Jump to content

A "regular" sized cache is no more regular.


LuckyPlan
Followers 3

Recommended Posts

I was thinking the other day of something kind of ironic. I'm one who is starting to get pretty frustrated with so many micros (even though technically most of my finds are micros).

 

I prefer to find regular sized caches but I just realized a regular sized cache is no longer regular.

 

Websters defines "regular" as "conforming to the normal or usual amount of inflection".

 

Well, I don't know the exact numbers but it seems like there are 5-10 times as many micro sized caches than there are "regular" sized caches. (and I AM considering non-urban hides). And this gap seems to be increasing every day.

 

We may just see micros to be renamed regulars... Oh that would be a horrific sad day. But the way micros keep on popping up left and right, it would technically make since as far as semantics go.

 

Okay, okay, I realize this probably won't happen... Just another rant on so so many micros saturating the world. Traveling to a cache to find it is another lpc is really getting under my skin. And it's starting to appear that all these lpcs are the "norm" or should I say regular. But I would not be surprised if GC relabels regulars as something else. Another ten more years and it would not make since to call an ammo cam sized container "regular" if this size is less than one percent of the active caches.

Link to comment

Regular is defined as ammocan size and since every cache placer checks the I read the guidelines box they know that, right?

 

My theory is that since this is predominately a male hobby we shouldn't be surprised that they think their cache is bigger than it really is. Maybe every cache should have to judged by a female as to size before publication.

Link to comment

Regular is defined as ammocan size and since every cache placer checks the I read the guidelines box they know that, right?

 

My theory is that since this is predominately a male hobby we shouldn't be surprised that they think their cache is bigger than it really is. Maybe every cache should have to judged by a female as to size before publication.

 

rolling.gif

 

That made me smile.

Link to comment

What do you suppose has lead to this? Is it getting landowner permission? I know technically all caches should have landowner permission but I have also been to many a micro that I was pretty sure that no permission was sought or gotten.

 

Some COs have said that they started hiding regular size caches but they were stolen so they switched to micros. One, because they're easier to hide and two, because they don't cost much (or anything) so it's no big deal if they are stolen.

 

New COs probably choose micros for the same reasons - easy to hide, no big financial investment, while they test the waters to see if they like geocaching.

Link to comment

What do you suppose has lead to this? Is it getting landowner permission? I know technically all caches should have landowner permission but I have also been to many a micro that I was pretty sure that no permission was sought or gotten.

 

Some COs have said that they started hiding regular size caches but they were stolen so they switched to micros. One, because they're easier to hide and two, because they don't cost much (or anything) so it's no big deal if they are stolen.

 

New COs probably choose micros for the same reasons - easy to hide, no big financial investment, while they test the waters to see if they like geocaching.

 

Thank you for the answer. I have some lock-n-locks waiting for the right location and I have some locations in mind but it does take awhile to get property owner permission. I wondered if that impacts the over all field or not.

Link to comment

Yay! Another thread where people can pat themselves on the back for ___________. The air is thin in those lofty heights, so be careful! :rolleyes:

 

A: their preference of larger cache sizes

B: not being a "numbers cacher"

C: their long logs*

D: their hatred of nanos

E: never finding a single cache on a power trail

 

* you're welcome, OoC.

Link to comment

Oh good. Let's discuss the minutae of the word "regular" just as was done with the word "cache" in another thread. Get a life.

Whoe. That was not neccesarry.

This reminds me of when people say, if you don't like the cache, than don't do it. If people don't like a thread than there's no need to comment. There is definately no need to just come in just to be extremely rude and tell people to get a life. This is for people to express thoughts... Freely.

Link to comment

Oh good. Let's discuss the minutae of the word "regular" just as was done with the word "cache" in another thread. Get a life.

 

Words mean something. If we allow words to just mean whatever we want, how can we communicate? I'll get a life, when you get a dictionary. <_<

You may have enjoyed getting involved in another thread, "The Death of Geocaching" posted under Geocaching Topics. Look how that ended up.

Link to comment

Here we go again. Indignant cacher stomps into the forums wielding a dictionary. Sheesh.

Oh, now I see what this comment is referring to. "the death of geocaching" thread I presume? That's funny,... Well for the record this is just a coincidence. I hope this thread doesn't turn into that...

Note to keystone: please close this thread if it does.

Link to comment
Note to keystone: please close this thread if it does.

I am reassured.

 

On topic: there's a rash of micros around here, too. My "ignore" list is 61 long and growing weekly. A few people on this forum like plotting trends: one of them should do that for the spread of micros to inject a quantitative element to this discussion.

Link to comment

Here we go again. Indignant cacher stomps into the forums wielding a dictionary. Sheesh.

Oh, now I see what this comment is referring to. "the death of geocaching" thread I presume? That's funny,... Well for the record this is just a coincidence. I hope this thread doesn't turn into that...

Note to keystone: please close this thread if it does.

Yes, I did think it was the beginning of another thread like that. My apologies.

Link to comment

In my area, many micros are now being call small. Usually pill bottles and such.

"Room for geocoins" usually hints it's true size.

I've noticed that some hides are now called small simply due to the covering a container might be in (bison in a rubber critter.)

Hm...you can fit geocoins into pill bottles. :)

Link to comment

Oh good. Let's discuss the minutae of the word "regular" just as was done with the word "cache" in another thread. Get a life.

 

Words mean something. If we allow words to just mean whatever we want, how can we communicate? I'll get a life, when you get a dictionary. <_<

You may have enjoyed getting involved in another thread, "The Death of Geocaching" posted under Geocaching Topics. Look how that ended up.

 

I'm sorry but I just can't remember where I got involved with that thread??? Get a life!

Link to comment

Oh good. Let's discuss the minutae of the word "regular" just as was done with the word "cache" in another thread. Get a life.

 

Words mean something. If we allow words to just mean whatever we want, how can we communicate? I'll get a life, when you get a dictionary. <_<

You may have enjoyed getting involved in another thread, "The Death of Geocaching" posted under Geocaching Topics. Look how that ended up.

 

I'm sorry but I just can't remember where I got involved with that thread??? Get a life!

I was suggesting you may like to get involved with that thread and not that you were involved. Now I realize I may have inadvertently started a topic on the uses of "may have" and "might have"....oops.

Link to comment

Yay! Another thread where people can pat themselves on the back for ___________. The air is thin in those lofty heights, so be careful! :rolleyes:

 

A: their preference of larger cache sizes

B: not being a "numbers cacher"

C: their long logs*

D: their hatred of nanos

E: never finding a single cache on a power trail

 

* you're welcome, OoC.

Dude. You forgot F. All of the above. A friend of mine published a cache where you have to have at least 1000 finds with the majority being regulars. That should not be that much of a challenge but unfortunately it is.

Link to comment

I was thinking the other day of something kind of ironic. I'm one who is starting to get pretty frustrated with so many micros (even though technically most of my finds are micros).

 

I prefer to find regular sized caches but I just realized a regular sized cache is no longer regular.

 

Websters defines "regular" as "conforming to the normal or usual amount of inflection".

 

Always love people who argue that only one definition of a word should become the accepted definiton. (See arguments concerning profanity versus obscenity.) Yes! The sixth listed definition of 'reguar' is as stated. So we should ignore the other six definitions?

1) belonging to a religious order

2) made, built or arranged according to a rule, standard or type

3) orderly, methodical

4) made, selected or constructed according to rule or custom

5) properly qualified

6) confrming to the normal or usual manner of inflection

7) belonging to a permanent standing army.

 

I certainly do not see 'inflection' involved in classifying a cache size. I do see definition 4) made, selected or constructed according to rule or custom. That seems to be the definition that applies. Likewise, you could argue that a 'regular' cache should belong to a religious order, or a peranent standing army, and, again I would argue that definition 4 is the one that applies in this case.

What sort of 'inflection' are you suggesting should apply in this case?

Link to comment

I was thinking the other day of something kind of ironic. I'm one who is starting to get pretty frustrated with so many micros (even though technically most of my finds are micros).

 

I prefer to find regular sized caches but I just realized a regular sized cache is no longer regular.

 

Websters defines "regular" as "conforming to the normal or usual amount of inflection".

 

Always love people who argue that only one definition of a word should become the accepted definiton. (See arguments concerning profanity versus obscenity.) Yes! The sixth listed definition of 'reguar' is as stated. So we should ignore the other six definitions?

1) belonging to a religious order

2) made, built or arranged according to a rule, standard or type

3) orderly, methodical

4) made, selected or constructed according to rule or custom

5) properly qualified

6) confrming to the normal or usual manner of inflection

7) belonging to a permanent standing army.

 

I certainly do not see 'inflection' involved in classifying a cache size. I do see definition 4) made, selected or constructed according to rule or custom. That seems to be the definition that applies. Likewise, you could argue that a 'regular' cache should belong to a religious order, or a peranent standing army, and, again I would argue that definition 4 is the one that applies in this case.

What sort of 'inflection' are you suggesting should apply in this case?

 

All you guys are arguing from the wrong base. It is irrelevant what Webster says the Froggie says:

 

Regular - 1L or larger, but less than 20L. Examples: a plastic container or ammo can about the size of a shoebox

 

So anything smaller than an ammo can is a small or micro.

Link to comment

Seems to me, as long as the authority says a particular size is regular, then that is what it is. Whether it's the most popular size or not is an entirely different thing.

 

While the price of ammo cans may limit the number of regular size caches, ($20-30 for a single container is a bit much) I do think that for some COs a lack of interest in swag and a larger variety of hiding spots for smaller containers may be bigger factors. I know that in one area that I'd like to eventually place a Geocache, anything larger then a micro would unfortunately be too obvious to call it "hidden."

 

As far as small/micro/nano containers in woods, one reason for them might be to make it harder to find the cache, but it might also be to help keep muggles from finding and stealing the cache. (Depending on the woods in question and just how active they are.) There are some areas that specifically disallow ammo cans, but of course there are regular sized Lock and Lock containers too, though I'm not sure they are as good as ammo cans.

Link to comment
As far as small/micro/nano containers in woods, one reason for them might be to make it harder to find the cache, but it might also be to help keep muggles from finding and stealing the cache.
Another reason to use smaller containers in remote locations is that it's easier to carry a few smaller containers when you go on long hikes, than to carry even a single ammo can. Especially in remote locations where you don't expect finders to haul in a bunch of excess baggage trade items, why would you want to haul in a big heavy cache?

 

I know people who hide remote caches, who are happy as long as their caches are big enough to hold a log that will last several years. They consider anything bigger than that to be wasted space/weight. Rather than a bigger/heavier container, they'd rather carry more water, more food, or another cache or two.

Link to comment
As far as small/micro/nano containers in woods, one reason for them might be to make it harder to find the cache, but it might also be to help keep muggles from finding and stealing the cache.
Another reason to use smaller containers in remote locations is that it's easier to carry a few smaller containers when you go on long hikes, than to carry even a single ammo can. Especially in remote locations where you don't expect finders to haul in a bunch of excess baggage trade items, why would you want to haul in a big heavy cache?

 

I know people who hide remote caches, who are happy as long as their caches are big enough to hold a log that will last several years. They consider anything bigger than that to be wasted space/weight. Rather than a bigger/heavier container, they'd rather carry more water, more food, or another cache or two.

 

Makes me appreciate those COs that go the extra mile and plant the extra large containers. Last week I went to a very creative puzzle cache. It was a kilometer walk into a forest with no easy access points so the CO had to have lugged it in by foot - probably took 2 people to carry it in. The ammo can was very large, about 10" wide, 18" long and 12" tall.

Edited by Lone R
Link to comment

The ammo can was very large, about 10" wide, 18" long and 12" tall.

 

I've got a couple about that size, and placed 'way back in there'. I carried them myself, no help.

 

Anyway, I have been aware of the ''regular' size creep issue' for some time now, and I tend to agree that small/micro seems to be more regular than 'regular' these days.

 

I don't think there is any chance of changing the size designations, but perhaps it might have been better if they had been named 'Jumbo', 'Full-size', 'Half-size', 'Quarter-size', 'Eighth-size', and (if the proposed NANO ever gets through committee) 'Sixteenth-size'.

Link to comment

The ammo can was very large, about 10" wide, 18" long and 12" tall.

 

I've got a couple about that size, and placed 'way back in there'. I carried them myself, no help.

 

Anyway, I have been aware of the ''regular' size creep issue' for some time now, and I tend to agree that small/micro seems to be more regular than 'regular' these days.

 

I don't think there is any chance of changing the size designations, but perhaps it might have been better if they had been named 'Jumbo', 'Full-size', 'Half-size', 'Quarter-size', 'Eighth-size', and (if the proposed NANO ever gets through committee) 'Sixteenth-size'.

I once went searching for an "ammo can" When I found the mini ammo can that was a micro I laughed MAO. Seriuosly a regular is a regular and all the micros and nanos in the world won't change that fact.

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 3
×
×
  • Create New...