If it is a highway and a bridge

[+StarBrand]

A recent thread had a bit of a side issue about the exactness of the bridge guideline and what qualifies as an exception to it. Just starting the discussion here and then I will chime in again later.

 

When and where is an appropriate excemption to this part of the guidelines??

 

If it is really a bridge on a highway does that automatically make it forbidden? why or why not?

 

(edit to add photo much later after locals made it a single issue)

 

What do you think of this one.....??

 

Edited February 8, 2007 by StarBrand

[+Kit Fox]

I'm of the opinion that any bridge maintained by either or State or Federal Govts, which used for vehicular traffic should be off limits period.

 

An abandoned bridge, makes a great cache hiding spot.

[+TrailGators]

I'm of the opinion that any bridge maintained by either or State or Federal Govts, which used for vehicular traffic should be off limits period.

 

An abandoned bridge, makes a great cache hiding spot.

 

Ditto on what Kit Fox said. I can think of two possible exceptions. I did once find a film cannister dangling from 50 feet of fishing line from the bottom of a local bridge crossing a small canyon. That one was hilarious because the coords took you below the bridge and when you finally looked up you saw the cache. I think the film cannister itself was probably a safe distance from the bridge. I've also found nanos on small local bridges and those don't pose much of a threat mainly because nobody even knows they are there.

 

By the way Kit Fox, next time I'm up to Big Bear, I'll have to bring someone to climb down and fetch that cache!

Edited February 8, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Syndam]

I'm of the opinion that any bridge maintained by either or State or Federal Govts, which used for vehicular traffic should be off limits period.

 

An abandoned bridge, makes a great cache hiding spot.

WOW!

I may have to make a special trip for that one one of these days.

 

As for when is there an appropriate exception... never, at least in the world we live in. In a perfect world, the Cache Owner would be completely honest about his/her cache and the Reviewer would be familiar with the area and the placement. A good decision could be made. Some differentiation could be made between acceptable and unacceptable bridge locations. In a perfect world, other cachers would understand why one cache was acceptable and another was not. But back to reality (and my opinion of human nature), people will understate a location or downplay a breach of guidelines to get a cache placed. Reviewers aren't perfect and they must rely on the information they are presented (by the cache owner). If a reviewer allows one to be placed on/under a bridge then there is an expectation that he will allow others.

 

Also if a cache is place on a bridge with the approval of a Reviewer and it turns out to be a legal problem for someone, isn't the Reviewer at least partially at fault for allowing a known breach of the guidelines?

[+StarBrand]

OK, I have to agree with all the above so far. But - what if.....

 

A local LEO placed the cache on a bridge and that LEO would likely be part of any response to any calls/concerns about the cache?

[+sbell111]

OK, I have to agree with all the above so far. But - what if.....

 

A local LEO placed the cache on a bridge and that LEO would likely be part of any response to any calls/concerns about the cache?

Is the LEO on duty 24 hours a day? Does he ever intend to take a day off? Would his presence allow the process to be changed?

[+sbell111]

A recent thread had a bit of a side issue about the exactness of the bridge guideline and what qualifies as an exception to it. Just starting the discussion here and then I will chime in again later.

 

When and where is an appropriate excemption to this part of the guidelines??

 

If it is really a bridge on a highway does that automatically make it forbidden? why or why not?

Since the OP didn't ask about expanding the guideline to include non-highway bridges, I won't address that issue.

 

I do think that there shouldn't be exceptions to this particular guideline. If the bridge is part of a US highway or goes over a US highway, no cache should be placed there.

Edited February 8, 2007 by sbell111

[CoyoteRed]

Does "cache" include a stage to said cache?

 

Are micros allowed while 5 gallon buckets disallowed?

 

What about those "write on the back of the magnetic sheet" caches? They actually have no interior volume and are, what, 1/32" thick, if that.

[+StarBrand]

Does "cache" include a stage to said cache?

 

Are micros allowed while 5 gallon buckets disallowed?

 

What about those "write on the back of the magnetic sheet" caches? They actually have no interior volume and are, what, 1/32" thick, if that.

For this discussion let's stick to caches with volume small or bigger - but I get your point and that is an interesting tangent.....

