Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
jAY miLLS

Nano Cache Catagory

Recommended Posts

I am sure this has been mentioned but I don't have the time or desire to sift through the forums to look. There are catagorys for Large caches, Small caches, Virtual caches, Multi caches, and Micro caches. Why isn't there a catagory for Nano caches? It would be nice to know before ya go that you are looking for one of these pesky little buggers.

Share this post


Link to post

Since (as you point out) there is no such thing as a nano category, what do you propose as a definition?

Share this post


Link to post

Since (as you point out) there is no such thing as a nano category, what do you propose as a definition?

 

Nano = Too small for a log book.

Share this post


Link to post

Since (as you point out) there is no such thing as a nano category, what do you propose as a definition?

 

Nano = Too small for a log book.

The ones I've found have logbooks that are so small that you can only initial them. They are about half the size of the end of your pinky. I think a nano or sub-micro category would be OK. Edited by TrailGators

Share this post


Link to post

I am sure this has been mentioned but I don't have the time or desire to sift through the forums to look. There are catagorys for Large caches, Small caches, Virtual caches, Multi caches, and Micro caches. Why isn't there a catagory for Nano caches? It would be nice to know before ya go that you are looking for one of these pesky little buggers.

 

I agree that there should be a nano cache category. I would say bison tubes and smaller should be listed as nano caches.

Edited by supertbone

Share this post


Link to post

Since (as you point out) there is no such thing as a nano category, what do you propose as a definition?

 

Nano = Too small for a log book.

The ones I've found have logbooks that are so small that you can only initial them. They are about half the size of the end of your pinky. I think a nano or sub-micro category would be OK.

 

If it's got a log book I'd say it's merely a micro. If it's too small for a log book it's a nano. Of course to be listed on this site...

Share this post


Link to post

I wouldn't say I have a burning desire for a nano category but I certainly wouldn't mind one. I have a difference of opinion with RK in that I would characterize a so-called blinker as a nano.

Share this post


Link to post

I am sure this has been mentioned but I don't have the time or desire to sift through the forums to look. There are catagorys for Large caches, Small caches, Virtual caches, Multi caches, and Micro caches. Why isn't there a catagory for Nano caches? It would be nice to know before ya go that you are looking for one of these pesky little buggers.

 

I am sure this has been mentioned in the forums before but since you don't have the time or desire to look then I don't have the time or desire to answer your question.

 

However I have a question for you. Where did you get the idea that the categories are Large caches, Small caches, Virtual caches, Multi caches, and Micro caches. The cache types are Traditional, Multicache, Mystery, Letterbox Hybrid, Event, and CITO. Maybe you meant say cache size? Which in that case the sizes are; Large, Regular, Small, Micro, and Other.

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe you meant say cache size? Which in that case the sizes are; Large, Regular, Small, Micro, and Other.

I think that's what he meant. Cache size Nano would be useful, as long as defined (too small for any chance of leaving a pencil in situ - so BYO writing implement).

"Other" seems to be in use for occasions where the cache owner really doesn't want to give you a clue about the container.

Share this post


Link to post

Since (as you point out) there is no such thing as a nano category, what do you propose as a definition?

 

Nano = Too small for a log book.

 

No log book is against the guidlines.

 

Nano = Too small for a writing implement.

 

would be usefull last week i had to find a stick and mixed some clay with water to sign in a log book because the lisitng did not mention bring your own pencil

Share this post


Link to post

Since (as you point out) there is no such thing as a nano category, what do you propose as a definition?

 

Nano = Too small for a log book.

 

No log book is against the guidlines....

 

That's the beauty of it. A built in limit on how small a cache can be. Nano being to small for a log book would not be listable on this site.

 

Since all you need is pencil lead (0.3mm anyone?) to create a writing stick of sorts and that would fit in any cache I've ever seen a log book in...It would not really move much to the nano catagory for that to be the criteria.

Share this post


Link to post

.....That's the beauty of it. A built in limit on how small a cache can be. Nano being to small for a log book would not be listable on this site......

 

Actually, I think that is exactly why a "nano" category doesn't exist....and will never exist.

Share this post


Link to post

Nano caches fit under the "Micro" size definition.

