Jump to content

Feature Request


alarm Clock
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

I wish Microcaches had little pillbox icons instead of the regular sized cache icon

I think a lot of people use tools that change the icon when they're uploaded to their GPS. I know my self-written mess-with-it script does this based on the size and type of the contraption... At least that lets you see it on your GPS. It would certainyl be nice for the geocaching.com maps to do the same thing for type = regular and container = micro...

Link to comment

First of all: YES. Micro caches are significantly different from regular sized caches in how you hunt them and the skills you need. But in the end, they are traditional type of caches. You use the coordinates to go and find a container in the woods.

 

Seems we did just discuss this...

 

Ah, here it is: Micro Caches, Not to be listed in Tradional querries.

 

In particular, I spent a good deal of time on this post trying to explain that since we already have cache type icons, just adding micro as a cache type would actually limit our choices.

 

IMHO, the better way to do it would be to keep the cache type icons as they are and add the cache size, which is tracked in an entirely different field, as a separate icon on the results page and the cache page itself. Maybe back to something like the old can icons. Leave the icon off for regular sized caches.

 

e0048fff-fef8-4514-ae5b-46a3d422eda8.jpg for Large containers and d1f98157-13df-4468-89c3-bc5be59b7099.jpg for micros.

 

Again, this would be SEPARATE from the cache type.

Edited by Markwell
Link to comment
Microcache is a type of cache...there's a different method involved while hunting micros

Well, perhaps your 1 week of geocaching experience has given you a deeper understanding of this than I have. But the size of a cache is just one more clue that will assist you in finding the cache. If the cache size is labeled as Large, I'm probably not going to waste my time looking in tree knotholes. But size if different from type.

Link to comment
Microcache is a type of cache...there's a different method involved while hunting micros

Well, perhaps your 1 week of geocaching experience has given you a deeper understanding of this than I have. But the size of a cache is just one more clue that will assist you in finding the cache. If the cache size is labeled as Large, I'm probably not going to waste my time looking in tree knotholes. But size if different from type.

Why does my post say Prime Suspect?

Link to comment

Yes but that doesn't have to be so. You could have a different icon for traditional-regular than for traditional-micro. And you could have a different icon for multi-regular than for multi-micro. I don't see any inherent difficulty with this.

Link to comment
Yes but that doesn't have to be so. You could have a different icon for traditional-regular than for traditional-micro. And you could have a different icon for multi-regular than for multi-micro. I don't see any inherent difficulty with this.

10 bucks says you're not a programmer. :huh:

 

You may not have noticed, but the cache type icons already come in two different sizes - a large one for display on the cache page, and a smaller version for display on lists. So with your plan, we would have a lot more icons. 36 total by my count, since there are 3 physical cache type, and 6 cache sizes (when "mini" is added). That's 18 icons that have to come in a large size for cache page display, and small for lists, doubling the total to 36.

 

No thanks. Keeping size and type separate is far more workable.

Link to comment

I think it's cool beans that we are getting a new size choice!

 

I was wondering if the name "mini" is locked in. If not, could you do those of us who use size abbreviations in our waypoints a favor and use something with a different initial than "m," "r," or "l?" Is there any opposition to "small?"

 

CR

 

Opps! Posted with our joint account...

Edited by Sissy-n-CR
Link to comment

I am overcomplicating? No, I think that two sizes would be perfectly enough: regular and micro. Adding the large and mini sizes is not very important in my opinion. Large caches are very rare and the mini size is too ambiguous. If there are too many cache sizes then there will be much disagreement over how a cache should be classified.

If you just create a regular-micro and a multi-micro icon in addition to the present set of icons, it's already a huge improvement and that is only two more icons than what we currently have. E.g. the regular-micro icon could show a pillbox and the multi-micro icon could show two pillboxes. This way one single icon would show the same information as two separate icons would show with the solution you guys are suggesting. I think this would be clearer and simpler than having to look at two different icons and it could also be reproduced in the GPS (remember that in the GPS you can only have one icon for each cache) and programs like GPXSonar and GSAK as well as mapping programs. These icons could be shown on the online maps as well and this way the maps would be more informative than they are now.

Link to comment
<Deleted stuff too funny to comment seriously on>

 

and it could also be reproduced in the GPS (remember that in the GPS you can only have one icon for each cache) and programs like GPXSonar and GSAK as well as mapping programs.

The GPX pocket queries don't include any icons at all. Any icons you see are added in by your 3rd party software. Since both TYPE and SIZE of a cache are included in the GPX, that software could already change the icon for you, if desired.

 

I already use a piece of free, readily available software to give micros a different icon on my gps and maps. I've been doing it for at least the last year.

Edited by Mopar
Link to comment
The GPX pocket queries don't include any icons at all. Any icons you see are added in by your 3rd party software. Since both TYPE and SIZE of a cache are included in the GPX, that software could already change the icon for you, if desired.

<Deleted stuff too funny to comment seriously on>

That's my point. If the website did the same thing then what you see on the website and what you see in your software could be consistent with each other. And, as you probably noticed, the third-party programs use the same set icons as the website. If the website used more icons, the third-party programs would be updated and would show the same icons, without additional tweaking.

 

The fact that you are doing it indicates that it could be done on the website as well and you would like it.

Edited by as77
Link to comment

I agree that micros (every one I have looked for) seem a lot different from regular caches - this is of course due to the many extra options you get due to the size - but it's still different (Please don't patronize me, I hear people told "find-totals/rules/etc don't matter, play the game like you like to" - well I'll think what I want to think about micros as well). Every geocacher I have ever met or corresponded with has referred to micros specifically (which means they have in their mind differentiated them). I don't hear people referring to "large" caches. When people say traditional - they mean (in my experience) traditional-regular. Obviously people view them as different - it's obvious that it's due to the size... but again size (in geocaching :huh: ) matters.

 

I agree with as77 - you could have 36 (or more now if we're adding a new size) icons - but I don't hear an outcry for anything other that more differentation on micros. It comes up CONSTANTLY. I don't beleive that everybody that asks this is stupid, as sometimes it SEEMS some people think they are....

 

But I digress - I commented a bit on this the other day:

 

I had a similar request. that reminded Briansnat of an old idea he had.

 

At least (it seems, based on comments in this thread and elsewhere) Jeremy might use BrianSnat's idea to include size with difficulty/terrain.

 

I'll be happy if I can just look at a search page and know what a cache is without having to go to the cache page.

 

southdeltan

Link to comment

I don't care if it is mini or small or tiny or whatever. But when the idea first materialized indicating there was something between micro and regular the term came out as "mini" - Dunno who makes the final decision... guess me. If anyone wants to post to gauge a response in the main forum, now's the time.

 

Yes, even I considered making micro its own cache "type" since it barely holds a logbook. However, for now we're going to keep it at its current design.

 

Seems that the biggest argument is that people dislike micros. I personally filter them out but don't like or dislike their being listed. Of course I also don't care about find counts either.

Link to comment
The GPX pocket queries don't include any icons at all. Any icons you see are added in by your 3rd party software. Since both TYPE and SIZE of a cache are included in the GPX, that software could already change the icon for you, if desired.

<Deleted stuff too funny to comment seriously on>

That's my point. If the website did the same thing then what you see on the website and what you see in your software could be consistent with each other. And, as you probably noticed, the third-party programs use the same set icons as the website. If the website used more icons, the third-party programs would be updated and would show the same icons, without additional tweaking.

 

The fact that you are doing it indicates that it could be done on the website as well and you would like it.

HUH???

 

I'll take Prime's $10 and raise it to $50.

 

None of the software uses the website's icons directly from the site. Technically, if any do, it's probably a copyright violation if they didnt get permission to use them. Only 2 GPS I know of can accept a custom icon set, and I don't own either of them, so you can be sure my icons look nothing like the website's and never will. Same could be said for 99.9% of the other cachers out there.

Edited by Mopar
Link to comment

I would LOVE an icon to indicate micros or log only caches.

 

Sometimes you feel like a nut sized cache.

Sometimes you don't.

 

The kids hate them (for obvious reasons.) Although their interest has perked up a bit now that I give them a puppy for every micro we find.

 

Not really. Really I pay them each a dollar. Sick. But effective.

Link to comment
None of the software uses the website's icons directly from the site. Technically, if any do, it's probably a copyright violation if they didnt get permission to use them.

They use reillustrated versions. So what? Doesn't make any difference. The point is that they use an equivalent set of icons.

Only 2 GPS I know of can accept a custom icon set, and I don't own either of them, so you can be sure my icons look nothing like the website's and never will. Same could be said for 99.9% of the other cachers out there.

The Garmin Legend C, Vista C, 60c, 60cs, 76c, 76cs and Quest can accept custom waypoint icons. Especially the 60c/cs are extremely popular among cachers, loads of people use them. Someone already designed a Groundspeak-equivalent waypoint icon set, I saw it in some thread here.

Link to comment
Yes, even I considered making micro its own cache "type" since it barely holds a logbook. However, for now we're going to keep it at its current design.

That's an interesting tidbit. I think that "We made a decision and we're sticking to it" is a much better arguement, no.. explanation, than "micro is a size not type".

 

Seems that the biggest argument is that people dislike micros. I personally filter them out but don't like or dislike their being listed. Of course I also don't care about find counts either.

 

I don't necessarily think that's the case. I'm not trying to filter them out. I, and I'd bet many others, use the search features on the site as my primary way to plan. I do use PQ's but only when extensive data manipulation is needed. I, and many people I've talked to, would just like to know at a glance the size of a cache. I don't want to know that to filter them out (although in some cases I may) - I want to know because it's valueable information when planning a trip, or figuring out the cache landscape of an area, or getting a more accurate idea of the difficulty. Hell, sometimes I might want to filter them IN. (Nothing like a 20 or 30 day micro marathon every now and then).

 

It looks like this is being addressed, so my major "complaint" about micros will be gone.

 

-----

 

On a tangent - Will the "micro" size be for the truly micro caches (altoids strips, bison capsules) and "mini" for film-cannisters/waterproof-match-holders? Or will "mini" be for the so called 'trade-able' micros. (I keep seeing the term log-only micros, every cache I've ever seen classified as a micro only had a logsheet in it, must be a local thing).

 

Anyways - just curious about the new definitions for the "new" size and older sizes.

 

southdeltan

Link to comment
from the way i undersstand it mini will be between micro and regurar size. thus alowing trade items of the smaller variety.

es, even I considered making micro its own cache "type" since it barely holds a logbook. However, for now we're going to keep it at its current design.

 

Will the "micro" size be for the truly micro caches (altoids strips, bison capsules) and "mini" for film-cannisters/waterproof-match-holders? Or will "mini" be for the so called 'trade-able' micros

 

The fact that its a micro doesn't preclude trade items in the cache. I've found and hidden film canisters, Altoitds tins, match containers and similar sized containers with trade items. In fact about the only container I haven't been able to get trade items in is a Bison cylinder.

Link to comment

I don't know if the new size will fix the "micro problem" that keeps surfacing.

 

My take is the "micro problem" is a type problem, not a size problem. It's just the "type" is almost always a micro in size.

 

Folks seems to want to be able to filter on trading caches and use the micro size as a handy way to filter.

 

The only way to truly filter non-trading caches to create a non-trading designation somehow.

 

The problem arises that if you create a new type then getting the non-trading cache properly moved into the right category. Plus, it will be the old "multi-type problem."

 

While it is probably for those smarter that I on systems, there might be a way to add a single field that is designated as "trading" and it be "yes" or "no." It might be safe to designate all micros as non-trading and everything else as trading and properly designate the vast majority of caches. Those that are not properly designated the owner can change it.

 

The impact of improperly designated micros--which is really what's going to happen--shouldn't be that big of a deal because the folks who are filtering out non-trading micro will probably not miss a trading micro or two. OTOH, I don't see much of a problem blindly designating all larger caches as trading. Even most letterboxes generally have the room for at least small trades.

 

This would leave room for folks to continue to create micro trading caches--even larger non-trading cache if they want--and should probably solve the "micro type" once and for all.

 

It would also filter out non-trading letterboxes and allow for a log-only (non)cache with a proper logbook and no trades. This I would be happy with if it weren't for the wife insisting on trading. (I couldn't care less about trading while Sissy loves it.)

Link to comment

It just struck me as I was sending my above post that it might be very simple to fix it all, even Brian's concern of everything being in the wrong size class.

 

What if--and I'm kind of thinking out loud here--if you use "small" (or whatever we call it) as the same size as micro is now, but it is a trading cache. Micros will be considered a non-trading cache. Keep Brian's idea of the break being if a 3x5 spiral notebook will fit.

 

The advatages continue to be on filtering as trading or not, there is a clear break in designation, no new data field for trading.

 

I dunno, might not be a good idea. I'm just throwing it out for consideration.

 

BTW, I don't care about size as it relates to trading as we always carry a variety of trades in different sizes to cover just about everything we've run across.

Link to comment
What if--and I'm kind of thinking out loud here--if you use "small" (or whatever we call it) as the same size as micro is now, but it is a trading cache. Micros will be considered a non-trading cache.

yeah, but what about the geocachers who insist on trading even in non-trading micros?

 

leave micros as they are: The film canisters and things smaller (including lob-book only caches)

 

the small size is for (finally and thankfully) caches that are significantly smaller than your standard ammo box or tupperware (I use a lot of 1.5-2.5 cup containers, which are larger that micros, but significantly smaller than an ammo box, which is caused people problems on trades -- since they don't neccessarily read that the container (listed as regular) is small, too small for larger things like CDs, TBs etc...

 

then traditional is the tupperware/ammo box standard...

 

and yay! thanks for finally adding small.... but will existing caches be able to have their size modified to more correctly reflect their true size and nature... since several of my regulars are properly smalls (And I've always indicated them as regular to indicate that the cache is intended for trades), where my impression has always been that micros are non-trading... there may be the occassional item, but trading is not an intent, finding the small size is...

Link to comment
We discussed this earlier in the week. We'll be adding another field on the results page indicating size, as well as adding the "mini" size to the list of sizes.

Thanks for adding the icon "indicating size" on the search results page. :lol:

The visual cue is another bit of information that quickly helps me know if it is a cache I might be interested in hunting, without having to open each "traditional" cache page to find out if it is a "micro" or a "regular" cache. :lol:

The size icon may not be the perfect answer, and the experienced cachers and forum posters will certainly have great discussions on the merits and failings of whether it is the appropriate method, but accepting that geocaching.com is a fun and fluid, ever-developing work-in-progress, the size icon works for me for now! :laughing:

Thanks!

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...