New Cache Size Suggestion

[The Foxx Family]

Hello fellow cachers. I sent the following to Groundspeak and they suggested I put it up here too to get some feedback. What do you all think?

----------------------------------------

 

I am sure this has probably been requested/mentioned/put forward before but just a little thought....... The size guide for caches at the moment is:

 

Micro

Small

Regular

Large

 

I feel there should be another named 'MINI' to accommodate such items as 35mm film canisters where you can put things in is but its not big enough for a pen.

 

When I see MICRO and people haven't put a proper description I assume I am looking for a tiny tiny item which has no room for anything other than a rolled up piece of paper. There is too much of a difference in size of items placed in this bracket.

 

To reiterate, I feel it should be:

 

Micro - Too small for anything other than the log paper.

Mini - Small enough to place tiny items and a log but not a pen.

Small - Big enough for small items, log and pen, Small TB's and Coins.

Regular - Big enough for Log, Pen, many items, TBs and Coins.

Large - Big enough to contain pretty much anything.

 

I hope this is worth considering, it will certainly help me and many others when finding these little blighters. We are not all 24/7 dedicated cachers and some do it for a bit of fun with the kids when we have time. Quite often we never know what we are looking for and it becomes very very frustrating.

 

It shouldn't take too much to inform all cachers of any change if this was the case. A quick edit of their own caches shouldn't take too long.

 

Thanks

[+Z_Statman]

Nice idea and would also like to add - Drop the "Not Chosen" category.

[+ngrrfan]

That's what the Description block is for. If I wanted you to know exactly the size to look for I'd tell you.

[+Chief301]

There has been much discussion and debate about adding another size....the common suggestion is that Nano should become an official (smallest) size. A Micro is defined as a container about the size of a 35 mm film canister or smaller....Nanos would be the tiny log-only type you're describing as Micro.

 

So far, though, no changes in the official sizes.

[+kantear]

i'm pretty sure there has been talk of the need for a new size category for a while now. people want to add "nano" to that list since the those tiny button caches have been getting more popular. i think this is one of the things gs has either held off on or doesn't find important enough to change.

[+Chief301]

Nice idea and would also like to add - Drop the "Not Chosen" category.

 

There are some legitimate reasons to keep the "Not Chosen" category....sometimes it's used when listing the actual size would be too much of a giveaway, such as with some Puzzles or mystery caches, or as part of the joke that you'll understand when you find it....tiny little Micro sized ammo cans are one classic example ("You are looking for an ammo can..."), or a 5-gallon bucket full of film canisters.

[+Chief301]

i'm pretty sure there has been talk of the need for a new size category for a while now. people want to add "nano" to that list since the those tiny button caches have been getting more popular. i think this is one of the things gs has either held off on or doesn't find important enough to change.

 

Maybe they're trying to send a message to quit with all the Nanos already. I'm getting a little tired if the blinkie nanos....I find they're a cop out because you can hide one almost anywhere with very little effort....I much prefer a slightly larger container that took some creativity to hide. Too often a magnetic nano is just stuck to some handy street sign when with a little thought something better could have been placed. I'm a firm believer in the "largest container the location can support" school of thought.

[+kantear]

There are some legitimate reasons to keep the "Not Chosen" category....sometimes it's used when listing the actual size would be too much of a giveaway, such as with some Puzzles or mystery caches, or as part of the joke that you'll understand when you find it....tiny little Micro sized ammo cans are one classic example ("You are looking for an ammo can..."), or a 5-gallon bucket full of film canisters.

 

this is what i was thinking but could not figure out how to say it.

 

as far as the nanos ... i've seen some nice hides with them ... like on an extremely target rich utility cluster on a small business plaza, or on a park bench posing as a bolt. even those bolt caches could fit in a "nano" category, those are getting popular.

[+Chief301]

There are some legitimate reasons to keep the "Not Chosen" category....sometimes it's used when listing the actual size would be too much of a giveaway, such as with some Puzzles or mystery caches, or as part of the joke that you'll understand when you find it....tiny little Micro sized ammo cans are one classic example ("You are looking for an ammo can..."), or a 5-gallon bucket full of film canisters.

 

this is what i was thinking but could not figure out how to say it.

 

as far as the nanos ... i've seen some nice hides with them ... like on an extremely target rich utility cluster on a small business plaza, or on a park bench posing as a bolt. even those bolt caches could fit in a "nano" category, those are getting popular.

 

Oh, blinkie nanos have their place....on a park bench, for example, or any muggle-rich environment where the sheer volume of traffic would make something larger problematic, they work OK. One of my favorite caches was the first nano I found, under a bench at a shopping mall. But to place one on the back of a street sign when there is a nice bush a few feet away, or a nice patch of woods right over there....what's the point? Did you bring me here to see the beautiful Yield sign?

[+The A-Team]

Micro - Too small for anything other than the log paper.

Mini - Small enough to place tiny items and a log but not a pen.

Your proposal would rename what is traditionally known as a "micro" to a "mini", and rename what is traditionally known as a "nano" to a "micro". First, there would be a conflict that would arise with caches before and after the change both being called a "micro", but with different size interpretations. Second, it would be much simpler to just keep the naming as it is, and implement the "nano" size as an official size. This has been suggested for a long time now, and may eventually be implemented if they ever finish updating the GPX schema and do the long-promised Pocket Query revamp.

[+niraD]

There are plans to add a new nano size. This will be part of the new GPX format. It was originally planned for earlier this year, so we'll have to see when it is finally deployed.

[+Z3ROIN]

Don't see any need for this, although nano may be useful.

[+blazingpathways]

I'd like to see the nano category. When traveling outside Alaska this summer, I found quite a few hiders in the lower 48 using "not chosen" for nanos.

[+timbee&suebee]

Nice idea and would also like to add - Drop the "Not Chosen" category.

 

I use this category when I place a cache that is not a single container or not typical - like a micro inside a large host. I think it has a place so I hope they don't drop it.

[+timbee&suebee]

.... I'm a firm believer in the "largest container the location can support" school of thought.

 

Amen to that! Can't tell you how many times we arrive at an area that has a micro hidden when there are so many bushes, rocks, stumps, logs, etc to hide a regular in/under. So annoying!

[+timbee&suebee]

I'd like to see the nano category...

 

I would too. Then I would know to avoid those caches. I have no problem with the hides themselves. I just hate trying to get that tiny little log out to sign it and then having to carefully roll it up so it fits back in that stinkin' little container.

[CraftyKel*]

I can't wait for the nano size category to be added, it will make it so much easier to ignore them then!

 

I'm not a fan of micros, but I put up with them. Today I accidentally found my first nano, what a stupidly small thing, there was plenty of room for a micro there too instead of a nano.

Are they even caches strictly speaking?

A cache is "a collection of items of the same type stored in a hidden or inaccessible place" according to the OED. How many things can you fit in a nano? Nothing. I suppose technically you could fit a few grains of salt or sand in one, but that's about it, hardly a collection of items though.

Edited August 12, 2012 by Aeggil

[+Don_J]

I can't wait for the nano size category to be added, it will make it so much easier to ignore them then!

 

I'm not a fan of micros, but I put up with them. Today I accidentally found my first nano, what a stupidly small thing, there was plenty of room for a micro there too instead of a nano.

Are they even caches strictly speaking?

A cache is "a collection of items of the same type stored in a hidden or inaccessible place" according to the OED. How many things can you fit in a nano? Nothing. I suppose technically you could fit a few grains of salt or sand in one, but that's about it, hardly a collection of items though.

 

The definition of a "cache" is irrelevant. The definition of a "geocache", listed on geocaching.com, is a container with a logsheet. Unfortunately, nanos meet that definition. That said, I will never hide one and I don't go out of my way to find them.

 

I think that yet another result of allowing people to use phones and never have to visit the website is that they don't learn the proper definitions of the sizes. This causes a "drift" where people start to think that if button nanos are micros,(currently, they are), then 35mm film cans and Altoids tins must be smalls.

[AZcachemeister]

...then 35mm film cans and Altoids tins must be smalls.

 

They're becoming increasingly 'REGULAR' around here.

[+The_Incredibles_]

Nice idea and would also like to add - Drop the "Not Chosen" category.

 

There are some legitimate reasons to keep the "Not Chosen" category....sometimes it's used when listing the actual size would be too much of a giveaway, such as with some Puzzles or mystery caches, or as part of the joke that you'll understand when you find it....tiny little Micro sized ammo cans are one classic example ("You are looking for an ammo can..."), or a 5-gallon bucket full of film canisters.

 

I agree. The "Not Chosen" category is helpful when specifying the exact size would ruin the surprise. I have one like this.

 

I agree, there should be a new 'Nano' category, hopefully they will implement soon.

[ad5smith]

I can't wait for the nano size category to be added, it will make it so much easier to ignore them then!

 

I'm not a fan of micros, but I put up with them. Today I accidentally found my first nano, what a stupidly small thing, there was plenty of room for a micro there too instead of a nano.

Are they even caches strictly speaking?

A cache is "a collection of items of the same type stored in a hidden or inaccessible place" according to the OED. How many things can you fit in a nano? Nothing. I suppose technically you could fit a few grains of salt or sand in one, but that's about it, hardly a collection of items though.

 

My vote is for there to be a nano catagory. I don't mind the occasional nano in the rain washout. It made for a good challenge

 

But....

 

The thing I hate most about nanos, - its not the view that i dont like, its not that that i disnt like the trains, its not that i dont mind looking for a cache, but there are four railraod cars, an oil derrick, and a waist high fence around the derrick. I refuse to spend the who knows how long it will take to search for a nano, at least give a small hint!!!!! Especially since the gps puts you in the road!!!! GC2WHMH

 

(no disrespect to the CO it's just happens this is the most recent nano that has annoyed me)

[+DragonFire72]

I think nano should be a size listing too. I hide all different sizes including nano and sometimes it would be nice to let people know in advance. I am a fan of not chosen too though. It comes in generally when I hide unique caches and don't want to tip off the hunter. Though I do try its make it interesting when I do that.

[+W8TTS]

It's time that the NANO is added to size.

[Chino1130]

I don't mind if nano is made or isn't made an option. I just wish COs would get in the habit of letting you know that the cache is a nano.

[+hostanut]

I can see the usefullness of having more cache sizes but changing or adding more sizes now presents problems:

 

1. Until ALL caches have been updated to the "new" cache sizes....there still may be a question as what the correct size is.

 

2. Some cache owners are no longer active.....so their caches will NOT be updated to the cache sizes.

 

Then this is the matter of interpretation:

 

What size should be listed for a bison tube inserted into a 8" diameter tree limb 15" long? Micro because of the bison tube or Other because of the tree limb?

 

I've seen alot of discepancy in the listed sizes of caches I've found?

 

-hostanut

[+Don_J]

I can see the usefullness of having more cache sizes but changing or adding more sizes now presents problems:

 

1. Until ALL caches have been updated to the "new" cache sizes....there still may be a question as what the correct size is.

 

2. Some cache owners are no longer active.....so their caches will NOT be updated to the cache sizes.

 

Then this is the matter of interpretation:

 

What size should be listed for a bison tube inserted into a 8" diameter tree limb 15" long? Micro because of the bison tube or Other because of the tree limb?

 

I've seen alot of discepancy in the listed sizes of caches I've found?

 

-hostanut

 

Stopping progress because some refuse to keep up would be silly. As far as your bison tube, that is a totally different discussion and has nothing to do with adding a size category. It would be the same if you stuck a bison tube in the glove compartment of derelict car, half buried in mud in the hills. It would be a micro.

[AZcachemeister]

Having more size options only increases the chances that someone will get it wrong.

 

That being said, I'd like to propose some additional new size categories:

 

Ginormous

Mondo

Awesome

 

These would be considerably larger than 'mini' or 'nano'.

Why all the concern with the smaller sizes, will there be no satisfaction until a cache the size of a muon can be produced?

[+oxford comma]

and colossal.

[+oxford comma]

 

These would be considerably larger than 'mini' or 'nano'.

Why all the concern with the smaller sizes, will there be no satisfaction until a cache the size of a muon can be produced?

 

I just found a muon trackable today.

went right through me.

kind of hard to see the code though.

[+Don_J]

Having more size options only increases the chances that someone will get it wrong.

 

Actually, I think the opposite will occur. Right now, countless cache are being published with the wrong size because cacher's, especially newer cacher's perspective of size is skewed. We can pretend that everyone reads the guidelines and all of the knowledge books, but that just isn't true. Because of the proliferation of super small caches that currently fall into the micro classification, people start to think that traditional micro sized containers are smalls.

 

What I really find interesting is that when this very same subject was brought up about two years ago, there was massive resistance from the forum regulars. Now, two years later that resistance is gone and most realize that the only way to stop the size drift is to give these super small containers their own size.

[+Mr. Wilson & a Mt. Goat]

I think adding a "nano" size is the way to go.

Keep micro what it is.

[+the Seagnoid]

Actually, micro is film cannister size. Probably the best new cache size needed is "nano" which is the logbook only size. And yes, I would like to grandfather the not chosen option too.

[+the Seagnoid]

The wrong cache size chosen problem may now be fixed withthe new cache publish pages, which shows a cache in a hand so that the cachers has an idea of just what size to advertise.

[+sharant]

I also have for a long time wanted 'nano' - but the data structure of the XML schema would need to be changed. The longer we leave it, the harder it will be to do it!

[+Off Grid]

i'm pretty sure there has been talk of the need for a new size category for a while now. people want to add "nano" to that list since the those tiny button caches have been getting more popular. i think this is one of the things gs has either held off on or doesn't find important enough to change.

 

Maybe they're trying to send a message to quit with all the Nanos already. I'm getting a little tired if the blinkie nanos....I find they're a cop out because you can hide one almost anywhere with very little effort....I much prefer a slightly larger container that took some creativity to hide. Too often a magnetic nano is just stuck to some handy street sign when with a little thought something better could have been placed. I'm a firm believer in the "largest container the location can support" school of thought.

 

I agree, we have some Nano's here stuck on garbage cans (a real attraction) I would like to add we have a standard container that is "Water Proof" and durable AKA Loc & Loc. IMHO it shows a lack of caring or respect to use any old container you found.

[+duncanhoyle]

There are plans to add a new nano size. This will be part of the new GPX format. It was originally planned for earlier this year, so we'll have to see when it is finally deployed.

 

At a recent mega in the UK there was a discussion panel and Jeremy (who apparently was on holiday close by) was on it. When asked about nanos I believe his response was that it had been discussed and he couldn't understand why it hadn't been implemented already. The only issu he saw was woking with 3rd party vendors to ensure that their hardware/software handled it.