Geocache Size descriptions

[+Darquely]

Geocaching has come a long way since its origin. You no longer need an expensive GPSR unit, you don't need a wall full of Topo maps, or a big bank account and an off-road vehicle. About the only thing that Hasn't evolved is the way GC cache sizes are described. Nowadays we have Nano's, Micros, Bisons, Altoids, RX's, Peanut butter jars, Tupperware, Butter dishes, Ammo Cans, And 5 Gal Buckets, Etc. I think it is time to redo the GC size descriptions on a scale of 1 to 10. 1 being Nano, and 10 being a great big bucket.

[+T.D.M.22]

The current sizes, being based on volume, are something to actually measure.

 

Your 1-10 system (as it is now) would be based on what the CO thinks. What exactly is a nano vs a micro? What about 11 different size cache containers? How do you rate that on 1-10? A big bucketis a 10. How about a 55 gallon drum? What's a big bucket? 5 gallons? I work in a restaurant, so that s normal to me. You see where it become confusing?

[+Darquely]

Well, you added nothing to the thread. I laid it out from 1 (nano) to 10 (5 gallon bucket). Nano is smaller than a micro, micro is smaller than a Bison. Bison is smaller than a Key Mag, Key mag is smaller than an RX or altoid. all these are smaller than a "small". & Medium should begin with Large enough to put stuff in.

[+Tassie_Boy]

Well, you added nothing to the thread. I laid it out from 1 (nano) to 10 (5 gallon bucket). Nano is smaller than a micro, micro is smaller than a Bison. Bison is smaller than a Key Mag, Key mag is smaller than an RX or altoid. all these are smaller than a "small". & Medium should begin with Large enough to put stuff in.

 

He has a point at the end, you point to a big (assuming you mean 20L) bucket as a 10. There are actually caches in place constructed from 40' shipping containers. Where do they fit?

[+cerberus1]

Other than a nano size, I'd like it to stay as-is thanks.

There are many who don't place 1.5/1.5 hides, and don't want to dumb-down the hobby any further by giving folks an exact description of every known cache container available.

Just with our low find count, we've easily found a couple dozen others that could be added in-between your micro sizes alone.

With medium and large added, it'd make the list ridiculous.

 

- Though it may put a stop to throwdowns, since the throwdowner would have to keep an assortment of containers, instead of justa handful of pre-signed pill bottles.

[+cerberus1]

Nano is smaller than a micro, micro is smaller than a Bison. Bison is smaller than a Key Mag, Key mag is smaller than an RX or altoid. all these are smaller than a "small". & Medium should begin with Large enough to put stuff in.

Curious, what kinda container do you consider a "micro"?

- Where do film cans fit?

 

Just for the heckofit, looked in our micro collection and found four sizes of bisons.

 

Another, also a bison design (mighty mega), is borderline small.

[+T.D.M.22]

See the next post for a simpler explanation of what I'm getting at

 

 

Well, you added nothing to the thread. I laid it out from 1 (nano) to 10 (5 gallon bucket). Nano is smaller than a micro, micro is smaller than a Bison. Bison is smaller than a Key Mag, Key mag is smaller than an RX or altoid. all these are smaller than a "small". & Medium should begin with Large enough to put stuff in.

 

But you just proved my point. Having a general rating is useless. Having a rating where, for example, a size 3 container can fit a TB, log and full size pen, is actually useful, as people have a way to measure what is what. You're now (saying large enough to put stuff-how much of what kind of stuff? A pen, trackables?- in) fixing one issue I pointed out, basing sizes on interior volumes. Which is what's already being done.

 

And then regional, and manufacturer differences. I always thought bison tube are micros. And what we call bison tubes actually do come in different sizes, even the company they're named after -Bison designs- has multiple sized containers. And I've seen key holders both bigger and smaller than an altoids tin.

 

And again what about bigger than a 10?

 

 

Essentially you have 2 problems. To make this a good idea you need specifics. Not a type of container - for even ammo cans can be 4 feet long or more, or they can be 1 foot by 4 inches.- so either interior volume (which is how it's based already. So you'd just be adding more sizes, and that's it) or the containers physical volume (meaning a log with a bison tube would be larger than just that bison tube itself)

Edited April 4, 2016 by T.D.M.22

[+T.D.M.22]

I also don't see why the need is there. The current way, a small is 100ml up to 1L. A regular is 1L to 20L. So how many more do you need? One for every 100ml? So with just these 2 sizes (100ml-2L/2000ml) that's 18 additional sizes

 

We also have an other size. Official description of that is

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

from https://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=75

 

So it could be a seacan. Or perhaps a long weird stick where the stick itself is large, but it has a nano on it, so you'd have to be looking for a micro.

 

And I may be wrong, but extra sizes would mess up current GPS unit that are only set to recognize the current ones).I guess this is what they call a solution looking for a problem.

Edited April 4, 2016 by T.D.M.22

[+Corp Of Discovery]

Here's what I use to illustrate sizes to new cachers:

 

 

The items & sizes from left to right are as follows: BB/nano, marble/micro, golf ball/small, baseball/regular, 16" softball/large. I tell them that if that item can fit in a container then that tells you what size to rate your cache. Yes, there are cases that this may not work with, but by and large (pun intended), it does quite nicely.

[+niraD]

I tell them that if that item can fit in a container then that tells you what size to rate your cache.

I think I'd rather stick with the volume-based definitions in the Help Center article Containers Explained (and elsewhere):

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)

Just because a baseball doesn't fit in a particular 1.5L container doesn't make that container a "small" (for example).

[+narcissa]

What specific problem does the original suggestion solve?

[+Walts Hunting]

So what would happen to all the devices whose software only includes those five. They would immediately be unable to load the GPX file containing that info. Let's not forget the addition of attributes to the file which no device could load and they had to make it a second type of GPX file.

[+J Grouchy]

I tell them that if that item can fit in a container then that tells you what size to rate your cache.

I think I'd rather stick with the volume-based definitions in the Help Center article Containers Explained (and elsewhere):

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)

Just because a baseball doesn't fit in a particular 1.5L container doesn't make that container a "small" (for example).

 

Ditto. No need for a "nano" size. The description for "micro" is more than adequate to cover those tiny things.

[+L0ne.R]

 

I think I'd rather stick with the volume-based definitions in the Help Center article Containers Explained (and elsewhere):

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)

 

 

This works really well, if only Groundspeak would give it some emphasis by posting it anywhere in the guides and help center where size is mentioned.

And also to emphasis it's about volume, how much space is inside the container for holding trackables and swag.

 

Currently the submission form is too vague. Just 4 images, no explanation of volume and where on the scale micro ends and small begins. And no link to the chart explaining size and volume.

 

 

[+The A-Team]

Nano is smaller than a micro...

Agreed.

 

...micro is smaller than a Bison.

You lost me here. You seem to consider "micro" to describe a very specific type of container, but that isn't what it historically has represented. "Micro" has always been a generic term for the entire family of the smallest containers that only hold a logsheet.

 

Bison is smaller than a Key Mag...

Not always. It depends on which style of bison you're talking about and which style of key-hide you're talking about.

 

Key mag is smaller than an RX or altoid.

I'm assuming "RX" is a pill bottle. The typical key-hides I've seen are about the same size (by volume) as some pill bottles (which vary greatly in size) and Altoid tins, if not larger.

 

...all these are smaller than a "small".

I've seen pill bottles that are large enough to qualify as a small. There are even large bison tubes that could be listed as smalls.

 

The point of all this is that there is too much variation in the "typical" types of container for you to neatly define a specific type of container as a particular number on your scale. For example, to determine where a pill bottle of a given size would fit into your scale, you'd have to assign the different sizes of pill bottle to the different classifications. The logical measurement to use for this determination would be its volume, in which case we've come full circle and it would be simpler to just use the current sizing system based on the volume.

 

Personally, I see no need to change the sizing system. The current system works well by using ranges of volume and simple, easy-to-remember guides (e.g. "micro"=only a logsheet, "small"=logsheet and small items, etc.).

[+Darquely]

Nerds get riled up really easy, huh? I found the volume descriptions very helpful actually. and I agree that a better portrayal of cache size by volume would help far more than my proposal. I just hate chasing down a Small only to find that it should have been classified as a micro. I hate micros unless there is something historically or educationally significant about them. The "Joe Was Here" skirt lifters, or the "in memory of my dog" key mags only piss me off, but I hate to filter them, because occasionally some are placed for a reason.

Edited April 5, 2016 by Darquely

[Carnildo]

I tell them that if that item can fit in a container then that tells you what size to rate your cache.

I think I'd rather stick with the volume-based definitions in the Help Center article Containers Explained (and elsewhere):

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)

Just because a baseball doesn't fit in a particular 1.5L container doesn't make that container a "small" (for example).

 

The problem with the current definition is that it doesn't give any indication of the shape. A pencil case may be "small" by volume, but it's the wrong shape to hold anything but the logbook.

[+Corp Of Discovery]

I tell them that if that item can fit in a container then that tells you what size to rate your cache.

I think I'd rather stick with the volume-based definitions in the Help Center article Containers Explained (and elsewhere):

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)

Just because a baseball doesn't fit in a particular 1.5L container doesn't make that container a "small" (for example).

 

As I said- there are cases this may not work with, but more often than not, it does.

[+Corp Of Discovery]

I tell them that if that item can fit in a container then that tells you what size to rate your cache.

I think I'd rather stick with the volume-based definitions in the Help Center article Containers Explained (and elsewhere):

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)

Just because a baseball doesn't fit in a particular 1.5L container doesn't make that container a "small" (for example).

 

Ditto. No need for a "nano" size. The description for "micro" is more than adequate to cover those tiny things.

 

Most cachers I know and have talked to disagree, your results may vary. GC already acknowledges it as a sub type, it should just make it separate altogether. Part of the reasoning is that if you have to look in different areas due to size, it warrants a different size rating. Lets use the dreaded LPS as an example. Not really many places to look for a container, right? Out in the open, attached to the underside of the skirt and under the pole itself. A small L&L, film can or nano could be in the first 2 places but only a nano could, usually, be in the third place. Lets look at all 3 if they had magnets and were attached to the skirt itself. A small L&L would be pretty easy to find just by feeling around. A film can could be found the same way, but may be missed by a cursory search. A nano could be found that way too, but would be much more than likely missed with that same cursory search. Doubt I'll change your mind in any case tho so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[+J Grouchy]

I tell them that if that item can fit in a container then that tells you what size to rate your cache.

I think I'd rather stick with the volume-based definitions in the Help Center article Containers Explained (and elsewhere):

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)

Just because a baseball doesn't fit in a particular 1.5L container doesn't make that container a "small" (for example).

 

Ditto. No need for a "nano" size. The description for "micro" is more than adequate to cover those tiny things.

 

Most cachers I know and have talked to disagree, your results may vary. GC already acknowledges it as a sub type, it should just make it separate altogether. Part of the reasoning is that if you have to look in different areas due to size, it warrants a different size rating. Lets use the dreaded LPS as an example. Not really many places to look for a container, right? Out in the open, attached to the underside of the skirt and under the pole itself. A small L&L, film can or nano could be in the first 2 places but only a nano could, usually, be in the third place. Lets look at all 3 if they had magnets and were attached to the skirt itself. A small L&L would be pretty easy to find just by feeling around. A film can could be found the same way, but may be missed by a cursory search. A nano could be found that way too, but would be much more than likely missed with that same cursory search. Doubt I'll change your mind in any case tho so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

Nonsense. A small bison tube can, more often than not, be hidden in the same place and style as a nano. In fact, I quite often see bison tubes stuck into a sign post or magnetically attached to an electrical box other similar manner where nanos are more commonly hidden. A nano IS a micro and I don't understand why people insist on calling them "other" or wanting a separate category. When I see "micro", I know I'm looking for something that is small and my brain is fully capable of coping with the variation in size that "micro" encompasses.

[+JL_HSTRE]

The main reason to include Nano as a separate size is to let people who don't like them filter them out.

 

I think the Micro-Small-Regular-Large scale is sufficient. I wish Groundspeak gave more size examples on the official site though, especially Micro vs Small. I see lots of big Micros listed incorrectly as Small: Preforms mostly, but also sometimes magkeys and pill bottles. The confusion seems to be that a film can is a typical Micro, not the largest one.

 

A way of thinking about it:

 

Micro = can only hold a logsheet or occasionally very small swag like a couple coins. TBs will not fit.

 

Small = can hold a small notepad and/or moderate swag including nearly all geocoins and small TB.

 

Regular = can hold a small journal/notebook-size logbook that could take more than a decade to fill. Fits nearly all geocoins, TBs, normal swag, and even small books.

 

Large = could hold at least an ammo can, and often a small child.

[+narcissa]

The main reason to include Nano as a separate size is to let people who don't like them filter them out.

 

I think the Micro-Small-Regular-Large scale is sufficient. I wish Groundspeak gave more size examples on the official site though, especially Micro vs Small. I see lots of big Micros listed incorrectly as Small: Preforms mostly, but also sometimes magkeys and pill bottles. The confusion seems to be that a film can is a typical Micro, not the largest one.

 

A way of thinking about it:

 

Micro = can only hold a logsheet or occasionally very small swag like a couple coins. TBs will not fit.

 

Small = can hold a small notepad and/or moderate swag including nearly all geocoins and small TB.

 

Regular = can hold a small journal/notebook-size logbook that could take more than a decade to fill. Fits nearly all geocoins, TBs, normal swag, and even small books.

 

Large = could hold at least an ammo can, and often a small child.

 

Great summary. Totally agree with all points.

[+Corp Of Discovery]

I tell them that if that item can fit in a container then that tells you what size to rate your cache.

I think I'd rather stick with the volume-based definitions in the Help Center article Containers Explained (and elsewhere):

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)

Just because a baseball doesn't fit in a particular 1.5L container doesn't make that container a "small" (for example).

 

Ditto. No need for a "nano" size. The description for "micro" is more than adequate to cover those tiny things.

 

Most cachers I know and have talked to disagree, your results may vary. GC already acknowledges it as a sub type, it should just make it separate altogether. Part of the reasoning is that if you have to look in different areas due to size, it warrants a different size rating. Lets use the dreaded LPS as an example. Not really many places to look for a container, right? Out in the open, attached to the underside of the skirt and under the pole itself. A small L&L, film can or nano could be in the first 2 places but only a nano could, usually, be in the third place. Lets look at all 3 if they had magnets and were attached to the skirt itself. A small L&L would be pretty easy to find just by feeling around. A film can could be found the same way, but may be missed by a cursory search. A nano could be found that way too, but would be much more than likely missed with that same cursory search. Doubt I'll change your mind in any case tho so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

Nonsense. A small bison tube can, more often than not, be hidden in the same place and style as a nano. In fact, I quite often see bison tubes stuck into a sign post or magnetically attached to an electrical box other similar manner where nanos are more commonly hidden. A nano IS a micro and I don't understand why people insist on calling them "other" or wanting a separate category. When I see "micro", I know I'm looking for something that is small and my brain is fully capable of coping with the variation in size that "micro" encompasses.

 

No, it's not nonsense. I compared a small L&L, film can and classic blinky type nano. I never referenced a bison tube... As someone else mentioned there are different sizes of them, some of which could be called a 'small'. Even what may be considered a classic bison tube is closer in size to a classic nano than it is to a film can. I'd actually put them (small bison tubes) in the nano category for just that fact. Many people apparently can't tell what a micro is anymore. It's very common to see smaller pill bottles, MKHs, preforms (not oversized ones), Altoid tins, film cans and the like listed as 'small' when they've all historically (at least as far as I've known) been called 'micros'. If I recall this all started around the time that nanos started coming out and the 'small' size was introduced. This is a problem because a 'small' is supposed to be able to handle TBs and coins. When you go for a place to drop one of those and find a film can, well, that kind of ruins your plans. I would hope that by adding the 'nano' size people would go back to listing those other containers properly. I know I'm tilting at windmills tho...

[+J Grouchy]

I tell them that if that item can fit in a container then that tells you what size to rate your cache.

I think I'd rather stick with the volume-based definitions in the Help Center article Containers Explained (and elsewhere):

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)

Just because a baseball doesn't fit in a particular 1.5L container doesn't make that container a "small" (for example).

 

Ditto. No need for a "nano" size. The description for "micro" is more than adequate to cover those tiny things.

 

Most cachers I know and have talked to disagree, your results may vary. GC already acknowledges it as a sub type, it should just make it separate altogether. Part of the reasoning is that if you have to look in different areas due to size, it warrants a different size rating. Lets use the dreaded LPS as an example. Not really many places to look for a container, right? Out in the open, attached to the underside of the skirt and under the pole itself. A small L&L, film can or nano could be in the first 2 places but only a nano could, usually, be in the third place. Lets look at all 3 if they had magnets and were attached to the skirt itself. A small L&L would be pretty easy to find just by feeling around. A film can could be found the same way, but may be missed by a cursory search. A nano could be found that way too, but would be much more than likely missed with that same cursory search. Doubt I'll change your mind in any case tho so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

Nonsense. A small bison tube can, more often than not, be hidden in the same place and style as a nano. In fact, I quite often see bison tubes stuck into a sign post or magnetically attached to an electrical box other similar manner where nanos are more commonly hidden. A nano IS a micro and I don't understand why people insist on calling them "other" or wanting a separate category. When I see "micro", I know I'm looking for something that is small and my brain is fully capable of coping with the variation in size that "micro" encompasses.

 

No, it's not nonsense. I compared a small L&L, film can and classic blinky type nano. I never referenced a bison tube... As someone else mentioned there are different sizes of them, some of which could be called a 'small'. Even what may be considered a classic bison tube is closer in size to a classic nano than it is to a film can. I'd actually put them (small bison tubes) in the nano category for just that fact. Many people apparently can't tell what a micro is anymore. It's very common to see smaller pill bottles, MKHs, preforms (not oversized ones), Altoid tins, film cans and the like listed as 'small' when they've all historically (at least as far as I've known) been called 'micros'. If I recall this all started around the time that nanos started coming out and the 'small' size was introduced. This is a problem because a 'small' is supposed to be able to handle TBs and coins. When you go for a place to drop one of those and find a film can, well, that kind of ruins your plans. I would hope that by adding the 'nano' size people would go back to listing those other containers properly. I know I'm tilting at windmills tho...

 

It IS nonsense. If we are talking "nanos" vs "micros"...well, micros include standard bison tubes. Where is the cut-off point? At what point do you draw the line between nano and micro? Are you now saying a standard bison tube should be a nano because it can only contain a small rolled log sheet?

 

Again, my brain is fully capable of understanding that "micro" can mean anything from a key hide to a film can to a bison tube to a little nano container and I search accordingly. Do you really require an entirely different mindset to search for a nano vs a film canister? Honestly, I think the case could even be made that there is one too many categories...that perhaps we only need small, medium and large. If one needs so much assistance that a nano container requires special mental training, then that sort of thing is best left to the description and the hint on the cache page.

[+TerraViators]

Here's what I use to illustrate sizes to new cachers:

 

 

I tell them that if that item can fit in a container then that tells you what size to rate your cache.

 

That's an excellent illustration.

[+The A-Team]

I just hate chasing down a Small only to find that it should have been classified as a micro.

That problem can generally be attributed to the phenomenon of "size creep". That is, as more and more micros are hidden and found, the caches that are larger than micros feel larger than they really are. For example, if all someone finds are nanos and standard bison tubes, a key-hide with many times more volume will feel like it should be the next size up, when in reality it's likely still a micro. The suggestions regarding giving more clear guidance on the cache submission page would go a long way in combatting size creep.

 

...and just as a general reminder to everyone, an ammo can (.30-cal or .50-cal - the typical ones) is a Regular. In fact, it's the poster-child or textbook example of a Regular. With size creep, I'm starting to see people treating them as Large, but they aren't.

[+cerberus1]

That problem can generally be attributed to the phenomenon of "size creep". That is, as more and more micros are hidden and found, the caches that are larger than micros feel larger than they really are. For example, if all someone finds are nanos and standard bison tubes, a key-hide with many times more volume will feel like it should be the next size up, when in reality it's likely still a micro.

+1

Most in my area learn with their apps and friends, nearly all roadside pill bottles.

Few of these new folks can find (or even know about) film cans today, but Grandma has all the pill bottles they'll need.

- At least the majority have most of the label off...

"Regular" can be a small lock n lock now.

 

Some aren't fond of me around here (I place NM...), but I'll still mention it sometimes in logs, "Has the cache been swapped? Looking for a small, found a micro.", but not one has ever asked what I'm talking about.

Can't help 'em if they don't wanna be bothered with you....

 

Last Summer I found my second plastic Zippo lighter holder (not even the box), and it was a small.

It's only a fraction bigger than the lighter.

It later got swapped for a tiny tea bag tin that was about the same in size (and water repellency ).

[+Wet Pancake Touring Club]

...and just as a general reminder to everyone, an ammo can (.30-cal or .50-cal - the typical ones) is a Regular. In fact, it's the poster-child or textbook example of a Regular. With size creep, I'm starting to see people treating them as Large, but they aren't.

Here's the only ammo can that I am aware off that is correctly marked Large. (I wonder what calibre ammo it held?)

[+The A-Team]

...and just as a general reminder to everyone, an ammo can (.30-cal or .50-cal - the typical ones) is a Regular. In fact, it's the poster-child or textbook example of a Regular. With size creep, I'm starting to see people treating them as Large, but they aren't.

Here's the only ammo can that I am aware off that is correctly marked Large. (I wonder what calibre ammo it held?)

Yep, that's definitely a Large. I've found a couple of similar custom giant ammo can replicas.

I've also found a couple that were in 120mm mortar ammo cans like this (Mission 9 being one of them), which are also unequivocally Large:

[+niraD]

If we are talking "nanos" vs "micros"...well, micros include standard bison tubes. Where is the cut-off point? At what point do you draw the line between nano and micro? Are you now saying a standard bison tube should be a nano because it can only contain a small rolled log sheet?

Well, the definition of "nano" from the message you quoted is "less than 10ml and can only hold a small logsheet." That small Bison tube looks like it is less than 10ml. Actually, a rough calculation indicates that it is less than 5ml. And the ones I've found can hold only a small logsheet.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

Other than a nano size, I'd like it to stay as-is thanks.

There are many who don't place 1.5/1.5 hides, and don't want to dumb-down the hobby any further by giving folks an exact description of every known cache container available.

Just with our low find count, we've easily found a couple dozen others that could be added in-between your micro sizes alone.

With medium and large added, it'd make the list ridiculous.

 

- Though it may put a stop to throwdowns, since the throwdowner would have to keep an assortment of containers, instead of justa handful of pre-signed pill bottles.

 

I agree.....just add the NANO size.

[+wimseyguy]

Geocaching has come a long way since its origin. You no longer need an expensive GPSR unit, you don't need a wall full of Topo maps, or a big bank account and an off-road vehicle. About the only thing that Hasn't evolved is the way GC cache sizes are described. Nowadays we have Nano's, Micros, Bisons, Altoids, RX's, Peanut butter jars, Tupperware, Butter dishes, Ammo Cans, And 5 Gal Buckets, Etc. I think it is time to redo the GC size descriptions on a scale of 1 to 10. 1 being Nano, and 10 being a great big bucket.

 

I wasn't here for the very beginning, but have been at it since 2002. I only spent ~$100 for my first yellow etrex at walmart, never had a wall full of Topo maps nor a big bank account, and my Nissan Murano has 4WD but only 22" of clearance which I've tested a few times.

 

I think the size descriptions we have are just fine. And the way they are described has been improved since the old days. I would like to see nano added as smaller than micro, but it's usually pretty obvious when you get to GZ that you're looking for one of them.

 

I concur with whomever pointed out that we're experiencing size creep as more smaller containers are placed. I just did a maintenance run on one of my older caches and replaced a 30mm ammo can with a smaller container as the location cannot support the ammo can any longer but I liked the spot so I put something there that will fit in better.

Edited April 7, 2016 by wimseyguy

[+geocat_]

Geocaching has come a long way since its origin. You no longer need an expensive GPSR unit, you don't need a wall full of Topo maps, or a big bank account and an off-road vehicle. About the only thing that Hasn't evolved is the way GC cache sizes are described. Nowadays we have Nano's, Micros, Bisons, Altoids, RX's, Peanut butter jars, Tupperware, Butter dishes, Ammo Cans, And 5 Gal Buckets, Etc. I think it is time to redo the GC size descriptions on a scale of 1 to 10. 1 being Nano, and 10 being a great big bucket.

 

Oh my! I got a headache just reading this!

Edited April 9, 2016 by geocat_

[+Michaelcycle]

I will leave the micro/nano argument for others but I would be very happy if GS would get rid of the "size not chosen" option. If your evil hide is truly evil you should not have to hide behind verbal obfuscation.

[+cerberus1]

I will leave the micro/nano argument for others but I would be very happy if GS would get rid of the "size not chosen" option. If your evil hide is truly evil you should not have to hide behind verbal obfuscation.

+1

 

I'd also like the names of the sizes identical between the site and apps.

[+niraD]

I'd also like the names of the sizes identical between the site and apps.

+1

 

It's confusing to have the terminology change in different contexts. We already have enough problems with mystery/puzzle/unknown caches.

[+BCandMsKitty]

I will leave the micro/nano argument for others but I would be very happy if GS would get rid of the "size not chosen" option. If your evil hide is truly evil you should not have to hide behind verbal obfuscation.

 

This^

 

My handling of the size dilemma is to enter a description, in bold, of the container in the "Short Description" field, such as

A bit smaller than a film canister

or

A bison tube hidden in something much larger

or

You're looking for a small Lock N Lock

or

A camoed film canister

And so on.

 

Most of our hides are meant to be found, so I don't begrudge the extra hint given by describing the container somewhat.

If the hide is meant to be hard, and I rate the difficulty accordingly, then I wouldn't give the extra info.

[+The A-Team]

I will leave the micro/nano argument for others but I would be very happy if GS would get rid of the "size not chosen" option. If your evil hide is truly evil you should not have to hide behind verbal obfuscation.

The "Not chosen" size rating became grandfathered on May 13, 2014 when they rolled out the new cache submission form. Any caches with that rating were hidden before that date, and caches can no longer be created or edited to use that "size".

[+J Grouchy]

I will leave the micro/nano argument for others but I would be very happy if GS would get rid of the "size not chosen" option. If your evil hide is truly evil you should not have to hide behind verbal obfuscation.

The "Not chosen" size rating became grandfathered on May 13, 2014 when they rolled out the new cache submission form. Any caches with that rating were hidden before that date, and caches can no longer be created or edited to use that "size".

 

Perhaps they meant the category "Other". To me, the only valid use for that particular category is something like a large sheet magnet with a paper log adhered to the back side...something that doesn't have a true enclosed volume in which to store a log sheet.

[+cerberus1]

I will leave the micro/nano argument for others but I would be very happy if GS would get rid of the "size not chosen" option. If your evil hide is truly evil you should not have to hide behind verbal obfuscation.

The "Not chosen" size rating became grandfathered on May 13, 2014 when they rolled out the new cache submission form. Any caches with that rating were hidden before that date, and caches can no longer be created or edited to use that "size".

 

Perhaps they meant the category "Other". To me, the only valid use for that particular category is something like a large sheet magnet with a paper log adhered to the back side...something that doesn't have a true enclosed volume in which to store a log sheet.

That's how I saw it. With the question mark, "Other" seems the same as "not (or none) chosen" to me.

[+The A-Team]

With the question mark, "Other" seems the same as "not (or none) chosen" to me.

"Not chosen" was the size that you'd use if you didn't want to reveal how big your clever container was. "Other" simply specifies that there's something different about the container and that seekers should read the description for more information.

 

Perhaps they meant the category "Other". To me, the only valid use for that particular category is something like a large sheet magnet with a paper log adhered to the back side...something that doesn't have a true enclosed volume in which to store a log sheet.

Such caches have been deemed invalid for the very reason that they don't actually "contain" anything and are therefore not "containers".

[+jellis]

Here's what I use to illustrate sizes to new cachers:

 

 

The items & sizes from left to right are as follows: BB/nano, marble/micro, golf ball/small, baseball/regular, 16" softball/large. I tell them that if that item can fit in a container then that tells you what size to rate your cache. Yes, there are cases that this may not work with, but by and large (pun intended), it does quite nicely.

Not by size of the outside but what can be fit inside. You say a large and cachers will bring TBs finding the actually volume is a nano. I had that problem (yes I know these aren't really allowed) when I looked for a cache described as a regular. It was a log. But the problem was on one side the wood was scraped to allow cachers to write their name on the outside. I told the CO that this is not a regular but an unknown because I can't place TBs in it.

(added) I also told the CO to add on the cache page NO TBs

Edited April 12, 2016 by jellis

[+J Grouchy]

Perhaps they meant the category "Other". To me, the only valid use for that particular category is something like a large sheet magnet with a paper log adhered to the back side...something that doesn't have a true enclosed volume in which to store a log sheet.

Such caches have been deemed invalid for the very reason that they don't actually "contain" anything and are therefore not "containers".

 

Find me wording in the guidelines that expressly forbids those. Perhaps they do...I'm not challenging your statement. I just don't recall seeing it.

 

I've seen these caches on several occasions and they always tend to get positive responses.

[+fuzziebear3]

Perhaps they meant the category "Other". To me, the only valid use for that particular category is something like a large sheet magnet with a paper log adhered to the back side...something that doesn't have a true enclosed volume in which to store a log sheet.

Such caches have been deemed invalid for the very reason that they don't actually "contain" anything and are therefore not "containers".

 

Find me wording in the guidelines that expressly forbids those. Perhaps they do...I'm not challenging your statement. I just don't recall seeing it.

 

I've seen these caches on several occasions and they always tend to get positive responses.

 

I think it falls under the 'must have a container and a log' logic. A baggie with a log sheet in it is a container and log, and could be attached to the back of a magnet. Simply signing the back of the magnet does not qualify as a container.

[+-CJ-]

It seems to me that the existing scale is rather artificial. As it was mentioned many times, it's hard to say where micro ends and small starts. I've met caches marked as "regular" that looked more like "small". No explanations help much because "can hold a small notepad" uses the same terms like "small". Secondly, the size isn't sufficient to understand the shape and construction (it was also mentioned above). Say, a nano container embedded in a rather thick and long stick; the scale doesn't work for this type I know. Then, if we're talking about what one can put inside: a regular container may have not much space for swag just because the owner decided to put a really big thick notebook inside; so, the box is rather big but it has less space then a smaller box may have. The scale is also area-specific: in the US you use ammo cans, we don't have them available here in Russia so we need to think about something different (but ammo cans are mentioned widely throughout the website).

 

So, the scale isn't precise; it's just for general understanding of what size this or that cache can be (but not necessarily). If extended, it won't be precise either.

 

After all, it's also a part of the game. Looking for something that could be of some particular size (or a bit smaller or larger) is more interesting in my opinion (and lead to more surpise once found) than looking for a 11.5 x 7.5 x 1.5 cm box.

[+The A-Team]

Perhaps they meant the category "Other". To me, the only valid use for that particular category is something like a large sheet magnet with a paper log adhered to the back side...something that doesn't have a true enclosed volume in which to store a log sheet.

Such caches have been deemed invalid for the very reason that they don't actually "contain" anything and are therefore not "containers".

Find me wording in the guidelines that expressly forbids those. Perhaps they do...I'm not challenging your statement. I just don't recall seeing it.

 

I've seen these caches on several occasions and they always tend to get positive responses.

Unfortunately, this is one of many guideline interpretations that isn't written down anywhere (at least not publically). It has been discussed many times in the forums, though. Here are a couple of posts from Keystone on this topic:

 

Keep in mind the minimum requirements for a container AND a log. Your plastic bag with paper example is fine. A cache where people are asked to sign the back of the magnetic sheet would not knowingly be published.

Bear in mind, though, that the log needs to be enclosed within a container. A slate sheet all by itself, or a magnet all by itself, is not a geocache.

I've found magnetic caches before where the magnet was the container AND the log sheet.

If I found that cache, I'd need to ask for it to be corrected or archived. It doesn't meet the definition of a geocache. Neither would a slate sheet or blackboard.

 

Just because something was published doesn't mean the reviewer had all the details available to them. I'd much rather find out about the issue during the review process instead of having to deal with it after finding the non-compliant cache in the field. I can think of three recent examples of this, all involving magnets.

[curlingfan11]

Geocaching has come a long way since its origin. You no longer need an expensive GPSR unit, you don't need a wall full of Topo maps, or a big bank account and an off-road vehicle. About the only thing that Hasn't evolved is the way GC cache sizes are described. Nowadays we have Nano's, Micros, Bisons, Altoids, RX's, Peanut butter jars, Tupperware, Butter dishes, Ammo Cans, And 5 Gal Buckets, Etc. I think it is time to redo the GC size descriptions on a scale of 1 to 10. 1 being Nano, and 10 being a great big bucket.

 

I don't agree. I like how the descriptions are now. I'm not saying that we shouldn't replace it, but maybe add your scale?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Geocaching has come a long way since its origin. You no longer need an expensive GPSR unit, you don't need a wall full of Topo maps, or a big bank account and an off-road vehicle. About the only thing that Hasn't evolved is the way GC cache sizes are described. Nowadays we have Nano's, Micros, Bisons, Altoids, RX's, Peanut butter jars, Tupperware, Butter dishes, Ammo Cans, And 5 Gal Buckets, Etc. I think it is time to redo the GC size descriptions on a scale of 1 to 10. 1 being Nano, and 10 being a great big bucket.

 

Could you leave Altoids tins off the list, if only to discourage anyone from ever using one for a container. Butter dishes? Really?

 

Has anyone noticed that in the new app that the sizes are listed as XS, S, M, etc...? Looks like GS has already evolved from Micro, Small, Regular, Large

 

 

[+niraD]

Has anyone noticed that in the new app that the sizes are listed as XS, S, M, etc...? Looks like GS has already evolved from Micro, Small, Regular, Large

Yep.

 

And it may or may not have been reported as a bug in the playtest forums. Hypothetically speaking, of course.

[+The A-Team]

Has anyone noticed that in the new app that the sizes are listed as XS, S, M, etc...? Looks like GS has already evolved from Micro, Small, Regular, Large

I've pointed out the many inconsistencies between the app and the website several times over the last couple of years, but they haven't fixed any of them. You'd think it would be pretty easy to fix the blatantly incorrect size ratings, yet they've remained incorrect for a few years now...