Page 1 of 2
Cache Sizes
Posted: 11 March 11 5:18 pm
by KnitnTel
Hi all,
Im new to this. Ive found 2 caches and just had my first DN. I figured it was because I didnt really give myself enough time to search BUT I noticed as I was logging the visit that the cache is a micro. Now, had I noticed that before I searched (and therein lies another lesson) I would have searched differently. It does make me wonder though, just how big (or small) is a micro?
Re: Cache Sizes
Posted: 11 March 11 5:50 pm
by caughtatwork
It's about the size of a can of worms
Be prepared for a lot of different answers.
This might help while you're waiting.
http://wiki.geocaching.com.au/wiki/Cache_size
Re: Cache Sizes
Posted: 11 March 11 6:14 pm
by Philipp
Am I stupid? I can't find the part with the cache-sizes in the guidelines anymore.
Anyway. Here is a discussion around it:
http://forum.geocaching.com.au/viewtopi ... =2&t=15183
There used to be the following part in the guidelines:
Cache Sizes
These sizes apply to all caches that have a physical container.
# Micro (35 mm film canister or smaller – less than approximately 3 ounces or .1 litres -- typically containing only a logbook)
# Small (Sandwich-sized Tupperware-style container or similar -- less than approximately 1 quart or litre -- holds trade items as well as a logbook)
# Regular (Tupperware-style container or ammo can)
# Large (5 gallon/20 litre bucket or larger)
Problem there is that the destinction between Micro and Small can be read in three ways: 35mm film canister ==> 24ml or 3 ounces ==> 88ml or 100ml.
There is actually a request to clarify that:
http://feedback.geocaching.com/forums/7 ... guidelines
Re: Cache Sizes
Posted: 11 March 11 6:44 pm
by caughtatwork
What guidelines?
To the OP, Philipp refers to the Groundspeak guidelines.
There are many listing sites and they all have their own suggestions for cache sizes (hence my can of worms comment).
There is no fixed size, just an indication or range.
But ... no-one is forced to select the "correct" option, regardless of which site it is being listed on, nor any guidelines that may be in place.
Re: Cache Sizes
Posted: 11 March 11 9:39 pm
by Ozibags
There is a smaller-than-micro size container widely used called a nano (about the size of your thumbnail, usually magnetic). But it would be categorised as a micro on the GC.com cache page. Most considerate cache owners will mention if it is a nano in their description, but not all.
Re: Cache Sizes
Posted: 12 March 11 1:31 am
by Bundyrumandcoke
Re: Cache Sizes
Posted: 12 March 11 8:26 am
by KnitnTel
Thanks for the resposes so far.
so I would be safe, from what Ive read to assume that a micro cache could be anything from something the size (but NOT the shape) of a cigarette packet do a match head.
Crap! I think Im going to need younger eyes
Re: Cache Sizes
Posted: 12 March 11 11:49 am
by Mr Router
the smallest we have found was the size of a tictac, lucky we did not have to sign it !
Re: Cache Sizes
Posted: 12 March 11 12:48 pm
by Papa Bear_Left
KnitnTel wrote:Thanks for the resposes so far.
so I would be safe, from what Ive read to assume that a micro cache could be anything from something the size (but NOT the shape) of a cigarette packet do a match head.
Crap! I think Im going to need younger eyes
No, you just need to set up a filter on the list of caches you look for, either in the computer, or just when you look at a listing. Don't bother looking for anything that says "micro" or (here on GCA) "nano" and you'll be left with caches that have containers that are large enough to see!
(If enough people did this, the little buggers would wither away...)
Re: Cache Sizes
Posted: 13 March 11 1:38 am
by cantanga
Bundyrumandcoke wrote:And of course, a nano can be much smaller than a thumbnail. I have one about the size of a matchhead,
Mr Router wrote:the smallest we have found was the size of a tictac, lucky we did not have to sign it !
My question is how the the hell do you fit a log in that? I was always operating under the assumption that a cache, as a minimum, consisted of a container and a log.
Re: Cache Sizes
Posted: 13 March 11 11:14 am
by Bundyrumandcoke
The cache in question does have a log scroll in it, just no writing implement.
Re: Cache Sizes
Posted: 13 March 11 12:34 pm
by Ozibags
My question is how the the hell do you fit a log in that? I was always operating under the assumption that a cache, as a minimum, consisted of a container and a log.
Perhaps it's a version of Dr Who's "Tardis" (You know, the telephone box that, when you walk into it, turns out to be a very spacious time machine).
Re: Cache Sizes
Posted: 13 March 11 7:36 pm
by Kellyansapansa
As a very new newbie, I'm avoiding micros and nanos until I have a bit more confidence in my caching abilities. And until after my next eye test.
Re: Cache Sizes
Posted: 14 March 11 4:56 pm
by Alansee
Papa Bear_Left wrote:
(If enough people did this, the little buggers would wither away...)
And you wouldn't get excellent hides like this one -
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_de ... 12eb95ab65
There are good and bad in all sizes.
Re: Cache Sizes
Posted: 14 March 11 6:26 pm
by blossom*
I agree this is a top cache. I hate nanos but I have found a few that really were worth the visit as the spot was so interesting.
