Cache Size Categories

[+Jamist]

We have been caching since last fall and lovin' it! While I don't want to enter into a debate about nano caches, I would like to suggest that we create a cache size option specifically for nanos.

 

I think the "micro" category includes anything up to a film canister. While we enjoy looking for film canister-sized caches, we typically pass on the nanos. It would be easier to eliminate those from our lists if there was actually a size classification specifically for nanos.

 

Conversely, those specifically seeking the challenge of a nano hunt could also search for them on the lists more easily.

 

Thanks to everyone who has built this great sport!

[+Thedaviesnisus]

I absolutely agree! My husband doesn't like doing any micro's and especially nano's. So having this feature would be a great tool to use.

[+The Pathman]

You can add our vote in favor of that change. We have only gone after two that turned out to be nano's and found both but it would have been nice to know that in advance.....

[+Zop]

Wouldn't that require redefining the micro as well and besides a blinky or smaller what would be considered a nano?

[+Kit Fox]

You're wasting your time.

 

Nano Caches, why is there not a new size on the website for nano sized caches

 

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.

Edited May 5, 2008 by Kit Fox

[+TeamGumbo]

I think it would be a good addition (and I don't *mind* nanos), but as much as it has been talked about without any action, I just don't see it happening.

[+Lil Devil]

I totally agreed with adding the "small" cache size.

 

I see no need for a "nano" size... "micro" covers it.

[danoshimano]

Do you have any idea how big a "nanometer" really is?

 

1,000 times smaller than a "micrometer" (which in turn is 1/1,000 of a millimetre)? I don't think you can see a micrometer with the naked eye, either.

[+Renegade Knight]

I'm all for spinning off Micro's into their own angst ridden catagory. Nano's would fit well there as well.

[+TrailGators]

Nanos already have their own category on the site. It's just so small you can't see it!

Edited May 6, 2008 by TrailGators

[+Renegade Knight]

...

Edited May 6, 2008 by Renegade Knight

[+holazola]

...

 

I found THREE in the previous post!

[+TrailGators]

...

 

I found THREE in the previous post!

[+Colonial Cats]

I totally agreed with adding the "small" cache size.

 

I see no need for a "nano" size... "micro" covers it.

 

I disagree. "Micro" does not adequately cover the "nano size". They are 2 different animals with different techniques for looking for them. We recently adopted 3 nano caches and we changed the container size on the web pages from "micro" to "?". Yes, a nano cache size is needed.

Edited May 6, 2008 by Colonial Cats

[+StarBrand]

Giving them a category might encourage thier use and further placement. I think micro already handles it.

 

So I vote --- NO!!

[+Kit Fox]

My favorite quote from Renegade Knight, "Then they could have micro, nano, pico, and Grain of rice sized caches in the catagory otherwise known as "annoyingly small."

[+WRASTRO]

When we see a micro size listed on the cache page we assume it is going to be pretty darned small. A lot of the time the cache description will have the container size/type and a lot of the time (even more) the area around GZ will give away what the container type really is. I really don't see any value in adding the additional size type. Maybe anyone hiding a nano should be required to fully describe the hide method and location as well as provide step by step instructions from parking right up to seeing and retrieving the cache.

 

The cache pages I dislike are the ones that choose an unknown cache size and don't describe the container size/type in any way. To me these leave the cache area vulnerable to scorched Earth searches and rarely add anything to the quality of the hide or the hunt.

[+DaFunkyFrogs]

When we see a micro size listed on the cache page we assume it is going to be pretty darned small. A lot of the time the cache description will have the container size/type and a lot of the time (even more) the area around GZ will give away what the container type really is. I really don't see any value in adding the additional size type. Maybe anyone hiding a nano should be required to fully describe the hide method and location as well as provide step by step instructions from parking right up to seeing and retrieving the cache.

 

The cache pages I dislike are the ones that choose an unknown cache size and don't describe the container size/type in any way. To me these leave the cache area vulnerable to scorched Earth searches and rarely add anything to the quality of the hide or the hunt.

