New category for nano?

[+Thrak]

The only time I've seen a "nano" it only contained a coordinate to an actual larger cache as part of a multi. Would someone even have a log book that would fit in a nano? I don't think I could even write small enough to sign log book that fits into a nano.

 

The Mr. Magneto sized caches are the size of your little finger nail and only about a quarter of an inch high and have a little strip of paper rolled up in them as a log. I have more trouble getting the log back inside of them than I do finding the things.

 

I have no issue with a new size category for "nano" caches but I don't see it happening any time soon. I'm just a bit tired of seeing it brought up over and over and over and over and over and over.........................

[+jtbrady01]

The only time I've seen a "nano" it only contained a coordinate to an actual larger cache as part of a multi. Would someone even have a log book that would fit in a nano? I don't think I could even write small enough to sign log book that fits into a nano.

 

The Indiana Border Patrol must be doing their job, but believe me they will infiltrate your state also. The log is a strip of paper about 1/8 in wide and maybe 6-8 inches long. Rolling it back up and getting it back in the cache during a driving rain is one of the greatest joys in caching.

 

Bring them on!

[+Marsguy]

I have a great idea, why don't the "halve" the value of micros and make them worth only half a smiley. After all, they don't really fit the dictionary definition of a real cache.

Neither do virtuals, events, or Earthcaches. Wanna "halve" the smileys for them, too?

If we do that, then let's double the number of smileys you get for caches larger than regular sized.

In general, the larger a cache is, the easier it is to find. Therefore, shouldn't nanos be worth two smilies and regular caches only be worth half a smiley?

 

Alternatively, since fun can be had finding all sizes of caches, we could just keep them all valued at one smiley each.

It would be nice if their was an "effort value" for those of us that like high terrain, or special equipment type caches. These take far more effort to find than those caches where you drive up to a lamppost cover, and roll your window down to retrieve it. The only system like this are the "all finds" programs that chart your caching experiences.

 

Hey, you guys are completely overlooking terrain and difficulty. Shouldn't a 5-star terrain cache be worth 2.5 smileys and a 1-star terrain cache be worth only half? What what about 1.5-star terrain caches, should it be worth 0.75 smileys? And then what about difficulty? Should we use the same smiley system for difficulty (1 star = 0.5 smileys)? And them how would we account for both terrain and difficulty? Should we add the smileys or average them? If you average them, for example, with a terrain 1.5 and a difficulty 3 cache, should the cache then be worth 1.125 (1-1/8) smileys? But then we also have to factor in the size of the cache (either nano = 2 smiley because smaller = harder to find OR nano = 0.5 smileys because it is a smaller cache and has no pen or trading items; but then again, if smaller = harder to find, then shouldn't that be added to the difficulty.) But wait - we still haven't looked at some of the other possibilities, such as how many finds the cache has had or the length of the period of time since the cache was last found.

 

Someone should sit down and figure this all out. But then again, haven't they made several point systems designed to be as fair as possible, of which a few are used on Terracaching.com.

 

Anyway the annoying thing about forums is that they go off on random tangents. This forum is about adding a nano category size cache, not about how much nanos should be worth.

 

For my opinion I have been mixed. At first I thought nanos should be added, but then I realized it would be a little diffucult to do so. The little graphic image would then need to be redone and a smaller square would need to be added, or perhaps the designate a nano, the micro square should be filled in, and then a N is shown in the space at the side (where an X is sometimes).

 

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.

 

After all my pondering, I realized something - since nano is very close to a micro, as a nano may be much smaller than a 35mm film canister, each size category should not be a difinite size, but instead a "range". So instead of micro being 35mm film canister, it can range from a small thimble-size to a thin tube to a 35 mm film canister to a waterproof match holder. As mentioned in another thread (and above) the difference between .30 and .50 caliber ammo boxes, the size should be a range.

 

Anyway, the answer to the problem - which would satisfy most - is to have "nano-sized" (Mr. Magneto-sized to buffalo tube-sized) be an attribute that the owner can select to add to the cache page. This would also help those who don't like nano caches to be able to easily filter them out of their pocket queries. It would be as simple as the owner marking the cache as micro, and then as an attribute, select that it is nano-sized. It would also be helpful to many if the owner could also include that a cache is "nano-sized" within the cache description itself, since I'm not sure if GPX file format saves attributes (something else Groundspeak may want to look into), but I could be wrong. I do know that Attributes are included in the PDF file and printable-version cache pages.

 

Of course all this would take time, including Geocaching.com including attributes in GPX files, but I think instead of going and having to add a completely new cache size and thousands of owners having to go back and change their caches' size, owners simply need to add a new attribute, "nano-sized."

 

I still do recognize a significant difference in cache size between a nano and a micro, but I think an attribute would work just fine.

Edited August 16, 2007 by Marsguy

[+treasure_hunter]

Man... If I had a quarter for every time I have seen this topic come up.

 

I say.. Why? Why are you so concerned about a nano?

 

If it is indeed a nano you are searching for, 1. It's probably going to be a little tricky. 2. Possibly not a P&G.

 

Use the "Other" option for the cache size if it bugs you so bad. IMHO a nano cache container is indeed a "micro" (there is only room for a log "strip").

 

It will be more trouble than it's worth.

 

What's next, a category for a Bison Tube?