 

Exactly how specific do we need to be with catagories???? I enjoy not knowing at least something about a cache before looking for it. It adds to the difficulty. Do we need a catagory for ammo cans, one for tupperware, one for hidden behind a rock, one for hidden under a pile of sticks, one for film containers, one for...

 

"Let's see, the listing shows this cache as having a cache Type of Traditional and the Size as Regular, Container Type lists it as Ammo Can, Cache Hide Method lists it as Under Bush. Yup, there it is. Just like the page said. Hey, did you ever notice that all caches now have a difficulty of 1?"

Share this post


Link to post

Since all you need is pencil lead (0.3mm anyone?) to create a writing stick of sorts and that would fit in any cache I've ever seen a log book in...It would not really move much to the nano catagory for that to be the criteria.

Most of the nanocaches I've seen have no room even for a pencil lead. Or at least, not enough of a lead that would really be any use to write with. The lead at the bottom of the picture below is the minimum size, and even that wouldn't be of any practical use, yet it's nowhere near fitting in a typical nano (also pictured, with typical micro for comparison);

 

289baef8-3a08-45f5-9545-0fa5b0b54b31.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

And just why is that the "minimum" lead size?

 

(break it in half and shove it in)

Share this post


Link to post

And just why is that the "minimum" lead size?

 

(break it in half and shove it in)

I tried: you can't write with anything smaller (unless you're an elf!). Even the one shown is very tricky to do anything with and is likely to snap unless you're very careful. If you drop it, it's gone...

I broke a bit more off and it wouldn't stay in place between fingers (I play the piano so have reasonably nimble fingers). Even the smaller version wouldn't go in the nano.

Share this post


Link to post

And just why is that the "minimum" lead size?

 

(break it in half and shove it in)

I tried: you can't write with anything smaller (unless you're an elf!). Even the one shown is very tricky to do anything with and is likely to snap unless you're very careful. If you drop it, it's gone...

I broke a bit more off and it wouldn't stay in place between fingers (I play the piano so have reasonably nimble fingers). Even the smaller version wouldn't go in the nano.

Several of us tried and the smallest that all us could write with is just a tad over 3mm.

001.jpg

 

 

(time to go Geocaching - can't believe we even tried it..... :smile: )

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, I just tried. 3mm long 0.5mm lead and I got a legible RK out of it. No fancy photo's though...

 

If I had tweezers I could probably manager smaller. :smile:

Edited by Renegade Knight

Share this post


Link to post
Nano caches fit under the "Micro" size definition.

 

Exactly how specific do we need to be with catagories????

I agree! Probably for a different reason, though.

 

Micro is good enough, even though someone told me they've come across film cans being marked as "small." :smile:

 

But, suppose we do add a nano size. Do we then need to get the option of selecting two adjacent sizes to capture the 'tweens? You know, like "nano/micro" for stuff that is not either a full micro or a full nano. How about "regular/large" for the mere 3 gallon bucket?

 

IMHO, there was only one deficiency in the original scheme as there was no "small" size. This is now fixed.

 

Personally, when I've come across them I've not had the first problem distinguishing between a "blinky" and a beach safe--pretty major size differences though both are still considered micros. I simply don't see the need in yet more granularity. What's next, pico?

Share this post


Link to post

would be usefull last week i had to find a stick and mixed some clay with water to sign in a log book because the lisitng did not mention bring your own pencil

 

I NEVER EVER go caching without at least 1 writing instrument. Too many micros cant hold one, Too many larger caches either missing one, not working, or broken pencil etc.

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, I just tried. 3mm long 0.5mm lead and I got a legible RK out of it. No fancy photo's though...

 

If I had tweezers I could probably manager smaller. :lol:

Arf,arf... :smile: ...you need to write the date as well!

 

And when 2 people have signed the log there's only 2mm left - you could lose that inside the nano! Not very practical...and what happens after 6 people have visited?

 

But, suppose we do add a nano size. Do we then need to get the option of selecting two adjacent sizes to capture the 'tweens? You know, like "nano/micro" for stuff that is not either a full micro or a full nano. How about "regular/large" for the mere 3 gallon bucket?

 

IMHO, there was only one deficiency in the original scheme as there was no "small" size. This is now fixed.

 

The "point" is that there's a size of micro where you have to bring a magnifying glass and your own writing implement - quite different from a regular large, prominent and capacious traditional micro containing the time-honoured mush of paper pulp.

Personally, when I've come across them I've not had the first problem distinguishing between a "blinky" and a beach safe--pretty major size differences though both are still considered micros. I simply don't see the need in yet more granularity. What's next, pico?

I agree that there's no need except that there's a different search technique required and there's a need to bring your own pencil. Any granularity already exists and hasn't been increased by the extra category.

 

As yet, there's no way of making a log book any smaller so no chance of further refinements. We're on the cutting edge of modern caching! :smile:

Share this post


Link to post

I wonder if the next call is going to be a size for an inside volume of nothing.

 

Those magnetic sheets with the log sheet attached to the backs of them have absolutely no volume. Those require a different search technique. Do we need a size for those, too?

 

Additionally, I have no sympathy for someone who shows up to any cache without a writing instrument because he didn't know the size of the cache. As has been mentioned above, one should always carry one. You never know when any cache may be deficient. I'd think folks would learn that pretty early on.

Share this post


Link to post

Micro by def is a 35 mm film can as stated by example on geocaching.com. these nanos are almost impossible to see would like to know it if is over 90% smaller than 35mm can. (Maybe I should ask a different question.. as I have seen logbooks and small items in a film can... what is the difference between micro and small?) Just becuase someone can write with a bit of lead with a twezers I am not sure that this was the intent of the person when they came up with micro. Maybe the question is... who are we hiding the caches from? Was the orginal intent to get someone to go someplace and find something or have someone go someplace and make a fool out of them becuase the item is so small and so camo'ed the no one in their right mind could find it? (I played with a nano hidden behind bark on a oak tree - get real)

 

All I know is that last week I was in Chicago and a older person was caching with me, they commented that they are starting to give up on this because the nano is wrecking the fun for them in the city. And without a way of determine film style/size cans from single pill holders they are thinking about giving up the entire sport.

 

So with that said, what harm does it do to make an addtional catagory if a portion of the population would benifit from it? I guess we could say screw them... if they cant see it then maybe they shouldnt be caching.

 

5zekw2a.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
All I know is that last week I was in Chicago and a older person was caching with me, they commented that they are starting to give up on this because the nano is wrecking the fun for them in the city. And without a way of determine film style/size cans from single pill holders they are thinking about giving up the entire sport.

 

So with that said, what harm does it do to make an addtional catagory if a portion of the population would benifit from it? I guess we could say screw them... if they cant see it then maybe they shouldnt be caching.

Hmmm... I think you may have a valid point. You've given me pause enough to re-think my position.

Share this post


Link to post

Micro by def is a 35 mm film can as stated by example on geocaching.com. these nanos are almost impossible to see would like to know it if is over 90% smaller than 35mm can. (Maybe I should ask a different question.. as I have seen logbooks and small items in a film can... what is the difference between micro and small?) Just becuase someone can write with a bit of lead with a twezers I am not sure that this was the intent of the person when they came up with micro. Maybe the question is... who are we hiding the caches from? Was the orginal intent to get someone to go someplace and find something or have someone go someplace and make a fool out of them becuase the item is so small and so camo'ed the no one in their right mind could find it? (I played with a nano hidden behind bark on a oak tree - get real)

 

All I know is that last week I was in Chicago and a older person was caching with me, they commented that they are starting to give up on this because the nano is wrecking the fun for them in the city. And without a way of determine film style/size cans from single pill holders they are thinking about giving up the entire sport.

 

So with that said, what harm does it do to make an addtional catagory if a portion of the population would benifit from it? I guess we could say screw them... if they cant see it then maybe they shouldnt be caching.

 

If you are using the Geocache Rating System correctly then a nano sized cache will have the cache size of micro and very high difficulty rating. I can see two ways to handle this problem. You can ask Groundspeak to add a nano size option for the cache size or you can help and guide your follow Geocacher when they incorrectly rate their hides.

