Earthcache Size?

[+JL_HSTRE]

It seems to be that Earthcaches should have the same size as Virtual caches: size Virtual! However, I don't think that has ever been an option and in the past I've usually seen Earthcaches as size Not Chosen, which seems like the next best thing.

 

Lately I have been seeing a number of Earthcaches published with size Large?! This seems bad for searches/PQ ("I need to find a big cache to place this oversize TB in..."), bad for those of us who care about stats accuracy, and frankly just it's just plain odd.

 

Is this a cache of a local CO messing around or a change in the default size for Earthcaches? Why is this even an option?

[+Touchstone]

It seems to be that Earthcaches should have the same size as Virtual caches: size Virtual! However, I don't think that has ever been an option and in the past I've usually seen Earthcaches as size Not Chosen, which seems like the next best thing.

 

Lately I have been seeing a number of Earthcaches published with size Large?! This seems bad for searches/PQ ("I need to find a big cache to place this oversize TB in..."), bad for those of us who care about stats accuracy, and frankly just it's just plain odd.

 

Is this a cache of a local CO messing around or a change in the default size for Earthcaches? Why is this even an option?

Going through the normal steps to submit an EC submission, the size option is not available for that cache type. The default on the Forms is "other". CO's must go back in through the Edit link and add that. Perhaps it's an attempt at being *funny*. I believe that the Forms are customized for the cache type, but going through the Edit link after the Listing is created gets you to a generic page that is identical for all cache types. Just a theory.

[+GeoawareGSA1]

Good question!

 

And Touchstone gives a great answer.

 

I'm not sure, but another possibility could be this: I believe there are some EarthCaches that begin their "lives" as a traditional, with a container, and then later were converted to an EarthCache type. Perhaps during the transition, the sizes aren't always updated? This may not at all be the case, just a wild guess that might explain some of them?

 

--Matt

GeoawareHQ

[+JL_HSTRE]

This CO has created 10 Earthcaches. The first 4 are size Other; the last 6 are all Large.

[+narcissa]

Perhaps a sneaky way of helping people out with stats for a challenge.

[+niraD]

I believe there are some EarthCaches that begin their "lives" as a traditional, with a container, and then later were converted to an EarthCache type.

There was never a container for my EarthCache listing, but it did start life as a "test listing" when I was beta-testing something for Groundspeak. Along the way, I changed a lot of the settings/ratings to an assortment of values. But all the EarthCache-related details were added later, using the site's edit function.

[+noncentric]

This CO has created 10 Earthcaches. The first 4 are size Other; the last 6 are all Large.

It looks like the CO did some updating to their caches on 1/13. Now the CO has 13 EC's and only 1 is Other size, the other 12 are Large size. Odd.

 

I just looked through my EC finds. 12 Not Chosen, 8 Other, 2 Large

 

I agree that Virtual might be a better size, but I think it's a grandfathered size option. I think Other is the most appropriate size for EC's.

[+hzoi]

Of all the ECs we've found, they are a mix of either "other" or "not chosen." No larges yet, though I did spot a bunch when I was planning some cross-country routes.

 

Of our 22 owned ECs, all are "other."

[+fbax]

Some analysis on sizes of EarthCaches.

* Zero with size virtual.

* 500 nearby active EarthCaches shows approx 60% "Not chosen" and 40% "Other".

* Worldwide about 200 EarthCaches with all other sizes (Micro, Small, Regular, Large).

* Both "Not Chosen" and "Other" are used for EarthCaches more than 10 years old.

[+albertinereiziger]

I think the correct term would be: not applicable