What size to pick…

[+cthulhujr]

Hi all,

 

I'm going to set out a small cache container that is hidden in, don't laugh, a large rubber fish. Should I mark the cache as small, or maybe a question mark and then explain that the container itself is small. I hope I'm not splitting hairs here, but caches with wrong size, poor attributes, etc. really annoy me at times and I don't want to make the same mistake.

 

Thanks!

[+mimandpap]

Hi all,

 

I'm going to set out a small cache container that is hidden in, don't laugh, a large rubber fish. Should I mark the cache as small, or maybe a question mark and then explain that the container itself is small. I hope I'm not splitting hairs here, but caches with wrong size, poor attributes, etc. really annoy me at times and I don't want to make the same mistake.

 

Thanks!

 

For me I would like to see it with a ? mark and not say the container is small. It will be more challenging. You could come up with a hint that would be useful without giving it away. I like your idea tho.

[+kunarion]

Hi all,

 

I'm going to set out a small cache container that is hidden in, don't laugh, a large rubber fish. Should I mark the cache as small, or maybe a question mark and then explain that the container itself is small. I hope I'm not splitting hairs here, but caches with wrong size, poor attributes, etc. really annoy me at times and I don't want to make the same mistake.

 

Thanks!

If the container's a match tube, basically holds a log only, select Micro. If it's more like a sandwich box or peanut butter jar, that holds coins and some items, select Small. Pick the size based on the amount of room in the container. And if it's an unusual container or hard to describe, it's great to specify whether coins and various items will fit.

[+L0ne.R]

Hi all,

 

I'm going to set out a small cache container that is hidden in, don't laugh, a large rubber fish. Should I mark the cache as small, or maybe a question mark and then explain that the container itself is small. I hope I'm not splitting hairs here, but caches with wrong size, poor attributes, etc. really annoy me at times and I don't want to make the same mistake.

 

Thanks!

 

I was going to say "?" but then I remembered that I filter out ? size because that's mostly code for nano. So I'm going to suggest small, i.e. if the container (not the fish) is actually 100ml or larger, but less than 1L

[+Moose Mob]

I always use the size of the space available for SWAG and/or log book. If you put a film canister into an 18 inch yard owl, it would be a micro.

Edited February 10, 2012 by Moose Mob

[+tozainamboku]

This is a frequently asked questioned and one reason that size is hard to define.

 

Many experienced geoachers believe that size is primarily given to indicate whether the cache is large enough to support a particular piece of swag or an item that might have a travel bug tag attached to it. There is some reason to take this view if you know the history of the small size.

 

When I started geoaching the sizes were micro, regular, and large. Many people complained that a travel bug attached to a small toy would no longer fit in many smaller regular sized caches. Small was added to distinguish a container that could hold small swag item but might not hold the typical travel bug attached to a doll or stuffed animal.

 

Now Groundspeak has announced that they will soon add a nano size. Whether this is to distinguish micros that are log only from micros that may have room for a coin (or one of those trade items we're not allowed to mention in this forum) is not clear.

 

Some cachers believe the size should be hint as to what you are looking for. That normally isn't a problem except for the case when a micro or nano is placed in camouflage that is much bigger. Of course some will argue that part of the challenge of looking for a micro or nano is that it may be hidden in such camouflage. Cache owner who desired to give the extra hind can always list the cache size as other and describe the situation in the write up.

[+Michaelcycle]

Hi all,

 

I'm going to set out a small cache container that is hidden in, don't laugh, a large rubber fish. Should I mark the cache as small, or maybe a question mark and then explain that the container itself is small. I hope I'm not splitting hairs here, but caches with wrong size, poor attributes, etc. really annoy me at times and I don't want to make the same mistake.

 

Thanks!

 

For me I would like to see it with a ? mark and not say the container is small. It will be more challenging. You could come up with a hint that would be useful without giving it away. I like your idea tho.

 

The choice of "?" size is supposed to be decribed in the cacher description: "?/see description"

This is a perfect case of where that designation is useful.

The description could read "Cache is a micro/nano log only in a small container. No room for TBs or trade items."

 

Unfortunately, some have decided to use the "?" size attribute as a way to create the illusion that a hide is more "challenging."

[+Steve0512]

Many people filter out undefined container size. So you might get fewer finds.

[+NicknPapa]

Hi all,

 

I'm going to set out a small cache container that is hidden in, don't laugh, a large rubber fish. Should I mark the cache as small, or maybe a question mark and then explain that the container itself is small. I hope I'm not splitting hairs here, but caches with wrong size, poor attributes, etc. really annoy me at times and I don't want to make the same mistake.

 

Thanks!

 

I would say use the size of the actual container. If the host had anything to do with the size rating, you could hang a nano on a redwood and call it "gigantic".

[+briansnat]

The way I see it, if the camouflage is physically part of the container, (for example a log with a compartment holding the contents drilled into it), then I think the overall size of the object should be considered when selecting size. If the actual container can be removed from the camoflage (as in a log with a bison tube tucked inside) then go with the size of the actual container.

 

I think the chief reason we have sizes is so we know what we are looking for. The amount and size of swag it can hold is a secondary reason.

[+niraD]

The way I see it, if the camouflage is physically part of the container, (for example a log with a compartment holding the contents drilled into it), then I think the overall size of the object should be considered when selecting size. If the actual container can be removed from the camoflage (as in a log with a bison tube tucked inside) then go with the size of the actual container.

That sounds reasonable to me. If I'm looking for a log that's been turned into a container, then the log itself is what I'm looking for, and that's the size that should be shown. If I'm looking for a Bison tube set in a hole in a log, then the Bison tube is what I'm looking for. Finding the log does no good unless I notice the Bison tube, so that's the size that should be shown.

[+briansnat]

The way I see it, if the camouflage is physically part of the container, (for example a log with a compartment holding the contents drilled into it), then I think the overall size of the object should be considered when selecting size. If the actual container can be removed from the camoflage (as in a log with a bison tube tucked inside) then go with the size of the actual container.

That sounds reasonable to me. If I'm looking for a log that's been turned into a container, then the log itself is what I'm looking for, and that's the size that should be shown. If I'm looking for a Bison tube set in a hole in a log, then the Bison tube is what I'm looking for. Finding the log does no good unless I notice the Bison tube, so that's the size that should be shown.

 

Well I think you're one of the first people ever to agree with me on this.

[+NicknPapa]

The way I see it, if the camouflage is physically part of the container, (for example a log with a compartment holding the contents drilled into it), then I think the overall size of the object should be considered when selecting size. If the actual container can be removed from the camoflage (as in a log with a bison tube tucked inside) then go with the size of the actual container.

That sounds reasonable to me. If I'm looking for a log that's been turned into a container, then the log itself is what I'm looking for, and that's the size that should be shown. If I'm looking for a Bison tube set in a hole in a log, then the Bison tube is what I'm looking for. Finding the log does no good unless I notice the Bison tube, so that's the size that should be shown.

 

Well I think you're one of the first people ever to agree with me on this.

 

Personally, if the camouflage were a physical part of the container and there was enough difference in size between the available volume and the total size I would do one of two things. The first (and most probable) would be to list it with the size of the available volume and include the fact that although it won't hold much the total container size is ~ however big it is in the description. The second would be to list it as "?" and clarify why in the description. If you have ever taken a child to find a small or regular size cache only to find a micro in disguise and had to look at the disappointment on their face you would understand why. When we started this the Nick half of NicknPapa was just young enough for me to remember that look all to well, I'll never willingly do that to a child.

 

BTW, this one of the few times I have ever disagreed with you

Edited February 13, 2012 by NicknPapa

[+The Real Boudica.]

Am I right in thinking GS describes cache size in volume, if so its inferring they prefer listings based on the actual cache size not the total size.

 

I have seen some listings that go along the lines of cache size listed as micro/? but in the description it explains that you are looking for a camouflaged micro, eg: bison in a log, which gives you some idea that you are not necessarily looking for a micro sized 'thing'. Personally I do use the size to help determine what to look for and where to look so it all depends on how sneaky you want it to be.

 

I think both arguments outlined above are valid for different people depending on how, with who and why they cache and how they filter the caches to look for. So, as seems par for the course in this game, I doubt you will please everyone. If people pick caches purely by filtering out '?' and micros and dont read descriptions they might miss out on what sounds like a fun hide, equally those who don't read the description might be misled in what they are hunting for, both scenarios are determined by user choice and error and not yours IMHO. BTW I have had a similar idea.

[+briansnat]

Am I right in thinking GS describes cache size in volume, if so its inferring they prefer listings based on the actual cache size not the total size.

I think you are inferring too much. When they are using volume as a guideline they are assuming a standard container.

 

The chief reason for sizes in the first place is to have an idea as to what you are looking for. If the size says micro I'm probably not going to examine that 14 inch high rock near ground zero. I'm looking for something very small. Now if the size says regular, that 14 inch high rock becomes a likely suspect and will get a going over from me.

[+popokiiti]

We've found some caches that were micros placed in larger cammoed containers. Size was micro, but the description stated that we were looking for something larger than a micro.