thresholds between cache sizes?

[+beauxeault]

I'm about to place a new cache with dimensions of 3 in. x 4 in. x 6 in., or about 5 cups volume. I'd like to be able to list it as "regular" size, but fear disappointment when people discover it's not full ammo box size. But it seems a good bit larger than most "small" caches I've found.

 

So are there any guidelines or rules of thumb for deciding what size to list when it seems to fall near the threshold between one size and another? And am I right that this cache is near the threshold between "regular" and "small," or is it clearly on one side or the other? While I'm at it, where are the micro/small and regular/large thresholds?

[+J Grouchy]

Don't overthink it. It probably counts as a small...and folks will be pleasantly surprised when they see how large that small one is. Problem solved.

[+L0ne.R]

http://support.Groun...g=kb.page&id=75

 

Containers Explained

Sizes

micro: Less than 100ml. Examples: a 35 mm film canister or smaller, 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.

Holds only a small logbook and small items.

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.

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

other: See the cache description for information.

Unusual geocache containers that just don't fit into other categories.

Example: a magnetic strip.

1L = 4.2 US cups = 33 ounces

 

So you could list it as a regular. I like Grouchy's comment that if it seems smallish to you and you list it as a small, people will be pleasantly surprised that it's larger than expected.

[+beauxeault]

http://support.Groun...g=kb.page&id=75

 

Containers Explained

Sizes

micro: Less than 100ml. Examples: a 35 mm film canister or smaller, 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.

Holds only a small logbook and small items.

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.

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

other: See the cache description for information.

Unusual geocache containers that just don't fit into other categories.

Example: a magnetic strip.

1L = 4.2 US cups = 33 ounces

 

So you could list it as a regular. I like Grouchy's comment that if it seems smallish to you and you list it as a small, people will be pleasantly surprised that it's larger than expected.

 

Thanks for the link. I figured there was probably a more precise description than what you get on the cache submission form. Interesting that even that page has a discrepancy in recommended thresholds between the portion quoted in your post and the later discussion of lock-and-lock containers.

[Mr.Yuck]

Don't overthink it. It probably counts as a small...and folks will be pleasantly surprised when they see how large that small one is. Problem solved.

 

Why not? And how is it overthinking it? I've seen DOZENS of standard sized 1.3 Litre Lock-n-Locks listed as smalls, when they are well over the 1.0 Litre threshold listed to be considered regulars. It may be regional to me, but almost *all* the 1.3 Litre Lock-n-Locks I see get listed as small. All that being said, those owners are probably thinking the same thing as the OP, "it's not an ammo can, it's not really a regular".

[+niraD]

If it's in the "1L or larger, but less than 20L" range, then I'd list it as regular. If it seems a bit smaller (or larger) than usual for a regular, then you can mention that in the description. (I've seen containers near the thresholds described as "a large micro" or "a smallish regular" or similar phrases, and I think it works well for setting expectations correctly.)

[7rxc]

http://support.Groun...g=kb.page&id=75

 

Containers Explained

Sizes

micro: Less than 100ml. Examples: a 35 mm film canister or smaller, 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.

Holds only a small logbook and small items.

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.

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

other: See the cache description for information.

Unusual geocache containers that just don't fit into other categories.

Example: a magnetic strip.

1L = 4.2 US cups = 33 ounces

 

So you could list it as a regular. I like Grouchy's comment that if it seems smallish to you and you list it as a small, people will be pleasantly surprised that it's larger than expected.

 

My short recollect says that the metric listing is fairly recent (years) but many still place according to the way they used to be sized. That is regular was described as shoebox, small as sandwich box, micros as film canister or smaller... and the method of textual adjustment was common. But that has changed with the newer metric size equivalents... but even there 'appearance' plays a role as well since some shapes look to be bigger or smaller than one would think.

 

Doug 7rxc

[+dprovan]

J Grouchy's answer is wise, and it would probably convince me to call it a small, but with cache sizes trending down, I think the regular size should generally be considered smaller these days since otherwise it will soon become so rare as to be useless.

[+briansnat]

It's borderline but I'd probably list a cache that size as a small

[+terrkan78]

Some people round up. Some people round down. I like to round down (so people don't think, "Huh? That's a regular?"). I think it's a good idea to make mention in the description that the container is kind of in between the two sizes.

[RedShoesGirl]

I'm about to place a new cache with dimensions of 3 in. x 4 in. x 6 in., or about 5 cups volume. I'd like to be able to list it as "regular" size, but fear disappointment when people discover it's not full ammo box size. But it seems a good bit larger than most "small" caches I've found.

 

So are there any guidelines or rules of thumb for deciding what size to list when it seems to fall near the threshold between one size and another? And am I right that this cache is near the threshold between "regular" and "small," or is it clearly on one side or the other? While I'm at it, where are the micro/small and regular/large thresholds?

 

small - better list small and surprise the finder if it is bigger than what the finder expected, as someone else said. if you list as regular and it is smaller then the finder is disappointed.

 

personally i would rather be surprised if it is larger. i remember the first one of those clear plastic tube thingies i found hanging in a bush listed as a small. i thought, "really? i drove all the way out here for THAT?!"

 

thus, disillusionment began to set in....

[+J Grouchy]

Don't overthink it. It probably counts as a small...and folks will be pleasantly surprised when they see how large that small one is. Problem solved.

 

Why not? And how is it overthinking it? I've seen DOZENS of standard sized 1.3 Litre Lock-n-Locks listed as smalls, when they are well over the 1.0 Litre threshold listed to be considered regulars. It may be regional to me, but almost *all* the 1.3 Litre Lock-n-Locks I see get listed as small. All that being said, those owners are probably thinking the same thing as the OP, "it's not an ammo can, it's not really a regular".

 

It's overthinking it because it's not common for people outside of these forums to even consider the precise volume of a container when assigning a size. Unless it's obviously way off, it usually isn't even remarked on in finders' logs. In my opinion, if it's borderline, it's best just to list it under the smaller category and be done with it.

[4wheelin_fool]

That was a micro 14 years ago. In another 14 years it will be a large.

[+Ambrosia]

That was a micro 14 years ago. In another 14 years it will be a large.

An ammo can will be "monster" size. Gigantor!!!

[Mr.Yuck]

Don't overthink it. It probably counts as a small...and folks will be pleasantly surprised when they see how large that small one is. Problem solved.

 

Why not? And how is it overthinking it? I've seen DOZENS of standard sized 1.3 Litre Lock-n-Locks listed as smalls, when they are well over the 1.0 Litre threshold listed to be considered regulars. It may be regional to me, but almost *all* the 1.3 Litre Lock-n-Locks I see get listed as small. All that being said, those owners are probably thinking the same thing as the OP, "it's not an ammo can, it's not really a regular".

 

It's overthinking it because it's not common for people outside of these forums to even consider the precise volume of a container when assigning a size. Unless it's obviously way off, it usually isn't even remarked on in finders' logs. In my opinion, if it's borderline, it's best just to list it under the smaller category and be done with it.

 

Um, they're clearly labeled as 1.3 Liters on the plastic box before you paint it or tape it, no volume calculation and metric conversion necessary. Just read the size guideline. Besides, this below.

 

That was a micro 14 years ago. In another 14 years it will be a large.

[+Harry Dolphin]

And we have a local with over 250 caches along a highway who thinks that a magnetic Key Holder is a 'small'. And got insulted when I pointed out that they are 'micros'.

[+NJSquirrel]

And we have a local with over 250 caches along a highway who thinks that a magnetic Key Holder is a 'small'. And got insulted when I pointed out that they are 'micros'.

I've seen a few MKH listed as smalls. It's a complete joke. Just because nanos are the new "micro" doesn't make bisons or MKH "small".

[+J Grouchy]

Don't overthink it. It probably counts as a small...and folks will be pleasantly surprised when they see how large that small one is. Problem solved.

 

Why not? And how is it overthinking it? I've seen DOZENS of standard sized 1.3 Litre Lock-n-Locks listed as smalls, when they are well over the 1.0 Litre threshold listed to be considered regulars. It may be regional to me, but almost *all* the 1.3 Litre Lock-n-Locks I see get listed as small. All that being said, those owners are probably thinking the same thing as the OP, "it's not an ammo can, it's not really a regular".

 

It's overthinking it because it's not common for people outside of these forums to even consider the precise volume of a container when assigning a size. Unless it's obviously way off, it usually isn't even remarked on in finders' logs. In my opinion, if it's borderline, it's best just to list it under the smaller category and be done with it.

 

Um, they're clearly labeled as 1.3 Liters on the plastic box before you paint it or tape it, no volume calculation and metric conversion necessary. Just read the size guideline. Besides, this below.

 

That was a micro 14 years ago. In another 14 years it will be a large.

 

Like I said...most folks really just don't care enough about it. At best they look at the little images provided as examples on the cache submission form and work from that. Nobody is thinking "OHNOES! My tupperware says 1 Liter! Is it a small or a regular? What to do, what to do!"

[+dprovan]

And we have a local with over 250 caches along a highway who thinks that a magnetic Key Holder is a 'small'. And got insulted when I pointed out that they are 'micros'.

I've seen a few MKH listed as smalls. It's a complete joke. Just because nanos are the new "micro" doesn't make bisons or MKH "small".