[Sadie]

I dunno. Maybe yes, maybe no. As this thread is revealing, "yes" or "no" is situational. The UK is OK with bridge caches, Idaho is not. City bridges are assume OK though? Foot bridges? A large container under the Golden Gate is a bad idea, but a keyholder under a city footbridge is OK. What about a decon container 30 feet away.

 

Linky

[+StarBrand]

I dunno. Maybe yes, maybe no. As this thread is revealing, "yes" or "no" is situational. The UK is OK with bridge caches, Idaho is not. City bridges are assume OK though? Foot bridges? A large container under the Golden Gate is a bad idea, but a keyholder under a city footbridge is OK. What about a decon container 30 feet away.

 

Linky

I accept that there are exceptions (foot bridges, some park bridges etc) - but I want to focus on the exact wording of the guideline which is specifically a highway bridge.....

 

I have recently seen 2 caches that are clearly on a highway bridge, are clearly visible on a sat photo have photos showing the location of the cache and are up and running. One was placed by an LEO and that was somehow the reason for allowing it. I think they should not exist - but that is just my opinion.

 

I think at a minimum these set a really bad example to others and at worst could prompt an "incident" - but the fact is they do exisit. So would like to see some discussion on the "limits" of the guideline.

[+sbell111]

Perhaps a reviewer could chime in with his/her thoughts.

[+Moose Mob]

Perhaps a reviewer could chime in with his/her thoughts.

Good point. As a moderator, I try to withhold my opinions, but I guess I could toss in my views here.

 

As stated, the interpretation is situational. Here in Nevada, things are pretty laid back. Except for places the Las Vegas Strip or Area 51.

 

So, I cannot tell you if an ammo can 100 feet is OK or not. Same with military installations. If a person places a micro near the end of the runway at Nellis Air Force Base (even off base), it won't get published without a lot of discussion. However, if a person places an ammo can 5 feet outside the fence of Nellis Air Force Base's Bombing Range would be published pretty easily. As far as Area 51, they get a real wide berth.

[+wimseyguy]

I think situational is the perfect word for this one. It all depends on how the seekers activities will be perceived by observers, especially LEO's. Any container attached to the bridge supports, guard rails, or structure is probably a bad idea. If the seekers of that cache look like they are inspecting the bridge, they very well could be detained and questioned.

 

If there are local roads down under the bridge that carry normal traffic-perhaps leading to a boat launch or fishing hole, then it might be OK to place a cache down there.

[Max Cacher]

Bridges and caches are all about location, location, and location reguardless of size, they are reviewed on a one by one basic

 

In the state of Tennessee six caches have been blown up by bomb squads four were under or near bridges

 

Max Cacher

Geocaching.com Volunteer Cache Reviewer // Moderator

[+Lord Stirling]

Perhaps a reviewer could chime in with his/her thoughts.

 

Glad to help. I will question caches placed on or near any bridges that carry auto traffic. It doesn't have to be a highway bridge. I may consider an exception if the bridge is a rural bridge that doesn't carry much traffic. An example might be a covered bridge in the Vermont countryside, or a bridge over a creek in the middle of farm country in Kansas.

 

Also busy pedestrian bridges over highways or in high traffic areas will probably not be published, but a pedestrian bridge on a hiking trail in the middle of a state park would probably be OK.

 

The cache container can also come into play. If the hider wants to put an ammo box or PVC pipe on that covered bridge in Vermont, I would strongly suggest that he consider a different container.

[+StarBrand]

Bridges and caches are all about location, location, and location reguardless of size, they are reviewed on a one by one basic

 

In the state of Tennessee six caches have been blown up by bomb squads four were under or near bridges

 

Max Cacher

Geocaching.com Volunteer Cache Reviewer // Moderator

That is just my point I guess - seems to me that if it is placed physically on the bridge and it is clearly and definitly a highway then it should be a slam dunk - flat out "no".

 

I know each case is different and requires close and careful consideration when granting exceptions. The actual reasons for an exception maybe are not relevant here. Just bugs me that ANY exceptions are made to this part of the guidelines.

[+HangnMoss]

Bridges and caches are all about location, location, and location reguardless of size, they are reviewed on a one by one basic

 

In the state of Tennessee six caches have been blown up by bomb squads four were under or near bridges

 

Max Cacher

Geocaching.com Volunteer Cache Reviewer // Moderator

 

I'm pretty new to geocaching, and from Tennessee. Could you elaborate or provide links? Thanks.

 

Back on topic: In the post 9/11 era, where everyone is suspicious, I'd have to say bridges are a no-no. There are a couple bridge caches near me, and I've avoided all but one. The one I logged was a magnetic micro on a back road bridge, but it still made me nervous. For that matter, I think most urban caches should be a no-no. There's a cache near me that I doubt I'll ever log. GCRA5A is in the skirt of the flagpole on the front lawn of the courthouse. I'm not trying to offend any cache placers, but I have to say, some areas are just off limits, and that includes bridges and overpasses.

Edited February 8, 2007 by HangnMoss

[+Team Perks]

I agree an across-the-board rule is inappropriate; it should depend on whether a normal person would look suspicious there. That is, could I as an average citizen wander over to said bridge and hang around there for a few minutes?

 

I think that would certainly rule out most urban bridges and most major highways. But there are definitely exceptions where it would be reasonable.

 

I've found caches on/under bridges along remote state highways where the "terrorist threat factor" would be essentially naught. In those cases, it was entirely reasonable that an average person might be expected to linger there to enjoy scenery, take photos, etc. I've had police drive by while I was on a couple bridges and they didn't even bat an eye.

 

I think the definition of "highway" will also vary by state, locality, etc. Practically every rural road in Texas seems to carry a state highway designation, while the same road in California would be lucky to even show up on the map.

[+Renegade Knight]

...If it is really a bridge on a highway does that automatically make it forbidden? why or why not?

 

Yes:

 

Not because the bridge isn't a worthy spot for a cache. The Rainbow Bridge In Idaho is a great spot for a cache. It's a concrete bridge that breaks the mold for concrete by not being ugly. That makes it rare and worth a visit.

 

Alas the issue is the potential for complete disruption. This bridge was shut down for hours while the bomb squad was called in and investigated the cache. The cache was not blown up. Even so the roadway was shut down until the cache was determined to be harmless. The shut down caused disruption. The public was held up for hours. The local communities had their transportation ability cut off and the resulting ire raised the collective public and official eyebrow when it comes to geocaching.

 

The short answer is where there is a high risk for disruption to the public at large...don't put a cache there. That's just bad for the activity.

Edited February 8, 2007 by Renegade Knight

[+fox-and-the-hound]

Just stumbled onto this thread and found a bunch of answers we needed for a new cache we'd like to put in place. Thanks for the advice everybody. We'll be taking a bunch of pictures from every conceivable angle as well as a few of the nearby roadways to forward to our approver.

[+Techcaching]

Look everyone. This is what it comes down to. Is is legal? In most cases yes it is. That being said its up to the would be cache owner and would be cacher to decided if its worth it to them to go get the cache.

 

As long as your not breaking any(or at lest not many) laws the put the darn cache whereever you please.

If a concerned cacher gets to the location and is not comfortable about getting the cache the they just don't have to get it.

[+McPhan]

Sorry to jump back a bit. LEO?

[+jaysrig]

The cache/bridge in question also goes over the North Platte river (about waist deep) and the cache is in plain sight. not hidden under the bridge. I dont see any problem with the location of the cache especially here in rural America. Interstingly enough the local law enforcement has been getting quite an education on Geocaching. I coach wrestling with a state trooper and get a call about every 3 weeks asking if there is a cache in a specific area just to verify "strange activity " as posted in a prevous post. This comunity is about 30,000 people and the majority of the law enforcement have coffey with each other at 9:00 AM almost every day. Do you think they don't have conversations about Geocaching hides, locations and containers during that time? I can ensure you that they do, as I have also enjoyed a cup of Joe with them a time or two.

Edited February 8, 2007 by jaysrig

[+sbell111]

Sorry to jump back a bit. LEO?

Law Enforcement Officer.

[+StarBrand]

The cache/bridge in question also goes over the North Platte river (about waist deep) and the cache is in plain sight. not hidden under the bridge. I dont see any problem with the location of the cache especially here in rural America. Interstingly enough the local law enforcement has been getting quite an education on Geocaching. I coach wrestling with a state trooper and get a call about every 3 weeks asking if there is a cache in a specific area just to verify "strange activity " as posted in a prevous post. This comunity is about 30,000 people in the and the majority of the law enforcement have coffey with each other at 9:00 AM almost every day. Do you think they don't have conversations about Geocaching hides, locations and containers during that time? I can ensure you that they do, as I have also enjoyed a cup of Joe with them a time or two.

Didn't post the specific cache here as I wasn't trying to make an issue of it specifically - but it does seem to violate at least the spirit of the guidelines - also saw another similar one on a recent trip.

 

Either we as a group are opposed to placing a cache on highway bridges or we are not. Just want a bit more consistency. As I understand the guideline/rule - neither of these should be listed as both are placed directly on a highway bridge. A number of recent high profile incidents included these types of hides and have given geocaching a major black eye. Would not like to see that happen locally.

 

As any amateur sleuth could easily locate it at this point - here is a photo of one of the two hides mentioned.

 

Clearly a highway and clearly on the bridge a divded 4 lane highway - not rural. Make up your own mind. I am opposed but started this to hear discussion.

[+sbell111]

The cache/bridge in question also goes over the North Platte river (about waist deep) and the cache is in plain sight. not hidden under the bridge. ...

Wouldn't a cache that is in plain site on a highway bridge tend to be more likely to create a bomb scare than one that is hidden?

[+palser]

I'm a little confused by this thread. The OP himself has a cache placed on a bridge just 20 miles to the east, and at least 2 others along highways that are closer to the highway of the one he is discussing (the one placed by LEO). Yet I don't see the OP's rush to archive his own.

 

The OP's comment "That is just my point I guess - seems to me that if it is placed physically on the bridge and it is clearly and definitly a highway then it should be a slam dunk - flat out "no". this would certainly apply to his cache(s). Even though his cache is more rural than LEO's cache, the 'flat out no' clause would indicate that it be archived, with his conditions of 'on a bridge/on a highway being met.

 

Knowing both the LEO and the OP, it puzzles me to know why there is such eagerness to archive this cache (there is a report that a request has been made). It is not a hazzard, somewhat difficult to access, and being mostly rural we don't suffer much from the 9/11 terror/fears (and maybe we should).

 

But I know that there has arisen many 'cache cops' that have appointed themselves to police the smallest of infractions about placement, type, 'no newbies can place caches', container shape/size, no micros, and the list goes on. Just look at some of the longest threads that seem to go on forever and wind up going no where, they usually are just a representation of some form of 'angst' that they can't resolve.

 

You know if this hobby causes that much of a problem for some, maybe it's time to revive that old stamp collection they had in the 5th grade and move our efforts to the GPS 'Garage Sale' forum.

 

Dr. P

[+StarBrand]

Mine is on a paved road that becomes a dirt road right after the near single lane bridge - not a highway -geez!!!

 

That is why I keep referring to Highway and the specific guideline.

[+sbell111]

... But I know that there has arisen many 'cache cops' that have appointed themselves to police the smallest of infractions about placement, type, 'no newbies can place caches', container shape/size, no micros, and the list goes on. Just look at some of the longest threads that seem to go on forever and wind up going no where, they usually are just a representation of some form of 'angst' that they can't resolve. ...

I'm against 'cache cops' as much as anyone, but I think you would agree that if any of us comes upon a cache that is in clear violation of the guidelines, we have a responsibility to point it out to TPTB. Further, the OP started this thread as a hypothetical, merely asking if we thought that there should be any variance from the 'highway bridge' exclusion in the guidelines.

[+StarBrand]

I will back off and let this disscussion continue as I never intended it to call out a specific cache but rather the guideline and its application - seems real inconsistent to allow some and not others.

 

Just because I believe it to be a violation of guidelines doesn't mean that it is - but I will continue to report any cache I see as a clear violation (privately to owner and reviewers). That is what is good for the game. We must be able to police ourselves and follow our own guidelines or outsiders cannot take us seriously. I work hard to garner cache friendly agreements locally and it is quite difficult when it becomes apparent that we ignore our own guidelines.

 

From the 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.

[+Moose Mob]

Possibly, if TPTB determine that highway bridge caches are either illegal everywhere, or that the concern is great enough to warrant a globally "no exceptions" rule. Otherwise, this is a regional issue, not global.

 

edit: clarity

Edited February 8, 2007 by Moose Mob

[+TrailGators]

Just stumbled onto this thread and found a bunch of answers we needed for a new cache we'd like to put in place. Thanks for the advice everybody. We'll be taking a bunch of pictures from every conceivable angle as well as a few of the nearby roadways to forward to our approver.

Glad to hear that a thread helped someone. The guidelines do not limit bridges to just highway bridges anyhow. This seems to be a common misconception. The guidelines say "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." It is very interesting to discuss the gray areas and to see that everyone has a different view. I think caches on/under any high traffic bridge in a population center is crossing the line. IMHO those could all be possible targets.

[+StarBrand]

Sorry to jump back a bit. LEO?

Law Enforcement Officer.

[+palser]

The OP, while in his desire to keep caches within written guidelines is a meritable trait, and his opening post indicated a hypothetical placement, it later became very specific with his attached photo of cache placement. And by the posted pic is shows a clear violation of posted guidelines.

 

I being familiar with the cache(s), both the OP's & LEO's, am now listed as one of the 'locals' who have seemed to have stirred up a little ire of the OP!

 

But I refuse to think that there is not an agenda at work here. Although the case is irrefutable with the proof the picture provides of LEO's cache, an equally revealing picture could be made available of the OP's cache, across two lanes of paved highway and of course with the revealing arrow showing cache placement clearly on the bridge. This could be a case where 'what's good for the gander is good for the goose' probably does not apply.

 

I do believe that a standardization of the guildlines to be able to guide us in our placement of hides is a worthy cause, but with the many reviewers and many intrepretations available, this may be beyond the notion that we can keep everybody happy!

 

Dr. P

[+StarBrand]

The OP, while in his desire to keep caches within written guidelines is a meritable trait, and his opening post indicated a hypothetical placement, it later became very specific with his attached photo of cache placement. And by the posted pic is shows a clear violation of posted guidelines.

 

I being familiar with the cache(s), both the OP's & LEO's, am now listed as one of the 'locals' who have seemed to have stirred up a little ire of the OP!

 

But I refuse to think that there is not an agenda at work here. Although the case is irrefutable with the proof the picture provides of LEO's cache, an equally revealing picture could be made available of the OP's cache, across two lanes of paved highway and of course with the revealing arrow showing cache placement clearly on the bridge. This could be a case where 'what's good for the gander is good for the goose' probably does not apply.

 

I do believe that a standardization of the guildlines to be able to guide us in our placement of hides is a worthy cause, but with the many reviewers and many intrepretations available, this may be beyond the notion that we can keep everybody happy!

 

Dr. P

I DO NOT have ANY caches attached to any highway bridge anywhere. Nearby maybe but none physically on or beneath any bridge other than the one on a dirt road bridge reflector post mentioned above.

 

I would welcome a picture to be posted here of any of my hides that have been inappropriately placed on a highway bridge.

 

I noticed that even one of the "locals" stated the picture showed a "violation".

 

I can be called a "cache cop" but I figure that we have guidelines so that the guidelines are followed. Without guidelines --the sport of geocaching will be no more. As for me, I do not want the sport of geocaching to end because of public alarm that could have been prevented.

Edited February 8, 2007 by StarBrand

[+Moose Mob]

One must remember that when guidance is vague, different attitudes and perspectives will interpret guidlelines/laws/regulations differently. Given time, cooler heads will prevail, but emergency response (i.e. bomb squads) don't take that kind of time.

 

So, in Nebraska that cache on the highway bridge pylon may be OK. It would likely be OK in Nevada. In New Hampshire, they probably would blow up both sides of the bridge "just to make sure".

[+StarBrand]

One must remember that when guidance is vague, different attitudes and perspectives will interpret guidlelines/laws/regulations differently. Given time, cooler heads will prevail, but emergency response (i.e. bomb squads) don't take that kind of time.

 

So, in Nebraska that cache on the highway bridge pylon may be OK. It would likely be OK in Nevada. In New Hampshire, they probably would blow up both sides of the bridge "just to make sure".

Exactly my point - why is a highway bridge with a good constant flow of traffic so differnet in NH vs NE or NV?? Keeping in mind that one of the most famous (infamous) instances was in Idaho.

Edited February 8, 2007 by StarBrand

[+palser]

One must remember that when guidance is vague, different attitudes and perspectives will interpret guidlelines/laws/regulations differently. Given time, cooler heads will prevail, but emergency response (i.e. bomb squads) don't take that kind of time.

 

So, in Nebraska that cache on the highway bridge pylon may be OK. It would likely be OK in Nevada. In New Hampshire, they probably would blow up both sides of the bridge "just to make sure".

 

I agree MM re:vague, attitudes, perspective, interpretations, guidlines, laws, regulations, cooler heads, etc, etc,....

 

But I believe that the OP is most likely is looking for guidelines that work equally well in all parts of Nebraska, Nevada, and New Hampshire. Again a meritable trait but hardly attainable. It just doesn't always work in the real world. Maybe that's where the 'cooler heads/wisdom' can be relied on.

 

And I agree with the OP that it is up to us to keep within the guidelines to give credibility and validity to our sport/hobby.

 

If anyone's blood pressure got in the upper reaches of the stratosphere because of my comments.. Sorry about that. Promise I won't do it again until the next time!!!

 

And a big LOL on blowing up both sides of the bridge..

 

Dr. P

 

PS.. is there a badge available?

[CoyoteRed]

Are we discussing guideline violations or what's good for the hobby? Though there is a major overlap, the two aren't exactly the same thing.

[+StarBrand]

One must remember that when guidance is vague, different attitudes and perspectives will interpret guidlelines/laws/regulations differently. Given time, cooler heads will prevail, but emergency response (i.e. bomb squads) don't take that kind of time.

 

So, in Nebraska that cache on the highway bridge pylon may be OK. It would likely be OK in Nevada. In New Hampshire, they probably would blow up both sides of the bridge "just to make sure".

BTW - I think a great deal of this stems from the fact that I just don't see ANY room for addtional interpretation of that particular guideline. The HIGHWAY bridge is given as a specific example of a cache that is not allowed.

 

Of course thier I go - interpreting things again.......

[+Muddy Chris]

You know....I don't know much and I'm just a silly Indiana boy, but with geocaching getting slapped in the face by the media and bomb squads a lot recently and our government causing everyone in the country who owns a TV or reads the newspaper to be paranoid .... um, can't we just find a place to hide a cache that doesn't have to push the rules or guidlines to the limit?

 

Chris

[+StarBrand]

You know....I don't know much and I'm just a silly Indiana boy, but with geocaching getting slapped in the face by the media and bomb squads a lot recently and our government causing everyone in the country who owns a TV or reads the newspaper to be paranoid .... um, can't we just find a place to hide a cache that doesn't have to push the rules or guidlines to the limit?

 

Chris

 

Exactly what I have been trying to communicate! Thanks

 

On another note --

My wife says regarding your signature -- you must be a teacher because lunchtime is an illusion to her as well due to the fact that it is only 20 minutes long and that is -- only if you do not get called to the phone or detained for some other reason.

[+TrailGators]

um, can't we just find a place to hide a cache that doesn't have to push the rules or guidelines to the limit? Chris

Exactly! Everytime I hear about another one of these incidents, I think "Why did that person push it?" I know that some of these incidents are blown out of proportion but many are not. Everyone needs to learn the concepts behind the guidelines and apply them. When in doubt don't hide a cache until you talk to your friendly neighborhood admin. The admins understand the concepts behind the guidelinesand can help anyone.

[+tenacityj]

This thread does annoy me just a little bit. I don't wish to take sides since I know both the OP and the cache placer (aka the LEO). Why are the guidelines there? Presumably to protect the sport. Education about geocaching could help and hurt our sport. It only takes one psycho to place a bomb in a container and lable it "official gamepiece" or "geocache", then all you have to hide is micros if that. Really, placing any type of container on public property could be construed by unknowing citizens as terroristic.

 

Look most of us place caches in urban areas such as public parks. In fact several around this area are in places such as Frank Park directly across from the high school, the walkway behind the school, in a tree in front of the public library, a park between the library and an elementary school, and park areas behind the zoo just to name a few. While looking for caches in these areas may not seem suspicious, a geo-muggle happening upon one of these containers could mistake them for bombs. Many people like to frequent places such as parks and libraries in the summer time so why would they not be considered likely terrorist targets.

 

This example shows that even the guidelines take certain assumptions and make exceptions (what is a terrorist target and what is not). Almost any place in the world could be a terrorist target, even your own house. So is a highway bridge in Nebraska less of a terrorist target than one in Idaho, possibly. So why does every guideline have to be taken so exactly.

 

I believe as long as the LEOs know about our sport, maybe we can work with them so that placements don't get mistaken for bombs whether it be in a park, on a bridge, your backyard, or a rural hunting ground.

 

I have a great idea, let's just make a new guideline: No caches may be placed in, on, under, or around any potential terrorist target. Now that guideline could be enforced the world around and it would be equal for everyone. Then, all of you could archive your caches, geocaching would be dead, and the terrorists win because they have done exactly what they wanted to do: not close down geocaching (for you smart-tushes), strike fear in your heart and take away the things you love to do.

 

Have fun with that, I prefer to live free.

[+StarBrand]

This thread does annoy me just a little bit. I don't wish to take sides ....

 

Really no "side" to take as far as individuals go - I stand by my original question (any example aside)....

 

Given the Guideline (as repeted often above):

 

If it is a Bridge and it is a Highway - should a cache be on it?? That is only question I wanted addressed.

 

(and I have thus far seen a variety of opinion about it)

 

 

The example cache is not going anywhere but the question stands.

Edited February 9, 2007 by StarBrand

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I spent 14 months in Guatemala on a consulting gig.

 

All of the bridges, even remote ones out in the middle of nowhere crossing some jungle stream, had armed guards - police or Army, because the Government wouldn't maintain the roads and the guerrilla forces found that if they blew enough holes in the road or knocked down the bridges the government would come fix them... the bridges and the roads, and hire locals (the bombers!) for the labor while they were at it.

 

Now, I have lived in this country for better than half a century and never heard of that happening here.

 

It may have happened, most things have, but I don't know of any bombs in ammo cans under bridges in the US.

 

What is interesting, nay, amazing to me however, is that in a country where it's never happened we're more worried about it than the citizens were in a country where it's a regular occurrence!

 

So, unlike Central America, we're battling media hype and panic mongering.

 

But - how do you battle the media?

 

You give them only happy stories.

 

They hate that.

 

Nobody watches the news to hear "Today in the USA, absolutely nothing alarming happened".

 

They need you scared, with your eyeballs glued to the tube, else you won't see the commercials and they won't get paid and they can't win the ratings war.

 

They NEED you to see an ammo can under a bridge and think TERROR!

 

They TRAIN you to react that way!

 

So, silly as it seems, the way to end the hysteria is... don't place caches under bridges.

 

Simple.

 

Their angst has nothing to feed on.

 

"There was no suspect ammo can found under the Brooklyn Bridge today" won't sell newspapers, so you will never hear it mentioned, and soon ammo cans become no more terrorizing than a bread box.

 

As crazy as that logic may sound, that's the only way to win.

 

Don't feed the trolls.

 

If there's a bridge that just screams for a cache, place it up or down stream 100', not under the bridge.

 

End of problem!

[+Syndam]

The big problem I see with "interpreting" the rules/guidelines is that it comes down to personal belief. If I believe a bridge on a Highway (Just for you Starbrand) is really cool and a great place, then I am going to decide it is OK for me to place a cache there. Others may not see it that way.

 

Don't interpret the rule, read them and take them at face value. And I have yet to see "Unless you are a Law Enforcement Officer, because obviously rules do not apply to you"

 

Caches may be quickly archived if we see the following (which is not inclusive): (This sentence means "Do Not Place Caches Here."

*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.

[+Renegade Knight]

...

They need you scared, with your eyeballs glued to the tube, else you won't see the commercials and they won't get paid and they can't win the ratings war. ...

 

You have summed up exactly why I don't watch the news.

[+Syndam]

...

They need you scared, with your eyeballs glued to the tube, else you won't see the commercials and they won't get paid and they can't win the ratings war. ...

 

You have summed up exactly why I don't watch the news.

Now wait a minute here, are you insinuating that the news has some agenda other than the news???? I thought they where always honest and correct.....