Magnetic keyholders

[+Essap]

Is a magnetic keyholder a small or a micro?

[+lee737]

The ones here, that hold a key or two only - these would fit the volume descriptor for micro....

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, Essap said:

Is a magnetic keyholder a small or a micro?

According to the Help Center article Cache container sizes, a micro container is anything less than 100ml. Some of the magnetic keyholders I've seen used as geocaches might have an external size around 100ml (6.1 cubic inches), but the size of the compartment is much smaller. They really should be listed as micro.

[+Goldenwattle]

Or 'Other', as inside dimensions don't match outside dimensions, and they don't fit the standard sizes for caches. Not a small.

[+lee737]

28 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Or 'Other', as inside dimensions don't match outside dimensions, and they don't fit the standard sizes for caches. Not a small.

I would never call a key holder 'other'? They seem to fit the description for a micro just right.

[+barefootjeff]

2 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Or 'Other', as inside dimensions don't match outside dimensions, and they don't fit the standard sizes for caches. Not a small.

 

The ones I've seen are like this:

 

The inside dimensions are only a little smaller than the outside, by the thickness of the plastic, and both are well short of the 100ml to be anything other than a micro. I'm not sure what you mean by "the standard sizes for caches" that this wouldn't fit into and would necessitate being listed as "other".

[+HHL]

7 hours ago, Essap said:

Is a magnetic keyholder a small or a micro?

Its volume is less than 100 ml. Hence, a micro.

http://More Info on cache sizes (click here)

[+HHL]

Unfortunately GS's wording "... They’re about the size of a film canister, or smaller.  ..." is pretty wrong and misleading, as film canisters have appr. 40 ml volume. So even bigger caches than a film canister are considered as a macro cache (as long as they are < 100 ml). GS may change their wording from film canister to Pet preform (which is most often used for micro caches. At least in Europe).

 

Hans

Edited June 26, 2023 by HHL

[+HoochDog]

Instead of volume, it would be easier to list containers based on function. That’s what I tend to do. Opinions might vary but mine goes like this. 

Will the container easily house a travel bug?

no = micro

 

Will the container easily fit a full size logbook and several travel bugs? Something the size of a composition book or full size notebook?

no = small

 

Is the container at least double or triple the size of a regular container?  

no = regular

yes = large

 

is the container camouflaged in such a way to appear like something other than a container? This is a grey area case by case. 

yes = unknown

 

i find this easier than having to break out my measuring cups 😀

Edited June 26, 2023 by HoochDog

[+niraD]

5 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

The ones I've seen are like this:

 

 

I've seen a few like that, but most of the ones I've seen have been this type:

 

There are two magnets. One at the left end, and the other in the bottom right corner.

 

Either way, they're micro size.

[+HoochDog]

22 minutes ago, niraD said:

 

I've seen a few like that, but most of the ones I've seen have been this type:

 

 

There are two magnets. One at the left end, and the other in the bottom right corner.

 

Either way, they're micro size.

I tend to list those hillman keyholders as smalls now because they hold a travel bug.  
The container sizes seem to have skewed smaller over the years. 
Since there is no 'nano' cache size and there are so many little bisons and magnetic nanos around, I have started considering a relatively large plastic rectangle that is 5.5 inches long and 3/4 inches thick and will hold a travel bug to be more on the small side. 

[+niraD]

50 minutes ago, HoochDog said:

The container sizes seem to have skewed smaller over the years. 

Yeah, we've been asking for an official nano size to help counter size creep.

 

50 minutes ago, HoochDog said:

Since there is no 'nano' cache size and there are so many little bisons and magnetic nanos around, I have started considering a relatively large plastic rectangle that is 5.5 inches long and 3/4 inches thick and will hold a travel bug to be more on the small side. 

[+kunarion]

12 hours ago, Essap said:

Is a magnetic keyholder a small or a micro?

 

List the size in a way that's the most helpful to a finder to envision what they are looking for, and so they may decide what the possible hiding spots are.  And if there are many likely spots, you might consider adding "Magnetic Key Box" or "MKB" or "MKH" to the description so cachers know exactly what they're looking for (and that it's not a "Nano", for example).

 

It's possible that some rare caches may be listed by the shape of the whole thing, rather than by volume (the size of the compartment).  Typically a magnetic key holder is listed by volume.  Most often, there's just a tiny folded piece of paper log in a ziplick bag inside the key holder, the log sheet being all mashed up and soaking wet.

 

Some locals where I live have told me that if they can include a pencil, they list it as "Small" instead of "Micro".  So there are a lot of ideas floating around.  There used to be rule of thumb descriptions of container sizes in a couple of places around the site.  One suggested that a Small would fit a sandwich, or an apple.  I may fit a tiny cut up apple or smash a tiny sandwich into my 50ml tube caches, but that's not really what I think of when I'm asked if the items "fit".  And a key holder tends to be even tinier than that.  I've never even seen a pencil inside one, except when I included a cut pencil in a weatherproof key holder once.

 

A magnetic key holder is best listed as a "Micro".

 

Edited June 26, 2023 by kunarion

[+niraD]

17 minutes ago, kunarion said:

Some locals where I live have told me that if they can include a pencil, they list it as "Small" instead of "Micro".

Yeah, until you find a film canister (the canonical micro-size container) with a pencil nub. Throw in a stack of micro geocoins, and a film canister could even be considered a regular-size container.

[+kunarion]

1 minute ago, niraD said:

Yeah, until you find a film canister (the canonical micro-size container) with a pencil nub. Throw in a stack of micro geocoins, and a film canister could even be considered a regular-size container.

 

Yeah.  I place a custom cut pencil in my Micro tubes, but still list them as Micro.

Strangely, the persons who list their tubes as Small "because they have room for a pencil", never include a pencil.

[+cerberus1]

12 hours ago, Essap said:

Is a magnetic keyholder a small or a micro?

 

Years ago (2013 or so) Groundspeak called a small "Just big enough to fit a sandwich".

Now, maybe a PB & J might fit if packed in, but I believe a key holder sized as small is reaching...

 

[+niraD]

2 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

Years ago (2013 or so) Groundspeak called a small "Just big enough to fit a sandwich".

Now, maybe a PB & J might fit if packed in, but I believe a key holder sized as small is reaching...

The only sandwich I think would fit in a magnetic keyholder would be a tiny tea sandwich, which is basically an appetizer eaten in one or two bites. Somehow, I don't think that was the intent of the "Just big enough to fit a sandwich" language...

[+Goldenwattle]

11 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

The ones I've seen are like this:

 

That's a micro. It's not the ones I refer to. I have one of your examples for a cache and I rate that a micro.

I refer to the rock keyholders. Most people appear to rate them smalls. They aren't. They have thick walls, so the inside is less than the outside. Mostly the log is in a bison tube inside it. This argument has been had for ages. Some argue that it's the outside dimensions that matter and therefore it's a small, and they won't change their opinion. Same with those who say it's a  micro. They won't change their opinion. From my finds, more appear to be rated smalls. I say 'other', because it's confusing if people think they are looking for a micro and they waste their time looking in every crack and tiny place. If they think it's a small they might presume they can leave a TB or trinket in it and then be disappointed it won't fit. I find that annoying when so called smalls won't fit a TB. Other doesn't give a presumption either way.

Edited June 26, 2023 by Goldenwattle

[+Goldenwattle]

9 hours ago, HHL said:

They’re about the size of a film canister, or smaller.

Not my definition, but quoting geocaching.

See below.

Edited June 26, 2023 by Goldenwattle

[+Goldenwattle]

7 hours ago, HoochDog said:

yes = unknown

It's other.

[+niraD]

18 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Not my definition, but quoting geocaching.

Yeah, I was quoting the geocaching.com web site too. But the inconsistent description of size ratings has been sowing confusion for quite a while.

 

[+barefootjeff]

54 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

That's a micro. It's not the ones I refer to. I have one of your examples for a cache and I rate that a micro.

I refer to the rock keyholders. Most people appear to rate them smalls. They aren't. They have thick walls, so the inside is less than the outside. Mostly the log is in a bison tube inside it. This argument has been had for ages

 

The title of this thread is "magnetic keyholder" and I've yet to see a magnetic fake rock.

 

Back in my early days of caching (late 2013), I used a fake rock cache which I listed as a small, based on its outside dimensions, as I thought that would be more useful for those searching for it. The inside dimensions are of no use if you can't find it. It was hidden amongst other small rocks (not pebbles) under an ovehang and its most distinctive feature, its colour, I mentioned in the hint:

 

 

But if I was doing the same again I'd likely list it as "other" and provide more detail in the description, just to avoid potential confusion.

[+Goldenwattle]

1 minute ago, barefootjeff said:

magnetic keyholder

Oops didn't read the heading.

[+fuzziebear3]

No question, it is a MICRO