Does "Size" Have to be Exclusive?

[CoyoteRed]

With the great work TPTB have done recently with the changes to the nearest list and choosing to adopt a new container size, and then with my recent musing with "unCaches" I've been thinking.

 

We all know about the past complaints about micros and the fact that some of the complaints have been because in most areas most micros are a non-trading cache. There was a recent poll asking if micros should become their own type versus being a size. The poll was pretty much split with not enough of a clear winner to make the change. My argument against splitting them off was because not all micros are non-trading caches. That is not to mention the fact that a non-trading cache could be a traditional, a multi, or more.

 

Well, on the way home tonight I had a thought. An "unCache" would be a cache in a smallish container meant to hold only a full-sized logbook. Of course, knowing an unCache being on the small side folks should know only smaller TBs and signature items would fit. You would have an idea of what size this cache was.

 

Then it hit me. Why not make "unCache" a size? The size would overlap regular and small though most containers would be in the small size, but a few would be in the lower end of regular. You would know two things about an unCache size, one is about what size it is and two, it doesn't have regular trade items.

 

Following this logic, you could then create another size that paralleled the micro size and call it "urban." You know two things about an "urban" sized cache, it is a micro and it is non-trading.

 

To further illustrate what I'm talking about in cache size overlap:

|---MICRO--|---SMALL---|----REGULAR----|-----LARGE-----|

|---URBAN-----|---UNCACHE---|

 

You see how "urban" parallels "micro" mostly?

 

Yes, I understand there is a logisitical problem with most micros would then be in the wrong size category, but consider that size is not a restricted field (I don't think it is, anyway) folks would be able to change the size easily. The more it got out the more folks would change it to the proper size. The unCache idea is relative few and far between so it wouldn't be much of a problem.

 

The major advantage would be without adding another data field folks would be able to filter (those that can now) on size AND the fact of if it is a trading cache or not.

 

That's not to mention that this solves the "type problem" when trying to make micros a type because non-trading micros can be traditionals, multis, etc.

 

It leaves trading micros alone.

 

Could this be a viable solution? Am I missing something?

 

EDIT: Sheesh. Could a moderator add "be" between "To" and "Exclusive?" Thanks.

Edited September 28, 2004 by CoyoteRed

[+The Leprechauns]

Well, I am not sure that I agree with your idea, but I did wish to compliment you for a very clear and objective explanation. It made me decide to read some of the other responses before taking a definitive position.

 

So I don't know what to think, but I do know that, within 24 hours:

 

1. Mopar will post to point out that this is different from the way things are right now.

2. Markwell, if he's reading, will link to a thread from mid-2001 where unCaches were first discussed.

3. Renegade Knight will note that an independent organization of geocachers could decide on their own to have unCaches to be a size, independent of any listing site.

4. Jeremy will say nothing. Just because.

5. If a non-premium member offers a strong opinion about unCaches, we can count on JoGPS to answer "pay up or shut up."

6. BrianSnat will make a disgusting reference to seafood.

7. Carleenp will explain how she can see both sides of the argument for and against having a size for unCaches, and that it is really up to the individual to minimize their personal angst. But everyone will just look at her avatar and profile picture instead of reading her message.

8. GrizzlyJohn will announce that he has secretly been constructing a worldwide database of existing unCaches from his pocket queries, that can now be viewed at www.uncaching.com.

[+CO Admin]

Im hurt You forget me

 

9: Co Admin will post about respect and then close the thread 3 posts later.

 

I must not be closing enough threads for you to forget that one.

[+The Jester]

I don't find the explanation that clear. To me it seems to add confusion to the whole thing. A log-only bison placed in a large (over 2 sq miles) wilderness park is called an "urban"? And, if I understand things, a cache is, at the minimum, a box and logbook, but this would be called an "uncache". My first question is why? If someone won't read a cache page now that says it's a log-only/non-trade cache, what makes you think they are going to read it when it says urban/uncache?

[+robert]

First, great post, Lep.

 

Second, I agree with the fact that the explanation was clear and concise. I'm unsure as to whether or not this would be something to implement, but I can definitely see where these extra filters would be helpful in creating pocket queries. Being able to filter out urban micros from woodsy ones would be sweet. Then again the cache page helps out with deciding whether or not to hunt it... but being able to head that off by filtering it out (if you are against that kind of cache) wouldn't hurt.

[+necron]

how about we just add a new tag on to each cache noting if it's a trading cache or not? we could have size, type, difficulty, terraing, AND trader. simply have a boolean value stating "yes" or "no"

[+Robespierre]

3. Renegade Knight will note that an independent organization of geocachers could decide on their own to have unCaches to be a size, independent of any listing site.

I disagree with R.K. Being that the Independants are so contrary, and can't agree with me, I disagree with them.

 

Good post and explanation. I still would just rather "expand" the definition of micro, since so many micros are "log only," given the right and constricting container for the log you would have the same effect. Any time the container has a little bit of room, it soon has a buckey, a penny, a pin, some stickers...etc. And, yes, I just look at the Avatar and profile and dream.

[CoyoteRed]

Nice post, Lep. I'm also fairly sure a database pro will point out I'm trying to stuff two pieces of information into one field. That's not to mention you goofed up on BrianSnat's response, "with over 100,000 caches out in the wild..."

 

The idea that came to mind was not really the fact that the caches were trading or not, though that's how it worked out. It was more like a branding of sorts.

 

Consider "size" is, at present, our only quantifiable way to discribe the container outside the description and thus the only way to filter on container. And, considering "size" is the primary influence, data-wise, on how you hunt the container. And considering an "urban micro" by many people is considered both a micro and a log-only cache.

 

Folks have been trying to put a log-only into the "type" category for a while because it is a certain "type" of hunt. Well, we all know "type" is really the way you approach the final cache. A traditional is at the listed coordinates, a multi isn't, a letterbox you might expect to follow verbal clues, a mystery you might have to solve a puzzle. All of those get you to the final cache location and don't discribe the container itself.

 

"Size," on the other, does describe the container. By "branding" a certain type of cache, in the example I've using in this post it's been a log-only micro, you better describe the container not the trip to the final destination.

 

So, with my idea you can describe your container with the generic micro, small, regular, or large and folks would know they are intended to include trade items.

 

Or, you could use the "urban" brand (or whatever is decided) and folks would know the container is a micro and doesn't contain trade items. An "unCache" is simply a larger log-only cache that container a full-sized logbook.

[+bigredmed]

Well, I am not sure that I agree with your idea, but I did wish to compliment you for a very clear and objective explanation. It made me decide to read some of the other responses before taking a definitive position.

 

So I don't know what to think, but I do know that, within 24 hours:

 

1. Mopar will post to point out that this is different from the way things are right now.

2. Markwell, if he's reading, will link to a thread from mid-2001 where unCaches were first discussed.

3. Renegade Knight will note that an independent organization of geocachers could decide on their own to have unCaches to be a size, independent of any listing site.

4. Jeremy will say nothing. Just because.

5. If a non-premium member offers a strong opinion about unCaches, we can count on JoGPS to answer "pay up or shut up."

6. BrianSnat will make a disgusting reference to seafood.

7. Carleenp will explain how she can see both sides of the argument for and against having a size for unCaches, and that it is really up to the individual to minimize their personal angst. But everyone will just look at her avatar and profile picture instead of reading her message.

8. GrizzlyJohn will announce that he has secretly been constructing a worldwide database of existing unCaches from his pocket queries, that can now be viewed at www.uncaching.com.

ROFL.

 

Seriously, the idea has some merit.

 

I still believe that we should investigate the use of PQ's as a default search system rather than the "nearest caches" page for premium members.

 

There is a cache type that I really don't like (hide a key micros). No offense to anyone that does, but these really don't make it for me.

 

A local cacher has taken it upon himself to scatter dozens of these (literally) around the city. The nearest cache page is really just cluttered with these. Add to this, the playground caches that some of the other local cachers like to set up for their kids (to which, I as a lone adult male will never go, as I don't wish to be arrested as a "creepy guy in the park") and you can see how the "nearest cache" feature is really a pain for me to use.

 

Would be happy to simply stop and switch to PQ's if you could blink out individual caches in addition to classes of caches.

 

Whether we change the classification or not, a better search tool that could just pull up the ones you want would go a long way to settling this.

[+Mxyzptlk]

But everyone will just look at her avatar and profile picture instead of reading her message.

You are mistaken. If people want to see pictures of CarleenP they go to your profile and view your gallery. Makes you go hmmmmmm... Everyone reads Carleen's messages!

Edited September 28, 2004 by Mxyzptlk

[+JoGPS]

Of course you know what my response is, but it’s already been covered ………… JOE

[CoyoteRed]

It struck me on the way to work that folks are already using a "brand." What a lot of people call "micros" are really micro-sized, log-only caches.

 

Just another thought.

[+CompuCash]

I don't find the explanation that clear. To me it seems to add confusion to the whole thing. A log-only bison placed in a large (over 2 sq miles) wilderness park is called an "urban"? And, if I understand things, a cache is, at the minimum, a box and logbook, but this would be called an "uncache". My first question is why? If someone won't read a cache page now that says it's a log-only/non-trade cache, what makes you think they are going to read it when it says urban/uncache?

 

I agree in general -

 

It also seems like you are tying to define a new type of cache (non-trading) and folding it into the size field. [nice idea of putting two items in one field] We already have enough sizes - we just (at least on paper) defined a new size (small).

 

While the description is fairly well done I think it muddies the waters for size and confuses the issues.

 

Why do we need a special size designation just becaue there is no swag in the box? Are there that many micros that can be traded in out there that this even matters? Doesn't "Micro" already imply that it is just a skinny piece of paper with not enough room to write the date and your cache name? Doesn't 'Traditional', as a type, imply that you can trade in it?

 

Further, adding a new data field for "Trade" (yes/no) only adds more complicaton to the cache description and confuses the page(s) using it. And, I can just here Jeremy now, "We don't need another data field - there are too many now, and it won't fit on the page. Just think of the bandwidth issues".

 

In the long run is it going to matter? So, you can sort on it? Do that many people care if they can trade or not? There have been so many complaints about caches full of junk and cachers just not trading, and a bunch more of cachers just don't trade anyway - so to a whole lot of people it seem to me that no matter what size they are, the cache is a no-trader anyway. Ya think?

 

Great listing Lep -

 

Well, that's my two cents.

 

All of this is not to say that it might not be useful information if implimented.

[CoyoteRed]

Doesn't "Micro" already imply that it is just a skinny piece of paper with not enough room to write the date and your cache name? 

Actually, no it doesn't. You can easily have a micro with a fairly large scroll log. In fact, if you roll a top-spiral 3x5 notebook and put a rubber band around it you can put it in a vitamin bottle. Viola, a full-sized log-book in a micro.

 

What people around you have been doing doesn't define the class.

 

Doesn't 'Traditional', as a type, imply that you can trade in it?

Again, no. A "Traditional" is a cache that is at the coordinates listed. Here is this site's definition of a "traditional."

 

That whole page I've linked to is good reading.

[+Team Tigger International]

I dunno about the rest of you but when I see "Micro" I generally expect it to be a log only cache , with the only potential trades beign coins or something as small as. Seems that Micros are becoming much ado about something so small ?

 

Star 0f Team Tigger International

[+carleenp]

Since everyone is looking at my avatar and not reading my post anyway, I think I will start flaming people. I think I'll start with Leprechaun who......

 

Oh well, never mind.... I'm not good at flaming, so I won't say all those evil things about Lep.

 

I like the size definition better than "uncache." I'm still not sure about "urban" since that connotates something that is.. well... urban. What if it was placed in the woods? Mostly, I don't know if it would be necessary to have a separate designation unless a huge population of people really want to place caches that are not intended to ever have trade items? I say just call it a micro and put on the page that it is a little bit bigger micro and is not intended to have trade items. I suppose another option is to have a selection for log only caches and different sizes within that?

[+CompuCash]

I dunno about the rest of you but when I see "Micro" I generally expect it to be a log only cache , with the only potential trades beign coins or something as small as. Seems that Micros are becoming much ado about something so small ?

 

Star 0f Team Tigger International

 

that's what I was saying -

 

irrespective of The Guielines -

 

Red - please - I did say "Imply" -- to be more precise -

 

in practical usage - micro means a "film can" (or even smaller [nano?]) and strip log - BYOP

 

and Traditional means a cache that at least has some junk in it along with a decent size log and probably a pen -

[+CompuCash]

Since everyone is looking at my avatar and not reading my post anyway, I think I will start flaming people. I think I'll start with Leprechaun who......

 

Oh well, never mind.... I'm not good at flaming, so I won't say all those evil things about Lep.

 

I like the size definition better than "uncache." I'm still not sure about "urban" since that connotates something that is.. well... urban. What if it was placed in the woods? Mostly, I don't know if it would be necessary to have a separate designation unless a huge population of people really want to place caches that are not intended to ever have trade items? I say just call it a micro and put on the page that it is a little bit bigger micro and is not intended to have trade items. I suppose another option is to have a selection for log only caches and different sizes within that?

 

that is also what I was saying - a new date field - which makes the most sense for the purpose of this discussion -

 

[] Trade

[] No-Trade

 

but this requires a new data field which I don't believe most people want and I think would not go over well with those who have to change it. Not to mention all the third party programs we love and depend upon - that now have to be updated (again) for the new data field.

[CoyoteRed]

in practical usage - micro means a "film can" (or even smaller [nano?]) and strip log - BYOP

 

and Traditional means a cache that at least has some junk in it along with a decent size log and probably a pen -

Only in the vaguest of terms, yes. Thing is, you can't filter or search on a vague terms.

 

A "micro" could be a traditional, multi, puzzle, or whatever.

 

A "traditional" could be a micro, small, regular, or large--even something "other."

 

You are comparing apples to oranges.

[CoyoteRed]

There is no need for a new dedicated field. A "logbook" attribute would fit nicely in the long-awaited attribute field.

[ju66l3r]

I have found urban caches that would not fit your definition of "urban"...so you need a new word.

 

Secondly, I have found "urban" caches that contain a good number of variable trade items. Always small, but not always coins or what you might expect to find in a film canister/pill bottle.

 

Defining the size...and then defining the trade status is both more descriptive and more accurate than losing some of that information and creating false positives/false negatives by joining the two terms.

[+Team Tigger International]

I just do not see the need for anything more then the discription and to be notified that this cache is a "Micro" ... The micro distinction itself tells me all I need to know about the size etc of it .

[CoyoteRed]

I have found urban caches that would not fit your definition of "urban"...so you need a new word.

 

...

Yes, there are definite problems with the term "urban." I was just taking it off the poll Jeremy run a while back.

 

CORRECTION: The poll didn't say "urban" I must have gotten that from somewhere else. Sorry.

Edited September 28, 2004 by CoyoteRed

[ju66l3r]

I'd also like to add that the "trade status" doesn't seem like something that should be built into the cache type.

 

In the case of not *wanting* trading, then the reason being that if people want to trade through your cache, then they will. If you don't want trading, I think that's easy enough to establish in the description. If people still trade, then you should maintain your cache. If it can't fit trading, then that can also be commented on.

 

In the case of not having room for trading, I could potentially leave a cache with a good-sized Bible in it where I want geocachers to log on the pages of the Geocaching Family Bible (ala family records before the age of computers). I could hide that in an ammo can and have very little room for anything else in the cache. This would be an "unCache" but your description/size-line negates larger regular-sized containers.

 

Whether or not there's room in the cache container besides having the log book is not necessarily correlated to the size of the container.

[+fly46]

Of course you know what my response is, but it’s already been covered ………… JOE

Joe, you're messing up the order of things...

FIRST, I have an opinion.

SECOND, you tell me to pay up or shut up.

 

Do I have to explain everything to you?

[CoyoteRed]

I'd also like to add that the "trade status" doesn't seem like something that should be built into the cache type.

 

In the case of not *wanting* trading, then the reason being that if people want to trade through your cache, then they will. If you don't want trading, I think that's easy enough to establish in the description. If people still trade, then you should maintain your cache. If it can't fit trading, then that can also be commented on.

 

In the case of not having room for trading, I could potentially leave a cache with a good-sized Bible in it where I want geocachers to log on the pages of the Geocaching Family Bible (ala family records before the age of computers). I could hide that in an ammo can and have very little room for anything else in the cache. This would be an "unCache" but your description/size-line negates larger regular-sized containers.

 

Whether or not there's room in the cache container besides having the log book is not necessarily correlated to the size of the container.

This idea does not effect the person who rarely, if ever, trades or care if he trades. This is primarily for those who like to trade for whatever reason. Maybe, they cache with their children and it has got to take a "treasure" at the end of the hunt to get them motivated. They would be able to exclude non-trading caches without excluding the larger trading micros.

 

An example is I have a hybrid that you can hunt either through verbal clues or with a GPS via simple ofset. It is a large vitamin bottle with plenty of trades. It is also a micro. Filtering for trading caches on size alone would exclude this cache.

 

You second part is handled by knowing that most unCaches would of a smaller size and the rare fill-in-the-Bible cache's size could be handled with "other."

[ju66l3r]

Then if trade status is desired as a searchable criteria, it should be a seperate annotation rather than attempting to fit it with container size. This way there will be no "others" or missed potential caches due to poor fitting of the data to the searchable terms.

[+jeff35080]

So I don't know what to think, but I do know that, within 24 hours:

 

ROTFLMAO

[Jeremy]

I think a "logbook only" attribute makes sense. That way you can assume trades. Obviously you'd have to go back and modify older caches but there are far less "no trade" caches than there are trade caches.

 

Ha! Foiled the Jeremy comment. I'll go back to my forum now.

[+Renegade Knight]

Size?

 

Would we need to rate the log size now?

 

Un-Micro Smaller than the smallest "Normal small" logbook.

Un-Small The normal small log book. (Up to 3x5)

Un-Regular Larger log books but not yet large.

Un-Large 8.5x11 (or euro equivlent) log book.

 

No trades is nothing more than a trade rule agaisnt trades. So with an attribute you could lump it with the "Trade Rule" caches, except we dont' trade, but it's a rule to not trade...This is virging on a paradox.

 

Edit: I think I see where you are going with this, but it looks like you have a rough edge or two on the concept before I will completely understand your vision.

Edited September 29, 2004 by Renegade Knight