Return to Project-GC

Welcome to Project-GC Q&A. Ask questions and get answers from other Project-GC users.

If you get a good answer, click the checkbox on the left to select it as the best answer.

Upvote answers or questions that have helped you.

If you don't get clear answers, edit your question to make it clearer.

New cache-sizes planned by geocaching.com?

+1 vote
599 views
I just got an email from Geocaching HQ regarding container sizes. In the survey they asked for large,medium, small and extra small cache sizes..

I wonder if Geocaching HQ is going to mess up the known sizes with the ones mentioned in the survey.

In my opinion they should leave it as it is, but with the addition of nano-sized caches.

What do you think? Are they going to mess things up? Do you see an improvement in the possibly new named cache sizes? Or do you think they leave it as it is?
asked Jun 20, 2017 in Miscellaneous by NoobNader (Expert) (15,940 points)

6 Answers

+2 votes

I've not had the survey yet but it is worrying that they go and arbitrarily break everything. 

I don't think the current problem is necessarily the names, the problem is the descriptions/specifications of what they actually mean. This is self-evident in the fact that 'regular' caches are extremely rare. I definitely agree that nano sized caches need to be differentiated from 35mm caches as search techniques for the two of them are very different. 

Below are what Groundspeak consider each size and what I'd propose - effectively it is mostly a case of shifting the definition down a category and making Micro be synomonous with nano. 

Micro (XS): 
Groundspeak def: Micro containers are less than 100 milliliters. They’re about the size of a film cannister, or smaller. They can hold a tiny logbook or log sheet. If a micro cache is less than 10 milliliters, it’s often called a nano cache
Proposed def: A micro cache is a nano cache/5mm tube etc. Sometimes you may only be able to sign initials on the log book.

Small (S)
Groundspeak def: Small containers are 100 milliliters to 1 liter. They’re about the size of a sandwich. They can hold a small logbook and trade items.
Proposed def: Small containers are generally unable to hold anything but the log book (and perhaps a short pencil). They are typically 35mm film canisters or magnetic key safes. The log book may be a roll/folded paper but large enough to sign and date fully.

Regular (M): 
Groundspeak def: Regular containers are 1 to 20 liters. They’re about the size of a shoebox. Many of these caches are ammo cans.
Proposed def: Regular containers are large enough to hold a few trackables or swaps. They are typically clip-lock food boxes up to about 1 liter. The log book will more commonly be larger sheets or a notebook.

Large (L)
Groundspeak def: Large containers are more than 20 liters. Buckets, bins, or even railroad freight cars can be large containers.
Proposed def: Large containers can hold many or larger trackables/swaps. These include very large clip lock boxes, ammo boxes or even bigger containers. The log book will typically be a larger notebook.

Other (--)
Groundspeak def: Some containers just don't fit into size categories, like a magnetic sheet with a logbook attached. See the cache description for more information.
Proposed def: Some containers just don't fit into size categories, like a magnetic sheet with a logbook attached. See the cache description for more information.

Another approach is to keep the current definitions but insert nano as its own category at the start, this has the advantage of being less disruptive to current cache listings  so may be preferable. Either way making changes is going to cause confusion and muck up some challenges.

answered Jun 20, 2017 by mole125 (Expert) (19,980 points)
edited Jun 20, 2017 by mole125 (Expert)
This would effectively require an edit to many caches out there to correct their size ratings. It is better (and easy) for application writers to write their applications to easily cater for more cache sizes or types (giga event got added a few years ago). Even if these new sizes are just an ID and the application has to supply the user friendly size name, the application can still call unknown size IDs as "other" until such time as the application is updated.

I support addition of the nano size, but no change to existing sizes.
0 votes
I haven't seen any email about this either but I don't think there's any significant problem with the current definitions. Some sizes (regular) are getting less frequent which to a large extent is due to swag and trading dying out. I don't think that means the grading system is broken. I also don't want more sizes. Nanos are micros according to the definition and have always been.
answered Jun 20, 2017 by pinkunicorn (Moderator) (126,060 points)
0 votes
They already use those different names for the sizes in their app. The website and other apps still use the real size names.
answered Jun 21, 2017 by sumbloke (Expert) (30,540 points)
Yeah, I don't like groundspeak's inconsistent naming conventions either. For instance - is it an unknown, a puzzle or a mystery cache?
Listen to the latest podcast from Groundspeak where they discuss this issue
0 votes
I think the current definitions are good and should survive. I would propose an additional new attribute if someone wants to show that their micro is a nano. This attribute could also be set automatically if someone in the listing marks a cache size with micro and answers an additional question like "Is it a nano? with Yes. So you can keep the existing listings without editing and give the cacher a chance to determine the true cache size before going out for a search.
answered Jul 26, 2017 by H_M_A (1,670 points)
+1 vote
It should be enough with the existing sizes, maybe make a difference between large and extra large.
answered Nov 12, 2017 by Bernike (1,090 points)
Why downvote????
–1 vote

 Groundspeak consider each size and what I'd propose - effectively it is mostly a case of shifting the definition down a category and making Micro be synomonous with nano.

Micro (XS): 
Groundspeak def: Micro containers are less than 100 milliliters. They’re about the size of a film cannister, or smaller. They can hold a tiny logbook or log sheet. If a micro cache is less than 10 milliliters, it’s often called a nano cache
Proposed def: A micro cache is a nano cache/5mm tube etc. Sometimes you may only be able to sign initials on the log book.

Small (S)
Groundspeak def: Small containers are 100 milliliters to 1 liter. They’re about the size of a sandwich. They can hold a small logbook and trade items.
Proposed def: Small containers are generally unable to hold anything but the log book (and perhaps a short pencil). They are typically 35mm film canisters or magnetic key safes. The log book may be a roll/folded paper but large enough to sign and date fully.

Regular (M): 
Groundspeak def: Regular containers are 1 to 20 liters. They’re about the size of a shoebox. Many of these caches are ammo cans.
Proposed def: Regular containers are large enough to hold a few trackables or swaps. They are typically clip-lock food boxes up to about 1 liter. The log book will more commonly be larger sheets or a notebook.

Large (L)
Groundspeak def: Large containers are more than 20 liters. Buckets, bins, or even railroad freight cars can be large containers.
Proposed def: Large containers can hold many or larger trackables/swaps. These include very large clip lock boxes, ammo boxes or even bigger containers. The log book will typically be a larger notebook.

Other (--): 
Groundspeak def: Some containers just don't fit into size categories, like a magnetic sheet with a logbook attached. See the cache description for more information.
Proposed def: Some containers just don't fit into size categories, like a magnetic sheet with a logbook attached. See the cache description for more information.

answered Dec 10, 2017 by DARKSIDEDAN (3,630 points)
...