Nano Caches

[+bestybro]

Hey groudspeak,

 

Just was thinking in the size section of submitting a cache could you add a "nano size" by any chance or would that be to hard

 

Regards

 

Bestybro

(Manik! Mondayz)

[DannyCaffeine]

This would save soooo much precious sanity.

[+wolfslady]

You don't read the boards much do you? I think this comes up at least once a week. LOL If nothing else it would keep the message boards from being so crowded with the same subject. Better yet it would stop all the people who can't get that a nano is a micro from making them as other. That is just annoying. But I wouldn't hold your breath. Still we can dream. Better yet we can dream people would not hide so many of them.

[Trader Rick & Rosie]

Isn't a discussion of nanos on a geocaching thread off-topic? What do nanos have to do with Geocaching, anyway?

[+briansnat]

There already is a nano size. Micro.

[+Prime Suspect]

This would save soooo much precious sanity.

No, because no one would use it. They'll just label it as "other", like a lot of people already do for micros, since they know a lot of people filter them out.

[+jeepdelfuego]

You don't read the boards much do you? I think this comes up at least once a week. LOL If nothing else it would keep the message boards from being so crowded with the same subject. Better yet it would stop all the people who can't get that a nano is a micro from making them as other. That is just annoying. But I wouldn't hold your breath. Still we can dream. Better yet we can dream people would not hide so many of them.

 

I've hidden about 10 (25% of my hides) of them to drive people nuts in an urban setting just to get back at the people who have made me look for nanos! :-) Plus, you can't blame people for hiding them because they are real cheap on the internet. What drives me crazy is having to hike through the woods to find out at the GZ that the geocache container is a film canister. I want to at least find a tupperware container with some stuff in it.

 

On all of my nano hides, I do mention that they are looking for a nano. So, yes, I think that their should be a nano attribute added. Not because I don't want to look for nanos, but to be able to fine tune my search possibilites.

[Mr.Yuck]

Isn't a discussion of nanos on a geocaching thread off-topic? What do nanos have to do with Geocaching, anyway?

 

Hey, pretty funny there Rick & Rosie. The Original Poster is not a premium member, and therefore cannot see the website forum, where this is usually asked about once a month (OK, I'm probably exaggerating a little).

 

Me, I was dead against the Nano size, but I've done a complete 180. Put an X next to my name for the new size, please.

[+bittsen]

I dreamed of a world where nano was a geocache size option.

It was a wonderful dream.

There was no war, only peace.

Flowers were everywhere instead of trash.

Money had no object as everyone shared.

There was no more pollution.

Children had no more reason to cry.

All animals lived in harmony.

Vegetables were the most tasty food ever.

There were no politicians, layers, criminals.

 

I dreamed of a world where nano was a geocache size option.

Oh, what a wonderful world it would be.

[+wimseyguy]

Hey groudspeak,

Just was thinking in the size section of submitting a cache could you add a "nano size" by any chance or would that be to hard

Regards

Bestybro

(Manik! Mondayz)

No, we do not need any more size designations. What we do need is for cache owners to be more honest when they place these.

 

You are late, this regular topic is scheduled for the first Sunday of the month. This is one of those cases when bump would be better than start a new thread.

 

Isn't a discussion of nanos on a geocaching thread off-topic? What do nanos have to do with Geocaching, anyway?

 

Hey, pretty funny there Rick & Rosie. The Original Poster is not a premium member, and therefore cannot see the website forum, where this is usually asked about once a month (OK, I'm probably exaggerating a little).

 

Me, I was dead against the Nano size, but I've done a complete 180. Put an X next to my name for the new size, please.

I would agree that this seems to come up monthly, but would disagree that the website forum is PMO. AFAIK that status is only applied to the Off-Topic forum.

Edited June 13, 2010 by wimseyguy

[Mr.Yuck]

Hey groudspeak,

Just was thinking in the size section of submitting a cache could you add a "nano size" by any chance or would that be to hard

Regards

Bestybro

(Manik! Mondayz)

No, we do not need any more size designations. What we do need is for cache owners to be more honest when they place these.

 

You are late, this regular topic is scheduled for the first Sunday of the month. This is one of those cases when bump would be better than start a new thread.

 

Isn't a discussion of nanos on a geocaching thread off-topic? What do nanos have to do with Geocaching, anyway?

 

Hey, pretty funny there Rick & Rosie. The Original Poster is not a premium member, and therefore cannot see the website forum, where this is usually asked about once a month (OK, I'm probably exaggerating a little).

