+Dgwphotos Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 I have a cache that I consider a micro which uses a large bison tube to hold the log book and only has room for the log book, and I had someone recently (from Germany), say that they did not think it was a micro. I was looking for another cache today, that was listed as a small, but I think it's more of a micro. I have another cache that's physically a regular size, but I consider it a small because it has only storage room for a log book and a few small trinkets or trackables. It makes me wonder how we define these sizes? Quote Link to comment
+Semper Questio Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 I have always sized by the container, not the camo. But lately I've seen a lot of caches sized by the total size. For instance, there was a nano in a large piece of wood and the cache was listed as a regular, not a micro. I've also noticed a trend of caches being rated as 1 size larger than they are...micros as smalls, smalls as regular, and regulars, especially ammo cans, as large. Quote Link to comment
+Panther&Pine Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 It makes me wonder how we define these sizes? I've used the GS little handy graphics. 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. Quote Link to comment
+Dgwphotos Posted January 1, 2013 Author Share Posted January 1, 2013 I have always sized by the container, not the camo. But lately I've seen a lot of caches sized by the total size. For instance, there was a nano in a large piece of wood and the cache was listed as a regular, not a micro. I've also noticed a trend of caches being rated as 1 size larger than they are...micros as smalls, smalls as regular, and regulars, especially ammo cans, as large. That's the trend I'm starting to notice. I can see it both ways on sizing by the container vs including the camo, as the total size would decide where you look, but then the container would dictate what you can put in it. Perhaps basing it on whether the container is fixed to the camo or not would make sense. Quote Link to comment
+Sharks-N-Beans Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 My personal guideline is a small container will accommodate a standard 1.75 inch (44.5 mm) geocoin. Smaller than that is a micro (thus the micro geocoin). Quote Link to comment
+briansnat Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 A small should be able to fit a sandwich, if not intact, then chopped up Quote Link to comment
+The A-Team Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 A small should be able to fit a sandwich, if not intact, then chopped up I hadn't heard that definition before! I'll have to remember that when I'm rating the size of future hides. Quote Link to comment
+Panther&Pine Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 A small should be able to fit a sandwich, if not intact, then chopped up Glad I'm not the only one who does that with sandwhichs. Quote Link to comment
+briansnat Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 A small should be able to fit a sandwich, if not intact, then chopped up I hadn't heard that definition before! I'll have to remember that when I'm rating the size of future hides. The original definition of small was a "sandwich sized container" Quote Link to comment
+Panther&Pine Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 A small should be able to fit a sandwich, if not intact, then chopped up I hadn't heard that definition before! I'll have to remember that when I'm rating the size of future hides. The original definition of small was a "sandwich sized container" Yes, but the chopped up part I don't think I've seen that one before. Quote Link to comment
+niraD Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 (edited) The original definition of small was a "sandwich sized container"Yes, but the chopped up part I don't think I've seen that one before. Well, how else would you determine if a container was "sandwich sized" when it isn't "sandwich shaped"? Personally, I prefer volume ranges (e.g., 100ml to 1L for small) rather than vague descriptions (e.g., "sandwich sized"). [edit: typo] Edited January 1, 2013 by niraD Quote Link to comment
+Bear and Ragged Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 The original definition of small was a "sandwich sized container"Yes, but the chopped up part I don't think I've seen that one before. Well, how else would you determine if a container was "sandwich sized" when it isn't "sandwich shaped"? Personally, I prefer volume ranges (e.g., 100ml to 1L for small) rather than vague descriptions (e.g., "sandwich sized"). [edit: typo] In the UK, as far as sandwiches are concerned, if you slice the bread thick and make the filling thick, it can be called a 'Doorstep' rather than a 'sandwich.' So what size cache for that? Quote Link to comment
+Cardinal Red Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 Why do cache sizes get inflated / deflated? Some owners don't think some sizes will generate as many visits. So they fudge it. NANO is what some owners really want as an official size. So they choose OTHER to avoid MICRO. There are regional differences of opinion. But Groundspeak is not totally blameless in the size confusion conundrum. Deprioritized is one of my new favorite words Quote Link to comment
+Walts Hunting Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 There are two possible explanations for containers being stated as larger than they are. The most common and mine. The most common is that with the intrtoduction of the Nano and the froggies not giving it its own category people started thinking that that was a micro and working from there. Of course actually reading the guidelines before checking the boxes at the bottom of the cache submission page would solve that but we will save that conversation for ianother day. My explanatioin This is a primarily a male hobby. We all know that males will say that things are bigger than they really are and cache size is just one area that occurs in. My suggestion that a picture of the actual cache be posted with the listing and that a female inspector grade it for size was denied by GC. Quote Link to comment
+geodarts Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 There are two possible explanations for containers being stated as larger than they are. The most common and mine. These are good explanations. Other explanations are to encourage visitors who do not look for micros, to make the search harder, because the CO checked the wrong button in submitting the listing, or that the container was replaced without updating the listing. Not that long ago I found a series of puzzle caches by the same owner with containers identified as "small" that included a tiny altoids-type tin with barely room for a log book, a 1 1/2 inch long bison, and a typical magnetic key container. In other caches, the same CO identified an identical key container as a micro. It was all very puzzling. Quote Link to comment
+Dgwphotos Posted January 2, 2013 Author Share Posted January 2, 2013 Someone found the cache of mine that the German cacher characterized as a small, and they discovered that there was a nearby letterbox that could be described as a small, so I suspect that's what the German cacher found. Quote Link to comment
+ras_oscar Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 If the world revolved around me and I were king for a day, I'd say that the purpose of posting the container size is to assist the seeker in selecting spots to search. If I'm looking for a regular I don't begin by looking in the enmpty knotholes of a nearby tree. Therefore, IMHO, a bison tube hidden in an ammo box is a regular, not a micro. Quote Link to comment
+L0ne.R Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 (edited) Therefore, IMHO, a bison tube hidden in an ammo box is a regular, not a micro. In this case the cache container is the ammo can. The ammo can is big enough to hold things like travelbugs and geocoins and swag. So yes, it would be properly listed as Regular. I tend to filter out micros because there's no room for swag. If I were to find a bison tube tucked into the knot of a tree, listed as large because the tree is larger then a 5 gallon bucket, I will post a NM and copy the guidelines regarding size into my online log. I can not leave a travelbug in a bison tube. Edited January 4, 2013 by L0ne R Quote Link to comment
+niraD Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 If I were to find a bison tube tucked into the knot of a tree, listed as large because the tree is larger then a 5 gallon bucket, I will post a NM and copy the guidelines regarding size into my online log. I can not leave a travelbug in a bison tube.And from the "what am I looking for" perspective, you aren't looking for the large-size tree. You're looking for the micro-size Bison tube. Even if the micro-size container is glued to the camouflage, you have to spot the micro-size container to know that this is the rock/log/branch/whatever that you're looking for. Quote Link to comment
+tweetiepy Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 (edited) If I may pipe in as a newbie with no experience what-so-ever - well I do have 2 finds under my belt hehe. In the instance of the log hiding the actual cache, if I saw that the container was a regular size, I'd be looking for a regular size container, not a regular sized object that hides the mini cache. I think the size of the container should be the object that holds the log. If someone hides a micro in a tree would they say the container is extra large? Maybe that's why I only have 2 finds... Sorry someone already said this - well said I might add Edited January 4, 2013 by tweetiepy Quote Link to comment
+fbingha Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 From what I am seeing, micro now means one of those button sized caches that contain a 1/2" wide log. Anything bigger is a small. Pill bottles are small, key holders are small, altoids are small. Quote Link to comment
+DragonsWest Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 If I can fit my full hand/fist inside then I consider it non-micro. Anything smaller is a micro. Quote Link to comment
+313JTG Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 The reason I waited until at least 100 finds to place my first cache was to get a feel for how the game works. Determining cache sizes is one of the things I learned. If you've got less than 50 finds, you really don't have that much experience in finding caches yet and I don't think you should be placing any. If I'm in the woods, looking for a regular size cache with no information on what the container is, I'm looking for large tupperware or an ammo box. When I find out that it's actually a peanut butter jar, I'm a little bit mad. To make this short, if you aren't sure whether or not to list a cache as a small or micro, or whatever other borderline you're on, just use not chosen or other, and then tell us what the container is in the description. Those sizes are there for a reason Quote Link to comment
+niraD Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 If I can fit my full hand/fist inside then I consider it non-micro. Anything smaller is a micro.According to Groundspeak's Geocaching 101, a small cache is "100ml or larger, but less than 1L". I don't know about you, but my hand displaces more than 100ml. Quote Link to comment
+DragonsWest Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 If I can fit my full hand/fist inside then I consider it non-micro. Anything smaller is a micro.According to Groundspeak's Geocaching 101, a small cache is "100ml or larger, but less than 1L". I don't know about you, but my hand displaces more than 100ml. It's just a rule of thumb. My hands are pretty big, too. But there's not much mistaking a bottle preform for a LnL sandwich box. Can't hardly get a finger in those preforms, which is a drag when the log is down the other end. Quote Link to comment
+dakboy Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 (edited) A small should be able to fit a sandwich, if not intact, then chopped up Paging Mr. Bumstead, Mr. Dagwood Bumstead... Edited January 4, 2013 by dakboy Quote Link to comment
RedShoesGirl Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 A small should be able to fit a sandwich, if not intact, then chopped up I hadn't heard that definition before! I'll have to remember that when I'm rating the size of future hides. The original definition of small was a "sandwich sized container" exactly. at some point film canisters became small. one of the most irritating things i find about geocaching, besides trash in the cache, is going out to look for a cache that is supposed to be sandwich size and it turns out to be a bison tube or film canister. lara Quote Link to comment
+The A-Team Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 at some point film canisters became small. It sounds like we may be lucky in this area. I just looked at a number of recently-placed caches that I've found, and the smalls really were smalls and the micros really were micros. The trend doesn't seem to have hit us yet. Quote Link to comment
+Dgwphotos Posted January 6, 2013 Author Share Posted January 6, 2013 A small should be able to fit a sandwich, if not intact, then chopped up Paging Mr. Bumstead, Mr. Dagwood Bumstead... Except I bet they would never fit one of his sandwiches! I bet it would take a large! Quote Link to comment
+Don_J Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 The reason I waited until at least 100 finds to place my first cache was to get a feel for how the game works. Determining cache sizes is one of the things I learned. If you've got less than 50 finds, you really don't have that much experience in finding caches yet and I don't think you should be placing any. If I'm in the woods, looking for a regular size cache with no information on what the container is, I'm looking for large tupperware or an ammo box. When I find out that it's actually a peanut butter jar, I'm a little bit mad. To make this short, if you aren't sure whether or not to list a cache as a small or micro, or whatever other borderline you're on, just use not chosen or other, and then tell us what the container is in the description. Those sizes are there for a reason The problem is that a new cacher can find a 100 bison tubes and film cans around the city, and if they are all listed as small, what's he supposed to think? Even if that user is responsible enough to read all of the guidelines, what does he rate his new film can cache? Does he do the right thing and size it as a micro, bucking the trend in the community, or does he just go along with the crowd? Most of us want to simply fit in, especially if we are new, so usually the answer is to go along with the crowd. Groundspeak promised the nano size over two years ago. Now, it is de-prioritized as it was part of a bigger update that may never come to be. If they did it tomorrow, I think that it would be a classic case of closing the corral door after all of horses have escaped. People, especially newer cachers that never cached before it was even considered to use a container the size of your fingernail as a cache, just can't except the idea that there is no "nano" size and that a micro is anything smaller than a basic film can. I won't, but if I were to hide a nano, I'd properly size it as a micro. Joe new cacher comes along and looks at my micro and determines that if this is a micro, an Altoids tin must be a small, a pint peanut butter jar must be a regular and an ammo can must be a large. Honestly, unless they have read all of the literature on the website, why would they think any differently? Quote Link to comment
+Don_J Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 My explanatioin This is a primarily a male hobby. We all know that males will say that things are bigger than they really are and cache size is just one area that occurs in. My suggestion that a picture of the actual cache be posted with the listing and that a female inspector grade it for size was denied by GC. So, you are saying that men like to lie about the size of their teeny weeny caches? Quote Link to comment
+zargfinders Posted January 10, 2013 Share Posted January 10, 2013 I have always sized by the container, not the camo. But lately I've seen a lot of caches sized by the total size. For instance, there was a nano in a large piece of wood and the cache was listed as a regular, not a micro. What I think is that you should follow the normal cache sizes for the container (not camo). But if your cache is on the verge of being a size (say an 800ml on the verge if being regular) and your camo makes it look quite large, then you could rate your cache regular, instead of the usual small for that size. I've done that for one of my caches and no one has commented otherwise. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.