Film containers are NOT small cache containers, they're micros!

[+Chi-Town Cacher]

I'm curious if something in this area is a problem throughout the country/world or if it's primarily a localized problem here in SW Michigan. The problem I'm finding a royal pain in the arse is the fact that lots of cachers around here seem to believe that any container that can hold a stubb of a pencil qualifies as a small cache. I'm so sick of hunting for a small sized container only to have it turn out to be a micro that the owner doesn't know how to classify correctly (or doesn't care to). A lousey little film cannister is a micro and not a small cache like they're frequently classified around here.

 

The way I see it I have about 3 options that I can choose from to deal with this problem. First I could ignore the problem and pretend there are not a bunch of not so educated folks wasting my time searching for micros that are mislabeled as smalls. I have to say after 500 finds I'm getting tired of pretending I don't mind that somebody has wasted my time yet again hunting for a piece of garbage micro that the owner misclassified as a small geocache. My next option is to change my PQs so they not only leave out micros and unknown sized geocaches, but also add smalls as ones to leave out even though I really do enjoy hunting for an accurately classified small geocache. My last option is to instead of logging finds on mislabeled caches to maybe intead post a note to it warning others in all capital letters that the cache is misclassified and it really is a micro and not a small as the owner originally said. I'm leaning towards the last option and just hope that the cache owners can be shamed into correcting the erroneous cache size.

 

In case anyones wondering I have on numerous occassions contacted cache owners vie E-Mail to suggest their cache sizes be corrected and so far none have ever replied or corrected the bogus info. Ok I'll stop my rant now and wait to see if it's a local problem or if it's a problem on a much bigger scale.

[+keehotee]

 

The way I see it I have about 3 options that I can choose from to deal with this problem. First I could ignore the problem and pretend there are not a bunch of not so educated folks wasting my time searching for micros that are mislabeled as smalls. I have to say after 500 finds I'm getting tired of pretending I don't mind that somebody has wasted my time yet again hunting for a piece of garbage micro that the owner misclassified as a small geocache. My next option is to change my PQs so they not only leave out micros and unknown sized geocaches, but also add smalls as ones to leave out even though I really do enjoy hunting for an accurately classified small geocache. My last option is to instead of logging finds on mislabeled caches to maybe intead post a note to it warning others in all capital letters that the cache is misclassified and it really is a micro and not a small as the owner originally said. I'm leaning towards the last option and just hope that the cache owners can be shamed into correcting the erroneous cache size.

 

In case anyones wondering I have on numerous occassions contacted cache owners vie E-Mail to suggest their cache sizes be corrected and so far none have ever replied or corrected the bogus info. Ok I'll stop my rant now and wait to see if it's a local problem or if it's a problem on a much bigger scale.

 

I'd just go for logging a needs maintenance on them - as somebody's obviously stolen the actual cache and left a 35mm film pot in its place....

 

What REALLY gets me though are the people who insist on calling nanos "other" instead of micro

[+Isonzo Karst]

I recently ran a PQ - I excluded micros, puzzles, and the stealth attribute. Here's what I found that day:

 

2 - pill bottles - definitely volume equivalent of a film can

1- soda preform

1 - plastic egg, chicken egg sized

1- PB jar >8 0Z

The 4 micros in this group were all classified as small by the cache owners, the PB jar, a small, was classified as a regular!

 

I didn't whine about it in my logs. But since that day NYPaddleCacher has defined micro so exquisitely, that I may include that definition in all future logs of micros called small.

 

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

 

I"ll put it into "laymans" terms. A can of beer in typically 12 ounces. Imagine how big it would be if it was 1/4 full. That's three ounces. For those that have difficuly with math: Drink the beer, then with a vigorous motion hold the can in front of you and smash it on your forehead. The can will then be about the size that can hold 3 ounces of beer. Anything smaller than that would be considered a micro.

 

[+Chi-Town Cacher]

I recently ran a PQ - I excluded micros, puzzles, and the stealth attribute. Here's what I found that day:

 

2 - pill bottles - definitely volume equivalent of a film can

1- soda preform

1 - plastic egg, chicken egg sized

1- PB jar >8 0Z

The 4 micros in this group were all classified as small by the cache owners, the PB jar, a small, was classified as a regular!

 

I didn't whine about it in my logs. But since that day NYPaddleCacher has defined micro so exquisitely, that I may include that definition in all future logs of micros called small.

 

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

 

I"ll put it into "laymans" terms. A can of beer in typically 12 ounces. Imagine how big it would be if it was 1/4 full. That's three ounces. For those that have difficuly with math: Drink the beer, then with a vigorous motion hold the can in front of you and smash it on your forehead. The can will then be about the size that can hold 3 ounces of beer. Anything smaller than that would be considered a micro.

 

Ok, I'm now officially a fan of NYPaddleCacher. Thanks for sharing that!

[+cerberus1]

In this area, sometimes a new cacher will claim a hide-a-key as a small. After a couple of logs they usually change it. The film cans would have more room.

Other than that, it's pretty accurate here.

May change once we start seeing more preforms.

Seems when a new gizmo comes out, it often gets rated incorrectly it's first run.

[+briansnat]

I didn't whine about it in my logs. But since that day NYPaddleCacher has defined micro so exquisitely, that I may include that definition in all future logs of micros called small.

 

I wouldn't call mentioning a mis-rated cache in your log whining. The logs are there in part to provide feedback to the CO.

[+debaere]

I always think of the sizes as:

Micro: shot glass size

Small: Big enough to hold a sandwich

Regular: Big enough to hold lunch, (getting into ammo can terriritory)

larger: Pretty much anything it takes two hands to hold, (assuming no handle)

 

Obviously the exact shapes are different each time, but thats the mental image I get when I head for a cache listed with those sizes.

Edited February 8, 2010 by debaere

[+L0ne.R]

I'm curious if something in this area is a problem throughout the country/world or if it's primarily a localized problem here in SW Michigan. The problem I'm finding a royal pain in the arse is the fact that lots of cachers around here seem to believe that any container that can hold a stubb of a pencil qualifies as a small cache. I'm so sick of hunting for a small sized container only to have it turn out to be a micro that the owner doesn't know how to classify correctly (or doesn't care to). A lousey little film cannister is a micro and not a small cache like they're frequently classified around here.

 

The way I see it I have about 3 options that I can choose from to deal with this problem. First I could ignore the problem and pretend there are not a bunch of not so educated folks wasting my time searching for micros that are mislabeled as smalls. I have to say after 500 finds I'm getting tired of pretending I don't mind that somebody has wasted my time yet again hunting for a piece of garbage micro that the owner misclassified as a small geocache. My next option is to change my PQs so they not only leave out micros and unknown sized geocaches, but also add smalls as ones to leave out even though I really do enjoy hunting for an accurately classified small geocache. My last option is to instead of logging finds on mislabeled caches to maybe intead post a note to it warning others in all capital letters that the cache is misclassified and it really is a micro and not a small as the owner originally said. I'm leaning towards the last option and just hope that the cache owners can be shamed into correcting the erroneous cache size.

 

In case anyones wondering I have on numerous occassions contacted cache owners vie E-Mail to suggest their cache sizes be corrected and so far none have ever replied or corrected the bogus info. Ok I'll stop my rant now and wait to see if it's a local problem or if it's a problem on a much bigger scale.

 

I hear you! I sometimes feel like that guy in the movie 'Network' -- "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore". It irks me to have to filter out appropriate 'smalls' because of some COs' poor cache size choices. So instead of depriving myself of good 'small' size cache hunts, I've started using that last option - leaving a grumbly note about the inappropriate cache size listing. Haven't gone as far as the ALL CAPS yet, but maybe someday.

[+The Weasel]

I didn't whine about it in my logs. But since that day NYPaddleCacher has defined micro so exquisitely, that I may include that definition in all future logs of micros called small.

 

I wouldn't call mentioning a mis-rated cache in your log whining. The logs are there in part to provide feedback to the CO.

 

Yeah it sucks not finding the right size container, but then again I would take the smiley of finding SOMETHING instead of a DNF.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

The mis-stated size can really be a pain. They list it as a small, so you start looking for hidey holes that will take a small container. If I knew it was a matchstick container, I'd be looking in smaller hidey holes!

[Mr.Yuck]

In this area, sometimes a new cacher will claim a hide-a-key as a small. After a couple of logs they usually change it. The film cans would have more room.

Other than that, it's pretty accurate here.

May change once we start seeing more preforms.

Seems when a new gizmo comes out, it often gets rated incorrectly it's first run.

 

I was apparently once victimized, with two other cachers to boot (from reading logs after I was there) by a waterproof match container listed as a small. But it's like 60 miles from home, and I may never get out that way again. Generally, like Cerberus1 states, it's pretty accurate in my area. I've seen maybe one or two of the largest size keyholders, and one or two of the waterproof match containers listed as small. I have never, in my entire career, saw a film canister listed as small.

 

On the other hand, I've seen some pretty decent sized lock-n-locks that I would consider regulars, listed as smalls.

Edited February 8, 2010 by TheWhiteUrkel

[knowschad]

I didn't whine about it in my logs. But since that day NYPaddleCacher has defined micro so exquisitely, that I may include that definition in all future logs of micros called small.

I wouldn't call mentioning a mis-rated cache in your log whining. The logs are there in part to provide feedback to the CO.

I agree. It is done frequently around here. The key, as usual, is to be polite about it.

I would not, however, suggest doing as the OP says:

"post a note to it warning others in all capital letters that the cache is misclassified and it really is a micro and not a small as the owner originally said"

 

Part of the blame can probably be attributed to the scanty description provided by the drop box on the cache submission form.

Not Listed - Why is this even an option?

Micro (e.g. 35mm Film Cannister) - I suspect some take this literally. (e.g. A nano is not a 35mm film cannister, so it must be an "Other")

Small (holds logbook and small items) A preform can hold certain "small items" (as can a film cannister)

Regular (Rubbermaid, ammo box) Some Rubbermaid containers are smalls. I have one out there that is much bigger than a 5 gallon bucket.

Large (5 gallon bucket) OK, they seldom, if ever, get this one wrong.

Other (see description) The part in parenthesis mean that you will provide a description on the cache page, folks!

[knowschad]

I always think of the sizes as:

Micro: shot glass size

Small: Big enough to hold a sandwich

Regular: Big enough to hold lunch, (getting into ammo can terriritory)

larger: Pretty much anything it takes two hands to hold, (assuming no handle)

Obviously the exact shapes are different each time, but thats the mental image I get when I head for a cache listed with those sizes.

Actually, I think that is ingenious! I would love to see the cache submission dropdown changed to your method!

[+Isonzo Karst]

Not Listed - Why is this even an option?

 

Events, the Maze

 

I didn't mention the cache sizes in my logs, because whiny is how I felt and what I'd probably have logged. So I just skipped that issue. Now, I've got smashed beer can language to use, so I'll probably mention in it the future.

Edited February 8, 2010 by Isonzo Karst

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

Has anyone ever put together a presentation of the size categories, with pictures of containers that fit into each size category? It could be linked to from the Report a Cache page and/or the Listing Guidelines page.

[+Castle Mischief]

Has anyone ever put together a presentation of the size categories, with pictures of containers that fit into each size category? It could be linked to from the Report a Cache page and/or the Listing Guidelines page.

 

StarBrand is/was working on something like this. Not sure how it's coming along.

[+sbell111]

I'm curious if something in this area is a problem throughout the country/world or if it's primarily a localized problem here in SW Michigan. The problem I'm finding a royal pain in the arse is the fact that lots of cachers around here seem to believe that any container that can hold a stubb of a pencil qualifies as a small cache. I'm so sick of hunting for a small sized container only to have it turn out to be a micro that the owner doesn't know how to classify correctly (or doesn't care to). A lousey little film cannister is a micro and not a small cache like they're frequently classified around here.

 

The way I see it I have about 3 options that I can choose from to deal with this problem. First I could ignore the problem and pretend there are not a bunch of not so educated folks wasting my time searching for micros that are mislabeled as smalls. I have to say after 500 finds I'm getting tired of pretending I don't mind that somebody has wasted my time yet again hunting for a piece of garbage micro that the owner misclassified as a small geocache. My next option is to change my PQs so they not only leave out micros and unknown sized geocaches, but also add smalls as ones to leave out even though I really do enjoy hunting for an accurately classified small geocache. My last option is to instead of logging finds on mislabeled caches to maybe intead post a note to it warning others in all capital letters that the cache is misclassified and it really is a micro and not a small as the owner originally said. I'm leaning towards the last option and just hope that the cache owners can be shamed into correcting the erroneous cache size.

 

In case anyones wondering I have on numerous occassions contacted cache owners vie E-Mail to suggest their cache sizes be corrected and so far none have ever replied or corrected the bogus info. Ok I'll stop my rant now and wait to see if it's a local problem or if it's a problem on a much bigger scale.

I would go with a combination of #1 and #3. Log it as a find, but mention that the cache page shows the incorrect size.

[knowschad]

Not Listed - Why is this even an option?

Events, the Maze

Since an Event is a cache type, "Not Listed" could easily be defaulted by the software for Events, Earth Caches, and any other type where it fits instead of offering it as an option for all cache types.

[+keehotee]

 

Micro (e.g. 35mm Film Cannister) -

 

I'm sure this used to read (e.g 35mm Film Cannister or smaller)

[+StarBrand]

This is definitly a growning problem in many areas i have cached in the past 2 years. I see lots of micros classified as smalls. I don't blame the definitions as much as I blame the little manetic blinkie caches. Those seem so tiny next to a film can that many newer cachers get the wrong idea.

 

Need a quiz similar to the Clayjar difficulty and rating quiz for sizes these days.

 

-ps - I love the beer can analogy.

[Mushtang]

Not Listed - Why is this even an option?

Events, the Maze

Since an Event is a cache type, "Not Listed" could easily be defaulted by the software for Events, Earth Caches, and any other type where it fits instead of offering it as an option for all cache types.

I think the option also exists for cache owners that want to make the search a little more difficult by not giving too much away.

 

There's something out there, I'm not telling you what it is, just where it is. Now go find it.

 

It's just one of the options that a cache owner has, and I like the fact that the option exists. There are a lot of people that would like to see a very specific container specification on the cache pages so the owner will have to select if it's a lock-n-lock, ammo can, etc., and then select which size ammo can they have, and then select if it's hidden under rocks, or sticks, or in a stump, etc.

 

A lot of times less is more. If you want to tell me it's a regular sized cache, that's cool. If not, I'll have fun finding it anyway. And knowing that the size is "other" will let me know before I start looking that I have to keep a more open mind on what I'm looking for.

[hoyshnin]

I hate it when people classify altoids tins as smalls as well, they are definitely micros.

[+L0ne.R]

I always think of the sizes as:

Micro: shot glass size

Small: Big enough to hold a sandwich

Regular: Big enough to hold lunch, (getting into ammo can terriritory)

larger: Pretty much anything it takes two hands to hold, (assuming no handle)

Obviously the exact shapes are different each time, but thats the mental image I get when I head for a cache listed with those sizes.

Actually, I think that is ingenious! I would love to see the cache submission dropdown changed to your method!

 

All of these lock n locks fit the definition of "small"

 

 

Sizes:

20 Ounce: 2"tall x 6"square

6 Ounce: 2"tall x 3 1/2"wide x 4 1/4"deep

3 Ounce: 2"tall x 3 1/2"diameter

 

Small

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

(A micro is less than 3 oz.)

 

I'd also like to see a visual representation of sizes on the guidelines page.

[+L0ne.R]

I hate it when people classify altoids tins as smalls as well, they are definitely micros.

 

I believe they just meet the definition of small......

 

Altoid tin size

L3 5/8" x W2 1/4" x H13/16" (L93mm x W58MM x H21mm)

 

If my calculations are correct that's approx. .13 liters in volume

 

The micro definition says: less than approximately .1 L

 

I'm OK with altoids listed as small because there usually is enough room for quite a few small flat items:

 

[+StarBrand]

There was a time when offcial definitions gave an altoids tin as an example of a micro.

[+Highland Horde]

so....um....a .1L L n' L is? small? Micro? i know this is right on the line but I figured it was small cause it was bigger than i film canister and could hold swag, small bugs and coins...although not all at once...i do have listed on the cache page that it is a "small" small...

[knowschad]

so....um....a .1L L n' L is? small? Micro? i know this is right on the line but I figured it was small cause it was bigger than i film canister and could hold swag, small bugs and coins...although not all at once...i do have listed on the cache page that it is a "small" small...

When in doubt, call it the smaller size. Much better to see logs that read, "Wow! Now THAT is what I call a 'micro'!" than "You call that a small?!?"

[+briansnat]

There was a time when offcial definitions gave an altoids tin as an example of a micro.

 

They've always been micros as far as I'm concerned. Most of the first micros I found were Altoids tins. That was back when nearly everything was either in an ammo box or a fairly large (around 2 qts.) Tupperware or Rubbermaid container.

[+briansnat]

This is definitly a growning problem in many areas i have cached in the past 2 years. I see lots of micros classified as smalls. I don't blame the definitions as much as I blame the little manetic blinkie caches. Those seem so tiny next to a film can that many newer cachers get the wrong idea.

