Jump to content

New function suggestion: new Cache size


Friedolino2

Recommended Posts

hi there,

 

in this Help-Post "micro" size has a subtype. Some caches so not have enough description to declare it as a nano. I wonder why "micro" has a subtype. "Nano"s are no subtype. Both micros and nanos have their own characterictic. I think a new size-typ would be pleasant.

 

Maybe there a some chatters who love/hate nano-sized caches. They could directly include/exclude this size type without being confused by micros.

 

What do you think?

Link to post

1, It's a good idea. Nobody reads help-posts and more than 50% of nano caches in my area is listed as other.

2, I think it is unnecessary. There is written "less than 100ml", so it is micro. If nano size will be officialy accepted, what will be next? "Small large", "Middle large" and "Big large"? And what about apps? New versions of everything?

Link to post

While the micro does cover nano by definotion the official Groundspeak store sells nano caches. I think if they sell a nano cache, they should have a nano size. Or they only have micro and stop calling these caches nano.

 

Instead of creating a new cache size "nano", Groundspeak should ban them...

 

Not possible since they don't go actually look at the caches when reviewing. People would just lie. And any way, you are just one of those who think bigger is better. A nano thrown somewhere is no different than an ammo can. No thought, no ingenuity, no camo. A crappy cache in a crappy location, it still crappy big or small. I'd rather find a small cache with unique camo, or at a cool location, than a big cache with no camo in a boring location.

Link to post

While the micro does cover nano by definotion the official Groundspeak store sells nano caches. I think if they sell a nano cache, they should have a nano size. Or they only have micro and stop calling these caches nano.

 

Instead of creating a new cache size "nano", Groundspeak should ban them...

 

A nano thrown somewhere is no different than an ammo can. No thought, no ingenuity, no camo. A crappy cache in a crappy location, it still crappy big or small. I'd rather find a small cache with unique camo, or at a cool location, than a big cache with no camo in a boring location.

 

I completely disagree. An ammo can wins hands down over a nano. If it's a crappy location then it still wins out over a nano. Nanos are pretty predicable too - a button nano (editted removed tubes because usually nanos are buttons) stuffed into something (piece of wood, bolt, lock, plastic toy), often a needle-in-the-haystack hide, the tiny tattered scrap of paper is a pain to unroll and sign and worse to roll back up and stuff back into the leaky button/tube. At least an ammo can is more likely to have a dry logBOOK (not sheet) and people who enjoy more then a finding a scrap of paper get to enjoy swag and trackables.

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to post

I completely disagree. An ammo can wins hands down over a nano.

Bomb squads love ammo cans too. They don't seem particularly interested in nanos. They do show an occasional interest in film canisters though.

 

Appropriate containers for appropriate locations. I love it when someone points out an interesting place in an urban location where an ammo can would cause too much excitement.

Link to post

Both micros and nanos have their own characterictic.

In my opinion, there's very little difference. Both contain only a log sheet. Neither can hold swag. I would mostly look for both in the same type of hiding spots. Both can be either magnetic or non-magnetic. Both can be hanging or non-hanging.

 

Other than the physical size, what characteristics do you see as differentiating the two?

Link to post

Both micros and nanos have their own characterictic.

In my opinion, there's very little difference. Both contain only a log sheet. Neither can hold swag. I would mostly look for both in the same type of hiding spots. Both can be either magnetic or non-magnetic. Both can be hanging or non-hanging.

 

Other than the physical size, what characteristics do you see as differentiating the two?

 

I think that some people would like to filter out nanos but keep micros because button nano log scrolls are a huge pain to deal with, and most nanos are more of a needle-in-the-haystack find than film canister size caches.

(editted to add) Some people may want some new stats. Nano size would mean more grid to fill.

Edited by L0ne.R
Link to post

Both micros and nanos have their own characterictic.

In my opinion, there's very little difference. Both contain only a log sheet. Neither can hold swag. I would mostly look for both in the same type of hiding spots. Both can be either magnetic or non-magnetic. Both can be hanging or non-hanging.

 

Other than the physical size, what characteristics do you see as differentiating the two?

 

I think that some people would like to filter out nanos but keep micros because button nano log scrolls are a huge pain to deal with, and most nanos are more of a needle-in-the-haystack find than film canister size caches.

(editted to add) Some people may want some new stats. Nano size would mean more grid to fill.

+1

Link to post
Other than the physical size, what characteristics do you see as differentiating the two?
Before Groundspeak added the "less than 10ml and can only hold a small logsheet" definition to the Geocaching 101 page, the distinction I drew between a micro and a nano was whether the cache was filled by a custom-fit log sheet (e.g., blinkers, centrifuge tubes, small Bison tubes), or whether the cache had room for tiny trade items or even additional log sheets (e.g., film canisters, mint tins, small beach safes). So basically, my personal definition for a nano cache was the "can only hold a small logsheet" part of Groundspeak's eventual definition.

 

And yes, this suggestion has been posted before.

Link to post

A nano cache is a common sub-type of a micro cache that is less than 10ml and can only hold a small logsheet.

 

This is news to me. By this definition, probably >50% of all "micro" caches that I've found have been "nano" - for sure all bison tubes since they have a volume around 2ml. Funny, when I think of micro I first think of bison tubes (they're pretty common in my area, moreso that film canisters and that's a good thing if you ask me).

 

To me a nano is exactly what GS sells as a nano (as already pointed out).

nano-callout_500.gif

 

Of those "nanos", that I've found, most were listed as micro but not infrequently also as "other" or "not chosen". which is like those earthcaches listed as "large" (of which I've found at least one).

 

Anyway, I would like to see a nano size added.

Link to post

I'll just re-post what I've already said on this subject (re: "other" as a size and nanos as their own category):

 

I blame Apple for the trend of overusing the "nano-" prefix. A decade or so ago, nobody ever would have complained about a cache that tiny being called a "micro". After all, "micro" is small! "Micro" is in "microscope" and "microscopic". Microbiology is the study of single-celled and very very tiny organisms!

 

I don't think I ever see nanos listed as "other". There is no field of study called othertechnology. Some day in the future, we won't we concerned with otherbots swarming through our bloodstream. "Other" is for a container you can't classify under a particular size...maybe a magnet with a label on the back for a log or other such caches.

 

"Micro" works just fine for a nano cache.

Link to post

@Grouchy

In our area of the country (Front Range of Colorado), we see 'nano' caches (mag 'blinkies', as they're sometimes called, or little 2ml sample tubes, etc.) referenced by COs as "Other" all the time. For some here, it has become the de facto method of describing them to give the finder an idea of what they're seeking.

Link to post

@Grouchy

In our area of the country (Front Range of Colorado), we see 'nano' caches (mag 'blinkies', as they're sometimes called, or little 2ml sample tubes, etc.) referenced by COs as "Other" all the time. For some here, it has become the de facto method of describing them to give the finder an idea of what they're seeking.

 

And my point was that is incorrect.

Link to post

In our area of the country (Front Range of Colorado), we see 'nano' caches (mag 'blinkies', as they're sometimes called, or little 2ml sample tubes, etc.) referenced by COs as "Other" all the time. For some here, it has become the de facto method of describing them to give the finder an idea of what they're seeking.

While I'm familiar with that practice, I prefer the standard in my local community of using "other" because the size will be unexpected. The nano size is rarely unexpected.

Link to post

@Grouchy

In our area of the country (Front Range of Colorado), we see 'nano' caches (mag 'blinkies', as they're sometimes called, or little 2ml sample tubes, etc.) referenced by COs as "Other" all the time. For some here, it has become the de facto method of describing them to give the finder an idea of what they're seeking.

And my point was that is incorrect.

The classification of a container as 'micro' is arbitrary, depending on what one considers 'micro' to classify.