Edited by Glenn

Share this post


Link to post

How abuot Continuing to use the Micro size and have the cache owner note in the description (container is smaller than a Pencil eraser. Or add to the name of the cache.

instead of calling a cache "The Brick Wall" for instance call it "The Brick Wall Nano"

 

The largest part of adding too refined size levels is that everyone's idea of that size is different - this is intended for a guide not to tell you exactly what the container is.

I mean Ive seen some pretty good sized "Small" and some pretty small "Standard" size contaners.

Then there's always the problem with I placed a 35 mm film canister someplace and it blew away or muggled or didnt hold up to the conditions or something So I replaced it will a small Nitro Pill bottle (how many will go back and re-adjust the size setting?)

Share this post


Link to post
All I know is that last week I was in Chicago and a older person was caching with me, they commented that they are starting to give up on this because the nano is wrecking the fun for them in the city. And without a way of determine film style/size cans from single pill holders they are thinking about giving up the entire sport.

To these people I would suggest that they eliminate micros from their PQs completely. There's no shortage of larger sized containers to find that will give them a lot of fun.

 

If they said that they were ready to quit the sport because they couldn't tell if the regular sized containers were hidden under sticks or in a bush, would you be in favor of adding a hide method catagory too, or would you explain that not knowing is part of the challange?

Share this post


Link to post

...All I know is that last week I was in Chicago and a older person was caching with me, they commented that they are starting to give up on this because the nano is wrecking the fun for them in the city. And without a way of determine film style/size cans from single pill holders they are thinking about giving up the entire sport.

 

So with that said, what harm does it do to make an addtional catagory if a portion of the population would benifit from it? I guess we could say screw them... if they cant see it then maybe they shouldnt be caching.

 

In a nutshell, it's more crap to track. It's good to be able to sort things out any which way you want as long as it's simple. In my world view once you are too small for swag (Micro) the difficulty is aready high from size, the fun is aleady going to be less because even if it do find it there is no swag etc.

 

If someone is about ready to give up the activity of caching because they can't find Nano's, Pico's and other very small caches, maybe they should try Small and larger caches instead. Maybe for some there is a world of difference between a film canister and something the size of a pencil eraser but for me the important difference happens at Film Canister and any further gradations are just more checkmarks of caches I don't wan't to find unless they are the only thing left.

 

However I am for spinning off Micro (and smaller if they do introduce it) as it's own cache catagory because of the break in fun & swag that happen when you drop from small to micro.

Edited by Renegade Knight

Share this post


Link to post

I am sure this has been mentioned but I don't have the time or desire to sift through the forums to look. There are catagorys for Large caches, Small caches, Virtual caches, Multi caches, and Micro caches. Why isn't there a catagory for Nano caches? It would be nice to know before ya go that you are looking for one of these pesky little buggers.

 

I am sure this has been mentioned in the forums before but since you don't have the time or desire to look then I don't have the time or desire to answer your question.

 

However I have a question for you. Where did you get the idea that the categories are Large caches, Small caches, Virtual caches, Multi caches, and Micro caches. The cache types are Traditional, Multicache, Mystery, Letterbox Hybrid, Event, and CITO. Maybe you meant say cache size? Which in that case the sizes are; Large, Regular, Small, Micro, and Other.

 

Well I guess you straightened me out . . . good to know you knew what I was talking about anyway isn't it.

Share this post


Link to post

I am sure this has been mentioned but I don't have the time or desire to sift through the forums to look. There are catagorys for Large caches, Small caches, Virtual caches, Multi caches, and Micro caches. Why isn't there a catagory for Nano caches? It would be nice to know before ya go that you are looking for one of these pesky little buggers.

 

I am sure this has been mentioned in the forums before but since you don't have the time or desire to look then I don't have the time or desire to answer your question.

 

However I have a question for you. Where did you get the idea that the categories are Large caches, Small caches, Virtual caches, Multi caches, and Micro caches. The cache types are Traditional, Multicache, Mystery, Letterbox Hybrid, Event, and CITO. Maybe you meant say cache size? Which in that case the sizes are; Large, Regular, Small, Micro, and Other.

 

Well I guess you straightened me out . . . good to know you knew what I was talking about anyway isn't it.

 

I am glad that I can help and I hope you find an answer to your question.

