Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Lostboy1966

Micros posted as Small

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

This post is not intended to restart the tired ‘I hate Micros’ theme. People like to hide Micros. People like to find Micros. Kumbaya to all of you, I’ve both hidden a few and found a few in my time, and it’s all good.

 

But at this stage of my GC hobby, I am pretty much ‘Meh’ on them. I do not have patience for the tiny little log sheets, and I like to find something I can leave a bit of swag in for future finders. Again, that is just the way I prefer to play, no harm, no foul on anyone that thinks otherwise.

 

So when I search for caches to find, I filter out Micros. Yet time and time again I see something posted as ‘Small’ that turns out to be a Micro. A Film Canister is a Micro, not Small. A Hide-A-Key is a Micro, not Small. It has gotten to the point that when I run a search I double-check everything listed as Small to see if there are any photos showing it to be a Micro so I can add it to my Ignore list.

 

The GC guidelines are clear on the cache size descriptions: https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=97&pgid=815

Anyway, rant over. Happy Trails, everyone!

Edited by Lostboy1966
Edit for paragraph spacing
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

This is probably because the options presented when creating a geocache listing don't exactly agree with the guidelines page. People aren't likely to go digging around in the guidelines for the reference page when they can just click on an option based on the one-sentence descriptions.

 

It bothers me too, but not enough to complain to HQ.

 

Screen Shot 2020-06-25 at 5.46.08 PM.png

Edited by Hügh
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

For decades people have complained about micros listed as small. There are things Groundspeak could do to stop this, or at least drastically decrease micros listed as small. But GCHQ in fact made it more confusing. In the beginning the sizes were listed up front, by volume. Now it's a chart of photos with no volumes listed.

 

Size

What size is your geocache?
Other
other.jpg
Micro
micro.jpg
Small
small.jpg
Regular
regular.jpg
Large
large.jpg

 

Some people seem to interpret small as anything from a bison tube to the size of a hand-size container. 

 

GCHQ puts the volumes in another area in the help centre, which is not that easy to find. I have to google it each time, to find it.  They could list the sizes under the 'Size' section of the 'Hide a Cache' page. But for at least a decade they have not made the simple change. 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------

https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=97&pgid=815.

6.11. Cache container sizes

Geocaches come in all shapes and sizes. The definitions below can help you choose the correct size for your cache. The names of container sizes differ slightly between our website and app, but the definitions are the same.

Micro (XS)

Micro containers are less than 100 milliliters. They’re about the size of a film canister, or smaller. They can hold a tiny logbook or log sheet. If a micro cache is less than 10 milliliters, it’s often called a nano cache.

Small (S)

Small containers are 100 milliliters to 1 liter. They’re about the size of an apple. They can hold a small logbook and trade items.

Regular (M)

Regular containers are 1 to 20 liters. They’re about the size of a shoebox. Many of these caches are ammo cans.

Large (L)

Large containers are more than 20 liters. They're larger than a shoebox. Buckets, bins, or even railroad freight cars can be large containers.

Other (--)

Some containers just don't fit into size categories, like a magnetic sheet with a logbook attached. See the cache description for more information.

Edited by L0ne.R
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes ago, Lostboy1966 said:

This post is not intended to restart the tired ‘I hate Micros’ theme. People like to hide Micros. People like to find Micros. Kumbaya to all of you, I’ve both hidden a few and found a few in my time, and it’s all good.

 

But at this stage of my GC hobby, I am pretty much ‘Meh’ on them. I do not have patience for the tiny little log sheets, and I like to find something I can leave a bit of swag in for future finders. Again, that is just the way I prefer to play, no harm, no foul on anyone that thinks otherwise.

 

So when I search for caches to find, I filter out Micros. Yet time and time again I see something posted as ‘Small’ that turns out to be a Micro. A Film Canister is a Micro, not Small. A Hide-A-Key is a Micro, not Small. It has gotten to the point that when I run a search I double-check everything listed as Small to see if there are any photos showing it to be a Micro so I can add it to my Ignore list.

 

The GC guidelines are clear on the cache size descriptions: https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=97&pgid=815

Anyway, rant over. Happy Trails, everyone!

Your experience is probably as old as the game itself but becoming, IMO, more common.

