Jump to content

Claiming it's a small cache


Recommended Posts

I know this a well-thrashed issue, but I am desperately running round trying to find a spot to drop off a travel bug. TBs aren't always teensy: some need at least a 200ml (6 oz) container.

 

So I do a search, and find a "small" cache, and off I go, only to find the actual containment size is barely 40 ml (1.5 ounces), which the TB will NOT fit in.

 

Why is this (and so many others) classed as "small"? It should be micro.

Ironically, my first ever find is about 300 metres away, is classed as "small", and is a one-litre (about a quart) container. 25 times the size!

 

According to the guidelines:

 

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)

 

noting there's a big gap between 3 ounces and 1 quart.

 

So I'm thinking here's the confusion: A CO says "I've seen caches way smaller then this, so I'll call mine small".

But around my town, a micro is anything that is only big enough for a logbook and maybe a pencil. It doesn't have to be a pin-head nano, it could be a magnetic key-hider.

 

Now, dropping off a TB is just one reason for wanting a bigger box, and I'm sure there's many more,

So how oh how do I filter out "I lied about the size to avoid scaring you off" from genuine decent sized caches?

 

I'm gonna take TBs less and less if I get frustrated with finding caches to drop them off along the way.

Link to comment

I've found altoids tins that are called "small". Never a "small" 35mm film canister though in my finds as I recall. I wonder if the mistake sometimes comes from bad recollection of the size guideline?

 

Before I read your quote of the guidelines I only recalled the portion that says "...containing only a logbook or a logsheet". Of course it has been 2007 or 2008 since I last referred to that part specifically.

I bet people retain and believe that the intent of the guideline is to specify whether the cache could conceivably contain any trade items whatsoever.

 

I know people have recommended reading, then re-reading before placing a cache. A good idea which I intend on doing before placing one myself soon.

Link to comment

Don't bo so quick to convince yourself that they do this to trick anyone. Since the increase of Nano Caches, there are some people who just don't realize that a filmcan/altoids tin used to be called Micro. I agree that it's irritating though.

A lot of owners do it to snag those people that filter micros.

I agree, we need a nano size.

Link to comment

The number of times I've found aspirin bottles and spice bottles listed as small. Some of them are smaller then a film canister. Last time it happened, I included a copy and paste of the guidelines micro size definition in my online log and I plan to do this from now on.

Link to comment

Don't bo so quick to convince yourself that they do this to trick anyone. Since the increase of Nano Caches, there are some people who just don't realize that a filmcan/altoids tin used to be called Micro. I agree that it's irritating though.

A lot of owners do it to snag those people that filter micros.

I agree, we need a nano size.

 

I tend to agree with WSR. I personally have not seen any cases where someone appears to be doing this on purpose. There may be some people in some areas doing it though. Also good theory about the rise of the nano cache contributing to this.

 

I've seen maybe 6-8 instances of keyholders or matchstick containers listed as small, and I'm certain it wasn't done on purpose. However, I've seen dozens of lock-n-locks that are over 1 Liter in size listed as smalls, not regulars.

 

I guess you could say "small" is the most overused size. :)

Link to comment

If the cache description says "small" but you find a micro then you must not have found the cache. You have probably found garbage and should throw it away.

 

 

***This is a joke, folks. I do not advocate the throwing away of caches even if the cache owner lies about the size.

Link to comment

Correctly identifying the size of a cache may not have anything to do with whether your TB fits into it which seems to be the OPs concern. A cache can be properly sized but your TB still might not fit because of the container's shape.

 

Also, previous threads have discussed the question about whether size relates to the outer or inner container and this is reasonable. If someone marks their container as a small due to the outer container when the inner space is micro-sized and can't hold a TB, I wouldn't fault them for that.

 

Otherwise I agree with Starbrand - if we find a magnetic keyholder labeled as a small, we'll add to our cache log in what we hope is a polite way that in our area this kind of hide is considered a micro.

Link to comment

If Groundspeak added a "Nano" size then i'm sure more people would be willing to make the size micro. I was even debating making my cache a "small" when it was actually a micro. Why? Because it was a pretty big pill bottle, I wanted to let people know they wouldn't be looking for something the size of the tip of a pinky... What I wound up doing is making it micro but listing in my cacheh description that it was much bigger then a nano. I blame this partially on Groundspeak because of this.

Link to comment

I think the reviewers should ask what type of container it is in and then they can adjust the size if necessary... would be a heck of a lot nicer than someone posting "unknown" if they KNOW it is a bison tube, and it is then up to the discretion of the reviewer if an aspirin bottle is small or micro.

Link to comment

If Groundspeak added a "Nano" size then i'm sure more people would be willing to make the size micro. I was even debating making my cache a "small" when it was actually a micro. Why? Because it was a pretty big pill bottle, I wanted to let people know they wouldn't be looking for something the size of the tip of a pinky... What I wound up doing is making it micro but listing in my cacheh description that it was much bigger then a nano. I blame this partially on Groundspeak because of this.

I tried to campaign for a new size to make nanos stand out from the size between a nano and a small but was laughed out of the forum.

 

I agree that there needs to be a size added but don't see it happening any time soon. The problem is that there would be around 700,000 caches that would neet to be reexamined to see if it's a nano or micro.

Link to comment
Micro (35 mm film canister or smaller – less than approximately 3 ounces or .1 L

 

Seems very clear to me.

 

An object slightly larger then a 35mm film canister cannot by the guidelines be listed as a micro. The guideline clearly states 'or smaller'.

 

A standard Altoids tin is much larger then a 35mm film can. Most prescription bottles or spice containers are also larger then a 35mm film can. By the guidelines they are not micros. Match containers are larger then a 35mm film can. Some magnetic key holders are larger then a 35mm film can. They are not micros.

 

The problem is the above listed items also have difficulty meeting the requirements for a small.

 

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

 

The above items are clearly less then 1 quart. So it come down to holding trade items and a logbook.

 

Now the guideline does not state the container has to hold all types trade items or even multiple trade items. People who trade small coins or other small items would have no trouble putting that size of trade item in any of the containers I listed above. So they would qualify as a small by that criteria.

 

So what are the standard dimensions for a logbook? Is there an official Groundspeak standard? I'm quite sure someone could come up with a logbook about the size of a postage stamp or even smaller. I've seen some logbooks about that size in caches already. So if there is no size guideline for logbooks or a clear definition of a logbook vs a log scroll or even just a log-sheet then all of the non-micros I listed previously would have to be classified as a small to be within the guidelines.

Link to comment

I also think it has a lot to do with what people find and have to compare to.

Most of the ones listed as small I find are micros because the hider has found mostly nanos listed as micros.

 

I was going to say something about how men always exaggerate when it comes to size but since I am a man, I won't.

 

err... I did. ;)

Link to comment

I also think it has a lot to do with what people find and have to compare to.

Most of the ones listed as small I find are micros because the hider has found mostly nanos listed as micros.

 

I was going to say something about how men always exaggerate when it comes to size but since I am a man, I won't.

 

err... I did. ;)

 

Well, they under exaggerate too. I just finished logging my caches from Saturday. I had no clue at the time, but I found a 1.5 liter lock-n-lock, and this thing was listed as a small. I know this to be a 1.5 litre, as I've placed many of these myself (all listed as a regular, of course). I'm going to go out on a limb and say I've found at least 50 1 liter or above lock-n-lock's listed as small. Am I crazy here? And hopefully not off-topic. :)

Link to comment

I lie about my cache containers sometimes.

I have been known to call an ammo can a "tupperware type container". I do this so people who are searching for ammo cans to steal don't find the word ammo in my listings.

so now the geomuggle knows to search for "tupperware type container"

Link to comment

Deliberately mislabeled cache sizes, or using unknown isn't much of a problem around here. Maybe because we don't have vocal micro haters? :laughing: Small is usually an altoids tin or a small tupper. I think they are the hardest size to search for.

 

I think the reviewers should ask what type of container it is in and then they can adjust the size if necessary... would be a heck of a lot nicer than someone posting "unknown" if they KNOW it is a bison tube, and it is then up to the discretion of the reviewer if an aspirin bottle is small or micro.

 

The reviewers responsibility is to verify that cache listings comply with the guidelines. They are not responsible for editing content or ratings, nor should they be. Otherwise they might have to spend hours correcting grammer and spelling too. All of that is the CO's responsibility.

Link to comment

I also think it has a lot to do with what people find and have to compare to.

Most of the ones listed as small I find are micros because the hider has found mostly nanos listed as micros.

 

I was going to say something about how men always exaggerate when it comes to size but since I am a man, I won't.

 

err... I did. :laughing:

 

Well, they under exaggerate too. I just finished logging my caches from Saturday. I had no clue at the time, but I found a 1.5 liter lock-n-lock, and this thing was listed as a small. I know this to be a 1.5 litre, as I've placed many of these myself (all listed as a regular, of course). I'm going to go out on a limb and say I've found at least 50 1 liter or above lock-n-lock's listed as small. Am I crazy here? And hopefully not off-topic. B)

 

I've seen this with multis. The CO posts the size of the first stage (usually a micro with coords in it), when the final stage is an ammo can (or regular size container).

Link to comment
An object slightly larger then a 35mm film canister cannot by the guidelines be listed as a micro. The guideline clearly states 'or smaller'.

 

Considering we're thumping guidelines, the full definition is "Micro (35 mm film canister or smaller – less than approximately 3 ounces or .1 L – typically containing only a logbook or a logsheet)" 3 ounces is about twice the volume of a film can.

 

I probably wouldn't get too hung up on "definitions" considering back when we first started the film can and the ammo can was the defacto middle of the sizes. This would mean the film can was around the middle of the micro size. This was pushed even larger without a "small" size when more and more different containers were used. Back then micros could be larger than your fist.

 

This produced an excellent argument for a "small" size. It made sense. Micros went back to being micros. Altoid tins, keyholders, M&M tubes, large pill bottles, etc. are all micros. Also, all are larger than a film can.

 

When "small" was first introduced, it was described as around the size of a sandwich container. A good fit between film can and ammo can. Today, I'm seeing things with the volume of film cans listed as smalls. I've heard of actual film cans being listed as smalls. Clearly, this is not appropriate. Whether through guile or ignorance, it's not appropriate.

 

As for a argument for the "nano" size, I'm not seeing it. Micro already takes care of just about anything that can be hidden in an adults fist. Additionally, I've not seen much of a real difference in hiding spots for "nanos" and film cans. In fact, a lot of nanos are hidden in spots that can easily hide anything in the whole range of micros if not those on the smaller end of small. Therefore, I don't see how marking a cache as a nano would benefit anything if you're going to have to explore everything that could hold a larger container too anyway.

Link to comment

I know this a well-thrashed issue, but I am desperately running round trying to find a spot to drop off a travel bug. TBs aren't always teensy: some need at least a 200ml (6 oz) container.

When I started geocaching there was no small size. Caches were micro, regular, and large - along with the options of "other" and "not listed". Micros included many caches larger than 35mm film cans. Most Altoids tin, M&M tubes, and medicine bottles were listed as micro. On the other hand sandwich containers, small serving sized tupperware, and decon containers were often listed as regular.

 

Many people complained of the same problem that OP has. They wanted to drop off a travel bug and found that it would not fit in many regulars. The idea of introducing the small was to help these cachers. The new small size could hold small trade items but not hold most travel bugs which back them were generally larger than the tags attached to them. The original idea was that the small size indicated that a travel bug might not fit.

 

However, after the small size was introduced many people started attaching travel but tags to items that would fit in many small caches. Also geocoins began popular and many people had coins made that would fit in small containers and even in some micros.

 

Since Altoids tin and even 35mm film cans can hold some small trade item a few people began to list these as small. This interpretation gaing ground as smaller log only containers were developed. More cachers began to view micros as containers that would hold only a log and perhaps tiny items like beads or small coins, and began labelling anything as small if it could hold small trade items like geocoins or anything larger than a travel bug tag.

 

The problem with cache sizes is trade items come in all size. Travel bug tags can be attached to almost any sizes item. And with all the new kinds of trackables, the size of the tags have shrunk and people have found ways to make smaller things trackable. Any attempt to define size to let people know if a trackable will fit will soon face the problem that someone will develop a trackable that will fit in the smaller container and that will lead some to use the larger size for these containers so people will know that the new trackable will fit.

 

If you have a trackable that you think will fit in a small cache - remember that there is a significant range in both the size and shape of small caches. If the trackable doesn't fit, then look for another cache. If you have to, look for a regular cache so you can be more certain that it will fit.

Link to comment
If you have a trackable that you think will fit in a small cache - remember that there is a significant range in both the size and shape of small caches. If the trackable doesn't fit, then look for another cache. If you have to, look for a regular cache so you can be more certain that it will fit.

 

As for the question at hand, I think this statement hits the nail on the head (so to speak) I've had this problem many times and ended up just looking for larger containers.

 

As for the size issue... :D

 

I think Groundspeak should add a "nano" size listing. Here’s why. Most of you "long time" geocachers have stated that the "micro" size never existed until a large number of smaller than normal caches made it necessary. I think this has happened to the micro. With the growing popularity of geocaching in general and more and more caches being placed, I would say that the nano should be given a separate distinction. It takes a different method to find a nano rather than a micro. Whoever said that nanos and micros can be hidden in the same spots hasn't found too many nanos. (Or so it seems :( ) There has been more than once that I went home to log a DNF and call it missing only to find out it was a nano, go back, and find it hiding in a spot no film canister would fit. Was it more challenging? Yes. Was it fair to call it a micro? Is it fair to call a micro small?

Maybe there should be more distinction....

 

Just my 2 cents :D

Link to comment

Found a nano today that listed the size as UNKNOWN. It was about half the size of my fingernail. Now that's a category I don't understand.

That is the category for those who don't know what to list the container as, don't want to list as, or don't believe the size fits a category presented.

If you don't think that a nano is a micro then "not listed" (unknown) or other giving a description.

Some people think if you droll a hole in a cinder block and permanently affix a tiny pill fob in the hole, it should be listed as a micro. Like me. Others will argue that it is regular or maybe even large. I say list it as micro, not listed or other.

I praise anyone that will list a nano as other or not listed, because I know they are less likely to list a micro as a small.

Micros listed as small leads to regulars listed as large and leads to people filtering only for regular and large missing out on a lot of correctly listed caches.

I have mentioned before that I filter out micros when caching with the kids. At the rate this fungus is spreading I'll be filtering out smalls in a year or two also.

Link to comment
I know this a well-thrashed issue, but I am desperately running round trying to find a spot to drop off a travel bug.

...

So how oh how do I filter out "I lied about the size to avoid scaring you off" from genuine decent sized caches?

Have you tried filtering for Regular size containers and larger? That ought to do it.

Link to comment

At least one prolific team in the Phoenix area lists most (if not all) of their 'less than ammo can' hides as 'Not Chosen'.

I guess they think that makes them clever.

Of course when you notice that their sole form of punctuation is an exclamation mark (usually two or three at a time) you can guess that something probably isn't quite right.

Link to comment
I know this a well-thrashed issue, but I am desperately running round trying to find a spot to drop off a travel bug.

...

So how oh how do I filter out "I lied about the size to avoid scaring you off" from genuine decent sized caches?

Have you tried filtering for Regular size containers and larger? That ought to do it.

 

Yes. Unfortunately, around these parts, the 1-litre systema container is king. These are listed as "small". If I filter them out, there's nothing left.

Link to comment

At least one prolific team in the Phoenix area lists most (if not all) of their 'less than ammo can' hides as 'Not Chosen'.

I guess they think that makes them clever.

Of course when you notice that their sole form of punctuation is an exclamation mark (usually two or three at a time) you can guess that something probably isn't quite right.

I know who that is :)

only downside to that is assuming not chosen = micro and not taking any tbs with you and cache is large enough to hold one.

Link to comment
I know this a well-thrashed issue, but I am desperately running round trying to find a spot to drop off a travel bug.

...

So how oh how do I filter out "I lied about the size to avoid scaring you off" from genuine decent sized caches?

Have you tried filtering for Regular size containers and larger? That ought to do it.
Yes. Unfortunately, around these parts, the 1-litre systema container is king. These are listed as "small". If I filter them out, there's nothing left.

I just looked at your finds and at least a third of your finds are regular sized containers.

 

All you're looking for is ONE regular sized cache to place a travel bug into, right? And you're claiming that the micros are listed as "small" in order to keep people from knowing they're micros, and every other cache is the 1 liter containers that are listed as "small" for some other reason, and therefore you're unable to find ANY regular sized containers to drop off your travel bug?

 

Seriously? :)

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...