Cache Beneath A Transmission-line Tower

[+Miragee]

Yesterday we found a cache located right beneath a large transmission-line tower.

 

It is only an Altoids tin, wrapped in a crinkled and torn plastic bag, but I was very uncomfortable searching in that location, especially since the "spoiler" hint was actually misleading and caused us to spend more time looking in the wrong places.

 

Admittedly it isn't an ammo can, so it isn't likely to attract suspicion by anyone inspecting the tower, but I would think such a location would be frowned upon.

 

What do you think?

[+TeamAO]

Yes.

[+WhatsRNutts]

what is a Transmission-line Tower?

[+Stunod]

what is a Transmission-line Tower?

[+carleenp]

I have found caches under power line towers that were also right next to bike trails etc. I saw no issue with them. In some areas the power line cuts are also used as trails. Where I would worry is if it were an area that people normally don't frequent. Then I suspose it could fall under the guidelines prohibiting caches in areas that could cause terrorism concerns. I personally wouldn't complain about a such a cache unless it seemed like the type of situation where it could cause a serious issue. Since it is a micro the odds of that are greatly lessened. If it was just that I felt a bit odd being around power lines, I would just skip the cache.

Edited September 29, 2005 by carleenp

[+Moose Mob]

You bet it can be there. Matter of fact, I get a charge out of those caches.

[+Criminal]

What do you think?

I think you should mind you own business.

[+Miragee]

Sorry, I just thought a big tower like that might be considered a terrorist target.

 

I didn't like the idea of possibly being observed there and then being questioned about what I was doing on that dead-end trail under the tower . . .

 

There are lots of other places to hide a cache in that area without putting it right beneath the tower . . .

[+Moose Mob]

Sorry, I just thought a big tower like that might be considered a terrorist target.

 

I didn't like the idea of possibly being observed there and then being questioned about what I was doing on that dead-end trail under the tower . . .

 

There are lots of other places to hide a cache in that area without putting it right beneath the tower . . .

Instead of "possible" terrorist targets (really, that can be anything), or "potential" targets, lets stick with "likely targets'

 

All this would do is cause a brown out, possibly blackouts in certain areas. Not enough screaming and yelling to warrant thier efforts.

[Pto]

It doesnt sound like an interesting enough area to even make me want to go search it, so I would just ignore it.

[+Miragee]

The problem is that the cache has an interesting, intriguing, nature-sounding name. It isn't until you climb up the steep access road and get within a 100 feet of the cache location, that you realize you shouldn't have walked all that distance.

 

I suppose we could have just turned around at that point, but since the hint said "Spoiler" we thought it would be a quick and easy find. It wasn't. Did you know each tower leg has its own unique number?

 

If only we could always know what is going to be a bad experience before even parking the car . . .

[+Harry Dolphin]

I have no problems with caches under power transmission lines. I can think of one that I've found. (Of course that was a twelve mile round trip hike for me to get to...) And, there is one that I'm contemplating putting out that would be under power transmission lines. That one would only be a two mile round trip hike.

[+Miragee]

I don't have a problem with caches hidden under power transmission lines. That is completely different from one hidden below the tower itself . . .

[+QDman]

What do you think?

I think you should mind you own business.

I think she is.

[+StarBrand]

If it was a likely target then they should protect it a bit better. Doesn't sound terribly interesting to me and I would personally not place one there but no real problem.

[+Criminal]

What do you think?

I think you should mind you own business.

I think she is.

Is it her cache? No. Her business? No.

[+welch]

What do you think?

Unless the area / or tower are marked "do not enter" / "do not touch" / or similar then I wouldn't worry about it. Sometimes public trails run along or across transmission lines. I've also seen them lines run threw public hunting and wildlift preserve areas. So its not a problem if people go there.

 

Also, I think caches that are wrapped in plastic trap water and get icky inside.

[+Ambrosia]

What do you think?

I think you should mind you own business.

I think she is.

Is it her cache? No. Her business? No.

I think after the couple of threads about bridges and police, I think that it is a valid question to bring up.

 

In the bridge discussion in the NW forum, someone else brought up this very same point.

