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

[+arisoft]

13 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

 

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

 

Even your analogy does not fit to this situation properly, you are right. Speeding will stop when the limit is high enough.

[+ivss_xx]

On 12/18/2023 at 9:51 AM, 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 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.

Sounds like a locality to me too. Around where I am, I don't remember finding film canisters and pill bottles listed as "small"

[Preciosa_0493]

 I was coming to the forum to ask about a nano size option, only to find out the topic has already been brought up many times over the decades. I can't figure out why it's not an option, and guessed it may be because "nano" was not an official geocache term. Then, I saw items being sold in the geocache store with that size description, so that can't be it...

[+MNTA]

[+GeoElmo6000]

4 hours ago, Preciosa_0493 said:

 I was coming to the forum to ask about a nano size option, only to find out the topic has already been brought up many times over the decades. I can't figure out why it's not an option, and guessed it may be because "nano" was not an official geocache term. Then, I saw items being sold in the geocache store with that size description, so that can't be it...

 

There are several things that Geocaching HQ supports through its store and in documentation which are, at the same time, also not official per Geocaching HQ.  The two that stand out are nano caches and First to Find.

 

Nano caches fit within the definition of micro cache (and they are even spelled out as part of the definition):

Quote

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.

 

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

[+thebruce0]

I know this is a revived zombie thread but I couldn't resist...

 

On 12/18/2023 at 8:45 AM, arisoft said:

On 12/18/2023 at 8:22 AM, JL_HSTRE said:

 

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

 

Even your analogy does not fit to this situation properly, you are right. Speeding will stop when the limit is high enough.

 

When the speed limit is high enough, people just won't drive on that road because it's way too dangerous. I guess that's the same as people not speeding - they're just not driving there.

Size creep with no limit to accomodation will just kill the game with the eventual removal of any actual reasonable definitions.

#analogy

[+Goldenwattle]

On 9/14/2021 at 3:59 AM, TeamRabbitRun said:

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.

Even when Australia used imperial measurements (50 years ago now we changed), we never uses ounces for size, only weight. Ounces are an equivalent for grams, not millilitre.

Edited December 4 by Goldenwattle

[+TeamRabbitRun]

4 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Even when Australia used imperial measurements (50 years ago now we changed), we never uses ounces for size, only weight. Ounces are an equivalent for grams, not millilitre.

 

Missing the original point, there. No equivalence was implied.

[+barefootjeff]

6 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Even when Australia used imperial measurements (50 years ago now we changed), we never uses ounces for size, only weight. Ounces are an equivalent for grams, not millilitre.

 

I vaguely recall from the pre-metric days that volumes (particularly of liquids) were measured in fluid ounces. Looking online, it seems there are imperial fluiid ounces which are 1/20 of an impirial pint, and US customary fluid ounces which are 1/16 of a US pint. I think I'll stick with millilitres.

[+edexter]

I would prefer a "nano" category as it would make it easier for me to identify caches to avoid.  As it is, I can barely bring myself to search for micros that lack a location hint, and generally don't.  On the other hand, if the CO wants to provide an accurate size guide, it's easy enough to add to the description.  For example an nano description could be "smaller than a grape", "as big as a bean" or "marble sized".  

[+colleda]

7 hours ago, edexter said:

I would prefer a "nano" category as it would make it easier for me to identify caches to avoid.  As it is, I can barely bring myself to search for micros that lack a location hint, and generally don't.  On the other hand, if the CO wants to provide an accurate size guide, it's easy enough to add to the description.  For example an nano description could be "smaller than a grape", "as big as a bean" or "marble sized".  

I include "nano" in the description and "micro" as size. Three of  my seventy nine caches are nanos. I did have four but one mysteriously kept going missing in a remote spot so I gave up on it.