+SparksWG3K Posted November 15, 2005 Share Posted November 15, 2005 I'd like to see an additional cache size be put into place that reflects the pico or nano size caches to keep them separated from the micros. A pico or nano is a LOT smaller than a film canister (micro). Eric KF4OTN Link to comment
+Team PowerStroke Posted November 15, 2005 Share Posted November 15, 2005 Might be a good idea. Even though i have yet to come across anything smaller than a film canister. Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted November 15, 2005 Share Posted November 15, 2005 I think Micro covers it. Film Canister and smaller can be a major PITA to find. The smallest I've seen is the size of the eraser on the end of a pencil. Complete with log. The log requirement at least limites how small the container can be... Link to comment
CoyoteRed Posted November 15, 2005 Share Posted November 15, 2005 I'm with RK. I had originally thought along the same lines, but really, how finely do we need to define the sizes? We did, at one time, have an akward sizing issue, but it was in between micro and regular. It was solved by the small size. Micro and smaller fits nicely as one size. You know pretty much, anymore anyway, that you're not going to be trading. (Sad to see the days of trading micros gone.) You also know you can palm it when retreiving. Film cans are already so small that you can fit them in places you can't put your hands. I don't see the point of defining a size where you can't even put your finger. Link to comment
+StarBrand Posted November 15, 2005 Share Posted November 15, 2005 Only good reason for doing this is so that I could more easily ignore them. Actually I agree with both RK and CoyoteRed. Link to comment
+SparksWG3K Posted November 15, 2005 Author Share Posted November 15, 2005 I think Micro covers it. Film Canister and smaller can be a major PITA to find. The smallest I've seen is the size of the eraser on the end of a pencil. Complete with log. The log requirement at least limites how small the container can be... I got to say that there is a BIG difference between a pico and a micro when it comes to the ones we've found around here. Link to comment
+CacheCredit Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 As somewhat of a new geocacher, I can say that it is very helpful to have a sense of the size of the thing I am hunting for. At the small end of the spectrum it can make quite a difference. I was about to start this topic when I saw that someone else beat me to it. I was going to suggest both nano and pico (although that may be over the top). Nano would be things about the size of an adult little finger (ex: bison tubes) Whereas pico would be things about the size of an adult knuckle or one segment of a finger. At any rate the added size definition could serve as a filter for some, or a clarification for others. Link to comment
+Prime Suspect Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 I'd like to see an additional cache size be put into place that reflects the pico or nano size caches to keep them separated from the micros. A pico or nano is a LOT smaller than a film canister (micro). Eric KF4OTN Then what? The rather smallish cache type, for something just a bit bigger than a decon-kit? How about portly, for those really wide ammo cans? Link to comment
+Mary&Dave Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 The log requirement at least limites how small the container can be... Not by much! There are some pretty darned tiny log scrolls out there! I think another cache size would be great for anything signifigantly smaller than a film can or matchbox. There are some creative (and extremely EVIL) cachers out there making caches you practically need a magnifying glass to find. Multiple nano/pico sizes are overkill, but I'd definitely like to see size nano. Link to comment
+TeamBarstool Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 Eric KF4OTN Then what? The rather smallish cache type, for something just a bit bigger than a decon-kit? How about portly, for those really wide ammo cans? I hope you're talking about the container and not the hider Link to comment
+housefamily Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 Here in the UK we're seeing a steady growth in 'nano' caches - and that seems to be the name that has stuck. Usually these are made from a small metal tube, originally designed to be attached to a cat or dog collar for identification. See here for an example. I think the fact that people go to the effort to mark each cache as a 'nano' container on the cache page, rather than as just a general micro, highlights the need for another category. It'd just be making formal what is already happening. Link to comment
+The Cheeseheads Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 I'd like to see an additional cache size be put into place that reflects the pico or nano size caches to keep them separated from the micros. A pico or nano is a LOT smaller than a film canister (micro). Eric KF4OTN Then what? The rather smallish cache type, for something just a bit bigger than a decon-kit? How about portly, for those really wide ammo cans? I think the PC term is "size-challenged"... Link to comment
Recommended Posts