 

I agree completely. If nanos had their own size category, what would be next? Measure each and every cache for their ounce/cubic centimeter dimensions? Then we would have 387 sizes. I already have trouble with all the stuff on a pocket query, add a buncha new sizes to contend with and I'd NEVER be able to find a cache.

[+The Pathman]

Nanos already have their own category on the site. It's just so small you can't see it!

 

[+Totem Clan]

Leave it as is. Why add more and more sizes. I want a 'super-sized' category for the 5 gallon buckets I've hid.

 

Even if it's added many cachers will just not chose a size in order to make it confusing on purpose like some already do. If they would tell you that it is a nano then they probably already do so on the cache page.

[+ZSandmann]

Micro = container with log only. That seems to fit the description of nanos to me. If you try and subdivide things too much it just becomes tedious. I mean we would all agree a 35mm is a micro and a Blinky is a nano. But what is a nitro tube? A dog ID fob? a pill case? a matchtube? a breath strips box? an altoids tin? a plastic bug? a paint by numbers paint capsule? See what I mean?

[CoyoteRed]

We recently adopted 3 nano caches and we changed the container size on the web pages from "micro" to "?". Yes, a nano cache size is needed.

...and in the process changed the stats of folks who have found those caches.

 

The micro category does cover everything smaller than a little larger than a film can.

 

I'm wondering if anyone thinks the problem is the nanos themselves. Of the nanos I've found only one really needed to be a nano because of the way it was hidden. If nanos didn't exist, though, a larger cache could have been hidden within 10 feet. Nanos seem to exist mainly because someone wants to be "tricky." It only works on folks who are new. Another reason seems to be because they feel it is the largest cache they can adequately hide and that very well may be true. Some folks have zero creativity and it's just so easy to throw a blinkie somewhere.

 

IMHO, not only do we not need the size category of nano, we should be encouraging all caches to be of a size that allows trade items. While this site's definition of a cache is a container and a log, it's hard to have a "cache" if there's no room for the cached items.

Edited May 6, 2008 by CoyoteRed

[CoyoteRed]

I want a 'super-sized' category for the 5 gallon buckets I've hid.

It's called "large." I've been using the category for 5 gallons and/or over 3 feet long. Technically, the 105mm howitzer ammo tubes are only 3.5 gallons, but I certainly wouldn't call them regulars at over 3' long.

[+Totem Clan]

I want a 'super-sized' category for the 5 gallon buckets I've hid.

It's called "large."

I know! Thus the gif that followed that statement. Sarcasm doesn't come across that well in the forums sometimes.

[+Walts Hunting]

A number of cachers here (and I have seen it elsewhere) have taken to using "Other" for cache size when they place a nano. That works for me.

[CoyoteRed]

I want a 'super-sized' category for the 5 gallon buckets I've hid.

It's called "large."

I know! Thus the gif that followed that statement. Sarcasm doesn't come across that well in the forums sometimes.

DOH!

 

I think this site needs the [sarcasm] tags added.

[+The Jester]

IMHO, not only do we not need the size category of nano, we should be encouraging all caches to be of a size that allows trade items. While this site's definition of a cache is a container and a log, it's hard to have a "cache" if there's no room for the cached items.

But the log is a "cached item" so all miro's fit that definition. So what if there is only one item cached? It's cached, so meets your requirement of "room for the cached items."

[CoyoteRed]

IMHO, not only do we not need the size category of nano, we should be encouraging all caches to be of a size that allows trade items. While this site's definition of a cache is a container and a log, it's hard to have a "cache" if there's no room for the cached items.

But the log is a "cached item" so all miro's fit that definition. So what if there is only one item cached? It's cached, so meets your requirement of "room for the cached items."

That's awful thin.

[+DanOCan]

I don't think we need a size category for nanos. The guidelines clearly state that a cache which is the size of a 35mm film canister OR SMALLER is called a Micro.

[+hukilaulau]

We have been caching since last fall and lovin' it! While I don't want to enter into a debate about nano caches, I would like to suggest that we create a cache size option specifically for nanos.

 

I think the "micro" category includes anything up to a film canister. While we enjoy looking for film canister-sized caches, we typically pass on the nanos. It would be easier to eliminate those from our lists if there was actually a size classification specifically for nanos.

 

Conversely, those specifically seeking the challenge of a nano hunt could also search for them on the lists more easily.

 

Thanks to everyone who has built this great sport!

This one and this one are two examples of how I make sure people know what they're looking for (or not). They've both been received pretty well. I guess those who want to look for a particular container instead of an interesting location are appropriately ignoring these.

Edited May 6, 2008 by hukilaulau

[+NeoAddict]

I say go for it. I think it wouldn't be detrimental to include a 'tiny' category below Micro...

[+Corp Of Discovery]

I think it might be a good idea. If a micro is supposed to be a log only- what if that's all I have in my ammo can...that still wouldn't make the cache a micro. If the definition of regular was 'Anything the size of an ammo can or smaller', would that be fine with everyone? I'd think not. Trying to equate a 'nano' cache to the literal meaning of a nanometer is just kinda silly. Knowing the size of a cache determines to some extent how a cache is searched for- a 'large' can only be in so many places. If you are searching for a 'small' instead it changes where it can be hidden and therefor how you may look for it. Looking for a Mr. Magneto or bison tube, as opposed to a preform tube (about as big as I'd go and still call a cache a micro), is quite a bit different- yet they are both currently 'micros'.

[+WRASTRO]

I think it might be a good idea. If a micro is supposed to be a log only- what if that's all I have in my ammo can...that still wouldn't make the cache a micro. If the definition of regular was 'Anything the size of an ammo can or smaller', would that be fine with everyone? I'd think not. Trying to equate a 'nano' cache to the literal meaning of a nanometer is just kinda silly. Knowing the size of a cache determines to some extent how a cache is searched for- a 'large' can only be in so many places. If you are searching for a 'small' instead it changes where it can be hidden and therefor how you may look for it. Looking for a Mr. Magneto or bison tube, as opposed to a preform tube (about as big as I'd go and still call a cache a micro), is quite a bit different- yet they are both currently 'micros'.

 

Wouldn't this entire discussion be rendered meaningless if cache owners would simply describe the container size with some reasonable accuracy? To me a micro is pretty clear and the cache owner can make it even more clear by noting on the cache page that it is a nano. Simple. Done. The unknown cache size is a lousy choice unless, once again, the cache owner chooses to describe the container on the cache page. I don't see this as a problem with the choices we have for size. It is a problem with the way cache owners list and describe their caches.

[+Klatch]

Wouldn't this entire discussion be rendered meaningless if cache owners would simply describe the container size with some reasonable accuracy? To me a micro is pretty clear and the cache owner can make it even more clear by noting on the cache page that it is a nano. Simple. Done. The unknown cache size is a lousy choice unless, once again, the cache owner chooses to describe the container on the cache page. I don't see this as a problem with the choices we have for size. It is a problem with the way cache owners list and describe their caches.

It seems more common to see hiders playing games with the cache sizes. Either by deliberately mis-stating the cache size, or, as stated before, not indicating it at all. "Small" caches seem to be getting smaller.

[CoyoteRed]

This one and this one are two examples of how I make sure people know what they're looking for (or not). They've both been received pretty well. I guess those who want to look for a particular container instead of an interesting location are appropriately ignoring these.

That is unfortunate. I've taken to completely ignoring micros outside my state because the percentage of micros being junk has risen above a self-established threshold. I've long said that it's not micros I dislike, on the contrary, it's the junk caches. Unfortunately, the best tool I use for removing the least desirable caches in bulk is by container size.

 

There are more and more folks that I talk to who do this. When a cache owner chooses to hide a decent cache and make it a micro, he chooses to place his cache in a category that will automatically get ignored. Some folks do the same with puzzles or multis. It depends on your audience whether you make your cache a micro or a multi--being that you find a spot that will not support a larger-than-micro traditional thus maybe making it an offset from your spot to a regular sized cache nearby. You have to make the decision on whether you want the cachers who is after the quick find who may not take the time to stop and enjoy the view, or you want the person who won't filter multis because they do appreciate the journey.

[CoyoteRed]

It seems more common to see hiders playing games with the cache sizes. Either by deliberately mis-stating the cache size, or, as stated before, not indicating it at all. "Small" caches seem to be getting smaller.

I can see that as folks realize their caches are getting filtered out based on a size.

[+wimseyguy]

I enjoy finding caches of all sizes and all types. Sometimes there is more time to find a cache than others. I have no problem driving past a cache when it takes me somewhere I don't feel like looking for one.

 

I think the current options are just fine the way they are. If a small minority of hiders are playing games by mislabeling their container, they will continue to do so with another option. If you know you are looking for a micro container, you are generally restricting your search to areas where they will go.

[+JKJeep'n]

You guys might get a kick out of this. Total newbie here and I took my daughter on hunt # 3 today and the first with my new GPS. The cache description was black metalic nano. Well I'm thinking that the original cache was an, are you ready for this? IPOD NANO! LMAO

 

We walked around in circles for 30 minutes all the while I'm telling my eight year old daughter that we have to be right on top of it and cussing the GPS the whole time.

 

Since it was getting dark (and frustrating) we left with a DNF. On my way home It starts to dawn on me that perhaps we were not looking for a container that would fit an ipod, rather a container that we probably couldn't even see, and that's what led me here. Boy do I feel stupid. Hopefully someone atleast got a good laugh out of it.

 

Sorry to hijack the thread but I thought it was fitting.

[+Lil Devil]

Nice story, JKJeep'n. I feel your pain. More often than not, the cache description doesn't even say what the container is.

 

FYI, a typical nano is a little smaller than a thimble. They're sold as "body lights" and have a magnetic back. Take the batteries out, put in a nano logsheet, and you're good to go.

 

[+JKJeep'n]

Nice story, JKJeep'n. I feel your pain. More often than not, the cache description doesn't even say what the container is.

 

FYI, a typical nano is a little smaller than a thimble. They're sold as "body lights" and have a magnetic back. Take the batteries out, put in a nano logsheet, and you're good to go.

 

 

Lil Devil,

 

Thanks for the very helpful information. I'll go back today with a different perspective, now that I know what I'm looking for

[+warrior58d]

IMHO, not only do we not need the size category of nano, we should be encouraging all caches to be of a size that allows trade items. While this site's definition of a cache is a container and a log, it's hard to have a "cache" if there's no room for the cached items.

But the log is a "cached item" so all miro's fit that definition. So what if there is only one item cached? It's cached, so meets your requirement of "room for the cached items."

 

A Cache by it's very definition requires something in it to be of some value that someone would want to take. loot, booty whatever. We know that nobody wants to TAKE the log except for the owner so maybe to them it is a cache since it might be loot or booty to them but it's just a hunt to us.

 

American Heritage Dictionary

 

cache

(kāsh) Pronunciation Key

n.

 

1.

1. A hiding place used especially for storing provisions.

2. A place for concealment and safekeeping, as of valuables

3. A store of goods or valuables concealed in a hiding place: maintained a cache of food in case of emergencies.

2. Computer Science A fast storage buffer in the central processing unit of a computer. Also called cache memory.

[+The Jester]

IMHO, not only do we not need the size category of nano, we should be encouraging all caches to be of a size that allows trade items. While this site's definition of a cache is a container and a log, it's hard to have a "cache" if there's no room for the cached items.

But the log is a "cached item" so all miro's fit that definition. So what if there is only one item cached? It's cached, so meets your requirement of "room for the cached items."

 

A Cache by it's very definition requires something in it to be of some value that someone would want to take. loot, booty whatever. We know that nobody wants to TAKE the log except for the owner so maybe to them it is a cache since it might be loot or booty to them but it's just a hunt to us.

 

American Heritage Dictionary

 

cache

(kāsh) Pronunciation Key

n.

 

1.

