cache sizes.

[+gonzogunner]

I know pill bottles are small. but what size would this be? it's a 2 gallon food grade bucket.

[Pup Patrol]

I know pill bottles are small. but what size would this be? it's a 2 gallon food grade bucket.

 

Pill bottles are "micro".

 

The food bucket would be "regular".

 

Help Center → Hiding a Geocache → Geocache Ownership: A Long-Term Relationship

 

3.2. Containers Explained

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=75

 

Pill Bottles

 

A plastic pill bottle has some good qualities for a micro geocache (albeit a large one): the plastic tends to be very tough and the lid usually fits well. However, water gets in quite easily.

 

 

B.

Edited July 10, 2014 by Pup Patrol

[+Touchstone]

That would be a Large in my area. Regular's tend to be around 1 gallon in size (i.e. ammo can)

[+gonzogunner]

thinking about a south bound trackable container since I travel 174 miles south each day with work. I could help move things along.

[+gonzogunner]

here are a few more I have made. I used the coffee mug to replace a letter box in Chattanooga that was leaking badly. the others are a official geocaching container they called a medium and a water tight plastic container I picked up at wal mart from the sporting goods department.

 

I have several more out i'm getting ready to turn in for registering. lord knows I have about 10 pill bottle caches I can set out anytime, I just need to find a perfect hiding place for them.

[+gonzogunner]

for those camoing any thing. there is no straight lines, there is no back and it helps a lot to texture it. I use flex seal to texture my stuff. it leaves a uneven surface and paint sticks to it right now!! nothing is perfect in nature other than nature. the digital camo tape shows up to me like a thumb mashed with a hammer.

[+TriciaG]

thinking about a south bound trackable container since I travel 174 miles south each day with work. I could help move things along.

A trackable container? How about just using a backpack or bag or something?

[+gonzogunner]

YOU MISSED THE POINT. THE CONTAINER IS FOR PEOPLE TO PLACE SOUTH BOUND TRACKABLES.

[+TriciaG]

Ohhh! That makes more sense: placing a "TB portal" type cache for others to drop the TBs in, and you'd move them on. Got it. I had a brain hiccup or something.

[+gonzogunner]

here we call them trackable hotels. I run 174 miles south daily. the area I go to is covered in caches. I can help move south bound trackables very fast since i'm always moving. been wanting to put a north bound trackable cache in Chattanooga.

[+niraD]

I know pill bottles are small. but what size would this be? [...]

it's a 2 gallon food grade bucket.

From the "What does a geocache look like?" section of Geocaching 101:

 

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.

Small - 100ml or larger, but less than 1L. Example: A sandwich-sized plastic container or similar.

Regular - 1L or larger, but less than 20L. Examples: a plastic container or ammo can about the size of a shoebox.

Large - 20L or larger. Example: A large bucket.

 

So a 2-gallon (8-quart) bucket falls into the "1L or larger, but less than 20L" range, and would be a Regular.

[+gonzogunner]

around here my camo buckets would be extra large or maybe even jumbo caches!!! most are micros that just hold logs. some on the other hand are pill bottles that hold a log and small trackables and trade items. I know trackale dog tags will fit in a pill bottle. i'm not interested in setting out anything smaller than a pill bottle anyway.

[+IM_NotLost-Xbz1]

Is it just me or does 10-20 L seem rather large. Why is that considered "regular"

Ive never seen a cache bigger than 2 L.

I think they should change the definitions of small and large containers since most are smaller than 1 L

[+niraD]

Is it just me or does 10-20 L seem rather large. Why is that considered "regular"

Probably because the beginning of the "large" size was originally considered to be a 5-gallon bucket. That is nominally 20qt, which is roughly 20L.

[+IM_NotLost-Xbz1]

Oh.. Thanks for the info.

Maybe they should add more size catagories.

Or maybe I don't know how to use them properly yet because I'm a noob..

[+T.D.M.22]

Is it just me or does 10-20 L seem rather large. Why is that considered "regular"

Ive never seen a cache bigger than 2 L.

I think they should change the definitions of small and large containers since most are smaller than 1 L

 

For one, there are caches bigger than that. I've made one that was a 50 gallon drum. That would definitely be a large.

 

And if they changed the sizes, then all the 2million+ geocaches would have to be changed.

[+IM_NotLost-Xbz1]

Never thought of that. Lol

[Pup Patrol]

In the olden days, ammo cans used to be something that was used frequently for cache containers. Their size was "regular".

 

Nowadays, ammo cans are rare (at least where I am). Even large buckets are rare.

 

Now they seem "large" in comparison to the bajillion pill bottles that are now the norm for cache containers.

 

 

B.

[+IM_NotLost-Xbz1]

That's what I figured..

The extremely large ones might be out there but the majority seem to be Tupperware containers to film canisters and smaller.

But I understand that they just can't revamp the entire system so easily.

[+niraD]

Maybe they should add more size catagories.

Well, there have been a number of proposals to make "nano" an official size, rather than just "a common sub-type of a micro cache". For example:

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=329474

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=285144

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=257344

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=228292

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=219356

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=217163

[+WarNinjas]

I would list that first container as a large.

[+dprovan]

Oh.. Thanks for the info.

Maybe they should add more size catagories.

More sizes would just be more sizes unused and more sizes misused. They should reduce "large" to reflect that 2 gallons is very big for a cache these days.

[+niraD]

More sizes would just be more sizes unused and more sizes misused. They should reduce "large" to reflect that 2 gallons is very big for a cache these days.

Reducing the regular-large threshold could work.

 

The ratios between the nano-micro threshold, the micro-small threshold, and the small-regular threshold are all 1:10 (10ml, 100ml, and 1L). Then the regular-large threshold jumps to 1:20 (1L and 20L). It would make sense for them all to be a ratio of 1:10 (10ml, 100ml, 1L, and 20L).

 

Of course, that would make some ammo cans a "large" instead of a "regular". For example, a 40mm ammo can = 17.5x10x6in = 17L > 10L.

[+dprovan]

The ratios between the nano-micro threshold, the micro-small threshold, and the small-regular threshold are all 1:10 (10ml, 100ml, and 1L). Then the regular-large threshold jumps to 1:20 (1L and 20L). It would make sense for them all to be a ratio of 1:10 (10ml, 100ml, 1L, and 10L). [typo of "20L" corrected -dprovan]

I like it. It makes so much sense, I don't even have a problem with the 2 gallon that started the conversation still being a regular even though it originally struck me that it should be a large.

 

Of course, that would make some ammo cans a "large" instead of a "regular". For example, a 40mm ammo can = 17.5x10x6in = 17L > 10L.

I'd say that's two bird with one stone. I've always thought to larger ammo cans should be large even while accepting that standard ammo cans are regulars.

[+WarNinjas]

My bad I didn't notice that was a 2 gallon bucket. That would border regular and large for me. Could go either way. I am guessing no one would complain if you listed it as a large or regular.

[+Ben0w]

"Regular" should be just renamed to "Medium" (beeing between "Small" and "Large"). The regular sized cache of today seems to be a micro or small, thus rather confusing.

 

Thinking of renaming, why not renaming it to a clear definition of "<100ml" (formerly nano/micro), "100ml-1l" (formerly small), "1l-20l" (formerly regular/medium), ">20l" (formerly large) and "none/other" (for caches with no volume, such as magnet foils, totally irregular sizes as a large bucket with a micro in it (*) or virtuals/events and lab caches).

 

Renaming the categories wouldn't change the rating system (**), just make it totally clear.

 

----

Footnotes:

(*) Which still would be a micro in my book, but that's an ongoing discussion. At least the discussion of "nano=other?" would definitely end. Yes, I'm optimist.

 

(**) The caches already labeled correct would stay correct, the wrong labels simply would stay wrong but would have a chance to be relabeled...

Edited August 22, 2015 by Ben0w

[+TriciaG]

Thinking of renaming, why not renaming it to a clear definition of "<100ml" (formerly nano/micro), "100ml-1l" (formerly small), "1l-20l" (formerly regular/medium), ">20l" (formerly large) and "none/other" (for caches with no volume, such as magnet foils, totally irregular sizes as a large bucket with a micro in it (*) or virtuals/events and lab caches).

No, IMHO.

 

We're often out looking for caches. Hubby will ask me, "What size are we looking for?" I don't want to have to say, "This one is a 100ml-1l". It's SO much easier to say, "This one's a small."

 

OK, so I could still use the old terminology between Hubby and me. But if I had joined the game with the sizes simply designated by volume, I would have a hard time communicating them to others, because I wouldn't know alternate terminology.

 

Plus, volume designations are harder to type.

Edited August 22, 2015 by TriciaG

[+Ben0w]

No, IMHO.

We're often out looking for caches. Hubby will ask me, "What size are we looking for?" I don't want to have to say, "This one is a 100ml-1l". It's SO much easier to say, "This one's a small."

I see. Would have the same problem with my wife...

 

Plus it would include convincing U.S. cachers to the metric system. Not very probable to get happen.

 

But "medium" instead of "regular" could be a working solution, at least the first (and a rather easy) step.