As many consider there to be a very different experience between finding a larger micro (such as bison tube or film can) and a smaller micro (nano, pico, etc), their decision to distinguish that experience by listing it as an 'Other' (as there isn't an appropriate category for the experience in their opinion) is perfectly valid.

 

Unfortunately, because of this arbitrary nature, it can be confusing - either way. A nano listed as a micro can upset people who hate the nano-experience. A nano listed as an other can upset people who might consider the container as providing a non-standard experience (such as not a typical 'container' of any size).

 

All that said, very strictly, technically speaking, "Micro" cover any container smaller than a size. So, on that point alone, I agree that the nano's default category would be "Micro". :) But I have no problem with them being listed as Other.

Link to post

@Grouchy

In our area of the country (Front Range of Colorado), we see 'nano' caches (mag 'blinkies', as they're sometimes called, or little 2ml sample tubes, etc.) referenced by COs as "Other" all the time. For some here, it has become the de facto method of describing them to give the finder an idea of what they're seeking.

And my point was that is incorrect.

The classification of a container as 'micro' is arbitrary, depending on what one considers 'micro' to classify.

As many consider there to be a very different experience between finding a larger micro (such as bison tube or film can) and a smaller micro (nano, pico, etc), their decision to distinguish that experience by listing it as an 'Other' (as there isn't an appropriate category for the experience in their opinion) is perfectly valid.

 

Unfortunately, because of this arbitrary nature, it can be confusing - either way. A nano listed as a micro can upset people who hate the nano-experience. A nano listed as an other can upset people who might consider the container as providing a non-standard experience (such as not a typical 'container' of any size).

 

All that said, very strictly, technically speaking, "Micro" cover any container smaller than a size. So, on that point alone, I agree that the nano's default category would be "Micro". :) But I have no problem with them being listed as Other.

 

Finding a pill bottle or a key hide listed as a "small" can be misleading as well and searching for one can be a "very different experience" from finding a container that actually meets the true definition of "small".

 

Size listings are ranges. I don't think there is enough variance in size between a bison and a nano to warrant an entirely separate category...just like there is not enough variance in size between different ammo cans to warrant a split in the "regular" category.

Starbucks has a 'Venti', 'Grande', 'Tall' and 'Short' size when you go in to buy a coffee. I see no need for a 'Piccolo' size for the single-sippers out there.

Link to post

@Grouchy

In our area of the country (Front Range of Colorado), we see 'nano' caches (mag 'blinkies', as they're sometimes called, or little 2ml sample tubes, etc.) referenced by COs as "Other" all the time. For some here, it has become the de facto method of describing them to give the finder an idea of what they're seeking.

 

And my point was that is incorrect.

Actually, ONE of your points was that "I don't think I ever see nanos listed as "other"." And at least in this area of the country, THAT is incorrect.
Link to post

In our area of the country (Front Range of Colorado), we see 'nano' caches (mag 'blinkies', as they're sometimes called, or little 2ml sample tubes, etc.) referenced by COs as "Other" all the time. For some here, it has become the de facto method of describing them to give the finder an idea of what they're seeking.

While I'm familiar with that practice, I prefer the standard in my local community of using "other" because the size will be unexpected. The nano size is rarely unexpected.

Here, if an 'unexpected' size is desired, it's just left as undefined.
Link to post

Here, if an 'unexpected' size is desired, it's just left as undefined.

I'm sure local standard vary, but "undefined" in widely recognized in my area as a newbie not realizing they were supposed to set the size. "Other" is an explicit way to say, "I'm not going to tell you what the size is."

Link to post

@Grouchy

In our area of the country (Front Range of Colorado), we see 'nano' caches (mag 'blinkies', as they're sometimes called, or little 2ml sample tubes, etc.) referenced by COs as "Other" all the time. For some here, it has become the de facto method of describing them to give the finder an idea of what they're seeking.

 

And my point was that is incorrect.

Actually, ONE of your points was that "I don't think I ever see nanos listed as "other"." And at least in this area of the country, THAT is incorrect.

