Size creep

[cezanne]

 

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.

 

I rather think that the implication "small/regular" means "contains swag" is the wrong thing.

GS could introduce an attribute for "contains swag" that could be used in the manner you right now use the cache size.

 

I do not hide micros but I stopped long time ago to put swag in my caches and the big majority of caches of size larger than micro I find does not contain swag.

 

I respect that you like to go through swag in a cache but I do not appreciate your "waste other cachers' time and gas money" just because cachers correctly use the cache container sizes.

 

I'm not going to hide micros just to allow cachers like you to filter out my non swag caches. It's you who need to use a different approach if you regard a cache that does not contain swag as a waste of time and money.

Edited September 20, 2016 by cezanne

[+Ant89]

easiest solution will be to replace "micro/small/regular/large" with "0-99ml/100-999ml/1-19l/20l+" if someone labels a 0-99ml container as 100-999ml then somthing is seriously wrong. (Best to use the international SI units as this is a worldwide activity)

[+L0ne.R]

easiest solution will be to replace "micro/small/regular/large" with "0-99ml/100-999ml/1-19l/20l+" if someone labels a 0-99ml container as 100-999ml then somthing is seriously wrong. (Best to use the international SI units as this is a worldwide activity)

 

Yes, I agree. Label by volume. It's straightforward, less room for misinterpretation.

Of course, there will still be those who will ignore it and insist that swag/trackables don't matter; that the log with the hole drilled in it for the bison tube has a volume of 2 liters because the log occupies 2L of space.

Yet they agree that the bison tube in the knot hole of a tree trunk is a micro because we don't count the volume of the tree.

Edited September 20, 2016 by L0ne.R

[+narcissa]

The primary consideration should be what the searcher is looking for.

 

A micro in a log is a micro. That is the container the searcher is looking for. The difficulty level should be raised to indicate trickier camouflage.

 

A liquid laundry detergent container with a narrow neck is a regular even though swag doesn't fit into it. That is the container the searcher is looking for.

 

The suitability or qualification of a container for side games is not the main concern. The key elements in the listing should be precise and honest to assist in the primary purpose of the game, which is finding geocaches.

 

Incorrect size listings, whether due to subterfuge or simple ignorance, degrade the quality of the game. That's as good a reason as any to point out the errors. If the cache owners won't correct them, at least the logs provide fair warning to other cachers.

[+Mudfrog]

easiest solution will be to replace "micro/small/regular/large" with "0-99ml/100-999ml/1-19l/20l+" if someone labels a 0-99ml container as 100-999ml then somthing is seriously wrong. (Best to use the international SI units as this is a worldwide activity)

 

Yes, I agree. Label by volume. It's straightforward, less room for misinterpretation.

Of course, there will still be those who will ignore it and insist that swag/trackables don't matter; that the log with the hole drilled in it for the bison tube has a volume of 2 liters because the log occupies 2L of space.

Yet they agree that the bison tube in the knot hole of a tree trunk is a micro because we don't count the volume of the tree.

This is already in place. The guidelines state plain as day, the minimum and maximum volumes for each size.

 

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.....

As long as you're listing them as micro, you're good! I realize there are different sizes of preforms so i took a quick look around the web to see what was available. The largest i came across was 60ml. Guidelines suggest micros as being anything less than 100ml. Can't tell you how many times i've found soda tubes listed as small...

Edited September 20, 2016 by Mudfrog

[+Ant89]

easiest solution will be to replace "micro/small/regular/large" with "0-99ml/100-999ml/1-19l/20l+" if someone labels a 0-99ml container as 100-999ml then somthing is seriously wrong. (Best to use the international SI units as this is a worldwide activity)

 

Yes, I agree. Label by volume. It's straightforward, less room for misinterpretation.

Of course, there will still be those who will ignore it and insist that swag/trackables don't matter; that the log with the hole drilled in it for the bison tube has a volume of 2 liters because the log occupies 2L of space.

Yet they agree that the bison tube in the knot hole of a tree trunk is a micro because we don't count the volume of the tree.

This is already in place. The guidelines state plain as day, the minimum and maximum volumes for each size.

 

 

indeed it is, that is where I got the numbers from. but making it more obvious would help.

[cezanne]

Of course, there will still be those who will ignore it and insist that swag/trackables don't matter; that the log with the hole drilled in it for the bison tube has a volume of 2 liters because the log occupies 2L of space.

Yet they agree that the bison tube in the knot hole of a tree trunk is a micro because we don't count the volume of the tree.

 

I think that you should not forget the importance of the size for the searcher. The swag/trackables comes after having found a cache.

Moreover, I have found a number of caches where the container indeed had a reasonable large volume, but that volume was filled with decoration or parts of the cache that belong to the cache (e.g. many small containers one of which then contains the log sheet) and there neither was swag in the cache nor room for swag.

 

You seem to overlook that the volume of a cache container does neither say anything about whether swag is present nor about whether there is room for swag. That's a question that goes far beyond the hole drilled in a tree/log etc for a micro.

[+L0ne.R]

 

I'm not going to hide micros just to allow cachers like you to filter out my non swag caches. It's you who need to use a different approach if you regard a cache that does not contain swag as a waste of time and money.

 

Groundspeak provides a filtering tool to help finders filter out cache sizes they don't enjoy finding, and to filter in those they do like. If everyone follows the size guidelines regarding volume, it works well. For people who could care less about size, whether you list your micro in a birdhouse as a small/regular matters not. They will search for all cache sizes and not use the filtering options. Maybe once they're in the field and can't find the cache, they will likely look at the hint first before checking the size. That information can go in the hint section. 'A bison tube in a container about the size of a shoe box.'

 

So what is this other approach i.e. how do I filter out micros from my search (whether they are on a fence, or in a hollow log, or birdhouse, or attached to a plastic frog, etc.) so I don't waste my time and gas money?

[cezanne]

 

I'm not going to hide micros just to allow cachers like you to filter out my non swag caches. It's you who need to use a different approach if you regard a cache that does not contain swag as a waste of time and money.

 

Groundspeak provides a filtering tool to help finders filter out cache sizes they don't enjoy finding, and to filter in those they do like. If everyone follows the size guidelines regarding volume, it works well.

 

It seems to me that you did not understand my text. I said that I will not move to hide micros instead of caches of size at least small (which applies to all my caches) just because I do not add swag into my caches (that's however what you expect to find - otherwise you regard it as waste of time and money as you said).

 

I do not own caches where there can be any debate about their size. It's just that regardless of the size of my containers, my caches do not offer you the full experience you wish to obtain. That was my point in what you cited above.

 

Personally I do not like micros in a forest as they are often hard to find. In my case the size classification sometimes helps to know what to expect. In your case you rather would need a "contains swag" attribute.

Edited September 20, 2016 by cezanne

[+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.....

As long as you're listing them as micro, you're good! I realize there are different sizes of preforms so i took a quick look around the web to see what was available. The largest i came across was 60ml. Guidelines suggest micros as being anything less than 100ml. Can't tell you how many times i've found soda tubes listed as small...

 

From memory, they were 120mL..... and a travel tag cold just fit in, so I'd be happy listing as small, but to be honest I feel they could be listed as either small or micro without causing too much fuss.

We always say what the container is in the description in any case.

 

 

[+lee737]

easiest solution will be to replace "micro/small/regular/large" with "0-99ml/100-999ml/1-19l/20l+" if someone labels a 0-99ml container as 100-999ml then somthing is seriously wrong. (Best to use the international SI units as this is a worldwide activity)

 

Yes, I agree. Label by volume. It's straightforward, less room for misinterpretation.

Of course, there will still be those who will ignore it and insist that swag/trackables don't matter; that the log with the hole drilled in it for the bison tube has a volume of 2 liters because the log occupies 2L of space.

Yet they agree that the bison tube in the knot hole of a tree trunk is a micro because we don't count the volume of the tree.

This is already in place. The guidelines state plain as day, the minimum and maximum volumes for each size.

 

 

indeed it is, that is where I got the numbers from. but making it more obvious would help.

 

The numbers need to be plainly stated right at the point where the CO selects the size on the cache-edit page, with several examples for each size - 3 or 4 examples each would cover 95% of containers out there I believe.

[+barefootjeff]

This is already in place. The guidelines state plain as day, the minimum and maximum volumes for each size.

In the guidelines, yes, but not on the cache creation page where it's most needed. On there, there are just pictures of typical containers in each category.

[+lee737]

This is already in place. The guidelines state plain as day, the minimum and maximum volumes for each size.

In the guidelines, yes, but not on the cache creation page where it's most needed. On there, there are just pictures of typical containers in each category.

 

 

Exactly - and the images clearly show the huge range of size between the micro and the regular examples shown, which is where the confusion/problems exist. Maybe even pictorial examples of the range - like micro, show a nano to a medium preform tube, small a large preform to a 750mL container, and regular show a 1L container up to a big ammo tin?? I'm happier with objective sizes listed, but see why they use pictures.....

[+Mama514]

The single cache I own listed as regular is about 3 liters if 6 1/2 × 7 × 4 calculates correctly. Nice container too. Even with the severe amount of rain we've had this year, everything's clean and dry. There's swag in it now but if there isn't when someone who enjoys finding that size

container, I sure hope they add some since they took the time and gas to find it.

 

Info please--It sure doesn't seem like it's the equivalent of 3 liters though. Did I get the conversion wrong?

Edited September 20, 2016 by Mama514

[+barefootjeff]

The single cache I own listed as regular is about 3 liters if 6 1/2 × 7 × 4 calculates correctly. Nice container too. Even with the severe amount of rain we've had this year, everything's clean and dry. There's swag in it now but if there isn't when someone who enjoys finding that size

container, I sure hope they add some since they took the time and gas to find it.

 

Info please--It sure doesn't seem like it's the equivalent of 3 liters though. Did I get the conversion wrong?

Yes, almost exactly 3 litres. A litre is a cubic decimetre, that is 10cm x 10cm x 10cm, and 10cm is near enough to 4 American inches.

[+redsox_mark]

Not trying to be picky with words, but the "guidelines" Guidelines don't say anything about size. The Help Center/Knowledge book does http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=75

 

I've found lots of caches which, in my opinion, the size was wrong. Some of these were because the container was changed at some point and the size not updated. Some were wrong from the start. I've not really noticed this getting worse. But as I suspect it is a small percentage of cachers which are aware of the specific Help Center article, most cachers choose the size either based on the images on the creation page, or what they have seen others do. Taking the example of a bottle preform, I can see how a cacher might choose small rather than micro looking at the pictures on the submission page; even if the volume is < 100 ml. They way it fits in the hand looks more like the small example than the micro. Then other cachers may choose small because the preforms they found were listed small...

[+briansnat]

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.

 

if you are referring to a typical prescription pill vial, that is most definitely a micro. If you are talking about a vitamin jar then small may be appropriate

[+L0ne.R]

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.

 

if you are referring to a typical prescription pill vial, that is most definitely a micro. If you are talking about a vitamin jar then small may be appropriate

 

As a reviewer, if you see someone submit a cache as a 'small', but in the description they write that it's a film canister or prescription pill vial, would a reviewer ask that they change the size to micro, or is size something that reviewers don't monitor?

[+Mudfrog]

easiest solution will be to replace "micro/small/regular/large" with "0-99ml/100-999ml/1-19l/20l+" if someone labels a 0-99ml container as 100-999ml then somthing is seriously wrong. (Best to use the international SI units as this is a worldwide activity)

 

Yes, I agree. Label by volume. It's straightforward, less room for misinterpretation.

Of course, there will still be those who will ignore it and insist that swag/trackables don't matter; that the log with the hole drilled in it for the bison tube has a volume of 2 liters because the log occupies 2L of space.

Yet they agree that the bison tube in the knot hole of a tree trunk is a micro because we don't count the volume of the tree.

This is already in place. The guidelines state plain as day, the minimum and maximum volumes for each size.

 

 

indeed it is, that is where I got the numbers from. but making it more obvious would help.

 

The numbers need to be plainly stated right at the point where the CO selects the size on the cache-edit page, with several examples for each size - 3 or 4 examples each would cover 95% of containers out there I believe.

