Cache size

[+Vooruit!]

I'm wondering: what exactly defines the size of a geocache (micro/small/...)? The size of the container, or the size of the available space within the container?

 

For instance, one of my caches is a pinecone, which IMO would qualify as micro, but the space within is nano-like. I've gotten some complaints I should change the size accordingly. However, I would think that the given size is supposed to be helping you find the cache. Not having found the cache, isn't the size within the container irrelevant?

[+Roman!]

I'm wondering: what exactly defines the size of a geocache (micro/small/...)? The size of the container, or the size of the available space within the container?

 

For instance, one of my caches is a pinecone, which IMO would qualify as micro, but the space within is nano-like. I've gotten some complaints I should change the size accordingly. However, I would think that the given size is supposed to be helping you find the cache. Not having found the cache, isn't the size within the container irrelevant?

 

You have complaints that you should change your cache size from micro to nano?

 

You might want to point out to them that the nano cache size does not exist.

[+niraD]

Generally, it's the size of the container itself. If a micro-size container like a Bison tube or a blinker is attached to a larger object (like a log or a stone) as camouflage, then the cache is still a micro.

 

And for the record, a nano should be listed as a micro (at least, until a separate nano size is created). From 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."

[+Vooruit!]

Never realized 'micro' was defined as everything less than a certain size. For some reason, everyone in this region (The Netherlands) uses 'Other' for nano-sized caches...

 

My question was meant in general however. Another example would be a (regular-sized) birdhouse with only small space available for the logbook and other items. This would still be a regular-sized cache? And what if, for weather's sake, the birdhouse contains a small-sized box with the logbook?

[+Touchstone]

Never realized 'micro' was defined as everything less than a certain size. For some reason, everyone in this region (The Netherlands) uses 'Other' for nano-sized caches...

 

My question was meant in general however. Another example would be a (regular-sized) birdhouse with only small space available for the logbook and other items. This would still be a regular-sized cache? And what if, for weather's sake, the birdhouse contains a small-sized box with the logbook?

 

I usually use the dimensions of the interior of the container, rather than including the camo (the bird house in your example), when choosing the container size. It helps people make a decision when scanning through the Listings whether a cache is adequate size to accept a trackable or not.

[+Bear and Ragged]

I usually use the dimensions of the interior of the container, rather than including the camo (the bird house in your example), when choosing the container size. It helps people make a decision when scanning through the Listings whether a cache is adequate size to accept a trackable or not.

 

I agree with the above!

[+L0ne.R]

I usually use the dimensions of the interior of the container, rather than including the camo (the bird house in your example), when choosing the container size. It helps people make a decision when scanning through the Listings whether a cache is adequate size to accept a trackable or not.

 

I agree with the above!

 

Yes. It is about the size of the interior of the container. How much room is there in the container for swag/signature items/trackables. The distinction is between micro and small is very important.

 

There are people like me who filter out micros. The act of just signing a log is only a portion of the fun of geocaching for me. I want a fuller geocaching experience that includes leaving/trading trackables or signature items or swag. It's really really disappointing to hunt for a small only to find a diabetes strip/film canister/spice jar/pill container, or outer camo like a log with a film canister inside.

 

From the GC Help Center, 3.2 Containers Explained the small size is described as:

 

small: 100ml or larger, but less than 1L. Example: A sandwich-sized plastic container or similar. Holds only a small logbook and small items.

 

 

[+Walts Hunting]

Never realized 'micro' was defined as everything less than a certain size. For some reason, everyone in this region (The Netherlands) uses 'Other' for nano-sized caches...

 

My question was meant in general however. Another example would be a (regular-sized) birdhouse with only small space available for the logbook and other items. This would still be a regular-sized cache? And what if, for weather's sake, the birdhouse contains a small-sized box with the logbook?

That is quite common and incorrect since a micro is defined as a size and smaller. Most of the time when I travel I filter out other so I don't waste my time looking for a nano in a bush.

[+sholomar]

Micro... cant fit a travel bug in it (film cans, 2 liter preforms, and smaller)

 

small... room for a few small trade items and spiral bound log book.

 

regular... ammo can sized, large peanut butter jar, large lock n lock

 

large ... 5 gallon buckets...

 

they need a "nano" classification in my opinion... i like finding these but usually do not pull the logs out to sign them.

[+briansnat]

I know I'm in the minority here but I've always considered the size of the entire container when selecting size. The way I see it size is important for two reasons. 1. to know what you are looking for and 2. to know if it will accept trades and TBs. I intentionally put the latter as number two because I believe knowing what size you are searching for is the most important reason for knowing the size. Whether or not it can accept TBs and trades is a secondary matter.

 

My definition of "container" is an integrated object where the part that holds the log and any trade items is physically a part of the larger object. For instance a fake rock that is 8" x 8" I would rate as a regular even though the log compartment is micro size. Similarly I would rate an insulated thermos by the size of the outside, not the capacity of the inside.

 

Every time I bring this up I get something like "What about a bison in a tree, is that a large because it's in a tree?". So I will answer that preemptively. No, it wouldn't be because there is a distinction between a hiding place and a container. If the log container is removable then the larger item is the hiding place. If it is not then it's the container.

 

There's my unpopular opinion on the subject.

[+Cache O'Plenty]

I guess I'm in the minority along with Briansnat. The item hidden is what the owner added to the environment. If it's an ammo can with a bison tube inside (to hold the log, for example) then the cache is a large because that's what you are looking for. It's not the bison tube. You can add TBs to the ammo can.

 

If you hide a nano in a tree, it's a micro. Unless, of course, you have placed a fake tree with the nano in it.

 

The 8x8 fake rock is a good example of a regular. The fact that you can't place a TB in it is secondary.

 

We also believe an Altoids tin is a small because you can place a coin in it along with the log in it's container (usually a ziplock bag out here).

[+niraD]

Every time I bring this up I get something like "What about a bison in a tree, is that a large because it's in a tree?". So I will answer that preemptively. No, it wouldn't be because there is a distinction between a hiding place and a container. If the log container is removable then the larger item is the hiding place. If it is not then it's the container.

What I don't understand about this distinction is why gluing a Bison tube (micro size) into a log (regular size) would change the listed size for the cache.

 

In either case, finding the log does me no good. I have to spot the micro-size Bison tube that is inside the log. That micro-size container is what I'm really looking for. Both from the perspective of "What am I looking for?" and from the perspective of "What fits in it?" I am searching for a micro-size container.

 

But if the Bison tube is glued into the log (not removable) then you seem to think it should be listed as a regular, and if it is not glued (removable) then you seem to think it should be listed as a micro. I don't understand that.

[+nosynellies]

Count me into the minority. I need all the help I can get when trying to find a cache, and knowing what size I'm looking for makes a huge difference. Usually I have my bag with me with trades and TB's, but if I don't feel like carrying it, I'll throw a few in my pockets. If I can leave them, great. If it ends up being a bison tube in a fake rock, no sweat. Without knowing the size I'm looking for, I probably wouldn't find it anyway! I realize that this is my problem and that not everyone needs the extra help.

[+narcissa]

For some reason, everyone in this region (The Netherlands) uses 'Other' for nano-sized caches...

 

Hideous.

[+narcissa]

If it's an ammo can with a bison tube inside (to hold the log, for example) then the cache is a large because that's what you are looking for.

 

If it's a typical ammo can, it should be a regular.

[+MKFmly]

The way I see it size is important for two reasons. 1. to know what you are looking for and 2. to know if it will accept trades and TBs. I intentionally put the latter as number two because I believe knowing what size you are searching for is the most important reason for knowing the size. Whether or not it can accept TBs and trades is a secondary matter.

We tend to agree with this.

 

My definition of "container" is an integrated object where the part that holds the log and any trade items is physically a part of the larger object. For instance a fake rock that is 8" x 8" I would rate as a regular even though the log compartment is micro size. Similarly I would rate an insulated thermos by the size of the outside, not the capacity of the inside.

As search paradigm for a micro, regular, large, etc are different from each other, this instance is where we differ from above definition. If the camouflage (integrated object) significantly changes the size of the container (subject to interpretation) we compromise and would list the "fake rock that is 8" x 8" I would rate as a regular even though the log compartment is micro size" as a micro with a note on the cache page indicating it is a camouflaged micro and choose a size "not chosen" or "other", to indicate a different search paradigm may be needed.

