I Despise Doing This...

December 22, 2005

In accordance with Groundspeaks documented procedures: If your cache has been placed on hold, temporarily disabled or archived…

Let me state up front that I despise making this post. I am only doing this because the approver has not, after four weeks, approved or posted these caches in the private, approver's only, forum as outlined in Groundspeaks procedures.

Also let me say that these caches are not in the hands of my normal local approver as they are not located in that approver's range. Frankly I would rather leave the approver in question out of these discussions. I only state the previous so people know why I am now posting this here.

The reason given to me why my cache series has been held up is: "I am nervous about publishing a cache in close proximity to active railroad tracks."

This cache series is located in an area known for it's train heritage. My motivation for the cache series was based on my 3 year old nephew who is in love with trains. The series takes the cacher to areas we have taken my 3 year old nephew to safely see trains.

Groundspeaks Off-limit (Physical) Caches has a section governing Caches hidden in close proximity to active railroad tracks. In general we use a distance of 150 ft but your local area’s trespassing laws may be different. All local laws apply.

I understand that the cacher's safety should be considered when approving a cache. I agree with the intent of the rule. My question is do these caches place the cacher in inherent danger? If the answer is no, then a black & white rule should be used as a starting point in making an approval decision. If I move the caches 150 feet away from their current location it defeats the reason to go to the location and the cacher will be enticed to use public walkways to enjoy the view anyway.

Caches in question:

NOTE: Please don't quote the urls if you reply, as they are spoilers and I fully intend on deleting the links when this is resolved.

Walking bridge:

This micro cache is on a walking bridge that spans the railroad tracks taking you from the city to the local train museum.

* Bridge

* Hide spoiler 1

* Hide spoiler 2

* View

Engine Switching Yard:

This small cache is on a sidewalk that skirts an engine switching yard. Traffic on this track is limited to the engine only and to get there, it must first go through the shop. After which it is then switched to an alternative track to be returned to the rail yard.

* Ground Zero 1

* Ground Zero 2

* Hide

* Street

* View

Train Depot in Another Life:

This micro cache is located at the home of the historical society of a small town. They offer semi-annual train rides from this location.

* From The Parking Lot

* Ground Zero 1

* Ground Zero 2

* Hide

* Thoroughfare

I have chosen to not list the two other caches since they are next to inactive rail lines and therefore (even though I could never get a answer from the approver) were never in question.

Comments?

Edited December 22, 2005 by Lux

3.8k · December 22, 2005

You cannot see logs for unapproved listings. :lol:

December 22, 2005

Your links will not work for anyone but yourself as the cache has not been approved and published yet! Therefore, no comment.

18.9k · December 22, 2005

Ummmm - we can't see your links because they are - well - unapproved????!!!!!???

Need to post them somewhere public so we can see them.

Edited December 22, 2005 by StarBrand

2.3k · December 22, 2005

Those links don't work for me.

December 22, 2005

Yeah... after I hit submit I realized I used the private links... All images should be viewable now.

3.8k · December 22, 2005

From the information you have provided, the caches appear perfectly approvable to me. BTW, how do you know the reviewer hasn't offered this information to their private watering hole? :lol:

18.9k · December 22, 2005

Look like nice areas to me - a couple of questions though:

1 - Does the reviewer have these pics (are you sure)?

2 - How many trains pass by daily?

and a comment:

No matter how you think somebody will approach the area, there will be some who try to take another route and that could put them in danger. Might help to be very explicit about the approach in your descriptions. Just my 2 cents worth.

December 22, 2005

From the information you have provided, the caches appear perfectly approvable to me. BTW, how do you know the reviewer hasn't offered this information to their private watering hole?

From my discussion with the approver 4 days ago. And the images you are viewing are hosted by Groundspeak from each unapproved cache page. They will be deleted before the cache is approved.

