Cache size

[+new_dharma]

when hiding a cache, do you use the size of the actual container (35mm film can, 1 liter Nalgene bottle, .50 cal ammo can) or would you list the size of the fake log/rock/branch/pinecone/tree/car that surrounds it.

 

You make a fake log that is 4'x2' and then put a film canister in it (extreme case here)...do you list it as a micro or large?

 

Thanks

[+x_Marks_the_spot]

Your example would be a micro.

 

Cache size refers to what will fit inside of the container.

[+StarBrand]

The actually container - not the camo.

[+Kit Fox]

when hiding a cache, do you use the size of the actual container (35mm film can, 1 liter Nalgene bottle, .50 cal ammo can) or would you list the size of the fake log/rock/branch/pinecone/tree/car that surrounds it.

 

You make a fake log that is 4'x2' and then put a film canister in it (extreme case here)...do you list it as a micro or large?

 

Thanks

 

It depends on whether or not you want everyone to know what the hiding spot is. I might mention that finders are looking for a "log only small sized cache." I might also mark it as unknown size. I had a 30 pound rock that had a micro log inside of it. Had I mentioned the size as being a "log only large cache" it would have been a dead giveaway. I chose to mark it unknown instead.

[+Team Cotati]

The problem is that listing this as a micro will prevent those of us who detest micros and thus filter them out of our PQ downloads from knowing of this type of cache. You might want to list it as a small to prevent this and then in the hint or description give the searcher some useful information about the actual size of the container compartment and/or that it is too small for trade items. I happen to have found many caches exactly as you describe and depending upon the location, have enjoyed them. Something like that works very well. Do not list it as 'unknown' size as that helps no one.

 

Cache on garth.

Edited October 12, 2007 by Team Cotati

[Neos2]

It should be listed as a micro (which always describes the logbook container), or don't list the size at all.

 

I vehemently disagree with Cotati, who seems to say that we should identify micros that he might like as small, so he won't filter them out--although how we would know that he would like "that kind of micro" and not "some other kind of micro" is beyond me!

 

If you stop to think about it, this isn't really any different than hiding a micro anywhere. Lets say you hide film cannister in a tree. The cannister is a micro, the tree is a "large"--would you even consider listing the cache as a large? Of course not. Just because you are also supplying the immediate cammo (fake rock) doesn't mean that you need to change how you list the logbook container.

[+Team Cotati]

Vehemently disagree as you wish. I can tell you from personal experience that hiders are in fact doing as I suggest and I find that to be a good thing. I continually find film canisters in fake rocks or small log on the ground listed as small and really enjoy them.

 

Since I filter out micros as a matter of course, I will never know about those detestible film canisters or especially nanos lying about naked. Hiding film canisters and the like in larger external containers is really sweet.

Edited October 12, 2007 by Team Cotati

[Neos2]

Vehemently disagree as you wish. I can tell you from personal experience that hiders are in fact doing as I suggest and I find that to be a good thing. I continually find film canisters in fake rocks or small log on the ground listed as small and really enjoy them.

 

Since I filter out micros as a matter of course, I will never know about those detestible film canisters or especially nanos lying about naked. Hiding film canisters and the like in larger external containers is really sweet.

But that will make those of us who detest "smalls" miss out on the cache.

 

There is a reason for listing the size of the logbook container, and it shouldn't be circumvented just to appease the very small minority of people who refuse to hunt a certain size category without any further information.

 

You've said that you liked those micros. So you do hunt micros. You just want me to somehow intuit which micros you will like and mark them in a way that will make you want to hunt them. Seems like a good way to tick off people that don't like any kind of micro no matter what.

[+Team Cotati]

Vehemently disagree as you wish. I can tell you from personal experience that hiders are in fact doing as I suggest and I find that to be a good thing. I continually find film canisters in fake rocks or small log on the ground listed as small and really enjoy them.

 

Since I filter out micros as a matter of course, I will never know about those detestible film canisters or especially nanos lying about naked. Hiding film canisters and the like in larger external containers is really sweet.

But that will make those of us who detest "smalls" miss out on the cache.

 

There is a reason for listing the size of the logbook container, and it shouldn't be circumvented just to appease the very small minority of people who refuse to hunt a certain size category without any further information.

 

You've said that you liked those micros. So you do hunt micros. You just want me to somehow intuit which micros you will like and mark them in a way that will make you want to hunt them. Seems like a good way to tick off people that don't like any kind of micro no matter what.

 

Perhaps I need to be a bit clearer: I do not want or desire that YOU do a single thing. The rest of the caching community seems to be handling this monumental issue quite nicely all by thems little selves. I simply encourage their current practice because I have more influence than most.

[+Dave_W6DPS]

...There is a reason for listing the size of the logbook container, and it shouldn't be circumvented just to appease the very small minority of people who refuse to hunt a certain size category without any further information...

 

I definately agree!

 

I think the size of the container should be listed accurately. I am annoyed by caches where the owner will mark the size as "Other" and then have nothing in the description about the size.

 

My PQs generally filter out micro and small--and I prefer not to waste my time on either because the listing is not accurate.

 

Instead of incorrectly listing the size, or listing it as "Other", I prefer that the listing have the correct size of the log container, and then any additional information or description be included in the description.

 

Of course a micro with outer camo is still going to be filtered out on my pocket query, but that really doesn't bother me. If you want to impress me, use great camo to hide a normal or large container in an appropriate location!

 

Dave_W6DPS

[+Team Cotati]

Now if we can just figure out a way to stop people from hiding micros in and on public works of art. That would be really nice.

[+Team Cotati]

Additionally it would be good for the game's image I believe, if people would not cram micros behind memorial plaques dedicated to various dead people and war heroes.

[+Sioneva]

By jove, I think he's got it!

 

Let's just stop hiding any caches at all! That would really improve the game's image!

[+Quiggle]

Now if we can just figure out a way to stop people from hiding micros in and on public works of art. That would be really nice.

Additionally it would be good for the game's image I believe, if people would not cram micros behind memorial plaques dedicated to various dead people and war heroes.

Even with the smilies, you're still off-topic. If you have something else to say, please start a new thread if you want to discuss something other than the original topic of this thread.

[+Team Cotati]

I would use the size of the "fake" log/rock/branch/pinecone that surrounds it. I'd not go as far as including a tree or car in my consideration. I'd use the 'hint' if I wanted to provide that additional information.

Edited October 12, 2007 by Team Cotati

[+wimseyguy]

The problem is that listing this as a micro will prevent those of us who detest micros and thus filter them out of our PQ downloads from knowing of this type of cache.

 

That would be your loss then for making that decision. The size field is for the size of the container.

Sometimes unknown works just as well. Sometimes more specific info may not necessarily help. One of my favorite hides of all time simply says "you are looking for a 4x4 container under some rocks.

But size doesn't really matter that much. It's the amount of effort involved that makes the experience a good one.

[+Team Cotati]

The problem is that listing this as a micro will prevent those of us who detest micros and thus filter them out of our PQ downloads from knowing of this type of cache.

 

That would be your loss then for making that decision. The size field is for the size of the container.

Sometimes unknown works just as well. Sometimes more specific info may not necessarily help. One of my favorite hides of all time simply says "you are looking for a 4x4 container under some rocks.

But size doesn't really matter that much. It's the amount of effort involved that makes the experience a good one.

 

Trust me, it is no great loss.

[+new_dharma]

so it's the container size, NOT the camo (no matter how big) that surrounds it...thanks all!

[+501_Gang]

What's the difference of hiding a micro in a hole in a tree and hiding one in a fake rock? If I hide one in a hole in a 10' tree should I called it a jumbo container?

[+Custheyder]

What's the difference of hiding a micro in a hole in a tree and hiding one in a fake rock? If I hide one in a hole in a 10' tree should I called it a jumbo container?

 

If you remove the cache, for whatever reason, then you remove the container with it. I can't see you ripping up a tree to remove he cache. The tree is not the container and is not camo and so it not part of the cache, therefore has nothing to do with the size of the cache. The tree is the place where it is hidden.

 

If I was to place an ammo can in a fake rock the size of a small car (exagerated ... just a touch!) in an abandoned quarry (better than a small fake rock in a pile of rocks in a quarry!) then it'd still be a regular as far as my listing was concerned. I'm one for listing the container size, not the size of the surrounding camo or the place I've hidden it.

 

That's my opinion anyhoo.

 

Cust.

[+briansnat]

so it's the container size, NOT the camo (no matter how big) that surrounds it...thanks all!

 

I disagree. If the container and it's camouflage are one piece, as in a fake rock with film canister permanently inside it, I would go by the size of the entire object.

 

If it's not one piece, as in a log with a hole sunk in the end to hold a Bison cylinder that can be removed, then I would go by the size of Bison cylinder

 

My reasoning is that the chief point of listing the size of the container is so that you know what you are looking for. If it is listed as a micro, you will be looking for something tiny and not a softball sized rock.

 

Knowing what size items to bring to trade is another reason for listing the size, but would you list a Thermos as small or regular if the inside of the container is actually small and the outside is regular? I would go with the outside. Same thing if the cache and camo are one piece.

Edited October 15, 2007 by briansnat

[CoyoteRed]

You make a fake log that is 4'x2' and then put a film canister in it (extreme case here)...do you list it as a micro or large?

There are two things to consider when forming an opinion on this issue. Some folks use the size as a hint of what to look for. Some use the size to determine what they will be able to put in the cache in the way of trinkets and hitchhikers.

 

My personal opinion is the inside volume of the container trumps the outside size.

 

A couple of examples why include a 200lb boulder with a drilled hole and a nano epoxied inside is little different than that nano simply stuck in the hole. Another is a log hollowed out to hold an ammo can (real world find). What's the difference if it were attached to or inside the log versus the log simply over the can? In either of these examples the hunt would be the exact same in that you'd have to examine the object serving as camo for a hidden container.

 

While I'm sure some smart aleck will attempt to make a cache where a nano is stuck to the inside of an ammo can and list it as a micro using the above logic. What would actually happen, though, is folks would still leave stuff in the ammo can as trades making it a de facto mis-labeled regular.

 

Additionally, I think purposefully mis-labeling a cache size in order to get around folks' filtering is just plain wrong. If you don't want your micro filtered out with the rest of the micros list it as a "Not Listed" or "Other," preferably "Not Listed" as, to me, "Other" implies something that doesn't quite fit in the other categories.

[CoyoteRed]

Knowing what size items to bring to trade is another reason for listing the size, but would you list a Thermos as small or regular if the inside of the container is actually small and the outside is regular? I would go with the outside. Same thing if the cache and camo are one piece.

No "Right on, Briansnat" for this one. I think you've got this one backwards.

 

You can always put smaller items in a larger container than anticipated, but not put larger items in a smaller container than anticipated. By erring on the side of the smaller container you take care of the size-of-the-items issue and see my post above for the difference in the container being attached or not of the hiding object. As a review, IMHO, there isn't one.

 

Let's take your example of the softball-sized rock. Your assertion of the difference being whether it is attached or not. I ask what would be the difference? You'd still have to pick up the rock to see 1) a container attached to the bottom or 2) a container hidden by the rock. Either way, you still are doing the exact same thing only in one case you're thinking "small" and the other "micro."