 

Frankly, employing a "regular" size search paradigm against the described "micro in a fake rock that is 8" x 8" " would be detrimental to our search, rather than helpful. If we know going in that it is a micro and the camo/hide is "non-standard" that helps.

[+DanOCan]

Never realized 'micro' was defined as everything less than a certain size. For some reason, everyone in this region (The Netherlands) uses 'Other' for nano-sized caches...

This is very common. When I come across this situation I tend to make mention in my log something along the lines of "Before long I had this Micro in hand" or something. It's a public service.

[+L0ne.R]

It really helps if everyone is on the same page. Lots of people say...I know what the guidelines say but...

That seems to be especially true for cache size and for terrain.

[+Cache O'Plenty]

If it's an ammo can with a bison tube inside (to hold the log, for example) then the cache is a large because that's what you are looking for.

 

If it's a typical ammo can, it should be a regular.

 

I stand corrected. An ammo can is a regular.

[Andronicus]

Never realized 'micro' was defined as everything less than a certain size. For some reason, everyone in this region (The Netherlands) uses 'Other' for nano-sized caches...

This is very common. When I come across this situation I tend to make mention in my log something along the lines of "Before long I had this Micro in hand" or something. It's a public service.

I like that! I have used that techniqu a few times, but will work on using it all the time. That said, I am currently try to avoid micros like the plague, so not sure how often that will be.

[+L0ne.R]

Never realized 'micro' was defined as everything less than a certain size. For some reason, everyone in this region (The Netherlands) uses 'Other' for nano-sized caches...

This is very common. When I come across this situation I tend to make mention in my log something along the lines of "Before long I had this Micro in hand" or something. It's a public service.

I like that! I have used that techniqu a few times, but will work on using it all the time. That said, I am currently try to avoid micros like the plague, so not sure how often that will be.

 

I do something similar when I find a small that's listed as a micro (film canister, diabetes strip, pill bottle etc.).

[+narcissa]

I do something similar when I find a small that's listed as a micro (film canister, diabetes strip, pill bottle etc.).

 

I do this when I find a "micro" that should be a small (e.g. smaller square lock n' lock) or a "small" that should be a regular (e.g. peanut butter jar). It happens more than you'd think.

 

I must admit that I'm a little less fussy about a "large" that should be a regular. Large caches are rare enough as it is.

[+L0ne.R]

I do something similar when I find a small that's listed as a micro (film canister, diabetes strip, pill bottle etc.).

 

I do this when I find a "micro" that should be a small (e.g. smaller square lock n' lock) or a "small" that should be a regular (e.g. peanut butter jar). It happens more than you'd think.

 

I must admit that I'm a little less fussy about a "large" that should be a regular. Large caches are rare enough as it is.

 

Ackkk. I mean I the opposite. When I find a micro that's listed as a small, I make a note in the log along the lines of what DanOCan does. 'I was looking for a small cache but found a micro instead.'

[+Harry Dolphin]

I got a local CO mad at me, when I commented several times that her 'small' caches were MKH, and were 'micros'. But her hundreds of MKHs are still listed as small.

[+L0ne.R]

I got a local CO mad at me, when I commented several times that her 'small' caches were MKH, and were 'micros'. But her hundreds of MKHs are still listed as small.

 

Most of the caches where I commented on the size are still listed as small. I recall only 2 cache owners, in all 10+ years I've been caching, who changed the size after I commented.

 

Recently it was a power trail along a country road - their PT caches had used up a good portion of my PQ. Figured since they were there, I'd try a few and leave some small signature items. Tried 5, logged with a note about the size explaining that perhaps they didn't realize it but a film canister is a micro not a small, a small is 100ml-1L and holds a logbook and small items. All micros (2 film canister, 2 tiny bead jars, pill bottle) too small for swag. They are still listed as small.

[+Gill & Tony]

I've just hidden a regular sized log (of wood) with a 38mm hole drilled in the end.

 

I set the cache size as micro and put into the description that the cache is a micro but the container is a regular. If someone is looking for a micro they won't look for a log on the ground and if they hunt a regular they will be disappointed that they can't trade.

[+jellis]

It also all depends on how you see it. I have seen film cans marked as micros and smalls(some TBs and coins can fit in a film can). Smalls listed also as regulars. A large wooden log with a micro opening as a regular. I tried to explain that one as cachers would be disappointed to find they can't fit larger trackables in it.

But you mentioned a pinecone cache. You can always list that as an Unknown or Not Chosen. Most cachers would figure right away it may not fit trackables.

[+WarNinjas]

I'm still shocked you got complaints about your nano being listed as a micro. That is as close as you can get with the current ratings. I would much rather it be listed as a micro so I have some idea of what I am looking for instead of unknown so I have no idea.

 

As far as I can remember we list ours for the size of the actual cache container and not the camo it is in. Just adding in our 2 cents. Whatever everyone else thinks is right is fine but that is how we do it now anyways.

[+narcissa]

A "nano" *is* a micro. It's just tinier than other micros.

[+wmpastor]

I know I'm in the minority here but I've always considered the size of the entire container when selecting size. The way I see it size is important for two reasons. 1. to know what you are looking for and 2. to know if it will accept trades and TBs. I intentionally put the latter as number two because I believe knowing what size you are searching for is the most important reason for knowing the size. Whether or not it can accept TBs and trades is a secondary matter.

 

My definition of "container" is an integrated object where the part that holds the log and any trade items is physically a part of the larger object. For instance a fake rock that is 8" x 8" I would rate as a regular even though the log compartment is micro size. Similarly I would rate an insulated thermos by the size of the outside, not the capacity of the inside.

 

Every time I bring this up I get something like "What about a bison in a tree, is that a large because it's in a tree?". So I will answer that preemptively. No, it wouldn't be because there is a distinction between a hiding place and a container. If the log container is removable then the larger item is the hiding place. If it is not then it's the container.

 

There's my unpopular opinion on the subject.

 

I agree that the size of what is being searched for is the relevant size. Now with that being said, in many cases the inside and outside of the container are about the same. If they are hugely different (like a large that cannot hold TB's), that could be noted in the cache description. However, there are hard-to-classify cases. If the container is small but is hidden by separate camo like a fake plant, then large doesn't seem correct. So I agree with the above analysis.

[+hukilaulau]

 

If someone is looking for a micro they won't look for a log on the ground

 

I would. If I'm out in the woods and see that the next cache I'm looking for is a micro, the first thing I'll do is look for something hanging, the second is something on the ground that moves. Add me to the "log holder defines the size" school. The fake rock is definitely a micro to me, no matter how big the rock is. I can't believe someone with Brian's experience would spend more than 10 seconds figuring this out on any given cache.

[+sbell111]

I am of the belief that the size indicator should describe the thing that I am looking for, not the interior dimensions of the container.

[+DanOCan]

It really helps if everyone is on the same page. Lots of people say...I know what the guidelines say but...

That seems to be especially true for cache size and for terrain.

Heh. I know of one cache hider who hid a series of hide-a-key containers on a number of signs throughout the countryside. Roughly half were listed as Micro and the other half as Small. Sometimes even a single cacher can't get on the same page.

[+L0ne.R]

I know I'm in the minority here but I've always considered the size of the entire container when selecting size. The way I see it size is important for two reasons. 1. to know what you are looking for and 2. to know if it will accept trades and TBs. I intentionally put the latter as number two because I believe knowing what size you are searching for is the most important reason for knowing the size. Whether or not it can accept TBs and trades is a secondary matter.

 

My definition of "container" is an integrated object where the part that holds the log and any trade items is physically a part of the larger object. For instance a fake rock that is 8" x 8" I would rate as a regular even though the log compartment is micro size. Similarly I would rate an insulated thermos by the size of the outside, not the capacity of the inside.

 

Every time I bring this up I get something like "What about a bison in a tree, is that a large because it's in a tree?". So I will answer that preemptively. No, it wouldn't be because there is a distinction between a hiding place and a container. If the log container is removable then the larger item is the hiding place. If it is not then it's the container.

 

There's my unpopular opinion on the subject.

 

I agree that the size of what is being searched for is the relevant size. Now with that being said, in many cases the inside and outside of the container are about the same. If they are hugely different (like a large that cannot hold TB's), that could be noted in the cache description. However, there are hard-to-classify cases. If the container is small but is hidden by separate camo like a fake plant, then large doesn't seem correct. So I agree with the above analysis.

 

If we use the 'Not Chosen' size than it's less confusing. Those of us who filter out micros because we enjoy the experience of a swag size cache can filter out micros even if they are in a 2 foot hollowed out log, can do so. If we see 'Not Chosen' as a size we can either filter those out too (since they are almost always micros), or check the description to see why the CO chose the NC size.

 

If you put a film canister in a 2 foot log and call it a regular I'm going to be irked and disappointed if I brought along my geoswag bag but didn't need to and can't enjoy the swag aspect of geocaching at this 'regular' size cache.

 

[+L0ne.R]

I am of the belief that the size indicator should describe the thing that I am looking for, not the interior dimensions of the container.

 

But that's not what the guidelines say. It would be a very confusing game if we all just believe what we want about what a cache is.

[+narcissa]

I am of the belief that the size indicator should describe the thing that I am looking for, not the interior dimensions of the container.

 

Me too. Cache owners should strive to provide a cache description that primarily aids those searching for the cache. Whether or not someone can fit a TB or a swag item into the cache should not factor into the size classification.

 

"Other" should be used when the cache owner wants to indicate that it's a very unusual container. "Nano" style containers are not unusual. They are micros.

 

The "Not Chosen" size should be used when the cache owner wants to keep the container size a mystery.

[+J Grouchy]

Way I see it, if I'm hiding a bison tube inside a hole drilled into a large log, that means I'm trying to make the cache difficult to find. If you say in the cache page that folks should be looking for a large container, you are pretty much limiting the difficulty level of the cache.

 

Personally, I believe it should be sized on the inner dimensions of the container, not the outer dimensions. If you drill a tiny hole in a two foot log that only fits a bison tube...micro. If you hollow out the log, leaving only an inch or so of wood with a sizeable chamber inside...small or regular. Same object, different size container.

Edited September 3, 2014 by J Grouchy

[+sbell111]

If you put a film canister in a 2 foot log and call it a regular I'm going to be irked and disappointed if I brought along my geoswag bag but didn't need to and can't enjoy the swag aspect of geocaching at this 'regular' size cache.

Isn't that equally true if you find an ammo can chock full of useless junk?

[+narcissa]

Way I see it, if I'm hiding a bison tube inside a hole drilled into a large log, that means I'm trying to make the cache difficult to find. If you say in the cache page that folks should be looking for a large container, you are pretty much limiting the difficulty level of the cache.

 

Personally, I believe it should be sized on the inner dimensions of the container, not the outer dimensions. If you drill a tiny hole in a two foot log that only fits a bison tube...micro. If you hollow out the log, leaving only an inch or so of wood with a sizeable chamber inside...small or regular. Same object, different size container.

 

I would consider that a well-camouflaged micro.

 

If it's a bison tube inside, say, a plastic skull (real life example), then I would consider the skull to be the container.

[+L0ne.R]

If you put a film canister in a 2 foot log and call it a regular I'm going to be irked and disappointed if I brought along my geoswag bag but didn't need to and can't enjoy the swag aspect of geocaching at this 'regular' size cache.

Isn't that equally true if you find an ammo can chock full of useless junk?

 

Absolutely not. I could remove some of the actual junk (used bus tickets, broken toys, etc) then add some of my signature items. I have had people who are also swag oriented leave messages on my blog after finding my stuff. So I know that there are like-minded cachers out there. All part of the enjoyment of geocaching (for some of us). Can't do that with most micros - no room for swag. People who just want a piece of paper to sign probably don't even look at the size of the cache and hunt everything. But there are enough of us out there that rely on cache size as defined in the Help Center, so we can enjoy the geoswag/trackables side of the pastime.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

I am of the belief that the size indicator should describe the thing that I am looking for, not the interior dimensions of the container.

 

+1.....as brian said, size should trump swag containing capacity.

[+L0ne.R]

Way I see it, if I'm hiding a bison tube inside a hole drilled into a large log, that means I'm trying to make the cache difficult to find. If you say in the cache page that folks should be looking for a large container, you are pretty much limiting the difficulty level of the cache.

 

Personally, I believe it should be sized on the inner dimensions of the container, not the outer dimensions. If you drill a tiny hole in a two foot log that only fits a bison tube...micro. If you hollow out the log, leaving only an inch or so of wood with a sizeable chamber inside...small or regular. Same object, different size container.

 

I would consider that a well-camouflaged micro.

 

If it's a bison tube inside, say, a plastic skull (real life example), then I would consider the skull to be the container.