 

No, my point was valid since I don't see that and Groundspeak and the geocaching site do not recognize nanos as "other", but instead classify those as micros. People can list them as "regulars" or "large" too, but that would also be incorrect.

Link to post

What Groundspeak recognizes wasn't the point. You said you'd never seen a nano listed as "Other", and we're letting you know that your experience doesn't cover areas where that IS the case. Nanos ARE being listed as "Other" here, whether you believe that is appropriate or not. Anyone who plans to cache in the Front Range area can expect to run across this frequently. I'm not claiming it's good or bad, but that it IS different from your experience.

Link to post

What Groundspeak recognizes wasn't the point. You said you'd never seen a nano listed as "Other", and we're letting you know that your experience doesn't cover areas where that IS the case. Nanos ARE being listed as "Other" here, whether you believe that is appropriate or not. Anyone who plans to cache in the Front Range area can expect to run across this frequently. I'm not claiming it's good or bad, but that it IS different from your experience.

 

My only real point...and the only real argument worth having...is that listing it as "other" is incorrect.

 

People CAN and WILL do what they please...doesn't make it correct.

Link to post

Finding a pill bottle or a key hide listed as a "small" can be misleading as well and searching for one can be a "very different experience" from finding a container that actually meets the true definition of "small".

The difference between a pill bottle or key holder and a small tupperware is not as fundamentally different as between a film can and a nano. I'm talking about the log signing part of the experience, not the enormously wide variety of potential hide styles for whatever the container may be. There is no equalizing the log signing experience between what is generally considered a 'nano' in the micro category.

 

Size listings are ranges. I don't think there is enough variance in size between a bison and a nano to warrant an entirely separate category...

Even a bison - unless the CO decides to put a nano log in the bison cap.

 

Of course, this issue mostly rises to the top in cold winter months when it's a furious pain to many to get those nano logs out.

 

And I should add a disclaimer - I love nanos. I'm a devil's advocate at this point, as I can understand why people feel they warrant their own category. I personally don't care either way. List nanos as micros or other, or bring in a nano category - whatever. I'll still find'em =P

Link to post

What Groundspeak recognizes wasn't the point. You said you'd never seen a nano listed as "Other", and we're letting you know that your experience doesn't cover areas where that IS the case. Nanos ARE being listed as "Other" here, whether you believe that is appropriate or not. Anyone who plans to cache in the Front Range area can expect to run across this frequently. I'm not claiming it's good or bad, but that it IS different from your experience.

My only real point...and the only real argument worth having...is that listing it as "other" is incorrect.

 

People CAN and WILL do what they please...doesn't make it correct.

Listing it as "Other" is not incorrect. It's not what you'd do, and it looks like it's not what you prefer.

If it were incorrect, it would be a rule, and it would be corrected or denied.

COs have the right to choose whatever category they feel is appropriate. If someone complains, the situation is judged and decided upon on a case by case basis.

So no, it's not incorrect for a CO to list a nano as an Other. You just don't like it.

Link to post

What Groundspeak recognizes wasn't the point. You said you'd never seen a nano listed as "Other", and we're letting you know that your experience doesn't cover areas where that IS the case. Nanos ARE being listed as "Other" here, whether you believe that is appropriate or not. Anyone who plans to cache in the Front Range area can expect to run across this frequently. I'm not claiming it's good or bad, but that it IS different from your experience.

My only real point...and the only real argument worth having...is that listing it as "other" is incorrect.

 

People CAN and WILL do what they please...doesn't make it correct.

Listing it as "Other" is not incorrect. It's not what you'd do, and it looks like it's not what you prefer.

If it were incorrect, it would be a rule, and it would be corrected or denied.

COs have the right to choose whatever category they feel is appropriate. If someone complains, the situation is judged and decided upon on a case by case basis.

So no, it's not incorrect for a CO to list a nano as an Other. You just don't like it.

 

Then it's not incorrect to list 'Little Free Library' cache as other instead of large? And it's not incorrect to list an 50 cal ammo can as small? I mean, if we're listing sizes by volume, and the volumes are clearly defined, then what's not incorrect about listing a nano as a micro? It's less than 100 ml, no?

 

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.

 

Seems to me a nano CLEARLY fits into the micro category, therefore it's not an "other". I really don't know why there's even any debate about it. It's not a judgement call or an interpretation. There's a definition. But if you claim there IS an opening for interpretation...then perhaps we ought to start interpreting what a "hole in the ground" means now...?

Edited by J Grouchy
Link to post
I really don't know why there's even any debate about it. It's not a judgement call or an interpretation. There's a definition. But if you claim there IS an opening for interpretation...then perhaps we ought to start interpreting what a "hole in the ground" means now...?

Once again... The CO is allowed to list caches as whatever size they wish - it's their judgement call. If there's enough concern from visitors, a reviewer could be asked to look at it and make a judgement themselves as to whether there's an issue with the listing. Regardless of the strawman, a nano could well be listed as an Other, legitimately, with good reason. Why so grouchy? :P

Edited by thebruce0
Link to post
I really don't know why there's even any debate about it. It's not a judgement call or an interpretation. There's a definition. But if you claim there IS an opening for interpretation...then perhaps we ought to start interpreting what a "hole in the ground" means now...?

Once again... The CO is allowed to list caches as whatever size they wish - it's their judgement call. If there's enough concern from visitors, a reviewer could be asked to look at it and make a judgement themselves as to whether there's an issue with the listing. Regardless of the strawman, a nano could well be listed as an Other, legitimately, with good reason. Why so grouchy? :P

 

Like I said...people can list a cache however they want, but it doesn't make it "correct". You seem to think I'm telling people they "have to" list a nano a certain way, but that's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying a nano, by definition, is a micro...not 'other'. So basically if the only reason people list it as "other" is because there is no "nano" size category, that is incorrect, because the micro category encompasses nanos. Is it really that difficult to understand?

 

Maybe we need to device a 21 point sizing chart...nanos, micros, micro XL, smallish micros, small, bigger smalls, little regulars, bigger regulars, regular regulars, biggish regulars, jumbo regulars, kinda-largish, big-'uns, biggie bigs, large, extra large, super big, jumbo, massive, monster huge and super-duper-monster biggies. Then we can make everyone happy...

 

But probably not...because then there will be the faction that decides there needs to be a 'pico' size category..

Link to post

Like I said...people can list a cache however they want, but it doesn't make it "correct". You seem to think I'm telling people they "have to" list a nano a certain way, but that's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying a nano, by definition, is a micro...not 'other'. So basically if the only reason people list it as "other" is because there is no "nano" size category, that is incorrect, because the micro category encompasses nanos. Is it really that difficult to understand?

No. When you say it's not "correct", you are saying it is "incorrect", and therefore wrong. It is not wrong, since COs are allowed to list nanos as Other. So your point is moot.

Link to post

other: See the cache description for information. Unusual geocache containers that just don't fit into other categories.

Seems to me a nano CLEARLY fits into the micro category, therefore it's not an "other". I really don't know why there's even any debate about it. It's not a judgement call or an interpretation.

Some people feel that the nano size is unusual, and therefore clearly fits into that category better.

 

Me, I just say the use of "other" to mean "nano" is a regional standard not covered by the guidelines. And as a standard, however regional, one could claim that it is correct to follow it in that region.

 

Personally, I think it's more a dying idea from when nanos really were unusual. Now they're common. In my area, the practice of marking nanos as "other" has died out, and I'm guessing that will tend to happen everywhere else over time without a crusade to have the practice officially declared incorrect.

Link to post

Like I said...people can list a cache however they want, but it doesn't make it "correct". You seem to think I'm telling people they "have to" list a nano a certain way, but that's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying a nano, by definition, is a micro...not 'other'. So basically if the only reason people list it as "other" is because there is no "nano" size category, that is incorrect, because the micro category encompasses nanos. Is it really that difficult to understand?

