Do Nanos Need a Size

[+AKACRider]

I think nanos need a size of their own on the listing page, because too many people are listing them as others. Who all agrees, who doesent? Has GS looked at this? Any other thoughts?

[+L0ne.R]

Years ago, Groundspeak created this proposed size poster. I think it was on their blog. Nothing came of it.

 

 

[+samuel123abc]

I do indeed agree, they are growing which can be fun but also a little boring. Since I am liking all the swag in the caches. Straight answer: Yea, I agree, we should have a size for nanos

 

//SAMUEL

[+cerberus1]

Often asked for. Maybe they're the "extra small" on some of the apps?

Anyway, This one is one of the many that has a list of other times this was asked.

[+ras_oscar]

I disagreee. I think the current size scheme is fine.

 

Once you make nano official, some genius is going to make a micro-nano half the size of the current nano as the smallest unofficial size. Before you know it I'll be searching for a grain of sand on the beach. IMHO nanos are overused in places where a larger cache would work, primarally because the're easier to maintain. Stop the Madness!!! End the smallest size nuclear arms race!!! Do it for the children, and for the love of all that is holy!!!

[+J Grouchy]

I disagreee. I think the current size scheme is fine.

 

Once you make nano official, some genius is going to make a micro-nano half the size of the current nano as the smallest unofficial size. Before you know it I'll be searching for a grain of sand on the beach. IMHO nanos are overused in places where a larger cache would work, primarally because the're easier to maintain. Stop the Madness!!! End the smallest size nuclear arms race!!! Do it for the children, and for the love of all that is holy!!!

 

I agree that it works fine as-is...if only people would actually USE it properly.

[+narcissa]

The current size scheme is fine.

[Andronicus]

I agree that it works fine as-is...if only people would actually USE it properly.

In some cities, most nano's are listed as Other. This issue has become so endemic that in CacheSence I have turned off, not only micro size, but also Other size.

[+The A-Team]

I vote no.

 

As soon as we have a new "Nano" size, people will start hiding more nanos just so they can own one for their stats or to help with certain challenge caches. I personally detest nanos and would prefer that they be encouraged as little as possible.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Nanos already have a size. It's 'micro'.

[+cerberus1]

I vote no.

 

As soon as we have a new "Nano" size, people will start hiding more nanos just so they can own one for their stats or to help with certain challenge caches. I personally detest nanos and would prefer that they be encouraged as little as possible.

+1

[+cerberus1]

Nanos already have a size. It's 'micro'.

I agree.

- But tell that to the folks who are now calling matchstick cases and larger pill bottles small.

Seems lately if another's geocoin-like thing will fit inside, it's a small.

 

If size was used properly, it'd be okay as-is. A micro.

[+MtnMutt-ProDuckShins]

Back in the day... there was a very unique Cache up on Capital Hill/Volunteer Park, as the contain was as big around as the Cable Garmin supplies with their GPSR, the Length was about quarter of an inch.

 

Magnetic, painted black on a black electrical box, the catch was you had to reach over a 6' Chain Link fence and about 2' from the fence. Best part was you had to feel around for that little Bugger. Once found you had to remove the log, initial then repeat everything in reverse order. I forgot the best part... This was next to a smelly DUMPSTER which you had to work around.

 

Did I tell you I cheated.... I moved the DUMPSTER out of the way, then returned to it's special place.

 

So a Micro in the right place is great but out in the woods or a park give me a BREAK.

[+Corp Of Discovery]

Yes. Especially since they've de facto added a 'size', mega & giga, for events.

[Mr.Yuck]

Nanos already have a size. It's 'micro'.

 

And I always like to joke that only those of us who post to this forum know that. The OP says most people list them as "other", and they indeed have been for years. I know a 2002 joiner who had about 5,000 finds and 100 hides before they hid their first nano. You guessed it, "other".

[+Crow-T-Robot]

I disagreee. I think the current size scheme is fine.

 

Once you make nano official, some genius is going to make a micro-nano half the size of the current nano as the smallest unofficial size. Before you know it I'll be searching for a grain of sand on the beach. IMHO nanos are overused in places where a larger cache would work, primarally because the're easier to maintain. Stop the Madness!!! End the smallest size nuclear arms race!!! Do it for the children, and for the love of all that is holy!!!

 

I agree that it works fine as-is...if only people would actually USE it properly.

 

Yes. Even if Nano was introduced as an official size, those who hide nano's and list them as "others" would continue to hide nano caches and list them as "other".

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Nanos are not functionally different from micros. It's just a difference of degree, meaning that there's no clear line between very small and impossibly small. At least, with the other sizes, there's a functional distinction, based on what they can contain. As it is, we've got plenty of people trying to slide the definition, and that's with functional differences set into the definitions. Just imagine the trouble in keeping the distinction between micro and nano, where one is tiny and the other is tinier.

[+TriciaG]

I'd like to see a separate size for Nano.

[+tozainamboku]

Yes. Especially since they've de facto added a 'size', mega & giga, for events.

Event sizes are silly (especially giga). Mega was added because of regional and international events meant to attract cachers from some distance when they might stay overnight. Special guidelines were needed since these events need to have a longer lead times to organize. Unfortunately the numbers oriented at Groundspeak headquarters could only come up with number of attendees as a way to differentiate these events.

 

However, I was around when small was added as a container size, so there is a precedent for adding sizes. The main reason for this was that many 'regular' sized caches were becoming too 'small' to hold some trackables. If you attached a trackable tag to any item larger than itself, it wouldn't fit in many containers. So small was introduced to indicate a container that was only large enough to hold small trade items and trackables.

 

Some micros can hold very small items in additions to a log. There have been proposals (as well as some shifting definitions) to have 'small' include these larger micros and reserve 'micro' for log only caches.

 

Nanos are not functionally different from micros. It's just a difference of degree, meaning that there's no clear line between very small and impossibly small. At least, with the other sizes, there's a functional distinction, based on what they can contain. As it is, we've got plenty of people trying to slide the definition, and that's with functional differences set into the definitions. Just imagine the trouble in keeping the distinction between micro and nano, where one is tiny and the other is tinier.

This ^.

Edited November 26, 2014 by tozainamboku

[+NanCycle]

I don't think nanos should have a separate size listing.

 

I do most wholeheartedly wish that hiders would correctly list nanos as micros and not as other.

[JASTA 11]

Due to the proliferation of these 'smaller than a 35mm can' containers, nanos should have their own size.

 

It'll make it easier for us to put them on the ignore list.

[+niraD]

Nanos are not functionally different from micros.

FWIW, one functional difference of a nano that I've heard is that a micro can still hold tiny trade items (beads, small coins, stickers), but a nano cannot hold anything but a custom-fit log sheet.

 

It's just a difference of degree, meaning that there's no clear line between very small and impossibly small.

I didn't realize that possibility or impossibility had anything to do with it. None of the nano-caches that I've found have been impossible.

 

But Groundspeak did manage to draw a fairly clear line in the "What does a geocache look like?" section of the Geocaching 101 page:

 

"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."

 

As it is, we've got plenty of people trying to slide the definition, and that's with functional differences set into the definitions.

Actually, one of the reasons I think a new nano size is a good idea is to help preserve the other size definitions. If a blinker or a 1.5ml centrifuge tube is a micro, then people figure that a film canister must be a small, and a decon container must be a regular, and a 1qt water bottle must be a large.

 

Also, more than half the caches that I've found have been micro size. That size is a big enough subset of the available size range that it could be useful to subdivide it.

 

But shall we continue this discussion in the Bug Reports and Feature Discussions forum, where it might do some good?

[Mr.Yuck]

I don't think nanos should have a separate size listing.

 

I do most wholeheartedly wish that hiders would correctly list nanos as micros and not as other.

 

So they can get logs like this, as well as this and then this, and eventually capitulate and change it to "other"? Yes, that happened on this cache.

Edited November 26, 2014 by Mr.Yuck

[+baloo&bd]

Nanos already have a size. It's 'micro'.

 

What HD said.

[Andronicus]

I don't think nanos should have a separate size listing.

 

I do most wholeheartedly wish that hiders would correctly list nanos as micros and not as other.

 

So they can get logs like this, as well as this and then this, and eventually capitulate and change it to "other"? Yes, that happened on this cache.

That drives me nut! Also, micros that are listed as smalls drive me nuts too. I tend to ignore "small" caches that say something to the effect that you need to bring your own pencil. 96% of the time those are actualy micro sized.

[+DanOCan]

I'm fine with the existing sizes. What is needed is more education so people list caches properly as a Micro.

[+NanCycle]

I don't think nanos should have a separate size listing.

 

I do most wholeheartedly wish that hiders would correctly list nanos as micros and not as other.

 

So they can get logs like this, as well as this and then this, and eventually capitulate and change it to "other"? Yes, that happened on this cache.

 

Well, I would follow each of those logs with a Note explaining that a nano is a subset of micro and then write into the cache page GS's definition as quoted by niraD. I would not change the cache size to accommodate the ignorant, but would attempt to educate them. Probably even send an email to the writer of each of those logs; hopefully after the first one, there wouldn't have been anymore.

[Andronicus]

I don't think nanos should have a separate size listing.

 

I do most wholeheartedly wish that hiders would correctly list nanos as micros and not as other.

 

So they can get logs like this, as well as this and then this, and eventually capitulate and change it to "other"? Yes, that happened on this cache.

 

Well, I would follow each of those logs with a Note explaining that a nano is a subset of micro and then write into the cache page GS's definition as quoted by niraD. I would not change the cache size to accommodate the ignorant, but would attempt to educate them. Probably even send an email to the writer of each of those logs; hopefully after the first one, there wouldn't have been anymore.

Hey, good idea. If I didn't hate micros so much, I think it would be a good idea to put togeather a searies of educational geocaches, helping to educate finders on geocaching related topics such as "While All Nanos are Micros, Not All Micros are Nanos"

[+bflentje]

Forget a new size listing. Ban the damned things.

[+tozainamboku]

I don't think nanos should have a separate size listing.

 

I do most wholeheartedly wish that hiders would correctly list nanos as micros and not as other.

 

So they can get logs like this, as well as this and then this, and eventually capitulate and change it to "other"? Yes, that happened on this cache.

 

Well, I would follow each of those logs with a Note explaining that a nano is a subset of micro and then write into the cache page GS's definition as quoted by niraD. I would not change the cache size to accommodate the ignorant, but would attempt to educate them. Probably even send an email to the writer of each of those logs; hopefully after the first one, there wouldn't have been anymore.

 

'Other' isn't necessarily a bad choice for a nano. 'Other' is supposed to mean you have a unusual container and that is descibed in the cache description. Those who want to provide a bit more detail than 'micro' could use 'other' and in the dexciption describe the cache as a nano. Of course one could list a cache as 'micro' and provide a desciption as well. I suspect that 'Other' is used so widely in some area that people believe that nanos should always be listed as 'other'.

 

I personally find that nanos are pretty easy to find if you know what you are looking for. Using 'micro' may cause some cachers to be looking for something like a film can and overlook the obvious locations where a nano might be hidden. Originally many nanos were listed as 'Unspecified' because the hiders wanted this to be an 'evil' hide where you didn't think of something so small. As nanos got more popular, 'unspecified' is often a dead giveaway to look for a nano; so it now has the opposite intent.

[+bflentje]

Forget a new size listing. Ban the damned things.

 

I was kidding BTW.

[Mr.Yuck]

I don't think nanos should have a separate size listing.

 

I do most wholeheartedly wish that hiders would correctly list nanos as micros and not as other.

 

So they can get logs like this, as well as this and then this, and eventually capitulate and change it to "other"? Yes, that happened on this cache.

 

Well, I would follow each of those logs with a Note explaining that a nano is a subset of micro and then write into the cache page GS's definition as quoted by niraD. I would not change the cache size to accommodate the ignorant, but would attempt to educate them. Probably even send an email to the writer of each of those logs; hopefully after the first one, there wouldn't have been anymore.

 

If you were the cache owner, and knew you were correct in listing it as a micro. This is a rather casual cacher who as of the date of this post hasn't logged in in a month, or logged a find in 2 months. With at least 3 of those logs, the "this is a nano, not a micro" crowd must be correct, right?

 

By the way, I had no idea what I was going to encounter with that cache page. I just remember that cache as one of the VERY FEW nano's I've ever found, and remembered at least one log from before my find correcting the CO that it was a nano, not a micro. Then I go there today and find at least 3 such logs, and the cache size changed from micro to other.

[+Colonial Cats]

I'd like to see a separate size for Nano.

I agree.

[+msrubble]

None of the nano-caches that I've found have been impossible.

 

Of course not. Think about it.

[4wheelin_fool]

I think that the result will be that most will end up listing micros as small, and eventually ammo cans will be large, and from what I've seen this already appears to be the trend. I don't really think a new size is necessary but just those who want the search to be easier knowing that it's magnetic.

[Mr.Yuck]

I think that the result will be that most will end up listing micros as small, and eventually ammo cans will be large, and from what I've seen this already appears to be the trend. I don't really think a new size is necessary but just those who want the search to be easier knowing that it's magnetic.

 

I am NOT seeing this. Sure, the occasional matchstick container or one of those large Hillman brand magnetic keyholders listed as small. But I've not seen an increase in this trend. On the contrary, I've seen hundreds of decent sized lock-n-locks, over 1.0 liter in volume (per the definition) that should be listed as regulars being listed as smalls. A few weeks ago, I found a lock-n-lock, and I kid you not, it's inside volume was larger than that of a .30 cal ammo can. It was listed as a small. It's to the point where I don't think I'm ever going to see another lock-n-lock listed as a regular. And I'm not crazy; I haven't just seen this in my home area of Western New York. Several times in Ohio, for example.

[+redsox_mark]

My own view is I'd like to see a nano size.

 

It is not needed. But I think it would be useful.

 

Why do I think this?

 

1. It is in common use and common in our vocabulary. Everyone knows what a nano is.

 

2. Whilst per the current definitions a nano is a type of micro, I believe most people who hide a nano and choose "other" do so simply as they expect to see nano on the list of sizes and it is not there. I know some people believe cache owners choose "other" so they don't get filtered out, but I don't see that happening in my area. I've asked many cachers why they chose "other" for a nano, and they all responded with "because nano isn't included as an option". Most of the nanos I have found the description states it is a nano. The owner isn't trying to hide that fact.

 

I don't believe creating a nano size will result in later needing a size even smaller ("pico?"). There are already various containers which people commonly refer to as nanos; some smaller than others. And as long as containers need to contain a log they can't get MUCH smaller. I would define a nano as the smallest possible container (as well as giving some idea of the largest size a nano can be), so by definition there is no need for anything smaller.

 

I also don't see that creating a nano size would inflate the other sizes.

 

Again, it's not needed, but I think it would be useful and I don't see the harm in it.

[+wmpastor]

And as long as containers need to contain a log they can't get MUCH smaller.

 

This may underestimate technology and the creativity of cachers.

[Mr.Yuck]

And as long as containers need to contain a log they can't get MUCH smaller.

 

This may underestimate technology and the creativity of cachers.

 

No, I disagree with you, and agree with the person you're quoting. I might be misinterpreting your whole take on the "technology" thing, but TPTB ain't ever giving up on the whole paper logbook thing. It might be their downfall, it might already have started to be, but they ain't giving up on it.

[Andronicus]

I don't think nanos should have a separate size listing.

 

I do most wholeheartedly wish that hiders would correctly list nanos as micros and not as other.

 

So they can get logs like this, as well as this and then this, and eventually capitulate and change it to "other"? Yes, that happened on this cache.

 

Well, I would follow each of those logs with a Note explaining that a nano is a subset of micro and then write into the cache page GS's definition as quoted by niraD. I would not change the cache size to accommodate the ignorant, but would attempt to educate them. Probably even send an email to the writer of each of those logs; hopefully after the first one, there wouldn't have been anymore.

 

'Other' isn't necessarily a bad choice for a nano. 'Other' is supposed to mean you have a unusual container and that is descibed in the cache description. Those who want to provide a bit more detail than 'micro' could use 'other' and in the dexciption describe the cache as a nano. Of course one could list a cache as 'micro' and provide a desciption as well. I suspect that 'Other' is used so widely in some area that people believe that nanos should always be listed as 'other'.

 

I personally find that nanos are pretty easy to find if you know what you are looking for. Using 'micro' may cause some cachers to be looking for something like a film can and overlook the obvious locations where a nano might be hidden. Originally many nanos were listed as 'Unspecified' because the hiders wanted this to be an 'evil' hide where you didn't think of something so small. As nanos got more popular, 'unspecified' is often a dead giveaway to look for a nano; so it now has the opposite intent.

I strongly disagree. Unless it is a nano inside a cool object (garden turtle or something), nanos should always be labled as a micro.

[+NanCycle]

I think that the result will be that most will end up listing micros as small, and eventually ammo cans will be large, and from what I've seen this already appears to be the trend. . . .

 

I am seeing this a lot too. It seems that small is the new regular. At least the larger end of the small range as it gets closer to 1.0 liter than 100 ml. I am getting ready to place some caches that hold just over 100 ml and am deciding whether to call them small or micro; I expect I will get complaints either way.

[+DanOCan]

2. Whilst per the current definitions a nano is a type of micro, I believe most people who hide a nano and choose "other" do so simply as they expect to see nano on the list of sizes and it is not there. I know some people believe cache owners choose "other" so they don't get filtered out, but I don't see that happening in my area. I've asked many cachers why they chose "other" for a nano, and they all responded with "because nano isn't included as an option". Most of the nanos I have found the description states it is a nano. The owner isn't trying to hide that fact.

And these owners state they have read and understood the guidelines when submitting a cache, yet they fail what should be Geocaching 101.

[+narcissa]

I don't think nanos should have a separate size listing.

 

I do most wholeheartedly wish that hiders would correctly list nanos as micros and not as other.

 

So they can get logs like this, as well as this and then this, and eventually capitulate and change it to "other"? Yes, that happened on this cache.

 

Well, I would follow each of those logs with a Note explaining that a nano is a subset of micro and then write into the cache page GS's definition as quoted by niraD. I would not change the cache size to accommodate the ignorant, but would attempt to educate them. Probably even send an email to the writer of each of those logs; hopefully after the first one, there wouldn't have been anymore.

 

'Other' isn't necessarily a bad choice for a nano. 'Other' is supposed to mean you have a unusual container and that is descibed in the cache description. Those who want to provide a bit more detail than 'micro' could use 'other' and in the dexciption describe the cache as a nano. Of course one could list a cache as 'micro' and provide a desciption as well. I suspect that 'Other' is used so widely in some area that people believe that nanos should always be listed as 'other'.

 

I personally find that nanos are pretty easy to find if you know what you are looking for. Using 'micro' may cause some cachers to be looking for something like a film can and overlook the obvious locations where a nano might be hidden. Originally many nanos were listed as 'Unspecified' because the hiders wanted this to be an 'evil' hide where you didn't think of something so small. As nanos got more popular, 'unspecified' is often a dead giveaway to look for a nano; so it now has the opposite intent.

I strongly disagree. Unless it is a nano inside a cool object (garden turtle or something), nanos should always be labled as a micro.

 

+1000

[+L0ne.R]

I think that the result will be that most will end up listing micros as small, and eventually ammo cans will be large, and from what I've seen this already appears to be the trend. . . .

 

I am seeing this a lot too. It seems that small is the new regular. At least the larger end of the small range as it gets closer to 1.0 liter than 100 ml. I am getting ready to place some caches that hold just over 100 ml and am deciding whether to call them small or micro; I expect I will get complaints either way.

