Re: Cache Sizes - Feedback Sought
Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 2:17 pm
I have a sneaking suspicion that soon there will be a fair number of new opportunities to log BIT caches in our area.
OpenCaching.us / .ca / .mx
FYI, he also updated the Log Password info, slightly, to make remove the discouragement against using them on physical caches.Cache size
Cache sizes for all caches that have a physical container.
- 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
Essentially, the sentence, "Passwords are generally intended for virtual and BITcaches(TM) only, and not recommended to be used for other cache types," was removed.Log password
A password is required to log the cache found. See the specific cache description for instructions from the hider for obtaining the password. Passwords are required for BITcaches(TM) and particularly useful for virtuals, but can also be used with other cache types. When hiding a cache that will not require a password, leave this field blank. Log Passwords are not case sensitive.
Stuff it, cram it, laminate it, fold it, spindle it, zip tie it, tape it. The scanned code delivers you to the cache page and then requires use of the passphrase printed on the BIT to log. Alternately you can pull up the cache page (in an app or on the interwebs) without scanning the code but you would still need the passphrase from the BIT in order to log.KnowsOpie wrote:OMG, like this thread is so old!
I'm pondering BIT caches and nanos. I never liked Munzee crap because it's pasted to public property and not hidden. I guess almost all geocachers have or use smartphones, and QR codes are common now, so would BIT caches be a good idea? Can you just stuff one in a poly tube, hide it at an interesting location, and call that a BIT cache?
They will not conflict. A great option when the space is occupied by another cache. With no on site log to sign it is not a typical cache. The different logging technique makes all the difference here.What if there is already a published geocache listed on another site nearby? I don't think that the two would conflict, the BIT cache thingy pretty much explains what it is.
Please don't cram one into a nano. If a cache is small enough to be swallowed, it should be considered a hazard to children and shouldn't be allowed. Seriously, I could get arrested for trying to bring Kinder Surprise Eggs into the USA but I can stick tiny little magnetic things to places where children play? Putting it in a small cache is a good idea though.KnowsOpie wrote:I guess I confused them with Munzee and compared them with nanos that are log only crap. So nothing would be wrong with attaching one to a small cache, like taping them inside a dry box or an altoids tin then?
Most of the time when seeking a BIT I have an app open (c:geo), Find the BIT, take notice of the password, log from the app. Occasionally I will recall or target a specific BIT that I know the general location of (usually urban) and will simply stop by. Then I will either scan the code to open the cache page in a browser and log from there or decide to use an app to pull up the nearest cache (which is the BIT) and log from there. I find it easier to log from the app since it is designed to fit the screen and navigating to the log entry is quicker.if someone is using their smartphone to navigate to a cache, they are already "on the cache page" or can log the find using whatever app. But I don't log in the field (no data). what says you Mr.Yuck or others? Do you scan the QR codes on BIT caches to log them in the field?
Right, and that is worth something. the first BIT I placed was purposefully set to be very visible. Chainlink fence beside a busy sidewalk at eye level. It's been nearly two years, I see it a couple times a week as I drive by. The cache page has had 2012 visitors but I have no idea if any of those visits were a result of scanning the QR code (and would LOVE to know if that was even possible to track). The number of views is not substantially different from any of my other caches of the same "vintage"TermiteHunter wrote: Scanning the code is probably more likely to be used by someone not familiar with OCNA and BITs and may be the first time they become aware of OCNA