If I find micros listed as small I usually make mention of it as a WN or sometimes a even a NM. A polite WN explanation if the CO is a noob as I'm pretty certain they will be checking logs and it is a way they can, hopefully, learn from it. If CO is an "experienced" cacher I'd lean more towards NM. Then leave it at that.

  • Upvote 4
  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, colleda said:

Your experience is probably as old as the game itself but becoming, IMO, more common.

Well, not really as old as the game itself. In the beginning, there was no size rating. When a size rating was created, it was just micro, regular, and large. Then the small size was added (between micro and regular) in the 2005-02-14 update.

 

I think a lot of the confusion comes from "size creep". If a blinker or a 1.5mL centrifuge tube is a micro, then surely a film canister or preform must be the next size up, right? That sort of thing. I think an official nano size would eliminate a lot of that.

 

But an official nano size isn't exactly a new request, and yet here we are...

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

I filter out micros, and often note in my logs when a cache is a micro, not a small.  I will also copy and paste the information in the Help Centre about volume.  About 5% of cache owners change the posted size. So is listing a micro as a small intentional? In many cases I think it is.

 

That's why GCHQ has to step in and make it clear what the difference between a micro and small is, especially in the cache submission form and on the cache description page. Also, I think including an image  of the cache and/or detailed description of the container  to the reviewer would help. 

 

 

 

Edited by L0ne.R
Added the last paragraph.
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Lostboy1966 said:

So when I search for caches to find, I filter out Micros. Yet time and time again I see something posted as ‘Small’ that turns out to be a Micro.

 

Our favorite hider uses pill bottles listed as small.  If a series of them, usually at the end I'll mention "Had some new trackables to drop, thought I'd drop it in this small cache, but found a micro instead.  Oh well..."  or similar.

He realizes it, and usually I'll get a couple joking (expletives deleted) in a phone call.

I've gotten to where the container has become secondary to the awesome view or unique area that's presented by this hider.   :) 

We done plenty of  regular/large custom hides in carpy, so-so locations.

No matter though, there's no way I'd leave a NM because "my interpretation" of a small is different...

 

Haven't used it in some time, so don't know if the sizes on the app have been corrected.  For years they didn't jive with the website.

Right on your "submit your cache page", it shows micro as (XS).

Add in shop geocaching still calls containers  "X small", "XX small", "mini", and "extra large" ammo cans, no wonder folks get confused.   

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


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

I filter out micros, and often note in my logs when a cache is a micro, not a small. 

I will also copy and paste the information in the Help Centre about volume.  

About 5% of cache owners change the posted size. So is listed a micro as a small intentional? In many cases I think it is.

 

Ever consider an email instead ?  Some new folks we've mailed, and our responses were a lot more positive.  :)

No offense, but ever think maybe the other 95% is simply telling you something ?    

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Lostboy1966 said:

time and time again I see something posted as ‘Small’ that turns out to be a Micro. A Film Canister is a Micro, not Small. A Hide-A-Key is a Micro, not Small.

 

I sometimes add a little thing to a Found log like, "says it's a Small, but it's properly called a Micro".  Hügh mentioned some guideline confusion.  Back when the site said "A sandwich will fit into a Small" (and I think I've seen that definition here and there to this day), I used to add to my log "don't invite me to lunch" when said sandwich must be crammed into that pill bottle. B)

 

But I asked a prolific hider in person one day, and he said it's a Small "because I can fit a golf pencil in it".  Um.  Yeah.  Okie-dokie. 

 

If I'm intent to drop a TB, size matters.  Otherwise, I try not to let it get to me.  Don't know if anything changes.  But I might just skip the remaining pill bottles with soaked spitwad log sheets, after the first one along a trail.

 

Edited by kunarion
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

GCHQ puts the volumes in another area in the help centre, which is not that easy to find. I have to google it each time, to find it.  They could list the sizes under the 'Size' section of the 'Hide a Cache' page. But for at least a decade they have not made the simple change. 

 

 

Yes, one of my pet peeves is that, having objectively defined cache sizes in terms of volumes (micro < 100ml, small 100ml to 1l, etc.), they don't put that on the cache submission page where it really matters and instead just have the pictures:

 

image.png.ec8bc299643c8fdefaa70c35da2d97f6.png

 

From this, is something bigger than a bison tube but smaller than that hand-sized tupperware a micro or a small? A mint tin, film canister or MKH will be somewhere between the two but all are smaller than 100ml.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

They should add an attribute requirement for BYOP and then allow you to filter by that.   That would eliminate the pill bottles, film canisters, bisons, nanos etc.

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, AbacoRick said:

They should add an attribute requirement for BYOP and then allow you to filter by that.   That would eliminate the pill bottles, film canisters, bisons, nanos etc.

My pencils fit in all size pill bottles!

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, AbacoRick said:

They should add an attribute requirement for BYOP and then allow you to filter by that.   

That would eliminate the pill bottles, film canisters, bisons, nanos etc.

 

There is no requirement in the guidelines for anyone to include a pen in any cache size.    :)

This helps people take some responsibility in the hobby ...  at least have a darn pen.

We "sign the log" to claim a find, and the lack of a signature allows the CO to remove that "smiley".

Every time we did maintenance on ammo cans, all the pens, pencils, even the erasers and sharpeners would be gone.

I stopped replacing them for people unprepared, using our caches for needed equipment...

 

 

Edited by cerberus1
  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, kunarion said:

 I asked a prolific hider in person one day, and he said it's a Small "because I can fit a golf pencil in it".  Um.  Yeah.  Okie-dokie. 

 

Yep.  Ours says that if a tiny "coin-like thing with a hole in it" fits, it's a small.    :)

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post

Thennnnnnn my nanos would really tick you off ... 6-8 years ago I jumped on the band wagon to get nano sizing as an option.  Promptly got kicked in the teeth by TPTB and elements of "The Community".  For the most part I put nano somewhere in the description, however, being an old fuddy-dud sometimes I forget.  

 

Hey "Dog With Glasses" and "The White Urkel", if you are still out there, do you remember the tussles from back in the day?!

 

Man oh man we certainly got the "Thin Skins" ruffled back in the day.  We were soooooooooo naughty. Can you say warned, probation and banned.

  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/26/2020 at 10:55 AM, L0ne.R said:

For decades people have complained about micros listed as small. There are things Groundspeak could do to stop this, or at least drastically decrease micros listed as small. But GCHQ in fact made it more confusing. In the beginning the sizes were listed up front, by volume. Now it's a chart of photos with no volumes listed.

 

Size

What size is your geocache?
Other
other.jpg
Micro
micro.jpg
Small
small.jpg
Regular
regular.jpg
Large
large.jpg

 

Some people seem to interpret small as anything from a bison tube to the size of a hand-size container. 

 

GCHQ puts the volumes in another area in the help centre, which is not that easy to find. I have to google it each time, to find it.  They could list the sizes under the 'Size' section of the 'Hide a Cache' page. But for at least a decade they have not made the simple change. 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------

https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=97&pgid=815.

6.11. Cache container sizes

Geocaches come in all shapes and sizes. The definitions below can help you choose the correct size for your cache. The names of container sizes differ slightly between our website and app, but the definitions are the same.

Micro (XS)

Micro containers are less than 100 milliliters. They’re about the size of a film canister, or smaller. They can hold a tiny logbook or log sheet. If a micro cache is less than 10 milliliters, it’s often called a nano cache.

Small (S)

Small containers are 100 milliliters to 1 liter. They’re about the size of an apple. They can hold a small logbook and trade items.

Regular (M)

Regular containers are 1 to 20 liters. They’re about the size of a shoebox. Many of these caches are ammo cans.

Large (L)

Large containers are more than 20 liters. They're larger than a shoebox. Buckets, bins, or even railroad freight cars can be large containers.

Other (--)

Some containers just don't fit into size categories, like a magnetic sheet with a logbook attached. See the cache description for more information.

The measurements are not as good a guide as the images of example caches, because many people wouldn't know what those sizes look like and would continue guessing. Even if they did understand those sizes, caches could hold the correct amount of, say litres, but not function as say a regular, which is expected to hold TBs, trinkets and a decent log. It could for instance, be a long skinny pipe, and technically, using the measurements, a regular. I would call that an 'Other', but technically, using the measurements, it could also be called a regular. If people would only look at the images and follow those, I believe the outcome would be better.

 

Maybe instead of allowing people to click on micro, small, etc, that was removed, and the images shown, and people asked to click on the image that most closely matched their cache we might get more accurate ratings.  For example, if then the plastic box was clicked on, it would then display as a small. (Hopefully that would then stop those small plastic boxes being rated as regulars.)

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/26/2020 at 10:56 AM, colleda said:

Your experience is probably as old as the game itself but becoming, IMO, more common.

If I find micros listed as small I usually make mention of it as a WN or sometimes a even a NM. A polite WN explanation if the CO is a noob as I'm pretty certain they will be checking logs and it is a way they can, hopefully, learn from it. If CO is an "experienced" cacher I'd lean more towards NM. Then leave it at that.

But be prepared for a nasty reply and being told you don't know what you are talking about and they are right and you are wrong. Even after you give examples of what is correct. Wrong sizes will be ignored with NM, by the reviewer and HQ.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Maybe instead of allowing people to click on micro, small, etc, that was removed, and the images shown, and people asked to click on the image that most closely matched their cache we might get more accurate ratings.  For example, if then the plastic box was clicked on, it would then display as a small. (Hopefully that would then stop those small plastic boxes being rated as regulars.)

 

So is an Eclipse mint tin more like a Bison tube or a small Sistema?

 

image.png.ec8bc299643c8fdefaa70c35da2d97f6.png

 

Those pictures are probably the reason so many mint tins are listed as small. At least the volume sizes are definitive and objective, and size isn't just about swag and trackables, for me it's primarily about getting an idea of how big the thing is I'm looking for so I can rule potential hiding places in or out. If you can't first find the cache, you can't drop any swag or trackables anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/26/2020 at 12:51 PM, L0ne.R said:

I filter out micros, and often note in my logs when a cache is a micro, not a small.  I will also copy and paste the information in the Help Centre about volume.  About 5% of cache owners change the posted size. So is listing a micro as a small intentional? In many cases I think it is.

 

That's why GCHQ has to step in and make it clear what the difference between a micro and small is, especially in the cache submission form and on the cache description page. Also, I think including an image  of the cache and/or detailed description of the container  to the reviewer would help. 

 

 

 

I once picked up a TB in the UK that wanted to go to Australia, so I brought it home with me, planning to put it in a local cache. When I got home I looked to see where it actually wanted to go, and it was to a suburb in Sydney, so I decided to take it there and not just drop it off locally where I live. Only a bit over a 300km drive to Sydney for me, and I could include a visit to my brother. Lots of marked 'small' size caches in that suburb, but then I started to find them, and had to continue to find them, as all these so called smalls were mintie tins (which are micros, about the size of a small keyholder). I was getting very annoyed, after making this trip and not being able to find the correctly marked size cache to leave the TB in. Finally I did find a real sized small cache and could leave it. Wrong marked sizes are extremely annoying.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Those pictures are probably the reason so many mint tins are listed as small.

I don't believe that, as mint tins are at least half the size of that plastic box, and the smaller version a quarter the size. It would be better if the micro shown was a film canister. That would make the photographs more accurate. Plus a slightly bigger plastic box.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I don't believe that, as mint tins are at least half the size of that plastic box, and the smaller version a quarter the size. It would be better if the micro shown was a film canister. That would make the photographs more accurate. Plus a slightly bigger plastic box.

 

But mint tins are also a lot bigger than the Bison tube so they're somewhere in between those two examples. There's no clear-cut line to show which side of the fence they sit on. At least the volume is something that can be easily measured, either with a ruler, by filling it with water or seeing how much water it displaces. By that method, the example mint tin I have lying around is 50ml so is clearly a micro by the volume definition.

 

So what about this "decon" container listed on the geocaching shop page?

 

decon-cache-container_500_1_2.jpg

It's a lot smaller than, say, a 200ml Sistema or equivalent Lock-and-Lock, in fact I bought one a few years back and it measured as just on 100ml so it scrapes in as a small, and it's listed on the shop page as such, but you won't fit much swag or anything more than a bare TB tag or geocoin into it. Here's me holding one:

 

Decon.jpg.d7f9a74ba3c4e180d66ccb634e366bf6.jpg

 

Compare that to the mint tin:

 

MintTin.jpg.1ef3c76ad731b316c426af453030c7f5.jpg

 

Not really all that different, is it? Just a bit wider and a bit deeper.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

But mint tins are also a lot bigger than the Bison tube so they're somewhere in between those two examples. There's no clear-cut line to show which side of the fence they sit on. At least the volume is something that can be easily measured, either with a ruler, by filling it with water or seeing how much water it displaces. By that method, the example mint tin I have lying around is 50ml so is clearly a micro by the volume definition.

 

So what about this "decon" container listed on the geocaching shop page?

 

decon-cache-container_500_1_2.jpg

It's a lot smaller than, say, a 200ml Sistema or equivalent Lock-and-Lock, in fact I bought one a few years back and it measured as just on 100ml so it scrapes in as a small, and it's listed on the shop page as such, but you won't fit much swag or anything more than a bare TB tag or geocoin into it. Here's me holding one:

 

Decon.jpg.d7f9a74ba3c4e180d66ccb634e366bf6.jpg

 

Compare that to the mint tin:

 

MintTin.jpg.1ef3c76ad731b316c426af453030c7f5.jpg

 

Not really all that different, is it? Just a bit wider and a bit deeper.

 

Hence examples of caches are better than measurements. There is also a function that is expected of caches; ie. that small and above will hold at least one TB (more for regular and above); plus trinkets. If it doesn't it should be rated a micro, or Other. Those images are more useful, although, as I wrote, they can be improved.

I rate mine with functionality in mind. I like people to be able to trust, that if I rate the cache small, regular or large, I have allowed room in the cache. If it's a micro or Other, likely not.

Edited by Goldenwattle

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Hence examples of caches are better than measurements. There is also a function that is expected of caches; ie. that small and above will hold at least one TB (more for regular and above); plus trinkets. If it doesn't it should be rated a micro, or Other. Those images are more useful, although, as I wrote, they can be improved.

I rate mine with functionality in mind. I like people to be able to trust, that if I rate the cache small, regular or large, I have allowed room in the cache. If it's a micro or Other, likely not.

 

Somewhere you have to draw the line, though. If that 100ml Decon container should be a micro because it looks kind of like the 50ml mint tin, what about something a bit bigger? And where would my caches in NSW national parks fit into your scheme since they're not allowed to have any trackables or swag in them? Should they be listed as micros regardless of their physical size?

 

On my hides I generally say something about the container in the description, either directly (a 380ml Sistema, for example), or, if it's a novelty container, I might say it can take a geocoin or small trackable but not much more. But of course that's of no help to all the people who never read the description.

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Somewhere you have to draw the line, though. If that 100ml Decon container should be a micro because it looks kind of like the 50ml mint tin, what about something a bit bigger? And where would my caches in NSW national parks fit into your scheme since they're not allowed to have any trackables or swag in them? Should they be listed as micros regardless of their physical size?

 

On my hides I generally say something about the container in the description, either directly (a 380ml Sistema, for example), or, if it's a novelty container, I might say it can take a geocoin or small trackable but not much more. But of course that's of no help to all the people who never read the description.

 

You could list those caches as Other, if they are strange shapes that won't fit trackables. I do that for caches that are 'small' or bigger in size externally, but the internal dimensions are micro. That way, people shouldn't necessarily expect to be able to leave a TB or trinket there, and won't be disappointed.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

You could list those caches as Other, if they are strange shapes that won't fit trackables. I do that for caches that are 'small' or bigger in size externally, but the internal dimensions are micro. That way, people shouldn't necessarily expect to be able to leave a TB or trinket there, and won't be disappointed.

 

I have on one where there's a big discrepancy between the inside and outside dimensions (externally it'd be regular but internally it's a micro), the other novelty containers can still hold at least a TB tag with something small attached or a geocoin. But Other isn't terribly helpful for those trying to find the cache, especially for someone using a stand-alone GPSr with a small screen trying to scroll through the description while standing on one foot on the side of a cliff in the pouring rain. I find it's much easier when scratching my head at GZ to be able to just glance at the cache summary at the top of the screen which includes the D/T rating and size, as this is often enough to at least narrow down potential hiding places.

 

image.png.c6aa6393a3224a76522279a7b3201505.png

 

For the same reason, I'm not about to change my national park caches to Other simply because swag and trackables aren't allowed. If searchers can't be bothered reading the description in advance where it says in bold letters not to leave anything in the cache besides the logbook, pencil and sharpener, then it's their own fault. For those caches, the container's size will likely be something useful to know when searching.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:
3 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

But Other isn't terribly helpful for those trying to find the cache

In the description/hint you give the size of the Other that the person is looking for.

 

Yes I realise that, but my point was that in the field when all you have is your GPSr with its tiny screen and trying to rule potential hiding places in or out, it's much easier to just glance at the screen and see up front that it's a regular rather than having to go scrolling through the description to find the bit where that information might be revealed, particularly if GZ is not a very comfortable place to be doing some heavy reading.

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

But be prepared for a nasty reply and being told you don't know what you are talking about and they are right and you are wrong. Even after you give examples of what is correct. Wrong sizes will be ignored with NM, by the reviewer and HQ.

Hasn't happened yet. Most quietly correct it and others just ignore it. 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Yes I realise that, but my point was that in the field when all you have is your GPSr with its tiny screen and trying to rule potential hiding places in or out, it's much easier to just glance at the screen and see up front that it's a regular rather than having to go scrolling through the description to find the bit where that information might be revealed, particularly if GZ is not a very comfortable place to be doing some heavy reading.

That's the advantage of things like that being in the hint then. No need to scroll with a small screen. One of the reasons I rarely read descriptions while in the field. Small screen. If it's got something interesting, I will read it later on the computer screen. (If it's a remotish cache, yes, I will read the description, plus hint and many logs, before going to find it, but not for the average cache.)

Only needs a few words in the hint to give the size for an 'Other' sized cache. "Cache outside dimensions: small." Or similar.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/2/2020 at 8:25 PM, humboldt flier said:

Thennnnnnn my nanos would really tick you off ... 6-8 years ago I jumped on the band wagon to get nano sizing as an option.  Promptly got kicked in the teeth by TPTB and elements of "The Community".  For the most part I put nano somewhere in the description, however, being an old fuddy-dud sometimes I forget.  

 

Hey "Dog With Glasses" and "The White Urkel", if you are still out there, do you remember the tussles from back in the day?!

 

Man oh man we certainly got the "Thin Skins" ruffled back in the day.  We were soooooooooo naughty. Can you say warned, probation and banned.

 

The White Urkel aka Dog With Glasses can't answer you as he was warned, probationed, and banned.  

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Seems to me Dog With Glasses was from Minnesota and The White Urkel was from Buffalo, N.Y.   Whhhhaaaaaattttt ... they stepped in it again.  Bummer; sorry to hear about the "Re-Banning". Miss the insights provided by those "seasoned folks".

 

I still think there should be a size category for those blasted NANO containers.

Edited by humboldt flier
auto correct typo

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, humboldt flier said:

blasted NANO containers

Good description :wacko::laughing:.

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/3/2020 at 1:35 PM, barefootjeff said:

And where would my caches in NSW national parks fit into your scheme since they're not allowed to have any trackables or swag in them?


This is intriguing. They're not allowed to have trackables/swag because they're within a NSW national park? What's the thinking there?

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, BendSinister said:


This is intriguing. They're not allowed to have trackables/swag because they're within a NSW national park? What's the thinking there?

 

Originally caches were banned outright by NSW National Parks because they were considered to be litter. After years of negotiations that policy was replaced by the present one which allows cache placement with permission subject to a number of restrictions including limiting the contents to just an information card about the park, the logbook, a pen/pencil and a pencil sharpener. I expect that was a compromise over the litter concerns.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/6/2020 at 7:56 AM, humboldt flier said:

I still think there should be a size category for those blasted NANO containers.

As a practice, this varies geographically, but the most common solution in our area is to mark these as "Other".  Most often, a nano, pouch or mag strip is what is being hinted at with any local "Other" in the size category.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Originally caches were banned outright by NSW National Parks because they were considered to be litter. After years of negotiations that policy was replaced by the present one which allows cache placement with permission subject to a number of restrictions including limiting the contents to just an information card about the park, the logbook, a pen/pencil and a pencil sharpener. I expect that was a compromise over the litter concerns.

 

I can see that...     It's pretty common to listen to the landowner you're getting permission from.  :)

Some of our larger parks won't allow pmo hides.  They want all to visit their park.  Our caches are just visiting too.

Our first cache is a match stick holder.  The township wanted a micro and that's that.  We at least made sure it was sorta weather resistant...  

One area nearby requests clear containers, and as some have found, they mean clear, not opaque.  They want to see inside if passing by.

  • Helpful 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 1

×
×
  • Create New...