Cache Sizes

For all your general chit chat, caching or not.
KnitnTel
Posts: 3
Joined: 06 February 11 7:49 pm
Location: Kallangur

Cache Sizes

Post by KnitnTel » 11 March 11 5:18 pm

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?

User avatar
caughtatwork
Posts: 16302
Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Cache Sizes

Post by caughtatwork » 11 March 11 5:50 pm

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

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: Cache Sizes

Post by Philipp » 11 March 11 6:14 pm

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

User avatar
caughtatwork
Posts: 16302
Joined: 17 May 04 12:11 pm
Location: Melbourne
Contact:

Re: Cache Sizes

Post by caughtatwork » 11 March 11 6:44 pm

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.

Ozibags
4000 or more? I'm officially obsessed.
4000 or more? I'm officially obsessed.
Posts: 172
Joined: 23 September 08 7:41 pm
Location: Southern Vales, South Australia

Re: Cache Sizes

Post by Ozibags » 11 March 11 9:39 pm

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.

User avatar
Bundyrumandcoke
5000 or more caches found
5000 or more caches found
Posts: 1021
Joined: 07 August 06 1:54 pm
Location: Blackwater Queensland

Re: Cache Sizes

Post by Bundyrumandcoke » 12 March 11 1:31 am

And of course, a nano can be much smaller than a thumbnail. I have one about the size of a matchhead, but because of the cache listing parameters, it has to be listed as a micro. And some of us are not considerate enough to mention that in the listing. :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :mrgreen:

KnitnTel
Posts: 3
Joined: 06 February 11 7:49 pm
Location: Kallangur

Re: Cache Sizes

Post by KnitnTel » 12 March 11 8:26 am

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 :)

User avatar
Mr Router
1500 or more caches found
1500 or more caches found
Posts: 2782
Joined: 22 May 05 11:59 am
Location: Bathurst

Re: Cache Sizes

Post by Mr Router » 12 March 11 11:49 am

the smallest we have found was the size of a tictac, lucky we did not have to sign it !

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: Cache Sizes

Post by Papa Bear_Left » 12 March 11 12:48 pm

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...)

User avatar
cantanga
650 or more caches found
650 or more caches found
Posts: 88
Joined: 05 September 09 5:38 pm
Location: Canberra

Re: Cache Sizes

Post by cantanga » 13 March 11 1:38 am

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.

User avatar
Bundyrumandcoke
5000 or more caches found
5000 or more caches found
Posts: 1021
Joined: 07 August 06 1:54 pm
Location: Blackwater Queensland

Re: Cache Sizes

Post by Bundyrumandcoke » 13 March 11 11:14 am

The cache in question does have a log scroll in it, just no writing implement.

Ozibags
4000 or more? I'm officially obsessed.
4000 or more? I'm officially obsessed.
Posts: 172
Joined: 23 September 08 7:41 pm
Location: Southern Vales, South Australia

Re: Cache Sizes

Post by Ozibags » 13 March 11 12:34 pm

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). :D

User avatar
Kellyansapansa
1 or more caches found
1 or more caches found
Posts: 24
Joined: 20 February 11 9:47 am
Twitter: SaySoWeddings
Location: Adelaide
Contact:

Re: Cache Sizes

Post by Kellyansapansa » 13 March 11 7:36 pm

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. :wink:

User avatar
Alansee
4000 or more? I'm officially obsessed.
4000 or more? I'm officially obsessed.
Posts: 560
Joined: 23 February 06 12:45 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Cache Sizes

Post by Alansee » 14 March 11 4:56 pm

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.

User avatar
blossom*
3000 or more caches found
3000 or more caches found
Posts: 1588
Joined: 25 February 09 1:59 pm
Location: West Ryde

Re: Cache Sizes

Post by blossom* » 14 March 11 6:26 pm

Alansee wrote:
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.
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.

Post Reply