New Size request

[+Dgwphotos]

I think we need a size between Small and Regular, for caches that are bigger than, say, a Peanut Butter Jar, and smaller than an Ammo Box. I have a 4.5 cup rectangular lock and lock that I am planning to use for a cache, and it's bigger than a peanut butter jar and smaller than an ammo box. It doesn't really fit with the Small category and it doesn't fit the Regular category. I don't think Other is a good choice either, because it isn't an odd type of container or a case where I want to conceal the size.

Edited March 4, 2008 by Dwoodford

[+Stunod]

Reguall or Smegular?

[+Dgwphotos]

Reguall or Smegular?

 

I was thinking medium, but the next size from regular is large. Maybe midsized?

[+StarBrand]

Anything that size I would call a small. Anything half or less the size of a 30MM ammocan is small until you get down into micros.

[Neos2]

Well, this surprised me. I was expecting another plea for a nano label.

 

I think a container that holds less than 5 cups is a "small" too. It's just not as small as some smalls.

[+tozainamboku]

When I started geocaching there were no small caches. There were only regular, large, and micro. People who wanted to hide a container that was bigger than a 35mm film can and smaller than an ammo box were out of luck . Well not quite. I think altoids tin and the like were considered micros and anything bigger was a regular. The problem as that people were finding a lot of caches that were big enough to hold a few trade items by too small to hold most travel bugs and other type of trades. The small size was suppose to indicate caches that were big enough to hold a few small trade items but not big enough to hold the kinds of things that fit in an ammo can sized container. Of course with the new type, many caches that used to be considered micros are now called small. Some old timers still get upset if you call an altoids tin or a decon container small. No matter what you do there will always be some in-between sized containers that could go either way. If your container is big enough to hold most travel bugs (other than those that are cleary too big for even an ammo can) I would list this as a regular, otherwise I would say small.

[+Beaverbeliever]

I am all for the idea. Maybe it should be called a "Medium" sized cache. Between small, and regular.

 

Just pay attention to what it says,

A small should only hold a log and a few small items. A regular should be able to hold all normal trackables.

 

My way of knowing about where to set it is to do the fist technique. This doesn't always work however.

 

If the cache is smaller than your fist, it is a Micro.

If the cache is smaller than your 2 fists together, it is a Small.

If the cache is bigger than your 2 fists together, it is a Regular.

 

I hope this suggestion passes, and I hope my advice will help!

[+Dgwphotos]

Maybe a photo will help show what I am talking about here:

 

[+TrailGators]

Reguall or Smegular?

I could get behind a new cache size called "Smegular."

[+Renegade Knight]

Maybe a photo will help show what I am talking about here:

 

That looks like Regular. I can fit most all swag into it.

[CoyoteRed]

I don't think the sizes should be all that refined. After the recent addition of the small size category I think it is just fine.

 

If one wanted to detail the container within the description, then by all means.

[+StarBrand]

Maybe a photo will help show what I am talking about here:

 

I'd call that a regular (and have).

[+Dgwphotos]

BTW, it's no taller than the film canister.

[+WRASTRO]

BTW, it's no taller than the film canister.

 

That looks like a regular. For $.59 you could upgrade it to a large, or for $.99 you could super size it. Would you like fries with that?

 

In my mind you have some good examples of cache sizes in your picture. The big container is a regular, the GPS is a small and the film canister is a micro. The container is likely on the cusp between small and regular. Just give cachers an idea of what they are looking for and all should be good. Don't list it as a micro and don't list it as a 55 gallon drum. Unknown cache size is the worst in my opinion. It encourages cachers to search in ways that are inappropriate for the hide and the area.

[+Lil Devil]

Maybe instead of using small-regular-large sizes, we should have a numerical field where we list the volume of the container in barn-megaparsecs.

[+WRASTRO]

Maybe instead of using small-regular-large sizes, we should have a numerical field where we list the volume of the container in barn-megaparsecs.

 

All of my hides and finds would have fit in a barn.

[+TrailGators]

Maybe instead of using small-regular-large sizes, we should have a numerical field where we list the volume of the container in barn-megaparsecs.

Good idea! Then anything less than 50 barn-megaparsecs is a micro. Edited March 5, 2008 by TrailGators

[+Dgwphotos]

BTW, it's no taller than the film canister.