A lot of people forgo reading the official guidelines so this would be great since it would display right in front of their face. As Picard would say,,, "MAKE IT SO!"

 

Oh wait, this makes too much sense. I doubt it'll come to pass.

[+Ant89]

A UK based geocaching shop in it's container section states the following

"Nano & micro sized containers (upto 10ml)"

"Small & regular sized containers (10ml -100ml)"

"Medium & mega sized containers (100ml and above)"

[+The A-Team]

A UK based geocaching shop in it's container section states the following

"Nano & micro sized containers (upto 10ml)"

"Small & regular sized containers (10ml -100ml)"

"Medium & mega sized containers (100ml and above)"

Yikes, that's pretty bad! If someone is going to make up their own wacky size categories for selling containers, at least name them differently than the ones used on the cache listings to prevent people from equating the two. I have to assume someone with enough caching experience to open a geocaching shop knows about the standard size ratings and what they describe, so it could be that they just didn't consider the possible consequences of reusing the same names for totally different sizes.

 

For reference, a film canister has a volume of roughly 35 ml.

A 10 ml Small is absurd.

A 100 ml Regular is ridiculous.

[+The Rat]

I haven't noticed this trend, if it is indeed a trend. This may be because most of the caches I find are hidden by long-time, serious cachers who know the guidelines and follow them. I have noticed a somewhat related trend, though, of people describing things inaccurately, notably on cache pages and in logs, but everywhere generally. I attribute this to bad trends in our educational system. Grammar and vocabulary, outlining sentences, parts of speech, etc. are not taught, or are taught badly now. Case in point: I heard a high school English teacher (35-ish) say "Me and my friend went to the mall." A failure to understand concepts like subject, predicate, and case is one reason Americans are so bad at learning foreign languages, I think. But as it relates to geocaching, the main problem I've found is that hints are so often misleading (unintentionally) and thus actually make it harder for the educated cacher. One example seared in my memory is a TB hotel I drove 40 miles to use and DNFed because the hint said it was 6 feet from concrete. There was an object that met the physical description but was one inch from concrete so I didn't search it. I spent 45 minutes there and gave up, relying on the CO meaning what he said. It turned out the CO meant it was within six feet of concrete instead of six feet from concrete. Another example is my cache Word Police Quiz. It's found a lot less often now than it was the first two years, probably because people don't spell as well now. I've noticed that when people do find it now, a higher percentage than before have to email me for help because they can't solve it, even though anyone can get 100% simply by using a dictionary or any search engine. I don't remember who said it first here, but it's hopeless to get people to use words correctly now. Deal with it.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Hmm... I found two caches today that were small pill containers. One was listed as 'small'. I don't look under lamp post skirts for a 'small' container. The other was listed as 'unknown' with the note on the cache page: "It is not a micro."

Umm... Yup! They're both micros.

[+AspergerSadie]

Yup. I discovered my first cache in 2006. It was the size of a film canister and was considered to be a micro (as it should be). Since then, I have found countless containers about the same size which have been labeled as a small. I've adjusted my search filters to compensate, but it's still frustrating to know that the older, correctly-labeled "small" caches are being filtered out. Or even that newer caches, correctly labeled by long-time members are also being filtered out. I guess it's not fair to ask the reviewers to double check the size. Maybe there could be an email sent out (like in the newsletter) to help clarify this for folks? Or they could create another size option, so rather than "other" (which people seem to think are oddly shaped containers only), there could actually be a "nano" option. I honestly think that would eliminate a ton of confusion. And the sooner it's done, the sooner the mess from the size issue is rectified.

[+Isonzo Karst]

I walked some trail and hunted 4 caches. DNF'ed all 4 of them. 2 I was pretty sure were missing, as I found parts, 2 I had no clue.

 

The 2 I thought were missing are low D and usually found, the other two have a high DNF rate. One of them has a high D rating.

 

CO disabled and fixed the 2 I'd thought were missing. Seeing that, I spent some time eyeballing the gallery on the other two returned.

 

Had the SIZES on either of the two that were present been correct, I probably would have found them on the first trip. Both further compound wrong size with bad hints. Hints rhyme and are cute, in and of themselves, they just create false quite expectations of the caches - couple that with micros listed as regulars, explains the high DNF rate on a couple of caches that with proper sizes and useful hints might be DNFed every once in a while, instead of more than half the time.

 

I have no idea why a CO wouldn't fix this, he does seem to be paying attention.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

I've been noticing a distinct trend in upsizing, at all levels of sizes.

• Most regular size containers are actually small containers (usually 100ml-500ml)
  Last week I found a palm size 100ml Lock&Lock style container listed as a regular
• Most small size containers are micros (often pill bottles, preforms or magnetic keyholders)
  Last week I found a small 10ml capacity magnetic keyholder listed as a small
• Cache owners will not change their incorrect size, even when size is explained and a link is provided to the guidelines

I'm use to micros listed as small, but it used to be about 60/40, that is there was a 40% chance that the small size cache is actually a micro (under 100ml). Now, in my area I'd say it's now 30/70, 70% chance that the small is actually a micro.

I've started filtering out smalls. But now I'm noticing that the regular and large are also upsized. It really surprised me when I saw a 100ml container listed as a regular, then irritated me that the owner chooses to ignore the size guidelines. Someone with a large TB might be irritated because there are so few larger containers to leave TBs in.

 

I've noticed this also. Seems that anything larger than a 35 mm film can is "small" these days and anything larger than a sandwich box is "regular." An ammo box was listed as "large." And of course a "nano" is "other."

 

I have noticed this trend in my area also.

[+nextlogicalstep]

As someone new to hiding geocaches, I would like the website to make the meaning of the various sizes more clear. When you submit a cache, there's no link to the size descriptions (in the way there is a link to the meanings of various terrain ratings), you just get those pictures. They're somewhat useful, but they only show the most typical container for that size. Without any visual context, it's not all that meaningful, and it does nothing to show the range of containers appropriate for a particular size label.

 

If a micro is anything less than 100 ml, why is it also described as "about the size of a film cannister, or smaller" when a film canister is roughly 35 ml?

[+redsox_mark]

As someone new to hiding geocaches, I would like the website to make the meaning of the various sizes more clear. When you submit a cache, there's no link to the size descriptions (in the way there is a link to the meanings of various terrain ratings), you just get those pictures. They're somewhat useful, but they only show the most typical container for that size. Without any visual context, it's not all that meaningful, and it does nothing to show the range of containers appropriate for a particular size label.

 

If a micro is anything less than 100 ml, why is it also described as "about the size of a film cannister, or smaller" when a film canister is roughly 35 ml?

 

You are right. The size isn't precisely defined on the submit page, nor in the guidelines. It is only in the "Help Center", which most cachers won't find.

 

I think "about the size of a film cannister" is mentioned as a film cannister is a common micro type. But it would be better to say "for example". The "or smaller" I think is there to make it clear that nanos are a type of micro. But it does lead to hiders thinking if the container is larger than a film cannister it is small (even if < 100 ml).

[+ADKer]

I think it's pretty obvious that the best way to end the size creep is to establish a "nano" size cache. This would be for things like fake bolts, and those little magnetics capsules the size of a fingertip.

[+HHL]

[...] when a film canister is roughly 35 ml?

 

<weisenheimer> The film canister has an appr. volume of 23 ml. It's the film itself that is 35 mm wide .</weisenheimer>

 

Hans

[+nextlogicalstep]

[...] when a film canister is roughly 35 ml?

 

<weisenheimer> The film canister has an appr. volume of 23 ml. It's the film itself that is 35 mm wide .</weisenheimer>

 

Hans

 

And this is relevant to the topic at hand how?

 

I didn't do the math myself, and I don't have any film canisters around to measure. I googled it and read that it was 35.325 cm cubed. Maybe those websites are wrong, or maybe your assertion that the volume is approximately 23 ml is as wrong as your assumption that people think it's 35 ml because it holds 35 mm film.

[+hzoi]

As someone new to hiding geocaches, I would like the website to make the meaning of the various sizes more clear. When you submit a cache, there's no link to the size descriptions (in the way there is a link to the meanings of various terrain ratings), you just get those pictures. They're somewhat useful, but they only show the most typical container for that size. Without any visual context, it's not all that meaningful, and it does nothing to show the range of containers appropriate for a particular size label.

 

If a micro is anything less than 100 ml, why is it also described as "about the size of a film cannister, or smaller" when a film canister is roughly 35 ml?

 

You are right. The size isn't precisely defined on the submit page, nor in the guidelines. It is only in the "Help Center", which most cachers won't find.

 

I think "about the size of a film cannister" is mentioned as a film cannister is a common micro type. But it would be better to say "for example". The "or smaller" I think is there to make it clear that nanos are a type of micro. But it does lead to hiders thinking if the container is larger than a film cannister it is small (even if < 100 ml).

Maybe it would be clearer to just define size by volume. Film cans are like floppy disks and VHS tapes: sure, some folks still use them, but they're becoming increasingly scarce and obsolete. (Plus, most of them leak anyway.)

[+redsox_mark]

 

Maybe it would be clearer to just define size by volume. Film cans are like floppy disks and VHS tapes: sure, some folks still use them, but they're becoming increasingly scarce and obsolete. (Plus, most of them leak anyway.)

 

I agree, and those volume definitions are there. They are just in the help center and not on the cache setting page, so seldom get seen. I'd like to see volumes shown on the cache setting page.

[+hzoi]

 

Maybe it would be clearer to just define size by volume. Film cans are like floppy disks and VHS tapes: sure, some folks still use them, but they're becoming increasingly scarce and obsolete. (Plus, most of them leak anyway.)

 

I agree, and those volume definitions are there. They are just in the help center and not on the cache setting page, so seldom get seen. I'd like to see volumes shown on the cache setting page.

Yes -- that's what I meant to say, this info belongs in the "Hide a cache" dialogue.

[+Dreamer of Pictures]

Size is important to finders because proper specification of size helps limit the types and therefore numbers of hideouts to be examined.

 

It would help TREMENDOUSLY if geocaching.com literally displayed a summary of the size specs in the page on which people select a size.

 

I was curious and researched the size specs through the knowledge base many years ago.

 

Nowadays, people who do not know any better use LARGE to mean "bigger than a 30 cal ammo box", SMALL to mean "smaller than an ammo box", and REGULAR to mean "any cache that is not virtual or puzzle or meeting or Wherigo". I have seen this all up and down the East Coast and in May 2018 in Nebraska, Iowa and Minnesota.

 

There remains an ambiguity in the geocaching.com size specs. Does the size indicate internal capacity or external volume? Some caches have minimal internal volume and are much bigger on the outside. For finding purposes, the external volume is key. For planning where to drop a trackable, the internal volume is key.

[+Team Christiansen]

deleted

Edited May 11, 2018 by Team Christiansen
Misread comment

[+narcissa]

On 11/05/2018 at 2:40 PM, Dreamer of Pictures said:

Size is important to finders because proper specification of size helps limit the types and therefore numbers of hideouts to be examined.

 

It would help TREMENDOUSLY if geocaching.com literally displayed a summary of the size specs in the page on which people select a size.

 

I was curious and researched the size specs through the knowledge base many years ago.

 

Nowadays, people who do not know any better use LARGE to mean "bigger than a 30 cal ammo box", SMALL to mean "smaller than an ammo box", and REGULAR to mean "any cache that is not virtual or puzzle or meeting or Wherigo". I have seen this all up and down the East Coast and in May 2018 in Nebraska, Iowa and Minnesota.

 

There remains an ambiguity in the geocaching.com size specs. Does the size indicate internal capacity or external volume? Some caches have minimal internal volume and are much bigger on the outside. For finding purposes, the external volume is key. For planning where to drop a trackable, the internal volume is key.

 

Again, since the primary function of the game is finding geocaches, external volume should be the basis for size categorization.

[+badlands]

23 minutes ago, narcissa said:

 

Again, since the primary function of the game is finding geocaches, external volume should be the basis for size categorization.

 

Respectfully disagree.

 

If finding geocaches was the primary function, then I'd be a numbers hound, always looking for the next power trail.  Geocaching "to me" is about having fun, being out doors and interacting with other cachers.  If I actually find the cache, that's a bonus.

 

Size is about a lot of things including external/internal volume.  When I place a cache, part of the size equation is how difficult it will be to find.  If the container is a tweener (clearly between sizes) and I expect it to be difficult to find, I'll use the smaller size.  If I'm looking to drop off a travel but then internal size is important.  If the internal/external dimensions are significantly different then not chosen or unknown can be used.

 

 

[+niraD]

On 5/12/2018 at 0:38 PM, narcissa said:

Again, since the primary function of the game is finding geocaches, external volume should be the basis for size categorization.

If there's a large-size boulder with a micro-size blinker embedded into it somewhere, then finding the large-size boulder does me no good. I have to spot the micro-size blinker embedded into it before I even know that that is the cache. For the purposes of "finding geocaches", it's a micro.

[+narcissa]

22 hours ago, niraD said:

If there's a large-size boulder with a micro-size blinker embedded into it somewhere, then finding the large-size boulder does me no good. I have to spot the micro-size blinker embedded into it before I even know that that is the cache. For the purposes of "finding geocaches", it's a micro.

 

The boulder is camouflage and should not be incorporated into the size assessment.

[+narcissa]

On 12/05/2018 at 4:09 PM, badlands said:

 

Respectfully disagree.

 

If finding geocaches was the primary function, then I'd be a numbers hound, always looking for the next power trail.  Geocaching "to me" is about having fun, being out doors and interacting with other cachers.  If I actually find the cache, that's a bonus.

 

Size is about a lot of things including external/internal volume.  When I place a cache, part of the size equation is how difficult it will be to find.  If the container is a tweener (clearly between sizes) and I expect it to be difficult to find, I'll use the smaller size.  If I'm looking to drop off a travel but then internal size is important.  If the internal/external dimensions are significantly different then not chosen or unknown can be used.

 

 

 

Difficulty is reflected in its own rating.

[+niraD]

12 hours ago, narcissa said:

The boulder is camouflage and should not be incorporated into the size assessment.

So where do you draw the line between "external volume" and "camouflage"?

[+GeoTrekker26]

18 minutes ago, niraD said:

So where do you draw the line between "external volume" and "camouflage"?

Sorry, but I don’t even know what the term “external volume” means. 

[+barefootjeff]

46 minutes ago, GeoTrekker26 said:

Sorry, but I don’t even know what the term “external volume” means. 

 

The outside dimensions of the cache, as opposed to "internal volume" which is how much room there is inside it. External volume is helpful in knowing what you're looking for and what hiding places are feasible, whereas internal volume is helpful if you have a trackable to drop off or some swag to swap.

[+Isonzo Karst]

Re internal v external volume,   I think in terms of "would a TB tag with small attachment fit" - that's a Small. That said, I see small mouth water bottles being used as caches, I consider them Small, but you can't get much in or out them.

 

Speaking of size creep - new hider puts out a couple of nice hides.  The first finders comment on the terrain rating (too low) and the size rating Large - caches are ammo cans). CO ups the T rating a half point, but says of the size, "I'm going to leave it Large, we need more Large around here" !   I'm not sure what the "need" is, but I'm quite sure that those ammo can caches are Regular, precisely as illustrated on the CSP.

Experienced hider puts out 102 caches  nicely done) most  are pill bottles, a couple of small containers.  All the pill bottles are listed as Small, the two small containers are listed as Regular. I didn't see a single finder comment. I know I didn't.

I think that battle is lost. In my area, upper limit of Micro size now starts with the standard bill fob (bison tube)  and anything much bigger is going to be listed as Small.

 

Edited May 16, 2018 by Isonzo Karst

[+badlands]

Isonzo Karst makes an unintended but interesting point.  Knowing your cache hider helps in identifying what the container will be based on listed size.

 

Should Groundspeak define size based on common usage or should size conform to Groundspeak's definition?

 

[+redsox_mark]

7 hours ago, niraD said:

So where do you draw the line between "external volume" and "camouflage"?

 

It is hard to draw the line.   Often I've seen cases where something large is hidden with small internal volume listed as size "other".

 

- If I hide a micro under a large stone, it is a micro.

- If I hollow out a large stone, creating a compartment > 1 litre, that would be a regular.

- If I hollow out that same stone but the internal compartment I create is small or micro sized?   Does that stone suddenly become "camo"?  

[321geocache]

In my opinion, the internal volume is important to know whether trackables or swag will fit in a cache. For example, if a large stone has a small compartment in the bottom that is micro sized, but the cache is listed as "large" because of its external volume, that presents a problem. If someone brings a TB to put in the cache, but finds that it's actually not a Large cache but a micro, they've just wasted their time bringing the TB with them. IMO the cache should be listed as the container size, not the size of the hiding place.

External volume is important as well. It helps the cacher to know what to look for. However, I think that it should not be how we rate caches. A nano hidden under a large fake rock - is it "Large" or "Micro"? I think it should be listed as Micro.

2 hours ago, redsox_mark said:

- If I hollow out that same stone but the internal compartment I create is small or micro sized?   Does that stone suddenly become "camo"?  

I think the cache should be listed as small or micro. The stone really didn't become "camo".

[+cerberus1]

5 hours ago, Isonzo Karst said:

Re internal v external volume,   I think in terms of "would a TB tag with small attachment fit" - that's a Small. That said, I see small mouth water bottles being used as caches, I consider them Small, but you can't get much in or out them.

 

Speaking of size creep - new hider puts out a couple of nice hides.  The first finders comment on the terrain rating (too low) and the size rating Large - caches are ammo cans). CO ups the T rating a half point, but says of the size, "I'm going to leave it Large, we need more Large around here" !   I'm not sure what the "need" is, but I'm quite sure that those ammo can caches are Regular, precisely as illustrated on the CSP.

Experienced hider puts out 102 caches  nicely done) most  are pill bottles, a couple of small containers.  All the pill bottles are listed as Small, the two small containers are listed as Regular. I didn't see a single finder comment. I know I didn't.

I think that battle is lost. In my area, upper limit of Micro size now starts with the standard bill fob (bison tube)  and anything much bigger is going to be listed as Small.

 

Agreed.  We haven't seen a "small" bison tube yet, but have seen a few of those larger ones with terribly-thin O-rings called "mega" or "jumbo", that might fit a TB tag and something small attached with the log, and called small.

 

We found it first in visitors to this once open vacation area, usually town/city dwellers, used to finding nanos and film cans,  they're finding ammo cans that appear ridiculously large to them.  No longer a tourist visiting, but now moving to the area, they feel a pill bottle's gotta be at least a small. 

One (thinking themselves creative) put flimsy water bottles alongside guard rails and called them small. Most were picked up by a CITO crew just a short time later, thinking it litter. 

 

I leave a "Looking for a small to drop off trackables, found this micro instead" on every cache that's been incorrectly sized.  Sometimes I'll leave similar with someone who thinks their little lock n lock is the same size as an ammo can, with a mention of swag. No other logs before me mentioned anything.  I usually don't look after visiting (no need), but maybe now that I'm thinking about it, it might be good to see if other's opinions changed.  Though might be the wet blanket there too. 

[+redsox_mark]

16 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

I leave a "Looking for a small to drop off trackables, found this micro instead" on every cache that's been incorrectly sized.  Sometimes I'll leave similar with someone who thinks their little lock n lock is the same size as an ammo can, with a mention of swag. No other logs before me mentioned anything.  I usually don't look after visiting (no need), but maybe now that I'm thinking about it, it might be good to see if other's opinions changed.  Though might be the wet blanket there too. 

 

I leave a similar comment when the size is incorrect.    Sometimes it is "size creep" and the size has been wrong all along.   Many times I find that the container originally was a larger size (and originally listed correctly), but it was later replaced with a smaller container and the size was not adjusted.    Sometimes the description mentions the size too; recently I found one listed as Regular, and the description said it was an Ammo can.   It originally was, but it is now a micro.    That one the owner updated the size and description after seeing my log