Jump to content

nano size


Boom!pa

Recommended Posts

:D Just wondering why there isn't a nano cache size on the geocaching.com website as there seems to be tons of nano caches out there. I use the GSAK program to move waypoints to my gps and from there a use a string that identifies the cache size, difficulty, and terrian in short form so that i can paperless cache (as much as possible!) It would be a great feature other then "other"
Link to post

:D Just wondering why there isn't a nano cache size on the geocaching.com website as there seems to be tons of nano caches out there. I use the GSAK program to move waypoints to my gps and from there a use a string that identifies the cache size, difficulty, and terrian in short form so that i can paperless cache (as much as possible!) It would be a great feature other then "other"

What are called "nanos" should be classified as Micro, not Other. The definition of Micro includes everything down to the atomic level.

Link to post

:D Just wondering why there isn't a nano cache size on the geocaching.com website as there seems to be tons of nano caches out there. I use the GSAK program to move waypoints to my gps and from there a use a string that identifies the cache size, difficulty, and terrian in short form so that i can paperless cache (as much as possible!) It would be a great feature other then "other"

What are called "nanos" should be classified as Micro, not Other. The definition of Micro includes everything down to the atomic level.

 

It would be great though if there were a nano size! I know when I go caching that by knowing if its a nano or a micro, I look in much different locations due to the size difference. It usually says it in the description of the page but I happen to be one of those cachers that doesn't like to read the page (from the pda) unless I am completely stuck. No huge deal really, just would be nice.

Link to post

Guys!!!! I brought this up last week they said no. Heres the link: Link

Not to worry, the issue will get stirred up again next week. I'm just glad the micro listing is as small as they plan to go. No need to promote nanos anymore then they already are.

Link to post

I think its a great idea...film can or nano hanging in a hedge...gotta know which to look for. Also, lots of people use the Not Chosen option for nanos.

 

Maybe it would serve a better purpose to make the person submitting the cache to pick which size it is instead of simply stating unknown or other.

Link to post
It would be great though if there were a nano size! I know when I go caching that by knowing if its a nano or a micro, I look in much different locations due to the size difference.
But where would it need to end? After adding the nano category we'd need to add one for each size of ammo can (there are 4 that I'm aware of), one for lock-n-locks, one for other tupperware, one for fake rocks, one for fake stumps, one for containers that are painted, one for those that are not, a covered in sticks category, an under rocks category, one for caches hidden on the north side of trees, and on and on and on.....

 

Those will also make it easier to know where to look. Right?

 

It usually says it in the description of the page but I happen to be one of those cachers that doesn't like to read the page (from the pda) unless I am completely stuck. No huge deal really, just would be nice.
If you don't read the cache page before you hunt then any difficulty you have is sort of your own fault, no? If it usually says in the description then one would think that's what the owner wants people to know about the container. Giving more categories to select from just for people that don't read the description seems a little silly to me.
Link to post

Hmmm, lets lock at this the right way and probably get myself banned for the observation because profiters hate when they refuse to do something because then don't acknowledge it as necessary yet sell something that facilitates that shall we say un-necessity.

 

Groundspeak sells Containers ranging from small to medium classification. Right here

Then they sell a Micro container. Here

ANd whats this I see? No it could not be! It is! A nano! Here

Looks like the distinction needs to be made for sorting or that container needs to be renamed to something like Log Only Micro.

 

I personally make the distinction between Micro and Nano. and so does Groundspeak.

You can still get geocoins and patrhtags in a micro. Unactivated coins are swag and so are pathtags unless otherwise noted.

Simply put they need to address their own nounage in a manor that will keep them from being hypocritical. Either deny Nano class and stop selling items with the name or do the right thing and add the class so it can be filtered.

Either way I'm still going to place a nano.

Link to post

I think its a great idea...film can or nano hanging in a hedge...gotta know which to look for. Also, lots of people use the Not Chosen option for nanos.

 

no, we do not need to know which to look for. by listing it as a micro, we already know it's small. if you can't wrap your brain around the fact that there are several different common containers, perhaps you should stick to caches for which the description shows a picture of what exactly to look for.

 

and just because Groundspeak goes to the trouble of describing the containers they have for sale it does not follow that there must be a separate category for each kind.

 

looky here, lucy-lou! this here catalog writin' sez they gots a BLUE 'tainer! they don't got a category fer that. better get a category, other ways we won't know which ta look fer.

Link to post

I think its a great idea...film can or nano hanging in a hedge...gotta know which to look for. Also, lots of people use the Not Chosen option for nanos.

 

no, we do not need to know which to look for. by listing it as a micro, we already know it's small. if you can't wrap your brain around the fact that there are several different common containers, perhaps you should stick to caches for which the description shows a picture of what exactly to look for.

 

and just because Groundspeak goes to the trouble of describing the containers they have for sale it does not follow that there must be a separate category for each kind.

 

looky here, lucy-lou! this here catalog writin' sez they gots a BLUE 'tainer! they don't got a category fer that. better get a category, other ways we won't know which ta look fer.

DOOIIEERRREEEAAA like I said Gorge, Micro can hold swag and a nano cant. BEBLTY BEBLTY.

Link to post

[jibberish snipped] like I said Gorge, Micro can hold swag and a nano cant. [more jibberish snipped]

... except for the micros that can't.

 

As a matter of fact, the "official" definition of a micro is that it usually doesn't contain anything but a log.

Edited by Prime Suspect
Link to post

[jibberish snipped] like I said Gorge, Micro can hold swag and a nano cant. [more jibberish snipped]

... except for the micros that can't.

 

As a matter of fact, the "official" definition of a micro is that it usually doesn't contain anything but a log.

 

Ah well then what is truly needed is for people to stop calling film canisters and Altoids Smalls tins "Micro". Oh wait there is that pesky qualifier "usually". You may note it does not say "only contain a log".

micronot.jpg

Thats a 40 page ring bound log, a pencil and a 50¢ piece. I can get more in. Heck if I just put a log in a film canister I'll bet I could ignore it for months, thats a lot of paper especially considering I will make my own note book. Hmmm. now I'm going to have to figure out how many pages I can pack in there. :)

Edited by Vater_Araignee
Link to post

DOOIIEERRREEEAAA like I said Gorge, Micro can hold swag and a nano cant. BEBLTY BEBLTY.

 

What are you talking about, Nanos can hold swag. Tiny swag, but still.

And include a legit log? I have a 1 dram bottle I have been dieing to use, what would you suggest I put in besides my scroll?

Link to post

If 'micro' is meant to cover everything less than 'small' then why have 'micro' at all? Why not just use 'small' to cover everything less than 'regular'. And if you're going to think in those terms- why have any size rating at all? A nano is different enough in size to warrant a separate rating- just as much as the differences between micro & small, small & regular and regular & large.

 

I usually use these terms when a new cacher asks what the differences are between the various sizes: a large can hold a 16" softball (or large grapefruit), a regular can hold a baseball (or an orange/apple), a small can hold a golf ball (or a walnut), a micro can hold a marble (or a grape/cherry) and a nano can hold a BB (or a grape/apple/orange seed/cherry pit).

Link to post

I just noticed something.

 

Will size "not listed" exclude your your cache from being listed?

If not, will it mess with a PQ that excludes one cache size or more?

Will it even show up in a PQ?

 

There is not a "not listed" in the selected containers option.

 

seems to me that if people want to differentiate between micro and nano (both side love 'em or hate 'em) then that would be the best placement for them if you could filter them in or out.

 

You know what is really funny?

There are three sides to this argument and two should be teaming up against the third.

IE Love 'em and Hate 'em should team up against the Read the rules crowd.

 

I know, I know. 'nuff said but that does not exclude discussion and attempt to sway the masses, making it an poor argument at best. If the masses want it then eventually the powers that be will give it or lose money.

I doubt this place runs on the Amazon.com model so I'm willing to bet if enough premium members say "Let there be nanos so we can filter them in/out" then the powers will listen.

 

Any one that breaks down to saying "here is you answer now shut up" is simply trying to prevent change.

