I have been told i am ruining cacheing!

[+Mallah]

Hmmm, Hiding caches so that no one can find them - interesting?.

Personally, I like people to find my caches - it's why I place them! So far all of them take cachers to locations of interest and one involves an interesting way to retrieve it and the cache page explains that.

Failing to find a cache is very frustrating, especially when on holiday and you know you don't have much opportunity to return etc - Why would I want to inflict that on fellow cachers?

[+metal-bijou]

The question is how often do you check it's still there? Knowing it not far from your home, I bet often. And probably often enough to spy on those seeking the smiley too. Has anyone got frustratingly close from what you've seen or is everyone cold?

[+bazzer1975]

Every one who has looked some of which had a idea what they were looking for and some caching legends too,

 

I am getting a bit board in the fact that as soon as its found it will go round like wild fire as a phone a frend,

 

I had 2 gps there today and removed the cache from its location to see a new log,

 

Took new readings it said 27 feet out looking on google it looks out now so i cant win,

 

As for clues use your caching eye and you can work out how its hidden.

[+Happy Humphrey]

Hmmm, Hiding caches so that no one can find them - interesting?.

Personally, I like people to find my caches - it's why I place them! So far all of them take cachers to locations of interest and one involves an interesting way to retrieve it and the cache page explains that.

Failing to find a cache is very frustrating, especially when on holiday and you know you don't have much opportunity to return etc - Why would I want to inflict that on fellow cachers?

I don't see a problem with setting a challenging hide like that. There are usually plenty of easy ones around, and if you don't want to fail you can simply ignore the difficult hides. That's what the difficulty rating is there for.

Obviously, the cache owner has to be good at rating his own cache and if it turns out to be harder than expected should adjust the rating accordingly.

There seems to be nothing wrong with GC3A3HT; as a 4.5* cache I'd expect to have a lot of trouble finding it and might need two or three attempts.

[+thehoomer]

Off work at the moment and had a bit of time on my hands.

 

There has been approximately 132,000 caches worth of experience between all the seekers. Not saying its not there, just saying its either VERY good or something is wrong.

 

I did make sure all the housework was done first!

[+MartyBartfast]

A couple of observations:

 

1. Your recent co-ordinate change is only 7.5m from the original, which is more or less within the margin of error of a GPS, particularly as there are some trees about so satellite coverage might not be optimal, so the new co-ords may not be any better than the old ones.

 

2. You also posted a comment saying "Can i just say it still dos not look right on the map but would two GPS lie", well yes they could both be out if they're on the wrong datum (which I think unlikely), but also if satellite reception is bad then they'll both be getting poor signals, but then again the map could also be out!

 

How about asking future seekers to send you a picture of where they think the GZ is, then you will at least know that they're in the right place.

[I!]

If you are concerned about accuracy of the coords, you could try the following. Find two points in the park that are easily identified on Google maps and have no tree cover. Make a note of the Google Maps coords. If your own GPS readings taken at those locations match up with Google Maps except for some offset that's the same in both places then you can(*) derive your cache coords from Google Maps plus that offset.

 

(*) assuming all 3 points are in the same tile, GPS readings are accurate, etc.

[+AmayaTom]

If you are concerned about accuracy of the coords, you could try the following. Find two points in the park that are easily identified on Google maps and have no tree cover. Make a note of the Google Maps coords. If your own GPS readings taken at those locations match up with Google Maps except for some offset that's the same in both places then you can(*) derive your cache coords from Google Maps plus that offset.

 

(*) assuming all 3 points are in the same tile, GPS readings are accurate, etc.

 

An easier alternative may be to say something like "when you find the padlock, you are within 3 metres" or something similar so that people know where they are supposed to be searching, as currently when I've been down I've been searching more of a 20m square radius. Given the success of nearby caches and their "accurate" coordinates (GC3CAMX - ahem...) this sounds like the best idea to me.

 

BTW, does anybody know if the bridge that the cache is hidden on/near is (relatively) new? I used to know the Uni campus very well and I don't remember a bridge just there (I do rememeber the bridge further down though).

[+bazzer1975]

If you are concerned about accuracy of the coords, you could try the following. Find two points in the park that are easily identified on Google maps and have no tree cover. Make a note of the Google Maps coords. If your own GPS readings taken at those locations match up with Google Maps except for some offset that's the same in both places then you can(*) derive your cache coords from Google Maps plus that offset.

 

(*) assuming all 3 points are in the same tile, GPS readings are accurate, etc.

 

An easier alternative may be to say something like "when you find the padlock, you are within 3 metres" or something similar so that people know where they are supposed to be searching, as currently when I've been down I've been searching more of a 20m square radius. Given the success of nearby caches and their "accurate" coordinates (GC3CAMX - ahem...) this sounds like the best idea to me.

 

BTW, does anybody know if the bridge that the cache is hidden on/near is (relatively) new? I used to know the Uni campus very well and I don't remember a bridge just there (I do rememeber the bridge further down though).

yes its been there for over 10 years

 

GC3CAMX i went back with two gps at it was ok on both but there is a lot of metal and trees there but am happy to meet you there the next time your going

[+Pocileh]

If you are concerned about accuracy of the coords, you could try the following. Find two points in the park that are easily identified on Google maps and have no tree cover. Make a note of the Google Maps coords. If your own GPS readings taken at those locations match up with Google Maps except for some offset that's the same in both places then you can(*) derive your cache coords from Google Maps plus that offset.

 

(*) assuming all 3 points are in the same tile, GPS readings are accurate, etc.

Don't rely on the accuracy of Google maps too much. I've seen occasions where they were out for hundreds of feet. They can be dead on but often are out for quite some distance.

[I!]

Don't rely on the accuracy of Google maps too much. I've seen occasions where they were out for hundreds of feet. They can be dead on but often are out for quite some distance.

The procedure I outlined accounts for errors.

[+Pocileh]

Don't rely on the accuracy of Google maps too much. I've seen occasions where they were out for hundreds of feet. They can be dead on but often are out for quite some distance.

The procedure I outlined accounts for errors.

 

Not quite true. What you find out indeed is a certain offset. But no way can you be shure that the Googles co-ordinates are correct and the GPS is 100 % correct. And if the GPS is a 100 % correct at that moment (quite unlikely) it can be off remarkably in a few minutes.

One can observe this by putting the GPS on a nice, open spot. Put it on the ground or a bench or whatever, as long as it is stable and stationary. Now observe the readout for some time and wonder how it is 'wandering' around.

So the offset recorded at a certain moment can be a lot different a few minutes later.

[I!]

I refer you to the asterisked caveat in post #57.

[Neath Worthies]

So much angst for one insignificant cache! If the CO is really sure the coords are correct, and I have no reason to believe they are not, why not go with a trusted friend or other geocacher while they look for it? If using the published coords with an independent GPS they are in the right area then all is well (if difficult!) If not, then a quick update will sort it.

 

Job done.

[+Legochugglers]

So much angst for one insignificant cache! If the CO is really sure the coords are correct, and I have no reason to believe they are not, why not go with a trusted friend or other geocacher while they look for it? If using the published coords with an independent GPS they are in the right area then all is well (if difficult!) If not, then a quick update will sort it.

 

Job done.

 

It would appear from the listing that the CO met up with another Cacher whilst checking on the cache last night so whilst he certainly didnt give anything away this should have given him further evidence that the co-ordinates are as accurate as they need to be.

 

Probably the only angst I feel is my disappointment that I am too far away to visit and put some theories to the test and see if the hides are as 'cunning' as I hope they are. Watching with interest.

[+thehoomer]

So much angst for one insignificant cache! If the CO is really sure the coords are correct, and I have no reason to believe they are not, why not go with a trusted friend or other geocacher while they look for it? If using the published coords with an independent GPS they are in the right area then all is well (if difficult!) If not, then a quick update will sort it.

 

Job done.

 

I agree, it would be job done and in my opinion, would be the best course of action at this point. I have asked the CO (on the page) if he would be willing to accompany another cacher in the search and if necessary, divulge the cache location (on the proviso that he/she kept quiet) to reassure the caching community that all is well. The CO has stated that he would only be willing to show a reviewer the cache location. This is a disappointing show of 'No Confidence' in his fellow cachers but I guess its the CO's prerogative.

[+Malpas Wanderer]

So much angst for one insignificant cache! If the CO is really sure the coords are correct, and I have no reason to believe they are not, why not go with a trusted friend or other geocacher while they look for it? If using the published coords with an independent GPS they are in the right area then all is well (if difficult!) If not, then a quick update will sort it.

 

Job done.

 

I agree, it would be job done and in my opinion, would be the best course of action at this point. I have asked the CO (on the page) if he would be willing to accompany another cacher in the search and if necessary, divulge the cache location (on the proviso that he/she kept quiet) to reassure the caching community that all is well. The CO has stated that he would only be willing to show a reviewer the cache location. This is a disappointing show of 'No Confidence' in his fellow cachers but I guess its the CO's prerogative.

 

Perhaps I shouldn't have declined the offer of this afternoon to be shown the cache.

 

The angst build will turn to delight upon the first legitimate find.

 

The cacher there in the early hours of this morning was from Wales so it isn't only local cachers trying. Lets hope a few more travel to our area, there are plenty of caches to find on a day or longer trip. :D

[+Legochugglers]

I have no problem with a specifically rated difficult hide. In fact, bring them on (although Reading is a bit far away for us). However the test for this type of hide will be once it is actually found. There is a big difference between the following;

 

A cleverly hidden, excellently concealed cache.

 

A wind up/April Fool.

 

A needle in a haystack or the caching equivalent, a nano in the undergrowth with dodgy co-ordinates.

 

I will follow this thread/watchlist with interest to see what unfolds but I am hoping for the former of the above.

 

Noticed that FTF has now been completed. and from the log it does appear to be an excellent hide. Well done to the CO/OP.

[I!]

The container shown in the photo looked muddy. Was it buried?

(Yes, I am just trying to cause trouble.)

[+drdick&vick]

Must be honest, I don't see how something that size and colour would have defeated over 100 cachers.

[+Team Noodles]

Must be honest, I don't see how something that size and colour would have defeated over 100 cachers.

 

could have done if it wasn't there for the first few weeks :ph34r:

[+drdick&vick]

The container shown in the photo looked muddy. Was it buried?

(Yes, I am just trying to cause trouble.)

<Quoted from one log on the cache page>

Well after a fruitless search we joined the Flash Mob and listened to the various theories as to where the cache could be hidden. The suspense ended when CO cleared away some earth to reveal the hiding place. &@£(;.!!!£. TFTC

[BOBBLES WORLD TOUR]

The container shown in the photo looked muddy. Was it buried?

(Yes, I am just trying to cause trouble.)

<Quoted from one log on the cache page>

Well after a fruitless search we joined the Flash Mob and listened to the various theories as to where the cache could be hidden. The suspense ended when CO cleared away some earth to reveal the hiding place. &@£(;.!!!£. TFTC

 

I probably am very wrong, but I would go see for yourself.

Maybe I'm wrong once more, but GAGB would also jump to conclusions.

I may be wrong.

[+drdick&vick]

Why should the GAGB jump to conclusions?

They are not the listing site or the site that quite clearly states 'Containers are never buried' as per Section 1 para 3 of the Groundspeak Placement Guidelines

[+bazzer1975]

Why should the GAGB jump to conclusions?

They are not the listing site or the site that quite clearly states 'Containers are never buried' as per Section 1 para 3 of the Groundspeak Placement Guidelines

 

HOW CAN A CACHE be buried on the middle of a wooden bridge with a hole threw to the water what made this hard???

 

This cache is a replica of GC1GDNH Shoreham Toll Bridge i told mik all about it and is looking forward to comeing up to look if there is a problem than i am shore this would have been picked up on his

 

redirected male has had 68 DNFs on it the UC challange was there as all of my favorite caches I have done

 

AS IT IS I WILL SAY I NEVER THOUGHT THIS WOULD STAY UNFOUND FOR SO LONG

[+bazzer1975]

The container shown in the photo looked muddy. Was it buried?

(Yes, I am just trying to cause trouble.)

 

try all you like,

 

also try reading the logs the picture states FTF mwahppets & something that looks like a cache?

 

so make trouble some where else there is more to life than tupperware!!!

[+trampyjoe]

I'm confused .. the cache wasn't buried as it was in the middle of the bridge BUT the CO 'moved aside a pile of earth' to reveal the cache?

If that's correct then surely all those cachers who DNF on this one are dumb as a bag of hammers (and I know they're not) if they didn't spot a pile of dirt on a wooden bridge.

 

Sorry Bazza but something aint right.

Edited April 3, 2012 by trampyjoe

[+bazzer1975]

 

CAN YOU SEE now and its not the ammo box

 

If you cant maybe you should go look

 

It was made harder by people hunting and spreading dirt about and rain and snow I am happy in my mind and I did not hear any one on the day moan other than if we had just looked harder

 

 

I think this many people i would have been in concrete boots in the bottom of the lake

Edited April 3, 2012 by bazzer1975

[+trampyjoe]

 

If you cant maybe you should go look

 

It was made harder by people hunting and spreading dirt about and rain and snow I am happy in my mind and I did not hear any one on the day moan other than if we had just looked harder

 

I would go look but it's a long way for me.

 

So it was in the hole in the bridge? And the chap tapping the planks didn't see it and not one person did see it after it was just published even those that looked under the bridge?

 

Sneaky hide, I'll grant you that but it does appear that the cachers in that area do indeed seem to be dumber than a bag of hammers! (only joking folks)

[BOBBLES WORLD TOUR]

Why should the GAGB jump to conclusions?

They are not the listing site or the site that quite clearly states 'Containers are never buried' as per Section 1 para 3 of the Groundspeak Placement Guidelines

 

:laughing:

[+firestronaut]

I just read this whole thread.

 

My only reaction is

[+Fianccetto]

 

CAN YOU SEE now and its not the ammo box

 

If you cant maybe you should go look

 

It was made harder by people hunting and spreading dirt about and rain and snow I am happy in my mind and I did not hear any one on the day moan other than if we had just looked harder

 

 

I think this many people i would have been in concrete boots in the bottom of the lake

I think that's great.

We'll be over that way soon, and hope to do some caching around Reading, so maybe our DNF will be added to the long list very soon!