Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
'yakinCacher

Caching Culture Changes?

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Viajero Perdido said:

2005: Quality

2020: Quantity

 

That's too easily thought (sorry if this is bad English ;-)).

I hear that very often: "everything was so good in the old days", "you don't find ammunition boxes today but only micro caches" (do not forget about those silly nano caches), "everyone just looks at statistics", "no one needs these new souvenirs", .....

 

That's partially right. I started in 2008 and it was different then compared to today, compared to 2015, compared to 2012.... What's right for sure is that all those challenge caches have changed the way of caching more to statistics. Collecting attributes and badges (the author badge makes cachers log the same bulls**t on every cache)..... BUT:

 

When I started most caches in any urban area were film canisters. This was one of the most basic cache boxes. Not ammunition boxes - film canisters, leaky film canisters. Basic cache in the urban areas were simple traditional caches near churches ("location, location, location") and in the woods you found some standard multi caches, some mysteries and many more traditional caches.

Nowadays film canisters have changed to PETlings (that's better), instead of ammunition boxes you find lock and lock boxes (that is not as cool but it's not a bad box).

You find much more creative caches today - selfmade constructions, electronical devices, interesting riddles indoor and outdoor. And in between you still find these old gems, classical hiking multi caches fot example. There are much more and much better caches than 2008 but of course you have to filter the trash (which you do not want to find) out.

 

Those who have to find every cache and clean up there homezone may have problems but those who want to find creative and nice caches can still find them. And no one forces them to do the "bad caches" (that's always subjective but yes, in my eyes, there are many of those). Find those you like and it's still - or even more! - a great hobby.

 

Quality is there, just search for it and ignore the rest!

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post

We could use a size between Micro and Small that would apply to Preforms, larger Magkeys, and other containers larger than a bison or film can but smaller than a lock-n-lock. But since we still haven't gotten a Nano size yet I can't imagine we will ever get a "Big Micro" size.

 

There's at least one change for the better: film cans are almost all gone, and slim bobs and altoid tins seemer rarer now than when I started. Meanwhile preforms have caught on and they're basically the ultimate micro: waterproof, durable, inexpensive, and not tiny.

 

GSAK and Project GC also provide a lot of great tools, especially if you're particular about what caches you seek.

Share this post


Link to post

I think the explosion in micro size caches, in particular pill bottles and bison tubes, happened when power trails were allowed. Cache owners began to hide dozens, often hundreds of caches. Even one dollar per container was too costly.

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

I think the explosion in micro size caches, in particular pill bottles and bison tubes, happened when power trails were allowed. Cache owners began to hide dozens, often hundreds of caches. Even one dollar per container was too costly.

When I started, there was an ethic among cache hiders that one should leave room for other caches. For example, don't place your cache in the middle of the park where it blocks the whole park, but place your cache on the edge of the park to leave room for one or more caches elsewhere in the park.

 

Even that was a change from an earlier ethic, that you shouldn't hide a cache in a park that already had a cache.

 

Now, cache owners flood new parks/trails with fungible hides every 528ft/161m, leaving no room for anyone else to hide anything.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
57 minutes ago, niraD said:

When I started, there was an ethic among cache hiders that one should leave room for other caches. For example, don't place your cache in the middle of the park where it blocks the whole park, but place your cache on the edge of the park to leave room for one or more caches elsewhere in the park.

 

Even that was a change from an earlier ethic, that you shouldn't hide a cache in a park that already had a cache.

 

Now, cache owners flood new parks/trails with fungible hides every 528ft/161m, leaving no room for anyone else to hide anything.

 

So true. I remember about 5 years ago, finding a trail that was just about to officially open to the public. 'Yeah!' I thought. 'How lucky am I to discover a new trail that hasn't been taken by power cachers' (I checked the app for new caches).  I'll hide my sandwich-size disguised cache here (I made an outter disguise for the Lock & Lock container). I spent about 40 minutes searching for a good spot and placed the cache. Then I went for more of a walk on the trail. Along the way I saw a bench and behind the bench a tall stump. 'Good spot for a cache' I thought. Maybe I could make another cache for the trail. So I looked in the stump and inside was a pill bottle, and in the pill bottle a scroll that said ' 'Trail Name' cache #28'. Sigh. Someone had already filled the trail with pill bottles. Back I went to my cache and removed it. The power trail of pill bottles was published 13 days later. I had for a moment considered leaving my cache and submitting it. Perhaps I would get it published before the PT went in, if  not I'd come back to remove it. Then I thought, no. If I get it published my cache will be lumped in with the PT caches.  I would  end up getting PT-style cut-n-paste logs thanking the PT owner for his contribution. It was not an appealing choice for me. 