Share this post


Link to post
However I am for spinning off Micro (and smaller if they do introduce it) as it's own cache catagory because of the break in fun & swag that happen when you drop from small to micro.

Instead of basing the category on size why not base it on the actually attribute that folks don't care for--trinkets?

 

We used to have the category of locationless, why not "swagless."

 

This I would back because the line is fuzzy at micro in regards to trinkets. In the beginning all micros we found had trinkets. There's no need to make that go away. However, if you introduce a new size of nano and a new category of swagless while making the definition, in addition to logscroll, there are no trinkets, writing instruments (to save the obvious "BYOP" statements), otherwise fits the traditional category, and the size is micro and smaller with nanos only available in this category. This wouldn't mean a traditional micro would have to be moved to "swagless" as you simply need to add some micro swag.

Share this post


Link to post

I think it would be wonderful to have nano caches diferentiated from micros somehow, and I'm not against giving folks the option to do so. But I think many people who hide nanos do so because they want to create a challenge and probably wouldn't want to tell the world it's a nano. Having the category would be fine, but getting nano hiders to actually choose that type might prove difficult. Personally, I'd love it if every nano cache were designated as such. It would make filtering them all out of my pocket queries much easier.

Share this post


Link to post

...We used to have the category of locationless, why not "swagless."...

 

Not quite the same thing as proposed but for all practical purposes...I think it would accomplish much the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post

I am sure this has been mentioned but I don't have the time or desire to sift through the forums to look. There are catagorys for Large caches, Small caches, Virtual caches, Multi caches, and Micro caches. Why isn't there a catagory for Nano caches? It would be nice to know before ya go that you are looking for one of these pesky little buggers.

 

I used the handy dandy search function and typed the word "Nano," it took me twenty seconds. Enhancement Request - New Cache Size NANO

 

My vote is no the Nano Size.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
However I am for spinning off Micro (and smaller if they do introduce it) as it's own cache catagory because of the break in fun & swag that happen when you drop from small to micro.

Instead of basing the category on size why not base it on the actually attribute that folks don't care for--trinkets?

 

We used to have the category of locationless, why not "swagless."

 

This I would back because the line is fuzzy at micro in regards to trinkets. In the beginning all micros we found had trinkets. There's no need to make that go away. However, if you introduce a new size of nano and a new category of swagless while making the definition, in addition to logscroll, there are no trinkets, writing instruments (to save the obvious "BYOP" statements), otherwise fits the traditional category, and the size is micro and smaller with nanos only available in this category. This wouldn't mean a traditional micro would have to be moved to "swagless" as you simply need to add some micro swag.

 

I'd rather call them (not really a cache, but you do get a smiley for signing your name.)

Share this post


Link to post

I am sure this has been mentioned but I don't have the time or desire to sift through the forums to look. There are catagorys for Large caches, Small caches, Virtual caches, Multi caches, and Micro caches. Why isn't there a catagory for Nano caches? It would be nice to know before ya go that you are looking for one of these pesky little buggers.

 

I used the handy dandy search function and typed the word "Nano," it took me twenty seconds. Enhancement Request - New Cache Size NANO

 

My vote is no the Nano Size.

 

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.

 

then maybe we shouldt call them caches becuase they can only fit books... opps sorry book shouldt be there too cuz i dont think that a single role of paper is a book.

 

and for the person who said only GC larger as there are lots.. try NY or downtown chicago... they aint any but one or two.

Share this post


Link to post

Are you kidding? I mean that was creative but YOU DIDNT BRING A PEN? Dude...come on?!!? In my GeoBag(purse...LOL) I always carry at least 3-4 Pens (almost all are Gel Pens for those soggy logs and when it's COLD outside) just in case my buddy forgets to bring one. And we almost always run into Micro's/Nano's when caching. hehe. No pen. Might as well forget your spare batteries and mirror too. ;P

 

would be useful last week i had to find a stick and mixed some clay with water to sign in a log book because the lisitng did not mention bring your own pencil

Edited by The O'Hara Cache Crew

Share this post


Link to post

 

I used the handy dandy search function and typed the word "Nano," it took me twenty seconds. Enhancement Request - New Cache Size NANO

 

My vote is no the Nano Size.

 

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.

 

My vote is yes the Nano Size.

 

By the same nature of your argument of "nanometer" then micro should be eliminated as a micrometer is one millionth of a meter, and you can't have a log book in something that small.

 

Nano cache would refer to the smallest of size categories, relative to the others, smaller than a micro.

Share this post


Link to post

Those magnetic sheets with the log sheet attached to the backs of them have absolutely no volume. Those require a different search technique. Do we need a size for those, too?

 

Additionally, I have no sympathy for someone who shows up to any cache without a writing instrument because he didn't know the size of the cache. As has been mentioned above, one should always carry one. You never know when any cache may be deficient. I'd think folks would learn that pretty early on.

 

Around here, most nanos and magnetic sheet caches tend to put "Log Only" or "BYOP" on the cache page. Either might be a better (more inclusive) term than "Nano".

Share this post


Link to post

Why isn't there a catagory for Nano caches? It would be nice to know before ya go that you are looking for one of these pesky little buggers.

A nano category would make sense in terms of container volumes:

 

large - bucket - 640 oz

regular - ammo can - 100 oz (about 1/6 the size of large)

small - serving container - 16 oz (about 1/6 the size of regular)

micro - film canister - 2 oz (about 1/8 the size of small)

nano - pill capsule - 0.05 oz (about 1/40 the size of micro)

 

The nano is off the scale both in volume and potential difficulty--very different from a standard micro in key ways. Several people have suggested raising the difficulty level for a nano but difficulty is very subjective and is used for other qualities of the hunt. I would like to see a nano size category.

Share this post


Link to post

Why not just use the size "Other"???

 

That way, if it is a crafty "evil" hide you wouldn't come right out and say, "It's a nano container!"

 

I like a good challenge, some nano caches prove to be quite difficult. Personally I'm going to vote no to this proposal. I still say use the "Other" option.

Share this post


Link to post

Why not just use the size "Other"???

 

That way, if it is a crafty "evil" hide you wouldn't come right out and say, "It's a nano container!"

 

I like a good challenge, some nano caches prove to be quite difficult. Personally I'm going to vote no to this proposal. I still say use the "Other" option.

"Other" is used for, well, other purposes that do not fit the size categories (containerless caches, heavily camoed containers, etc.) or when the owner does not want to note the size for some reason such as your evil hide. It would confuse the "other" category to add a specific container size to it.

 

When the original size categories were set up there were few if any nano caches but now they are quite common. Calling them micros or "other" is not very helpful. If the cache owner wants to note the size they should have the proper categories to chose from and that means adding nano to the mix.

Share this post


Link to post

Am I alone in thinking we need to discourage the use of nanos rather then encourage it by adding another category? Living in a highly urban environment, I've already got my fill of these microscopic containers hidden in obscure locations. What happened to 5gal buckets hidden out in the woods? :lol:

 

I guess my vote will be no. However, if the option were implemented, I could see a use to exclude that type from my PQ results. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

If this in any way at all encourages the proliferation of "nano" caches, I vote no.

 

(as if voting matters anyway, :o)

Share this post


Link to post

Nano caches are here to stay, whether you like it or not.

Those of you who don't like nanos and are saying "no" have not thought this through.

If there were a "Nano" category then you could filter on that characteristic and avoid them.

Saying "No" to the proposal of adding this new category means "keep treating them exactly the same as micros"

I like nano caches and I enjoy searching for them most of the time. It would make it a little easier to know the size better, and that would be OK with me.

Share this post


Link to post

I still dislike the direction of creating the nano size. Nanos are little more than code word caches in practical terms if not technical terms. Code word caches were little more than old-style virts that you placed the confirmation information only without the (somewhat) interesting place.

 

Folks are walking around with blinkies in their pockets and, pretty much, if they find a spot outside the 528' buffer zone of an established cache, they drop one. In many cases it's like convenience food or impulse buying--in other words, without thought. There's already a joke about a purpose-built film can launcher for micro spew. How many blinkies can you grab on the way out the door to run errands?

 

The only way I'd vote up a new category is not only can I filter on them, but also they do not affect the placement of larger caches like virts used to do. Only then can you truly ignore them.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

×
×
  • Create New...