Why micros?

[+Goldenwattle]

7 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

a guard rail nano

Most guard rails will fit a small, so a nano  is ridiculous! Just laziness.

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

Most guard rails will fit a small, so a nano  is ridiculous! Just laziness.

 

Guard rail probably isn't the right term for it but I don't know quite how to describe it, it's one of those long metal panels on a corner with >>>>>> painted on it. It's also a high muggle area as it's right next to the locals' fishing spot.

 

I'm still the most prolific hider in my region in spite of some recent la Nina related archivals, and none of mine are micros. Next on the list, by MV, are all geoart hides in the Watagan Mountains that were placed for the 2018 Morisset mega and I don't think any of those are micros. Shifter Brains has been caching since 2005 and has a good spread of hide types, of which about a third are micros. The next one down, Elev8!on, specialises in high terrain (some may say extreme terrain) caches and again none are micros.

 

 

The disconnect we seem to have here is that the cache types favoured by the most prolific hiders are the opposite of what the finders these days want to look for.

 

Edited July 10, 2022 by barefootjeff

[+majordude]

I hate micros and minis... YES, I live in SoCal and if you have anything nice, even 30' up in a tree, it goes missing... but I can't leave a trackable and it's almost impossible to get the log out or to jam it back into the cache. I just started last weekend and only have 18 catches... but I have yet to see anything larger than an Altoid tin can.

[+barefootjeff]

On 7/7/2022 at 6:57 PM, EthisEthat said:

2. Cost, you can get bison tubes for $1. Mind you, the one (and only) large cache I have hidden was a $3 20L water holding container I got at the Greenshed. 

...

5. Difficulty, some hiders want to make REALLY difficult caches, and a large isn't the best at hiding (on the flipside of this, a field puzzle in a regular or large is great fun)

 

I suppose cost is a factor if you're putting out lots of caches or something like a power trail, but for me it's rarely a consideration. I'll typically hide about five or six caches a year so I spend a lot more on cups of coffee than I do on containers. Sistemas, which are my general-purpose go-to container, are only a few dollars in the local supermarket, the latter being an important consideration as postage often outweighs the container cost for anything more exotic that I have to order in.

 

My most recent multi cost over a hundred dollars to put together, most of that being construction materials like stone-grinding tools, adhesives, paints, lacquers and themed swag for the final; the container itself was nominally free as it was one I'd swapped out of another of my hides since it didn't really suit that location but was perfect for this one. It also took about a month to complete, with several site visits to settle on the waypoint/final locations and theme, concept development, graphic design for the cache page treasure map and waypoint object construction. For me, it's the time and effort involved that's the true cost of the cache, not its monetary outlay.

 

As for difficulty, with mine the challenge is usually getting to the cache, with many of them T3 or higher, so once there I want them to be pretty easy to spot. The only camo I use is to deflect the gaze of muggles. The cache size is then usually determined by how big a container I can fit into the hiding place.

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, majordude said:

I hate micros and minis... YES, I live in SoCal and if you have anything nice, even 30' up in a tree, it goes missing... but I can't leave a trackable and it's almost impossible to get the log out or to jam it back into the cache. I just started last weekend and only have 18 catches... but I have yet to see anything larger than an Altoid tin can.

I've found only a few caches in Southern California, but it seemed pretty similar to the San Francisco Bay Area. If you want to find larger cache containers, you'll probably need to go places a little further from suburbia. Larger containers survive better in more isolated locations.

 

Even then, you may need to seek older caches. Some cache owners have given up trying to hide larger containers.

[+cerberus1]

11 hours ago, majordude said:

I hate micros and minis... YES, I live in SoCal and if you have anything nice, even 30' up in a tree, it goes missing... but I can't leave a trackable and it's almost impossible to get the log out or to jam it back into the cache.

I just started last weekend and only have 18 catches... but I have yet to see anything larger than an Altoid tin can.

 

Assuming you're using the app.  If you were to go to the website and look for caches in your area, a basic member can view all but PMO caches.

Those "advanced" caches you normally can't see in-app are on the website, and simply looking for areas with green (that's what I do...) will help.

I start with caches with a T2 for a walk in woods, and you can too.  T2 and up, with small/regular size, and you're set.  

[+TeamRabbitRun]

16 hours ago, majordude said:

I hate micros and minis... YES, I live in SoCal and if you have anything nice, even 30' up in a tree, it goes missing... but I can't leave a trackable and it's almost impossible to get the log out or to jam it back into the cache. I just started last weekend and only have 18 catches... but I have yet to see anything larger than an Altoid tin can.

 

Welcome, New Guy. Getting logrolls in and out of caches is the shared responsibility of the CO and the seeker.

 

On the Cache Owner's side, logging should be designed so that it's easy to manage, given the container. All of my logrolls are taped to a matchstick or toothpick, a LITTLE longer than the width of the logroll. You hold the stick between two fingers, roll it up, then gently pull on the log so it tightens. Then, you roll it some more, and repeat until it slips into the container.

 

The stick also allows a 'finder' to roll it tighter (from one end of the stick) while it's still in place so that it comes out cleanly.

 

For the little tiny micro 'blinky' things the size of the end of a bullet (American, right?), you have to tell people that it goes into the recessed part of the CAP, not the wider BODY, otherwise it gets crushed when you screw the cap on.

 

Lately, I've taken to taking a plastic tube, slicing it down one side (even better, removing a long piece of it so there's a gap) and wrapping it around my logrolls. Finders have commented on how well it works. I stole the idea from someone else, and it works well.

 

Here's a picture from one of my caches. You can see the stick AND the plastic tube. It's not my hand.

 

[+majordude]

4 minutes ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

 

Welcome, New Guy. Getting logrolls in and out of caches is the shared responsibility of the CO and the seeker.

 

On the Cache Owner's side, logging should be designed so that it's easy to manage, given the container. All of my logrolls are taped to a matchstick or toothpick, a LITTLE longer than the width of the logroll. You hold the stick between two fingers, roll it up, then gently pull on the log so it tightens. Then, you roll it some more, and repeat until it slips into the container.

 

The stick also allows a 'finder' to roll it tighter (from one end of the stick) while it's still in place so that it comes out cleanly.

 

For the little tiny micro 'blinky' things the size of the end of a bullet (American, right?), you have to tell people that it goes into the recessed part of the CAP, not the wider BODY, otherwise it gets crushed when you screw the cap on.

 

Lately, I've taken to taking a plastic tube, slicing it down one side (even better, removing a long piece of it so there's a gap) and wrapping it around my logrolls. Finders have commented on how well it works. I stole the idea from someone else, and it works well.

 

Here's a picture from one of my caches. You can see the stick AND the plastic tube. It's not my hand.

 

Nice!

That toothpick trick is a great idea!

[+Hynz]

On 7/9/2022 at 12:22 AM, Harry Dolphin said:

What else would you hide here?  26% favorites!  It was a fake bolt.

Sorry but I can't resist answering this question:

A virtual stage for a Multi 

[+WoodlandAlliance]

Personally, I think each cache should be the biggest size it can be. Lots of places can only have micros, but lots of caches are in places where a larger cache works fine.

 

What really grinds my gears is when people use "other" as the size when they don't need to. Other should be extremely rare.

[+TeamRabbitRun]

2 hours ago, WoodlandAlliance said:

Personally, I think each cache should be the biggest size it can be. Lots of places can only have micros, but lots of caches are in places where a larger cache works fine.

 

What really grinds my gears is when people use "other" as the size when they don't need to. Other should be extremely rare.

 

I agree. I particularly like the 'Other' implementations where the CO states that it's an ammo box, and it turns out to be one of those LITTLE teeny ammo boxes!

 

It's a 'micro', but you can't let on!

 

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

 

Have you seen that picture of the big green dumpster painted like an ammo can? Hysterical!

Edited July 18, 2022 by TeamRabbitRun

[+ChriBli]

2 hours ago, WoodlandAlliance said:

What really grinds my gears is when people use "other" as the size when they don't need to. Other should be extremely rare.

25% of my eight hides are "other". The problem with the size classification is that it is used both as an indication of what to look for and of what you can fit in it. One of my "other"s is easily large enough for "regular" on the outside, but the inside won't fit even the smallest TB:s or swag. The other is very two-dimensional so even if it is a couple of decimeters in two dimensions the volume is very small. So how should I rate these if not "other"?

 

And of course "other" must be used for all nanos. Those are pretty common in some areas and they have their merits. All in all, "other" may be rare but not extremely rare. Over 9% of my finds are that size, and thats almost as many as the "regular"s and way more that the "large"s. I think most of the "other"s I've found have been that size for good reason.

[+WoodlandAlliance]

7 minutes ago, ChriBli said:

25% of my eight hides are "other". The problem with the size classification is that it is used both as an indication of what to look for and of what you can fit in it. One of my "other"s is easily large enough for "regular" on the outside, but the inside won't fit even the smallest TB:s or swag. The other is very two-dimensional so even if it is a couple of decimeters in two dimensions the volume is very small. So how should I rate these if not "other"?

Seems it would be easy enough to pick one and mention the issue in the description. I would think the outside of the cache would be the size to pick, and mention in the description that there likely isn't room for trackables or swag on the inside.

[+niraD]

6 minutes ago, ChriBli said:

25% of my eight hides are "other". The problem with the size classification is that it is used both as an indication of what to look for and of what you can fit in it. One of my "other"s is easily large enough for "regular" on the outside, but the inside won't fit even the smallest TB:s or swag. The other is very two-dimensional so even if it is a couple of decimeters in two dimensions the volume is very small. So how should I rate these if not "other"?

I agree with the use of "Other" here.

 

6 minutes ago, ChriBli said:

And of course "other" must be used for all nanos.

Nope. Blinkers, 1.5ml centrifuge tubes, and other nano-size containers are micro-caches, which is defined as "less than 100 milliliters". The description goes on to say, "If a micro cache is less than 10 milliliters, it’s often called a nano cache." So we call those very small micro-caches "nano" but they're still listed as micro.

[+niraD]

3 minutes ago, WoodlandAlliance said:

Seems it would be easy enough to pick one and mention the issue in the description.

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

[+WoodlandAlliance]

1 minute ago, niraD said:

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

Right. But I was replying specifically to the person who didn't know what to pick when the inside and outside dimensions are two different sizes.

[+ChriBli]

11 minutes ago, WoodlandAlliance said:

Seems it would be easy enough to pick one and mention the issue in the description. I would think the outside of the cache would be the size to pick, and mention in the description that there likely isn't room for trackables or swag on the inside.

Good point, that is probably the best. There will always be some people writing snarky logs about not being able to trade swag or drop a TB (even if that was stated in the description), but since both these habits are going out of style it maybe doesn't matter anymore. I will do that next time. One thing I definitely will not do is change size or D/T on the existing cache.

[+WoodlandAlliance]

1 minute ago, ChriBli said:

Good point, that is probably the best. There will always be some people writing snarky logs about not being able to trade swag or drop a TB (even if that was stated in the description), but since both these habits are going out of style it maybe doesn't matter anymore. I will do that next time. One thing I definitely will not do is change size or D/T on the existing cache.

Some people are never happy lol.

[+ChriBli]

13 minutes ago, niraD said:

Nope. Blinkers, 1.5ml centrifuge tubes, and other nano-size containers are micro-caches, which is defined as "less than 100 milliliters". The description goes on to say, "If a micro cache is less than 10 milliliters, it’s often called a nano cache." So we call those very small micro-caches "nano" but they're still listed as micro.

Has this changed, perhaps? I definitely remember seeing size rating advice based on volume that I can not see now. From what I remember volumes smaller than a film canister (which was the model for a micro then) kind of fell off the chart and had to be other. In any event, where I come from if you call a nano a micro and fail to say so in the description, you'll hear about it in the logs.

[+niraD]

54 minutes ago, WoodlandAlliance said:

56 minutes ago, niraD said:

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

Right. But I was replying specifically to the person who didn't know what to pick when the inside and outside dimensions are two different sizes.

I would argue that in many such situations, it's the smaller size that matters. For example, if someone embeds a micro-size Bison tube into a regular-size log, then finding the log doesn't really help me unless I notice the Bison tube embedded in it. So I'm not looking for the regular-size log, I'm looking for the micro-size Bison tube. And from the perspective of what fits in it, it's again the micro-size Bison tube that matters.

 

But if the CO is still torn between listing it as regular (the size of the log) or micro (the size of the embedded container), then listing it as other is fine. That size is specifically for containers that don't fit cleanly into the other size categories.

Edited July 18, 2022 by niraD
clarity

[+niraD]

41 minutes ago, ChriBli said:

Has this changed, perhaps? I definitely remember seeing size rating advice based on volume that I can not see now. From what I remember volumes smaller than a film canister (which was the model for a micro then) kind of fell off the chart and had to be other. In any event, where I come from if you call a nano a micro and fail to say so in the description, you'll hear about it in the logs.

There are various descriptions of the standard cache sizes scattered around the geocaching.com site. This definition based on volume has been in place since before your account was created though.

[+colleda]

8 hours ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

 

I agree. I particularly like the 'Other' implementations where the CO states that it's an ammo box, and it turns out to be one of those LITTLE teeny ammo boxes!

 

It's a 'micro', but you can't let on!

 

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

 

Have you seen that picture of the big green dumpster painted like an ammo can? Hysterical!

If it's a micro it's a micro.

I have confused more than one player by mentioning, in the description, that they are looking for an ammo can.

GC6XG1Q

 

 

 

[+cerberus1]

22 hours ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

I particularly like the 'Other' implementations where the CO states that it's an ammo box, and it turns out to be one of those LITTLE teeny ammo boxes!

 

It's a 'micro', but you can't let on!

 

The other 2/3rds (FTF monster) called me in a panic once, her 2nd/3rd try, with a bunch of others who couldn't find an ammo can in an open area.

The guy that can't find anything smaller than a 30cal found it in minutes - a mini ammo can that might be able to house a pathtag with the log.

It was listed as "other" and no one else noticed.    

[tomowens]

The game has changed a lot in the 20 or so years that I have been playing. I hate to be one of those grumpy old geezers who pine for the Good Old Days, but I do have more fond memories of those days when I could research a cache on the website, copy the coordinates ( manually ) into my hand-held Magellan 3000 GPS, and take off with nothing more than bearing and distance information.

The number of caches within 30 miles or so was about 5 at the time. To get beyond that we would plan an adventure for the day - choose a cache that may be a 75 mile trip or greater and armed with only bearing and distance information ( personal preference, maps make it too easy ) off we'd go. If the end result was a micro, it seemed kind of like a let down.

But, I get it. If there were only a dozen caches within a hundred mile radius, the game would likely have died off quickly.
 

These days we rarely play any more, but occasionally do when we have a few minutes of spare time in any location. Now it's a 10 minute thing instead of an adventure for the entire afternoon or whole day. Plus, I can now use a cell phone to check any area where I happen to be standing - no pre-planning necessary. I still avoid looking at the map or hints and like to seek with only the bearing / distance information. If it's a micro, so be it. For me, it's just not quite as much fun.
 

- Raiders of the Lost Park

Edited July 24, 2022 by tomowens

[+cerberus1]

3 hours ago, tomowens said:

 I do have more fond memories of those days when I could research a cache on the website, copy the coordinates ( manually ) into my hand-held Magellan 3000 GPS, and take off with nothing more than bearing and distance information.

The number of caches within 30 miles or so was about 5 at the time.

 -snip - 

If the end result was a micro, it seemed kind of like a let down.

These days we rarely play any more, but occasionally do when we have a few minutes of spare time in any location. Now it's a 10 minute thing instead of an adventure for the entire afternoon or whole day. Plus, I can now use a cell phone to check any area where I happen to be standing - no pre-planning necessary. I still avoid looking at the map or hints and like to seek with only the bearing / distance information. If it's a micro, so be it. For me, it's just not quite as much fun.

Yeah... we get that...

I still play that way, manually enter hides, and a small notepad for anything else needed for the cache, or what happened that day.  

Most caches are distant because I'm skipping those all around me with less than 2 in terrain (or not in a green area on the map).

After parking, I'll disregard all the (to me) nondescript "on the way to..." caches others placed on the way to the original one I'm heading to. 

The other 2/3rds wouldn't...   

I'm looking for a good long walk, a unique area, or a great view.  That container to sign is secondary.

We lost a few friends to lame areas more than cache size.

[+barefootjeff]

12 hours ago, tomowens said:

The number of caches within 30 miles or so was about 5 at the time. To get beyond that we would plan an adventure for the day - choose a cache that may be a 75 mile trip or greater and armed with only bearing and distance information ( personal preference, maps make it too easy ) off we'd go. If the end result was a micro, it seemed kind of like a let down.

 

Almost all of my caching these days is a day trip (or longer) away somewhere. Yesterday was a 250km round trip to attend an event, last weekend was a drive to a town 50km up the coast for four finds (none of them micros) and a DNF (that one was a micro) and a few weeks before I did a two-hour train trip to Newcastle for some caching while my car was being serviced. Next weekend our small caching group is heading out north-west of Sydney for a day of hiking to some caches along the ridge-top fire trails above the Colo River.

 

A couple of weeks ago I had a rare treat with a new cache (a challenge that I already qualified for) published just 4km from home. It was a short kayak paddle to the sand island it's on then some path-picking through the mangroves to get to GZ, so all up it probably took a couple of hours to complete the find. tt's a micro but at the larger end of that range, a preform hanging in one of the larger mangrove trees. That one was the first new cache in my local neighbourhood (the Woy Woy peninsula) this year, apart from a couple of my own hides. Last year there were none.

Edited July 25, 2022 by barefootjeff

[magellan315]

I started Geocaching a year after the first cache was hidden. At the time the players were people who spent time outdoors and wanted to use their GPS and techie types who wanted to use their GPS. Over time families with children got into Geocaching. Then the gamers got involved, they were into easy finds and high scores. This is when I saw an upsurge in micro. Personally, there are to many of micros, often times placed somewhere that would support a regular cache.