  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, dprovan said:

If you follow the guidelines, then it's true there's no gray area for size. But the reason people don't follow the guidelines is that it basically eliminates the size as useful information because there's nothing but "micro" (meaning on the small end of the scale) and small (meaning on the large end of the scale). When all caches placed are micro and small, I think it makes perfect sense to start calling that upper half of the small range "regular". I guess I can't quite get over the irony of "regular" being highly unusual. I don't mean to advocate unilateral size creep, but I certainly understand why it's happening, and I, for one, would be open to the official sizes being reconsidered to bring them down to levels that reflect the current norms.

 

What you're seeing isn't happening everywhere. There's no predominance of Micros here; I'd say the most common containers I encounter would be the 380ml and 500ml Sistemas which are right in the middle of the Small range. Whenever the hiding place has room for it, I go for a Regular-sized container, either a 1 litre (or larger) Sistema or, more recently, I've been using steel cash boxes about 1.5 litres in size.

 

Here's the distribution of cache sizes around my area at the southern end of the New South Wales Central Coast:

 

Micro.jpg.f829008ed38708ee5040eac9ba909a8b.jpg

 

Small.jpg.cdd2e32139d7c71fd1950608184344de.jpg

 

Regular.jpg.7d5ba4a6b6d26a6c107e6465a041e7e4.jpg

 

Changing the size definitions to accomodate mostly nanos and micros would end up having everything around here becoming a regular or large.

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

If you had captured the entire line, it also said, "We said AFAWK they did."   Why the need to start something not there ?

Not sure why you think anyone's starting anything here.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

So true. I remember about 5 years ago, finding a trail that was just about to officially open to the public. 'Yeah!' I thought. 'How lucky am I to discover a new trail that hasn't been taken by power cachers' (I checked the app for new caches).  I'll hide my sandwich-size disguised cache here (I made an outter disguise for the Lock & Lock container). I spent about 40 minutes searching for a good spot and placed the cache. Then I went for more of a walk on the trail. Along the way I saw a bench and behind the bench a tall stump. 'Good spot for a cache' I thought. Maybe I could make another cache for the trail. So I looked in the stump and inside was a pill bottle, and in the pill bottle a scroll that said ' 'Trail Name' cache #28'. Sigh. Someone had already filled the trail with pill bottles. Back I went to my cache and removed it. The power trail of pill bottles was published 13 days later. I had for a moment considered leaving my cache and submitting it. Perhaps I would get it published before the PT went in, if  not I'd come back to remove it. Then I thought, no. If I get it published my cache will be lumped in with the PT caches.  I would  end up getting PT-style cut-n-paste logs thanking the PT owner for his contribution. It was not an appealing choice for me. 

This forum really needs a "Sad" response...

:sad:

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

What you're seeing isn't happening everywhere. There's no predominance of Micros here; I'd say the most common containers I encounter would be the 380ml and 500ml Sistemas which are right in the middle of the Small range. Whenever the hiding place has room for it, I go for a Regular-sized container, either a 1 litre (or larger) Sistema or, more recently, I've been using steel cash boxes about 1.5 litres in size.

Yes, that's a good point: what I'm seeing isn't everywhere. But, on the other hand, it is everywhere I've cached, while I've never seen anything like your area except when you post about it. So I'm comfortable saying what I'm seeing is typical. But I appreciate you pointing out that any changes might be for the worse in some areas. I have to admit, I would lean against the idea of officially changing the sizes, but that's mainly because I think the unofficial creep in local standards is doing the job well enough.

 

42 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Changing the size definitions to accomodate mostly nanos and micros would end up having everything around here becoming a regular or large.

I'm not sure yours is such a great example, though, since there are only 9 large caches in that same area, so I think moving some of those regulars up into the large category might work out quite nicely. And there are, after all, plenty of micros and smalls, so I think you're overestimating how much a shift would decrease the micro and small categories.

 

Anyway, I was mainly just explaining why size creep is happening in many places. Do you see sizes being inflated there, or do the larger average size of caches make it more likely for COs in your area to be satisfied in using the official sizes? I doubt anything will ever change officially. I'm willing to discuss the possibility of a real change in the guidelines, but I can't say whether I'd be in favor of any actual proposal.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, dprovan said:

Don't say that too loud. I got kicked out of the forums for half a year when I made that observation.

 

Same here but "only" for a few weeks.

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Do you see sizes being inflated there, or do the larger average size of caches make it more likely for COs in your area to be satisfied in using the official sizes?

 

It's pretty rare and when I do see it, it's most likely an Eclipse mint tin listed as a small. Those things don't last long here anyway because of the salty air. Micros are most commonly bison tubes or PET preforms, and the smalls are most commonly Sistemas. The latter are just a couple of dollars in the supermarkets and last quite well in this environment.

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, niraD said:

I once found a cache that used one of these tins:

P0.jpg

 

IIRC, it was listed as size "Other", but specified that it was an Altoids tin in the description. It was kinda the opposite of the caches listed as "Other" and described as an ammo can, where the actual cache turns out to be one of these:

ad703351-cb24-4846-88b0-ada82c1f1cbb_d.j

I have caches that use both of these items. They are both listed as micros. In the case of the ammo tin I mention in the description that they are searching for one but some searchers have been confused by this (somewhat intentional on my part). I also have a couple of blinky nanos which are listed as Micro but I mention in the description that they are nano..

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, colleda said:

I have caches that use both of these items. They are both listed as micros.

Why would you list a jumbo mint tin as micro, when it is clearly at least a small size container?

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, dprovan said:

If you follow the guidelines, then it's true there's no gray area for size. But the reason people don't follow the guidelines is that it basically eliminates the size as useful information because there's nothing but "micro" (meaning on the small end of the scale) and small (meaning on the large end of the scale). When all caches placed are micro and small, I think it makes perfect sense to start calling that upper half of the small range "regular". I guess I can't quite get over the irony of "regular" being highly unusual. I don't mean to advocate unilateral size creep, but I certainly understand why it's happening, and I, for one, would be open to the official sizes being reconsidered to bring them down to levels that reflect the current norms.

I would hate sizing to begin to reflect the wrong present norms, mainly by beginners, because the old one is so good. Being wrong shouldn't be rewarded, and it would add more confusion to the game. Education and the adding of a Nano size rating is the way to go. I would suggest, except that this would give too much work to reviewers, that in the same way I was questioned and had to prove a cache I was publishing was actually 1T (As I should be asked. It was 1T and it was published), cachers, especially beginners should be questioned about the size of their containers. Although, as so many are rated micro these days and this rating is rarely wrong, to lower the work load, there would be no need to question cachers about caches rated size micro; only those rated bigger than that. Too much work for reviewers though.

Personally, I try to use a small cache wherever possible; rather than a micro. Unfortunately, I do have some micros (NO nanos), because any larger cache would be likely to be muggled where I placed them. I did though try to find a place for a small sized cache in each of those locations, before giving up and disappointingly placing a micro. I never went there with only placing a micro in mind, as too many now do.

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Sorry, but unless you have some other version in your country, I don't see that would be close to possible.    :D

Here's an example of what I carry every day I'm caching.   Try putting that into a bison.  :laughing:

Our mintie tins are smaller than that. I guess they are designed to fit easily in a pocket. The smallest version would stand inside a 35 mm film canister, although it would stick out. Longer, but narrower than a film canister. It holds 27grams of minties (conversion had that as less than one ounce). The bigger version, as shown by barefootjeff above, holds 40g (1.41 ounce). They are not very deep and often are tightly packed with a log. They would not fit most TBs and and only the tiniest of trinkets (these would fit in some bison tubes too). But beginners (as apart from older cachers) often insist they are smalls. No doubt because nanos are micros :angry:.

https://www.google.com/search?q=eclipse+mints&client=firefox-b&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjIgPnU-K_pAhV34HMBHb9ZDIMQ_AUoAXoECA4QAw&biw=1753&bih=957#imgrc=Df6LyWsPN2fbXM

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Personally, I try to use a small cache wherever possible; rather than a micro. Unfortunately, I do have some micros (NO nanos), because any larger cache would be likely to be muggled where I placed them. I did though try to find a place for a small sized cache in each of those locations, before giving up and disappointingly placing a micro. I never went there with only placing a micro in mind, as too many now do.

 

The breakdown of my hides is 15 regular, 21 small and 2 other. Usually it's the size of the hiding place that dictates the size of container I can use, although with the novelty containers it's more the size of the object I've found to fit the cache's theme.

 

Wombat.jpg.7796f93a73afea103c5cae5f56ce9481.jpg

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, niraD said:

Why would you list a jumbo mint tin as micro, when it is clearly at least a small size container?

My mistake I thought it was a normal Altoids tin. Didn't look close enough but I have seen many of the smaller tins listed as small instead of micro.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, colleda said:
5 hours ago, niraD said:

Why would you list a jumbo mint tin as micro, when it is clearly at least a small size container?

My mistake I thought it was a normal Altoids tin. Didn't look close enough but I have seen many of the smaller tins listed as small instead of micro.

And if it's very flat one could use the volume argument. There's no universal hard line between sizes; CO's have to make a judgment call, but it's another general 'know it when I see it' thing, I'd say.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

And if it's very flat one could use the volume argument. There's no universal hard line between sizes; CO's have to make a judgment call, but it's another general 'know it when I see it' thing, I'd say.

I would argue that 100ml is a pretty hard line between micro and small, that 1L is a pretty hard line between small and regular, and that 20L is a pretty hard line between regular and large.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

I read so much about mint tins here. I have heard several times that you should not use boxes where food has been in before. It may attract animals that can smell the former content. (Sometimes even I can smell what has been inside and I do not like that at all.) Same goes for pill boxes and similar things. Better use new boxes that are only used for geocaching.

 

Making this post ontopic: that may be something that has changed in the later days, many people tend to use boxes like that (oh it is trash - no it is a geocaching container) as it is free. In the beginning film canisters are free, today they are quite expensive. So I am not sure if the people have changed (they like free stuff and they always did).

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, frostengel said:

I read so much about mint tins here. I have heard several times that you should not use boxes where food has been in before. It may attract animals that can smell the former content. (Sometimes even I can smell what has been inside and I do not like that at all.) Same goes for pill boxes and similar things. Better use new boxes that are only used for geocaching.

 

Making this post ontopic: that may be something that has changed in the later days, many people tend to use boxes like that (oh it is trash - no it is a geocaching container) as it is free. In the beginning film canisters are free, today they are quite expensive. So I am not sure if the people have changed (they like free stuff and they always did).

I prefer to recycle perfectly good containers, rather than just throw them. I avoid new where possible, as it's such a waste when  a good quality second-hand container exists. I have some small size containers, like in the photograph below, that held vitamins that are excellent to reuse. (Some people even mark those containers as regular, but I think they are small sized, although on the larger side of small.) Many are dark green, so well camouflaged and being dark more sun resistant too I'm told than white containers. They also have a wide screw top lid, so very easy access, not only for the log, but to place in trackables and trinkets. They hold quite a bit. I have had some in use for years and they have never broken down or leaked. I would rather reuse those than throw them and buy a new, possibly inferior container.

Problems with animals usually occur not so much for the container, but what some people put in them, such as food like lollies. I saw a container ripped apart because a cake of soap had been placed in it. The soap had been chewed too. Also when a container is placed where an animal sleeps (usually naively), such as in a hollow log, that can have consequences.

No, if we are going to place containers, I feel it's better environmentally we reuse where possible.

I would remove the labels from that vitamin plastic container before using.

Container.jpg

  • Surprised 1
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

I prefer to recycle perfectly good containers, rather than just throw them. I avoid new where possible, as it's such a waste when  a good quality second-hand container exists. I have some small size containers, like in the photograph below, that held vitamins that are excellent to reuse. (Some people even mark those containers as regular, but I think they are small sized, although on the larger side of small.) Many are dark green, so well camouflaged and being dark more sun resistant too I'm told than white containers. They also have a wide screw top lid, so very easy access, not only for the log, but to place in trackables and trinkets. They hold quite a bit. I have had some in use for years and they have never broken down or leaked. I would rather reuse those than throw them and buy a new, possibly inferior container.

Problems with animals usually occur not so much for the container, but what some people put in them, such as food like lollies. I saw a container ripped apart because a cake of soap had been placed in it. The soap had been chewed too. Also when a container is placed where an animal sleeps (usually naively), such as in a hollow log, that can have consequences.

No, if we are going to place containers, I feel it's better environmentally we reuse where possible.

I would remove the labels from that vitamin plastic container before using.

Container.jpg

I have a few of those green containers. Yep, good cammo colour. The ones I use I list as small. I have some similar larger containers which are white and are about 1.5 litre. They previously held meal replacement powder. I clean them out buy filling with boiling water which, after about 1 minute, allows the labels to easily peel off. I then give them a rinse with vinegar. They have been out for years (5+) and have not broken down and have never been attacked by critters.

Share this post


Link to post

We never cared for "recycled" containers.  Most were designed to be used in a home, and not outdoors in the rain n snow.

We found similar when we first placed hides with actual Tupperware.  The science projects inside showed we needed to get better containers.

We've yet to see a water resistant pill bottle.  Maybe they work okay in areas with mostly arid conditions.

We've found them split along the seam. 

The last two found in december had frozen wads of pulp, and one was even replaced just a month earlier.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, cerberus1 said:

We've yet to see a water resistant pill bottle.

And I doubt anyone will ever:D! We've seen a few that have become so brittle that the plastic breaks when you touch it. I don't think that anyone ever thought that pill bottles would be used in the outdoors (Unless you sprain your ankle!).

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, niraD said:
11 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

And if it's very flat one could use the volume argument. There's no universal hard line between sizes; CO's have to make a judgment call, but it's another general 'know it when I see it' thing, I'd say.

I would argue that 100ml is a pretty hard line between micro and small, that 1L is a pretty hard line between small and regular, and that 20L is a pretty hard line between regular and large.

 

They might be in text but they're not enforced, and obviously there are many differing opinions about size boundaries. If it were a rule then it would be enforced. There have been numerous attempts to 'explain' from hq what would constitute various sizes, showing by examples, not literal numerics. What if it's 0.9L? 1.1L? Is that small or regular? What if it's long and flat or short and fat?

No, that's why I said it's a general 'know it when I see it' thing. 100mL, 1L, 20L - those are hard numbers, but they're not hard lines between strict definitions of sizes because those doesn't exist. But most everyone would agree that containers of those sizes would fall into the typical size definitions.

 

 

1 hour ago, cerberus1 said:

We never cared for "recycled" containers.

 

heh, I don't mind creative/recycled outer "containers" for fun, as long as the log is in a decently protected proper container.   Like, don't put a paper log into a garden decoration. But place a micro-sized waterproof container into one, and it can be a fun find = )

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, niraD said:
On 5/12/2020 at 6:38 PM, dprovan said:

I've acquired two ammo cans I've never bothered to deploy, so cost isn't the question, and I suspect I'm not the only one that's ended up in that position.

Years ago, I won a camo-painted ammo can at an event. I haven't used it for anything other than showing kids what a regular size cache looks like when I teach geocaching classes.

That's too bad, especially if you're giving them an example of a cache container that they may never see.

 

I looked back through our hides, and I think I've hidden 30 or so ammo cans over the years.  Most of them have been the same cans, hidden in one area and then picked up and used again when we move to another area.  I think what made me more comfortable using them was picking up more than one.  When I only had a couple ammo cans, I was reluctant to put them out there, since I didn't want a can taken.  Then I found a few more at a surplus store, and it was easier to justify hiding a few.

  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

They might be in text but they're not enforced, and obviously there are many differing opinions about size boundaries. If it were a rule then it would be enforced. There have been numerous attempts to 'explain' from hq what would constitute various sizes, showing by examples, not literal numerics. What if it's 0.9L? 1.1L? Is that small or regular? What if it's long and flat or short and fat?

No, that's why I said it's a general 'know it when I see it' thing. 100mL, 1L, 20L - those are hard numbers, but they're not hard lines between strict definitions of sizes because those doesn't exist. But most everyone would agree that containers of those sizes would fall into the typical size definitions.

 

So, um, if I list my 1 litre Sistema or 1.5 litre cashbox as a regular because the Help Centre says regulars are 1 litre to 20 litres, but Goldenwattle turns around and says "no, if it's not at least the size of a shoe box and can hold a paperback novel it's a small", who's right? And if she logs an NM on my cache saying that, what should I do? To me, those capacity ranges in the Help Centre take all the guesswork out of it; if I can pour a litre of water into a container and it doesn't overflow, it's a regular, otherwise it's a small. "Know it when I see it" doesn't work when Goldenwattle and I both look at the same thing and I see something that, to me, is definitely a regular but she sees something that, to her, is definitely a small.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

So, um, if I list my 1 litre Sistema or 1.5 litre cashbox as a regular because the Help Centre says regulars are 1 litre to 20 litres, but Goldenwattle turns around and says "no, if it's not at least the size of a shoe box and can hold a paperback novel it's a small", who's right?

Oi. "Know it when you see it" has never meant "everyone thinks the same way". It's a generalized statement making room for a small variety of outlier opinions.

If it really came to it and the container was put to a general vote, a general consensus would almost certainly agree with the sample ranges provided.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, TmdAndGG said:

And I doubt anyone will ever:D! We've seen a few that have become so brittle that the plastic breaks when you touch it. I don't think that anyone ever thought that pill bottles would be used in the outdoors (Unless you sprain your ankle!).

That pill bottle above I showed in a photograph of appears to work very well. As I said (do you think I am making this up?), I have had several out for years and so far they haven't leaked or deteriorated. I checked a cache I hadn't checked in four years recently and I found it uncovered and in full sight, but despite heavy rain recently the inside was bone dry and the container showed no signs of deterioration. It had also withstood the strong Australian sun, which is a killer here for many cache, such as sistemas.

The same with another similar cache I checked recently, although this one being under trees, doesn't suffer the sun so much.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

but Goldenwattle turns around and says "no, if it's not at least the size of a shoe box and can hold a paperback novel it's a small", who's right? And if she logs an NM on my cache saying that, what should I do?

I would never log a NM for that, and haven't.  Why do you think I would? That's not critical enough. The most I might do is comment; mostly if I can't fit a trackable in. Opening size needs to be considered to. Regulars should be able to take trackables. I have seen caches with the internal space of a regular, but a tiny silly little opening, or a long thin tube called a regular, because yes, all that space inside would add up to a regular (this is a reason I don't like the measurement definition so much, as it can be taken too literally in cases like this), but no trackable would fit in it, or very little else. I seem to remember that was also one definition of a regular; able to fit small objects (not sure if this one still exists though).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Goldenwattle said:

I would never log a NM for that, and haven't.  Why do you think I would?

 

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you would, just using that as a hypothetical example of what could happen with "know it when you see it" size ratings.

 

2 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Regulars should be able to take trackables.

 

Two of my regulars are hidden in a national park where trackables and swag aren't allowed. For me, the primary purpose of the size rating is to give searchers an idea of how big the thing is they're looking for, so they can rule in or out potential hiding places. A lot of my hides around weathered rock have gazillions of places a micro could be lurking but far fewer nooks and crannies to conceal a small or regular container. What they can put in the container after they've found it is secondary to that.

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

So, um, if I list my 1 litre Sistema or 1.5 litre cashbox as a regular because the Help Centre says regulars are 1 litre to 20 litres, but Goldenwattle turns around and says "no, if it's not at least the size of a shoe box and can hold a paperback novel it's a small", who's right?

You're both right! As the CO, you get to apply the standard you want because it's your cache.

 

10 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

And if she logs an NM on my cache saying that, what should I do?

Post an OM justifying your decision.

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, dprovan said:
11 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

And if she logs an NM on my cache saying that, what should I do?

Post an OM justifying your decision.

 

Or maybe replace it with a mint tin and change the listed size to Other. :anitongue:

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

That pill bottle above I showed in a photograph of appears to work very well. As I said (do you think I am making this up?), I have had several out for years and so far they haven't leaked or deteriorated. I checked a cache I hadn't checked in four years recently and I found it uncovered and in full sight, but despite heavy rain recently the inside was bone dry and the container showed no signs of deterioration. It had also withstood the strong Australian sun, which is a killer here for many cache, such as sistemas.