1. A hiding place used especially for storing provisions.

2. A place for concealment and safekeeping, as of valuables

3. A store of goods or valuables concealed in a hiding place: maintained a cache of food in case of emergencies.

2. Computer Science A fast storage buffer in the central processing unit of a computer. Also called cache memory.

But valuables are not required under #2 - "as of" is an example, not a necessity. The log is concealed and being kept safe, so any geocache is by this definition a "cache".

[CoyoteRed]

IMHO, not only do we not need the size category of nano, we should be encouraging all caches to be of a size that allows trade items. While this site's definition of a cache is a container and a log, it's hard to have a "cache" if there's no room for the cached items.

But the log is a "cached item" so all miro's fit that definition. So what if there is only one item cached? It's cached, so meets your requirement of "room for the cached items."

A Cache by it's very definition requires something in it to be of some value that someone would want to take. loot, booty whatever. We know that nobody wants to TAKE the log except for the owner so maybe to them it is a cache since it might be loot or booty to them but it's just a hunt to us.

 

American Heritage Dictionary

 

cache

(kāsh) Pronunciation Key

n.

 

1.

1. A hiding place used especially for storing provisions.

2. A place for concealment and safekeeping, as of valuables

3. A store of goods or valuables concealed in a hiding place: maintained a cache of food in case of emergencies.

2. Computer Science A fast storage buffer in the central processing unit of a computer. Also called cache memory.

But valuables are not required under #2 - "as of" is an example, not a necessity. The log is concealed and being kept safe, so any geocache is by this definition a "cache".

That's still thin. The purpose of the logbook is not to be stored or concealed, it just is. The purpose is to log a visit, leave notes, or detail what was taken or left in the cache. The cache exists to hold trinkets, not the logbook. The logbook is secondary to the primary purpose of the cache and that is holding trade items. Too bad folks have gotten away from that.

[+tozainamboku]

 

A Cache by it's very definition requires something in it to be of some value that someone would want to take. loot, booty whatever. We know that nobody wants to TAKE the log except for the owner so maybe to them it is a cache since it might be loot or booty to them but it's just a hunt to us.

 

American Heritage Dictionary

 

cache

(kāsh) Pronunciation Key

n.

 

1.

1. A hiding place used especially for storing provisions.

2. A place for concealment and safekeeping, as of valuables

3. A store of goods or valuables concealed in a hiding place: maintained a cache of food in case of emergencies.

2. Computer Science A fast storage buffer in the central processing unit of a computer. Also called cache memory.

Jeremy Irish

 

geocache

(jee-oh-kash) Pronunciation Key

n.

 

Any container that includes at a minimum a log sheet that is hidden as part of the game of geocaching.

 

Origin: 2000; < cache, a hidden store of provisions + geo, prefix meaning earth

[Mushtang]

IMHO, not only do we not need the size category of nano, we should be encouraging all caches to be of a size that allows trade items. While this site's definition of a cache is a container and a log, it's hard to have a "cache" if there's no room for the cached items.

But the log is a "cached item" so all miro's fit that definition. So what if there is only one item cached? It's cached, so meets your requirement of "room for the cached items."

 

A Cache by it's very definition requires something in it to be of some value that someone would want to take. loot, booty whatever. We know that nobody wants to TAKE the log except for the owner so maybe to them it is a cache since it might be loot or booty to them but it's just a hunt to us.

 

American Heritage Dictionary

 

cache

(kāsh) Pronunciation Key

n.

 

1.

1. A hiding place used especially for storing provisions.

2. A place for concealment and safekeeping, as of valuables

3. A store of goods or valuables concealed in a hiding place: maintained a cache of food in case of emergencies.

2. Computer Science A fast storage buffer in the central processing unit of a computer. Also called cache memory.

Definition number 1 fits a log only micro just fine. The hidden log is stored and provided for me to write on.

 

You don't have to meet every definition, just one. Otherwise the computer science definition would keep all our caches from being called a cache.

[+wimseyguy]

But if the real joy and treasure is the journey followed by the discovery of the container, and the logsheet contained within, then that little scrap of paper can be viewed as very valuable.

 

If you are caching for the trinkets within the container, you are setting yourself up for disappointment time and time again.

[CoyoteRed]

Considering we're going down the off topic path, the logbook is valuable only if you use it. I've found quite a few caches where I've not signed the log. There was no reason for me to do so, I had nothing to say and nothing to prove.

 

I suppose the log is only valuable if you gotta have your smilie for your find.

 

Nope. Not saying all the trinkets found in caches are valuable or everyone holds value in them. However, they are the items "cached" to be later removed by someone else. The logbook stays and is, therefor, not a trade item.

 

Jeremy Irish's definition of geocache is bit different than the original. I have to wonder what the thought process was behind the definition. I'm hoping it was because somebody was trying to head off some angst if it so happen the cache became empty of trinkets. But then again, that was back when codeword caches, moving caches, and all sorts of variants were alive and well. Trinket-less caches? Maybe they should die the same death.

[+Radnord]

A new classification is not necessary. A certain amount of mystery is part of the game.

 

Happy caching!

[Mushtang]

Considering we're going down the off topic path, the logbook is valuable only if you use it. I've found quite a few caches where I've not signed the log. There was no reason for me to do so, I had nothing to say and nothing to prove.

 

I suppose the log is only valuable if you gotta have your smilie for your find.

 

Nope. Not saying all the trinkets found in caches are valuable or everyone holds value in them. However, they are the items "cached" to be later removed by someone else. The logbook stays and is, therefor, not a trade item.

 

Jeremy Irish's definition of geocache is bit different than the original. I have to wonder what the thought process was behind the definition. I'm hoping it was because somebody was trying to head off some angst if it so happen the cache became empty of trinkets. But then again, that was back when codeword caches, moving caches, and all sorts of variants were alive and well. Trinket-less caches? Maybe they should die the same death.

I don't understand how the current definition of geocache (I assume this is what you mean when you say Jeremy's definition) is any different that the original. If you mean that the original had items to trade and therefore all caches should have trade items, I'd have to run down the list of things the original also had that ended up being a bad idea.

 

Just because the original stash had something doesn't mean that's what geocaching should be.

 

And the log book doesn't have to be a trade item for it to be stored in the container, and therefore "cached". It's definitely stored so that someone can come and get it. The fact that they put it right back after signing it also doesn't mean it's not stored.

 

If you don't like trinket-less caches, that's understandable. But to suggest that they should die out is a little selfish. Lots and lots of people enjoy micros (and smaller). They're easy enough to filter out and you'd never have to see another one.

 

Well, except for the micro containers you sell from your online store. I guess trinket-less caches are only bad when you're finding them... and not when you're making a buck off them courtesy of Jeremy and his definitions.

[+The Jester]

Considering we're going down the off topic path, the logbook is valuable only if you use it. I've found quite a few caches where I've not signed the log. There was no reason for me to do so, I had nothing to say and nothing to prove.

 

I suppose the log is only valuable if you gotta have your smilie for your find.

 

Nope. Not saying all the trinkets found in caches are valuable or everyone holds value in them. However, they are the items "cached" to be later removed by someone else. The logbook stays and is, therefor, not a trade item.

 

Jeremy Irish's definition of geocache is bit different than the original. I have to wonder what the thought process was behind the definition. I'm hoping it was because somebody was trying to head off some angst if it so happen the cache became empty of trinkets. But then again, that was back when codeword caches, moving caches, and all sorts of variants were alive and well. Trinket-less caches? Maybe they should die the same death.

"Trade Items" has never been part of any definition of a "cache" (not GEOcache). Items were stored to be used, not swapped for something else. Provisions were to be eaten, not "took snicker bar, left tofu". Looking at it this way, a logbook is meant to be used.

 

And why are we arguing about "caches" - we borrowed that word, added "geo" to define a new item = a geocache. This by definition is a container that contains, at the minimum, a logbook/sheet. If you want to be picky, that first hide wasn't a geocache - that word was coined much later. At the time the word was "stash", so what it (a stash) contained has no true bearing on what a geocache should/can contain.