Ever Had A "nano Headache"

[+Jimbogeo Team]

Recently I have searched several Micro caches with great difficulty looking for a film canister, pill bottle, or even a bison tube only to eventually log a DNF. After putting the caches on my watchlist I finally got clues from other finders that they were actually magnetic Nanos. I find the Nanos to usually be evil hides but I can usually find them if I know that is what I am looking for.

Has there ever been any discussion about adding Nano to the cache description list?

Or at least if you hide a Nano you should state that it is a Nano search.

The most evil would be to hide a Nano as a Mystery cache.

[+sbell111]

I like the idea of adding a 'nano' to the size options.

[+BadAndy]

I've hidden nano's before. I always spell it out implicitly that it's a nano they are seeking.

[+SparksWG3K]

I've asked, nay begged, to have nano added. They are not the same as a micro and anyone that has ever cached in Rocky Mount (NC) knows they aren't the same!!!

[+Team Perks]

Nanos sure seem like micros to be. They're just particularly small micros.

[bogleman]

Good idea but I don't think it would work and would still lead to the same problem or confusion. If the hider placed something that small without any hints they are going out of their way to get a DNF log. If all else fails just think out of the box, if you think big you overlook the small and if you think small you overlook the big.

[+SparksWG3K]

If all else fails just think out of the box, if you think big you overlook the small and if you think small you overlook the big.

You, my friend, have never been to Rocky Mount. If you ever cache there don't think of a micro as a film canister. Think of a micro as something that would fit on the end of your finger.

 

Bottom line is that they aren't micros any more than a micro is a small container. There IS a difference!

[+DocDiTTo]

I like the idea of adding a 'nano' to the size options.

Agreed! It would then be a piece of cacke to filter them out with pocket queries. I'd LOVE to have a nano category added. I really, really, really hate those things. NONE have ever taken me to anywhere special, and they're pretty much all a needle-in-a-haystack type of hunt, unless they're stuck out in plain sight. Even then they're easy to overlook. Plus it takes 5 minutes to get the log rolled up so it fits back in. Waste of time.

[+RockyRaab]

I've logged three, including one yesterday; but that's the last I'll look for - probably.

 

I agree that they are challenging, but once found, there's precious little reward for the challenge. If one is a "numbers" cacher, they count the same as an ammo box. But if one is in this for something other than numbers, well...

 

I would definetely like to see the Nano category added, though. They are most certainly as different from Micro as Micro is from Small.

[+SparksWG3K]

I used to hate nanos but have actually grown to like them. There is one nearby cacher that hates looking for anything other than a nano. Some people are just crazy like that.

 

I think it would be cool to be able to display on your summary page how many x star caches you have found and how many of each size you have found. Now THAT would tell the story about what kind of a person you are...

[+sept1c_tank]

I see no point in adding another category.

 

If you don't like nanos, don't hunt for micros. If you like micros (let's face it, there's not much room for trading anyway, and according to most everyone who doesn't like micros, they're usually a waste of time), you should be thrilled with nanos because of the greater oppertunity for hiding them. Personally, I like micros and it's a pleasant surprise when one turns out to be a nano.

[+ibycus]

Most people around here spell it out pretty clearly when you're nano huntin'. Generally I like them (except those acorn nanos those are a pain the butt ).

 

I imagine that generally speaking if someone doesn't spell it out in their cache page that that is what you're looking for, they aren't going to be overly inclined to include that information just because someone asked for it.

 

I agree, there is a significant difference between your typicial nano, and micro, but then again, there is a significant difference between a lot of caches that I've seen qualified as 'regular' and your typical ammo box. So no, I don't think we need a 'nano' cache size category.

[+DocDiTTo]

Prompted by this thread, I've created a bookmark list for all the nano caches in my area. It should be equally useful for those that hate them and those that love them.

The list will be shared but not published, as I don't want to provide spoilers to those who'd prefer not to have them.

Edited January 8, 2006 by DocDiTTo

[gridlox]

Ever Had A "nano Headache"

 

Why do you ask?

 

 

[gridlox]

Sorry!

 

Back on topic!

 

I agree that we DON'T need to add another cache type.

 

From what I've gathered from hiders of Nanos is that they are meant to be hard to find and even devious in how they are hid.

To give the cacher just that much more of a clue to the size will defeat the purpose of the fun had by the hider!.

 

D-man

[+DocDiTTo]

I agree that we DON'T need to add another cache type.

 

From what I've gathered from hiders of Nanos is that they are meant to be hard to find and even devious in how they are hid.

To give the cacher just that much more of a clue to the size will defeat the purpose of the fun had by the hider!.

So those hiders who don't want to give a clue can simply not choose the cache size. Having a nano category doesn't FORCE anyone to use it, it simply adds another option. And options are good for everyone.

[+fly46]

Now, I've seen nanos before... Some take me to a place that has a history (I would never have known it used to be a bus stop unless somebody told me), but who's to say whether that history is good or bad? I'm about to put a nano in a cemetary. There's reason enough for me to do it, but who's to say anyone else will see the reason?

[+Roamingbull]

I know this topic is sort of old, but I had to share my nano experience. It is disabled now but the container was no larger than an eraser of a small pencil. It actually had a log in it rolled up and compressed. The width of the log was about a centimeter but made up in the compressed length. Very interesting. It was magnetic container that unscrewed. What it was in its previous life who knows but yes I agree a nano category would be great. Happy caching.

[+WizCreations]

I believe that we don't need the NANO size choice. If the owner wants you to know it's so tiny before you find it, they can say so on the cache page. It adds to the dificulty when you don't know what your looking for, and that makes it more worth-while.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

whenever I get a nano headache, I just take 1/16 of a baby aspirin (which is about the size of the trade items you can fit into them).

[+Lil Devil]

What it was in its previous life who knows but yes I agree a nano category would be great.

Previous life

 

I see no reason for a separate size designation. It's just a small micro

[+Stonebreaker73]

I do not let on that my nanos are anything besides a micro. I usually don't describe the nano container either. That gives too much away.

[+DocDiTTo]

One local cacher recently hid a nano cache, then went to replace the log the other day but couldn't find his cache so he hid another one. So I guess his nano headache was self induced.

 

But NOW it's actually more tempting... cause I wanna find the one he couldn't. Maybe one of these days I'll make the whole half mile trip to see if I can...

[+Lighteye]

I'd LOVE to have a nano category added.  I really, really, really hate those things. ...

 

Plus it takes 5 minutes to get the log rolled up so it fits back in.  Waste of time. 

ROFL see my log about :this micro find

 

EVIL. EVIL. EVIL.

 

I agree on a separate nano category, and the rolling up part is for poo. I have been tempted several times to kind of lose the log in my pocket instead of working it like a chinese loop puzzle for 5 minutes to get it back in.

Edited January 17, 2006 by Lighteye

[Lowsky]

What do you call it when you put a nano inside of a micro? IE: the micro is stage 1 of 2 in a multi and the coord's for stage 2 are inside the nano

Edited January 17, 2006 by Lowsky

[+DocDiTTo]

ROFL see my log about :this micro find

 

EVIL. EVIL. EVIL.

My latest misfortune was with one hidden about 9 feet up on a metal bar. I had to stand on a wood post to reach the bar, so I did a sweep and sent the nano flying into vines 6" deep. My buddy and I looked for about a minute before we said screw it and left. It was gone. The cache owner stopped out early the next AM and replaced it.

 

Hmmm.. I think I'm seeing a pattern here...

 

Nano caches really seem to be a pain in the butt for the owners, even more so than the finders. the logs are small and fill up quickly (and I tend to write big, which probably doesn't help ) so the owners are constantly replacing the logs.... and those logs often tear in half too, again, pain in the neck for the owners who have to replace them. I dunno... I think it's too much hassle to hide nanos.

[+edscott]

I guess I am not in the majority, but I would like to see all micros in their own category with a unique icon separate from "traditional". Somewhat off topic but still on Micros.. Hiders should be extra careful to provide exact coordinates for micros. Way too often the coordinates are poor, I assume because they are often hidden near buildings that affect reception. Just yesterday I found four that were off by 40+ feet, and failed to find one more that is probably off about as much.

[+sbell111]

Here's an embarrassing story...

 

A week or so ago, I had a few minutes to kill and tried to find a few caches that were on my way home. Of the five I attempted, three of them hadn't been found in some time. I failed to find these. I also failed to find one that had been recently found. I was pretty sure that the magnetic micro was on a specific object, but I couldn't find it for the life of me. Eventually, I gave up.

 

The cache owner emailed me with a hint. Pncil eraser-sized. I went back yesterday and made a very quick find.

 

Here's the embarrasing part, As many of you know I sell a few geocaching items; one of which being nanos.

[+Renegade Knight]

I guess I am not in the majority, but I would like to see all micros in their own category with a unique icon separate from "traditional". ...

Micros cause enough angst to deserve their own catagory so I agree with you.

 

I don't think there needs to be a split between micro and nano. They are both a PITA.

[+sept1c_tank]

When life deals you a PITA, stuff it with spinache and cheese and wash it down with wine.

[aragorn05]

I agree with the new Catogory. I have found Nano's that 5 of them could fit in a film can! Small!

[salmoned]

You guys aren't even talking about nanos - Nanos require magnification to read and special styli to sign (sized 1/16" or smaller). It helps to be an electronics assembler in silicon valley.

Edited January 18, 2006 by edchen