Should there be a separate designation for "nano" caches?

[+Ed_S]

Some caching buddies and I were talking the other day, and this subject was tossed around. What does everyone here think?

 

Me, I think it's not a bad idea, because just as a micro can be hidden in a lot of ways and places a small cannot, a nano can be  hidden where a traditional micro (bison tube, etc.) cannot. 

 

Yes or no?

 

[+NanCycle]

Yes, because too many cache owners won't classify them correctly as micros, but call them "other." Also too many cachers who do see nanos called micros, then think that a film canister or prerform or match holder is a "small". Then what is rightly a  "small" becomes a "regular."

[+JL_HSTRE]

I would love to see a Nano size added, but I recall this being requested when I started a decade ago. If it hasn't happened by now I don't see why it ever will.

[+cerberus1]

No.  Some don't want to give the hide away, though many can tell when they get to GZ that a nano's probably the only option.  It's a micro.

[+colleda]

9 hours ago, Ed_S said:

Some caching buddies and I were talking the other day, and this subject was tossed around. What does everyone here think?

 

Me, I think it's not a bad idea, because just as a micro can be hidden in a lot of ways and places a small cannot, a nano can be  hidden where a traditional micro (bison tube, etc.) cannot. 

 

Yes or no?

 

I kinda agree but I would expect there could be a problem in definition. I have micros that contain a small writing implement (some of my bison tubes do) but I have never seen a nano that could.

[+Goldenwattle]

Having a Nano size rating would be a HUGE improvement. (Another game I sometimes play has a Nano rating.)

I blame nanos for why now many people rate regulars as large, smalls as regular and micros as smalls. It would GREATLY assist with accurate size rating. Not instantly, as many people will never correct their size ratings, as they don't now, even when several people have mentioned this to them, but over time the size rating should drift back to where they should be.

 

I don't expect this to have any effect on those that could implement this, especially as now I suspect they would prefer ALs to take over, but PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE bring in a Nano rating .

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

I blame nanos for why now many people rate regulars as large, smalls as regular and micros as smalls. It would GREATLY assist with accurate size rating. Not instantly, as many people will never correct their size ratings, as they don't now, even when several people have mentioned this to them, but over time the size rating should drift back to where they should be.

 

Perhaps I've led a sheltered life, but the 20 large-rated caches I've found have, from memory and photos, been genuine large containers (apart from one which was an Earthcache). They were a mix of buckets, large boxes, long PVC tubes (maybe half a metre or more by 20cm diameter) and a couple of what I could best describe as small cubby-houses, almost big enough for me to crawl inside. Likewise the regulars I've found have nearly all been ammo cans or the larger (1 litre plus) Sistemas. The only micros I see listed as smalls with any sort of regularity are Eclipse mint tins but with those the incorrect size listing is the least of their problems. On the other hand I don't encounter many nanos in the places I do most of my caching, maybe a couple of dozen in my eight years of playing, and most of those were on trips to Sydney.

 

Having a nano size category could be handy but two difficulties I see would be applying it retrospectively (maybe not a problem in the longer term as most nanos tend to have a fiarly short lifespan) and compatibility with dedicated GPS receivers that wouldn't recognise the new size category.

[+Goldenwattle]

9 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

dedicated GPS receivers that wouldn't recognise the new size category

I think my Garmin ETrex30 recognises Nano. A local game I find things in occasionally, has Nanos and I don't remember a problem. They tend to have more bigger sizes than this game.

I have found large pill bottles listed a regulars (they aren't), and what is barely a regular, listed as large. Mintie tins listed as smalls, even the smaller version. Very common.

[+niraD]

2 hours ago, colleda said:

I kinda agree but I would expect there could be a problem in definition.

We already have a definition. From the Help Center article Cache container sizes, "If a micro cache is less than 10 milliliters, it’s often called a nano cache."

[+Goldenwattle]

28 minutes ago, niraD said:

We already have a definition. From the Help Center article Cache container sizes, "If a micro cache is less than 10 milliliters, it’s often called a nano cache."

So then we just need the size rating added to.

[+colleda]

27 minutes ago, niraD said:

We already have a definition. From the Help Center article Cache container sizes, "If a micro cache is less than 10 milliliters, it’s often called a nano cache."

