[CanadianRockies]

I've seen several posts similar to this one:

Quote

I fully believe that the nano size will be added. Once the new GPX version is released, it will allow the easy addition of new cache sizes, types, log types, and attributes.

I have trouble believing the GPX file is delaying the implementation of a "nano" cache size. The current GPX file already allows for the easy addition of new cache sizes with the existing "container" tag (e.g., <Groundspeak:container>Nano</Groundspeak:container>). The same applies to new cache types (e.g., <Groundspeak:type>Tomb Raider</Groundspeak:type>), new log types (e.g., <Groundspeak:type>Warning</Groundspeak:type>), and attributes (<Groundspeak:attribute id="99" inc="1">Challenge</Groundspeak:attribute>).

People who write programs that parse XML code (like GPX files), generally will ignore tags whose values they don't recognize, at least if these aren't vital to the program's operation. Later, if they decide that these new values can be useful to the program, they will change the program to recognize these values and handle them accordingly. In the meantime, though, these new values will not cause their programs to break.

[4wheelin_fool]

I don't think it's a big priority. Not even a regular, small or micro priority...

[jholly]

The problem is that they want to implement that with the new cache submission procedure. The problem with the new cache submission procedure is the Maps. First the move away from Google and now the move back to Google. I'm sure something else will pop up. Eventually it will be time for the GPX change. As for the software ignoring the tags, didn't Delorme and other software brick when they implemented the attributes for GPX and had to quickly revert back until they did the 1.0 and 1.0.1 thing?

[JoLTeam]

And while adding the "nano" size they should change "regular" to "medium". There are much more micro's and smalls than "regular"s these days.

[Glenn]

jholly, on 20 April 2012 - 06:59 PM, said:

The problem is that they want to implement that with the new cache submission procedure. The problem with the new cache submission procedure is the Maps. First the move away from Google and now the move back to Google. I'm sure something else will pop up. Eventually it will be time for the GPX change. As for the software ignoring the tags, didn't Delorme and other software brick when they implemented the attributes for GPX and had to quickly revert back until they did the 1.0 and 1.0.1 thing?

Sounds like poor programming on Delorme's part. When an interpreter encounters something it doesn't understand it should ideally catch the error and let the user know or throw a flag and quietly ignore the tag.

[Scubasonic]

CanadianRockies, on 20 April 2012 - 06:27 PM, said:

I've seen several posts similar to this one:

Quote

I fully believe that the nano size will be added. Once the new GPX version is released, it will allow the easy addition of new cache sizes, types, log types, and attributes.

I have trouble believing the GPX file is delaying the implementation of a "nano" cache size. The current GPX file already allows for the easy addition of new cache sizes with the existing "container" tag (e.g., <Groundspeak:container>Nano</Groundspeak:container>). The same applies to new cache types (e.g., <Groundspeak:type>Tomb Raider</Groundspeak:type>), new log types (e.g., <Groundspeak:type>Warning</Groundspeak:type>), and attributes (<Groundspeak:attribute id="99" inc="1">Challenge</Groundspeak:attribute>).

People who write programs that parse XML code (like GPX files), generally will ignore tags whose values they don't recognize, at least if these aren't vital to the program's operation. Later, if they decide that these new values can be useful to the program, they will change the program to recognize these values and handle them accordingly. In the meantime, though, these new values will not cause their programs to break.

I would not think this is a very high priorty item, at least it wouldn't be in my book.

[AZcachemeister]

4wheelin_fool, on 20 April 2012 - 06:33 PM, said:

I don't think it's a big priority. Not even a regular, small or micro priority...

Yup.

If it's an urban cache, I just assume it's a nano from the start.
If it happens to be a larger container, I will find it that much faster.

[Scubasonic]

JoLTeam, on 21 April 2012 - 05:11 AM, said:

And while adding the "nano" size they should change "regular" to "medium". There are much more micro's and smalls than "regular"s these days.

