Limiting nanos and not allowing them on power trails

[+AmayaTom]

I don't believe this is a problem in the States, but recently in the UK it has started to go nano mad. People are releasing power trails of nanos or mostly nanos. When they start spreading in to woodland and ivy covered trees (which they are) it gets ridiculous.

 

Now you could argue that perhaps I should pay more attention before I go and do a power trail as to what the cache sizes are, but this is hampered by the fact that a lot of newer cachers list nanos as micros (as there is no actual type for nano - other than "other" which they never seem to use).

 

I understand there is a place for nanos in high muggle locations, but there is no excuse to put them out in woodland or parkland. Placing them in a power trail is ridiculous both from a cache owner maintenance perspective (logs fill up far too quickly and then don't get renewed) and from a finders perspective - extracting logs is painful, unwrapping and wrapping them up is a pain. When you factor in the pain of finding a nano in an ivy covered tree it means it takes ages to get round. I haven't mentioned logs disintegrating in the wet either.

 

I would like to see:

 

• A specific cache type of nano (so I can avoid them better)
  
• A ban on placing them om power trails
  
• A limit (e.g. 1% of caches published) on the number of nanos that can be published
  

 

To me the massive increase in nanos in the UK is starting to kill caching here.

[+kunarion]

[*]A ban on placing them om power trails

Why do you hunt a power trail that you don't like? The first nano should be enough.

 

When you factor in the pain of finding a nano in an ivy covered tree it means it takes ages to get round.

These require a higher difficulty rating that an ordinary Micro. That would make them simpler to filter out.

 

Making "nano" a cache type is a popular suggestion. Unless there is then a limit imposed, I'd expect the number to greatly increase. Nanos are the (generally) least expensive throw-down cache -- a tough hide can be devised with little planning. They also, as you mentioned, require much more maintenance than an ammo can, per number of finds. But I've never seen a nano get maintenance (except for one I replaced for Cache Owner by request).

Edited November 11, 2012 by kunarion

[+AmayaTom]

If I've just driven 30 or more miles to do a trail, I'm not in a hurry to turn round and head back after one cache, but I have to admit I am sometimes tempted.

[+kunarion]

If I've just driven 30 or more miles to do a trail, I'm not in a hurry to turn round and head back after one cache, but I have to admit I am sometimes tempted.

Isn't a “power trail” a finder-maintained mess of full logs, missing containers, and a pile of do-it-yourself “replacement caches” at either end of the trail? Nanos seem perfect for that.

[AZcachemeister]

If a 'cache' meets the guidelines, it will be published.

 

This is going to get worse before it gets better.

 

We must take our own precautions to protect ourselves.

[GrandPotentate]

what is up with all of the recent posts from people wanting caches they don't like to be banned? I think the best advice to give is to put out what you like to find. If you don't like finding nanos on a power trail, then make a power trail with the size of container you enjoy.

 

On a similar note, I liked the comment about finder-maintained caches, I am looking at covering a 26 mile bike trail, perhaps every 5 miles, I will place an ammo can filled with replacement logs and baggies so that any helpful cachers who want to are welcome to grab a handful of logs and replace them.

[+BlueDeuce]

what is up with all of the recent posts from people wanting caches they don't like to be banned? I think the best advice to give is to put out what you like to find. If you don't like finding nanos on a power trail, then make a power trail with the size of container you enjoy.

 

On a similar note, I liked the comment about finder-maintained caches, I am looking at covering a 26 mile bike trail, perhaps every 5 miles, I will place an ammo can filled with replacement logs and baggies so that any helpful cachers who want to are welcome to grab a handful of logs and replace them.

 

It's not recent. Micros are lame should have it's own forum section by now.

[GrandPotentate]

what is up with all of the recent posts from people wanting caches they don't like to be banned? I think the best advice to give is to put out what you like to find. If you don't like finding nanos on a power trail, then make a power trail with the size of container you enjoy.

 

On a similar note, I liked the comment about finder-maintained caches, I am looking at covering a 26 mile bike trail, perhaps every 5 miles, I will place an ammo can filled with replacement logs and baggies so that any helpful cachers who want to are welcome to grab a handful of logs and replace them.

 

It's not recent. Micros are lame should have it's own forum section by now.

 

there was another user that was wanting event caches removed and I think puzzle caches

[+BlueDeuce]

"The best advice to give is to put out what you like to find".

 

My opinion is that not every cache is placed with the idea that it is what the owner wants to find. Should it be, in every situation? Absolutely not.

 

I think in practice it's a cop-out answer to justify a lame micro.

[+BlueDeuce]

there was another user that was wanting event caches removed and I think puzzle caches

 

Yeah, saw that. That's just angst posting. Ignore it.

[+Don_J]

but this is hampered by the fact that a lot of newer cachers list nanos as micros (as there is no actual type for nano - other than "other" which they never seem to use).

 

These cachers are listing them properly. Until the long awaited nano size is rolled out, nanos fall under the size of micro.

 

Personally, I'm getting a bit frustrated by people hanging bison tubes in trees, six miles from the trail head. If they started hiding nanos, I'd probably go find another hobby.

[+niraD]

Now you could argue that perhaps I should pay more attention before I go and do a power trail as to what the cache sizes are, but this is hampered by the fact that a lot of newer cachers list nanos as micros (as there is no actual type for nano - other than "other" which they never seem to use).

As others have pointed out, nano caches are correctly listed as micro size. Per the "What does a geocache look like?" section of Geocaching 101: "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."

 

A specific cache type of nano (so I can avoid them better)

A new nano size is on the way. It will be part of the new GPX format. Unfortunately, the release of the new GPX format has been delayed.

 

A ban on placing them om power trails

What's a "power trail"?

 

Seriously, the guidelines don't address this at all. Before you can ban a particular cache size on power trails, you need to have a workable definition for a power trail that the volunteer reviewers can use when evaluating cache submissions. Given that there isn't even a "power trail" attribute yet, I don't see this happening any time soon. As far as the guidelines are concerned, each cache of a power trail stands on its own.

 

A limit (e.g. 1% of caches published) on the number of nanos that can be published

Again, each cache listing stands on its own. My ability to hide a particular type of cache shouldn't depend on how many others of that type are hidden nearby.

[+AmayaTom]

A specific cache type of nano (so I can avoid them better)

A new nano size is on the way. It will be part of the new GPX format. Unfortunately, the release of the new GPX format has been delayed.

 

Well, that will be a relief

 

A ban on placing them om power trails

What's a "power trail"?

 

Seriously, the guidelines don't address this at all. Before you can ban a particular cache size on power trails, you need to have a workable definition for a power trail that the volunteer reviewers can use when evaluating cache submissions. Given that there isn't even a "power trail" attribute yet, I don't see this happening any time soon. As far as the guidelines are concerned, each cache of a power trail stands on its own.

 

I have to admit when I used the term "Power Trail" I tried to use an American term, there are many terms used in Britain that don't make sense to Americans (e.g. "Go and chuck the nappy in the bin and then get the rubber out the boot" = "Go and put the diaper in the trash and then get the pencil eraser out of the trunk". The term I really wanted to use is a "circuit" or "series"

 

I'd have thought the easiest way to define it is to look at the cache name. When you get a series of caches all released at once and named:

01 - Sample Series

02 - Sample Series

03 - Sample Series etc etc

Then you can be pretty sure you have a series of caches where you expect people to do them one after another. The only thing you then need to define is at what number of caches you set a limit.

 

As I implied in my initial post, I don't think American cachers will relate to this post as I have never seen the problem in the States. When I was at Groundspeak HQ around a year ago, the lackeys were bemoaning the lack of quality in a lot of recent placements and wanted to know how things could be improved. To give an example of a US problem, In the States I heard many people moaning about the sheer number of caches hidden in lamp-post skirts. This is not a problem in the UK, nobody can relate to it in Britain as we don't have the skirts placed at the bottom of lamp posts so no caches get placed there as there is no hiding place.

 

I doubt you can find many cachers that enjoy walking a series of caches taking you several miles where you have to fiddle with tweezers to extract logs, hunt for a microscopic item in an ivy covered tree etc etc.

 

Given that GS were actually asking for advice on how caching could be improved, I was trying to give some constructive advice on how things can be improved. Over here in the UK, the number of really tiny fiddly cache containers is getting stupid. I suspect the problem will start to manifest itself in the States soon too. It dumbs down the aspect of hiding a cache. Anybody can hide a nano anywhere without any real thought or care. This was the sort of issue I believe GS were interested in hearing about, so they could look at making efforts in improving the quality of caches placed.

[+L0ne.R]

I will do a powertrail but not a micro power trail. I won't do micros in general unless they have at least a handful of favorite votes. Nanos scrolls are aggravating.

 

I would suggest constructive feedback in the logs. Let the COs know that hiding a nano in ivy was not a pleasant experience. Also I would suspect that there would be damage to the ivy - crushed, trampled, broken, torn. I'd report any damage in the log as well. Perhaps an NA log is in order if the ivy is on a building or in a garden and noticeable damage to the greenery is happening.

[+Beach_hut]

This isn't the sort of forum post I like to read, but I'll move on and read another forum post because I know there are all kinds of forum posts out there, including lots of forum posts I do like.

 

I know lots of other people like writing, reading and replying to this type of forum post, so I'll leave them to it.

 

Now, if only caches were like forum posts...

[+tozainamboku]

"The best advice to give is to put out what you like to find".

 

My opinion is that not every cache is placed with the idea that it is what the owner wants to find. Should it be, in every situation? Absolutely not.

 

I think in practice it's a cop-out answer to justify a lame micro.

Sure. Everyone is putting out crappy caches that they would not want to search for themselves because they crave the praise that will be heaped upon them in the forum.

[+Don_J]

 

Given that GS were actually asking for advice on how caching could be improved, I was trying to give some constructive advice on how things can be improved. Over here in the UK, the number of really tiny fiddly cache containers is getting stupid. I suspect the problem will start to manifest itself in the States soon too. It dumbs down the aspect of hiding a cache. Anybody can hide a nano anywhere without any real thought or care. This was the sort of issue I believe GS were interested in hearing about, so they could look at making efforts in improving the quality of caches placed.

 

We went through this in our local area a few years ago. People were sticking the darn things everywhere. I think that people got frustrated trying to find them and realized that they didn't want that frustration over their own hides. It really tapered off over time. Now, it seems like every so often a new cacher sees a great deal on eBay and buys a set so then we get a few sprinkled throughout the area. Maybe you'll get lucky and it will just be a phase.

[+Don_J]

 

Given that GS were actually asking for advice on how caching could be improved, I was trying to give some constructive advice on how things can be improved. Over here in the UK, the number of really tiny fiddly cache containers is getting stupid. I suspect the problem will start to manifest itself in the States soon too. It dumbs down the aspect of hiding a cache. Anybody can hide a nano anywhere without any real thought or care. This was the sort of issue I believe GS were interested in hearing about, so they could look at making efforts in improving the quality of caches placed.

 

We went through this in our local area a few years ago. People were sticking the darn things everywhere. I think that people got frustrated trying to find them and realized that they didn't want that frustration over their own hides. It really tapered off over time. Now, it seems like every so often a new cacher sees a great deal on eBay and buys a set so then we get a few sprinkled throughout the area. Maybe you'll get lucky and it will just be a phase.

 

Also, if Groundspeak really wanted to improve the quality of the hides, they would have a minimum size that defines a geocache container. Doing so would also limit the amount of spots where a cache could be hidden, thus reducing the amount of caches. I don't see them ever doing something that reduces that X,XXX,XXX active caches hidden worldwide banner on the home page.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Now you could argue that perhaps I should pay more attention before I go and do a power trail as to what the cache sizes are, but this is hampered by the fact that a lot of newer cachers list nanos as micros (as there is no actual type for nano - other than "other" which they never seem to use).

 

I would argue that perhaps you should pay more attention before you go and do a power trail as to what the cache sizes are. That would resolve your problem! Without impacting other geocachers. Nanos are properly listed as 'micros'. (I, for one, do not want to see a 'nano' category. Nanos are micros.)

 

I am also not understanding your definiton of 'power trail'? I thought a 'power trail' was a cache every 528' along a road. Drive between. Is the six mile rail trail I'm working on a 'power trail'? 24 caches along six miles. Nah. That's three pleassant days of hiking a rail trail to me. I thought 'power trails' were for driving between the caches?

Myself, I do have three or four nanos hidden. The areas will not support anything larger. I do have a micro in the woods. But it was intended to be humorous. The bison tube is hidden inside a three pound bronze rabbit statue. Hee hee hee.

So, I guess I'm not understanding your problem. You're too lazy to check what types of cache containers are on your planned caching trip? That's hwat I am seeing.

[+niraD]

I am also not understanding your definiton of 'power trail'? I thought a 'power trail' was a cache every 528' along a road. Drive between. Is the six mile rail trail I'm working on a 'power trail'? 24 caches along six miles. Nah. That's three pleassant days of hiking a rail trail to me. I thought 'power trails' were for driving between the caches?

Well, AmayaTom already explained that it isn't really a "power trail", but rather what is called a "circuit" or "series" in the UK.

 

But if it were just up to me, I'd rather keep the term "power trail" to mean the older definition: a hiking trail with high cache density, where caches may not be much further apart than 528ft/161m, but where they are not interchangeable, and are not optimized for a PNG numbers run. The ET Highway caches are optimized for numbers runs, so I call that kind of thing a numbers run trail.

[+The A-Team]

A specific cache type of nano (so I can avoid them better)

A new nano size is on the way. It will be part of the new GPX format. Unfortunately, the release of the new GPX format has been delayed.

FYI, the GPX schema update likely won't happen. They're focusing instead on the API, which will only benefit users of a smartphone app or those using 3rd-party software like GSAK. Others who are basing their caching off of Pocket Queries will be left out in the cold I guess.

[+The_Incredibles_]

Oh my! Thank goodness we do not have this problem here (yet). I find micros in the woods to be silly and laziness on the part of the cache owner. I can't imagine nanos in the woods. I can't even understand why people would do this. Film canisters, I understand, because they can be gotten for free. However, nanos and bison tubes aren't necessarily any cheaper than a small lock n lock. In fact,, they can cost more.

 

I hate unwrapping and wrapping nano logs. Sometimes I don't even try. With everybody only writing their initials, it's pretty hard for a cache owner to verify the logs anyway.

 

I agree with you that there should be limits placed on them. Banning them all-together would be nice.

[+Don_J]

I am also not understanding your definiton of 'power trail'? I thought a 'power trail' was a cache every 528' along a road. Drive between. Is the six mile rail trail I'm working on a 'power trail'? 24 caches along six miles. Nah. That's three pleassant days of hiking a rail trail to me. I thought 'power trails' were for driving between the caches?

Well, AmayaTom already explained that it isn't really a "power trail", but rather what is called a "circuit" or "series" in the UK.

 

But if it were just up to me, I'd rather keep the term "power trail" to mean the older definition: a hiking trail with high cache density, where caches may not be much further apart than 528ft/161m, but where they are not interchangeable, and are not optimized for a PNG numbers run. The ET Highway caches are optimized for numbers runs, so I call that kind of thing a numbers run trail.

 

I don't think you can put that Genie back in the bottle. Kind of like trying to tell someone that a swastika is an ancient Indian symbol. It's been forever ruined, just like your definition of a power trail. BTW, I did your definition of a power trail on Saturday. While the caches were about 700' apart, each was also about 150' higher than the last one. While I got 24 finds in 5 miles, I certainly didn't feel like I was power caching.

[Mr.Yuck]

Oh my! Thank goodness we do not have this problem here (yet). I find micros in the woods to be silly and laziness on the part of the cache owner. I can't imagine nanos in the woods. I can't even understand why people would do this. Film canisters, I understand, because they can be gotten for free. However, nanos and bison tubes aren't necessarily any cheaper than a small lock n lock. In fact,, they can cost more.

 

I hate unwrapping and wrapping nano logs. Sometimes I don't even try. With everybody only writing their initials, it's pretty hard for a cache owner to verify the logs anyway.

 

I agree with you that there should be limits placed on them. Banning them all-together would be nice.

 

Where'd that come from, Mrs. I? That sounds more hardcore than something I would say. I do agree, I think most micros in the woods are born out of cheapskatedness. I see very few Bison tubes though, it's almost always free film canisters or free pill bottles, with the occasional $1 waterproof match container thrown in. Fresh in my memory is an enthusiastic n00b in my area with only about 50 finds but 30 hides, who has about 15 pill bottles in the woods.

[+The_Incredibles_]

Oh my! Thank goodness we do not have this problem here (yet). I find micros in the woods to be silly and laziness on the part of the cache owner. I can't imagine nanos in the woods. I can't even understand why people would do this. Film canisters, I understand, because they can be gotten for free. However, nanos and bison tubes aren't necessarily any cheaper than a small lock n lock. In fact,, they can cost more.

 

I hate unwrapping and wrapping nano logs. Sometimes I don't even try. With everybody only writing their initials, it's pretty hard for a cache owner to verify the logs anyway.

 

I agree with you that there should be limits placed on them. Banning them all-together would be nice.

 

Where'd that come from, Mrs. I? That sounds more hardcore than something I would say. I do agree, I think most micros in the woods are born out of cheapskatedness. I see very few Bison tubes though, it's almost always free film canisters or free pill bottles, with the occasional $1 waterproof match container thrown in. Fresh in my memory is an enthusiastic n00b in my area with only about 50 finds but 30 hides, who has about 15 pill bottles in the woods.

 

You're right, that was a bit harsh. There are people I greatly respect who have hidden micros in the woods.

 

There are certain circumstances where I can understand it. Like I found some the other day in a very popular hiking area. The goal of the caches was to take you to nice spots and larger caches probably wouldn't have lasted in those areas. I can also understand putting micros out if the terrain is challenging and most people were probably just going there to enjoy the hike and find as many caches as possible. They probably didn't care to trade so why bother with a cache that can hold swag every 161 meters? I'd rather find a micro in the woods than no cache at all, even if they are disappointing.

 

I feel a little differently about nanos, though. The logs are too dadgum hard to roll up.

[Mr.Yuck]

Oh my! Thank goodness we do not have this problem here (yet). I find micros in the woods to be silly and laziness on the part of the cache owner. I can't imagine nanos in the woods. I can't even understand why people would do this. Film canisters, I understand, because they can be gotten for free. However, nanos and bison tubes aren't necessarily any cheaper than a small lock n lock. In fact,, they can cost more.

 

I hate unwrapping and wrapping nano logs. Sometimes I don't even try. With everybody only writing their initials, it's pretty hard for a cache owner to verify the logs anyway.

 

I agree with you that there should be limits placed on them. Banning them all-together would be nice.

 

Where'd that come from, Mrs. I? That sounds more hardcore than something I would say. I do agree, I think most micros in the woods are born out of cheapskatedness. I see very few Bison tubes though, it's almost always free film canisters or free pill bottles, with the occasional $1 waterproof match container thrown in. Fresh in my memory is an enthusiastic n00b in my area with only about 50 finds but 30 hides, who has about 15 pill bottles in the woods.

 

You're right, that was a bit harsh. There are people I greatly respect who have hidden micros in the woods.

 

There are certain circumstances where I can understand it. Like I found some the other day in a very popular hiking area. The goal of the caches was to take you to nice spots and larger caches probably wouldn't have lasted in those areas. I can also understand putting micros out if the terrain is challenging and most people were probably just going there to enjoy the hike and find as many caches as possible. They probably didn't care to trade so why bother with a cache that can hold swag every 161 meters? I'd rather find a micro in the woods than no cache at all, even if they are disappointing.

 

I feel a little differently about nanos, though. The logs are too dadgum hard to roll up.

 

Oh, it wasn't too harsh, just messin' with ya'. I forgot to add reference to the very small portion of the Geocaching community who like to "challenge" people. The "evil micro" crowd, if you will. And then there's the whole thing where anyone can make an "evil micro" by tossing a film canister (free) or a Bison Tube ($5)in a pile of rocks in the woods vs. a cleverly camoflauged, and well-thought out and fabricated micro in the woods. But I digress, who doesn't hate rolling up nano logs?

[AZcachemeister]

... who doesn't hate rolling up nano logs?

 

Hmmm, I just noticed that a piece of paper from the shredder here in the Command Center looks amazingly like the nano logs I've seen.

 

Coincidence?

[+niraD]

But I digress, who doesn't hate rolling up nano logs?

Maybe I have the magic touch, but I've never had a problem rolling up nano logs. The ones with a tiny spool in the middle are easy, but even the ones that are just a paper log with nothing to wrap it around aren't that hard.

[+hzoi]

But I digress, who doesn't hate rolling up nano logs?

 

Heh. At our first mega event, they had a couple competitions that I saw as a subtly disdainful comment on cache types. One was nano log rolling, the other was film can tossing.

[AZcachemeister]

...was film can tossing.

 

Sidearm?

Over the shoulder?

Underhand, or overhand?

Weighted, or empty?

 

I normally do not have any problems re-rolling a nano log (without special tools), and can usually roll them tight enough to pop them right back in with no effort whatsoever.

[+The A-Team]

Weighted, or empty?

I'd assume it would contain a logsheet with a single caching name on it, as any self-respecting throwdown would.

 

Nanos are a real PITA, but I can usually manage to get them rolled back up without too much trouble. There have been a couple of cases, though, where the log was a wet piece of pulp and more closely resembled a spit wad than a geocaching log. I didn't even bother to try removing them and just logged Needs Maintenance.

[team tisri]

Weighted, or empty?

I'd assume it would contain a logsheet with a single caching name on it, as any self-respecting throwdown would.

 

Nanos are a real PITA, but I can usually manage to get them rolled back up without too much trouble. There have been a couple of cases, though, where the log was a wet piece of pulp and more closely resembled a spit wad than a geocaching log. I didn't even bother to try removing them and just logged Needs Maintenance.

 

I hate nano logs, especially when trying to deal with them in the cold and wet. There are so many times I'm tempted to write "thanks ever so much for such a great cache, I found it on Friday afternoon and enjoyed the hunt greatly", so I get to be FTF and also log NM because the log is full.

[+BigFurryMonster]

Also, if Groundspeak really wanted to improve the quality of the hides, they would have a minimum size that defines a geocache container.

 

There! You hit the nail on the head. We need quality, not quantity, and this is an easy way to help accomplish that. I vote for Small as the minimum size.

[+stijnhommes]

I find it a shame that virtual caches got grandfathered before I entered the game; in my opinion they should've been kept as caches and not separated as waymarks or challenges. Although I wouldn't enjoy a series of nano's in the woods myself, I'm not in favor of banning or restricting them. People should be free to place any cache they want.

 

Besides, in my view the current rules should already stop nano power trails from existing if reviewers properly applied them. After all, caches have to be maintained long term and nanos that need their log replaced every week (and aren't maintained) violate those rules.

[+geodarts]

Besides, in my view the current rules should already stop nano power trails from existing if reviewers properly applied them. After all, caches have to be maintained long term and nanos that need their log replaced every week (and aren't maintained) violate those rules.

 

I agree with you about the virtuals but I don't see maintenance as a problem with nanos on a repetitive trail since maintenance is taken care of through throwdowns. The problem with nanos, of course, is that they are completely unsuited for repetitive caching. It takes too long to take off the container and extract the log. You can't just sticker the outside of the container or stamp the log wherever it happens to open. I guess that leaves three cache monte, but nanos might take too long to spot.

[+niraD]

Besides, in my view the current rules should already stop nano power trails from existing if reviewers properly applied them. After all, caches have to be maintained long term and nanos that need their log replaced every week (and aren't maintained) violate those rules.

I agree with you about the virtuals but I don't see maintenance as a problem with nanos on a repetitive trail since maintenance is taken care of through throwdowns. The problem with nanos, of course, is that they are completely unsuited for repetitive caching. It takes too long to take off the container and extract the log. You can't just sticker the outside of the container or stamp the log wherever it happens to open. I guess that leaves three cache monte, but nanos might take too long to spot.

Just to clarify, the OP wasn't referring to modern numbers run trails. The OP was actually referring to a "circuit" or "series", which is closer to the old-school power trails where a lot of caches are hidden along a nice hiking trail.

[+Turtle_Sask]

I hate seeing nice trails in the woods and mountains being taken up by micros... it makes me mad! the 20+ exact same containers take up good trails where there could have been large size containers placed! I really think GP should do something about it now before in a few years it really gets out of hand