Please Describe Cache Sizes in a Consistent Way

15.3k · February 5, 2012

There would be less confusion over what the different cache sizes mean if the site described cache sizes in a consistent manner.

For example, the Geocaching 101 page uses the size descriptions I prefer in the "What does a geocache look like?" panel:

Micro - Less than 100ml. Examples: a 35 mm film canister or a tiny storage box typically containing only a logbook or a logsheet. A nano cache is a common sub-type of a micro cache that is less than 10ml and can only hold a small logsheet.
Small - 100ml or larger, but less than 1L. Example: A sandwich-sized plastic container or similar.

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

Large - 20L or larger. Example: A large bucket.

Other - See the cache description for information.

However, the Report a new Cache form describes the cache sizes as follows:

Micro (e.g. 35mm Film Canister)

Small (holds logbook and small items)

Regular (Rubbermaid, ammo box)

Large (5 gallon bucket)

Other (See description)

And the Containers Explained page describes the cache sizes as follows:

micro: e.g. 35mm film canister or smaller

small: Holds only a small logbook and small items.

regular: e.g. ammo box

large: e.g. 5-gallon bucket (about 20 liters)

other: See the cache description.

February 5, 2012

I agree. The Geocaching 101 description is much better because it is specific, the others are very ambiguous and entirely too open to personal interpretation.

2.8k · February 6, 2012

This is all well and good but doesn't stop people from labeling the cache size whatever they want. All too often people mark the cache size as other but never mention the cache size in the description. I agree more consistency would be good but will it really change anything?

February 6, 2012

This is all well and good but doesn't stop people from labeling the cache size whatever they want. All too often people mark the cache size as other but never mention the cache size in the description. I agree more consistency would be good but will it really change anything?

Maybe not a lot but I think it will help. Look around the forums and see how many discussions there are about what size this container or that is even from people that have been geocaching for years.

15.3k · February 7, 2012

This is all well and good but doesn't stop people from labeling the cache size whatever they want.

I didn't say it would stop cache owners from listing the wrong size for their caches. I said it would reduce confusion over what the different cache sizes mean.

7.5k · February 7, 2012

This is all well and good but doesn't stop people from labeling the cache size whatever they want.
I didn't say it would stop cache owners from listing the wrong size for their caches. I said it would reduce confusion over what the different cache sizes mean.

Totally agree. The place it matters most is the "Report a New Cache" form. The Geocachining 101 description is the least ambiguous AND includes both volumes and examples AND addresses the nano size (a nano falls in the micro category). It would be great to have that information on the submission form.

7.4k · February 7, 2012

The new cache submission form will present this information in a way similar to this:

ccaa7199-7d1a-4391-b511-d1481ef2f1a7.png?rnd=0.8312756

15.3k · February 7, 2012

The new cache submission form will present this information in a way similar to this:

Very nice! Thanks!

The only suggestion I'd make is to include the volume ranges, in addition to the drawings and photos.

7.4k · February 7, 2012

I think that the designers were looking to streamline the process as much as possible and limit the text that can be overwhelming for new users. However, I'll ask about adding volumes or at least linking to additional information.

February 7, 2012

I think that the designers were looking to streamline the process as much as possible and limit the text that can be overwhelming for new users. However, I'll ask about adding volumes or at least linking to additional information.

I like the images and adding a little text is even better, nice work. Could we insist that the reviewers require the "see description" part of the "?" size be taken seriously? Around here, selecting "?" as a cache size is used to increase the "evil" quotient of a cache rather than deal with an unusual circumstance. Typically, nothing in the cache description addresses the size of these "?" size caches!

15.3k · February 7, 2012

However, I'll ask about adding volumes or at least linking to additional information.

Thanks. The good thing about volumes is that they're less ambiguous. When someone hides a container that's bigger than one of the depicted containers but smaller than another, they may be confused about which of the two sizes is most appropriate. When the sizes are defined by volume ranges, there is less confusion.

3.4k · February 7, 2012

I think that the designers were looking to streamline the process as much as possible and limit the text that can be overwhelming for new users. However, I'll ask about adding volumes or at least linking to additional information.

I like the images and adding a little text is even better, nice work. Could we insist that the reviewers require the "see description" part of the "?" size be taken seriously? Around here, selecting "?" as a cache size is used to increase the "evil" quotient of a cache rather than deal with an unusual circumstance. Typically, nothing in the cache description addresses the size of these "?" size caches!

I only use the "?" size on my puzzle caches. And I use a coordinate checker which then tells exactly what the container is when the correct coordinates are entered.

7.5k · February 7, 2012

The new cache submission form will present this information in a way similar to this:

Wonderful. Great to see visuals. It transcends language issues. NiraD's suggestion is good too i.e. add volumes, or perhaps a link to the Knowledge Book's more complete chart.

Edited February 7, 2012 by Solitario R

7.5k · February 7, 2012

Could we insist that the reviewers require the "see description" part of the "?" size be taken seriously? Around here, selecting "?" as a cache size is used to increase the "evil" quotient of a cache rather than deal with an unusual circumstance. Typically, nothing in the cache description addresses the size of these "?" size caches!

This is a good suggestion. The least a CO could do would be to write in the description that size was not chosen because it could spoil the hunt.

Edited February 7, 2012 by Solitario R

February 8, 2012

Many of us think there should be a medium size, between small and regular

The new cache submission form will present this information in a way similar to this:

8k · February 8, 2012

Volumes aren't much help. Aside from metric versus imperial sizes, most people have no idea what the volume of most cache containers are. The pictures are good.

Whatever the solution someone will complain that some made a nano a micro or a small a medium or visa versa. Volumes make it seem like there is a clear dividing line. Instead I'd assume there are gray areas and caches in the gray are may fall in either side.

I once did a series where the hider said one cache was small and another was a regular. The containers were identical, yet I thought the owner had selected the correct size in both cases.

7k · February 8, 2012

Many of us think there should be a medium size, between small and regular

Medium is the new regular

5.2k · February 8, 2012

The new cache submission form will present this information in a way similar to this:

I seriously hope this is just a quick mockup and not an indication of a change. Is Groundspeak seriously changing the "Regular" size to "Medium"?? That's going to screw up a lot of 3rd party software that abbreviates the size to one letter. It will become impossible to tell a Micro from a Medium :wacko:

7.4k · February 8, 2012

I seriously hope this is just a quick mockup and not an indication of a change. Is Groundspeak seriously changing the "Regular" size to "Medium"?? That's going to screw up a lot of 3rd party software that abbreviates the size to one letter. It will become impossible to tell a Micro from a Medium

Relying on a particular word for cache size is limiting when you are talking a global market. That's why the new GPX schema adds "id" attributes to Containers and other data types. This change will make it easier to add new values and to change the associated text values. Developers have been made aware of this upcoming change and will need to adapt. See http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=275718.

7.8k · February 8, 2012

I seriously hope this is just a quick mockup and not an indication of a change. Is Groundspeak seriously changing the "Regular" size to "Medium"?? That's going to screw up a lot of 3rd party software that abbreviates the size to one letter. It will become impossible to tell a Micro from a Medium

Relying on a particular word for cache size is limiting when you are talking a global market. That's why the new GPX schema adds "id" attributes to Containers and other data types. This change will make it easier to add new values and to change the associated text values. Developers have been made aware of this upcoming change and will need to adapt. See http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=275718.

I assume that means the new GPX version will go live at the same time as the above changes to the submission form?

Any idea when this will happen? Will it be in the next site update, or farther in the future?

7.4k · February 8, 2012

Farther in the future. There is a lot of work underway and it will take some time to get it all buttoned up and tested.

7k · February 8, 2012

Farther in the future. There is a lot of work underway and it will take some time to get it all buttoned up and tested.

Is it going to be a user selectable new GPX schema (like there's 1.0 and 1.0.1 now)?

7.4k · February 8, 2012

Yes.

8.3k · February 8, 2012

The new cache submission form will present this information in a way similar to this:

I seriously hope this is just a quick mockup and not an indication of a change. Is Groundspeak seriously changing the "Regular" size to "Medium"?? That's going to screw up a lot of 3rd party software that abbreviates the size to one letter. It will become impossible to tell a Micro from a Medium

Not to mention all the cachers it is going to screw up. It is going to screw up a lot of software and screw up a lot of stats. Changing going forward is fine, but it is what happened the last 11 years. When I was developing software backwards compatibility was very important. Changing regular to medium is going to cause pain. Leave the regular as a regular is my suggestion.

Edit: Thinking about it more, are you going into your database and change all the existing regulars to a medium? Even the archived ones? Or are you going to leave the previous caches alone and then we have mess in out found database, and you have a mess in your database, with a mix of regular and mediums that are the same size? And if you change your databases from regular to medium then your really going to get your servers hammered when everyone in the world that has an off line found database runs a MyFinds to update their database. As a point of reference I hardly run a MyFinds, for a couple years I have been using a PQ of the days finds and now it it is via the API for the days finds. I really think it is a bit late in the game to change the regular to a medium. Yes, it fits the size progression nicely, but it is going to cause lots of pain.

Along with niraD I think having the volumes is a good idea. I can turn my tupperware over, look at the volume and see it greater than a micro and less than a regular, so it must be a small.

Edited February 9, 2012 by jholly

7.8k · February 8, 2012

Farther in the future. There is a lot of work underway and it will take some time to get it all buttoned up and tested.

In that case, there are some changes that need to be made to the current submission form in the interim. The "Enable" box needs to be moved to the top of the page and highlighted, and the text modified to include something along the lines of "This cache is in place and ready to be found". This should only take a couple of minutes for the developers to do, and would help prevent MANY recurring issues (submission before placing, forgetting to enable, etc.).

February 8, 2012

I think that the designers were looking to streamline the process as much as possible and limit the text that can be overwhelming for new users. However, I'll ask about adding volumes or at least linking to additional information.

Coming back into this a little late but I think adding the volumes is needed. Some examples to explain that.

The first is the picture of the Bison Tube. Most are micros BUT there are some container that look the same out there that I am pretty sure are over 100 ml.

The second is ammo cans. Most are in fact regular BUT I have seen some that would be hard pressed to hold one liter (17HMR comes to mind although I didn't measure one so I can't be positive) and I have also seen some that are quite a bit bigger than 20 liter. I have one hidden that is a bit over 28 liters in volume.

The third is the bucket. Buckets come in a lot of different sizes. Both of the "large" caches we have found were 3.5 gallon (13.25 liter) so although our "cache sizes found" indicates we have two large finds the truth is we don't have any.

I also think it would be best to have the volumes on the submission page rather than a link. If it's right there in front of people they will at least think about it, if it's a link a lot of people will never follow it.

It's true that this won't stop people from deliberately marking the wrong size but it would make it easier for those of us that are honest to be "on the same page".

February 10, 2012

How about short, tall, grande, and venti?

Extra Medium?

Light and sweet?

7.5k · February 10, 2012

I think that the designers were looking to streamline the process as much as possible and limit the text that can be overwhelming for new users. However, I'll ask about adding volumes or at least linking to additional information.

Coming back into this a little late but I think adding the volumes is needed. Some examples to explain that.

The first is the picture of the Bison Tube. Most are micros BUT there are some container that look the same out there that I am pretty sure are over 100 ml.

The second is ammo cans. Most are in fact regular BUT I have seen some that would be hard pressed to hold one liter (17HMR comes to mind although I didn't measure one so I can't be positive) and I have also seen some that are quite a bit bigger than 20 liter. I have one hidden that is a bit over 28 liters in volume.

The third is the bucket. Buckets come in a lot of different sizes. Both of the "large" caches we have found were 3.5 gallon (13.25 liter) so although our "cache sizes found" indicates we have two large finds the truth is we don't have any.

I also think it would be best to have the volumes on the submission page rather than a link. If it's right there in front of people they will at least think about it, if it's a link a lot of people will never follow it.

It's true that this won't stop people from deliberately marking the wrong size but it would make it easier for those of us that are honest to be "on the same page".

What I really like about the visual scale proposal is the bottom half of the sliding scale -- the photos of someone holding the containers. It gives everyone a good idea what the smallest size in that category looks like. Add volumes and I think it's pretty clear, with almost no room for interpretation.

3.2k · February 10, 2012

I like the graphic above. Only problem would be with the metrically challenged segment of the US population.

2.3k · February 12, 2012

I kind of wish that some of those more on the edge of the range containers were used in the pictures. Like I frequently see film containers and match stick containers listed as smalls because, after all, they're bigger than a bison tube. If I was new and didn't want to figure out volumes I would probably look at the picture as it stands now and see that bison tube under micro and think anything bigger than that would thusly be a small.

7k · February 12, 2012

I like the graphic above. Only problem would be with the metrically challenged segment of the US population.

Who, compared to the rest of the geocaching world, are a minority

7.5k · February 12, 2012

I kind of wish that some of those more on the edge of the range containers were used in the pictures. Like I frequently see film containers and match stick containers listed as smalls because, after all, they're bigger than a bison tube. If I was new and didn't want to figure out volumes I would probably look at the picture as it stands now and see that bison tube under micro and think anything bigger than that would thusly be a small.

Good point Chokecherry. I like the idea of the matchstick container being the poster child of small. The (Coghlan's) matchstick container is a good, watertight micro container so it's a nice one to emulate and it's at the upper end of the micro size.

February 12, 2012

The new cache submission form will present this information in a way similar to this:

I am so happy to see nano as a new size. I have been wishing for this for a long time. Having nanos lumped in with micros has been annoying at times.

Thanks!

15.3k · February 12, 2012

The match containers I've seen have been clearly less than 100ml, which makes them good examples of micro containers.

3k · April 7, 2012

Could Groundspeak include an "official" ruling on what side a preform tube is supposed to be?

I've seen matchstick containers and magkeys listed as Small instead of Micro, but I think that is mostly 'cache size creep' due to the existence of Nanos. Neither is much larger than a film can.

However, preforms are much bigger than a film can. I'd argue they are still micros (probably the biggest kind of micro) because they are too narrow to fit TBs or geocoins and their internal volume is only about 30 mL.

A section of the Guidelines listing 10 or so common cache containers and their appropriate cache size would be great. It would never be perfectly comprehensive, but it would cover probably 95% of possible containers and basic deduction should cover the rest.

Nano Blinkie, Slim Bomb, Film Can, Bison Tube, Magnetic Keyholder, Matchstick Container, Preform Tube, Decon, 30cal ammo can, 50cal ammo can, mortar/tank tall ammo can, bucket. (Any tupperware/LnL container = check the volume printed on the bottom.)

2.7k · April 7, 2012

I am so happy to see nano as a new size. I have been wishing for this for a long time. Having nanos lumped in with micros has been annoying at times.

Thanks!

No. Annoying was seeing a listing of NANO as OTHER, because nano wasn't on the list.

2.6k · April 7, 2012

So when is this going to take effect?

7.8k · April 8, 2012

I've seen matchstick containers and magkeys listed as Small instead of Micro, but I think that is mostly 'cache size creep' due to the existence of Nanos.

I'd say that matchstick containers and magnetic hide-a-keys are definitely micro, and should never be listed as small. The official definition of a small is "Holds only a small logbook and small items", which those containers don't. I think a good guide would be whether you can fit a standard size geocoin. If you can't, it's a micro. If you can, it's a small.

7.8k · April 8, 2012

So when is this going to take effect?

Here's the response I got from Moun10Bike when I suggested a modification to the submission page in February:

The new cache submission form is only a couple of months out at this point, with the developers fully tasked on it and other items through that time.

That was before all the map changes, though, so I'd expect it has been pushed back.

April 17, 2012

I kind of wish that some of those more on the edge of the range containers were used in the pictures. Like I frequently see film containers and match stick containers listed as smalls because, after all, they're bigger than a bison tube.

My first thought on seeing the new graphic was a question of scale - how big does the bucket have to be to qualify as large?

Then I noticed the hands in the pictures and I think that's a great way of indicating scale.

If it's small enough to place on the tip of your finger - it's a nano.
If it's small enough to hold between your fingers - it's a micro.
If it's small enough to get your hand around it - it's a small.
If you can carry it with one hand - it's a regular (sorry, medium )
And finally, it takes two hands to hold a whopper. (er, that's trademarked, forget I said it)

Since you can hold a film canister between your fingers, I'd gauge that as a micro.

Also, as The A-Team has said, the guidelines say a small must be big enough to hold trade items. But I guess there may be some who would publish a listing without reading the guidelines.

15.3k · April 18, 2012

If it's small enough to place on the tip of your finger - it's a nano.

If it's small enough to hold between your fingers - it's a micro.

If it's small enough to get your hand around it - it's a small.

If you can carry it with one hand - it's a regular (sorry, medium )

And finally, it takes two hands to hold a whopper. (er, that's trademarked, forget I said it)

As a rule of thumb, that works well enough. But for the official guidelines, I'd prefer a less ambiguous scale that provides volume measurements.

3.4k · April 18, 2012

I like the graphic above. Only problem would be with the metrically challenged segment of the US population.

I probably belong to that demographic, but I still think it is a good idea--I can learn to cope with it.

April 22, 2012

I'd love a "Logbook Only" designation. I hate searching for a "small" cache to only find a logbook. When I make my pocket queries for a quick run, I choose only small and medium caches, but as I have said elsewhere, I like the treasure chest type of caches and am disappointed when I end up with a logbook only.

April 3, 2013

Please add a size between small and regular(your new medium). The small size range is too large. Why not used medium in between and keep regular. A full size ammo can will always be regular.

7.9k · April 4, 2013

This is all well and good but doesn't stop people from labeling the cache size whatever they want. All too often people mark the cache size as other but never mention the cache size in the description. I agree more consistency would be good but will it really change anything?

If I had $1 for every mislabeled cache I have found...

22k · April 4, 2013

This is all well and good but doesn't stop people from labeling the cache size whatever they want. All too often people mark the cache size as other but never mention the cache size in the description. I agree more consistency would be good but will it really change anything?

If I had $1 for every mislabeled cache I have found...

Friday lunch is on AZ! (and it's about time)

7.9k · April 5, 2013

This is all well and good but doesn't stop people from labeling the cache size whatever they want. All too often people mark the cache size as other but never mention the cache size in the description. I agree more consistency would be good but will it really change anything?

If I had $1 for every mislabeled cache I have found...

Friday lunch is on AZ! (and it's about time)

I wish!

Perhaps a guide stating 'If your cache can fit through a 1 inch (3 centimeter) hole in a board, it's a micro.' would be helpful?

I realize this wouldn't account for really long narrow caches, but can you actually get that much more stuff into a one inch by three foot container? :unsure:

15.3k · September 12, 2013

Could we get an update on the status of this?

15.3k · June 26, 2023

Apparently, the inconsistent descriptions used for various cache sizes are still sowing confusion. Here's another example:

Please Describe Cache Sizes in a Consistent Way

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment