Jump to content

Can A Cache Be Too Small?


Followers 1

Recommended Posts

There has been some discussion recently about using codewords for micro-caches because the hider feels he can't fit a logbook in it. I've seen some pretty small caches before, all with logbooks. My smallest cache is an Altoids Strips tin that holds a paper about 3/4" by 11", more than enough room for 20 pepple to log each side. I have another cache in a Carmex container that holds a rolled-up logsheet about the same size.

 

Is there a point where a micro-cache is too small?

 

Should a micro-cache be required to be large enough to hold a certain-size logsheet?

 

The alternative would be to allow a code-word that the finders would have to email to the cache owner for proof of visit instead of having a logsheet to sign. The drawback to code-words is that once the cache has been visited, that code-word can be spread around by unscrupulous cachers.

Link to comment

I believe that all new caches are required to have a logsheet inside. My friends riddle cache was just denied because he did not place a logbook inside of his riddle cache.

 

So I suppose with those rules there is a cache container that would be too small.

 

An altoids tin seems like about as small as it can go. But in urban areas a really small container can be a must.

Link to comment

As long as you can get a log-sheet into it, my opinion is that it's not too small. I don't see anything wrong with asking people to write small either. You can cut down on the size a lot by changing the log-sheet often. I think you could even take it so far as to only have the log-sheet if you could find a place it would be safe.. my $00.02 on the matter :D

Link to comment

The alternative would be to allow a code-word that the finders would have to email to the cache owner for proof of visit instead of having a logsheet to sign. The drawback to code-words is that once the cache has been visited, that code-word can be spread around by unscrupulous cachers.

Code word caches have already been given a try, way back when. It didn't go well. Like virtuals, it's far to easy to create worthless, junk caches this way. It quickly degenerated into things like "find the old tennis shoe in the drainage ditch, and email me the brand to claim this cache".

Edited by Prime Suspect
Link to comment
I believe that all new caches are required to have a logsheet inside. My friends riddle cache was just denied because he did not place a logbook inside of his riddle cache.

 

So I suppose with those rules there is a cache container that would be too small.

 

An altoids tin seems like about as small as it can go. But in urban areas a really small container can be a must.

Yeah, that was a surprise to me -- I recently had a cache "on hold" that required the finder email me a code phrase in the container. Had to make it a multi to get it approved, with a log in the second location.

 

Would've been a good funny one, too... it was dedicated to the local law enforcement cachers, called "Glazed and Confused." The phrase to send me was "Hello, Officer! Have a powdered donut!" You have no idea how many cops I've seen that have powdered sugar down their shirtfront. :D

 

:D

Link to comment

While a logbook is the defacto standard for proof. I feel the requirement is proof verifiable at the cache site regardless of form. Obviously, we've gotten away from logbooks[/i] and we use a scroll in varying forms for caches too small for a traditional book-style log.

 

In the letterboxing we use a personal stamp in the logbook to leave proof we've found it. In the future, there may be a universal way to leave proof without paper.

 

Right now, I carry personal files back and forth to work on a memory stick that's the size of a couple of sticks of gum. Mine holds 256 megs of information. There are even smaller ones. There are others that fit into a PDA. The future could hold a micro that consists of a memory stick that plugs into a PDA for you to record your visit. You load in the contents of the stick into the PDA to read previous finds and then record your own. Steps would have to be taken to prevent the erasure of previous logs, but it could work. No paper log required.

Link to comment
While a logbook is the defacto standard for proof. I feel the requirement is proof verifiable at the cache site regardless of form. Obviously, we've gotten away from logbooks[/i] and we use a scroll in varying forms for caches too small for a traditional book-style log.

 

In the letterboxing we use a personal stamp in the logbook to leave proof we've found it. In the future, there may be a universal way to leave proof without paper.

 

Right now, I carry personal files back and forth to work on a memory stick that's the size of a couple of sticks of gum. Mine holds 256 megs of information. There are even smaller ones. There are others that fit into a PDA. The future could hold a micro that consists of a memory stick that plugs into a PDA for you to record your visit. You load in the contents of the stick into the PDA to read previous finds and then record your own. Steps would have to be taken to prevent the erasure of previous logs, but it could work. No paper log required.

:D and at the price of memory sticks, how long will it take for that cache to be plundered? :D

Link to comment
:D and at the price of memory sticks, how long will it take for that cache to be plundered? :D

Old 4 and 8 meg compact flash cards are practically worthless today. Ebay has 32 meg for $5.

 

Add to that not everyone has a PDA that's able to read a compact flash...

 

What I talking about was the not-too-distant future.

 

But, that's okay, I get a lot of :D just talking about geocaching to a lot of people.

Link to comment

I found one the size of a pencil eraser. Pretty small. In my opinion the standard film canister roll is as small as you can really go. Not so much because you can't make a cheezy log book that's smaller but because some of us just can't write on paper that small. There is a limit and some grad student should do a thesis on it and report on their findings so we can end the debate.

Link to comment

Whats the difference of a codeword from a webcam, virtual or even a cache event? None of those require a log book. Answers to verification can be passed around as well as a codeword. From what I've seen on the forum, not many owners "verify" half the time anyways.

 

I think it also depends on the approver as well. We know that not all caches are reviewed equally. Not meaning that an approver reviews certain people harder than others, but that one approver doesn't approve like another.

Link to comment
At what point does a micro cease to be a cache?

What separates a code-word micro from a virtual?

These are the questions like the sands in the days of our lives...lol

 

I know you are making conversation Saxman, but it is true...there is no difference. Same as reverse caches as well. Of course they aren't allowed anymore.

Link to comment
I'm curious to know what you do to designate such small and unusual containers as a cache--so its not mistaken as regular trash. I mean a carmex container--I would so pick it up and throw it away if I spot it. :D

My Carmex container is painted to match what it is hiding on and not visible to the casual observer. Most Geocachers have little trouble locating it.

Link to comment
At what point does a micro cease to be a cache?

What separates a code-word micro from a virtual?

Alright, I will throw in here and take the beating....

 

What separates a codeword micro from a Virtual, you ask?

 

That's easy. A codeword cache was created and placed by a cacher, instead of just being an object that was already there. Yes, the codeword could be passed around. Would YOU do that? Take the hunt away from someone else? I know I wouldn't, and I have a feeling you would not pass on a codeword either. The same ones who WOULD are the ones who fake finds on traditional caches, too. Nothing you can do about that. I like a well-created and tidy codeword cache (NOT the trashy sneaker with a codeword written on it and tossed out the car window!), and have seen plenty of them get approved, you know, like the ones with a list of words, and you have to use one of the words in you on-line log to get credit. Same thing as a single-codeword cache, in my opinion. Codeword caches should be allowed after being individually approved to make sure that they are not trashy and show they have some effort put into them. Lately there have been some caches that require you to name the small object inside the micro-container, or name the color of the lid of the cache. What is the difference between those and a codeword micro? None. The cache hider has just used an object instead of a codeword, to get around the current ban on the codeword-type caches. They are both missing an actual physical logbook, which is fine in my opinion. We have Virtual caches, why not have Virtual logbooks?

Now back to the issue. How small is TOO small? When there is only enough room for 5 finders to sign the small slip of paper rolled up in the micro-tube, that's too small. Hence the need for codeword caches.

Link to comment
At what point does a micro cease to be a cache?

What separates a code-word micro from a virtual?

Alright, I will throw in here and take the beating....

 

What separates a codeword micro from a Virtual, you ask?

 

That's easy. A codeword cache was created and placed by a cacher, instead of just being an object that was already there. Yes, the codeword could be passed around. Would YOU do that? Take the hunt away from someone else? I know I wouldn't, and I have a feeling you would not pass on a codeword either. The same ones who WOULD are the ones who fake finds on traditional caches, too. Nothing you can do about that. I like a well-created and tidy codeword cache (NOT the trashy sneaker with a codeword written on it and tossed out the car window!), and have seen plenty of them get approved, you know, like the ones with a list of words, and you have to use one of the words in you on-line log to get credit. Same thing as a single-codeword cache, in my opinion. Codeword caches should be allowed after being individually approved to make sure that they are not trashy and show they have some effort put into them. Lately there have been some caches that require you to name the small object inside the micro-container, or name the color of the lid of the cache. What is the difference between those and a codeword micro? None. The cache hider has just used an object instead of a codeword, to get around the current ban on the codeword-type caches. They are both missing an actual physical logbook, which is fine in my opinion. We have Virtual caches, why not have Virtual logbooks?

Now back to the issue. How small is TOO small? When there is only enough room for 5 finders to sign the small slip of paper rolled up in the micro-tube, that's too small. Hence the need for codeword caches.

What's the difference between "email me the name on this plaque" and "email me the name on this magnetic strip attached to a phone booth"

 

The plaque might actually be interesting to read :D (Historical note: my first positive comment about virtuals) :D

 

A cache should be large enough to hold a logbook that can fit at least 5 names on it, eh? Hmmm...a 1"x3" magnetic strip could fit way more than that! Just use less text in your welcome message:

29083_15100.jpg

Link to comment

Get ready for your beating 360!

 

Just kidding. What I was talking on about what's the difference on a code word and a virtual is that virtuals are allowed where you have to give information from the area. Hence one I just did the other day that required info from a sign. To me, that's a codeword. You are right though about the difference of a virtual and something actually placed by a cacher. I even noticed a virtual online today that requires no verification or at least no verification process was in tact that I saw. I have no problem with any of them. I probably wouldn't appreciate the sneaker one. Now if it was tagged as a dirty and disgusting cache, then fine as I would not go after it, probably. lol

 

If you have a cache that can hold a piece of paper that will hold only a few names, well then you need to do maintenance more often to switch out the paper, IMHO. It would also depend on the amount of traffic as well as the frequency of finds.

Link to comment
What's the difference between "email me the name on this plaque" and "email me the name on this magnetic strip attached to a phone booth"

 

The plaque might actually be interesting to read :D  (Historical note: my first positive comment about virtuals) :D

 

A cache should be large enough to hold a logbook that can fit at least 5 names on it, eh? Hmmm...a 1"x3" magnetic strip could fit way more than that! Just use less text in your welcome message:

29083_15100.jpg[/color]

The difference is that you will first have to FIND the little magnetic strip, which probably has been painted on the back to exactly blend in with the surroundings. The Plaque is just sitting out there, no hunting required at all.

 

The picture you posted looks a lot bigger than it actually was. I used the smallest fonts available to print that stash note. Every cache should have at LEAST that much info on it, in case it gets accidently found by a non-cacher. Not much room for anything else. What good would a 5-finder log be? Anyone who placed a cache with a small logbook like that would have to go change it out every other day.

By the way, that codeword in the picture was turned down, even though it was a lot better than the "codeword on a shoe" cache mentioned in this thread. At least it wasn't trashy. No big deal, though.

Well, that's my 2 pesos worth.

Edited by TEAM 360
Link to comment

You were the one that suggested 5 finders...

Also, I know that cache was denied, that's why I felt free to post your picture in a different thread. This subject isn't just about you, but you are one of the people that comes to mind when devious micros are mentioned (that is a compliment, BTW)

 

What I'm asking is, should there be a minimum requirement for the size of a container and the subsequent log? I could hide a pretty small container, but a log wouldn't fit. Once a certain size is reached, does it become a virtual or would you be better off "placing" a virtual?

How small should finders be expected to write in order to sign the log? How about a strip of paper 1/4"x3" and they just put their initials? They would then put their initials in their online log to make it clear.

Edited by Team GPSaxophone
Link to comment

I don't think you can go too small. As long as you can get a scrap of paper in there for a log. Anyone who places a cache that small has got to figure on changing out the log book frequently. One we did suggested bringing a very fine tip pencil specifically because the log was so small.

 

We seem to have a bunch of cachers using the pet ID capsule for micros.

dogmicro.jpg

 

They are especially challenging and can be placed almost anywhere.

Link to comment
I don't think you can go too small. As long as you can get a scrap of paper in there for a log. Anyone who places a cache that small has got to figure on changing out the log book frequently. One we did suggested bringing a very fine tip pencil specifically because the log was so small.

 

We seem to have a bunch of cachers using the pet ID capsule for micros.

dogmicro.jpg

 

They are especially challenging and can be placed almost anywhere.

Oooh! Wherre do you get those? :D

Link to comment
I'm curious to know what you do to designate such small and unusual containers as a cache--so its not mistaken as regular trash. I mean a carmex container--I would so pick it up and throw it away if I spot it. :D

There's a well-known cacher here who has a puzzle cache that's a pen with a tiny rolled up paper in it. Lots of people have almost picked up the pen as a "bonus" to take home before realizing it was a cache!

Link to comment

There's one in the South (SF) Bay area that I have heard about but not gone after. Although I don't have the name, I am told that it is the size of a grain of rice, (the people I was talking with were very adament about that), and yes, it has a log in it. You can only do it an night as the cache can only be seen under ultraviolet light. You have to have a UV light to find the cache, you would never see it otherwise.

Edited by WalruZ
Link to comment

i've just got one of those cat id tubes - its about .3" high and smaller than a pencil in diameter...I've yet to decide to make it a hard cache or make it the final stage (with the co-ordinates for the real thing). I have so many ideas of where to place it <grin>

It cost me £1.19 from pets at home in the uk

Edited for purchase price

Edited by DomHeknows
Link to comment

I think the record is probably held by Tamo's Clandestiny with their (his) Cache Infintesimals. Those suckers are smaller than a tic tac! You have to take a rolled up piece of paper out of them and report the picture to get credit. Try one if you're ever in the Northwest Phoenix Area, and bring a portable blacklight. - TeX

Link to comment
I think the record is probably held by Tamo's Clandestiny with their (his) Cache Infintesimals. Those suckers are smaller than a tic tac! You have to take a rolled up piece of paper out of them and report the picture to get credit. Try one if you're ever in the Northwest Phoenix Area, and bring a portable blacklight. - TeX

I had meant to hunt for one of those last time I was in Phoenix, but it wasn't the right time of day :ph34r:

Link to comment
I think the record is probably held by Tamo's Clandestiny with their (his) Cache Infintesimals. Those suckers are smaller than a tic tac! You have to take a rolled up piece of paper out of them and report the picture to get credit. Try one if you're ever in the Northwest Phoenix Area, and bring a portable blacklight. - TeX

So why couldn't a logbook be put in there, if they can fit a pic inside? Hmmm. Some of those are also "Tell me what the object inside the micro-container is" types of caches, yet they get approved, too. What is the diff between those and a codeword cache?

Better yet, take a look at GCHTFX. (members-only cache, sorry)

It reads:

To get credit for this hunt you must . . .

BRING A REFRIGERATOR MAGNET TO THIS CACHE!!!!!!!!!!

 

A MEMBERS ONLY quickie, this is a micro/virtual hybrid. It is a magnetic cache, but like a virtual, there is no log book to sign. When you arrive at the cache you will find a refrigerator magnet and a secret word. Make note of the secret word, take the magnet you find and leave the one you brought with you.

 

To get credit for your find follow these simple instructions:

 

1) In your on-line log entry, describe the magnet that you found.

 

2) In your on-line log entry, describe the magnet that you left at the cache site.

 

3) Email me via my geocaching.com profile on the website and tell me what the secret word is. Please, DO NOT mention the secret word in your on-line log entry.

 

Sounds like a codeword cache to me. Yet, approved.

Edited by TEAM 360
Link to comment
I think the record is probably held by Tamo's Clandestiny with their (his) Cache Infintesimals. Those suckers are smaller than a tic tac! You have to take a rolled up piece of paper out of them and report the picture to get credit. Try one if you're ever in the Northwest Phoenix Area, and bring a portable blacklight. - TeX

So why couldn't a logbook be put in there, if they can fit a pic inside? Hmmm. Some of those are also "Tell me what the object inside the micro-container is" types of caches, yet they get approved, too. What is the diff between those and a codeword cache?

Better yet, take a look at GCHTFX. (members-only cache, sorry)

It reads:

To get credit for this hunt you must . . .

BRING A REFRIGERATOR MAGNET TO THIS CACHE!!!!!!!!!!

 

A MEMBERS ONLY quickie, this is a micro/virtual hybrid. It is a magnetic cache, but like a virtual, there is no log book to sign. When you arrive at the cache you will find a refrigerator magnet and a secret word. Make note of the secret word, take the magnet you find and leave the one you brought with you.

 

To get credit for your find follow these simple instructions:

 

1) In your on-line log entry, describe the magnet that you found.

 

2) In your on-line log entry, describe the magnet that you left at the cache site.

 

3) Email me via my geocaching.com profile on the website and tell me what the secret word is. Please, DO NOT mention the secret word in your on-line log entry.

 

Sounds like a codeword cache to me. Yet, approved.

This was placed yesterday, so it obviously wasn't grandfathered in. Admins? Are you allowing code-word micros for everyone, or was this a special situation?

Link to comment
Maybe if you are a Premium Member, you get to place any type of cache you want.

Wow, you're still here? I thought you quit... several times. :)

 

No, that's not the case -- I tried to place a codeword cache last week, and it didn't make it because "all caches must have a log." It's likely this one slipped through the crack.

Link to comment

Mea culpa, mea culpa. In the newly clarified guidelines, "A container with just an object or codeword for verification may NOT be approved if the cache does not also include a logbook." I thought that there could be the occasional exception, but my reviewer brethren have set me straight.

 

I've disabled the cache until YBIndoors can figure out a way to add a logbook or logsheet.

 

And BTW Woodsters, a little courtesy wouldn't be out of line here. B) Your "it just wasn't read" comment was inaccurate and inflammatory. Rest assured, friend, now that you've moved to NC, I WILL be reading your submissions most carefully :rolleyes:

 

Your friendly, neighborhood volunteer reviewer,

 

honeychile

Link to comment

Honeychile, it wasn't meant to be inflammatory. Actually not having read it all and missing those key things would of sounded better than to say "I thought that there could be the occasional exception"...

 

I apologize for being wrong about it and fully recognize that you did in fact read it. So now I'm on your list too, huh?

Link to comment
Rest assured, friend, now that you've moved to NC, I WILL be reading your submissions most carefully :rolleyes:

 

Your friendly, neighborhood volunteer reviewer,

 

honeychile

This is what happens for helping to review and report caches that are outside of the guidelines? No one is trying to make a reviewer look bad at all. Come on now, honeychile, be a friendly, neighborhood reviewer, not a vengeful one. If anything, you just got a little bit of free help here.

You're welcome. B)

Link to comment

Vengeful? Naw...didn't you see those grinning frogs on my post? They were supposed to mean "just teasing, you guys." I'm not mad or vindictive.

 

I'm always interested when people help me out by letting me know when I drop the ball. But here's a tip -- email me, too. I know this will sound like blasphemy but --gasp!-- I don't follow all the threads in the forum :rolleyes: and so sometimes I don't respond quickly (until someone emails me to let me know I messed up).

 

And now I'll tell you a secret... B) shhhhhh.....don't let anybody know...but I'm the nicest of the volunteer reviewers. You have lucked out Woodsters now that you don't have to deal with those other guys. B)

 

honeychile

Edited by honeychile
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 1
×
×
  • Create New...