Is not size large too large?

[+ben-socha]

Hi guys,

 

I think the rule for the large size containers to have a capacity of not less than 20 liters is a bit exaggerated. Why not start from 10 liters? 10 liter cache container is big enough and there is much easier to find a spot for it. I think this rule should be changed in favor to 10 liters and above for large size cache containers. What do you think?

[+ArcherDragoon]

So list it as a Regular...

[+Cardinal Red]

Hi guys,

 

I think the rule for the large size containers to have a capacity of not less than 20 liters is a bit exaggerated. Why not start from 10 liters? 10 liter cache container is big enough and there is much easier to find a spot for it. I think this rule should be changed in favor to 10 liters and above for large size cache containers. What do you think?

 

Cachers fudge the smaller cache sizes in listings all the time. Why not the larger ones as well.

 

If you put out a 10 liter container, list it as large, and just mention the actual size on the cache listing. That would be good enough for me. Getting your actual suggestion considered and implemented has about a 1 in a billion shot. And that's probably being overly optimistic.

[+ben-socha]

Cachers fudge the smaller cache sizes in listings all the time. Why not the larger ones as well.

 

If you put out a 10 liter container, list it as large, and just mention the actual size on the cache listing. That would be good enough for me. Getting your actual suggestion considered and implemented has about a 1 in a billion shot. And that's probably being overly optimistic.

 

Thanks, I think I will put your advice into practice

[+Murazor]

It well depends on the local context. Around me containers listed as "large" start from about 5 liters, I guess this is because there is much more "free space" in the USA than in Europe, thus many of American regulars would well be considered larges here. However my own only large cache has exactly 20 liters.

Edited March 19, 2013 by Murazor

[+chillypenguin]

Stick a 20litre container out there and list it as a Micro

[+ben-socha]

It well depends on the local context. Around me containers listed as "large" start from about 5 liters

 

Yeah, you're probably right. But 20L listed as regular... I would be well shocked seeing such a regular :) Anyway, nice surprise for the finders

[+Don_J]

I'm looking at 5 2-liter soda bottles over in the corner. If it were a bucket that size, I'd call it a large.

[+redsox_mark]

The Guidelines are quite general.

 

They do say:

 

micro: e.g. 35mm film canister or smaller

small: Holds only a small logbook and small items.

regular: e.g. ammo box

large: e.g. 5-gallon bucket (about 20 liters)

 

But they also say that a "50cal (ammo) box sometimes appears as "Large"." And that is far less than 20 liters.

 

If the container is significantly larger than an ammo box I don't think any one will object to you calling it large.

[+JL_HSTRE]

Anything you could fit a 50cal ammo can inside of is a Large in my book.

[+niraD]

So list it as a Regular...

That was my thought too.

 

Hide the cache you want to hide, then describe its size/terrain/difficulty accurately when you list it. Starting with the size/terrain/difficulty rating and then trying to come up with something that qualifies for the desired rating seems completely backwards to me.

[+niraD]

The Guidelines are quite general.

 

They do say:

 

micro: e.g. 35mm film canister or smaller

small: Holds only a small logbook and small items.

regular: e.g. ammo box

large: e.g. 5-gallon bucket (about 20 liters)

FWIW, the "What does a geocache look like?" section of the Geocaching 101 page is more specific:

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.

[Mr.Yuck]

Anything you could fit a 50cal ammo can inside of is a Large in my book.

 

Good. 'cause I have a 2.6 Gallon Tupperware container (which costs me like $14 I might add) That is listed as a large. I could fit a .50 Cal in in it, and possibly a .30 Cal as well. If they were positioned really well. Maybe the OP is really on to something. Especially in the half of all caches are micro era. I don't know for a fact that era exists, but I tell you what, look at any number hounds stats, and I'll bet you they're at or near 50% micro.

 

Edit: I just looked at a 20,000+ find account in my State, and it's at 58% micro. I'm not derailing this thread or anything, am I? I never thought of this before this thread, but I'm totally on board with the OP.

Edited March 23, 2013 by Mr.Yuck

[GOF and Bacall]

So list it as a Regular...

That was my thought too.

 

Hide the cache you want to hide, then describe its size/terrain/difficulty accurately when you list it. Starting with the size/terrain/difficulty rating and then trying to come up with something that qualifies for the desired rating seems completely backwards to me.

 

Agreed. List what you hid. Do your best to be accurate.

[+Don_J]

Anything you could fit a 50cal ammo can inside of is a Large in my book.

 

Good. 'cause I have a 2.6 Gallon Tupperware container (which costs me like $14 I might add) That is listed as a large. I could fit a .50 Cal in in it, and possibly a .30 Cal as well. If they were positioned really well. Maybe the OP is really on to something. Especially in the half of all caches are micro era. I don't know for a fact that era exists, but I tell you what, look at any number hounds stats, and I'll bet you they're at or near 50% micro.

 

Edit: I just looked at a 20,000+ find account in my State, and it's at 58% micro. I'm not derailing this thread or anything, am I? I never thought of this before this thread, but I'm totally on board with the OP.

 

A lot of that ratio depends on how long it took them to accumulate those 20,000 finds. I know of a few folks that only been caching for two-three years and are over 10,000, and the percentage of micros to all finds is at about 90%.

[+simpjkee]

To me, the size distinctions that are already in place are very clear and need no changing. I'm always surprised when I hear cachers talk (or see threads) about how they are confused about what size is what. Its really straight forward people. Let's not try to fix something that ain't broke, okay?

[+W7WT]

We recently drove up the Wilson River Road in Western Oregon and nearly ever cache was a 5 gallon Bucket. This was thru a heavy forested area and after all the micro and nano finds it was a real joy finding the LARGE containers.

[+briansnat]

To me, the size distinctions that are already in place are very clear and need no changing. I'm always surprised when I hear cachers talk (or see threads) about how they are confused about what size is what. Its really straight forward people. Let's not try to fix something that ain't broke, okay?

 

Agreed. If it is less than 20 liters then it's not a large. End of story. The sizes have worked fine all these years, why change them. A change to the definition will only serve to instantly make thousands of caches improperly listed.

[+Off Grid]

To me, the size distinctions that are already in place are very clear and need no changing. I'm always surprised when I hear cachers talk (or see threads) about how they are confused about what size is what. Its really straight forward people. Let's not try to fix something that ain't broke, okay?

 

Agreed. If it is less than 20 liters then it's not a large. End of story. The sizes have worked fine all these years, why change them. A change to the definition will only serve to instantly make thousands of caches improperly listed.

I'm sure there already are thousands that are improper no label Nada

[+Don_J]

To me, the size distinctions that are already in place are very clear and need no changing. I'm always surprised when I hear cachers talk (or see threads) about how they are confused about what size is what. Its really straight forward people. Let's not try to fix something that ain't broke, okay?

 

Agreed. If it is less than 20 liters then it's not a large. End of story. The sizes have worked fine all these years, why change them. A change to the definition will only serve to instantly make thousands of caches improperly listed.

 

When exactly was that wording added? Most of the large caches that I have found in Southern California over the years were placed many, many years ago and were around 10+ liters, usually a 2 1/2 to 5 gallon bucket. Perhaps it's just perspective, but if I tie 5 2-liter soda bottles in a bunch and imagine that as a single container, I would think of it as the smallest of the large range, even though it is only half the standard.

[+briansnat]

To me, the size distinctions that are already in place are very clear and need no changing. I'm always surprised when I hear cachers talk (or see threads) about how they are confused about what size is what. Its really straight forward people. Let's not try to fix something that ain't broke, okay?

 

Agreed. If it is less than 20 liters then it's not a large. End of story. The sizes have worked fine all these years, why change them. A change to the definition will only serve to instantly make thousands of caches improperly listed.

 

When exactly was that wording added? Most of the large caches that I have found in Southern California over the years were placed many, many years ago and were around 10+ liters, usually a 2 1/2 to 5 gallon bucket. Perhaps it's just perspective, but if I tie 5 2-liter soda bottles in a bunch and imagine that as a single container, I would think of it as the smallest of the large range, even though it is only half the standard.

 

A large has been a 5 gallon bucket or bigger since I started caching in 2001.