 

If someone uses this skull:

 

 

Then glues a small Lock & Lock to the inside, then I agree it would be a small. But if they glue a bison tube to the inside of the skull, would it still be a small?

[+narcissa]

Way I see it, if I'm hiding a bison tube inside a hole drilled into a large log, that means I'm trying to make the cache difficult to find. If you say in the cache page that folks should be looking for a large container, you are pretty much limiting the difficulty level of the cache.

 

Personally, I believe it should be sized on the inner dimensions of the container, not the outer dimensions. If you drill a tiny hole in a two foot log that only fits a bison tube...micro. If you hollow out the log, leaving only an inch or so of wood with a sizeable chamber inside...small or regular. Same object, different size container.

 

I would consider that a well-camouflaged micro.

 

If it's a bison tube inside, say, a plastic skull (real life example), then I would consider the skull to be the container.

 

If someone uses this skull:

 

 

Then glues a small Lock & Lock to the inside, then I agree it would be a small. But if they glue a bison tube to the inside of the skull, would it still be a small?

 

I'd probably consider that camouflage.

 

The one I'm talking about was a plastic Halloween decoration hanging in a tree. To me, it seems obvious that the skull makes it a small or a regular, even though the log is in a smaller container inside.

 

Whether or not the container is appropriate for TBs or assorted side games should not affect the size rating.

[+J Grouchy]

Whether or not the container is appropriate for TBs or assorted side games should not affect the size rating.

 

Really, the only thing that HAS to be in the cache is the log sheet...so using the "appropriate sizing for the required contents" would make every cache a micro. The only real reason for having larger containers is swag and trackables.

[Andronicus]

Wow, I remember asking this same question a two or three years ago. The unanimous consensus was the inner size of the container. It seems perceptions have changed.

 

I think that the guidlines should be used, which discusses what the container can hold. The plastic skull is not part of the cache. The fake plant is not part of the cache, nor is the log. That is all superfluous to the actual container.

[+fuzziebear3]

I think when there is a vast difference between the inner dimension and the outer dimension, or the special camo like the skull or the plant, that is where the 'Other' comes into play. You are looking for something a little more special than a micro, or a regular. It is other.

 

(Which, btw, is not the same as not specified, when I just don't want to tell you what you are looking for).

[+Chrysalides]

According to Groundspeak (or at least Paige Edmiston who wrote that blog entry) it is the internal volume that counts. Notice the use of the word "fit".

 

http://blog.geocaching.com/2013/06/name-that-geocache-what-size-is-this/

 

I think fuzziebear3 has an excellent point.

[+narcissa]

Whether or not the container is appropriate for TBs or assorted side games should not affect the size rating.

 

Really, the only thing that HAS to be in the cache is the log sheet...so using the "appropriate sizing for the required contents" would make every cache a micro. The only real reason for having larger containers is swag and trackables.

 

I don't really understand why this is related to my comment at all, and on top of that, it doesn't make much sense. We're not talking about what containers people should or should not use, we're talking about how to rate them on your cache page.

 

Besides that, everyone caches differently, and different cachers have different reasons for liking caches. I like to find large and regular caches, but I don't give a flying carp about swag. It's just nice to find a big cache with a big logbook where people have taken time to write logs.

 

Anyway, if I place a large cache and fill it with golfballs, and the whole point is that you have to dig through the golfballs to get to the logbook, then it's still a large, but it's not appropriate for swag or trackables.

[+narcissa]

I think when there is a vast difference between the inner dimension and the outer dimension, or the special camo like the skull or the plant, that is where the 'Other' comes into play. You are looking for something a little more special than a micro, or a regular. It is other.

 

(Which, btw, is not the same as not specified, when I just don't want to tell you what you are looking for).

 

I think it depends on the cache owner's intention. If I say my cache is a regular it's because I want people to read the cache page and know that they're looking for something "about this big."

[+narcissa]

According to Groundspeak (or at least Paige Edmiston who wrote that blog entry) it is the internal volume that counts. Notice the use of the word "fit".

 

http://blog.geocaching.com/2013/06/name-that-geocache-what-size-is-this/

 

I think fuzziebear3 has an excellent point.

 

That blog post appears to be little more than a helpful guide for n00bs to determine the differences between typical containers, and does not in any way address a more nuanced discussion.