Cache Container Database

[+StarBrand]

Ok - I've seen the topic come up a few times but rather than complain about it - I am going to do something about it. I have decided to put together a database website of containers. The site will contain photos of as many different cache containers as I can put together including approx dimensions and suggested size classifications. I will include "reviews" of the usefullness and the ability for users to submit comments and "ratings". I will try to include any environmental factors and concerns as well. Hopefully, cachers can use it to both get a good idea of how to "size" thier new cache and also as a resource for a good cache container.

 

Anyway - help me out - send photos of your favorite cache containers (with dimensions) and experience to containers@wnag.net. Keep the photos around 640 x 480 (roughly) or smaller. Please don't send any photos that turn out to be spoilers for any particular cache. It would be most helpful to include a common object (like a BIC pen or ruler) to give the object some scale. I'll give credit where credit is due.

 

No commercial content will be on the site except for a few brand names on the containers themselves and descriptions. Also let me know what you think of the idea and any insights with developing it. It'll run on one of my own webservers.

Edited May 28, 2009 by StarBrand

[+Castle Mischief]

I like this idea and I just might have to help you out once I get home.

 

EDIT: I'll gather up what containers I have around the house and send you some pics (or post them to a page on my site so you can grab them) with a tape measure and ink pen for reference. I know that I have at least 5 different containers laying around.

Edited May 28, 2009 by Castle Mischief

[+va griz]

Good idea. I'll see if I can come up with a couple.

[+Frank Broughton]

I like this idea too! Please do post a link when it is up and running.

[+Jeep4two]

Thanks StarBrand for doing this. I've found a few containers marked as 'small' only to find that they are log only sized containers barely larger than a film can.

[GOF and Bacall]

Love this idea! I'll start taking some pictures of what I have at hand.

 

Thanks for your efforts.

[+Knight2000]

I think this idea will only make a difference if it shared like the clayjar link is on the cache submission page.

 

There are too many smalls that are listed as regulars too.

[GOF and Bacall]

I think this idea will only make a difference if it shared like the clayjar link is on the cache submission page.

 

There are too many smalls that are listed as regulars too.

 

It can't make a difference if we don't try. When StarBrand gets this together take the time and initiative to share this resource with others. Look at all the resources that aren't part of GC.com. GSAK, Cachemate, INATN and others. People find the useful and they use them. If people find this useful they will use it.

[+Parabola]

Great idea!!! I've seen way too many small's listed as regular's, as well as micro's listed as small's. Then if you make the suggestion the size should be changed, well you just don't. Photo example's of sizes is a great idea!!

[+carleenp]

Nice idea!

[+NYPaddleCacher]

There are over 3000 posts in the Cool Containers thread. I imagine you might be able to glean a couple of photos from that thread.

[AZcachemeister]

And way too many nanos with a size of 'Not Chosen' selected!

 

The funny thing is that over time, what once was considered really tiny (micro), is now merely small. The much-maligned-yet-ubiquitous mint tin (Altoids in particular).

With the proliferation of blinkies and cryo-tubes, I feel as if an Altoids tin has room enough to set up housekeeping in!

[GOF and Bacall]

And way too many nanos with a size of 'Not Chosen' selected!

 

The funny thing is that over time, what once was considered really tiny (micro), is now merely small. The much-maligned-yet-ubiquitous mint tin (Altoids in particular).

With the proliferation of blinkies and cryo-tubes, I feel as if an Altoids tin has room enough to set up housekeeping in!

As much as those tiny tins are discussed in these and other forums I have found very few of them. I think that most cachers around here look at them and know they wont make it through a Buffalo winter.

[+Wooden Cyclist]

Great idea!

 

 

I'll start snapping pictures of containers. I am working on an urban cammo container that is hard to fit into a size catagory. If I send you a picture maybe you can give me a suggestion.

[+Knight2000]

I think this idea will only make a difference if it shared like the clayjar link is on the cache submission page.

 

There are too many smalls that are listed as regulars too.

 

It can't make a difference if we don't try. When StarBrand gets this together take the time and initiative to share this resource with others. Look at all the resources that aren't part of GC.com. GSAK, Cachemate, INATN and others. People find the useful and they use them. If people find this useful they will use it.

I never suggested not doing it. I think the idea has a lot of merit.

[+Castle Mischief]

Here you go: http://www.castlemischief.com/pics/containers/index.html

 

Use what you want and ignore the rest. There are two pages. Click on the thumbnail then right click/save as.

[+sbell111]

This sounds like a great idea. The only hiccup that I can think of is the 'usefulness reviews'. This is because the usefullness of a specific container is completely determined by cache location.

 

I'm reminded of the container article that was posted some time ago that trashed some containers that believed by many to be great containers, in the right location.

[GOF and Bacall]

I think this idea will only make a difference if it shared like the clayjar link is on the cache submission page.

 

There are too many smalls that are listed as regulars too.

 

It can't make a difference if we don't try. When StarBrand gets this together take the time and initiative to share this resource with others. Look at all the resources that aren't part of GC.com. GSAK, Cachemate, INATN and others. People find the useful and they use them. If people find this useful they will use it.

I never suggested not doing it. I think the idea has a lot of merit.

 

Yup, I see my error.

 

Let me say it different. Even if it isn't linked on the cache listing page I think it can make a difference. It may not be as big a difference but every little bit helps.

 

Seems like the whole size chart is being pushed up. The problem is most notable at the micro/small juncture as that is the point at which most who filter by size set their cut off point.

[GOF and Bacall]

This sounds like a great idea. The only hiccup that I can think of is the 'usefulness reviews'. This is because the usefullness of a specific container is completely determined by cache location.

 

I'm reminded of the container article that was posted some time ago that trashed some containers that believed by many to be great containers, in the right location.

 

I'm sure that feedback can be taken into account to tweak the listings.

[GOF and Bacall]

Here you go: http://www.castlemischief.com/pics/containers/index.html

 

Use what you want and ignore the rest. There are two pages. Click on the thumbnail then right click/save as.

 

Is there really a place that you would find the card box a viable cache container?

 

 

Just funn'n with ya.

[+va griz]

I sent a couple. Looking forward to the site.

[+Castle Mischief]

Here you go: http://www.castlemischief.com/pics/containers/index.html

 

Use what you want and ignore the rest. There are two pages. Click on the thumbnail then right click/save as.

 

Is there really a place that you would find the card box a viable cache container?

 

 

Just funn'n with ya.

 

Well... somebody did try and release a Travel Bug as a deck of cards- with the tracking number on each card. (The page was locked but the deck made it to GW7.) I just figured that a deck of cards was familiar enough and more three dimensional than an ink pen. Who knows, with enough silcone caulk, it might work.

[+sbell111]

This sounds like a great idea. The only hiccup that I can think of is the 'usefulness reviews'. This is because the usefullness of a specific container is completely determined by cache location.

 

I'm reminded of the container article that was posted some time ago that trashed some containers that believed by many to be great containers, in the right location.

 

I'm sure that feedback can be taken into account to tweak the listings.

That completely depends on implementation. Certainly, there are some in this forum with very set ideas about which containers are great and which are bad. These people may not be as open to including contrary opinions. It happens.

[+Castle Mischief]

This sounds like a great idea. The only hiccup that I can think of is the 'usefulness reviews'. This is because the usefullness of a specific container is completely determined by cache location.

 

I'm reminded of the container article that was posted some time ago that trashed some containers that believed by many to be great containers, in the right location.

 

I'm sure that feedback can be taken into account to tweak the listings.

That completely depends on implementation. Certainly, there are some in this forum with very set ideas about which containers are great and which are bad. These people may not be as open to including contrary opinions. It happens.

 

Perhaps the "usefulness reviews" could be broken-down into more of a multi-choice statement of fact regarding the features of said container?

 

Primary material: (wood) (metal) (plastic) (rubber) (glass) (other)

Type of closure: (latch) (screw-on lid) (other)

Rubber seal: (yes) (no)

UV resistant: (yes) (no)

Water tight/proof: (yes) (no) (under some conditions)

 

Etc.

 

Make it more technical and observational than just a "these things stink because bla bla bla". Let the reader determine if the container would be suitable for what situation.

[+sbell111]

This sounds like a great idea. The only hiccup that I can think of is the 'usefulness reviews'. This is because the usefullness of a specific container is completely determined by cache location.

 

I'm reminded of the container article that was posted some time ago that trashed some containers that believed by many to be great containers, in the right location.

 

I'm sure that feedback can be taken into account to tweak the listings.

That completely depends on implementation. Certainly, there are some in this forum with very set ideas about which containers are great and which are bad. These people may not be as open to including contrary opinions. It happens.

 

Perhaps the "usefulness reviews" could be broken-down into more of a multi-choice statement of fact regarding the features of said container?

 

Primary material: (wood) (metal) (plastic) (rubber) (glass) (other)

Type of closure: (latch) (screw-on lid) (other)

Rubber seal: (yes) (no)

UV resistant: (yes) (no)

Water tight/proof: (yes) (no) (under some conditions)

 

Etc.

 

Make it more technical and observational than just a "these things stink because bla bla bla". Let the reader determine if the container would be suitable for what situation.

Good idea.

[+rigicache]

Very nice idea. I have some cool cache containers on my website:

 

 

Feel free to use them. I hope to get the database link soon. Thanks for the work.

Edited May 30, 2009 by rigicache

[+joyinthelitterbox]

Very nice idea. I have some cool cache containers on my website. Feel free to use them. I hope to get the database link soon. Thanks for the work.

 

That is one cool webpage - especially for those of us who are still quite new. I've found a lot of "typical" caches and am wracking up the DNF's with the trickier ones. This site pushes cachers to think out side the ammo box.

[+mrbort]

I really like the idea and will send in a cache container (if you want it) I stumbled upon that is sorta like the containers in the pneumatic tubes at the bank but instead are for nuclear tests. Here in Los Alamos, NM we have this wonderful store called the Black Hole that has all sorts of Los Alamos National Laboratory excess inventory for sale. I found these tubes (a little bigger, in the same proportions as a glow stick) there for $0.25 each. I don't know if they should make it onto your list as access to them is fairly limited... but since they're meant to send samples through a nuclear reactor to be irradiated, they're pretty much bomb proof

 

Anyway as a suggestion that may have been made and if I missed it I'm sorry (I like to read every comment in a thread before I reply rather than just jumping in based on the initial post): Perhaps have some sort of qualification about climate/geographical area/something that might, for instance, alert people that an altoids tin wouldn't be a good cache container in MOST places but there are actually some really dry desert-type places where they seem to work quite fine.

 

I have noticed in the discussions about cache containers on these forums that containers that work like a charm for years here in New Mexico wouldn't last a few months in some of the places where other cachers live. You could say something like: Suggested climates: Arid,Humid, etc etc ... Just a thought for a category to be included

[+Wild Thing 73]

Size/type of container???That is what the description page is for after the container is identified as a Micro, small, or regular....stay safe.

[Dinoprophet]

I PM'ed you one, Sb

[+Wooden Cyclist]

Great idea!

 

 

I'll start snapping pictures of containers. I am working on an urban cammo container that is hard to fit into a size catagory. If I send you a picture maybe you can give me a suggestion.

 

 

 

Emailed it a few minutes ago.

[+Wooden Cyclist]

Great idea!

 

 

I'll start snapping pictures of containers. I am working on an urban cammo container that is hard to fit into a size catagory. If I send you a picture maybe you can give me a suggestion.

 

 

 

Emailed it a few minutes ago.

[+Chrysalides]

Any updates on the project? I e-mailed a couple of images two days ago.

[+StarBrand]

Working on it - be another week or 2.

[+Castle Mischief]

Working on it - be another week or 2.

 

[lisp] AWSHOME! [/lisp]

[+Wooden Cyclist]

Are you still looking for pictures of containers? I just competed an unusual one.

[+Castle Mischief]

So... any update on your progress?

[+power69]

This happened to me today. a cache i went to look for was listed as a micro, but was large enough to place coins/smaller tb's in hence i took no geocoins with me because it was a "micro"

-

undersizing happens as oversizing does. thats why i hate when they don't say "container is a ....." so finder can visualize what they got to leave in it.