Cache Sizes

[+ShoesBologna]

So, when publishing a new cache, there are a few suggestions from GC.

 

Other: Micro: Small: Regular: Large

 

Those don't make sense to me.

 

We have a lot of nano's in Japan.

 

I'm thinking

 

Nono: Micro: Small: Med: Large: X-Large

 

X-Large should be the 5 gal jug

Large should be the 50. Cal

Med should be the large lock and lock or the small ammo can

Small should be the small lock and locks

Micro should be the buffalo

Nano should be just that.

 

Throw spears.

[+narcissa]

What is the fundamental problem that this change would solve?

[curlingfan11]

I don't get this. The size descriptions are fine. Nano's are considered 'other'. No problem with that...

[+ShoesBologna]

I would suggest that it would change the fundamental problem that the suggested cache sizes don't represent the current demographic used by populace.

[+Mudfrog]

What is the fundamental problem that this change would solve?

Won't solve much. It will however, add another level of hand holding to our hobby.

 

As a cache owner, i may want to place a nano that i want to be challenging to find. On the other hand, i wouldn't want to intentionally give false information by purposely naming it's size something other than nano. The micro size category gives finders a good idea of what the container is and would not mislead anyone.

Edited May 29, 2016 by Mudfrog

[+HHL]

I don't get this. The size descriptions are fine. Nano's are considered 'other'. No problem with that...

 

No, Nanos are micro.

 

Hans

[+Walts Hunting]

I don't get this. The size descriptions are fine. Nano's are considered 'other'. No problem with that...

Nano's are micros not other. Micro is about the size of a film canniater or smaller.

[+TriciaG]

I don't get this. The size descriptions are fine. Nano's are considered 'other'. No problem with that...

Nano's are micros not other. Micro is about the size of a film canister or smaller.

I'm starting to wonder if this is proving the point of the OP. So many people seem to wrongly classify nanos as "other." Perhaps it IS time to make a Nano size.

 

But then, aren't sizes on the Official App differently named? I think Micros are XS, aren't they? In that case, what would nanos be: XXS?

 

As a cache owner, i may want to place a nano that i want to be challenging to find. On the other hand, i wouldn't want to intentionally give false information by purposely naming it's size something other than nano. The micro size category gives finders a good idea of what the container is and would not mislead anyone.

This could be said about any size cache. Personally, I think nanos are hard enough to find without withholding their size.

 

*Edited to add final quote and response*

Edited May 29, 2016 by TriciaG

[+Mn-treker]

Other is for when you do not want to say what the size is. I could call a nano or a 55 gallon rum an other.

I may have a very good camo job on the container. Size does not matter, I would call it other.

[+narcissa]

I would suggest that it would change the fundamental problem that the suggested cache sizes don't represent the current demographic used by populace.

 

What do you mean? So-called "nano" caches fit within the micro category.

 

Given that this new size category would affect every cache listing and every device that uses cache information from geocaching.com, what is the actual, functional problem that requires this effort?

[+narcissa]

I don't get this. The size descriptions are fine. Nano's are considered 'other'. No problem with that...

 

Wrong. Nanos are micro.

[+on4bam]

Most nano's in Belgium are "other". I don't see a problem with that. I don't expect to find a nano if a cache is labeled "micro".

[+HHL]

Most nano's in Belgium are "other". I don't see a problem with that. I don't expect to find a nano if a cache is labeled "micro".

 

Yes, Belgians are different - in many ways. ;-)

 

Hans

[+on4bam]

Yes, Belgians are different - in many ways. ;-)

 

I know, and I'll take your post as a compliment

[+eigengott]

As a cache owner, i may want to place a nano that i want to be challenging to find. On the other hand, i wouldn't want to intentionally give false information by purposely naming it's size something other than nano. The micro size category gives finders a good idea of what the container is and would not mislead anyone.

 

Micro is only a broad category. Like regular and large are only broad categories.

 

You can always use the cache description to narrow down the broad category. A line like "This is a nano cache." in the short description doesn't hurt. You can even prefix the cache name with "Nano", like "Nano: Wonderful view to Pingu". And/or put it in the hint: "nano, magnetic".

[Pup Patrol]

Advanced forum search: nano, Bug Reports and Feature Discussion

 

SUBMITTED (25005) - [FEATURE] Nano canister size Again.... (2011)

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=285144

 

We already have this in our database. Implementation must wait for the upcoming GPX schema release.

 

Suggestion revamp of size chart (2014)

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=325593

 

New function suggestion: new Cache size nano (2015)

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=329474

 

Nano size? (2015)

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=336193

 

B.

[+on4bam]

Advanced forum search: nano, Bug Reports and Feature Discussion

 

SUBMITTED (25005) - [FEATURE] Nano canister size Again.... (2011)

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=285144

 

We already have this in our database. Implementation must wait for the upcoming GPX schema release.

 

Suggestion revamp of size chart (2014)

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=325593

 

New function suggestion: new Cache size nano (2015)

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=329474

 

Nano size? (2015)

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=336193

 

B.

 

Any day now

[+narcissa]

Most nano's in Belgium are "other". I don't see a problem with that. I don't expect to find a nano if a cache is labeled "micro".

 

Why not? The micro size definition doesn't have a minimum.

[thrillseeker69]

With the exception of urban areas where space is at a premium, it just seems that many of the "micro" or "nano" caches are just done by users to lazy to put forth the effort into a traditional cache.

Recently found one surrounded by thousands of acres, no other caches nearby, and they installed a microcache, and couldn't even get the wet logbook out anyway. What a waste.

I feel there should be stricter standards on micro caches.

[+on4bam]

Most nano's in Belgium are "other". I don't see a problem with that. I don't expect to find a nano if a cache is labeled "micro".

 

Why not? The micro size definition doesn't have a minimum.

 

Because most nano's are "other" (here). If an "other" is not a nano then it's something special like a fake branch, fungus... I've only seen very few nano's labeled micro.

[+frinklabs]

New Cache Size Listing

Nano Caches

Enhancement Request - New Cache Size NANO

Nano Cache Catagory

Feature Request: Nano size option

Nano Caches

Feature request: Nano cache size

nano size

Cache Size

Add another cache size to selection

Nanos Not a Size Option

Change the cache size options

Feature Request- add "nano" as a size choice

Suggestions / Requests

Nano

SUBMITTED (25005) - [FEATURE] Nano canister size

GPX V2.0

Suggestion

New function suggestion: new Cache size

Nano size?

Cache Sizes

 

 

Within those, not a good sign:

 

What's the benefit of adding a new size? I don't see one so I need to understand why someone would care to make a difference between the two. Difficulty ratings should suffice.

 

Jeremy Irish

Geocaching HQ Staff

[+narcissa]

Most nano's in Belgium are "other". I don't see a problem with that. I don't expect to find a nano if a cache is labeled "micro".

 

Why not? The micro size definition doesn't have a minimum.

 

Because most nano's are "other" (here). If an "other" is not a nano then it's something special like a fake branch, fungus... I've only seen very few nano's labeled micro.

 

If a cache is labelled "micro," I simply expect to find a cache that is smaller than the maximum size that defines a micro. That includes nano.

 

If a cache is labelled "other," I don't know what to expect. It's a little disappointing to find a run-of-the-mill so-called "nano" labelled "other" when the help materials on the website are quite clear about this:

 

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.

 

It's unfortunate when people monkey-see-monkey-do instead of referring to the actual definitions.

[+on4bam]

It's unfortunate when people monkey-see-monkey-do instead of referring to the actual definitions.

 

Maybe it's because it works. Except for here I have seen no complaints but then again other things that are complained about here seem not to be a problem on other forums

[cezanne]

It's unfortunate when people monkey-see-monkey-do instead of referring to the actual definitions.

 

Maybe it's because it works. Except for here I have seen no complaints but then again other things that are complained about here seem not to be a problem on other forums

 

Actually, I'm glad that quite some while ago the reviewers started to have an eye on this issue too and require that micro is used for nano caches.

When I come across a normal nano cache that is classified as other, I always mention in my log that micro should be used.

 

In my area there are many caches where other is appropriate and I'd like to differentiate those from standard nano caches.The difference between a volumeless construction and a small bison capsule is much larger than between the bison capsule and a nano cache.

[+narcissa]

It's unfortunate when people monkey-see-monkey-do instead of referring to the actual definitions.

 

Maybe it's because it works. Except for here I have seen no complaints but then again other things that are complained about here seem not to be a problem on other forums

 

It's a common misperception. When these so-calle "nano" containers were rare, it sort of made sense if you thought cachers would be really confused by the container. Now that these tiny containers are everywhere people don't need that signal the way they used to.

[+J Grouchy]

It's unfortunate when people monkey-see-monkey-do instead of referring to the actual definitions.

 

Maybe it's because it works. Except for here I have seen no complaints but then again other things that are complained about here seem not to be a problem on other forums

 

Actually, I'm glad that quite some while ago the reviewers started to have an eye on this issue too and require that micro is used for nano caches.

When I come across a normal nano cache that is classified as other, I always mention in my log that micro should be used.

 

In my area there are many caches where other is appropriate and I'd like to differentiate those from standard nano caches.The difference between a volumeless construction and a small bison capsule is much larger than between the bison capsule and a nano cache.

 

I guess my previous expression of exasperation was deleted. Whatever. This subject is so tired, it's amazing that people don't seem to get it.

 

I think, of course, there are exceptions to the micro v. other debate...but only if a) there is any question about the size (like if the interior volume is only "nano" sized, but the outer container is maybe larger than one would expect, or if there is a desire to obscure the size of the container as part of the difficulty rating.

 

Otherwise, micro. There is no debate about it, despite what others commonly see. People don't get to change the rules simply because lots of folks do it a certain way. Those that say "other" are simply wrong.

Edited May 30, 2016 by J Grouchy

[+Ant89]

I know it's in the guidelines but perhaps a lot of "problems" could be solved simply by stating on the cache submission form that:

• A Micro is any container smaller than 100ml in volume.
  
• A Small is any container with a volume of 100-1000ml (1l).
  
• A regular is a container with a volume ranging between 1-20L.
  
• Large is any container with a volume greater than 20L.
  
• Other, Does not fit into the above.
  

 

Other is a contentious, it could be used by a CO to mean

• I do not want you to know what your looking for.
  
• it's a nano as part of local custom.
  
• a cache with no container i.e. a notebook made to look like a book in a Library or a waterproof sheet of paper on the back of a magnetic sheet.
  

[Andronicus]

I don't get this. The size descriptions are fine. Nano's are considered 'other'. No problem with that...

I think that you have demonstrated the problem. Nanos are not 'other', they are actually micro. Other is just for when the CO does not want to reveal the size, or it is really strange (like a large object with a small cavity). However, a huge portion of cachers think that nanos should be listed as other. This is just wrong.

 

I would only like a new caches size just so that COs would stop using 'other' for nanos. It is so rediculous that I now do not hunt for caches labeled 'other' because 95% of the time they are nanos, and I don't enjoy hunting for nano caches.

Edited May 30, 2016 by Andronicus

[+The A-Team]

Other is for when you do not want to say what the size is. I could call a nano or a 55 gallon rum an other.

I may have a very good camo job on the container. Size does not matter, I would call it other.

Other is just for when the CO does not want to reveal the size, or it is really strange (like a large object with a small cavity).

While we're discussing the misapplication of size ratings, I'd like to point out that the above descriptions of "Other" are wrong. The bolded portions of the quotes actually apply to the now-grandfathered "Not chosen" size rating, not "Other". "Not chosen" ceased to be available for use as of May 13, 2014. There is no longer a size rating available for when you don't want to reveal the size of container.

 

The definition of "Other" is as follows (Help Center - 4.2. Containers Explained):

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

[Andronicus]

Other is for when you do not want to say what the size is. I could call a nano or a 55 gallon rum an other.

I may have a very good camo job on the container. Size does not matter, I would call it other.

Other is just for when the CO does not want to reveal the size, or it is really strange (like a large object with a small cavity).

While we're discussing the misapplication of size ratings, I'd like to point out that the above descriptions of "Other" are wrong. The bolded portions of the quotes actually apply to the now-grandfathered "Not chosen" size rating, not "Other". "Not chosen" ceased to be available for use as of May 13, 2014. There is no longer a size rating available for when you don't want to reveal the size of container.

 

The definition of "Other" is as follows (Help Center - 4.2. Containers Explained):

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

Well sir, I stand corrected!

Edited May 30, 2016 by Andronicus

[+colleda]

I while ago I had a hid a nano in a banksia (like a pine cone) which I submitted as "other". My reviewer questioned it (I believe this reviewer does this with all "other" caches). I described the cache and was advised to list it as "micro" which I did.

 

GC4ATWA

[+Mn-treker]

Other is for when you do not want to say what the size is. I could call a nano or a 55 gallon rum an other.

I may have a very good camo job on the container. Size does not matter, I would call it other.

Other is just for when the CO does not want to reveal the size, or it is really strange (like a large object with a small cavity).

While we're discussing the misapplication of size ratings, I'd like to point out that the above descriptions of "Other" are wrong. The bolded portions of the quotes actually apply to the now-grandfathered "Not chosen" size rating, not "Other". "Not chosen" ceased to be available for use as of May 13, 2014. There is no longer a size rating available for when you don't want to reveal the size of container.

 

The definition of "Other" is as follows (Help Center - 4.2. Containers Explained):

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

Well sir, I stand corrected!

Sorry but my statement still stands.

Other fits for size not stated as well as something like a birdhouse as the container. Where I cache we use other for creative containers as well as I won't tell you how big or small it is. Size is relative.

[+The Rat]

I agree with the OP. Nanos really deserve their own size category so people who don't like them (like me) can filter them out of their PQs or GSAK views or simply avoid them when out geocaching. When geocaching.com was founded nanos didn't exist. Trading physical stuff (T-shirts, books, etc.) and TBs and writing interesting logs in the log books were all considered important aspects of geocaching. You can't do those with nanos. When nanos first appeared there was a combination of amazement and disgust that something so small could be permitted. Obviously things have changed since then. Today the original civility seems to have largely, though not entirely, disappeared from geocaching. The OP's point that the distribution of sizes no longer fits the current "demographic" is a valid one. And of course it is also true that Other is used all the time by people who don't want to reveal the size because they want to make it harder to find, even if that is no longer in the official definition. I've never seen a nano marked as Other (and I have cached in Belgium, although I never looked for a nano there); they're always micros.

Edited June 4, 2016 by The Rat

[+niraD]

The OP's point that the distribution of sizes no longer fits the current "demographic" is a valid one.

I think this is a good argument for a new nano size.

 

I'm fairly omnivorous when it comes to geocaches, and more than half my finds are micro size, so I think it's fairly safe to say that the micro size covers more than half the geocaches out there. Distinguishing between the nano caches and the larger micro caches would be a good thing, just to break up that one size category that now covers more than half the caches.

 

Add to that the fact that a number of geocachers want to be able to distinguish between nano caches and larger micro caches in their searches, and I think it makes sense to create a new nano size.

[+lee737]

I would agree - I'd like to see nano as a separate size. I also think GS should make sure the sizes are referred to (and defined) consistently across all platforms, at present the 'new' app is different to the website and real app.

[+Harry Dolphin]

By definition, nanos are micros. Seems easy enough. As opposed to the '919 caches along Rte 919' who defines her MKHs as 'small'. Probably to avoid cachers filtering out 'micros'. But, a 'nano' IS a micro, by definition. I don't see what the problem is here.

[+Tassie_Boy]

I agree with the OP. Nanos really deserve their own size category so people who don't like them (like me) can filter them out of their PQs or GSAK views or simply avoid them when out geocaching. When geocaching.com was founded nanos didn't exist. Trading physical stuff (T-shirts, books, etc.) and TBs and writing interesting logs in the log books were all considered important aspects of geocaching. You can't do those with nanos. When nanos first appeared there was a combination of amazement and disgust that something so small could be permitted. Obviously things have changed since then. Today the original civility seems to have largely, though not entirely, disappeared from geocaching. The OP's point that the distribution of sizes no longer fits the current "demographic" is a valid one. And of course it is also true that Other is used all the time by people who don't want to reveal the size because they want to make it harder to find, even if that is no longer in the official definition. I've never seen a nano marked as Other (and I have cached in Belgium, although I never looked for a nano there); they're always micros.

 

And Micro's don't allow trading, writing of novellas for logs or temp homes for TB's. For that reason Nano's fit in the same category as Micro's, just the same as a Wheelie bin or a 40ft shipping container fits in the Large category the same as a 20L bucket.

[+TriciaG]

I'm fairly omnivorous when it comes to geocaches, and more than half my finds are micro size, so I think it's fairly safe to say that the micro size covers more than half the geocaches out there. Distinguishing between the nano caches and the larger micro caches would be a good thing, just to break up that one size category that now covers more than half the caches.

Good point.

[+cerberus1]

I figure it'll all work itself out eventually.

If we're seeing MKHs, pill bottles, and medium bisons as "smalls", with (a few weeks ago,) a peanut butter jar a "regular", soon folks will have to correctly list a nano as "micro", since that's pretty-much all that'll be left.

... Not looking forward to when this young crowd "rediscovers" film cans...

[+GeoTrekker26]

... Not looking forward to when this young crowd "rediscovers" film cans...

 

What's film and why is it canned?

[+Rustynails]

All this nano talk has got me thinking. Is there an official name for these containers ? Were they made specifically for caching ?

[+niraD]

But, a 'nano' IS a micro, by definition. I don't see what the problem is here.

It's not really a "problem". It's more of a suggestion that it would be easier to distinguish between caches if the a size category that currently applies to more than half of existing caches were subdivided into two size categories. And some people see enough of a difference between nano size caches and other micro size caches that they wish to make that distinction.

 

And Micro's don't allow trading, writing of novellas for logs or temp homes for TB's.

FWIW, I've seen trade items and trackables in non-nano micro-caches.

 

All this nano talk has got me thinking. Is there an official name for these containers ? Were they made specifically for caching ?

I usually hear "nano" used as a size category, the way the Help Center article Containers Explained uses it: "A nano cache is a common sub-type of a micro cache that is less than 10ml and can only hold a small logsheet."

 

Sometimes I hear the word "nano" used to refer to a specific type of nano-size cache, usually referring to what is otherwise called a "blinker". Most of the nano-size geocaches Groundspeak sells are of the type I've heard called a "blinker". But some use centrifuge tubes and other nano-size containers.

 

The type I've heard called a "blinker" (or sometimes a "blinkie") was originally adapted from blinking LED jewelry. The battery compartment was unscrewed, the watch batteries were removed, and a tiny scroll of paper was inserted in the now-empty battery compartment.

 

But the blinkers that are currently sold as nano-size geocaches are specifically made as geocaches. With no electronics for the blinking LEDs, there is room for a slightly less tiny scroll of paper.

[+The A-Team]

All this nano talk has got me thinking. Is there an official name for these containers ? Were they made specifically for caching ?

I usually hear "nano" used as a size category, the way the Help Center article Containers Explained uses it: "A nano cache is a common sub-type of a micro cache that is less than 10ml and can only hold a small logsheet."

 

Sometimes I hear the word "nano" used to refer to a specific type of nano-size cache, usually referring to what is otherwise called a "blinker". Most of the nano-size geocaches Groundspeak sells are of the type I've heard called a "blinker". But some use centrifuge tubes and other nano-size containers.

 

The type I've heard called a "blinker" (or sometimes a "blinkie") was originally adapted from blinking LED jewelry. The battery compartment was unscrewed, the watch batteries were removed, and a tiny scroll of paper was inserted in the now-empty battery compartment.

 

But the blinkers that are currently sold as nano-size geocaches are specifically made as geocaches. With no electronics for the blinking LEDs, there is room for a slightly less tiny scroll of paper.

I don't know if they're more of a regional/Canadian thing or not, but another common type of nano we have around here is the brass nano. These aren't magnetic (at least by default), so they're usually hanging off something.

 

BTW, I've found several real "blinkies" throughout my caching career, with the most recent just yesterday. I should bring along a battery so I can try one out and see if it still works.

[+niraD]

I don't know if they're more of a regional/Canadian thing or not, but another common type of nano we have around here is the brass nano. These aren't magnetic (at least by default), so they're usually hanging off something.

I've seen a few of those as geocaches. They're sold in pet stores as ID tubes, and they're designed to be attached to a pet's collar. A slip of paper with the pet's owner's contact information is rolled up and stuffed inside the tube.

 

I see a lot more blinkers around here though, perhaps because they're magnetic, and perhaps because Marky and Joanie are local. (I once had an interesting discussion with Marky about the evolution of their blinker caches.)

[Andronicus]

All this nano talk has got me thinking. Is there an official name for these containers ? Were they made specifically for caching ?

I usually hear "nano" used as a size category, the way the Help Center article Containers Explained uses it: "A nano cache is a common sub-type of a micro cache that is less than 10ml and can only hold a small logsheet."

 

Sometimes I hear the word "nano" used to refer to a specific type of nano-size cache, usually referring to what is otherwise called a "blinker". Most of the nano-size geocaches Groundspeak sells are of the type I've heard called a "blinker". But some use centrifuge tubes and other nano-size containers.

 

The type I've heard called a "blinker" (or sometimes a "blinkie") was originally adapted from blinking LED jewelry. The battery compartment was unscrewed, the watch batteries were removed, and a tiny scroll of paper was inserted in the now-empty battery compartment.

 

But the blinkers that are currently sold as nano-size geocaches are specifically made as geocaches. With no electronics for the blinking LEDs, there is room for a slightly less tiny scroll of paper.

I don't know if they're more of a regional/Canadian thing or not, but another common type of nano we have around here is the brass nano. These aren't magnetic (at least by default), so they're usually hanging off something.

 

BTW, I've found several real "blinkies" throughout my caching career, with the most recent just yesterday. I should bring along a battery so I can try one out and see if it still works.

Hey, what is that strange copper looking round thing beside that nano cache?

[+The A-Team]

Hey, what is that strange copper looking round thing beside that nano cache?

For those not familiar, Canada ceased producing 1-cent coins in 2013. They're effectively "grandfathered", in that they aren't making any more, but they're still legal tender.

 

It was the Canadian currency equivalent of the nano, and we decided to simply eliminate it.

[+ShinobiKaze]

So a couple of rants here on cache classifications. Why do people refuse to list micros and nano's as such. Simply not putting in a cache size or listing it as unknown shouldn't be allowed. If it's a micro/nano, then select it and put it in the description. Not everyone likes these types of caches and they like to filter them out. Am I alone in this frustration with the cache hiding submitter system?

/off my soap box.

[+hal-an-tow]

So a couple of rants here on cache classifications. Why do people refuse to list micros and nano's as such. Simply not putting in a cache size or listing it as unknown shouldn't be allowed. If it's a micro/nano, then select it and put it in the description. Not everyone likes these types of caches and they like to filter them out. Am I alone in this frustration with the cache hiding submitter system?

/off my soap box.

 

There are occasions when a cache is set and the owner is not sure what size to list it as : here's an example:

A housebrick with holes in it, with a centrifuge tube jammed into one of those holes.

Should they go with 'small' (for the size of the brick) or micro (for the little tube within)? Searchers are going to complain either way that they were looking for something bigger/smaller than they eventually found, so the easiest thing is to not tell them something which may mislead them.

 

Quite often in my area size 'unknown' or the no longer available 'not given' on a listing can be a hint that you are looking for something like my example, a bit out of the ordinary run of pots and boxes.

 

I've also seen 'unknown' used with ammo cans to avoid flagging their existance up to thieves. Or it can be a ploy to deliberately make the hide harder, which is a choice entirely up to the cache owner.

 

And on a side note, as a cache owner, if I listed a cache without giving the size, and was queried by the reviewer and told to change it, I'd be politely refusing to do so, I don't see it as a reviewers concern .

[+colleda]

So a couple of rants here on cache classifications. Why do people refuse to list micros and nano's as such. Simply not putting in a cache size or listing it as unknown shouldn't be allowed. If it's a micro/nano, then select it and put it in the description. Not everyone likes these types of caches and they like to filter them out. Am I alone in this frustration with the cache hiding submitter system?

/off my soap box.

 

There are occasions when a cache is set and the owner is not sure what size to list it as : here's an example:

A housebrick with holes in it, with a centrifuge tube jammed into one of those holes.

Should they go with 'small' (for the size of the brick) or micro (for the little tube within)? Searchers are going to complain either way that they were looking for something bigger/smaller than they eventually found, so the easiest thing is to not tell them something which may mislead them.

 

Quite often in my area size 'unknown' or the no longer available 'not given' on a listing can be a hint that you are looking for something like my example, a bit out of the ordinary run of pots and boxes.

 

I've also seen 'unknown' used with ammo cans to avoid flagging their existance up to thieves. Or it can be a ploy to deliberately make the hide harder, which is a choice entirely up to the cache owner.

 

And on a side note, as a cache owner, if I listed a cache without giving the size, and was queried by the reviewer and told to change it, I'd be politely refusing to do so, I don't see it as a reviewers concern .

 

In your example the brick is camo, it is not the cache. If you place a small locknlock in a hole in a tree the tree does not become large cache. Same thing, different scale.

When I first started out an experienced cacher told me that if I can't fit a TB dog tag in it then its a micro.

Edited June 27, 2016 by colleda

[+narcissa]

In your example the brick is camo, it is not the cache. If you place a small locknlock in a hole in a tree the tree does not become large cache.

 

+1