Size creep

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I think it's human nature for most people to automatically assume/think a larger cache may be of better quality. Myself, i tend to think this! Sure, we've found some outstanding micro caches but for the most part, largers are of better quality and more preferable.

No, I don't get that at all. Larger caches are rarer, so that's an attraction, but I've seen nothing to support saying that they are better quality. Larger caches are more often off the beaten track, and caches off the beaten track tend to be visited less frequently by geocachers that are more dedicated, but once I take that into account, larger caches off the beaten track down seem as good as micros off the beaten track.

 

Why is the popularity or prevalence of the size relevant?

It's not a question of popularity but one of being unused. Only 3 official sizes are used. Making ammo cans "large" would give us 4. Each size a slightly smaller range, so more accurate.

 

I'm not so much advocating a change but only pointing out that the change has occurred, yet the official sizes haven't been adjusted. I concede the sizes used today vary from place to place, but I claim that's because of the limitations of the official sizes have forced us into local standards.

 

The notion that we should entirely discard large caches, or any other less common but valuable aspects of the game, simply because they are uncommon is abhorrent. The entire game doesn't need to be dismantled to appease the power trail crowd.

 

I can't think of any aspect of this game that warrants a response as strong as "abhorrent".

 

Would you prefer "deplorable"?

 

[+J Grouchy]

I think it's human nature for most people to automatically assume/think a larger cache may be of better quality. Myself, i tend to think this! Sure, we've found some outstanding micro caches but for the most part, largers are of better quality and more preferable.

No, I don't get that at all. Larger caches are rarer, so that's an attraction, but I've seen nothing to support saying that they are better quality. Larger caches are more often off the beaten track, and caches off the beaten track tend to be visited less frequently by geocachers that are more dedicated, but once I take that into account, larger caches off the beaten track down seem as good as micros off the beaten track.

 

Why is the popularity or prevalence of the size relevant?

It's not a question of popularity but one of being unused. Only 3 official sizes are used. Making ammo cans "large" would give us 4. Each size a slightly smaller range, so more accurate.

 

I'm not so much advocating a change but only pointing out that the change has occurred, yet the official sizes haven't been adjusted. I concede the sizes used today vary from place to place, but I claim that's because of the limitations of the official sizes have forced us into local standards.

 

The notion that we should entirely discard large caches, or any other less common but valuable aspects of the game, simply because they are uncommon is abhorrent. The entire game doesn't need to be dismantled to appease the power trail crowd.

 

I can't think of any aspect of this game that warrants a response as strong as "abhorrent".

 

Would you prefer "deplorable"?

 

No. Using either word is too much. In fact, I think calling something "a bad idea" is about as strong a negative statement as I'm willing to make with regards to anything in Geocaching (unless we're talking external acts such as theft or vandalism that may relate in certain instances).

Edited September 15, 2016 by J Grouchy

[+The A-Team]

Why is the popularity or prevalence of the size relevant?

It's not a question of popularity but one of being unused. Only 3 official sizes are used.

So now we've gone from "Large is rare" to "Large is unused"? Is the situation really that dire in your area? I can assure you that the "Large" size is still actively (and accurately) used in some regions and should not be deprecated simply because a few areas have moved entirely to sub-Large caches.

[+cerberus1]

I can't think of any aspect of this game that warrants a response as strong as "abhorrent".

 

Would you prefer "deplorable"?

Already saw a vinyl basket decal with that word inside, next to a soccer Mom's vinyl "family holding hands" decal on the rear window.

[+J Grouchy]

Why is the popularity or prevalence of the size relevant?

It's not a question of popularity but one of being unused. Only 3 official sizes are used.

So now we've gone from "Large is rare" to "Large is unused"? Is the situation really that dire in your area? I can assure you that the "Large" size is still actively (and accurately) used in some regions and should not be deprecated simply because a few areas have moved entirely to sub-Large caches.

 

I think 'Large' is actually the size that is least-often misused. I generally have only seen it on - GASP! - large cache containers like giant rocket-launcher ammo cans and five-gallon buckets and the like.

[+The A-Team]

I think 'Large' is actually the size that is least-often misused. I generally have only seen it on - GASP! - large cache containers like giant rocket-launcher ammo cans and five-gallon buckets and the like.

I've seen it misused on a few .50 cal ammo cans, but otherwise I agree that it's generally used correctly. That's why I'm so surprised that some would advocate redefining it or scrapping it entirely.

 

If any of the sizes is in need of a better definition and is frequently misused, it's "Other". It was never really used very accurately for many years, and then it got even worse when "Not chosen" was retired.

[+cerberus1]

If any of the sizes is in need of a better definition and is frequently misused, it's "Other". It was never really used very accurately for many years, and then it got even worse when "Not chosen" was retired.

+1

[SicilianCyclops]

If any of the sizes is in need of a better definition and is frequently misused, it's "Other". It was never really used very accurately for many years, and then it got even worse when "Not chosen" was retired.

+1

 

A problem is, containers the size of a pill bottle don't make people think of the word "micro" so they're often mislabeled. Imo, Micro should be nanos and bison tubes, Small should be pill bottle-size (and anything else that can fit just a couple small tradeables), Medium should be your common lock 'n' lock size, regular should be ammo can size, and Large should be 5-gallon bucket size.

[+lee737]

What would be good would be the ability to 'vote' on it - each finder add their interpretation of the size, a bit like the way people rate movies etc..... then present that average somewhere on the cache page, you could do the same with difficulty and terrain ratings, as they are often pretty random as well. While you're at it, coordinates!

Pie in the sky brain storming stuff here.... but community input would help a lot, much in the way ebay sellers are rated by their buyers.

[SicilianCyclops]

Sorry, double post.

Edited September 15, 2016 by SicilianCyclops

[+wmpastor]

...

...Each size a slightly smaller range, so more accurate.

 

I'm not so much advocating a change but only pointing out that the change has occurred, yet the official sizes haven't been adjusted. I concede the sizes used today vary from place to place, but I claim that's because of the limitations of the official sizes have forced us into local standards.

Good reasoning. For any standard, you need the appropriate unit of measurement. Eight categories would be far too many, and two would be too few. Four or five that cover the range of actual caches is ideal.

 

There will always be one-of-a-kind unusual situations, like the underground wine-cellar cache in Vienna (where the room-sized cellar is considered the cache), but size creep shows that the existing categories need review and probably revision.

[+J Grouchy]

...

...Each size a slightly smaller range, so more accurate.

 

I'm not so much advocating a change but only pointing out that the change has occurred, yet the official sizes haven't been adjusted. I concede the sizes used today vary from place to place, but I claim that's because of the limitations of the official sizes have forced us into local standards.

Good reasoning. For any standard, you need the appropriate unit of measurement. Eight categories would be far too many, and two would be too few. Four or five that cover the range of actual caches is ideal.

 

There will always be one-of-a-kind unusual situations, like the underground wine-cellar cache in Vienna (where the room-sized cellar is considered the cache), but size creep shows that the existing categories need review and probably revision.

 

I'd be all for three sizes.

S - M - L

 

Eliminate "other".

[+dprovan]

The notion that we should entirely discard large caches, or any other less common but valuable aspects of the game, simply because they are uncommon is abhorrent.

In what way am I suggesting discarding large caches?

 

The entire game doesn't need to be dismantled to appease the power trail crowd.

Honestly, lowering the lower bound on the size "large" couldn't have less to do with power trails, it doesn't dismantle anything, and it's not appeasing anyone. All it does is correct the official standards to agree with current practice.

[+lee737]

I don't think any of the existing size definitions should be changed: then we would potentially have 2 million caches with the wrong size listed.... and a fair chunk would never be corrected. I am in favor of splitting micro into micro and nano, and getting rid of 'other'. But to be honest, if COs actually read the guidelines, there would be no problem..... I think it's mainly a case of this 21st century dumb-down we are going through....

[+sir dumil]

This all seems rather silly to me.

So, hiders are not following the guidelines, so the suggestion is that the guidelines should be changed to match what is being done by people ignoring the guidelines?

I don't understand how this is supposed to help. It doesn't make any sense to me at all.

 

The current guidelines make sense to me.

They are simple and straightforward already, easy to follow by those who care to do so.

Those who don't, don't, for whatever reason. Changing the guidelines will not change that.

It really doesn't impact enjoyment of the game, for most.

[+narcissa]

The notion that we should entirely discard large caches, or any other less common but valuable aspects of the game, simply because they are uncommon is abhorrent.

In what way am I suggesting discarding large caches?

 

The entire game doesn't need to be dismantled to appease the power trail crowd.

Honestly, lowering the lower bound on the size "large" couldn't have less to do with power trails, it doesn't dismantle anything, and it's not appeasing anyone. All it does is correct the official standards to agree with current practice.

 

Common practice is to ignore the guidelines. Get rid of the guidelines.

 

Okay.

[SicilianCyclops]

This all seems rather silly to me.

So, hiders are not following the guidelines, so the suggestion is that the guidelines should be changed to match what is being done by people ignoring the guidelines?

I don't understand how this is supposed to help. It doesn't make any sense to me at all.

 

The current guidelines make sense to me.

They are simple and straightforward already, easy to follow by those who care to do so.

Those who don't, don't, for whatever reason. Changing the guidelines will not change that.

It really doesn't impact enjoyment of the game, for most.

 

I agree that laziness is the problem. But I also think "Micro" for a pill bottle doesn't sound right.

[+barefootjeff]

But it would instantly make far more size rating that are currently "wrong" correct. But I don't think that's something we should worry about one way or another. I'm more interested in making the sizes more useful.

I haven't really noticed this on a problematic scale around here, tbh. It happens, sure, but improperly-sized caches get called out by early finders, and new cache owners generally seem to learn quickly by receiving feedback. "Disappointed to find a regular sized ammo can when we were expecting a large cache based on the description." "Took us a little longer to find this micro sized cache because we were looking for a hiding place that would hold a small container."

Likewise, in my 500 or so finds, I can't say I've particularly noticed many incorrect sizes or size creep around here. The most common micros are bison tubes or magnetic nanos, and are generally listed as such, smalls are typically Sistema (our equivalent of the US lock-n-lock), regulars are ammo cans or the bigger Sistemas. The "large" ones I've found have indeed been large bucket-style containers.

 

I don't see the need to inflict a "solution" on the whole caching world to correct a problem that's only occurring in some areas.

[+CanadianRockies]

Honestly, lowering the lower bound on the size "large" couldn't have less to do with power trails, it doesn't dismantle anything, and it's not appeasing anyone. All it does is correct the official standards to agree with current practice.

In some areas, the official standards might be way out-of-sync with current practice, but in other areas...not so much.

[+jellis]

Is it really a size creep or CO refusing to believe the size is incorrect. Yes at the beginning there were less sizes but with creative caches some CO may not know how to really describe them. Like 35mm size hole in a large log. Is it a micro or a large. I still believe it depends on how much it holds not how big or small the outer container is.

When I first saw the title of this post I thought it had to do with what happened to some of my caches. I have one near the Giants park in SF. It started as a large and when it kept getting muggled I had to reduce the size to hide it better. It is now a nano.

[+JL_HSTRE]

Part of the problem is cache containers get replaced and the CO does not change the size to reflect the smaller replacement.

 

The bigger issue is people simply not understanding the size guidelines, probably due to never reading them. Film cans gave way over the years to bisons and Nanos (which can fit inside a film can) and preforms (which are 2-3 times as large as a film can). They're all still Micros but many people don't understand this. Someone hides a pill bottle thinking only about its size relative to other pill bottles they have found. They see the lock-n-lock as so much bigger than a film can, bison, or preform they think it must be Medium/Regular - especially since they've found Preforms and Magkeys listed as Small.

 

Geocachers need to think about the big picture and standards rather than simply comparing to what they have found so far.

Edited September 17, 2016 by Joshism

[+NeverSummer]

Is it really a size creep or CO refusing to believe the size is incorrect. Yes at the beginning there were less sizes but with creative caches some CO may not know how to really describe them. Like 35mm size hole in a large log. Is it a micro or a large. I still believe it depends on how much it holds not how big or small the outer container is.

When I first saw the title of this post I thought it had to do with what happened to some of my caches. I have one near the Giants park in SF. It started as a large and when it kept getting muggled I had to reduce the size to hide it better. It is now a nano.

"Other--see description for details"...

 

Becomes, "You're looking for a micro container, which is largely well camouflaged to match the surroundings.." And add a helpful hint.

 

I think the creep is happening from misinformation, adaptation of regional norms, removal of investment in clear knowledge and understanding of the gameplay and guidelines, etc.

 

But, while I feel that way, I'm still inclined to say "Meh". But I'm also becoming the crotchety old geocaching man on the porch yelling at kids to get off my lawn...

[+edscott]

It used to be that cachers looked for interesting places for people to visit, then found a suitable spot for a cache and placed their cache. Now it seems like they look for a spot that is far enough from all the nearby caches to be "legal" and drop a micro on the ground or hang a bison tube in a tree. In my area caches that are off trail get very few visitors after the FTF is taken.

[+dprovan]

It used to be that cachers looked for interesting places for people to visit, then found a suitable spot for a cache and placed their cache. Now it seems like they look for a spot that is far enough from all the nearby caches to be "legal" and drop a micro on the ground or hang a bison tube in a tree. In my area caches that are off trail get very few visitors after the FTF is taken.

The way I'd put it is that caching used to be an addition people did while hiking, but now it's a sport in its own right, so the hide is often more important than the location. In my area, that does lead to smaller, more closely space caches, but not to the widespread low quality you are implying. And caches off trail get about as much traffic as they ever did, it's just easy to miss that when you see how much more traffic comes to caches nearer parking.

[+Mudfrog]

It used to be that cachers looked for interesting places for people to visit, then found a suitable spot for a cache and placed their cache. Now it seems like they look for a spot that is far enough from all the nearby caches to be "legal" and drop a micro on the ground or hang a bison tube in a tree. In my area caches that are off trail get very few visitors after the FTF is taken.

The way I'd put it is that caching used to be an addition people did while hiking, but now it's a sport in its own right, so the hide is often more important than the location. In my area, that does lead to smaller, more closely space caches, but not to the widespread low quality you are implying. And caches off trail get about as much traffic as they ever did, it's just easy to miss that when you see how much more traffic comes to caches nearer parking.

 

Not implying here,, cache locations, cache containers, cache page descriptions, everything about cache placements, is of lower quality than say, 10 years ago. Don't have many power trails in our immediate area but there are enough parking lot and similar type micros placed to keep things boring. Caches placed in a challenging way (puzzles, in the woods, requiring even a short hike, etc,,) are seldom found these days.

 

Was going to say that there hasn't been a cache listed as regular in a long while but i see that there was one placed just out of my notification range (22 miles away) in July. Surprisingly, it's an ammocan. But looking at the next cache listed regular within 35 miles puts the published date in March this year. Below is the container,,,

 

Edited September 18, 2016 by Mudfrog

[+Harry Dolphin]

It used to be that cachers looked for interesting places for people to visit, then found a suitable spot for a cache and placed their cache. Now it seems like they look for a spot that is far enough from all the nearby caches to be "legal" and drop a micro on the ground or hang a bison tube in a tree. In my area caches that are off trail get very few visitors after the FTF is taken.

The way I'd put it is that caching used to be an addition people did while hiking, but now it's a sport in its own right, so the hide is often more important than the location. In my area, that does lead to smaller, more closely space caches, but not to the widespread low quality you are implying. And caches off trail get about as much traffic as they ever did, it's just easy to miss that when you see how much more traffic comes to caches nearer parking.

 

I'd have to disagree. My hiking caches got a fair number of finds in the early years. But the local hikers have found them, so finds have dropped off considerable in recent years. Example: About a mile hike with a three-hundred foot climb along an established trail. Hiking permit required. Nine finds in 2006. Four finds in 2007. Four finds in 2008. One find in 2009. Two finds in 2010. Three finds in 2011. Three finds in 2012. Next find this year. Four years without a find. The same is true of most of my hiking caches. Finds when new, but finds dwindle off recently.

This year, I have found two caches not found in four years. Three caches not found in three years. And five caches not found in two years. They require hiking! Relatively easy trails, but some distance involved. So don't tell me that off-trails get as much traffic as they had.

[+Mama514]

Regular size container= shoebox. Who's feet are we measuring and what type shoe? (I'm extremely limited on places to hide anything other than a micro or small around here).

[+Mama514]

Regular to me, being new means any container that holds a 6"× 4"TB.

Edited September 19, 2016 by Mama514

[+colleda]

Regular to me, being new means any container that holds a 6"× 4"TB.

If your cache GC6E1E8 is a small then why are tweezers needed to extract the log?

[+lee737]

Regular size container= shoebox. Who's feet are we measuring and what type shoe? (I'm extremely limited on places to hide anything other than a micro or small around here).

 

These sort of subjective descriptors from GS don't help - on another page they list a regular as 1L-5L..... what pair of shoes would fit in a 1L container?? (1.05 quart)

 

 

[+edscott]

Regular to me, being new means any container that holds a 6"× 4"TB.

 

My first cache hides were in 1 gallon plastic mayonnaise jars. I listed them as "regular" but added a disclaimer (Cache is my standard camo PE mayo jug with a 3.75" opening. Plan your trades accordingly. ) because the opening was under 4inches in diameter and some people were accustomed to leaving trade items that wouldn't go through that opening. Can't imagine that as a problem today.

[+Mudfrog]

Regular to me, being new means any container that holds a 6"× 4"TB.

 

My first cache hides were in 1 gallon plastic mayonnaise jars. I listed them as "regular" but added a disclaimer (Cache is my standard camo PE mayo jug with a 3.75" opening. Plan your trades accordingly. ) because the opening was under 4inches in diameter and some people were accustomed to leaving trade items that wouldn't go through that opening. Can't imagine that as a problem today.

Yours, not too bad. But i've come across laundry detergent containers with something like 2 inch openings listed as regular.

 

To Mama, A container that barely accommodates a 4"x6" TB should be small. Of course it depends on the other measurement (4"x6"x?). A 4"x6"x2" would fall under a liter and should be considered small. Move that height to 3 inches and it would meet the regular size 1 liter requirement. Yes, i know measuring for volume isn't always easy. There will be containers that are guesstimated on but i don't think this is the main cause of the size creep.

 

Below are containers explained listed on gc.com.

 

*Micro: Less than 100ml. Examples: a 35 mm film canister or smaller, typically containing only a logbook or a logsheet. A nano cache is a common sub-type of a micro cache that is less than 10ml and can only hold a small logsheet.

*Small: 100ml or larger, but less than 1L. Example: A sandwich-sized plastic container or similar. Holds only a small logbook and small items.

*Regular: 1L or larger, but less than 20L. Examples: a plastic container or ammo can about the size of a shoebox.

*Large: 20L or larger. Example: A large bucket.e.g. 5-gallon bucket (about 20 liters)

*Other: See the cache description for information

 

And i agree with you, "shoebox" is not a very good example.

[+narcissa]

Regular to me, being new means any container that holds a 6"× 4"TB.

 

My first cache hides were in 1 gallon plastic mayonnaise jars. I listed them as "regular" but added a disclaimer (Cache is my standard camo PE mayo jug with a 3.75" opening. Plan your trades accordingly. ) because the opening was under 4inches in diameter and some people were accustomed to leaving trade items that wouldn't go through that opening. Can't imagine that as a problem today.

Yours, not too bad. But i've come across laundry detergent containers with something like 2 inch openings listed as regular.

 

To Mama, A container that barely accommodates a 4"x6" TB should be small. Of course it depends on the other measurement (4"x6"x?). A 4"x6"x2" would fall under a liter and should be considered small. Move that height to 3 inches and it would meet the regular size 1 liter requirement. Yes, i know measuring for volume isn't always easy. There will be containers that are guesstimated on but i don't think this is the main cause of the size creep.

 

Below are containers explained listed on gc.com.

 

*Micro: Less than 100ml. Examples: a 35 mm film canister or smaller, typically containing only a logbook or a logsheet. A nano cache is a common sub-type of a micro cache that is less than 10ml and can only hold a small logsheet.

*Small: 100ml or larger, but less than 1L. Example: A sandwich-sized plastic container or similar. Holds only a small logbook and small items.

*Regular: 1L or larger, but less than 20L. Examples: a plastic container or ammo can about the size of a shoebox.

*Large: 20L or larger. Example: A large bucket.e.g. 5-gallon bucket (about 20 liters)

*Other: See the cache description for information

 

And i agree with you, "shoebox" is not a very good example.

 

The size of the opening is something to consider when deciding the overall suitability of the container. If it's regular with a two-inch opening, it's still regular, because that is the size description that informs the searcher of what they are looking for at GZ.

 

It's best practice to stay away from containers with narrow openings because they hinder the removal and replacement of the logbook.

[+J Grouchy]

...

Regular: 1L or larger, but less than 20L. Examples: a plastic container or ammo can about the size of a shoebox.

...

And i agree with you, "shoebox" is not a very good example.

 

Why? It's a size comparison, not an example of an actual container. A shoebox is a common enough item that it gives most people a good idea of size. It would be like saying a particular cache is "about the size of a cantaloupe". It's not saying the container IS a cantaloupe.

[+Mudfrog]

Regular to me, being new means any container that holds a 6"× 4"TB.

 

My first cache hides were in 1 gallon plastic mayonnaise jars. I listed them as "regular" but added a disclaimer (Cache is my standard camo PE mayo jug with a 3.75" opening. Plan your trades accordingly. ) because the opening was under 4inches in diameter and some people were accustomed to leaving trade items that wouldn't go through that opening. Can't imagine that as a problem today.

Yours, not too bad. But i've come across laundry detergent containers with something like 2 inch openings listed as regular.

 

To Mama, A container that barely accommodates a 4"x6" TB should be small. Of course it depends on the other measurement (4"x6"x?). A 4"x6"x2" would fall under a liter and should be considered small. Move that height to 3 inches and it would meet the regular size 1 liter requirement. Yes, i know measuring for volume isn't always easy. There will be containers that are guesstimated on but i don't think this is the main cause of the size creep.

 

Below are containers explained listed on gc.com.

 

*Micro: Less than 100ml. Examples: a 35 mm film canister or smaller, typically containing only a logbook or a logsheet. A nano cache is a common sub-type of a micro cache that is less than 10ml and can only hold a small logsheet.

*Small: 100ml or larger, but less than 1L. Example: A sandwich-sized plastic container or similar. Holds only a small logbook and small items.

*Regular: 1L or larger, but less than 20L. Examples: a plastic container or ammo can about the size of a shoebox.

*Large: 20L or larger. Example: A large bucket.e.g. 5-gallon bucket (about 20 liters)

*Other: See the cache description for information

 

And i agree with you, "shoebox" is not a very good example.

 

The size of the opening is something to consider when deciding the overall suitability of the container. If it's regular with a two-inch opening, it's still regular, because that is the size description that informs the searcher of what they are looking for at GZ.

 

It's best practice to stay away from containers with narrow openings because they hinder the removal and replacement of the logbook.

This is one thing that makes rating size a bit difficult. The container may meet the 1 liter+ guideline but it being usable for anything regular in size is out the window. I wouldn't use a container like that in the first place but if i did, i wouldn't want to mislead a finder into thinking they are after a cache where they might be able to drop a decent size TB off or look through/swap swag..

[+Mudfrog]

...

Regular: 1L or larger, but less than 20L. Examples: a plastic container or ammo can about the size of a shoebox.

...

And i agree with you, "shoebox" is not a very good example.

 

Why? It's a size comparison, not an example of an actual container. A shoebox is a common enough item that it gives most people a good idea of size. It would be like saying a particular cache is "about the size of a cantaloupe". It's not saying the container IS a cantaloupe.

Not a biggie for sure but sizes of shoeboxes do vary widely. Even if "adult shoebox" was used, it too can vary a bit. It would still be better though as for the most part, it would cover the 1 liter. Again, not a biggie,, just an observation.

[cezanne]

It's a size comparison, not an example of an actual container. A shoebox is a common enough item that it gives most people a good idea of size.

 

I will still refer to any box that matches the 1 litre description as regular and to any box that matches the 100ml description as small even though most 1l boxes are considerably smaller than a shoebox (at least around here shoeboxes are not so small) and no 100ml box has space for a sandwich. I think that the size examples used by Groundspeak do not fit to the volume intervals for the sizes they provide and that's part of the problem.

Edited September 19, 2016 by cezanne

[+narcissa]

Regular to me, being new means any container that holds a 6"× 4"TB.

 

My first cache hides were in 1 gallon plastic mayonnaise jars. I listed them as "regular" but added a disclaimer (Cache is my standard camo PE mayo jug with a 3.75" opening. Plan your trades accordingly. ) because the opening was under 4inches in diameter and some people were accustomed to leaving trade items that wouldn't go through that opening. Can't imagine that as a problem today.

Yours, not too bad. But i've come across laundry detergent containers with something like 2 inch openings listed as regular.

 

To Mama, A container that barely accommodates a 4"x6" TB should be small. Of course it depends on the other measurement (4"x6"x?). A 4"x6"x2" would fall under a liter and should be considered small. Move that height to 3 inches and it would meet the regular size 1 liter requirement. Yes, i know measuring for volume isn't always easy. There will be containers that are guesstimated on but i don't think this is the main cause of the size creep.

 

Below are containers explained listed on gc.com.

 

*Micro: Less than 100ml. Examples: a 35 mm film canister or smaller, typically containing only a logbook or a logsheet. A nano cache is a common sub-type of a micro cache that is less than 10ml and can only hold a small logsheet.

*Small: 100ml or larger, but less than 1L. Example: A sandwich-sized plastic container or similar. Holds only a small logbook and small items.

*Regular: 1L or larger, but less than 20L. Examples: a plastic container or ammo can about the size of a shoebox.

*Large: 20L or larger. Example: A large bucket.e.g. 5-gallon bucket (about 20 liters)

*Other: See the cache description for information

 

And i agree with you, "shoebox" is not a very good example.

 

The size of the opening is something to consider when deciding the overall suitability of the container. If it's regular with a two-inch opening, it's still regular, because that is the size description that informs the searcher of what they are looking for at GZ.

 

It's best practice to stay away from containers with narrow openings because they hinder the removal and replacement of the logbook.

This is one thing that makes rating size a bit difficult. The container may meet the 1 liter+ guideline but it being usable for anything regular in size is out the window. I wouldn't use a container like that in the first place but if i did, i wouldn't want to mislead a finder into thinking they are after a cache where they might be able to drop a decent size TB off or look through/swap swag..

 

It is worse to mislead someone about what they are looking for in the field; basic cache details should be used to convey a precise snapshot of the cache and the conditions for the search. Those basic elements (size, difficulty, terrain) are not meant to convey an in-depth portrait of the cache.

 

If the cache owner insists on using a non-optimal container with a narrow opening, the cache page can be used to describe additional details to help people who play the swag side game decide whether or not the cache meets their needs.

[+J Grouchy]

...

Regular: 1L or larger, but less than 20L. Examples: a plastic container or ammo can about the size of a shoebox.

...

And i agree with you, "shoebox" is not a very good example.

 

Why? It's a size comparison, not an example of an actual container. A shoebox is a common enough item that it gives most people a good idea of size. It would be like saying a particular cache is "about the size of a cantaloupe". It's not saying the container IS a cantaloupe.

Not a biggie for sure but sizes of shoeboxes do vary widely. Even if "adult shoebox" was used, it too can vary a bit. It would still be better though as for the most part, it would cover the 1 liter. Again, not a biggie,, just an observation.

 

Well, it's a generalization for sure, but I think everyone has a similar size in their head when they picture a shoe box...sort of a universal/generic shoe box. Not a boot box, not a child's shoe box...the average adult sneaker/formal shoe box. I think if you polled 100 random people to use their hands to roughly estimate the size of a shoe box, they would all roughly be within a few inches of each other.

[+Mama514]

Regular to me, being new means any container that holds a 6"× 4"TB.

If your cache GC6E1E8 is a small then why are tweezers needed to extract the log?

The container that holds the log is a micro. However, I didn't want to mislead cachers. If the whole cache had been listed as micro, they may think they are looking for a bison tube or a button nano.

Edited September 19, 2016 by Mama514

[+L0ne.R]

 

It is worse to mislead someone about what they are looking for in the field; basic cache details should be used to convey a precise snapshot of the cache and the conditions for the search. Those basic elements (size, difficulty, terrain) are not meant to convey an in-depth portrait of the cache.

 

If the cache owner insists on using a non-optimal container with a narrow opening, the cache page can be used to describe additional details to help people who play the swag side game decide whether or not the cache meets their needs.

 

This ^^^

 

It helps make the game fun for all....those who care only for more smileys, to those who want a more complete geocaching experience which includes pawing through swag, or trading signature items, or taking/leaving trackables.

[+L0ne.R]

Regular to me, being new means any container that holds a 6"× 4"TB.

If your cache GC6E1E8 is a small then why are tweezers needed to extract the log?

The container that holds the log is a micro. However, I didn't want to mislead cachers. If the whole cache had been listed as micro, they may think they are looking for a bison tube or a button nano.

 

But you are misleading those who enjoy the traditional swag side of the game. You may be wasting their time and gas money.

Some of us filter out micros. We may drive a long way just to find a Small size cache, so that we can enjoy the swag size part of the game.

What you end up doing is wasting some geocachers time and money, and irritating them. It may be reflected in the logs you receive.

If you want to make it clear that the disguise that the cache is in is small/large, write it in the hint.

[+narcissa]

Regular to me, being new means any container that holds a 6"× 4"TB.

If your cache GC6E1E8 is a small then why are tweezers needed to extract the log?

The container that holds the log is a micro. However, I didn't want to mislead cachers. If the whole cache had been listed as micro, they may think they are looking for a bison tube or a button nano.

 

But you are misleading those who enjoy the traditional swag side of the game. You may be wasting their time and gas money.

Some of us filter out micros. We may drive a long way just to find a Small size cache, so that we can enjoy the swag size part of the game.

What you end up doing is wasting some geocachers time and money, and irritating them. It may be reflected in the logs you receive.

If you want to make it clear that the disguise that the cache is in is small/large, write it in the hint.

 

A cache like that is better listed as "Micro" with a slightly higher difficulty rating, or as "Other."

[+L0ne.R]

Regular to me, being new means any container that holds a 6"× 4"TB.

If your cache GC6E1E8 is a small then why are tweezers needed to extract the log?

The container that holds the log is a micro. However, I didn't want to mislead cachers. If the whole cache had been listed as micro, they may think they are looking for a bison tube or a button nano.

 

But you are misleading those who enjoy the traditional swag side of the game. You may be wasting their time and gas money.

Some of us filter out micros. We may drive a long way just to find a Small size cache, so that we can enjoy the swag size part of the game.

What you end up doing is wasting some geocachers time and money, and irritating them. It may be reflected in the logs you receive.

If you want to make it clear that the disguise that the cache is in is small/large, write it in the hint.

 

A cache like that is better listed as "Micro" with a slightly higher difficulty rating, or as "Other."

 

Yes, good advice. "Other" will work too.

Most of us who filter out micro, also filter out "other", since those almost always tend to be micros in something (a birdhouse, a hollowed log/branch, a plastic dollar store animal or halloween item, a screw/bolt, a baggie attached to a sign, a drilled out golf ball, a fake rock). Once you've seen for instance, the fake rock key holder it gets boring after the 3rd time (actually 6 times so far this year, 4/6 listed as small, 2/6 listed properly as micro but in a cemetery - I make an exception to my no-micros-please rule for cemeteries).

[+fizzymagic]

A local cacher has a puzzle based on this. Just try it.

[+Mama514]

Regular to me, being new means any container that holds a 6"× 4"TB.

If your cache GC6E1E8 is a small then why are tweezers needed to extract the log?

The container that holds the log is a micro. However, I didn't want to mislead cachers. If the whole cache had been listed as micro, they may think they are looking for a bison tube or a button nano.

 

But you are misleading those who enjoy the traditional swag side of the game. You may be wasting their time and gas money.

Some of us filter out micros. We may drive a long way just to find a Small size cache, so that we can enjoy the swag size part of the game.

What you end up doing is wasting some geocachers time and money, and irritating them. It may be reflected in the logs you receive.

If you want to make it clear that the disguise that the cache is in is small/large, write it in the hint.

 

A cache like that is better listed as "Micro" with a slightly higher difficulty rating, or as "Other."

 

I see your point. "Other" to me was always a tricky hide but this particular cache is not. Recently I found a cache listed as "regular" and it is a bison tube in a hollow of a 2' tall × 1 1/2' diameter stump. On the one hand, if it were listed as "micro", I can see cachers in fits searching for a bison tube, hanging nano, or soda tube in the trees above, or the brush covered fence behind the cache. On the other hand, I can see the frustrated cacher holding a good sized TB and going after this cache to find there's no room for the TB to be dropped.

 

I don't look at the size except to help me in my search. Swag gets emptied quickly and TBs (estimating on my own experience here) are lost,stolen- whatever you want to call it, or held onto for several months by a single person about 50% of the time.

[+Mudfrog]

If the cache owner insists on using a non-optimal container with a narrow opening, the cache page can be used to describe additional details to help people who play the swag side game decide whether or not the cache meets their needs.

 

I agree, this would be the best thing to do. If a laundry detergent bottle is listed as regular in size, then the cache description needs to touch on the limitation of the opening. I've been caught off guard a time or two because the owner didn't relay this information.

[+Mudfrog]

...

Regular: 1L or larger, but less than 20L. Examples: a plastic container or ammo can about the size of a shoebox.

...

And i agree with you, "shoebox" is not a very good example.

 

Why? It's a size comparison, not an example of an actual container. A shoebox is a common enough item that it gives most people a good idea of size. It would be like saying a particular cache is "about the size of a cantaloupe". It's not saying the container IS a cantaloupe.

Not a biggie for sure but sizes of shoeboxes do vary widely. Even if "adult shoebox" was used, it too can vary a bit. It would still be better though as for the most part, it would cover the 1 liter. Again, not a biggie,, just an observation.

 

Well, it's a generalization for sure, but I think everyone has a similar size in their head when they picture a shoe box...sort of a universal/generic shoe box. Not a boot box, not a child's shoe box...the average adult sneaker/formal shoe box. I think if you polled 100 random people to use their hands to roughly estimate the size of a shoe box, they would all roughly be within a few inches of each other.

And i think you're right, first thought for most would probably be an adult sized shoebox. Of course, this conversation wouldn't be taking place if gc.com would have stated "adult shoebox" in the first place.

[+lee737]

I bought some preform tubes on ebay, and wasn't sure of their volume, so filled them with water and weighed them to work it out, so our listing would be right!

If other CO's were so anal, this thread would not exist.....

[+niraD]

I bought some preform tubes on ebay, and wasn't sure of their volume, so filled them with water and weighed them to work it out, so our listing would be right!

Did you measure the internal capacity, or the external displacement?

 

If other CO's were so anal, this thread would not exist.....

Are you sure about that?