Does size really matter?

For all your general chit chat, caching or not.
User avatar
pprass
10000 or more caches found
10000 or more caches found
Posts: 911
Joined: 18 December 03 11:52 pm
Location: Port Macquarie

Does size really matter?

Post by pprass » 25 October 10 9:53 am

Does size really matter?
When we cache we rely quite heavily on the cache size description given by the cache owner. It gives us a point of reference to quickly eliminate all locations where the cache could not possibly be located. So say if the cache is described as a “regular” size and it is on a bridge. We would ignore all nooks and crannies along railings of a bridge and go straight under the bridge and search in the cavities where the bridge meets the road – hate those creepy, slimy, dirty spots btw, but if the cache is there well…..
Conversely if a cache is described as a “micro” we would start checking the railings, bolts and nuts on the top of the bridge first.

Now this brings me to the question – with the introduction of Eclipse tins and M&M containers, what would you describe them as being? Are they “small” or are they “micro’s”?

We are regularly stumped by some of the simplest hides because we are imagining say a “micro” size, when in fact it is a small, or a “regular” size and it is actually a small.

So what would you call an Eclipse tin and an M&M container? Below are the definitions from the wiki which is a good guide, but not exhaustive.

Would love to get some sort of consensus to give cachers a better guide.

Nano
A Nano cache is the smallest of geocaches. Its size approximates the tip of a pencil eraser. Typical containers include "blinkies" (see image) and very small pill containers. Because they are so small, swaps are usually not part of these caches

Micro
Its size varies from a 35mm film canister down to smaller than your little finger. Typical containers include small pill containers and 'Yowie'/'Kinder Surprise' containers. Because they are so small, swaps are usually not part of these caches.

Small
A small geocache is big enough to hold a few small swaps, a writing implement and a log book.
It is larger than a micro, but smaller than your average lunchbox.
Examples of a small cache would be a 250ml container and old torch.

User avatar
caughtatwork
Posts: 16109
Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Does size really matter?

Post by caughtatwork » 25 October 10 10:14 am

Does size really matter?
Not to me.
I very rarely check the cache size before heading out to hunt, or even while I'm on the hunt itself.
It's all part of the fun and engagement of finding a cache.

There's a number of things that could be added to cache descriptions or other attributes that make it crystal clear as to what you are looking for.

ou could include an attribute that mandated the volume of the cache container. e.g. 20ml, 25ml, 50ml, 115ml, 200ml, 225ml, etc, etc, etc. Does that make it more fun or does that take away from the enjoyment of the find? I mean you wouldn't want a hint to be a complete giveaway, so why mandate that the size of the container define the size to the ml.

Same deal for altitude. You could have an attribute that stated the hide was at 50m above sea level. That would tell you it's on top of the bridge rather that at the bottom of the creek, or up the tree instead of down the bottom.

There has to be some challenge in finding a cache and specifying the size should really only be an indicator as to the size you are looking for, not to eliminate every "non-size" related hidey hole at GZ.

The more people want specifics on the caches that they are finding, the less fun it becomes to find them. At GC don't have a nano size, you are stuck with micro being a 35mm film cannister or smaller. That means anything smaller, so a nano size container would be listed as micro and then you end up additionally frustrated because your don't know whether to strick your fingers into that spider web encrusted hole to see if there's a nano in there.

What about a cache container that is a micro, but is hidden inside a hollowed out log. You might ignore the log because that would be a "regular" sized log, but the cache container itself (not what it is hidden in) takes your thoughts away from the most obvious place.

At some point the regulation of the game through peoples expectations degrades the enjoyment of the hunt and the thrill of the find.

Over the last number of weeks and months it's been:
Poor quality logs
Cache size attributes
Unsuitable containers
Too many micro caches
Caches in places "I don't want to visit"
Caches in playgrounds (although that one has been around a while)
Caches placed by people with < 100 finds
Logs that are less than 100 words in length

C'mon people. The game is about diversity and challenge. If we all subscribed to the same requirements for a cache there would never be anything in the city or urban areas as they are all a "box under a bush", small, micro, nano, etc. Then we would all have templated logs to meet the 100 word minimum. We would never have caches in "dangerous" areas just in case. We would never hide a cache in the bush as there are dangers on snakes and spiders.

Over regulation and mandating requirements takes the fun and adventure out of the game.

I might as well just state the cache is a 200ml container under the rock, near the tree, by the side of the rubbish bin for all the fun your would have finding it.

Philipp
1350 or more caches found
1350 or more caches found
Posts: 591
Joined: 24 January 10 3:08 pm
Twitter: derfuzzel
Location: Melbourne, VIC
Contact:

Re: Does size really matter?

Post by Philipp » 25 October 10 10:29 am

The Groundspeak guidelines are pretty straight forward:
Cache Sizes

These sizes apply to all caches that have a physical container.
* Micro (35 mm film canister or smaller – less than approximately .1 L – typically containing only a logbook or a logsheet)
* Small (sandwich-sized plastic container or similar – less than approximately 1 L – holds trade items as well as a logbook)
* Regular (plastic container or ammo can about the size of a shoebox)*
* Large (20 L bucket or larger)
http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#sizes

* which means between 1L and 20L

With the -endless- discussions around micros and nanos I think it's worth mentioning that there are close to none discussions around small size caches and basically no discussions at all about regular and large size caches.

User avatar
Bundyrumandcoke
4500 or more caches found
4500 or more caches found
Posts: 1020
Joined: 07 August 06 1:54 pm
Location: Blackwater Queensland

Re: Does size really matter?

Post by Bundyrumandcoke » 25 October 10 11:11 am

The rough guide I use.

Micro- something you cant easily fit a pencil into with the log, the log is usually a scroll. Bison tubes, magnetic blinkies, brass doggie id barrels, ect.

Small, M&M container, film container, up to 200ml systemia, ect.

Regular, 400ml systemia up to about ammo can size.

Large, bigger than the above.

If they ever introduce a nano size, then it will be Blinkies, brass dog id barrels, ect.

Cheers
Bundy

User avatar
pprass
10000 or more caches found
10000 or more caches found
Posts: 911
Joined: 18 December 03 11:52 pm
Location: Port Macquarie

Re: Does size really matter?

Post by pprass » 25 October 10 11:27 am

Bundyrumandcoke wrote:.....Small, M&M container, film container, up to 200ml systemia, ect. ....
Yes - that is what I would have thought as well regarding the M&M container, although a film container in the wiki and GC guidelines is a micro.

Regarding nano - if I put one out I call it "other" and then in the cache description mention that it is a nano. Calling it a "micro" just confuses the cacher.

User avatar
Cached
2500 or more caches found
2500 or more caches found
Posts: 3087
Joined: 24 March 04 4:32 pm
Location: Launceston, Tasmania
Contact:

Re: Does size really matter?

Post by Cached » 25 October 10 12:00 pm

Townsville seems to be nano city. Not convinced thats a good thing.

The "old" rule of thumb used to have a regular as a lunch box. That seems to have gotten lost somewhere, I'm finding lunch box sized containers as smalls...

User avatar
Zalgariath
5500 or more caches found
5500 or more caches found
Posts: 1749
Joined: 17 August 09 10:44 am
Location: Sydney, NSW

Re: Does size really matter?

Post by Zalgariath » 25 October 10 12:28 pm

Smalls should be able to take small swaps, coins etc. I have a few M&M's tubes out (my first hides... :oops:) but as the log book and pencil completely fill them Ive got them listed as micros....

As C@W said, I rarely look at the size beyond the fact with Trads my TomTom lets me know if its a micro, or 'anything else' by the icon. This can catch you out if its a nano listed as an 'other' haha

User avatar
Papa Bear_Left
800 or more hollow logs searched
800 or more hollow logs searched
Posts: 2573
Joined: 03 April 03 12:28 am
Location: Kalamunda, WA
Contact:

Re: Does size really matter?

Post by Papa Bear_Left » 25 October 10 12:56 pm

pprass wrote:Regarding nano - if I put one out I call it "other" and then in the cache description mention that it is a nano. Calling it a "micro" just confuses the cacher.
You're in a very small minority with this opinion: http://forum.geocaching.com.au/viewtopic.php?t=11020

If I see "micro", I just assume that it's very small, and I'd really hate to validate nano hides with their own category!

User avatar
Zalgariath
5500 or more caches found
5500 or more caches found
Posts: 1749
Joined: 17 August 09 10:44 am
Location: Sydney, NSW

Re: Does size really matter?

Post by Zalgariath » 25 October 10 2:30 pm

Papa Bear_Left wrote:If I see "micro", I just assume that it's very small, and I'd really hate to validate nano hides with their own category!
Unfortunately it's gonna happen apparently :evil:

http://feedback.geocaching.com/forums/7 ... ?ref=title

belken
Posts: 447
Joined: 15 January 05 12:31 am
Location: Melville

Re: Does size really matter?

Post by belken » 25 October 10 2:54 pm

Cached wrote:Townsville seems to be nano city. Not convinced thats a good thing.

The "old" rule of thumb used to have a regular as a lunch box. That seems to have gotten lost somewhere, I'm finding lunch box sized containers as smalls...
Two things from me.

Firstly I thought the idea was to hide the cache from muggles. Not fellow geocachers. The number of these type of hides in ho hum locations is getting larger so of course my caching gets less.

Secondly with regards to Townsville. You are right with the type of new hides(Mostly micro/nano). But there are still 4 ammocans unfound since August 2010 in the area. Cached, Blossom and Team Pathfinder have all passed through so I am not to sure that the size of the cache is the problem.
Chwiliwr is visiting Townsville in mid november so I expect they will at least be found by him.

It would appear that the size is matching the location most people are prepared to cache in.

User avatar
Zytheran
2000 or more caches found
2000 or more caches found
Posts: 961
Joined: 19 May 04 12:08 am
Location: Adelaide, Newton

Re: Does size really matter?

Post by Zytheran » 25 October 10 3:45 pm

Zalgariath wrote:
Papa Bear_Left wrote:If I see "micro", I just assume that it's very small, and I'd really hate to validate nano hides with their own category!
Unfortunately it's gonna happen apparently :evil:

http://feedback.geocaching.com/forums/7 ... ?ref=title
AGGGHHHH! :x
We need to teaching thinking on this planet.

Everyone commenting is only looking at the positive side of things....as we tend to do.
There are downsides to this, like there is to every decision ..e.g. GSAK compatibility springs to mind. GPS compatibility another.

Is anyone comparing the benefit to the downside, possibly broken GSAK and wrong size in GPSr.

Dumb humans. [-X

At least I only have 3 out of 160+ descriptions to change.

User avatar
caughtatwork
Posts: 16109
Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Does size really matter?

Post by caughtatwork » 25 October 10 4:09 pm

GSAK handles the GCA Nano size without an error.
I'm not exactly certain what it does. I did test this, but forgot the result. I'll check this tonight.
As far as GPS goes, does any GPS use the size attribute?

Alternatively could you grab this cache http://geocaching.com.au/cache/ga2204 and see what it does to your version of GSAK. It's a traditional, but a nano.

User avatar
Zalgariath
5500 or more caches found
5500 or more caches found
Posts: 1749
Joined: 17 August 09 10:44 am
Location: Sydney, NSW

Re: Does size really matter?

Post by Zalgariath » 25 October 10 4:23 pm

GSAK lists the cache container as "Nano" but ticks the "Other" size box, not the "Micro" one. From there it will depend on your unit/exporting macro as to how it accepts this info. Mine comes out as a regular trad icon, not the micro icon... but then I use a TomTom, so no one really cares about that :oops: hahaha

User avatar
MtnLioness
2800 or more caches found
2800 or more caches found
Posts: 875
Joined: 12 May 09 5:50 pm
Location: Seaton, Adelaide
Contact:

Re: Does size really matter?

Post by MtnLioness » 25 October 10 4:26 pm

I guess everyone will be downloading updates for their GPS soon

User avatar
caughtatwork
Posts: 16109
Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Does size really matter?

Post by caughtatwork » 25 October 10 4:37 pm

Zalgariath wrote:GSAK lists the cache container as "Nano" but ticks the "Other" size box, not the "Micro" one. From there it will depend on your unit/exporting macro as to how it accepts this info. Mine comes out as a regular trad icon, not the micro icon... but then I use a TomTom, so no one really cares about that :oops: hahaha
Yeah, that vaguely rings a bell. i.e. It doesn't "break" but doesn't necessarily "work".

Post Reply