+CacheFreakTim Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 I was wondering what your thoughts were on adding additional sizes? We have 1-4 but I'm thinking maybe a 5 for super large caches (ex.large barrels) and maybe a .5 (for nanos). What are your thoughts? Quote
GOF and Bacall Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 I think a nano size would be a nice addition. However, I don't know how that would work with all the paperless devices out there. Could be problems getting it all integrated. Not to mention all the caches that are already in place that will suddenly be sized wrong. Quote
+StarBrand Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 I was wondering what your thoughts were on adding additional sizes? We have 1-4 but I'm thinking maybe a 5 for super large caches (ex.large barrels) and maybe a .5 (for nanos). What are your thoughts? Nano is being considered. But where are you seeing a value? (1-4) Quote
+mpilchfamily Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 No need. The large covers any size larger then a regular. Not sure about you but i've only found one Large container. Quote
+tozainamboku Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 We have more than 4 sizes. A cache can be listed as Other if it doesn't fit in one of the standard categories. Mainly this is used for certain flat caches and other unusual shapes. There is some controversy though when a cache owner lists a .5 or a 5 as Other, as some believe that 1 covers anything size 1 or smaller and 4 covers anything 4 or bigger. Cache onwers also have the optiong to not list a size. Quote
+niraD Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 As StarBrand indicated, Groundspeak is planning to add an official "nano" size, smaller than the current "micro" size. I don't see a need for a "super large" size. There just aren't enough large caches around that we need to distinguish between 5-gallon buckets, 50-gallon barrels, and 1000-cubic-foot shipping containers. Quote
+EscapeFromFlatland Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 How about getting rid of "unkown" size? Please? Quote
+StarBrand Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 How about getting rid of "unkown" size? Please? Pretty Please. Quote
+Student Camper Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 I guess I don't have any imagination today, But where would you hide a 55 gallon drum? except amongst 1000 55 gallon drums. Somehow, I have trouble envisioning an interesting hide. I don't think I would vote for a "super large" size. Quote
+StarBrand Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 I guess I don't have any imagination today, But where would you hide a 55 gallon drum? ... In a forested area, in a bush with camo. It was a cool cache!! Quote
knowschad Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 Frankly, I have never even been bothered by the lack of a "nano" size. Never. Not once. It won't bother me if we have it, but it won't matter to me, either. Quote
+Coldgears Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 Maybe we should have 1-1000 types of caches one for each type of cache created. Lets have a Bison, one for an ammo box, one for a lock and lock, one for a larmic (A large cache that looks like a micro EG a giant film can) a miclar (A micro that looks like a large EG a mini ammo box), easteregg, a easteregg with camo, a fake nail, a real nail with a bison tube attached, a fake nail with a real bison tube without a log attached. It's fool proof, you'll never not know the size! Quote
+t4e Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 (edited) How about getting rid of "unkown" size? Please? why? what would you list a fake bird, lizard etc as? I guess I don't have any imagination today, But where would you hide a 55 gallon drum? except amongst 1000 55 gallon drums. Somehow, I have trouble envisioning an interesting hide. I don't think I would vote for a "super large" size. underwater Edited May 3, 2011 by t4e Quote
+dfx Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 Maybe we should have 1-1000 types of caches one for each type of cache created. Or how about a quad-precision (128 bit) floating point number for sizes? You could go up to 1.189731495357231765085759326628007 × 104932 for your largest caches. Quote
+StarBrand Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 How about getting rid of "unkown" size? Please? why? what would you list a fake bird, lizard etc as? ... Depends on the interior volume of the actual container part with the log(sheet). Quote
knowschad Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 How about getting rid of "unkown" size? Please? why? what would you list a fake bird, lizard etc as? ... Depends on the interior volume of the actual container part with the log(sheet). Depends on the hider, actually. I tend to agree with you, but opinions on that vary. Quote
+StarBrand Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 How about getting rid of "unkown" size? Please? why? what would you list a fake bird, lizard etc as? ... Depends on the interior volume of the actual container part with the log(sheet). Depends on the hider, actually. I tend to agree with you, but opinions on that vary. True enough but I am too lazy to actually add the IMHO at the front of each of my posts..... Quote
+A & J Tooling Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 I guess I don't have any imagination today, But where would you hide a 55 gallon drum? except amongst 1000 55 gallon drums. Somehow, I have trouble envisioning an interesting hide. I don't think I would vote for a "super large" size. So my eight foot long iron pig, I'm welding, won't interest you huh? Too bad. I plan on it being a 5/5. Quote
+DanOCan Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 I'm totally fine with the sizes as they exist. If there was an option to vote against the "nano" size listing I would certainly have done it. Quote
+Team Bulo Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 As "nano" is more than 10 times smaller than "micro", I think a "nano" size would be interesting. Quote
+WizCreations Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 The way I see it, geocachers already can't use the sizes properly anyway, so adding more sizes will just make it worse. I've found numerous "small" caches that should be marked regular, and plenty of "regular" that should be micro. I don't even bother looking at the size chart now, though I always make sure to mark it correctly on my hides. Quote
Mr.Yuck Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 I think a nano size would be a nice addition. However, I don't know how that would work with all the paperless devices out there. Could be problems getting it all integrated. Not to mention all the caches that are already in place that will suddenly be sized wrong. Guess what, all nano's are already sized wrong. I guess I feel the need to say this ^^^ is a Joking reference to the fact almost everyone in the world lists them as "other" or "unknown", when they are, by the current definition, micros. Quote
+A & J Tooling Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 Create another small size and someone will just try to make something smaller and want to name it too. Same with bigger. Quote
+captnemo Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 How about getting rid of "unkown" size? Please? Pretty Please. Pretty, Pretty Please, Quote
+dfx Posted May 4, 2011 Posted May 4, 2011 How about getting rid of "unkown" size? Please? Pretty Please. Pretty, Pretty Please, Since when is there a size category called "unknown"? Quote
+Student Camper Posted May 4, 2011 Posted May 4, 2011 I guess I don't have any imagination today, But where would you hide a 55 gallon drum? except amongst 1000 55 gallon drums. Somehow, I have trouble envisioning an interesting hide. I don't think I would vote for a "super large" size. So my eight foot long iron pig, I'm welding, won't interest you huh? Too bad. I plan on it being a 5/5. Probably not, if it was an eight foot long iron pig hidden among 1000 other eight foot long iron pigs. Quote
+Crow-T-Robot Posted May 4, 2011 Posted May 4, 2011 How about getting rid of "unkown" size? Please? Pretty Please. Pretty, Pretty Please, Since when is there a size category called "unknown"? There isn't, but there is one for "unkown". Wouldn't it be funny if/when the nano size is added, those who hide nano's start listing them as micros to avoid having them filtered out? Quote
+jgc3 Posted May 4, 2011 Posted May 4, 2011 I agree with having extra sizes therefore making it easier and more accurate for people whom want to avoid a particular size etc. I've gone for some caches that I might not of gone for if the size was correctly shown, eg nano as I had very limited time that day.. Cheers Quote
+power69 Posted May 4, 2011 Posted May 4, 2011 I was wondering what your thoughts were on adding additional sizes? We have 1-4 but I'm thinking maybe a 5 for super large caches (ex.large barrels) and maybe a .5 (for nanos). What are your thoughts? We already have a nano size. its called "Unknown" Quote
+briansnat Posted May 4, 2011 Posted May 4, 2011 As "nano" is more than 10 times smaller than "micro", I think a "nano" size would be interesting. A nano isn't smaller than a micro, a nano IS a micro. Quote
+Mark+Karen Posted May 4, 2011 Posted May 4, 2011 Knowing the size of the container makes things much easier, I think if you know you are looking for a nano vs a film pot then it makes things a little too easy. I like the idea of size 1 just being anything smaller than a tupperware box. Quote
+t4e Posted May 5, 2011 Posted May 5, 2011 (edited) How about getting rid of "unkown" size? Please? why? what would you list a fake bird, lizard etc as? ... Depends on the interior volume of the actual container part with the log(sheet). that holds true when you hide the container itself, when its camouflaged in something fake like a bird, fruit etc it doesn't apply, you no longer look for the container only you look for what's holding it As "nano" is more than 10 times smaller than "micro", I think a "nano" size would be interesting. A nano isn't smaller than a micro, a nano IS a micro. only according to the current GC classification, but in reality it is smaller Unit Conversion Edited May 5, 2011 by t4e Quote
Recommended Posts
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.