Trinity's Crew

That's true, although I'd word it a little differently. Some folks feel Groundspeak, its reviewers, its cache owners, and/or its cache visitors should be more proactive in warning all geocachers of potential dangers with certain geocaches. Of course, different people have different views about which geocaches this should apply to. Some, for example, feel it should apply to caches where the dangers are non-obvious and are likely to cause serious harm. I agree with this position. You, too, appear to agree with some version of this. I believe this is both true and false. In my opinion, it's true that individuals need to take great responsibility for their own safety, especially when the dangers are obvious to anyone who is paying reasonable attention to their surroundings. Of course, we are not responsible for everything that happens to us. Some things are simply beyond our control. I think it's incorrect to say Groundspeak has no way to accurately determine if a cache is dangerous. For instance, you received reliable reports that a particular cache had non-obvious dangers, so you archived it. (As well you should have.) And therein lies the crux of the situation. Groundspeak must respond to complaints/concerns about specific caches. They may archive, they may request a change, they may determine the cache in question is described appropriately and those who are ill-equipped, unprepared, or untrained to attempt the cache do so at their own risk. All of these scenarios are reactive. If they attempt to regulate what constitutes a "safe" cache prior to publication they leave themselves open to liability if cachers are injured or killed while attempting to retrieve caches that no one raised concerns about.

I will readily admit I didn't read the whole thread, but to the OP, what are you trying to accomplish with this thread? A change in GS policy? An admission that they DO take safety into account? Where are you going with this?

If you're going to come in here and gum up this thread with your logic you can just take it elsewhere!!

From the other thread... That is correct, the issue is related to tresspass, not safety. There have been plenty of caches published within the 150' of active railway lines, providing the cache owner can prove the location is on public property and not on the railway's land. So apparently the cache is ok if it's placed on public land or at least not on railroad property.

Wow. I think somebody is getting pretty desperate to prove a point. Since this is also the basis for not wearing headphones while driving a car, would this mean that you should use a GPS while driving a car? Walking down the street? trail (can't hear the rattlesnake)? Not paying attention to your surroundings is unsafe. Whether you are rocking out to your favorite music while walking down the tracks or wearing dark shades in a dark room and tripping over a chair. As sad as it is, the kid was not using his common sense and that got him killed. I wouldn't expect the person that sold the headphones to give him a full briefing on when and where to wear them and how loud it was to play it. +1 Edit: shortened original quoted post.

What's nicer then a micro in the woods? A swag-size, water-tight well-maintained cache in the woods. More geocachers get to enjoy a fuller caching experience. If it's a micro in the woods I'm going to skip it. Why? Because it's been my experience over 10+ years of geocaching that the majority of COs plant micros because they are cheap (i.e. free), they are easier to hide, they don't need to be filled with swag, they require less maintenance. How does that make for a good caching experience? How is that an incentive to do the hike? Personally, I do not want to encourage the CO who plants micros in the woods by logging a find. Yesterday I was on a forest trail. Found 2 swag size caches (traded 2 very cool personalized geotreasures, with 2 of my own handcrafted geoswag) and skipped the micro in the middle. My point was that if the cache owners goal was to bring you to a particular park or hiking trail, the the size of the container wasn't necessarily important to them. I prefer full sized caches too, but if the OP's lament is that caches no longer take us to cool places I don't see why the size of the container matters.

Sadly, even caches in the woods are starting to become micros stuck to trees for no apparent reason than "It's far enough away from any other cache on this trail." I still love caching, it's just there is more chaff to remove from the wheat now. What's wrong with a micro in the woods? It still gets you into the woods and hiking. I understand why some people don't hide regular caches. They cost more up front. They are harder to hide. They are often re-hidden poorly. They are more likely to be "muggled" (I hate that word) or outright stolen if they are found by a non-cacher. The swag in a regular cache degenerates into bottle caps and broken trinkets in short order. The only thing I dislike about a micro in the woods is that it can be difficult to find. As a result the surrounding area often sees more wear and tear than it would see with a regular sized cache.

Tens and twenties are always good. We periodically peruse our local Target store nad look for 75% off merchandise. Lately it seems they only do 70% off but you can get some great swag there.

The difference is that railroad tracks, while being just as dangerous as the other two, seem benign. In particular, everything's all quiet and still when you start the search, but half an hour later while you're concentrating on that tough (or missing) cache, you might not notice the new thousand ton threat that's suddenly coming at you at 50mph. Now I don't myself know if that's a valid risk assessment, but it's enough to make me consider such a rule reasonable. The problem is that there is no way to determine where to draw the line. Geocaches are not allowed near Railroad tracks because of legal issues, not safety. There is no way for reviewers to come up with any consistent way of determining what is 'safe enough' and what isn't. RR tracks, rappelling, hiking in the desert with rattlesnakes and tarantulas, heck.. walking across the street can be unsafe. When you go find a Geocache, you need to be aware of your personal limitations. Not safe? Move along to another one. There are planty Don't leave it to some corporate entity to do it or you'll be back home watching TV all day. Exactly!! The "danger" aspect is just an attempt to justify the "NA" log. I have no idea whether that particular cache was on railroad property or not. I also have no idea whether the picture posted on the cache page accurately reflected the actual distance from the cache to the tracks. But a satellite view of the area shows that there are yards and outbuildings that are as close to the tracks as this cache so I'm guessing the RR property is pretty narrow along this stretch. Edit: Removed the word desperate. It was antagonistic.

TAR, I have always enjoyed reading your posts. I don't always agree with you but I always appreciate the fact that you usually do a very good job of articulating your position without demeaning those who disagree. My family and I will keep you in our thoughts and prayers.

Found it 12/22/2011 Found it, Maintenance note posted as well. Needs Maintenance 12/22/2011 OK- I found the distractor cache- The paper in it is waterlogged and unable to be read. I searched within the 10 metres to find the main cache, sadly all I found was the tie strap and ring it was originally on, nothing else is there. Had fun looking though!

Banjosmom I understand your initial reaction. But please consider keeping your cache but moving the cache about 50m further away from the railroad tracks. Railway rights-of-way are private property. Many people don't realize this. It's best to keep geocachers away from private property so that the game doesn't suffer from bad publicity. Some muggles who stumble upon an ammo can near tracks may become alarmed and think someone may be attempting to derail trains with a concealed bomb in an ammunition case. Personally, I love ammo can finds and hope to find yours some day. From the photos in the gallery it looks like the area is largely a natural area so hopefully there are some good hiding spots further away from the tracks. I really wish Groundspeak would change Needs Archive to Needs Reviewer Attention. It often upsets cache owners to get an NA. Banjosmom, I agree. I am not sure how far the RR property rights extend, but it seems a shame to archive your cache. If you could move it another 30 to 40 meters away from the tracks it would probably be fine.

The guidline has nothing to do with safety. Even if there are no tracks present the cache will not be allowed on Railroad property because to enter railroad property is tresspassing. It is that simple. I have seen a cache archive simply because it was on the railroad right-of-way even though the tracks had been removed years before. I agree about the RR right of way. It's apparently sketchy and inconsistent because it boils down to how much property the railroad company owns along any given stretch of rail. But the little I've read on it indicates that it's usually at least 25 feet on either side from the center of the tracks. Having said that, I don't know whether this particular cache is on railroad property and I doubt whether AneMae knows either. Wouldn't that be for a Reviewer to decide? Just because AneMae posts an NA doesn't mean the cache gets archived. It means the Reviewer will have a closer look and contact the CO for more details about how close it is to the railroad tracks. I'm confident that the Ontario Reviewers know what the rules are regarding the Canadian railway right-of-way allowance and will apply them appropriately. Agreed. I'm just not sure it needed the NA to begin with.

I put the one part in bold because most caches have the potential to do that.

If you are concerned about geocaches causing disruptions why are you only focusing on railroads? Why not ban the sport entirely?

The guidline has nothing to do with safety. Even if there are no tracks present the cache will not be allowed on Railroad property because to enter railroad property is tresspassing. It is that simple. I have seen a cache archive simply because it was on the railroad right-of-way even though the tracks had been removed years before. I agree about the RR right of way. It's apparently sketchy and inconsistent because it boils down to how much property the railroad company owns along any given stretch of rail. But the little I've read on it indicates that it's usually at least 25 feet on either side from the center of the tracks. Having said that, I don't know whether this particular cache is on railroad property and I doubt whether AneMae knows either.

Maybe this will demonstrate why caches should not be placed near tracks: http://peekskill.patch.com/articles/video-geocache-near-railroad-causes-bomb-scare-in-peekskill#video-7752602 Are you honestly that afraid of everything, or are you just trolling the threads? Please don't ignore this post like you have you two others on the alarmist topics you've started before. I really want to know. Are you that scared of things all of us see every day or are you just trying to stir the pot here in the forum? +1

From your log from the cache you posted a NA on... Groundspeak guidelines state "Cache is near active railroad tracks. We generally use a distance of 150 ft (46 m) from tracks. Other local laws may vary." A couple of things strike me. They use the word "generally". It doesn't sound as hard and fast as some other guidelines. Also you left out "In the United States" at the beginning of the guideline. This cache is in Canada.

The "right tools" for your visit were "Needs Maintenance" and "DNF". Edit: Spelling

I did find that one- in pieces all over the ground. The "tie strap and ring it was originally on" isn't the cache.

I was looking at your NM logs. I won't comment on them either way because I'm on the fence on this issue. I did notice that you didn't actually find this cache,

Really!?! I'd have thunk that the responses here were more towards 'cache cop' than reinforcing your opinion. Oh, well. Different strokes for different folks. Read what you want to, to reinforce your preconceived notions. Cache Cop- hey that suits me just fine. If it means CO's are held to account to maintain quality caches (through the use of NM and NA logs) I am all for it. I expect the basic standard that Groundspeak sets for caches. I suspect that people who don't report issues they come across (using the appropriate tools), only contribute to the problem. Sounds to me Harry like you may fall into that category. He was pointing out that you only paid attention to the answers you liked. From my experience you seem to do that quite a bit. He also offered some good advice early in the thread.

Really!?! I'd have thunk that the responses here were more towards 'cache cop' than reinforcing your opinion. Oh, well. Different strokes for different folks. Read what you want to, to reinforce your preconceived notions. +1

It's been discussed a LOT in these forums and it isn't likely to change. I find it difficult to believe that the saturation is that bad but I'll poke around GC.com and look at the area. As Planet said, the GC community in DFW should start reporting disabled, wet, and missing caches. That's likely to open up a lot of space. Edit: It's pretty saturated. At least the area I looked at.

You either care about numbers or you don't. I suspect Briansnat cares about the numbers more than he lets on. Maybe not his own, but he gets a little bent at people who ARE in it for the numbers. Just a little tiny bit bent. I'm not suggesting he loses sleep over it. And for the record, I have cached off and on for 11 years with less than 200 finds. I mention this because, while numbers "don't matter", a lot of forum members check your stats and dismiss you as irrelevant if you don't eat, sleep, and breathe caching. DOH! Guess he's in it for the numbers. Or is it You might not be into numbers if... you claim a DNF for finding a zip tie. Nice catch. LMAO Sorry if I misled anyone. These are NOT Briansnat's logs. These are anonymous logs in the "found it = didn't find it" thread that Briansnat posted. My point was that while Briansnat doesn't care about HIS numbers, he tends to call out those who he feels are "cheaters". So I think he does care about numbers on some level. No names are used so I'm not calling out anybody. I'm simply contributing to a thread that shows the absurd lengths people will go through to add to their numbers through bogus logs that have the potential to affect other geocachers. I don't care about my numbers or anybody else's until the pursuit of numbers has the potential to negatively affect other cachers or geocaching in general. Fair enough.