 

By the way, you show me somebody that does not spend money in any way shape or form to make money and I will show you a literal God, Goddess, Omnipotent being or how ever you declare it that does not need money in the first place.

Link to post

This entire discussion seems easy to me. Properly decribe your hide and the container and there should be no problems. If you don't want to do so then classify your hide under the unknown size category and have fun. Angst is so often clouded by what seems to be common sense. Don't direct your anger or frustration toward anyone other than the hider that chooses to be be misleading. No need for additional sizes.

Link to post
There is not a "not listed" in the selected containers option.

Yes there is. But it's called "Unknown" on the PQ page.

 

However, that's not the proper classification for a nano. It's still a micro. As WRASTRO said, hiders should just describe the container in the description if they want you to know.

Link to post

If it's up to the hider to accurately describe the size of the cache in the text then why have the cache size listed anywhere else on the cache page?

You are right. Every cache should be listed as a large. Do you want to go hunting for a large when the actual cache is a micro/nano? Don't you change your search tactics at least a little?

 

I really don't understand why anyone would have an objection to a properly described hide and container. Doesn't the hider know what the container looks like? In general of course.

Link to post

If it's up to the hider to accurately describe the size of the cache in the text then why have the cache size listed anywhere else on the cache page?

Filtration.

You are right. Every cache should be listed as a large. Do you want to go hunting for a large when the actual cache is a micro/nano? Don't you change your search tactics at least a little?

 

I really don't understand why anyone would have an objection to a properly described hide and container. Doesn't the hider know what the container looks like? In general of course.

I agree, they should properly describe the container. I also change tactics when searching. I pray that my screw retriever will grab when my fingers cant reach that nano. Yup they should list special equipment needed, if it is. It might sound stupid of me but my automatic assumption for a nano is special equipment needed.

 

I really don't understand why any hider would have an objection to properly describing their hide and container. Doesn't the hider know what the container looks like? In general of course so they are causing people confusion from their shear laziness that my be alleviated in part if given the opportunity to list it as nano.

Some may consider it a small thing but other think it is big and just because on thinks small does not reduce it's size for others.

Personally I'm going to download them all, and when I'm with the kids only look for properly described containers. I get so much crap from them when they don't know what to look for. :sad:

 

Oh, thumbs up to your nearly making the point of the add it camp.

Link to post

I know, I know. 'nuff said but that does not exclude discussion and attempt to sway the masses, making it an poor argument at best. If the masses want it then eventually the powers that be will give it or lose money. I doubt this place runs on the Amazon.com model so I'm willing to bet if enough premium members say "Let there be nanos so we can filter them in/out" then the powers will listen."

 

Any one that breaks down to saying "here is you answer now shut up" is simply trying to prevent change.

 

That would be true if TPTB had said this 5 months ago, or 2 years ago. Nate posted that statement on Jul 7 2008 just 10 days before I posted "'nuff said". Did you really think that a second thread where people say "but we really, REALLY need a nano size, pretty-please?" would change their mind.

 

I have a 12-year-old that wants a cell phone. I have told him that when he drives, he may get one with his own money (or we'll use that Trak-fone thing for pre-paying his time). He asks me every few weeks hoping that my answer will change, especially because many of his friends have them. My answer is still no.

Link to post

@Markwell: How dare you deny your child!? Don't you realize that your child will be traumatized by not having a phone? LOL

 

Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet? ....asking doesn't get us closer.

Link to post

I know, I know. 'nuff said but that does not exclude discussion and attempt to sway the masses, making it an poor argument at best. If the masses want it then eventually the powers that be will give it or lose money. I doubt this place runs on the Amazon.com model so I'm willing to bet if enough premium members say "Let there be nanos so we can filter them in/out" then the powers will listen."

 

Any one that breaks down to saying "here is you answer now shut up" is simply trying to prevent change.

 

That would be true if TPTB had said this 5 months ago, or 2 years ago. Nate posted that statement on Jul 7 2008 just 10 days before I posted "'nuff said". Did you really think that a second thread where people say "but we really, REALLY need a nano size, pretty-please?" would change their mind.