The same with another similar cache I checked recently, although this one being under trees, doesn't suffer the sun so much.

I was talking about the smaller little yellow ones, that are usually used for prescription medicines. The type you have pictured above do tend to work pretty well.

S6HJIA3OPJCKNICY4OZXCVOY5A.jpg

Edited by TmdAndGG
  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, TmdAndGG said:

I was talking about the smaller little yellow ones, that are usually used for prescription medicines. The type you have pictured above do tend to work pretty well.

S6HJIA3OPJCKNICY4OZXCVOY5A.jpg

I am not familiar with those here and have never seen them. Perhaps it's just that I don't buy the type of medicine that comes in them. Most medicine I see here comes in packets and in sheets where you pop the tablets out of. The small containers I have seen are white, usually with a screw top lid. Some might have pop up lids. The main problem I see with the small white ones, is the narrow entrance , making it difficult to get a log out of. I don't use those myself, as I wouldn't trust them to be waterproof (but really I don't know, as I have found some which are okay), but that depends where they are placed. Even a metal mintie tin :anibad: in the right place is okay. But then, as I have discovered, neither are bison tubes always waterproof. These are more what I am familiar with.

https://www.google.com/search?source=univ&tbm=isch&q=white+pill+bottles&client=firefox-b&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwimn6vdrrPpAhWH4jgGHa6iCf0QsAR6BAgKEAE&biw=1753&bih=957

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, TmdAndGG said:

I was talking about the smaller little yellow ones, that are usually used for prescription medicines. The type you have pictured above do tend to work pretty well.

S6HJIA3OPJCKNICY4OZXCVOY5A.jpg

 

Fortunately we've never seen those here.   We tested those out back, and the plastic got stress cracks before a Summer was over.   :)

The ones we see fail are identical to the ones that Goldenwattle showed, wide-mouthed bulk pill bottles (like a nursing home with a lot of the same meds would use) usually wrapped in black tape in my area .

We realize that in some environments, containers that fail miserably here (and we tested a lot...) would work fine.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, cerberus1 said:

Fortunately we've never seen those here. 

Lucky:D! Those are everywhere around where we live:sad:...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

Fortunately we've never seen those here.

Fairly common where I live and cache too.  Usually covered with camo duct tape, offering some protection.  Often hidden with a wire hanger in a tree or bush, or tucked in a notch under a rock or in a tree stump.  Log and content conditions vary greatly!

Share this post


Link to post

Well this thread went off topic quickly.  Thanks to everyone who provided feedback.  Sounds like we should have a whole other thread on cache containers.  :-)

  • Funny 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, 'yakinCacher said:

Well this thread went off topic quickly. 

 

Not really, the subject you asked was "What would you say is a major change in the caching culture?

 - One change many of us see is cache quality.  That often starts with the container...     :)

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, TmdAndGG said:

Lucky:D! Those are everywhere around where we live:sad:...

 

There's a local cacher that has placed about 400 caches, almost every one using a pill bottle like those, wrapped in camo tape, and tethered to a bush or tree with fishing line.  She saturated a rail trail where I used to have a cache (before it was formally developed as a rail trail).  After several logs on my cache thanking her for all the finds I archived mine.

  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, 'yakinCacher said:

Well this thread went off topic quickly.  Thanks to everyone who provided feedback.  Sounds like we should have a whole other thread on cache containers.  :-)

 

I don't think container choice has much to do with cache culture.  Perhaps geocaching trends might be more accurate.  Still,  I think the game changed a *lot* more between 2005 and 2013 than in between 2013 and today.  

 

Anyway, it's good to see another paddle cacher.  

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Fortunately we've never seen those here.   We tested those out back, and the plastic got stress cracks before a Summer was over.   :)

The ones we see fail are identical to the ones that Goldenwattle showed, wide-mouthed bulk pill bottles (like a nursing home with a lot of the same meds would use) usually wrapped in black tape in my area .

We realize that in some environments, containers that fail miserably here (and we tested a lot...) would work fine.

Apparently dark colours last better in the sun. White ones crack quicker. Hence I like than small-sized dark green pill container I showed above. They appear to handle the sun well.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

There's a local cacher that has placed about 400 caches, almost every one using a pill bottle like those, wrapped in camo tape, and tethered to a bush or tree with fishing line.  She saturated a rail trail where I used to have a cache (before it was formally developed as a rail trail).  After several logs on my cache thanking her for all the finds I archived mine.

I placed a cache beside a country road because of a nearby feature (a great view was a bonus); a larger small-sized cache that held lots of trinkets. It didn't get many logs, but then someone (who has single handedly smothered the area with power trails) placed a trail down the road and the finds increased. Most of her caches were tiny flimsy containers. That's how the culture has changed. Quantity rather than quality. Power trails and inferior cheap containers that will deteriorate quickly and leave wet logs.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Looking at the 14 new caches published in my region this year:

  • GC8J4JV  1.5/1.5 small traditional
  • GC8J2D2  1.5/1 small traditional
  • GC8JY5X  1.5/1.5 micro traditional
  • GC8MGA6 1.5/2 small traditional
  • GC8J4D2   3.5/1.5 micro traditional
  • GC8JT1P   2/1.5 small traditional
  • GC890ZB   1/1 virtual
  • GC8M2MP 3/2 regular mystery
  • GC8G5A7   3/3 regular mystery
  • GC8N62T   2.5/2 small traditional
  • GC8JGWN  2/3.5 regular multi (mine)
  • GC8MYYH  2.5/1 micro traditional
  • GC8MJ4V  1/5 regular mystery
  • GC8N62H  2.5/2 small traditional

So a good mix of cache types, D/T ratings and sizes, not much cultural shift at least in the 7 years I've been caching.

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, barefootjeff said:
21 hours ago, dprovan said:
On 5/13/2020 at 2:29 PM, barefootjeff said:

And if she logs an NM on my cache saying that, what should I do?

Post an OM justifying your decision.

Or maybe replace it with a mint tin and change the listed size to Other. :anitongue:

Well, yes. I was assuming the CO rejected the arguments made in the NM. If they accept the point made in the NM, then obviously they'd change the cache or its description accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/14/2020 at 5:59 PM, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

There's a local cacher that has placed about 400 caches, almost every one using a pill bottle like those, wrapped in camo tape, and tethered to a bush or tree with fishing line.  She saturated a rail trail where I used to have a cache (before it was formally developed as a rail trail).  After several logs on my cache thanking her for all the finds I archived mine.

 

One of mine was almost a kilometre away from a PT rail trail and still got "Thank you PT owner for your contribution" cut n paste logs. 

  • Funny 1
  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

One of mine was almost a kilometre away from a PT rail trail and still got "Thank you PT owner for your contribution" cut n paste logs. 

Yeah, this forum definitely needs a "Sad" response.

:sad:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I started caching in 2010.  The number of wet, moldy logs outnumbered the number of nice, dry ones even then.  Also--found plenty of trash in larger caches, as well as empty ammo cans with nothing but a log.  And as for more hiking back then, that's generally true, perhaps--but I always point to Mingo as proof of truly lame places for a cache right from the start.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 5/14/2020 at 2:27 PM, cerberus1 said:

 

Not really, the subject you asked was "What would you say is a major change in the caching culture?

 - One change many of us see is cache quality.  That often starts with the container...     :)

 

Containers != culture.  Not even close.  The biggest change I have seen is the emergence of unending complaints about cache quality.  On average, container quality today is far superior to what I encountered when I started caching in 2002. 

 

In 2002, cache container quality was terrible. Trash bags as cache containers were not unusual.  One of the first ammo cans I ever encountered was the APE cache I found in Georgia; before that, I had found all sorts of plastic containers that were already cracked and broken. In my first year caching, I found glass jars, ziplock bags with no container, black trash can liners (as mentioned above), poor-quality tupperware, etc.   Lamp-post hides had not been invented yet.  Film canisters were common and considered micros.

 

Seriously, people, the fantasy peddled by some here of a time when cache containers were all in perfect shape and the swag was wonderful are completely fictional.  It has never been that way.

 

The biggest cultural change is the now-ubiquitous sense of entitlement; that we are owed cache containers that are in pristine condition and filled with high-value swag, with instantanous maintenance response by the owners to our smallest requests.

Edited by fizzymagic
  • Upvote 5
  • Funny 2
  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

×
×
  • Create New...