Can Nanos be their own size?

[Mushtang]

Who does adding the category hurt?

No one. Obviously, that won't stop the nay sayers from preaching doom & gloom though.

I guess in some discussions, such as the one allowing multiple Finds on a cache (or Attends on an Event), the fact that nobody is hurt doesn't matter. But in other discussions, such as this one, it does.

 

Interesting.

[+tozainamboku]

I haven't seen a single logical argument for the proposed change. What purpose does it serve?

 

Make size designations a matter of function.

 

Large is big enough to be a real treasure trove, though it probably won't be after the first five finds. It's big enough to contain anything you could carry on your back.

 

Regular is no great treasure trove, but it holds pocket-sized items, like a GPS. Lunchbox-sized.

 

Small barely holds anything. It's a micro that just happens to have a few things crammed in.

 

Micro only has room for a log sheet with room for stickers, and long names like mine.

 

Nano doesn't even have room for stickers, and people like me can't even write more than a few letters of their geocaching names.

 

Some people see size designation as a means for finding the thing easier. In this case, a small test tube embedded in a log seems like a regular. However, I would argue that the size designation is for helping people avoid caches that would disappoint them. For example, I get no joy from nanos (or micros with needlessly small log sheets), because I like to use stickers. I live for the stickers. I'll take a micro or larger, but not a nano. My wife likes swag, but she's happy with the small stuff. She'll take a small or bigger.

 

There's a principle in marketing that states the importance of having people get what they expect, or at least have them expect what they're going to get. Size is a factor when it comes to people's anticipation in caching. The question is, are there enough people who would look forward to finding a micro, but be disappointed in finding a nano instead, that we should make a new category? You're right. Most people aren't like me. Most people would be equally appreciative of or disappointed in a micro as much as a nano.

This is a good post. The purpose of size should be to designate function such as what kind of swag can be traded or what kind of method can be used to log the cache (e.g. BYOP, no stickers). People can use the size designation to filter out cache they prefer not to find. So long as cache owners can select 'Not Specified', there would not be a harm if nano was defined as: log only, not enough room in log for more than a name, no sticker. micros would have a slighlty larger log sheet that could accomondate stickers and room for some tiny swag like small coins or polished stones. I could live with a distinction like that. The people asking for a new size will have to respond if this is what they are after.

 

Who does adding the category hurt?

No one. Obviously, that won't stop the nay sayers from preaching doom & gloom though.

I'm not sure that it doesn't harm the people who are asking. Unless they provide a reasonable and coherent argument why a new size is needed, along the lines that nonaeroterraqueous gave above, you will likely get a new size that is confusing to cachers. People may find it useless for filtering to find caches they like or don't like. They may end up eliminating more cache that they would enjoy than they ones they don't. There may be a backlash of people purposely misrepresenting size or using the 'Not Specified' just to protest a useless designation. Those who are asking for a new size should be able to clearly state what purpose it serves, otherwise you may get a change that is at best useless.

 

Generally, I wouldn't bring up the issue of numbers here. But those arguing most for a new size seem to have around 100 finds. This is probably enough to have seen certain types of hides/containers repeated a few times. These people may have seen a few nanos hidden in similar ways and decided that either they can eliminate these hides from their PQs by having a new size or they would at least know what they are looking for and avoid the frustration they may have experienced looking for such a small container. Someone with a few thousand hides may know that not every nano gets hidden the same way, there are many kinds of containers that can be called nano, and that micro containers don't just jump from a 35mm film canister to a blinky sized capsule - they are many intermediate size containers. Adding a new size would not necessarily help someone know what they are looking for. It may even lead a finder to make a wrong assumption about what they are looking for. Experience also teaches that there are some container that can arguably be either one of two sizes. Since size is selected by the hider, you need to allow for differences in the interpretation of sizes when you search. Saturday I found two identical containers hidden by the same hider on the same trail. He listed one as small and the other as regular. I could see that one might classify this particular container as either small or regular and that is what this hider did. No matter what definition is used, I'd bet there will be a lot containers that can be classified as either nano or micro. At least with a definition that includes the purpose for the distinction (e.g. swagless, don't use stickers, bring tweezers) you'd stand a better chance the designation would be useful.

[+briansnat]

Who does adding the category hurt?

No one. Obviously, that won't stop the nay sayers from preaching doom & gloom though.

 

Who would having 10 sizes hurt? We can have nano, super micro, micro, extra small, small, medium, regular, large, jumbo and massive. Just because something doesn't hurt somebody it doesn't make it a good idea.

 

There is already enough confusion with the current system, why add to it?

 

And the moment you add a new size, what do we do with the many thousands (and perhaps hundreds of thousands) of caches that are instantly listed under the wrong size?

 

A new size at this stage will create more confusion than benefit.

Edited December 2, 2008 by briansnat

[Skippermark]

How do you solve the external issue, like the case of the micro cinder block?

I list my caches by the size of the container that holds the log.

 

I would be quite unhappy if I was searching for a cache that was listed as a "large" and it ended up being a micro. If I see "large" I'm thinking 5 gallon bucket, 30 gallon Rubbermaid container, maybe even a large ammo box.

[Clan Riffster]

The purpose of size should be to designate function such as what kind of swag can be traded or what kind of method can be used to log the cache (e.g. BYOP, no stickers).

I think the more relevant purpose for sizing is to designate the type of search utilized. If I am hunting something the size of a Mack truck, my methods will be somewhat different than if I am hunting something the size of a grain of sand.

 

I disagree with your notion that swag trading and log signing techniques are the primary reasons for size designations. My swag goes with me on any hunt longer than a P&G, in which case it's just a few steps away. Whether it's a large, regular, small or micro doesn't change what kind of swag I have with me. If it'll fit, I drop it in, regardless of the designated size. Likewise, my pen is always with me. Designations such as BYOP are meaningless to me, since I have my pen anyway. I don't get out of my truck and say, "Oh, it's listed as a regular. I don't need my pen". Do you really know anyone who makes a conscious decision to leave their pen in their car because of the cache's size designation?

 

you will likely get a new size that is confusing to cachers.

Seriously? It's been years since I met someone so dense that they couldn't grasp the differences between a micro and a nano. While I don't doubt that such intellectually challenged people exist, I haven't seen any of them playing this game. I would think that anyone not capable of distinguishing between the two would find the task of operating a GPSr beyond them. Should the policies of Groundspeak really be determined by the lowest possible denominator? If Groundspeak decides, at some future point, to add the Nano designation, I have little doubt that they will explain it, as they have explained the designation of micro. I'm sure that some folks will make mistakes, just as they did when Groundspeak last updated the size designations. Is that reason enough not to update them again? Were blinkies even in existence back when Groundspeak updated the size designations? Heck, I dunno. I wasn't around.

 

Those who are asking for a new size should be able to clearly state what purpose it serves

They have. Repeatedly.

[Skippermark]

The purpose of size should be to designate function such as what kind of swag can be traded or what kind of method can be used to log the cache (e.g. BYOP, no stickers).

I think the more relevant purpose for sizing is to designate the type of search utilized...

 

I disagree with your notion that swag trading and log signing techniques are the primary reasons for size designations.

Back in the day, finding a cache often involved a long drive.

 

A new cache would get published, and it would sit there proudly as "the new cache in town" for all to see. During the week people would look at it and talk about it, and then on Saturday everyone would head out and meet up to do that one cache. It wasn't like today where you might be driving around and say, "Hey, let's grab a few caches."

 

Knowing the size of the cache was important because that cache might be the sole destination for the entire week, and you needed to make sure the trackable you picked up at the newly released cache 2 weeks ago would fit into it and what trade items you should bring with you.

 

Today, people don't cache that way. Sizes are used to help with the find, and my guess is that people trade less than they did in the past.

Edited December 2, 2008 by Skippermark

[Mushtang]

The purpose of size should be to designate function such as what kind of swag can be traded or what kind of method can be used to log the cache (e.g. BYOP, no stickers).

I think the more relevant purpose for sizing is to designate the type of search utilized...

 

I disagree with your notion that swag trading and log signing techniques are the primary reasons for size designations.

Back in the day, finding a cache often involved a long drive.

 

A new cache would get published, and it would sit there proudly as "the new cache in town" for all to see. During the week people would look at it and talk about it, and then on Saturday everyone would head out and meet up to do that one cache. It wasn't like today where you might be driving around and say, "Hey, let's grab a few caches."

 

Knowing the size of the cache was important because that cache might be the sole destination for the entire week, and you needed to make sure the trackable you picked up at the newly released cache 2 weeks ago would fit into it and what trade items you should bring with you.

 

Today, people don't cache that way. Sizes are used to help with the find, and my guess is that people trade less than they did in the past.

Yup. As someone that never trades swag the only thing the size designation tells me is what kind of hunt I'm in for. Swag trading just doesn't enter into it here.

 

In addition to not wanting a nano category I also don't want to see hide method categories added. It would be less fun to read a cache page and know that it's a 2 Terrain, 3 Difficulty, Regular size, Inside Fake Stump hide method, 6" Lock-n-Lock container category, complete with parking coordinates, a map of easiest path to the cache through the park's trail system, and a photograph of the cache hiding spot with a big arrow pointing to the container if it's not visible. That's a little exaggerated, but it shows how detailed the categories can get.

[Clan Riffster]

Back in the day

 

But, as has been opined in this thread, back in "the good ol' days", folks made mistakes regarding cache sizes. If that's true, than reading the word "Regular" on a cache page would not give you any reason to expect that the cache would be large enough to hold your particular bug. Even if the cache page somehow contained the proper size listing, how would you know if there was room in there for your particular bug until you got there? A 50cal ammo can packed with swag has much less free volume than a 30cal ammo can with light swag. If you had the bug in your possession, wouldn't you bring it with you, on the chance that it would fit? If so, then the "good ol' days" argument against change falls on its face.

Edited December 2, 2008 by Clan Riffster

[+tozainamboku]

The purpose of size should be to designate function such as what kind of swag can be traded or what kind of method can be used to log the cache (e.g. BYOP, no stickers).

I think the more relevant purpose for sizing is to designate the type of search utilized. If I am hunting something the size of a Mack truck, my methods will be somewhat different than if I am hunting something the size of a grain of sand.

 

I disagree with your notion that swag trading and log signing techniques are the primary reasons for size designations. My swag goes with me on any hunt longer than a P&G, in which case it's just a few steps away. Whether it's a large, regular, small or micro doesn't change what kind of swag I have with me. If it'll fit, I drop it in, regardless of the designated size. Likewise, my pen is always with me. Designations such as BYOP are meaningless to me, since I have my pen anyway. I don't get out of my truck and say, "Oh, it's listed as a regular. I don't need my pen". Do you really know anyone who makes a conscious decision to leave their pen in their car because of the cache's size designation?

There are two different opinions as to what the size designation is for and I doubt that one side will ever convince the other. I will admit that knowing if a cache is micro, small, or regular will sometimes help me focus on what to look for. In fact, I have found that when I know the cache is a magnetic nano I usually find it quickly because I can focus my search on places where I have typically found this sort of cache before. But sometimes, knowing the size will get me focused on a particular kind of container and I'll miss the similarly size cache because it was not exactly what I was looking for.

 

I understand that some people think caches should be hidden to keep muggles from finding them, but with the description and hints a geocacher should be able to find them all in less than seven minutes. Other people, like myself, prefer to have some challenge in finding a cache. Certainly they can create their own challenge by hunting with only the coordinates in their GPS and no description or size information. But I have seen many times where the challenge created by the hider via misdirection in the description or by setting the size to Not Specified has made the cache especially memorable. I don't know what to do about the people who get upset that the cache was "harder" to find because the size wasn't given except to tell them to avoid caches with a difficulty greater than 1.

 

I generally don't trade so I don't always carry my swag bag. But I sometimes do try to help move a travel bug along. If I have a bug in my inventory, I like to know before I head out if I am going to find any regular sized caches that the bug will fit in so I take it along. If everything is micro or small, I'll leave the bug at home because I know I am not going to be able to leave it anywhere. And while my pen is usually with me, there was the time I started a hike and realized I didn't bring a pen. Since the cache was a regular, I decide to press on since there would likely be a pen or pencil in the cache. Well there wasn't. I claimed a find anyway. The puritans may subtract one from my find count. However, I did bring along a travel bug that I dropped in that cache since I knew I was going to be looking for a regular.

you will likely get a new size that is confusing to cachers.

Seriously? It's been years since I met someone so dense that they couldn't grasp the differences between a micro and a nano. While I don't doubt that such intellectually challenged people exist, I haven't seen any of them playing this game. I would think that anyone not capable of distinguishing between the two would find the task of operating a GPSr beyond them. Should the policies of Groundspeak really be determined by the lowest possible denominator? If Groundspeak decides, at some future point, to add the Nano designation, I have little doubt that they will explain it, as they have explained the designation of micro. I'm sure that some folks will make mistakes, just as they did when Groundspeak last updated the size designations. Is that reason enough not to update them again? Were blinkies even in existence back when Groundspeak updated the size designations? Heck, I dunno. I wasn't around.

All the cache sizes are confusing because there are always intermediate sizes. If there isn't one now, some cacher will design a cache that will be on the border between nano and and micro. Calling someone dense or intellectually challenged because they know that someone will make a cache this size if it doesn't already exists, should probably get you a warning for violating the forum guidelines. Should Groundspeak add a nano size I am sure they will provide a definition that is just as clear as the definitions distinguishing small and micro, or small and regular. (See the example I gave in a previous post that I just found this weekend)

 

One of the earliest caches I found was a tiny breath strip container - log only. Some people may consider this a nano. It may be a good example for having a separate nano size, because the cache went missing not long ago. A high numbers out of town cacher came through and decide to leave a replacement cache for what he saw a typical micro hide. So now the cache is a 35mm canister, not exactly the same hide I found 5 1/2 years ago.

 

The first blinky I found was in April 2004. The small size was added in October 2004 and to the guidelines in February 2005. I did find a request for a small size from January 2003 which is before I started caching.

 

Those who are asking for a new size should be able to clearly state what purpose it serves

They have. Repeatedly.

I have no objection that people would like ways to filter caches to suit what they like to find. I do object to changes being made willy-nilly because "they don't hurt anyone". Changes have unintended consequences. In my personal experience, the difference between a nano and a micro and a small micro, is not sufficient to justify a change. I doubt that anything I say will convince people who believe there is something fundamentally different between a nano hide and a micro hide otherwise.

[+niraD]

It's been years since I met someone so dense that they couldn't grasp the differences between a micro and a nano.

Beyond "grasping the differences", we'd also need to agree on where to draw the line. Is a bison tube a micro or a nano? I consider them to be nano-caches, at least until you get to the Scuba Tank or Extra Large sizes. But some consider them to be micros. Some think the distinction should be based on the size of the log sheet. Some think the distinction should be based on whether very small trade items (e.g., penny-sized geocoins or sig tokens) fit. Some think the distinction should be based on the size of the hidden object you're searching for.

 

Personally, I think the current classification is fine. But I'm not particularly opposed to adding "nano" to the official sizes either, if that's what TPTB want, and if the overall size rating system still makes sense after the change.

[+Vater_Araignee]

Those who are asking for a new size should be able to clearly state what purpose it serves

They have. Repeatedly.

I have no objection that people would like ways to filter caches to suit what they like to find. I do object to changes being made willy-nilly because "they don't hurt anyone". Changes have unintended consequences. In my personal experience, the difference between a nano and a micro and a small micro, is not sufficient to justify a change. I doubt that anything I say will convince people who believe there is something fundamentally different between a nano hide and a micro hide otherwise.

Your argument nullified its self just because you obviously decided not to read my statement in it's entirety.

As for your last sentence, place a don't in between who & believe and it would still hold true, but that isn't going to stop me from trying to get evil it's own classification to help avoid it.

 

My personal feelings on nanos are:

The only positive I see for nanos are urban environments, nobody is going to think you're stashing drugs for a pick up in something so small. I hope.

They inspire a lack of creativity. Oh, he hid it under a rock. Wow, it's under a skirt that would hold a small. Gee it is green and hanging in a tree. Maybe "COOL HE NAILED A SQUIRREL TO A TREE AND STUCK IT UP ITS BUTT, SOMEBODY GET ME A SPECULUM."

Within reason you could throw a nano in a random direction, step on it, take it's coords and it will stay there.

They are a bad excuse for lack of cache maintenance. I have signed one nano log and If I wasn't die hard about "no sign no count" then my count would be higher.Most treat micros in the same manner but at least every mic I came across with a full log, could still take a slip of paper with my name and date on it.

I know that there is a nano or two I wont be able to resist but not with...

The kids:

Lex (5 years old) is happy to go on a 10 mile hike if I hand him his caching glove (its has a flash light, compass, watch, telescope, pen and pad of paper).

Tytianna complains if she can't trade and gets nasty if she cant get one of her glow in the dark beads into the cache.

Give a nano size and combine it with the date that size became official and I can be guilty of finding a micro but if it turns out to be a nano I can be honest and tell her it not my fault somebody was deceptive or couldn't be bothered to read. I also don't want to sign something during cold weather that I have to pin down so a filter would help yet again.

 

I'll render the "It's about the hunt" argument moot with a question. Then why have anything but a log in the cache? But that put us back on a "Good 'ol Days" and "nanos shouldn't even exist" argument and that's just like saying women shouldn't have rights now because they didn't before.

Unfortunately nanos do exist and are distinctly different from micros because the simple fact is "Nanos can only contain logs" where as micros can contain logs, pencil stubs and micro swag.

Yeah yeah yeah, somebody come along and say "I can get a seed bead (or something else insignificantly small) into a nano, so your wrong." I'll just say "No you're reaching for extremes to justify your need to be right."

 

One last thing, the amount of time this thread has stayed open is causing me to consider becoming a PM again. I was surprised when it wasn't locked in 4 days.

[+tozainamboku]

Unfortunately nanos do exist and are distinctly different from micros because the simple fact is "Nanos can only contain logs" where as micros can contain logs, pencil stubs and micro swag.

Now we are getting somewhere. This definition would include fake electric face plates, flat magnetic sheet with the log in a sleave on the back, and many other kinds of caches. If you are asking for a way to avoid caches that contain only logs and have no room for swag (or at least anything that might be identifiable as swag) then I can see your point. It would harm me because I enjoy finding these containers without having too many hints. But I suppose that I could change the cache size to micro or unknown in GSAK and load my PDA and GPS with that information instead of what is on the cache page and you can avoid your kids being disappointed because there is no treasure to trade for.

[+WRASTRO]

Unfortunately nanos do exist and are distinctly different from micros because the simple fact is "Nanos can only contain logs" where as micros can contain logs, pencil stubs and micro swag.

Now we are getting somewhere. This definition would include fake electric face plates, flat magnetic sheet with the log in a sleave on the back, and many other kinds of caches. If you are asking for a way to avoid caches that contain only logs and have no room for swag (or at least anything that might be identifiable as swag) then I can see your point. It would harm me because I enjoy finding these containers without having too many hints. But I suppose that I could change the cache size to micro or unknown in GSAK and load my PDA and GPS with that information instead of what is on the cache page and you can avoid your kids being disappointed because there is no treasure to trade for.

Maybe the solution to this dilema would be to have attributes for "no swag" and "log only" or some such. Of course people wouldn't use them properly just like they don't use the container size properly now.

[Clan Riffster]

Calling someone dense or intellectually challenged because they know that someone will make a cache this size if it doesn't already exists, should probably get you a warning for violating the forum guidelines.

Tell ya what I'll do. If you can find someone who is unable to distinguish a micro from a nano, (but still bright enough to turn on a computer), I will offer my apologies... to them. Personally, I don't think such a person exists, which would make my statement considerably less than insulting. Unless you plan on being insulted by proxy? I said a few unkind things about the Easter Bunny a few weeks back, involving marinades and cooking times. Should I apologize to you for insulting that mythical individual also?

[+tozainamboku]

Calling someone dense or intellectually challenged because they know that someone will make a cache this size if it doesn't already exists, should probably get you a warning for violating the forum guidelines.

Tell ya what I'll do. If you can find someone who is unable to distinguish a micro from a nano, (but still bright enough to turn on a computer), I will offer my apologies... to them. Personally, I don't think such a person exists, which would make my statement considerably less than insulting. Unless you plan on being insulted by proxy? I said a few unkind things about the Easter Bunny a few weeks back, involving marinades and cooking times. Should I apologize to you for insulting that mythical individual also?

Please tell me your definition of nano. Is it anything less than 1 barn-megaparsec in volume? It is already clear here that some people use nano to mean specifically a blinky type container. Is that your definition? Others include pet id tubes and small bisons that have only room for a small log. But if you include these, you can get progressively larger and larger tubes and at some point they are no longer nanos. Is the breath strip container I found years ago a nano? Is that fake electric plate concealing a log only a nano? Please tell me. I am dense and cannot read Clan Riffster's mind. You must have a clear definition but I don't have any idea what it is. Judge Potter Stewart, perhaps you can't define a nano by you know when you see it.

[+fizzymagic]

Please tell me your definition of nano. Is it anything less than 1 barn-megaparsec in volume?

I really, really, really want to like this definition. Too bad it won't work. Flat magnetic caches tend to be about 1 MPC-b in volume, yet most would not consider them nanos.

 

I've noticed that the definition of "micro" has been moving downward in my area, to the point where film canisters are often labeled as "small" caches. I attribute this drift to the presence of nanos; having that additional gradation might restore the traditional definition of a micro.

[+eagsc7]

Of course, they can be their own size. That Size is Micro. Micro is anything from a small cat tube(sold at petsmart...) to a 35mm film cannister.

[Clan Riffster]

Micro is anything from a small cat tube(sold at petsmart...) to a 35mm film cannister.

Great distinction. Now, what about those containers smaller than a small cat tube? You've already set that as the lowest possible point for a micro. Would that mean that anything smaller than that must be something else? Perhaps a nano?

[Clan Riffster]

I am dense

Please accept my most humble apology. Feel free to disregard anything else I may post in this, or subsequent threads.

[Mushtang]

I am dense

Please accept my most humble apology. Feel free to disregard anything else I may post in this, or subsequent threads.

Instead of inviting him to disregard your posts, how about you just not be so insulting from now on? I think we'd all appreciate that.

[+DanOCan]

It's been years since I met someone so dense that they couldn't grasp the differences between a micro and a nano.

 

Anyone remember this recent thread? Micro or Small?

 

We clearly can't determine the difference between a Micro and a Small. Heck, in the same thread I even voted for both sides on different occasions. What makes us think that having a designation between a Nano and a Micro would be any easier to define?

 

I see adding another size designation as follows:

 

Cost: Another change in the guidelines that will lead to angst because existing caches would presumably be grandfathered. "I spent an extra hour looking for this cache because I thought it was listed as a micro but it is actually a Nano." More confusion. "My container is taller than the standard nano, bit it is narrower...should it be a Nano or a Micro?" Don't believe me? Check the thread listed above for the Micro/Small debate.

 

Benefit: People will know the type of search technique they need for the hunt. (Not sure I by this one, but that seems to be the claim the pro-new category people are making.)

 

I don't see the benefit as outweighing the cost, so I'm still voting "no." (Not that this is a democracy. )

[+tozainamboku]

I am dense

Please accept my most humble apology. Feel free to disregard anything else I may post in this, or subsequent threads.

Instead of inviting him to disregard your posts, how about you just not be so insulting from now on? I think we'd all appreciate that.

 

Since Clan Riffster seem to disregard anything I say, I have no problem disregarding him.

 

CR doesn's seem to want to answer my questions as to what he considers a nano other than agreeing with eagsc7's definition of nano as anything smaller than a small cat tube. I don't think that anything smaller than a specific example is a clear definition. First of all there is no definition of smaller. Does it mean volume? Cause if it means volume, a flat magnetic sheet with a pocket on the back to hold the log has less volume. Is is the largest outside dimension? Somebody probably has a container that is slightly longer and a little thiner that would be easier to hide in some crack in a wall. Some may feel that this is a nano and others may not. I remember finding a cache that used a tube from a tube of pencil leads. It was slightly bigger than a pet id tube. Still it only had room for the log, an it was a real pain to get the log out of the container - because this container is not water proof and the log was wet. But (perhaps ) it wasn't a nano according to Clan Riffster. I still haven't seen a definition yet that makes is clear what the difference is between a nano and a micro - and according to Clan Riffster I must be dense. I know that he means there are certain containers commonly in use today that (perhaps ) everyone can agree are nanos - Mr. Magneto/Blinkies, pet tube/small Bison tube, small sized specimen vials, etc. and that he feels these could be listed a nano sized. He doesn't address other swagless containers such a flat magnetic sheets, cd cases, breath strip containers, hollowed out bolts, plastic tubing, etc. or what happens as one starts using slightly larger tubes such as scuba tank style tubes that can hold some very tiny swag. It must be clear to him but he hasn't expressed this in a way that is clear to me.

 

Benefit: People will know the type of search technique they need for the hunt. (Not sure I by this one, but that seems to be the claim the pro-new category people are making.)

I believe the benefit people are going for is to eliminate certain kinds of caches from their search lists and not the presumed knowledge that would alter a search technique. Some people don't like swagless caches, other just don't want the hassle of having to carry tweezers to get the log out of the cache and then have to spend time rolling up a scroll and getting it to fit back in. Some have even said they don't like these caches because they have trouble writing out their long geocaching handles on the small paper and can't use their stickers because then the log won't fit. I'm still a puritan myself and sign my name (ok I shorten it to toz or sometimes tznb or one time just t), but I have friends who now claim a find on a nano if they hold the cache in their hand. They aren't going to waste time fishing out the log and rolling it back up. If people would stop being puritans and insisting that you have to sign the log to claim a find, half of the objections to nanos would go away.

Edited December 3, 2008 by tozainamboku

[Skippermark]

Now we are getting somewhere. This definition would include fake electric face plates, flat magnetic sheet with the log in a sleave on the back, and many other kinds of caches. If you are asking for a way to avoid caches that contain only logs and have no room for swag (or at least anything that might be identifiable as swag) then I can see your point. It would harm me because I enjoy finding these containers without having too many hints.

Good point, TOZ. It's hard to judge sizes of certain things. I've seen 6" round sheet magnets listed as "small," which is sort of confusing. I'm not a big "unknown" fan, but that would be a good use of it I think.

 

I too enjoy finding caches without knowing too much info about them.

[+briansnat]

I too enjoy finding caches without knowing too much info about them.

 

I think that might be the root of requests such as this. Some people want their hands held - parking coordinates, precise size of the container, more detailed terrain/difficulty ratings, anything to to enable them to get that smiley fast, get out and move on to the next one.

 

For many of the first geocaches, the only info the searchers had was the coordinates. Granted that the early caches were a pretty homogeneous bunch and subsequent variations in the game practically require more information about the cache, but how far do we need to take it?

 

The current system works works well when used correctly. I already know if I'm looking for a micro, I'm looking for something small, perhaps very small. That's plenty of info for me.

[+J-Way]

The statement that "It doesn't hurt anyone" isn't technically true. Setting aside the question of whether the effort is worthwhile or not, Groundspeak lackeys would be required to devote a large amount of time creating a new nano size (re-writing web pages, re-writing the guidelines, changing Google Maps, editing the Google Earth Browser, etc.). This is time that COULD be spent fixing the bookmark list bug, adding Wherigo icons to the Google Earth Browser, separating out puzzles into a new category, negotiating with the US National Park Service, and waxing Jeremy's car. All worthwhile activities, and all things that I feel are more important than a new Nano size.

 

I agree with a few of the arguments FOR a new nano size, and I could use the info to refine my search technique at ground zero. I do not think it would create more confusion, except for the thousands of nanos already hidden that will then be incorrectly labeled "micro". But this same argument would apply to ANY proposed change to the system, which means that unless you want Geocaching to become a stagnant unchanging game it is an invalid argument.

 

I would appreciate the change if it happened, but I would appreciate it much less if I still had to fight to see page 2 of bookmark lists because the lackeys wrote pages for a new size instead of fixing that *$(*% bug.

 

As for how a cache size is defined, it should be based on the size of the container holding the log. If someone epoxies a match-safe to an abandoned railroad car (I've seen it) then technically the car becomes the camouflage. The camo can be seen in Google Earth (especially if they spray-paint "GEOCACHE" in bright orange paint across the roof). But the cache is still a micro, because you have to find the match-safe to sign the log. Epoxy that same match-safe into a hole drilled in a rock or a large log and it's the same situation. You might see the rock or log from 100-m away but it's not a find until you locate the match-safe in the hole.

[+WebChimp]

As for how a cache size is defined, it should be based on the size of the container holding the log........ You might see the rock or log from 100-m away but it's not a find until you locate the match-safe in the hole.

 

Isn't that how everyone already does it?

[+Renegade Knight]

It's been years since I met someone so dense that they couldn't grasp the differences between a micro and a nano.

Beyond "grasping the differences", we'd also need to agree on where to draw the line. Is a bison tube a micro or a nano? I consider them to be nano-caches, at least until you get to the Scuba Tank or Extra Large sizes. But some consider them to be micros. Some think the distinction should be based on the size of the log sheet. Some think the distinction should be based on whether very small trade items (e.g., penny-sized geocoins or sig tokens) fit. Some think the distinction should be based on the size of the hidden object you're searching for.

 

Personally, I think the current classification is fine. But I'm not particularly opposed to adding "nano" to the official sizes either, if that's what TPTB want, and if the overall size rating system still makes sense after the change.

Nano would be suitable for use as slingshot ammo. That's my own personal view of the ones I've found. I've read some differnet views. Found few large caches that would fit someone elses view of nano (no swag possible.) and otherwise wonder if now we shouldn't have a "Flat" cache size and leave Nano as a description of a Micro.

[+J-Way]

As for how a cache size is defined, it should be based on the size of the container holding the log........ You might see the rock or log from 100-m away but it's not a find until you locate the match-safe in the hole.

Isn't that how everyone already does it?

Quite a few people say that the size should be based on the overall size of the entire object, including any camouflaging material. So that a fake rock the size of an ammo can with a micro stuck in it would be listed as a regular because that's the size of the overall object you're looking for. They're basing the size definition on search technique, which is a somewhat valid argument. You might use a different search technique for a loose film can than with a film can that is part of a man-made rock or is inside a hollowed out log. I disagree with those arguments because, ultimately, you're looking for a film can (micro).

[+Renegade Knight]

As for how a cache size is defined, it should be based on the size of the container holding the log........ You might see the rock or log from 100-m away but it's not a find until you locate the match-safe in the hole.

Isn't that how everyone already does it?

Quite a few people say that the size should be based on the overall size of the entire object, including any camouflaging material. So that a fake rock the size of an ammo can with a micro stuck in it would be listed as a regular because that's the size of the overall object you're looking for. They're basing the size definition on search technique, which is a somewhat valid argument. You might use a different search technique for a loose film can than with a film can that is part of a man-made rock or is inside a hollowed out log. I disagree with those arguments because, ultimately, you're looking for a film can (micro).

Your thoughts are on the right track. If I find a rock the size of a house listed as a large container I'm not going to have a clue that that's the cache until I find the dinky cache container holding the log. However if I find that same rock with the same hold drilled in a dark recess but it's got orange paint on the saying "YOU HAVE FOUND THE CACHE. LOOK IN THIS HOLE FOR THE LOG-------> . That's another thing. 99% of the time the log holding container defines the cache. Every now and then you are going to get the difference betwene the first rock and the second.

[+J-Way]

... 99% of the time the log holding container defines the cache. Every now and then you are going to get the difference betwene the first rock and the second.

Agreed. There are exceptions to every rule. But you shouldn't let the 1% exception alter the rule.

[+Vater_Araignee]

Unfortunately nanos do exist and are distinctly different from micros because the simple fact is "Nanos can only contain logs" where as micros can contain logs, pencil stubs and micro swag.

Now we are getting somewhere. This definition would include fake electric face plates, flat magnetic sheet with the log in a sleave on the back, and many other kinds of caches. If you are asking for a way to avoid caches that contain only logs and have no room for swag (or at least anything that might be identifiable as swag) then I can see your point. It would harm me because I enjoy finding these containers without having too many hints. But I suppose that I could change the cache size to micro or unknown in GSAK and load my PDA and GPS with that information instead of what is on the cache page and you can avoid your kids being disappointed because there is no treasure to trade for.

