If it is a highway and a bridge

[+TrailGators]

...

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.

I agree. The media is one giant twisted agenda machine.

[+tenacityj]

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.

 

 

Actually, that was not the only question you wanted answered. The questions you wanted answered were: When and where is an appropriate exemption 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? What do you think of this one?

 

To answer those questions directly in order I would say: 1. An appropriate exemption could be provided when the person placing the cache or another person in the cache area could reasonably assume that the cache would not make major press causing a black mark on the geocaching community. 2. No it does not automatically make it forbidden. 3. Because even the geocaching guidelines are not completely specific about which caches are definetely forbidden and which are not (I will defend this statement later in the post). 4. I feel that this particular cache can reasonably argued that it will not cause a black mark on geocaching publicly because several of the local police force and the state troopers here know about the particular cache shown in the picture.

 

Now to the defense of my reason on #3. The guidelines read: 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.

 

The guideline states several important words: "deemed potential or possible targets for terrorist attack", and "include but are not limited to..." These two very important fragments mean that public parks and libraries, among other areas, could be deemed as bad places to put caches. Futhermore, the guideline does not state how close "near to" actually is or what the actual definition for highway is. This means that caches such as Bookworm (public library), StarBrand's 100th(near highway bridge), Reflections series (Reflectors near or on bridges), Lunchtime Nap and Coins (near to the police station), Ngis Sdrawkcab (between elementary school and public library), Backyard Bandit (public park close to armory), Frankly Speaking (public park across from the high school on one side and the football field on the other). This list could go on quite awhile and I don't have time to link them all so if you want to see the pages; type in zip code 69361 on your search page.

 

Of course we don't want anything too dangerous, so we need to forbid the placement of caches where any type of hunting could take place.

 

Like I said before, might as well archive ALL cache listings (especially if people want to follow the guidelines as written).

 

I would like to point out that right below the guidelines this statement appears: "There may be some exceptions."

 

I say if you don't like it, don't find it and shut-up about it because this tears up the sport just as much as bad publicity. Or maybe somebody could email the cache listings for specific areas to the LEOs so that they know where each cache is located - that would eliminate a lot of questions.

 

BTW - I don't discriminate against anyone - I'll go find this one and love every minute of it.

[+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.

 

 

Actually, that was not the only question you wanted answered. The questions you wanted answered were: When and where is an appropriate exemption 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? What do you think of this one?

 

To answer those questions directly in order I would say: 1. An appropriate exemption could be provided when the person placing the cache or another person in the cache area could reasonably assume that the cache would not make major press causing a black mark on the geocaching community. 2. No it does not automatically make it forbidden. 3. Because even the geocaching guidelines are not completely specific about which caches are definetely forbidden and which are not (I will defend this statement later in the post). 4. I feel that this particular cache can reasonably argued that it will not cause a black mark on geocaching publicly because several of the local police force and the state troopers here know about the particular cache shown in the picture.

 

Now to the defense of my reason on #3. The guidelines read: 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.

 

The guideline states several important words: "deemed potential or possible targets for terrorist attack", and "include but are not limited to..." These two very important fragments mean that public parks and libraries, among other areas, could be deemed as bad places to put caches. Futhermore, the guideline does not state how close "near to" actually is or what the actual definition for highway is. This means that caches such as Bookworm (public library), StarBrand's 100th(near highway bridge), Reflections series (Reflectors near or on bridges), Lunchtime Nap and Coins (near to the police station), Ngis Sdrawkcab (between elementary school and public library), Backyard Bandit (public park close to armory), Frankly Speaking (public park across from the high school on one side and the football field on the other). This list could go on quite awhile and I don't have time to link them all so if you want to see the pages; type in zip code 69361 on your search page.

 

Of course we don't want anything too dangerous, so we need to forbid the placement of caches where any type of hunting could take place.

 

Like I said before, might as well archive ALL cache listings (especially if people want to follow the guidelines as written).

 

I would like to point out that right below the guidelines this statement appears: "There may be some exceptions."

 

I say if you don't like it, don't find it and shut-up about it because this tears up the sport just as much as bad publicity. Or maybe somebody could email the cache listings for specific areas to the LEOs so that they know where each cache is located - that would eliminate a lot of questions.

 

BTW - I don't discriminate against anyone - I'll go find this one and love every minute of it.

 

Wow - try and make this about a single cache as much as you want - I really had a bigger thought in mind.

 

And seriously - are you saying if I placed this one it would be wrong? but because an LEO did it - it is ok?

 

I love the many side issues you are trying to drag in here but I really only am interested in the guideline that specifically gives a Highway bridge as a specific example of an off limits cache placement.

 

Thats all.

 

Nice try though........extra points for length and mentioning 8 of my caches.

[+sbell111]

... I say if you don't like it, don't find it and shut-up about it because this tears up the sport just as much as bad publicity. ...

I can't adequately express how disappointed I am that you chose to toss this argument out there. By your logic, we should never ask any questions. We should never ask for an interpretation of the guidelines to ensure that we place our caches appropriately. We should never raise a flag when caches are in clear violation of the guidelines.

 

This reminds me of those people who suggest that we can't discuss when we disagree with politicians because it is somehow 'unpatriotic'.

 

[+tenacityj]

First of all, I did not say that if you placed that cache it would be wrong.

I said that I don't see anything wrong with placing those types of caches especially if you can reasonably say that it would't leave a black eye on the sport. So if you could do that (whether an LEO or not), the placement would be just fine. Towards the bottom of my last post, I wrote an idea about email placements to the local LEO and State Patrol so that they would have an idea about caches placed (maybe even offer some advice on whether or not they would want one in a particular location). I think that if a person did that, you could reasonably say that it wouldn't leave a black eye on the sport and you wouldn't necessarily have to be a LEO yourself.

 

Also, I am not dragging in any side issues here. You wanted to know if it should be a flat no since the guideline sites a highway bridge as an example. Well like it or not, your guideline that you want to hold onto so desperately also specifically says POSSIBLE TERROR TARGETS and INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO... If you want to make this a guideline issue, you have to use the whole guideline not just the parts you want to use. I stand by my first arguments as an appropriate answer to your original questions since they concern the guideline and how it is written.

 

You placed the picture of a specific cache and asked the question: "What do you think of this one?" Looks a lot like you were making it about a single cache. Besides no two caches can be exactly the same since everyone of them must be placed in a different location, so how can you not make it a single cache issue. Some types of caches are okay in some parts of the country and not okay in others.

 

Yes I mentioned your caches, but I also mentioned a cache of mine and Homicide133. I don't pick and chose who's caches SBA and pretend that all of my caches are not questionable in some sense.

[+tenacityj]

I simply put that statement in because I am sick of people picking parts of guidelines that they want to use and ignoring the words in the rest of the guideline because it pertains to their caches as well.

 

Plus, this is not in clear violation of the rules because the guidelines also state that some exceptions will be made. Is this an exception or not? I am so glad that so many people can absolutely tell what is a definite violation of the rule when there are so many words that make that guideline look rather vague.

 

Unpatriotic? I think that statement hardly makes me unpatriotic. Good try though...

Edited February 9, 2007 by tenacityj

[+sbell111]

...Unpatriotic? I think that statement hardly makes me unpatriotic. Good try though...

Ummm, reread my post.

[+palser]

...

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.....

 

 

Where's that 'no spin zone' guy when we need him most?

[+StarBrand]

First of all, I did not say that if you placed that cache it would be wrong.

I said that I don't see anything wrong with placing those types of caches especially if you can reasonably say that it would't leave a black eye on the sport. So if you could do that (whether an LEO or not), the placement would be just fine. Towards the bottom of my last post, I wrote an idea about email placements to the local LEO and State Patrol so that they would have an idea about caches placed (maybe even offer some advice on whether or not they would want one in a particular location). I think that if a person did that, you could reasonably say that it wouldn't leave a black eye on the sport and you wouldn't necessarily have to be a LEO yourself.

 

Also, I am not dragging in any side issues here. You wanted to know if it should be a flat no since the guideline sites a highway bridge as an example. Well like it or not, your guideline that you want to hold onto so desperately also specifically says POSSIBLE TERROR TARGETS and INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO... If you want to make this a guideline issue, you have to use the whole guideline not just the parts you want to use. I stand by my first arguments as an appropriate answer to your original questions since they concern the guideline and how it is written.

 

You placed the picture of a specific cache and asked the question: "What do you think of this one?" Looks a lot like you were making it about a single cache. Besides no two caches can be exactly the same since everyone of them must be placed in a different location, so how can you not make it a single cache issue. Some types of caches are okay in some parts of the country and not okay in others.

 

Yes I mentioned your caches, but I also mentioned a cache of mine and Homicide133. I don't pick and chose who's caches SBA and pretend that all of my caches are not questionable in some sense.

It is the "including" part that is limiting factor here. I read that to mean ALL highway bridges can be considered possible terrorist targets and there may possibly be other targets.

 

You disagree and that is ok.

 

You keep trying to make this somehow personal - it isn't. I just want us to be consistent. I think any reasonable person can look at my example and conclude that 1 - it is a bridge 2. It is a highway and 3 - it is a cache on the bridge that is a highway. So I asked - should we do this?

 

You say ok.

 

I say clear violation of guidelines.

 

I am looking for clarity - that is all.

[+tenacityj]

How can it be a clear violation of the guidelines, when even the guidelines are vague at best and include the statement that some exemptions may apply. How can you be sure that this cache wasn't granted an exemption. Again, just because a highway bridge is stated as an example doesn't mean other caches are exempt and it also doesn't mean that just because it is an example in a guideline it is in clear violation.

[+StarBrand]

BTW - if you believe any of mine or any other cache you see is a violation of the guidelines - please feel free to submit an "Should be Archived note on it". I think we all have an obligation to do that.

[+StarBrand]

How can it be a clear violation of the guidelines, when even the guidelines are vague at best and include the statement that some exemptions may apply. How can you be sure that this cache wasn't granted an exemption. Again, just because a highway bridge is stated as an example doesn't mean other caches are exempt and it also doesn't mean that just because it is an example in a guideline it is in clear violation.

I guess that is why they call it opinion.

 

Place a cache on railroad property and see how far the exceptions go without explicit written permission. I personally feel that the Highway Bridge guideline should be as absolute - thus why I started this discussion. You disagree. Thanks for sharing and contributing. The whole forum world has seen your argument and mine.

 

I would purpose that we make the guideline much more absolute. You think it ok. Isn't debate great!!

[+TrailGators]

...

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.....

 

Where's that 'no spin zone' guy when we need him most?

If you want to hear BOTH SIDES of the issues, then the NSZ is the only place to turn these days. Even in these forums there are two sides to every issue and often good points on both sides. Sometimes I favor one side but I will change my view if I hear something convincing from the other side. The bottomline with the bridge issue is that is has caused law enforcement to react several times so it is a legitimate issue. The golden rules of caching should always be: "Better safe than sorry" and "When in doubt don't do it." This applys to finding caches as well as hiding them.

[+sbell111]

How can it be a clear violation of the guidelines, when even the guidelines are vague at best and include the statement that some exemptions may apply. How can you be sure that this cache wasn't granted an exemption. Again, just because a highway bridge is stated as an example doesn't mean other caches are exempt and it also doesn't mean that just because it is an example in a guideline it is in clear violation.

Sure, its possible that an exception has been made for a specific cache. However, the possibility that an exception was made shouldn't stop anyone from discussing the issue.

[+Moose Mob]

Where is the thread about the bomb squad that went to blow up a reported bomb. They investigated, then after realizing what they found, signed the log book?

 

edit to add: Just trying to cool off the "sky is falling" trend in a few of the posts.

Edited February 9, 2007 by Moose Mob

[+TrailGators]

Where is the thread about the bomb squad that went to blow up a reported bomb. They investigated, then after realizing what they found, signed the log book?

 

edit to add: Just trying to cool off the "sky is falling" trend in a few of the posts.

[+palser]

How can it be a clear violation of the guidelines, when even the guidelines are vague at best and include the statement that some exemptions may apply. How can you be sure that this cache wasn't granted an exemption. Again, just because a highway bridge is stated as an example doesn't mean other caches are exempt and it also doesn't mean that just because it is an example in a guideline it is in clear violation.

Sure, its possible that an exception has been made for a specific cache. However, the possibility that an exception was made shouldn't stop anyone from discussing the issue.

 

 

I guess it's the exceptions things that I a little bewildered about.. While the OP obviously wants a very distinct ruling about bridges/highway issue, he himself would probably admit that in his own hometown of less the 3000 a 'terroristic attacks' (qoute from the guidelines) is hardly likely. So the 'exception' interpretation would likely give the ability of cache placement on a highway/bridge a 'go'! in his own hometown. While in his picture example, this cache is in a community of approx. 25000+, it could be said terrorist threat probably goes up w/population but still it is pretty low. So it's possible the 'exception' ruling still says this cache is a 'go.'

 

And back to the NJ comment about blowing up both sides of the bridge, LOL!!! we can look back to last weeks event in Boston to show our paranoia in our post 9/11 culture. (This example is not the issue here, just an example.)

 

But we should consider the spirit and intent of what the TPTB had in mind overall, i.e. 'exceptions'. To give the reviewer/cache hider some leeway in these particular circumstances. By the very nature of that exception they are not saying a 'flat no' or that there is a single rule for all places, for all times, for all types, etc. etc, etc, that can be applied for all cases. They are saying that good judgement and a little wisdom is needed and that just as their heading at the top of there page states, these are 'guildlines'.

 

And I guess it seems that some of my confusion starts is with the fact that we/some are trying to make them hard and fast 'rules', where this was not the intent of the TPTB. Or else there opening statement would leave out the word guidelines and replace it with 'rules'. To wit:

 

"These are listing guidelines only. Before a cache is listed a volunteer will review the page for inaccuracies, bad coordinates, and appropriateness before posting the cache to the site. The physical cache site is not verified. As the cache owner, you are responsible for the placement and care of your cache."

 

and

 

There may be some exceptions.

 

Dr. P

Edited February 9, 2007 by palser

[+sbell111]

... And I guess it seems that some of my confusion starts is with the fact that we/some are trying to make them hard and fast 'rules', where this was not the intent of the TPTB. Or else there opening statement would leave out the word guidelines and replace it with 'rules'. ...

I get what you are saying. In fact, I've made the same point in various threads over the years. However, it would be nice if TPTB could help us flesh out when those exceptions might be appropriate.

[+palser]

... And I guess it seems that some of my confusion starts is with the fact that we/some are trying to make them hard and fast 'rules', where this was not the intent of the TPTB. Or else there opening statement would leave out the word guidelines and replace it with 'rules'. ...

I get what you are saying. In fact, I've made the same point in various threads over the years. However, it would be nice if TPTB could help us flesh out when those exceptions might be appropriate.

 

I believe they have tried to with this approach, 'Before a cache is listed a volunteer will review the page for inaccuracies, bad coordinates, and appropriateness before posting the cache to the site.'

 

But with the numerous reviewers=many differant interpretations.

 

Dr. P

Edited February 9, 2007 by palser

[+StarBrand]

This has probably run its course - never meant to make it personal or about any one cache location.

Lots of obvious disagreement and I have upset some locals but....

 

I still have some facts and a question that I want all of us to consider before placing a cache........

 

If it is a bridge.

If it is a Highway.

And knowing that we do have a guideline calling this "off limits".

 

Should we allow them to be placed on Highway Bridges??? - Just think about it..........

 

 

Mods - close it down - thanks!!

[+Moose Mob]

<snip>

 

Mods - close it down - thanks!!

There is one thing I don't believe was covered. The guidelines says "near or under". What would people consider "near"? A mile? half mile? 15 feet?

[+sbell111]

<snip>

 

Mods - close it down - thanks!!

There is one thing I don't believe was covered. The guidelines says "near or under". What would people consider "near"? A mile? half mile? 15 feet?

Sopmething was covered?

 

I kinda like 1/10 mile. We use it when determining if caches are too close to one another and I think it is a good distance for caches to be from highway bridges, also.

[+StarBrand]

<snip>

 

Mods - close it down - thanks!!

There is one thing I don't believe was covered. The guidelines says "near or under". What would people consider "near"? A mile? half mile? 15 feet?

Good point and hard question.

 

As some have helpfully pointed out - I own at least two that are within 100 feet or so of highway bridges. Mine are off the driving ends of the bridges and have some available parking but some might consider them a bit close. I don't. I think somebody earlier mentioned that it would depend on what was under it. A fishing/river access spot might be ok to have something 50 - 60 feet away or on dirt under it but if it was a railroad - that is a whole other ball game. I'd have to say that if it isn't physically attached to the bridge or a support (off limits) than it should have some distance - maybe something like 50 feet. Question is, "could a muggle reasonably infer that if it is bomb (BIG if) it poses a threat to the structure.

 

To me "on" or attached is a clear issue. Nearby quickly becomes a "fuzzy" issue.

 

Then again the general rule of thumb for railroads is 150 feet - so maybe highway bridges need to be the same - and then it is time to move my caches. And I will. Never seen it addressed so directly before.

Edited February 9, 2007 by StarBrand

[+palser]

<snip>

 

Mods - close it down - thanks!!

There is one thing I don't believe was covered. The guidelines says "near or under". What would people consider "near"? A mile? half mile? 15 feet?

Good point and hard question.

 

As some have helpfully pointed out - I own at least two that are within 100 feet or so of highway bridges. Mine are off the driving ends of the bridges and have some available parking but some might consider them a bit close. I don't. I think somebody earlier mentioned that it would depend on what was under it. A fishing/river access spot might be ok to have something 50 - 60 feet away or on dirt under it but if it was a railroad - that is a whole other ball game. I'd have to say that if it isn't physically attached to the bridge or a support (off limits) than it should have some distance - maybe something like 50 feet. Question is, "could a muggle reasonably infer that if it is bomb (BIG if) it poses a threat to the structure.

 

Then again the general rule of thumb for railroads is 150 feet - so maybe highway bridges need to be the same - and then it is time to move my caches. Never seen it addressed so directly before.

 

Now we're back to the 'exceptions' statement....kinda throws the 'one rule' for all highway/bridge hides out the window

 

[+StarBrand]

<snip>

 

Mods - close it down - thanks!!

There is one thing I don't believe was covered. The guidelines says "near or under". What would people consider "near"? A mile? half mile? 15 feet?

Good point and hard question.

 

As some have helpfully pointed out - I own at least two that are within 100 feet or so of highway bridges. Mine are off the driving ends of the bridges and have some available parking but some might consider them a bit close. I don't. I think somebody earlier mentioned that it would depend on what was under it. A fishing/river access spot might be ok to have something 50 - 60 feet away or on dirt under it but if it was a railroad - that is a whole other ball game. I'd have to say that if it isn't physically attached to the bridge or a support (off limits) than it should have some distance - maybe something like 50 feet. Question is, "could a muggle reasonably infer that if it is bomb (BIG if) it poses a threat to the structure.

 

Then again the general rule of thumb for railroads is 150 feet - so maybe highway bridges need to be the same - and then it is time to move my caches. Never seen it addressed so directly before.

 

Now we're back to the 'exceptions' statement....kinda throws the 'one rule' for all highway/bridge hides out the window

 

Not really - I make clear distinction between ON the bridge versus "Nearby". I never mentioned any exceptions above. I REALLY am looking for a hard and fast rule here to avoid confusion. As stated - if I need to move mine - I gladly will.

 

Lord knows it isn't the first time I have accidently run afowl of the guidelines - I took care of it then and will do so again.

[+palser]

<snip>

 

Mods - close it down - thanks!!

There is one thing I don't believe was covered. The guidelines says "near or under". What would people consider "near"? A mile? half mile? 15 feet?

Good point and hard question.

 

As some have helpfully pointed out - I own at least two that are within 100 feet or so of highway bridges. Mine are off the driving ends of the bridges and have some available parking but some might consider them a bit close. I don't. I think somebody earlier mentioned that it would depend on what was under it. A fishing/river access spot might be ok to have something 50 - 60 feet away or on dirt under it but if it was a railroad - that is a whole other ball game. I'd have to say that if it isn't physically attached to the bridge or a support (off limits) than it should have some distance - maybe something like 50 feet. Question is, "could a muggle reasonably infer that if it is bomb (BIG if) it poses a threat to the structure.

 

Then again the general rule of thumb for railroads is 150 feet - so maybe highway bridges need to be the same - and then it is time to move my caches. Never seen it addressed so directly before.

 

Now we're back to the 'exceptions' statement....kinda throws the 'one rule' for all highway/bridge hides out the window

 

Not really - I make clear distinction between ON the bridge versus "Nearby". I never mentioned any exceptions above. I REALLY am looking for a hard and fast rule here to avoid confusion. As stated - if I need to move mine - I gladly will.

 

Lord knows it isn't the first time I have accidently run afowl of the guidelines - I took care of it then and will do so again.

 

Yes really! We are heading down the road of 'exceptions' by saying when is it appropriate to allow a cache on/close to a bridge.

 

Case in point, if a cache is placed on a bridge your point is 'no'!

 

But if you place a cache on/around a reflector at the bridge entrance at less than 6" away, it's OK. Huh on that one.

Edited February 9, 2007 by palser

[+sbell111]

Yes really! We are heading down the road of 'exceptions' by saying when is it appropriate to allow a cache on/close to a bridge.

 

Case in point, if a cache is placed on a bridge your point is 'no'!

 

But if it place a cache on/around a reflector at the bridge entrance at less than 6" away, it's OK. Huh on that one.

Not really. We are trying to figure out what 'near' means so we can follow the guidelines without having to worry about exceptions.

[+StarBrand]

<snip>

 

Mods - close it down - thanks!!

There is one thing I don't believe was covered. The guidelines says "near or under". What would people consider "near"? A mile? half mile? 15 feet?

Good point and hard question.

 

As some have helpfully pointed out - I own at least two that are within 100 feet or so of highway bridges. Mine are off the driving ends of the bridges and have some available parking but some might consider them a bit close. I don't. I think somebody earlier mentioned that it would depend on what was under it. A fishing/river access spot might be ok to have something 50 - 60 feet away or on dirt under it but if it was a railroad - that is a whole other ball game. I'd have to say that if it isn't physically attached to the bridge or a support (off limits) than it should have some distance - maybe something like 50 feet. Question is, "could a muggle reasonably infer that if it is bomb (BIG if) it poses a threat to the structure.

 

Then again the general rule of thumb for railroads is 150 feet - so maybe highway bridges need to be the same - and then it is time to move my caches. Never seen it addressed so directly before.

 

Now we're back to the 'exceptions' statement....kinda throws the 'one rule' for all highway/bridge hides out the window

 

Not really - I make clear distinction between ON the bridge versus "Nearby". I never mentioned any exceptions above. I REALLY am looking for a hard and fast rule here to avoid confusion. As stated - if I need to move mine - I gladly will.

 

Lord knows it isn't the first time I have accidently run afowl of the guidelines - I took care of it then and will do so again.

 

Yes really! We are heading down the road of 'exceptions' by saying when is it appropriate to allow a cache on/close to a bridge.

 

Case in point, if a cache is placed on a bridge your point is 'no'!

 

But if it place a cache on/around a reflector at the bridge entrance at less than 6" away, it's OK. Huh on that one.

Oh for god's sake - that cache is out on a rural road bridge reflector just 5 feet off the structure that is paved on one side and dirt on the other - labeled a county road and sees maybe 150 cars a day 50 of which are making the return trip home. I am not talking ALL bridges here but just Highway Bridges. It is not a highway or even anything remotely nearing the definition of highway. If it causes you that much grief then I will go remove it today. Geez - side issue. If you want to accuse me of being a hypocrite - just say it. Picture of that cache for comparison will be posted later today. Judge for yourself.

 

I have only commented on Highway Bridges throughout.

 

And I could easily live with a 150 foot rule for all HIGHWAY bridges. as stated.

 

I do want to see a hard and fast rule here or toss it altogether because I believe the interpretations of such vast difference give the whole game a black eye.

[+palser]

<snip>

 

Mods - close it down - thanks!!

There is one thing I don't believe was covered. The guidelines says "near or under". What would people consider "near"? A mile? half mile? 15 feet?

Good point and hard question.

 

As some have helpfully pointed out - I own at least two that are within 100 feet or so of highway bridges. Mine are off the driving ends of the bridges and have some available parking but some might consider them a bit close. I don't. I think somebody earlier mentioned that it would depend on what was under it. A fishing/river access spot might be ok to have something 50 - 60 feet away or on dirt under it but if it was a railroad - that is a whole other ball game. I'd have to say that if it isn't physically attached to the bridge or a support (off limits) than it should have some distance - maybe something like 50 feet. Question is, "could a muggle reasonably infer that if it is bomb (BIG if) it poses a threat to the structure.

 

Then again the general rule of thumb for railroads is 150 feet - so maybe highway bridges need to be the same - and then it is time to move my caches. Never seen it addressed so directly before.

 

Now we're back to the 'exceptions' statement....kinda throws the 'one rule' for all highway/bridge hides out the window

 

Not really - I make clear distinction between ON the bridge versus "Nearby". I never mentioned any exceptions above. I REALLY am looking for a hard and fast rule here to avoid confusion. As stated - if I need to move mine - I gladly will.

 

Lord knows it isn't the first time I have accidently run afowl of the guidelines - I took care of it then and will do so again.

 

Yes really! We are heading down the road of 'exceptions' by saying when is it appropriate to allow a cache on/close to a bridge.

 

Case in point, if a cache is placed on a bridge your point is 'no'!

 

But if it place a cache on/around a reflector at the bridge entrance at less than 6" away, it's OK. Huh on that one.

Oh for god's sake - that cache is out on a rural road bridge reflector just 5 feet off the structure that is paved on one side and dirt on the other - labeled a county road and sees maybe 150 cars a day 50 of which are making the return trip home. I am not talking ALL bridges here but just Highway Bridges. It is not a highway or even anything remotely nearing the definition of highway. If it causes you that much grief then I will go remove it today. Geez - side issue. If you want to accuse me of being a hypocrite - just say it. Picture of that cache for comparison will be posted later today. Judge for yourself.

 

I have only commented on Highway Bridges throughout.

 

And I could easily live with a 150 foot rule for all HIGHWAY bridges. as stated.

 

I do want to see a hard and fast rule here or toss it altogether because I believe the interpretations of such vast difference give the whole game a black eye.

 

Please don't remove any of your caches for my sake (I'm not worth the trouble/time).. AND I have finds on some, AND I have enjoyed them all.

 

As to your 150' rule/guideline(my choice of word). Good idea and I like it. Maybe we are starting to get some clarification. And your original pic would indicate this to be a cache in violation of those rules/guidelines. No problem with that.

 

And with that 150' rule/guideline in mind, consider the caches we all have placed in/on/around bridges/highways, and ask yourself how many would you/I have to archive?

 

I have a couple of hides myself that I would have to consider!!!

 

Done on this one!

[+Harry Dolphin]

On a bridge? Any vehicular bridge? The example cited? That one definitely should be archived. "Most LEOs know"? All it takes is one who doesn't.

Under a vehicular bridge? Definitely not!

Bridge authority right of way? Definitely not.

Under a bridge? That's trickier.

Is it time for Dolphin's photo album of the undersides of the bridges of New York City? I've been under most of them! Some spectacular views!

The George! But it's from an Earthcache, so that's okay.

But the recent question is how near? Far enough away so as to avoid suspicion. In general 150' should do it. Nearby park, with no direct access?

View from near By George, What a Bridge, Fort Lee Historical Park

No one seems to have a problem with the tourists at this park.

View from near Upper Level Delay, Palisdes Interstate Park. No problems with this park either.

The Triborough Bridge, view from Ward's Island Park. Distance from bridge 468 feet.

The Bronx-Whitestone Bridge. View from near Francis Lewis Park Cache.

Okay. Most of these are more than 150' from the bridges in question, and all are in public parks. None of these caches have been blown up!

[+tenacityj]

I would just like to know that since HIGHWAY BRIDGES are the main topic of conversation, does that mean county paved road bridges, freeway bridges, foot bridges, interstate bridges, rope bridges, wood plank bridges, viaducts, and natural bridges are exempt?

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I would just like to know that since HIGHWAY BRIDGES are the main topic of conversation, does that mean county paved road bridges, freeway bridges, foot bridges, interstate bridges, rope bridges, wood plank bridges, viaducts, and natural bridges are exempt?

It's been said in this thread that each will be Reviewed on its merit.

[+tenacityj]

I would just like to know that since HIGHWAY BRIDGES are the main topic of conversation, does that mean county paved road bridges, freeway bridges, foot bridges, interstate bridges, rope bridges, wood plank bridges, viaducts, and natural bridges are exempt?

It's been said in this thread that each will be Reviewed on its merit.

 

I do realize that has already been mentioned in this thread. However, a distinction has been made between a cache on a highway bridge and a bridge just off of a dirt road with the highway bridge being listed a "slam-dunk no". I was just wondering that if the highway bridge was specifically mentioned as an example in the guidelines and "should be an absolute no", does that mean an interstate bridge (which probably sees more traffic) is not an absolute no because it is not mentioned as a specific example in the guidelines? Seems that there is just as much of a difference between interstate bridge and highway bridge as there is between a paved bridge (just off of a dirt road) and a highway bridge.

[+sbell111]

I would just like to know that since HIGHWAY BRIDGES are the main topic of conversation, does that mean county paved road bridges, freeway bridges, foot bridges, interstate bridges, rope bridges, wood plank bridges, viaducts, and natural bridges are exempt?

I do realize that has already been mentioned in this thread. However, a distinction has been made between a cache on a highway bridge and a bridge just off of a dirt road with the highway bridge being listed a "slam-dunk no". I was just wondering that if the highway bridge was specifically mentioned as an example in the guidelines and "should be an absolute no", does that mean an interstate bridge (which probably sees more traffic) is not an absolute no because it is not mentioned as a specific example in the guidelines? ...

'Interstates' and 'freeways' are types of highways, so they are covered by the guideline.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I do realize that has already been mentioned in this thread. However, a distinction has been made between a cache on a highway bridge and a bridge just off of a dirt road with the highway bridge being listed a "slam-dunk no". I was just wondering that if the highway bridge was specifically mentioned as an example in the guidelines and "should be an absolute no", does that mean an interstate bridge (which probably sees more traffic) is not an absolute no because it is not mentioned as a specific example in the guidelines? Seems that there is just as much of a difference between interstate bridge and highway bridge as there is between a paved bridge (just off of a dirt road) and a highway bridge.

Yikes!

 

From Dictionary.com

tenacity

1526, from M.Fr. tÈnacitÈ (14c.), from L. tenacitas "the act of holding fast," from tenax (gen. tenacis) "tough, holding fast," from tenere "to hold"

flexibility

noun

1. the property of being flexible; easily bent or shaped [ant: inflexibility]

2. the quality of being adaptable or variable; "he enjoyed the flexibility of his working arrangement" [ant: inflexibility]

3. the trait of being easily persuaded [syn: tractability] [ant: intractability]

No need or way to define every type and character of 'bridge' or 'highway'.

 

The Reviewers (and this game) need a bit of flexibility.

 

'Each cache placement will be reviewed on its own merit' gives them that.

 

Lacking a finite definition I would suggest that cachers contact their Reviewer and run their bridge-cache idea by them first.

[+tenacityj]

I do realize that has already been mentioned in this thread. However, a distinction has been made between a cache on a highway bridge and a bridge just off of a dirt road with the highway bridge being listed a "slam-dunk no". I was just wondering that if the highway bridge was specifically mentioned as an example in the guidelines and "should be an absolute no", does that mean an interstate bridge (which probably sees more traffic) is not an absolute no because it is not mentioned as a specific example in the guidelines? Seems that there is just as much of a difference between interstate bridge and highway bridge as there is between a paved bridge (just off of a dirt road) and a highway bridge.

Yikes!

 

From Dictionary.com

tenacity

1526, from M.Fr. tÈnacitÈ (14c.), from L. tenacitas "the act of holding fast," from tenax (gen. tenacis) "tough, holding fast," from tenere "to hold"

flexibility

noun

1. the property of being flexible; easily bent or shaped [ant: inflexibility]

2. the quality of being adaptable or variable; "he enjoyed the flexibility of his working arrangement" [ant: inflexibility]

3. the trait of being easily persuaded [syn: tractability] [ant: intractability]

No need or way to define every type and character of 'bridge' or 'highway'.

 

The Reviewers (and this game) need a bit of flexibility.

 

'Each cache placement will be reviewed on its own merit' gives them that.

 

Lacking a finite definition I would suggest that cachers contact their Reviewer and run their bridge-cache idea by them first.

 

I completely agree with you on this point, Rambler. All caches are different and the reviewers do need to be able to have some flexibility in the guidelines; TPTB has given them that ability. They can be more lenient or tougher. Just because your cache placement isn't specifically mentioned to be against guidelines doesn't mean it will get posted and vice-versa. Each reviewer knows their own area and special circumstances best.

 

The OP wants an absolute no on highway bridges according to the wording in the guidelines. I was just trying to point out that wording can be tricky. We deal with wording issues at my school quite often. Numerous meetings have been held to determine homework and attendance policies according to the wording in the Student Handbook and determine how we should word the rules in order for them to mean what we inteded the policy to say. If the wording is not perfect, students and their parents can interpret the policy differently than we intended. We have to honor their interpretation of the policy instead of using just our own intentions. Wording can be very powerful.

 

The OP had mentioned earlier that he wants the highway bridge guideline to be as absolute as the active railway guideline. Maybe it is since I believe there are also exceptions to the active railway guideline. I believe that you actually don't always have to be 150 ft. away; if there is a fence placed near the railway (or something of that nature), you can hide on the side away from the tracks. I'm not completely sure about this though, could some let me know on this.

Edited February 10, 2007 by tenacityj

[CoyoteRed]

Raise your hand if you think it's time for a sanity check.

 

Forgive me if my memory escapes me, but when was the last time a foreign terrorist used anything but a large vehicle as the weapon or to carry the weapon here on US soil? When was the last time they used anything but something human-guided? When was the last time they left anything alone to be detonated later?

 

It seems to me that the ones that are doing the bombing which would be caught with the methods recently deployed and in the news are the domestic terrorists. You know, Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolph. Even those targeted very high-profile places or places under extreme security pressure.

 

The very size and location of the vast majority of geocaches should preclude them from scrutiny by a bomb squad.

 

Sure, there may be a terrorist cell that may start placing bombs that target small groups or individuals in a random manner in order to terrorize the population and lock them into a frozen panic. But consider the response to the brouhaha in Boston and ask yourself what if all of those devices had been bombs. Only one city did any kind of response. That would mean all of the other devices in the other cities would have delivered their payload and the point to this is the very fact that we know not all suspicious packages are treated as bombs. Yet, few of them have ever exploded.

 

Go figure.

 

Maybe it's because the threat isn't really as big as we are lead to believe.

 

Would a sane reasonable person--without the government and media induced paranoia--really think "bomb" when stumbling over a geocache no matter where it is? Judging by the logs of muggles who do stumble over our caches the answer is refreshing.

 

The problem is they're not the ones getting the national press.

[+StarBrand]

I think maybe CR is onto my point (kind of). I am not worried at all about these things being terrorist threats. Have never argued that point throughout.

 

My point remains a simple one. Our own guidelines do prohibit this kind of placement. And yet we allow it. No consistency at all. Some say it is ok - others say it is wrong. Reviewers included.

 

Toss the guideline (I really wouldn't care) or enforce it but it really has no meaning right now - sort of simple "luck-of-draw" as to whether or not you get a reviewer that will see such a cache published. I believe many if not most would deny my example. But some will allow it. All based on the same knowlege, phots and write-up. No consistency at all. No good reasons to allow an excemption. Just individual opinion.

 

It is a bridge - it is a highway - it has a cache - our guidelines call that off limits. All undeniable facts.

 

Should it?? Opinion is all that is left. Right Now.

[+StarBrand]

.... I was just trying to point out that wording can be tricky. We deal with wording issues at my school quite often. Numerous meetings have been held to determine homework and attendance policies according to the wording in the Student Handbook and determine how we should word the rules in order for them to mean what we inteded the policy to say. If the wording is not perfect, students and their parents can interpret the policy differently than we intended. We have to honor their interpretation of the policy instead of using just our own intentions. Wording can be very powerful.....

 

That is exactly what we are doing here.

 

And you should extend the same courtesy to me that you extend to parents....that I have interpreted it differently than you.

[+sbell111]

Raise your hand if you think it's time for a sanity check.

 

Forgive me if my memory escapes me, but when was the last time a foreign terrorist used anything but a large vehicle as the weapon or to carry the weapon here on US soil? When was the last time they used anything but something human-guided? When was the last time they left anything alone to be detonated later?...

Why limit your concern to just foriegn terrorists?

[CoyoteRed]

Raise your hand if you think it's time for a sanity check.

 

Forgive me if my memory escapes me, but when was the last time a foreign terrorist used anything but a large vehicle as the weapon or to carry the weapon here on US soil? When was the last time they used anything but something human-guided? When was the last time they left anything alone to be detonated later?...

Why limit your concern to just foriegn terrorists?

 

Isn't that what is fueling the paranoia? The Olympic bombing didn't stir this kind of reaction, neither did the abortion clinic bombing or even the bombings of gay nightclubs. These were the systematic attacks by Eric Rudolph. Clinton had to squelch fears of an Islamic attack on the Murrah building.

 

I bet a lost backpack is still just a lost backpack. A package dropped off in front of a building is simply a package a delivery man left. Yet, those proved to be bombs.

 

There is simply a logical disconnect between reality and what the national paranoia locks on. Based on historical trends, if a foreign terror group wanted to blow up a bridge, they'd learn how to double clutch and drive an 18 wheeler over the target. If a cohort suggested simply planting a lunchbox-sized bomb under it instead, he'd be thought an idiot and not worthy of the 72 virgins.

[+sbell111]

Isn't that what is fueling the paranoia? The Olympic bombing didn't stir this kind of reaction, neither did the abortion clinic bombing or even the bombings of gay nightclubs. These were the systematic attacks by Eric Rudolph. ...

I don't really think so.

 

Abortion clinic and gay nightclub bombings don't great increase the public worry level because it's things that only affect 'them'. The olympic bombing was different, however. People got pretty stressed out about that for quite some time. For instance, security at airports stayed strict for several months afterward.

 

Either way, We are not talking about blame, since we know that these items are geocaches and that they are placed by 'us'. The reasons that Joe Public is likely to think a geocache is a bomb is not really important. The fact that a geocache on a highway bridge can lead to suspician is what is important.

[+Trucker Lee]

I would just like to know that since HIGHWAY BRIDGES are the main topic of conversation, does that mean county paved road bridges, freeway bridges, foot bridges, interstate bridges, rope bridges, wood plank bridges, viaducts, and natural bridges are exempt?

 

My only concern relating to this topic................safety.

IMHO If a cache on a bridge would place a cacher into peril, or cause a hazard to passing traffic trying to avoid the cacher or their vehicle, I would not place it or go after it. If the cache is under a bridge, and is placed or marked so authorities would know it is not a terrorist hazard, and there is safe parking and access for seekers, then place it. It should not be attached to the bridge, or placed where climbing on the bridge to find it is necessary. We are talking safety here, most of which is common sense.

[+tenacityj]

I think maybe CR is onto my point (kind of). I am not worried at all about these things being terrorist threats. Have never argued that point throughout.

 

My point remains a simple one. Our own guidelines do prohibit this kind of placement. And yet we allow it. No consistency at all. Some say it is ok - others say it is wrong. Reviewers included.

 

Toss the guideline (I really wouldn't care) or enforce it but it really has no meaning right now - sort of simple "luck-of-draw" as to whether or not you get a reviewer that will see such a cache published. I believe many if not most would deny my example. But some will allow it. All based on the same knowlege, phots and write-up. No consistency at all. No good reasons to allow an excemption. Just individual opinion.

 

It is a bridge - it is a highway - it has a cache - our guidelines call that off limits. All undeniable facts.

 

Should it?? Opinion is all that is left. Right Now.

 

.... I was just trying to point out that wording can be tricky. We deal with wording issues at my school quite often. Numerous meetings have been held to determine homework and attendance policies according to the wording in the Student Handbook and determine how we should word the rules in order for them to mean what we inteded the policy to say. If the wording is not perfect, students and their parents can interpret the policy differently than we intended. We have to honor their interpretation of the policy instead of using just our own intentions. Wording can be very powerful.....

 

That is exactly what we are doing here.

 

And you should extend the same courtesy to me that you extend to parents....that I have interpreted it differently than you.

 

I don't believe that I have not extended you any courtesy, unless courtesy means that I need to say that you are absolutely right; I won't because I disagree. However, I don't believe that I am absolutely right either, just making an argument for my own beliefs. The difference between arguments that the parents make and the argument you are making again goes back to wording. Parents usually present their opinions as interpretations while you are saying your opinions are facts. Fact - the cache is on a bridge Fact - the bridge is also part of the highway Our guidelines state that this type of placement is off-limits if an exemption or exception is not allowed. Which makes the last part only arguable on opinion alone and left up to reviewer discretion. The guideline does have meaning; it means that there is a possibility that a cache placed on a highway bridge may not get published.

 

I don't know that CR is onto your point or not onto your point. Maybe he is just making a point himself. I interpreted his post as pointing out that maybe you, I, and everyone this side of the sun is making way too big of a deal of all of this, including the terrorist points.

 

I get tired of all of the media hype and the worrying about terrorist threats. If they wanted to hurt us that bad, no amount of precautions would stop them. Somehow, someway they would figure out a way to get around our defenses. So why be so hyped up about it, because it sells and it gives power to those who cannot gain it any other way. Maybe I'm just tired from wrestling season, I'm going to take a nap and hopefully wake up less stressed and less cranky.

[Neos2]

...

My point remains a simple one. Our own guidelines do prohibit this kind of placement. And yet we allow it. No consistency at all. Some say it is ok - others say it is wrong. Reviewers included.

...

 

It is a bridge - it is a highway - it has a cache - our guidelines call that off limits. All undeniable facts.

 

Should it?? Opinion is all that is left. Right Now.

Did you look at the photos of the bridges a few posts above this one? When I think of "highway bridge" that might be excluded from having a cache, those are what I think of...

 

When I looked at the photo that was in the first post of this thread, I thought "cute little roadway over a creek" There are highways, and then there are higways; there are bridges and then there are bridges. There are subtle nuisances about what exactly makes a place suitable or not for a geocache.

 

I for one would never want anything that was a hard and fast cookie-cutter stamped in ink rule about anything, because there are always exceptions to everything.

[CoyoteRed]

The fact that a geocache on a highway bridge can lead to suspician is what is important.

 

I think the point is an apparently abandoned five gallon plastic bucket now a days is thought of as a bomb first instead of a fisherman's bucket.

 

Why is it that everyone's first thought is "bomb" when confronted with something that is, to them, out of the ordinary when so few turn out to be so?

[+StarBrand]

....Our guidelines state that this type of placement is off-limits if an exemption or exception is not allowed. Which makes the last part only arguable on opinion alone and left up to reviewer discretion. The guideline does have meaning; it means that there is a possibility that a cache placed on a highway bridge may not get published. ....

uh ok. if you say so.

[Neos2]

....Our guidelines state that this type of placement is off-limits if an exemption or exception is not allowed. Which makes the last part only arguable on opinion alone and left up to reviewer discretion. The guideline does have meaning; it means that there is a possibility that a cache placed on a highway bridge may not get published. ....

uh ok. if you say so.

I agree with tenacityj, and frankly, I wonder why you want something other than a guideline. Just take a look at the schools that have suffered under the tyranny of "Zero Tolerance" policies that cause perfectly nice students to suffer competely unfair disciplnary actions for innocent infractions.

 

Guidelines are flexible. Flexibility is a very good thing--it allows common sense to be applied.

[+palser]

....Our guidelines state that this type of placement is off-limits if an exemption or exception is not allowed. Which makes the last part only arguable on opinion alone and left up to reviewer discretion. The guideline does have meaning; it means that there is a possibility that a cache placed on a highway bridge may not get published. ....

uh ok. if you say so.

I agree with tenacityj, and frankly, I wonder why you want something other than a guideline. Just take a look at the schools that have suffered under the tyranny of "Zero Tolerance" policies that cause perfectly nice students to suffer competely unfair disciplnary actions for innocent infractions.

 

Guidelines are flexible. Flexibility is a very good thing--it allows common sense to be applied.

 

You might be stumbling onto something that might have been said earlier about maybe there is another agenda besides just looking for clarification..

 

Just consider this hypothetical circumstance that the OP made of request to archive that particular LEO's cache. And to give him credit where credit is due... he was just following the guidelines as he has interpreted them. But when that SBA hasn't taken place the disgruntled OP decides to take this disappointment to a higher forum, i.e. highways/bridges' discussion.. and with that continued angst the OP still is disappointed that the world doesn't see it his way.. Just hypothetical you know!!!

 

Dr. P

[+Retcon]

My only concern relating to this topic................safety.

 

I was under the impression that safety, while an important consideration, is not a reason to not place a cache. Aren't there caches on the sides of mountains? I think that a cache under a bridge that spans a 150-foot drop to your death should be placeable (Well, maybe not because of the bridge thing, but other than that ) so long as you give it a 5-star rating.

Edited February 11, 2007 by Retcon