[power69]

AZcachemeister, on 21 April 2012 - 07:10 AM, said:

4wheelin_fool, on 20 April 2012 - 06:33 PM, said:

I don't think it's a big priority. Not even a regular, small or micro priority...

Yup.

If it's an urban cache, I just assume it's a nano from the start.
If it happens to be a larger container, I will find it that much faster.

not always. I dnf'd a LARGE once.

[power69]

nano already exists. its called unknown.

[jholly]

JoLTeam, on 21 April 2012 - 05:11 AM, said:

And while adding the "nano" size they should change "regular" to "medium". There are much more micro's and smalls than "regular"s these days.

That can really be problematic. After 11 years that is pretty well ingrained in devices and software. Making a sudden change could and probably will break lots of third party software. The 1.0 and 1.0.1 fiasco comes to mind. Seems logical, but sometimes choices are made you just have to live with.

[The A-Team]

jholly, on 21 April 2012 - 08:15 AM, said:

Making a sudden change could and probably will break lots of third party software.

It isn't a sudden change. The most recent revisions to the schema were made public in December. Whether Groundspeak actually went out and directly alerted developers is another question.

[jholly]

The A-Team, on 21 April 2012 - 08:23 AM, said:

jholly, on 21 April 2012 - 08:15 AM, said:

Making a sudden change could and probably will break lots of third party software.

It isn't a sudden change. The most recent revisions to the schema were made public in December. Whether Groundspeak actually went out and directly alerted developers is another question.

The problem with the announcement you linked is that there is no mention of a medium container size replacing the regular container size. It was from a screenshot that Moun10bike posted. So if developers are working form that and the published schema and don't take in to account the screenshot there might be a pothole or two along the way.

[uxorious]

JoLTeam, on 21 April 2012 - 05:11 AM, said:

And while adding the "nano" size they should change "regular" to "medium". There are much more micro's and smalls than "regular"s these days.

There are a lot more people wearing 2XL clothes today, but I don't see the clothing manufacturers moving to change their sizes.

I suppose it is a matter of semantics, but a regular is still a regular, even when most are nano.

(However, I do get your point. )

[tozainamboku]

power69, on 21 April 2012 - 07:32 AM, said:

nano already exists. its called unknown.

Actually there is no unknown size. There are two options 'Other' and 'Not Specified' that have particular meanings and nano is is not one of them. However, traditionally many nano hiders used 'Not Specified' because when nanos were much rarer, this supposedly made them harder to find. Many nano owners also use 'Other' because they are convince that the Micro does not apply to something as small as a nano and select Other because none of the other sizes fits. Then they should specify nano somewhere in the description.

[St.Matthew]

Yeah, most nanos I have found were listed as micro or not chosen with nano in the description.

[captnemo]

They had everything ready to go when someone dropped it and they are still looking for that dang nano thing.

[Harry Dolphin]

Nanos are 'micro' by definition. I don't see any reason to change that. If one hides a twenty gallon cache, do we need a new category for 'humungous' caches? Nope. 'Large' works.
Quite irked me when a pompous local logged that I 'should list it as a nano. Or mention of the cache page that it is a nano." It is a micro, and I have it listed properly as a 'micro'. I am sorry that you have not read the guidelines, and learnt that a 'nano' IS a 'micro'. I found that quite pompous, and a severe stain of 'entitlement'. I listed it correctly. What's your problem???

[humboldt flier]

power69, on 21 April 2012 - 07:31 AM, said:

AZcachemeister, on 21 April 2012 - 07:10 AM, said:

4wheelin_fool, on 20 April 2012 - 06:33 PM, said:

I don't think it's a big priority. Not even a regular, small or micro priority...

Yup.

If it's an urban cache, I just assume it's a nano from the start.
If it happens to be a larger container, I will find it that much faster.

not always. I dnf'd a LARGE once.