 

That looks like a regular. For $.59 you could upgrade it to a large, or for $.99 you could super size it. Would you like fries with that?

 

In my mind you have some good examples of cache sizes in your picture. The big container is a regular, the GPS is a small and the film canister is a micro. The container is likely on the cusp between small and regular. Just give cachers an idea of what they are looking for and all should be good. Don't list it as a micro and don't list it as a 55 gallon drum. Unknown cache size is the worst in my opinion. It encourages cachers to search in ways that are inappropriate for the hide and the area.

 

Heheh, you will likely be hunting it soon! I will give you one hint to where it will be at. PLWMC.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

When I started geocaching there were no small caches. There were only regular, large, and micro. People who wanted to hide a container that was bigger than a 35mm film can and smaller than an ammo box were out of luck . Well not quite. I think altoids tin and the like were considered micros and anything bigger was a regular. The problem as that people were finding a lot of caches that were big enough to hold a few trade items by too small to hold most travel bugs and other type of trades. The small size was suppose to indicate caches that were big enough to hold a few small trade items but not big enough to hold the kinds of things that fit in an ammo can sized container. Of course with the new type, many caches that used to be considered micros are now called small. Some old timers still get upset if you call an altoids tin or a decon container small. No matter what you do there will always be some in-between sized containers that could go either way. If your container is big enough to hold most travel bugs (other than those that are cleary too big for even an ammo can) I would list this as a regular, otherwise I would say small.

Generally, an Altoids tin is a micro and a decon container a small. I tend to think of log-only as micro, and although you can fit micro-swag in an Altoids tin, it's really only big enough for a log. A decon container can hold a log and a travelbug (depending on the bug, of course) or some other small swag.

[+TrailGators]

When I started geocaching there were no small caches. There were only regular, large, and micro. People who wanted to hide a container that was bigger than a 35mm film can and smaller than an ammo box were out of luck . Well not quite. I think altoids tin and the like were considered micros and anything bigger was a regular. The problem as that people were finding a lot of caches that were big enough to hold a few trade items by too small to hold most travel bugs and other type of trades. The small size was suppose to indicate caches that were big enough to hold a few small trade items but not big enough to hold the kinds of things that fit in an ammo can sized container. Of course with the new type, many caches that used to be considered micros are now called small. Some old timers still get upset if you call an altoids tin or a decon container small. No matter what you do there will always be some in-between sized containers that could go either way. If your container is big enough to hold most travel bugs (other than those that are cleary too big for even an ammo can) I would list this as a regular, otherwise I would say small.

Generally, an Altoids tin is a micro and a decon container a small. I tend to think of log-only as micro, and although you can fit micro-swag in an Altoids tin, it's really only big enough for a log. A decon container can hold a log and a travelbug (depending on the bug, of course) or some other small swag.

That's the same way I view it too. M&M tubes are micros for the same reason. There are a lot of smalls that I've found that are really micros. In fact, many of those "smalls" only had logbooks in them.

[+The Leprechauns]

I am chuckling as a I recall the discussions that led up to the addition of the "Small" size. Despite precise volume definitions, there is still plenty of inconsistency from hider to hider and region to region over what constitutes "micro" vs. "small" and "small" vs. "regular." If we all can't decide correctly among the existing choices, does it help or hurt to add yet another size?

[+ChileHead]

Another size isn't going to help things. The best way to make a more consistent sizing policy is to go by approximate volume (cups, liters, whatever ...)

[+Lil Devil]

Another size isn't going to help things. The best way to make a more consistent sizing policy is to go by approximate volume (cups, liters, barn-megaparsecs, whatever ...)

 

Fixed.

[+briansnat]

Maybe a photo will help show what I am talking about here:

 

 

That looks like a regular regular to me.

[Guyute1210]

Shouldn't we be using cubic parsecs, not barn-megaparsecs?

 

I'd say anything bigger than 4.02633948 × 10^-53 cubic Parsecs is a regular.

[CacheNCarryMA]

How long before someone starts an angsty "I hate smegular caches" thread?

[crawil]

If you really want to be specific on the size of a container, just give the dimensions! "You are looking for a 10.5" x 2" x 5.5" lock-n-lock." or whatever is appropriate.

[+Geovius]

No need for the new sizes.