Maybe the solution to this dilema would be to have attributes for "no swag" and "log only" or some such. Of course people wouldn't use them properly just like they don't use the container size properly now.

Make it a requirement for all future listings and an option for past listing.

I see the flags as being, Room for trade & Log only but the drop down would have to default on "select one" or a similar wording and if they don't select one then they can't submit.

~~~

Faceplate caches are slightly amusing. Once wile way stashing I found one with a 1"x2" baggie containing the log. Now it just so happens that I put my GITD trail tacks in the same size baggie so I taped a pack on there. When I emailed my bragging rights to the list I got chewed out because I could have privately informed her that she could have added another bag or two for trade. The concept never crossed either of our minds till she read my brag and and because of it, I get a smile every time I read faceplate hide.

 

Magnetic sheet hides are candidates for "other" under the current system and should be listed as such.

Now lets say that nano is a size option, then they should still be listed as other.

Now lets say that nano is a size option and we also had a hybrid option, then they should be listed as nano/ what ever. Nano is the internal volume and the external sheet could be from micro to large but that would have to be a judgment call.

Unfortunately the inherent problem for a un/changed system is getting people to utilize it to it's maximum potential and that's barring people that will use it wrong to prove themselves right.

 

You know what would be cool? If we could put together a consortium of about 100 people from all sides to hash out an agreement and write a proposal. Even if said proposal was never entertained by GS you would have 100 people that learned something about dealing with others.

[Skippermark]

People have said they would search differently if they knew the cache was listed as a nano instead of micro.

 

How would you search differently?

 

If my GPS puts me at a cast iron gate, I'm going to pretty much figure that the cache is a nano somewhere on the gate, probably on a bracket where it won't fall off if the gate gets banged around.

 

It's usually pretty easy to tell where a nano will be hidden.

Edited December 3, 2008 by Skippermark

[+Renegade Knight]

People have said they would search differently if they knew the cache was listed as a nano instead of micro.

 

How would you search differently?...

 

Micro vs. Nano? I don't search differently. For me the difference starts with Micro.

Magnetic hide vs. Non magnetic would be a different search. Apparently in my area nano's are not universally magnetic.

[+Vater_Araignee]

People have said they would search differently if they knew the cache was listed as a nano instead of micro.

 

How would you search differently?

 

If my GPS puts me at a cast iron gate, I'm going to pretty much figure that the cache is a nano somewhere on the gate, probably on a bracket where it won't fall off if the gate gets banged around.

 

It's usually pretty easy to tell where a nano will be hidden.

Just a cast iron gate in the middle of no place with absolutely no other potential land marks within the margin of error or a clue (if you bothered with it) directing to the gate.

More than half of the wrought iron gates I have seen are held upright by brick pillars and cast iron is even heaver.

So I would be checking for:

lose bricks

lose topper

A hinged plaque or address.

 

That is just one extremely undetailed example of where you could find one, so it doesn't prove your point.

I mean yeah I can see your point using that example but the likely hood is there will be more there than just a cast iron gate in the MOE.

Try this one:

The corner of a 8 story parking garage.

On the inside, part of the elevator and stairwell are in the MOE.

On the outside, manicured section with some bushes and a tree are in the MOE.

The CO decided no cache description other than selecting micro, and no hint.

Oh no! The coords are slightly off. Now we got a bigger MOE.

Do you want to search every nook and cranny inside and out or give him the option to select nano and eliminate 75% of the places it would likely be?

 

Ha! ya know what? I'm going to hide a nano like that. I'll be nice and give you guys a heads up "it's not out side". That should get me a helly frownie count.

[+StarBrand]

People have said they would search differently if they knew the cache was listed as a nano instead of micro.

 

How would you search differently?...

 

Micro vs. Nano? I don't search differently. For me the difference starts with Micro.

 

Agreed.

 

I haven't found tons of nanos but amoung the 25 or so I have seen, almost all were in a position that could easily have fitted a much larger container - and thus did not need me to alter my techniques.

[+J-Way]

Ha! ya know what? I'm going to hide a nano like that. I'll be nice and give you guys a heads up "it's not out side". That should get me a helly frownie count.

I found a terracache like that after two attempts. It was on the 3rd or so floor of a 5-story parking garage (plus basement). The only clue was that the description mentioned in passing that it was "wheelchair accessible", which I didn't spot until the second attempt. So all that time I spent on the first attempt chinning up to see on top of beams was just a little free excersize.

 

As for changing search technique, there are a lot of places where a nano would fit but a film can or preform would not.

[+tozainamboku]

Try this one:

The corner of a 8 story parking garage.

On the inside, part of the elevator and stairwell are in the MOE.

On the outside, manicured section with some bushes and a tree are in the MOE.

The CO decided no cache description other than selecting micro, and no hint.

Oh no! The coords are slightly off. Now we got a bigger MOE.

Do you want to search every nook and cranny inside and out or give him the option to select nano and eliminate 75% of the places it would likely be?

 

Ha! ya know what? I'm going to hide a nano like that. I'll be nice and give you guys a heads up "it's not out side". That should get me a helly frownie count.

I found one exactly like that. It was in the elevator. I figured that out the first trip. The cache title provided a hint. It took me three more trips to find the cache. Part of the reason was the parking structure was used by the athletic club in the building next door. I would go after work to search and it was nearly impossible to be in the elevator alone to search.

[Clan Riffster]

Since Clan Riffster seem to disregard anything I say, I have no problem disregarding him.

Don't confuse disagreement with a lack of regard. Just because I disagree with your viewpoint, doesn't mean I don't respect your contribution to the conversation.

 

Isn't that how everyone already does it?

For the most part.

(except for those mysterious "easily confused" people we here rumors about)

[+The Caching Coulters]

How about using surface area(sa) to define size? There is basically no SA to a "blinky" however a face plate has alot more, not sure how bison tubes work in.

 

I like the "swag/no swag" attribute idea but it would only work if you HAD to pick one.

 

I personally would like a way to filter out "log only" caches. Imagine you are 6 or 7, how fun is a "log only" cache for you. At least key holders can fit coins and such.

 

That is all.

[+DanOCan]

Do you want to search every nook and cranny inside and out or give him the option to select nano and eliminate 75% of the places it would likely be?

 

Better solution? Ignore list.

[+iwikepie]

When i hear 'I found a micro yesterday' i automatically think of a film can, or maybe even a bison tube.

 

When i hear 'I found a nano yesterday' I automatically think of a blinky container. What i'm trying to say is that i think of a micro and a nano as two different things. A new category could have its advantages so i know what i'm looking for, but with five types it might get a little confusing.

 

So...I'm neutral on both sides.

 

Also for the people that say you should just read the description on the cache page, the owner doesn't always say what the cache container is exactly. Last week we were in Yuba City for thanksgiving.

This was one of the caches i found:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...ba-65c02ed6b6ad

 

The owner said very little, in fact he has some caches where he said less (GCZRF7). The cache was not a small. It was a fake thermometer that only had room for a log. We found another that day that was listed as a micro that was bigger. Sometimes i have no idea what the hell I'm looking for!

Edited December 4, 2008 by iwikepie

[Skippermark]

Try this one:

The corner of a 8 story parking garage.

On the inside, part of the elevator and stairwell are in the MOE.

On the outside, manicured section with some bushes and a tree are in the MOE.

The CO decided no cache description other than selecting micro, and no hint.

Oh no! The coords are slightly off. Now we got a bigger MOE.

Do you want to search every nook and cranny inside and out or give him the option to select nano and eliminate 75% of the places it would likely be?

What's an MOE?

 

A corner of an 8 story building without hints is a pain whether it's a nano or a keyholder. Knowing it's a nano wouldn't make it easier to find because you'd still have 8 floors to search.

 

We've found a couple devious nanos in bushes. I wouldn't search differently, just examine everything carefully. If you look and don't see the obvious matchstick/film can, you start looking closer.

 

I'm okay with a CO not saying anything about a cache. That's what makes it fun for me. I like to search for the unknown. I'd rather cache owners NOT tell what I'm looking for. Keep it a surprise.

 

In CT in the woods, coords that get you within 20 feet of the cache are good. 30 isn't even that bad. I'm used to expanding my area and looking around. If I expand the area and don't find it, I'm okay logging a DNF if I didn't find it by the time I decide to move on.

 

As long as I know it's a micro, I'm going to search the same no matter what the size.

 

Edit to fix some typos.

Edited December 4, 2008 by Skippermark

[AZcachemeister]

Wouldn't actually reading the cache page where the owner (hopefully) clearly states the container size solve all this BS?

 

Around here, you can pretty much count on the owner to clue you in.

[+The Jester]

What's an MOE?

Margin Of Error.

[+Vater_Araignee]

What's an MOE?

Margin Of Error.

I thought I posted that.

Arg! My phantom "add reply" button is back.

[+TrailGators]

What's an MOE?

Margin Of Error.

Are you sure? I thought it was the guy on the left:

[+Vater_Araignee]

What's an MOE?

Margin Of Error.

Are you sure? I thought it was the guy on the left:

Nope! That's three Margin Of Errors! Nyuck nyuck nyuck.

[Skippermark]

What's an MOE?

Margin Of Error.

I thought I posted that.

Arg! My phantom "add reply" button is back.

I may have missed it if you did. My eyes are old, and I don't see so well anymore.

[+Vater_Araignee]

What's an MOE?

Margin Of Error.

I thought I posted that.

Arg! My phantom "add reply" button is back.

I may have missed it if you did. My eyes are old, and I don't see so well anymore.

I did post margin of error in the post you where referring to but I didn't post Margin Of Error (MOE) for future clarification so you had every right to ask.

When I posted "I thought I posted that." I meant, I did click the reply button to quote you question, and I did type "Margin Of Error." I also swear I hit add reply.

I must be suffering some kind of degenerative brain disease. I should have eaten those eco-terrorists they all have neurological issues.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Try this one:

The corner of a 8 story parking garage.

On the inside, part of the elevator and stairwell are in the MOE.

On the outside, manicured section with some bushes and a tree are in the MOE.

The CO decided no cache description other than selecting micro, and no hint.

Oh no! The coords are slightly off. Now we got a bigger MOE.

Do you want to search every nook and cranny inside and out or give him the option to select nano and eliminate 75% of the places it would likely be?...

 

The thing is knowing it's a nano doesn't eliminate 75% of the places. Not unless the hiders in your area are less skilled at hiding than the ones in mine. Reverse it and let it be known it's a large container and now you have ruled out locations.

 

You need to know more about a cache than "nano" to rule out locations. Magnetic (actually stuck to metal) helps. Hanging? That helps. Nano? Nope, it can be anywhere, hanging, stuck to metal, undeneath something, on top of something, wedged etc.

Edited December 5, 2008 by Renegade Knight