It's still my intention to post your caches for discussion by the other reviewers, as part of a larger discussion of the 150 foot guideline for caches near railroad property. Today is the second time I've blocked out time to do that, only to be frustrated by a broken forum server. I'll try again sometime during my holiday vacation this week.

Edited December 22, 2005 by Lux

December 22, 2005

As these spots appear to be public veiwing areas and clearly fenced off to keep people out of harms way, it seems like an exception to the guideline would be in order, but I'm not a reviewer....

One question though....you state that your regular reviewer isn't handling this one as its out of their area, but does that mean its out of your area, or is this an area you are frequently at? Just asking to see if there is a vacation cache issue.

6.5k · December 22, 2005

switch yard, ground zero one seems to have the wrong picture?

December 22, 2005

1 - Does the reviewer have these pics (are you sure)?

There is no physical easement to the train tracks unless you scale pointy razor wire fences. Except the old train depot of course.

2 - How many trains pass by daily?

In which location?

December 22, 2005

As these spots appear to be public veiwing areas and clearly fenced off to keep people out of harms way, it seems like an exception to the guideline would be in order, but I'm not a reviewer....

One question though....you state that your regular reviewer isn't handling this one as its out of their area, but does that mean its out of your area, or is this an area you are frequently at? Just asking to see if there is a vacation cache issue.

I say that for the reason of anonymity of the review in question. The caches are not being denied due to my physical proximity to them. I will leave it at that so we can discuss the validity of the caches and not the actions of the reviewer.

December 22, 2005

If I move the caches 150 feet away from their current location it defeats the reason to go to the location and the cacher will be enticed to use public walkways to enjoy the view anyway.

Moving the caches 150' away wouldn't defeat the reason to go to the location because, as you said, the cachers would likely use the walkways to view the trains anyway. So it's not all bad. I suggest you place the caches in question near the entrances to the walkways (at least 150' from the closest railbed), and write up in your description an invitation to safely enjoy the trains, including coords for the best viewing areas.

Edited December 22, 2005 by Pablo Mac

7.2k · December 22, 2005

The first and third one I would say no way. The second one would take some further research. Do you have permission from anyone for these placements? Showing permission would go a long way to helping you out.

Edited December 22, 2005 by mtn-man

December 22, 2005

These all appear to be in normally used public areas, shouldn't be a problem in my view. If someone thinks its needed you could alway say: "DON'T PLAY ON THE RR TRACKS!!"

December 22, 2005

The first and third one I would say no way. The second one would take some further research. Do you have permission from anyone for these placements? Showing permission would go a long way to helping you out.

The historical society (aka third one) granted approval for use of their property. The other two caches are on public property.

6.5k · December 22, 2005

Hmm.... what has the reviewer said is the issue? Just that its too close to the tracks, and no other compounding problems?

I can't exactly tell where the micros are hidden (in the overal picture) for Train Bridge and Depot in former life, but its that these would ok. Train bridge, and the switch yard/ turn table are seperated by fences and railing. The Depot isn't, but thats how depots are setup...

Have you specifially told the reviewer that visitors to these locations are common? and that 2of3 are seperated by fencing?

7.2k · December 22, 2005

The first and third one I would say no way. The second one would take some further research. Do you have permission from anyone for these placements? Showing permission would go a long way to helping you out.

The historical society (aka third one) granted approval for use of their property. The other two caches are on public property.

Looking at number 2, it looks like the cache is attached to the fence that belongs to the railyard. I certainly hope you have permission for that one. Destroying that fence would give access to many train engines and wrecking the rotation platform would harm transportation in the area. Your cache is right on the fence of a pretty hot terrorist target. You have permission, right? :lol:

1.7k · December 22, 2005

The historical society (aka third one) granted approval for use of their property. The other two caches are on public property.

#1, the bridge, is that really public property? A bridge over the tracks would lie within the railroad right-of-way, and thus actually be on property owned by the railroad.

Edit - had wrong cache #

Edited December 22, 2005 by geognerd

3.5k · December 22, 2005

I understand that the cacher's safety should be considered when approving a cache. I agree with the intent of the rule. My question is do these caches place the cacher in inherent danger? If the answer is no, then a black & white rule should be used as a starting point in making an approval decision. If I move the caches 150 feet away from their current location it defeats the reason to go to the location and the cacher will be enticed to use public walkways to enjoy the view anyway.

Do you realize that the railroad issue isn't just about public safety, but is also about railway property right of way and federal laws that govern these areas?

You might want to check out this cache to see the trouble that one cacher went through when he placed a cache waaaayy too close to a railroad.

Bret

December 22, 2005

Hmm.... what has the reviewer said is the issue? Just that its too close to the tracks, and no other compounding problems?

I can't exactly tell where the micros are hidden (in the overal picture) for Train Bridge and Depot in former life, but its that these would ok. Train bridge, and the switch yard/ turn table are seperated by fences and railing. The Depot isn't, but thats how depots are setup...

Have you specifially told the reviewer that visitors to these locations are common? and that 2of3 are seperated by fencing?

I quoted the reviewer's issue(s) in my first post. I have been assured it is due to the 150 rule. I think the reviewer knows the commonality of these locations.

So yes on all counts.

I don't pretend to understand the extend of the reviewers issues but in all honesty... that is irrelevant as this post is to build normal geocachers approval or disapproval in accordance to Groundspeaks posted procedures.

Excuse me for being short or cold seeming. I really never wanted to be debating this in a public form. I really wanted this to be done in the reviewers forum. :lol:

December 22, 2005

I really never wanted to be debating this in a public form.

Is that why you posted it in in a public forum?

December 22, 2005

I'm thinking that the support or agreement of "average cachers" has no bearing on the issue, in this case.

You already have two reviewers/volunteers expressing their concern over the hides. Those are the opinions that matter.

Once again...I offer the reminder: This is a game. One you choose to play. There are rules. Some are a little more important than others. And frankly, I see the reviewers here trying to save a lot of future trouble by questioning the logic behind the apparent need to place these caches where they are.

Might I offer another suggestion? If your intent is to bring cachers to "see the trains", why not offer the locations as waypoints?

1.4k · December 22, 2005

I wouldn't publish any of those caches, as they all appear to be on railroad property to me. The bridge is most likely RR property. The fence is probably RR property. There is no doubt the station is RR property. You would have to prove to me that you have permission from the railroad, something I've never seen anyone obtain.

Edited December 22, 2005 by Hemlock

6.5k · December 22, 2005

I really never wanted to be debating this in a public form.

Is that why you posted it in in a public forum?

The DevilReviwer Made Me Do It :lol:

I realize this is to gage overal communtiy support. However, I think its important to determine if its a case of 'the reviewer doesn't like this idea but is ok via the guidelines, what do you think' or 'the reviewer denied my cache because the letter of the guidelines interfers, do you think this one should get an exemption'. They're similar but not the same, one the reviewer's interpretion is at "fault", in the other the reviewer's view is fine but the guideline/rule is the problem.

21.9k · December 22, 2005

Thanks for putting together the "appeal" post for me, Lux. I did not have an opportunity to do that prior to leaving town for my holiday vacation this week. Our reviewer forum was unavailable for much of the day Saturday when I was wrapping up loose ends prior to traveling on Sunday. There were three other train track caches by other owners also submitted recently, and I will still likely post those in the reviewer forum.

I would also like to note for the record that the owner's last cache that I reviewed prior to this series of train track caches was altered after publication in a manner that made it not listable under the guidelines. Once that happens for a reviewer, his trust level for that geocacher drops considerably. These caches ought to be held to a high standard for issues such as permission, as noted by some of the other reviewers who have posted to the thread.

EDIT: to add bolded clarification. I wanted to consider all these caches as a group and had planned to write a long essay in the reviewers forum. I just haven't found the time yet during a period when the forums were working properly for me.

