Jump to content

Micro or Nano cache


Followers 2

Recommended Posts

I've come increasingly frustrated with a trend in geocaching the last couple of years; specifically, urban caching. I go urban caching in my town with my young son because I can drive there and then motor about. The last couple of years I have noticed something - many urban caches are being reported as micro when in fact they are nano caches (you know, those tiny little magnets smaller in diameter than a dime). I don't mind the challenge, but it is frustrating when you are looking for one thing, and find another. When reporting a new cache, there is no option to create a "nano" cache. Who can I contact at Groundspeak to get this fixed?

Link to comment

the nanos fall into the micro category size wise

usually CO will state that is a nano in the cache description

 

as for having the specific nano container as a choice for new listings, like buttaskotch said "good luck with that" lol

Link to comment
The last couple of years I have noticed something - many urban caches are being reported as micro when in fact they are nano caches

 

That's because nano caches ARE micro caches. They are supposed to be listed as micro. To me the disturbing trend are the people who list nanos as something other than micro.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
Many regular caches are actually medium. We need to create a new category so I know if I'm looking for a regular or a medium cache.

We also need a category so I know if I'm looking for which size ammo can (there are several).

We also need a category so I know if the cache is hidden under a pile of sticks, rocks, or leaves.

We also need a category so I know if I should be looking on the ground or in a tree.

We also need a category so I know if I should be looking on the west side of the tree, or the east side........

 

:blink:

 

Actually, I honestly feel that there are too many categories for cache sizes already. I'd be happy with only two sizes: One for caches that are so small they're "logbook only", and another for "can contain trade items".

Link to comment

Here in Australia, we have a related caching site called Geocaching Australia (GCA).

 

It has six cache sizes: nano, micro, small, regular, large and other.

 

If you find a GC cache it appears on the GCA site as a find, but if you find a GCA cache it won't appear as a find on your GC stats.

 

Also GCA doesn't have a minimum distance rule on placing caches.

Link to comment

 

Also GCA doesn't have a minimum distance rule on placing caches.

 

that i really don't like, i don't want to be chasing my tail in the same area and when i find a cache not knowing which one it is

 

personally i like the proximity rule in place on GC, makes for a nice short walk to next one

Link to comment

Let's see you are in Australia which is described as

 

Australia is the planet's sixth largest country after Russia, Canada, China, the USA, and Brazil. At 7 692 024 km2, it accounts for just five percent of the world's land area of 149 450 000 km2, and although it is the smallest continental land mass, it is the world's largest island.

 

and you think 528 is not a reasonable distance to separate caches. Crocodile Dundee would be ashamed.

Link to comment

Some good replies so far. However, I still have concerns. First to nano is micro. Although I understand that a micro container is considered to be something like 35mm film container OR SMALLER, I still think there is a significant difference between, for example, a 35mm film container and a nano; which, in most instances, a nano container has a total volume of about 5 cubic mm. Second, I rarely have seen a CO list that there cache is a nano; they seem to be sadists in this regard because they seem to think I like drudging around in a high traffic muggle area trying to find their "micro" cache. I guess the bottom line for me is that either the new size needs to be available, or more COs need to be responsible when listing their cache; I`d love to message the CO about it, but I`m sure that would draw the ire of some :blink:.

Link to comment

Some good replies so far. However, I still have concerns. First to nano is micro. Although I understand that a micro container is considered to be something like 35mm film container OR SMALLER, I still think there is a significant difference between, for example, a 35mm film container and a nano; which, in most instances, a nano container has a total volume of about 5 cubic mm. Second, I rarely have seen a CO list that there cache is a nano; they seem to be sadists in this regard because they seem to think I like drudging around in a high traffic muggle area trying to find their "micro" cache. I guess the bottom line for me is that either the new size needs to be available, or more COs need to be responsible when listing their cache; I`d love to message the CO about it, but I`m sure that would draw the ire of some :blink:.

 

Believe me, many feel the same as you do but no matter how much we complain, the powers that be have seemed determined to not add a new size category.

Link to comment

I've come increasingly frustrated with a trend in geocaching the last couple of years; specifically, urban caching. I go urban caching in my town with my young son because I can drive there and then motor about. The last couple of years I have noticed something - many urban caches are being reported as micro when in fact they are nano caches (you know, those tiny little magnets smaller in diameter than a dime). I don't mind the challenge, but it is frustrating when you are looking for one thing, and find another. When reporting a new cache, there is no option to create a "nano" cache. Who can I contact at Groundspeak to get this fixed?

 

I predict they will fix this. Not anytime soon though. Congratulations to all the people in your area who list them as micros though. Where I come from, almost all of them are listed as other or unknown, no one seems to know they are micros. Of course your post proves that point. :blink:

Link to comment

The difference, in volume, between a 35mm film canister and a nano can is considerably smaller than the difference between a sandwich-size Lock n' Lock and an ammo can.

 

Perhaps we should require cache owners to list the volume of the container, in mL.

Link to comment

I've come increasingly frustrated with a trend in geocaching the last couple of years; specifically, urban caching. I go urban caching in my town with my young son because I can drive there and then motor about. The last couple of years I have noticed something - many urban caches are being reported as micro when in fact they are nano caches (you know, those tiny little magnets smaller in diameter than a dime). I don't mind the challenge, but it is frustrating when you are looking for one thing, and find another. When reporting a new cache, there is no option to create a "nano" cache. Who can I contact at Groundspeak to get this fixed?

 

It's such a loose definition between the two, I feel it doesn't matter. A GPS is only accurate to maybe like +/- 10 feet (at least mine is) and if the clue sucks and its a micro, I just don't bother. I feel like at some point, if the cache owner can't just provide in the description enough info to make it findable (a clue that tries to provide help in the situation you're in the field and stumped, a lengthy description of what the cache is, why you are taken to this place, etc.), I wouldn't bother going out to look in the first place.

Link to comment

At some time early in the development of geocaching, it was decided that when listing a cache the owner could specify if was regular, large, or micro. The owner could also leave the size unspecified. I'm not sure if Other was originally an option or if that was added latter. Ostensibly, the size was to help finder have some idea of what they were looking for. But it also let people know what size swag might fit in the cache.

 

Later, Groundspeak began sell travel bugs and the activity of moving trackables from cache to cache became popular. (This actually started before travel bugs, when people would leave trade items with notes attached asking that they be moved from cache to cache). As people began to hide smaller containers, the range for what was considered regular got to include a wide range of containers. No longer could you be certain that you would be able to leave a travel bug in a regular cache. With much lobbying from the travel bug community, TPTB added the small size cache. The idea was that a small container may have room for a travel bug, but only for the tags or a very small item. Larger size travel bugs might fit in a regular cache, and giant sized travel bugs (like the bowling pin I once saw) would fit only in a large cache.

 

If the size was ever meant to provide a clue as what you are looking for, this was no longer the primary case. Size was now meant to allow people to know whether or not a travel bug would fit in a cache. This didn't entirely solve the problem of what to do when a micro is embedded in some camouflage that was much larger (like a fake rock or a log). Some people argue that these caches should be listed based on size of the camouflage while others will argue that the camouflage doesn't matter; the cache is a micro. However, now the second opinion seems to be the majority one.

 

As micros became smaller some of the smallest became very popular - in part because they are easy to hide in urban environments. These smallest sized micros are popularly referred to as nanos. There is some disagreement as to where to draw the line as to what a nano is. Some only use for those little magnetic buttons. Others want to include the smaller sized bison tubes or caches made from the small plastic tubes you sometimes find inside of bison tubes. Still others would include caches made from breath strip containers. Any new size will suffer from the fact that it is hard to define caches sizes. Most people do not do a good job of estimating volume and with some shapes, volume may not be adequate. (What size is a flat magnetic sheet wit a pocket for the log?) Someone, somewhere is going to create a cache that sits right on the borderline or that has some weird shape that makes it hard to classify.

 

I understand that some people feel that nanos may be too hard to find if you are looking for anything from a magnetic blinky to a 35mm film can. This is certainly the case for small where you may be looking for anything from a pill bottle just slightly larger than a 35mm film can to a small Tupperware container up to about 1 quart in size. On the other hand, I've found that if I know I'm looking for a magnetic blinky, it is almost always easy to find.

 

My guess is that while many people would like there to be a new size, it isn't going to happen. It just doesn't buy much other than helping out a few finders who may get frustrated looking for these containers. And any new size will just confuse cachers who have been use to the current sizes. Existing caches that are listed as micro are not likely to get updated by their owners. So you're going to continue to see nanos list as micros even if a change is made. You may even see more people listing them as unspecified because they don't was to give away that the caches is a nano.

Link to comment

The difference, in volume, between a 35mm film canister and a nano can is considerably smaller than the difference between a sandwich-size Lock n' Lock and an ammo can.

 

Perhaps we should require cache owners to list the volume of the container, in mL.

 

As a CO, I usually indicated if it is a nano or film can or urban style (like a plastic pipet tube) which implies that it is smaller that a film can. If you look at my stats, most of my finds are micros and surely some were nanos or pipet tubes or bison tubes. How about preforms?

Anyway, after the FTF, I try to make it easy for the GC public to have fun with my hides. So I give big hints.

Link to comment

The difference, in volume, between a 35mm film canister and a nano can is considerably smaller than the difference between a sandwich-size Lock n' Lock and an ammo can.

 

Perhaps we should require cache owners to list the volume of the container, in mL.

(reg) ammo can * 8,260 ml

(small) sandwich-sized container – less than approximately 1L

Assuming that the sandwich container is 1L, then it would be 12.1% of the size of an ammo can.

Shift % according to type of ammo can, but it will have to humongous to show a greater difference than what comes next.

 

35mm Film can* 145ml

Mr Blinky 0.8ml

Mr Blinky is 0.5% of the size of a film can.

Mr Blinky with niodium magnet volume based on external dimension. 4.9 ml, 3.37% the size of 35mm film can.

 

*Ammo and film can are based on external dimensions when calculating volume.

anyone have the internal volume of a 33mm film can?

Link to comment

(reg) ammo can * 8,260 ml

(small) sandwich-sized container – less than approximately 1L

Assuming that the sandwich container is 1L, then it would be 12.1% of the size of an ammo can.

Shift % according to type of ammo can, but it will have to humongous to show a greater difference than what comes next.

 

35mm Film can* 145ml

Mr Blinky 0.8ml

Mr Blinky is 0.5% of the size of a film can.

Mr Blinky with niodium magnet volume based on external dimension. 4.9 ml, 3.37% the size of 35mm film can.

 

*Ammo and film can are based on external dimensions when calculating volume.

anyone have the internal volume of a 33mm film can?

 

Around 70ml

Link to comment

It seems that the mistake the OP is making is assuming that MKHs and the like are the "default" micro size. Really, there is no default size.

 

If you want to know what you're looking for, only search for caches that give you a better description of the cache container. You should be equally mad at 33mms that are only listed as "micro" with no further information as you are at bison tubes or blinkies.

 

There're no defaults. Micro =/= film can. Regular =/= ammo can. Small =/= tupperware.

 

Either enjoy the thrill of not knowing exactly what you're looking for, or only search for caches that tell you exactly what you're looking for.

Link to comment

Doesn't it all really boil down to finding a well hidden cache in a great location that you enjoyed finding?

 

I mean we could argue till the cows come home but we all want good, dry, well stocked, good cammo'd caches that are hidden in a good place with a nice view or a clever hide or clever cammo... etc...

 

I love finding ammo cans but most of my finds are micros... I enjoyed them too.

 

I have one nano ready to place but i'm not going to place it until I find somewhere other than the bottom of a park bench.

 

As the saying goes, Its not the size that counts.

 

Until GC decides to make the option for a nano or huge thing... it is what it is.

Edited by brslk
Link to comment

Get out your dictionary and find out what the definition of "difference" is, as it applies to math. Hint: when you subtract 1 from 8, the difference is 7.

 

Also, what kind of sandwich requires a 1L container, and how many "regular" caches do you see in 8L ammo cans? Most ammo cans around here are probably 3L, tops.

 

Words - they mean things.

 

8000mL - 1000mL = 7000mL

 

70mL - 0.8mL = 69.2mL

 

7000 > 69.2

 

Bigger *difference*. Yes, the ratio of the film can to the nano is bigger, but that has no direct relevance to my comment about difference in volume.

 

 

 

(reg) ammo can * 8,260 ml

(small) sandwich-sized container – less than approximately 1L

Assuming that the sandwich container is 1L, then it would be 12.1% of the size of an ammo can.

Shift % according to type of ammo can, but it will have to humongous to show a greater difference than what comes next.

 

35mm Film can* 145ml

Mr Blinky 0.8ml

Mr Blinky is 0.5% of the size of a film can.

Mr Blinky with niodium magnet volume based on external dimension. 4.9 ml, 3.37% the size of 35mm film can.

 

*Ammo and film can are based on external dimensions when calculating volume.

anyone have the internal volume of a 33mm film can?

Edited by narcissa
Link to comment

Doesn't it all really boil down to finding a well hidden cache in a great location that you enjoyed finding?

 

I mean we could argue till the cows come home but we all want good, dry, well stocked, good cammo'd caches that are hidden in a good place with a nice view or a clever hide or clever cammo... etc...

 

I love finding ammo cans but most of my finds are micros... I enjoyed them too.

 

I have one nano ready to place but i'm not going to place it until I find somewhere other than the bottom of a park bench.

 

As the saying goes, Its not the size that counts.

 

Until GC decides to make the option for a nano or huge thing... it is what it is.

 

I hid my first nano today and I have to say, didn't realize I should have put it as micro....around here, other means nano. I made it easy, not for the challenge, but to draw people to the cool location. An ammo can wouldn't have worked. I thought that was part of geocaching...discovering new places? On the other hand, I've seen 1's that I couldn't see, and 3.5's that I found in minutes. Sometimes an ammo may as well be a micro to me.

Link to comment
I hid my first nano today and I have to say, didn't realize I should have put it as micro....around here, other means nano.

 

The size guidelines say a micro is a film can or smaller. Those who use "other" are doing it for one of two reasons. 1, out of ignorance or 2, to fool people who filter micros into hunting their cache

Link to comment

 

I have one nano ready to place but i'm not going to place it until I find somewhere other than the bottom of a park bench.

 

I had a nano that I got as a FTF prize in a cache. I also carried it around in my pocket until I could find a place

that I liked to hide it. That lasted about a month before I lost it somewhere.

Link to comment

Get out your dictionary and find out what the definition of "difference" is, as it applies to math. Hint: when you subtract 1 from 8, the difference is 7.

 

Also, what kind of sandwich requires a 1L container, and how many "regular" caches do you see in 8L ammo cans? Most ammo cans around here are probably 3L, tops.

 

Words - they mean things.

 

8000mL - 1000mL = 7000mL

 

70mL - 0.8mL = 69.2mL

 

7000 > 69.2

 

Bigger *difference*. Yes, the ratio of the film can to the nano is bigger, but that has no direct relevance to my comment about difference in volume.

You are making an "is to as" comparison.

once you have done that you need an equalizer and ml isn't. %of volume works to show, but so does simple division.

So the volume of the sandwich container fits into the ammo can's 8.26 times, and the blinky fits into the film can's 87.5 times.(thanks bittsen)

I was using 1L as the comparison because of

Small (sandwich-sized plastic container or similar – less than approximately 1 quart or 1 L

as I don't own one, I needed something to guide me.

Does 500ml sound more fair?

SC fits into AC 16.52... times

Rough volume of just a slice of bread? About 185 in volume. That fits into an ammo can 44.648... times.

getting closer but I'm about to start comparing the volume of a large micro to that ammo can.

AH, why not? Large Micro(0.1L) fits into ammo can 82.6 times.

Still more difference between blinky and film can.

Of course that is my opinion of a nano, some people think they are bigger. If we can get some sort of agreement on the volume of a nano then we can better compare differences based on maximums in size class.

Link to comment

 

I have one nano ready to place but i'm not going to place it until I find somewhere other than the bottom of a park bench.

 

I had a nano that I got as a FTF prize in a cache. I also carried it around in my pocket until I could find a place

that I liked to hide it. That lasted about a month before I lost it somewhere.

The one in front of me is only going to be stage one.

I'll never have a nano final.

Link to comment
I hid my first nano today and I have to say, didn't realize I should have put it as micro....around here, other means nano.

 

The size guidelines say a micro is a film can or smaller. Those who use "other" are doing it for one of two reasons. 1, out of ignorance or 2, to fool people who filter micros into hunting their cache

The cache placement form provides two additional options to the sizes micro, small, regular, and large. These are Not Listed and Other. Not Listed can be used if the hider does not want to reveal the cache size on the cache page. Other is used when the container is some odd size or shape that doesn't quite fit in the other size classifcations. The cache placement form seems to indicate that a cache owner who wants to specify the container used in the description should use Other.

 

I think that cache owners who use other for nanos and who then say in the description that the cache is a nano, are doing the correct thing and not doing it out of ignorance or in order to fool people. There are of course people who use Other when they want to hide the fact that it is a nano, these people should be using Not Listed.

 

There are some people who filter out all micro hides. If they live in an area where nanos are widely listed as Other or where hide-a-keys get listed as small (because they are longer than a 35 mm film can), they will be frustrated because these will get through the filter. Of course if the real reason they are filtering micros is not the size but simply because they don't like certain kinds of urban hides that tend to be micros, then they're probably not getting very effective use of the filter anyhow.

Link to comment

I seriously doubt that any new sizes will be added. I think the current definitions work well if folks would just read them and use them. I cannot fathom how upon reading the guidelines you would choose 'other' as the most appropriate size for a nano container.

 

I really do believe that most folks choose 'other' to be deceptive about the true nature of the hide. The only other choice is that they have not read the guidelines and are therefore acting out of ignorance.

Link to comment

What is your point? I was kidding about listing containers by volume, and I'm not sure why you're still babbling about volume ratio when my original comment said difference.

 

Get out your dictionary and find out what the definition of "difference" is, as it applies to math. Hint: when you subtract 1 from 8, the difference is 7.

 

Also, what kind of sandwich requires a 1L container, and how many "regular" caches do you see in 8L ammo cans? Most ammo cans around here are probably 3L, tops.

 

Words - they mean things.

 

8000mL - 1000mL = 7000mL

 

70mL - 0.8mL = 69.2mL

 

7000 > 69.2

 

Bigger *difference*. Yes, the ratio of the film can to the nano is bigger, but that has no direct relevance to my comment about difference in volume.

You are making an "is to as" comparison.

once you have done that you need an equalizer and ml isn't. %of volume works to show, but so does simple division.

So the volume of the sandwich container fits into the ammo can's 8.26 times, and the blinky fits into the film can's 87.5 times.(thanks bittsen)

I was using 1L as the comparison because of

Small (sandwich-sized plastic container or similar – less than approximately 1 quart or 1 L

as I don't own one, I needed something to guide me.

Does 500ml sound more fair?

SC fits into AC 16.52... times

Rough volume of just a slice of bread? About 185 in volume. That fits into an ammo can 44.648... times.

getting closer but I'm about to start comparing the volume of a large micro to that ammo can.

AH, why not? Large Micro(0.1L) fits into ammo can 82.6 times.

Still more difference between blinky and film can.

Of course that is my opinion of a nano, some people think they are bigger. If we can get some sort of agreement on the volume of a nano then we can better compare differences based on maximums in size class.

Link to comment

I seriously doubt that any new sizes will be added. I think the current definitions work well if folks would just read them and use them. I cannot fathom how upon reading the guidelines you would choose 'other' as the most appropriate size for a nano container.

 

I really do believe that most folks choose 'other' to be deceptive about the true nature of the hide. The only other choice is that they have not read the guidelines and are therefore acting out of ignorance.

 

I am guilty as charged. I hid my first nano yesterday and put other, not to be deceptive, but because that is what nanos, etc....are listed as around here. I will henceforth put micro and add a helpful note in my description. I do think that area cachers adapt to each other's caches....I don't think any of my local cachers meant to be deceptive either. It just happened. Kind of like either/either.

Link to comment

I seriously doubt that any new sizes will be added. I think the current definitions work well if folks would just read them and use them. I cannot fathom how upon reading the guidelines you would choose 'other' as the most appropriate size for a nano container.

 

I really do believe that most folks choose 'other' to be deceptive about the true nature of the hide. The only other choice is that they have not read the guidelines and are therefore acting out of ignorance.

 

I am guilty as charged. I hid my first nano yesterday and put other, not to be deceptive, but because that is what nanos, etc....are listed as around here. I will henceforth put micro and add a helpful note in my description. I do think that area cachers adapt to each other's caches....I don't think any of my local cachers meant to be deceptive either. It just happened. Kind of like either/either.

But the definitions are clearly worded in the guidelines. Sounds like a case of one guy doing it to be deceptive and everybody else in the local area just followed suit.

Link to comment

I seriously doubt that any new sizes will be added. I think the current definitions work well if folks would just read them and use them. I cannot fathom how upon reading the guidelines you would choose 'other' as the most appropriate size for a nano container.

 

I really do believe that most folks choose 'other' to be deceptive about the true nature of the hide. The only other choice is that they have not read the guidelines and are therefore acting out of ignorance.

The guideline only provide definitions for micro, small, regular, and large. They don't go into detail that the cache placement form has two additional options: Not Listed and Other. There is nothing in the guidelines about when to use these options. I take a pragmatic approach. These options are provided on the cache placement form and caches are published with these options - therefore there must be reasons for using these options. The fact that the guidelines fail to mention these does not mean these are not valid options when hiding a cache.

 

The interpretation of Not Listed is easy. If you simply do not want to state the size of the cache on the cache page you can choose this option.

 

It is harder to get agreement on what Other means. It seems it can mean two things.

 

One is that you have a cache that doesn't fit any of the usual sizes. However, if you take the definitions in the guidelines literally this wouldn't be a good reason to use other. The definitions supply volumes for each size and every cache has to have some volume. The problem here is that 1) the volumes are approximate and 2) people have a hard time estimating volume. If a cache has an unusual shape, the use of Other may be better than guessing what size it should be.

 

The other interpretation of Other, is implied by cache placement form. It indicates to use Other if you have information on size in the description. It seems to me that for people who feel that a nano is a special kind of container that deserves being called out in the description that Other is an appropriate way to do this. Certainly one could still list it as micro (by volume) and provide additional information in the description, but the guidelines don't require this.

 

I do not feel that people are using Other just because they want to make life harder for StarBrand, briansnat, and ohters who might filter out micros. However, if these people want to have guidelines that say not to use Other for nanos they need to petition Groundspeak to change the guidelines to clarify when Other is appropriate to use. As the it stands now there is no guideline saying it is wrong to list nanos as Other.

Link to comment

......

 

I do not feel that people are using Other just because they want to make life harder for StarBrand, briansnat, and ohters who might filter out micros. However, if these people want to have guidelines that say not to use Other for nanos they need to petition Groundspeak to change the guidelines to clarify when Other is appropriate to use. As the it stands now there is no guideline saying it is wrong to list nanos as Other.

I never said it was wrong. Just delibertly misleading. Especially when the definition for micro clearly covers something the size of a nano and there is no other appaerent reason for selecting'other'. Perhaps it is an education issue. But if you read the guidelines - it seems very clear which size should be selected in most cases.

 

I use 'other' on one of my hides. Not that it is a nano but for purposes of the story that goes with the cache - it is appropriate. I am misleading finders a bit for purposes of a storyline. It seems rather obvious in this case. Not so with many run-of-mill nano hides.

Link to comment

I seriously doubt that any new sizes will be added. I think the current definitions work well if folks would just read them and use them. I cannot fathom how upon reading the guidelines you would choose 'other' as the most appropriate size for a nano container.

 

I really do believe that most folks choose 'other' to be deceptive about the true nature of the hide. The only other choice is that they have not read the guidelines and are therefore acting out of ignorance.

 

I am guilty as charged. I hid my first nano yesterday and put other, not to be deceptive, but because that is what nanos, etc....are listed as around here. I will henceforth put micro and add a helpful note in my description. I do think that area cachers adapt to each other's caches....I don't think any of my local cachers meant to be deceptive either. It just happened. Kind of like either/either.

But the definitions are clearly worded in the guidelines. Sounds like a case of one guy doing it to be deceptive and everybody else in the local area just followed suit.

 

Could help if the reviewers enforced the guidelines. So often I see COs choose "other" and yet write in the description that it's a nano. Reviewers could enforce the size guidelines, but they don't. Why?

Link to comment
I do not feel that people are using Other just because they want to make life harder for StarBrand, briansnat, and ohters who might filter out micros. However, if these people want to have guidelines that say not to use Other for nanos they need to petition Groundspeak to change the guidelines to clarify when Other is appropriate to use. As the it stands now there is no guideline saying it is wrong to list nanos as Other.

 

There is nothing that says caches of any size can't be listed as Other. However as a courtesy to your fellow geocachers, the most accurate description should be used. Unfortunately not everybody is into the courtesy thing.

Link to comment

I get, and agree, that per the guidelines "micro" is the size choice for nanos. (And I don't see any definition of "other".)

 

The thing is, "nano" has entered the vocabulary. Everyone knows what a nano is; if you are describing it to someone, you would call it a nano, not a micro. I've talked to some very intelligent people who have read the guidelines, but still think a nano is something different than the given choices, so they choose other.

 

Personally, it doesn't bother me much either way, though my preference would be to have a separate nano size.

Link to comment

 

I have one nano ready to place but i'm not going to place it until I find somewhere other than the bottom of a park bench.

 

I had a nano that I got as a FTF prize in a cache. I also carried it around in my pocket until I could find a place

that I liked to hide it. That lasted about a month before I lost it somewhere.

 

That's funny because I obtained mine from a cache also.

I have also lost it a few times but it keeps turning up somewhere (it even went through the clothes washer once).

It currently is stuck to my fridge until I find a worthy place for it.

Edited by brslk
Link to comment

Okay okay.... Nano and Micro basically mean the same thing, and are used in a similar fashion.

 

nano-

a combining form with the meaning “very small, minute,” used in the formation of compound words

 

Micro-

 

1.

extremely small.

2.

minute in scope or capability.

 

Micro is also used in forming compound words.

 

 

So in essence, its the same word. The only difference in the word is that Nano is in relation to a measurement. It's “one billionth”. Micro is just a suffix for anything related to really really small. And both refer to something that cannot be seen with the naked eye.

 

So no matter which you use, Micro or Nano, Your using a word that pretty much means the same thing.

 

Way I look at it. Micro can be from anywhere from a film canister to itty bitty tiny things. Small is usually something that is just big enough to fit a couple of small swag items or trackables. regular is usually a regular lock and lock or ammo can. Large is the bigger size ammo can, or huge.

 

least that's how I look at it.

Link to comment

My point is about the use of "nano" in geocaching. Cachers generally call them nanos, not micros. Many hiders see them as a different type from micros, so they select "other" as they expect to see nano on the list and they don't. I know per the guidelines they should select micro. I just think the nano size is distinctive enough, and the term in so common use (in geocaching), that adding a size of "nano" is a logical evolution of the game (as was adding micro some time in the past).

Edited by redsox_mark
Link to comment

Okay okay.... Nano and Micro basically mean the same thing, and are used in a similar fashion.

 

nano-

a combining form with the meaning “very small, minute,” used in the formation of compound words

 

Micro-

 

1.

extremely small.

2.

minute in scope or capability.

 

Micro is also used in forming compound words.

 

So in essence, its the same word. The only difference in the word is that Nano is in relation to a measurement. It's “one billionth”. Micro is just a suffix for anything related to really really small. And both refer to something that cannot be seen with the naked eye.

 

So no matter which you use, Micro or Nano, Your using a word that pretty much means the same thing.

 

Way I look at it. Micro can be from anywhere from a film canister to itty bitty tiny things. Small is usually something that is just big enough to fit a couple of small swag items or trackables. regular is usually a regular lock and lock or ammo can. Large is the bigger size ammo can, or huge.

 

least that's how I look at it.

 

You are kidding, I hope. Or did you major in humanities? :unsure:

 

Any engineer can tell you that the terms "micro" and "nano", while being misunderstood and misused by many people, have specific definitions. Micro is a prefix meaning 10^-6. Nano is a prefix meaning 10^-9.

 

I have also heard of picocaches, which some people have used to refer to caches smaller than a "blinky". I have thought about hiding a femtocache but doubt that even if someone has the tools to find the cache that they could sign the log...

Edited by drfred
Link to comment

 

You are kidding, I hope. Or did you major in humanities? :)

 

Any engineer can tell you that the terms "micro" and "nano", while being misunderstood and misused by many people, have specific definitions. Micro is a prefix meaning 10^-6. Nano is a prefix meaning 10^-9.

 

 

Geocaching isn't engineering.

 

Is a film can really 10^-6th the size of an ammo can? Can you fit 1,000 blinkies into a film can? No? Then, for geocachng purposes, the definitions quoted by mchaos are more relevant than your more "precise" definitions.

Link to comment
Okay okay.... Nano and Micro basically mean the same thing, and are used in a similar fashion.
This is not correct at all.

 

nano - a combining form with the meaning "very small, minute," used in the formation of compound words

 

Micro - 1. extremely small. 2. minute in scope or capability.

Yes, these are the correct definitions as they apply to several things, including geocaching.

 

Micro is also used in forming compound words.
Aren't they both?

 

So in essence, its the same word.
Not correct at all.

 

The only difference in the word is that Nano is in relation to a measurement. It's "one billionth". Micro is just a suffix for anything related to really really small.
Not correct, they both are prefixes used to specify a specific portion of a unit, and they're both slang to indicate something small (as in the definitions you gave above).

 

And both refer to something that cannot be seen with the naked eye.
This is not correct at all.

 

So no matter which you use, Micro or Nano, Your using a word that pretty much means the same thing.
In geocaching, perhaps.

 

Way I look at it. Micro can be from anywhere from a film canister to itty bitty tiny things. Small is usually something that is just big enough to fit a couple of small swag items or trackables. regular is usually a regular lock and lock or ammo can. Large is the bigger size ammo can, or huge.

 

least that's how I look at it.

That seems to be the way the site looks at it too.
Link to comment

...... that adding a size of "nano" is a logical evolution of the game (as was adding micro some time in the past).

Micro was not really 'added' - it was one of the original size classifications. Small is the only one added since then.

 

Thanks for the correction, sorry I was misinformed.

Link to comment
Okay okay.... Nano and Micro basically mean the same thing, and are used in a similar fashion.
This is not correct at all.

 

nano - a combining form with the meaning "very small, minute," used in the formation of compound words

 

Micro - 1. extremely small. 2. minute in scope or capability.

Yes, these are the correct definitions as they apply to several things, including geocaching.

 

Micro is also used in forming compound words.
Aren't they both?

 

Uh duh. Read the def I posted for nano again. " used in the formation of compound words"

 

That's why I said, " micro is also used in the formation of compound words" Because it wasn't listed in the definition on Dictionary.com, but it is obvious that it is.

 

So as I originally posted, Yes they both are.

 

For geocaching, nano and micro both mean very small. Micro is film canister to as small as you can make it. Small is a container that can hold some small items that are bigger then a film canister. Regular is just about any container you can put swag in easily. Large is generally around a 5 gal bucket or larger...

 

So why would you need 2 different options for a tiny cache? You don't need a different option for each of the many sizes of lock and lock. You don't need another option for 50 cal boxes or 30 cal boxes or the many other sizes of ammo cans. And you don't need different options for different large sizes like rubber made box etc.

 

There is no need for an other description of a micro cache.

 

Think of it this way. A micro is any cache with just a log only. That's what it really means. If you want to list the specific container, you can do it in the cache page description. Examples: Bison tube, 50 cal ammo box, regular size lock and lock, Big lock and lock, magnetic blinky, and on and so fourth.

 

The size options are size categories, not container specific.

 

I took the definitions right from dictionary.com

Edited by mchaos
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...
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...