to a location and find whatever it is that the listing is leading you there to find. If you're looking for an earthcache, you might be there to find a rare rock. Once you do, and once you log it properly, you've gotten yourself another Earthcache find. So, the activity can be to go to some location, read something off a plaque and then send an email (if that's the requirement of the earthcache). The activity can also be to find a container. Both are geocaches.

 

I don't see how you can go find an earthcache that is listed on geocaching.com and still say that you haven't found a geocache just because something wasn't there (a container) that was part of the original cache.

Link to comment
There are probably points to made on both sides of the argument as to whether geocaches are caches or something entirely different. But this debate has nothing to do with whether or not geoaching has changed from the early days and whether or not that is good or bad for geocaching.

 

I think it has quite a lot to do with the OP's point. The name "geocaching" was born in the early days because people felt that those things that they hide and hunt for do in fact resemble "caches" in the traditional sense of the word. Today, this resemblance is arguable, for various reasons, and this is part of the OP's point. If every cacher today would think of geocaches as actual "caches", storage places for stuff, then you wouldn't have the "quantity over quality" problem that the OP complains about.

Link to comment
I don't see how you can go find an earthcache that is listed on geocaching.com and still say that you haven't found a geocache just because something wasn't there (a container) that was part of the original cache.

 

And I don't see how you can do that. Well, I do see how, but it's very wrong. Your whole point can be summarized as "this website is called geocaching.com, so everything they list is a geocache". This may hold true if Groundspeak actually came up with the name "geocaching", if the whole thing was their invention. But they didn't and it wasn't. Other people came up with the name and it was for a specific activity. Groundspeak can't just came along and say "oh we came up with this other idea, to just go somewhere and do something without having a container there [sound familiar?], and we'll just say that's geocaching also." No, they can't do that, neither the name nor the activity of geocaching is theirs to change like that. Well, they still can say that, but every sane person should immediately see that it's not the same thing, it's not geocaching, no matter what they say.

 

But of course you're free to blindly listen and consider everything they list as a geocache, "just because they say it is". Your choice, but it doesn't make it any more true.

Link to comment
I don't see how you can go find an earthcache that is listed on geocaching.com and still say that you haven't found a geocache just because something wasn't there (a container) that was part of the original cache.
And I don't see how you can do that. Well, I do see how, but it's very wrong.

Just out of curiosity, why did you find and log 36 virtual caches, 26 event caches, 6 web cam caches, and 55 earthcaches if they're not really geocaches due to a lack of a container??? You'll get my respect if you go and remove your finds from all of those. But until you do then you're coming across as a total hypocrite. You'll log them, you'll take the credit for finding them, but you just won't like it.

:rolleyes:

 

Your whole point can be summarized as "this website is called geocaching.com, so everything they list is a geocache".

Almost. It's more like, "This website is the biggest geocaching site, and it started from the first caches ever placed needing a good place to be listed, so anything that they list as a geocache, is a geocache.

 

This may hold true if Groundspeak actually came up with the name "geocaching", if the whole thing was their invention. But they didn't and it wasn't. Other people came up with the name and it was for a specific activity. Groundspeak can't just came along and say "oh we came up with this other idea, to just go somewhere and do something without having a container there [sound familiar?], and we'll just say that's geocaching also." No, they can't do that, neither the name nor the activity of geocaching is theirs to change like that. Well, they still can say that, but every sane person should immediately see that it's not the same thing, it's not geocaching, no matter what they say.

So anyone that believes an earthcache is a geocache is insane? Wow, that's a pretty big leap.

 

And I still don't see what it matters that the term geocache was invented by someone other than those that run this website. There's no copyright on the word, there's no rule or law against applying a word that means one thing to also mean another.

 

But of course you're free to blindly listen and consider everything they list as a geocache, "just because they say it is". Your choice, but it doesn't make it any more true.

Dude, I'm not the only one that thinks earthcaches are geocaches. If it were just me you might have something, but it's pretty much the other way around. I'd guess that nearly everyone that geocaches understands that if something is listed as a geocache on this site then it's a geocache. If a few people disagree, that doesn't make it any less true.

Link to comment

Hm.

Chiming in quickly here.

To me...

 

Geocaching = the activity of browsing a geocaching website, and doing whatever is required to log a successful 'find' on a listing (whether it's find a physical container, or accomplish a task somewhere)

Geocache = By context, EITHER: A physical container that it found and contains a log to sign, OR: a listing any website might call a "geocache" by their own definition

Virtual geocache = In the context of geocaching.com, a containerless "geocache", or in other words a task. "Virtual geocache" != "Geocache"

Earthcache = In the context of geocaching.com, a containerless 'find', or in other words a task, primarily focused on education about Geo/Earth-related subjects at a specific location. "Earthcache" != "Geocache" (I don't log "earthcache geocaches")

Webcam geocache = In the context of geocaching.com, it's a virtual geocache that requires visiting a specific location, with a specific task of capturing the image from the webcam.

...etc...

 

Context matters. When I'm geocaching, I'm typically referring to an activity in the context of geocaching.com, in which I'm seeking to log successful finds of what Geocaching.com lists as a "geocache". Outside the context of geocaching.com, if I perform a task, I'm just performing a task, I haven't found a geocache. If I visit a location that unbeknownst to me happens to be the spot of a geocaching.com Earthcache, I'd simply be enjoying and exploring nature, wouldn't I?

 

In short, for me, outside from geocaching.com, a "geocache" is a container with a log. In the context of geocaching.com, "geocache" becomes a very multi-dimensional word for the target of an activity required to log a 'find' on its website.

 

Therefore, because of that, my answer to the OP is that Geocaching, in the context of Geocaching.com, won't be dying any time soon. Outside of Geocaching.com, one could argue that geocaching as it once was may be getting overrun with other variations and preferences. But it'll never die as long as people still do it.

 

ETA: Actually, I'll even add that one could say one is "earthcaching" when seeking to log an earthcache. It even has its own website - http://www.earthcache.org

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment
Just out of curiosity, why did you find and log 36 virtual caches, 26 event caches, 6 web cam caches, and 55 earthcaches if they're not really geocaches due to a lack of a container??? You'll get my respect if you go and remove your finds from all of those. But until you do then you're coming across as a total hypocrite. You'll log them, you'll take the credit for finding them, but you just won't like it.

Huh? What makes you think that I don't like it? I have no problem with accepting the fact that not everything listed on gc.com is a geocache. I also don't have a problem with the fact that my "find count" doesn't reflect how many caches I've actually found, but merely how many smiley logs I've written. It's just how the site works.

 

And I still don't see what it matters that the term geocache was invented by someone other than those that run this website. There's no copyright on the word, there's no rule or law against applying a word that means one thing to also mean another.

Exactly. So the word means what it means, and it means what it was created to mean. You can use it to refer to other things, not a problem, but that doesn't change the meaning of the word, you're just using it wrong then. Even if a million people do the same thing, they're still all just using it wrong.

 

End of discussion, thank you.

Link to comment
Just out of curiosity, why did you find and log 36 virtual caches, 26 event caches, 6 web cam caches, and 55 earthcaches if they're not really geocaches due to a lack of a container??? You'll get my respect if you go and remove your finds from all of those. But until you do then you're coming across as a total hypocrite. You'll log them, you'll take the credit for finding them, but you just won't like it.
Huh? What makes you think that I don't like it? I have no problem with accepting the fact that not everything listed on gc.com is a geocache. I also don't have a problem with the fact that my "find count" doesn't reflect how many caches I've actually found, but merely how many smiley logs I've written. It's just how the site works.

That's what I figured.

 

And I still don't see what it matters that the term geocache was invented by someone other than those that run this website. There's no copyright on the word, there's no rule or law against applying a word that means one thing to also mean another.
Exactly. So the word means what it means, and it means what it was created to mean. You can use it to refer to other things, not a problem, but that doesn't change the meaning of the word, you're just using it wrong then. Even if a million people do the same thing, they're still all just using it wrong.

 

End of discussion, thank you.

It used to mean one thing, but has been expanded to mean other things too. You can deny it all you want, but that's what happened.

 

I wonder what's more likely, a million people are wrong, or you're wrong?

 

You're welcome.

Link to comment

Exactly. So the word means what it means, and it means what it was created to mean. You can use it to refer to other things, not a problem, but that doesn't change the meaning of the word, you're just using it wrong then. Even if a million people do the same thing, they're still all just using it wrong.

 

End of discussion, thank you.

I knew I heard this debate somewhere before

humptydumptyalicewords.jpg

Link to comment

And here's the relevant bit:

3. Personal attacks and inflammatory behavior will not be tolerated. If you want to praise or criticize, give examples as to why it is good or bad. General attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated.

