Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
blb9556

Feature request: Nano cache size

Recommended Posts

As we know very small caches are marked as micros like film canisters. I have seen very small caches that are smaller than bullets. I think those should be considered as nanos. However we have to mark them as micro because their is no nano selection. This would decrease the amount of DNF's their are. Leave your feedback :)

Share this post


Link to post

As we know very small caches are marked as micros like film canisters. I have seen very small caches that are smaller than bullets. I think those should be considered as nanos. However we have to mark them as micro because their is no nano selection. This would decrease the amount of DNF's their are. Leave your feedback :)

I kind of like the idea, but many don't. Prepare yourself for a bumpy ride.

Share this post


Link to post

I agree... it would be nice to add a "nano" size -- which I personally define as anything small enough where it can be a trick to get the log back in correctly (especially the first few).

 

Seems that there are so many "nanos masquerading as micros" in my main area that I've become more accustomed to searching for those... then get rather surprised how "big" a "micro" or even "small" container can be, elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
I kind of like the idea, but many don't. Prepare yourself for a bumpy ride.

I think that almost goes without saying when mentioning any sort of "feature request" here... you often need to "don the flame-retardant suit." :)

Share this post


Link to post

Seems that there are so many "nanos masquerading as micros" in my main area that I've become more accustomed to searching for those... then get rather surprised how "big" a "micro" or even "small" container can be, elsewhere.

 

Converseley, I've also run across nanos marked as unknown or other (can't recall which). I generally tend to try to filter out (for now) the "sub-small" varieties until I get a bit more used to hiding techniques, but some nanos slip through because of this. (And before anyone gets their feathers ruffled - this is not a comment on the quality of macros/nanos - it's a comment on my ability to find them)

 

My opinion is that either the definition of "micro" should be expanded to include all "sub-small" containers, or another category should be added.

Edited by derangedlunatech

Share this post


Link to post

I think "35 mm film canister or smaller -- typically containing only a logbook " from the guidelines covers it pretty well. I don't think they need a special category. No need to make it offcial - I wouldn't want to do anything that might increase thier numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
I think "35 mm film canister or smaller -- typically containing only a logbook " from the guidelines covers it pretty well. I don't think they need a special category. No need to make it offcial - I wouldn't want to do anything that might increase thier numbers.
There was a similar post made by somebody in a previous thread that caused me to rethink my position and come around to the thinking that it would be a good idea.

 

For those people who hate nanos, it's not an issue of whether or not their numbers increase. It's whether or not they can be avoided. Creating a new 'size' for nanos allows them to be very easily avoided. This makes teh creation of the 'nano' to be a win-win, in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
There was a similar post made by somebody in a previous thread that caused me to rethink my position and come around to the thinking that it would be a good idea.

 

For those people who hate nanos, it's not an issue of whether or not their numbers increase. It's whether or not they can be avoided. Creating a new 'size' for nanos allows them to be very easily avoided. This makes teh creation of the 'nano' to be a win-win, in my opinion.

 

And that, pres-tell, I think is the best argument for them... I mean, heck, my s/o (NoSuchCache) tends to h8te (sic) "micros." Personally, I think it's due to the scenario I described, above... most of the "micros" I come across (particularly when she's with me) are usually really nano-sized caches or the-like. I think were the sizes a bit more distinct, it would enable her to avoid the really tiny ones, which can tend to drive us both crazy at times... :)

Share this post


Link to post

[browser burp... duplicate post... my apologies]

 

PHP Fatal error: Maximum execution time of 45 seconds exceeded in E:\Inetpub\forums\GC\ips_kernel\class_db_mysql.php on line 457 PHP Fatal error: Maximum execution time of 45 seconds exceeded in E:\Inetpub\forums\GC\sources\ipsclass.php on line 1111

Edited by russellvt

Share this post


Link to post
As we know very small caches are marked as micros like film canisters. I have seen very small caches that are smaller than bullets. I think those should be considered as nanos. However we have to mark them as micro because their is no nano selection. This would decrease the amount of DNF's their are. Leave your feedback :)

As simply another cache size: no.

 

As something that would not interfere with real caches? Sure. Make a trinketless type which does not interfere with the placement of caches with trinkets and I'll be behind it 100%.

 

...with my ignore button.

 

No problem.

 

In fact, you could bring back code-word caches for all I care as long as it doesn't interfere with real caches.

Share this post


Link to post

I think "35 mm film canister or smaller -- typically containing only a logbook " from the guidelines covers it pretty well. I don't think they need a special category. No need to make it offcial - I wouldn't want to do anything that might increase thier numbers.

 

I couldn't say it any better than StarBrand did, so I wont.

Share this post


Link to post

This has been talked about often here in the forums in other threads. Bottomline so far is that TPTB have indicated zero willingness to accomodate a new category let alone any change in the definitions of the existing ones. And not all folks are on the same page as to what a "micro" is versus a "small".

 

Placers of caches normally indicate the cache size in their descriptions but not always. And that makes it harder to eliminate them! If it says "log only" I'm pretty sure it's a nano!

Share this post


Link to post
Placers of caches normally indicate the cache size in their descriptions but not always. And that makes it harder to eliminate them! If it says "log only" I'm pretty sure it's a nano!

Well, not always... most often times, it seems to be a film canister or key hider, in my experience. And as you also said, not everyone's on the same page with respect to (WRT) small vs. nano.

 

Myself, a nano is generally a size where there's zero chance of anything fitting in there other than the very-tightly-wound-log (about half the size of the typical waterproof matchstick container that everyone seems to like to wrap camo tape around)... or, as some would say, one where you usually spend more time getting the log back in to the container than you did taking the whole thing out. :)

 

Also, keep in mind that some folks just grab a PQ and a GPS and hit the road... so it's debatable whether the description is often seen much before many try to log a find (or do further research after a DNF). My inlaw-types are more methodical in their approach to caching (ie. research every one before searching), but, well... my fiance and I fall more to the side of keeping more of a list on the GPS in-case I/we get time or urge to cache in the area(s) I/we currently happen to be.

Edited by russellvt

Share this post


Link to post

There is no need for a nano type. As mentioned above the Micro type includes nanos. It also includes picos. even the atto (10 to the -18) would be covered by Micro.

At some point there has to be a cap on types. The Micro was a good point to stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Placers of caches normally indicate the cache size in their descriptions but not always. And that makes it harder to eliminate them! If it says "log only" I'm pretty sure it's a nano!

 

This is not the case for most of the caches we've found. We've actually started seeing a lot of caches that list their size as "unknown." That's just great when you walk 1/2 a mile into the woods and end up at an old, historic wall...

Share this post


Link to post
There is no need for a nano type. As mentioned above the Micro type includes nanos. It also includes picos. even the atto (10 to the -18) would be covered by Micro.

At some point there has to be a cap on types. The Micro was a good point to stop.

 

Agreed. Lots of people call containers different things too, so that could get even more confusing. In CT, people call nanos the small black container that's about the size of the tip of your pinky finger, but in FL, those are generally called Mr. Magnetos, with a nano being slightly smaller than a bison tube.

Share this post


Link to post
even the atto (10 to the -18) would be covered by Micro.

Oh dear...! I don't want to see any of those. :)

 

In CT, people call nanos the small black container that's about the size of the tip of your pinky finger, but in FL, those are generally called Mr. Magnetos, with a nano being slightly smaller than a bison tube.

The pinky-finger things are often known as 'sub-nanos' around here - I'm not sure what's considered a nano.

 

edit:fix quotings

Edited by qwerty56

Share this post


Link to post

There is no need for a nano type. As mentioned above the Micro type includes nanos. It also includes picos. even the atto (10 to the -18) would be covered by Micro.

At some point there has to be a cap on types. The Micro was a good point to stop.

Yep micro would've been a good place to stop. When I started caching the choices were large, regular, micro, unknown, and virtual. Virtual was for use with virtual caches but I think you were able to select it for any cache type. Then for some reason, Groundspeak decided to add the small size. I think there were a lot of people asking for this in the forums to distinguish caches that could hold small trade items (especially travel bug tags) from micros that could only hold a log and maybe a small coin or a pin. Perhaps they were vocal enough to force a change. Or maybe Jeremy had a small TB and was having trouble finding a cache he could leave it in. Needless to say, when the new size was added it caused a lot of confusion. Some caches that used to be micros were now small. On the other side, smaller "regular" caches were now deemed to be small and not regular. I suspect a new nano size would cause similar problems till a general agree as to where to draw the line. I've seen a few containers that people now call small that I still view as micro and I suspect this is in part because they've already reduced the biggest thing they will call a micro because the proliferation of tiny micros makes it seem wrong to put a small Altoid tin or an M&M's tube in the same category.

 

This past weekend, I cached in a new area for me and found several older caches that were either listed as micro or regular that would now likely be small. I had no trouble finding these.

Edited by tozainamboku

Share this post


Link to post

There is no need for a nano type. As mentioned above the Micro type includes nanos. It also includes picos. even the atto (10 to the -18) would be covered by Micro.

At some point there has to be a cap on types. The Micro was a good point to stop.

With all due respect, by that same token, "large," "medium" and "small" would also have been enough, then. :)

 

Just, in my opinion, there usually a very different manner and/or level of search involved in finding a "nano" versus a "micro" -- far more than, say, a small versus a micro, for example (at least this is true in my own area and a couple others I've seen). Therefore, it just seems like there would also be a logical division between the two sizes is all...

 

But yes... at some point there certainly has to be an imposed cap. :D

Share this post


Link to post

How about just adding a new attribute type? Like a magnifying glass or something to indicate how tiny it is. That way you could filter out that attribute if you don't want them. This would only apply to PQs, but it's better than nothing.

Edited by -CacheMonkey-

Share this post


Link to post

How about just adding a new attribute type? Like a magnifying glass or something to indicate how tiny it is. That way you could filter out that attribute if you don't want them. This would only apply to PQs, but it's better than nothing.

 

I agree. Suits the needs of both viewpoints.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Yep micro would've been a good place to stop.

 

I'm personally waiting in breathless anticipation for the next size mast nano - the "molecular" size ;)

Share this post


Link to post
even the atto (10 to the -18) would be covered by Micro.

Oh dear...! I don't want to see any of those. ;)

 

In CT, people call nanos the small black container that's about the size of the tip of your pinky finger, but in FL, those are generally called Mr. Magnetos, with a nano being slightly smaller than a bison tube.

The pinky-finger things are often known as 'sub-nanos' around here - I'm not sure what's considered a nano.

 

edit:fix quotings

East of Seattle those are pretty much regulars! :D And they are still fun, especially when done well. :D

Share this post


Link to post
even the atto (10 to the -18) would be covered by Micro.

Oh dear...! I don't want to see any of those. ;)

If your eyes are anything like mine, you won't! :D

Share this post


Link to post
even the atto (10 to the -18) would be covered by Micro.

Oh dear...! I don't want to see any of those. ;)

If your eyes are anything like mine, you won't! :D

LOL. I know that feeling. I need to have my son read the numbers off half the coins we pick up because I can't read the numbers anymore.

Share this post


Link to post

When I started caching the choices were large, regular, micro, unknown, and virtual. Virtual was for use with virtual caches but I think you were able to select it for any cache type. Then for some reason, Groundspeak decided to add the small size.

[...]

Needless to say, when the new size was added it caused a lot of confusion. Some caches that used to be micros were now small. On the other side, smaller "regular" caches were now deemed to be small and not regular. I suspect a new nano size would cause similar problems till a general agree as to where to draw the line. I've seen a few containers that people now call small that I still view as micro and I suspect this is in part because they've already reduced the biggest thing they will call a micro because the proliferation of tiny micros makes it seem wrong to put a small Altoid tin or an M&M's tube in the same category.

Interesting point, and GREAT bit of history to know! Suddenly sheds an enormous amount of light on the whole small/micro disambiguation... I'll have to keep that in-mind while searching for older "micro" caches (any idea how long ago this was done? then again, I'm assuming it probably took a while to filter out completely following the change).

 

So, were the above delineation a bit-more-clear (ie. the older established caches were properly size-adjusted), I think that would likely address a lot of the issue people are (still) having, since I think most of the complaint currently stems from the "small sized micros."

 

(Also, I think there would be less or an issue adding a new, smaller size than trying to add a size somewhere in the middle of the current scheme... but that point's probably moot, now)

 

Thanks for the insight, Toz!

Share this post


Link to post

As we know very small caches are marked as micros like film canisters. I have seen very small caches that are smaller than bullets. I think those should be considered as nanos. However we have to mark them as micro because their is no nano selection. This would decrease the amount of DNF's their are. Leave your feedback :)

 

Micro and smaller are normally to small for swag. I think Micro deserves it's own catagory, but nano doesn't deserve it's own size. Micro is small enough to cover the entire catagory of caches that become a Pain in the butt due to size alone.

Edited by Renegade Knight

Share this post


Link to post

I think "35 mm film canister or smaller -- typically containing only a logbook " from the guidelines covers it pretty well. I don't think they need a special category. No need to make it official - I wouldn't want to do anything that might increase their numbers.

 

This is generally the case, but I do have trade items that will fit in a film cannister. (might be able to squeeze one into a nano, but why bother?)

If a NANO size category were created, then we would have a pentameter of sizes (very satisfying for five-digited creatures like myself).

Share this post


Link to post

I think "35 mm film canister or smaller -- typically containing only a logbook " from the guidelines covers it pretty well. I don't think they need a special category. No need to make it official - I wouldn't want to do anything that might increase their numbers.

 

This is generally the case, but I do have trade items that will fit in a film cannister. (might be able to squeeze one into a nano, but why bother?)

If a NANO size category were created, then we would have a pentameter of sizes (very satisfying for five-digited creatures like myself).

 

If it's a micro you think to look for something like a mint tin of film canaster. Nano you look for something very small.

Share this post


Link to post

As we know very small caches are marked as micros like film canisters. I have seen very small caches that are smaller than bullets. I think those should be considered as nanos. However we have to mark them as micro because their is no nano selection. This would decrease the amount of DNF's their are. Leave your feedback :ph34r:

 

A complimentary listing of previous nano request topics. I simply typed the word "nano" in the Search tool B) .

 

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

 

Enhancement Request - New Cache Size NANO

Share this post


Link to post

As we know very small caches are marked as micros like film canisters. I have seen very small caches that are smaller than bullets. I think those should be considered as nanos. However we have to mark them as micro because their is no nano selection. This would decrease the amount of DNF's their are. Leave your feedback :ph34r:

 

A complimentary listing of previous nano request topics. I simply typed the word "nano" in the Search tool B) .

 

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

 

Enhancement Request - New Cache Size NANO

 

YEP! It's been brought up before.

Perhaps that means it is an issue of real concern.

Or perhaps the OP is unfamiliar with the search feature?

Share this post


Link to post

As we know very small caches are marked as micros like film canisters. I have seen very small caches that are smaller than bullets. I think those should be considered as nanos. However we have to mark them as micro because their is no nano selection. This would decrease the amount of DNF's their are. Leave your feedback :laughing:

 

A complimentary listing of previous nano request topics. I simply typed the word "nano" in the Search tool :D .

 

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

 

Enhancement Request - New Cache Size NANO

 

YEP! It's been brought up before.

Perhaps that means it is an issue of real concern.

Or perhaps the OP is unfamiliar with the search feature?

 

I know about the search feature but it always seems so slow. Probably my 11.0 Mbps internet connection.

Share this post


Link to post
Placers of caches normally indicate the cache size in their descriptions but not always. And that makes it harder to eliminate them! If it says "log only" I'm pretty sure it's a nano!

 

This is not the case for most of the caches we've found. We've actually started seeing a lot of caches that list their size as "unknown." That's just great when you walk 1/2 a mile into the woods and end up at an old, historic wall...

 

I don't understand why they allow you to select the "Unknown" size, I would think it would only apply to Earthcaches and grandfathered virtuals. I would think the admins when seeing this on other types of caches reject it and force you to pick one of the size categories.

Share this post


Link to post

 

I don't understand why they allow you to select the "Unknown" size, I would think it would only apply to Earthcaches and grandfathered virtuals. I would think the admins when seeing this on other types of caches reject it and force you to pick one of the size categories.

 

"Unknown" is for those guys that drill a hole in a brick, insert a Nano into the hole, and throw the brick into a pile of old construction debris. They can't decide between regular and micro...

Share this post


Link to post
I don't understand why they allow you to select the "Unknown" size, I would think it would only apply to Earthcaches and grandfathered virtuals. I would think the admins when seeing this on other types of caches reject it and force you to pick one of the size categories.

You used to be able to select "virtual" for virtuals. I don't know what you're supposed to select for earthcaches, though.

 

The idea of being able to not list a size is the same as not having to list a type. Sometimes you just don't want folks to know what size the container really is. Unfortunately, anymore it means it's a micro.

Share this post


Link to post

"Unknown" seems to be the result of choosing "Mystery/Puzzle" as the cache type. Unfortunately, it's also being used as a "catch all" type to indicate caches that don't fall into any of the other cache types. We have many around here that are marked "?" if they have additional logging instructions, like taking a picture and posting it. We have a series that requires you to have "XXX" number of finds before you can log them - they are Mystery/Puzzle as well. Any cache that isn't at the posted coordinates (and isn't a multi) is considered to be a Mystery/Puzzle.

 

But I digress....

 

Nano's can be fun if they are inventive/creative. Sticking them on the back of a "STOP" sign is the equivalent of a LPC hide. But their size requires you to adjust your eye focus for the little things. They are a class unto themselves.

Share this post


Link to post

Ok so it looks like we have many mixed replies. ;)

And this is surprising why? The real problem is with cache owners who don't properly describe the cache. Sometimes this can be a part of the cache design for a challenging hide, but most of the time it is just because someone is trying to be cute. The downside of this is that areas around the cache site suffer some damage due to over zealous searching when the cache description doesn't properly describe the container.

 

It really seems to me that this entire issue would go away if cache owners would properly describe the hide. This doesn't mean they need to give away the details of the hide, just that they should give enough info to keep searchers from looking and searching inappropriately. Yes, they shouldn't be doing that but they do when the cache page is ambiguous.

 

An evil hide should be disclosed as such. It is a simple matter to give enough information on the cache page to let cachers know the hide will be a challenge but should not require ripping the bark off of a tree or pulling all of the rocks out of a wall.

Share this post


Link to post

What is the problem with having another size, nano? I have not seen any valid argument against it. It is a big difference between a 35 mm film canister, and a nano which is the size of a bullet, about 8-9 millimeters in diameter.

And whoever is suggesting that it would not stop there, going to picos etc are just not serious, they are just ridiculing us who are positive to the suggestion. If they do not understand, then I will explain that there is a physical limit which makes anything smaller than a nano not possible to handle for us humans.

I am absolutely positive to one new size, It will make life much easier for those who are searching, or even those who do not want to look for the small nanos.

Share this post


Link to post

What is the problem with having another size, nano? I have not seen any valid argument against it. It is a big difference between a 35 mm film canister, and a nano which is the size of a bullet, about 8-9 millimeters in diameter

 

Wrong!

 

A "Nano" isn't the size of a bullet. :angry: 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.

 

And whoever is suggesting that it would not stop there, going to picos etc are just not serious, they are just ridiculing us who are positive to the suggestion. If they do not understand, then I will explain that there is a physical limit which makes anything smaller than a nano not possible to handle for us humans.

 

See the definition above. :D

 

 

How about having cachers list the actual size in their cache page narrative.

Share this post


Link to post

Why not make a note on the cache page that this is a "nano' / "pica" container. Me? I just luv them....But then I luv all cache container with a log...Happy caching.

Share this post


Link to post
I have not seen any valid argument against it.

I suppose when you're validating arguments you can reject any argument you wish as invalid.

 

I've said I'm not keen on the nano size because it validates cacheless caches. Just how much swag can you get in a nano? Swag in micros? Sure. When we first started we found quite a few micros before we found the first one that didn't have trinkets. So, as it stands, each size can have swag. Anyone seen swag in a nano?

 

Sure, this site describes a geocache as simply a logbook. However, the hobby is built on and named after what goes in the container. It's not called "geologging." Calling a nano a cache is just about as valid, IMHO, as calling a virtual or a codeword cache, a cache. The only difference is the interaction between seeker and owner, i.e. no email verification on nanos.

 

Heck, virts are better than nanos. By far, I've seen more interesting locations with virts than nanos.

 

So, with the move away from virtual caches and back to a more "classic" cache, I'd say the size "nano" is not needed, warranted, and should not be encouraged.

 

...but, I guess the above is not a valid argument.

Share this post


Link to post
How about having cachers list the actual size in their cache page narrative.

New requirement and rule: All caches must have a picture posted of the cache container.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...said with tongue firmly in cheek. :angry:

Share this post


Link to post

Wrong!

 

A "Nano" isn't the size of a bullet. :angry: A nanometer is a unit of measure. Just like inches, feet and miles. By definition a nanometer is one-billionth of a meter.

Oh for peet's sake... now you're just being argumentative. Did you somehow forget that this discussion involves geocaching and it's own set of terms (ie. how they apply to the sport/activity/hobby)?

 

FYI, micro (µ) is 10^-6 (Aka micron)... which, in terms of actual physical size, is similarly meaningless with any direct correlation to geocaching.

Share this post


Link to post
I have not seen any valid argument against it.
I suppose when you're validating arguments you can reject any argument you wish as invalid.

 

I've said I'm not keen on the nano size because it validates cacheless caches. Just how much swag can you get in a nano? Swag in micros? Sure. When we first started we found quite a few micros before we found the first one that didn't have trinkets. So, as it stands, each size can have swag. Anyone seen swag in a nano?

Ummm... part of the point is that micros (by definition) currently contain pretty much everything from a "small" to the smallest cache seen. And, by your own argument, this very idea could help you avoid the caches which you don't like or think are "invalid"... with the current system, you don't really have any good way to do it, do you?

 

How much swag can you really fit in a "hide-a-key" or 35mm film container following the addition of a log??? (since those are really about the largest of any true micro). I suspect the micros you are seeing with "swag" are the "small" containers that are still misclassified as micros... besides, are there really any cachers out there that are engaging in the activity for the swag? :angry:

 

Currently the trend would appear to be that people placing nano caches are placing them and then simply putting "unknown" as the container size (which is almost more annoying). As previously stated, the method (intensity?) of search from even a micro versus a nano is completely different... it changes again between a (true) micro and a small... I don't feel there's such a big difference between the larger sizes, however (at least IMO).

 

Sure, this site describes a geocache as simply a logbook. However, the hobby is built on and named after what goes in the container. It's not called "geologging." Calling a nano a cache is just about as valid, IMHO, as calling a virtual or a codeword cache, a cache. The only difference is the interaction between seeker and owner, i.e. no email verification on nanos.

 

Heck, virts are better than nanos. By far, I've seen more interesting locations with virts than nanos.

 

So, with the move away from virtual caches and back to a more "classic" cache, I'd say the size "nano" is not needed, warranted, and should not be encouraged.

 

...but, I guess the above is not a valid argument.

It's a valid argument, though I kinda think you might be contradicting yourself. In my own opinion (not like I have anyone else's) I think you just help prove why it makes a lot more sense to include the additional size... especially since folks like you (who think they're "not real caches") can easily filter them out so they don't have to see them.

 

About the only good argument I've heard from not adding them, so far, is the confusion factor... after all, how many small containers these days are still improperly marked as micros?

 

Unfortunately, though... I think we're stuck with nano caches, particularly in urban settings -- seems that rather than getting less popular, they're becoming a lot more commonplace. Many of the newer caches being placed (at least in my home area) are swag-less nanos or micros -- it can be frustrating, too, since it tends to make bug hiding a lot more difficult.

 

(But I do agree there are some interesting virts out there... but there are other sites if you want to engage in that sort of thing, these days)

Share this post


Link to post

Wrong!

 

A "Nano" isn't the size of a bullet. :angry: A nanometer is a unit of measure. Just like inches, feet and miles. By definition a nanometer is one-billionth of a meter.

Oh for peet's sake... now you're just being argumentative. Did you somehow forget that this discussion involves geocaching and it's own set of terms (ie. how they apply to the sport/activity/hobby)?

 

FYI, micro (µ) is 10^-6 (Aka micron)... which, in terms of actual physical size, is similarly meaningless with any direct correlation to geocaching.

 

A Micro is already "ridiculously tiny" which negates the necessity of "yet another size definition" for geocaching. I was on topic, you weren't. The size definition "micro" fits perfectly for the game I play. Clearly based on this post, "TPTB" spoke:

 

There is no need for a nano type. As mentioned above the Micro type includes nanos. It also includes picos. even the atto (10 to the -18) would be covered by Micro.

At some point there has to be a cap on types. The Micro was a good point to stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Ummm... part of the point is that micros (by definition) currently contain pretty much everything from a "small" to the smallest cache seen. And, by your own argument, this very idea could help you avoid the caches which you don't like or think are "invalid"... with the current system, you don't really have any good way to do it, do you?
I can't avoid a nano whether it is categorized as a nano or a micro if the cache I want to place is too close to it. If it were just about finding nanos versus micros, I'd be all for it. However, the big picture isn't about simply the difference in nano and micro.

 

How much swag can you really fit in a "hide-a-key" or 35mm film container following the addition of a log??? (since those are really about the largest of any true micro). I suspect the micros you are seeing with "swag" are the "small" containers that are still misclassified as micros... besides, are there really any cachers out there that are engaging in the activity for the swag? :angry:
You'd suspect wrong. I was around before there was a small category. I know the size of the micros I found by the container they were in and not by how they were listed. 35mm and APS film cans were the norm for micros a few years ago and there was swag in them. We bought trinkets with the idea some of it would have to fit in a micro. I even had a micro Travel Bug.

 

Currently the trend would appear to be that people placing nano caches are placing them and then simply putting "unknown" as the container size (which is almost more annoying).
I agree. However, I'm not convinced what I'm seeing is really the "I don't know which category to put them in" when the instructions are clear. I think it's more "I don't want my nano avoided by those who don't like micros." Some are listing film cans as small when clearly this is inaccurate.

 

Unfortunately, though... I think we're stuck with nano caches, particularly in urban settings -- seems that rather than getting less popular, they're becoming a lot more commonplace. Many of the newer caches being placed (at least in my home area) are swag-less nanos or micros -- it can be frustrating, too, since it tends to make bug hiding a lot more difficult.

I think this last quote goes to the heart of a disturbing trend I'm seeing. A few years ago when there was talk about getting rid of the virtual cache one of the arguments was some folks (including land managers though I don't think this is the case here) though virtual caches were "just as good" as regular caches. It was clear they weren't.

 

There were times when a virtual cache was "placed" when a physical cache could have easily been placed. The notion was virts needed no maintenance (which was inaccurate to begin with). In actuality, I think it was more because it was easy. It wouldn't have been to much of a problem except that back then a virt could block a physical cache. If some goof found a nice little park and plopped a virt in there, someone who had the motivation to place a proper cache couldn't--it was blocked. The virt was the perfect lazy owner's cache type; no log, no chance of being muggled, no effort to effectively hide a physical container, etc.

 

Now, micros and, to a much greater extent, nanos, are the answer to lazy placements.

 

No, I'm not saying all micros or nanos are lazy hides any more than were the virtuals. However, if you don't want to put in the effect and expense of placing a proper "classic" cache then nanos are the way to go just like virts were way back when.

 

See, my answer is not to accommodate something which I see as bad for the hobby, but to discourage it.

 

Some folks will complain that they can't hide anything larger than a nano where they wanted to hide it. I say, "buffalo chips!" How many times has someone found a nano under a lamp post that could have held a small--or at least the larger end of micro? While I don't go out of my way to find these, every single one to date has been that case. We've hidden full-sized caches in smaller parks. Even the one cache that was listed as a micro was from before the small size and would have been as one today, yet is still active as a letterbox in a busy park. Go figure. Maybe it's lack of hiding skills, I don't know. It takes nearly zero skill to hide a nano as compared to hiding a S.A.W. can in the same area.

 

Some folks will say "I wanted to hide a nano." Sure. I'm wondering the percentage of those that "wanted" was "I wanted to not to have to put in the effort of hiding a larger cache complete with swag."

 

I'm not the first to comment on micros, and especially nanos, being the "lazy cacher's hide." I do see a deeper problem in where it's becoming the norm much like virtuals were going before the "Wow!" requirement. ...much like codeword caches.

 

I see no reason to encourage folks going further down this path by accommodating them with a new size category.

Share this post


Link to post

This has been talked about often here in the forums in other threads. Bottomline so far is that TPTB have indicated zero willingness to accomodate a new category let alone any change in the definitions of the existing ones. And not all folks are on the same page as to what a "micro" is versus a "small".

 

Placers of caches normally indicate the cache size in their descriptions but not always. And that makes it harder to eliminate them! If it says "log only" I'm pretty sure it's a nano!

 

They didn't seem to have any problem with making the various sizes and types that they did. This thread keeps coming up over and over. Maybe it should be worth another look, rather than the usual "This is what we want for the game, so that's it - end of story."

Share this post


Link to post

These are the official sizes and definitions from the "Cache Listing Requirements/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)

 

Personally, I've only seen 8 Large caches out of almost 1900 found (0.4%) so that category of size is rarely used. In fact, I've found more "Other" (1.6%) than Large. Now, it may be that the caches I've searched for since I rarely do the remote hiking trails are driving that percentage (i.e. skewed data) but I've found many more "nano" and "micro" size caches lately, even where a larger cache could be supported. Regular size seems split between rural and urban (like parks, etc.). Micro (41%), Small (35.5%) and Regular (15.5%) is my split.

 

If anything, I'd like to see a split in the Micro size category into those that can hold some swag (at least one GeoCoin) and those that can't (those mini capsules or those little snaptop containers people insert into fake birds, etc.).

 

Maybe a survey is in order. Post a few dozen samples of caches and then conduct a survey/poll of what everyone thinks each cache should be categorized.

 

Bottomline, I won't be hurt if they stay as they are but maybe a little education would help.

Share this post


Link to post
Maybe a survey is in order. Post a few dozen samples of caches and then conduct a survey/poll of what everyone thinks each cache should be categorized.

It would probably be better to simply gather as many different containers together that can be found and set a size. If you do a poll you'll get differences of opinion -- "well, I always made that a small and this a micro" -- and nothing will change. We've seen it with rating of difficulty. Folks completely ignore set standards and "adjust" by what they see locally, never mind that most of the local caches are rated wrong.

 

Bottomline, I won't be hurt if they stay as they are but maybe a little education would help.

Groundspeak is notorious for not providing education on minutiae. It was left up to the community to define the ratings. And I do believe someone, maybe more than one, has taken the time to list various containers and categorize them. Most don't know about it, though, because it's not prominent on this site.

 

I can understand why one would want to keep things somewhat fuzzy. You can't foresee everything. But, Groundspeak has provided fairly clear guidance on the sizes: anything the size of a 35mm film can and smaller is a micro.

Edited by CoyoteRed

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

×
×
  • Create New...