Defining Cache Sizes

9.4k · September 10, 2004

The idea of adding a new cache size between micro and regular is being discussed in another thread, but currently we do not have accurate definitions of what each cache size means. Help us define what each size stands for:

micro

mini/small (currently small is the winner)

regular

large

virtual

other

Also "not chosen" but we may start requiring a switch to "other" if you don't want to give away the container.

The final definitions will be included in the glossary and a link from the nearest cache page and cache listing.

September 10, 2004

Don't forget nano caches. The ones that are the size of a capsule with room enough for a note only.

Team Sand Dollar

September 10, 2004

How about making a standard description based on acutal measured size of the container:

Here is a description method based on doubling the allowed size for container for each step:

Nano: largest dimension is less than 2 inches (smaller than 35mm film canister)

Micro: largest dimension is less than 4 inches (35mm film canister and altoids tin)

Small: largest dimension is less than 8 inches (small tupperware, decon boxes, etc)

Regular: largest dimension is less than 16 inches (ammo can, 1/2 and 1 gallon rubbermaid)

Large: largest dimension is greater than 16 inches (anything bigger than ammo box)

A similar method could also be done by the volume of the container, but people are generally better at estimating length than volume.

Edited September 10, 2004 by YuccaPatrol

2.1k · September 10, 2004

Hi,

First off, I added 2 more size categories :huh: . Sorry, but as long as we're talking about this, I thought I would mention the other 2 categories that naturally come to my mind.

tiny - pateots sized up to micro.

micro - decon container up to small

small - sandwich-sized tupperware up to regular

regular - 30 cal ammo can up to large

large - 3 gallon bucket up to huge

huge - 20 gallon storage container and up

virtual - a cache that exists in a form of a location

other - a cache that does not fit any of the above categories, or which the cache owner wishes to keep a mystery

nfa

Edited September 10, 2004 by NFA

38.2k · September 10, 2004

Micro - Film canisters, Hide a Keys, Altoids tins and smaller

Small - Sandwich sized, or single serving sized Tupperware, decon boxes, etc ... (aproximately 1-2 cups...or 250-500 mls)

The rest should stay the same. Ideally, I'd like for large to be anything bigger than a .50 cal ammo box, or 2 gallon container. I think that practically speaking, any container bigger than these are rare and should be considered "large".

But I think we are at too late a stage in this sport to start tweaking the cache sizes. If we make major changes at this juncture, a good portion of the 120,000 some caches out there will be misrated and I doubt a lot of owners will bother to fix their ratings.

As it stands now the additional size, though long needed, will create confusion because thousands of caches will no longer be properly sized. I know that from a personal standpoint, I'd have to change the size of a dozen or so of my hides. Not a major problem for me (I think I remember what container I used for each hide), but I don't see the less active cache owners taking the time to do this.

Edited September 10, 2004 by briansnat

September 10, 2004

I like this idea. Several of my caches fall into the small category but not micro. I think liquid measurement is the best way to define container size.

micro <= 1 cup or 1/4 liter

Small <= 1 quart or 1 liter

Regular <= 3 gallons or 12 liters

Large > 3 gallons or 12 liters

September 10, 2004

I'll expand on NFA's categories a bit ("up to" means "up to, but not including"):

nano - The smallest imaginable, from the subatomic up to half the size of a 35mm film can (includes most keychain pillboxes and grains of rice with GCXXXX laser-inscribed on them) Log strip has room enough only for initials, if even that.

micro - Half a 35mm film can up to a decon container (includes hide-a-keys, 35mm film cans, most prescription medicine bottles. Log scroll has room enough for you to write your geo-nick plus (maybe) the date.

small - Military surplus decon container up to regular, (includes most sandwich sized gladware.) Memo-pad size logbook is big enough for you to stamp your geo-stamp in, plus write a short note about your experience.

regular - 30 cal ammo can up to 2.5 gal bucket (includes 50 cal ammo cans and larger tupperware/gladware) Logbook is full size. Sign it, stamp it, paste in a polaroid if you like.

large - 2.5 gallon bucket up to 24 gal action-packer. Logbook is the size of your average college trigonometry textbook. Write big.

huge - 24 gallon action packer up to something just too small for an average sized adult to fit in. Logbook is the size of your college yearbook. It has its own waterproof box inside the container.

enormous - An average adult can walk inside this. It has a DOOR. The logbook is a massive 100 pound leather-bound medieval affair sitting open on a finely carved wooden pedestal at one end of the container, lit by a stained glass window directly above. There's a quill pen and an inkwell. There may even be a refrigerator. (abandoned railroad cars, subterranean bomb shelters, unused churches, etc.)

Edited September 10, 2004 by lowracer

7.2k · September 10, 2004

I like NFA's idea of using real world items to define the sizes.

Only I would adjust it a little:

Tiny: Smaller than an APS film can. (If we add this size)

Micro: Smaller than a decon container.

Small: Smaller than a 30cal ammo can.

Regular and above I'm fine with his definitions.

6.5k · September 10, 2004

I'm with Yucca on haveing a measureable definition, that is also verbally described.

Lowracer, I just checked your hides and didn't see anything fitting your enormous definition. :huh: Please email me when it is approved. That would be worth a special road trip just to see if I could find it. :huh:

I have been trying to figure out how to make a self storage units into a similar cache, but I really like the log book touch. :huh:

1.3k · September 10, 2004

How about making a standard description based on acutal measured size of the container:

Here is a description method based on doubling the allowed size for container for each step:

Nano: largest dimension is less than 2 inches (smaller than 35mm film canister)

Micro: largest dimension is less than 4 inches (35mm film canister and altoids tin)

Small: largest dimension is less than 8 inches (small tupperware, decon boxes, etc)

Regular: largest dimension is less than 16 inches (ammo can, 1/2 and 1 gallon rubbermaid)

Large: largest dimension is greater than 16 inches (anything bigger than ammo box)

A similar method could also be done by the volume of the container, but people are generally better at estimating length than volume.

I think this is a good idea. You need some actual measurements - as well as including some example.

Something along these lines would work. I'd hate to have to calculate volume, however, as suggested in another post.

southdeltan

September 10, 2004

Lowracer, I just checked your hides and didn't see anything fitting your enormous definition. Please email me when it is approved. That would be worth a special road trip just to see if I could find it.

I put in the enormous size category for Snoogans. Check out his "Quantum Leap" cache.

7.2k · September 10, 2004

I'm with Yucca on haveing a measureable definition, that is also verbally described.

Yeah, but someone in your field would be used to those kinds of measurements. :huh:

Me, I'd have to break out the wife's measuring cup and see how much water my new container holds. :huh:

Of course, that might work to as someone could develop a chart with the common containers in use and detail what size they are.

My problem with measured sizes, either volume or length, is some containers will fit in one class, but not be able to fit some items. Long thin tube-like containers might hold a decent amount of volume, but you can't get larger items in it. For instance, our howitzer tubes hold something like 3.5 gallons--which would make it a borderline large or better--but you can't get a decent coffee up in one.

Just something to take in consideration.

1.3k · September 10, 2004

I'm with Yucca on haveing a measureable definition, that is also verbally described.

Yeah, but someone in your field would be used to those kinds of measurements.

Me, I'd have to break out the wife's measuring cup and see how much water my new container holds.

Of course, that might work to as someone could develop a chart with the common containers in use and detail what size they are.

My problem with measured sizes, either volume or length, is some containers will fit in one class, but not be able to fit some items. Long thin tube-like containers might hold a decent amount of volume, but you can't get larger items in it. For instance, our howitzer tubes hold something like 3.5 gallons--which would make it a borderline large or better--but you can't get a decent coffee up in one.

Just something to take in consideration.

I think most people who can use the internet are qualified to use a ruler :huh:

Size has nothing to do with trade items. I know of a few .50 caliber ammo cans that have nothing in them but a log book.

Also, a lot of people don't trade but still want to know the size so they can better understand what they are looking for (or in some cases, not looking for).

sd

7.2k · September 10, 2004

Size has nothing to do with trade items. ...but still want to know the size so they can better understand what they are looking for ...

Huh? Okay. :huh:

If that's the case then I'm not sure we even need a size between micro and regular as knowing the difference between those two is all we've ever needed to find them.

All I really need to know when hunting is if it is larger than my fist or smaller and I'm all set.

9.1k · September 10, 2004

I like CR's suggestion that "someone could develop a chart with the common containers in use and detail what size they are." The first thing that occurred to me when I heard that container sizes were being revisited was the chart at the lost luggage counter at Airport Baggage Claim. If you've never gone through the agony of trying to recover lost baggage, the person at the desk points at a big poster with silohuettes depicting the dozens of common shapes and sizes of luggage: overnighters, duffle bags, golf bags, wheeled luggage with handles, boxes, and so forth. Given the great variation and creativity in developing different kinds of containers, seeing pictures, drawings or silohuettes of common cache containers would help in classifying them, especially for new hiders.

Also, I want to register my vote against adding further sizes in addition to "small" which is the request that's been heard more frequently over the years. When I've run pocket queries -- whether it's in Washington, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, Nevada or anyplace else I've visited, the typical results for a 500 cache search will turn up only a handful (2 to 10) caches that are classified as "Large." For such a small fraction, why bother to differentiate further? And, for "nano" vs. "micro" we would be debating for the next six months where the line would be drawn between these two, when in fact the primary reason for classifying by size seems to be to allow people who hate micros to exclude them from search results. Most folks who like hunting micros will also like hunting nanos, and vice versa. If you're in the anti-micro club, now you've got TWO sizes of caches to ignore.

9.4k · September 10, 2004

We're not adding any more sizes. Although enormous, x-large and such are fun, they are in an enormous minority of the overall caches. Just choose other if you don't like large.

Same goes for nano.

9.4k · September 10, 2004

Good idea in the sillouettes, or examples. So can anyone list a bunch of examples?

Personally I thought a lock & lock container was a normal size, not a small size (which I suppose will be the new name between micro and regular).

1.3k · September 10, 2004

Size has nothing to do with trade items. ...but still want to know the size so they can better understand what they are looking for ...

Huh? Okay.

If that's the case then I'm not sure we even need a size between micro and regular as knowing the difference between those two is all we've ever needed to find them.

All I really need to know when hunting is if it is larger than my fist or smaller and I'm all set.

I've just got a different view on this. I've never seen a micro that had trade items. In my area (well, state wide in MS) micros used to be film cannisters, but now the majority of new micros are those Wal-Mart brand "waterproof match holders". There are a few people that also use bison capsules and a very few people that use altoids strips containers.

In my area, micro automatically means it's not for trading - so I don't think of sizes as having something to do with trading. Of course, it seems that most people that stick with geocaching get away from trading eventually - or if they do they do so when they're with their family.

So - thinking of trading is not something that happens when I think of the size of a cache.

I hope that makes sense....

--------

I think the insertion of "small" as a type will be an improvement.

Knowing if it is actually a "micro" or just smaller than an ammo box is a good thing.

The "problem" is that micro could mean a lot of things....

sd

7.2k · September 10, 2004

I hope that makes sense....

The way you've explained your situation it does make sense.

Around here, most of the micros have trades. I don't recall seeing a non-trading micro until we started caching outside this area. Now, there is an import who hides non-trading micros.

The thought of a non-trading micros was so foreign to me in the beginning that I created a micro TB to travel from micro to micro because I thought micros were getting cheated of some fun.

September 10, 2004

The addition of a size desription such as "small" would be helpful.

For my .02, I think that a GREAT help would be a revamp/modification/amplification of the "Report a Cache" form. This is, after all, where the confusion begins.

It is easier for an experienced cacher to think like a newbie than the other way around. Thinking like a newbie, the word, "Traditional" can even be baffling at first. The term, "Single Container" might help differentiate those from the other types.

Within the "Size" menu, the parenthesized descriptive phrases e.g., (Film Canister)(Rubbermaid, Ammo, etc.) is VERY ambiguous at least, and even deceiving sometimes. Simply amplifying these phrases would go along way.

"...might hold small coins, lapel pins, or charms...may be log sheet only...

...might hold a sandwich, bandaid box, small toys and/or small Travel Bugs...

...could hold a pair of shoes, lots of small trade items, stuffed animals..etc.,

...could hold a 12-pack or more.....etc.,"

"Virtual" shows up in the "Size" menu. If Virtual is there, then why isn't "Micro" a type, as well as a "size"?

Directions for the use of the "Short Description" box could also be amplified/modified in a way that would remove some of the confusion.

hope this helps...

Mr Smiles

38.2k · September 10, 2004

Good idea in the sillouettes, or examples. So can anyone list a bunch of examples?

Personally I thought a lock & lock container was a normal size, not a small size (which I suppose will be the new name between micro and regular).

Lock n Locks come in all sizes. I have some out there as micros, some as regular and I've seen one in the store that could come close to being a large.

Around here, most of the micros have trades. I don't recall seeing a non-trading micro until we started caching outside this area. Now, there is an import who hides non-trading micros.

I guess its a regional thing. Most micros around here...and there are thankfully very few of them, have trade items.

If you've never gone through the agony of trying to recover lost baggage, the person at the desk points at a big poster with silohuettes depicting the dozens of common shapes and sizes of luggage: overnighters, duffle bags, golf bags, wheeled luggage with handles, boxes, and so forth. Given the great variation and creativity in developing different kinds of containers, seeing pictures, drawings or silohuettes of common cache containers would help in classifying them, especially for new hiders.

But how do you get that to work on a PC screen? You can't do it in actual size. I think describing real life items that people can compare them to is the best way to go.

Edited September 10, 2004 by briansnat

1.7k · September 10, 2004

How about making a standard description based on acutal measured size of the container:

Here is a description method based on doubling the allowed size for container for each step:

Nano: largest dimension is less than 2 inches (smaller than 35mm film canister)

Micro: largest dimension is less than 4 inches (35mm film canister and altoids tin)

Small: largest dimension is less than 8 inches (small tupperware, decon boxes, etc)

Regular: largest dimension is less than 16 inches (ammo can, 1/2 and 1 gallon rubbermaid)

Large: largest dimension is greater than 16 inches (anything bigger than ammo box)

I think that all of the posts have been very accurate on how to determine cache size. The quote I have included is one the that works the best for me.

6.5k · September 10, 2004

Good idea in the sillouettes, or examples. So can anyone list a bunch of examples?

Personally I thought a lock & lock container was a normal size, not a small size (which I suppose will be the new name between micro and regular).

This is why I supported the concept of using a measurable dimensions as a sizing criteria. I have seen some "tupperware" containers hidden that are not much larger than a contact lens case! But that cache owner would probably check other/unknown anyway. :lol:

Since CR poked fun at my easy access to measuring containers I'll suggest the following containers for sillouettes:

Nano-thimble/tablespoon

Micro-35mm film can

Small-sandwich-sized tupperware/one pint milk box

Regular-ammo box or one gallon milk jug

Large- Keg of beer/ five gallon beverage cooler

September 10, 2004

Personally, I'd want to know what kinds of items can be placed in it. Spherical sizes seem to be easily defined:

micro - Could hold small ball bearings or room for nothing else at all.
mini/small - Could hold marbles.
regular - Could hold golf balls to softballs.
large - Could hold soccer balls to bowling balls and larger.

The problem with giving references is if someone doesn't know what a decon container is (I still don't know) or if someone has a unique container that doesn't fall into one of the examples.

9.4k · September 10, 2004

Dang. Stop with the nano already.

September 10, 2004

Dang. Stop with the nano already.

I'm so sorry.

3.9k · September 10, 2004

Good idea in the sillouettes, or examples. So can anyone list a bunch of examples?

Personally I thought a lock & lock container was a normal size, not a small size (which I suppose will be the new name between micro and regular).

Lock n Locks come in all sizes. I have some out there as micros, some as regular and I've seen one in the store that could come close to being a large.

Took the words right out of my mouth. That's disgusting! :lol:

2.1k · September 10, 2004

Dang. Stop with the nano already.

Teeny-Weeny :lol:

8.4k · September 10, 2004

Lowracer, I just checked your hides and didn't see anything fitting your enormous definition. Please email me when it is approved. That would be worth a special road trip just to see if I could find it.

I put in the enormous size category for Snoogans. Check out his "Quantum Leap" cache.

LOL! Every time someone mentions it, the cache watches go up. It was at 92 early this morning. (96 now)

Back on topic:

QL should be catagorized as "Friggin' Huge!"

GQ's Abducted Santa Claus would fit easily into the Enormous variety. A full grown adult could fit inside the cache. People still wonder how he got the cache into position and many refused to believe that the outer container was what they were looking for and continued to search for something smaller before giving up and checking.

I quite liked the teeny-weeny catagory someone mentioned for extra small caches.

September 11, 2004

I think that there should indeed be a cache size under micro... Nano is fine, but I think SUBMICRO would be more intuitive in description

38.2k · September 11, 2004

Dang. Stop with the nano already.

I think I'm beginning to like Jeremy. I was about to say the same thing.

2.3k · September 11, 2004

Howsabout wee/small/medium/large/supersized? :lol:

September 11, 2004

Dang. Stop with the nano already.

What about pico? Or maybe we could also have a vauge option in case you want the size to remain a mystery as some sort of puzzle. Also there could be a multi size option for multicaches.

7.2k · September 11, 2004

Come on folks. Jeremey has to re-write the size descriptions. Now is the time to get this hammered out so everyone in on the same page.

I'm thinking it is less important to describe the middle of the size than it is to describe where the limits lay.

For instance, if we say 35mm film cans, vitamin bottles, M&M mini contianers and smaller are micros. Small can be up to and including the dreaded *ware containers and similar. Then regular is larger than *ware but smaller than 3 gallon buckets.

I'm thinking keeping the core of regular and micro the same. Take little off the top of micro and little off teh bottom of regular for the small size.

If we want everyone on the same page this needs doing before Jeremy rewrites the size descriptions and I suspect the very reason he is asking for this.

We're on our way out of town for a week on vacation.

Have fun!

7.2k · October 5, 2004

Okay, now "small" is in the choices of the size of container you can place.

Is the folks who were wanting the "small" size content with "holds a logbook and small trades" happy with that?

Should it be made clear that the logbook is in book form and not rolled up? (I made a recent example of putting a top-spiral 3"x5" logbook in a micro by rolling it up.)

Now is the time for those folks to speak up! The definitions page will soon be updated. Might want to have what you want included in there at that time.

38.2k · October 5, 2004

Is the folks who were wanting the "small" size content with "holds a logbook and small trades" happy with that?

Sounds good to me.

2.1k · October 5, 2004

I thought we had that settled - ???

October 6, 2004

I prefer to see size descriptions that give some volume measurements (after all, that IS what we're talking about, right?). However I'd like to see both volume measurements and common objects comparisons, such as "max volume is 1 cup, or about the size of an orange".

While we're on the subject, can I suggest a small change to those size icons? It sure would help to have the red indicator fill ALL the boxes to the left. In other words, for a regular-sized cache, instead of this:

it would look like this:

Seems it would be much easier to differentiate at a glance...

7.2k · October 6, 2004

Seems it would be much easier to differentiate at a glance...

I think you are right about easier to differentiate. I've had that problem myself. I just changed one of my caches to a small and when I called up the list of caches I couldn't find it by looking for the icon for "small." I had to find the cache by name and sure enough, the icon was for "small."

The problem I see though is it would probably confuse a lot of people, too. Folks would be asking, "well, which size is it? I've got three sizes showing so I don't know which one it is."

Would a better scheme be--except for those that are colorblind--by have each size a different color?

2.5k · October 6, 2004

Size has nothing to do with trade items. ...but still want to know the size so they can better understand what they are looking for ...

Huh? Okay.

If that's the case then I'm not sure we even need a size between micro and regular as knowing the difference between those two is all we've ever needed to find them.

All I really need to know when hunting is if it is larger than my fist or smaller and I'm all set.

I've just got a different view on this. I've never seen a micro that had trade items. In my area (well, state wide in MS) micros used to be film cannisters, but now the majority of new micros are those Wal-Mart brand "waterproof match holders". There are a few people that also use bison capsules and a very few people that use altoids strips containers.

In my area, micro automatically means it's not for trading - so I don't think of sizes as having something to do with trading. Of course, it seems that most people that stick with geocaching get away from trading eventually - or if they do they do so when they're with their family.

So - thinking of trading is not something that happens when I think of the size of a cache.

I hope that makes sense....

--------

I think the insertion of "small" as a type will be an improvement.

Knowing if it is actually a "micro" or just smaller than an ammo box is a good thing.

The "problem" is that micro could mean a lot of things....

sd

Before the inclusion of small, that would be a micro with trade items.

I have to say, though, that I, too, think that size is more defined by the inclusion or lack of inclusion of trade items.

Micro - Altoids container, film canister, Mini's container, bison tube, magnetic key holder, etc, stocked with a log book or a log book and a writing instrument only

Small - Decon containers, small tupperwear, large pill bottles, etc... stocked with a minimum of a log book / log book and writing instrument. (trade items optional)... OR any Micro sized container with trade items (mandatory) included.

Regular - any tupperwear the size of or larger than a sandwich container, peanut butter jars, ammo boxes, etc.

Large - 3 gallon bucket or larger.

As for arguments about log books, I think that's a mute point. I make mini books, so I can make books much smaller than any log book you would buy in a store and be able to include them in a cache without rolling them up. It's probably best to not make some sort of bizarre indicator like that.

October 6, 2004

A few words of caution from a participant in this *global* sport:

Never heard of a decon containter.
There seem to be an abundance of ammo cans in the USA, in my country we rarely or never see them, and they don't look at all like yours.
Don't know how much a gallon is unless I look it up and compare it to liters.
Inches I know better, but it's still difficult (centimeters here).

The only "standard" container mentioned so far that I think is globally wellknown is the film canister for micros. Can't think of any other containers of the same global standard dignity at the moment, but I'm sure a clever mind out there will think of something.

October 6, 2004

While we're on the subject, can I suggest a small change to those size icons? It sure would help to have the red indicator fill ALL the boxes to the left. In other words, for a regular-sized cache, instead of this:

it would look like this:

Seems it would be much easier to differentiate at a glance...

I agree, it is a bit hard to see which one of the three squares that is coloured. However, I don't think it would make it more intuitive to colour *several* squares, but I do think the grayed out colour of the empty ones is to weak.

Rather this

than this

October 7, 2004

But, where are the 'tall' and 'grande' an what ever other sizes the coffee lovers would recognize?

Defining Cache Sizes

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation