I wrote an article on Geocaching

February 28, 2013

Hello all,

I feel bad that this is my first post on the forum, but I wanted to share with everyone an article I wrote on Geocaching. It's on Yahoo.com. I got permission from Groundspeak, but I wanted everybodies opinion on my writing. There is a lot that I left out that I plan to go over in future articles, but I was hoping this would be enough to entice people who don't already geocache to start hunting.

Thanks for the feedback!

http://voices.yahoo.com/geocaching-guide-world-wide-scavanger-hunt-12007184.html

Edited February 28, 2013 by Geo_Ballantine

1.1k · February 28, 2013

Nice article. You're a talented writer. There will most likely be nit-pickers here, but it was one of the better laid-out reads on Geocaching that I have seen.

March 1, 2013

I really liked the article!!

Thanks for sharing!

14k · March 1, 2013

Nice article. You're a talented writer. There will most likely be nit-pickers here, but it was one of the better laid-out reads on Geocaching that I have seen.

This might be a nitpick but I saw what I would consider to be a rather significant omission. There article contains the following phrases:

"Geocaches (cache for short) can be a wide range of containers hidden in any spot a geocacher (someone who looks for geocaches) deems worthy. "

and

"They can be any size, any shape and can literally be hidden anywhere all over the world-it is all up to the person doing the hiding."

yet, there is no mention in the article anywhere about private property, ensuring that adequate permission has been obtained, or the guideline which prohibits placing a "vacation cache". There also is no mention that physical elements of a cache must be at least 528' apart.

In other words, geocachers can *not* hide a cache anywhere they deem worthy or hidden anywhere in the world.

Then, when describing how geocachers can be trickey, the article states. "One example would be a bolt screw on a stop sign, "

Although caches hidden in stop signs can be somewhat common, the addition of a bolt could technically be considered a violation of tampering with traffic control device laws, and the article doesn't mention anything about about obeying all laws when placing a cache either.

For the most part, there is a lot of good factual information. There are also a few things that are just not correct however, but for the most part only a geocacher reading the article would notice. For example, the section on mulit-caches is not entirely accurate and one part is incorrect. The article states:

"What that means is, to find the log, you have to go to the posted coordinates to find a cache that has a different set of coordinates inside of it that directs you to the cache with the log. Sometimes it can be 10 caches you have to find before you find the one with the log. MOST of the time it's a lot fewer like two or three stages. To prevent this from getting out of hand, Groundspeak made it a rule that the caches have to be within so many feet of each other. This was to basically prevent a person from having to travel all over a city or land mass looking for an actual cache. :

The first, or any subsequent stages of a mult-cache, do not have to be "caches". It is quite common for stages to be "answers to questions" where one most obtain information off a sign, or some other object. Groundspeak does *not* limit the distance between stages nor the distance from the first to the last stage for a multi cache. In fact, there are multi caches which cover hundreds of miles and cross state and country boundaries. There is, however, a guideline for *unknown/mystery" caches which indicates that the actual location of the cache should be within 2 miles of the published coordinates.

March 1, 2013

Hey, I meant what I said when I said I wanted feedback. Lol.

I really appreciate the positive reviews, and thanks so much for the compliments.

Now to defend myself.

I know it's not much, but I do have 292 caches under my belt. The multi-caches I've run across have all been short. I haven't ran across any hardcore multi-caches that run the distance that you mentioned. Not even close. The longest I have found was roughly 6 stages long--maybe a trails length. I was also basing this largely off what my partner in crime was saying, who's up to 600 cache finds. I know regular caches have to be so far apart from each other to be approved (.1 mile?) and mystery caches have to be so far away from its actual coordinates. Since I've never hidden anything, and these things aren't on the cache type page, I thought it just wasn't showing it for the multi-caches either. I was basing this largely off what I've found, and what I heard from a fellow cacher. My oops. Lol.

Although you're spot on with your points on obeying laws and the distance in between caches, I purposely left those out. I will be writing an article on "how to hide a cache" or something to that effect, where I'll go over laws and distances.

Lastly, when I wrote "...can be hidden anywhere...." I was referring to the big picture--mountains, under water, in a tree, in space, Antarctica, etc...I will be going over the finer details in further writing. I'm sure if anybody tries hiding a cache illegally before I get to that article, the administrator for that area will set them straight. At least I mentioned it can't be buried. Lol.