 

The 3" round Lock & Lock (100ml) would be a small. Help Centre says a micro is less than 100 ml. Small is 100ml or larger, but less than 1L.

 

 

I'm happy with Groundspeak's size definitions, as outlined by the Help Center.

 

 

The visual images in the submission form looks good to me too, but it's not working. Maybe folks are thinking anything bigger than a bison tube and smaller than a palm-size Lock & Lock is a small. Anything bigger than a palm size Lock&Lock is a regular.

 

 

Would be nice if the sizes were hoverable, with an info blurb that pops up explaining the size as described in the Help Center.

Edited November 27, 2014 by L0ne.R

[+wmpastor]

And as long as containers need to contain a log they can't get MUCH smaller.

 

This may underestimate technology and the creativity of cachers.

 

No, I disagree with you, and agree with the person you're quoting. I might be misinterpreting your whole take on the "technology" thing, but TPTB ain't ever giving up on the whole paper logbook thing. It might be their downfall, it might already have started to be, but they ain't giving up on it.

You're right that we're *near* the lower limit. I could picture a pico about half the size of current nanos. Half the size in each of 3 dimensions would mean 1/8 the volume of a current nano. What about signing the paper log? The log would be about 1.5mm wide, made of very thin but high strength paper, and would be shorter. You would sign with the single initial that starts your caching name (like "w").

 

Hey, if we can send a man to the moon, we can make a pico!

 

[+wmpastor]

And as long as containers need to contain a log they can't get MUCH smaller.

 

This may underestimate technology and the creativity of cachers.

 

No, I disagree with you, and agree with the person you're quoting. I might be misinterpreting your whole take on the "technology" thing, but TPTB ain't ever giving up on the whole paper logbook thing. It might be their downfall, it might already have started to be, but they ain't giving up on it.

You're right that we're *near* the lower limit. I could picture a pico about half the size of current nanos. Half the size in each of 3 dimensions would mean 1/8 the volume of a current nano. What about signing the paper log? The log would be about 1.5mm wide, made of very thin but high strength paper, and would be shorter. You would sign with the single initial that starts your caching name (like "w").

 

Hey, if we can send a man to the moon, we can make a pico!

 

[+GeoLog81]

Providing separate type for nanos will be pointless. Nanos are micros, because they have all characteristic of micros: they provide no place for swags and trackables and they have only little logsheet instead of logbook.

[+narcissa]

I think that the result will be that most will end up listing micros as small, and eventually ammo cans will be large, and from what I've seen this already appears to be the trend. . . .

 

I am seeing this a lot too. It seems that small is the new regular. At least the larger end of the small range as it gets closer to 1.0 liter than 100 ml. I am getting ready to place some caches that hold just over 100 ml and am deciding whether to call them small or micro; I expect I will get complaints either way.

 

The 3" round Lock & Lock (100ml) would be a small. Help Centre says a micro is less than 100 ml. Small is 100ml or larger, but less than 1L.

 

 

I'm happy with Groundspeak's size definitions, as outlined by the Help Center.

 

 

The visual images in the submission form looks good to me too, but it's not working. Maybe folks are thinking anything bigger than a bison tube and smaller than a palm-size Lock & Lock is a small. Anything bigger than a palm size Lock&Lock is a regular.

 

 

Would be nice if the sizes were hoverable, with an info blurb that pops up explaining the size as described in the Help Center.

 

It might help to show more than one common container for each size category. Show a nano, a film can, and a bison tube for micro.

[Andronicus]

 

Would be nice if the sizes were hoverable, with an info blurb that pops up explaining the size as described in the Help Center.

I think that simply moving the "Other" option to the right hand side, beside "Large", would have a significant impact on the misuse of the "Other" option

[+MartyBartfast]

 

I think that simply moving the "Other" option to the right hand side, beside "Large", would have a significant impact on the misuse of the "Other" option

 

^^This^^

 

I had exactly the same thought when I saw that image.