 

And if you actually read what I wrote... I did exactly that, yes, I singled out a particular person, said what I said and gave examples of why my opinion was just that. It may or may not be viewed as a peronal attack, but I criticized him and left examples. The examples however made you have to go back and research some, I did not spell them all out but left a general statement for the example. So I do not see were I did anything wrong in that regard.

Link to comment

Hm.

Chiming in quickly here.

To me...

 

Geocaching = the activity of browsing a geocaching website, and doing whatever is required to log a successful 'find' on a listing (whether it's find a physical container, or accomplish a task somewhere)

Geocache = By context, EITHER: A physical container that it found and contains a log to sign, OR: a listing any website might call a "geocache" by their own definition

Virtual geocache = In the context of geocaching.com, a containerless "geocache", or in other words a task. "Virtual geocache" != "Geocache"

Earthcache = In the context of geocaching.com, a containerless 'find', or in other words a task, primarily focused on education about Geo/Earth-related subjects at a specific location. "Earthcache" != "Geocache" (I don't log "earthcache geocaches")

Webcam geocache = In the context of geocaching.com, it's a virtual geocache that requires visiting a specific location, with a specific task of capturing the image from the webcam.

...etc...

 

Context matters. When I'm geocaching, I'm typically referring to an activity in the context of geocaching.com, in which I'm seeking to log successful finds of what Geocaching.com lists as a "geocache". Outside the context of geocaching.com, if I perform a task, I'm just performing a task, I haven't found a geocache. If I visit a location that unbeknownst to me happens to be the spot of a geocaching.com Earthcache, I'd simply be enjoying and exploring nature, wouldn't I?

 

In short, for me, outside from geocaching.com, a "geocache" is a container with a log. In the context of geocaching.com, "geocache" becomes a very multi-dimensional word for the target of an activity required to log a 'find' on its website.

 

Therefore, because of that, my answer to the OP is that Geocaching, in the context of Geocaching.com, won't be dying any time soon. Outside of Geocaching.com, one could argue that geocaching as it once was may be getting overrun with other variations and preferences. But it'll never die as long as people still do it.

 

ETA: Actually, I'll even add that one could say one is "earthcaching" when seeking to log an earthcache. It even has its own website - http://www.earthcache.org

 

Could not be said much better...

 

A cache is the container, the moment you go and hide the cache for someone else to find it becomes a geocache.

 

So since we all want to get all technical about this...

 

As taken from dictionary.com

 

Geo:

Origin: < Greek geō-, combining form of gê the earth

 

geo or gio (ˈdʒiːəʊ)

 

n , pl geos , gios

(esp in Shetland) a small fjord or gully

 

Medical Dictionary

geo- or ge-

pref.

Earth: geophagia.

 

Science Dictionary

geo- or ge-

A prefix that means "earth," as in geochemistry, the study of the Earth's chemistry.

 

Cache:

 

cache   /kæʃ/ Show Spelled [kash] Show IPA noun, verb, cached, cach·ing.

noun

1. a hiding place, especially one in the ground, for ammunition, food, treasures, etc.: She hid her jewelry in a little cache in the cellar.

2. anything so hidden: The enemy never found our cache of food.

3. Alaska and Northern Canada . a small shed elevated on poles above the reach of animals and used for storing food, equipment, etc.

 

World English Dictionary

cache (kæʃ)

 

n

1. a hidden store of provisions, weapons, treasure, etc

2. the place where such a store is hidden

3. computing a small high-speed memory that improves computer performance

 

vb

4. ( tr ) to store in a cache

 

[C19: from French, from cacher to hide]

 

Geocache:

 

Main Entry: geocache

Part of Speech: n

Definition: an item hidden in a specific location in geocaching

Example: We used a handheld GPS receiver unit to guide us to a geocache destination.

Usage: also geocache, (v.)

 

I can play the defintion game too...

Edited by Bandit1979
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.

Well said. There is something for everybody. Some days I want quality, some days I want +10. Every day I have fun! There are caches everywhere we go.

Link to comment

Well, I will say one thing...the tangent that Mushtang & Bandit have led us down has been entertaining, to say the least. But it really is irrelevant to my original point. I suppose I shouldn't have led with the definition of cache, as I really don't care what a geocache is called, and I don't really care what does or doesn't qualify as a geocache. The declining "quality" of those "things" that are listed on the geocaching site is what I was lamenting.

 

IMHO, there was more pride of cache ownership taken in the early days. Most hiders much preffered one or two paragraph-long logs for their cache rather than 10-15 "TFTC" logs. It made for much more interesting reading during maintenance visits! Therefore there was more thought put into caches, including the container, the contents (SWAG), and the location. Also important was the idea that the cache owner was actually responsible for maintaining it in good condition, with the hope that it would survive for a long period, generating a "storybook" log book of sorts. Again, the mantra was "just because you can place a cache there, doesn't mean you should place a cache there". Most geocachers took that idea seriously. If the answer to the question: "Why place a cache here?" was only "Because there isn't one here yet"...then it was not considered a good spot for a geocache. I no longer believe that is the case for the majority of caches. And that saddens me. But to each his own.

 

No, Geocaching is not dying, nor will it ever, since people will continue to hide "things" and others will continue to seek those "things". Yes, good caches still exist, and I admit that the term "good cache" is completely subjective. Each of us will continue to hide & seek what we like. But the fact is, what we like, as a collective group, has obviously significantly changed over the years.

Edited by 4x4van
Link to comment

I totally agree. I liked the cache that was way out, challenging, or just a unique clever container. I also used to like back a couple years ago, you cached in stealth....almost like it was a secret society. Now you go caching, and run in to people, and they are like "you Geo caching....that's cool it's over there" So when i plan to go out, i pick what i want to find. I want a nice hike, or quiet place...I'll go for that, if i want to score many smiles, I'll hit the micros. I really don't see Geo caching dieing out.....but the with the amount of "pointless" caches popping up, i see the meaning of cache dieing out.

Link to comment

So the word means what it means, and it means what it was created to mean. You can use it to refer to other things, not a problem, but that doesn't change the meaning of the word, you're just using it wrong then. Even if a million people do the same thing, they're still all just using it wrong.

And this is where your argument breaks down. You are saying that language is fixed - what was is what is. But that is wrong, language is fluid and changes over time. I'll use two examples.

 

Example one, "aspirin" - when coined this meant a tablet of acetylsalicylic acid made by the Bayer company, a brand name. Now it means acetylsalicylic acid, whoever makes the the pill. In fact look at a bottle of aspirin, the "active ingrediant" is ... (wait for it) ... "Aspirin"! The meaning of that word has changed from a specific (Bayer's pill form of acetylsalicylic acid) to a general (acetylsalicylic acid itself). By your argument, it still means only the pills made by Bayer.

 

Example two, "gay" - I don't have to say anything, you know how this has changed in the last few decades.

 

End of discussion, thank you.

Only to a closed mind.

Link to comment

If every cacher today would think of geocaches as actual "caches", storage places for stuff, then you wouldn't have the "quantity over quality" problem that the OP complains about.

 

I do not agree at all. From the early years onwards I have encountered many small containers and swag never played a really important role in my area and most items have been small items that fit in most containers (except nanos of course that did not exist back then). The dramatic changes that happened in my area are not related to what you write above. There are beautiful mountain hikes that end with a micro and there are powertrail like construction where every single cache is a lock and lock container and where almost all logs are of the annoying copy and paste type (maybe except of a last bonus cache).

 

From my personal point of view the most influential changes in my area have been the inflow of large numbers of cachers not interested at all in hiking, the increasing number of cachers (also of some oldtimers) for whom the numbers are very important and the fact that many of the cachers from the early years left or almost left geocaching (with the exception of very high terrain caches) frustrated and went back to just be active in their original hobbies without trying to combine them as often as possible with finding or hiding a geocache.

 

The caches that have been the favourite cachers of the majority of the early time Austrian cachers have not been some ammo boxes somehwere in the nowhere where nothing can be seen, but typically scenic hikes and caches at very special places. I do know that the first worldwide stash was of a completely different type. I am referring to the development in Austria.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

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.

 

+1

Link to comment

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.

 

+1

 

But note that this approach makes only sense if the type caches person X is going to hide in area L fit well to the cache preferences of the cachers in area L.

For example, many caching families with smaller children appreciate caches that do not involve walks longer than say 45 minutes and appreciate hideouts where e.g. a tree stump has been cut into two pieces in order to remove some material from inside to allow a cache box to fit into this newly created romm and then the two parts are attached to each other again. Such hides if well done are certainly quality caches, but they are very, very different from the type of caches I like (they should involve a physical activity of at least 2-3 hours).

 

The cachers with my preferences predominatly decided to move their caching activities to area in the mountains at higher altitudes and in more extreme terrain where they are not bothered by the masses of cachers. For health reasons I cannot do the same as they did and thus are left mainly in areas where the interests of the cachers that are remaining in there have completely different preferences as I do have.

 

You have started geocaching only a short time ago and so you will not yet have noticed dranatic changes in your area since you started. Since I started, almost nothing remained the same in my area, however. It might well be that you have a rich choice of caches that fit your preferences and are reachable for you, but that does not mean that this is the csae for everyone. For me it is definitely not true, for example. Of course there exist thousands of suitable caches around the world and also many in my country, but they are not where I am and I started geocaching as a leisure activity and not an activity 1-2 times a year while on vacation.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

Well, I will say one thing...the tangent that Mushtang & Bandit have led us down has been entertaining, to say the least. But it really is irrelevant to my original point.

 

If you had followed the "tangent" from its beginning, it was not Mushtang and I who were the ones arguing. It originally started between Mushtand and dfx. I only injected my $0.02USD were and when I felt necessary. Which lead to me being drug into the technical argument that was already going on. Then in a bit of sarcasm, I threw in the definitions of the words geo, cache, and geocache.

 

Though it is possible that the tangent may have been avoided by omitting the definition of the word cache, but through the laws of point of view, the tangent may have still happened as the definition could have been implied in your posting.

Link to comment

And here's the relevant bit:

3. Personal attacks and inflammatory behavior will not be tolerated. If you want to praise or criticize, give examples as to why it is good or bad. General attacks on a person or idea will not be tolerated.

 

And if you actually read what I wrote... I did exactly that, yes, I singled out a particular person, said what I said and gave examples of why my opinion was just that. It may or may not be viewed as a peronal attack, but I criticized him and left examples. The examples however made you have to go back and research some, I did not spell them all out but left a general statement for the example. So I do not see were I did anything wrong in that regard.

I do think that your posts violated the forum guidelines. So do the several people who filed reports with the moderating team. The community has done an effective job of explaining this to you, so I suggest you take their advice to heart.

 

That said, the side tangent regarding the definition of a "cache" or "geocache" is not terribly helpful. Let's get back to discussing the posed assertion of increasing quantity and decreasing quality. Thanks.

Link to comment

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

 

Tis true. I have been trying to destroy geocaching pretty much ever since I discovered it.

 

I will name it George and I will love it and love it and pet it and pat it and stroke it and squeeze it until..... it don't move no more. :anibad:

 

LooneyTunesAbominableSnowman.jpg

Edited by Snoogans
Link to comment

If you had followed the "tangent" from its beginning, it was not Mushtang and I who were the ones arguing. It originally started between Mushtand and dfx. I only injected my $0.02USD were and when I felt necessary. Which lead to me being drug into the technical argument that was already going on. Then in a bit of sarcasm, I threw in the definitions of the words geo, cache, and geocache.

 

Though it is possible that the tangent may have been avoided by omitting the definition of the word cache, but through the laws of point of view, the tangent may have still happened as the definition could have been implied in your posting.

I stand corrected. I did follow the tangent from the beginning, but just mentioned you and Mushtang since you two seemed to be the most vocal on that issue towards the later part of the conversion. Sorry if that offended you.

 

In any case, I repeat that my OP was not about the definition of cache (or of geocache) but rather the issue of quantity vs quality. Thank you, Keystone, for recognizing that and at least trying to steer the conversation back in that direction.

Edited by 4x4van
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!!!

 

WINNING!!

 

Now get back out there to have more fun.

Run away from the forums while you still can. :laughing:

Link to comment

but rather the issue of quantity vs quality.

 

Are you sure that the issue is really just quantity vs quality? I am not so sure as quality for geocaches can mean a lot of different things.

Certainly there exist those thoughtless thrown away caches that are there just to increase the number of caches and that hardly anyone will really have among his favourites. There are, however, also many caches where neither the location or nor the journey to the cache offers anything of interest that I would refer to as having bad quality as often quite some work, energy, time and/or money has been invested into the container/hideout construction. I prefer a cheap,not fully tight container in a 0815 hideout that I find at the end of a scenic hike by far to a specially crafted container at a boring, urban place where the main challenge are to deal with the muggles. Many of the cachers in my area prefer however the latter type of cache as for them geocaching is not about performing outdoor activities and visiting beautiful and interesting places, but to hunt for containers.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

If you had followed the "tangent" from its beginning, it was not Mushtang and I who were the ones arguing. It originally started between Mushtand and dfx. I only injected my $0.02USD were and when I felt necessary. Which lead to me being drug into the technical argument that was already going on. Then in a bit of sarcasm, I threw in the definitions of the words geo, cache, and geocache.

 

Though it is possible that the tangent may have been avoided by omitting the definition of the word cache, but through the laws of point of view, the tangent may have still happened as the definition could have been implied in your posting.

I stand corrected. I did follow the tangent from the beginning, but just mentioned you and Mushtang since you two seemed to be the most vocal on that issue towards the later part of the conversion. Sorry if that offended you.

 

In any case, I repeat that my OP was not about the definition of cache (or of geocache) but rather the issue of quantity vs quality. Thank you, Keystone, for recognizing that and at least trying to steer the conversation back in that direction.

 

I am not offended by any means. I can take a jab or 2. I am use to people not walking on egg shells, so I have developed thicker skin. You observation was founded as I spoke up about something and put the spotlight on me for what was said. No hard feelings here.

 

To keep on topic, I agree that the definition is irrelevant to the quality vs quantity debate. If the definition debate wants to continue, start a new thread dedicated to just that. Like some and as I said in my very first post in this thread, I am new to the sport, and have no idea exactly what it was like in the beginning of the sport. I know what it is like now. Do I like the quality of the caches I have found, not really, but the quantity is nice as it gives a range of locations and types. Eventually as people drop out for one reason or the other, you will start to see caches level out and the quality will rise again. It is the "Circle of Life" concept. Right now we are in a chaotic phase of evolution for GeoCaching.

Link to comment

This is what I wrote in the forums over six years ago:

This game was started by some technophiles who marveled at what they could do with a Global Positioning System receiver. They loved the outdoors, hiking and backpacking and blended their new technical toy with their old hobbies. Groundspeak and Geocaching.com were founded as a way for someone to promote the hobby and perhaps, someday, make a living from the proceeds.

Many other people began to hear about the game/hobby/obsession and joined in. However, some of these people only satisfied half of the equation: they loved technology and the thrill of using it to find something, but they did NOT enjoy the outdoors. They did not like hot weather, cold weather, wildlife, thorns, mud, long hikes, insects, spiders, poison ivy, snakes, or any of the other things that are part of the outdoor experience. What was the option for these people? - Virtual and locationless caches. Since, for all practical purposes, these are no longer listed as part of the game the alternative available became urban/suburban micro caches. They hide them, find them, get their big find numbers and don’t need to do the things they don’t enjoy. All the assumptions about “you hide what you know” come in at this point. New geocachers in many areas are mostly seeing micro caches put out. They see players with hundreds of finds in less than a year. This is what they emulate for the way they play the game. Micros are what they put out for their placements and that is the kind of caches they seek to find. If this is not the case in your locale, you are very fortunate. Those of us that primarily enjoy the long hikes and the outdoors have become the minority in this hobby.

Finally, this is a commercial enterprise. The owner wants to maximize his profitability. No business owner is going to make rules or regulations to alienate a substantial portion of his customers. Micro caches, either in interesting or lame locations, are here to stay. Get used to this reality and move on. Work with geocachers you meet to educate them on interesting cache placements, but don’t expect the game to return to what it was in the beginning.

I believe this was near the beginning of the urban micro explosion in my area. The importance of the number of smileys over special locations and experiences has only increased in the ensuing years.

Link to comment

but rather the issue of quantity vs quality.

 

Are you sure that the issue is really just quantity vs quality? I am not so sure as quality for geocaches can mean a lot of different things.

Certainly there exist those thoughtless thrown away caches that are there just to increase the number of caches and that hardly anyone will really have among his favourites. There are, however, also many caches where neither the location or nor the journey to the cache offers anything of interest that I would refer to as having bad quality as often quite some work, energy, time and/or money has been invested into the container/hideout construction. I prefer a cheap,not fully tight container in a 0815 hideout that I find at the end of a scenic hike by far to a specially crafted container at a boring, urban place where the main challenge are to deal with the muggles. Many of the cachers in my area prefer however the latter type of cache as for them geocaching is not about performing outdoor activities and visiting beautiful and interesting places, but to hunt for containers.

 

Cezanne

I agree; quality can mean many different things to many different people. Personally, when I say "quality", I'm referring to the overall experience of the cache. Does it make me smile (even if I DNF)? Can I actually remember that specific cache 6 months later, and smile? If so, then it was a quality cache/hide, IMO. If, on the other hand, I can't really remember any details about the journey, the hide location, the container, the SWAG, the experience...or if a specific cache was #4 or #9 of 15 identically placed caches for that day,...well...B)

Edited by 4x4van
Link to comment

Like some and as I said in my very first post in this thread, I am new to the sport, and have no idea exactly what it was like in the beginning of the sport. I know what it is like now. Do I like the quality of the caches I have found, not really, but the quantity is nice as it gives a range of locations and types.

Based on that, I think you would have really enjoyed caching in the early years. Back then, 9 out of 10 caches were what I consider quality caches, rather than 1 out of 10 today. I can easily remember many deatails of many of my early cache finds, whereas I am hard pressed to remember many details of most of my recent cache finds. I think that speaks for itself in regards to the quality issue (either that or it speaks about my short term memory loss :D )

 

Eventually as people drop out for one reason or the other, you will start to see caches level out and the quality will rise again. It is the "Circle of Life" concept. Right now we are in a chaotic phase of evolution for GeoCaching.

Interesting point of view. I hope that you are correct. Edited by 4x4van
Link to comment

Like some and as I said in my very first post in this thread, I am new to the sport, and have no idea exactly what it was like in the beginning of the sport. I know what it is like now. Do I like the quality of the caches I have found, not really, but the quantity is nice as it gives a range of locations and types.

Based on that, I think you would have really enjoyed caching in the early years. Back then, 9 out of 10 caches were what I consider quality caches, rather than 1 out of 10 today. I can easily remember many deatails of many of my early cache finds, whereas I am hard pressed to remember many details of most of my recent cache finds. I think that speaks for itself in regards to the quality issue (either that or it speaks about my short term memory loss :D )

 

Eventually as people drop out for one reason or the other, you will start to see caches level out and the quality will rise again. It is the "Circle of Life" concept. Right now we are in a chaotic phase of evolution for GeoCaching.

Interesting point of view. I hope that you are correct.

 

Thank you, I have multiple points of view on the same subject. I can relate to you on the short term memory loss... I am sure I would have enjoyed it had I not been serving in the US Marines at the time of its birth. Until now a GPS device that was capable of geocaching was outside of my price range. As with the advent of smartphones being equipped with a GPS, geocaching is in the hands of millions more people. Those people are probably the ones that hide a ton of smaller caches that require a lot less maintenance than a quality cache. So in turn you see the quantity of caches go up. As the sport evolves, new technologies will come out like the chirp thing, that will allow things to become more selective were anyone with a smartphone or GPS cant just go out and geocache, you will have to buy a very specific GPS device and invest like you had to do at the birth of geocaching. Everything makes a full circle swing, eventually.

 

what I mean by people dropping out is the rabbits of geocaching (those that hide a thousand caches just cause they can)will eventually get bored, stop geocaching, then those caches will eventually be archived. When this happens, the better caches will be easier to find and less filtering will be needed.

Edited by Bandit1979
Link to comment

Personally, when I say "quality", I'm referring to the overall experience of the cache. Does it make me smile (even if I DNF)? Can I actually remember that specific cache 6 months later, and smile? If so, then it was a quality cache/hide, IMO. If, on the other hand, I can't really remember any details about the journey, the hide location, the container, the SWAG, the experience...or if a specific cache was #4 or #9 of 15 identically placed caches for that day,...well...B)

 

When reading our first posting, I got the feeling that you are not really a fan of tricky stealth caches with micro containers in urban locations. At least in my area there are a lot of them where the type of container or hideout used is something that one keeps in one's mind with high probability, but if neither the location nor the journey are rewarding what I typically remember is the stealth requiring annoying search. In earlier years in my area it was more about showing nice locations and nice hikes and not about proving that someone is a talented craftsman and is able to drill holes in rocks and things of that type.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

So the word means what it means, and it means what it was created to mean. You can use it to refer to other things, not a problem, but that doesn't change the meaning of the word, you're just using it wrong then. Even if a million people do the same thing, they're still all just using it wrong.

And this is where your argument breaks down. You are saying that language is fixed - what was is what is. But that is wrong, language is fluid and changes over time. I'll use two examples.

 

Example one, "aspirin" - when coined this meant a tablet of acetylsalicylic acid made by the Bayer company, a brand name. Now it means acetylsalicylic acid, whoever makes the the pill. In fact look at a bottle of aspirin, the "active ingrediant" is ... (wait for it) ... "Aspirin"! The meaning of that word has changed from a specific (Bayer's pill form of acetylsalicylic acid) to a general (acetylsalicylic acid itself). By your argument, it still means only the pills made by Bayer.

 

Example two, "gay" - I don't have to say anything, you know how this has changed in the last few decades.

I completely agree that language is fluid, meanings of words can change and all that. However, that only applies to "natural" words. Geocaching is not a natural word, it was created to stand for a particular activity, to mean something specific. It doesn't and can't just change meaning naturally, because it wasn't created naturally.

 

The Aspirin example you bring is incorrect because the substance in question has always been called Aspirin (among other names). It's simply a matter of trademarking - in countries where Bayer still has the trademark on the name Aspirin, the generic name has to be used. But the meaning of the word has never changed, Aspirin has always been Aspirin.

 

Only to a closed mind.

dadgum right, I have a very closed mind when it comes to calling things by their name. I know for sure that a Ford Mustang is a car and not a horse, and everyone who claims otherwise is simply wrong.

Link to comment

Notice the qualifiers in all those names? Given "cache" is being used as short for "geocache", in the context of Geocaching.com, those are all variants with explicit qualifiers. "Virtual Cache" isn't a geocache, it's a listing on Geocaching.com that represents a non-physical, task-based variant of a geocache. Same with all the others (and "Traditional Cache" is a qualifier to help distinguish it from all the other "Cache" listing types on this website).

People will loosely call all of the above 'geocaches', within the presumed context of this website (which can cause confusion about what really is a "geocache" in general).

Link to comment

dfx, do you regard Groundspeak's use of "geocache" here as acceptable?

 

Depends. If you consider "Event Cache" or "EarthCache" etc simply as names (proper nouns) for the type of listing, and not implying that it's an actual cache, then yes. An unfortunate and misleading choice of names, but whatever. In other cases, not so much. For example, the title of the page shouldn't be "geocache types", it should be "[geocache] listing types". Or under "Event Cache", it shouldn't say "the cache is archived", it should say "the listing is archived". But this is mostly nitpicking, I also often refer to the listing or to the whole setup required for finding a cache as "the cache", even though technically it's wrong. The only plain incorrectness on the page that I can see right now (if you do consider the names of the various listing types as just that, names) is that it explains "Webcam Caches" as "these are caches that ...". They're not caches.

Edited by dfx
Link to comment
Thanks, but I was keen to see a response from dfx. Just for clarity.

Well first, I didn't direct the answer to your question, so feel free to ignore (don't see why though). Second, sorry, didn't know this was an exclusive discussion.

 

Anyway.

I think it's a matter of common use of the term vs what it actually is, especially reliant on context.

 

Geocaching, in general, apart from Groundspeak's Geocaching.com, may be "dying" (reducing in activity) relative to all the activity that is these days being called "geocaching", primarily due to the extension of the term and the variations promoted by Groundspeak.

Is that bad? Only if you'd rather geocaching - the generic activity - remain as it once was and don't enjoy the extensions and variations of the activity promoted by Groundspeak.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

Explain why Groundspeak uses the term physical geocache. According to dfx a geocache is a physical cache so you don't really need the adjective physical to describe a physical geocaches. The retronym of calling physical geocaches that occurs because the other listings on geocaching.com have become accepted as geocaches. The adjective is needed because geocache is no longer used to mean just a physical cache.

 

I learned me a couple of new words trying to find the word retronym.

Semasiology and onomasiology are two disciplines of linguistic. Semasiology is the study of what words mean. It is often contrasted with onomaisiology which is the study of which words express some concept. One of the reasons for this debate is that we can't decide if it is a semasiological question (what does the word geocache mean?) or an onomaisiological questions (what word do you use for the locations listed on geocaching.com? or what word do you used to describe the containers that are hidden for people to find using GPS?) It's likely that the word geocache is used for both and that when you want to differentiate you need a adjective like physical so you know which one is being referred to.

Link to comment

[T]he side tangent regarding the definition of a "cache" or "geocache" is not terribly helpful. Let's get back to discussing the posed assertion of increasing quantity and decreasing quality. Thanks.

Some had trouble hearing me, so I am turning up the volume.

 

Please post on-topic in order to avoid sanctions for violating the forum guidelines and the moderator's instructions. There are still useful on-topic posts being made; otherwise, I would have locked this thread. Thank you.

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...