Opinion: what's Geocaching?

Over just a few years, Geocaching has changed. A lot. Whether you look at the website, the types of hides, the containers, or the trinkets, you cannot deny that it has.

Ahead of finding my first cache, I remember that I thought deeply over what to bring along with me as swaps. I didn't know what to expect, but I certainly thought that what I took from the cache would be the most rewarding part of the experience.

I was mesmerised upon finding it - yet, I can't remember what I swapped. However, I do remember walking through a beautiful forest, wondering why I had never been here before with it being so close to home. In retrospect, that was what made finding the cache brilliant.

So, in my opinion, a good-sized cache with a few swaps in a beautiful, untouched or special location is the jackpot when it comes to Geocaching - and I'm sure thousands of other cachers would agree that it's great to visit places that you otherwise wouldn't have.

But I've mentioned that things have changed. Micros. Nanos. Cache 'n' dashes. Drive-by power trails. Roadside caches. Sure, they've got a purpose, but I'm pretty sure that there are a lot more of these sorts of caches being published than the well executed ones I enjoy most, like my first. Yet, I've found many of these sorts of hides, and I'm sure that most other cachers have too.

This poses a question: what is Geocaching?

You may think that's a ridiculous question with an easy answer; Geocaching is a high-tech treasure hunt game played throughout the world using GPS-enabled devices in which cachers search for hidden containers       no, that's what it is in principle, but what is it actually?

Let me explain; the first Geocache was hidden in 2000 by Dave Ulmer in Portland, Oregon. It was a large bucket, filled with good-quality swaps placed in a thought-out location. However, how is that, in any way, similar to a nano with a sheet of paper on a bridge above a motorway? As far as I can see, it isn't. How can a proper cache at a viewpoint, on a mountain or underground even be compared to an uncreative, empty one you don't remember in a purposeless location which you also don't remember as a result. Are we seeing a stage of transition in which Dave Ulmer's original idea has completely changed to something different altogether?

So, I guess this is the real question: is Geocaching a game which involves finding larger caches with swaps in nice spots, or smaller caches with nothing but a log book in less impressive areas?

In fact, this conundrum is what makes Geocaching so great. There's literally a cache for everybody - I don't think there's another hobby so versatile that it can become so fun (and addicting) for so many different people.

This is an opinion post, so I'll put it out there and say that I wholeheartedly prefer larger caches with a couple of swaps. Like my first cache, though, that's not what I take away - the location, for me, is what makes or breaks a cache, and it's what I come to remember the most - from the journey to the cache to the reward at GZ. This doesn't mean that I won't continue to find other sorts of caches though. If it's a micro or a nano in a good spot, or along a good series, then there's no problem, either. Sometimes you just feel like finding a cache, and those in very accessible locations are perfect for that. Plus, you need the caches you enjoy a little less to recognise those that are truly outstanding.

I'm looking forward to my caching adventures this year - I hope to hit 2,000 around August and so I'll be getting a move-on over the coming months. Whilst I do, I want to be certain that I know what Geocaching really is in terms of cache and location - and by finding the types of caches I enjoy most, I know I'll have a more definite definition. Hopefully you, too, will define Geocaching in your own way through concentrating on finding the type of caches you prefer most.

Griff Grof