Cache size designation

[+justintim1999]

The "cache container" size seems pretty straight forward but what if the container is hidden inside another object? For example lets say you hide a micro container inside a 10" X 10" X 12" birdhouse that was designed specifically for the cache container. Do you still list the cache as a micro?

[+AustinMN]

My inderstanding is the cache size is based on the volume inside the container, so a micro hidden inside a train car is still a micro.

[+JL_HSTRE]

I prefer "micro in a host" caches listed as size Other, but most folks list them as Micro.

[+L0ne.R]

Choose ' Other'. Most folks know that other almost always means micro/nano and it also indicates that it may be in something (a disguise).

If you hide a bison tube in a hollow log it's a micro. If you cut that log in two, hollow a spot for the tube it's still a micro. Whether you put it in an already hollow log or you cut and hollow the log the cache containing the log is a micro. But if Micro doesn't sit well with you then choose other.

[+niraD]

When I find the larger object, will it be obvious that I have found the cache?

 

For most of the "micro in a host" caches I've found, it wasn't obvious from handling the "host" that I had found the cache. Finding the "host" didn't help; I had to spot the micro/nano size container attached to or embedded in the "host". IMHO, those are clearly micro size caches.

 

A few times, it was clear that I had found the cache once I had found the "host". I might still need to figure out how to access the micro/nano size container with the log, but I knew I had found the cache when I had found the "host". And a few times, the container was something odd that had a very small storage capacity, even though the object itself was rather large. In these cases, listing it as "other" can make sense, perhaps with a comment in the description that it is a log-only cache (or otherwise indicating that the container can't hold much), but that the object you're looking for is larger.

[+CanadianRockies]

I use the "size" descriptor to indicate the size of the container, not the size of a host. More specifically, I use size to describe the types of tradeables that my caches can contain. By doing so, geocachers who are interested in tradeables can use the size as a filter in their PQs.

 

For example, I have a cache that has a large-sized outer container. After solving a field puzzle, you get access to a regular-sized container that also is a field puzzle. Inside that regular-sized container is a small-sized field puzzle/container that holds tradeable items and a final micro-sized field puzzle. The log is inside the micro container, but the small container can hold small tradeable items, so I list the size of this cache as small.

[+Path Pacer]

I find many people don't know the difference between a micro and a small. I don't know how many micros I've found that were big enough for swag.

[+niraD]

I find many people don't know the difference between a micro and a small. I don't know how many micros I've found that were big enough for swag.

A cache can be smaller than 100ml (and thus, a micro) and still be big enough for trade items. I've found (and left) trade items in 35mm film canisters, and they're a definitive micro container.

[+Path Pacer]

A cache can be smaller than 100ml (and thus, a micro) and still be big enough for trade items. I've found (and left) trade items in 35mm film canisters, and they're a definitive micro container.

No, I'm not talking that nitpicky. I mean real "small" containers, not film canisters or large magnetic keyholders.

[+L0ne.R]

I find many people don't know the difference between a micro and a small. I don't know how many micros I've found that were big enough for swag.

A cache can be smaller than 100ml (and thus, a micro) and still be big enough for trade items. I've found (and left) trade items in 35mm film canisters, and they're a definitive micro container.

 

They can't hold travelbugs and geocoins.

[+niraD]

I find many people don't know the difference between a micro and a small. I don't know how many micros I've found that were big enough for swag.

A cache can be smaller than 100ml (and thus, a micro) and still be big enough for trade items. I've found (and left) trade items in 35mm film canisters, and they're a definitive micro container.

They can't hold travelbugs and geocoins.

FWIW, I've seen geocoins that would fit in a film canister. And I've seen some flat micro-sized containers that could hold most geocoins; they could even hold TB tags, although they probably couldn't hold most of the objects TB tags are attached to.

 

I think volume is a better criterion for cache size than "big enough for swag" or "big enough for trackables".

Edited September 13, 2015 by niraD

[+J Grouchy]

I think any object in which an open space is created should be considered the cache container.

 

Example: A large log that has been hollowed out inside. In that space is a preform. I would count the volume of the hollowed-out portion of the log as the cache container, not the preform. In this instance, the preform basically acts as the protective envelope, similar to a baggie containing a log sheet in an ammo can.

 

Example: A large log with a hole drilled in the side, just big enough to hold the same preform. Micro. The only available volume for the log sheet is that which is inside the preform.

 

Example: A large log with a naturally occurring hollow large enough to contain an ammo can, but a preform is inside. To me, that depends on whether the log was already on-site or brought in by the CO. If the former, only count the size of the preform. If the latter, I would go with my first example and use the volume of the hollow portion of the log.

 

I know not everyone agrees with this way of deciding, but that is how I would categorize it. There are countless other examples that you'll just have to use your own judgment. It helps to think about it from the perspective of someone looking for it. Anyone looking for something labeled as a 'regular' or 'large' will expect there to be room for things inside and will not be expecting a bison tube or a nano.

[+niraD]

Example: A large log with a naturally occurring hollow large enough to contain an ammo can, but a preform is inside. To me, that depends on whether the log was already on-site or brought in by the CO. If the former, only count the size of the preform. If the latter, I would go with my first example and use the volume of the hollow portion of the log.

 

[...] Anyone looking for something labeled as a 'regular' or 'large' will expect there to be room for things inside and will not be expecting a bison tube or a nano.

This is where you lost me. Whether the hollow log was already there, or whether the CO brought it from home, merely finding the log itself (or even finding the regular-size hollow in the log) does me no good. I have to find the micro-size preform inside the hollow log. If such a cache is labeled "regular" (or even "large", if the hollow log is big enough), then I will not be expecting to search for a micro-size preform (or bison tube, or blinker, or film canister, or match safe, or whatever).

[+J Grouchy]

Example: A large log with a naturally occurring hollow large enough to contain an ammo can, but a preform is inside. To me, that depends on whether the log was already on-site or brought in by the CO. If the former, only count the size of the preform. If the latter, I would go with my first example and use the volume of the hollow portion of the log.

 

[...] Anyone looking for something labeled as a 'regular' or 'large' will expect there to be room for things inside and will not be expecting a bison tube or a nano.

This is where you lost me. Whether the hollow log was already there, or whether the CO brought it from home, merely finding the log itself (or even finding the regular-size hollow in the log) does me no good. I have to find the micro-size preform inside the hollow log. If such a cache is labeled "regular" (or even "large", if the hollow log is big enough), then I will not be expecting to search for a micro-size preform (or bison tube, or blinker, or film canister, or match safe, or whatever).

 

Exactly why I wrote this:

 

I know not everyone agrees with this way of deciding, but that is how I would categorize it. There are countless other examples that you'll just have to use your own judgment. It helps to think about it from the perspective of someone looking for it.

 

I was just explaining how I, personally, would categorize it. I'm just of the mind that any object transported to the site becomes part of the container/camouflage. The volume this object holds and is accessible to the cacher - in MOST CASES - governs the size designation.

 

But by your previous example, a preform containing a log sheet, but hidden inside a large, hollow, fake boulder would be a micro. I disagree with that and would argue that the boulder is the true container and the preform is merely the protective barrier for the log sheet.

 

I'm not really trying to say you are wrong...only how I would make a decision on size.

[+The A-Team]

But by your previous example, a preform containing a log sheet, but hidden inside a large, hollow, fake boulder would be a micro. I disagree with that and would argue that the boulder is the true container and the preform is merely the protective barrier for the log sheet.

If you consider the preform to be the "baggie", then that implies that swag/trackables can be left alongside this "baggie" within the larger "container". If the interior of the fake boulder was weatherproof, then I'd be fine with calling the boulder the container. However, if it isn't weatherproof and the only weatherproof object is the preform, then I'd call the preform the "cache container".

 

Basically, I'd consider the largest weatherproof object to be the "cache container" and use that for the size rating.

[+Harry Dolphin]

The size of the container is the size of the container containing the log. If you hide a nano in 'the world', or a forty-foot high cube ocean container, it is still a nano. The size is still 'micro'.

[+The A-Team]

The size of the container is the size of the container containing the log. If you hide a nano in 'the world', or a forty-foot high cube ocean container, it is still a nano. The size is still 'micro'.

What if you put the nano in an ammo can? Would not the nano then be acting as the "baggie" and the cache would be a Regular?

 

Such a situation isn't as far-fetched as it seems. I've found a few caches where the log was rolled up inside a preform acting as the "baggie", and the preform was inside a Regular-sized Lock 'n' Lock along with any swag or trackables. I challenge you to find anyone who would advocate for rating such a cache as a Micro.

 

Edit to clarify

Edited September 14, 2015 by The A-Team

[+Harry Dolphin]

The size of the container is the size of the container containing the log. If you hide a nano in 'the world', or a forty-foot high cube ocean container, it is still a nano. The size is still 'micro'.

What if you put the nano in an ammo can? Would not the nano then be acting as the "baggie" and the cache would be a Regular?

 

Such a situation isn't as far-fetched as it seems. I've found a few caches where the log was rolled up inside a preform acting as the "baggie", and the preform was inside a Regular-sized Lock 'n' Lock along with any swag or trackables. I challenge you to find anyone who would advocate for rating such a cache as a Micro.

 

Yup. That's a micro. The preform or nano is the cache. The ammo can is irrelevant. You have to find the nano/preform to find the cache log/cache.

[+niraD]

The size of the container is the size of the container containing the log. If you hide a nano in 'the world', or a forty-foot high cube ocean container, it is still a nano. The size is still 'micro'.

What if you put the nano in an ammo can? Would not the nano then be acting as the "baggie" and the cache would be a Regular?

 

Such a situation isn't as far-fetched as it seems. I've found a few caches where the log was rolled up inside a preform acting as the "baggie", and the preform was inside a Regular-sized Lock 'n' Lock along with any swag or trackables. I challenge you to find anyone who would advocate for rating such a cache as a Micro.

Yup. That's a micro. The preform or nano is the cache. The ammo can is irrelevant. You have to find the nano/preform to find the cache log/cache.

And if I hide a regular-size ammo can, but put the log inside a small-size plastic bag, then the bag becomes the container and I have to list the cache as a small, rather than as a regular?

 

No wonder some people don't like plastic bags inside caches.

[+niraD]

Basically, I'd consider the largest weatherproof object to be the "cache container" and use that for the size rating.

That works for me. A large-size box/chest/barrel/crate that looks like a hollow log is a large, even if the log is placed inside a smaller container as extra protection from the weather. A large-size hollow log with a smaller container inside is whatever the size of the smaller container is.

[+The A-Team]

The size of the container is the size of the container containing the log. If you hide a nano in 'the world', or a forty-foot high cube ocean container, it is still a nano. The size is still 'micro'.

What if you put the nano in an ammo can? Would not the nano then be acting as the "baggie" and the cache would be a Regular?

 

Such a situation isn't as far-fetched as it seems. I've found a few caches where the log was rolled up inside a preform acting as the "baggie", and the preform was inside a Regular-sized Lock 'n' Lock along with any swag or trackables. I challenge you to find anyone who would advocate for rating such a cache as a Micro.

Yup. That's a micro. The preform or nano is the cache. The ammo can is irrelevant. You have to find the nano/preform to find the cache log/cache.

And if I hide a regular-size ammo can, but put the log inside a small-size plastic bag, then the bag becomes the container and I have to list the cache as a small, rather than as a regular?

That's how I interpret his post too. It seems like he feels cache=log. I wouldn't necessarily consider this to be "wrong", but I suspect he's one of very few people who see things that way.

[+Path Pacer]

I need to know the size of the cache for two reasons: to know what to look for and to know what size swag to bring. Whatever container is designed to hold the swag is the size I would expect to be listed. If the log is in a nano inside the bigger container, but I can still put swag in the bigger container, then the size of the bigger container is what I would use.

[+L0ne.R]

The size of the container is the size of the container containing the log. If you hide a nano in 'the world', or a forty-foot high cube ocean container, it is still a nano. The size is still 'micro'.

What if you put the nano in an ammo can? Would not the nano then be acting as the "baggie" and the cache would be a Regular?

 

Such a situation isn't as far-fetched as it seems. I've found a few caches where the log was rolled up inside a preform acting as the "baggie", and the preform was inside a Regular-sized Lock 'n' Lock along with any swag or trackables. I challenge you to find anyone who would advocate for rating such a cache as a Micro.

 

Edit to clarify

 

This. A-Team has it right.

 

The new common practice in my area is to put the log in a film canister and the film canister in a larger swag size cache. The size of the cache is then based on the container that will hold the swag, not the container holding the logsheet. We don't list an ammo can based on the size of the baggie holding the logsheet.

 

A cache container listed as small should be big enough for a small travelbug (with the dog tag attached) or average size geocoins* or a small signature items. The neck of the container is expected to be big enough to fit a dog tag or average size geocoin*.

 

If you want people to know there's something different about the cache size, use size: Other. Then explain what geocachers should be looking for in the description.

 

https://support.Grou...g=kb.page&id=75

 

 

4.2. Containers Explained

 

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.

 

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

 

This palm size Lock & Lock container can hold a small travelbug and a geocoin or two and is an example of a 100ml container.

 

 

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

 

* A geocoin typically has a diameter of 1.5 inches (38 mm) to 2 inches (51 mm) and a thickness between 0.098 inches (2.5 mm) and 0.16 inches (4 mm). Coins with the size of 1 inch (25 mm) are called microcoins, because they fit into microcaches (e.g. film canister). Source.

[+redsox_mark]

I also agree with the A-Team/L0neR summary.

 

There will be some gray area cases I'm sure, but I see a difference between (just examples) a micro container glued inside a partially hollowed out log, and an ammo can where the CO chose to put the logbook/logsheet in a second layer of packaging (whether that packaging is a plastic bag, a film container, or a small lock and lock box). The ammo can is able to hold swag, trackables etc.

 

I would list the hollowed out log as other, the ammo can as regular.

 

Now... a grey area case. An ammo can filled with 100 micro containers, one of which contains the log. Part of the challenge is to find the log, so in that case you haven't found the cache until you find the right micro. I'd probably list that as other - especially if the micros fill up the ammo can so no room for swag or trackables. Or it could be regular with a field puzzle... the cache is regular (the ammo can), but you need to solve the field puzzle (find the micro) to claim the find.

[+J Grouchy]

a grey area case. An ammo can filled with 100 micro containers, one of which contains the log. Part of the challenge is to find the log, so in that case you haven't found the cache until you find the right micro. I'd probably list that as other - especially if the micros fill up the ammo can so no room for swag or trackables. Or it could be regular with a field puzzle... the cache is regular (the ammo can), but you need to solve the field puzzle (find the micro) to claim the find.

 

As an aside...I can see that easily becoming a case of 99 brand new micro caches springing up all over the area by someone other than the CO of the ammo can puzzle. I would never invest so much time, effort and/or money in such a cache unless I could guarantee it wouldn't get ruined by thieves.

[+eigengott]

I'm writing this as a player.

 

what if the container is hidden inside another object?

 

In this case the simple system fails. The size is useful for two things: /a/ helping in what to search for and /b/ info about possible trade items. Usually both are the same. But in your case (micro in a larger object) it's not: for /a/ the size of the larger object is important, for /b/ the size of the micro.

 

There are two options to handle this:

1. list it as micro and explain in the listing, that the hide is a larger object

2. list it as other and explain both the size of the hide and the cache in the listing

 

Which one you pick doesn't really matter. The import thing is to explain the situation in the cache description.

[+boothie103]

I give in, you've just done my mind in and I will start dreaming cache nightmares involving mirrors facing each other in a double spiral with a bison hanging on a hook reflected how many times in each mirror and I will never be able to touch it even though I know there is log in it! And I know I have to sign it!

[+L0ne.R]

Now... a grey area case. An ammo can filled with 100 micro containers, one of which contains the log. Part of the challenge is to find the log, so in that case you haven't found the cache until you find the right micro. I'd probably list that as other - especially if the micros fill up the ammo can so no room for swag or trackables. Or it could be regular with a field puzzle... the cache is regular (the ammo can), but you need to solve the field puzzle (find the micro) to claim the find.

 

Yes Other. Please Other. As someone who loves the swag aspect of the game, it's soooo disappointing to arrive at an ammo can (or regular/large size cache) then open it up to find it full of film canisters - not that that's not a fun game within a game for lots of people but when the cache is listed as regular I approach it with the anticipation of pawing through swag, and maybe a travelbug to discover, and leaving a signature item. When it's listed as Other I'm mentally prepared for a cache that may not be swag conducive.

[+The A-Team]

...list it as other and explain both the size of the hide and the cache in the listing

This is something that a lot of people seem to forget. Straight from the Help Center (it's also in Geocaching 101):

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

This isn't necessarily saying that you need to describe the cache in detail, but you can at least give cryptic information like "bring your own pen", "can't hold trackables", "not your typical cache container", or "this cache has a twist". That way the finder at least has some idea of what they're getting into.

 

I've also seen people using the Other size as a replacement for the now-defunct "Not Chosen" as a way to simply hide the true size of the container, and this is a misuse of the rating. There are no longer any size ratings that can be used for obscuring the container's size. There's a cacher that moved into my area a couple of years ago that routinely uses Other on caches that are standard containers and easily fit into one of the other size ratings, like Bison tubes and brass nanos. I think they think they're being clever and making their caches more challenging, but it just makes things unnecessarily confusing.

 

If your container neatly fits the criteria for the Large, Regular, Small, or Micro cache size ratings, please rate it as that. Other is reserved for special cases that don't fit neatly into those.

[+justintim1999]

Great information! Thanks to everyone who posted.

 

Here is my dilemma....

 

I have a series of 7 caches. One puzzle and 6 traditionals. To find the puzzle you must first find the 6 traditionals and gather information which will eventually lead you to the puzzle. The series is designed to be somewhat of a mystery so very little information is given on the traditionals. Because of the nature of the series none of the caches were designed to involve swag or trackables. I myself love swag and trackables but they would have taken away from the concept of the cache. All of the logs are hidden in protective containers which are hidden in another object. some of these "other objects" are large enough to accommodate swag and trackables. 6 of the caches are hidden in objects that were created and not part of the natural landscape. I want to be able to list the correct cache size without encouraging cachers to leave swag and trackables. Since all of these caches involve a container within a container I am unsure on the correct way to list the cache size.

[+fuzziebear3]

I would say go with Other, as it doesn't clearly fit into one of the size designations. This way people are not strictly looking for a micro sized or a regular sized. Then on the cache page you could say 'this cache is not appropriate for trackables and swag', which also cryptically lets them know that there is something 'Other' about it.

[+niraD]

All of the logs are hidden in protective containers which are hidden in another object. some of these "other objects" are large enough to accommodate swag and trackables. 6 of the caches are hidden in objects that were created and not part of the natural landscape. I want to be able to list the correct cache size without encouraging cachers to leave swag and trackables. Since all of these caches involve a container within a container I am unsure on the correct way to list the cache size.

When I find the larger "other object", will it be obvious that I have found the cache? Or will I have to spot the smaller "protective container" with the log before I know that I have found the cache?

 

If I know that I've found the cache when I find the larger "other object", then I agree that listing its size as "other" makes sense. What I'm looking for is a larger object. But in all other ways, it's a micro. So neither size completely describes the cache.

 

But if I need to spot the smaller "protective container" to know that I've found the cache, then what I'm looking for is the smaller micro-size container, and in all other ways, it's a micro, so I think listing its size as "micro" makes sense.

[+justintim1999]

All of the logs are hidden in protective containers which are hidden in another object. some of these "other objects" are large enough to accommodate swag and trackables. 6 of the caches are hidden in objects that were created and not part of the natural landscape. I want to be able to list the correct cache size without encouraging cachers to leave swag and trackables. Since all of these caches involve a container within a container I am unsure on the correct way to list the cache size.

When I find the larger "other object", will it be obvious that I have found the cache? Or will I have to spot the smaller "protective container" with the log before I know that I have found the cache?

 

If I know that I've found the cache when I find the larger "other object", then I agree that listing its size as "other" makes sense. What I'm looking for is a larger object. But in all other ways, it's a micro. So neither size completely describes the cache.

 

But if I need to spot the smaller "protective container" to know that I've found the cache, then what I'm looking for is the smaller micro-size container, and in all other ways, it's a micro, so I think listing its size as "micro" makes sense.

 

Makes sense. Looking at it this way These caches should be listed as other. Thanks