No. When you say it's not "correct", you are saying it is "incorrect", and therefore wrong. It is not wrong, since COs are allowed to list nanos as Other. So your point is moot.

 

Incorrect ≠ Not allowed

 

People can log Found on a cache they didn't actually find. People can mark the terrain on a mountain peak at a 1.5 T-rating. Those are both incorrect, but clearly they both fall under the heading of "don't tell me how to play".

Link to post

People can log Found on a cache they didn't actually find. People can mark the terrain on a mountain peak at a 1.5 T-rating. Those are both incorrect, but clearly they both fall under the heading of "don't tell me how to play".

You see how your definition of "incorrect" needs context. What you're really saying is they are not accurate to what the label implies.

If the person's signature is in the logbook of a cache they didn't "find", it's still a valid find log. It's not debateable. It's valid. It's good.

If the CO of a cache on a mountain peak deems that a 1.5 terrain is valid for that location and can defend the decision, then it's a valid T. It's not debateable. It's valid. It's good.

Regardless of your preference or understanding of what the labels imply.

So, as I said, when you say it's "incorrect", what you're saying is that you dislike, and disagree with that label or category usage. On that point alone, we agree.

 

The only standard for "incorrect" and "wrong" is what Groundspeak rules as such.

Link to post

The only standard for "incorrect" and "wrong" is what Groundspeak rules as such.

 

Semantics. Groundspeak provides a definition for the categories they list. Nanos are defined expressly as micros. "Others" are defined as cache containers that do not fit within any other category. CO's are free to ignore the definition that Groundspeak provides, just as they can ignore other types of definitions. But if the definition is "correctly" used then then nanos are micros rather than "other."

 

That "other" is commonly used for nanos may provide an argument that they should be defined differently, under their own category. I don't have a strong opinion about that one way or the other. I have never had a problem with the current definitions.

Edited by geodarts
Link to post

That "other" is commonly used for nanos may provide an argument that they should be defined differently, under their own category. I don't have a strong opinion about that one way or the other. I have never had a problem with the current definitions.

Nor I

 

Groundspeak provides a definition for the categories they list. Nanos are defined expressly as micros. "Others" are defined as cache containers that do not fit within any other category. CO's are free to ignore the definition that Groundspeak provides, just as they can ignore other types of definitions. But if the definition is "correctly" used then then nanos are micros rather than "other."

That's why I'm saying there are two definitions of "correct" being used here. In the context of preference - that is, allowable but not accurate to the description - I'm fine with that. The other is what is explicitly in line with or contrary to enforceable rules - in which case it's certainly not 'incorrect' for a nano to be listed as an Other, and 'correct' merely means that it is a valid, allowable setting.

 

And yeah, it's semantics if you don't like the fact that I'm drawing this distinction :P

 

So, by mere definition alone: Yes, a nano would be classified as a micro. In which case 'correct' and 'incorrect' apply to whether the label is accurate to the object.

In practice, which is far more applicable to the activity of geocaching: a nano may be classified as a micro OR an Other. In which case 'correct' and 'incorrect' apply to whether the label is a valid, allowable selection, not simply accurate to the description.

 

So once again, my "semantic" argument is that J Grouchy's point is a definition argument alone, wherein he wants that to be applied practically - which is simply not the case. It is not incorrect, in practice, to list a nano as an Other. So telling people they are wrong to do so (which afaicr he didn't explicitly do, but was implying it) is incorrect.

 

:drama:

Link to post

That "other" is commonly used for nanos may provide an argument that they should be defined differently, under their own category. I don't have a strong opinion about that one way or the other. I have never had a problem with the current definitions.

Nor I

 

Groundspeak provides a definition for the categories they list. Nanos are defined expressly as micros. "Others" are defined as cache containers that do not fit within any other category. CO's are free to ignore the definition that Groundspeak provides, just as they can ignore other types of definitions. But if the definition is "correctly" used then then nanos are micros rather than "other."

That's why I'm saying there are two definitions of "correct" being used here. In the context of preference - that is, allowable but not accurate to the description - I'm fine with that. The other is what is explicitly in line with or contrary to enforceable rules - in which case it's certainly not 'incorrect' for a nano to be listed as an Other, and 'correct' merely means that it is a valid, allowable setting.

 

And yeah, it's semantics if you don't like the fact that I'm drawing this distinction :P

 

So, by mere definition alone: Yes, a nano would be classified as a micro. In which case 'correct' and 'incorrect' apply to whether the label is accurate to the object.

In practice, which is far more applicable to the activity of geocaching: a nano may be classified as a micro OR an Other. In which case 'correct' and 'incorrect' apply to whether the label is a valid, allowable selection, not simply accurate to the description.

 

So once again, my "semantic" argument is that J Grouchy's point is a definition argument alone, wherein he wants that to be applied practically - which is simply not the case. It is not incorrect, in practice, to list a nano as an Other. So telling people they are wrong to do so (which afaicr he didn't explicitly do, but was implying it) is incorrect.

 

:drama:

 

ONCE AGAIN: Incorrect ≠ Not allowed

 

People are wrong for doing a lot of things the way they do in this game, but it doesn't mean I'm saying they can't. Like geodarts (and I) said, GS provides a clear definition...explicitly stating that nanos fall under the 'micro' category. Yes, they actually say it.

 

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.

 

So yes, marking it 'other' IS incorrect if we are to go by GS standards and definitions. I think you are taking what I'm saying the wrong way. If someone were to ask me how they should classify a nano cache they hid, I would point them to the definitions and say "that's a micro". I wouldn't say, "meh...whatever...I dunno...call it other because there is no 'nano' category".

 

Why do you feel you have to debate everything to death, bruce?

Link to post
Why do you feel you have to debate everything to death, bruce?

umm, ditto?

 

ONCE AGAIN: Incorrect ≠ Not allowed

I'm not disagreeing. Read my last comment as to why. Because it seems you are missing what I am saying.

 

People are wrong for doing a lot of things the way they do in this game, but it doesn't mean I'm saying they can't. Like geodarts (and I) said, GS provides a clear definition...explicitly stating that nanos fall under the 'micro' category. Yes, they actually say it.

Yep, they sure do. But they do not enforce it. Therefore a CO is not wrong for listing a nano as an Other if they can defend the decision, even though the nano can be classified as a Micro by definition.

 

So yes, marking it 'other' IS incorrect if we are to go by GS standards and definitions.

By definition alone. In practice, there are many exceptions to guidelines beyond basic definitions that do not make it incorrect to do so.

 

If someone were to ask me how they should classify a nano cache they hid, I would point them to the definitions and say "that's a micro". I wouldn't say, "meh...whatever...I dunno...call it other because there is no 'nano' category".

So would I! I consider a nano as a micro as well, dude. But that is not my point.

 

One last time: A CO who decides to list a nano as an Other is not wrong in doing so, if Groundspeak considers their reasoning valid.

 

Here's our summary:

You: It is incorrect to classify a nano as a micro, because of the definitions.

What you mean: A nano falls under the definition of a micro, therefore it's incorrect to say a nano is anything but a micro.

Me: It is not incorrect to list a nano as an Other, even though the definition of a micro includes the nano sized container.

 

Do you see where we agree? Do you see the disconnect? Do you see what issue I'm focusing on?

We agree: A nano is a micro by definition.

We agree: A nano is allowed to be listed as an Other.

We disagree: It is incorrect to list a nano as an Other.

Why? Because I'm distinguishing the definition from the practical application.

 

That is all I am saying. That's it. Keep debating if you want, though you risk calling the kettle black. :ph34r:

Edited by thebruce0
Link to post

@Grouchy (apt, I must say)

 

Let's turn this on its head for a moment. Where DO you see the use of 'other' being appropriate? A couple come to mind, but I'm curious to hear your take on it. Perhaps we can narrow down your understanding of a (heavens) CORRECT use for that size category.

Link to post
  • 2 weeks later...

Here's our summary:

You: It is incorrect to classify a nano as a micro, because of the definitions.

What you mean: A nano falls under the definition of a micro, therefore it's incorrect to say a nano is anything but a micro.

Me: It is not incorrect to list a nano as an Other, even though the definition of a micro includes the nano sized container.

 

Do you see where we agree? Do you see the disconnect? Do you see what issue I'm focusing on?

We agree: A nano is a micro by definition.

We agree: A nano is allowed to be listed as an Other.

We disagree: It is incorrect to list a nano as an Other.

Why? Because I'm distinguishing the definition from the practical application.

 

 

Where does "pratical application" even come into it? Seriously...all you NEED is the definition. You have a container. It is a fixed size and volume. The definitions tell you which volumes fit into which category.

 

There is no debating about ammo cans and the fact that they fall generally into the "regular" category (though of course there are the larger ones and the cute little replicas that fall under "micro"...but I'm talking about 99% of the ammo cans out there). You wouldn't really make the argument that it's appropriate to label an ammo can as "other" because the definitions clearly put it into the "regular" category. Unless you somehow ARE trying to make that argument...but I would then respond that it's generally accepted that ammo cans are "regular" and almost nobody would argue the case for "other".

 

@Grouchy (apt, I must say)

 

Let's turn this on its head for a moment. Where DO you see the use of 'other' being appropriate? A couple come to mind, but I'm curious to hear your take on it. Perhaps we can narrow down your understanding of a (heavens) CORRECT use for that size category.

 

Spare me the tired and overused "Grouchy" remarks. Disagreeing doesn't equate to being grouchy.

 

As for when "other" might be appropriate, this is the first thing that comes to mind:

 

photo-by-lady-nomad.jpg

 

Also, the "fake library book", which is just an empty journal that people write their logs in would also be an "other" for me.

Link to post

There is no debating about ammo cans and the fact that they fall generally into the "regular" category (though of course there are the larger ones and the cute little replicas that fall under "micro"...but I'm talking about 99% of the ammo cans out there). You wouldn't really make the argument that it's appropriate to label an ammo can as "other" because the definitions clearly put it into the "regular" category. Unless you somehow ARE trying to make that argument...but I would then respond that it's generally accepted that ammo cans are "regular" and almost nobody would argue the case for "other".

Thank you for supporting my point. It's not all or nothing. Yes, a standard ammo can could be listed as an "other", and it would be up to the CO to defend the reason as to why. Or even not. It's their call. A reviewer won't disallow a cache to be listed as an Other if it's brought to their attention that it's a standard sized ammo can. The exact same argument can be made for nanos. For typical micro sized containers. Regular. Anything. Any "sized" container can be listed - is allowed to be listed - as an Other. Do you deny this?

I know you think it's "wrong", but it is allowed; it is not against the rules.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to post

@Grouchy (apt, I must say)

 

Let's turn this on its head for a moment. Where DO you see the use of 'other' being appropriate? A couple come to mind, but I'm curious to hear your take on it. Perhaps we can narrow down your understanding of a (heavens) CORRECT use for that size category.

 

I don't know if this has changed or not....it used to be micro, small, regular, large, other and unknown. Other was for containerless "caches" - virtuals, events, earthcaches. Unknown was for when the cache owner didn't want to disclose the size to make the hide trickier. This often applied to a micro in a hollowed-out log or branch.

Link to post

Good point, that should probably be distinguished going forward (and I agree with the intentions of those labels).

 

Are there any requirements reviewers look for when reviewing a cache marked Other or Unknown? Or do they treat them effectively the same (fairly loosely)? I see both types used, regularly, on physical containers of all types... =/

Link to post
  • 2 weeks later...

A magnetic Nano on the back of a roadsign is a 'Micro'.

A holed drilled in the top of a Pine cone, and the same magentic Nano placed into the hole, then hung on a tree is an 'Other'.

 

Same container, different context.

 

That's how I start my searching.

Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...