+jshults (Rally Dude) Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 This would be great as the number of NANO caches seems to be growing lately...
+Moneydork Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 Good idea. It seems to be "about time" - as I know nanos urk a number of cachers - it'll be easier to create pocket queries that ignore them if they have their own size category.
+The Leprechauns Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 I would like new cache sizes that distinguish between .30 cal ammo boxes and .50 cal ammo boxes. The skinnier boxes can be hidden in spots where I wouldn't think of looking for a .50 cal. This has delayed me on many a cache find, causing me to spend extra minutes out in the woods. Since the size differential between .30 and .50 caliber is far greater than the difference between a nano and a micro, I trust that a higher priority will be accorded to my request.
+StarBrand Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 Lets not do anything to encourage that ok.
+ZSandmann Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 Micro = Log Only (Usually no pen) Why split hairs?
+StarBrand Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 Oh and let me add: I would rather see a new type for ALR - to help filter those.
+Kit Fox Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 This would be great as the number of NANO caches seems to be growing lately... Do you have any idea how big a "nanometer" really is? A nanometer is a unit of measure. Just like inches, feet and miles. By definition a nanometer is one-billionth of a meter. A meter is about 39 inches long. A billion is a thousand times bigger than a million, as a number you write it out as 1,000,000,000. That is a big number and when you divide a meter into one billion pieces, well that is very small. So small you cannot see something a nanometer in size unless you use very powerful microscopes like atomic force microscopes. Until cachers need Atomic Force Microscopes, no Nano size description is needed.
+tozainamboku Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 I never quite understood why they added the small size.
Mushtang Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 This would be great as the number of NANO caches seems to be growing lately... Do you have any idea how big a "nanometer" really is? A nanometer is a unit of measure. Just like inches, feet and miles. By definition a nanometer is one-billionth of a meter. A meter is about 39 inches long. A billion is a thousand times bigger than a million, as a number you write it out as 1,000,000,000. That is a big number and when you divide a meter into one billion pieces, well that is very small. So small you cannot see something a nanometer in size unless you use very powerful microscopes like atomic force microscopes. Until cachers need Atomic Force Microscopes, no Nano size description is needed. He said "NANO caches", not "Nanometer sized caches". Two definitions for "Nano" that might be appropriate, from Dictionary.com are: Extremely small: nanoid. and [sI: the next quantifier below micro-; It seems like a reasonable name to me, no need to get medieval on the guy. Whether or not a new catagory (whatever the name might be) is necessary however, is something else entirely.
+sbell111 Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 This would be great as the number of NANO caches seems to be growing lately... Do you have any idea how big a "nanometer" really is? A nanometer is a unit of measure. Just like inches, feet and miles. By definition a nanometer is one-billionth of a meter. A meter is about 39 inches long. A billion is a thousand times bigger than a million, as a number you write it out as 1,000,000,000. That is a big number and when you divide a meter into one billion pieces, well that is very small. So small you cannot see something a nanometer in size unless you use very powerful microscopes like atomic force microscopes. Until cachers need Atomic Force Microscopes, no Nano size description is needed. Would you prefer we called them teeny tiny caches?
+Kit Fox Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 Would you prefer we called them teeny tiny caches? How about "Mr. Blinky" sized caches.? A micro is the best description even though we don't need microscopes to find them.
+ChileHead Posted January 31, 2007 Posted January 31, 2007 Let's get rid of all cache sizes, and replace it with a type in where you can type in the cubic inches (or cm for the rest of the world) of the cache container.
Recommended Posts