Nano cache size option

[+oregonjohn1]

I believe it is time to have the Nano geocache container listed as a size choice that would both be recognized when creating a cache and when filtering container size in a search.

 

Both at local WGA events and as seen on a number of cache pages, there have been numerous discussions on nano containers where people have said they preferred to have nano containers indicated as such. A recent reply from Groundspeak also suggested this be brought up in the forum here.

 

A micro is widely recognized as typically a 35mm film container to a "pill bottle" sized container from the typical drug store and that is really what a person expects to find. While 'other' as a container size can be used to keep the container choice a surprise, expecting a 1 1/2 by 2-4 inch container when really searching for a nano actually does frustrate some people.

 

By specifically listing the nano sized container, it would either let someone exclude it from their search list or at least would let them know the hide is more difficult than looking for a pill bottle sized container that is considerably bigger. With nano containers sold at geocaching.com, retail outlets, and at Mega events, their use as a container choice can be a popular one. While nano containers are usually a screw-top container, this category could also fit a number of other types of similar size such as a small vial or tube on a 'bug' or by itself.

 

I would suggest it be in the same 'drop-down' list as the current cache container sizes are and should be used when a log page up to 1/2 inch wide is used.

[+The A-Team]

A micro is widely recognized as typically a 35mm film container to a "pill bottle" sized container from the typical drug store and that is really what a person expects to find. While 'other' as a container size can be used to keep the container choice a surprise, expecting a 1 1/2 by 2-4 inch container when really searching for a nano actually does frustrate some people.

A micro is actually defined as follows:

Micro - Less than 100ml. Examples: a 35 mm film canister or a tiny storage box typically containing only a logbook or a logsheet. A nano cache is a common sub-type of a micro cache that is less than 10ml and can only hold a small logsheet.

Under the current system, nanos should be listed as a micro. They should only be listed as an "other" or "not chosen" when the hider doesn't want the finder to know what size it is.

 

Anyway, you're preaching to the choir. Many of us have been asking for years for a new nano size, and it has been promised for a long time, but it has yet to materialize. If you search for "nano" in this forum, you can read half a dozen past discussions on this matter.

[+stijnhommes]

How would you suggest handling properly listing existing caches when a new size becomes available?

[+oregonjohn1]

A micro is widely recognized as typically a 35mm film container to a "pill bottle" sized container from the typical drug store and that is really what a person expects to find. While 'other' as a container size can be used to keep the container choice a surprise, expecting a 1 1/2 by 2-4 inch container when really searching for a nano actually does frustrate some people.

A micro is actually defined as follows:

Micro - Less than 100ml. Examples: a 35 mm film canister or a tiny storage box typically containing only a logbook or a logsheet. A nano cache is a common sub-type of a micro cache that is less than 10ml and can only hold a small logsheet.

Under the current system, nanos should be listed as a micro. They should only be listed as an "other" or "not chosen" when the hider doesn't want the finder to know what size it is.

 

Anyway, you're preaching to the choir. Many of us have been asking for years for a new nano size, and it has been promised for a long time, but it has yet to materialize. If you search for "nano" in this forum, you can read half a dozen past discussions on this matter.

 

Thanks for the comment---

It's exactly why there is the need to define and recognize the nano size and allow it to be included or excluded from searches (PQ's) and included when creating a geocache. The definition of micro isn't the issue (or in question) as much as including nano containers with the widely "accepted" micro sized ones. The purpose of why sizes were defined in the first place is why ones using a 'nano sized log" should be separated (from the micro category) just as a micro containers are separated from a large ones.

 

After hearing from enough people that feel the same way and don't always do a detailed search of past topics, it was time to address it again. I gathered from Groundspeak that just calling in to them wasn't the most effective way to get input from others also in favor of this change. So, here's the chance to get the ball rolling again.

Edited November 26, 2012 by oregonjohn1

[+The A-Team]

I gathered from Groundspeak that just calling in to them wasn't the most effective way to get input from others so for those in favor of this change, here's the chance to get the ball rolling again.

Understood. As I understand it, the ball is already rolling, albeit slowly and behind-the-scenes where we have no idea of the status. It'll come, we just have to be patient.

[+oregonjohn1]

How would you suggest handling properly listing existing caches when a new size becomes available?

 

Small, regular, and large are self explanatory. For example, someone used a 35 gallon garbage can and that, by definition is large. Anything bigger used, and one would have to wonder why, would still be a large.

 

Since you can put a dozen or so nano cache containers (for the sake of argument) in the average pill bottle or 35mm container, they are clearly substantially smaller than the pre-defined micro category container typically found (such as 35mm film canisters and pill bottles). Anyone wanting to exclude nano searches can't at present, however, one can exclude small sizes if they wanted to while looking for the other sizes.

 

As mentioned before, looking for a 'typical' micro and finding a nano can be frustrating for some due to what the typical expectation of the container is and how long it takes to find it. There is clearly a different search time required for a nano versus a pill bottle, for example. Everyone I have talked to about it would like the choice to exclude them from PQ's for example and without being a separate category you can't. Each of the other defined categories covers the spectrum well enough.

 

Usually, it doesn't take as long to find a large as is does a micro, so I have yet to find anyone not wanting to know if they were searching for a nano or a larger one that can't be hidden in as many places.

Edited November 26, 2012 by oregonjohn1

[+Harry Dolphin]

How would you suggest handling properly listing existing caches when a new size becomes available?

 

Small, regular, and large are self explanatory. For example, someone used a 35 gallon garbage can and that, by definition is large. Anything bigger used, and one would have to wonder why, would still be a large.

 

Since you can put a dozen or so nano cache containers (for the sake of argument) in the average pill bottle or 35mm container, they are clearly substantially smaller than the pre-defined micro category container typically found (such as 35mm film canisters and pill bottles). Anyone wanting to exclude nano searches can't at present, however, one can exclude small sizes if they wanted to while looking for the other sizes.

 

As mentioned before, looking for a 'typical' micro and finding a nano can be frustrating for some due to what the typical expectation of the container is and how long it takes to find it. There is clearly a different search time required for a nano versus a pill bottle, for example. Everyone I have talked to about it would like the choice to exclude them from PQ's for example and without being a separate category you can't. Each of the other defined categories covers the spectrum well enough.

 

Usually, it doesn't take as long to find a large as is does a micro, so I have yet to find anyone not wanting to know if they were searching for a nano or a larger one that can't be hidden in as many places.

 

That does not change the fact that a nano is, by definition, a micro. Amd that is the way it should be. I see no need for a change.

[+niraD]

The last I heard, the new nano size (along with a few other changes) was waiting for the release of the new GPX format.

 

The last I heard, the new GPX format was indefinitely on hold because Groundspeak was investing development effort elsewhere (e.g., API development).

 

I'd love to hear that development of the new GPX format is back on track, or that the features (including the new nano size) that were once dependent upon it are no longer blocked by the stagnation of the new GPX format.

[+AmayaTom]

How would you suggest handling properly listing existing caches when a new size becomes available?

 

Small, regular, and large are self explanatory. For example, someone used a 35 gallon garbage can and that, by definition is large. Anything bigger used, and one would have to wonder why, would still be a large.

 

Since you can put a dozen or so nano cache containers (for the sake of argument) in the average pill bottle or 35mm container, they are clearly substantially smaller than the pre-defined micro category container typically found (such as 35mm film canisters and pill bottles). Anyone wanting to exclude nano searches can't at present, however, one can exclude small sizes if they wanted to while looking for the other sizes.

 

As mentioned before, looking for a 'typical' micro and finding a nano can be frustrating for some due to what the typical expectation of the container is and how long it takes to find it. There is clearly a different search time required for a nano versus a pill bottle, for example. Everyone I have talked to about it would like the choice to exclude them from PQ's for example and without being a separate category you can't. Each of the other defined categories covers the spectrum well enough.

 

Usually, it doesn't take as long to find a large as is does a micro, so I have yet to find anyone not wanting to know if they were searching for a nano or a larger one that can't be hidden in as many places.

 

That does not change the fact that a nano is, by definition, a micro. Amd that is the way it should be. I see no need for a change.

 

I suspect that is because you are lucky enough to live in a part of the world where there are few nanos. It's starting to feel like half of the caches published in my locality of the UK at the moment at nanos and it is getting desperate that something is done about it. It's having a very detrimental impact on the caching here. Having a formal nano type would be a good first step.

[+W8TTS]

The "nano" cache size was discussed a long time ago, and according to what was said back then it was in the works. But, when they changed the forum style it appeared to drop into the Lilly pond. It's something that has been needed for a long time. So, this gets a +1 from me.