 

I have a 12-year-old that wants a cell phone. I have told him that when he drives, he may get one with his own money (or we'll use that Trak-fone thing for pre-paying his time). He asks me every few weeks hoping that my answer will change, especially because many of his friends have them. My answer is still no.

I'm not trying to change there minds right now.

Bother to read much?

Link to post

If it's up to the hider to accurately describe the size of the cache in the text then why have the cache size listed anywhere else on the cache page?

You are right. Every cache should be listed as a large. Do you want to go hunting for a large when the actual cache is a micro/nano? Don't you change your search tactics at least a little?

 

I really don't understand why anyone would have an objection to a properly described hide and container. Doesn't the hider know what the container looks like? In general of course.

 

I do change my search tactics- that's the point. I change it when I know I'm looking for a large as opposed to a regular, a regular as opposed to a small and when I'm looking for a nano as opposed to a micro. They differ in size enough to warrant it- and thus to also warrant a different category.

Link to post

If it's up to the hider to accurately describe the size of the cache in the text then why have the cache size listed anywhere else on the cache page?

You are right. Every cache should be listed as a large. Do you want to go hunting for a large when the actual cache is a micro/nano? Don't you change your search tactics at least a little?

 

I really don't understand why anyone would have an objection to a properly described hide and container. Doesn't the hider know what the container looks like? In general of course.

 

I do change my search tactics- that's the point. I change it when I know I'm looking for a large as opposed to a regular, a regular as opposed to a small and when I'm looking for a nano as opposed to a micro. They differ in size enough to warrant it- and thus to also warrant a different category.

We just need to agree to disagree. I see the problem as one of poorly described caches, not a size listing.

Link to post

I know, I know. 'nuff said but that does not exclude discussion and attempt to sway the masses, making it an poor argument at best. If the masses want it then eventually the powers that be will give it or lose money. I doubt this place runs on the Amazon.com model so I'm willing to bet if enough premium members say "Let there be nanos so we can filter them in/out" then the powers will listen."

 

Any one that breaks down to saying "here is you answer now shut up" is simply trying to prevent change.

 

That would be true if TPTB had said this 5 months ago, or 2 years ago. Nate posted that statement on Jul 7 2008 just 10 days before I posted "'nuff said". Did you really think that a second thread where people say "but we really, REALLY need a nano size, pretty-please?" would change their mind.

 

You never know- it just might. I remember a time when these forums didn't have an off topic area. Enough people requested it and discussed the reasons for and against it and now there is an off topic forum. If I recall correctly we were being told 'no' pretty much up until the time that it appeared. Opinions & viewpoints can change- an open and civil discussion is the best way to do that.

Link to post

If it's up to the hider to accurately describe the size of the cache in the text then why have the cache size listed anywhere else on the cache page?

You are right. Every cache should be listed as a large. Do you want to go hunting for a large when the actual cache is a micro/nano? Don't you change your search tactics at least a little?

 

I really don't understand why anyone would have an objection to a properly described hide and container. Doesn't the hider know what the container looks like? In general of course.

 

I do change my search tactics- that's the point. I change it when I know I'm looking for a large as opposed to a regular, a regular as opposed to a small and when I'm looking for a nano as opposed to a micro. They differ in size enough to warrant it- and thus to also warrant a different category.

We just need to agree to disagree. I see the problem as one of poorly described caches, not a size listing.

 

So then you think there is no need to have any size listing on the cache page at all? It should only be put in if the hider wants to? There's nothing wrong with having the owner do so, but again- why have them at all if not to accurately reflect the size of the cache you are looking for? As I've pointed out there is enough of a size difference, in mine and many others opinions, for the need of a separate category.

Link to post

If it's up to the hider to accurately describe the size of the cache in the text then why have the cache size listed anywhere else on the cache page?

You are right. Every cache should be listed as a large. Do you want to go hunting for a large when the actual cache is a micro/nano? Don't you change your search tactics at least a little?

 

I really don't understand why anyone would have an objection to a properly described hide and container. Doesn't the hider know what the container looks like? In general of course.

 

I do change my search tactics- that's the point. I change it when I know I'm looking for a large as opposed to a regular, a regular as opposed to a small and when I'm looking for a nano as opposed to a micro. They differ in size enough to warrant it- and thus to also warrant a different category.

