Development request for GC.com website

[+cache_n_out]

It would be nice if there was a "nano-size" pick when creating a cache listing. So many people use them, some mention it in the description, but a pick would encoruge more disclosure.

 

It would also be nice when I go to log a TBUG if I only had to input the # once. Maybe I'm doing it wrong but I have to "track" it then "log" it and that requires putting it in twice. I do cut and paste, but why not elimanate the step.

[knowschad]

It would be nice if there was a "nano-size" pick when creating a cache listing. So many people use them, some mention it in the description, but a pick would encoruge more disclosure.

 

The is a topic that comes up frequently. The Geocaching.com folks that run this place have made it clear that they are not going to be adding a "nano" cache type. A nano is still a micro.

 

It would also be nice when I go to log a TBUG if I only had to input the # once. Maybe I'm doing it wrong but I have to "track" it then "log" it and that requires putting it in twice. I do cut and paste, but why not elimanate the step.

 

I agree with you here. However, that really belongs in the Geocaching Website forums, I believe.

[+WHO-DEY]

It would be nice if there was a "nano-size" pick when creating a cache listing. So many people use them, some mention it in the description, but a pick would encoruge more disclosure.

 

The is a topic that comes up frequently. The Geocaching.com folks that run this place have made it clear that they are not going to be adding a "nano" cache type. A nano is still a micro.

 

It would also be nice when I go to log a TBUG if I only had to input the # once. Maybe I'm doing it wrong but I have to "track" it then "log" it and that requires putting it in twice. I do cut and paste, but why not elimanate the step.

 

I agree with you here. However, that really belongs in the Geocaching Website forums, I believe.

 

when will this be addressed? how maytimes does the new blood have to bring up the GPX filtering of micros' nanos..as well as well as the selection issue as the OP brought up? Kill two birds with one stone. AND GIVE MICRO'S AND NANO'S A NEW DIFFERENT ICON!!!!!!!

[knowschad]

when will this be addressed? how maytimes does the new blood have to bring up the GPX filtering of micros' nanos..as well as well as the selection issue as the OP brought up? Kill two birds with one stone. AND GIVE MICRO'S AND NANO'S A NEW DIFFERENT ICON!!!!!!!

 

It has been addressed. They said that it ain't happening.

 

PS: REMEMBER...9 OUT OF 10 CHILDREN DO NOT LIKE NANO'S AND MICRO'S

[+ReadyOrNot]

when will this be addressed? how maytimes does the new blood have to bring up the GPX filtering of micros' nanos..as well as well as the selection issue as the OP brought up? Kill two birds with one stone. AND GIVE MICRO'S AND NANO'S A NEW DIFFERENT ICON!!!!!!!

 

Hopefully never... Giving them their own category will only encourage people to use them more (in my opinion).

[+bittsen]

The #1 reason to not give nanos their own category is that there are so many nanos out there that the system wouldn't work.

You would think you are looking for a micro but it would be a nano because the cache was placed before they included a nano category.

 

It would be chaos, utter chaos. People would be running in the streets screaming. Chicken Little would be hysterical. Women would be hiding their children and we would end up at DefCon ONE!

[+Kit Fox]

Here is a sampling of previously posted threads pertaining to nanos.

 

Nano Caches, why is there not a new size on the website for nano sized caches

 

Feature Request: Nano size option, Discussion on adding nano to the size options for listing

 

Nano Cache Category

 

New Category for Nano?

 

Enhancement Request - New Cache Size NANO

[+StarBrand]

What many cachers refer to as a nano is already covered very well by the current cache size definitions - they should be classified as micros.

 

BTW - icons are for types - nano would be a size.

[+whistler & co.]

PS: REMEMBER...9 OUT OF 10 CHILDREN DO NOT LIKE NANO'S AND MICRO'S

 

That may be, but nine out of ten parents love nanos and micros becuase there is no trading of dollar store stuff (was gonna say "crap" but decided to be nice ) involved!

[knowschad]

PS: REMEMBER...9 OUT OF 10 CHILDREN DO NOT LIKE NANO'S AND MICRO'S

 

That may be, but nine out of ten parents love nanos and micros becuase there is no trading of dollar store stuff (was gonna say "crap" but decided to be nice ) involved!

 

 

BTW, in case you didn't notice, that PS is from Who-Dey's signature line.

[+MountainRacer]

Ten out of ten children do not like CAPS LOCK or stray apostrophe's.

 

 

[+Wooden Cyclist]

when will this be addressed? how maytimes does the new blood have to bring up the GPX filtering of micros' nanos..as well as well as the selection issue as the OP brought up? Kill two birds with one stone. AND GIVE MICRO'S AND NANO'S A NEW DIFFERENT ICON!!!!!!!

 

It has been addressed. They said that it ain't happening.

 

PS: REMEMBER...9 OUT OF 10 CHILDREN DO NOT LIKE NANO'S AND MICRO'S

 

My kid likes them. It took us several visits to find GC1FC68. Now when we pass that spot he always says with a little pride "We finally found that one".

[Skippermark]

It would be nice if there was a "nano-size" pick when creating a cache listing. So many people use them, some mention it in the description, but a pick would encoruge more disclosure.

 

It would also be nice when I go to log a TBUG if I only had to input the # once. Maybe I'm doing it wrong but I have to "track" it then "log" it and that requires putting it in twice. I do cut and paste, but why not elimanate the step.

The micro size already covers it. 35mm film container or smaller.

 

For the TBUG issue, if you use Firefox and Greasemonkey, check out this script on Locus Prime's site, which will automatically enter a TB number the second time after you've entered it once.