You are quite correct but the problem I alluded to would be similar to the micro v small issue i.e. nano v micro.

[+niraD]

8 hours ago, colleda said:

You are quite correct but the problem I alluded to would be similar to the micro v small issue i.e. nano v micro.

You mean writing implement vs no writing implement?

 

Sorry, but I don't understand how that plays into it at all. The new system would be a simple change from the current one, just adding 10ml as the dividing line between nano and micro:

• nano: 10ml or less
• micro: 10 - 100ml
• small: 100ml - 1000ml (1L)
• regular: 1 - 20L
• large: 20L or more

[+Goldenwattle]

13 minutes ago, niraD said:

You mean writing implement vs no writing implement?

 

Sorry, but I don't understand how that plays into it at all. The new system would be a simple change from the current one, just adding 10ml as the dividing line between nano and micro:

• nano: 10ml or less
• micro: 10 - 100ml
• small: 100ml - 1000ml (1L)
• regular: 1 - 20L
• large: 20L or more

I like that, although it could be argued the old system of giving an actual example and images, might work better.

[+niraD]

20 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I like that, although it could be argued the old system of giving an actual example and images, might work better.

Examples are great, especially if they use common container types rather than vague objects. It would also be nice if the Groundspeak store listed the geocache sizes that are appropriate for all the containers they sell.

 

But specific volumes give a clear line for containers that aren't included as examples.

[+humboldt flier]

4 hours ago, niraD said:

You mean writing implement vs no writing implement?

 

Sorry, but I don't understand how that plays into it at all. The new system would be a simple change from the current one, just adding 10ml as the dividing line between nano and micro:

• nano: 10ml or less
• micro: 10 - 100ml
• small: 100ml - 1000ml (1L)
• regular: 1 - 20L
• large: 20L or more

Interesting take: 

 

         Can't help chortling ... some countries and specific regions might have some difficulty with the metric system.

 

Nooooooo; I am not going to name any names.  I "might could" get into some controversy if I go any further with my rather broad paintbrush.

 

Hard to imagine that I stepped into this fray over a decade ago ... DECADE ... where have all those years gone, say it aint so.

[+cerberus1]

16 hours ago, colleda said:

I kinda agree but I would expect there could be a problem in definition. I have micros that contain a small writing implement (some of my bison tubes do) but I have never seen a nano that could.

 

Has the Help Center changed ?  There never was a requirement for a "writing implement" before for any cache size or type...

[Darwin473]

7 hours ago, niraD said:

It would also be nice if the Groundspeak store listed the geocache sizes that are appropriate for all the containers they sell.

 

Ooh, that's a good point! And it would only take an intern a few minutes to do - just need to add a sentence to the description. No need to edit tables or databases, or change the website layout. Simple change, small effort but a big improvement. 

[+barefootjeff]

8 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I like that, although it could be argued the old system of giving an actual example and images, might work better.

 

I disagree. While the examples and images are fine if you actually have one of the things shown (a bison tube for a micro or a small tupperware box for a small), they don't help for anything else that might be bigger than one but smaller than the other, such as an Eclipse tin. I'd wager that many of the Eclipse tins listed as smalls happen because on the cache submission page they look closer to the size of the tupperware than the bison tube.

 

 

 

Those images don't tell you where the boundaries are between the different sizes.

Edited September 12, 2021 by barefootjeff

[+cerberus1]

8 hours ago, niraD said:

 It would also be nice if the Groundspeak store listed the geocache sizes that are appropriate for all the containers they sell.

 

Yep.  At events, most new folks said they still don't understand sizes, when the Shop Geocaching has small, X small, and XX small.

Where has anyone seen an X or XX small cache size in the Help Center ?  How about a Medium ?  Calling a Pelican container Large ?

I used to think they're small errors that'll eventually get fixed, sort of like all Trackable pages still show the owner has a Trackable Number instead of the proper Code above the Action bar on the right.   We do have Reference Number and Tracking Code fixed in most of the Help Center...

But they're been mentioned a few times in website now.   

[+colleda]

4 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Has the Help Center changed ?  There never was a requirement for a "writing implement" before for any cache size or type...

I never suggested that. It was just an observation for comparison.

[+Goldenwattle]

4 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

I disagree. While the examples and images are fine if you actually have one of the things shown (a bison tube for a micro or a small tupperware box for a small), they don't help for anything else that might be bigger than one but smaller than the other, such as an Eclipse tin. I'd wager that many of the Eclipse tins listed as smalls happen because on the cache submission page they look closer to the size of the tupperware than the bison tube.

 

 

 

Those images don't tell you where the boundaries are between the different sizes.

 The small sistema box looks bigger than that mintie tin and it should be obvious that mintie tin is not a small. It doesn't show there so much in your photograph, but mintie tins are also thinner than sistema boxes, and some minti tins are half as wide as that, but I have still found the half width ones rated a small. I remember the old description for a 'small' also said something like, "Big enough to hold TBs and some trinkets". When I started in geocaching, without knowing a single geocacher, that description made it clear to me what a 'small' was. It was, ""Big enough to hold TBs and some trinkets"" Best information I have seen for a small, and the easiest to understand. Shame that has been taken away.

[+captnemo]

13 hours ago, niraD said:

Y The new system would be a simple change from the current one, just adding 10ml as the dividing line between nano and micro:

• nano: 10ml or less
• micro: 10 - 100ml
• small: 100ml - 1000ml (1L)
• regular: 1 - 20L
• large: 20L or more

This would be great as it has been a pet peeve of mine for years.  

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

The small sistema box looks bigger than that mintie tin and it should be obvious that mintie tin is not a small.

 

Yes, but the Eclipse tin is also clearly bigger than the bison tube. The examples on the cache submission page are just that, examples of what someone thought were "typical" containers in each size category. The mint tin is somewhere between their typical micro and typical small but it doesn't say which.

 

1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

When I started in geocaching, without knowing a single geocacher, that description made it clear to me what a 'small' was. It was, ""Big enough to hold TBs and some trinkets"" Best information I have seen for a small, and the easiest to understand. Shame that has been taken away.

 

A TB tag, or even several, will fit easily inside an Eclipse tin.

 

 

I really prefer the objective definitions in the Help Centre, ie. less than100ml is a micro, 100ml to 1 litre is a small, etc. An Eclipse tin has a volume of about 60ml so is categorically a micro by that rule.

[+Goldenwattle]

19 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Yes, but the Eclipse tin is also clearly bigger than the bison tube. The examples on the cache submission page are just that, examples of what someone thought were "typical" containers in each size category. The mint tin is somewhere between their typical micro and typical small but it doesn't say which.

 

 

A TB tag, or even several, will fit easily inside an Eclipse tin.

 

 

I really prefer the objective definitions in the Help Centre, ie. less than100ml is a micro, 100ml to 1 litre is a small, etc. An Eclipse tin has a volume of about 60ml so is categorically a micro by that rule.

You are showing that without the log, which in many mintie tins I have found has filled all or most of the tin, leaving no, or very little room, if any room, for anything else. (Okay correction, able to hold, beside the log, TBs and small trinkets.)

How many tags do you see without an attachment? Very few. I have a TB hotel and there are ten TBs in there at present and only one (a paper print of a TB) without an attached tag, and nine of the ten wouldn't fit in that mintie tin.

[+barefootjeff]

6 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

You are showing that without the log, which in many mintie tins I have found has filled all or most of the tin, leaving no, or very little room, if any room, for anything else. (Okay correction, able to hold, beside the log, TBs and small trinkets.)

How many tags do you see without an attachment? Very few. I have a TB hotel and there are ten TBs in there at present and only one (a paper print of a TB) without an attached tag, and nine of the ten wouldn't fit in that mintie tin.

 

Yeah, usually there's a scrunched-up torn baggie enclosing a scrunched-up wet logsheet and squeezed into the Eclipse tin's rusting remains, leaving little room for anything else. But there's not that much more room for typical trackable attachments in this decon container which the HQ's shop lists under "Larger Containers" and which measures as a tad over 100ml:

 

 

It does have room for this multi-page stapled logbook and a pencil though, so I really wouldn't consider it a micro.

 

 

The line has to be drawn somewhere and 100ml seems to be as good a spot for it as any.

[+Goldenwattle]

3 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Yeah, usually there's a scrunched-up torn baggie enclosing a scrunched-up wet logsheet and squeezed into the Eclipse tin's rusting remains, leaving little room for anything else. But there's not that much more room for typical trackable attachments in this decon container which the HQ's shop lists under "Larger Containers" and which measures as a tad over 100ml:

 

 

It does have room for this multi-page stapled logbook and a pencil though, so I really wouldn't consider it a micro.

 

 

The line has to be drawn somewhere and 100ml seems to be as good a spot for it as any.

 

That's why I preferred the original (when I joined anyway) description that a 'small' could hold TBs and small trinkets.

Obviously NOT all TBs. I once had a TB that was a largish toy road grader. I found it in a large ammunition box, and nothing smaller than a large ammunition box would fit it. There's also a doll TB in my TB Hotel and it's been there for months, because no-one appears to want such a large TB. It needs a regular sized cache.

Coincidently, I am responsible for bringing that doll TB to Australia. I found it in Seattle in the USA and brought it here. Then I released it, and some time later found it again in another town. I released it again and some time later again found it, but in another town again. It's been 'haunting' me. This time I placed it in my TB Hotel and recently I placed a note on it begging someone to move it on. No one has yet.

 

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

A TB tag, or even several, will fit easily inside an Eclipse tin.

And a 35mm film canister can hold small trackables and trinkets, but is arguably the definitive micro-size container.

[+Goldenwattle]

1 hour ago, niraD said:

And a 35mm film canister can hold small trackables and trinkets, but is arguably the definitive micro-size container.

Yes, I found a TB once that would have fitted in a 35mm canister with the log. I think that was in 2012 (or thereabouts). Still looking for that next TB that will easily fit in one, with the log

I made the mistake of releasing that TB into an ammunition can. That's the last I heard from it. I suspect being so small was its downfall, and it might have got accidentally pulled out with something else and lost.

[+TeamRabbitRun]

I'm not surprised GS is vague about exact sizes; how could they not be?

 

In my country, MOST people wouldn't be able to DEFINE a milliliter, much less use a size of "10ml" to discriminate between the different sizes of Bison-type tubes, and I'd wager that most of the rest of the world wouldn't be able to work with ounces.

 

Aw, who am I kidding - most Americans can only identify TWELVE ounces all together because that's size of a can of Coke. Heck, in Texas, there's even a thing called a "ten-gallon HAT"!

 

Look it up! (But, that's what they're like in Texas, anyway.) NO sense of volume definition.

 

Anyway, my point is that reading down to this point, it's apparent that everyone has their own idea about what type of containers should be the ones in the 'rating pictures' in the Help Center because they're SO common, almost 'standard', but the most popular size of gum or breathmints in YOUR country may be unheard-of in MINE, so practical image standards would be just as hard to pin down as the conceptual ones we're complaining about.

'Minties'? 'Sistemas'? I had to look them up; they're not here in the US.

 

So, D&T ratings are approximate and subjective; why shouldn't container sized be as well? 

 

I know people have a hard time labeling THIS small box the same as this TEENY-TINY one, but the idea is to get you to have a sense of what you're looking for, not necessarily the specific dimensions. And, if a CO chooses "Other", then I just take that as a slightly harder and better hunt.
 

[+humboldt flier]

How about "Itsy, Bitsy Teenie, Weenie". Buuuut you might have to be of a certain age for that phrase to knock off a cob web in order for a synapse to fire.

 

I have a few nanos out there and try to mention it in the description ... buuuuuut how many folks read descriptions.

[+TeamRabbitRun]

1 hour ago, humboldt flier said:

How about "Itsy, Bitsy Teenie, Weenie". Buuuut you might have to be of a certain age for that phrase to knock off a cob web in order for a synapse to fire.

 

I have a few nanos out there and try to mention it in the description ... buuuuuut how many folks read descriptions.

 

I don't look good in yellow.

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

I don't look good in yellow.

How about polka dots?  

[+colleda]

5 hours ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

I'm not surprised GS is vague about exact sizes; how could they not be?

 

In my country, MOST people wouldn't be able to DEFINE a milliliter, much less use a size of "10ml" to discriminate between the different sizes of Bison-type tubes, and I'd wager that most of the rest of the world wouldn't be able to work with ounces.

 

Aw, who am I kidding - most Americans can only identify TWELVE ounces all together because that's size of a can of Coke. Heck, in Texas, there's even a thing called a "ten-gallon HAT"!

 

Look it up! (But, that's what they're like in Texas, anyway.) NO sense of volume definition.

 

Anyway, my point is that reading down to this point, it's apparent that everyone has their own idea about what type of containers should be the ones in the 'rating pictures' in the Help Center because they're SO common, almost 'standard', but the most popular size of gum or breathmints in YOUR country may be unheard-of in MINE, so practical image standards would be just as hard to pin down as the conceptual ones we're complaining about.

'Minties'? 'Sistemas'? I had to look them up; they're not here in the US.

 

So, D&T ratings are approximate and subjective; why shouldn't container sized be as well? 

 

I know people have a hard time labeling THIS small box the same as this TEENY-TINY one, but the idea is to get you to have a sense of what you're looking for, not necessarily the specific dimensions. And, if a CO chooses "Other", then I just take that as a slightly harder and better hunt.
 

As I had some Altoids tins handy I decided to measure one. I needn't have bothered as it wasn't untill after I'd measured that I noticed the contents weight printed on the lid 1.76oz (nice round figure?) and 50g (grams) Perhaps the grams was for the benefit of straying Canadians. BTW the Altoid tin volume worked out a just a little more than the Eclipse, IIRC, mint tin illustrated by Goldenwattle somewhere above, approx. 100ml v 75ml.

Sistemas = Lock'n'Lock various sizes. Sistemas are made in New Zealand.

IMHO Altoids and Eclipse tins are micros.

 

[+TeamRabbitRun]

14 hours ago, niraD said:

How about polka dots?  

 

I will not comment on the NEXT step.

[+Ed_S]

This topic, as they seem to do here, has strayed off into "What-If Land" - we all know the tiny magnetic cylindrical cache container that holds a rolled log a quarter inch (6 mm if you prefer) wide. That's the nano to which I referred, and it's the one that comes to mind when someone mentions "nano."

.

 

[+TeamRabbitRun]

1 hour ago, Ed_S said:

This topic, as they seem to do here, has strayed off into "What-If Land" - we all know the tiny magnetic cylindrical cache container that holds a rolled log a quarter inch (6 mm if you prefer) wide. That's the nano to which I referred, and it's the one that comes to mind when someone mentions "nano."

.

 

 

I would agree; that's the term I think of, too, swimsuit notwithstanding.

[+niraD]

9 hours ago, Ed_S said:

This topic, as they seem to do here, has strayed off into "What-If Land" - we all know the tiny magnetic cylindrical cache container that holds a rolled log a quarter inch (6 mm if you prefer) wide. That's the nano to which I referred, and it's the one that comes to mind when someone mentions "nano."

I think you're referring to these:

I first heard those called "blinkers" or "blinkies" because they were originally made by removing the watch batteries from blinking LED jewelry and putting a rolled-up strip of paper in the battery compartment as a log.

 

But there are a few other containers listed on the Nano Cache page of Groundspeak's online store, and I would consider any of them to be a nano-cache as well. Plus there are other containers I've seen used for nano-caches that aren't available from Groundspeak's online store.

[+GearHeadAZ]

I sure wish there was a nano category!

[+ivss_xx]

Looks like we are sill not getting a nano category. One can hope though

[+arisoft]

4 hours ago, ivss_xx said:

Looks like we are sill not getting a nano category. One can hope though

 

Current practice is to overestimate the size classification of caches. Caches that are actually micro, has been regularry published as a small ones for a long time. The easiest way to create category for nano caches is just change the sizes to meet the current practice:

 

Micro = smaller than a film canister

Small = smaller than an apple

Regular = smaller than a shoebox

Large = larger than a shoebox

 

If you think about this new ranking, you may find it's pretty close what you actually see on the field.

[+HHL]

1 hour ago, arisoft said:

Micro = smaller than a film canister

No. That's exactly GS's wrong wording in trying to explain the micro size. Actually, the very popular PET preform caches are bigger than a film canister (which is appr. 35 ml). However, it has to be listed as "micro" because of its size < 100 ml.

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

 

Happy Learning

Hans

[+arisoft]

1 hour ago, HHL said:

No. That's exactly GS's wrong wording in trying to explain the micro size. Actually, the very popular PET preform caches are bigger than a film canister (which is appr. 35 ml). However, it has to be listed as "micro" because of its size < 100 ml.

 

Right, but they are published as a small, so this change fix two problems at the same time.

[+niraD]

The current definitions for cache sizes are fine. All we have to do is split nanos into a separate size, rather than have them be a special category of micros ("If a micro cache is less than 10 milliliters, it’s often called a nano cache").

 

On 9/12/2021 at 8:19 AM, niraD said:

• nano: 10ml or less
• micro: 10 - 100ml
• small: 100ml - 1000ml (1L)
• regular: 1 - 20L
• large: 20L or more

[+arisoft]

17 hours ago, niraD said:

The current definitions for cache sizes are fine.

 

Definitions are fine but cacher owners do not follow them. You can't change that. You can only change the definitions to follow the current practice. For example, the regular size do not match what is regular in the reality. When I am searching a cache that is "small size" I am used to trying to find a micro. I am ok with all these quirks. I'll just say that the new class probably won't solve any problem.

Edited December 18, 2023 by arisoft

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, arisoft said:

Definitions are fine but cacher owners do not follow them. You can't change that. You can only change the definitions to follow the currect practice.

 

The "current practice" varies depending on where you are. Around here, most caches listed as smalls are Sistemas, the smallest of which is 180ml, with bison tubes and preforms the most common listed as micros. The change you've suggested would invalidate most caches here.

Edited December 17, 2023 by barefootjeff

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, arisoft said:

Definitions are fine but cacher owners do not follow them.

Yes, I've seen size creep too. New geocachers see blinkers listed as micro, and figure that film canisters, match cases, and preforms must be small, and sandwich-sized containers must be regular, and shoebox-sized containers must be large. It doesn't affect all caches, but it affects enough that seekers learn to look for a micro when the listing says it's a small, and so on.

 

Some of us hope that adding a separate nano size will help reduce size creep, so we can have blinkers listed as nano, film canisters, match cases, and preforms consistently listed as micro, sandwich-sized containers consistently listed as small, and shoebox-sized containers consistently listed as regular.

[+barefootjeff]

12 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

Current practice is to overestimate the size classification of caches. Caches that are actually micro, has been regularry published as a small ones for a long time. The easiest way to create category for nano caches is just change the sizes to meet the current practice:

 

Micro = smaller than a film canister

Small = smaller than an apple

Regular = smaller than a shoebox

Large = larger than a shoebox

 

If you think about this new ranking, you may find it's pretty close what you actually see on the field.

 

Here's an assortment of containers I've listed as smalls, compared to an actual apple:

 

 

All the boxes are in the range 100ml to 1 litre, with the smallest 180ml and the biggest about 500ml. The apple's volume, as best I can measure it, is about 150ml so it really is the smallest of any of them. Being at the bottom of what's normally considered the small range (100ml - 1l), it strikes me as a particularly bad example of a typical small, much less as the boundary between small and regular.

[+MartyBartfast]

There is a place for a Nano size but I think that ship sailed long ago and it's now too late to introduce it, don't forget that doing so will need changes to all the apps (Cachly, geooh-go, the app that shall not be named, etc.) and utilities (GSAK, Project-GC, etc.) and the GPX standard for GPSrs so it would be a significant undertaking. Also introducing the size wouldn't change all those already out there so we would always have thousands of older nanos still listed as Micro or Other.

 

And I don't see that introducing it would do anything to reduce size creep among the other size bands.

[+niraD]

3 hours ago, MartyBartfast said:

And I don't see that introducing it would do anything to reduce size creep among the other size bands.

I think size creep starts at the bottom. New cachers see blinkers, 1.5ml centrifuge, and the like listed as micro, and assume that film canisters, match holders, and preforms must be small.

 

And yes, all the apps have to change. But as a migration strategy, apps that haven't been updated could be served compatible cache data (via GPX or via the API) that translates the nano size to micro.

[+JL_HSTRE]

16 hours ago, arisoft said:

Definitions are fine but cacher owners do not follow them. You can't change that. You can only change the definitions to follow the currect practice.

 

That's like saying the speed limit should rise until people stop speeding.