Shoot, I DNFd a VIRTUAL once. Grrrrrrrr

The 100 yr. old deele bopper in a firehouse in Livermore, Calif.

( firehouse was closed )

[CanadianRockies]

Harry Dolphin, on 22 April 2012 - 02:55 PM, said:

Nanos are 'micro' by definition. I don't see any reason to change that. If one hides a twenty gallon cache, do we need a new category for 'humungous' caches? Nope. 'Large' works.

If I was looking for large container, my search probably wouldn't differ much if I was looking for a 20-gallon cache instead of a 5-gallon cache.

When I look for a micro container, my search usually differs rather significantly when I'm looking for a nano versus a film canister.

[jholly]

humboldt flier, on 22 April 2012 - 04:14 PM, said:

power69, on 21 April 2012 - 07:31 AM, said:

AZcachemeister, on 21 April 2012 - 07:10 AM, said:

4wheelin_fool, on 20 April 2012 - 06:33 PM, said:

I don't think it's a big priority. Not even a regular, small or micro priority...

Yup.

If it's an urban cache, I just assume it's a nano from the start.
If it happens to be a larger container, I will find it that much faster.

not always. I dnf'd a LARGE once.

Shoot, I DNFd a VIRTUAL once. Grrrrrrrr

The 100 yr. old deele bopper in a firehouse in Livermore, Calif.

( firehouse was closed )

and now I hear the bulb burned out.

[The A-Team]

jholly, on 22 April 2012 - 07:40 PM, said:

humboldt flier, on 22 April 2012 - 04:14 PM, said:

Shoot, I DNFd a VIRTUAL once. Grrrrrrrr

The 100 yr. old deele bopper in a firehouse in Livermore, Calif.

( firehouse was closed )

and now I hear the bulb burned out.

April fools!
Longest Burning Light Bulb — No More?
The most riveting webcam on the net: Bulb Cam!
I like this quote from the webcam page:

Quote

The New Bulbcam is Working!!!
Unlike the bulb, the first camera had a limited life of about 3 years. We are hoping this one will give the bulb a run for it's money.

They just don't make 'em like they used to.

[firestronaut]

Harry Dolphin, on 22 April 2012 - 02:55 PM, said:

Nanos are 'micro' by definition.

I was thinking that too.

[briansnat]

power69, on 21 April 2012 - 07:32 AM, said:

nano already exists. its called unknown.

Actually it's called micro.

[NYPaddleCacher]

humboldt flier, on 22 April 2012 - 04:14 PM, said:

power69, on 21 April 2012 - 07:31 AM, said:

AZcachemeister, on 21 April 2012 - 07:10 AM, said:

4wheelin_fool, on 20 April 2012 - 06:33 PM, said:

I don't think it's a big priority. Not even a regular, small or micro priority...

Yup.

If it's an urban cache, I just assume it's a nano from the start.
If it happens to be a larger container, I will find it that much faster.

not always. I dnf'd a LARGE once.

Shoot, I DNFd a VIRTUAL once. Grrrrrrrr

The 100 yr. old deele bopper in a firehouse in Livermore, Calif.

( firehouse was closed )

I not only DNFd an ammo can but it was a Golden Ammo can. To be fair, it was in a heavily wooded area and camo'd really well under a very large fallen tree.

I also visited a virtual, and could answer all the questions required to log it, but didn't know there was a virtual there at the time and so didn't take a photo of myself or my GPS in front of the unique object found there. I posted a "note" log.

This post has been edited by NYPaddleCacher: 23 April 2012 - 03:15 PM

[4wheelin_fool]

Nano is not really a size, but a specific type of magnetic container which fits the definition of micro.

[niraD]

4wheelin_fool, on 23 April 2012 - 08:54 PM, said:

Nano is not really a size, but a specific type of magnetic container which fits the definition of micro.

From the "What does a geocache look like?" section of Geocaching 101: "A nano cache is a common sub-type of a micro cache that is less than 10ml and can only hold a small logsheet."

[CanadianRockies]

.

This post has been edited by CanadianRockies: 23 April 2012 - 09:36 PM

[4wheelin_fool]

,

This post has been edited by 4wheelin_fool: 23 April 2012 - 09:50 PM

[Mr.Yuck]

4wheelin_fool, on 23 April 2012 - 08:54 PM, said:

Nano is not really a size, but a specific type of magnetic container which fits the definition of micro.

Under current policy, yes. You know that. I know that. A few other people in the forums know that. But about 80% (my experience) of people who have ever placed one don't know that. I could show you someone who has been Geocaching since 2002, has over 6,000 finds and over 100 hides, who listed a friggin' nano as size not listed. This is why Mr. Yuck has always supported the nano size designation.

And I'll throw this controversial statement out there. There supposed to be micros, right? Almost everyone I see incorrectly listed as other or not listed, it is so totally obvious they're nano's, with many saying "nano" right in the body of the cache description. I think the reviewers could nip this in the bud a little; if I can tell, they surely can tell.

[ras_oscar]

And I know full well what will happen the day that micro is added as a new official cache size. Someone is going to add a new unofficial micro nano to be the newest smallest badest cache size out there. Eventually the arms race will have me searching for a grain of sand on a beach so I can etchy my handle on it with my microscope laser pen. Stop the Madness!!!

[Glenn]

ras_oscar, on 24 April 2012 - 03:51 AM, said:

And I know full well what will happen the day that micro is added as a new official cache size. Someone is going to add a new unofficial micro nano to be the newest smallest badest cache size out there. Eventually the arms race will have me searching for a grain of sand on a beach so I can etchy my handle on it with my microscope laser pen. Stop the Madness!!!

Since you brought it up. I saw one those Your Name On A Grain Of Rice booths the other day. I'm now working on a way to incorporate that in to a cache somehow. This should be interesting.

[Totem Clan]

ras_oscar, on 24 April 2012 - 03:51 AM, said:

And I know full well what will happen the day that micro is added as a new official cache size. Someone is going to add a new unofficial micro nano to be the newest smallest badest cache size out there. Eventually the arms race will have me searching for a grain of sand on a beach so I can etchy my handle on it with my microscope laser pen. Stop the Madness!!!

I tried but it walked away.

[tozainamboku]

Mr.Yuck, on 24 April 2012 - 03:43 AM, said:

I could show you someone who has been Geocaching since 2002, has over 6,000 finds and over 100 hides, who listed a friggin' nano as size not listed. This is why Mr. Yuck has always supported the nano size designation.

And I'll throw this controversial statement out there. There supposed to be micros, right? Almost everyone I see incorrectly listed as other or not listed, it is so totally obvious they're nano's, with many saying "nano" right in the body of the cache description. I think the reviewers could nip this in the bud a little; if I can tell, they surely can tell.

Originally many hiders listed nanos as "Not Specified" because the container was so unusual that it made it harder to find. Imagine showing up at GZ and seeing no place to hide a cache - even a micro - and have to start searching with no idea of what you are looking for.

Overtime nanos became more common and the use of "Not Specified" rather than making it harder, actually makes it easier. Now you show up at GZ and see no place to hide even a micro but the size is listed as "Not Specified" - what's the first thing you look for? I suspect some people use "Not Specified" because they still think it makes it harder, but most people select "Not Specified" or "Other" because they think that is the proper size for a nano.

[DadOf6Furrballs]

On the few nanos we have out, we actually tell them on the page they're looking for a nano. It's always listed as a micro. It shouldn't take an hour out of someone's day looking for something they have no idea what they're looking for, nor should they have to tear the place up to find it.

[DragonsWest]

Confusion reigns as people often list nanos as the dreaded Size Not Chosen *dramatic chord* so you could be looking for anything, which really does open up more possibilities for where the hide is and more DNFs as some people take one look at a rich environment for hides and say, "Nuts to this!"