Edited December 22, 2005 by Keystone

5.2k · December 22, 2005

Ouch. I guess there really are two sides to every story. :lol:

18.9k · December 22, 2005

I wouldn't publish any of those caches, as they all appear to be on railroad property to me. The bridge is most likely RR property. The fence is probably RR property. There is no doubt the station is RR property. You would have to prove to me that you have permission from the railroad, something I've never seen anyone obtain.

Good points all.

I thought I had a great cache once - old 1880s railroad tunnel with no tracks anymore. New track is 150 feet away and a hillside separates them. The road is used by locals to travel to nearby properties. However, as soon as the railroad found out,they insisted I remove it as the only obvious approach took you onto railroad property for a short stretch. They are pretty serious about this stuff.

Having said that - I still think they are neat locations and proper written railroad permission and clear approach directions may ease some fears. (if it is even possible)

December 22, 2005

Ouch. I guess there really are two sides to every story.

you bet your hide there are!

December 22, 2005

I wouldn't publish any of those caches, as they all appear to be on railroad property to me. The bridge is most likely RR property. The fence is probably RR property. There is no doubt the station is RR property. You would have to prove to me that you have permission from the railroad, something I've never seen anyone obtain.

let's see...not including "the reviewer in question"...I think this makes 3 resounding "you really need to rethink this" opinions....

...from the opinions that matter, that is.

2.7k · December 22, 2005

I would also like to note for the record that the owner's last cache that I reviewed prior to this series of train track caches was altered after publication in a manner that made it not listable under the guidelines. Once that happens for a reviewer, his trust level for that geocacher drops considerably. These caches ought to be held to a high standard for issues such as permission, as noted by some of the other reviewers who have posted to the thread.

December 22, 2005

I would also like to note for the record that the owner's last cache that I reviewed prior to this series of train track caches was altered after publication in a manner that made it not listable under the guidelines. Once that happens for a reviewer, his trust level for that geocacher drops considerably.

Nice... The cache page in question was an event cache that has a two week limitation in publish timing. The event was to discuss cache-u-nuts Coin Quest game and to allow people an event to use in playing the game.

Once there was a location and coordinates I submitted it. Yes it was done hastily but in no way was it done to deceive.

Interestingly, the cache was never pulled nor was I ever contacted that the cache broke any rules after it was determined I apparently did. I've only been bludgeoned with that fact weeks after I made repeated contacts regarding these caches.

mod. note: removed link to game promo site

Edited December 22, 2005 by Quiggle

3k · December 22, 2005

You cannot place geocaches on Railroad property. Period. Who could forget the saga of Hillbilly's day in court!? It takes 2 miles to stop a train going 25 miles an hour. In all the movies the shoe gets stuck between the rails and the guy can't get the shoe off in time and gets squished. In the last few years in my town we've had two people killed by the commuter train. One was a kid about 16 years old who fell, and the other was a suicide just the other day. There was NO way for the engineer to stop the train. And he has to live with that for the rest of his life! They also have laws about trespassing on RR property and I think geocaching would fall under the "misdemeanor" category which is a $100 fine plus probable prison time.

"The model State railroad trespass prevention bill accomplishes the following:

-Makes entering or remaining upon a railroad right-of-way or other railroad

property a misdemeanor subject to not more than a $100 fine, imprisonment for not more than 30 days, or both. The trespass bill prohibits trespassing, whether by walking, jogging, snowmobiling, or other activities. Aside from the right-of-way, railroad property also includes structures, appurtenances, and equipment used in the operation of any railroad."

Geocaching falls under "other activites." So unless you have written permission from the Railroad and I doubt they'll give it to you, then this should not be allowed.

There have been too many instances of cachers being detained for "looking suspicious" or caches being detonated "for looking suspicious". Why put someone in the position of publicly snooping into nooks and crannies around an area that is probably covered by Homeland Security? Will you pay the fine? Will you do the time? That is not the only place in the world to hide a cache. I'm sure you can use your containers elsewhere.

(edit because I can TOO spell!)

Edited December 22, 2005 by Planet

5.2k · December 22, 2005

There have been too many instances of cachers being detained for "looking suspicious" or caches being detonated "for looking suspicious". Why put someone in the position of publicly snooping into nooks and crannies around an area that is probably covered by Homeland Security? Will you pay the fine? Will you do the time? That is not the only place in the world to hide a cache. I'm sure you can use your containers elsewhere.

Well said, Planet!

21.9k · December 22, 2005

I would also like to note for the record that the owner's last cache that I reviewed prior to this series of train track caches was altered after publication in a manner that made it not listable under the guidelines. Once that happens for a reviewer, his trust level for that geocacher drops considerably.

Nice... The cache page in question was an event cache that has a two week limitation in publish timing. The event was to discuss [a commercial promotion].

Once there was a location and coordinates I submitted it. Yes it was done hastily but in no way was it done to deceive.

Interestingly, the cache was never pulled nor was I ever contacted that the cache broke any rules after it was determined I apparently did. I've only been bludgeoned with that fact weeks after I made repeated contacts regarding these caches.

I made it clear to you that you added a substantial amount of material to your cache page after publication that was quite commercial in nature. Groundspeak subsequently confirmed that I was correct in my analysis. Had I been presented with the commercial content at the time I reviewed the event cache, I would have held up publication. I did not find out about the change until after it was listed, and people were already making plans to attend the event. Essentially, you received a free pass on that one, as I chose not to de-list the event cache.

We discussed this by e-mail quite some time ago, so please don't say you were never contacted.

My prior offer still stands: provide proof of permission from the railroad, or move each cache at least 150 feet from the railroad tracks, and they can easily be listed.

24.7k · December 22, 2005

When it comes to RR's the overiding issue is the property issue. If it's on RR property the cache will not be approved. This is due to some issues way back on a RR hide.

RR's are anal, slow, and have huge legal departments that like to slap people around. They have more rights than the states they are in. "No" is the answer of choice for any question you ask, unless it's in their interest. Getting a "no" answer from a RR is difficult since without the motivation (meaning they see a benifit from what you are asking) they are inclined to not even answer at all.

If they are motivated things may only take 6 months to a year. The except is some of the local short line RR's that have been sold. The new short line RR companies are sometimes easy to work with.

As for what you are trying to accomplish with your hides that's a good thing (Ignoring commercial issues and focusing on the interesting location). Your key issue is to show that the property is no longer under RR control. For example a city or county lease, or a donation to a Rails to Trails program or purchased etc.

The hides themselves...the one beam hide won't last long before it's found by a muggle.

Edited December 22, 2005 by Renegade Knight

7.2k · December 22, 2005

I've only been bludgeoned with that fact weeks after I made repeated contacts regarding these caches.

Bludgeoned??? :lol: :lol:

5.2k · December 22, 2005

At this point its the poor dead horse that's being bludgeoned :lol:

December 22, 2005

December 22, 2005

Although I appreciate a good debate from time to time. As has been stated previously, REGARDLESS OF HOW YOU INTERPRET THE GUIDELINES, the reviewer has the responsibility of approving the cache and ensuring it reflects properly on the activity. Hence, if they tell you you can't use a purple container, then you can't use a purple container and it really doesn't matter why.

I think this is a wonderful location. I think I would approve at least one of the caches. But, I am NOT a reviewer. (And my hat is of to those who are.)

24.7k · December 22, 2005

If you want your cache approved you need to work on the RR property angle (Your county assessor's office is a good start for who owns the property) and clear up the commercial angle.

Planets high risk location comment will have to be factored in now that she's mentioned it and the reviewrs have read it.

7.2k · December 22, 2005

Planets high risk location comment will have to be factored in now that she's mentioned it and the reviewrs have read it.

Obviously the reviewer was considering that right out of the gate. It didn't take planet mentioning it for it suddenly to become a factor. I mentioned the exact same thing above already myself. It was the first thing that I had a problem with myself.

December 22, 2005

Really, if your intent is to get people to go look at specific things or areas, you can't go wrong with the good old offset multi. Since the initial stages are virtual you can put them anywhere that doesn't involve tresspass, and since specific objects must be viewed in order to get the final coordinates you achive your goal of showing people what you want them to see. The only difficulty is finding a place nearby for a cache, and since it can be almost anywhere legal in the area you can usually find a more muggle-resistant spot than you could with a straight hide.

I used to have a cache at the San Carlos (CA) airport in the public outdoor seating area of a Burger King. (There's an old helicopter there as play equiptment.) The airport asked that it be removed for proximity reasons, which I thought was just a little much, but whatever. I've recently replaced it with this cache which starts at the same spot but whose physical cache is well removed from the airport property.

They aren't hard to hide. Find a nearby spot. Hide a traditional. Take the coordinates. Go to your intermediate spots, determine what items need to be counted or taken note of (words in a sign, letters in a particular word, number painted on something, number of some item, whatever - make sure you choose permanent unambiguous items for your questions), take the coordinates of the intermediate spots and write it all up, choosing one of the intermediate spots for your initial coordinates. Be sure to test it at least once - when these are done wrong they are very annoying.

Oh, and be sure to tell the reviewer where the physical cache is and the nature of it's hiding spot using a reviewer note. It also doesn't hurt to describe the intermediate spots as well to put their minds at ease.

I have a number of caches whose initial coordinates are in "off limits" areas, yet they are allowed because the final physical caches are elsewhere. I use this technique to accomplish that. It works.

Edited to add: by "off limits" I mean NPS land, not "no tresspassing" land. You can't get around "no tresspassing", nor would I recommend trying to.

Edited December 22, 2005 by WalruZ

21.9k · December 22, 2005

Although I appreciate a good debate from time to time. As has been stated previously, REGARDLESS OF HOW YOU INTERPRET THE GUIDELINES, the reviewer has the responsibility of approving the cache and ensuring it reflects properly on the activity. Hence, if they tell you you can't use a purple container, then you can't use a purple container and it really doesn't matter why.

Purple containers are not addressed in the listing guidelines. :lol: I would have to have an awfully good reason to disallow a purple container, and I'd have to cite to the sections of the guidelines that are catch-all's for problems that aren't mentioned specifically.

I say this simply to illustrate that cache reviewing ought to be done objectively, rather than subjectively, to the extent possible. If a reviewer despises lamp post caches, or puzzle caches, he still needs to list the ones which meet the guidelines. I happen to be a railroad history fan, and would love to visit the locations highlighted by these cache placements. But my personal opinions should have no bearing on the matter.

I think this is a wonderful location. I think I would approve at least one of the caches. But, I am NOT a reviewer. (And my hat is of to those who are.)

I am going on memory here, as I haven't had time to look at all of the cache pages this afternoon due to family obligations. But if I recall correctly, one cache is hidden with permission, and the final location is hidden in an area where the tracks are removed. But the group is to be listed as a series, and some or all of the remaining caches present legitimate issues under the "Off Limits" section of the Listing Guidelines.

December 22, 2005

It's a crying shame that we can't place geocaches near railroads. We also can't let our little kids walk or ride bikes to school, or leave our cars and homes unlocked like we used to. The world we live in has changed, especially since 9/11, and we could waste our time griping about it, or strive to find new and creative ways to adapt and have fun anyway.

1.1k · December 22, 2005

Looks like you got your reason:

The reason given to me why my cache series has been held up is: "I am nervous about publishing a cache in close proximity to active railroad tracks."

It is totally up to the cache approver and his/her interpertation of the guidelines.

cheers

December 22, 2005

Really, if your intent is to get people to go look at specific things or areas, you can't go wrong with the good old offset multi. Since the initial stages are virtual you can put them anywhere that doesn't involve tresspass, and since specific objects must be viewed in order to get the final coordinates you achive your goal of showing people what you want them to see. The only difficulty is finding a place nearby for a cache, and since it can be almost anywhere legal in the area you can usually find a more muggle-resistant spot than you could with a straight hide.

I used to have a cache at the San Carlos (CA) airport in the public outdoor seating area of a Burger King. (There's an old helicopter there as play equiptment.) The airport asked that it be removed for proximity reasons, which I thought was just a little much, but whatever. I've recently replaced it with this cache which starts at the same spot but whose physical cache is well removed from the airport property.

They aren't hard to hide. Find a nearby spot. Hide a traditional. Take the coordinates. Go to your intermediate spots, determine what items need to be counted or taken note of (words in a sign, letters in a particular word, number painted on something, number of some item, whatever - make sure you choose permanent unambiguous items for your questions), take the coordinates of the intermediate spots and write it all up, choosing one of the intermediate spots for your initial coordinates. Be sure to test it at least once - when these are done wrong they are very annoying.

Oh, and be sure to tell the reviewer where the physical cache is and the nature of it's hiding spot using a reviewer note. It also doesn't hurt to describe the intermediate spots as well to put their minds at ease.

I have a number of caches whose initial coordinates are in "off limits" areas, yet they are allowed because the final physical caches are elsewhere. I use this technique to accomplish that. It works.

Edited to add: by "off limits" I mean NPS land, not "no tresspassing" land. You can't get around "no tresspassing", nor would I recommend trying to.

Ahhh yes... now that we are having a public discussion of the possible ways to fix this problem. This seems like a good solution for two of my caches.

Keystone, would this work for you. Coordinates are on the public walk way. Do math to the final?

December 22, 2005

I have a cache thats about 40 feet from a semi active rail line. Trains only pass that location 4 to 6 times a week, and are going slow. Obviously its not any serious rail line, but it is still an active rail line. Theres a rails to trails trail that parallels the tracks there, and I made it very very clear in my cache description that the cache was on the side of the trail away from the railroad tracks. I even included a photo which I had edited with Paint (on my computer) with the area of the cache circled, and the off limits area of the RR tracks circled. The approver even sent me an email thanking me for making it so utterly clear that it was not near railroad tracks.

I dont think the 150 feet rule is by any means a blanket rule, just a guideline. If you provide sufficient evidence that your cache is in a public area i doubt there would be a problem with having a cache there. That being said there are tons of different aprovers and the ways that they interperite the guidelines probably vary greatly.

I would also like to say that i found a certain cache hidden on a walkway above a very active rail line. I would be interested to know how permission was obtained to place it.

Finally i want to point out that the quote by Planet that it takes 2 miles to stop a train going 25 miles an hour is a little exagerated, but if you´re stuck on the tracks the difference between 2 miles and a half a mile will make no difference and you will be the latest hood ornament on the iron horse. Trains are dangerous and you have to respect them. Stop Look Listen and Live. For more than you ever wanted to know about train stopping distances check out this thread on Trains.com: http://www.trains.com/community/forum/topi...&TOPIC_ID=48377

December 22, 2005

fwiw, you can also use "multiple choice" at a stage, eg..

stage 1: N37 47.576 W123 45.678

Look west from this spot. If you see

two railroad lamps - then A = 4

a small railroad switch shack - then A = 2

an abandoned tunnel - then A = 9

godzilla - then A = 5

repeat enough times to get the numbers you need. typically you'll phrase your final coordinates as (eg in my area) 37 45.ABC 121 59.DEF, or something similar.

Here is another example. We locals are not allowed to hide physical caches in this area - the physical cache is elsewhere on city parkland.

I Despise Doing This...

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment