GC4DP0E, I.C.T. Boxmoor, Hemel Hempstead, Herts

[+Team Angry]

Hi all, Never posted here on the geocaching forum before but am prompted to do so now after comments made in the logs and on Facebook. Firstly, when the cache was published I received messages questioning my coords, which annoyed me greatly. Secondly there were what I felt to be disparaging remarks in the logs with regards time wasting. Having put that behind me I decided to publish some photos aiding people to find the cache, I did this on Facebook. It then transpires that not everybody goes on Facebook so my work was only getting to a limited number of people. Long story short, here are the pictures posted on Geocaching.com, in the forum, where hopefully bones1 will find them.. Hope these help, good luck folks.

Edited August 5, 2013 by Team Angry

[+The Brat Pack]

Why not add these pictures "as Spoilers" on the cache page?

[+MartyBartfast]

Yep, what ^^^ said.

 

Also you ought to edit that picture of the geocoin to obscure the tracking number as it's frowned upon to display them in pictures (probably best to delete that one from your original post until it's been edited).

[+Kacher82]

You might want to remove or edit the picture with the geocoin in it. The tracking number is too visible.

[+MartyBartfast]

I just ad a look at the cache (yes bored at work, waiting to go home). I see you changed the co-ords a couple of times, then shady lady came and found it saying it was near the original co-ords and she gave you some fresh co-ords which are a long way from the current cache co-ords, then smokeypugs came and found it and says shadyladys co-ords are accurate.

 

Think you need to check the co-ords.

 

Edit to add: If you have a look at the Google Maps link on the cache page, and switch to satellite view does the arrow seem to be in the right spot? as shadylady's co-ords are about 100feet West of yours.

Edited August 5, 2013 by MartyBartfast

[+Team Angry]

Oops,sorry, didn't realize about the tracking number. Will sort.

Edited August 5, 2013 by Team Angry

[+Team Angry]

Coords are good, checked several times now.

[+Team Angry]

To be honest, I don't want to add them as spoilers on the cache page. Frankly, if you can't find the cache that's not my problem. I suppose what I'm really doing here is removing the opportunity for people to whinge at me because they can't find the cache. I got very annoyed with the comments that were going on and the pestering by certain cachers, so I suppose this is just me sticking 2 fingers up at them, childish I know but hey that's just me.

[+The Blorenges]

Very good co-ordinates are those that take you to within 15-20 ft of the cache's location. If two people have suggested alternative co-ordinates that are about 100ft from yours you might like to reconsider the accuracy of what you've put on the cache page. Try using the new co-ordinates that have been suggested - Do they take you to within 20ft of your cache? Then use your own co-ordinates and walk in again from 200ft away - which set take you closest to your cache?

 

... Frankly, if you can't find the cache that's not my problem...

 

 

Well... do you want people to find your cache or not?

 

Do you want to have a reputation for good, well-planned and accurate hides, or not?

 

MrsB

[+Graculus]

What GPS model are you using? It is possible to have it incorrectly set and that can give you misleading coordinates.

 

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

UK Geocaching Wiki

Geocaching.com Help Center

UK Geocaching Information & Resources website

[+littlegemsy]

Well, you did move your coords 168 feet, that's quite a distance they must have been out.

 

And it looks like a pretty, wooded area with tons of cover, yet you've used a container that's only just big enough to fit into the small category. A nice regular would've been awesome. Although small is stated, and a photo is available, just have to say a largeish lock n lock or ammo box would be amazing.

 

I'd up your difficulty, at least a 3, possibly a 4 based on how hard it seems to be to find. Plus I'd add at least some of your spoiler photos to the gallery for them to look at and say they're there on the cache page.

 

 

Most just seems to be people who can't handle not being able to find a container though. But I'm also not sure what ICT caches are so much...

Edited August 5, 2013 by littlegemsy

[+Team Angry]

Very good co-ordinates are those that take you to within 15-20 ft of the cache's location. If two people have suggested alternative co-ordinates that are about 100ft from yours you might like to reconsider the accuracy of what you've put on the cache page. Try using the new co-ordinates that have been suggested - Do they take you to within 20ft of your cache? Then use your own co-ordinates and walk in again from 200ft away - which set take you closest to your cache?

 

... Frankly, if you can't find the cache that's not my problem...

 

 

Well... do you want people to find your cache or not?

 

Do you want to have a reputation for good, well-planned and accurate hides, or not?

 

MrsB

[+Team Angry]

Our original coords were closest, it was pressure from another cacher who couldn't find it, that made us change our coords. We then had confirmation from another cacher, who did find it, that the originals were closest. The area is known as a gps black spot. And the device is the exact same one that we always use and have never had a problem before. But after 2 days of being messaged by one cacher, even late into the night we had enough and took a different reading with another device! Then these turned out to be wrong!!! And we lost our temper! We are Team Angry after all! So the original coords were right and we've had finds since! Maybe people rely on their gps too much.

[+Seaglass Pirates]

.... maybe people rely on their cache count too much .....

[+Team Angry]

.... maybe people rely on their cache count too much .....

[+Team Angry]

.... maybe people rely on their cache count too much .....

[+Pharisee]

Why do people just 're-post' comments that have already been posted by another cacher without adding anything?

Seems daft to me.... but what do I know?

[+Happy Humphrey]

I can see from the photos (once they downloaded: they are far too big to be posted here really) that the area has dense tree cover. Everyone who's been caching a while will realise that this makes GPS a bit unreliable and you could easily be searching 50 feet from the cache. Return the next day and you could be looking 50 feet the other side.

So the coordinates may well be accurate; but with the cache clearly hidden in undergrowth as well, it's going to be a hide that frustrates and annoys. Grumpy logs are expected.

 

My advice to the CO is to grow a thick skin, take an anger management course, or revise the hide so that it's easy to find.

[+Team Angry]

Why do people just 're-post' comments that have already been posted by another cacher without adding anything?

Seems daft to me.... but what do I know?

Because my kids got hold of the computer while I wasn't looking.

[+TheOldfields]

So you placed it and put the co-ordinates up. Someone who hadn't found it hassled you to change the co-ords and you did that. Then someone did find it back where you'd originally said it was and you haven't put the co-ords back to what they were in the first place?

 

So people are now searching for a micro in the woods. About 50 yards away from where it is if they get an accurate signal.

 

And you're the one who's angry?

[+Beach_hut]

At the risk of aggravating further, why did you change the co-ords on the strength of someone who hadn't found it? Or were the co-ords when you moved it 168 feet based on a reading you'd taken? Pardon me, I may have read this wrongly...

 

I would suggest you update your published co-ords without delay though, if nothing else to shadylady's reading until you can check again yourself. Otherwise prospective finders will have to hunt through the logs to find out what's what. Shadylady's log is not in the 5 most recent, so most people hunting in the field won't have it in their GPSes anyway.