+CCWelch Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 A nano right now is a micro and a micro is up to the size of a 35mm film canister, I think we need to have a nano category for those blinkies out there. I have friends that like the nanos but don't like normal micros. Just an idea. Link to comment
+Cache O'Plenty Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 This has been suggested numerous times and the general consensus is that a new category isn't needed. Nanos fit nicely in the "Micro" category as you pointed out. Link to comment
+Markwell Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 The search button revealed these results Link to comment
Mr.Yuck Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 The search button revealed these results Where you should find this specific post which I would have to say is the final word on the subject. It's been almost a year though; you never know when they'll change their minds. Link to comment
+StarBrand Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 A nano right now is a micro and a micro is up to the size of a 35mm film canister, I think we need to have a nano category for those blinkies out there. I have friends that like the nanos but don't like normal micros. Just an idea. Interesting - this topic usually comes up as an argument to filter out nanos or as an identifier to alter the "search" methodology. Unusual to bring it up because a subset of cachers actually want to hunt nanos. At any rate - I still vote "no" as I believe the current sizes cover things quite well. Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 A nano right now is a micro and a micro is up to the size of a 35mm film canister, I think we need to have a nano category for those blinkies out there. I have friends that like the nanos but don't like normal micros. Just an idea. Interesting - this topic usually comes up as an argument to filter out nanos or as an identifier to alter the "search" methodology. Unusual to bring it up because a subset of cachers actually want to hunt nanos. At any rate - I still vote "no" as I believe the current sizes cover things quite well. True. Never seen that spin before. In my world annoyingly small starts at micro and so that's a clean enough break for me. Link to comment
+gof1 Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 A nano right now is a micro and a micro is up to the size of a 35mm film canister, I think we need to have a nano category for those blinkies out there. I have friends that like the nanos but don't like normal micros. Just an idea. Interesting - this topic usually comes up as an argument to filter out nanos or as an identifier to alter the "search" methodology. Unusual to bring it up because a subset of cachers actually want to hunt nanos. At any rate - I still vote "no" as I believe the current sizes cover things quite well. True. Never seen that spin before. In my world annoyingly small starts at micro and so that's a clean enough break for me. Agreed, except that I'm noticing a trend for what used to be listed as a micro to be listed as a small. At this rate I'm going to have to start leaving small of my PQs. Link to comment
+Prime Suspect Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 A nano right now is a micro and a micro is up to the size of a 35mm film canister, I think we need to have a nano category for those blinkies out there. I have friends that like the nanos but don't like normal micros. Just an idea. A micro is defined as the size of a 35mm film can or smaller. That includes what you're calling a "nano". No need for another size category. It's covered. Link to comment
Skippermark Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 Agreed, except that I'm noticing a trend for what used to be listed as a micro to be listed as a small. At this rate I'm going to have to start leaving small of my PQs. Yes, I've seen this too. Not really in my immediate area, but when we go to other states. Around here, we consider key holders and matchstick holders smalls, but have seen them listed as smalls. We've also seen "regulars" that are 3x4 lock and locks. Link to comment
+bigeddy Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 This has been suggested numerous times and the general consensus is that a new category isn't needed. Nanos fit nicely in the "Micro" category as you pointed out. Not in my opinion. There is a world of difference between hunting a film can and a blinky. For one thing, a blinky is 1/40 the size of a film can whereas all the the other categories are around 1/6 difference to the next smaller size. I think it is good to keep bringing it up. Micros have become the dominant size in many areas and need another category to be useful. Link to comment
+StarBrand Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 ..... Not in my opinion. There is a world of difference between hunting a film can and a blinky. For one thing, a blinky is 1/40 the size of a film can whereas all the the other categories are around 1/6 difference to the ... Really!! You've seen a cache a mere 1/16th of inch tall and 1/32ndth of inch across?? Link to comment
+Cache O'Plenty Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 (edited) ..... Not in my opinion. There is a world of difference between hunting a film can and a blinky. For one thing, a blinky is 1/40 the size of a film can whereas all the the other categories are around 1/6 difference to the ... Really!! You've seen a cache a mere 1/16th of inch tall and 1/32ndth of inch across?? I'm gonna have get better Tweezers for my TOTT bag..... Just to get the log out, of course! Edited May 20, 2009 by Cache O'Plenty Link to comment
+gof1 Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 ..... Not in my opinion. There is a world of difference between hunting a film can and a blinky. For one thing, a blinky is 1/40 the size of a film can whereas all the the other categories are around 1/6 difference to the ... Really!! You've seen a cache a mere 1/16th of inch tall and 1/32ndth of inch across?? I'm gonna have get better Tweezers for my TOTT bag..... No reason for me to get better tweezers. I can't see anything that small. At least not until I replace my glasses. Link to comment
+lennie.BE Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 A micro is defined as the size of a 35mm film can or smaller. That includes what you're calling a "nano". No need for another size category. It's covered. Eeeh... okey... so... let's say: a geocache is... a container. So no need for sizes at all then? Personaly I think adding the "Nano" category is a good idea. Link to comment
Mushtang Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 (edited) Not in my opinion. There is a world of difference between hunting a film can and a blinky. For one thing, a blinky is 1/40 the size of a film can whereas all the the other categories are around 1/6 difference to the ...Really!! You've seen a cache a mere 1/16th of inch tall and 1/32ndth of inch across?? He was saying 1/40th the size, not 1/40th the height. And to add my opinion to the thread, I don't want an additional category for nano containers. Edited May 21, 2009 by Mushtang Link to comment
Skippermark Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Agreed, except that I'm noticing a trend for what used to be listed as a micro to be listed as a small. At this rate I'm going to have to start leaving small of my PQs. Yes, I've seen this too. Not really in my immediate area, but when we go to other states. Around here, we consider key holders and matchstick holders smalls, but have seen them listed as smalls. We've also seen "regulars" that are 3x4 lock and locks. Was unable to edit my original post, but meant to say that we consider keyholders and matchstick holders micros, not smalls but have seen them listed as smalls in other places.. Link to comment
+StarBrand Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Not in my opinion. There is a world of difference between hunting a film can and a blinky. For one thing, a blinky is 1/40 the size of a film can whereas all the the other categories are around 1/6 difference to the ...Really!! You've seen a cache a mere 1/16th of inch tall and 1/32ndth of inch across?? He was saying 1/40th the size, not 1/40th the height. And to add my opinion to the thread, I don't want an additional category for nano containers. I think the term that applies here is much closer to volume - not size. Although 1/40th volume is still stretching things a bit. Link to comment
+welch Posted May 21, 2009 Share Posted May 21, 2009 Not in my opinion. There is a world of difference between hunting a film can and a blinky. For one thing, a blinky is 1/40 the size of a film can whereas all the the other categories are around 1/6 difference to the ...Really!! You've seen a cache a mere 1/16th of inch tall and 1/32ndth of inch across?? He was saying 1/40th the size, not 1/40th the height. And to add my opinion to the thread, I don't want an additional category for nano containers. I think the term that applies here is much closer to volume - not size. Although 1/40th volume is still stretching things a bit. and of course is the normal blinkie, or those double tall ones .... Link to comment
+Prime Suspect Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 A micro is defined as the size of a 35mm film can or smaller. That includes what you're calling a "nano". No need for another size category. It's covered. Eeeh... okey... so... let's say: a geocache is... a container. So no need for sizes at all then? Um, we already say that. "Traditional Caches: This is the original cache type consisting of (at a bare minimum) a container and a logbook." So, what's being a container have to do with the need for size categories? That's not even apples and oranges. It's apples and flamenco dancers. Link to comment
+edscott Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 Not in my opinion. There is a world of difference between hunting a film can and a blinky. For one thing, a blinky is 1/40 the size of a film can whereas all the the other categories are around 1/6 difference to the ...Really!! You've seen a cache a mere 1/16th of inch tall and 1/32ndth of inch across?? He was saying 1/40th the size, not 1/40th the height. And to add my opinion to the thread, I don't want an additional category for nano containers. I think the term that applies here is much closer to volume - not size. Although 1/40th volume is still stretching things a bit. I'd make a rough guess that 20-25 nanos will fit into a film canister, but if you melt them down and pour them in it would be over 40. Link to comment
Recommended Posts