Nano Caches

[Whitelaw's]

on the website when you are publishing a geocache the smallest sized cache is micro.

i think that there should be a new size of cache for nano caches.

 

if you do not know what nano caches are they are caches which are extremely small smaller than film canisters. They have to have very small logbooks and they are nearly always magnetic and they are used in urban areas. They are especially good on bridges in towns.

 

if you would like to own a nano cache you can buy them on <unauthorized commercial link removed by moderator>.

 

if you agree with me then please post a note.

Edited March 22, 2008 by Keystone

[+ReadyOrNot]

Can I write a note if I disagree?? I don't think we need to promote nano caches. Micro caches are bad enough. If the nano had its own designation, I'm sure more people would use it and that in my opinion would NOT be a good thing.

[+TrailGators]

If the nano had its own designation, I'm sure more people would use it.

Then we should promote a new size named "Medium!"

[+Kit Fox]

Did you try the search first?

 

Feature Request: Nano size option, Discussion on adding nano to the size options for listing

 

Nano Cache Category

 

New Category for Nano?

 

Enhancement Request - New Cache Size NANO

 

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.

[+TrailGators]

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.

 

This is true! A human hair is 15,000 to 180,000 nanometers thick. So we'd have to be splitting hairs to create a cache that size... Edited March 21, 2008 by TrailGators

[+ReadyOrNot]

Did you try the search first?

 

Feature Request: Nano size option, Discussion on adding nano to the size options for listing

 

Nano Cache Category

 

New Category for Nano?

 

Enhancement Request - New Cache Size NANO

 

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.

 

Give it time! There will come a day when caches are hidden at the sub-atomic level. I can see the arguments now

 

The 528 micron seperation guidelines is hindering my ability to hide sub-atomic caches. It should be allowed since my cache is separated by a proton to the North and a rather large molecule to the South.

[+tozainamboku]

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.

 

This is true! A human hair is 15,000 to 180,000 nanometers thick. So we'd have to be splitting hairs to create a cache that size...

What does this have to do with cache size? Micro caches are not a micrometer (micron) in size. Should we be calling blinkies and bison tube centicaches because they are on the scale of a centimeter? Are regular caches a meter long? If we say that someone who found 1000 caches joins the kilo club does that mean they walked a kilometer to find those caches? It's common marketing practice to call small or tiny things progressively mini, micro, and nano.

[+Renegade Knight]

Micro and smaller is all the same. "Too freaking small" The dinky log is had to sign, the swag doesn't exist and if there is a pencil in the cache there is no way to use it to sign the log without fealing flat out goofy.

 

Oh and in my area the nano's are not all magnetic. Must be a local thing in your spot. I've got a nano looking for a home. When I list it I'll use the 'micro' size since it's the right one.

[+Markwell]

From the form to submit a cache:

Micro (e.g. 35mm Film Canister)

Small (holds logbook and small items)

Regular (Rubbermaid, ammo box)

Large (5 gallon bucket)

From the listing guidelines:

Micro (35 mm film canister or smaller – less than approximately 3 ounces or .1 litres -- typically containing only a logbook)

Small (Sandwich-sized Tupperware-style container or similar -- less than approximately 1 quart or litre -- holds trade items as well as a logbook)

Regular (Tupperware-style container or ammo can)

Large (5 gallon/20 litre bucket or larger)

To me, there is something implied with the descriptions of Small and Micro. Small holds a logbook and small items. From the listing guidelines: "For all physical caches, there must be a logbook, scroll or other type of log for geocachers to record their visit." That to me implies that small caches are ones that can contain additional items other than just a log book. If a cache cannot contain additional items above and beyond some type of log - it's a micro.

 

So for the first part of my "not really" argument: I think the current definition is adequate to give us a description of what we should be looking for.

========================

Second I want to focus on what ReadyOrNot said:

If the nano had its own designation, I'm sure more people would use it and that in my opinion would NOT be a good thing.

I'm not sure our reasoning is the same, as I don't know ReadyOrNot's reason, but I agree with this statement to a degree. It's not that I detest micros (I've learned to ignore them), but rather potential for damage to the surrounding area a well-hidden micro could pose.

