Jump to content

Preform Caches


SPSFCaches
Followers 3

Recommended Posts

This is the cache of mine that I am referring to. The photos show a couple of the incarnations. You can see the cut off Sistema that was used to seal the base. Plenty of favorite points. TBs were left in this cache, inside the gnome but outside the actual log book container. This was something that finders instigated, and not my original intention. Part of the challenge was to locate the correct log book container amongst about 40 others. Hence the sizing. The cache container was a micro. It was hidden inside a larger camoed container. 

GCYWG9 Geez, I must be Dopey!! (Traditional Cache) in Queensland, Australia created by Bundyrumandcoke (geocaching.com)

 

And in spite of the fact its now been archived, I actually have his replacement 3/4 built at home. Unfortunately, life got in the way of caching and I have never got around to replacing him. 

Edited by Bundyrumandcoke
Link to comment
On 11/1/2021 at 12:19 AM, niraD said:

A film canister has a volume of 50ml or less. Containers with a volume between 50ml and 100ml should be listed as micro, but the "film canister or smaller" language implies that they should be listed as small instead.

 

A 35mm film canister actually measures 1.25” dia. x 2.00” high (31.8mm x 50.8mm) with a volume of 40.35ml.  It gets its name because it holds a roll of 35mm wide film.  So the lower limit should be changed to 40ml.

  • Funny 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
33 minutes ago, Capt. Bob said:

A 35mm film canister actually measures 1.25” dia. x 2.00” high (31.8mm x 50.8mm) with a volume of 40.35ml.

Sounds about right. A while ago, I measured the capacity of several different 35mm film canisters, and got values ranging from 35-50ml. (Yeah, I was surprised to see so much variation among the different types.)

 

33 minutes ago, Capt. Bob said:

It gets its name because it holds a roll of 35mm wide film.

Yep. I've actually used 35mm cameras (both point-and-shoot and manual everything).

 

33 minutes ago, Capt. Bob said:

So the lower limit should be changed to 40ml.

Or Groundspeak could list a 35mm film canister as an example of a micro, not as the upper limit of a micro. Or Groundspeak could refer to match cases or other containers that are (1) more weatherproof and (2) less obsolete.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
35 minutes ago, niraD said:

Sounds about right. A while ago, I measured the capacity of several different 35mm film canisters, and got values ranging from 35-50ml. (Yeah, I was surprised to see so much variation among the different types.)

 

Yep. I've actually used 35mm cameras (both point-and-shoot and manual everything).

 

Or Groundspeak could list a 35mm film canister as an example of a micro, not as the upper limit of a micro. Or Groundspeak could refer to match cases or other containers that are (1) more weatherproof and (2) less obsolete.

A 35mm film canister probably isn't a good example any more, much the same as a Cubit isn't a good example of a unit of distance. Both are in the same league as the Dodo. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

When I first started Geocaching these were popular.  35mm cans and a bicycle inner tube with a little tube repair rubber cement to seal the end.  100% water proof, long lasting and difficult to spot hanging in a tree.  Those were the good old days before the god-awful nanos reared their ugly heads.  You could go to any pharmacy and ask for 35mm cans and end up getting a trash bag full for free!

 

Container3.jpg.81aa7dfc5eb8d4824b5a4386e7d89001.jpg

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
  • Surprised 2
  • Love 1
Link to comment
4 hours ago, Capt. Bob said:

When I first started Geocaching these were popular.  35mm cans and a bicycle inner tube with a little tube repair rubber cement to seal the end.  100% water proof, long lasting and difficult to spot hanging in a tree.  Those were the good old days before the god-awful nanos reared their ugly heads.  You could go to any pharmacy and ask for 35mm cans and end up getting a trash bag full for free!

 

Container3.jpg.81aa7dfc5eb8d4824b5a4386e7d89001.jpg

They look a great idea - I've been 3D printing similar things - a hanging outer container that fits a smaller tube/bison/preform inside - so far they are holding up well in the elements and keep logsheets bone dry, despite heavy rains. They also make a bigger target for finders, I know how I can despise hanging bisons!

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, lee737 said:

They also make a bigger target for finders, I know how I can despise hanging bisons!

 

I placed this one yesterday for my new AL bonus cache. It's described by the sellers as a mega bison and has a volume of about 200ml so definitely a small and it should be easy enough for cachers to spot. It's on the opposite side of the tree to the track and protected by scratchy undergrowth, and with an uninterrupted cliff-top view nearby I'm hoping the local muggles who made the track won't spot it.

 

CacheInPosition.thumb.jpg.cf83c5e5f35579faf6a6dd2d1cd058aa.jpg

 

This is my first cache hanging in a tree, most of the others are concealed under rock ledges or in caves, so it's a new experience.

  • Upvote 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Just now, barefootjeff said:

 

I placed this one yesterday for my new AL bonus cache. It's described by the sellers as a mega bison and has a volume of about 200ml so definitely a small and it should be easy enough for cachers to spot. It's on the opposite side of the tree to the track and protected by scratchy undergrowth, and with an uninterrupted cliff-top view nearby I'm hoping the local muggles who made the track won't spot it.

 

CacheInPosition.thumb.jpg.cf83c5e5f35579faf6a6dd2d1cd058aa.jpg

 

This is my first cache hanging in a tree, most of the others are concealed under rock ledges or in caves, so it's a new experience.

I might have given the chain a spray with black paint Jeff.... those containers are very cool, we have one here but have never deployed it - you need to watch the O-ring as I've seen them leak....

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
On 11/2/2021 at 1:10 PM, MtnGoat50 said:

That's sure not how I see it. The container is the film canister (a micro) you may have camouflaged it in something larger (a garden gnome) but the "container" is still a micro. The best cache type to select for these (if you don't want to say micro) is "other". IMHO  

Correct. I have a cache, ornamental, plaster garden frog about 2 litres volume with a film container inside. It is listed as a micro.

  • Helpful 1
  • Love 2
Link to comment

FYI - Regarding the waterproof-ness of preforms, soda bottle caps usually have a much better built-in gasket than the lids that come with the preforms we get at Steve Spangler. We always switch them out.

 

They are pretty bomb-proof. I've only ever lost one to damage - it was hit by a tractor mower. And even at that it was *almost* still usable. 

Edited by DarkZen_EvilCowPie
  • Helpful 2
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, DarkZen_EvilCowPie said:

FYI - Regarding the waterproof-ness of preforms, soda bottle caps usually have a much better built-in gasket than the lids that come with the preforms we get at Steve Spangler. We always switch them out.

 

They are pretty bomb-proof. I've only ever lost one to damage - it was hit by a tractor mower. And even at that it was *almost* still usable. 

I've noted that with some of the smaller preforms - the lids seem a bit flimsy - I often add a 3D printed cover to the lid anyway - good grip and some UV protection as well. The large one I posted has a very high quality lid....

  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
17 hours ago, DarkZen_EvilCowPie said:

FYI - Regarding the waterproof-ness of preforms, soda bottle caps usually have a much better built-in gasket than the lids that come with the preforms we get at Steve Spangler. We always switch them out.

 

They are pretty bomb-proof. I've only ever lost one to damage - it was hit by a tractor mower. And even at that it was *almost* still usable. 

 

I agree that the soda lids usually work better. But I've had some preforms last a pretty long time without them.

 

I hid a preform cache in Germany in 2008 that went missing in 2009, after I'd already moved, so I archived it. When I returned to Germany nine years later, I went back to the location and managed to find the preform in the base of the tree where it had supposedly been lost. The innards were in pristine shape, and that was with the cheapo cap.

 

edit: One of these

 

PETling Geocache Behälter (5 Stück) BRAUN

Edited by hzoi
  • Surprised 1
  • Helpful 3
Link to comment

Over the years I've seen the standard terms (micro, small, regular and large) become less and less useful as far as size indication goes.  Large used to indicate something the size of an ammo can (now seldom seen) or larger while a micro was a film cannister or smaller.  Those two descriptions still hold, but the listing service hasn't kept up.  I think it's fair to say most folks know what a nano is and that should be listed as an option (so five sizes, not four, plus "other").  Leaving "micro" as something film cannister size is fine (though fewer folks know what one is), a preform is generally two to three times larger than a film cannister, so I always list them as a "small".  My "rule of thumb" is that anything larger than your thumb and up to coffee mug size as small.  Regular has completely lost it's usefulness as a size description.  A regular sized object is defined as " something of average or medium size".  Maybe where you cache is different, but in my next of the woods more than half the caches people place are bison tubes (micros) or small lock and locks which are about the size of a coffee mug..  The average shoe box is now bigger is than an ammo can, so the "official definition doesn't help.   The term "regular" could/should be replaced with "medium" defined as "bigger than a coffee mug, smaller than an ammo box". As for "other" this is a catchall for folks who don't want you to know the size. In my experience, it means the cache is a micro inside a larger "host" which makes sense to me.  

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 2
Link to comment
34 minutes ago, edexter said:

Over the years I've seen the standard terms (micro, small, regular and large) become less and less useful as far as size indication goes.  Large used to indicate something the size of an ammo can (now seldom seen) or larger while a micro was a film cannister or smaller.  Those two descriptions still hold, but the listing service hasn't kept up.  I think it's fair to say most folks know what a nano is and that should be listed as an option (so five sizes, not four, plus "other").  Leaving "micro" as something film cannister size is fine (though fewer folks know what one is), a preform is generally two to three times larger than a film cannister, so I always list them as a "small".  My "rule of thumb" is that anything larger than your thumb and up to coffee mug size as small.  Regular has completely lost it's usefulness as a size description.  A regular sized object is defined as " something of average or medium size".  Maybe where you cache is different, but in my next of the woods more than half the caches people place are bison tubes (micros) or small lock and locks which are about the size of a coffee mug..  The average shoe box is now bigger is than an ammo can, so the "official definition doesn't help.   The term "regular" could/should be replaced with "medium" defined as "bigger than a coffee mug, smaller than an ammo box". As for "other" this is a catchall for folks who don't want you to know the size. In my experience, it means the cache is a micro inside a larger "host" which makes sense to me.

 

Maybe if folks used the size definitions in the Help Center article Cache container sizes instead of various "rules of thumb", then size listings would be more useful:

  • Micro - less than 100 milliliters
    • includes Nano - less than 10 milliliters
  • Small - 100 milliliters to 1 liter
  • Regular - 1 to 20 liters
  • Large - more than 20 liters

For the record, while I have seen a few ammo cans that have been Large size, they definitely are the exception. Most ammo cans used for geocaches are solidly in the Regular size range. And as has been mentioned before in this thread, most preforms used for geocaches are solidly in the Micro size range, although some of the larger ones are bigger than 100ml and should be listed as Small instead.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, niraD said:

 

Maybe if folks used the size definitions in the Help Center article Cache container sizes instead of various "rules of thumb", then size listings would be more useful:

  • Micro - less than 100 milliliters
    • includes Nano - less than 10 milliliters
  • Small - 100 milliliters to 1 liter
  • Regular - 1 to 20 liters
  • Large - more than 20 liters

For the record, while I have seen a few ammo cans that have been Large size, they definitely are the exception. Most ammo cans used for geocaches are solidly in the Regular size range. And as has been mentioned before in this thread, most preforms used for geocaches are solidly in the Micro size range, although some of the larger ones are bigger than 100ml and should be listed as Small instead.

 

Always amused me that this American company uses metric measurements ONLY to specify cache sizes.

 

It IS a global hobby, so shouldn't they be using both metric AND imperial sizes? I personally wouldn't know a hundred milliliters if it leaked out on my shoes. (In which case I'd file a NM, most likely.)

 

AND another thing - why the heck is it known as the "Imperial" system? Doesn't that sound like it's related to "Empires" in some way? That's what we use here, and that 'other' stuff in most of the rest of the world. But, 'Empires' is not the way we Americans think of ourselves (regardless of our history) 

 

BUT, I digress, and that last part's not really a geocaching thing. </rant>

 

  • Funny 3
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

I personally wouldn't know a hundred milliliters if it leaked out on my shoes.

Oh, you probably aren't as bad with the metric system as you think you are. The most common size bottles for bottled water is half a liter. Soda is sold in 1-, 2-, or 3-liter bottles. If you have an idea of how big a quart is, then a liter is about the same thing.

 

But when in doubt, Google is your friend:

10ml in oz: 0.33814 (about 1/3 ounce)

100ml in oz: 3.3814 (about 3 1/3 ounces)

1L in qt: 1.05669 (about 1 quart)

20L in gal: 5.28344 (about 5 gallons)

Link to comment
1 hour ago, niraD said:

Maybe if folks used the size definitions in the Help Center article Cache container sizes instead of various "rules of thumb", then size listings would be more useful:

  • Micro - less than 100 milliliters
    • includes Nano - less than 10 milliliters
  • Small - 100 milliliters to 1 liter
  • Regular - 1 to 20 liters
  • Large - more than 20 liters

 

 

Maybe it would help if they put those definitions on the cache submission page instead of just pictures of a bison tube, lock-n-lock, ammo can and a bucket.

 

image.png.4918aa49f9954c1b525c1b09894d56b4.png

 

It's no wonder that anything bigger than a typical bison tube gets listed as a small.

  • Helpful 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
10 hours ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

 

Always amused me that this American company uses metric measurements ONLY to specify cache sizes.

 

It IS a global hobby, so shouldn't they be using both metric AND imperial sizes? I personally wouldn't know a hundred milliliters if it leaked out on my shoes. (In which case I'd file a NM, most likely.)

 

AND another thing - why the heck is it known as the "Imperial" system? Doesn't that sound like it's related to "Empires" in some way? That's what we use here, and that 'other' stuff in most of the rest of the world. But, 'Empires' is not the way we Americans think of ourselves (regardless of our history) 

 

BUT, I digress, and that last part's not really a geocaching thing. </rant>

 

Its an Imperial system because it would have originated in the UK, your former imperial masters. 

 

To make matters worse, an Imperial gallon is different to a US Gallon. 

 

Oh, and lets not start on the incorrect spelling of the metric system that you guys use. 

Edited by Bundyrumandcoke
  • Funny 1
  • Surprised 1
Link to comment

    I understand what niraD is getting at (using actual volumes like "100 ml" instead of comparative sizes:  "size of a film cannister") but seriously folks, when was the last time you measured the interior or exterior volume of anything you placed in the wild, eh?  (By the way, a film cannister can't hold a 100ml of liquid, more like 50ml)

      The cache page creation form shows the pictures of objects as references, which is more helpful than volume measurements and could be made more helpful still by keeping up with what folks actually place.  A bison tube is one of the most common placements these days despite being a terrible container, seldom waterproof for long and only as good as the o-ring.  That's what I commonly find when the size is listed as "micro".  Smalls tend to be preforms (waterproof with a good cap), pill bottles (soggy log city), or the the smallest sized lock&locks (dry when folks close them up).  Regulars are relatively scarce but tend to be larger lock&locks and the occasional smallish ammo can.  and when was the last time you found anything bigger than an ammo can placed in the past five years?  I think maybe two for me.  The cache container world is shrinking and a "regular" is now a small lock&lock, not an ammo box.  

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
Link to comment

  There are only two systems of measurement, the imperial system and the socialist system.  

 

  Using the imperial system a nano sized cache would be a cubic barleycorn, a small size cache would be a cubic hand.  However, using volume measurement (based on 10 pounds of distilled water equaling one gallon) a nano cache would be called a gill, small cache called a pint, medium cache called a quart and large cache called a gallon.   

  Not to confuse the issue, but instead of using statue miles, we should use nautical miles.  It just makes more sense because it is equal to one arc minute of a great circle (aka, as-the-crow-flies).  This naturally leads to using fathom as a basic unit of measurement because it equals 1/1000 of a nautical mile.

  So a typical log might be written like this:  “I found a barleycorn (or a gill) about 1 ½ nautical miles along the trail within 2 fathoms of the GZ.”

 

  • Funny 4
  • Surprised 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
42 minutes ago, Capt. Bob said:

  There are only two systems of measurement, the imperial system and the socialist system.  

 

  Using the imperial system a nano sized cache would be a cubic barleycorn, a small size cache would be a cubic hand.  However, using volume measurement (based on 10 pounds of distilled water equaling one gallon) a nano cache would be called a gill, small cache called a pint, medium cache called a quart and large cache called a gallon.   

  Not to confuse the issue, but instead of using statue miles, we should use nautical miles.  It just makes more sense because it is equal to one arc minute of a great circle (aka, as-the-crow-flies).  This naturally leads to using fathom as a basic unit of measurement because it equals 1/1000 of a nautical mile.

  So a typical log might be written like this:  “I found a barleycorn (or a gill) about 1 ½ nautical miles along the trail within 2 fathoms of the GZ.”

 

 

Now, this is a guy I could get along with.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, lee737 said:
2 hours ago, edexter said:

when was the last time you measured the interior or exterior volume of anything you placed in the wild, eh?

When I was about to place a container and knew it was close to the boundary between micro and small..... 

 

Yep, I've done the same for borderline containers, more commonly at the small/regular boundary. A simple technique is to weigh the container empty then fill it with water. The difference in weight in grams is equal to its volume in millilitres. I just have to remember to dry it out completely before putting the logbook in :).

 

2 hours ago, edexter said:

The cache page creation form shows the pictures of objects as references, which is more helpful than volume measurements and could be made more helpful still by keeping up with what folks actually place.  A bison tube is one of the most common placements these days despite being a terrible container, seldom waterproof for long and only as good as the o-ring.  That's what I commonly find when the size is listed as "micro".  Smalls tend to be preforms (waterproof with a good cap), pill bottles (soggy log city), or the the smallest sized lock&locks (dry when folks close them up).  Regulars are relatively scarce but tend to be larger lock&locks and the occasional smallish ammo can.  and when was the last time you found anything bigger than an ammo can placed in the past five years?  I think maybe two for me.  The cache container world is shrinking and a "regular" is now a small lock&lock, not an ammo box.

 

That's very much regional dependent. The disposition of sizes in my region is 23.6% micro, 43.3% small, 25.4% regular, 3.1% large and the rest other/virtual, with the most common containers being Sistema Klip-Its (stocked in supermarkets with a good variety of shapes and sizes and they perform really well as cache containers), larger screw-top plastic jars, ammo cans and the dreaded Eclipse tin. The latter is the most problematic one for size ratings:

 

20210913_063510.jpg.bfc8cc0b8f6a5654408472ebbdf27d8e.jpg

 

It lies somewhere between the examples shown for micro and small, but which is it?

 

image.png.dd616f5495fdfb3314324e66863c0993.png

 

The water test shows the volume is about 60ml so definitely a micro but probably half the ones I've found (usually well on the way to reverting to their natural iron oxide state) are listed as smalls. Sure, they can keep the images there as examples, but would it hurt to also show the volume ranges on the submission page?

Link to comment
6 hours ago, edexter said:

(By the way, a film cannister can't hold a 100ml of liquid, more like 50ml)

By the way, the last time I measured an assortment of film canisters, I got volume measurements ranging from 35-50ml. So a film canister is squarely in the micro range, and except for the fact that they're becoming more and more obsolete, they make a good example of what you might expect a non-nano micro to look like.

  • Helpful 2
Link to comment

Kudos to Captain Bob's metrics, er, measurement scales ;-)

Lest we forget, the actual reason most of us want to know what size the container is has less to do with volume and more to due with other considerations.  Allowing for the "everyone caches for a different reason" cliché, when I cache my interests are either a walk in the woods or a paddle so the size only matters to me so I have an idea about possible hiding spots.  I generally simply ignore micros but will tolerate them if they involve a decent walk, rule out all nanos regardless, and prefer regulars and larger when caching with the grandkids as they are "in it for the loot";-)  I find preform tubes are in the "sweet spot" for the kind of caching I prefer as they are sturdy, waterproof, can be easily tethered, are not readily noticeable to the casual observer, can contain a log and pencil, and used with or without cammo or coloration.  They are a decent size for multicache stages (with a small to medium lock&lock as a cache) and, suspended from an overhanging branch perhaps,  easy enough to find "from the boat" on kayak caches.   I record them as "small" though most of the time these days simply say it is a "tethered preform".

   I agree with barefootjeff that the choice of container is partly determined by local custom and "free" container availability.  In my neck of the woods, it's wet year round, snows in the winter, and is windy whenever it feels like, so placing non-waterproof containers, especially "o-ring bison tubes and nanos means the pulping process is guaranteed to occur if they are exposed to the elements.  (Of course Murphy's Law applies:  the ziplock can't zip itself and many lock&locks are beyond the skill level of more than a few folks ;-)  But I'd rather know the approximate size of the waterproof container than the exact amount of liquid the hydroscopic containers can hold anyway ;-)  If it's always dry, it don't matter much.

Link to comment
On 11/22/2021 at 3:11 PM, barefootjeff said:

image.png.4918aa49f9954c1b525c1b09894d56b4.png

 

It's no wonder that anything bigger than a typical bison tube gets listed as a small.

 

Note that the Bison tube shown in the Micro example looks like one of the larger "Scuba Tank" models, and not one of the more typical "Capsule" (or even "Capsule Large") models. But you'd have to be pretty familiar with the different types of Bison tubes to pick up on that.

Link to comment

     It's been my experience that if you want people to know what to look for descriptive size accuracy matters and if you don't (for example, if you want the cache to be more difficult to find for whatever reason) then you want to be "technically accurate, but mislead.  I'll give an example of each. 

    Typically I place a cache at the end of a mile or two walk and if it is a preform then I will check off that it's a small (if a film cannister "micro", then a six inch preform is at least three times larger, so I rate it a small) and then in the description of the cache I say "it's a tethered preform".  As the saying goes "everyone caches for a different reason" and my reason most often is to go for a walk in the woods and get some exercise.  So I want the difficulty to be in the effort required to reach the cache, not in actually finding it.  I don't walk an hour to then hunt for a half hour, generally speaking.  

   But I am aware, based on the numbers of what people actually hide and find and where they place them, that a micro within 50 feet of pavement is what is being sought and hidden most often.  At least a third of the caches hidden in my area fit this description...and that apparently a lot of people enjoy a half hour search for an impossibly tiny well hidden object, as long as they don't have to walk very far to get it. (OK, so maybe it takes them five minutes and just me a half hour)  But to each, their own. 

     So to honor these folks I hid a cache I called Little Itsy Bitsy Black Nano Hidden in the Woods with No Hints (GC4858A, now archived).  I listed the size as "other" d/t of 4/1.5.  16 of the first 18 logs were dnfs (then word got out...)  It actually was a tiny black nano, hidden 50 feet from pavement by a fallen pine tree and listed as "snow friendly" at first because if was a foot off the ground, and we seldom have snow that deep here.  The reason it was so hard to find was that dimensionally speaking the outer container the cache was in was a large.  It was placed inside a soup thermos that looked just like a gigantic nano (about four inches high) and that was placed on top of a large coffee can, the whole thing being bigger than your average ammo can.  I spray painted it to match the initial  pine tree coloration (shades of dark green) and stuck in the middle of the debris.  Some folks appreciated the joke, some not so much, but I concluded that it was simply the misdirection that made the cache hard to find.  If you are thinking tiny, you miss the big.  If a higher d rating is your goal, then by all means use "other" as a "size" or call a nano a micro, or a 50 caliber ammo box a "regular" , but otherwise a preform is a preform, eh?  No reason to use a size description that is vague unless you want to. 

  • Funny 1
Link to comment

I use a very specific rating system when I approach a cache to decide how much ‘GZ time’ I will spend searching. I use this simple formula...
•    Coefficient of CO’s experience: over 500 caches placed = 0.95, between 500 and 100 = 0.50, less than 100 = 0.05
•    Cache Size (minutes): Large = 30, medium = 20, small = 10, nano = 5
•    Degree of Difficulty (minutes): Challenging = 10, all others = 5
•    Terrain (minutes):  Water = 10, swamp = 8, briars/vines/PI = 5, P & G = 1
•    Venue factor:  Unique location = 2.0, just a so-so location = 1.0, boring location = 0.5, in hider’s front yard = 0.0

 

GZ Time = Coef. Of Experience X ((Size + Difficulty + Terrain) X Venue factor)

 

  • Funny 4
Link to comment
23 hours ago, edexter said:

(if a film cannister "micro", then a six inch preform is at least three times larger, so I rate it a small)

By this argument, a blinker is listed as a micro, and a Bison tube is at least 3 times larger so it's a small, and a preform is at least 3 times larger so it's a regular, and a sandwich keeper is at least 3 times larger so it's a large.

 

FWIW, the system that Groundspeak publishes in the Help Center article Cache container sizes has the various size ratings separated by factors of 10 or 20, not just by factors of 3.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
4 hours ago, Capt. Bob said:

I use a very specific rating system when I approach a cache to decide how much ‘GZ time’ I will spend searching. I use this simple formula...
•    Coefficient of CO’s experience: over 500 caches placed = 0.95, between 500 and 100 = 0.50, less than 100 = 0.05
•    Cache Size (minutes): Large = 30, medium = 20, small = 10, nano = 5
•    Degree of Difficulty (minutes): Challenging = 10, all others = 5
•    Terrain (minutes):  Water = 10, swamp = 8, briars/vines/PI = 5, P & G = 1
•    Venue factor:  Unique location = 2.0, just a so-so location = 1.0, boring location = 0.5, in hider’s front yard = 0.0

 

GZ Time = Coef. Of Experience X ((Size + Difficulty + Terrain) X Venue factor)

 

 

Hmm, I was curious to see how my hides stack up on this scale:

  • Coefficient of CO's experience: I've hidden 52 (8 since archived) and adopted 3, not counting ALs or events, so 0.05
  • Cache size: All mine are regular or small, so 20 or 10
  • Degree of Difficulty: Most of the challenge in mine is in the terrain, D-rating of the hide is 2 or less, so 5
  • Terrain: I have 3 water-access caches but most are in rock ledges or caves at the end of a decent hike, so since they're not swamp/briars/vines/PI, 1
  • Venue factor: I try to pick an interesting spot with a view, waterfall or impressive rock formation, so 2

My GZ time is thus ...drum roll... 2.6 minutes.for the regulars or 1.6 minutes for the smalls. Best to just log a DNF and not bother with the search.

 

BTW, there are only 3 COs in my whole state who've hidden more than 500 caches so I guess the rest of us are inexperienced novices.

  • Funny 1
  • Helpful 2
Link to comment
5 hours ago, Capt. Bob said:

I use a very specific rating system when I approach a cache to decide how much ‘GZ time’ I will spend searching. I use this simple formula...
•    Coefficient of CO’s experience: over 500 caches placed = 0.95, between 500 and 100 = 0.50, less than 100 = 0.05
•    Cache Size (minutes): Large = 30, medium = 20, small = 10, nano = 5
•    Degree of Difficulty (minutes): Challenging = 10, all others = 5
•    Terrain (minutes):  Water = 10, swamp = 8, briars/vines/PI = 5, P & G = 1
•    Venue factor:  Unique location = 2.0, just a so-so location = 1.0, boring location = 0.5, in hider’s front yard = 0.0

 

GZ Time = Coef. Of Experience X ((Size + Difficulty + Terrain) X Venue factor)

 

 

Not sure what to make of someone who uses the term 'simple formula' like this. Do you do this 'simple' math in your head? is this supposed to make us feel a particular way?

I shake my head and am unimpressed.

 

If this is serious, it's truly sad. Glad that I approach my hobby differently.

 

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Capt. Bob said:

I use a very specific rating system when I approach a cache to decide how much ‘GZ time’ I will spend searching. I use this simple formula...
•    Coefficient of CO’s experience: over 500 caches placed = 0.95, between 500 and 100 = 0.50, less than 100 = 0.05
•    Cache Size (minutes): Large = 30, medium = 20, small = 10, nano = 5
•    Degree of Difficulty (minutes): Challenging = 10, all others = 5
•    Terrain (minutes):  Water = 10, swamp = 8, briars/vines/PI = 5, P & G = 1
•    Venue factor:  Unique location = 2.0, just a so-so location = 1.0, boring location = 0.5, in hider’s front yard = 0.0

 

GZ Time = Coef. Of Experience X ((Size + Difficulty + Terrain) X Venue factor)

*LOL* :D ... after having read it a second time :unsure:.

 

I admit that at first glance I thought you were serious. But then I realized that the numbers don't make sense at all (500(!) placements?! more time for large caches than for tiny ones?), so it had to be satire :) .

Maybe one could come up with better numbers to create a valid formula ... no, just kidding :P .

  • Funny 1
Link to comment
41 minutes ago, baer2006 said:

more time for large caches than for tiny ones

 

In the last week I made three trips (50km each way from home) trying to find a genuine large container, the first two times searching in vain for over an hour. On my second trip I even carried in a telescopic ladder to get to a place I couldn't reach on my first visit, but to no avail. The trouble was my mental picture of the hiding place (i was expecting a good-sized cave) was wrong, plus I was reading more into its T4 rating than I should have, and it was only after chatting with a previous finder at an event on Saturday that I was able to go back on Sunday and actually see what I'd no doubt looked at and subconsciously dismissed several times in my earlier searching. Had it been a micro, though, I probably would have just searched for about ten minutes and, with so many potential hiding places for such, shaken my head, told the wildlife what I thought of the CO and his needles in haystacks, and given up.

  • Funny 1
Link to comment

As NiraD points out   "FWIW, the system that Groundspeak publishes in the Help Center article Cache container sizes has the various size ratings separated by factors of 10 or 20, not just by factors of 3. and By this argument, a blinker is listed as a micro, and a Bison tube is at least 3 times larger so it's a small, and a preform is at least 3 times larger so it's a regular, and a sandwich keeper is at least 3 times larger so it's a large."

 

Yes, however if you actually go to the source and the cache creation form you'll find that a film cannister "which is squarely in the micro range" and is by NiraD account about 35ml, while a "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."  100 ml is just under three times as large and a six inch preform is a bit more than 100 ml, so classified as a small as per The Help Center.  

And they go on:  "Regular containers are 1 to 20 liters. They’re about the size of a shoebox. Many of these caches are ammo cans."  20 liters is just over five gallons.  Most folks would consider a five gallon bucket to be a large (indeed I think a 5 gallon bucket is depicted as a large container on the cache creation page).  At any rate there is plenty of room for deception or accuracy depending on one's intentions.  If a cache is "on the cusp" of a size classification as preforms are you can argue either way, eh?

Link to comment

A couple of weeks ago I retrieved a geocoin from a cache I found. Since that day I've made a further six finds, three of them micros so I wasn't expecting to be able to drop it into those. The remainder are listed as smalls, one being a long thin tube similar to the preform in lee737's photo earlier in this thread, so that was fair enough, but the other two are Eclipse mint tins which come in well below the 100ml volume needed to be listed as smalls, so as a result I'm still lugging the coin around looking for somewhere to drop it. I really wish they'd make it a bit clearer on the cache submission page that a mint tin is a micro, or better yet ban them as containers!

  • Helpful 3
Link to comment
1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

I really wish they'd make it a bit clearer on the cache submission page that a mint tin is a micro, or better yet ban them as containers!

These particular mint tins might only be an Australian thing, so they don't care at HQ in the USA. Although geocaching is international, it still is Americentric. The dates are an indication of that.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
On 10/30/2021 at 5:23 PM, frostengel said:

There are different kinds of preforms (in Germany we say "PETling" more often but I am sure we are referring to the same). For the normal ones (usually about 9 to 13 centimeters long and 2 centimeters wide) the others are totally correct: these are micro caches though many cachers list them as small.

But there are much bigger versions and the biggest may hold small trackables so if you use a big one as seen in the picture small should be correct.

 

grafik.png.fb4eed18264c6380dbb3dcd9422095cb.png

 

The picture is taken from a geocaching shop (no link, no advertisement, just google "XXL Petling" or "big PETling" or something like that). The container seen here has a width of about 4.5 centimeters and a length of 18 centimeters.

 

Jochen

I find the "XXL Petling to be an exception. The normal ones are definitely micro.

 

I have logged a "Petling" that was about 5 or 6 meters long and big enough to crawl into, and you needed to be three people doing that. It was called a "Mega PET". Amazingly, it was classified as micro... but I guess it referred to the container with the log book, inside.

 

https://coord.info/GC7Z6NP

 

So, there are exceptions, but the common ones are micro.

Link to comment
On 11/1/2021 at 4:46 PM, lee737 said:

I'm always amused when people cram a huge notebook, good for 10 years of visits into a small container in a busy park - as if it will last more than 6 months! The size of the logbook generally ensures the lid won't be seated down properly in any case, and it will be wet in a month.... 

I've been guilty of this but for ammo cans. And they still didn't last long enough to justify the notebook 

  • Surprised 1
Link to comment

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...
Followers 3
×
×
  • Create New...