Jump to content

Bison tubes - micros or nanos ?


Followers 0

Recommended Posts

It appears that there eventually be an addition in the cache sizes with the nano category. This would appear to be limited to those tiny round button-like magnetic containers, but I noticed a comment on the feedback forums that bison tubes should be considered nanos also. How would you define a nano?

Link to comment

It appears that there eventually be an addition in the cache sizes with the nano category. This would appear to be limited to those tiny round button-like magnetic containers, but I noticed a comment on the feedback forums that bison tubes should be considered nanos also. How would you define a nano?

I don't know anyone except for a couple of very new users that would refer to a bison tube as a nano. Blinkie or smaller would be a nano, if I had to make a differenciate.

Link to comment

My definition of a nanos is anything that is just big enough for a custom-fit log sheet. By my definition, the small Bison tubes are nano-caches.

 

When Groundspeak introduces a new "nano" size, I think it's important for it to be a size, and not a specific type of container. Even ignoring Bison tubes and similar containers, not all nano-caches are blinkers.

Link to comment

When Groundspeak introduces a new "nano" size, I think it's important for it to be a size, and not a specific type of container. Even ignoring Bison tubes and similar containers, not all nano-caches are blinkers.

If it was for a specific type of container then that really shows just how prominent these nano's really are. For better or worse.

Link to comment

If this is were up for vote, I'd vote for bison tube not being a nano.

 

Whatever the answer is, I'm fine as long as Groundspeak is clear about what's a nano. Wrastro's suggestion is a good one.

 

BTW, niraD, he-who-leaves-squishy-frogs-as-sigitems once left a squishy lizard in a bison tube, much to my amusement, so there goes "no space except for a custom logsheet" :)

Link to comment

Actually, I just noticed a possible preview of what the official definition of "nano" might be. In the Geocaching Guide, the "What does a geocache look like?" entry includes the sentence: "A nano cache is a common sub-type of a micro cache that is less than 10ml and can only hold a small logsheet."

 

I've got a small Bison-style tube here (although I think it's a copy, rather than one made by Bison Designs). It's about 45mm long by 12mm in diameter. That's an outside volume (displacement) of about 5ml. The inside volume is certainly less.

 

BTW, niraD, he-who-leaves-squishy-frogs-as-sigitems once left a squishy lizard in a bison tube, much to my amusement, so there goes "no space except for a custom logsheet" :)
I bet it would be possible to leave a small sticker in one too...
Link to comment

It appears that there eventually be an addition in the cache sizes with the nano category. This would appear to be limited to those tiny round button-like magnetic containers, but I noticed a comment on the feedback forums that bison tubes should be considered nanos also. How would you define a nano?

 

He he. I remember that suggestion. I was that ONE person who made that comment about bisons being classified as nanos. I feel special :)

I strongly feel that if it is so small to only contain a tiny log, it's a nano. Non-nano micros should at least be able to hold a pathtag.

Link to comment

Okay, so I hate to use the "newbie" line, but it seems that the person who suggested that a bison tube is a nano is someone with under 300 finds, which validates what someone else said early in the thread, that the only people who call bison tubes "nano's" are newbies.

 

A bison has always been a micro.

A nano is under a 1/2 inch.

 

If we list bison's as nano's there's no reason to have the new nano category.

 

The new nano category would be to differenciate those very small containers (less than 1/2 inch) so you know what you're looking for.

The search for a bison is a different search than for a nano.

The point of the size categories is to know what you're looking for.

If a bison is considered a nano, then you still don't know what you're looking for.

The search for a bison tube and a nano tube are two very different things.

People with more finds know that.

Link to comment

 

The new nano category would be to differenciate those very small containers (less than 1/2 inch) so you know what you're looking for.

The search for a bison is a different search than for a nano.

The point of the size categories is to know what you're looking for.

 

 

I disagree. I don't think the difference in size changes your search, it's the difference in method of attachment. Blinkers (generally) are magnetic so will be stuck on some flat metal surface. Bison tubes (again, generally) have a ring of some kind for attachment so they will probably be hanging from something, or inserted into something, but not magnetically attached. That's what makes the difference in how you search for it, not the minor difference in size, IMO.

 

I realize I'm a relative noob also but that's how I see it.

Link to comment

I've seen bison tubes, especially the smaller ones, sometimes referred to as nanos in Florida. There was also apparently certain parts of the state that went through some phase about bisons (or a very similar container) being refered to as nitros (because they're shaped like a tank of nitro, I guess?) then some combining "nano" and "nitro" into "nantro". As best I can tell, this stems from several years ago before blinkies really started getting used. Bisons that could pretty much fit inside a film can (the classic micro) were therefore nanos.

 

That's only my interpretation of things based on cache pages I've seen. Hopefully someone who's been caching in Florida far longer than myself can clarify what I just said (Isonzo Karst?).

 

As for my opinion: I think a bison tube is a micro.

 

FWIW, for more on the nano subject here's a link to a past thread I started about that:

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=266452

Link to comment

There was also apparently certain parts of the state that went through some phase about bisons (or a very similar container) being refered to as nitros (because they're shaped like a tank of nitro, I guess?)

 

I'm guessing the "nitro" term stems from the fact that these little containers were originally designed for heart patients to carry their nitroglycerin tablets. You can find similar containers at most drug stores.

Link to comment

Okay, so I hate to use the "newbie" line, but it seems that the person who suggested that a bison tube is a nano is someone with under 300 finds, which validates what someone else said early in the thread, that the only people who call bison tubes "nano's" are newbies...

The search for a bison tube and a nano tube are two very different things.

People with more finds know that.

 

Wow, this is low blow. I'm a newbie because I have just under 300 finds?

So how many finds do you need to have to express an opinion on the threads?

Okay, so I may not have thousands of fine, but I do believe I'm allowed to express my opinion... right?

 

I was just giving my opinion, hence why I said "I strongly FEEL".

 

Again, as my opinion... I see it that if they the include another SIZE category, bison tubes would be considered part of the nano category because their volume would classify them as a nano. According to Groundspeak in their Knowledge Books, a nano is classified as a micro under 10ml. Therefore, most bison tubes/oil vials/ID holders/Pill holders would fall into this category (well, there are those larger "scuba" style bison tubes that might be over 10ml).

 

So, it is my opinion that bison tubes can be called nanos according to their size. However, if the point of adding a nano size is to let the cacher know what type of container they should be looking for, that is a thymbal size magnet nano, then maybe they should just make a nano attribute that would corrilate to this type of container. That's not a bad idea.

 

But please don't imply that I don't know anything or shouldn't have an opinion because I have under 300 finds. Perhaps I get offended easy (I AM a newbie to the forums) but I don't think I deserve that.

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 0
×
×
  • Create New...