Corp Of Discovery

I think I'd rather stick with the volume-based definitions in the Help Center article Containers Explained (and elsewhere): Just because a baseball doesn't fit in a particular 1.5L container doesn't make that container a "small" (for example). Ditto. No need for a "nano" size. The description for "micro" is more than adequate to cover those tiny things. Most cachers I know and have talked to disagree, your results may vary. GC already acknowledges it as a sub type, it should just make it separate altogether. Part of the reasoning is that if you have to look in different areas due to size, it warrants a different size rating. Lets use the dreaded LPS as an example. Not really many places to look for a container, right? Out in the open, attached to the underside of the skirt and under the pole itself. A small L&L, film can or nano could be in the first 2 places but only a nano could, usually, be in the third place. Lets look at all 3 if they had magnets and were attached to the skirt itself. A small L&L would be pretty easy to find just by feeling around. A film can could be found the same way, but may be missed by a cursory search. A nano could be found that way too, but would be much more than likely missed with that same cursory search. Doubt I'll change your mind in any case tho so we'll just have to agree to disagree. Nonsense. A small bison tube can, more often than not, be hidden in the same place and style as a nano. In fact, I quite often see bison tubes stuck into a sign post or magnetically attached to an electrical box other similar manner where nanos are more commonly hidden. A nano IS a micro and I don't understand why people insist on calling them "other" or wanting a separate category. When I see "micro", I know I'm looking for something that is small and my brain is fully capable of coping with the variation in size that "micro" encompasses. No, it's not nonsense. I compared a small L&L, film can and classic blinky type nano. I never referenced a bison tube... As someone else mentioned there are different sizes of them, some of which could be called a 'small'. Even what may be considered a classic bison tube is closer in size to a classic nano than it is to a film can. I'd actually put them (small bison tubes) in the nano category for just that fact. Many people apparently can't tell what a micro is anymore. It's very common to see smaller pill bottles, MKHs, preforms (not oversized ones), Altoid tins, film cans and the like listed as 'small' when they've all historically (at least as far as I've known) been called 'micros'. If I recall this all started around the time that nanos started coming out and the 'small' size was introduced. This is a problem because a 'small' is supposed to be able to handle TBs and coins. When you go for a place to drop one of those and find a film can, well, that kind of ruins your plans. I would hope that by adding the 'nano' size people would go back to listing those other containers properly. I know I'm tilting at windmills tho...

I think I'd rather stick with the volume-based definitions in the Help Center article Containers Explained (and elsewhere): Just because a baseball doesn't fit in a particular 1.5L container doesn't make that container a "small" (for example). Ditto. No need for a "nano" size. The description for "micro" is more than adequate to cover those tiny things. Most cachers I know and have talked to disagree, your results may vary. GC already acknowledges it as a sub type, it should just make it separate altogether. Part of the reasoning is that if you have to look in different areas due to size, it warrants a different size rating. Lets use the dreaded LPS as an example. Not really many places to look for a container, right? Out in the open, attached to the underside of the skirt and under the pole itself. A small L&L, film can or nano could be in the first 2 places but only a nano could, usually, be in the third place. Lets look at all 3 if they had magnets and were attached to the skirt itself. A small L&L would be pretty easy to find just by feeling around. A film can could be found the same way, but may be missed by a cursory search. A nano could be found that way too, but would be much more than likely missed with that same cursory search. Doubt I'll change your mind in any case tho so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I think I'd rather stick with the volume-based definitions in the Help Center article Containers Explained (and elsewhere): Just because a baseball doesn't fit in a particular 1.5L container doesn't make that container a "small" (for example). As I said- there are cases this may not work with, but more often than not, it does.

Here's what I use to illustrate sizes to new cachers: The items & sizes from left to right are as follows: BB/nano, marble/micro, golf ball/small, baseball/regular, 16" softball/large. I tell them that if that item can fit in a container then that tells you what size to rate your cache. Yes, there are cases that this may not work with, but by and large (pun intended), it does quite nicely.

The midwest is a rather large area- do you know specific cities or states you are going to be in?

Here's a link to our local organization: www.gonil.org. There are events all over the Chicago area from 6am to 7pm on the 29th. Hopefully one can work out for you. I'll send you my contact info via the messaging system. I happen to be off Monday, perhaps we could get together and go to one of the events and get some of your questions answered.

Simple. Don't allow pre-logging. Oops- can't do that under the current guidelines. That's one that should be reversed in my opinion, your may vary.

Try here: GONIL

That list includes at least one 'zombie' cache as I call them (a cache that was archived for an extended length of time, I'm talking years here, and then unarchived and, usually, adopted out). I prefer to use this list, which does not include those caches.

I don't post as much here now as I used to, mainly because I find almost all the topics pretty uninteresting. But anyone who has been around for a while knows that I have some very strong opinions. I got a week's worth of time-out once a few years ago, and that was enough to make me re-evaluate how I interact on the forums. I have been pretty careful since to not step over the line, though I often enjoy pushing the limit. IMO, the recent forum bans were completely justified. It's a temptation, as an old-timer, to be condescending toward newbies who don't immediately give appropriate weight to one's obviously correct opinions. A teeny bit of compassion and understanding can do wonders, though, and refraining from posting snark at what one may perceive as a stupid question goes a long way towards making the forums a nicer place. Personally, I have grown very tired of all the detailed nitpicking over the rules and guidelines. What's so hard about just going out, finding the kinds of caches you like, and having a good time? Why is it so important for some people to try to prevent others from caching in ways they don't approve? On the other hand, watching the forum fights over the rules has given me a lot of insight into human nature. There seems to be an innate desire for more and more detailed rules built into the human psyche. This...very much. All +1, but +100 to the part I bolded.... AGREE TO ALL Ditto.

Potter Stewart?

No easy way. If you know of one check to see if someone has added it to a bookmark list of them.

I'll buck the trend somewhat and say go ahead and post, but a nicely worded NM instead of a NA- if the cache isn't supposed to be a tough one to find (say a 2.5/2.5 or lower). No matter what the CO status is they'll get an email showing someone is interested in their listing but concerned there are issues with it. If, after a period of time (say a few weeks), there is no response then I'd contact a reviewer and/or post a NA.

Yes. Especially since they've de facto added a 'size', mega & giga, for events.

Oh the stories I could tell...

Have you tried your local library?

Email sent via your profile.

Ok, I'll bite. Did someone actually write that in a log, or was that just a Twin Peaks meme that you found on the interwebs? Just a meme, but it seemed to fit the topic so I went with it...LOL.

This was a rather interesting & unusual log:

AND Both 'found' on the same day - just 3,546 miles apart from each other But hey - at least they got their seven souvenirs Distance alone isn't proof that anything is amiss. I've found 2 consecutive caches on the same day that were over 4200 miles apart.

Here's the way I view how physical caches should be listed, your opinion may vary: 1- TraditionaL: go HERE, find container, sign log. If you have to do anything additional to these things, see #3. 2- Multi: go HERE, get new coordinates, go THERE, find container, sign log. If you have to do anything additional to these things, see #3. 3- Mystery/puzzle/unknown: Anything that isn't 1 or 2, except for 4 & 5. 4- Letterbox Hybrid: if your container contains a stamp for letterboxing you MAY list is as a LBH, otherwise see 1, 2 & 3. 5- Wherigo: if your cache requires the use of a WIG cartridge it MUST be listed as a WIG cache. Yes, there are gray areas where things could go one way or the other, but these work for me. To muddy things further- who else remembers when caches could be/were listed as 'mystery/puzzle/unknown' just because the container was out of the ordinary?

Our local group (GONIL) has a chat room and regularly scheduled time for such (8-9:30 central time). It's there for use at any time tho. Isn't as busy as it used to be (much as, regretfully, regular forums seem to) due to the juggernaut/blight that is Facebook.

Information sent- glad to have helped.

Thanks for the info. Might it come back when things get sorted out or is it gone for good?