We just need to agree to disagree. I see the problem as one of poorly described caches, not a size listing.

 

So then you think there is no need to have any size listing on the cache page at all? It should only be put in if the hider wants to? There's nothing wrong with having the owner do so, but again- why have them at all if not to accurately reflect the size of the cache you are looking for? As I've pointed out there is enough of a size difference, in mine and many others opinions, for the need of a separate category.

Now you are attempting to claim I think things that I don't. I happen to think there is no need for a nano size. That is it. And just as there are many who think there should be a nano size there are many who think there is no need.

Link to post

If it's up to the hider to accurately describe the size of the cache in the text then why have the cache size listed anywhere else on the cache page?

You are right. Every cache should be listed as a large. Do you want to go hunting for a large when the actual cache is a micro/nano? Don't you change your search tactics at least a little?

 

I really don't understand why anyone would have an objection to a properly described hide and container. Doesn't the hider know what the container looks like? In general of course.

 

I do change my search tactics- that's the point. I change it when I know I'm looking for a large as opposed to a regular, a regular as opposed to a small and when I'm looking for a nano as opposed to a micro. They differ in size enough to warrant it- and thus to also warrant a different category.

We just need to agree to disagree. I see the problem as one of poorly described caches, not a size listing.

 

So then you think there is no need to have any size listing on the cache page at all? It should only be put in if the hider wants to? There's nothing wrong with having the owner do so, but again- why have them at all if not to accurately reflect the size of the cache you are looking for? As I've pointed out there is enough of a size difference, in mine and many others opinions, for the need of a separate category.

Now you are attempting to claim I think things that I don't. I happen to think there is no need for a nano size. That is it. And just as there are many who think there should be a nano size there are many who think there is no need.

 

No, I was asking you to clarify your position- which you have just done. You said more than once that you see it as a case of 'poorly described caches' and 'not a size listing'. I made the point of why have any size listing at all in that case.

Link to post

You never know- it just might. I remember a time when these forums didn't have an off topic area. Enough people requested it and discussed the reasons for and against it and now there is an off topic forum. If I recall correctly we were being told 'no' pretty much up until the time that it appeared. Opinions & viewpoints can change- an open and civil discussion is the best way to do that.

But (again) this topic was started just five days after Nate said no. If there were even the SLIGHTEST chance of them looking at this and going "Hmmmm... maybe there's merit to this request", I'd say "yes - let's look at it again".

 

I haven't asked for a cache rating system in a while. I guess I should open up a topic every 5 days until it happens? :unsure: And when people remind me that they just said "not yet" or "no" then I should tell them they're stifling my freedom of expression.

Link to post

:unsure: Just wondering why there isn't a nano cache size on the geocaching.com website as there seems to be tons of nano caches out there. I use the GSAK program to move waypoints to my gps and from there a use a string that identifies the cache size, difficulty, and terrian in short form so that i can paperless cache (as much as possible!) It would be a great feature other then "other"

 

That's because there are only micro caches out there.

Nano caches are nothing more than micro caches on the smaller size of the micro range.

 

True nano caches would be too small for a log and therefore to small to list.

Link to post

You never know- it just might. I remember a time when these forums didn't have an off topic area. Enough people requested it and discussed the reasons for and against it and now there is an off topic forum. If I recall correctly we were being told 'no' pretty much up until the time that it appeared. Opinions & viewpoints can change- an open and civil discussion is the best way to do that.

But (again) this topic was started just five days after Nate said no. If there were even the SLIGHTEST chance of them looking at this and going "Hmmmm... maybe there's merit to this request", I'd say "yes - let's look at it again".

 

I haven't asked for a cache rating system in a while. I guess I should open up a topic every 5 days until it happens? :unsure: And when people remind me that they just said "not yet" or "no" then I should tell them they're stifling my freedom of expression.

 

No, you haven't, others have- quite frequently too. That's fine. Someone wants to discuss it or put a different spin on it- hey, maybe that's the one that will put it over the top. Same here. But to say one can't even ask or talk about it? That doesn't seem so fine.

Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...