Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [NUTS] How big is large, how small is small

Expand Messages
  • Jenn Oates
    No comment. I don t want to get into trouble with anyone...if we go any farther with this the moderaters will shut us out of the list...can t have THAT. Bill
    Message 1 of 11 , Feb 3, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      No comment.  I don't want to get into trouble with anyone...if we go any farther with this the moderaters will shut us out of the list...can't have THAT.
       


      Bill Hoke <bhoke@...> wrote:
      Some mirco cacher probably told you that
      Bill
      --- Jenn Oates <wildoates56@...> wrote:

      > I am more concerned about the small/large issue.  I
      > have heard it's not the size that counts, but how
      > the cache is placed.

      >
      >
      > BootyBuddies <bootybuddies42@...> wrote:
      > What if I've lost all my marbles?!?

      > Debby
      >
      > Escapades <escapades4cache@...> wrote:
      >
      > There has been a lot of discusion recently in The
      > Geocaching Forums and in Todays Cacher Magazine on
      > how to rate your cache size.  They are trying to
      > come up with a uniform guideline so when you go out
      > to find a cache you will have an appoximate idea on
      > the size you are searching for. 
      >
      > We were never sure when we placed a cache if it was
      > a micro, small, regular or large.  Here is what they
      > came up with and it seems like a good guideline to
      > me.  Now I just need to go back through the 36
      > caches we have hidden and fix the size and add the
      > attributes.
      >

      >
      >    Micro - will fit a scroll log and up to a few
      > marbles
      >    Small - will fit a flat logbook and up to a few
      > golfballs
      >    Regular - will fit a large logbook and up to a
      > few softballs or international equivalent
      >    Large - will fit a soccer ball and larger
      >
      > Mike
      >
      >
      > Northstate Unusual Treasure Seekers!
      >
      >
      >
      > ---------------------------------
      > Do you Yahoo!?
      > Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'
      >
      > Northstate Unusual Treasure Seekers!
      >
      >
      >
      > ---------------------------------
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >    To visit your group on the web, go to:
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nuts_/
      >  
      >    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > nuts_-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >  
      >    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
      > Yahoo! Terms of Service.
      >
      >


      Northstate Unusual Treasure Seekers!

    • George
      Did we forget Mini . Looks to me like the Micro on the proposed list of descriptions is actually a Mini. A Micro will accomodate a piece of paper with
      Message 2 of 11 , Feb 3, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Did we forget "Mini". Looks to me like the "Micro" on the proposed
        list of descriptions is actually a Mini. A Micro will accomodate a
        piece of paper with typed text not exceeding 200 characters in 8 point
        type. These are the tiny creations that require a photo or the answer
        to some specific question to log.
        Wondering how one might classify a multi which includes a micro for
        the first stage, a mini for the second stage, a micro for the third
        stage and a regular for the final stage.
        I guess it ain't a perfect world..............................


        --- In nuts_@yahoogroups.com, Escapades <escapades4cache@y...> wrote:
        >
        > There has been a lot of discusion recently in The Geocaching Forums
        and in Todays Cacher Magazine on how to rate your cache size. They
        are trying to come up with a uniform guideline so when you go out to
        find a cache you will have an appoximate idea on the size you are
        searching for.
        >
        > We were never sure when we placed a cache if it was a micro, small,
        regular or large. Here is what they came up with and it seems like a
        good guideline to me. Now I just need to go back through the 36
        caches we have hidden and fix the size and add the attributes.
        >
        >
        >
        > Micro - will fit a scroll log and up to a few marbles
        > Small - will fit a flat logbook and up to a few golfballs
        > Regular - will fit a large logbook and up to a few softballs or
        international equivalent
        > Large - will fit a soccer ball and larger
        >
        > Mike
      • marky@yvanovich.com
        ... Mini? There isn t an official Mini size. Maybe this is some inside NUTS joke that I m not getting. --Marky
        Message 3 of 11 , Feb 3, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          > Did we forget "Mini". Looks to me like the "Micro" on the proposed
          > list of descriptions is actually a Mini.

          Mini? There isn't an official Mini size. Maybe this is some inside
          NUTS joke that I'm not getting.
          --Marky
        • nelson143@sbcglobal.net
          Marky is right...there is no official mini cache. It s just a term used to describe a very small micro. It s still listed as a micro. I believe a multicache
          Message 4 of 11 , Feb 3, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Marky is right...there is no official "mini" cache. It's just a term used to
            describe a very small micro. It's still listed as a micro.

            I believe a multicache is listed by what the final cache turns out to be. If
            you find 4 micros to get to the final ammo can stage, it's listed as a
            "regular".

            Ed


            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "George" <gvcache@...>
            To: <nuts_@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 7:09 PM
            Subject: [NUTS] Re: How big is large, how small is small


            >
            >
            > Did we forget "Mini". Looks to me like the "Micro" on the proposed
            > list of descriptions is actually a Mini. A Micro will accomodate a
            > piece of paper with typed text not exceeding 200 characters in 8 point
            > type. These are the tiny creations that require a photo or the answer
            > to some specific question to log.
            > Wondering how one might classify a multi which includes a micro for
            > the first stage, a mini for the second stage, a micro for the third
            > stage and a regular for the final stage.
            > I guess it ain't a perfect world..............................
            >
            >
            > --- In nuts_@yahoogroups.com, Escapades <escapades4cache@y...> wrote:
            >>
            >> There has been a lot of discusion recently in The Geocaching Forums
            > and in Todays Cacher Magazine on how to rate your cache size. They
            > are trying to come up with a uniform guideline so when you go out to
            > find a cache you will have an appoximate idea on the size you are
            > searching for.
            >>
            >> We were never sure when we placed a cache if it was a micro, small,
            > regular or large. Here is what they came up with and it seems like a
            > good guideline to me. Now I just need to go back through the 36
            > caches we have hidden and fix the size and add the attributes.
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >> Micro - will fit a scroll log and up to a few marbles
            >> Small - will fit a flat logbook and up to a few golfballs
            >> Regular - will fit a large logbook and up to a few softballs or
            > international equivalent
            >> Large - will fit a soccer ball and larger
            >>
            >> Mike
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Northstate Unusual Treasure Seekers!
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
          • Mark Yvanovich
            ... Mini seems/feels larger than a micro to me. Around these parts, the smaller than micro size is affectionately known as a nano-cache. :) --Marky
            Message 5 of 11 , Feb 3, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              nelson143@... wrote:

              >Marky is right...there is no official "mini" cache. It's just a term used to
              >describe a very small micro. It's still listed as a micro.
              >
              >

              Mini seems/feels larger than a micro to me. Around these parts, the
              smaller than micro size is affectionately known as a nano-cache. :)

              --Marky
            • Tag
              Be very leary of the upcoming Nano nano Nano ((said in a childlike taunting voice) cache being devised in Elk Grove. Oldhippy ... From: Mark Yvanovich To:
              Message 6 of 11 , Feb 3, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                Be very leary of the upcoming Nano nano Nano ((said in a childlike taunting voice) cache being devised in Elk Grove.
                Oldhippy
                ----- Original Message -----
                Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 8:50 PM
                Subject: Re: [NUTS] Re: How big is large, how small is small

                nelson143@... wrote:

                >Marky is right...there is no official "mini" cache. It's just a term used to
                >describe a very small micro. It's still listed as a micro.

                >

                Mini seems/feels larger than a micro to me.  Around these parts, the
                smaller than micro size is affectionately known as a nano-cache.  :)

                --Marky




                Northstate Unusual Treasure Seekers!

              • George
                Well, I ve learned something today. I always thought that, in terms of describing the relative size of objects, a Mini anything would be larger than a
                Message 7 of 11 , Feb 4, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  Well, I've learned something today. I always thought that, in terms
                  of describing the relative size of objects, a "Mini" anything would be
                  larger than a "Micro" anything. When the Mini skirt went out of style
                  I had heard something about a "Micro skirt" that would follow. I had
                  been looking forward to that but, if it's going to cover more than the
                  Mini skirt did, there's no sense in holding on to false hopes.



                  --- In nuts_@yahoogroups.com, <nelson143@s...> wrote:
                  > Marky is right...there is no official "mini" cache. It's just a term
                  used to
                  > describe a very small micro. It's still listed as a micro.
                  >
                  > I believe a multicache is listed by what the final cache turns out
                  to be. If
                  > you find 4 micros to get to the final ammo can stage, it's listed as a
                  > "regular".
                  >
                  > Ed
                  >
                  >
                  > ----- Original Message -----
                  > From: "George" <gvcache@y...>
                  > To: <nuts_@yahoogroups.com>
                  > Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 7:09 PM
                  > Subject: [NUTS] Re: How big is large, how small is small
                  >
                  >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Did we forget "Mini". Looks to me like the "Micro" on the proposed
                  > > list of descriptions is actually a Mini. A Micro will accomodate a
                  > > piece of paper with typed text not exceeding 200 characters in 8 point
                  > > type. These are the tiny creations that require a photo or the answer
                  > > to some specific question to log.
                  > > Wondering how one might classify a multi which includes a micro for
                  > > the first stage, a mini for the second stage, a micro for the third
                  > > stage and a regular for the final stage.
                  > > I guess it ain't a perfect world..............................
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > --- In nuts_@yahoogroups.com, Escapades <escapades4cache@y...> wrote:
                  > >>
                  > >> There has been a lot of discusion recently in The Geocaching Forums
                  > > and in Todays Cacher Magazine on how to rate your cache size. They
                  > > are trying to come up with a uniform guideline so when you go out to
                  > > find a cache you will have an appoximate idea on the size you are
                  > > searching for.
                  > >>
                  > >> We were never sure when we placed a cache if it was a micro, small,
                  > > regular or large. Here is what they came up with and it seems like a
                  > > good guideline to me. Now I just need to go back through the 36
                  > > caches we have hidden and fix the size and add the attributes.
                  > >>
                  > >>
                  > >>
                  > >> Micro - will fit a scroll log and up to a few marbles
                  > >> Small - will fit a flat logbook and up to a few golfballs
                  > >> Regular - will fit a large logbook and up to a few softballs or
                  > > international equivalent
                  > >> Large - will fit a soccer ball and larger
                  > >>
                  > >> Mike
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > Northstate Unusual Treasure Seekers!
                  > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.