Thank you kindly for the feedback though. Much appreciated. And yes...those were nitpicks. Lol

Edit: Now that I see how active the forum is, I will make sure to post any questions I have about any future Geocaching articles. I want to do it justice after all. Thanks again.

Edited March 1, 2013 by Geo_Ballantine

22k · March 1, 2013

Very good.

I do think the description of a multi-cache isn't as clear as it could be. Each stage is not a cache unto itself.

As for your upcoming Travel Bug submission I wouldn't mind doing a preview.

1.4k · March 1, 2013

That's a great article. No article is going to be perfect, but that one is leaps and bounds better than most I've read in the past.

You should take BD up on his/her offer to consult on the travel bug segment.

22k · March 1, 2013

No article is going to be perfect, but that one is leaps and bounds better than most I've read in the past.

...

Yeah, I spent over an hour explaining geocaching to a local reporter who gave me one line misquoting geocaching as a treasure hunt.

March 1, 2013

My questions is the part you said "I got permission from Groundspeak". Unless I missed something, you don't need Groundspeak's permission to write an article on them or event discuss the game. While certain trademark and copyright laws would be in place if you used logos or copied parts of the site. But from what I see (skimming, didn't read word for word), there is nothing needing permission.

March 1, 2013

Nice article. You're a talented writer. There will most likely be nit-pickers here, but it was one of the better laid-out reads on Geocaching that I have seen.

This might be a nitpick but I saw what I would consider to be a rather significant omission. There article contains the following phrases:

"Geocaches (cache for short) can be a wide range of containers hidden in any spot a geocacher (someone who looks for geocaches) deems worthy. "

and

"They can be any size, any shape and can literally be hidden anywhere all over the world-it is all up to the person doing the hiding."

yet, there is no mention in the article anywhere about private property, ensuring that adequate permission has been obtained, or the guideline which prohibits placing a "vacation cache". There also is no mention that physical elements of a cache must be at least 528' apart.

In other words, geocachers can *not* hide a cache anywhere they deem worthy or hidden anywhere in the world.

Then, when describing how geocachers can be trickey, the article states. "One example would be a bolt screw on a stop sign, "

Although caches hidden in stop signs can be somewhat common, the addition of a bolt could technically be considered a violation of tampering with traffic control device laws, and the article doesn't mention anything about about obeying all laws when placing a cache either.

For the most part, there is a lot of good factual information. There are also a few things that are just not correct however, but for the most part only a geocacher reading the article would notice. For example, the section on mulit-caches is not entirely accurate and one part is incorrect. The article states:

"What that means is, to find the log, you have to go to the posted coordinates to find a cache that has a different set of coordinates inside of it that directs you to the cache with the log. Sometimes it can be 10 caches you have to find before you find the one with the log. MOST of the time it's a lot fewer like two or three stages. To prevent this from getting out of hand, Groundspeak made it a rule that the caches have to be within so many feet of each other. This was to basically prevent a person from having to travel all over a city or land mass looking for an actual cache. :

The first, or any subsequent stages of a mult-cache, do not have to be "caches". It is quite common for stages to be "answers to questions" where one most obtain information off a sign, or some other object. Groundspeak does *not* limit the distance between stages nor the distance from the first to the last stage for a multi cache. In fact, there are multi caches which cover hundreds of miles and cross state and country boundaries. There is, however, a guideline for *unknown/mystery" caches which indicates that the actual location of the cache should be within 2 miles of the published coordinates.

In his defense, he did say rather plainly that there's more articles to come... give the man a lil' time to explain the details

The whole point is to get people to come to this site and get started, if he throws in a link to the site they can read the fine print efore they start.. I read pretty much every little rule and detail before I went after my first cache(or placed my caches) just to be sure I knew what I was looking for and had at least textbook knowledge of what to expect!

March 5, 2013

Again, thanks for the positive reviews everyone! I really appreciate it. I'm not a success by any stretch of the imagination, but I will try my hardest. Now that my grueling work weekend is over, I am able to take time and post on here again.

Just thought I'd let everyone know that I asked my editor if I could edit the section of my article about multi-caching. Even though the article has been published, I can edit it if given permission to. I will correct my error. I will re-write that section, post it on here first, and make sure I get it done right.

I appreciate the help BD, and I will definitely get with you before writing that article.

As for the permission I needed from Groundspeak, it was to use their images, which I just realized never got posted with my story. I posted pictures of different blow-ups of the maps, showing the amount of geo-caches in any given area. I had 4 photos. One of a random city that had all the different caches bunched up in one area(to go with my description of the types of caches), one of Florida, one of the U.S. and then one showing all the continents. I gave proper credit to Mapquest. Wasn't given a reason though as to why it wasn't posted...

I'll keep everyone posted. Thanks again for the support

Edited March 5, 2013 by Geo_Ballantine

March 5, 2013

That's a great introduction to caching! The only thing I would say is to think of something other than a McDonalds toy as an example of swag - however the McDs toy is something everyone can relate to, I suppose.

10.2k · March 6, 2013

I have a Yahoo account, which I use rather extensively I would say (as well as Flikr, which they now own), and I was clueless about Yahoo Voices. Never heard of it before today! Thanks for the introduction to that in General.

This is a very nice article. Well done. Now here comes your obligatory nit-picking. :laughing: According to TPTB, Nanos are micros. And anyone who lists them as "other" is wrong (according to TPTB). Although we have been promised a Nano size designation for a couple of years, it hasn't happened yet.

But of course I wouldn't expect you to roll with something along the lines of Groundspeak has said they were going to designate this as a specific size, but hasn't gotten around to it yet, or something like that. How many articles are planned in this series?

P.S. I used the "Tweet" button towards the top to tweet the link on Twitter.

Edited March 6, 2013 by Mr.Yuck

May 28, 2013

FINALLY!!!!!!!!.....After two months of going back and forth with Yahoo, they finally took my article down for edits. Sorry I've been away for so long. This was really irritating, but what are you going to do when you hand over your articles' rights basically, to a giant company like Yahoo!. Anyways, here are my edits before I post them, less it takes two months again for my next grouping of edits. lol.

--------------Edited section of article------------------

Most caches must contain a log for a person to sign it as proof of their finding it. Also, there are cool items called "swag" that cachers put inside. These can be calling cards or just something brought over from a different country. It's supposed to be something unique. For example, I live in Florida, and have found numerous trinkets brought over from Germany. One such item was a McDonald's toy taken out of a kids meal. Couldn't read a single word on the packaging, but the toy was cool. A few of the items I've also seen, but definitely aren't limited to, are buttons, cards, pendants, and even a cell phone from the 90's. The best items a cacher can hope for, besides the log, are items known as a "trackable," which I will go over in a future article.

How big are they and where can they be found?

The great thing about geocaches is their uniqueness. They can be any size, any shape and can literally be hidden anywhere all over the world-it is all up to the person doing the hiding. However, they cannot be buried underground, hidden on private property (unless the cache hider got permission to do so), or interfere with any laws. I think it goes without saying that these are secured in their hiding spot so they don't wander off during bad weather. There are 5 official listings for the sizes and I'll go over each from my own experience, and I'll try to avoid spoilers:

-------------Edited Section of article involving multi-caching---------------

Multi-Cache: Depicted as two yellow boxes on the map. These caches are a bit tricky. Multi-caches require the finder to perform various tasks that eventually end up at the final resting place of the geocache. An example from my own experiences: It can be anything from a pseudo-cache (a cache without a log, but has coordinates to the next stage), to a piece of wood hidden on a trail with a carved set of coordinates on it, to you even having to go to a time capsule at a museum and using info on the capsule's plaque to uncover the coordinates. These caches can be any length apart from each other. Most of the time, the person who hides the cache will tell you how many stages you will need to complete before the final cache will be reached. These are very unique hides, but fun.

May 28, 2013

I have a Yahoo account, which I use rather extensively I would say (as well as Flikr, which they now own), and I was clueless about Yahoo Voices. Never heard of it before today! Thanks for the introduction to that in General.

This is a very nice article. Well done. Now here comes your obligatory nit-picking. According to TPTB, Nanos are micros. And anyone who lists them as "other" is wrong (according to TPTB). Although we have been promised a Nano size designation for a couple of years, it hasn't happened yet.

But of course I wouldn't expect you to roll with something along the lines of Groundspeak has said they were going to designate this as a specific size, but hasn't gotten around to it yet, or something like that. How many articles are planned in this series?

P.S. I used the "Tweet" button towards the top to tweet the link on Twitter.

I really appreciate the support! Thanks so much and I'm glad I opened up a whole new world to Yahoo! to you! lol. Truthfully, I had an account since 2001, and didn't realize they had it until I came across an article while perusing the sports section of their site. If you write well, you may just get your article published on their main site, depending on the topic. It's really cool, I think.

Thanks again, you don't know what that showing of support means to me.

EDIT: Just noticed your minor nit-pick. lol. I will tweak my article to account for this. haha

Edited May 28, 2013 by Geo_Ballantine

May 29, 2013

Why can't you post the article here instead of making us go to some other site?

<_<

May 29, 2013

Truthfully, because the more views I get on Yahoo's page, the more clout I receive, the better I look, the better Yahoo! will treat me, and my opportunities within the website open up a bit more. Money has nothing to do with it. I'll be honest, I have earned maybe $0.80 combined between my 7 articles (about 700 total views) It's a win-win-win for me and Geocaching; I love to geocache, I love to write, and I get to bring attention to a game I love through writing. I have 170+ views on my Geocaching article, with no comments on the Yahoo! page, and only 10 on this topic page. So, I post a link so that people who read it and don't leave feedback, at least by them viewing that one time I get something out of it--recognition for the hours of work I put into my article.

And if I was looking at this as a means to an end, I wouldn't have fought tooth and nail to get my article edited. I take my writing seriously, and hope that I do Geocaching justice. A lot of people had things to say that made my article look flawed, so I took that to heart and got it changed. Also, since I plan on writing more articles on the subject, I plan on referencing this first article, so I don't want to reference an article with bad info.

By the way, I don't really know if you clicked on the link, but right now it is down for editing, so it may take you to a "page not found" screen or something.

Sorry if I seemed defensive, but I felt like I was under the spotlight and my motives were being questioned. Lol.

May 29, 2013

Yeah, it goes to a Yahoo search page stating the resource is missing. Hence, the reason why I suggested posting it here, since it is no longer "there".

May 29, 2013

Yeah, it goes to a Yahoo search page stating the resource is missing. Hence, the reason why I suggested posting it here, since it is no longer "there".

I gotcha. Well....maybe this one time....with the edits already in place.

Thank you for your support either way. It looks better with the HTML coding and such, but here you have it. Hope you like it.

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

Geocaching (geo-cash-ing) is a scavenger hunt based game for outdoor enthusiasts, or anybody looking to find a hobby outside that is safe and fun for the entire family. Heck, you can even learn something about the environment. Geocaches (cache for short) can be a wide range of containers hidden in any spot a geocacher (someone who looks for geocaches) deems worthy. It can be fun, it can be creative, and yes, it is addicting.

What is a geocache?

Geocaches are containers that are hidden outside for anybody to find. They are not in the open, hence why this game has been around since 2000 and so little is known about it to non-geocachers. More on the history of geocaching can be found here. Why such a weird name? Geo means Earth-think geography, and a cache is a container that holds items. Geocache.

Most caches must contain a log for a person to sign it as proof of their finding it. Also, there are cool items called "swag" that cachers put inside. These can be calling cards or just something brought over from a different country. It's supposed to be something unique. For example, I live in Florida, and have found numerous trinkets brought over from Germany. One such item was a McDonald's toy taken out of a kids meal. Couldn't read a single word on the packaging, but the toy was cool. A few of the items I've also seen, but are definitely not limited to, are buttons, cards, pendants, and even a cell phone from the 90's. The best items a cacher can hope for, besides the log, are items known as a "trackable," which I will go over in a future article.

How big are they and where can they be found?

The great thing about geocaches is their uniqueness. They can be any size, any shape and can literally be hidden anywhere all over the world-it is all up to the person doing the hiding. However, they cannot be buried underground, hidden on private property (unless the cache hider got permission to do so), or interfere with any laws. I think it goes without saying that these are secured in their hiding spot so they don't wander off during bad weather. There are 5 official listings for the sizes and I'll go over each from my own experience, and I'll try to avoid spoilers:

Micro: it can be anything from a pill bottle, a magnetized key holder, to a container the size of a bolt. Yes...a bolt that goes on the end of a screw. These cannot hold anything but the log.

Small: these are usually small Tupperware containers, cookie containers or small keepsake boxes. They are large enough for a log and smaller items like coins, stamps, or even the McDonalds' toy I mentioned earlier.

Regular: I've found ammo boxes, larger Tupperware containers, and even small buckets. These can handle most items and the log.

Large: Usually larger-sized buckets or I've even found a polyester bag that held enormous amounts of swag in it and trackables-as well as the log.

Other: The dreaded "other." This can be anything. You have to really pay attention to the cache page as well as its clues. If you're lucky you will get a hint from the hider to go along with the cache description. Usually, when it falls under this size, it is not a normal cache. By that, I mean that it could look like something that belongs to a structure right out in the open, that bystanders don't even know are there, like a power box. Geocachers can be tricky that way. One example would be a bolt screw on a stop sign, which many geocachers consider to be unlisted size six...:

*Nano: This one doesn't technically exist and falls a lot of times under "other." A nano is smaller than a micro. A popular cache I'm seeing more and more of are bolt-like containers. The "bolts" look like the same thing that goes on the end of a screw, but doesn't necessarily have to be anywhere near a screw. It is magnetic, so it can be placed on any surface that it can stick to. It seems tough, but only if the cache hider doesn't nicely list it as "nano" in their description. If it is listed as "other" then I hope you like challenges.

How does someone even get started?

It's simple to become a geocacher:

You need to register at geocaching.com for free or for a premium membership ($10 for three months or $30 for a year). I'll go over premium benefits in next weeks article. The name you select is a unique geocaching name. Much like a screen name, it protects your information.Groundspeak.com, the nice people in charge of geocaching, take great care in keeping your information private-not asking anything vital or making it even close to a social media website.

After registering, it is vital that you type in your actual address on your profile (only viewable by you), that way when you click on the map, it shows every single cache in your area.

Click on a cache, it will take you to a cache page with its description, coordinates of its location, and any possible clues to finding the cache. This page will give you the cache size, the difficulty of the terrain, and the difficulty of finding the cache once you reach the listed coordinates. For beginners, this is vital so you don't lose interest in the game right out of the gate. You can sift through caches until you find a beginners cache with lower difficulties. An example of a cache page can be found here.

You need a GPS to put in the coordinates, a cell phone with GPS capabilities, or buy the very helpful, time saving geocaching app ($10). You will not find the cache without at least one of these items.

In most cases, the posted coordinates will take you within 10 feet of the cache location. There are special circumstances, which I will post further down this page, when they are not. Once you find the cache, you must sign the physical log that's found inside the cache with your geocaching name. Personal information does not need to be floating around. If there is any swag or trackables inside the container and you want it, the rule is that if you take something, you leave something. The fun of the game is leaving something unique (like a McDonald's toy from Germany, in a cache found in the U.S.).

Once you've successfully found the cache, sing-in to Geocaching.com and go to the caches page. At the bottom, sign the online log to mark a cache as being found. Once found, it's counted toward your geocache finds that is associated with your geocaching profile. Bragging rights galore! The physical log inside the cache is to prove you actually found it. If your name is not found, the cache hider will delete your find.

6.1. In this same area, if you are unable to find the cache, you are also supposed to log it as "did not find." This way, if numerous people cannot find the cache, the cache owner will know something is up and look for it to make sure it wasn't tampered with.

That's it! You've successfully learned how to geocache. In short: register online, buy a GPS or use your smartphone, find the cache, sign the physical log, then sign the online log.

Types of geocaches

Come on, you didn't think it was that cut and dry did you? There are different geocaches that take the uniqueness to a whole new level. I'm not talking about container types either. These are caches that add a little difficulty, or fun, to finding the cache. Remember #5 of the "get started" section where I said there are special circumstances when coordinates of the cache may not be at their posted coordinates? This is where it applies. I'm going to go over the most common caches. For a list of all the cache types, click here.

Traditional Cache: Depicted as a green box on the map. It has a physical log. It is at the posted coordinates. These caches show up the most on the map.

Multi-Cache: Depicted as two yellow boxes on the map. These caches are a bit tricky. Multi-caches require the finder to perform various tasks that eventually end up at the final resting place of the geocache. An example from my own experiences: It can be anything from a pseudo-cache (a cache without a log, but has coordinates to the next stage), to a piece of wood hidden on a trail with a carved set of coordinates on it, to you even having to go to a time capsule at a museum and using info on the capsule's plaque to uncover the coordinates. These caches can be any length apart from each other. Most of the time, the person who hides the cache will tell you how many stages you will need to complete before the final cache will be reached. These are very unique hides, but fun.

Mystery Cache: The trickiest of caches. Depicted as blue question marks on the map, these are NOT at the posted coordinates most of the time. Basically, these are caches that have one or more puzzles on their cache pages that the cache hider designed. The answers to the puzzle(s) eventually give you the actual posted coordinates. To avoid confusion, Groundspeak made it so the question marks are within two miles of the actual cache coordinates.

EarthCache: Depicted by an icon that looks like Earth with a chunk taken out of it. These caches are the bread and butter of what geocaching is all about. The cache is at the posted coordinates. However, there is no physical log to sign (online one still needs to be signed), but you have to answer questions about the environment the posted coordinates take you to. In other words, you have to learn about your surroundings in order to get these caches.The cache hider will have you e-mail them your findings. Once this is done, you may sign the online log. Of the EarthCaches I have found, they have all been unique locations that I never even knew were there.

Virtual Cache: These technically cannot be created anymore through Geocaching.com, but they are still found everywhere on the map. Depicted as a ghost on the map, located at the posted coordinates, but have no physical log. These take you to unique locations that, I have found for the most part, you have to take a photo with the object and send it to the hider for credit, or post it on the online log when permitted. On some occasions, I was asked to answer questions about the area. Of the virtual caches I have found, these have all been unique and fun.

Once a cache is found, the image is replaced by a smiley face to let you know which ones you have found.

So, these are the basics to geocaching. It's a chance to go outdoors and have fun, it's family friendly, and it can get quite competitive. In future articles I will write about travel bugs and trackables as well as go through the benefits of a premium member. I hope you enjoyed this article, and if anything, I hope I helped a few good people get into a new hobby.

Questions, comments, or concerns, please post them in the comments section!

May 29, 2013

Not a bad write up overall, though you'll want to give it another proof read. I noticed several spelling and punctuation errors on my way through. I'd argue a few of the technical points that were made, but don't really see a need to go there since it is an opinion piece anyway.

6.7k · May 30, 2013

We would love to link to it from The Online Geocacher, and if you want to send any future articles we would be happy to publish them!

Mind if I put a link in our Found On The Web section?

May 30, 2013

We would love to link to it from The Online Geocacher, and if you want to send any future articles we would be happy to publish them!

Mind if I put a link in our Found On The Web section?

I can't say yes any quicker to your offer. Thank you so much, and I hope you enjoy the future articles that I post! Also, thank you for posting this link; I didn't know about your website.

IMPORTANT EDIT: right now, the link isn't working because I have the article down for edits. I just recently re-submitted this article, so hopefully it will be re-posted within the week. I'll update this post or e-mail you when it gets through. Let me know which one is easier for you!

Edited May 31, 2013 by Geo_Ballantine

38.2k · May 31, 2013

Nano: This one doesn't technically exist and falls a lot of times under "other." A nano is smaller than a micro.

A nano is a micro, it is not a distinct size. The Groundspeak Help Center describes a micro as "35 mm film canister and smaller", which includes nanos.

Edited May 31, 2013 by briansnat

June 1, 2013

Nano: This one doesn't technically exist and falls a lot of times under "other." A nano is smaller than a micro.

A nano is a micro, it is not a distinct size. The Groundspeak Help Center describes a micro as "35 mm film canister and smaller", which includes nanos.

Hence why it says, "doesn't technically exist," but a new cacher may come across someone's description where it says nano and wonder what that is.

38.2k · June 1, 2013

Nano: This one doesn't technically exist and falls a lot of times under "other." A nano is smaller than a micro.

A nano is a micro, it is not a distinct size. The Groundspeak Help Center describes a micro as "35 mm film canister and smaller", which includes nanos.

Hence why it says, "doesn't technically exist," but a new cacher may come across someone's description where it says nano and wonder what that is.

Point is that a nano isn't smaller than a micro, it is a micro. Sure they are often erroneously listed under "other", but I wouldn't want to give the impression that it is correct to do so.

Edited June 1, 2013 by briansnat

June 1, 2013

Nano: This one doesn't technically exist and falls a lot of times under "other." A nano is smaller than a micro.

A nano is a micro, it is not a distinct size. The Groundspeak Help Center describes a micro as "35 mm film canister and smaller", which includes nanos.

Hence why it says, "doesn't technically exist," but a new cacher may come across someone's description where it says nano and wonder what that is.

