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

[Dinoprophet]

My answer from November 2008

If it were needed and were something that would enhance the filtering process and not confuse the issues, I would say yes.

 

But since we already have a size designation, if we move Micro to a cache type, could a micro be labeled as size "Large" or "Regular"?

 

But beyond that, if this is what you're proposing, I would say "No" -

The top section is how Chicago area caches look now. The bottom is what I think you're proposing.

It's funny, to me that chart makes an argument for separate types. There are almost as many micros as there are traditionals. Micros are a different kind of hunt, and given those numbers, I'd like to see them split out. Never mind third party software; when I look at the maps on this site, I'd love to see whether a cache is a micro without clicking on every one.

 

Furthermore, the size designation is insufficient as it is -- just consider multis.

 

And really, how many people do puzzles but decide whether to go find them based on their size?

 

For that matter -- and I think this is key -- does anyone ever care about the size except for when it's a micro?

Edited June 9, 2009 by Dinoprophet

[+sbell111]

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.

I completely agree with Skippermark. All caches should be park-and-grabs.

[+sbell111]

I'm really confused here ...

Having read your post. You are not confused at all. Those who play devils advocate do so best when they understand the topic. Which you do.

 

To answer your questions. If I shoehorn myself into a smart car, I barey fit becasue it's small car. However if I gain 600 lb and baretly fit into a [truck], I didn't turn the [truck] into a smart car.

My wife bought a smart car. It's really not that small on the inside. Sure, you can touch both windows, the windshield, and the rear window all while buckled in, but two normal-sized people still fit in it.

[+Renegade Knight]

I'm really confused here ...

Having read your post. You are not confused at all. Those who play devils advocate do so best when they understand the topic. Which you do.

 

To answer your questions. If I shoehorn myself into a smart car, I barey fit becasue it's small car. However if I gain 600 lb and baretly fit into a [truck], I didn't turn the [truck] into a smart car.

My wife bought a smart car. It's really not that small on the inside. Sure, you can touch both windows, the windshield, and the rear window all while buckled in, but two normal-sized people still fit in it.

I felt that way when I test drove a Hummer 2. I was thinking "for all the crappy MPG, and Bulk it sure is small in here". Oh, and I couldn't even fit in the first one I tried. The sunroof lowered the roof too much.

[CoyoteRed]

It's funny, to me that chart makes an argument for separate types. There are almost as many micros as there are traditionals.

That is because about half of the traditionals were micros. With the alternative solution there are half as many traditionals.

 

Micros are a different kind of hunt, and given those numbers, I'd like to see them split out. Never mind third party software; when I look at the maps on this site, I'd love to see whether a cache is a micro without clicking on every one.

That's the fault of programmers of the map. New graphics could provide type and size. There used to be, or is elsewhere, icons with the color of the type. Add the letter designation and you would have what you're looking for without a major change.

 

Furthermore, the size designation is insufficient as it is -- just consider multis.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here, but adding micro to the type would eliminate knowing whether the hunt is a single or multiple stage, or whether you have to solve a puzzle before hitting the field.

 

And really, how many people do puzzles but decide whether to go find them based on their size?

 

For that matter -- and I think this is key -- does anyone ever care about the size except for when it's a micro?

Not really. Only whether it is a trading cache or not.

[Skippermark]

For that matter -- and I think this is key -- does anyone ever care about the size except for when it's a micro?

I don't care about container size and don't even look at it when planning caches. For us, it doesn't matter if a cache is a matchstick-holder sized container, a nano, an ammo box or a 55 gallon container. We cache in areas and start at the closest one and then go to the next closest one. Most of the time I don't know the size, terrain or difficulty until we arrive at ground zero and start searching.

Edited June 9, 2009 by Skippermark

[+Castle Mischief]

Micros are a different kind of hunt, and given those numbers, I'd like to see them split out. Never mind third party software; when I look at the maps on this site, I'd love to see whether a cache is a micro without clicking on every one.

 

Caches painted bright orange are a different kind of hunt from caches covered in camouflage. Should there be a category (and new icon(s)) based on hide difficulty just so you can see the neon orange caches without clicking on every one of them?

[Dinoprophet]

Micros are a different kind of hunt, and given those numbers, I'd like to see them split out. Never mind third party software; when I look at the maps on this site, I'd love to see whether a cache is a micro without clicking on every one.

That's the fault of programmers of the map. New graphics could provide type and size. There used to be, or is elsewhere, icons with the color of the type. Add the letter designation and you would have what you're looking for without a major change.

Very true, I'd be all for that. That's really all I'm after. But I'll answer some more points:

 

Furthermore, the size designation is insufficient as it is -- just consider multis.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here, but adding micro to the type would eliminate knowing whether the hunt is a single or multiple stage, or whether you have to solve a puzzle before hitting the field.

What I mean is that a multi may have multiple sizes. Do you designate the size according to final, full-size container or the intermediate nano stages? Because of this, while many or most say "It ain't broke, don't fix it", I'd argue that it is broke. But my point there was tangential.

 

As for the other types, as I believe someone else said, micro would just be the default. If it's a puzzle, letterbox, ?, or whatnot, it's designated as those types. If not, then it's either a Micro or a Traditional.

 

And really, how many people do puzzles but decide whether to go find them based on their size?

 

For that matter -- and I think this is key -- does anyone ever care about the size except for when it's a micro?

Not really. Only whether it is a trading cache or not.

Right. My point there is, the current size attribute is used for little other than filtering micros in or out...

 

I don't care about container size and don't even look at it when planning caches. For us, it doesn't matter if a cache is a matchstick-holder sized container, a nano, an ammo box or a 55 gallon container. We cache in areas and start at the closest one and then go to the next closest one. Most of the time I don't know the size, terrain or difficulty until we arrive at ground zero and start searching.

....and sometimes the size isn't used at all.

 

Caches painted bright orange are a different kind of hunt from caches covered in camouflage. Should there be a category (and new icon(s)) based on hide difficulty just so you can see the neon orange caches without clicking on every one of them?

In my day-to-day caching, I'm not generally concerned with D/T, so that didn't occur to me, but I suppose it might to others. This kind of goes back to CR's first point. I suppose my only real complaint is with the maps on this site. If size and D/T were available at a glance, I'd be happy.

Edited June 9, 2009 by Dinoprophet

[+sbell111]

I'm really confused here ...

Having read your post. You are not confused at all. Those who play devils advocate do so best when they understand the topic. Which you do.

 

To answer your questions. If I shoehorn myself into a smart car, I barey fit becasue it's small car. However if I gain 600 lb and baretly fit into a [truck], I didn't turn the [truck] into a smart car.

My wife bought a smart car. It's really not that small on the inside. Sure, you can touch both windows, the windshield, and the rear window all while buckled in, but two normal-sized people still fit in it.

I felt that way when I test drove a Hummer 2. I was thinking "for all the crappy MPG, and Bulk it sure is small in here". Oh, and I couldn't even fit in the first one I tried. The sunroof lowered the roof too much.

I met my wife for a movie the other day after work. It was a nice day, so she drove teh Smart cabrio. When I got to the theater, I parked my grand cherokee right next to her, chuckling to myself that her car only used half her spot. When we left the theater, however, we were a little surprised to see that her smart car was almost as tall as my WJ.

[+RhinoKevin]

 

My Vote is to seperate them. I agree that my kids do not enjoy and are very unhappy when they find a micro. On the other hand, they get excited about finding something with treasure in it. I want to keep them interested Geocaching and this would help me focus only on the treasure finds for them.

[+bittsen]

 

My Vote is to seperate them. I agree that my kids do not enjoy and are very unhappy when they find a micro. On the other hand, they get excited about finding something with treasure in it. I want to keep them interested Geocaching and this would help me focus only on the treasure finds for them.

 

Agreed.

 

My first geocaching experience was also one of teaching someone about geocaching. The friend I was with would get excited looking at the swag that was in the caches and was disappointed by the micros.

Micros have a cool aspect to them but it would be nice to have a different icon for them so you could decide whether or not to pursue them.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

 

My Vote is to seperate them. I agree that my kids do not enjoy and are very unhappy when they find a micro. On the other hand, they get excited about finding something with treasure in it. I want to keep them interested Geocaching and this would help me focus only on the treasure finds for them.

Why not just filter your pocket query by size then? If you aren't a premium member, try it for a month (only $3) and see how it works. No need for a new type when you already have caches sorted by size.

[4wheelin_fool]

Micros typically do not hold trade items, so they are different and should be more easily identifiable (other than running a PQ) in my opinion.

 

However, if that would cause the increase of micros because of the novelty of a different icon, then that idea should be abandoned.

 

I really do like creative micros that I can find. Honestly.

[+L0ne.R]

Micros typically do not hold trade items, so they are different and should be more easily identifiable (other than running a PQ) in my opinion.

I agree with you on making caches that do not hold trade items identifiable. That should include size "small" (not just micros and nanos). About 1/4 of the "small" caches that I find are log-book only many even say so in the description (which I often don't see until after I find the cache and read the description when I go to log it). I filter out micros because log-only caches in my experience tend to lack much investment from the planter. It irks me when I still end up at a log-only cache because someone placed it in a slightly bigger container then a film canister. So I'd like to see a "logbook-only' or "no trade items" type or an attribute - something that is filterable.

[+Joshmac98]

The current green and yellow lidded symbol (that Groundspeak uses to identify normal and multi caches) makes it seem as if each cache is big enough to hold TBs, geocoins and trinkets. But lots of these caches are micros and nanos, only big enough to hold logs. The symbol should be changed so that you can look at a glance and find the size.

[+Renegade Knight]

Micros are a different kind of hunt, and given those numbers, I'd like to see them split out. Never mind third party software; when I look at the maps on this site, I'd love to see whether a cache is a micro without clicking on every one.

 

Caches painted bright orange are a different kind of hunt from caches covered in camouflage....

 

Not in my area. Most all caches are hidden from sight. Camo, Orange, etc. makes no difference in how you would seek them out. Micro on the other hand does make a difference. Smaller containers require a broader search. You could argue that a 55 gallon drum would be different and you would be right. However it's not enough of a difference.

 

Micro 100 potential spots.

Ammo can. 12 potential spots.

55 Gallon Drum. 0 to 1 potential spots (unless it's a rock pile that you could hide a truck in).

 

The micro's kick of another order of magnitude in the hunt.

 

Micro's also have a massive perception difference. I'll hunt them, but out of the 7 of us who I regularly cache with. 2 would hunt micro's and 5 would pass on caching at all if it's a micro day.

Edited June 12, 2009 by Renegade Knight

[+Nottingham Nutters]

I'm taking a step back to understand WHY some people want micros to have their own category. If I understand it correctly, they want the ability to filter out micros, such as when caching with kids, so they don't have to search for them. Or, when they do include micros in their download, they want the ability to identify micros in their GPS so they can search differently.

 

The funny thing is, both of these can already be accomplished. You can order a PQ and filter out micros, and you can use 3rd party software to change the icon of micros.

 

Is there any other reason to advocate for change?

 

Yes - this can be done via PQ or other software - but it isn't possible to filter easilty on the main site - and produce a map or list of non-micros in a given area. I now go to some effort to avoid micros - because no real effort seems to be put in placing them and in many areas, looking for yet another film cannister at the bottom of yet another fence post really done spoil the walk rather than enhance it.

 

Maybe, people should eb educated not to splatter micros all over the place - but only place them in worth while locations - and where there is no placement for a larger cache.

[+avpas]

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

 

Yes!!!

[+bittsen]

Keep them "traditional" but add a new size called nano.

 

I don't really think that a 35mm film case and a nano should be in the same category. You look for them differently.

[+Unkle Fester]

Keep them "traditional" but add a new size called nano.

 

I don't really think that a 35mm film case and a nano should be in the same category. You look for them differently.

yeah, nano's sometimes make you go crosseyed

[+welch]

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

 

and

 

AND SHOULD THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT ICON?

 

 

No and no. Micros are a size, not a type.

 

If any new types get created, I would hope it is to clear up the jumbled catchall mystery/puzzle type. Someone suggested spliting beween 'work out at home' and 'work out on site', sounds good to me. There would be some that fit in both or neither, but would be a good step toward making everything sortable by PQ.

[+Tobias & Petronella]

Size and types are two different things.

 

Nano should be listed as a size. If it can be put up your nose or swallowed it's a nano.

 

Traditional is park & grab, while a Multi means you need to do at least one or more finds before the grab. Both are types.

 

The problem that I have is when the first stage of a Multi is a Micro, the next stage is a Nano, and the final is a Small. What size should it be listed as? I think there should be a "Mixed Size" for Multi's in this case.

[+Prime Suspect]

I'm taking a step back to understand WHY some people want micros to have their own category. If I understand it correctly, they want the ability to filter out micros, such as when caching with kids, so they don't have to search for them. Or, when they do include micros in their download, they want the ability to identify micros in their GPS so they can search differently.

 

The funny thing is, both of these can already be accomplished. You can order a PQ and filter out micros, and you can use 3rd party software to change the icon of micros.

 

Is there any other reason to advocate for change?

 

Yes - this can be done via PQ or other software - but it isn't possible to filter easilty on the main site - and produce a map or list of non-micros in a given area. I now go to some effort to avoid micros - because no real effort seems to be put in placing them and in many areas, looking for yet another film cannister at the bottom of yet another fence post really done spoil the walk rather than enhance it.

 

Maybe, people should eb educated not to splatter micros all over the place - but only place them in worth while locations - and where there is no placement for a larger cache.

Then the request should be for BETTER FILTERING OPTIONS ON THE WEBSITE.

 

Don't screw up a perfectly workable type/size classification system by trying to turn a size into a type.

[+niraD]

Size and types are two different things.

Amen!

 

If it can be put up your nose or swallowed it's a nano.

That's an interesting definition of a nano.

 

I think of a nano as something so small it can hold only a custom-fit log sheet, while a micro is big enough to hold small trade items (signature items, small geocoins, etc.). And yes, I consider Bison tubes to be nanos, until you get to the Scuba Tank or Extra Large sizes. Anyway, I've found some nanos (by my definition) that wouldn't fit your definition: flat caches (e.g., sheet magnets on a steel surface) and long, skinny caches (e.g., about the size of the ink tube in a Bic pen).

 

The problem that I have is when the first stage of a Multi is a Micro, the next stage is a Nano, and the final is a Small. What size should it be listed as? I think there should be a "Mixed Size" for Multi's in this case.

I think the size should reflect the final cache. The difficulty should reflect the whole experience though, so if finding the first two stages is hard because they're tiny and could be hidden in hundreds/thousands of places, then the difficulty should reflect that.