Jump to content

Should a 'small' cache be listed as a 'micro' if....


L0ne.R
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

Should a small cache be listed as a micro if it's simply a microlog (just one line per person to add date and trailname), a pencil, and no trade items? Does the size of the container really matter if the cache is essentially a micro-style cache. If you use PQs to filter out for micros these end up on the list. Maybe we need a attribute for "micro-style" or "logbook-only" cache.

Link to comment

It's the size of the container that decides the cache size. When you are searching, you have no idea of the cache contents. Size is an indicator that helps you decide WHERE to search, since larger caches can only be hidden in larger spots.

The contents of the cache are irrelevant.

Edited by Stargazer22
Link to comment

...so add a few somethings to it and suddenly it becomes a new size??? Why not add some swag yourself?

But the owner doesn't want tradable items in the cache. Are you saying that if the owner lists it as small, then what they want does not outflank the guidelines? People can go ahead and add trinkets because the cache size guidelines say small caches "holds trade items as well as a logbook"?

Link to comment

...so add a few somethings to it and suddenly it becomes a new size??? Why not add some swag yourself?

But the owner doesn't want tradable items in the cache. Are you saying that if the owner lists it as small, then what they want does not outflank the guidelines? People can go ahead and add trinkets because the cache size guidelines say small caches "holds trade items as well as a logbook"?

I don't follow the logic. I frequently add trade items to caches that can hold them and are otherwise empty. The trade aspect has always been important to me and a big part of the caching experience. Why would an owner request no trade items?? nevertheless - size is the determining factor not trade items.

Link to comment

A cache owner is perfectly within their rights to mark the 'size' of a cache as anything they want. Ideally they do it truthfully and accurately, but there's nothing forcing them to do so. The biggest case of examples of this are people that mark nanos as "unknown" because they don't want people to know they are so flabbersnoodling small, however they could mark them as "large" or "regular" and be equally within their rights as owners. Might piss off a lot of finders, but that's another thread.

Link to comment

Should a small cache be listed as a micro if it's simply a microlog (just one line per person to add date and trailname), a pencil, and no trade items? Does the size of the container really matter if the cache is essentially a micro-style cache. If you use PQs to filter out for micros these end up on the list. Maybe we need a attribute for "micro-style" or "logbook-only" cache.

 

Is this a local issue for you maybe? I really don't see too many people agreeing with this. Small is small. It's bigger than a micro, and should be easier to find in most cases. I'd say most Decon kits I've found (which almost everyone would agree is "small") have been deviod of trade items.

Link to comment

A cache owner is perfectly within their rights to mark the 'size' of a cache as anything they want. Ideally they do it truthfully and accurately, but there's nothing forcing them to do so. The biggest case of examples of this are people that mark nanos as "unknown" because they don't want people to know they are so flabbersnoodling small, however they could mark them as "large" or "regular" and be equally within their rights as owners. Might piss off a lot of finders, but that's another thread.

 

It would and does piss people off. They usually mark them unknown so that their micro shows up in a PQ that doesn't include micros. If you need to lie to get people to look for your cache perhaps you need to think about your hides. Any that make a habit of miss marking cache size in my area get put on my ignore list. Honesty is still the best policy.

Link to comment
A cache owner is perfectly within their rights to mark the 'size' of a cache as anything they want. Ideally they do it truthfully and accurately, but there's nothing forcing them to do so. The biggest case of examples of this are people that mark nanos as "unknown" because they don't want people to know they are so flabbersnoodling small, however they could mark them as "large" or "regular" and be equally within their rights as owners. Might piss off a lot of finders, but that's another thread.

I"m not so sure this is even close to accurate. You either list it as what it is or list it as unknown. The gray areas are the only wiggle room.

Link to comment
Should a small cache be listed as a micro if it's simply a microlog (just one line per person to add date and trailname), a pencil, and no trade items? Does the size of the container really matter if the cache is essentially a micro-style cache. If you use PQs to filter out for micros these end up on the list. Maybe we need a attribute for "micro-style" or "logbook-only" cache.

Should a film can be listed as a small just because it has trade items?

 

Hmmm... not a good argument, because film cans have been listed as a small even though they are defined as micros.

 

Anyway, trades don't define the size, only help you make a judgment. There can be smalls with no trinkets and micros with trinkets, and they still are their respective sizes.

Link to comment

It would and does piss people off. They usually mark them unknown so that their micro shows up in a PQ that doesn't include micros. If you need to lie to get people to look for your cache perhaps you need to think about your hides. Any that make a habit of miss marking cache size in my area get put on my ignore list. Honesty is still the best policy.

That was the biggest issue for me. I felt somewhat duped. I filtered out for micros but ended up with "micros" on my PQ list. When I filter for micros it's because I don't want to find logbook-only caches that people put out because it's a quick, easy and cheap way to place caches. Technically they did use 'small' containers (approx 3"x3"x1"deep) but it was a "micro"-style cache. If there were some way to filter out "logbook-only" caches, that might help (but not a perfect solution either since some wouldn't use the attribute).

 

The other issue (that has probably been bantered about the forums) is that a regular size cache could easily have been placed in this forest. There were 2 of the small micros placed at either end of this small forest which I'm pretty sure is all it can hold i.e. cache saturation, so now no one can hide a regular size cache there.

 

Anyway, I suppose this is more of a vent then anything else. Since there's no easy answer to this pseudo-micro issue.

Link to comment

It would and does piss people off. They usually mark them unknown so that their micro shows up in a PQ that doesn't include micros. If you need to lie to get people to look for your cache perhaps you need to think about your hides. Any that make a habit of miss marking cache size in my area get put on my ignore list. Honesty is still the best policy.

That was the biggest issue for me. I felt somewhat duped. I filtered out for micros but ended up with "micros" on my PQ list. When I filter for micros it's because I don't want to find logbook-only caches that people put out because it's a quick, easy and cheap way to place caches. Technically they did use 'small' containers (approx 3"x3"x1"deep) but it was a "micro"-style cache. If there were some way to filter out "logbook-only" caches, that might help (but not a perfect solution either since some wouldn't use the attribute).

 

The other issue (that has probably been bantered about the forums) is that a regular size cache could easily have been placed in this forest. There were 2 of the small micros placed at either end of this small forest which I'm pretty sure is all it can hold i.e. cache saturation, so now no one can hide a regular size cache there.

 

Anyway, I suppose this is more of a vent then anything else. Since there's no easy answer to this pseudo-micro issue.

 

Sorry but I think you'll find your position a lonely one. Generally speaking if you have a size listed you are looking for a dimension that size will fit in. You wouldn't look in an inch and a half diameter hole for an ammo can. As I see it, and most other I suspect, is that size determines size. That's why we all keep saying that.

 

Can you tell us more about the cache in question? Did the CO actually say "No trade items"?

Link to comment

I have found a number of "Micros" that have room for swag & TB's. Magnetic key cases and other smaller containers are often classified as "Micro", but could be classified as "Small" since there is some room for trade items.

 

Is there any real guideline as to what constitutes a Micro?

 

Dick

 

Yes, in the guidelines.

 

 

Thanks; so trade items can definitely be part of some Micros :rolleyes:

Link to comment

I have found a number of "Micros" that have room for swag & TB's. Magnetic key cases and other smaller containers are often classified as "Micro", but could be classified as "Small" since there is some room for trade items.

 

Is there any real guideline as to what constitutes a Micro?

 

Dick

 

Yes, in the guidelines.

 

 

Thanks; so trade items can definitely be part of some Micros :rolleyes:

 

I'm sorry. I don't understand. Is that a problem? Other than if your item will fit in a given container what does size have to do with trading?

Link to comment

The other issue (that has probably been bantered about the forums) is that a regular size cache could easily have been placed in this forest. There were 2 of the small micros placed at either end of this small forest which I'm pretty sure is all it can hold i.e. cache saturation, so now no one can hide a regular size cache there.

 

I've squeezed some caches into an area with a lot of others. It does take some effort that maybe some don't want to bother with. I have to find all of the caches in the area, make sure they are all listed in my GPS then go to where I think I might be able to place a cache and check each other cache and any multi stage waypoints on my GPS to be sure the location is .10 miles from all of them. Then when I get home I check the area for any I might miss by doing a search for caches using the waypoint location and looking to see if any close ones are less than .10 miles. Then just to be on the safe side I should check with the reviewer to be sure there aren't any hidden stages in a multi cache that I don't know about that might prevent me from placing a cache at that waypoint.

Edited by Luckless
Link to comment

 

I'm sorry. I don't understand. Is that a problem? Other than if your item will fit in a given container what does size have to do with trading?

 

No No, not a problem at all; Just was wanting to clarify a difference from a Micro to a Small, and I now see that some Micros can contain trade items, if large enough..... :)

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...