Should Groundspeak seperate Micro's/Nano's from the cache category "Traditional"

[+JABs]

As a new size yes a nano.

As a new type no as it is a cache size and not a different type of cache.

And as noted earlier you look differently for a nano then a micro.

[+Wooden Cyclist]

Well the original meaning of the word "cache" meant, a container for hiding weapons or provisions. Cant hide much of that in a micro. Food for thought.

 

 

Uh, are you hiding weapons in your caches?

[Luckless]

It doesn't seem that the OP wants to be able to tell if a cache is a micro- there is already a means to tell the cache size. So is it that he wants a means to sort them from the others?

[Skippermark]

I thought this thread was a bump when I first saw this. Was surprised to see it being brought up again.

 

Well the original meaning of the word "cache" meant, a container for hiding weapons or provisions. Cant hide much of that in a micro. Food for thought.

 

Originally, a cache was called a "stash," but that got changed later on.

 

Also, the original cache was only a few feet off the road, so following that example, all caches should be park and grabs.

Edited May 8, 2009 by Skippermark

[+Renegade Knight]

POLL: Should Groundspeak seperate Micro's/Nano's from the cache category "Traditional", AND SHOULD THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT ICON?

 

Yes. Micros generate enough angst to warrant their own special catagory. You even search for them differently than the non micros.

So? I also search for decon kits differently than I do ammo cans.

Ah, but not an order of magnitude differently. You shift to needle and haystack from reasoanble locaitons.

 

Ammo can. Hmmm... 4 spots.

Decon conatiner. Hmmm... 8 spots.

With those two I can search them all.

 

Micro. Hmmm.... 297 spots.

With this needle in the haysack kicking in, it's time to apply the brain where before you could hunt like a blind monkey. The impacts change to the surrounding area as well.

[+WHO-DEY]

It doesn't seem that the OP wants to be able to tell if a cache is a micro- there is already a means to tell the cache size. So is it that he wants a means to sort them from the others?

I am the OP

Yes, the ability to sort them WITHOUT using some odd 3rd party program. We need the ability to sort them from caches that can "hold more than a coiled paper" or in other words, everything bigger than the standard definition of a Micro should stay as "traditional". The Micro/nano family can be there own category of cache.

 

Second, Teh symbol that is tagged with MICRO/NANO should be changed. I am not talking anything crazy. Initially I said "just keep the ICON itself the same, but change the color from traditional multi cache yellow and traditional cache green to say RED or Orange etc. After saying that, I realized not all cachers have color readouts. So although t would work on the computer map in GC.com, in the field it would not work for all. So a symbol change may need to happen. Something suddle as to not get all undies in a bunch.

 

I still have not heard a valid reason why NOT to? What kind of problem will it cause? Where is the negative? Al I see is positive. And I see alot of agreement based on teh amount of times this has been brought up by members.

[+Lil Devil]

Markwell already outlined the negative in post 17. Perhaps you missed that one. With your suggestion all the micro traditionals, micro multis, micro puzzles and micro whatever would be lumped into just one category. No thanks.

 

You can already do what you want to do, if you would just stop poo-pooing 3rd party programs.

[+Allanon]

I still have not heard a valid reason why NOT to?

And I submit that you 'have not heard a valid reason' because you don't want to. A lot of valid reasons have been brought up...and it doesn't matter if we turn ourselves blue in the face explaining them to you again because you still wouldn't agree with them.

[+WHO-DEY]

Changes always cause grief and controversy and should only be undertaken if there is good reason. One of the driving forces behind this proposed change seems to be that GPSr software doesn't display enough information on some models. That will change in a relatively short period of time as the GPSr manufactureres improve their offerings. Let the problem be fixed that way instead of starting another controversial change in the way GC.com presents the information we use.

 

IT HAS NOTHING REALLYT TO DO WITH THE GPS. THERE IS AN ICON TAG THAT IS ATTACHED TO THE FILE THAT IS UPLOADED. I HAVE GOBS AND GOBS OF ICONS IN MY GPS. BUT WHEN I UPLOAD...IT ONLY SELECTS THE ONE. SO MAYBE SOME FLEXIBILITY IN THE PQ TO SELECT AN ICON WOULD DO THE TRICK.

AND GPX SPINNER DOES NOT WORK ON OREGON'S.

 

The OP also stated the that third party software is a PITA. That is also changing. I use a third party app on my Blackberry and no other software or GPSr. I don't experience the information based problems that the OP mentions.

 

THIS WEBSITE DOES SO MUCH. THERE SHOULD BE NO MORE NEED FOR 3RD PARTY GARBAGE PROGRAMS. AND WE DO NOT ALL USE BLACKBERRIES AND IPHONES. WHY STOP SHORT AND LET SOME OTHER SITE TAKE CARE OF WHAT IS REALLY A PRETTY SIMPLE OPTION. AND AS MUCH AS I LIKE TO RUN A PQ AND THEN FILTER THAT PQ AGAIN WITH SOME ODD 3RD PARTY PROGRAM IS JUST SILLY. I AM GIVING CREDIT TO GC.COM FOR ALL THEY HAVE DONE AND DO. WE ARE JUST ASKING FOR A LITTLE MORE. WHY NOT HAVE ALL THE CACHES IN MY AREA LOADED AT THE SAME TIME, ALL THE TIME?

 

 

Just my thoughts, I look forward to any comments.

Edited May 8, 2009 by WHO-DEY

[Abighog]

so uhmm SIZE DOES MATTER ??? aBIGhog

[+WHO-DEY]

I still have not heard a valid reason why NOT to?

And I submit that you 'have not heard a valid reason' because you don't want to. A lot of valid reasons have been brought up...and it doesn't matter if we turn ourselves blue in the face explaining them to you again because you still wouldn't agree with them.

 

WHAT ARE THEY? Saying that the size is listed somin the cache listing is not a reason. What we are asking has nothing to do with that. If they are there..tell me. please.

[+WHO-DEY]

so uhmm SIZE DOES MATTER ??? aBIGhog

only when you are really small.

[+WHO-DEY]

Markwell already outlined the negative in post 17. Perhaps you missed that one. With your suggestion all the micro traditionals, micro multis, micro puzzles and micro whatever would be lumped into just one category. No thanks.

 

You can already do what you want to do, if you would just stop poo-pooing 3rd party programs.

 

I saw that post. I also saw that it was an old reply to a post in November 2008. Is that the only reason? A moderator saying he would personally say no? Not really persuasive.

 

Also, re: the 3rd party comment. I know you have your own 3rd party software GPX SPINNER. I tried it, you were great helping me via email and on the forum. BUt it did not work for the OREGON 400t. So as I said...3rd party is a PITA and it is another step that a member has to go through on every PQ he/she uses. That alone is a PITA.

[+J-Way]

I still have not heard a valid reason why NOT to? What kind of problem will it cause? Where is the negative? Al I see is positive. And I see alot of agreement based on teh amount of times this has been brought up by members.

There are 63-ish posts in this thread and I count a grand total of THREE (3) cachers who agree with you (plus one who can't make up his/her mind). All the other posts either disagree with your position, have no comment on your position but advocate for a new "nano" size, or are general fluff. And all you see is positive?

 

But for the record, let us rehash:

 

1. "Micro" is, by definition, a size not a type. If you create new Micro cache type, can I hide a large container and list it as a Micro?

 

2. If micro is the type, how would you distinguish between a puzzle, multi, traditional, letterbox-hybrid (yes, I've seen a LBH-Micro), and Wherigo style hunt? Are you saying that only Traditional micros are in the new category? What about a simple puzzle that leads to a 5-star evil custom-made micro in a heavily muggle-infested area... is this a micro, or a puzzle? Under your system you can't have both.

 

3. Of COURSE the hunt style is different between a micro/nano and larger caches. It's also different between caches in wooded, urban, and desert areas. Some micros are hidden in obvious places (LPC), and some are almost impossible (like a blinky stuck to a bit of green floral wire hidden in some ivy). Some regulars can be see from a dozen feet away, and some are so well camo'd that it takes hours of searching to find. Should there also be a different icon for caches hidden in the desert (it's always under the bush, or under the pile of rocks)? What about a different cache type for water caches (boat or SCUBA)? Just because the hunt style is different doesn't qualify the style for a new cache type.

[Clan Riffster]

This may fall under the "Third Party Software" clause, (sort of), but it works well for me:

My personal, biased caching aesthetics derive very little pleasure from most urban micro hunts.

My wife, on the other paw, loves them.

To increase the amount of pleasure I take from this game I run multiple PQs. One is a local PQ that excludes all micros.

While this "may" occasionally result in my missing out on a way kewl micro, I'm willing to accept that loss.

The local cache hiders are prolific enough that I have never run the risk of running out of caches to find which do meet my needs.

Another PQ I run is just for micros, unlisted and unknown cache sizes. When Viv goes, I load this one.

We have an Oregon 300 and a Colorado 400I, so our loading methods are the same as yours.

The end result is, my hunting techniques are mostly the same because the caches in my GPSr are mostly the same size.

I don't need to go into "Micro Hunt" mode unless Viv accompanies me.

 

Post script: I also look over every new cache listing, as they get posted. That way, if what appears to be an interesting micro pops up, I can load it and go.

 

Is it a perfect solution? No. But it fits my needs quite nicely.

Edited May 8, 2009 by Clan Riffster

[GOF and Bacall]

I have still not seen a persuasive reason to make the change.

[GOF and Bacall]

This may fall under the "Third Party Software" clause, (sort of), but it works well for me:

My personal, biased caching aesthetics derive very little pleasure from most urban micro hunts.

My wife, on the other paw, loves them.

To increase the amount of pleasure I take from this game I run multiple PQs. One is a local PQ that excludes all micros.

While this "may" occasionally result in my missing out on a way kewl micro, I'm willing to accept that loss.

The local cache hiders are prolific enough that I have never run the risk of running out of caches to find which do meet my needs.

Another PQ I run is just for micros, unlisted and unknown cache sizes. When Viv goes, I load this one.

We have an Oregon 300 and a Colorado 400I, so our loading methods are the same as yours.

The end result is, my hunting techniques are mostly the same because the caches in my GPSr are mostly the same size.

I don't need to go into "Micro Hunt" mode unless Viv accompanies me.

 

Post script: I also look over every new cache listing, as they get posted. That way, if what appears to be an interesting micro pops up, I can load it and go.

 

Is it a perfect solution? No. But it fits my needs quite nicely.

 

Sounds very much like our system.

 

PQs are not third party software. While I do use GSAK to load my gps and my pda I can still use pqs to sort for size.

[+Semper Questio]

I submit that a micro is not a "traditional" cache to begin with. A "traditional" cache is accessed via a single waypoint without any extra machinations required and the cache contains a log and swag. Any variant to that is, to my mind, a different type.

 

The argument of a micro type conflicting with multi's and unknowns holds no water. We have that now. Some multi's end in micros, some in regular-size trads. We have puzzles that can also end with either kind of cache and can be 1 or several stages. What would be the difference in this situation?

 

Of course, all this comes form a guy that was trained in data base design to the fourth normal form.

[GOF and Bacall]

I submit that a micro is not a "traditional" cache to begin with. A "traditional" cache is accessed via a single waypoint without any extra machinations required and the cache contains a log and swag. Any variant to that is, to my mind, a different type.

 

The argument of a micro type conflicting with multi's and unknowns holds no water. We have that now. Some multi's end in micros, some in regular-size trads. We have puzzles that can also end with either kind of cache and can be 1 or several stages. What would be the difference in this situation?

 

Of course, all this comes form a guy that was trained in data base design to the fourth normal form.

 

The perspective is skewed. It isn't that confusion doesn't exist in the current system but rather that the proposed change will aggravate that situation rather than alleviate it.

[Skippermark]

There are 63-ish posts in this thread and I count a grand total of THREE (3) cachers who agree with you (plus one who can't make up his/her mind). All the other posts either disagree with your position, have no comment on your position but advocate for a new "nano" size, or are general fluff. And all you see is positive?

Of the cachers world-wide, only a small percentage go to the forums, and of those, a very small percentage want a change.

 

Where I live, there's around 100 active cachers. Of those, if 10% frequently go to the forums (and from what I can tell, that number is probably a little high), that's 10 people and if 10-20% of those want a change, that's 1 or 2 people (2%) wanting a change, meaning 98% are happy with the status-quo.

 

Groundspeak has said they have no plans to change sizes, so arguing about it is kind of a moot point, but if they did plan to change them, I'd like to see it go back to 3 sizes, Large, Regular and Micro. It's hard enough for people to get it right now. I can't imagine what it would be like if another size/type was added. "Is this bison tube a micro or a nano?"

 

Add to that the "local" variances where, in some areas, a "nano" is typically called a Mr. Magneto and what is called a "nano" is a tube about 3/4 of an inch long and bigger than a Mr. Magneto but smaller than a bison.

Edited May 8, 2009 by Skippermark

[+L0ne.R]

Micro is a size. Traditional is a category. Apples and oranges.

 

How about a "Logbook only" cache type?

[+L0ne.R]

What about a 'Log Only' attribute. That would allow those that want to filter out log only caches in their PQ's the ability.

I see someone has already come up with the "log only" idea. I, of course like the idea, an attribute may be easier to implement then a "log only" cache type. However, hopefully the cache owner would use the attribute.

[+WHO-DEY]

I still have not heard a valid reason why NOT to? What kind of problem will it cause? Where is the negative? Al I see is positive. And I see alot of agreement based on teh amount of times this has been brought up by members.

There are 63-ish posts in this thread and I count a grand total of THREE (3) cachers who agree with you (plus one who can't make up his/her mind). All the other posts either disagree with your position, have no comment on your position but advocate for a new "nano" size, or are general fluff. And all you see is positive?

 

But for the record, let us rehash:

 

1. "Micro" is, by definition, a size not a type. If you create new Micro cache type, can I hide a large container and list it as a Micro?

 

for the umpteenth time. we are not questioning the current definitions. Keep them defined as they are now. Just split it off. Not asking for more sizes, that is a created problem or issue by another poster that was not asked for in the OP. There is no need for that.

 

2. If micro is the type, how would you distinguish between a puzzle, multi, traditional, letterbox-hybrid (yes, I've seen a LBH-Micro), and Wherigo style hunt? Are you saying that only Traditional micros are in the new category? What about a simple puzzle that leads to a 5-star evil custom-made micro in a heavily muggle-infested area... is this a micro, or a puzzle? Under your system you can't have both.

 

Puzzles are puzzles. they are considered a wild card. The siaze is never listed anyway...right? regarding multi's etc.Just change the icon...simple.

 

3. Of COURSE the hunt style is different between a micro/nano and larger caches. It's also different between caches in wooded, urban, and desert areas. Some micros are hidden in obvious places (LPC), and some are almost impossible (like a blinky stuck to a bit of green floral wire hidden in some ivy). Some regulars can be see from a dozen feet away, and some are so well camo'd that it takes hours of searching to find. Should there also be a different icon for caches hidden in the desert (it's always under the bush, or under the pile of rocks)? What about a different cache type for water caches (boat or SCUBA)? Just because the hunt style is different doesn't qualify the style for a new cache type.

 

no. this post is not about those examples. Just Micros and nanos.

 

[+L0ne.R]

Pill bottle is a micro. I swear there is a group of cachers around here who are listing their caches as small so that they don't get filtered out as micros in PQs.

I have seen this too. I filter out micros but a few get through disguised as "small".

[+WHO-DEY]

I still have not heard a valid reason why NOT to? What kind of problem will it cause? Where is the negative? Al I see is positive. And I see alot of agreement based on teh amount of times this has been brought up by members.

There are 63-ish posts in this thread and I count a grand total of THREE (3) cachers who agree with you (plus one who can't make up his/her mind). All the other posts either disagree with your position, have no comment on your position but advocate for a new "nano" size, or are general fluff. And all you see is positive?

 

the negatives are just "no" they do not post real, unsolvable, problems outside of personal opinion. The positives I see are the reasons to do it, not the replies from the minority percentage that peruse the forum.

 

[+tozainamboku]

BUt it did not work for the OREGON 400t. So as I said...3rd party is a PITA and it is another step that a member has to go through on every PQ he/she uses. That alone is a PITA.

I wish I had more information on why this is not working on the Oregon 400t. Mine is on order and I probably won't get it before late next week. It seems that perhaps the Oregon ignores the sym element for geocaches.

 

On my 60Cx, I use GSAK to change the name of the waypoint to indicate both the cache type and the size, so I can tell on my map whether I'm looking for a traditional or multi as well as what size something is. This it continues to use the closed treasure chest (for unfound) or opened treasure chest (for found) as the icon - which is how the 60Cx determines its a geocache. From what I've read this method will work on the Oregon as well, except that I will have to go through another step to put the name back the GC name if I want to use my fieldnotes to log on Geocaching.com.

 

It seems to me that on the Oregon, the unit knows that something is a geocache because it has the the GPX file and should be able to use fields other than the sym to know this is a geocache. Perhaps you should be petitioning Garmin to update the firmware to allow alternate symbols for micros.

[+Lil Devil]

I submit that a micro is not a "traditional" cache to begin with. A "traditional" cache is accessed via a single waypoint without any extra machinations required and the cache contains a log and swag. Any variant to that is, to my mind, a different type.

You are wrong. Traditional caches are clearly defined and it specifically says they might not contain swag, only a logbook (or logsheet).

 

Traditional Cache

This is the original cache type consisting, at a bare minimum, a container and a log book. Normally you'll find a tupperware container, ammo box, or bucket filled with goodies, or smaller container ("micro cache") too small to contain items except for a log book. The coordinates listed on the traditional cache page are the exact location for the cache.

According to that definition, a micro is a traditional cache.

[+WHO-DEY]

BUt it did not work for the OREGON 400t. So as I said...3rd party is a PITA and it is another step that a member has to go through on every PQ he/she uses. That alone is a PITA.

I wish I had more information on why this is not working on the Oregon 400t. Mine is on order and I probably won't get it before late next week. It seems that perhaps the Oregon ignores the sym element for geocaches.

 

I am only talking about GPX SPINNER thrid party softwarenot working with the Oregon. PQ's rock on the 400t. No worries. I love mine. Sorry if I scared ya.

[+WHO-DEY]

I submit that a micro is not a "traditional" cache to begin with. A "traditional" cache is accessed via a single waypoint without any extra machinations required and the cache contains a log and swag. Any variant to that is, to my mind, a different type.

You are wrong. Traditional caches are clearly defined and it specifically says they might not contain swag, only a logbook (or logsheet).

 

Traditional Cache

This is the original cache type consisting, at a bare minimum, a container and a log book. Normally you'll find a tupperware container, ammo box, or bucket filled with goodies, or smaller container ("micro cache") too small to contain items except for a log book. The coordinates listed on the traditional cache page are the exact location for the cache.

According to that definition, a micro is a traditional cache.

 

...that is why we are asking for a change. they need to be seperated. I hollowed out bolt is not the same, in so many ways, than any lock/lock or ammo can.

[+Lil Devil]

(A) hollowed out bolt is not the same, in so many ways, than any lock/lock or ammo can.

Sure they are. They're both at the posted coords, and they both contain a logsheet.

[+WHO-DEY]

BUt it did not work for the OREGON 400t. So as I said...3rd party is a PITA and it is another step that a member has to go through on every PQ he/she uses. That alone is a PITA.

 

It seems to me that on the Oregon, the unit knows that something is a geocache because it has the the GPX file and should be able to use fields other than the sym to know this is a geocache. Perhaps you should be petitioning Garmin to update the firmware to allow alternate symbols for micros.

 

Garmin, in our case, may need to be involved, but it STARTS with GC.com. They need to include the information in the file that it is a micro...the paperless cache page is not enough to tell the GPS to go to "X" icon instead of the treasue chest, or the green box etc.

Edited May 8, 2009 by WHO-DEY

[+Lil Devil]

Have you ever looked in a GPX file? It does include information about the cache size. If you're going to argue about this, at least get your facts straight.

[+WHO-DEY]

(A) hollowed out bolt is not the same, in so many ways, than any lock/lock or ammo can.

Sure they are. They're both at the posted coords, and they both contain a logsheet.

that is weak.

 

where do you put the coin or tb? where do I leave my sig card? where do i sign more than barely a date and tiny name? why are my kids mad? Where do I put my matchbox car or ring ..and where is the swag my kids want? etc etc etc

 

boy...if I had an essy way to look at my GPS and tell that this was a MICRO, I may decide not to find it right now.

 

GPS SPINNER...this is not about principle, it is about makeing the game better for more people that may not be like you, o rme. Why not. I ask you..WHY NOT?

[+WHO-DEY]

Have you ever looked in a GPX file? It does include information about the cache size. If you're going to argue about this, at least get your facts straight.

 

sorry. You are right in one regard. I do not know the code that is sent. Also, I am not a programmer that borrows code to create a program that does not work for the newest, most popular GPS on the market. Once you get it to work for the Oregon...than the code that you mention might mean something because Garmin can actually do something with it.

[+Lil Devil]

Hey, I'm sorry that you disagree with the official definition of a traditional cache. But that's the way that it is.

 

I'm also sorry that GPX Spinner doesn't work for you right out of the box. I don't have an Oregon or Colorado so I can't help, but GPX Spinner is extremely configurable. It should be a simple matter of modifying the INI file or maybe a template and you could get the icons you want. Lend me your Oregon for a week and I'll be happy to make it work for you.

[+Lil Devil]

Lend me your Oregon for a week and I'll be happy to make it work for you.

Scratch that. I probably don't need an Oregon in my hands. Download a normal PQ to your Oregon. Then go in and change the icons manually for a few of the caches. Then upload the GPX file back to your computer and email both the new and old GPX files to me. I should be able to see the differences and tell you how to configure Spinner to work for you.

[+WHO-DEY]

Lend me your Oregon for a week and I'll be happy to make it work for you.

Scratch that. I probably don't need an Oregon in my hands. Download a normal PQ to your Oregon. Then go in and change the icons manually for a few of the caches. Then upload the GPX file back to your computer and email both the new and old GPX files to me. I should be able to see the differences and tell you how to configure Spinner to work for you.

 

i am pretty sure I tried that...I am willing to give it a whirl again.

[+Renegade Knight]

I have still not seen a persuasive reason to make the change.

You mean you haven't bought into the reasons presented to make the change. That's fair. Micro's do stand out from other caches for a few reasons. Those reasons may or may not be enough to tip the scales.

 

The present system isn't broken. Micro's cause angst and issues in their own right. But do they pose enough of an issue to tweak a sysem that does work well enough? I think so. Others don't.

[+Renegade Knight]

...this is not about principle, it is about makeing the game better for more people that may not be like you, o rme. Why not. I ask you..WHY NOT?

There you go. The crux of the matter. A Micro is a traditional. It also stands apart for several reasons. Would there be enough benefit to a new catagory for Micro to change a system that works ok already?

 

Right now I only ever have micro's in my local PQ. I never include them in travel PQ's. While I do think they deserve a catagory, I can also filter them out of my PQ's as it is.

 

Personally even though I would like to see the change, I'd rather have stats back, or cache ratings that work ahead of this proposal.

[+obsidianspider]

I don't think they should be separated from the category, again, that's what kind of cache they are. I do agree with the idea of creating a new size to denote nanos. Determining what the cutoff is between sizes could be difficult.

[Skippermark]

Puzzles are puzzles. they are considered a wild card. The siaze is never listed anyway...right?

For almost every puzzle we've found, the size is always listed.

 

According to that definition, a micro is a traditional cache.

...that is why we are asking for a change. they need to be seperated. I hollowed out bolt is not the same, in so many ways, than any lock/lock or ammo can.

They are totally the same. The size is different, but they are both the same type...a traditional.

 

It doesn't matter if it's a 5 foot wooden box in the woods or a piece of paper stuck on the back of a magnetic sheet stuck to a guardrail covered with tape, as long as you only have to go to one spot and find the cache, it's still a traditional. I think you're confusing size with type.

 

Edit for typo.

Edited May 8, 2009 by Skippermark

[Clan Riffster]

One of the things I love the most about both my Oregon and Viv's Colorado is that, when I upload a PQ straight to either device, I get the whole cache page, as well as several past logs. With a simple "Click" I can tell everything I need to know about the cache on my screen, including the cache size. Kinda looks like this:

 

I will echo an earlier poster's comments about a micro not being a cache, however I recognize that this is simply my internalized preference. Mentally, for me to call something a "cache", it needs to be large enough to actually hold something substantial. (Quirky? Yeah. I know) At this particular website, TPTB have dictated what constitutes a cache. Their definition includes ammo cans, film canisters, plaques on buildings, (grandfathered), webcams on college campuses, (grandfathered), distinctive geological features, gatherings at restaurants, folks cleaning up trash, etc. (Yeah, I know the last two are "events", but Groundspeak includes them in my Caches Found tally) Since this is the sandbox I choose to play in, I abide by their definitions.

[Skippermark]

boy...if I had an essy way to look at my GPS and tell that this was a MICRO, I may decide not to find it right now.

When you run your pocket query, all you have to do is set it so micros are not included.

 

Then, when you look at your GPS, everything will be size small or bigger and you won't have to worry about accidentally going to a micro.

[Skippermark]

I do agree with the idea of creating a new size to denote nanos. Determining what the cutoff is between sizes could be difficult.

There's already a lot of confusion over size now. Here in CT, keyholders are micros, but we've been to areas where they're called smalls.

 

We recently found a 3x3 round container listed as a regular. To me a regular is a fairly good size container that can handle travel bugs 6" long or thereabouts. People can't get it right now, and I adding additional sizes would only confuse the issue even more.

 

Maybe we should go back to 3 sizes like they had in the past. Large, regular and micro.

[+tozainamboku]

Lend me your Oregon for a week and I'll be happy to make it work for you.

Scratch that. I probably don't need an Oregon in my hands. Download a normal PQ to your Oregon. Then go in and change the icons manually for a few of the caches. Then upload the GPX file back to your computer and email both the new and old GPX files to me. I should be able to see the differences and tell you how to configure Spinner to work for you.

The problem is that the Oregon treats Geocaches special. It reads the GPX file in and when it recognizes it as a Geocaching.com GPX file you can't can't start editing things in it. You can only mark it found or not found and provide some field notes. But you do get the description, cache type, size, D/T, logs, and even what TBs are in the cache. You just have to select find a geocache and open the description. If the waypoints in the GPX are not geocaches (e.g. additional waypoints), the Oregon will create regular waypoint when it load in the GPX file the first time. These can then be edited like ordinary waypoints. You can also load caches as POIs as you could with the 60C series.

 

My guess is that the Oregon uses the cache type to determine the icon to show for geocaches and ignores any symbol in the GPX file. My understanding is that you can change the cache name or cache code using a third party tool and get the additional information that way.

 

It may be that the OP could get some better suggestions in the GPS Units and Technology forum. I suspect that others have also struggled with the limitation of the Oregon/Colorado geocaching mode and they may have other suggestions on how to determine quickly whether the next cache is a micro or not.

[+Prime Suspect]

Well the original meaning of the word "cache" meant, a container for hiding weapons or provisions. Cant hide much of that in a micro. Food for thought.

That's the cool thing about language. It changes to meet new needs. There was a time when "computer" referred to a person, not a device.

[+Prime Suspect]

POLL: Should Groundspeak seperate Micro's/Nano's from the cache category "Traditional", AND SHOULD THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT ICON?

 

Yes. Micros generate enough angst to warrant their own special catagory. You even search for them differently than the non micros.

So? I also search for decon kits differently than I do ammo cans.

Ah, but not an order of magnitude differently. You shift to needle and haystack from reasoanble locaitons.

 

Ammo can. Hmmm... 4 spots.

Decon conatiner. Hmmm... 8 spots.

With those two I can search them all.

 

Micro. Hmmm.... 297 spots.

With this needle in the haysack kicking in, it's time to apply the brain where before you could hunt like a blind monkey. The impacts change to the surrounding area as well.

Wow, 297 spots! How does anyone ever find a micro? Oh, wait. I almost forget that you're pulling numbers out of thin air. Never mind.

Edited May 8, 2009 by Prime Suspect

[+Renegade Knight]

POLL: Should Groundspeak seperate Micro's/Nano's from the cache category "Traditional", AND SHOULD THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT ICON?

 

Yes. Micros generate enough angst to warrant their own special catagory. You even search for them differently than the non micros.

So? I also search for decon kits differently than I do ammo cans.

Ah, but not an order of magnitude differently. You shift to needle and haystack from reasoanble locaitons.

 

Ammo can. Hmmm... 4 spots.

Decon conatiner. Hmmm... 8 spots.

With those two I can search them all.

 

Micro. Hmmm.... 297 spots.

With this needle in the haysack kicking in, it's time to apply the brain where before you could hunt like a blind monkey. The impacts change to the surrounding area as well.

Wow, 297 spots! How does anyone ever find a micro? Oh, wait. I almost forget that you're pulling numbers out of thin air. Never mind.

 

Excellent, Now you understand what I mean.

 

When you stand in a park and ponder "where could the ammo can be" you will spot a few likely spots based on what? That's right you pull them out of the air using your imagintion.

 

Same question with a bison capsule. Now many more spots could it be in? You will come up with a heck of a lot more places to look even if it's the same park. Dozens more unless you are so well tuned in to the force that you look in the right place every time. Dozens more locations that you just pull out of the air to look in.

 

Glad we agree.

[+niraD]

What about a 'Log Only' attribute. That would allow those that want to filter out log only caches in their PQ's the ability.

I see someone has already come up with the "log only" idea. I, of course like the idea, an attribute may be easier to implement then a "log only" cache type. However, hopefully the cache owner would use the attribute.

I like this better than the idea of creating another size for nanos. (FWIW, the distinction I make between a micro and a nano is that a nano is big enough for only a custom fit log sheet, while a micro can hold small trade items, sig tokens, etc.)

 

One possible point of confusion would be someone hiding a larger cache that contains only a log, and labeling it "log only" even though there is room for trade items, sig tokens, etc., if people wanted to leave them.

[+Sparrowhawk]

Big, fat, YES!

 

I REALLY support nanos having their own category AND icon - I propose a cartoon microscope for the icon.

 

How to tell if it's a nano? Is there enough room in the logbook to sign your whole name and date legibly on the page? No? Only can fit initials at best? Can't fit swag or a TB tag into it?

 

IF NOT, IT'S A BLEEPIN' NANO.

 

Fact is... a 35mm film container can AT LEAST fit a TB tag into it.

 

Nanos are NOT TB compatible, period.

 

If it's not TB-compatible, it's not really a normal geocache. And that is why I think it deserves it's own category and icon.