I've been to a couple areas where MKHs were consistently listed as small. I decided it's a cultural thing, not ignorance or size creep. But I still agree with you that the practice should be stamped out: just because it can be explain as culture doesn't mean it isn't still wrong.

[kanchan]

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

I find it little interesting that the threshold between regular and large is 20L. I have never seen a 5-gallon bucket listed as regular, but it's actually < 20L.

[+beauxeault]

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

I find it little interesting that the threshold between regular and large is 20L. I have never seen a 5-gallon bucket listed as regular, but it's actually < 20L.

 

The same page, in discussing Lock-and-Lock containers, suggests 3.5 liters as the threshold between "regular" and "large."

[+J Grouchy]

I don't consider volumetric measurements. Instead, I guage it based on the type of object that I might normally have on me and whether it might fit inside the cache.

For example, anything too small to fit my wallet inside ought to be a "micro". Anything large enough to fit my wallet but too small to fit my shoe would be a "small". Anything large enough to fit my shoe but too small to fit something like a basketball would be a "regular". Larger than that would obviously be a "large". Now, of course the shape of a container might prohibit fitting an ACTUAL shoe inside, but just pretending I could somehow bend my shoe into a form that would fit inside would be enough to make the judgement call. To me, it's a lot easier than looking for a number on the container or trying to calculate liters or fractions thereof on a container. Those numbers GS gives are, in my opinion, just general rules of thumb since there are so many different types of containers. When you start getting into larger objects that may only have a tiny space inside to hold a log (e.g., a homemade rock with a small hole for a bison tube), then there's is a judgement call on container size. Often you see that sort of thing labeled as "other" or "not chosen".

[+niraD]

It's really not that hard to calculate the volume of rectangular containers. I did this recently with an ammo can. It measured about 8 inches by 16 inches by 24 inches. So I entered "8 * 16 * 24" in Google, and got the answer 3072, which is the number of cubic inches. So then I entered "3072 cubic inches in liters" in Google, and got the answer 50.3411 liters. Since 50 liters is more than 20 liters...

[+J Grouchy]

It's really not that hard to calculate the volume of rectangular containers. I did this recently with an ammo can. It measured about 8 inches by 16 inches by 24 inches. So I entered "8 * 16 * 24" in Google, and got the answer 3072, which is the number of cubic inches. So then I entered "3072 cubic inches in liters" in Google, and got the answer 50.3411 liters. Since 50 liters is more than 20 liters...

 

Who said it was "hard"? I never did. I just said it's kind of stupid to bother when you can gauge the size pretty easily using common objects.

 

My entire point is that only folks in these forums who obsess over rules and guidelines and such even bother worrying about whether a container is above or below the one-liter threshold. Finders don't worry about it unless it's way off (i.e., an altoid tin listed as a regular or something).

 

I'd actually rather there be fewer options - those that can hold a log and swag and those that can only hold a log. I'm sure that's only me, but I seriously doubt the vast majority puts as much thought into sizing a lock-and-lock container as most folks who post in these forums.

Edited April 11, 2014 by J Grouchy

[+wimseyguy]

I agree with those who suggest listing it as a small. If you feel it's important enough you can always mention in the text that it's large for a small.

[Mr.Yuck]

I don't obsess over it, as some may seem to imply. But with like over 50% of these things being micros as it is, can we call a regular a regular? Can we call it a regular when like 90% of all caches are micros? That'll be like 2017, by my calculations.

[+The Jester]

It's really not that hard to calculate the volume of rectangular containers. I did this recently with an ammo can. It measured about 8 inches by 16 inches by 24 inches. So I entered "8 * 16 * 24" in Google, and got the answer 3072, which is the number of cubic inches. So then I entered "3072 cubic inches in liters" in Google, and got the answer 50.3411 liters. Since 50 liters is more than 20 liters...

That is a large ammo can - the "standard" 50cal can is 11 x 7 x 6, which is about 7.5 liters.

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

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

I find it little interesting that the threshold between regular and large is 20L. I have never seen a 5-gallon bucket listed as regular, but it's actually < 20L.

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

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

I find it little interesting that the threshold between regular and large is 20L. I have never seen a 5-gallon bucket listed as regular, but it's actually < 20L.

Pour 5.3 gallons into a standard 5 gallon paint bucket. It fits w/ room to spare. The measurement is based on what is put inside, not what the container can hold.

[+Don_J]

It's really not that hard to calculate the volume of rectangular containers. I did this recently with an ammo can. It measured about 8 inches by 16 inches by 24 inches. So I entered "8 * 16 * 24" in Google, and got the answer 3072, which is the number of cubic inches. So then I entered "3072 cubic inches in liters" in Google, and got the answer 50.3411 liters. Since 50 liters is more than 20 liters...

 

You couldn't tell by looking at it, that it was a Large container?