Point is that a nano isn't smaller than a micro, it is a micro. Sure they are often erroneously listed under "other", but I wouldn't want to give the impression that it is correct to do so.

You see though, you know exactly what I'm talking about when I say nano. In your mind, you know exactly the shape and size of the cache when I refer to it as a nano. This is because there are so many caches hidden that have "nano" in their description. In Sarasota, FL, there is a cache that is titled, "the worlds largest nano." Nano is becoming congruous to those little metal magnetized caches that look like nuts that go on a screw. "The worlds largest nano," is actually the same shape as one of those nuts, but is very large. So, yes my article may not be exact with Geocaching size rules, but if so many people consider a nano to be a nut, then why deter newcomers? Why not give them a heads-up?

June 1, 2013

A "nano" is not a "nut". The "nut" caches you refer to are "micro" caches. The term "nano" is not an official cache size, nor a term used in GC Guidelines. The official designation is "mirco" for anything that is about the size of a 35mm film can or smaller (any anything that is smaller).

The way I describe it when teaching basic geocaching classes is to describe the micro size as film can and smaller. After showing the examples of various bisons and whatnot, I'll show the "nano" cache (which is the thumbnail sized container stolen from the LED blinker world) and tell them how this one is often referred to as a "nano", but it is still in the "micro" size classification.

Don't confuse people with container style having anything to do with container size. If your "worlds largest nano" has enough room for your fist, then it's just another one of the world's smalls.

I don't consider a nano to be a nut and I've never run into anyone who does. So why give newcomers bad information?

June 2, 2013

A "nano" is not a "nut". The "nut" caches you refer to are "micro" caches. The term "nano" is not an official cache size, nor a term used in GC Guidelines. The official designation is "mirco" for anything that is about the size of a 35mm film can or smaller (any anything that is smaller).

The way I describe it when teaching basic geocaching classes is to describe the micro size as film can and smaller. After showing the examples of various bisons and whatnot, I'll show the "nano" cache (which is the thumbnail sized container stolen from the LED blinker world) and tell them how this one is often referred to as a "nano", but it is still in the "micro" size classification.

Don't confuse people with container style having anything to do with container size. If your "worlds largest nano" has enough room for your fist, then it's just another one of the world's smalls.

I don't consider a nano to be a nut and I've never run into anyone who does. So why give newcomers bad information?

Regarding your first point: I realize that nano's are not an offical cache size. Again, I even put "technically doesn't exist," in my article. Now, my 456 cache finds may pale in comparison to the amount of caches you have found, but I am going by what I've seen from the caches I have found. Almost every time I'm searching for what is considered a "nano-sized cache," it is listed as "other" in the size box. Granted, I could say it falls under micro since the definition of micro is a 35mm canister and smaller, but more often than not it is listed under "other." Now, maybe you should go to those people who list nanos as "other" and get on their case. I understand what Geocaching guidelines state, but this is from my personal experience of finding almost five hundred caches. Newcomers to geocaching will probably come across a cache description where it refers to it as a nano and the newbie won't have a clue what that is.

I get what you are saying about your examples when you have actual classes, but trying to describe all of that to someone who is reading it and has absolutely no visual aid can be quite confusing.

You are taking my "nut" reference too literal. I'm referencing the size. You would consider anything the SIZE of a nut that goes on a screw to be a nano, correct?

Here is a nano cache from geocaching's very own online shop: http://shop.geocaching.com/default/cache-essentials/cache-containers/nano-cache-container.html

"The World's Largest Nano" is the same shape as what is shown on the link, but much larger. You know...to be humerous. I wasn't considering that as a nano; I am saying that a nano is the shape AND size of the cache shown in that link, which is really small (a thumbnail as you described it).

If I was going by what was on Geocaching's website down to a T, I would have copied and pasted verbatim what was on Geocaching's help pages and plagiarized myself into oblivion. However, somewhere, somehow, a slippery slope has started where people started listing nanos as "other." It's to the point where when I'm looking for a micro, I'm looking for a pill bottle or film canister, not a nano.

Edited June 2, 2013 by Geo_Ballantine

June 2, 2013

My find count isn't that high and it doesn't really matter. I drive by 100 times more caches than I hunt.

Of the 5,629 caches in my state, only 135 traditional are listed as "other". A search for the term "nano" brings back 122 caches and only 29 of those are listed as "other". So what you're seeing must be a regional thing. There are a lot of regional things in geocaching. For an international audience, I just think its best to speak in international generalities and honor the GS guidelines while doing so.

14k · June 2, 2013

Regarding your first point: I realize that nano's are not an offical cache size. Again, I even put "technically doesn't exist," in my article. Now, my 456 cache finds may pale in comparison to the amount of caches you have found, but I am going by what I've seen from the caches I have found. Almost every time I'm searching for what is considered a "nano-sized cache," it is listed as "other" in the size box.

Pardon my stalking but I see that all of your finds are in the U.S. and all in the state of Florida. From reading these forums for the past 6 years or so, seeing posts from geocachers from all over the world, and finding caches all over the world as well, it's become very clear that there is a lot of diversity in how people hide caches, and especially in the terminology people use when talking about the game. Tell a geocacher that lives outside the pacific northwest that you;re going to do a "cache machine" and most will have no idea what you're talking about. Outside the U.S., and especially in Europe, geocachers often refer to the actual geocache as "the box" but of the six caches I found in Barcelona, only one of them actually *was* a box. I assume that your intended audience for your article has a demographic outside Florida, so it might be a good idea to look at the game from more of a global perspective rather than just from your local experience. While a "nano

might usually be one of those screw top containers with a magnet on the bottom that are about the side of your thumbnail (some call them blinkers). I've also seen small bison tubes described as a naoo and found a cache in South Africa that was a small diameter tube about 1 inch long with rubber caps on each end and a small magnet glued to the side. It probably had about the same volume as a "blinker" and was published as a micro.

June 25, 2013

Ok, so finally after editing and waiting 3 weeks for Yahoo! To look at it, my article has been re-published. Thank you everybody for the feedback. The only thing I care about was that as long as it fit within Geocaching guidelines, I was happy. The nitpicking of what a nano is went a little far. I'm trying to get newbies involved in the game, not people who have been playing the game for years. You have to make it sound as fun as possible without it sounding so down to a point or the average joe will lose interest. I just hope that as long as I lay the groundwork, they pick up the rest on their own.

With that being said...

http://voices.yahoo.com/geocaching-guide-world-wide-scavenger-hunt-12007184.html

Pardon my stalking but I see that all of your finds are in the U.S. and all in the state of Florida. From reading these forums for the past 6 years or so, seeing posts from geocachers from all over the world, and finding caches all over the world as well, it's become very clear that there is a lot of diversity in how people hide caches, and especially in the terminology people use when talking about the game. Tell a geocacher that lives outside the pacific northwest that you;re going to do a "cache machine" and most will have no idea what you're talking about. Outside the U.S., and especially in Europe, geocachers often refer to the actual geocache as "the box" but of the six caches I found in Barcelona, only one of them actually *was* a box. I assume that your intended audience for your article has a demographic outside Florida, so it might be a good idea to look at the game from more of a global perspective rather than just from your local experience. While a "nano

might usually be one of those screw top containers with a magnet on the bottom that are about the side of your thumbnail (some call them blinkers). I've also seen small bison tubes described as a naoo and found a cache in South Africa that was a small diameter tube about 1 inch long with rubber caps on each end and a small magnet glued to the side. It probably had about the same volume as a "blinker" and was published as a micro.

Thank you for your feedback. I already re-submitted my article by the time you posted and was locked out of editing. I'm 25 and pretty poor and don't have the luxury of travel-even within the state of Florida. Now, you do bring up a point because I was trying to reach a demographic outside of Florida-and outside of the U.S. When you mention it being a "box" or referring to something as a "cache machine" that seems like something that is lingo for a particular area, which they can pick up from fellow cachers. I'm sure if they walked up to someone who geocaches, and referred to it as a geocache, just because the person they talk to refers to it as a box, shouldn't make it hard for them to understand what it is they are talking about. Now, is it anywhere on their site?

Just one last time about the nano: I was giving a general tag to a nano as being extremely small. Was not being literal. However, on Geocaching's online store, there is a nano for purchase with what I was referring to, which have been most of the nano's I've seen. Granted, I remember one in particular that was inside a small hole, inside a bridge, and it was so small you needed to tweezers to get to it.

1.1k · June 25, 2013

Nice job but you might want to change "sing to sign" in item number 6. :laughing:

June 25, 2013

Nice job but you might want to change "sing to sign" in item number 6.

Where were you back in February? Lol. Just great.

I wrote an article on Geocaching

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation