Jump to content

NANO cache, what's the point?


Recommended Posts

I have a series of nano hides in Newport, RI, a fairly "urban" setting. They are all hidden near historical or scenic locations. All listings have "gimme" hints, so they can be found with almost no effort (and I have recovered them for log replacement at all times of the day with no one the wiser).

 

None of the locations could support anything larger (and I am able to think outside of the box for cache hides).

 

I get very positive logs from people, thanking me for the scenic tour or history lessons.

 

This kind of nano I look for. Most of the others I ignore. I too would like to have them identified in the cache heading so I can more easily choose to skip them.

Link to comment
...but searching for a NANO is quite a bit different than searching for a micro...

But a NANO is a micro. Ergo, searching for a NANO is exactly like searching for a micro.

that's only true if the guidelines are everything you know and ignore reality at the same time.

Could you try this again in English? I'm not following you. You seem to be saying that there is more to this issue than what is in the guidelines? Is that right? Where do we, as cache hiders, find out what cache size to select when we place a new one? The guidelines, or your "reality"? If I place a cache with a volume less than that of a film can, what size should I select? According to the guidelines, I should select "micro". (or "other" or "size not chosen" if I don't want a size reference) Does your "reality" have a different answer?

 

Perhaps what Snow Friends meant was, "searching for a nano blinkie is quite a bit different than searching for a micro match safe". If that's what Snow Friends meant, I concur completely, and is the main reason I feel that there should be a nano size category. However, I was debating what was said, not what it might have meant.

 

I call this "reality". :(

Edited by Clan Riffster
Link to comment
Could you try this again in English? I'm not following you. You seem to be saying that there is more to this issue than what is in the guidelines? Is that right? Where do we, as cache hiders, find out what cache size to select when we place a new one? The guidelines, or your "reality"? If I place a cache with a volume less than that of a film can, what size should I select? According to the guidelines, I should select "micro". (or "other" or "size not chosen" if I don't want a size reference) Does your "reality" have a different answer?

yes and no. as there's no other category to choose, you have to choose micro for nanos. that's one thing and relates to the guidelines and to the selectable categories only.

 

the other thing (reality) is what people say and what people mean. if people say "micro" and talk about those, they almost invariably talk about film can sized containers. if instead they mean to talk about containers that are much much smaller than that, they will say "nano" and talk about those. this is reality. language is reality. there's plenty of posts in this very thread which demonstrate exactly that. guidelines are guidelines and do not necessarily appropriately reflect reality. they just tell you what you're supposed to select on the web page, but that doesn't mean that in reality one equals another when at the same time there's a clear distinction in everybody's mind.

Edited by dfx
Link to comment
I have a series of nano hides in Newport, RI, a fairly "urban" setting. They are all hidden near historical or scenic locations. All listings have "gimme" hints, so they can be found with almost no effort (and I have recovered them for log replacement at all times of the day with no one the wiser).

 

None of the locations could support anything larger (and I am able to think outside of the box for cache hides).

 

I get very positive logs from people, thanking me for the scenic tour or history lessons.

Yeap, these are great caches. I have done them all and liked each and every one.

 

It goes back to the old saying, "location, location, location..."

 

In the case of this series, it's no so much about finding the actual container. Yes, it's fun to find it, but it's about the location. Standing on the corner in a busy tourist area checking out a great historic cemetery. Overlooking Newport Harbor with million dollar yachts floating past underneath. Yeah, it's things like that that make them a great series.

Edited by Skippermark
Link to comment

I dont agree with the nano-hate philosophy either. We've found some that were well thought out, well placed fun caches. We've also found some that were, well plain bad. That said, we've found tupperware, ammo cans & ziploc bags that were placed in ways that made them plain bad also.

 

If you ask me, the size of the container isnt what makes a hide fun or not - it's how/where it's hidden.

 

Thumbs up for that!

Link to comment
What are your specific experince with a NANO?
Some of my favorite caches have had 4-star difficulty ratings because of their camouflage. Many of those have been micros and nanos, and not all of the nanos have been blinkers.

 

They aren't always "needle in a haystack" hides. For the really good ones, you don't even have a haystack. You can search "everywhere it could possibly be hidden" in about 10 minutes, and then you have to figure out how/where the cache owner actually hid it.

Link to comment
What are your specific experince with a NANO?
Some of my favorite caches have had 4-star difficulty ratings because of their camouflage. Many of those have been micros and nanos, and not all of the nanos have been blinkers.

 

They aren't always "needle in a haystack" hides. For the really good ones, you don't even have a haystack. You can search "everywhere it could possibly be hidden" in about 10 minutes, and then you have to figure out how/where the cache owner actually hid it.

first of all i would like to say we would just like to be told somewhere in the description that we are looking for a nano! if they would tell us that then we would not have any problems! :lol:

Link to comment
What are your specific experince with a NANO?
Some of my favorite caches have had 4-star difficulty ratings because of their camouflage. Many of those have been micros and nanos, and not all of the nanos have been blinkers.

 

They aren't always "needle in a haystack" hides. For the really good ones, you don't even have a haystack. You can search "everywhere it could possibly be hidden" in about 10 minutes, and then you have to figure out how/where the cache owner actually hid it.

first of all i would like to say we would just like to be told somewhere in the description that we are looking for a nano! if they would tell us that then we would not have any problems! :lol:

 

On the cache pages they have at least one or two spots where the size is indicated. Right under the spot that says "Cache by" if the box all the way to the left is populated it indicates micro. Next to that is written "(Micro)".

Link to comment
What are your specific experince with a NANO?
Some of my favorite caches have had 4-star difficulty ratings because of their camouflage. Many of those have been micros and nanos, and not all of the nanos have been blinkers.

 

They aren't always "needle in a haystack" hides. For the really good ones, you don't even have a haystack. You can search "everywhere it could possibly be hidden" in about 10 minutes, and then you have to figure out how/where the cache owner actually hid it.

first of all i would like to say we would just like to be told somewhere in the description that we are looking for a nano! if they would tell us that then we would not have any problems! :lol:

 

Yeah, tell me what I'm looking for and don't hide it in, on or under a garbage can and then nanos can be fun.

Link to comment
if people say "micro" and talk about those, they almost invariably talk about film can sized containers. if instead they mean to talk about containers that are much much smaller than that, they will say "nano" and talk about those.

Maybe that's an Ontario thing? :lol:

My experience has been, when folks talk about micros, they are speaking of those containers roughly the size of a film can, or smaller. Including blinkies and Bison tubes. When they talk about nanos, they are excluding anything larger than a Bison tube. I reckon this comes from learning the definition of "micro", (as applied to this game), from Groundspeak. The term "micro" is inclusive of everything in the category, while the term "nano" is exclusive.

 

we would just like to be told somewhere in the description that we are looking for a nano

Good advice. My hunt style changes considerably when searching for a nano, as opposed to hunting their slightly larger cousins. As such, it is helpful, to me, to include that information on the cache page.

Link to comment

Strawberry is the worst ice cream flavor.

It really needs its own flavor category as some ice cream makers don't mention the flavor in the ice cream description.

And eating strawberry ice cream is like eating rotten fruit, that's not my definition of fun.

If they had their own flavor category, I could avoid them.

It's not even a challenge, making ice cream from vegetables, that's a challenge.

 

:lol:

That's no challenge! http://www.eatyourvegsicecream.com/page/uu...thy_Snacks.html :)

 

I like hunting nanos when I know what I am hunting.

 

I agree with the nanos should be their own size category idea, simply so that those who don't like them can skip them. I just don't know how to define 'nano' or differentiate them from micro.

Link to comment
My experience has been, when folks talk about micros, they are speaking of those containers roughly the size of a film can, or smaller. Including blinkies and Bison tubes. When they talk about nanos, they are excluding anything larger than a Bison tube. I reckon this comes from learning the definition of "micro", (as applied to this game), from Groundspeak. The term "micro" is inclusive of everything in the category, while the term "nano" is exclusive.

really? so when you give them some coordinates and tell them that they're looking for a micro, then they look for a while without finding anything, and then eventually find a nano, they don't go "ohhhh, it's a NANO..."?

 

Good advice. My hunt style changes considerably when searching for a nano, as opposed to hunting their slightly larger cousins. As such, it is helpful, to me, to include that information on the cache page.

so you do agree that nanos are different enough to warrant having their own size category. you just don't want to admit that the guidelines and thus the website could be wrong or incomplete.

Link to comment
really?

Yup. Really. Every single cacher I know is bright enough to figure out, if I tell them they are hunting for a "micro", they are searching for something roughly film can size or smaller. Maybe a lot smaller. As I said earlier, maybe your experiences to the contrary are just an Ontario thing? We certainly get it on this side of the continent. :lol:

 

you just don't want to admit that the guidelines and thus the website could be wrong or incomplete.

Uh... Nope. The website is not wrong. Neither are the guidelines. While they don't currently state what I would like for them to state, (my own biased opinion that nanos should get their own size category), the words "...or smaller..." in the guidelines make the current definition, (which includes nanos in the micro category), inherently accurate.

Link to comment
you just don't want to admit that the guidelines and thus the website could be wrong or incomplete.

Uh... Nope. The website is not wrong. Neither are the guidelines. While they don't currently state what I would like for them to state, (my own biased opinion that nanos should get their own size category), the words "...or smaller..." in the guidelines make the current definition, (which includes nanos in the micro category), inherently accurate.

read again: "wrong or incomplete". you just said yourself that you think it's incomplete, so you agree with me.

 

oh, and it's not an "ontario thing" because that's not the only place i was ever caching. i've seen nanos being listed as "other" all over the place, for exactly this reason: people feel that it's something vastly different than a micro.

Edited by dfx
Link to comment
read again: "wrong or incomplete". you just said yourself that you think it's incomplete, so you agree with me.

Nope. It's neither wrong nor incomplete.

It just doesn't happen to say what I would like for it to say.

That's not the only example of where my biased caching aesthetic runs afoul of the guidelines.

Other examples include, but are not limited to:

I think 528' is way too close for a proximity guideline. I'd like it to be closer to 1/2 mile.

I think any cache hidden on private property should have explicit permission, as opposed to adequate permission.

I think virts, locationless, events, CITOs, earthcaches and webcams should not count as found caches.

 

I don't see Groundspeak rewriting their guidelines to fit my particular quirks, but I guess it could happen.

 

Till then, I'll play the game they offer, and enjoy it the best I can. :lol:

Link to comment
Nope. It's neither wrong nor incomplete.

It just doesn't happen to say what I would like for it to say.

:D:lol:

so you agree with it and at the same time disagree with it. interesting.

i think that's reason enough for me to give up on this :)

Link to comment

I have a series of nano hides in Newport, RI, a fairly "urban" setting. They are all hidden near historical or scenic locations. All listings have "gimme" hints, so they can be found with almost no effort (and I have recovered them for log replacement at all times of the day with no one the wiser).

 

None of the locations could support anything larger (and I am able to think outside of the box for cache hides).

 

I get very positive logs from people, thanking me for the scenic tour or history lessons.

 

This kind of nano I look for. Most of the others I ignore. I too would like to have them identified in the cache heading so I can more easily choose to skip them.

 

They are all titled like "Newport Nano #14 - King's Park", so people know it's a nano from the title.

Link to comment
so you agree with it and at the same time disagree with it. interesting.

I'm starting to wonder if reading comprehension is your forte? :anibad:

When denoting something as "wrong or incomplete", agreeing or disagreeing with it is really irrelevant. They are what they are.

 

When you say the guidelines are "wrong", do you mean factually or morally? Factually, they match precisely what Groundspeak wants them to say. The only way they could ever be "wrong" in that regard is if a hacker snuck in and made them say something Groundspeak didn't mean. The only way they could be morally wrong is if they required you to commit some foul deed, such as torturing kittens, in order to submit a hide.

 

Or were you stressing "incomplete"? :lol:

Pretend this is Sesame Street, and I am Grover.

These sentences are complete:

 

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 log sheet)

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)

 

These sentences are incomplete:

 

Cache Size

These sizes apply to all caches th

 

Micro (35 mm film canister or sm

Small (sandwich-siz

Regular (plastic container or amm

Large (5 gall

 

Can you see the difference?

 

Just because Groundspeak didn't incorporate my own highly biased caching aesthetic into their guidelines doesn't mean the guidelines are wrong. Nor does it mean they are incomplete. I am just a player in this game, not a policy maker. If Groundspeak wrote their policy to match my wants/needs, this would be a very different game indeed, with quite a few less people playing it.

Edited by Clan Riffster
Link to comment
When denoting something as "wrong or incomplete", agreeing or disagreeing with it is really relevant. They are what they are.

wrong.

 

do you know what an opinion is? do you have one? i guess not.

 

the rest of your post is mostly nonsense, so i won't reply.

Edited by dfx
Link to comment
When denoting something as "wrong or incomplete", agreeing or disagreeing with it is really relevant. They are what they are.

wrong.

 

do you know what an opinion is? do you have one? i guess not.

 

the rest of your post is mostly nonsense, so i won't reply.

<snicker!!> He said that Clan Riffster didn't have an opinion!!!</snicker> :lol::anibad:
Link to comment

I think nanos have a definite place in this game, that of allowing a hunt. We have just over 1600 finds, roughly 50% are listed as micro. Of those, probably half were nano. That makes about 400 nano finds. EVERY ONE of those was memorable. Why? Because I was out of the house, with the person I love, doing something we both enjoy.

 

I personally don't see a lot of difference in a 3 mile hike through a beautiful area to find a nano and a 3 mile hike through a beautiful area to find a 5 gal paint pail. We've done both; both were fun hikes. Isn't that the whole point?

Link to comment
do you know what an opinion is? do you have one? i guess not.
If you'd read my posts you would notice that I've stated my opinions several times in this thread. I'll try it again.

 

My opinion:

 

"Nanos should have their own size designation"

 

Does Groundspeak agree with me on this issue? Obviously not. Since this is their website, does them disagreeing with me make them "wrong or incomplete"? Does this disagreement make their guidelines "wrong or incomplete"?

 

So long as the guidelines say what Groundspeak wants them to say, by definition, they are not "wrong".

 

So long as they use proper grammar, (periods & such), by definition, they are not "incomplete".

 

Edit to remove snark.

Edited by Clan Riffster
Link to comment

Nice edit on post #69 CR. I was about to call you on criticizing the poster on their "tough time understanding the written language".

Remember Muphry's law.

You are getting a bit insulting trying to prove your point though. If there is one.

Link to comment

Nice edit on post #69 CR.

Thanx! Spellchecker messed me up. Good save, eh? :lol:

 

You are getting a bit insulting trying to prove your point though. If there is one.

Yeah, there is one. It's kinda subtle though. Something to the effect of, "Just because Groundspeak doesn't change their guidelines to fit my highly biased caching preferences, does not make the company, or their guidelines, wrong, or incomplete". As for appearing insulting, my apologies. I did a full edit of the offending post, to remove the snarky undertones, as they really don't facilitate communication. I was getting frustrated trying to explain a rather simple concept. It was like me saying, "1 + 1 = 2", and getting a reply of, "No. 1 + 1 = Blue". I'm thinking I probably would not make a good Kindergarten teacher. :anibad:

Edited by Clan Riffster
Link to comment
Nope. It's neither wrong nor incomplete.

It just doesn't happen to say what I would like for it to say.

:lol::anibad:

so you agree with it and at the same time disagree with it. interesting.

i think that's reason enough for me to give up on this :lol:

 

The key issue is just that you do not use the terms wrong and incomplete in a formal way, but attribute to them your own sloppy meaning. It's a bit similar to the way many people use "or" when what they really mean is "either or" (exclusive or).

The guidelines can neither be true nor false from the logical point of view.

 

You apparently use wrong in the manner of "different from what a group of people/many people would prefer" (or in the way of should be changed) but that's not the correct usage. An assertion is either correct or wrong, but the guidelines are not a set of assertions. A similar argument refers to complete/incomplete. There is no reasonable way to define imcompleteness of guidelines (in the sense of coming up with critical remarks).

 

If you use the formal meaning of incorrect/incomplete, then it is evident what Clan Riffsters states and there is no contradiction at all that his personal preference deviates from the formulation used in the guidelines.

Maybe you got the key point now.

Cezanne

Link to comment
When denoting something as "wrong or incomplete", agreeing or disagreeing with it is really relevant. They are what they are.

wrong.

 

do you know what an opinion is? do you have one? i guess not.

 

That's not wrong, and brother Riffster gave several specific examples.

 

The guideline states that a cache can not be placed within 528' of another physical container. That's not wrong because it states exactly what groundspeaks intends. It's not incomplete either because it's specific about what you can and can't do. The fact that Clan Riffster would rather see the proximity restriction set at 1/2 a mile does not make the site wrong or imcomplete.

 

The site allows geocachers to log virtual caches, events, and earthcaches as finds. The fact that the site works (most of the time) demonstrates that it's neither wrong nor incomplete. The fact that Clan Riffster would, personally, prefer that virtuals, events, and earthcaches not count only means that he disagrees with what the Groundspeak is allowing cachers to do and doesn't mean that the site is wrong or incomplete.

 

It looked to me that Clan Riffster *was* expressing an opinion on these issues, and that opinion did not include a contention that the site is wrong or incomplete.

Link to comment

Nano caches are the worst container.

They really need their own size category as some hiders don't mention their size in the cache description.

And looking for a nano is like looking for a needle in a haystack, that's not my definition of fun.

If they had their own size category, I could avoid them.

It's not even a challenge, hiding something large in a small area in plainsight, that's a challenge.

 

I'll say this much, I don't recall ever hearing of anyone blowing up a blinky nano because of concern that it might be a bomb.

 

Aside from that, all else above is an opinion.

 

You're certainly entitled to that just as I'm entitled to say that:

- I prefer nanos to all containers (but I pretty much like all micros as well);

- They don't need their own size category because they fit neatly into the one that GS created;

- An individual's definition of "fun" is not relevant to this game where each of us defines "fun" our own way and with no rules to restrict what "fun" is or is not;

- Challenge isn't something that is rated in this game, the game calls for establishing the "overall difficulty rating" and even using clayjar's rating system, "challenge" is considered relative to the mental or physical aspect of how easy it is to find the cache which I believe is different than your complaint about the challenge of hiding a cache.

Link to comment

To answer the original thread question:

 

The point is to have a container with a log in it which can be hidden for people to find using a GPS. If you don't like them, don't hunt them! Don't try to get rid of them for people that like them and have fun finding them!

Link to comment

I'll say this much, I don't recall ever hearing of anyone blowing up a blinky nano because of concern that it might be a bomb.

 

 

I'm pretty sure it has happened. I can't point you to the specific cache but I'm pretty confidant that somebody else will be able to. I seem to recall that it wasn't the blinky itself, but the thing the blinky was attached to (which may have been a lampskirt).

 

Or was it just a blinky resulting in a bomb squad call and no "rendering safe"?

 

I could be completely off base.

Link to comment

To answer the original thread question:

 

The point is to have a container with a log in it which can be hidden for people to find using a GPS. If you don't like them, don't hunt them! Don't try to get rid of them for people that like them and have fun finding them!

 

Can you please provide a quote were I stated they should be banned? I just said I don't like them and if forced to hunt them for a challenge or something, I'd like to be told that I'm looking for a Nano.

 

And for those who can't deteremine the difference between a Nano and a Micro, Groundspeak sells a container label as a Nano. Wonder why Groundspeak didn't just call it a magnetic Micro, since, by their own definition, it's a micro........

 

http://shop.Groundspeak.com/productDetail....;ProductID=114#

 

Nano Cache

 

World famous Joani Designed Custom Made Nano Cache. Perfect for your local urban Geocaching experience. A built in magnet makes it easy to hide these cache containers in various settings. Extra log included as well as a gasket to water proof the container. Five colors to choose from!

Link to comment

 

And for those who can't deteremine the difference between a Nano and a Micro, Groundspeak sells a container label as a Nano. Wonder why Groundspeak didn't just call it a magnetic Micro, since, by their own definition, it's a micro........

 

http://shop.Groundspeak.com/productDetail....;ProductID=114#

 

Nano Cache

 

World famous Joani Designed Custom Made Nano Cache. Perfect for your local urban Geocaching experience. A built in magnet makes it easy to hide these cache containers in various settings. Extra log included as well as a gasket to water proof the container. Five colors to choose from!

 

Nuh uh. Nope, GS stocks that product in the store...that product is called the "Nano Cache" and you can see that same exact name, along with the statement about being "world famous Joani designed" on various vendor web sites. As far as I know, GS doesn't call products that they sell and that are made by vendors anything other than what the vendor calls the product. I know as I am a GS vendor.

Link to comment

Nuh uh. Nope, GS stocks that product in the store...that product is called the "Nano Cache" and you can see that same exact name, along with the statement about being "world famous Joani designed" on various vendor web sites. As far as I know, GS doesn't call products that they sell and that are made by vendors anything other than what the vendor calls the product. I know as I am a GS vendor.

 

The point remains that they sell items classified as 'Nano' so they differentiate between micro and nano.

 

Nano Log Strips - Set of 5

 

The perfect replacement strips for maintaining your nano cache. Made with Official Rite in the Rain paper, these log strips are designed to hold up to the elements. Each sheet measures 9/32" x 14" and includes numbered spaces for up to 35 entries. Five log sheets are included.

 

Available in both English and German!

Link to comment

Nuh uh. Nope, GS stocks that product in the store...that product is called the "Nano Cache" and you can see that same exact name, along with the statement about being "world famous Joani designed" on various vendor web sites. As far as I know, GS doesn't call products that they sell and that are made by vendors anything other than what the vendor calls the product. I know as I am a GS vendor.

 

The point remains that they sell items classified as 'Nano' so they differentiate between micro and nano.

 

Nano Log Strips - Set of 5

 

The perfect replacement strips for maintaining your nano cache. Made with Official Rite in the Rain paper, these log strips are designed to hold up to the elements. Each sheet measures 9/32" x 14" and includes numbered spaces for up to 35 entries. Five log sheets are included.

 

Available in both English and German!

 

I'm sorry but nowhere there do I see anything that shows that GS classifies it as a nano. It is listed under caches, so that is clearly how they are classifying that vendor item. that item isn't called a nano-sized cache which would be different. It IS a vendor's name for their product. as for the log strips, they indicate that they are for ra nano cache -- same name as the cache item.

 

You're trying to argue that the GS cache classification and taxonomy is incorrect based on what a vendor sells. what's next -- would you also propose they start a size category for a pico cache, because they also exist as vendor products.

Edited by drdan01
Link to comment
And for those who can't deteremine the difference between a Nano and a Micro, Groundspeak sells a container label as a Nano. Wonder why Groundspeak didn't just call it a magnetic Micro, since, by their own definition, it's a micro........

 

http://shop.Groundspeak.com/productDetail....;ProductID=114#

 

Nano Cache

 

World famous Joani Designed Custom Made Nano Cache. Perfect for your local urban Geocaching experience. A built in magnet makes it easy to hide these cache containers in various settings. Extra log included as well as a gasket to water proof the container. Five colors to choose from!

 

You'd have a great argument if they sub-divided the cache container section of the store into large containers, regular containers, micro containers and nano containers.

Link to comment

And for those who can't deteremine the difference between a Nano and a Micro, Groundspeak sells a container label as a Nano. Wonder why Groundspeak didn't just call it a magnetic Micro, since, by their own definition, it's a micro........

 

http://shop.Groundspeak.com/productDetail....;ProductID=114#

 

Nano Cache

 

World famous Joani Designed Custom Made Nano Cache. Perfect for your local urban Geocaching experience. A built in magnet makes it easy to hide these cache containers in various settings. Extra log included as well as a gasket to water proof the container. Five colors to choose from!

 

So by your reasoning this item from the GS store is a "Large" geocache (vice just being a large Pelican case). I don't think anyone would claim it as a Large Geocache when listing it. (And it isn't even that large a Pelican case - I've used much larger ones at work!)

Link to comment

 

Just because Groundspeak didn't incorporate my own highly biased caching aesthetic into their guidelines doesn't mean the guidelines are wrong. Nor does it mean they are incomplete. I am just a player in this game, not a policy maker. If Groundspeak wrote their policy to match my wants/needs, this would be a very different game indeed, with quite a few less people playing it.

 

+1 I love this.

Link to comment

I think nanos have a definite place in this game, that of allowing a hunt. We have just over 1600 finds, roughly 50% are listed as micro. Of those, probably half were nano. That makes about 400 nano finds. EVERY ONE of those was memorable. Why? Because I was out of the house, with the person I love, doing something we both enjoy.

 

I personally don't see a lot of difference in a 3 mile hike through a beautiful area to find a nano and a 3 mile hike through a beautiful area to find a 5 gal paint pail. We've done both; both were fun hikes. Isn't that the whole point?

Yes! :signalviolin:

Link to comment

I think nanos have a definite place in this game, that of allowing a hunt. We have just over 1600 finds, roughly 50% are listed as micro. Of those, probably half were nano. That makes about 400 nano finds. EVERY ONE of those was memorable. Why? Because I was out of the house, with the person I love, doing something we both enjoy.

 

I personally don't see a lot of difference in a 3 mile hike through a beautiful area to find a nano and a 3 mile hike through a beautiful area to find a 5 gal paint pail. We've done both; both were fun hikes. Isn't that the whole point?

Yes! :signalviolin:

 

Yes +1

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...