Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
blb9556

Feature request: Nano cache size

Recommended Posts

Wrong!

 

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

Oh-I-see... come in, flame about something pretty much completely unrelated to topic at-hand (eg. measurements in the metric system), then call me off-topic for pointing it out... :D

 

To recap, a "nano" for the purposes of geocaching (and this discussion) is a container smaller than a micro, often thought of as "bullet sized" (aka bison tube) or smaller. You can find the containers at a lot of different places like GeoSwag, GPS City, Box64, Coin Swag or a number of other places as well. We're not talking about the metric system here, but a game/activity which we all are supposed to be enjoying... else, why are we here, right? :huh:

 

Clearly based on this post, "TPTB" spoke:

 

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

 

Yes, I realize that... but like anything else, there are points at which the game may to evolve. Were this not the case, there'd still be virtuals and/or locationless not to mention a few other things. We'd also not have the "small" size at this point (as someone else had already pointed out, that cache size was later added on when it was clear there was a need for it). What some folks here are trying to say is that there would appear to be a need for yet-one-more-size... personally, I just think that the current ambiguity between small and micro (brought on when the new size was added) is what's causing the current argument.

 

To clarify (ie. before you decide you now want to argue the aforementioned "ambiguity"), since there are miss-sized caches predating the addition of the new size, current finders tend to see small/micro containers which are arguably listed incorrectly or contrary to current standards. I'm also not saying this doesn't happen at other sizes, particularly the "unknown" size -- it just seems more prevalent with the micro/small categories and that is what's causing the current bit of confusion... just imagine how out of control it might get were there now another small size to choose from, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Wrong!

 

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

Oh-I-see... come in, flame about something pretty much completely unrelated to topic at-hand (eg. measurements in the metric system), then call me off-topic for pointing it out... :D

 

To recap, a "nano" for the purposes of geocaching (and this discussion) is a container smaller than a micro, often thought of as "bullet sized" (aka bison tube) or smaller. You can find the containers at a lot of different places like GeoSwag, GPS City, Box64, Coin Swag or a number of other places as well. We're not talking about the metric system here, but a game/activity which we all are supposed to be enjoying... else, why are we here, right? :huh:

 

Clearly based on this post, "TPTB" spoke:

 

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

 

Yes, I realize that... but like anything else, there are points at which the game may to evolve. Were this not the case, there'd still be virtuals and/or locationless not to mention a few other things. We'd also not have the "small" size at this point (as someone else had already pointed out, that cache size was later added on when it was clear there was a need for it). What some folks here are trying to say is that there would appear to be a need for yet-one-more-size... personally, I just think that the current ambiguity between small and micro (brought on when the new size was added) is what's causing the current argument.

 

To clarify (ie. before you decide you now want to argue the aforementioned "ambiguity"), since there are miss-sized caches predating the addition of the new size, current finders tend to see small/micro containers which are arguably listed incorrectly or contrary to current standards. I'm also not saying this doesn't happen at other sizes, particularly the "unknown" size -- it just seems more prevalent with the micro/small categories and that is what's causing the current bit of confusion... just imagine how out of control it might get were there now another small size to choose from, eh?

 

This is about the 6th thread requesting a nano category that he's jumped in with this straw man argument and flamed people for needing something as small as a nanometer. Do a search on "nanometer" posts by him and you'll see.

 

The fact is, you NEVER said nanometer sized container, you said "nano". He came in and added the "meter" and then argued against it's use - again.

 

To be as literal as he is, the term nano is just a prefix to ANY measurement meaning one billionth of that unit. So he ASSumed you meant nanometer when you could have easily meant a nano(something 10 miles long), which would be a little over half an inch.

 

Using "nano" in the forums is the correct term to describe the really small caches that hold only a rolled up strip of paper from a shredder.

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.
This issue is the same for any sized cache, not just micro or nano. If there's a cache you don't like, and it's keeping you from placing one that you'd rather see nearby, that's tough cookies. You should have gotten there first. Having a nano size icon wouldn't change that.

 

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? :D
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.
I disagree that a nano isn't a cache simply because it doesn't contain swag. The container is most definitely holding a log sheet at the location, so something is indeed being cached. Just because it's not a trade item doesn't mean it's not cached. This is why TPTB got rid of virtuals and left the definition to include log book only containers.

 

I see no reason to encourage folks going further down this path by accommodating them with a new size category.
I don't think the new category is necessary either, but just to keep from over identifying the cache before looking for it, I'd prefer to keep the categories limited. I'm not trying to limit caches that I don't like. So we're actually on the same side of this debate, I just didn't agree with your reasoning. :D

Share this post


Link to post
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? :D
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.

That's a pretty awesome little bug! I compliment you on your ingenuity, there! I'd love to see similar things, too... any chance you have a pointer to those bugs, or at least a "leg up" on how you created it?

 

But yeah, I can certainly see the addition of the small size as having caused a bunch of confusion and ripple-effect in the current day game... also, as you also insinuated / pointed out, some folks may just enjoy being difficult and/or rebellious and may intentionally mislabel their container sizes (much like folks who intentionally post skewed/offset coordinates).

 

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.

With all due respect, I think as with any cache it really goes back to the actual cache owner and their creativity or what-not... I've seen a few virtuals that I thought were fantastic and plenty of small or regular caches that have been placed as-if they were placed "just to say that they've placed a cache somewhere."

 

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.

Very interesting point... though the cynical side of me would say that a larger/actual cache should be able to trump a smaller/virtual cache... I think that might encourage some behaviors that I don't really need to point out, here... :huh:

 

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.

Yeah, when you put it that way, it certainly makes sense... thanks for the calm/rational point.

 

Though again, I've seen caches of all sizes that just felt like they were placed "for the sake of placing a cache." At the same time, I've seen a good number of micros and/or nanos that were some pretty ingenious (dare I say devious?) hides... though at the same rate, I also see the smaller caches as having more potential to encourage poor behavior among finders, too. I always cringe when I hear of the fake bird's nest or sprinkler caches or the like for this sort of reason... not because I don't think they have their own place and such, but because I think that it can encourage (teach?) folks to try to tear apart things where they really have no business doing so.

 

Some folks will complain that they can't hide anything larger than a nano where they wanted to hide it. I say, "buffalo chips!"

:D Ha! You say that and all I can think of are old episodes of M*A*S*H with Henry Morgan (Colonel Potter) exclaiming "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.

Yeah... certainly makes quite a bit of sense (and thank you for that... quite sincerely). Though, in the same right (and as I said previously), poorly hidden or thought-out caches come in all sizes, not just micros or nanos -- though agreed that the micro/nano can be more prone to such things. And again, I've seen a few micros/nanos that were very clearly good hides and, just my own general feeling, it seems to me that I find more of those than I find at the larger end of the size scale... but perhaps conversely, the smaller sizes also tend to fall in to the category of "why am I here?" (eg. the nano/micro stuck to a metal bench/trashcan outside a busy star*ucks).

 

Similarly, NoSuchCache (my s/o and "caching buddy") and I continually comment (grumble?) on the "hide for a sake of a hide" caches. To that end, I/we generally tend to support some level of a "cache rating system" (more to the effect of a "corrective-level rating," asking each finder to rate the size, difficulty, terrain, hide, container and enjoyment of each cache); but that's yet another can of worms that's probably best left unopened.

Share this post


Link to post
Wrong!

 

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

Oh-I-see... come in, flame about something pretty much completely unrelated to topic at-hand (eg. measurements in the metric system), then call me off-topic for pointing it out... :huh:

 

To recap, a "nano" for the purposes of geocaching (and this discussion) is a container smaller than a micro, often thought of as "bullet sized" (aka bison tube) or smaller. You can find the containers at a lot of different places like GeoSwag, GPS City, Box64, Coin Swag or a number of other places as well. We're not talking about the metric system here, but a game/activity which we all are supposed to be enjoying... else, why are we here, right? :)

This is about the 6th thread requesting a nano category that he's jumped in with this straw man argument and flamed people for needing something as small as a nanometer. Do a search on "nanometer" posts by him and you'll see.

 

The fact is, you NEVER said nanometer sized container, you said "nano". He came in and added the "meter" and then argued against it's use - again.

 

To be as literal as he is, the term nano is just a prefix to ANY measurement meaning one billionth of that unit. So he ASSumed you meant nanometer when you could have easily meant a nano(something 10 miles long), which would be a little over half an inch.

Oh gggrrreeeaaattt... :D

 

Silly me for thinking that, just because we're on the Geocaching Forums and, thusly, in a community with its own set of terms and/or colloquialisms ... it'd be understood that I'd be referring to the community's accepted definition of the term and/or current topic.

 

:D

 

(thanks for pointing out the troll, though... :D )

 

Using "nano" in the forums is the correct term to describe the really small caches that hold only a rolled up strip of paper from a shredder.

That's funny... I'd never thought of it that way... of course, I also have an industrial strength crosscut shredder in my home office, so... *laughs*

 

BTW... a completely unrelated tangent that only Mushtang may be interested in... the new live album is out! (though I've still yet to pick up my own copy)

Edited by russellvt

Share this post


Link to post

In this day of miniaturization is is common for products to get progressively smaller by prefixing with mini-, micro-, and nano- (and sometimes even pico-). The traditional meaning of micro = one millionth and nano = one billionth are not really applicable to the common usage these terms now have. Micro and a nano are both suggestive of what has happened as cache size have shrunk. Why when the new small size was added it was called small instead of mini is a whole other issue.

 

Some people will use a nano sized cache to make finding a bit more of a challenge. If there were a nano size there would probably be more use of the unknown size than we currently have, just to keep the challenge. I find when I know that the cache is a nano (or once I realize that it might be) that they are generally easy to find. But when I'm still thinking 35 mm film can or Altoids container, I can look right past a nano container. Hiding a nano is generally meant to get geocachers to abandon any preconceptions when searching for the cache. Some people may be asking for a new size to make it easier to search rather than as a way to filter out the cache they don't like.

 

It's not clear that adding another cache size will accomplish any of the goals of those asking for this change. Be careful what you ask for, you might get it. :D

Share this post


Link to post

Be careful what you ask for, you might get it. :D

 

I'm sorry guys, but not this time. We're still not convinced that further subdividing the cache sizes will add appreciably to the site.

Share this post


Link to post

Be careful what you ask for, you might get it. :D

 

I'm sorry guys, but not this time. We're still not convinced that further subdividing the cache sizes will add appreciably to the site.

Hooray!

Share this post


Link to post
Be careful what you ask for, you might get it. :D
I'm sorry guys, but not this time. We're still not convinced that further subdividing the cache sizes will add appreciably to the site.

Thanks for jumping in again 'Nate to give us the low-down (or, of course, the occasional bat-to-the-head)!

Share this post


Link to post

This is about the 6th thread requesting a nano category that he's jumped in with this straw man argument and flamed people for needing something as small as a nanometer. Do a search on "nanometer" posts by him and you'll see.

 

The fact is, you NEVER said nanometer sized container, you said "nano". He came in and added the "meter" and then argued against it's use - again.

 

To be as literal as he is, the term nano is just a prefix to ANY measurement meaning one billionth of that unit. So he ASSumed you meant nanometer when you could have easily meant a nano(something 10 miles long), which would be a little over half an inch.

 

Using "nano" in the forums is the correct term to describe the really small caches that hold only a rolled up strip of paper from a shredder.

 

Nice personal attack, I expected nothing less from you.

 

Actually this is the 5th thread where a nano sized cache was discussed ad nauseum. I purposely reiterated. the measurement of a nanometer when a certain poster starting talking about things you couldn't pick up.

 

Thankfully, two of the TPTB have let it be known that a nano size category is not going to happen. :D:):(

Share this post


Link to post

I'm sorry guys, but not this time. We're still not convinced that further subdividing the cache sizes will add appreciably to the site.

It would certainly add significantly to my use of the site. And it is a logical extension of the existing size categories:

 

Large - bucket - 640 oz (5 gal)

Regular - ammo can - 100 oz (about 1/6 the volume of large)

Small - serving container - 16 oz (about 1/6 the volume of regular)

Micro - film cannister - 2 oz (about 1/8 the volume of small)

Nano - pill capsule - 0.05 oz (about 1/40 the volume of micro)

 

The nano is off the scale--very different from a standard micro to my eyes--and really stretches the definition of a cache. The main (relatively minor) problem I see with adding a new category is that it will take some time to work its way into the cache listings.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm sorry guys, but not this time. We're still not convinced that further subdividing the cache sizes will add appreciably to the site.

It would certainly add significantly to my use of the site. And it is a logical extension of the existing size categories:

 

Large - bucket - 640 oz (5 gal)

Regular - ammo can - 100 oz (about 1/6 the volume of large)

Small - serving container - 16 oz (about 1/6 the volume of regular)

Micro - film cannister - 2 oz (about 1/8 the volume of small)

Nano - pill capsule - 0.05 oz (about 1/40 the volume of micro)

 

The nano is off the scale--very different from a standard micro to my eyes--and really stretches the definition of a cache. The main (relatively minor) problem I see with adding a new category is that it will take some time to work its way into the cache listings.

 

You're right it does stretch the definition of a cache.

'

What are the rules in Geocaching?

 

Geocaching is a relatively new phenomenon. Therefore, the rules are very simple:

 

Take something from the cache

Leave something in the cache

Write about it in the logbook

 

With a nano their is nothing to take or leave, we should call them "cacheless caches," or No Redeeming Value micros. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Thankfully, two of the TPTB have let it be known that a nano size category is not going to happen. :)B):D

And twice in this thread I've let it be known that I am happy about it and don't wish to see the nano category either.

 

I guess you really showed me. :(

Share this post


Link to post
You're right it does stretch the definition of a cache.

'

What are the rules in Geocaching?

 

Geocaching is a relatively new phenomenon. Therefore, the rules are very simple:

 

Take something from the cache

Leave something in the cache

Write about it in the logbook

 

With a nano their is nothing to take or leave, we should call them "cacheless caches," or No Redeeming Value micros. :(

I didn't see a definition of a cache anywhere in there. I saw a description of caching. If you think those that don't fit in with that description are not really caches, then I guess if someone only signs their name and doesn't "write about it" in the logbook the cache isn't a cache either?

 

You seem to take things WAY to literal on this site.

Share this post


Link to post

The quote above from Getting Started says:

What are the rules in Geocaching?

 

Geocaching is a relatively new phenomenon. Therefore, the rules are very simple:

 

Take something from the cache

Leave something in the cache

Write about it in the logbook

 

However, just a few lines below that quote is the following:

 

"A cache can come in many forms but the first item should always be the logbook. In its simplest form a cache can be just a logbook and nothing else."

 

Thus, anything physical to be found (including just a log - no container - which I have found at least twice) constitutes a cache as long as it includes a log.

 

A "nano" container size has been asked for and denied numerous times (someone said 5 times, someone else said 6). That topic seems closed unless someone can come up with arguments beyond what has already been presented. Merely for the sake of sorting isn't going to cut it.

 

The short description of the cache is supposed to include a description of the cache but not all owners includes that info. So, that means you have to expand your search criteria to include everything from a nano to a trash can. What you might find at the location becomes the surprise. If you don't want to look for "nano" caches, then don't look for micros. And if the compass rose points to that lamppost, keep going to the next one.

Share this post


Link to post
Actually this is the 5th thread where a nano sized cache was discussed ad nauseum. I purposely reiterated. the measurement of a nanometer[...]

:)

 

In short (and as has already been pointed out), seems like "there be trolls" here. (ie. I mean, I had thought we were talking about terminology with respect to geocaching, but it sounded for a second there like we were talking about something else entirely).

 

What are the rules in Geocaching?

 

Geocaching is a relatively new phenomenon. Therefore, the rules are very simple:

 

Take something from the cache

Leave something in the cache

Write about it in the logbook

Well, considering how much is evolving or has changed, here... that page would appear to be getting rather old and (perhaps?) dated. That particular stanza hasn't been updated pretty much since inception, but there are plenty of other places that indicate only one of those three directives is "mandatory" (exercise left to reader).

 

With a nano their is nothing to take or leave, we should call them "cacheless caches," or No Redeeming Value micros. :D

Well, if they're apparently of "no redeeming value," you might want to think about avoiding them (thensilly little discussions like this also won't trouble ya... B))

 

B)

 

But, as has also been pointed out... TPTB have already come back with a plain, simple, and polite indication that "no one's convincing them that a nano is needed." So, unless someone has a not-yet-dead horse that needs to be little (?) beaten, perhaps it's time to let this thread die so that another one can take its place (and we can be on to number six or seven (?) or whatever it is...???)

 

:(

Share this post


Link to post
A "nano" container size has been asked for and denied numerous times (someone said 5 times, someone else said 6). That topic seems closed unless someone can come up with arguments beyond what has already been presented. Merely for the sake of sorting isn't going to cut it.

And there-in lies the issue... glad to hear this thread can finally take a long (?) deserved rest... :(

Share this post


Link to post
With a nano their is nothing to take or leave, we should call them "cacheless caches," or No Redeeming Value micros. :D

With such a bad opinion of log only micros, someone might think you'd never found any... and certainly wouldn't have EVER hidden any yourself. For some reason it doesn't surprise me in the least that you own at least FOUR log only micros that are active:

MLDC Micro

Boxed in

LOG This Cache!

Farm Cache

 

And at least THREE others that are now archived:

CFC

The imperceptible tree cache

Sierra Bike Path Access Point

You even refer to that last one as a nano cache in the description, but forgot to mention that they'd need to bring their electron microscope to see it.

 

B)

 

Something tells me that the next time someone starts a thread asking for a nano category you'll still break out the definition of a nanometer and once again suggest how little value log only micros have. :(B)B):)

Share this post


Link to post

With such a bad opinion of log only micros, someone might think you'd never found any... and certainly wouldn't have EVER hidden any yourself. For some reason it doesn't surprise me in the least that you own at least FOUR log only micros that are active:

MLDC Micro

Boxed in

LOG This Cache!

Farm Cache

 

There are no secrets to these caches. Note the cache page narrative. Notice the dates hidden.

 

MLDC micro 2004 was my first cache, I placed it back in 2004, before I got tired of No Redeeming Value Micros. This cache also provides a WWII history lesson.

 

Boxed in 2004"You're looking for a log-only micro that "blends" in with it's surroundings. There is nothing spectacular about the cache, except it is a good place to fish!"

 

LOG This Cache! 2004 "You're looking for a handcrafted micro cache that blends in with it's surroundings. Make sure you put the cache back exactly as you found it. There is nothing spectacular about the area, but I think you'll appreciate the hide."

 

Farm Cache 2005 This hiding spot is conducive to a micro. "A quick, log only micro on the way to my other caches, in the area. There is nothing spectacular about the location. "

 

 

And at least THREE others that are now archived:

CFC

The imperceptible tree cache

Sierra Bike Path Access Point

You even refer to that last one as a nano cache in the description, but forgot to mention that they'd need to bring their electron microscope to see it.

 

The last finder of the Sierra Bike access did.

 

CFC 2004 Was placed to meet the specific requirement of a "seed cache." To log the find, you had to take one of her containers, and hide a new cache. Her cache was a micro.

 

The imperceptible tree cache 2005 Was one of my most devious camo jobs. The found it logs speak for themselves. I was actually amazed that Dgreno actually took the time to change their cut paste log they duplicated about 300 times, to write about my camo.

 

Sierra Bike Path Access Point A cleverly hidden cache properly listed as a micro, but the only cache I ever referred to as a nano.

 

 

Something tells me that the next time someone starts a thread asking for a nano category you'll still break out the definition of a nanometer and once again suggest how little value log only micros have. :(:D:)B)

 

Whatever you say pal. B) I have 80 active caches of the size small or larger, four earthcaches, and I also have a total of 16 active caches that are log only, in the small to micro sized range. Lets compare that to your three active caches in five years of caching.

 

Who contributes more to the game?

Edited by Kit Fox

Share this post


Link to post

They seem like good caches to me, and caches I would enjoy finding.

 

So now I'm further confused about your statement that log only micros have no redeeming value. Perhaps you meant to say that log only micros have no redeeming value... except for yours?

 

Maybe you were speaking about everybody else's caches, but they're okay if you're the one that hides them, because you have a unique viewpoint on what makes a tricky hide technique so it can "blend with it's surroundings" or so people can "appreciate the hide"?

 

Nobody ELSE'S log only micro could possibly have any redeeming value. Got it.

 

:(

Share this post


Link to post

Thank you for all the discussion on the subject. It was noted and discussed. The decision to not add an additional cache size remains. The current sizes fit the needs of the majority of the community.

 

Again thank you all for the input.

Edited by Michael

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...