New Cache Size Available - Small

3.3k · October 5, 2004

If you're anything like me you may well only check these UK forums. Anyway, there's a new cache size available now on your own cache pages. If you own a cache that is between Micro and Regular sizes, you now have the option to change it to Small

October 5, 2004

If you're anything like me you may well only check these UK forums.

Yeah I do forget that there is much more than the Uk forum..but never read, so thx 4 heads-up on this. I have now adjusted one of my caches to suit.

October 5, 2004

They should add "Ginormous" as a cache size.

That's a great word.

October 6, 2004

They should add "Ginormous" as a cache size.
That's a great word.

I like it, "somewhere between gigantic and enormous".

But what will qualify? the odd empty oil tanker ship?

....here are the co-ord to the ginormous cache.... here are the co-ords to the log book located inside the ginormous cache.

October 6, 2004

QUOTE (klaus23 @ Oct 5 2004, 10:10 PM)

They should add "Ginormous" as a cache size.
That's a great word.

I think the point that Klaus was highlighting was that the recent trend seems to be for cachers to place smaller and smaller cache containers

The odd one can be a novelty but after time after time crawing about on your hands and knees, poking your hands into places you would rather not....or spending an inordinate amount of time searching the myriad of possible hiding places where smallness has been substituted for ingenuity....the novelty wears off

I guess Klaus, like me would like to see cachers been encouraged to place larger and larger cache containers....ones where you can find room to make normal sized swaps and not be forced to hang onto TB's for longer and longer times because it is impossible to drop them off due to lack of space in the containers!

Anyway, instead of creating another class of cache size, a better idea and one which would be more informative is for cache placers to quote the container dimensions along with the co-ords!

Rant over

Ullium.

Edited October 6, 2004 by Ullium

6.2k · October 6, 2004

My suggestion: Smaller swaps, smaller TBs (one I picked up is just a tag and its chain. Less is more?) and smaller handwriting in micrologs.

Ikkle caches have many advantages. Non-ammo boxes won't rust closed, tupperware is less likely to spark a security alert and you can hide them under smaller, less obvious piles of sticks. A 'full sized' (i.e. 10ltr.+) cache is smashing, but they are at greater risk of being muggled simply because they're harder to do a good job of hiding. Also rubbermaid is a funny name. To me, anyway.

What gets my goat is when micros or small caches are used and the hint is missing, rubbish or just plain misleading. Now *that's* just plain wrong.

SP

October 6, 2004

My suggestion: Smaller swaps, smaller TBs (one I picked up is just a tag and its chain. Less is more?) and smaller handwriting in micrologs.

Unfortunately SP there is no piece of clever equipment on the market yet that can shrink existing TB's in situ to fit whatever reduced size of cache one comes across

We are stuck with all the existing sized TB's already in circulation....even if every cacher were to only release micro TB's from this very moment on!?

Ikkle caches have many advantages. Non-ammo boxes won't rust closed, tupperware is less likely to spark a security alert and you can hide them under smaller, less obvious piles of sticks. A 'full sized' (i.e. 10ltr.+) cache is smashing, but they are at greater risk of being muggled simply because they're harder to do a good job of hiding.

Apart from the fact that a decent sized container doesn't have to be an ammo box....you hit the nail right on the head with the comment that it is easier to hide....precisely my point....substituting convenience for ingenuity!!

Ullium.

October 6, 2004

All our caches are 1.6l lock-and-lock sandwich boxes.

Is that "Small" or are they still "Regular".

They are certainly smaller than the average cache container we find but does this warrant small?

Jon.

Ooooooooooooo errr - mustn't get a size complex

6.2k · October 6, 2004

....precisely my point....substituting convenience for ingenuity!!

There's nothing half as inconvenient as a cache mugged because it was too large to cover inconspicuously. Anyway, the most creative hides I've ever seen have been with smaller caches. When hunting for a biggun, nine-times-out-of-ten it really is a case of following the cachers trail to a pile of sticks that wouldn't look out of place on Bonfire night.

Oh, and there is a way of shrinking existing TBs. It's called a hammer. (Just kidding folks)

SP

October 6, 2004

There's nothing half as inconvenient as a cache mugged because it was too large to cover inconspicuously.

Yes I agree SP...it is inconvenient not having the wherewithall to find a better hiding place

Anyway, the most creative hides I've ever seen have been with smaller caches.

And I think most would agree that it is far easier to 'creative' with smaller caches....doesn't take as much trouble or original thought

Oh, and there is a way of shrinking existing TBs. It's called a hammer. (Just kidding folks)

I'm glad you added the 'just kidding folks' comment....I was convinced there for a moment you were serious !?

Ullium.

3.8k · October 6, 2004

Out of the 14 physical cahes that I have currently got hidden, 4 are micros 3 of which is nearly impossible to hide anything larger, in fact one of them (I have still to see something smaller) was muggled. 2 are now small they where before classed as micro and regular. 6 are regular and 2 are a combination of micro and regular.

Not everyone wants to find all micros or find all regular caches. A passing comment was made to me just yesterday, the person said "I prefer micros", with that said I have had on my logs the words "I hate micros".

Now this brings me to what I always say when people complain about what other people prefer. "If you don't like it don't do it" lets face it, it tells you at the top of the cache page what type of container it is classed as, so you should know before you go.

substituting convenience for ingenuity!!

I don't believe that this is a true description of why people place micros. My micros are there because I wanted to take someone to that place and anything larger I think it would be found.

Also for someone that has found 172 caches and placed none, what has happened to your ingenuity?

October 6, 2004

All our caches are 1.6l lock-and-lock sandwich boxes.

Is that "Small" or are they still "Regular".

I use the same ones, and I think they're still "regular". Anything around 1+ litre - or which can hold a standard log book - should be in that category...

* If it needs two people to carry it, it's too big.

* If you can put it in the car boot, it's "Large".

* If you can put it a small rucksack, it's "Regular".

* If you can put it in a coat pocket, it's "Small"

* If the dog can eat it without chewing, it's "Micro".

* If you can put it up your nose, it's too small.

(edited for too many <CR/LF> at the end)

Edited October 6, 2004 by wildlifewriter

2.9k · October 6, 2004

I like some micros, the kids don't like many cause they can't swap mc donalds toys but they did enjoy cut down cache.

There are some loactions where a micro is all that is possible and i would rather find something hidden (cleverly or not) than log a virtual

Like the idea of having a small category as nearly all the alchemy quest fit this size category.

October 6, 2004

All our caches are 1.6l lock-and-lock sandwich boxes.

Is that "Small" or are they still "Regular".

* If you can put it up your nose, it's too small.

(edited for too many <CR/LF> at the end)

Not everybody agrees with that:

http://forum.geocaching.com.au/viewtopic.php?t=1466

October 6, 2004

[http://forum.geocaching.com.au/viewtopic.php?t=1466

An Australian geocaching forum?

I'm not even going to bother asking for a login account. It might be more than my delicate nerves can take...

October 6, 2004

Let me put the record straight....yes I'm not a particular fan of micro caches...but having said that I recognise that there is a good argument for the placement of them in certain circumstances....such as taking a cacher to a particularly interesting location...or are part of a multi leading on to a regular cache.

But not all micros fit this description....and it is those that bring a frown to my forehead!

And as for the crack :-

Also for someone that has found 172 caches and placed none, what has happened to your ingenuity?

You seem to be taking this personally??....go back and read my logs of your micro's HH.

Anyway where does it say I have to place any caches???

I tell you what I won't do...and that is rush to place caches just for the sake of it....I will pick my time and place and size of cache container when I'm good and ready...and not before! Unfortunately Glasgow city is not as rich in beautiful and historic locations as other cities such as Edinburgh

So when I do get around to placing caches...and I do intend to believe me....you won't see any ice cream containers or caches placed in locations that could overtly endanger life and limb to anyone going after them .... or for that matter... micros just to make it easy for me claim a placing

And when I do place my first caches everyone can criticise them to their heart's content...I won't mind

I mean it's only a hobby...and everyone is welcome to their own opinion

Ullium.

1.6k · October 6, 2004

I like some micros, the kids don't like many cause they can't swap mc donalds toys but they did enjoy cut down cache.
There are some loactions where a micro is all that is possible and i would rather find something hidden (cleverly or not) than log a virtual

Like the idea of having a small category as nearly all the alchemy quest fit this size category.

I was just about to ask about that...

Oh well 14 cache pages to alter!

MarcB

1.7k · October 6, 2004

* If you can put it up your nose, it's too small.

In that case I think you might have some that are too small SP

October 6, 2004

The odd one can be a novelty but after time after time crawing about on your hands and knees, poking your hands into places you would rather not....or spending an inordinate amount of time searching the myriad of possible hiding places......

Perhaps a different hobby should be considered. This IS what its all about.

October 6, 2004

Ooh. I should edit two of mine to the small classification, both are a little under 1 litre in capacity, not small enough for the dog to swallow, and I'd hate to have one up my nose... Why did I just get an idea for an avatar using an image of Arnie S. pulling a micro-cache out of his nose? ouch!

October 6, 2004

I think the point that Klaus was highlighting was that the recent trend seems to be for cachers to place smaller and smaller cache containers

Klaus where you *really* highlighting the plight of the larger species of cache (the lesser spotted great-cache) ?

October 7, 2004

erm - sorry for the late response...

It was a post that was half in jest, but half serious too.

Let's flesh it out.

There are currently 5 sizes, virtuals excluded.

A Micro is described as a 35mm Film Canister.. fair enough, we know what that is.

A Small is descibed as holding a log book and not much else.

A Regular cache is a "Rubbermaid, Ammo Box"

A Large cache is a "5 gallon Bucket"

And the catch all - Other

Now, see, search Google Images for a "5 Gallon Bucket".

Then search Google Images for "Rubbermaid"

And then search it for "Ammo Box".

See what I mean - what size is an Ammo Box? What size is "Rubbermaid"?

And there are larger caches than a 5 gallon Bucket. And what about a 25 litre paint bucket... etc etc etc

So why not go and categorize the sizes by physical size.

eg - Micro - 20mm x 35mm

Small 15cm x 15cm

Regular 30cm x 30cm

Large up to 1m x 2m

Makes more sense rather than a rather vague description.

As for ginormous - ever find a cache that is much, much bigger than you a) expected thought could be hidden in the location and c) was listed as regular on the cache page. Some where between enormous and gigantic.

By the way, this "I hate this and that kind of cache size (usually Micros)" debate, is in my opinion, superfluous.

There's posts in here touching on the kids not liking micros because there's no trade, that people go to locations and think that maybe a physical could have been placed, and so on. Now I don't have kids, but I concede that point. However...

Ulium hit it on the head. The hider can do what he/she/they want to do, it's their choice what they hide, where they hide it, and criticism regarding cache sizes is just one of these things that are moaned about, and I wonder why. There's other caches. If you don't like micros, don't find them. If you're not mad about virtuals, go find another cache somewhere else.

It's a shared hobby with diverse opinions, sure - but giving out about other people's cache sizes... hmm. Get out there and find them!

October 7, 2004

I think the point that Klaus was highlighting was that the recent trend seems to be for cachers to place smaller and smaller cache containers

Klaus where you *really* highlighting the plight of the larger species of cache (the lesser spotted great-cache) ?

The lesser spotted "large cache" (Ginormoeous Cacheous) is an interesting species.

Rarely seem in the wild, it is a reclusive type characterised by it's immobility.

However, as said previously, you can't hide it everywhere, but it sure is fun if it's full of stuff. And if you've got an old PC/motherboard/encyclopedia set/kitchen sink someone might want, what better place is there.

6.2k · October 7, 2004

* If you can put it up your nose, it's too small.

In that case I think you might have some that are too small SP

So *that's* what happened to Moronic Atomic Mini-Micro 1! I know Oxford has a reputation for drugs problems but never in my wildest dreams did I think someone would snort one of my caches...

SP

October 7, 2004

* If you can put it up your nose, it's too small.

In that case I think you might have some that are too small SP

So *that's* what happened to Moronic Atomic Mini-Micro 1! I know Oxford has a reputation for drugs problems but never in my wildest dreams did I think someone would snort one of my caches...

SP

No no no, not snorted.

It was injected intravenously, like in that film, Innerspace

Edited October 7, 2004 by klaus23

3.3k · October 7, 2004

Can I just say that let's use some common sense here. The standard size ammo box is used for our usual 1, 2, maybe 3 litre tupperware, or ammo box etc. Below that was micro, and so much stuff out in the wild is bigger than micro and smaller than "standard/regular". Small seems perfectly right to categorize 0.5l tupperware, flare cans, "other" containers that are unusual etc.

As for large ones, I have seen plenty up in Bucks (or was it Oxon?) where Dan (or was it Pid) put out some huge containers.

I didn't think it would start a debate, but that's okay. I for one am happy that the folks in charge are responding to general requests

October 7, 2004

Having followed the discussion we've changed one of ours to small (it's a camping beaker so about 0.5l) and left the rest (all 1.6l) as regular as that seems about right.

JJNFC

2.9k · October 7, 2004

I like some micros, the kids don't like many cause they can't swap mc donalds toys but they did enjoy cut down cache.
There are some loactions where a micro is all that is possible and i would rather find something hidden (cleverly or not) than log a virtual

Like the idea of having a small category as nearly all the alchemy quest fit this size category.

I was just about to ask about that...

Oh well 14 cache pages to alter!

MarcB

HEHE

October 7, 2004

Well we're obviously completely stupid - where is the new size detailed please? Just checked the guidelines for hiding caches and it says:

Micro (35 mm film canister or smaller, typically containing only a logbook)

Regular (Tupperware-style container or ammo can)

Large (5 gallon bucket or larger)

No mention of "small"... Sorry to be a pain; it's advancing years y'know (but Bren gets free prescriptions at the doc now).

3.3k · October 7, 2004

You can see the sizes when you create a new cache.

October 7, 2004

The odd one can be a novelty but after time after time crawing about on your hands and knees, poking your hands into places you would rather not....or spending an inordinate amount of time searching the myriad of possible hiding places......

Perhaps a different hobby should be considered. This IS what its all about.

Yes you have a point there Spokes....but what I was really getting at was that where one can poke a stick or a Leki pole into places where a regular (or decent sized) cache container....one has to poke about with ones hands and fingers to find a micro cache....and that can be distasteful and in some places downright dangerous...if you see what I mean??

I enjoy the search as you can no doubt see by the number of caches I have found....and nearly all had to be searched for .... only a few virtuals and no locationless

Ullium.

Edited October 7, 2004 by Ullium

October 7, 2004

<<You can see the sizes when you create a new cache. >>

Thanks Stuey..

6.2k · October 7, 2004

Am I being daft or is the argument currently that micros are rubbish because you can find a regular cache with a poky stick but not a small one? Hello? Haven't you heard of toothpicks?

SP

P.S. Getting drawn into a row on the Internet is like competing in a 'Worlds Stupidest Man' competition. Even if you win you're still an idiot.

Edited October 7, 2004 by Simply Paul

New Cache Size Available - Small

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation