Adding NANO as a cache size...

[+chrisrayn]

Hey everybody,

 

This is another question about a feature. Should Nano be added as a size to be chosen when logging a hide? I'm tired of searching out Micros and Unknowns and finding Nanos.

 

Don't know if anyone else is.

 

Any thoughts? Disagreements?

[+Unkle Fester]

Does this post qualify for the dead horse thread?

 

It crops up every couple months.

 

My personal take is nano is a class of micro. many people are already putting film cans in the call of small, but I don't think that's right.

 

(edit, my spelling suckkks)

Edited August 26, 2009 by Unkle Fester

[+TotemLake]

Hey everybody,

 

This is another question about a feature. Should Nano be added as a size to be chosen when logging a hide? I'm tired of searching out Micros and Unknowns and finding Nanos.

 

Don't know if anyone else is.

 

Any thoughts? Disagreements?

 

Imagine my disappointment when I look for an unknown and find a micro.

 

We can easily go overboard with granularity of sizes. The size structure is fine the way it is. A nano is a minor variation of the micro the same as there are variations with the other sizes.

[+chrisrayn]

My bad, didn't know the horse was dead.

 

I'm new here...nose can't sniff out dead horses very well yet.

[GOF and Bacall]

Although the topic has been well beaten I'll agree with you. I'd like to see nano added as a size if for no other reason than because with all the nanos out there to many micros are being listed as small.

[+dakboy]

Hey everybody,

 

This is another question about a feature. Should Nano be added as a size to be chosen when logging a hide? I'm tired of searching out Micros and Unknowns and finding Nanos.

 

Don't know if anyone else is.

 

Any thoughts? Disagreements?

 

Imagine my disappointment when I look for an unknown and find a micro.

I'd be much happier if "unknown" size could only be used on "Unknown" caches.

[+Kit Fox]

This topic crops up about once every two to three weeks.

 

Development request for GC.com website, Development request for GC.com website

 

Nano Caches, why is there not a new size on the website for nano sized caches

 

Feature Request: Nano size option, Discussion on adding nano to the size options for listing

 

Nano Cache Category

 

New Category for Nano?

 

Enhancement Request - New Cache Size NANO

 

Add another cache size to selection

 

Feature request: Nano cache size, Smaller than micro

 

Do we need more cache sizes in report form?, It seems the options are limited

Edited August 27, 2009 by Kit Fox

[+StarBrand]

No thanks. Micro covers those annoying little containers very well.

[knowschad]

My bad, didn't know the horse was dead.

 

I'm new here...nose can't sniff out dead horses very well yet.

 

 

There you go... bragging about your "bads" again! Showoff!!

 

 

The Minnesota town of Winona is now known locally as Winano. Just thought I'd mention that.

[+ngrrfan]

Imagine my disappointment when I look for an unknown and find a micro.

AMEN!! Get rid of "Unknown". There is no such thing. You know when you hide a cache exactly what it should be, therefore classify it properly.

[+Prime Suspect]

Imagine my disappointment when I look for an unknown and find a micro.

AMEN!! Get rid of "Unknown". There is no such thing. You know when you hide a cache exactly what it should be, therefore classify it properly.

No, "unknown" is quite valid as a size. Of course the owner knows what size it is. The point is, it's unknown to you.

[+tozainamboku]

Imagine my disappointment when I look for an unknown and find a micro.

AMEN!! Get rid of "Unknown". There is no such thing. You know when you hide a cache exactly what it should be, therefore classify it properly.

There is no Unknown size. There is an Other size which the cache owner should choose if the cache does not fit into the micro, small, regular, or large size; for example if the cache is an odd shape. The owner is supposed to give more details in the cache description. And there is a Not Specified size when the cache owner simply does not want to give out the cache size information. They probably should raise the difficulty level accordingly if they choose this.

 

Nanos are sometimes listed as Other or Not Specified instead of as micro for two reasons. Some cache owners list nanos as Other because they don't realize that the micro size includes nanos, or because they feel that nanos should be their own size. They will generally tell you the cache is a nano in the description. Some caches owners list nanos as Not Specified because frankly they hid a nano intentionally to make it harder to find. There are only a few types of nano containers and the most common one is the magnetic blinky type. If you know that is what you are looking for, most nanos are really easy to find. The problem with using the Not Specified for nanos so often is that when I see a Not Specified cache, unless there is travel bug or coin in it, I will start by looking for a magnetic nano. It actually makes these caches easier to find.

 

No need to change the sizes or remove the ability of cache owners to specify Other or Not Specified if they find those options appropriate.

[knowschad]

Actually, "Unknown" is not a size option... it's either "Not Listed" or "Other".

[+flask]

Imagine my disappointment when I look for an unknown and find a micro.

AMEN!! Get rid of "Unknown". There is no such thing. You know when you hide a cache exactly what it should be, therefore classify it properly.

No, "unknown" is quite valid as a size. Of course the owner knows what size it is. The point is, it's unknown to you.

 

it is also important in cases where knowing the size o the container would give away the hide. this is the single best reason i can think of to keep the "unknown" category. with some hides ,all the fun is in the surprise of the container.

 

it should not be used to sucker people into looking for micros that they would otherwise avoid, but leaving size unknown should still be a choice.

[+briansnat]

There are "There are 883,674 active geocaches around the world." according to this website. I'm willing to bet that close to 75 thousand of those are nanos. I doubt that we'd get more than a very small portion of nano cache owners who would bother to change their cache sizes, which means that a significant number of

nanos will be mislabeled.

 

So from a practicality standpoint it's not going to help.

 

When I see that a cache is a micro I know I'm looking for something small, possibly very small. That's good enough for me.

[Clan Riffster]

I'd rather see the elimination of "Unlisted" and "Other", but I'll take an addition of "Nano"

I won't hold my breath for any of these, as the system seems to work pretty good as it is.

[+simpler1773]

Sure, that'd be great...then I could completely filter them out At least for now.

[+succotash]

Imagine my disappointment when I look for an unknown and find a micro.

AMEN!! Get rid of "Unknown". There is no such thing. You know when you hide a cache exactly what it should be, therefore classify it properly.

No, "unknown" is quite valid as a size. Of course the owner knows what size it is. The point is, it's unknown to you.

 

it is also important in cases where knowing the size o the container would give away the hide. this is the single best reason i can think of to keep the "unknown" category. with some hides ,all the fun is in the surprise of the container.

 

it should not be used to sucker people into looking for micros that they would otherwise avoid, but leaving size unknown should still be a choice.

 

This is correct. We have a multi-cache (Wonders of the Universe) that we originally listed with an unknown size container, which was appropriate because of the nature of our final container. Reading the cache page let the seeker know that the container was large enough to hold swag (which we initially purchased at the nearby science center). But then we found out that "unknown" is used for nanos. So rather than have people think they needed to be searching for a nano, we changed the container size. We still get very positive feedback but we really thought it was more appropriate to have been able to use the "unknown" container size as it was intended.

 

Edit to clarify - we don't think nanos should have their own size. They should be listed as micro and unknown should be left for use where not specifying the container size is part of the point of the cache.

Edited August 27, 2009 by succotash

[+MightyReek]

Imagine my disappointment when I look for an unknown and find a micro.

AMEN!! Get rid of "Unknown". There is no such thing. You know when you hide a cache exactly what it should be, therefore classify it properly.

No, "unknown" is quite valid as a size. Of course the owner knows what size it is. The point is, it's unknown to you.

 

it is also important in cases where knowing the size o the container would give away the hide. this is the single best reason i can think of to keep the "unknown" category. with some hides ,all the fun is in the surprise of the container.

 

it should not be used to sucker people into looking for micros that they would otherwise avoid, but leaving size unknown should still be a choice.

 

This is correct. We have a multi-cache (Wonders of the Universe) that we originally listed with an unknown size container, which was appropriate because of the nature of our final container. Reading the cache page let the seeker know that the container was large enough to hold swag (which we initially purchased at the nearby science center). But then we found out that "unknown" is used for nanos. So rather than have people think they needed to be searching for a nano, we changed the container size. We still get very positive feedback but we really thought it was more appropriate to have been able to use the "unknown" container size as it was intended.

 

Edit to clarify - we don't think nanos should have their own size. They should be listed as micro and unknown should be left for use where not specifying the container size is part of the point of the cache.

 

I'll have to agree. Unknown is very usefull for those special containers.

Why don't we get ride of nanos instead?

 

Edit: gramar correction

Edited August 27, 2009 by Team Geo-Cricket

[Motorcycle_Mama]

I vote no. A nano is a micro. It's already included.

[+bittsen]

I vote no. A nano is a micro. It's already included.

 

And a small is still a regular cache.

[Clan Riffster]

And a 50' long shipping container is still a large.

[+ngrrfan]

And a 50' long shipping container is still a large.

Ya oughta see the LP skirt it fits under!

[GOF and Bacall]

I vote no. A nano is a micro. It's already included.

 

And a small is still a regular cache.

 

Not when discussing size. A small is smaller than a regular cache. Just as a regular cache is smaller than a large.

 

Cache Sizes

 

These sizes apply to all caches that have a physical container.

 

* Micro (35 mm film canister or smaller – less than approximately 3 ounces or .1 L – typically containing only a logbook or a logsheet)

* Small (sandwich-sized plastic container or similar – less than approximately 1 quart or 1 L – holds trade items as well as a logbook)

* Regular (plastic container or ammo can about the size of a shoebox)

* Large (5 gallon/20 L bucket or larger)

 

The scale between micro and nano is on the same order as the scale between regular and large.

 

Along with nano perhaps we should add ginormous for Rifster's shipping crate.

[+Prime Suspect]

I vote no. A nano is a micro. It's already included.

 

And a small is still a regular cache.

[+ngrrfan]

Along with nano perhaps we should add ginormous for Rifster's shipping crate.

Nah... that falls under the "You ain't gonna believe this..." category.

[+Arrow42]

I don't think the guidelines could be clarified enough so users could consistently distinguish between micros and nanos. I mean, we can't get people to label ammo cans as regulars and film canisters as micros.... from the user's point of view it would be worthless.

 

As for "unknown" type, I say leave it. It gives the CO one more way to make that cache find unique. If I was hiding a regular in a spot you would only expect a nano, it would be a nice little surprise for the searcher.

[DecemberSpill]

I kind of like the idea of keeping the number of size classifications to a minimum to avoid a snowball effect where eventually there's a dropdown menu with 10-15 options on it and you know exactly what the cache will look like before you even get within 500 feet. The two nanos I've found were both listed as nano's in the description anyway.

[Clan Riffster]

we can't get people to label ammo cans as regulars and film canisters as micros

That's an argument I'm not very comfortable with. Allow me to make up some statistics:

96.4% of cache hiders select the appropriate size for their hides, as listed by Groundspeak.

Suggesting that we don't adopt a new process because 3.6% of cachers get it wrong doesn't hold water.

 

Disclaimer: I have no clue what the real numbers are, but those are probably fairly close, for this region.

I can only think of a handful of caches I've found that were mislabeled.

My experience tells me this is the exception, not the rule.

[GOF and Bacall]

A micro is more likely to be labeled improperly than any other size. When was the last time anyone saw an ammo can with an improper size listed?

[+TotemLake]

Imagine my disappointment when I look for an unknown and find a micro.

AMEN!! Get rid of "Unknown". There is no such thing. You know when you hide a cache exactly what it should be, therefore classify it properly.

Others responsded appropriatley enough for the valid use of unknown and other, but for the record, my remark was tongue-in-cheek.

[+texasgrillchef]

Hey everybody,

 

This is another question about a feature. Should Nano be added as a size to be chosen when logging a hide? I'm tired of searching out Micros and Unknowns and finding Nanos.

 

Don't know if anyone else is.

 

Any thoughts? Disagreements?

 

+1 I agree it should be added.

 

We need a...

 

Nano, Micro, Small, Regular, & Large

 

TGC

[+Harry Dolphin]

And a 50' long shipping container is still a large.

 

Ocean containers come in 20' and 40'. (Used to 10' also, but that was a very long time ago.)

[Clan Riffster]

Ocean containers come in 20' and 40'.

Kewl! I'm betting that either of those would still qualify as a large.

I'm currently looking at an auction on a group of 53' shipping containers, but the owner won't break up the lot.

I really don't need 30 of these things...

[Mushtang]

Ocean containers come in 20' and 40'.

Kewl! I'm betting that either of those would still qualify as a large.

I'm currently looking at an auction on a group of 53' shipping containers, but the owner won't break up the lot.

I really don't need 30 of these things...

5 or 6 should be plenty for ANY cacher.

[knowschad]

I have an idea! Let's lose the current size descriptions and instead, have fields to enter height, width, and depth!

[+Renegade Knight]

... Should Nano be added as a size to be chosen when logging a hide? I'm tired of searching out Micros and Unknowns and finding Nanos....

 

I used to think "no" but now I'm a member of the "HELL NO" school of thought on this.

 

A micro cache is a film canister and smaller. Smaller means as small as you can even make into a cache. That covers nano's. You would think that's pretty clear but some folks confuse nano as a special size when it's really just part of the entire "annoyingly small" class.

 

What sent me into the "Hell No" catagory is a trend where the he man micro hiders start thinking that a film caniser is "small" and mislist it becaue they think "nano" is actually a "micro" when they are all Micro's.

 

Unknown is what you use for goofy sizes that defy catagorizastion. Is a large log with a hole drilled in one end and a trap door covering the hold, a large or a small based on the size of the hole. That's a good use for unknown.

[+Renegade Knight]

My bad, didn't know the horse was dead.

 

I'm new here...nose can't sniff out dead horses very well yet.

 

It's not dead. It keeps coming up because people do see a distinction between Micro and Nano. For me they are both annoyingly small and thus filter fodder as one and the same. For others they actually do use a different search technique for a micro vs. a nano. I don't and it seems to work ok for me. So mileage on the issue varies.

[GOF and Bacall]

The problem I see is that so many people are hiding things of the approximate size of a film can and listing them as small because they seem to think if a blinky is a micro then a film can is so much bigger it must be a small. I think that adding nano as a size will help. It will take time but eventually it will make a difference.

[+texasgrillchef]

One reason I would like to see a new classification for Nano's is that I like looking for Micro's.

Film sized cansisters, Pharmacuticals canisters etc... are NOT that hard to find depending on ones hiding spot. They are perfect for some locations that you just can't place a small or regular size cache.

 

While nanon will techically fit into the catagor of Micro... because it says film sized canister or smaller. There are times I would LOVE to know if I am looking for something that is Micro in size, or NANO in size. Not all CO's will TELL you on the cache page.

 

That is why it would be NICE to know if your looking for a micro or if your looking for a Nano.

 

TGC

 

P.S. Large is anything like a 5 gallon bucket or bigger.... So obviously a 40' shipping container would fall into the large catagory. Now if we had 30,000+ cache hides that used 40' shipping containers, then I would say we would need a bigger than Large catagory. So one would know if they are looking for a 5 gallon bucket, or if they are looking for a shipping container that could hold 2,000 5 gallon buckets! However, since there aren't 30,000 or more 40' shipping containers being used for geocaching, haveing a bigger than large catagory is a moot point.

 

There is however I am sure, probably at least 30,000 or more NANO caches! So yes we need a nano catagory so we can know &/or filter out the different caches between NANO & Micro.

[+bittsen]

One reason I would like to see a new classification for Nano's is that I like looking for Micro's.

Film sized cansisters, Pharmacuticals canisters etc... are NOT that hard to find depending on ones hiding spot. They are perfect for some locations that you just can't place a small or regular size cache.

 

While nanon will techically fit into the catagor of Micro... because it says film sized canister or smaller. There are times I would LOVE to know if I am looking for something that is Micro in size, or NANO in size. Not all CO's will TELL you on the cache page.

 

That is why it would be NICE to know if your looking for a micro or if your looking for a Nano.

 

TGC

 

P.S. Large is anything like a 5 gallon bucket or bigger.... So obviously a 40' shipping container would fall into the large catagory. Now if we had 30,000+ cache hides that used 40' shipping containers, then I would say we would need a bigger than Large catagory. So one would know if they are looking for a 5 gallon bucket, or if they are looking for a shipping container that could hold 2,000 5 gallon buckets! However, since there aren't 30,000 or more 40' shipping containers being used for geocaching, haveing a bigger than large catagory is a moot point.

 

There is however I am sure, probably at least 30,000 or more NANO caches! So yes we need a nano catagory so we can know &/or filter out the different caches between NANO & Micro.

 

I tend to agree with you. I can find a micro in about a minute most times until it becomes a nano. Once it becomes a nano, there are LOTS of differences in size of the log and the places you can hide it. In all honesty, sometimes I am happy as anything to find an actual "micro" when I have found a handful of nano caches in a row. Most cache descriptions that I see don't mention I am looking for a nano. They just use the catch all of micro and call it good (which is OK per the guidelines)

[+niraD]

Ignoring the fact that TPTB have said that they won't create any more size categories...

 

Where would you draw the line between a nano-cache and a micro-cache?

[+ecanderson]

Ignoring the fact that TPTB have said that they won't create any more size categories...

 

Where would you draw the line between a nano-cache and a micro-cache?

Anything smaller than a bison (aka "bullet") = nano for me. I appreciate it when those hiding nanos make note of it in the description. The ease of hiding a cache in a difficult spot seems to increase exponentially with decreasing size, and if it's well hidden, the reverse is also true.

[+Knight2000]

Should Nano be added as a size to be chosen when logging a hide?

No way. A nano is a micro.

[+DragonsWest]

When I see that little left-most container, represented by about 4 dark pixels, I know it's going to be small and I'd best have my own pen or pencil handy.

[+niraD]

Ignoring the fact that TPTB have said that they won't create any more size categories...

 

Where would you draw the line between a nano-cache and a micro-cache?

Anything smaller than a bison (aka "bullet") = nano for me. I appreciate it when those hiding nanos make note of it in the description. The ease of hiding a cache in a difficult spot seems to increase exponentially with decreasing size, and if it's well hidden, the reverse is also true.

FWIW, I consider Bison tubes to be nanos, at least until you get to the Scuba Tank or Extra Large sizes. Anything that is completely filled by a custom-fit log sheet is a nano. It is no longer a nano if it can hold small geocoins, sig items, and tiny trade items. (And they're all micros.)

 

That's part of why I asked. Some people make a distinction based on how much smaller than a 35mm film can it is. Some make a distinction based on whether it's log-only. Some think only blinkers are nanos, and other tiny log-only micros are picos or something else.

 

There was a thread some time ago about creating a "log only" attribute. I like that idea better than creating a separate nano size. It's easier for people to agree about whether a cache is "log only" than about whether a cache is a micro or a nano (or a pico, or a femto, or...).

 

When I see that little left-most container, represented by about 4 dark pixels, I know it's going to be small and I'd best have my own pen or pencil handy.

Yeah, I've seen a few micros with pens/pencils, but the pens/pencils have been so small that they've been useless.

 

Actually, there has been one exception. The cache container itself was a pen, and the log was rolled up inside the pen body. After I removed the log from the pen, the pen worked very well for signing the log. But that was a rare exception, not the rule.

[+Three Monkies Ranch]

Well, I am glad to see that you are using this forum to promote the sport of Geocaching and not using it as a spot to air your political views.

 

As an American, I respect your right to express your opinion, but as a cacher, I find it rude and annoying! I visit this site to get away from the political BS your statement ends with!

 

As for a size classification for nanos, I have also thought about this. I just don't know if an additional classification is warranted. I cache with my family (7 years old & 2 1/2 years old) and rarely look for micros. I look for caches that will allow them to trade.

 

On the few occasions I have gone after micros, I have relied on the cache owner to state that it was a nano and have had no problems so far.

 

(I am thinking about my political beliefs now, but I have the good sense and common courtesy not to post it on a site like this! )

I

This topic crops up about once every two to three weeks.

 

Development request for GC.com website, Development request for GC.com website

 

Nano Caches, why is there not a new size on the website for nano sized caches

 

Feature Request: Nano size option, Discussion on adding nano to the size options for listing

 

Nano Cache Category

 

New Category for Nano?

 

Enhancement Request - New Cache Size NANO

 

Add another cache size to selection

 

Feature request: Nano cache size, Smaller than micro

 

Do we need more cache sizes in report form?, It seems the options are limited

Edited September 3, 2009 by Three Monkies Ranch

[+Taoiseach]

I have an idea! Let's lose the current size descriptions and instead, have fields to enter height, width, and depth!

 

I can see it now... Me, staring at the screen with this expression - on my face, as I struggle to comprehend all of the metric measurements that people around here would give

 

I'm confused (and annoyed by having to (temporarily) change my settings) enough whenever they have me make a projection!

[+Taoiseach]

And a 50' long shipping container is still a large.

 

My geo-dream is to one day own an acre of forest.

 

In that forest, I'm going to hide a Mystery/Unknown at the posted co-ords. The final will be a huge shed that I built, complete with a nice table for the log, and perhaps a few comforts of home (perhaps a tv?). The door will have a padlock on it, with a re-direct tag right beside it. The re-direct will take you off into the forest where you'll have to find a really devious nano (or bison tube or something) hidden in the forest, bad co-ords and everything. The nano will contain the combination for the padlock. You have two options - 1) Go and find the nano or 2) be smart enough to realise that the window is unlocked!

 

I guess a shipping crate would have the same effect, but a window in a shipping crate would be a little more obvious...

[+WRASTRO]

I believe the important point that the nano cache promoters always seem to miss is what to do with the caches that are fairly large but have a very small container. I have a highly camoed cache that is almost a foot long but the container is less than an inch long. I list it as a micro but I think many hiders would list it as other. After 5+ years in the game I see no reason to change the cache size designations. Just my somewhat experienced opinion.