 

Me, I was dead against the Nano size, but I've done a complete 180. Put an X next to my name for the new size, please.

I would agree that this seems to come up monthly, but would disagree that the website forum is PMO. AFAIK that status is only applied to the Off-Topic forum.

 

Interesting. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it. Let me log in with one of my 50 non-premium sock puppet accounts and check that out.

[+dfx]

No, because no one would use it. They'll just label it as "other", like a lot of people already do for micros, since they know a lot of people filter them out.

negative on that, captain. maybe that's what they do in your area, but i've never seen a micro being listed as "other". however i did see quite a few nanos listed as "other", simply because there's no dedicated selectable size for them.

[+Prime Suspect]

No, because no one would use it. They'll just label it as "other", like a lot of people already do for micros, since they know a lot of people filter them out.

negative on that, captain. maybe that's what they do in your area, but i've never seen a micro being listed as "other". however i did see quite a few nanos listed as "other", simply because there's no dedicated selectable size for them.

Since nanos ARE micros, you've made my point.

[Mr.Yuck]

No, because no one would use it. They'll just label it as "other", like a lot of people already do for micros, since they know a lot of people filter them out.

negative on that, captain. maybe that's what they do in your area, but i've never seen a micro being listed as "other". however i did see quite a few nanos listed as "other", simply because there's no dedicated selectable size for them.

Since nanos ARE micros, you've made my point.

 

However, seeing as absolutely no one, other than the few hundred people who hang around in these forums know that a nano is a micro, I'm all for the new size designation.

[+Team Cotati]

No, because no one would use it. They'll just label it as "other", like a lot of people already do for micros, since they know a lot of people filter them out.

negative on that, captain. maybe that's what they do in your area, but i've never seen a micro being listed as "other". however i did see quite a few nanos listed as "other", simply because there's no dedicated selectable size for them.

 

After two or three finders report that an 'other' is really a micro in disguise and then a reviewer archives that deceptive micro, the practice of tricking searchers in such a manner will be greatly diminished, IMO.

 

'Gaming' the system in this manner ought not be allowed. By doing so, we are actually encouraging the practice. Why? I haven't the slightest clue.

[+dfx]

Since nanos ARE micros, you've made my point.

who says that nanos are micros?

 

and how does that make your point, anyway? they're selecting "other" for their nanos not because they want to deceive cachers, but because they're NOT micros, and therefore are "other".

Edited June 14, 2010 by dfx

[+Lil Devil]

who says that nanos are micros?

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 L – typically containing only a logbook or a logsheet)

[+dfx]

The Guidelines.

yes. which is why people suggest that there should be a dedicated size category, because there's a clear difference between nano and micro, not covered by the guidelines.

[+baloo&bd]

Count me as a yes, as well as for bison. I would also like to see;

 

- Micro Micro (between nano and micro)

- Extra Small (between micro and small)

- Large Small (Between small and regular)

- Large Regular (Between Regular and large)

- Large Large (Between Large and Macro)

- Macro (Bigger than a Large)

- Large Macro (Much bigger than a Macro)

- Virtual Nano (A nano with nothing in it)

- Virtual Micro (Micro with a Nano in it)

- Virtual Small (A small with a micro in it)

- Virtual Regular (A regular with a small in it)

- Virtual Large (A large with a Regular in it)

- Virtual Macro (A macro with a large in it)

 

I am sure there may be some I forgot, however this will clear up any confusion when placing a cache. If needed I can also provide some new types that will help in that area.

[+humboldt flier]

Isn't a discussion of nanos on a geocaching thread off-topic? What do nanos have to do with Geocaching, anyway?

 

Hey, pretty funny there Rick & Rosie. The Original Poster is not a premium member, and therefore cannot see the website forum, where this is usually asked about once a month (OK, I'm probably exaggerating a little).

 

Me, I was dead against the Nano size, but I've done a complete 180. Put an X next to my name for the new size, please.

 

I find myself in tune with TWU a nano / pico option would be rather SWeeeeeeeet.

 

At least it would be another indicator of the grief ( ooooops fun ) one might expect

[+tozainamboku]

The Guidelines.

yes. which is why people suggest that there should be a dedicated size category, because there's a clear difference between nano and micro, not covered by the guidelines.

The guidelines say nothing about Other (or even Not Listed), yet these are options on the cache submission form. My interpretation would be that people could choose Other or Not Listed for any cache where they think these are a better choice than one of the usual sizes.

 

I would Not Listed with a nanos if I didn't want to tell anyone about the size of the cache in order to make the find more difficult. When nanos first were used, Not Listed was popular because people didn't expect anything this small. By not telling them the cache was micro, you made the find a little more difficult. This approached is often used with micro sized ammo cans. Put size as Not Listed and say in the description that the cache is an ammo can. Nowadays, it may be that if the size is not listed and you end up in some urban location, the first thing you might look for is a nano. So Not List may not be as useful as it use to be.

 

The Other option is used when you are providing additional information about the cache size in the description. You certainly don't have to use Other to give additional information, but I can't fault a cacher who does this. Sometimes 'Other' is define as caches where the usual sizes don't apply. If you insist that size be defined in terms of volume then the guidelines defining an approximate volume for each of the usual size, means that there in no such thing as Other. I think most people would use other if the cache has an odd shape, like flat pocket that hold a logsheet. But I can even see that if you have a very small cache, the volume may be obviously smaller than a 35 mm film can yet it seems that this isn't enough information to hunt the cache. It doesn't surprise me that many people would find Other a better selection for a nano cache than micro.

[+narcissa]

because there's a clear difference between nano and micro, not covered by the guidelines.

 

Why is the difference between a "nano" and a micro more important than the difference between two regular caches of that are different sizes?

 

I don't get why these threads keep popping up. I thought nanos were "tricky" the first two or three times I found them. Now they're just a cheap way to get a difficulty 3 find on a cache that should really be difficulty 1.5.

[+brslk]

because there's a clear difference between nano and micro, not covered by the guidelines.

 

Why is the difference between a "nano" and a micro more important than the difference between two regular caches of that are different sizes?

 

I don't get why these threads keep popping up. I thought nanos were "tricky" the first two or three times I found them. Now they're just a cheap way to get a difficulty 3 find on a cache that should really be difficulty 1.5.

 

Must be a regional thing.

[+Setan Meyacha]

 

After two or three finders report that an 'other' is really a micro in disguise and then a reviewer archives that deceptive micro, the practice of tricking searchers in such a manner will be greatly diminished, IMO.

 

'Gaming' the system in this manner ought not be allowed. By doing so, we are actually encouraging the practice. Why? I haven't the slightest clue.

 

I'm not sure where you are finding this 'other' as a container option. There is a 'Not Chosen' option that appears on the cache page when no other size has been chosen, but I can't find the 'other' option.

As to it being a deception to not list the size of a cache and a reviewer archiving the cache for that reason, I think you are living in a dream state. The option to not list the size of the cache is there as one of the choices when you submit a cache for publication. How can that be construed as being deceptive; regardless of the size of the actual cache? If, of course, all you are able to find are the much larger ammo can-type caches, then I can see how you would be frustrated looking for something you are not accoustomed to searching for; i.e., anything other than the much larger caches. I rarely know the size of the cache I'm looking for because it makes it more intersting to just have the coordinates to get me to GZ. But, that's how I like to play and I don't expect anyone else to change their way of playing the game to suit me. Isn't the object of the game to find 'a cache', regardless of size? Or, to enjoy the places caching takes you to? Or, any number of other things that floats your boat, including, unfortunately, complaining because people don't

play the game the way you want it played. Only look for ammo cans if that is your thing, no one is going to give a hoot if you don't look for the micros, whether they are listed as such or not.

[Mr.Yuck]

 

 

I'm not sure where you are finding this 'other' as a container option. There is a 'Not Chosen' option that appears on the cache page when no other size has been chosen, but I can't find the 'other' option.

As to it being a deception to not list the size of a cache and a reviewer archiving the cache for that reason, I think you are living in a dream state. The option to not list the size of the cache is there as one of the choices when you submit a cache for publication. How can that be construed as being deceptive; regardless of the size of the actual cache? If, of course, all you are able to find are the much larger ammo can-type caches, then I can see how you would be frustrated looking for something you are not accoustomed to searching for; i.e., anything other than the much larger caches. I rarely know the size of the cache I'm looking for because it makes it more intersting to just have the coordinates to get me to GZ. But, that's how I like to play and I don't expect anyone else to change their way of playing the game to suit me. Isn't the object of the game to find 'a cache', regardless of size? Or, to enjoy the places caching takes you to? Or, any number of other things that floats your boat, including, unfortunately, complaining because people don't

play the game the way you want it played. Only look for ammo cans if that is your thing, no one is going to give a hoot if you don't look for the micros, whether they are listed as such or not.

 

Better check that again. I see "Not listed" (not "not chosen"), and I also see "Other (see description)".

Edited June 14, 2010 by TheWhiteUrkel

[cezanne]

Since nanos ARE micros, you've made my point.

who says that nanos are micros?

 

Any cacher with a working brain and the ability to read and understand what he/she is reading, should say that.

 

and how does that make your point, anyway? they're selecting "other" for their nanos not because they want to deceive cachers, but because they're NOT micros, and therefore are "other".

 

Of course nano caches are micros. Micro does not mean film canister and there is no lower bound on the size given, but just an approximate upper bound. Nanos only contain a log sheet and there is no room for trading items. The definition of micro fits very well in that case. The same is true for a cache as big as a house and the size designation "large". Large caches do not end at the lower limit for the size for being eligible for being called a large cache.

 

The two sizes at the lower and upper end of a size designation will always (at least theoretically) be limited in only direction.

 

Other applies to caches for which neither the descriptions of micro, small, regular or large are fitting.

For examle a magnetic sheet of A4 size on which log entries can be entered.

 

Of course, everyone has the right to ask for the introduction of new cache sizes, but this this does not change the fact that at the moment "other" is a misclassification for nano caches and even more a serious offence against the rules of logic.

 

Cezanne

[+redsox_mark]

I think these threads keep popping up because, for whatever reason, many cache owners select "other" for a nano, as they do not consider it a micro.

 

I know that per the guidelines, a nano is a form of micro.

 

I've asked several cache owners of nanos classified as "other" why they chose that size. They all have said it was because there was not a nano category. They see the nano as something specific, and expect to see that as a size choice. I've not yet found one using "other" as a way to hide that it is a nano. I've also not seen use of "other" on the more typical film pot size micro.

 

I also don't see this issue with other sizes. If a container is borderline between (for example) small and regular, one or the other will be chosen.

 

Is it a problem? Not really, other than the misuse of "other". So if a finder wants to filter out all micros (including nanos), they need to filter out "other" (and miss some larger, interesting containers).

 

My view (as I've stated many times, sorry for the repetition) is that as so many people see the nano as something different from the micro, the pragmatic solution is to add a nano category. But I accept that this is technically not needed if the guidelines were properly understood.

[+StarBrand]

I think the current definition of micro has this very well covered.

 

Too bad folks can't seem to read that definition very well.

[+dfx]

Why is the difference between a "nano" and a micro more important than the difference between two regular caches of that are different sizes?

because a nano is at least 10 times smaller than your usual micro, whereas the differences between your usual "regular" sizes caches is maybe 2 or 3 times (there's exceptions of course).

 

but the biggest difference is probably that you have to search for a nano quite differently than for a micro. this isn't true for different sized "regular" caches, or even for small vs regular vs large.

 

Any cacher with a working brain and the ability to read and understand what he/she is reading, should say that.

nope. everyone who considers the guidelines to be devine law would say that. but people with some common sense (and a "working brain") would not.

 

yes, under the guidelines, the proper category for nanos is "micro". but language is the best proof that in reality, this isn't correct: if people would consider nanos to be micros, they wouldn't call nanos nanos, they would call them micros. but they don't, they call them nanos, which is definite indication that in everybody's mind, there is a clear difference. therefore, claiming that nanos are micros just because the guidelines say so, completely in the face of what the community (culture, subculture, whatever) has decided through the language they use, is a fallacy. another quite strong indication of that is the sole existence of the "other" category, because if you strictly go by what the guidelines say, every imaginable container would be covered under one of the "micro"-"large" categories, rendering the "other" option totally nonsensical.

 

of course i can see a big problem with introducing a new size for caches: GPX files, or rather the applications which process them. quite a few of them would very likely break when they suddenly see an unrecognized new "size". this could be remedied with a new selectable GPX version, let's say 1.0.2 would report the new "nano" category, while the older ones would say "micro" (or maybe "other"?) in its place.

Edited June 14, 2010 by dfx

[+humboldt flier]

Given the " weekly " nature of this topic popping up it would seem that the chance of getting a new size category appears to be slim to slimmer to nil.

 

Perhaps an indicator early in the description might be a work around.

 

There are some cache owners who are considerate enough to indicate whether the container is a nano or a pico. Clearly those cache owners recognize the limitations of broad descriptors and are attempting to be part of a broader solution.

 

Let the flaming arrows fly ... I am wearing my asbestos suit.

[4wheelin_fool]

Id like to see a new icon type - log only - with a size distinction between small and large. (micros and nanos)

[knowschad]

Given the " weekly " nature of this topic popping up it would seem that the chance of getting a new size category appears to be slim to slimmer to nil.

I think that it shows two things:

1) There is a need for it

2) That need is most likely not going to be met

[+StarBrand]

...but the biggest difference is probably that you have to search for a nano quite differently than for a micro. this isn't true for different sized "regular" caches, or even for small vs regular vs large....

 

I've never really bought into this argument at all. I found my first 6 or 7 'nano' caches long before the term was so widely used as it is today. It did not alter at all my perceptions or search methodolgy.

 

With the advent over the past 2 years of many micros labeled as smalls - it still really has not altered my search methods or patterns. I am looking for a cache.

[+wimseyguy]

I'm with starbrand. Rode up to a bench along the greenway yesterday, and started looking for a nano immediately. Never once though I would find a bison tube nor film can there. If my GPS brings me to a tree or shrub, I'm probably not looking for a nano, but a bison tube or similar. The only placements around here where one might encounter either a film can or a nano would be under a lamp skirt. Since your target zone already has a pretty well defined perimeter it isn't really an issue.

Edited June 14, 2010 by wimseyguy

[+42at42]

A few of the nano's I found were smaller than a nano. They were locationless caches strapped to the back of ticks.

 

I suggest another size category called the Quark.

Edited June 14, 2010 by 42at42

[Skippermark]

However, seeing as absolutely no one, other than the few hundred people who hang around in these forums know that a nano is a micro, I'm all for the new size designation.

The guidelines clearly state that a micro container is a 35mm or smaller. Why is that so hard to understand? Oh wait. Maybe they haven't read the guidelines...

[+BulldogBlitz]

Hey groudspeak,

 

Just was thinking in the size section of submitting a cache could you add a "nano size" by any chance or would that be to hard

 

Regards

 

Bestybro

(Manik! Mondayz)

 

please no. people should not be encouraged to set out nanos at all.

[+dfx]

The guidelines clearly state that a micro container is a 35mm or smaller. Why is that so hard to understand? Oh wait. Maybe they haven't read the guidelines...

why is it so hard to understand that guidelines are just guidelines and are open to interpretation?

[+StarBrand]

The guidelines clearly state that a micro container is a 35mm or smaller. Why is that so hard to understand? Oh wait. Maybe they haven't read the guidelines...

why is it so hard to understand that guidelines are just guidelines and are open to interpretation?

..... "or smaller" has alternate interpretations???? really?

[+mchaos]

Hey groudspeak,

 

Just was thinking in the size section of submitting a cache could you add a "nano size" by any chance or would that be to hard

 

Regards

 

Bestybro

(Manik! Mondayz)

 

Didn't we have this discussion yet again just a few days ago?

 

Micro and nano both mean very very small. They are both also used to make words like Microscope or nanobot. Essentially in geocaching they would both mean the same thing.

 

Nano is a type of container like a lock and lock is a type of container. If you want to tell people its a nano container, then do so, the size is still micro.

 

The size is an indication to weather or not or how much swag is in the cache.

 

The existing categories are enough to convey what is needed to know by them. Micro is any cache that is a log only with no swag, from anything the size of a 35mm film canister or smaller. This includes a nano container. Small is a container that only has room for a few small trinkets. Regular holds a good amount of swag. Large holds a whole lot of swag.

 

Typical sizing for regular is anywhere from the smaller size ammo cans to a regular size lock and lock. Large is typically though of to be the size of a 5 gallon bucket or bigger.

 

I will see every one next week in the next Nano size thread !!!

[+dfx]

..... "or smaller" has alternate interpretations???? really?

yes. texts like this are written with a certain intent. if you don't read between the lines, you don't see it.

 

otherwise, what's your explanation for the "other" container type option then?

[I!]

I suggest another size category called the Quark.

You've done that series too? A good leg-stretch, but I thought having only eight caches was a bit miserly.

[+dfx]

Nano is a type of container like a lock and lock is a type of container. If you want to tell people its a nano container, then do so, the size is still micro.

 

The size is an indication to weather or not or how much swag is in the cache.

that's exactly the point. the "size" you can select for a cache listing isn't really a "size", even though it says it is. it's really to be understood as "container type", and the field name in the GPX reflects that fact: it's "container" and not "size".

 

the selectable sizes therefore represent the wide range of the most commonly used different container types of a certain size. only in this context does the "other" option make sense: if a container is not one of the usual types of containers represented by the "size" categories (let's say a fake bird with an opening, sitting in a tree), it makes sense to select "other", even though the container itself obviously has a certain size that clearly would fit one of the "size" categories.

 

and in fact, most micros are able to hold some swag: micro coins. but nanos do not.

[+tozainamboku]

The guidelines clearly state that a micro container is a 35mm or smaller. Why is that so hard to understand? Oh wait. Maybe they haven't read the guidelines...

why is it so hard to understand that guidelines are just guidelines and are open to interpretation?

..... "or smaller" has alternate interpretations???? really?

The guidelines do not specify anything about when to use "Not Listed" or "Other". The fact that these choices exist on the cache submission form seems to indicate they are valid choices.

 

However, the guidelines refer to the volumes of each size cache. Since every cache has a volume, if you go by the interpretation that you should list the size based on cache volume as given in the guideline, one should never use 'Not Listed' or 'Other'. Are those who object to nanos being listed as 'Not Listed' or 'Other', indicating that they want the guidelines changed to remove these options for cache size? Are they asking for guidelines that indicated precisely when these options can be used?

 

As the guidelines now stand, it seems to me one could list a nano as 'Not Listed' or 'Other' if the cache owner has a reason for doing so. If the cache owner wants to distinguish that the cache is a unique container for which they feel the size 'micro' does not provide sufficient information, why should they not be able to use Other?

 

One objection I see a lot is that some cachers filter out micros and if a nano is not listed as a micro it doesn't get filtered out. If anything, these cachers should be asking for a nano size in the hope that many people who currently use Other would switch to this size. Yet, they sometimes seem to be the biggest objectors to the addition of a new size.

[+Prime Suspect]

No, because no one would use it. They'll just label it as "other", like a lot of people already do for micros, since they know a lot of people filter them out.

negative on that, captain. maybe that's what they do in your area, but i've never seen a micro being listed as "other". however i did see quite a few nanos listed as "other", simply because there's no dedicated selectable size for them.

Since nanos ARE micros, you've made my point.

 

However, seeing as absolutely no one, other than the few hundred people who hang around in these forums know that a nano is a micro, I'm all for the new size designation.

Which is easily fixed by adding the words "and smaller" to the Micro's drop-down selector text on the cache submission page.

[+StarBrand]

No, because no one would use it. They'll just label it as "other", like a lot of people already do for micros, since they know a lot of people filter them out.

negative on that, captain. maybe that's what they do in your area, but i've never seen a micro being listed as "other". however i did see quite a few nanos listed as "other", simply because there's no dedicated selectable size for them.

Since nanos ARE micros, you've made my point.

 

However, seeing as absolutely no one, other than the few hundred people who hang around in these forums know that a nano is a micro, I'm all for the new size designation.

Which is easily fixed by adding the words "and smaller" to the Micro's drop-down selector text on the cache submission page.

 

I like this suggestion!!!

[+dfx]

Which is easily fixed by adding the words "and smaller" to the Micro's drop-down selector text on the cache submission page.

assuming that this is actually what the "micro" category is supposed to mean. the existence of "other" still indicates that it isn't.

[+thedeadpirate]

assuming that this is actually what the "micro" category is supposed to mean. the existence of "other" still indicates that it isn't.

 

The existence of other as a size if for times when the size may give away the hide.

 

In other words, sometimes knowing what the size is makes it easier to figure out where/how the cache is hidden. If the cache is intended to be a more difficult find, then a hider may choose to use other so the finder doesn't get a hint of the container's location.

 

That being said, I would not mind a nano size since I would actually filter them out if I could.

[+BulldogBlitz]

assuming that this is actually what the "micro" category is supposed to mean. the existence of "other" still indicates that it isn't.

 

The existence of other as a size if for times when the size may give away the hide.

 

In other words, sometimes knowing what the size is makes it easier to figure out where/how the cache is hidden. If the cache is intended to be a more difficult find, then a hider may choose to use other so the finder doesn't get a hint of the container's location.

 

That being said, I would not mind a nano size since I would actually filter them out if I could.

 

heh... if it is a harder hide they want, they should just put co-ordinates off by 100 feet or more... they seem to do that frequently here.

[+thedeadpirate]

heh... if it is a harder hide they want, they should just put co-ordinates off by 100 feet or more... they seem to do that frequently here.

 

There's a difference between staring right at a cache at spot on coordinates and wandering aimlessly around because someone posted intentionally bad coords.

 

I meant to add that a lot of times other is used for very unique containers.

 

P.S. I did see your smiley.

Edited June 15, 2010 by GeoBain