[+Milbank]

What do you think?

I think you should mind you own business.

I think she is.

Is it her cache? No. Her business? No.

[+Sagefox]

What do you think?

I think you should mind you own business.

I think she is.

Is it her cache? No. Her business? No.

Well now lets think about who's business it really is.

 

It benefits us all if we question types of hides that could cause law enforcement to start having a very negative opinion of geocaching. We don't need the number bomb squad incidents to increase.

 

Questioning a hide like this in this forum might bolster OP's intuitive concern to the point where she might make a suggestion to the cache owner, who might be unaware that their hide might be problematic. Cache owner might then go move the container and also be more thoughtful about their future hides. Because the issue is raised here rather then, or in addition to, a cache log or private email many readers of this topic might do the same when they find hides that could jeopardize this sport.

 

I think it is our business. How else is the cache owner, especially new hiders, going to get this input?

[+JohnnyVegas]

Sorry, I just thought a big tower like that might be considered a terrorist target.

 

Please do not ever run for public office

[+Sagefox]

I didn't like the idea of possibly being observed there and then being questioned about what I was doing on that dead-end trail under the tower . . .

I had that same feeling at Primm, NV (formerly Stateline?). Primm is a gambling-only town in the middle of the desert. The container was within feet of the base of a major transmission tower within full view of several mulit-story casinos. It was New Years Eve day post 9/11. Shades of the original Oceans 11 were going through my mind and I knew the security chiefs of all the casinos had their binoculars trained on me. Expected a security Hummer to appear before I got out of there. But it did not come and the cache is still there three years and 176 visitors later and the cache owner became a friend of ours.

 

- - -

 

Maybe towers aren't that big of an issue but intuition and common sense told me, as it does miragee, that power tower bases don't make the best location for a regular container cache hide.

[+Team Perks]

I suppose it's all a matter of perspective. Around here, we have quite a few "power line parks" -- long strips of greenbelt that double as jogging paths, dog parks, frisbee golf courses, playgrounds, you name it. There are countless caches near those towers.

 

Where I used to live, however, most of the power towers were barbed-wire fenced off. You can bet I didn't even think twice about hiding a cache near one of them.

Edited October 1, 2005 by Team Perks

[tossedsalad]

What do you think?

I think you should mind you own business.

I think she is.

Is it her cache? No. Her business? No.

Of course it is her business. She was hunting the cache and if there was a real issue with the placement, the hunter can be treated as a suspect by law authorities just as much as the person who placed it.

 

I seem to recall the "Mind your own business" post in some other threads on related topics, was that you? Is that your response to every cache placement issue??? That is part of the reason why SC had the threat of a geocaching ban in some situations. No one got involved before it was a big issue and then it was nearly too late.

[tossedsalad]

Sorry, I just thought a big tower like that might be considered a terrorist target.

 

Please do not ever run for public office

Of course it can be a terrorist target. If they ever target a large city target again, taking out a couple of major power lines would shut down a large part of our ability to respond. It could combine the worst of 9/11 and Katrina in one tragedy. However there is way too much public access to the power grid for us to protect it.

[+CurmudgeonlyGal]

I think that if you are uncomfortable searching for a cache hidden in an area that you consider questionable on any level, that you should probably not continue to search for those types of caches.

 

It's just a number. There are plenty more where that one came from.

[+Ivan Awfulitch]

Instead of "possible" terrorist targets (really, that can be anything), or "potential" targets, lets stick with "likely targets'

 

All this would do is cause a brown out, possibly blackouts in certain areas.  Not enough screaming and yelling to warrant thier efforts.

 

Actually, if you go back a few years a single transmission line near Mansfield, Ohio shorted to a tree causing it to fail. This shifted the load to others in the loop causing several of them to overload and took the generating plant in Eastlake, Ohio offline. This caused power to fail around Lake Erie and parts of Lake Ontario from Cleveland to New York City, to Toronto, and Detroit.

 

Probably not the best place to put a cache, and I'd use a lot of restraint placing one there. Just my two cents worth.

[+Team Perks]

Probably not the best place to put a cache...

Assuming you're a tree, that is.

[+Miragee]

I think that if you are uncomfortable searching for a cache hidden in an area that you consider questionable on any level, that you should probably not continue to search for those types of caches.

 

It's just a number.  There are plenty more where that one came from.

Just a number! Plus we walked about .24 miles to the site . . . it would have been hard to walk away.

 

But seriously, I know it is just a number, and I know there are plenty more caches to find, but my question was really about whether placing a cache right beneath a transmission-line tower is acceptable.

 

 

Beyond the immediate clearing where the tower stands, there is lots of brush where there are many, many other places to hide a cache. If the goal was to offer cachers the view of the neighborhood behind the tower, and the marsh and lagoon in the other direction, another placement just 50 or 60 feet away from the tower would have worked just as well.

[+AO and CC]

What do you think?

I think you should mind you own business.

As for the location from a geocachers point of view, I wouldn't have a problem with it. But as a police officer, yes. if I saw someone around the tower day or night I would check them out. Getting their name address and phone number just incase something happen in the near future. I saw them there, that would make them a suspect.

 

As for the Mind you own business, I think he should take his own advice. Since you were looking for the cache that makes it your business and if I do remember correctly in the SOP of caching for this forum and GC.com if a cache if found to be potentiality unsafe or containing unsafe trade items it is to be turned in as such.

 

With that is mind, it is your business.

[+DocDiTTo]

Yesterday we found a cache located right beneath a large transmission-line tower.

 

It is only an Altoids tin, wrapped in a crinkled and torn plastic bag, but I was very uncomfortable searching in that location,

My thought has always been if you were "very uncomfortable" yet you still continued hunting until you scored the find, you have validated the placement and you have no right to complain about it. If it's such a bad place for a cache, why didn't you just leave as soon as you saw where the little arrow was pointing you? At least you wouldn't be looking so hypocritical right now. Scoring the find then whining about how bad it was does nothing to aid your argument.

 

All that aside, there are all sorts of buildings, roads, plagrounds, parks, etc under and near such towers, so no, I don't think it's a bad place for a cache, other than the fact that static electricity might keep hunters on their toes.

 

I doubt any power lines are high on the list of terrorist targets. The impact from taking one out wouldn't be significant enough to make it worth while.

[+Miragee]

I understand your point about my looking hypocritical about "finding" the cache. However, I was caching with someone else who is much more persistent than I am.

 

If I had been by myself, I would have logged a DNF.

 

My question remains, should a cache be placed right beneath, or on (since this was an Altoids tin we thought it was on the numbered tower leg referenced in the Hint), a transmission-line tower when there are many other nearby places for the cache?

[+GrizzlyJohn]

Of course it is her business.  She was hunting the cache and if there was a real issue with the placement, the hunter can be treated as a suspect by law authorities just as much as the person who placed it.

Then don't hunt it if you think it is a problem. If you are someplace you are allowed to be then what is the problem? If LEOS want to suspect let them suspect away, at some point they will have to see what a waste of time it is. And gee I don't know maybe go after people that actually have a history of being involved in terrorist activities.

 

I seem to recall the "Mind your own business" post in some other threads on related topics, was that you?  Is that your response to every cache placement issue???  That is part of the reason why SC had the threat of a geocaching ban in some situations.  No one got involved before it was a big issue and then it was nearly too late.

So what was the problem in SC? Was it caches placed where there was no reason they should have not been placed? Or was it SC cachers pulling the trigger too late in going after a nut job lawmaker?

 

Of course it can be a terrorist target. If they ever target a large city target again, taking out a couple of major power lines would shut down a large part of our ability to respond. It could combine the worst of 9/11 and Katrina in one tragedy. However there is way too much public access to the power grid for us to protect it.

Where does this crap with terrorist targets end? How about the local WalMart or grocery store? Suppose terrorists decide to just roam the country blowing up very small bombs in places all of us go everyday. Maybe not causing a lot of damage or killing anyone. But we have seen the reaction from this country. Everybody would be afraid to go shopping the economy would tank. Do you not remember how people were afraid to buy gas during the DC sniper thing? We did not beat the Soviet Union with bombs and guns we did it by outspending what their economy could handle.

 

Then after awhile people would go back to the stores and a entire part of the population would be saying how it is OK to give up some of our rights by having to be searched, questioned and show our papers anytime we wanted to go and buy a loaf of bread. The terrorists hate our way of life and that is what they are trying to attack. And everytime someone says it is OK to give up a little bit of our rights to get a little safety they have handed the terrorists another minor victory.

 

To answer the question of the OP -- if there are no other restrictions in place to keep a person from putting a cache there, then yes they can. If you do not feel comfortable hunting one there then move along.

[+budd-rdc]

I'll throw in my 2 cents regarding caches hidden under transmission line towers:

 

Some GPSr's have problems getting good coordinates under those things. I know of one cache (GCA7AF) which "exploit" this problem to make the search difficult. When I guess that a hide is near one of those things, I stop looking at my GPSr, and use just the eyes.

 

So I would discourage this hide location, unless the hider knows how to obtain coordinates accurately by projection (so the finder can do the same). Only after this is resolved that it's worth arguing the merits of the location or issues of Homeland Security.

[+welch]

My question remains, should a cache be placed right beneath, or on (since this was an Altoids tin we thought it was on the numbered tower leg referenced in the Hint), a transmission-line tower when there are many other nearby places for the cache?

Yes. If the area was ok, then the cache was ok. If the area wasn't ok, then the cache shouldn't be there, or have ever been there.

It seems like your saying nearby (whatever that means) is ok, but you didn't like the way this was hidden so maybe it should be removed.

[tossedsalad]

Of course it is her business.  She was hunting the cache and if there was a real issue with the placement, the hunter can be treated as a suspect by law authorities just as much as the person who placed it.

Then don't hunt it if you think it is a problem. If you are someplace you are allowed to be then what is the problem? If LEOS want to suspect let them suspect away, at some point they will have to see what a waste of time it is. And gee I don't know maybe go after people that actually have a history of being involved in terrorist activities.

 

I seem to recall the "Mind your own business" post in some other threads on related topics, was that you?  Is that your response to every cache placement issue???  That is part of the reason why SC had the threat of a geocaching ban in some situations.  No one got involved before it was a big issue and then it was nearly too late.

So what was the problem in SC? Was it caches placed where there was no reason they should have not been placed? Or was it SC cachers pulling the trigger too late in going after a nut job lawmaker?

 

Of course it can be a terrorist target. If they ever target a large city target again, taking out a couple of major power lines would shut down a large part of our ability to respond. It could combine the worst of 9/11 and Katrina in one tragedy. However there is way too much public access to the power grid for us to protect it.

Where does this crap with terrorist targets end? How about the local WalMart or grocery store? Suppose terrorists decide to just roam the country blowing up very small bombs in places all of us go everyday. Maybe not causing a lot of damage or killing anyone. But we have seen the reaction from this country. Everybody would be afraid to go shopping the economy would tank. Do you not remember how people were afraid to buy gas during the DC sniper thing? We did not beat the Soviet Union with bombs and guns we did it by outspending what their economy could handle.

 

Then after awhile people would go back to the stores and a entire part of the population would be saying how it is OK to give up some of our rights by having to be searched, questioned and show our papers anytime we wanted to go and buy a loaf of bread. The terrorists hate our way of life and that is what they are trying to attack. And everytime someone says it is OK to give up a little bit of our rights to get a little safety they have handed the terrorists another minor victory.

 

To answer the question of the OP -- if there are no other restrictions in place to keep a person from putting a cache there, then yes they can. If you do not feel comfortable hunting one there then move along.

This is getting to be a pretty silly discussion when you have to start making up stuff to get upset about, like terrorists blowing up bombs that don't hurt anyone...

 

The point is that transmission line towers ARE a potential terrorist target, one that can create significant problems if coordinated with other attacks. So this is not a strawman argument like the Walmart bombs.

 

At some point a decision has to be made about where the line is for placing caches. It is not about what I feel comfortable hunting, it is about what the public feels comfortable finding out about. A potential bomb under a bridge a few times a year is no big deal. But if potential bridge bombs, train track bombs, power line bombs, etc get to be a daily occurance, then geocaching will be severely restricted.

