Whats makes a cache a ? on size

[+mrlaroo]

I have noticed that the ? caches are usually rocks. What about if you stuck a micro in a stick and screwed it to it, would that classify a micro or ? mark on size. Thanks, just want to play fair is all.

Edited January 31, 2013 by mrlaroo

[+lamoracke]

Bird houses are nice examples where its a large container but the cache itself is a tiny one.

 

I usually consider these unknown sizes where the cache and the thing itself housing the cache blur the line of what size the cache itself is, but have seen a wide gamut.

[+mrlaroo]

Thanks for the feedback, will switch it up.

[+tweetiepy]

I've noticed in my very limited experience that the ?s seem to be unconventional caches - like a large magnet sheet or something other than the "normal" containers used. I like those.

[+fbingha]

I often find ? to mean that the cache is a micro but the hider wishes to conceal that fact.

[+wmpastor]

Yes, the "cache inside a cache holder" scenario is the most common "unknown size" situation. I've also seen the unknown size used where knowing the size would make the find significantly easier. That's always the case to a degree, but more so in some situations. Of course, sometimes the unknown size might up the difficulty for no real purpose, some would say.

 

And yes, unusual or handmade containers are often given the "unknown size" description.

Edited January 31, 2013 by wmpastor

[+T.D.M.22]

I have a cache called "Binford 6100 bison tube" it's a bison tube in a tree-most people think that mean micro. Now it's actually about 3 feet long. So I list is at a micro-it's wrong. I could list it as a large-but that might give it away. But I called it a ?-I mean when you go looking for a bison tube in a tree you really don't expect to find a 3 or 4 foot cache. Also found a cache that was a nano-the size of a pencil eraser, yet the whole cache experience was a building-yes a whole building about the size of 2 or 3 garden sheds. You get to the location it's obvious you're in the right spot but still have to find the logbook.

[+CanadianRockies]

According to the guidelines, "other"-sized caches (i.e., "?") should have a description of the cache size on the cache listing page. Around here, nano caches often are listed as a "?" size, with the cache page mentioning that it is a nano. A bird house cache could be listed as a "?", but the description should indicate something to the effect that you are looking for small-sized container inside bigger camouflage.

 

If you want the cache size to be a mystery, then you really should use the "not listed" cache size (i.e., "X").

[+StarBrand]

Most often the "?" is used in an attempt to hide the true size of the cache object.

[+L0ne.R]

According to the guidelines, "other"-sized caches (i.e., "?") should have a description of the cache size on the cache listing page. Around here, nano caches often are listed as a "?" size, with the cache page mentioning that it is a nano. A bird house cache could be listed as a "?", but the description should indicate something to the effect that you are looking for small-sized container inside bigger camouflage.

 

If you want the cache size to be a mystery, then you really should use the "not listed" cache size (i.e., "X").

 

A good reminder CR. Thanks.

[+The_Incredibles_]

Most often the "?" is used in an attempt to hide the true size of the cache object.

 

I have one like this. It would ruin the surprise if the cache size was listed.

 

When you're choosing a cache size, choose the size of the outer container.

[+StarBrand]

...

When you're choosing a cache size, choose the size of the outer container.

I strongly disagree - choose a cache size by the interior useable space in the cache.

 

The example I have often given when this comes up is using a large tree branch (of your own) and then drilling a small hole and gluing in a bison tube does not make the cache a large.

[+niraD]

When you're choosing a cache size, choose the size of the outer container.

So a barrel full of film canisters (only one of which has the log) should be listed as a "large" because the barrel (the outer container) is a "large" container? I disagree.

 

StarBrand's example is a good one. If the cache is a Bison tube glued to a log, then I'm not looking for the large-size log. Finding the log doesn't mean I've found the cache. I'm looking for the micro-size Bison tube that is the cache.

[+fbingha]

I feel that the size should always be relative what swag can be put in there. If the container lists as "large" and I come with swag for a "large" container and find I can not leave the "large" swag then I get agitated.

[+The_Incredibles_]

When you're choosing a cache size, choose the size of the outer container.

So a barrel full of film canisters (only one of which has the log) should be listed as a "large" because the barrel (the outer container) is a "large" container? I disagree.

 

Yes, the outer container. People need to know what they're looking for. Incidentally I found one just like this. It was an ammo can full of film cannisters.

 

As for the branch, this may be one of the rare cases where I would list it as a ?

[+The_Incredibles_]

When you're choosing a cache size, choose the size of the outer container.

So a barrel full of film canisters (only one of which has the log) should be listed as a "large" because the barrel (the outer container) is a "large" container? I disagree.

 

StarBrand's example is a good one. If the cache is a Bison tube glued to a log, then I'm not looking for the large-size log. Finding the log doesn't mean I've found the cache. I'm looking for the micro-size Bison tube that is the cache.

 

A bison tube glued to a log out in the forest is different than someone taking a branch from home, drilling a hole in it and putting a bison tube in it.

 

If you're just gluing a bison tube to a log out in the forest, I would consider this a micro.

[+The A-Team]

According to the guidelines, "other"-sized caches (i.e., "?") should have a description of the cache size on the cache listing page. Around here, nano caches often are listed as a "?" size, with the cache page mentioning that it is a nano.

They follow the guidelines regarding describing a "?" size cache, but they ignore the part where it says a nano is a micro? Odd.

 

As for whether to rate the size of the interior or exterior of the container, my vote is for interior. I've been thwarted several times when trying to get a TB back into circulation. I'll take a TB to drop off in a cache that's rated as regular or small, only to find a micro camoed in something bigger when I arrive at GZ. If there's a big discrepancy between the interior and exterior of the container, I'd actually say it should be "Not chosen" rather than one of the specific sizes.

 

Unfortunately, until Groundspeak gives some guidance on how to use the size rating for these type of scenarios, everyone will do it differently and there won't be any consistency.

[+L0ne.R]

When you're choosing a cache size, choose the size of the outer container.

So a barrel full of film canisters (only one of which has the log) should be listed as a "large" because the barrel (the outer container) is a "large" container? I disagree.

 

StarBrand's example is a good one. If the cache is a Bison tube glued to a log, then I'm not looking for the large-size log. Finding the log doesn't mean I've found the cache. I'm looking for the micro-size Bison tube that is the cache.

 

A bison tube glued to a log out in the forest is different than someone taking a branch from home, drilling a hole in it and putting a bison tube in it.

 

If you're just gluing a bison tube to a log out in the forest, I would consider this a micro.

 

 

I'm pretty sure the guidelines for size were created to let finders know the size of the interior so they could know in advance whether to take swag and travelbugs with them and how big the swag/TB could be.

 

A film canister with a logsheet, in the hollow of a tree is a micro. If he hollow part of the tree could hold a sandwich it would not be listed as a small. A film canister with a logsheet, in a hollowed out log is a micro. The fake log is not intended to hold travelbugs and swag. A film canister with a logsheet, in an ammo can would be a medium or large (depending on the can's size). The ammo can is the swag container and can hold large swag/TB items.

[+niraD]

A bison tube glued to a log out in the forest is different than someone taking a branch from home, drilling a hole in it and putting a bison tube in it.

I disagree. Either way, I'm not looking for the log or branch. I'm looking for the Bison tube. Finding the large-size log or branch does me no good, unless I notice the micro-size Bison tube inside it.

[+JL_HSTRE]

I would consider size=Other to be one of the following (which overlap somewhat):

 

1) flat containers - too thin to hold anything bigger than a logsheet, but still much larger than film can (these seem pretty rare)

 

2) any fake object that is not a "normal" container - fake rocks being a good example

 

3) micro in a host - the cache is a micro, but it is stuck in a larger object (ex: bison in the butt or mouth of a plastic animal)

 

4) any time you are looking for a container that is larger than a micro yet for whatever reason has no room for swag or trackables

 

5) "containerless" caches - I found one that was a logsheet in a ziplock baggie stuffed in a crack in a styrofoam buoy and another that was a sheet on a bulletin board

[AZcachemeister]

I feel that the size should always be relative what swag can be put in there. If the container lists as "large" and I come with swag for a "large" container and find I can not leave the "large" swag then I get agitated.

 

Echo that.

 

Mostly, the ? size is used because:

 

The CO doesn't know what they are doing.

The CO wants to conceal what they are doing. Usually this means it's a very small container. There are exceptions.

[+Walts Hunting]

I often find ? to mean that the cache is a micro but the hider wishes to conceal that fact.

 

That has become the most common reason.

[+The_Incredibles_]

Would like to know what a reviewer thinks.

[+niraD]

The CO wants to conceal what they are doing. Usually this means it's a very small container. There are exceptions.

Yeah, miniature containers are just a lot easier to find or create, and easier to hide. I've seen caches use micro-sized Tupperware® containers (originally made for keychains), and Groundspeak now sells the micro-sized ammo can containers.

 

But there are exceptions. T.D.M.22's "Binford 6100 bison tube" is one example. I've also seen a listing for a "blinker" that was a small- or regular-size replica of the nano-cache container we all know and love. And another "blinker" that was a small- or regular-size light fixture that had been converted to a cache container. And there was a "film canister" that was a regular-size canister for 70mm movie film (or something like that). And so on.

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Yes, the outer container. People need to know what they're looking for.

 

People who filter out micros in their pocket queries aren't going to be happy about finding a bison tube embedded in a log. They're not going to be happy about finding a bison tube in any kind of cammo. Generally, people who really care about cache size are more concerned with interior space.

[AZcachemeister]

Yes, the outer container. People need to know what they're looking for.

 

People who filter out micros in their pocket queries aren't going to be happy about finding a bison tube embedded in a log. They're not going to be happy about finding a bison tube in any kind of cammo. Generally, people who really care about cache size are more concerned with interior space.

 

Thus it is appropriate for conscientious owners to include a description in the write-up, and the seeker's responsibility to read those descriptions.

 

I will repeat that in most cases the owner is trying to be cute or cagey.

[GOF and Bacall]

There are many reasons people choose to avoid listing the size of the cache. But most often it is to conceal the fact that it is a micro. I once asked someone why they did it. They told me "Because too many people filter out micros in their PQs."

[+JKMonkey]

Only "?" caches I've found so far have been fake bolts.

[+L0ne.R]

There are many reasons people choose to avoid listing the size of the cache. But most often it is to conceal the fact that it is a micro. I once asked someone why they did it. They told me "Because too many people filter out micros in their PQs."

 

Yes, I've found plenty of ? size caches that felt like the owner was getting around the micro filterers (and unfortunately many "small" size caches that felt that way too). I started off filtering out only micros and quickly ended up filtering out other/not chosen too because 95% of those finds felt like the CO was covering up the fact it was a micro/nano to get people to hunt for them.

[+Don_J]

There are many reasons people choose to avoid listing the size of the cache. But most often it is to conceal the fact that it is a micro. I once asked someone why they did it. They told me "Because too many people filter out micros in their PQs."

 

I don't see that around here, but I have while traveling. I think that it is kind of sad. Out of curiosity, I did a GSAK filter on my own caches and was surprised to see that I had a regular and a small where I simply forgot to set the size. I just corrected them, but maybe a good feature request would be a nag screen asking if you meant to omit the size. I wonder how many are out there because of simple user error? At any rate, that leaves me with three that are "unknown" or "not listed". One Earth cache, one custom created container that was specifically created for the exact placement, and one regular that is just plain sneaky. The cache name, description and placement revolves around the cache size controversy, so it was essential not to list a size.

[+ShaunEM]

Yes, the outer container. People need to know what they're looking for.

 

People who filter out micros in their pocket queries aren't going to be happy about finding a bison tube embedded in a log. They're not going to be happy about finding a bison tube in any kind of cammo. Generally, people who really care about cache size are more concerned with interior space.

 

+1 for this.

 

Shaun

[+stijnhommes]

The size of the cache is different from the size of the cache housing. If you stuck a magnetic nano in a birdhouse, the birdhouse might be big, but it would be classified as a micro because the actual cache is small.

If you want to know the cache size, you can only count the space you can use to place trackables and the logbook.

[+mrlaroo]

Wow so much feedback, forgot to check after I heard back from Groundspeak. If it is a micro or any container for that matter it should be labeled what it is not a question icon. I think you guys make a good point on just put a X on the spot so it leaves it open without any doubt. Here is what groundpeak wrote back.

 

Thank you for contacting us. No, you selected the correct size option. The "question" mark represents a "puzzle cache", which has additional waypoints and clues to get the player to the final location of the physical cache.

 

Please let me know if you have additional questions.

 

Best regards,

[+CanadianRockies]

Wow so much feedback, forgot to check after I heard back from Groundspeak. If it is a micro or any container for that matter it should be labeled what it is not a question icon. I think you guys make a good point on just put a X on the spot so it leaves it open without any doubt. Here is what groundpeak wrote back.

 

Thank you for contacting us. No, you selected the correct size option. The "question" mark represents a "puzzle cache", which has additional waypoints and clues to get the player to the final location of the physical cache.

 

Please let me know if you have additional questions.

 

Best regards,

Ummmm...I think someone at the Lily Pad was a little confused. The blue "question mark" icon represents a "puzzle" cache type. The "?" size designation represents some "other" size. It has nothing to do with puzzles.

[+mrlaroo]

lol your right I thought something was odd. They answered my question and then added the rest that was off topic and did not make any sense to my question. I was reading your posts CR and your right on, thanks

[+mrlaroo]

Double post...

Edited February 8, 2013 by mrlaroo

[+WarNinjas]

Not saying what is right or wrong but we place many caches in camo that is bigger and we always rate them for what the size of the container is not the camo.

[GOF and Bacall]

Yes, the outer container. People need to know what they're looking for.

 

People who filter out micros in their pocket queries aren't going to be happy about finding a bison tube embedded in a log. They're not going to be happy about finding a bison tube in any kind of cammo. Generally, people who really care about cache size are more concerned with interior space.

 

+1 for this.

 

Shaun

 

Most that I know of who filter out micros do so because so dang many of them are crappy parking lot hides or such. I wouldn't mind finding a bison tube in a log if it was appropriate to the location and that location was more interesting than a Wally World parking lot.

[+agltbialik]

Yes, the outer container. People need to know what they're looking for.

 

People who filter out micros in their pocket queries aren't going to be happy about finding a bison tube embedded in a log. They're not going to be happy about finding a bison tube in any kind of cammo. Generally, people who really care about cache size are more concerned with interior space.

 

+1 for this.

 

Shaun

 

Most that I know of who filter out micros do so because so dang many of them are crappy parking lot hides or such. I wouldn't mind finding a bison tube in a log if it was appropriate to the location and that location was more interesting than a Wally World parking lot.

 

About filtering out micros:

I have a cache that does the opposite. It's listed size is "not chosen" to hide the fact that it's a LARGE container hidden in a commonly used micro container area (a newspaper box where most people just leave key hiders). It's kind of a nice surprise when they come in expecting a tiny cache only to find a giant container they didn't think could be hidden in such a manner.

[+Walts Hunting]

I often find ? to mean that the cache is a micro but the hider wishes to conceal that fact.

That is very common. They know some people filter out micros so use that to deceive. Some usemitmfor nanos which is also incorrect.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I often find ? to mean that the cache is a micro but the hider wishes to conceal that fact.

That is very common. They know some people filter out micros so use that to deceive. Some usemitmfor nanos which is also incorrect.

 

Yeah. It seems mostly to be either ignorance, or deliberate deception.

Sorry. The nano is a 'micro', not 'unknown'. Why deliberately deceive?

[+Walts Hunting]

I often find ? to mean that the cache is a micro but the hider wishes to conceal that fact.

That is very common. They know some people filter out micros so use that to deceive. Some usemitmfor nanos which is also incorrect.

 

Yeah. It seems mostly to be either ignorance, or deliberate deception.

Sorry. The nano is a 'micro', not 'unknown'. Why deliberately deceive?

 

They deliberately deceive so people will find their cache. If people filter out micros their deceptively small cache won't be found.

[DannyCaffeine]

9/10 its a nano.

 

Just sayin'

[+Don_J]

I often find ? to mean that the cache is a micro but the hider wishes to conceal that fact.

That is very common. They know some people filter out micros so use that to deceive. Some usemitmfor nanos which is also incorrect.

 

Yeah. It seems mostly to be either ignorance, or deliberate deception.

Sorry. The nano is a 'micro', not 'unknown'. Why deliberately deceive?

 

They deliberately deceive so people will find their cache. If people filter out micros their deceptively small cache won't be found.

 

Why would someone try to trick someone else into finding a cache that they wouldn't want to find? I think it's more ignorance than anything else.

[+redsox_mark]

 

Why would someone try to trick someone else into finding a cache that they wouldn't want to find? I think it's more ignorance than anything else.

 

I agree. In the case of listing a nano as "other", I find it is simply that the owner thinks of film pot sized as "micro", and to them a nano is something different. And the listing page says "e.g. 35 mm canister". Now I know that is just "eg", and elsewhere you find that a micro is defined as "micro: e.g. 35mm film canister or smaller". But many people don't find this, and they think it should be "other". And/or they copy what others in the area have done. If you start out as a new cacher and find most of the nanos are listed as other, you are likely to do the same. So yes I think it is "ignorance" rather than trying to trick others.

 

Note that in addition to the ? (other) there is "not chosen". If the cache owner simply doesn't want to give any information about the container size, that is the right choice. "Other" is designed for something that doesn't quite fit the normal cache sizes (e.g. an unusual container). I found a "not chosen" the other day. It turned out to be quite a large container. It was just that the owner wanted to make it more difficult to find by not specifying the container size.

[+L0ne.R]

I often find ? to mean that the cache is a micro but the hider wishes to conceal that fact.

That is very common. They know some people filter out micros so use that to deceive. Some usemitmfor nanos which is also incorrect.

 

Yeah. It seems mostly to be either ignorance, or deliberate deception.

Sorry. The nano is a 'micro', not 'unknown'. Why deliberately deceive?

 

They deliberately deceive so people will find their cache. If people filter out micros their deceptively small cache won't be found.

 

Why would someone try to trick someone else into finding a cache that they wouldn't want to find? I think it's more ignorance than anything else.

 

Just checked one that I found 3 years ago and several people after me mentioned in their logs that the cache is a micro not a small. The active owner did not change the posted size.

 

Here's one I found in May this year. The cache is about half the size of a film canister but listed as small. I said in the log that it's a micro. In June someone else said it's a micro. The CO is active (last log in Sep 3). Still listed as a small.

 

Edited September 11, 2013 by L0ne R

[+Don_J]

I often find ? to mean that the cache is a micro but the hider wishes to conceal that fact.

That is very common. They know some people filter out micros so use that to deceive. Some usemitmfor nanos which is also incorrect.

 

Yeah. It seems mostly to be either ignorance, or deliberate deception.

Sorry. The nano is a 'micro', not 'unknown'. Why deliberately deceive?

 

They deliberately deceive so people will find their cache. If people filter out micros their deceptively small cache won't be found.

 

Why would someone try to trick someone else into finding a cache that they wouldn't want to find? I think it's more ignorance than anything else.

 

Just checked one that I found 3 years ago and several people after me mentioned in their logs that the cache is a micro not a small. The active owner did not change the posted size.

 

Here's one I found in May this year. The cache is about half the size of a film canister but listed as small. I said in the log that it's a micro. In June someone else said it's a micro. The CO is active (last log in Sep 3). Still listed as a small.

 

 

To me, that points to ignorance or laziness. Many people have no idea that they can edit their cache page after the cache is published. I have seen ammo cans get muggled and the CO replace them with an Altoids tin. Five years later the listing still says Regular for size and "You are looking for an ammo can" in the description.

[+L0ne.R]

I often find ? to mean that the cache is a micro but the hider wishes to conceal that fact.

That is very common. They know some people filter out micros so use that to deceive. Some usemitmfor nanos which is also incorrect.

 

Yeah. It seems mostly to be either ignorance, or deliberate deception.

Sorry. The nano is a 'micro', not 'unknown'. Why deliberately deceive?

 

They deliberately deceive so people will find their cache. If people filter out micros their deceptively small cache won't be found.

 

Why would someone try to trick someone else into finding a cache that they wouldn't want to find? I think it's more ignorance than anything else.

 

Just checked one that I found 3 years ago and several people after me mentioned in their logs that the cache is a micro not a small. The active owner did not change the posted size.

 

Here's one I found in May this year. The cache is about half the size of a film canister but listed as small. I said in the log that it's a micro. In June someone else said it's a micro. The CO is active (last log in Sep 3). Still listed as a small.

 

 

To me, that points to ignorance or laziness. Many people have no idea that they can edit their cache page after the cache is published. I have seen ammo cans get muggled and the CO replace them with an Altoids tin. Five years later the listing still says Regular for size and "You are looking for an ammo can" in the description.

 

The cache was published on 04/19/2013, the picture was posted on 04/22/2013. So it's not likely a replacement. The cache is an LPC. Not updating the cache may be a matter of ignorance, so I think I'll experiment...the cache owner is active, I'll let them know how they can edit the cache page and change the size. If it gets changed to micro, I'll report back.

 

Addendum: I left instructions. I checked the Edit page and noticed something I think is unclear. The drop menu for Cache Size says the following for micro....."Micro (e.g. 35mm Film Canister)" it should say

"Micro (e.g. 35mm Film Canister or smaller)". Maybe Groundspeak thinks that "or smaller" is intuitive.

 

Edited September 12, 2013 by L0ne R

[+Don_J]

I often find ? to mean that the cache is a micro but the hider wishes to conceal that fact.

That is very common. They know some people filter out micros so use that to deceive. Some usemitmfor nanos which is also incorrect.

 

Yeah. It seems mostly to be either ignorance, or deliberate deception.

Sorry. The nano is a 'micro', not 'unknown'. Why deliberately deceive?

 

They deliberately deceive so people will find their cache. If people filter out micros their deceptively small cache won't be found.

 

Why would someone try to trick someone else into finding a cache that they wouldn't want to find? I think it's more ignorance than anything else.

 

Just checked one that I found 3 years ago and several people after me mentioned in their logs that the cache is a micro not a small. The active owner did not change the posted size.

 

Here's one I found in May this year. The cache is about half the size of a film canister but listed as small. I said in the log that it's a micro. In June someone else said it's a micro. The CO is active (last log in Sep 3). Still listed as a small.

 

 

To me, that points to ignorance or laziness. Many people have no idea that they can edit their cache page after the cache is published. I have seen ammo cans get muggled and the CO replace them with an Altoids tin. Five years later the listing still says Regular for size and "You are looking for an ammo can" in the description.

 

The cache was published on 04/19/2013, the picture was posted on 04/22/2013. So it's not likely a replacement. The cache is an LPC. Not updating the cache may be a matter of ignorance, so I think I'll experiment...the cache owner is active, I'll let them know how they can edit the cache page and change the size. If it gets changed to micro, I'll report back.

 

Addendum: I left instructions. I checked the Edit page and noticed something I think is unclear. The drop menu for Cache Size says the following for micro....."Micro (e.g. 35mm Film Canister)" it should say

"Micro (e.g. 35mm Film Canister or smaller)". Maybe Groundspeak thinks that "or smaller" is intuitive.

 

Ideally, there would an entry below it that said "Nano". They promised that years ago and it would have prevented a lot of problems with new people that weren't around in the pre-nano caching days. It's the whole size drift thing and the perception in peoples minds. It's why someone finds a standard ammo can and reports that it should be listed as Large, because a Tupperware is now a regular, and an Altoids a small, and so on...