Both as an activity and community, Geocaching is positioned for the analysis interpersonal dynamics through folk culture due to the symbiotic relationship between its physical and digital elements.
Geocaching functions as a digital treasure hunt, and is defined on the Geocaching.com website as “a real-world, outdoor adventure that is happening all the time, all around the world.”[1] The object of the game is to find hidden containers, or caches, located around the world; according to the creators and curators of the game, this encompasses millions of Geocaches in 190 countries.[2] Geocaches are listed online with a set of coordinates, a title, description, hint, and an online logbook, which participants sign upon locating the cache, or conversely sign to notify the cache owner that the cache is missing or damaged.
Geocaching as it is known today was created in 2000, as a response to the US Defence Department turning off Selective Availability on GPS signals; a jamming signal on GPS signals to prevent absolute accuracy for civilian usage. Immediately afterwards, GPS signals for recreational users were up to ten times more accurate, with the capacity to locate positions up to 5 metres.[3] The creator of Geocaching, Dave Ulmer utilised this advancement of technology to create the game, initially known as The GPS Stash Hunt. In May 2000, he hid the first cache, posting the coordinates online for players to find and locate. As the game picked up traction, that name was changed to Geocaching; the rationale for this change has been outlined by Ulmer as follows:
“I also wanted the game to be immediately recognized as an activity, like hunting, fishing, flying, or hiking, and this meant that the name needed to end with an “ing” to be a true understanding”[4]
These containers are hidden by players in a variety of urban, suburban, and rural locations and are tracked via GPS coordinates published online on Geocaching.com and the Geocaching App; these caches can be very small containers, only millimetres in size, up to much larger containers. A geocache usually contains a physical paper logbook to sign when found and a selection of small items or trinkets, also known as treasures. The assumption is that a player will, if desired, swap out the trinket in the container with one of their own of similar value, and then take the newly acquired trinket to another cache in the future and swap it once more, creating a collaborative chain of transmission. The type of trinket or treasure varies dependent on the values of the player, but these are generally lower value novelty or collectable items, such as marbles, plastic figures, toy cars, or semiprecious stones. It has been noted that some more Geocaches have been known to contain items such as music CDs, event tickets, and books, and also that “experienced geocachers will often carry a few luxury items with them, so that they can leave an equal or higher value item for the next geocacher if they discover a high-value cache themselves.”[5] This is just one way in which the community values of altruism, generosity, and goodwill manifest themselves within the rituals of the activity.
Considering and dissecting this community, questions can be raised surrounding the definition and identity of the culture of Geocaching. What is the personal identity of Geocachers and the group identity of the community at large? Additionally, how does this community and subculture engage with one another when this activity is digital and disparate, and the participants elusive?
A definition must be made in context for the consideration of those who participate in Geocaching as a distinct subculture or folk culture. In discussing contemporary or postmodern folklore, Gerald Warshaver proposed a triadic categorisation of folk activities thusly:
“The lore produced by a given folk is folklore of the first instance. In the second instance, when this folklore becomes the object of knowledge of a
professionally cultured substantive rationality, it can be understood to be second level folklore. In the third instance, abstract reconceptualization and denotative reconstitution of second level constructs of first level folklore which reproduces (objectivates) first level folklore so it appears bearing traits which, as I will shortly demonstrate, can be identified as postmodern constitutes third level or postmodern folklore.”[6]
These definitions were extrapolated in Bob Trubshaws Explore Folklore, with the first instance being defined as “customs where the participants do not consider themselves to be ‘doing’ folklore,” citing “practices adopted within occupational or leisure-interest groups” as an example.[7] Much like recreational activities such as fishing, metal detecting and bird watching, Geocaching can be considered to fall under the categorisation of this definition. Furthermore, in addition to considering how those who participate in Geocaching perceive and engage with the activity, considerations can also be made in defining the manner in which Geocachers manifest themselves as a community in a folk context. Alan Dundes raised the question of “Who Are the Folk” in his publication Interpreting Folklore and considered that ‘folk’ can be used to refer to any group which share common factors, and also mentioned that he considered it important that the group “will have some traditions which it calls its own”[8] These traditions can be highlighted by considering the usage of language, material culture, and rituals throughout the Geocaching community.
The consideration of material culture is intrinsic for the analysis of Geocaching; as a game, the artefacts are the goal. Material culture functions as the study of objects or artefacts created or used by a culture, and as defined by Jules David Prown in the Winterthur Portfolio, “the underlying premise is that objects made or modified by man reflect, consciously or unconsciously, directly or indirectly, the beliefs of individuals who made, commissioned, purchased, or used them, and by extension the beliefs of the larger society to which they belonged.”[9] Considering this, intelligence can be derived by utilising this methodology to dissect the manner in which materials and artefacts are used by the Geocaching community.
The most apparent subject of material culture for analysis within Geocaching is the caches themselves. There is no formalised and universally accepted form of container for Geocaches, and as such, the caches and items used by the community can provide insight into the creators’ personal perception of the culture as well as an insight into the community as a whole. Practically, these containers must be discrete and weather resistant, and resultingly, players regularly use a wide array of repurposed items as caches. These repurposed containers can be items such as glass bottles, film canisters, and plastic storage containers, which resultingly illustrates an attitude of recycling and improvisation within the community. Appropriately, reflecting this, the community also demonstrates a streak of environmentalism and conservationism within the culture.
There are a number of environmental initiatives run in the Geocaching community, the most long running and notable of which was established in 2002 and is known as the CITO initiative, standing for Cache In, Trash Out.[10] This is an initiative which encourages players to “repair, restore, or improve your surroundings, both natural and built,”[11] by carrying out organised litter picks on a large and small scale as well as other environmental restoration activities.
Conversely though, Geocaching has another identity which can be perceived within its culture. Outside of the caches created from reused items utilised by the community, items produced and marketed by the company behind Geocaching, Groundspeak, also demonstrate the values, identity, and internal perception of the community. Groundspeak sells a selection of cache containers styled as ammo crates, with variation options such as green, desert, and urban camouflage. Some of these items are also printed with text reading ‘Official Geocache’, in a font styled as a spray paint stencil. Another item sold by Groundspeak is Travel Bugs, which are items which are styled similarly to military dog tags, as two metal tags on a ball chain. These components position Geocaching instead as an activity with a militaristic and masculine viewpoint.
This militaristic branding and perspective is not simply limited to the material culture of the Geocaching community. In 2004, an article on Geocaching was published in the Recruiter Journal, a periodical on the subject of recruitment for the United States military. This article examined the merits and usage cases of Geocaching as a recruitment tool, discussing the utilisation of Geocaching as a manner of teaching “soldier skills” and “learning about the warrior ethos,”[12] the Warrior Ethos in the United States military community being as follows:
“I will always place the mission first.
I will never accept defeat.
I will never quit.
I will never leave a fallen comrade.”[13]
By utilising Geocaching as a manner of embedding these values, the activity is being positioned as one which has a degree of kinship with the lifestyle and culture of militaristic, adventurous, and intrepid communities such as the US military, and further bears connections with the material culture of Geocaching which also positioned itself in a similar standing. Within the 2000s, it seems that this positioning of Geocaching as a masculine and rugged activity was very prevalent throughout the identity of the community, allowing for further comparisons between the culture of Geocaching and activities such as fishing and hunting.
Through this dissection and analysis of the material culture and culture at large within the Geocaching community, a disparity can be witnessed regarding the perception of the self and of the personal identity of participants of Geocaching. Is Geocaching a rugged trial of strength and endurance, an adventure sport which encompasses elements of survivalism, navigation, and orienteering, as observed earlier within the Recruiter Journal? Conversely, as examined through Geocaching environmental initiatives and the recycled and reused material culture, is Geocaching instead a game with an identity centred on a basis of environmentalism, conservationism, and green ideologies, wherein the activity is one seeking to bring the participant closer to nature, and by association lead to a more harmonious relationship with the natural world?
These viewpoints are two which represent different attitudes to what the activity of Geocaching stands for, leading to questions surrounding why and how Geocaching attained two separate and disparate identities throughout its two decades of existence.
A consideration can perhaps be made that this split within the community and the perception of identity therein emerged alongside the advent of accessible GPS technology within smartphones. Although Geocaching was made possible through the cessation of GPS signal degradation, which in turn allowed for precise GPS signals to be utilised by the general consumer, this technology still required specialised hobbyist equipment. In Scientific American in 2004, a range of options for GPS devices were specified to cost between $149 and $499,[14] the cost of which arguably positioned Geocaching as an activity for those predisposed to specialised outdoor recreational activities and with an existing need or desire for GPS equipment.
However, the release and growing popularity of smartphones from 2007 onwards increased the accessibility of GPS; GPS being built into phones allowed consumers access to the technology without the requirement of a separate specialised purchase. Alongside this, smartphones allowed for the development of dedicated applications, such as the original Geocaching app released in 2008,[15] which would in turn consolidate the geocaching process into a single device. This, along with the considerable growth of internet traffic between 2000 and 2010,[16] would have positioned Geocaching for an alteration in the manner of engagement with the activity. Arguably, this would in turn develop Geocaching from an activity which required specialist knowledge and equipment into one which can be engaged with impulsively and without a significant degree of technical knowledge.
Similarly, through previous research, it was noted that there is a divide in the manner in which participants engage in Geocaching.[17] One party engages in Geocaching as an active and independent activity; an activity which is planned, coordinated, and participated in as the sole and main focus, much like recreational activities such as metal detecting as mentioned earlier. Other participant groups seem to engage in Geocaching in a reactive manner, in response to their current activities or whereabouts, such as Geocaching as they are already hiking or touring a new city. These two manners of participation could be considered to be reflective of the other splits in identity within the community. On the whole, could those who consider Geocaching to be an adventure sport and engage with masculine, militaristic artefacts also be the same participants who engage in Geocaching deliberately as its own entity using independent GPS devices? Conversely, could those who perceive Geocaching as an environmental and peaceful activity be the same participants who participate reactively using an app on their smartphones?
The motivations and reasoning behind participating in Geocaching have been previously researched and analysed. In an article entitled A Qualitative Examination of Exergame Motivations in Geocaching, Whitney Garney et al outlined the motivations behind Geocaching as including fun and enjoyment, skill, recreational outdoor time, exploration, challenge, and knowledge.[18] In addition to this, however, the authors also noted that “most important is that participants characterized their relationships with fellow geocachers as a ‘‘community.’’ They valued the social interaction they received while geocaching and the relationships they formed.”[19] The element of community and collaboration is, it seems, vitally important to those involved in Geocaching.
The activity of Geocaching can be considered a serial collaborative creation. A serial collaborative creation, as outlined by Lynne McNeill in the journal Western Folklore, is comprised of a collection of the following attributes:
“1. People come into contact with objects through geographical movement. Either the objects are passed from person to person (type A) or the people pass by the objects (type B).
2. People involved contribute to the object, either by adding to its physical form or by continuing its journey through some sort of personal effort.
3. Multiple people interact with the object, but they do it one at a time or in small, sequential groups.
4. Those who interact with the object individually (or in small groups) are aware of others’ involvement with the object’s existence, though they may not interact with them directly. This awareness is expected and necessary; the object, by virtue of being a chain object, implies the presence of past and future participants.”[20]
Covering components of both type A and type B, Geocaching undisputedly functions as serial collaborative creation; people pass by the caches as in type B creations, but trinkets are passed from person to person and cache to cache as in type A creations. Travel Bugs are also a component of collaborative creation and are strong example of community within the activity of Geocaching. Travel Bugs are items sold by Groundspeak for the purpose of being tracked as it travels from one cache to another; as defined on the Geocaching.com FAQ, “the item becomes a hitchhiker that is carried from cache to cache (or person to person) in the real world and you can follow its progress online.”[21] These items also fall under the category of type A, in that they are passed from person to person. They are one of many manners of altruism within Geocaching, in that the community engages anonymously and without direct policing or intervention for a common goal.
Geocaching is, almost by design, unobserved. Participants engaging in Geocaching go to great lengths to remain unperceived, both as a manner of maintaining an insular circle of participants, as the community divides people into categories of those who do and those who do not Geocache, as well as a manner of avoidance against questioning regarding actions and mannerisms which could be perceived as suspicious or illicit. Alongside this, the caches themselves are hidden out of sight and disguised.
As a result, Geocaching is positioned for foul play surrounding the game and its components, in such a way that there would be no manner of retribution or accountability for cheating, vandalism, or theft. In discussing The Right to Abandon, Jacob Strahilevitz notes that “as a formal matter, a geocache left on public land is abandoned property, and the first person who finds it is entitled to take the entirety of the cache,” and goes on to further consider that “the reasons why individuals leave caches evidently have more to do with general altruism and a sense of ethical reciprocity than a desire to enhance one’s reputation among strangers.”[22]
Within previous research, elements of reciprocity and rule following was noted, particularly surrounding the rituals of obtaining and logging a cache. The process of finding a cache can be refined into three primary actions: signing a physical logbook, swapping a treasure, and signing the online logbook. When questioned, an overwhelming majority of participants suggested that they always sign the online logbook when discovering a cache. [23] This is notable from a gameplay and entertainment standpoint; it is apparent that the primary enjoyment from the game is to be derived from the act of hunting for and locating a cache, with an immediate reward of treasures and a physical logbook. From this point, instant gratification has been achieved, and from an enjoyment perspective, there is no reason to sign the online logbook, nor is the any advantage to doing so; particularly if one is subscribing to the position of Strahilevitz mentioned previously, that these actions are not carried out to enhance repute among strangers. It can be inferred that the act of signing the online logbook is a manner of altruism; an action carried out only for the sake of the integrity of the game and the community.
Like many online communities, Geocaching holds a range of colloquial language and slang which has evolved and become embedded within the subculture, to the extent that the official website has a glossary of terms containing a large range of specialist terms, acronyms, and slang unique to Geocaching.[24] Most notably and distinctly is the usage of the term Muggle from the Harry Potter franchise. This term is used within the franchise to refer to those without magic powers or knowledge of the wizarding world; the usage case colloquially is defined within The Oxford Dictionary of Reference and Allusion as “an ordinary person or mere mortal.”[25] While discussing augmented reality games in Human Studies, Nicola Liberati defines these muggles as “the subjects who do not have the knowledge or capabilities to perceive the hidden objects of Geocaching,” and notes that “this group of people does not have “digital” capabilities to find the hidden objects and so, like in the fictional world of Harry Potter, they live in a deprived world where all the geocaching elements are “invisible” for them. They live in the world without knowing the real richness underlying it.”[26] Additionally, within fieldwork, respondents mirrored this sentiment, through statements such as “trying to not arouse suspicion from muggles,” and “wait until muggles are not looking.”[27] Considering this, it is viewable that this term is utilised as a manner of othering, creating a notion of a secret society wherein Geocaching functions as a manner of separating the public, those who are unaware and oblivious, from those participating, those who are enlightened and privy to the secrets around them.
It is notable that Geocaching appears to be an entity with an identity which is divided and united in the same instance. Whilst the community utilises language and rituals which are externally exclusionary and sequestering, it demonstrates an almost opposed culture internally; one which is incredibly altruistic, inclusive, and cooperative. In a similar vein, while personal values and identity within the community are, on the one hand, dedicated to subjects such as environmentalism and restoration, they also demonstrate characteristics of machoism and militarism. Importantly, these two ideologies are not mutually exclusive and holding one does not negate the possibility of also holding the other; these identities seem to have developed and morphed alongside the development of the technology and culture within the last two decades and could likely continue to develop going forward.
[1] CARLY, ‘What is Geocaching?’, Geocaching.com, 05 March 2018, <https://www.geocaching.com/blog/2018/03/what-is-geocaching/> [accessed 05 April 2024]
[2] CARLY, 2018
[3] Layne Cameron, Geocaching Handbook: The Guide for Family Friendly, High-Tech Treasure Hunting (Rowman & Littlefield, Maryland, 2017), p. 4.
[4] Dave Ulmer, ‘Foreword’ in Geocaching Handbook: The Guide for Family Friendly, High-Tech Treasure Hunting (Rowman & Littlefield, Maryland, 2017), p. vi.
[5] , Jacob Strahilevitz, ‘The Right to Abandon’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 158.2 (2010), p. 368-369.
[6] Gerald Warshaver, ‘On Postmodern Folklore’, Western Folklore, 50.3 (1991), p. 223
[7] Bob Trubshaw, Explore Folklore (Heart of Albion Press, Loughborough, 2002), p. 3.
[8] Alan Dundes, Interpreting Folklore (Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 1980), p. 6-7.
[9] Jules David Prown, ‘Mind in Matter: An Introduction to Material Culture Theory and Method’, Winterthur Portfolio, 17.1 (1982), p. 1-2.
[10] BRIGITTE, ‘Environmental initiatives of geocaching’, Geocaching.com, 19 March 2019, <https://www.geocaching.com/blog/2019/03/environmental-initiatives-of-geocaching/> [Accessed 21April 2024]
[11] EMMA, ‘Cache In Trash Out® (CITO) Announcement for 2024’, Geocaching.com, 13 February 2024, <https://www.geocaching.com/blog/2024/02/cache-in-trash-out-cito-announcement-for-2024/> [Accessed 21 April 2024]
[12] Nathan Cook, ‘DEP Functions, Warrior Ethos, Geocaching: What’s the Link?’, Recruiter Journal, 56.6 (2004), p. 10.
[13] United States Army, ‘Warrior Ethos’, <https://www.army.mil/values/warrior.html> [Accessed 21 April 2024]
[14] Mark Clemens, ‘A Walk in the Woods’, Scientific American, 290.2 (2004), p. 93.
[15] Audrey Kettler, ‘The Classic app is retiring’, Geocaching.com, 02 February 2017, <https://www.geocaching.com/blog/2017/02/the-geocaching-classic-app-is-retiring/> [accessed 21 April 2024]
[16] Charlene Ronquillo &Leanne Currie, ‘The digital divide: Trends in global mobile and broadband Internet
access from 2000–2010’, National Library of Medicine (2012).
[17] Author, ‘Fieldwork Report – Geocaching as Contemporary Ritual’, Contemporary Ritual and Tradition – Assignment One, (2024).
[18] Whitney Garney, Audrey Young, Kenneth Mcleroy, Monica Wendel & Eric Schudiske, ‘A Qualitative Examination of Exergame Motivations in Geocaching’, Games for Health Journal, 5.1 (2015), p. 3-4.
[19] Garney et al, p. 4.
[20] Lynne McNeill, ‘Serial Collaboration and the Creation of a New Sense of Place’, Western Folklore, 66.3 (2007), p. 286.
[21] Groundspeak, Inc, ‘Travel Bug® FAQ’, Geocaching.com, <https://www.geocaching.com/track/travelbugfaq.aspx> [accessed 20 April 2024]
[22] Strahilevitz, p. 369.
[23] Author, ‘Fieldwork Report – Geocaching as Contemporary Ritual’, Contemporary Ritual and Tradition – Assignment One, (2024).
[24] Groundspeak, Inc, ‘Glossary of Terms’, Geocaching.com, <https://www.geocaching.com/about/glossary.aspx> [accessed 21 April 2024]
[25] Andrew Delahunty & Sheila Dignen, The Oxford Dictionary of Reference and Allusion (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012), p. 247.
[26] Nicole Liberati, ‘Phenomenology, ‘Pokémon Go’, and Other Augmented Reality Games: A Study of a Life Among Digital Objects’, Human Studies, 41.2 (2018), p. 214.
[27] Author, ‘Fieldwork Report – Geocaching as Contemporary Ritual’, Contemporary Ritual and Tradition – Assignment One, (2024).
PaperGhoul 
Leave a comment