Jump to content

New Cache Size Listing


SparksWG3K

Recommended Posts

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 post
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 post

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 post

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? :lol:

Link to post

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 post

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? :lol:

 

I hope you're talking about the container and not the hider :)

Link to post

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. :lol:

Link to post

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 post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...