 

Consider: Let's say that most of the people that geocache are environmentally conscious people. Let's say that number is as high as 95% (sounds high, but a good starting point). When this game started out with maybe 1000 to 2000 people, that would have only accounted for 50 to 100 people that couldn't care less about the environment, but just wanted to find the caches. With more people playing the game than ever, the fringe elements of the bell curve increase proportionally. No one knows how many actual cachers there are. The front page current says that In the last 7 days, there have been 367,821 new logs written by 49,936 account holders. I'm guessing that there's probably twice or even three times as many current caches that just haven't logged in the last 7 days. If it's 3x - that's approximately 150,000 cachers, and that 5% fringe element is up to 7,500 cachers that are going to "slash and burn" to find a cache. If someone has the mentality of ripping up the ground to find the cache, are they going to destroy more ground looking for this or something like this?

 

So for the second part of my "not really" argument: The potential for evnironmental damage due to careless lookers is inversely proportional to the size of the cache, and therefore, encouraging* nano-caches might not be the best idea.

 

*Please note: I did not say that people couldn't PLACE nano-caches, I just agree that giving them their own category of size would encourage more people to place them.

[+Cache O'Plenty]

I don't think we need an additional category of cache size. But, maybe, a little tweaking of the definitions may be in order. 35mm film containers are becoming more and more rare (due to digital cameras) so maybe we change that to something smaller than a standard Altoids tin. (Altoids will hold a GeoCoin so they would be small. Anthing that can't hold a GeoCoin should be a micro (and I don't want to quibble about those smaller than standard GeoCoins).

[+TrailGators]

Second I want to focus on what ReadyOrNot said:

If the nano had its own designation, I'm sure more people would use it and that in my opinion would NOT be a good thing.

I'm not sure our reasoning is the same, as I don't know ReadyOrNot's reason, but I agree with this statement to a degree. It's not that I detest micros (I've learned to ignore them), but rather potential for damage to the surrounding area a well-hidden micro could pose.

 

Consider: Let's say that most of the people that geocache are environmentally conscious people. Let's say that number is as high as 95% (sounds high, but a good starting point). When this game started out with maybe 1000 to 2000 people, that would have only accounted for 50 to 100 people that couldn't care less about the environment, but just wanted to find the caches. With more people playing the game than ever, the fringe elements of the bell curve increase proportionally. No one knows how many actual cachers there are. The front page current says that In the last 7 days, there have been 367,821 new logs written by 49,936 account holders. I'm guessing that there's probably twice or even three times as many current caches that just haven't logged in the last 7 days. If it's 3x - that's approximately 150,000 cachers, and that 5% fringe element is up to 7,500 cachers that are going to "slash and burn" to find a cache. If someone has the mentality of ripping up the ground to find the cache, are they going to destroy more ground looking for this or something like this?

 

So for the second part of my "not really" argument: The potential for evnironmental damage due to careless lookers is inversely proportional to the size of the cache, and therefore, encouraging* nano-caches might not be the best idea.

 

*Please note: I did not say that people couldn't PLACE nano-caches, I just agree that giving them their own category of size would encourage more people to place them.

I agree with this.

[+TrailGators]

I don't think we need an additional category of cache size. But, maybe, a little tweaking of the definitions may be in order. 35mm film containers are becoming more and more rare (due to digital cameras) so maybe we change that to something smaller than a standard Altoids tin. (Altoids will hold a GeoCoin so they would be small. Anthing that can't hold a GeoCoin should be a micro (and I don't want to quibble about those smaller than standard GeoCoins).

An Altoids is a micro. A Decon or small lock n' lock is a small.

[+briansnat]

I don't think we need an additional category of cache size. But, maybe, a little tweaking of the definitions may be in order. 35mm film containers are becoming more and more rare (due to digital cameras) so maybe we change that to something smaller than a standard Altoids tin. (Altoids will hold a GeoCoin so they would be small. Anthing that can't hold a GeoCoin should be a micro (and I don't want to quibble about those smaller than standard GeoCoins).

 

I don't see the point of re-defining sizes. What about caches that can hold micro geocoins? I've seen a few of them.

[+Cache O'Plenty]

Personally, I don't have a problem with the current size definitions. We know what we are looking for. Besides, the owners can help by expanding their info on the cache pages. But it appears some are confused and since the advent of "nano" caches, we might just say the definition of "micro" includes "nano". I.e. A micro contains only a log whereas a Small contains a log plus swag. There will always be someone that can point to the "my cache is an exception" excuse.

[+Ed & Julie]

I don't think we need an additional category of cache size. But, maybe, a little tweaking of the definitions may be in order. 35mm film containers are becoming more and more rare (due to digital cameras) so maybe we change that to something smaller than a standard Altoids tin. (Altoids will hold a GeoCoin so they would be small. Anthing that can't hold a GeoCoin should be a micro (and I don't want to quibble about those smaller than standard GeoCoins).

 

Repeat after me "mint tins are micros...mint tins are micros".

 

LOTS of my local cachers think "a mint tin can hold some pocket change or a guitar pick, so it must me a small, since it can hold items"...wrong.

 

I prefer this description:

Micro - will fit a scroll log and up to a few marbles

Small - will fit a flat logbook and up to a few golfballs

Regular - will fit a large logbook and up to a few softballs or international equivalent

Large - will fit a soccer ball and larger

 

from: http://www.todayscacher.com/2004/nov/olla2.asp (with pictures even!)

Edited March 22, 2008 by Ed & Julie

[+Cache O'Plenty]

OK. Your definitions work for me. Perfect!!!

[Rhialto]

I'm a native french speaker but is "tiny" smaller than "small"? If yes then they could have use the word tiny instead of micro. I believe it was logical for some to use nano for smaller than micro. What other word could be used for smaller than tiny?

[+the hermit crabs]

What other word could be used for smaller than tiny?

"Wicked tiny."

[+StarBrand]

Micro and smaller is all the same. "Too freaking small" The dinky log is had to sign, the swag doesn't exist and if there is a pencil in the cache there is no way to use it to sign the log without fealing flat out goofy.

....

Agreed - too small to waste my time on.

 

....and already covered by the current definition quite well.

[+BuckyD]

An Altoids is a micro. A Decon or small lock n' lock is a small.

 

Amen to this, brudda -- I mean, really, have you tried to fit a sandwich into an Altoids tin recently? I've seen "trade items" shoved into film canisters quite often, so is a film can now a "small"? My point: Just because something can hold tiny little erasers and marbles as trade items doesn't mean that it should.

 

(sorry, a pet peeve is noob owners of altoids tin caches that snark back at my find logs that state "thanks for the micro" )

[+Geovius]

What is so cool with nanos anyhow?

Bigger is better should be cache size slogan!

 

So NO vote from here to this suggestion.

[+sbell111]

Initially, I was going to go against the OP's idea. I couldn't think of a good idea to add an additional size. In fact, I've ignored this thread for the last several days. Then, I read the thread and was moved to reply by Markwell's post. Markwell convinced me that it would be better for the game if there was a 'nano' size.

 

Markwell made the argument that having a size of 'nano' would encourage people to hide nanos. He further opined that environmental damage is inversely proportional to cache size. The part that he missed is that if one knows what he/she is looking for, they are less likely to cause damage, at all. The simple fact is, teh cache search is totally different if you are looking for an ammo box, a decon container, a bison tube, or a nano. If someone told you that you were hunting a nano, you would limit your search first to those metallic items that a nano would be stuck to. You wouldn't initially search every location that would hide a bison tube. In other words, you'd keep your mitts off the bushes. (An additional benefit is that there will never, ever be a bomb squad deployed to investigate a nano.)

 

Therefore, I believe that the size of 'nano' would be good for the game.

Edited March 26, 2008 by sbell111

[+Markwell]

And what happens to the bushes if it *IS* hidden there?

[+Thrak]

Oh, this again.

 

/yawn

[Lankyrighty34]

i think nano caches are pointless i mean they are almost impossible to find and 'sometimes hard to open

if you ask me i dont like nanos.

[+sbell111]

And what happens to the bushes if it *IS* hidden there?

Then you will know what you are looking for. (Personally, it would mean I log a DNF.) If someone chose to beat the bushes looking for the cache, they would have done it had they believed they were looking for a micro. The 'nano' size would not cause additional damage, but it might cause some damage not to happen.

Edited March 27, 2008 by sbell111