Illegal &/or Dangerous Caches

[+MomToo!]

I had a very public arguement a few months back with "Pablo Mac" who swore that his cache

Trouble at a Bridge Over Water #6 by Pablo Mac (GCNHX1)

was NOT illegally placed and he even went so far as to post photos claiming where the cache was and was not located.... well I contacted the federally protected water facility where the cache was ILLEGALLY hidden within 25 feet and they removed the cache and e-mailed to thank me and tell me it was not only placed on protected city property but that it was also in an extremely dangerous location.

 

The cache owner archived the cache the same day it was pulled, claiming it was "time to move on" but this guy is a infamous around here, well known for his illegal and dangerous caches and he has several in this same series of caches, all dangerous and illegally placed? I dont know for sure but after 9/11 I can garantee you most of the bridge caches are illegal.

 

It bothers me that he purposefully violates the law and geocaching guidelines but it bothers me even more that he LIED about it, better to say yes, its dangerous and may be illegally placed then to LIE and send people, families, kids out to risk injury and arrest.

[+El Diablo]

I had a very public arguement a few months back with "Pablo Mac" who swore that his cache

Trouble at a Bridge Over Water #6 by Pablo Mac (GCNHX1)

was NOT illegally placed and he even went so far as to post photos claiming where the cache was and was not located.... well I contacted the federally protected water facility where the cache was ILLEGALLY hidden within 25 feet and they removed the cache and e-mailed to thank me and tell me it was not only placed on protected city property but that it was also in an extremely dangerous location.

 

The cache owner archived the cache the same day it was pulled, claiming it was "time to move on" but this guy is a infamous around here, well known for his illegal and dangerous caches and he has several in this same series of caches, all dangerous and illegally placed? I dont know for sure but after 9/11 I can garantee you most of the bridge caches are illegal.

 

It bothers me that he purposefully violates the law and geocaching guidelines but it bothers me even more that he LIED about it, better to say yes, its dangerous and may be illegally placed then to LIE and send people, families, kids out to risk injury and arrest.

 

If he is violating the guidelines then use the report this cache button.

 

El Diablo

[+Mopar]

Dangerous and illegal are too entirely different things.

Dangerous is relative to the seeker. A cache that requires a boat is dangerous to a non-swimmer. A cache in a muddy field is dangerous to a cacher in a wheelchair. Driving a car to the trail head is VERY dangerous, hundreds of people get killed every day driving a car.

Nobody is forcing you to do a cache that you feel is dangerous.

 

Now, illegal...... that's what the SBA button is for.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I had a very public arguement a few months back with "Pablo Mac" who swore that his cache

Trouble at a Bridge Over Water #6 by Pablo Mac (GCNHX1)

was NOT illegally placed and he even went so far as to post photos claiming where the cache was and was not located.... well I contacted the federally protected water facility where the cache was ILLEGALLY hidden within 25 feet and they removed the cache and e-mailed to thank me and tell me it was not only placed on protected city property but that it was also in an extremely dangerous location.

 

The cache owner archived the cache the same day it was pulled, claiming it was "time to move on" but this guy is a infamous around here, well known for his illegal and dangerous caches and he has several in this same series of caches, all dangerous and illegally placed? I dont know for sure but after 9/11 I can garantee you most of the bridge caches are illegal.

 

It bothers me that he purposefully violates the law and geocaching guidelines but it bothers me even more that he LIED about it, better to say yes, its dangerous and may be illegally placed then to LIE and send people, families, kids out to risk injury and arrest.

Phew! You simultaneouly raise several rather unrelated issues in your post above. Here are my measured responses, one at a time:

• If you know of caches which this person has placed which are illegal, please use the SBA button on the cache listing page and post a clear and coherent note along with it, explaining your concerns. If your concerns can be validated, the cache will be archived.
  
• If a hider has consistently been placing illegal caches and then lying to reviewers, thus violating the implicit trust between the cache hider and reviewer, then I am sure that the reviewer, and likely many other reviewers, are probably by now very much aware of the insincerity of the hider, and will treat future and even current cache hides by him or her with due caution.
  
• You also concomitantly raise the rather unrelated issue of safety. Yes, some caches which are located on cliffs, in caves, on abandoned bridges, and underwater do involve some degree of danger, and therefore it is imperative that the cache listing page disclose all such known dangers, hazards and cautions as much as possible, and also that the Terrain rating be appropriately assigned, i.e., a Terrain rating of 4.0, 4.5, or 5.0 as appropriate. Are you saying that the hider placed a dangerous cache and did not assign an appropriate Terrain rating, or that they perhaps omitted the warnings on the cache listing page?
  
• As for the danger element itself, well, assuming that the guidelines which I listed above have been followed, some caches are indeed dangerous to tackle, just as some hikes are dangerous, rock climbing activities are dangerous, boating is dangerous, swimming is dangerous, spelunking (crawling in caves) outings are dangerous, and SCUBA diving is dangerous. However, if any of these activities, extreme caches included, are pursued with the proper gear and the appropriate training, and assuming that the participants were forewarned of the hazards and relative degree of danger, what is the problem?
  
• As for your strongly-stated concerns about the possibility of arrest, I strongly urge you from the bottom of my heart not to pursue any cache which you feel may be placed in an illegal or inadvisable setting, or if your gut sense warns you that the situation may be quasi-legal or illegal. That is your responsibility when caching, just as it is when you are hiking, skiing, orienteering, rock climbing, spelunking or exploring your city. There are several caches which I have refused to to seek once I arrived at the site and assayed the situation or setting, because I decided that the placement of the cache was either illegal or inadvisable. In one such case, the cache in question was archived the next day due to my concerns and those of other seekers.
  

Edited June 15, 2006 by Vinny & Sue Team

[vhs07]

changed my mind...

Edited June 15, 2006 by vhs07

[+Mary&Dave]

he has several in this same series of caches, all dangerous and illegally placed?

 

If you believe these caches are illegally placed, log a "Needs Archived" log for them. This will send an email alerting both the cache hider and the local reviewer of the situation. Hopefully, the caches can then be moved to a legal location or archived.

[+The GeoGadgets Team]

How about when someone posts a cache, folks go out to find it, only to find themselves stuck in a crumbling, unmarked mineshaft?

 

Yeah, that almost happened to us. I won't drag out what has turned into a long story - suffice it to say we complained about the terrain rating on what turned out to be a cliffhanger, and the owner placed a cache in a very dangerous location, knowing we/I are FTFWs, and sat back and laughed. Luckily, before any permanent damage was done, we realized we'd been had and requested that the cache be archived. When Jeremy couldn't contact the folks who hid it, it was.

 

Karma is a wonderful thing, though. The guys who placed that? There all in jail now - for damaging state property, filming their antics, and posting them on their website.

 

This is one reason there is that HUGE disclaimer on every single cache page.

[+Renegade Knight]

You don't really give a lot of info about the cache.

 

Waterways tend to be under the juristiction of the Army Corps of Engineers. Except they can also be operated by Canal Companies etc.

 

Bridges over waterways typically are not owned or maintained by the agency in charge of the waterway.

 

I highly doubt that the location had a specific law prohibiting caches. If the cache was illegal it would have to be by some other means. Even in the national parks where the NPS has a blanket ban on caches you will find that caches are not illegal. They just happen to chose to intreprete other laws in a way that lets them confiscate caches.

 

As for dangerouse. That's relative. If you are not up to the challenge of finding the cache for fear of your life, best to leave it to those who are better able to meet the challenge. The key thing is to try and rate the cache appropriately. As a responsible adult who has managed to live through lifes dangers so far, it's entirly up to you to exercise good judgment in seeking caches. If you get hurt seeking a cache it's your own fault, or it's just bad luck. The only exception is if the cache hider is trying to cause intentional harm.

Edited June 15, 2006 by Renegade Knight

[+Mystery Ink]

I had a very public arguement a few months back with "Pablo Mac" who swore that his cache

Trouble at a Bridge Over Water #6 by Pablo Mac (GCNHX1)

was NOT illegally placed and he even went so far as to post photos claiming where the cache was and was not located.... well I contacted the federally protected water facility where the cache was ILLEGAan areLLY hidden within 25 feet and they removed the cache and e-mailed to thank me and tell me it was not only placed on protected city property but that it was also in an extremely dangerous location.

 

The cache owner archived the cache the same day it was pulled, claiming it was "time to move on" but this guy is a infamous around here, well known for his illegal and dangerous caches and he has several in this same series of caches, all dangerous and illegally placed? I dont know for sure but after 9/11 I can garantee you most of the bridge caches are illegal.

 

It bothers me that he purposefully violates the law and geocaching guidelines but it bothers me even more that he LIED about it, better to say yes, its dangerous and may be illegally placed then to LIE and send people, families, kids out to risk injury and arrest.

Click ignore if it is illegally placed click SBA but don't target someone and give out there name here making them look bad when they are not here to defend themselves thats just rude.Second note reading your DNF log of that cache sounded pretty Imature of you. btw since you stated it was on City Property Most of the caches you find in city parks or in Urban area's are City Property.

I hope Karma shines down on you and kicks you in the pants when you decide to place a cache someday.

 

You have 135 finds and that makes you an expert on everything?

Edited June 15, 2006 by Mystery Ink

[+Map Only]

Let me see if I got this right, because all I've got to work on is the cache page and your post here....

 

You single-handedly brought a cache to the attention of a LEO who yanked it for the safety of all who might have hunted it after you? A cache whose page spells out the risks involved? A cache someone placed and maintained and posted for us to enjoy? A cache found by tens of happy cachers who left notes and faces, with several thank yous?

 

I'll thank you not to do that again, if I've got this about right.

[+hikergps]

Um, I went to the cache page and read your log, too. I sure hope it made you feel better to act like a child and actually type "liar liar pants on fire!" in a cache log. That whole log is pretty much bad form. Since you have set the bar in your first post by slamming the hider without representation, I will give folks the opprotunity to view the information available. Anyone else have an opinion on it? Here is the cache page in question.

[+Mystery Ink]

I sent the cache owner an email so he can at least defend himself I let him know someone was bad mouthing him in public. I wonder what the orginal log entry said.

Edited June 15, 2006 by Mystery Ink

[+Renegade Knight]

Thanks folks for posting a link to the cache. I read the page and I'm glad that I only have to deal with a cache maggot who has stolen hundreds of caches in my area.

 

Sorry Pablo Mac.

[+Cache Heads]

I hung over the side of a seven story building to grab a cache

 

There's a big difference between dangerous and illegal-- if you think a cache may be illegal, log an SBA and it will be dealt with. In my experience, reviewers respond to SBA logs very quickly. However, if the cache is just dangerous (or too dangerous for you), why not walk away and be done with it? Post a civil note about your experience if you feel like others can learn from it. In any case, all the "liar liar" and calling the authoritaays junk just makes you seem unpleasant

 

 

[+Mary&Dave]

After reading the cache logs, I do understand your objections to it. It appears to have been hidden under a bridge in a fairly dangerous location without permission from the city. If someone were to fall and get injured, the city could potentially be liable. I can certainly see why they would not want to have it there.

 

However, that's no reason to start a nasty thread on the forums. If you have a problem with a cache, contact the hider privately. If that fails, post a needs archived report to alert a reviewer. From what I can see on his cache page, Pablo Mac sounds like a reasonable guy.

[+Renegade Knight]

A comment on SBA.

 

Always, always, always email the owner first. The last thing any one needs is a bunch of SBA logs because the cache looks like something it isn't.

 

In this regard the OP did the right thing and emailed the cache owner first.

[+Cache Heads]

A comment on SBA.

 

Always, always, always email the owner first. The last thing any one needs is a bunch of SBA logs because the cache looks like something it isn't.

A super important point that I completely missed. Thanks, RK

[+Bill & Tammy]

Somehow I find it very distasteful and somewhat sickening that the OP would publicly single out a fellow cacher who has taken the time and energy to contribute to this hobby by placing a cache and accuse them of illegal activity, placing folks in peril and dishonesty. And to top it all off you, yourself have not given back to the caching community by placing one but wish to berate somebody who has.

[+Groovy Cachin' Dude!]

Here is the cache page.

[+SmartSapper]

After reading the cache logs, I do understand your objections to it. It appears to have been hidden under a bridge in a fairly dangerous location without permission from the city. If someone were to fall and get injured, the city could potentially be liable. I can certainly see why they would not want to have it there.

 

However, that's no reason to start a nasty thread on the forums. If you have a problem with a cache, contact the hider privately. If that fails, post a needs archived report to alert a reviewer. From what I can see on his cache page, Pablo Mac sounds like a reasonable guy.

 

i want to emphasize the difference between illegal and dangerous. if I make a decision to do something dangerous, then I am the one responsible for making sure that I am trained, the equipment works, the weather is right for my activity, etc. Did the city, the hider, or anyone else force or coerce me to go out there? I bear the brunt of the consequences, therefore I want to know that my own ignorance isn't going to get me killed. It means that I have to do my stinking homework!! We need to stop holding others liable for the results of our actions. All it does is jack up insurance premiums, and encourage the continued dumbing down of our society.

 

who is John Galt, anyway?

 

And reading the logs, it looks like plenty of people had fun looking for it, and knew what they were getting into. We all make choices, and we always have a choice to stop and say, "This isn't right, and I am not going to continue." But I may continue well beyond the point at which others turn back. It's MY choice.

[CoyoteRed]

The topic of danger should never come up when determining the viability of a cache unless it is unseen dangers.

 

It has already been described some typical dangers one may face simply being active outdoors. The only time "danger" should be considered is unseen dangers like the aforementioned hidden mine shaft. Others may include rapid changes in a water level and speed, something very common down stream of dams. It's the unseen dangers, the ones you can't prepare for, that are the ones that should be avoided when placing a cache.

 

As for it being illegal...

 

There are plenty of bureaucrats that will err on the side of saving their own butt with making a decision like pulling a cache. The original message, if accurate, was quoted in the log and it said nothing about it being illegal, just in a "fairly dangerous place." This sounds to me a lot like CYA.

 

As an example, some land managers wouldn't dream of allowing folks to put a cache in a tree. They might think it far too dangerous as someone might fall. Others, might say, "Go for it."

 

I'd almost be willing to bet that if the right person was approached that cache would most certainly be a viable one. I've known land managers and supervisors be so enthused with us placing a cache that they've hunted them and traded out of them.

 

On the other hand, someone going into the managers with an attitude and an agenda could get almost any cache pulled and archived. That sounds exactly what happened here.

[+GSPD]

It is fairly obvious who in here supports illegally placed caches for their own benefit and thrill...

[+sbell111]

It is fairly obvious who in here supports illegally placed caches for their own benefit and thrill...

The key to your post is the word 'illegal'. I've yet to see positive confirmation that the cache or anyone logging it was breaking any laws. If the cache required seekers to do something illegal, than it should have been archived. If not, the OP should not had taken the actions that she did, in my opinion.

 

There apparently was some danger involved. So what? If you or I come across a cache where danger is involved, it is up to us to decide whether we are up to the challenge.

[+Lighteye]

I see both sides of this issue, however.... here's a disclaimer to put on your caches in the future for those who like to hide slightly "extreme caches":

 

People that do not wish to do a cache because of any danger they might perceive to be present is certainly within their right to not procede. However you do not have the right to try to ruin the enjoyment of others in attempting a find, that is beyond your capabilities, but not beyond theirs. This goes for almost every caching event there is. After all one might run into spiders, snakes, poisonous plants, trips and falls and the list goes on.

 

Safety First! .......Take a friend, Look out for others, take a cell phone if possible, watch where you're stepping, NEVER UNCOVER ANY CACHE WITH YOUR HANDS OR FEET, USE A STICK! If you feel uncomfortable in doing a cache, for any reason, just walk away!!!

 

This should cut down on the complaints like those stated by the OP here. I borrowed this note from a local cacher in my area, and it covers things quite well. Please feel free to borrow and use if you'd like.

[+Kacky]

I had a very public arguement a few months back...

I don't get why there needs to be a public argument. You thought it was illegal, you reported it and it got archived. It's troubling that you seem not to be able to let go.

Edited June 15, 2006 by Kacky

[+Criminal]

I see both sides of this issue, however.... here's a disclaimer to put on your caches in the future for those who like to hide slightly "extreme caches":

 

People that do not wish to do a cache because of any danger they might perceive to be present is certainly within their right to not procede. However you do not have the right to try to ruin the enjoyment of others in attempting a find, that is beyond your capabilities, but not beyond theirs. This goes for almost every caching event there is. After all one might run into spiders, snakes, poisonous plants, trips and falls and the list goes on.

 

Safety First! .......Take a friend, Look out for others, take a cell phone if possible, watch where you're stepping, NEVER UNCOVER ANY CACHE WITH YOUR HANDS OR FEET, USE A STICK! If you feel uncomfortable in doing a cache, for any reason, just walk away!!!

 

This should cut down on the complaints like those stated by the OP here. I borrowed this note from a local cacher in my area, and it covers things quite well. Please feel free to borrow and use if you'd like.

The great team of Stingray and Devil Kitty (sniff....miss those two) used the following disclaimer:

 

*Disclaimer*

This cache was rated using the official geocache rating system. The following persons should not attempt any of our caches. especially a terrain 4.

1. young children

2. elderly people.

3. out of shape people

4. whiners, crybabies, and wusses.

[+sbell111]

The great team of Stingray and Devil Kitty (sniff....miss those two) used the following disclaimer:

*Disclaimer*

This cache was rated using the official geocache rating system. The following persons should not attempt any of our caches. especially a terrain 4.

1. young children

2. elderly people.

3. out of shape people

4. whiners, crybabies, and wusses.

Wow. I think I'm three of those.

[+Criminal]

The great team of Stingray and Devil Kitty (sniff....miss those two) used the following disclaimer:

*Disclaimer*

This cache was rated using the official geocache rating system. The following persons should not attempt any of our caches. especially a terrain 4.

1. young children

2. elderly people.

3. out of shape people

4. whiners, crybabies, and wusses.

Wow. I think I'm three of those.

The key words being "should not"

 

[+chanterelleman]

Caches hidden in caves and mine shafts are unsafe unless posted otherwise. Many times you could be entering an oxygen deficient atmosphere. If the cache is hidden close to the entrance and I mean close, I would not enter, unless you have the gear necessary to verify safety.

[+sbell111]

.... If the cache is hidden close to the entrance and I mean close, I would not enter, unless you have the gear necessary to verify safety.

I'm not a caver, so I don't really know these things, but is that what you really meant?

[+Mary&Dave]

i want to emphasize the difference between illegal and dangerous.

You're absolutely right. Illegal is the wrong word. Placed in a dangerous location (probably) without permission would be more accurate.

 

It's a gray area, really. If this same cache was placed out in the middle of the woods (still, mind you, on government owned land), I'd be just fine with it. However, it's downtown and on city property. It also doesn't appear to be an area where someone would generally go (were it not for a cache here). In this case, liability is a concern.

 

if I make a decision to do something dangerous, then I am the one responsible for making sure that I am trained, the equipment works, the weather is right for my activity, etc. Did the city, the hider, or anyone else force or coerce me to go out there? I bear the brunt of the consequences, therefore I want to know that my own ignorance isn't going to get me killed. It means that I have to do my stinking homework!! We need to stop holding others liable for the results of our actions. All it does is jack up insurance premiums, and encourage the continued dumbing down of our society.

You'll get no argument from me -- but sadly, that's not how it works in this country. When you do something stupid, the first thing you want is someone to blame. I don't think it's right, but you can thank the lawyers!

[+sbell111]

You're absolutely right. Illegal is the wrong word. Placed in a dangerous location (probably) without permission would be more accurate.

 

It's a gray area, really. If this same cache was placed out in the middle of the woods (still, mind you, on government owned land), I'd be just fine with it. However, it's downtown and on city property. It also doesn't appear to be an area where someone would generally go (were it not for a cache here). In this case, liability is a concern.

<SNIP>

You'll get no argument from me -- but sadly, that's not how it works in this country. When you do something stupid, the first thing you want is someone to blame. I don't think it's right, but you can thank the lawyers!

So what? The danger issue is no reason to archive a cache. Nor is 'because it was on city property' an acceptable reason.

[cacheman22]

<snip>

It bothers me that he purposefully violates the law and geocaching guidelines but it bothers me even more that he LIED about it, better to say yes, its dangerous and may be illegally placed then to LIE and send people, families, kids out to risk injury and arrest.

This is what the cache page says:

 

This cache may actually be more fun (there's that word again!) to hunt in the dark, unless fun and danger don't mix well for you. Terrain is a 2-star deal until you get very near the cache, at which point the terrain rating ramps up considerably (2 + 1 for risk = 3). Maybe bring a life vest in case you fall in. Better yet, just don't fall in.

The words, "danger", "life vest" and "in case you fall in." sure jumped out at me.

 

I think the words "xxxxx" and "xxxxx" belong in this thread somewhere. I'll let the reader decide where they apply.

.

.....Edited because I was name calling.

Edited June 15, 2006 by cacheman22

[+Mary&Dave]

So what? The danger issue is no reason to archive a cache. Nor is 'because it was on city property' an acceptable reason.

 

If permission was given for this placement, I'll appologize and take back everything I said.

[+Criminal]

So what? The danger issue is no reason to archive a cache. Nor is 'because it was on city property' an acceptable reason.

 

If permission was given for this placement, I'll appologize and take back everything I said.

What if permission was never required to begin with?

[+SmartSapper]

You'll get no argument from me -- but sadly, that's not how it works in this country. When you do something stupid, the first thing you want is someone to blame. I don't think it's right, but you can thank the lawyers!

 

I don't thank the lawyers, I blame them.

 

The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

[+Pablo Mac]

The cache owner in question can be silent no more.

 

I don't remember a "public argument" with the OP about this cache other than her original distasteful and spiteful post, which she deleted just before starting this thread.

 

What she doesn't know is that, before I placed the cache, an acquaintance of mine who works at the water treatment facility gave me information that conflicts with the email from the manager who removed the cache yesterday. When the manager contacted me via email yesterday afternoon, I archived the cache immediately and called him directly to apologize. He made it a point to apologize profusely for taking my cache, and stressed that there were absolutely no hard feelings from the facility or City to me, and geocachers in general, and I returned with my apologies. After a few laughs, we definitely hung up on good terms.

 

If the OP truly felt that this cache was illegally placed, I wonder why she waited a year before contacting the authorities. If she can say that all the caches in my "Trouble at a Bridge Over Water" series are "all...illegally placed," I challenge her to back that up with statute references, privately, and in a tactful manner. Going by the general tone of her forum posts, the "tactful manner" part of my challenge may prove to be too much.

 

I won't even address the issue of danger and perceived danger in geocaches, other than to join in with the "we're all adults and responsible to make our own decisions about which caches to attempt" mindset.

 

After all this, I am tempted to delete her logs from my caches she has found, but that would be stepping down to her level, so they stay. If they disappear, it's because she deleted them, not me.

 

From her most recent log on my cache page:

 

..."liar liar pants on fire! How about apologizing to all of us you lied to?"

 

MomToo!, I didn't lie, so please don't attack my integrity in a public forum. I am sorry that you didn't enjoy my cache, and that you didn't see fit to express your concerns in a more civil and adult manner. Our non-cacher friend we have in common hopes you stop kicking up controversy wherever you go. Best of luck to you.

 

Lastly, a screenshot from the OP's Travel Bug page:

 

 

No comment needed.

[+Mystery Ink]

Edited June 15, 2006 by Mystery Ink

[+medic208]

Snip...

 

WOW! Now THAT'S interesting...

[+Mary&Dave]

What she doesn't know is that, before I placed the cache, an acquaintance of mine who works at the water treatment facility gave me information that conflicts with the email from the manager who removed the cache yesterday. When the manager contacted me via email yesterday afternoon, I archived the cache immediately and called him directly to apologize.

 

I'm sorry for assuming (making an a** out of you and, er, actually just me) you had no permission. Actually, it sounds like everything was done right, and I just should keep my mouth shut about caches hundreds of miles away.

[+NetworkCacher]

Oh, smmaacckk!

[+Wadcutter]

I dont know for sure but after 9/11 I can garantee you most of the bridge caches are illegal.

 

You're right - You don't know for sure. In fact, you could have just left it as "I don't know". You also shouldn't "garantee" something you know nothing about.

I spent 35+ yrs in law enforcement and over 26 yrs in the military doing security assessments and involved heavily in post-9/11 security plannings at a statewide level involving some high security type installations and buildings. I have never seen any law, federal or state, or ever heard of such, that makes anything similiar to bridge caches illegal. Now, if you want to do a bit of research and back up your "garantee" then please post the federal or state statute that you believe covers such illegality.

 

As far as the "dangerous" part, I believe others have covered that well. No one forces anyone to seek any cache that the seeker may feel is too dangerous. If you think it's too dangerous for you, then by all means pass it up. There is no law forcing you to seek any specific cache. And that I can positively "garantee".

 

Sounds like someone is being too much Mom Too.

Edited June 15, 2006 by Wadcutter

[+The Leprechauns]

I dont know for sure but after 9/11 I can garantee you most of the bridge caches are illegal.

 

You're right - You don't know for sure. In fact, you could have just left it as "I don't know". You also shouldn't "garantee" something you know nothing about.

I spent 35+ yrs in law enforcement and over 26 yrs in the military doing security assessments and involved heavily in post-9/11 security plannings at a statewide level involving some high security type installations and buildings. I have never seen any law, federal or state, or ever heard of such, that makes anything similiar to bridge caches illegal. Now, if you want to do a bit of research and back up your "garantee" then please post the federal or state statute that you believe covers such illegality.

 

As far as the "dangerous" part, I believe others have covered that well. No one forces anyone to seek any cache that the seeker may feel is too dangerous. If you think it's too dangerous for you, then by all means pass it up. There is no law forcing you to seek any specific cache. And that I can positively "garantee".

 

Sounds like someone is being too much Mom Too.

Maybe she means they're illegal in the world of geocaching, then? There *is* a line in the "Off Limits" section of the Geocache Listing Requirements/Guidelines document that says not to hide a cache on a "highway bridge." People searching for caches at an interstate highway overpass look suspicious to law enforcement. A PVC Pipe tucked under a major state highway triggers a bomb squad callout. And so on.

 

But there is a heck of a difference between a bridge on a major urban commuter thoroughfare vs. some of the other bridge caches that many of us have enjoyed. A bridge carrying a two-lane country road over a creek may lead cachers to discover a great fishing hole. A micro hidden in a covered bridge lets finders discover a piece of history. Cops won't look twice if you're searching near a bridge, but within feet of a rails to trails path.

 

As an experienced geocacher, I am sure that Pablo Mac takes these things into consideration when deciding how and where to hide caches.

[+Bill & Tammy]

The cache owner in question can be silent no more. <snip>

Lastly, a screenshot from the OP's Travel Bug page:

 

 

No comment needed.

 

Hmmm, a certain Rick James song comes to mind. And just when I thought this wasn't going to get any more interesting.

 

BTW, Thanks for coming forward Pablo Mac, more power to ya.

Edited June 15, 2006 by Bill & Tammy

[+Groovy Cachin' Dude!]

I have never seen any law, federal or state, or ever heard of such, that makes anything similiar to bridge caches illegal. Now, if you want to do a bit of research and back up your "garantee" then please post the federal or state statute that you believe covers such illegality.

 

Wadcutter is absolutely correct. Now, MomToo!, if you think that it is "illegal" to place a cache under a bridge per GC.com's "Cache Listing Guidelines"

["Caches near or under public structures deemed potential or possible targets for terrorist attacks. These include but are not limited to highway bridges, dams, government buildings, elementary and secondary schools, and airports."], then you're wrong again.

 

I personally found and logged this cache, and it is under a Residential STREET bridge and not a HIGHWAY bridge. Plus the reviewer didn't have a problem approving this cache, and it was even outlined in the cache title (Trouble at a Bridge Over Water #6). The cache title addresses the "Bridge" issue, and "Trouble" addresses the difficulty. Not to mention the D/T rating on the cache page.

 

MomToo!, if you don't like a particular cache, DON'T DO IT! But don't wreck it for those that want to play the game.

[+Pablo Mac]

Many of the caches MomToo! has found are more dangerous than what she believed to be present at my former Bridge #6 cache. Guard rail caches placed within a few feet of highway-speed traffic make the real danger of my cache in question pale in comparison.

 

What I believe threw her off of my cache was the near-deafening sound of the 30' waterfall under the bridge...the bridge she never went under, where she would have seen that the perceived danger from above was actually substantially less in reality. She chose not to go over the rail and under the bridge, which was perfectly within her rights. And people like me have fought for her right to voice her opinions the way she so frequently does...on this and other forums.

 

Now, if she wants to see some caches with some real danger mixed in, I have those, too.

 

Oops - was that last part out loud?

[+erikwillke]

I've stated my disdain(sp?) for cache cops, especially lately, but this is over the top. It's one thing to have a reviewer archive a cache because you don't think it jives but to call a muggle and have them confiscate the cache is absurd. I don't live in your state but other cachers do. I would not be suprised to hear that one of your future cache hides was stolen. or maybe your singles bug. Just sayin'.

[TSPALLONE]

I don't know, I like the "tingle" of going where I'm not supposed to. Maybe it's me.

[+Criminal]

I don't know, I like the "tingle" of going where I'm not supposed to. Maybe it's me.

Shhhhhhhh...

 

[+Pablo Mac]

I would not be suprised to hear that one of your future cache hides was stolen.

She hasn't hidden any caches so far. I would be curious to see her placement style, but won't speculate on the details publicly.