Cache Sizes - Feedback Sought

About the Opencaching Site

Cache Sizes - Feedback Sought

Postby DudleyGrunt » Thu Apr 05, 2012 1:25 pm

I've been wondering if 1) folks choose the size of their OCNA cache (when creating the cache page) based on the descriptions in our wiki or what they're generally accustomed to from other sites, mostly Groundspeak and 2) we should modify our size descriptions.

Here is a quiz. If hiding the following items on this site, what size would you assign them? Jot down your answers and compare to what I show below.

A "nano" cache = _________________
Bison tube = _________________
35 mm film container = _________________
Altoids / SPAM can (Container that will only hold logbook and small swag) = _________________
Decon container / Small Rubbermaid / Tupperware / Lock-n-Lock container = _________________
Standard Rubbermaid / Tupperware / Lock-n-Lock container = _________________
Larger Rubbermaid / Tupperware / Lock-n-Lock container = _________________
5 gallon bucket = _________________


* * * * *
Here are the sizes used by other sites and what they give for examples (if any).

Groundspeak
Not Listed - (I often see this used for nanos)
Micro - 35 mm Film Canister
Small - holds logbook and small items
Regular - Rubbermaid, Ammo Box
Large - 5 Gallon Bucket
Other - see (cache) description


TerraCaching
Micro - Bison Capsue
Mini - 35 mm Film Canister
Small - Can of SPAM
Medium - Ammo Can
Large - 5 Gallon Bucket

Navicaching - I don't believe any size guidelines are given.
Unknown
Micro
Normal
Large
Virtual

Garmin - Sliding scale from 1.0 to 5.0 with options to the tenths place (that's 49 options!). No guidelines found.

GPSgames - No size attribute is used.

* * * * *
OCNA
Micro - very tiny, also referred to as "nano"
Small - 35 mm film canister or similar, typically containing only a logbook
Regular - decon container, sandwich-sized Tupperware-style container or similar, holds trade items as well as a logbook
Large - larger tupperware-style container or ammo can
Extra Large - 5 gallon bucket or larger

Based on our size descriptions I'd go with and the Groundspeak & TerraCaching equivalents...

A "nano" cache - Micro (GS & TC = Micro, but many on GS use "other" and there is a call for GS to introduce a new sub-micro size)
-
Bison tube - Small (GS & TC = Micro)
35 mm film container - Small (GS = Micro & TC = Mini)
-
Altoids / SPAM can / Container that will only hold logbook and small swag - Regular (GS & TC = Small)
Decon container / Small Rubbermaid / Tupperware / Lock-n-Lock container - Regular (GS & TC = Small)
Standard Rubbermaid / Tupperware / Lock-n-Lock container - Regular (GS = Regular / TC = Medium?)
-
Larger Rubbermaid / Tupperware / Lock-n-Lock container - Large (GS = Regular / TC = Medium)
Ammo can - Large (GS = Regular / TC = Medium)
-
5 gallon bucket - Extra Large (GS & TC = Large)

* * * * *
I know that when I see sized on OCNA caches, it is hard not to think in the terms I've become used over the years. The difference tends to be that we seem to rate stuff about a size higher than Groundspeak or TerraCahing. Although, I've noticed a tendency on Groundspeak of "size creep" as people become used to more "micros" and fewer "ammo cans" to rate things larger than I would categorize them. I often find 35 mm film containers listed as "small" and smaller lock-n-locks as "regular"

I'd be interested in hearing from you the following...

1) How'd you do with the size quiz?
2) When you hide / search for OCNA caches, to your use our scale or what you're used to from other sites?
3) From your experience searching for caches, how do you think others are determining the sizes of their own caches?
4) Do you think we should modify the description of our available sizes?

Thanks!
Dave, OCNA Site Admin
For the smiles, not the smilies.
Image Image
GeoCachers 4 Christ - Military Association of GeoCachers - Maryland Geocaching Society
Look for "Geocachers Unlimited" on Facebook and Google+.
User avatar
DudleyGrunt
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1983
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 1:27 pm
Location: Jessup, MD

Re: Cache Sizes - Feedback Sought

Postby NativTxn » Thu Apr 05, 2012 3:15 pm

Here are my thoughts:
Micro - Nano (Could have it's own Nano category in my mind), Small Bison, Film Canister, Small Altoids (Room for ONLY the log)
Small - Decon, Spam, larger Altoids, small lock & locks, Mighty Megas (GxProxy) (Room for log and very small swag, small pencil)
Regular/Medium - larger lock & locks (larger than a sandwich), 30mm ammo cans (Room for 1/2 sheet notebook sized logs, larger swag, trackables, stamps for letterboxes)
Large - 50mm ammo cans, gallon size or larger containers.
X-Large - 5 gallon bucket and larger (Room for regular sized notebook and a small child - don't try this at home, folks)
Not Listed are those that are mystery containers - like those TINY ammo cans. Use the description to say "ammo can" to throw people off.

I was off on some of the sizes
Personally, I know I use my scale listed above.
I honestly did not look too closely at the Wiki descriptions because I already had this scale in mind.
I think our sizes could be adjusted here to fit what I think most people have in their minds. If we had a Nano size, I think folks would be happy with that.
If you hide it, they will come!
Image Image Image
My Website
User avatar
NativTxn
Site Admin
 
Posts: 376
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 10:19 am
Location: Snook, TX

Re: Cache Sizes - Feedback Sought

Postby k3iv » Thu Apr 05, 2012 4:00 pm

I think I'd try to maintain compatibility with the most widely-understood meaning for size names (that would be GS) and would introduce new terms for ambiguous cases (e.g., nano) or for types not found elsewhere (e.g., BIT caches).
k3iv
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 12:17 am

Re: Cache Sizes - Feedback Sought

Postby sfcchaz » Thu Apr 05, 2012 4:55 pm

1) I did quite poorly on the quiz. :oops: I used my thoughts of what the GS site uses which is generally one size smaller. Most likely because there isn't a "nano" size on GS.

2) Actually I never really gave it any thought and was not completely aware of the differences. When I search for a cache on the OCNA site, I think of the GS sizes. For many of the caches I have hidden on the OCNA site, I used what I was accustomed to on GS. I've hidden several caches I listed as "micros" (35mm, bison tubes, or medicine containers) which in fact according to the OCNA site should have listed as small.

3) I've found that as newer cachers are hiding caches on GS, more and more are listing a 35mm container and the like as small. I've commented several times that I would not have considered the cache I found "small", rather a micro. But that is just my point of view. In my eyes a "small" container could generally hold a 35mm container, although an Altoids tin (3"x 2"x 0.5") could be an exception. I believe as swag is getting smaller and smaller, such as those tiny little erasers and beanie babies, a 35mm could hold these items and thus be considered a "small" cache. Also it seems that fewer and fewer cachers are actually trading swag. I used to trade in almost every single cache (years ago), but now I rarely do, although I do carry a bunch of small swag just in case I do want to make a trade.

4) I know we all have our reasons for using this site. But if I were to vote on it, I would use the same sizes as GS, with the addition of nano.
Cheers, sfcchaz

ImageImage
User avatar
sfcchaz
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 7:58 am

Re: Cache Sizes - Feedback Sought

Postby DudleyGrunt » Fri Apr 06, 2012 2:48 pm

Thanks for your responses. So far, we have 3 votes for uniformity with the other sites. Groundspeak and TerraCaching seem to generally agree, except for their having both "Micro" and the slightly larger "Mini" sizes.

I'd have to discuss this with Coffee Peddlers, but this is basically what I had in mind when I posted the thread. The following would only require updating the wiki page, though I'd like to update the form for publishig caches so examples are listed, when selecting a size.

Micro - includes "nano", 35 mm film canister, bison tubes, etc., typically containing only a logbook
Small - decon container, sandwich-sized Tupperware-style container or similar, holds trade items as well as a logbook
Regular - standard lock-n-lock or similar containers
Large - larger lock-n-lock style containers or ammo cans
Extra Large - 5 gallon bucket or larger
Dave, OCNA Site Admin
For the smiles, not the smilies.
Image Image
GeoCachers 4 Christ - Military Association of GeoCachers - Maryland Geocaching Society
Look for "Geocachers Unlimited" on Facebook and Google+.
User avatar
DudleyGrunt
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1983
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 1:27 pm
Location: Jessup, MD

Re: Cache Sizes - Feedback Sought

Postby Sabrefan7 » Sat Apr 07, 2012 8:58 am

DudleyGrunt wrote:
Micro - includes "nano", 35 mm film canister, bison tubes, etc., typically containing only a logbook
Small - decon container, sandwich-sized Tupperware-style container or similar, holds trade items as well as a logbook
Regular - standard lock-n-lock or similar containers
Large - larger lock-n-lock style containers or ammo cans
Extra Large - 5 gallon bucket or larger


Micros= Bison Tubes- Nanos= ignore/shouldbebanned :mrgreen:
The rest is good to go with me
User avatar
Sabrefan7
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 8:26 pm

Re: Cache Sizes - Feedback Sought

Postby k3iv » Sat Apr 07, 2012 1:07 pm

Micros= Bison Tubes- Nanos= ignore/shouldbebanned
The rest is good to go with me


I predict you're *really* not going to like BIT Caches! :-)
k3iv
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 12:17 am

Re: Cache Sizes - Feedback Sought

Postby GOF » Sat Apr 07, 2012 9:10 pm

I prefer the BIT cache tags to micros. I think there are a ton of places you can put them that any container would be problematic at best. A QR code on the back of a no parking sign at a historic site never got the bomb squad called out. Heck, most people don't pay them any attention.They sure aren't likely to take em even if they do notice.
GOF
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 8:08 pm

Re: Cache Sizes - Feedback Sought

Postby Sabrefan7 » Sun Apr 08, 2012 1:39 am

k3iv wrote:
Micros= Bison Tubes- Nanos= ignore/shouldbebanned
The rest is good to go with me


I predict you're *really* not going to like BIT Caches! :-)

Actually I like the BIT cache idea. I have logged 3 so far. I dislike nanos because of were the vast majority are put. Climbing all over a bus stop running your hands every were is not my idea of fun.
I hate parking lot hides, but like a bison tube in a pine tree. I have found a few match stick holders in the woods. I dont like eyes on me and think being stealthy is just a reason good not to hide a cache there.
But thats just me, I dont care how others play the game :)
User avatar
Sabrefan7
 
Posts: 257
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 8:26 pm

Re: Cache Sizes - Feedback Sought

Postby Mr.Yuck » Fri Apr 20, 2012 12:44 pm

GOF wrote:I prefer the BIT cache tags to micros. I think there are a ton of places you can put them that any container would be problematic at best. A QR code on the back of a no parking sign at a historic site never got the bomb squad called out. Heck, most people don't pay them any attention.They sure aren't likely to take em even if they do notice.


I had never looked at this thread, but Gof said to me just the other day what he said above (along with a lot more), and man, he convinced me. He made very good arguments about how Bit's or Munzees (Yeeck) are a much better choice for urban locations than your classic micro containers. Even to the point where I just went out and placed 2 more Bit Caches that I probably wouldn't have otherwise. Actually, I Google Earthed them and submitted, I still have to go out and place them.
ImageImage
User avatar
Mr.Yuck
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2020
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 2:09 pm
Location: Buffalo, N.Y.

Next

Return to Opencaching Website

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron