Jump to content

Nano Caches


Recommended Posts

heh... if it is a harder hide they want, they should just put co-ordinates off by 100 feet or more... they seem to do that frequently here. :)

 

There's a difference between staring right at a cache at spot on coordinates and wandering aimlessly around because someone posted intentionally bad coords.

 

I meant to add that a lot of times other is used for very unique containers.

 

P.S. I did see your smiley. :D

 

IC.... so this might be "other"...

 

Molina%20Lake%20Potty.jpg

Link to comment
assuming that this is actually what the "micro" category is supposed to mean. the existence of "other" still indicates that it isn't.

 

The existence of other as a size if for times when the size may give away the hide.

 

In other words, sometimes knowing what the size is makes it easier to figure out where/how the cache is hidden. If the cache is intended to be a more difficult find, then a hider may choose to use other so the finder doesn't get a hint of the container's location.

 

That being said, I would not mind a nano size since I would actually filter them out if I could.

There are actually two options besides micro, small, regular, and large. One is "Not Listed". I would say this is for when the cache owner does not want to give the size in order to make the hide more challenging. "Other" is for when the cache owner does not think any of the traditional sizes apply. Generally, this is for odd shaped containers, such as flat magnetic sheets with a pocket for the log. The guidelines do not specify what containers "Other" may be applied to. That is left up to the cache owner. I certainly see it as reasonable for a cache owner to decide that a nano container has a special enough shape to call it Other.

 

The issue may be that in some areas there are so many nanos being classified as Other that cachers who routinely filter out micros but don't filter out Other are finding too many nanos that they would prefer to skip. If these cachers still want the option of searching for "Other" caches without finding that most are nanos, I would think they would support the addition of a nano size in the hopes that cache owners would use it instead of Other. Trying to force a subjective standard for when Other is appropriate is not going to work any better that any other time the guidelines have been used to try to force some subjective standard.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment
The existence of other as a size if for times when the size may give away the hide.

no, that's when they would pick "not listed", which means exactly that: you don't want to say.

 

I meant to add that a lot of times other is used for very unique containers.

yes. however, even the most unique containers clearly have a certain size, so following the logic of the "nano = micro" advocates, the COs would therefore have to choose one of the "size" categories, and not "other". which in turn means that following this logic, there would be no possible valid use of the "other" category, rendering it completely useless.

Link to comment
There are actually two options besides micro, small, regular, and large. One is "Not Listed". I would say this is for when the cache owner does not want to give the size in order to make the hide more challenging.

 

I stand corrected. You are correct that Not Listed would be more appropriate for what I described.

 

As for the trying to force subjective guidelines, you keep saying that in a lot of threads, but I still don't see where anyone is forcing anything.

Link to comment

yes. however, even the most unique containers clearly have a certain size,

 

That's not true when you use size in the meaning used in the guidelines of gc.com and not in the physical sense. The descriptions of the different size categories on gc.com do not use the volume as unique measure for the size. The current version of the guidelines mentions some rough estimates for the volume to help cachers in their decision as there used to be quite some debate e.g. on what is small and what is regular. In older versions of the guideline no estimates for the volume was given. An extremely large object with almost no volume will simply not fit the description of micro. An object of 2m times 2m times 0.0001 m will not be regarded as smaller as a film container despite the small volume.

 

Moreover, other examples for caches where "other" is making sense are large objects (imagine e.g. something like the size of a curling stone with a hole in which a container of the size of a film canister with the log book or something even smaller is integrated. As trading is concerned, the container behaves like a micro cache, but in other aspects the cache behaves like a regular or small cache (even when the volume is used as measure). There exist many other examples of that type, in particular in connection with some very creative hideouts.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment
Which is easily fixed by adding the words "and smaller" to the Micro's drop-down selector text on the cache submission page.

assuming that this is actually what the "micro" category is supposed to mean. the existence of "other" still indicates that it isn't.

If you'll look in the Guidelines, you'll see that the full definition of the Micro size includes the "and smaller" language. The fact that there is an Other category doesn't change that fact.

Link to comment
The existence of other as a size if for times when the size may give away the hide.

no, that's when they would pick "not listed", which means exactly that: you don't want to say.

 

I meant to add that a lot of times other is used for very unique containers.

yes. however, even the most unique containers clearly have a certain size, so following the logic of the "nano = micro" advocates, the COs would therefore have to choose one of the "size" categories, and not "other". which in turn means that following this logic, there would be no possible valid use of the "other" category, rendering it completely useless.

Your logic is wrong. Something like a blinkie undoubtably fits in the micro category, as defined in the Guidelines.

 

But "Other" is there as a catch-all for anything else that might not fit into one of the predefined size description. Since the "micro" definition includes anything smaller, as specified in the Guidelines, it's obviously not intended for the so-called "nano".

 

What might Other be used for? Well, for one example, it could be for a large object that has a small interior space. Calling such a large object a micro would be misleading, but calling it large might lead people to think it's a good place for leaving travel bugs. Hence, the use of "Other".

Link to comment
What might Other be used for? Well, for one example, it could be for a large object that has a small interior space. Calling such a large object a micro would be misleading, but calling it large might lead people to think it's a good place for leaving travel bugs. Hence, the use of "Other".

it's a nice interpretation of the guidelines, and taken by itself actually makes sense. but, since you like quoting the guidelines so much, acknowledge the fact that the guidelines don't mention any of that, and therefore it is just your interpretation. my interpretation is different.

Link to comment
What might Other be used for? Well, for one example, it could be for a large object that has a small interior space. Calling such a large object a micro would be misleading, but calling it large might lead people to think it's a good place for leaving travel bugs. Hence, the use of "Other".

it's a nice interpretation of the guidelines, and taken by itself actually makes sense. but, since you like quoting the guidelines so much, acknowledge the fact that the guidelines don't mention any of that, and therefore it is just your interpretation. my interpretation is different.

There is a reason Prime Suspect is able to quote the quidelines so well. It is known that the reviewers discuss the guidelines among themeselves and with Groundspeak and I suspect that this leads to certain defacto interpretations of the guidelines that we ordinary folk only find out about when someone comes to the forum to complain of an unfair reviewer or if the guidelines are changed. The interesting thing here is that the reviewers are not enforcing this interpretation yet. For the most part cache owners can put what they like for size.

 

It may be that we will be seeing a revised guidelines where the nanos are micros interpretation is addressed. As the guidelines are now written, I agree with dfx that a cache owner should be allowed to use Other whenever they think there is something unique about the container that deserves it to be condisered as other than one of the traditional sizes. If you don't want to leave the decision up to the cache owner, you're going to have a "Wow" of a problem enforcing a rule on "Other". Is size Other for containers that are novel, of interest to other players, and have a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets them apart from everyday containers? :lol:

Link to comment
Which is easily fixed by adding the words "and smaller" to the Micro's drop-down selector text on the cache submission page.

assuming that this is actually what the "micro" category is supposed to mean. the existence of "other" still indicates that it isn't.

 

I think "other" means something like the film can inside a fake rock. The thing you're looking for is large, but the usable space inside is small.

 

I don't care if there's a new category for nano or not. It there was, I can see the hand wringing starting over the dividing line between micro and nano. But surely there's a way to make the size guidelines clearer (like the above suggestion).

 

[i wrote that before reading the last few posts]

Edited by Mosaic55
Link to comment
As the guidelines are now written, I agree with dfx that a cache owner should be allowed to use Other whenever they think there is something unique about the container that deserves it to be condisered as other than one of the traditional sizes.

 

Unless I am missing something, hiders ARE allowed to put other whenever they feel the need to do so. I am not aware of any enforcing of unwritten guidelines going on.

Link to comment
What might Other be used for? Well, for one example, it could be for a large object that has a small interior space. Calling such a large object a micro would be misleading, but calling it large might lead people to think it's a good place for leaving travel bugs. Hence, the use of "Other".

it's a nice interpretation of the guidelines, and taken by itself actually makes sense. but, since you like quoting the guidelines so much, acknowledge the fact that the guidelines don't mention any of that, and therefore it is just your interpretation. my interpretation is different.

I don't need it to be written in the Guidelines, to know that when listed with a number of additional choices, "other" means none of those already listed. And since "nano" is already taken care of in the micro definition from the Guidelines:

  • 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)

then "other" obviously doesn't include what is typically thought of as a nano.

Link to comment

As the guidelines are now written, I agree with dfx that a cache owner should be allowed to use Other whenever they think there is something unique about the container that deserves it to be condisered as other than one of the traditional sizes.

 

dfx, however, argues that the guidelines do not exclude that "Other" can be used for nano caches of the classical type. That's simply wrong and there is no room for interpretation. There is room for interpretation in case of certain special containers whether or not they rather fit into the micro/small/traditional/large classification, but that's not the case for nanos. (A nano inside of a large false rock and things like that are a story of its own.)

 

The fact that the reviewers do not insist on micro used for nano caches in my opinion is easily explained by the fact that at least in my area the reviewers do not intervene in the choice of the size entry at all. I could hide large cache, mention in the text that it is a large bucket and still list it as micro and the cache will be published just this way.

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

Do Groundspeak entertain suggestions for updates to the Guidelines? For example:

 

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)
  • Other (not adequately described by size alone - cache listing may give further information)

There is also a "Not listed" option intended for use when the owner does not wish to reveal the size of the cache.

Link to comment
IC.... so this might be "other"...

 

Molina%20Lake%20Potty.jpg

 

I may regret asking, but what's the green thing on the floor?

Hmmmmmmmmmmm,

 

That reminds me of a cache along 101 in N. Calif. The bigger item complete with bowl and tank. Yes there is and yes it is along the roadside.

 

You're talking about "Pit Stop" aren't you?! I grew up in Mendo County and we used to drive by that thing and laugh all the time when I was a kid. It's been there FOREVER.

 

As an adult now, I'm pleased that there is a cache in it. It's just so necessary.

 

The smaller item looks like a travel bug...

Link to comment
Why is the difference between a "nano" and a micro more important than the difference between two regular caches of that are different sizes?

because a nano is at least 10 times smaller than your usual micro, whereas the differences between your usual "regular" sizes caches is maybe 2 or 3 times (there's exceptions of course).

 

but the biggest difference is probably that you have to search for a nano quite differently than for a micro. this isn't true for different sized "regular" caches, or even for small vs regular vs large.

 

Any cacher with a working brain and the ability to read and understand what he/she is reading, should say that.

nope. everyone who considers the guidelines to be devine law would say that. but people with some common sense (and a "working brain") would not.

 

yes, under the guidelines, the proper category for nanos is "micro". but language is the best proof that in reality, this isn't correct: if people would consider nanos to be micros, they wouldn't call nanos nanos, they would call them micros. but they don't, they call them nanos, which is definite indication that in everybody's mind, there is a clear difference. therefore, claiming that nanos are micros just because the guidelines say so, completely in the face of what the community (culture, subculture, whatever) has decided through the language they use, is a fallacy. another quite strong indication of that is the sole existence of the "other" category, because if you strictly go by what the guidelines say, every imaginable container would be covered under one of the "micro"-"large" categories, rendering the "other" option totally nonsensical.

 

of course i can see a big problem with introducing a new size for caches: GPX files, or rather the applications which process them. quite a few of them would very likely break when they suddenly see an unrecognized new "size". this could be remedied with a new selectable GPX version, let's say 1.0.2 would report the new "nano" category, while the older ones would say "micro" (or maybe "other"?) in its place.

 

The guidelines clearly state that a micro container is a 35mm or smaller. Why is that so hard to understand? Oh wait. Maybe they haven't read the guidelines...

why is it so hard to understand that guidelines are just guidelines and are open to interpretation?

 

What might Other be used for? Well, for one example, it could be for a large object that has a small interior space. Calling such a large object a micro would be misleading, but calling it large might lead people to think it's a good place for leaving travel bugs. Hence, the use of "Other".

it's a nice interpretation of the guidelines, and taken by itself actually makes sense. but, since you like quoting the guidelines so much, acknowledge the fact that the guidelines don't mention any of that, and therefore it is just your interpretation. my interpretation is different.

 

An Employee of Groundspeak has spoken against the nano category: "There is no need for a nano type. As mentioned above the Micro type includes nanos. It also includes picos. even the atto (10 to the -18) would be covered by Micro. At some point there has to be a cap on types. The Micro was a good point to stop. "

 

Add another cache size to selection

 

Feature request: Nano cache size, Smaller than micro

 

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

 

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

 

Nano cache category

 

Enhancement Request - New Cache Size NANO

Link to comment

 

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

 

 

"Or smaller" isn't in the drop down box you get on the new cache form. I think it would help if it was.

Edited by Mosaic55
Link to comment

 

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

 

 

"Or smaller" isn't in the drop down box you get on the new cache form. I think it would help if it was.

 

Or, and I could be wrong here, it would help if people actually read the guidelines before they check the box saying they did so.

Link to comment

 

Any cacher with a working brain and the ability to read and understand what he/she is reading, should say that.

nope. everyone who considers the guidelines to be devine law would say that. but people with some common sense (and a "working brain") would not.

 

No, I neither regard the guidelines as divine law (I guess you mean divine) nor does it play any role

in my arguments which attitude someone has to the guidelines.

 

Please observe that not all parts of the guidelines are up to interpretation - not even up to interpretation by the reviewers (this is the typical case of interpretation left open by Groundspeak, not the case where the cacher hiders come up with their own interpretation).

 

Typical examples where interpretation might be possible are sentences which contain words like might, could, should etc

 

Like it is wrong to list a cache as traditional where the description mentions that the cache is hidden 20m to the North of the header coordinates (though I much more would like to see such caches listed as traditional as they share more properties of traditionals than of multi caches), it is wrong to list 0815 nano caches as other. The guidelines leave no room for interpretation in those cases.

 

Imagine what would happen if everyone can come up with his own interpretations. Do you think that

the fact that at least 30% of the cachers in the areas I know of find it ok when a muggled cache is turned into a (at least temporary) virtual cache that can be logged by taking a photo justifies this behaviour?

If everyone can come up with his own interpretation of the guidelines, we end up in chaos.

 

 

yes, under the guidelines, the proper category for nanos is "micro". but language is the best proof that in reality, this isn't correct: if people would consider nanos to be micros, they wouldn't call nanos nanos, they would call them micros.

 

Interesting - in your first sentence you state yourself that the only proper category for nanos is micro.

This is exactly what I and others claimed while you stated that this is up to interpretation.

 

As the language argument is regarded, please forget it. This type of argument in connection with geocaching is very weak as subcommunities of cachers come up with formulations which are nonsense.

I am not claiming that calling a nano container nano is nonsense. That's ok. But consider formulations like

"einen Cache mitnehmen" (take away a cache when translated into English) or "einen Cache heben" (to lift a cache) which are nonsense - still so many cachers are using that type of language just because they copy what others do without reflecting about the semantics.

 

Please do not mix up two different issues. One is whether it could make sense to introduce a new size category nano on gc.com and the other one is what is without any doubt the only correct classification for standard nanos at the moment. I did not comment at all on the first issue (actually, I do not care that much - I hate nanos anyway), only on the second.

 

but they don't, they call them nanos, which is definite indication that in everybody's mind, there is a clear difference. therefore, claiming that nanos are micros just because the guidelines say so, completely in the face of what the community (culture, subculture, whatever) has decided through the language they use, is a fallacy.

 

Another comment on this use of language which is not directly related to the topic here. At least in the German speaking community nano is typically used to refer to a particular type of cache container and not to its size. People aroun here will talk about L&L (or other names) and not use regular to talk about the container. The issue is is not how cachers call a certain type of container, but which size category the correct one to be used at gc.com.

This might of course change if the guidelines change. For a long time I thought of the cache containers I have hidden as regulars - the size category small did not exist back then.

Link to comment

I see it like this.

 

What is the problem with the current situation? It is that many owners of nano caches select the size “other” – in spite of what the guidelines say – because they feel that a nano is a distinct size, and as it isn’t listed, they select “other” to mean “none of the above”.

 

I assume most of these owners have read the guidelines, but for whatever reason they don’t remember the detail of the size definitions when prompted to choose from the dropdown list.

 

Possible solutions are:

 

1. Create a Nano size. Seems like this has been considered before and not likely to happen.

2. Add further clarification to the guidelines. Yes, I know they seem clear now, but the fact that owners keep choosing “other” says otherwise. E.g. add something like “including nanos” in the definition of micros.

3. Add something to the dropdown menu when choosing a size as has been suggested (e.g. add “or smaller” to Micro).

4. Do nothing. Let cache owners choose “other”. Complain that all who choose “other” are stupid as they can’t read the guidelines.

 

I still think 1) would be useful, but accept that you need to draw the line on the number of sizes somewhere, and it seems this isn’t going to happen.

 

As people seem to forget the guidelines even if they have read them, I like option 3. But I don’t feel that strongly and I can live with the status quo (option 4).

Link to comment

I see it like this.

 

What is the problem with the current situation? It is that many owners of nano caches select the size “other” – in spite of what the guidelines say – because they feel that a nano is a distinct size, and as it isn’t listed, they select “other” to mean “none of the above”.

 

I think many (tiny micro) hiders use "Other" because they know many cachers filter out micros from the

PQs.

 

I assume most of these owners have read the guidelines, but for whatever reason they don’t remember the detail of the size definitions when prompted to choose from the dropdown list.

 

A very weak justification.

 

The best solution is to remove the "Other" category completely.

Link to comment

I see it like this.

 

What is the problem with the current situation? It is that many owners of nano caches select the size “other” – in spite of what the guidelines say – because they feel that a nano is a distinct size, and as it isn’t listed, they select “other” to mean “none of the above”.

 

I think many (tiny micro) hiders use "Other" because they know many cachers filter out micros from the

PQs.

 

That may be a regional thing. There aren't that many nanos around here, but the ones I've found or DNF'd had the size mentioned in the description so I knew what I was looking for, even though the "other" or "not choosen" categories were used.

 

I assume most of these owners have read the guidelines, but for whatever reason they don’t remember the detail of the size definitions when prompted to choose from the dropdown list.

 

A very weak justification.

 

The best solution is to remove the "Other" category completely.

 

Then all the "other" choosers switch to "not chosen" so what's the benefit?

Link to comment

 

I think many (tiny micro) hiders use "Other" because they know many cachers filter out micros from the

PQs.

 

 

Possibly. I don't have enough data to make a clear conclusion. But in my limited experience (675 total finds) is:

- I have found a number of Nanos marked as "other" (15-20), and have asked the CO why. They have always said it was because there isn't a nano category (and they didn't consider it a micro).

- I've not yet found any "film pot size" micros listed as other

 

So I see (limited) evidence that people choose "other" as they think "micro" does not apply to "nano". And I've seen no evidence of people using "other" to avoid filtering. I'm sure there is some use of "other" to avoid filtering, but I would expect this to be as likely for a "film pot" micro as a nano.

 

Removing the option of "other" is another option... but I think "other" is useful for the truly odd container where size based on volume doesn't tell the whole story.

Link to comment

Uff, this is a lot of stuff to read (also the other threads) and hard to understand how excited some people can get about such a simple and logical topic as having a "new" category named "nano" for a very popular cache container size. Yes, am a Newby and still have found some Nanos that have been discribed as nanos and dnf some because I was searching a micro (not an "other" yet).

It´s not about size and not about regulations but about the way of searching, which makes a nano category asolutely necessary.

Having this not after years of discussing it and quite a lot of evidence seems to me like ignoring the necessity of airbags in cars (which has been claimed for many years by the industrie - many years ago) - yes, nano caches are less important.

I´m wondering why you cachers and gc customers out there let Groundspeak get away with the simple explanation (the only one I could read here), that there is "no need " for this category, because we have "micro" - oh my, sorry, but this sounds either ignorant or "money-driven" to me.

Over here in Germany (I learned from another thread that some of us are "phantom loggers" - nice idea! :) ) nanos are all around (but there are no stats, because there´s no category ;)

 

Hello Groundspeak: can we please have this category "nano"?

Link to comment

i didn't notice this until yesterday when i placed my first nano and went to set the size and had to label it as other. i wrote in the description that it is a nano but i don't know how many times i have used my iphone to find caches thinking its a bigger cache and take a second look to see that its a nano. I agree this would be a great addition the the website.

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...