 

Need a quiz similar to the Clayjar difficulty and rating quiz for sizes these days.

 

 

Why? Few pay attention to the Clayjar terrain/difficulty ratings. What makes you think they'd do it for size?

[knowschad]

Micro (e.g. 35mm Film Cannister) -

I'm sure this used to read (e.g 35mm Film Cannister or smaller)

Actually, the guidelines still do. They also use the sandwich analogy for smalls:

 

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)
  

Edited February 8, 2010 by knowschad

[+Wooden Cyclist]

Yep its a problem in SW MI but farther S than your location. We have two cachers in particular that insist on using sandwich sized Gladware containers and listing them as regulars. I have emailed bot CO's on more than one occasion and have recommended the correct size, but never got a reply and they haven't changed their ways. I also pointed out that that type of container will lead to a lot of needs maintenance logs.

 

Another cacher and I found one of the caches in question a few days ago. In my log I addressed the problem bluntly by saying that we wasted a lot of time looking in the wrong spots because the cache listing was inaccurate.

 

The other cacher made a joke in his log by saying that someone had stolen the regular container and replaced it with a small.

 

We'll see if anything changes.

[+WHO-DEY]

Michigan Cacheman - I live in your neck of the woods, Zeeland. Part of the reason you may be frustrated, I believe, is because we have a series of LAZY cachers around us. And unfortunately, they lazily (if that is a word) place LPC's and micro's all over. Manyof those caches are placed without permission. And many are eventually removed for that very reason once they are discovered by the store or land owners. Even some cachers have placed multicaches that end with micro container are consuming whole parks with all the stages. There are micros that are consuming parks that no child will likely want to visit for a geocache, because it is just (in my son's, and my son's caching buddies words) a small boring micro. Many times around West Michigan, a location that had a regular size cache placed, but was eventually muggled or container damaged in need of replacement, was downsized to a micro...no idea why. Holland is riddled with micros by the same handful of people. It is humurous. I undertsand there is a place for micros, but when is enough enough?

 

Anyway, to answer your direct question, I am of the belief that an altoid container or a 35 MM can IS a MICRO. No doubt. And I am with briansnat in saying the log is for CO feedback as much as anything. If the owner cannot handle that kind of log, well, than that is another issue. Atleast other cachers that read logs will know the corrected size etc. I tag need maintenance all the time.

Edited February 8, 2010 by WHO-DEY

[+Mini-Geek]

I've only ever came across one 35mm film canister, it was listed as a small. Apart from that a few caches I have found listed as small I think could have been listed as regular.

[+DarkZen]

Not Listed - Why is this even an option?

I use it occasionally. Recently I took a flowerpot and cut out the bottom. I put a 35mm film canister in the bottom and filled it with plaster and plastic flowers. The container that encases the log (accessible from the bottom) is a micro the overall size of the cache is closer to 'regular'. This is an easy way to avoid confusion/disappointment. It's common in this area to classify these types of hides as such.

[knowschad]

Not Listed - Why is this even an option?

I use it occasionally. Recently I took a flowerpot and cut out the bottom. I put a 35mm film canister in the bottom and filled it with plaster and plastic flowers. The container that encases the log (accessible from the bottom) is a micro the overall size of the cache is closer to 'regular'. This is an easy way to avoid confusion/disappointment. It's common in this area to classify these types of hides as such.

I understand, but how about instead, caches like that use Other (see description), and in the description, say something along the lines of "micro in a regular body"?

Actually, let me state for the record that I'm not totally against the Not Listed and Other categories, and may even have used one or both in the past, either for the reason that you mention, or to make a hide more difficult.

[RedShoesGirl]

... I undertsand there is a place for micros, but when is enough enough?...

 

now is enough. there are enough out there now! so take away that category, dump the dang nanos and let's quit hunting caches that are not caches. or as i suggested in another thread, create a new game, somewhere else, call it "hunting tiny tins."

 

folks who are in it for the numbers can hunt those things and take them out of the geocaching sport all together.

 

there is no way we can make all the micros/nanos go away, but Groundspeak CAN say no more.

 

i was caching leading up to an event the other day. went looking for a "regular" size cache - kind of a rarity these day. turns out to be a small tupperware container. i wrote the owner but i don't think anything has been done. time to start calling a spade a spade in the logs.

 

one sure clue in the description of a cache, and i use the word "cache" loosely here, BYOP. too small for a pencil, too small to waste time hunting for.

 

rsg

Edited February 8, 2010 by RedShoesGirl

[+DarkZen]

I understand, but how about instead, caches like that use Other (see description), and in the description, say something along the lines of "micro in a regular body"?

Actually, let me state for the record that I'm not totally against the Not Listed and Other categories, and may even have used one or both in the past, either for the reason that you mention, or to make a hide more difficult.

ETA: Nevermind, I misunderstood. Sometimes that would give away the cache. I have used 'other' as well if the situation warrants it.

Edited February 8, 2010 by DarkZen and Beautiful

[Clan Riffster]

there is no way we can make all the micros/nanos go away, but Groundspeak CAN say no more.

They could, but they won't. Groundspeak is, first and foremost, a corporation. Corporations must protect their bottom line. A proven method for doing so is to satisfy your customer base. A large percentage of that customer base are P&G bandits, who can't be bothered with walking more than 20' from their car. This same crowd includes in their ranks, the numbers cachers. Micros are the bread and butter for the P&G numbers crowd. If Groundspeak made these go away, they'd lose income.

 

I believe that's also why they won't take definitive action against caches on private property.

[+Mini-Geek]

Personaly I think micros/nanos play an important part in geocaching. There are a lot of places where you can only put micros, for example in towns. Without micros we would have a lot less caches to look for.

[+Castle Mischief]

This is definitely a growing problem in many areas i have cached in the past 2 years. I see lots of micros classified as smalls. I don't blame the definitions as much as I blame the little magnetic blinky caches. Those seem so tiny next to a film can that many newer cachers get the wrong idea.

 

Need a quiz similar to the Clayjar difficulty and rating quiz for sizes these days.

 

 

Why? Few pay attention to the Clayjar terrain/difficulty ratings. What makes you think they'd do it for size?

 

For those people that would care enough to attempt to list under the correct size but are unsure and would benefit from something in a similar format. Currently there exists no such tool, why not give said tool a shot?

[RedShoesGirl]

there is no way we can make all the micros/nanos go away, but Groundspeak CAN say no more.

They could, but they won't. Groundspeak is, first and foremost, a corporation. Corporations must protect their bottom line. A proven method for doing so is to satisfy your customer base. A large percentage of that customer base are P&G bandits, who can't be bothered with walking more than 20' from their car. This same crowd includes in their ranks, the numbers cachers. Micros are the bread and butter for the P&G numbers crowd. If Groundspeak made these go away, they'd lose income.

 

I believe that's also why they won't take definitive action against caches on private property.

 

sigh. and people wander why i am not a premium/charter member any longer.

 

rsg

[RedShoesGirl]

Personaly I think micros/nanos play an important part in geocaching. There are a lot of places where you can only put micros, for example in towns. Without micros we would have a lot less caches to look for.

 

look up the definition of a "cache"— micros are not caches. you are not hunting a cache, you are hunting a coordinate.

 

rsg — tilting at windmills

[+Castle Mischief]

Personaly I think micros/nanos play an important part in geocaching. There are a lot of places where you can only put micros, for example in towns. Without micros we would have a lot less caches to look for.

 

That's kind of like saying "if it weren't for double-salt licorice, there would be less licorice to find on the candy aisle."*

 

 

 

 

*With some exceptions.

[+Mini-Geek]

Personaly I think micros/nanos play an important part in geocaching. There are a lot of places where you can only put micros, for example in towns. Without micros we would have a lot less caches to look for.

 

That's kind of like saying "if it weren't for double-salt licorice, there would be less licorice to find on the candy aisle."*

 

*With some exceptions.

 

Some people like double-salt licorice, as your link shows, in the same way some people like micros. Personaly I like micros in an urban/town enviroment, where a regular can't be placed, however I do not really like to see micros in a place where a regular could be placed, with a few exeptions, such as if the micro is a cool cache container, like the pine cones etc in the "Cool Cache Containers" thread.

 

(This thread is getting off-topic a bit now)

Edited February 8, 2010 by Mini-Geek

[+Castle Mischief]

Some people like double-salt licorice...

 

These people are not to be trusted. I'm not even sure they are human.

 

I will, on occasion hunt micros. I don't have anything against them on the whole, but they seem to be the most problamatic of all the sizes.

 

Back on topic: I almost wish that every time you listed a cache on this site you had to endure a slide-show presentation/multiple choice questionnaire. Clearly, there are a few people that do not read the guidelines before hitting the submit button.

[Skippermark]

I think one of the biggest things is that people don't read the guidelines/size info or anything before placing caches and size them based on what they think they are rather than a set standard.

[Mushtang]

there is no way we can make all the micros/nanos go away, but Groundspeak CAN say no more.

They could, but they won't. Groundspeak is, first and foremost, a corporation. Corporations must protect their bottom line. A proven method for doing so is to satisfy your customer base. A large percentage of that customer base are P&G bandits, who can't be bothered with walking more than 20' from their car. This same crowd includes in their ranks, the numbers cachers. Micros are the bread and butter for the P&G numbers crowd. If Groundspeak made these go away, they'd lose income.

 

I believe that's also why they won't take definitive action against caches on private property.

sigh. and people wander why i am not a premium/charter member any longer.

 

rsg

You're no longer a premium member because Groundspeak wouldn't be willing to do away with the kinds of caches that you don't like?

 

Interesting. I'm glad that there's diversity available out there. It's easy enough to avoid all the micros/nanos that you hate (but still find for some reason) on your own without requiring the web site eliminate them from everyone else.

[Mushtang]

Personaly I think micros/nanos play an important part in geocaching. There are a lot of places where you can only put micros, for example in towns. Without micros we would have a lot less caches to look for.

look up the definition of a "cache"— micros are not caches. you are not hunting a cache, you are hunting a coordinate.

 

rsg — tilting at windmills

Every cache that contains a logbook of some kind meets every applicable definition of "cache" that I can find. What definition are you using?

 

[i'm assuming that you're not referring to the computer memory definitions.]

[+DarkZen]

sigh. and people wander why i am not a premium/charter member any longer.

 

rsg

Sorry, your logic does not make sense as far as I can tell. Are you saying that you continue to use Groundspeak's services for free and refuse to support them because they allow caches that you don't like? And in your continuing use of their listings still find and log the very caches you are protesting against? (In a recent positive log on a micro find you commented, "devilishly clever hide"!) I'm curious why you don't just filter them out. I'm not a fan of them either but face it, in a lot of urban settings they make sense.

 

look up the definition of a "cache"— micros are not caches. you are not hunting a cache, you are hunting a coordinate.

 

rsg — tilting at windmills

OK, I did. From Groundspeak:

"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."

[+bittsen]

I'm curious if something in this area is a problem throughout the country/world or if it's primarily a localized problem here in SW Michigan. The problem I'm finding a royal pain in the arse is the fact that lots of cachers around here seem to believe that any container that can hold a stubb of a pencil qualifies as a small cache. I'm so sick of hunting for a small sized container only to have it turn out to be a micro that the owner doesn't know how to classify correctly (or doesn't care to). A lousey little film cannister is a micro and not a small cache like they're frequently classified around here.

 

The way I see it I have about 3 options that I can choose from to deal with this problem. First I could ignore the problem and pretend there are not a bunch of not so educated folks wasting my time searching for micros that are mislabeled as smalls. I have to say after 500 finds I'm getting tired of pretending I don't mind that somebody has wasted my time yet again hunting for a piece of garbage micro that the owner misclassified as a small geocache. My next option is to change my PQs so they not only leave out micros and unknown sized geocaches, but also add smalls as ones to leave out even though I really do enjoy hunting for an accurately classified small geocache. My last option is to instead of logging finds on mislabeled caches to maybe intead post a note to it warning others in all capital letters that the cache is misclassified and it really is a micro and not a small as the owner originally said. I'm leaning towards the last option and just hope that the cache owners can be shamed into correcting the erroneous cache size.

 

In case anyones wondering I have on numerous occassions contacted cache owners vie E-Mail to suggest their cache sizes be corrected and so far none have ever replied or corrected the bogus info. Ok I'll stop my rant now and wait to see if it's a local problem or if it's a problem on a much bigger scale.

 

So, let me get this straight.

 

You are pissed off that people who take their time to place caches for you to find aren't doing it according to your specifications? That sounds a ittle elitist.

 

That's like asking a stranger to feed you then whining about the quality of food.

 

I say you should mention in your logs that the cache is a micro and then leave it alone after that. Then, adjust your thought process to include the possibility that a "small" can be a film cannister. Easy enough to do. I did it after my 20th cache or so.