 

The situation in SC was that a cache was placed in a graveyard without asking permission since it was a public place. When the caretaker found out about it, the owner was contacted and asked to remove it. It would seem that the caretaker was somewhat indignant that a "game" would be played in his cemetary and contacted law makers who eventually decided to pass a law banning geocaches in cemetaries, historical areas and places of archeological significance without written permission. So you could then go to jail if you didn't have permission in writing. The bill has not passed the SC Senate yet, but I don't know the current status. It flew through the SC House but cooler heads got involved in the Senate.

 

This goes to show how geocaching needs to keep a low profile or run the risk of loosing significant privileges. Remember that this is a game and will have very little priority if it comes to a public confontation with perceived security risks.

[+Criminal]

…and if I do remember correctly in the SOP of caching for this forum and GC.com if a cache if found to be potentiality unsafe or containing unsafe trade items it is to be turned in as such

 

…and that is written where? If you have a problem with a cache placement, contact the cache owner, don’t bring it into the forums and try to rat them out. If it is truly dangerous and the cache owner does not rectify the situation, use the Groundspeak contact email address.

 

This cache is not dangerous. If this cache were made with a bundle of road flares as a disguise, I can certainly understand the finder contacting the cache owner. My understanding is that this one is an altoids tin? Sheesh, even a cop in Oklahoma cannot possibly believe it’s a bomb.

 

In your whopping two months of caching how often have you seen this come up in the forums? It happens here over and over, some cacher comes into the forums complaining about a cache that’s on private property (they were just approaching from the wrong direction), is dangerous because you have to park on the freeway (they were approaching from the wrong direction), and on and on and on...

 

With that is mind, it is your business.

 

No, it is not. Get over yourself.

[+AO and CC]

…and if I do remember correctly in the SOP of caching for this forum and GC.com if a cache if found to be potentiality unsafe or containing unsafe trade items it is to be turned in as such

 

…and that is written where? If you have a problem with a cache placement, contact the cache owner, don’t bring it into the forums and try to rat them out. If it is truly dangerous and the cache owner does not rectify the situation, use the Groundspeak contact email address.

 

This cache is not dangerous. If this cache were made with a bundle of road flares as a disguise, I can certainly understand the finder contacting the cache owner. My understanding is that this one is an altoids tin? Sheesh, even a cop in Oklahoma cannot possibly believe it’s a bomb.

 

In your whopping two months of caching how often have you seen this come up in the forums? It happens here over and over, some cacher comes into the forums complaining about a cache that’s on private property (they were just approaching from the wrong direction), is dangerous because you have to park on the freeway (they were approaching from the wrong direction), and on and on and on...

 

With that is mind, it is your business.

 

No, it is not. Get over yourself.

Well it just sounds like Criminal is trying to be the smart fellow around here and make a few people mad, and keep the argument going. But to set what I said strait....

 

I never said I thought the altoids tin was a bomb, but if you have never been to a WMD class (weapons of mass destruction) through your local emergency systems maybe you should before you start saying that an altoids tin can NOT be a bomb. I wouldn't be bothered at all to look for and/or approach this cache.

 

There you go putting words in people’s mouths. Never said that we would have to rat them out in the forum. I simply stated that if the cacher thought a cache to be potentiality unsafe or containing unsafe trade items it is to be turned in as such. Never said to post it so the whole forum world could see it.

 

Well in my WHOPPING two months of caching I haven't seen this come up very much, but have read previous posts where ones like this have. As for it being their business part of it again. Let them be the judge if they want to make their business or not.

 

And get over myself, never known to be under myself. Thanks for the info though.

 

As for you insults. Oh please, your going to have to get better than that.

 

I don't understand why we all just can't get along, without all the who's right and who's wrong. Everyone has their opinions, let them be. A lot of new people come on here (as in me) looking for help and advice from others that have been caching a lot longer than they have. When they post a question, they get hammered by someone who thinks they are better than everyone else.

Edited October 3, 2005 by Arrestableoffense

[+Criminal]

As for you insults. Oh please, your going to have to get better than that.

 

I don't understand why we all just can't get along, without all the who's right and who's wrong. Everyone has their oppinouns, let them be. A lot of new people come on here (as in me) looking for help and advice from others that have been caching a lot longer than they have. When they post a question, they get hammered by someone who thinks they are better than everyone else.

Look for some threads about cacher wars, where one cacher starts stealing another cacher's boxes. Then you might see where I'm coming from. The local community is the best place to deal with any cache issues.

[+AO and CC]

I agree with that. If someone stole my caches that I plan to place, I can honestly say that I would be a little more than ticked. Stealing is not what GC is all about.

[+Miragee]

. . . . If you have a problem with a cache placement, contact the cache owner, don’t bring it into the forums and try to rat them out. . . .

I wasn't trying to "rat out" the cache owner and have never mentioned the name or GC number of the cache.

 

Since these transmission-line towers exist everywhere, I wanted to ask the question of the larger caching community.

 

Geocachers are always urged to be stealthy, or discreet, when seeking a cache. Walking around and directly under a transmisison-line tower for quite a while looking for a well-hidden cache certainly has the potential of attracting unwanted attention.

[+CurmudgeonlyGal]

  I understand your point about my looking hypocritical about "finding" the cache. However, I was caching with someone else who is much more persistent than I am.

 

If I had been by myself, I would have logged a DNF.

 

My question remains, should a cache be placed right beneath, or on (since this was an Altoids tin we thought it was on the numbered tower leg referenced in the Hint), a transmission-line tower when there are many other nearby places for the cache?

No good.

 

Just because someone you are with searches for and logs the cache doesn't mean you have to.

 

That same old, "Gee, if 65 of your closest friends were going to jump off a cliff, would you do it because they were more persistent than you?" question applies here.

 

I have been on plenty of cache hunts and to events where I respectfully choose NOT to log whatever was found b/c it is not something I want to validate and/or have on my list of 'finds'.

 

And really, you walked .24 to find it so you have to log it? I do hope you were being facetious! .24 and back to the car (making it almost a half mile RT walk for the math impaired) is just about a 6 minute walk in my world.

 

And yes, a placement elsewhere near the tower could have offered a view... but trust me, there are a lot of cachers out there who don't give a rip about a nice view, a tasteful location, a cache planned with anything long-term in mind, blah blah blah. It's one more tic mark in the 'I own a cache' column... and to a lot of people, that's a GOOD thing.

 

After reading through this thread a few times myself, I'm not sure you've been able to glean anything useful out of it... once again, it's degraded into a 'you're a wiener... no, you're a wiener!' -type conversation.

 

My opinion, like many of the others, I don't see why it's an issue - there are tons of caches places in/on/around these massive power line structures (I always feel like I should be wearing a tin foil hat while searching near them - especially if they are buzzing) and so far... not a one of them has been blown up by the bomb squad. Just b/c most of them are lame, doesn't make them evil (well, they are evil, just not for the reasons you may think).

 

Maybe next time you have a question along these lines it could be worded in such a way that your question is more generic and doesn't sound like someone is being ratted out... (altho that's nothing new around these parts) or write to your local approvers and open up a nice discussion with them. They are usually more than willing to answer questions in a much more kind and concise manner than you may ever get here.

[xrabohrok]

This tower thing is a ligit subject

I think it is ok as long as it's not fenced off or signed off, going past would be dangerous.

 

BUT...

 

There is that possibity that power lines go along with railroad tracks. Railroad tracks are private property and are not to be crossed. The power structure is private property (owned by the pwr company, but sometimes the state). So this is probably a mater of company policy and local laws and regulations.

 

As for Criminal's argument: He/She didn't say "today I went to cache XXXXX and..."

this is good stuff for other cachers and hiders to know. Gosh knows how many of those towers I live by.

Edited October 3, 2005 by xrabohrok

[+humanloofa]

I just found one like this a month or so ago, it was next to a bike path. My son and I loved it, I had never seen one of those up close and personal before. If there had not been a bike path and a playgroung not to far away it may have been a little odd seing someone by the tower, but the cache was placed nicely in an appropriate place.