Inaccurate cache containers listings

[+bittsen]

When caching, I often read the cache page. Not always because sometimes it's just a simple look and you will find type of listing.

When reading a cache page sometimes people will put the size and type of their container in the description. Hey, that's helpful, right?

What bugs me is when people list something like "It's a 4X4X6 container" and then you find out it's a 4 inch diameter by 1.5 inch deep recycled lunch type container. It's not that it's a recycled lunch container but that the size is completely inaccurate. I am looking in places where a 4x4x6 would fit, not a cache half it's size.

 

This happened on 10 percent of the caches I found on my last outing. It's not the end of the world of geocaching but it is annoying.

[GOF and Bacall]

It never ceases to amaze me at how many "small" containers there are out there that are the approximate size of a film can. I think some folks have decided that they want others to find their micro even if they filter that size out of their PQs.

 

In your situation the container may have been replaced without updating the page.

[+StarBrand]

It never ceases to amaze me at how many "small" containers there are out there that are the approximate size of a film can. ...

AGREED!!!

 

About 20% of smalls I have found this year fall into that category. Film cans, altoid tins and even 2 bision tubes.

[GOF and Bacall]

So I'm not the only one who notices this. It's getting to the point where you have to filter out smalls as well as micros.

[+geodarts]

These same people are probably the ones who say their cache is at eye level. Somehow I always find those much lower. Things are always relative, I suppose.

[+Puppy Dawg]

It never ceases to amaze me at how many "small" containers there are out there that are the approximate size of a film can. ...

AGREED!!!

 

About 20% of smalls I have found this year fall into that category. Film cans, altoid tins and even 2 bision tubes.

Altoid tins are actual smalls. Film cans and bison tubes are micros.

[+Wooden Cyclist]

There have been quite a few placed around here recently that use a sandwich sized container and listed as a regular. The CO's are almost always new to Geocaching.

[knowschad]

Yup. Smalls and micros are most often mislabled, in my experience. Gives me and my caching partners something to gripe about, though, so it does serve a purpose.

[+chrisrayn]

Since I've started, I've noticed I reeeeeeally want Groundspeak to add Nano to their cache size listing. I don't know how many nanos I've found that have had "Unknown" as the size listing and that throws me off. Nanos listed as smalls kills me too.

 

ADD NANO.

 

[/soapbox]

 

And yeah, lots of other sizes are wrong too. Bison tubes aren't small. Nor are Nanos.

 

ADD NANO.

 

[//soapbox]

[+WRASTRO]

I tend to use size as a guideline but when the cache page specifically lists the approximate dimensions I have generally found those to be pretty accurate.

 

When I see size listed as unknown I assume it is a nano or it is a small/micro in something larger. I personally see no reason for a nano size on the GC.com site.

 

One more reason to read the cache page and the logs of prior finders. I rarely find that I have any issues with knowing what size container I am searching for.

[Mr.Yuck]

Since I've started, I've noticed I reeeeeeally want Groundspeak to add Nano to their cache size listing. I don't know how many nanos I've found that have had "Unknown" as the size listing and that throws me off. Nanos listed as smalls kills me too.

 

ADD NANO.

 

[/soapbox]

 

And yeah, lots of other sizes are wrong too. Bison tubes aren't small. Nor are Nanos.

 

ADD NANO.

 

[//soapbox]

 

I've seen so many Nano's listed as an unknown size, it's not even funny. I've probably seen more listed as unknown than micros. Mostly I see these when I surf the new cache listings in NY, Pa. and Ontario. Which I do often. Probably too often.

 

As far as mislabeling sizes of micros and smalls, I've seen it both ways. No clandestine conspiracy by micro hiders to list them as smalls. As many matchstick containers and large keyholders I've seen listed as a small, I've seen just as many decon containers and super-sized pill bottles listed as micros.

[GOF and Bacall]

It never ceases to amaze me at how many "small" containers there are out there that are the approximate size of a film can. ...

AGREED!!!

 

About 20% of smalls I have found this year fall into that category. Film cans, altoid tins and even 2 bision tubes.

Altoid tins are actual smalls. Film cans and bison tubes are micros.

Depends on the Altoids tin. Some of them are quite small and fit the micro size. Others are small. A few are big enough to be listed regular.

[AZcachemeister]

It seems to be a sliding scale.

What might pass as a 'small' here in AZ might be considered a 'micro' elsewhere.

Certainly the CO's experience comes into play as well, so all you can do is say that you thought it was 'more like a micro', or 'more like a small' and move on.

[GOF and Bacall]

Wrong! That is not all we can do about it. We can piss and moan in this thread.

[knowschad]

Since I've started, I've noticed I reeeeeeally want Groundspeak to add Nano to their cache size listing. I don't know how many nanos I've found that have had "Unknown" as the size listing and that throws me off. Nanos listed as smalls kills me too.

 

ADD NANO.

 

[/soapbox]

 

And yeah, lots of other sizes are wrong too. Bison tubes aren't small. Nor are Nanos.

 

ADD NANO.

 

[//soapbox]

 

 

Nope for me. But I do wish that they'd either get rid of the unknown/unspecified, or restrict it to very special situations where it is hard to really judge the size.

[knowschad]

Altoid tins are actual smalls. Depends on the Altoids tin. Some of them are quite small and fit the micro size. Others are small. A few are big enough to be listed regular.

 

 

Huh?!? OK, I'll challenge you to a picture of that.

[+StarBrand]

It seems to be a sliding scale.

What might pass as a 'small' here in AZ might be considered a 'micro' elsewhere.

Certainly the CO's experience comes into play as well, so all you can do is say that you thought it was 'more like a micro', or 'more like a small' and move on.

I've been doing something about it!! I am way behind schedule but my database and questionaire for cache containers is coming along. Hoping to bring some small amount of consistency to the sizes.

[GOF and Bacall]

Altoid tins are actual smalls. Depends on the Altoids tin. Some of them are quite small and fit the micro size. Others are small. A few are big enough to be listed regular.

 

 

Huh?!? OK, I'll challenge you to a picture of that.

 

Don't know that I can. I've only ever seen one and it was full of smaller tins. Perhaps some sort of promotional packaging?

[+briansnat]

It never ceases to amaze me at how many "small" containers there are out there that are the approximate size of a film can. ...

AGREED!!!

 

About 20% of smalls I have found this year fall into that category. Film cans, altoid tins and even 2 bision tubes.

Altoid tins are actual smalls. Film cans and bison tubes are micros.

 

The first micros that I was aware of were Altoids tins. At the time I thought it was a silly idea because nobody could possibly find something that small. Micros have since gotten smaller, much smaller, but Altoids tins are still micros.

 

A small is described on this site as a "sandwich size" container. No way could an Altoids tin be described as sandwich sized - unless you're talking about those sandwiches they serve at high tea and cocktail parties.

[+Steve&GeoCarolyn]

Nope for me. But I do wish that they'd either get rid of the unknown/unspecified, or restrict it to very special situations where it is hard to really judge the size.

 

Or for puzzle caches where the size is something you have to solve for.

 

Carolyn

[+Albanysquad]

I've seen countless micros labeled as smalls, and even one micro labeled as a regular. I told the CO about it, and their response was something along the lines of "It's like a film canister but almost twice as long." That just blew me away, because I don't know any film canister that can hold half a sandwich, therefore it shouldn't even qualify as a small. This point of contention was extremely annoying, since the cache was hidden hanging from a tree, in a way that no real regular could possibly be.

[+niraD]

Altoid tins are actual smalls. Depends on the Altoids tin. Some of them are quite small and fit the micro size. Others are small. A few are big enough to be listed regular.

Huh?!? OK, I'll challenge you to a picture of that.

Don't know that I can. I've only ever seen one and it was full of smaller tins. Perhaps some sort of promotional packaging?

Maybe one of the large ones ("The BIG Tin") in this photo?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Altoidstins1b.jpg

 

I've found a cache that used a jumbo Altoids tin too. They seem huge in comparison with the standard Altoids tins, but this site describes them as only 7.5" by 4.25" by 1". They're much bigger than most small size caches, but they're on the small side for a regular size cache.

[+bittsen]

Altoid tins are actual smalls. Depends on the Altoids tin. Some of them are quite small and fit the micro size. Others are small. A few are big enough to be listed regular.

Huh?!? OK, I'll challenge you to a picture of that.

Don't know that I can. I've only ever seen one and it was full of smaller tins. Perhaps some sort of promotional packaging?

Maybe one of the large ones ("The BIG Tin") in this photo?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Altoidstins1b.jpg

 

I've found a cache that used a jumbo Altoids tin too. They seem huge in comparison with the standard Altoids tins, but this site describes them as only 7.5" by 4.25" by 1". They're much bigger than most small size caches, but they're on the small side for a regular size cache.

The Altoids Trio in the picture you reference, is the largest of the tins as far as interior dimensions. It is about 2.25 inches tal and about 7.5 inches along one side of the triangle.

I had one up till about a month ago.

It could be argued that it is either a large small or a small regular in size.

Edited August 26, 2009 by bittsen

[AZcachemeister]

 

Nope for me. But I do wish that they'd either get rid of the unknown/unspecified, or restrict it to very special situations where it is hard to really judge the size.

 

Around here 'Not Chosen' means Nano.

 

Altoid tins are actual smalls. Depends on the Altoids tin. Some of them are quite small and fit the micro size. Others are small. A few are big enough to be listed regular.

 

 

Huh?!? OK, I'll challenge you to a picture of that.

 

No picture, but I have seen a couple of tins that looked like the standard ones, but were about 6" x 8".

[+Sol seaker]

Around here "unchosen" is used for odd containers, when they don't want you to know what you're looking for because it's something like ....

 

Well, the wild pig I found this weekend. Had a lock and lock inside it. Just sitting out in the woods. Scared the pee out of us. Rounded the corner, well off the trail. Bear country.

 

Or the fake squirrel sitting in the tree with the film can shoved up it's butt.

 

Or the wooden log hallowed out with the plastic bottle glued inside.

 

Or the magnetic reflector with the log taped on the back.

 

Or the metal plate with bolts on it, that magnetically attached to the bottom of the guard rail.

 

These are the type of things used for the unchosen around here. I think that's what it should be used for.

Then we know to be expecting something different. Something strange.

 

They just put nano's under the micro catagory, and if you're lucky they wrote in the description that it's a nano.

 

I've found caches had have been replaced.

A cache listing said it was a tupperware, and I turned up an ammo can. Stuff like that.

I just note it in my log when I log it online. So the next guy knows. If he checks that is.

[+Chrysalides]

This looks like a fun project:

 

http://www.instructables.com/id/bumpus-Gia...sammich-holder/

Edited September 22, 2009 by Chrysalides

[+Vater_Araignee]

I know that when I'm looking for a "small" and it turns out to be a blinky, I say "Technically it is small" then I become tempted to shove it into a truck grill and tell the CO that it is now a moving cache, and since they are no longer allowed it should be archived.

[+texasgrillchef]

So I'm not the only one who notices this. It's getting to the point where you have to filter out smalls as well as micros.

 

Then people will just start listing all their caches as Regular & Large so they won't get filtered, even when they are a small, or a micro, or a nano.

 

But I will agree. I have some some micro's that were listed as small...

 

I have also seen some smalls that were listed as regulars as well.

 

Maybe geocaching.com should re-define the catagories based on the actual volume a container will hold.

 

Example... A 35mm Film canister will hold about 2 oz of water by volume. So a Micro would could say would be any container with a volume of less than 1 cup. (8 fluid oz).

 

A Small would be anything with a volume over 1 cup (8 fl.oz.) and less than 1 gallon. A .30 cal ammo can holds about 1.25 gallons.

 

Regular caches are anything with a volume between 1 gallon & less than 5 gallons.

 

Large is a volume of 5 gallons or more.

 

The reason I make this suggestion... is I have seen some caches with containers that hold 2 cups (8 oz) volume being listed as regular, and the same container listed by others as being small.

 

An exmaple of the 2 cup (8 oz) container is the smaller Ziplock Twist Top food containers. (They work very well as containers depending on the location & how they are hidden.) Do you consider this micro, or small?

 

TGC

 

P.S. What do you do when they are listed as "Other ?" ?

Edited September 22, 2009 by texasgrillchef

[+texasgrillchef]

It seems to be a sliding scale.

What might pass as a 'small' here in AZ might be considered a 'micro' elsewhere.

Certainly the CO's experience comes into play as well, so all you can do is say that you thought it was 'more like a micro', or 'more like a small' and move on.

 

Absolutely... Here in Texas everything is BIG So our micros are probably your Regulars!

 

TGC

[+texasgrillchef]

A small is described on this site as a "sandwich size" container. No way could an Altoids tin be described as sandwich sized - unless you're talking about those sandwiches they serve at high tea and cocktail parties.

 

Haveing been a proffesional chef. Now a retired one. Sandwiches can be of any size. An Oreo cookie by definition of "sandwich" is in fact a sandwich.

 

So then if a small is defined to be that of a container that can hold a sandwich. Any container that can hold my Oreo cookie is in fact a small.

 

But in all seriousnous (sp?) thats why I suggest that container sizes be rated and sorted according to actual volume that they can contain. (See previous post)

 

Doing it that way, would leave no room for doubt. Other than ones stupidity for not being able to figure out how much volume is in their container.

 

TGC

[+Cherokee Bill]

Usually I suggest to the CO " The next time you hide a film can, altoid tin or bision tube, hide it in an AMMO CAN"

[+Wogus!]

Since the geocaching dot com website lists specific measurements for some of it's designations I broke out my calculator and came up with the following (numbers are rounded up slightly (to the nearest inch) for the sake of convenience):

 

Micro: Up to roughly 2" x 2" x 2" or about 8 cubic inches.

Small: Up to roughly 4" x 4 x 4" or about 64 cubic inches.

Regular: Up to roughly 10" x 10" x 10" or about 1,000 cubic inches.

Large: 5 gallon buckets and larger.

Edited September 23, 2009 by Jupiter_Jack

[+texasgrillchef]

Since the geocaching dot com website lists specific measurements for some of it's designations I broke out my calculator and came up with the following (numbers are rounded up slightly (to the nearest inch) for the sake of convenience):

 

Micro: Up to 2" x 2" x 2" for a total volume of 8 cubic inches.

Small: Up to 4" x 4 x 4" for a total volume of 64 cubic inches.

Regular: Up to 11" x 11" x 11" for a total volume of 1,331 cubic inches.

Large: Obviously enough anything biggerer than "Regular" puts you in "Large" territory.

 

8 Cubic inches holds about 4.5 fl oz of water. or just a little over a 1/2 cup.

 

64 cubic inches hold about 35oz fl oz of water. Just over a quart...

 

1331 Cubic inches is just over 5gals. Yet I jsut looked. they are also saying a 5gal bucket is considered large & not regular.

 

Personally I would consider a 5 gal buck as large & not regular. I also think that very very few spots would be a good place for a cache that large. Otherwise it would be just way to easy, even if you did camo it. Which in turn for me would make it just as bad as some nanos', micro's and smalls that are kinda boring by themselvs. The only redeeming quality a large container would have, would be if it took you somewhere cool & decent.

 

You know I really hear alot of bad being talked about micro's, nano's and even some smalls. Sure there are some pretty lame hides. But I have read more than a ton of lame hides that were regular in size as well. Personally I think what makes a good cache site, is one that doesn't have anything to do with size, but how chalenging it was to find or if it takes you somewhere cool.

 

I can fully understand why sometimes people just log "TFTC TNLN SL" and nothing else for a log entry. It's probably because there wasn't anything exciting or interesting about the cache. It wasn't challenging to find, or took you somewhere cool. I have done that on some caches of regular size! LOL

 

tgc

[+Wogus!]

... 1331 Cubic inches is just over 5gals. Yet I jsut looked. they are also saying a 5gal bucket is considered large & not regular.

Yes, as I stated previously, I rounded the numbers UP for convenience since 5 US Gallons doesn't divide out neatly into a convenient whole number for cubic volume. Actually none of the measurements do, but I thought it might be easier for someone to visualise a container that is 4" on a side than 3.8673" or whatever not-so-round number the math actually shows.

 

I'm happy to amend the table to show "Traditional" being a maximum of 1,000 cubic inches, however, which keeps us slightly UNDER a five gallon bucket for a "Traditional" listing, and pushes 5g buckets firmly into "Large" territory.

 

I wasn't going to quibble about an inch (actually it's closer to half an inch) but I should have figured someone would.

[+texasgrillchef]

I wasn't going to quibble about an inch (actually it's closer to half an inch) but I should have figured someone would.

 

We men always quibble about that 1/2" in fish &.... well you should know...

 

TGC

[+Wogus!]

We men always quibble about that 1/2" in fish &... well you should know...

<laugh> Indeed... Touché.

[+Vater_Araignee]

... 1331 Cubic inches is just over 5gals. Yet I jsut looked. they are also saying a 5gal bucket is considered large & not regular.

Yes, as I stated previously, I rounded the numbers UP for convenience since 5 US Gallons doesn't divide out neatly into a convenient whole number for cubic volume. Actually none of the measurements do, but I thought it might be easier for someone to visualise a container that is 4" on a side than 3.8673" or whatever not-so-round number the math actually shows.

 

I'm happy to amend the table to show "Traditional" being a maximum of 1,000 cubic inches, however, which keeps us slightly UNDER a five gallon bucket for a "Traditional" listing, and pushes 5g buckets firmly into "Large" territory.

 

I wasn't going to quibble about an inch (actually it's closer to half an inch) but I should have figured someone would.

Take a look at what forum your in ya should have known. You know if you use pi to the tenth decimal somebody will complain you where not being accurate enough and should have taken it another twenty+.