Should Groundspeak seperate Micro's/Nano's from the cache category "Traditional"

[GOF and Bacall]

Moderator Note -- I copied this from post 7 into the first post in this topic.

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=3928238

 

I've merged two duplicate topics to streamline them. I've changed this first post out since it was only a comment about the forums being broken. I've replaced the first post with the main post for the topic.

 

This post is by WHO-DEY, not GOF & Bacall:

 

I know this is a topic that has been brought up again and again. But that fact alone should give some real credibility to the strength of the issue based on the number of members that are involved enough to address it. Why not seperate them. Why not have a different icon as we do with 'mystery" and "Mulit" cache types. Why not have these set in a way that allows the upload of the icon in to the majority of GPS's?

 

Here it is:

 

Should Groundspeak seperate Micro's/Nano's from the cache category "Traditional"

 

and

 

AND SHOULD THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT ICON?

 

Here are some random reasons why I say "YES":

 

1. at the end of a hunt, kids do not like to find micro's or nano's Children like swag, not coiled wet paper.

2. 3rd party software is a PITA

3. Nano's/Micro's have really nothing in common with all other types of cache categories.

4. Nano's/Micro's are strong enough and common enough to stand on their own as their own category.

5. Most like to cache with their family and with their friends. And sifting though icons and reading their cache type indivually and one by one on my Oregon gets old. Atleast i get to see the cache page...but it gets old. If the icon was different...then me no click.

6. We should not have to upload particular .GPX files everyday we cache so we filter out types. If it was adiffereent category, with a different icon...then we could have all on hand at all times.

7. micro and nano cache owners and finders could have pride in their own category.

8. Why not? Why not? Why Not?

 

Those are a few. I am sorry if they seem to overlap in some way, but I really see way more advantages, and few disadvantages. This is in large part a family sport...and I can confidently say that not many families are excited about nano's and Micro's all the time...so why not give us an easy way to disect them, and still have them loaded in our GPS without dealing with some random 3rd party? Many of us pay memberships, so let's enhance? I am rambling now.

 

Sorry for the double topic...but the forum went buggy earlier.

 

Now on with the topic...

Edited May 7, 2009 by mtn-man

[+Lil Devil]

Micro is a size. Traditional is a category. Apples and oranges.

[+StarBrand]

No.

[+Renegade Knight]

POLL: Should Groundspeak seperate Micro's/Nano's from the cache category "Traditional", AND SHOULD THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT ICON?

 

Yes. Micros generate enough angst to warrant their own special catagory. You even search for them differently than the non micros.

Edited May 7, 2009 by Renegade Knight

[+Wooden Cyclist]

What would be the reason for removing miro's and nano's from Traditional catagory? They are just another size. They may possibly want to add another size classification for nano's, but micros are to smalls as regulars are to larges.

[+DavidMac]

No.

 

Besides, they already do have an icon of their own:

[+WHO-DEY]

(Moderator Note, I copied this into the first post in the topic...)

 

I know this is a topic that has been brought up again and again. But that fact alone should give some real credibility to the strength of the issue based on the number of members that are involved enough to address it. Why not seperate them. Why not have a different icon as we do with 'mystery" and "Mulit" cache types. Why not have these set in a way that allows the upload of the icon in to the majority of GPS's?

 

Here it is:

 

Should Groundspeak seperate Micro's/Nano's from the cache category "Traditional"

 

and

 

AND SHOULD THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT ICON?

 

Here are some random reasons why I say "YES":

 

1. at the end of a hunt, kids do not like to find micro's or nano's Children like swag, not coiled wet paper.

2. 3rd party software is a PITA

3. Nano's/Micro's have really nothing in common with all other types of cache categories.

4. Nano's/Micro's are strong enough and common enough to stand on their own as their own category.

5. Most like to cache with their family and with their friends. And sifting though icons and reading their cache type indivually and one by one on my Oregon gets old. Atleast i get to see the cache page...but it gets old. If the icon was different...then me no click.

6. We should not have to upload particular .GPX files everyday we cache so we filter out types. If it was adiffereent category, with a different icon...then we could have all on hand at all times.

7. micro and nano cache owners and finders could have pride in their own category.

8. Why not? Why not? Why Not?

 

Those are a few. I am sorry if they seem to overlap in some way, but I really see way more advantages, and few disadvantages. This is in large part a family sport...and I can confidently say that not many families are excited about nano's and Micro's all the time...so why not give us an easy way to disect them, and still have them loaded in our GPS without dealing with some random 3rd party? Many of us pay memberships, so let's enhance? I am rambling now.

 

Sorry for the double topic...but the forum went buggy earlier.

Edited May 7, 2009 by mtn-man

[+StarBrand]

No - what to do with the overlap?? Micro puzzles, micro multicaches ??

 

Size and classification need some separation.

[+WHO-DEY]

make em, I do not know, RED...same icons...different color. Simple.

 

I look at it in some way like what is at the end? Is it a hollowed out screw with a band-aid of paper in it? Or is it an ammo box, or something that can hold...anything outisde a roll of paper the size of a paperclip. There is a difference between Micro's and Nano's in relation to every single other size of cache.

[+WHO-DEY]

thank MODERATER for fixing the mess.

 

For the record.. I DO LIKE NANO's and MICRO's. So this is in no way an attempt to pool resources against them and those who liek them. I just think the system needs a tweak after all this time.

[+StarBrand]

.... There is a difference between Micro's and Nano's in relation to every single other size of cache.

....and thats why they get thier own size category.

[+mtn-man]

thank MODERATER for fixing the mess.

No worries. I hope it makes sense. I hope GOF & Bacall does not mind me changing their post.

[+WHO-DEY]

.... There is a difference between Micro's and Nano's in relation to every single other size of cache.

....and thats why they get thier own size category.

 

I get you. But that is so internalized, that you cannot tell that form anywhere but the cache page.

 

Tell me why there should not be an enhancement do differentiate?

[+ArcherDragoon]

OK...with the merged topic...

 

Should Groundspeak seperate Micro's/Nano's from the cache category "Traditional"

 

No, as has been said earlier...Micro/Nano is a size...while Traditional is a category...

 

If you are asking should there be a separation between micro and nano...then maybe...

[+Renegade Knight]

No - what to do with the overlap?? Micro puzzles, micro multicaches ??

 

Size and classification need some separation.

 

That's a fair question. I think the answer though already works. For example A puzzle is the cache type. It can have any container size as the puzzle itself is the defining attribute.

 

When there is no other defining attribute like puzzle, multi, etc. Then Micro it is.

 

Anyway, that's how I already tend to think about them.

[+wimseyguy]

Another no; to both questions.

If another type is going to be created, it should be to help clear the clutter in the mystery/puzzle type.

With the passing of the mandatory ALR caches, it's a bit easier, but I'd like to see the challenges broken out too.

Edited May 7, 2009 by wimseyguy

[+Markwell]

My answer from November 2008

If it were needed and were something that would enhance the filtering process and not confuse the issues, I would say yes.

 

But since we already have a size designation, if we move Micro to a cache type, could a micro be labeled as size "Large" or "Regular"?

 

But beyond that, if this is what you're proposing, I would say "No" -

The top section is how Chicago area caches look now. The bottom is what I think you're proposing.

[+Tavisman]

Another No from me. However, please please please organise/expand cache size choices such as: nano, micro, 0.33l, 0.5l, 0.75l, 1l, 5l, 10l+

[+Prime Suspect]

POLL: Should Groundspeak seperate Micro's/Nano's from the cache category "Traditional", AND SHOULD THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT ICON?

 

Yes. Micros generate enough angst to warrant their own special catagory. You even search for them differently than the non micros.

So? I also search for decon kits differently than I do ammo cans.

[Andronicus]

.... There is a difference between Micro's and Nano's in relation to every single other size of cache.

....and thats why they get thier own size category.

 

I get you. But that is so internalized, that you cannot tell that form anywhere but the cache page.

 

Tell me why there should not be an enhancement do differentiate?

 

I think that is a software issue. Talk to Garmin. All my windows mobile software apps show size. I know that Garmin makes cr**py software, but asking Groundspeek to start mixing size and catagory just because Garmin su**s seems silly.

[+DiamondDaveG]

[

Moderator Note -- I copied this from post 7 into the first post in this topic.

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=3928238

 

I've merged two duplicate topics to streamline them. I've changed this first post out since it was only a comment about the forums being broken. I've replaced the first post with the main post for the topic.

 

This post is by WHO-DEY, not GOF & Bacall:

 

I know this is a topic that has been brought up again and again. But that fact alone should give some real credibility to the strength of the issue based on the number of members that are involved enough to address it. Why not seperate them. Why not have a different icon as we do with 'mystery" and "Mulit" cache types. Why not have these set in a way that allows the upload of the icon in to the majority of GPS's?

 

Here it is:

 

Should Groundspeak seperate Micro's/Nano's from the cache category "Traditional"

 

and

 

AND SHOULD THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT ICON?

 

Here are some random reasons why I say "YES":

 

1. at the end of a hunt, kids do not like to find micro's or nano's Children like swag, not coiled wet paper.

2. 3rd party software is a PITA

3. Nano's/Micro's have really nothing in common with all other types of cache categories.

4. Nano's/Micro's are strong enough and common enough to stand on their own as their own category.

5. Most like to cache with their family and with their friends. And sifting though icons and reading their cache type indivually and one by one on my Oregon gets old. Atleast i get to see the cache page...but it gets old. If the icon was different...then me no click.

6. We should not have to upload particular .GPX files everyday we cache so we filter out types. If it was adiffereent category, with a different icon...then we could have all on hand at all times.

7. micro and nano cache owners and finders could have pride in their own category.

8. Why not? Why not? Why Not?

 

Those are a few. I am sorry if they seem to overlap in some way, but I really see way more advantages, and few disadvantages. This is in large part a family sport...and I can confidently say that not many families are excited about nano's and Micro's all the time...so why not give us an easy way to disect them, and still have them loaded in our GPS without dealing with some random 3rd party? Many of us pay memberships, so let's enhance? I am rambling now.

 

Sorry for the double topic...but the forum went buggy earlier.

 

Now on with the topic...

 

Who's children? Mine are usually more interested in the hunt rather than what is at the end. Most of the time we don't trade anyway. We have ever filtered out a SIZE of cache although we have filtered out a cache CATEGORY or two.

 

Micro is a size. Traditional is a category. Apples and oranges.

 

No.

 

No.

 

Besides, they already do have an icon of their own:

 

My thoughts exactly.

 

-edit to correct html prob & for spelling-

Edited May 7, 2009 by DiamondDaveG

[+moparots]

Well the original meaning of the word "cache" meant, a container for hiding weapons or provisions. Cant hide much of that in a micro. Food for thought.

[Styluss]

I dont believe we should reclassify these into their own catagory. I think a traditional cache is a cache no matter how you look at it. And the sizes are clearly listed on the Cache's description page. Perhaps we could add a filter for the premium mebers that filters out the micros and or nanos? As for the point of kids not liking micros or nanos... well, again the cache size is listed in the Cache's description. And furthermore, I would think any Cache owner would know better than to add a "kid friendly" attribute to their mirco or nano, unless the surrounding area warranted it.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Micro is a size. Traditional is a category. Apples and oranges.

True... currently.

 

That doesn't mean that they have to stay that way.

 

I would love to see micro/nano be its own cache type.

[+mcrow]

In a way I say yes, because a traditional cache like they were in the old days were made to hold items.

 

OTOH, "cache" has eveolved since then to mean many different things including to mean anything that we hunt using a GPS.

 

It would be nice for new geocachers not to stumble on the micros and nanos for their first caches but I don't know if changing the system would help much with that.

[+mcrow]

I dont believe we should reclassify these into their own catagory. I think a traditional cache is a cache no matter how you look at it. And the sizes are clearly listed on the Cache's description page. Perhaps we could add a filter for the premium mebers that filters out the micros and or nanos? As for the point of kids not liking micros or nanos... well, again the cache size is listed in the Cache's description. And furthermore, I would think any Cache owner would know better than to add a "kid friendly" attribute to their mirco or nano, unless the surrounding area warranted it.

 

You can already do that with PQs.

[+Wooden Cyclist]

Changes always cause grief and controversy and should only be undertaken if there is good reason. One of the driving forces behind this proposed change seems to be that GPSr software doesn't display enough information on some models. That will change in a relatively short period of time as the GPSr manufactureres improve their offerings. Let the problem be fixed that way instead of starting another controversial change in the way GC.com presents the information we use.

 

 

The OP also stated the that third party software is a PITA. That is also changing. I use a third party app on my Blackberry and no other software or GPSr. I don't experience the information based problems that the OP mentions.

 

 

The OP also states that "Nano's/Micro's have really nothing in common with all other types of cache categoriesMicroMicros". Micros and nanos do share the most basic characteristic with other cache sizes. Its a hidden object containing a log. Isn't that the basis of this sport? You may not be able to hide much sway and only very small trackables in a micro, but then you cannot hide large items in a decon either.

 

 

None of the other catagories seem to be based on container size, why start using size as a catagory criteria now?

 

 

It might makes sense to add a nano choice for sizes of cache containers in the cache description because they can require a different method of searching just as a regular may require a different search method than a large.

 

 

Just my thoughts, I look forward to any comments.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Changes always cause grief and controversy and should only be undertaken if there is good reason.

Agreed

 

None of the other categories seem to be based on container size, why start using size as a catagory criteria now?

 

It's not the size so much as it is a different type of hunt. For me much more often than not a hunt for a nano is completely unlike that for any other cache. The only commonality is that they are a container with a log.

 

I've found a few micros now (maybe 2k+) in 28 states, enough to generalize, and based on my personal experience the micro hunt is intrinsically a much different thing than hunting for any other cache (type! )... thus I believe that they should be so categorized.

[+niraD]

You even search for them differently than the non micros.

So? I also search for decon kits differently than I do ammo cans.

Ditto. And I search for cleverly camouflaged 4-star difficulty hides differently than I do for 1-star difficulty hides. And I search differently for caches in high-traffic areas than I do for caches in remote locations. And I search differently for caches hidden by certain local geocachers than I do for caches hidden by random newbies. And... there are a lot of factors that affect how I search other than cache type.

 

Yes, it could be useful to have different icons on your GPSr depending on both a cache's size and its type, but that doesn't warrant blurring the distinction between size and type. Right now, the size of the container controls the size rating of the cache. The type of the cache is already affected by enough other factors; let's not muddy things by throwing the size of the cache into the mix.

[+9Key]

Changes always cause grief and controversy and should only be undertaken if there is good reason. One of the driving forces behind this proposed change seems to be that GPSr software doesn't display enough information on some models. That will change in a relatively short period of time as the GPSr manufactureres improve their offerings. Let the problem be fixed that way instead of starting another controversial change in the way GC.com presents the information we use.

 

 

The OP also stated the that third party software is a PITA. That is also changing. I use a third party app on my Blackberry and no other software or GPSr. I don't experience the information based problems that the OP mentions.

 

 

The OP also states that "Nano's/Micro's have really nothing in common with all other types of cache categoriesMicroMicros". Micros and nanos do share the most basic characteristic with other cache sizes. Its a hidden object containing a log. Isn't that the basis of this sport? You may not be able to hide much sway and only very small trackables in a micro, but then you cannot hide large items in a decon either.

 

 

None of the other catagories seem to be based on container size, why start using size as a catagory criteria now?

 

 

It might makes sense to add a nano choice for sizes of cache containers in the cache description because they can require a different method of searching just as a regular may require a different search method than a large.

 

 

Just my thoughts, I look forward to any comments.

This sums up my thoughts pretty well. And its from a newbie from my hometown - even better!

[+Allanon]

No and No.

 

A better solution would be to get rid of micros/nanos all together if that were the case...but I don't necessarily agree with that either.

 

So, I go with the No and No.

[+Fencedog]

I'd cast my vote for adding a size catagory for nanos. I make my own caches and they are all hand made rocks. Some of these rocks are no bigger than a piece of gravel. There are so many containers out there, especially in urban settings, that are smaller than a regular 35 mm film canister. To me, any caches that are bigger than a film can yet smaller than a small cache should be classified as a micro and anything smaller than a film can should be a nano. Just my two cents.

[+Fencedog]

I forgot to add, no, I don't think they should have their own catagory.

[+Konnarock Kid & Marge]

Moderator Note -- I copied this from post 7 into the first post in this topic.

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=3928238

 

I've merged two duplicate topics to streamline them. I've changed this first post out since it was only a comment about the forums being broken. I've replaced the first post with the main post for the topic.

 

This post is by WHO-DEY, not GOF & Bacall:

 

I know this is a topic that has been brought up again and again. But that fact alone should give some real credibility to the strength of the issue based on the number of members that are involved enough to address it. Why not seperate them. Why not have a different icon as we do with 'mystery" and "Mulit" cache types. Why not have these set in a way that allows the upload of the icon in to the majority of GPS's?

 

Here it is:

 

Should Groundspeak seperate Micro's/Nano's from the cache category "Traditional"

 

and

 

AND SHOULD THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT ICON?

 

Here are some random reasons why I say "YES":

 

1. at the end of a hunt, kids do not like to find micro's or nano's Children like swag, not coiled wet paper.

2. 3rd party software is a PITA

3. Nano's/Micro's have really nothing in common with all other types of cache categories.

4. Nano's/Micro's are strong enough and common enough to stand on their own as their own category.

5. Most like to cache with their family and with their friends. And sifting though icons and reading their cache type indivually and one by one on my Oregon gets old. Atleast i get to see the cache page...but it gets old. If the icon was different...then me no click.

6. We should not have to upload particular .GPX files everyday we cache so we filter out types. If it was adiffereent category, with a different icon...then we could have all on hand at all times.

7. micro and nano cache owners and finders could have pride in their own category.

8. Why not? Why not? Why Not?

 

Those are a few. I am sorry if they seem to overlap in some way, but I really see way more advantages, and few disadvantages. This is in large part a family sport...and I can confidently say that not many families are excited about nano's and Micro's all the time...so why not give us an easy way to disect them, and still have them loaded in our GPS without dealing with some random 3rd party? Many of us pay memberships, so let's enhance? I am rambling now.

 

Sorry for the double topic...but the forum went buggy earlier.

 

Now on with the topic...

[/quote

Even though it is a size...............Yes! Yes! Yes!

[+Colonial Cats]

I believe that the micro size category should stay right where it is. However, I think that nanos should have their own size category.

[+gof1]

thank MODERATER for fixing the mess.

No worries. I hope it makes sense. I hope GOF & Bacall does not mind me changing their post.

 

No problem. I'm good with it and Bacall never enters the forums.

[+sduck]

No and no.

 

Change is bad. I fear change.

[+bafl01]

i personally think there should be another size rating so 5 sizes a nano ( could not fit a gold pencil in it) small ( film canaster- 3 by 3 or mint box), medium (up through peanut butter jar) big (up through ammo can) and huge ( anything bigger than an ammo can [i have one of these])

[+briansnat]

Micro is a size. Traditional is a category. Apples and oranges.

True... currently.

 

That doesn't mean that they have to stay that way.

 

I would love to see micro/nano be its own cache type.

 

Then what do you do if its a micro and a puzzle?

[+gof1]

No, a size is a size, not a cache type. We can already sort by size in PQs.

 

I think nano caches have become prevalent enough to have there own size category. I also think that the the undesignated size choices should go away. If it is a physical cache it should have a size listed. I'd like to see the choices for size listed to be something like nano, micro, small, regular, large, and non-physical. The problem is all the caches that are already out there. How do you get all those corrected and think of all the confusion in the interim. So I'd like to see the size categories change but don't expect to.

[Clan Riffster]

Heck, it wouldn't hurt my feelings if they were given their own website. www.dinkycaching .com?

But, as it stands, I'd have to agree with the majority. Micro is a size. Turning it into a type would only breed confusion.

[+Frank Broughton]

i personally think there should be another size rating so 5 sizes a nano ( could not fit a gold pencil in it) small ( film canaster- 3 by 3 or mint box), medium (up through peanut butter jar) big (up through ammo can) and huge ( anything bigger than an ammo can [i have one of these])

 

I like that much! especially the medium. Small is almost turning into micro around here. I use a bigger size small container (1.1 liter) and calling it medium would be more appropriate compared to a pill bottle that gets called small too.

[+The Leprechauns]

My micros and nano's are already quite "seperate," whether on my mapping software or in my GPS. That third party software which the OP labels as a "PITA" is, instead, an easy and highly automated one-time fix in my waypoint management software settings. Micros show up with a different icon on the maps, and their cache names have an "M" in the sequence I allocate to "cache size," instead of an S, R, L or U. (Well, except for the tricksters who use the "Unknown" cache size to disguise a micro.)

 

By filtering out caches I don't enjoy hunting (earthcaches and puzzles) and concentrating on getting lots of helpful information jammed into the map icons and cache names for the ones that I DO want to hunt (traditionals of all sizes, and multicaches), I am rarely disappointed or surprised by what I encounter in the field.

[+Jeep4two]

Just a thought (if it doesn't exist):

 

How about a cache attribute. I agree that micro/nano is a size and cache type (regular) is a type. No arguement there.

 

What about a 'Log Only' attribute. That would allow those that want to filter out log only caches in their PQ's the ability.

 

I've had a number of caches set as 'small' 'traditional' only to find that they are really micros. I'm not really all that picky - I like the find but some of the others that tag along with me have a bit of a distaste for micros inclining me to avoid them.

 

So - an attribute not a new category, size, etc.. Of course this attribute would need to be assigned by the CO or the Approver based on description. . .

 

Just an idea.

[+gof1]

i personally think there should be another size rating so 5 sizes a nano ( could not fit a gold pencil in it) small ( film canaster- 3 by 3 or mint box), medium (up through peanut butter jar) big (up through ammo can) and huge ( anything bigger than an ammo can [i have one of these])

 

I like that much! especially the medium. Small is almost turning into micro around here. I use a bigger size small container (1.1 liter) and calling it medium would be more appropriate compared to a pill bottle that gets called small too.

 

Pill bottle is a micro. I swear there is a group of cachers around here who are listing their caches as small so that they don't get filtered out as micros in PQs.

[+Lil Devil]

What about a 'Log Only' attribute.

There's an idea I could get behind. Although the opposite "room for trade items" may make more sense. You could set it to "NO room for trade items" to mean log only.

[+Frank Broughton]

i personally think there should be another size rating so 5 sizes a nano ( could not fit a gold pencil in it) small ( film canaster- 3 by 3 or mint box), medium (up through peanut butter jar) big (up through ammo can) and huge ( anything bigger than an ammo can [i have one of these])

 

I like that much! especially the medium. Small is almost turning into micro around here. I use a bigger size small container (1.1 liter) and calling it medium would be more appropriate compared to a pill bottle that gets called small too.

 

Pill bottle is a micro. I swear there is a group of cachers around here who are listing their caches as small so that they don't get filtered out as micros in PQs.

 

Ya, that is why medium would be a nice new designation for size.

[Andronicus]

I also think that the the undesignated size choices should go away. If it is a physical cache it should have a size listed. I'd like to see the choices for size listed to be something like nano, micro, small, regular, large, and non-physical. The problem is all the caches that are already out there. How do you get all those corrected and think of all the confusion in the interim. So I'd like to see the size categories change but don't expect to.

 

I think that should only apply to Traditional caches. Mystery or multi should be allowed to have undefined size.

[Mr.Yuck]

i personally think there should be another size rating so 5 sizes a nano ( could not fit a gold pencil in it) small ( film canaster- 3 by 3 or mint box), medium (up through peanut butter jar) big (up through ammo can) and huge ( anything bigger than an ammo can [i have one of these])

 

I like that much! especially the medium. Small is almost turning into micro around here. I use a bigger size small container (1.1 liter) and calling it medium would be more appropriate compared to a pill bottle that gets called small too.

 

Pill bottle is a micro. I swear there is a group of cachers around here who are listing their caches as small so that they don't get filtered out as micros in PQs.

 

Guilty! Just kidding. But I have seen super-sized pill bottles that are definitely smalls (contain swag and can hold many TB's) listed as micros. A pill bottle is a horrible geocaching container, by the way.

[+gof1]

i personally think there should be another size rating so 5 sizes a nano ( could not fit a gold pencil in it) small ( film canaster- 3 by 3 or mint box), medium (up through peanut butter jar) big (up through ammo can) and huge ( anything bigger than an ammo can [i have one of these])

 

I like that much! especially the medium. Small is almost turning into micro around here. I use a bigger size small container (1.1 liter) and calling it medium would be more appropriate compared to a pill bottle that gets called small too.

 

Pill bottle is a micro. I swear there is a group of cachers around here who are listing their caches as small so that they don't get filtered out as micros in PQs.

 

Guilty! Just kidding. But I have seen super-sized pill bottles that are definitely smalls (contain swag and can hold many TB's) listed as micros. A pill bottle is a horrible geocaching container, by the way.

 

OK, average size pill bottle is a micro. Super freaky oversize lifetime supply size pill bottles may be small size geocache. Either way they are, as you say, horrible containers.