Highway "Right of Way" Caches

[+slackpacker]

I live in NC but frequently venture into SC, and I noticed within the past couple of days several caches I have found in SC were being archived, with reasons given referencing the new "right of way" guidelines. Did a little digging and found the following -

 

http://palmettogeocachingnetwork.com/scsg/

 

"Post:

 

A few weeks ago I was in a conversation with a geocacher whose cache appeared to be on private property, but who maintained that the cache was on public property. To satisfy my own curiosity I contacted the SC DOT and learned that the land from the edge of a roadway to the property line of the adjacent land is part of the road’s right of way. Upon further investigation, I have learned that SC Title 57 Section 57-7-20 regarding putting foreign substances on highways can be interpreted to apply to placing items such as a geocache on a right of way.

As a result, I now have specific knowledge that nothing like a geocache may be legally placed on SC roadway rights of way. This trumps presumed adequate permission.

 

Geocaching is largely regulated by the participants, and I am asking owners of geocaches that have been placed on rights of way in South Carolina to archive the cache pages and remove the physical caches as soon as possible. Geocachers who become aware of caches located on rights of way are asked to post a needs archived log on the cache pages to let the cache owner know that it needs to be removed, suggesting that they may contact me for clarification if desired. Should I become aware of such a geocache through other means, I will contact the cache owner directly.

 

I appreciate your understanding.

 

-Brad

 

Groundspeak volunteer reviewer for South Carolina"

 

Is SC the only state with this interpretation? I have certainly seen some guardrail caches that you have to have a deathwish to grab, but also some fine caches that are presumably within the DOT's "right of way." I appreciate the SC reviewer keeping us legal in SC, just didn't know if other states had similar rules - if so, seems a lot of caches might be archived if other reviewers are as diligent.

[Max Cacher]

Road Right of Way is misunderstood in Tennessee, in almost all cases someone owns the land and a right of way has been given // taken for “Services” like sewer, water line, electric, phone, cable lines, ect.. No where is the right of way contracts does it allow for a geocache. Its up to whom ever owns the land

 

From the guidelines: “”By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location.“”

 

Do you have permission from who owns the land, this is the key word ""PERMISSION""

 

Max

Volunteer Moderator

[Cache Whisperer]

-snip-

A few weeks ago I was in a conversation with a geocacher whose cache appeared to be on private property, but who maintained that the cache was on public property. To satisfy my own curiosity I contacted the SC DOT and learned that the land from the edge of a roadway to the property line of the adjacent land is part of the road’s right of way. Upon further investigation, I have learned that SC Title 57 Section 57-7-20 regarding putting foreign substances on highways can be interpreted to apply to placing items such as a geocache on a right of way.

As a result, I now have specific knowledge that nothing like a geocache may be legally placed on SC roadway rights of way. This trumps presumed adequate permission.

 

Geocaching is largely regulated by the participants, and I am asking owners of geocaches that have been placed on rights of way in South Carolina to archive the cache pages and remove the physical caches as soon as possible. Geocachers who become aware of caches located on rights of way are asked to post a needs archived log on the cache pages to let the cache owner know that it needs to be removed, suggesting that they may contact me for clarification if desired. Should I become aware of such a geocache through other means, I will contact the cache owner directly.

 

I appreciate your understanding.

 

-Brad

 

Groundspeak volunteer reviewer for South Carolina"

 

 

 

I read the ordinance quoted and feel it's quite a stretch to apply that to geocaching.

 

No where does it mention right of way, and in fact specifically references items left on the roadbed. Geocaches are not hidden under the centerline. Perhaps this reviewer needs to be reviewed? Heres the full text of the ordinance.

 

SECTION 57-7-20. Putting foreign substances on highways.

 

(A) No person may place, throw, or deposit upon any highway any glass bottle, glass, nails, tacks, wire, cans, or any other substance or object likely to injure any person, animal, or vehicle upon the highway. Any person who drops or permits to be dropped or thrown upon any highway any destructive or injurious material shall remove it immediately or cause it to be removed. Any person removing a wrecked or damaged vehicle from a highway shall remove any glass or other injurious substance dropped upon the highway from the vehicle. A violation of any of the provisions of this section is punishable by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars or imprisonment for not more than thirty days.

 

( If any person knowingly, with malicious intent, violates subsection (A), he must be punished by a fine of not less than two hundred nor more than one thousand dollars or imprisoned for not less than ten nor more than sixty days.

 

© If any person knowingly, with malicious intent, violates the provisions of subsection ( and causes personal injury, upon conviction, he must be punished by a fine of not less than five hundred nor more than two thousand dollars or imprisoned for not less than one nor more than three years, or both.

 

(D) If any person knowingly, with malicious intent, violates the provisions of subsection © and a death results, upon conviction, he must be punished as provided in Section 16-3-20.

[+DocDiTTo]

 

I read the ordinance quoted and feel it's quite a stretch to apply that to geocaching.

 

 

While I'd agree that at face value the ordinance reads like "keep stuff off the road", the reviewer did specifically mention that "upon further investigation" he learned that the same laws may be applied to right-of-ways as well. Knowing the caliber of people that Groundspeak chooses for Reviewers, I'd bet money that there's a very good reason why he came up with the interpretation he did, and didn't just decide to ban right-of-way caches arbitrarily.

 

Sometimes it's not so much a matter of knowing the laws, but knowing how they may be applied.

[+slackpacker]

I would think most rational cachers would agree that there is no need for a keybox stuck to a guardrail on a 70-mph interstate, but put that same keybox on a guardrail safely within a scenic view pull off on a quiet rural road and you've got a nice P&G.

 

Point being, assuming all states have some sort of right-of-way statute, the GC reviewers share points of view, and there is some desire for consistency, you could see where all right-of-way caches (the good with the bad) might no longer be allowed - and that would be a bad thing, I believe.

[+sbell111]

I read the ordinance quoted and feel it's quite a stretch to apply that to geocaching.

While I'd agree that at face value the ordinance reads like "keep stuff off the road", the reviewer did specifically mention that "upon further investigation" he learned that the same laws may be applied to right-of-ways as well. Knowing the caliber of people that Groundspeak chooses for Reviewers, I'd bet money that there's a very good reason why he came up with the interpretation he did, and didn't just decide to ban right-of-way caches arbitrarily.

 

Sometimes it's not so much a matter of knowing the laws, but knowing how they may be applied.

I would think most rational cachers would agree that there is no need for a keybox stuck to a guardrail on a 70-mph interstate, but put that same keybox on a guardrail safely within a scenic view pull off on a quiet rural road and you've got a nice P&G.

 

Point being, assuming all states have some sort of right-of-way statute, the GC reviewers share points of view, and there is some desire for consistency, you could see where all right-of-way caches (the good with the bad) might no longer be allowed - and that would be a bad thing, I believe.

I think that if you link too many assumptions that you will get driven to an incorrect conclusion.

[+nikcap]

 

I read the ordinance quoted and feel it's quite a stretch to apply that to geocaching.

 

No where does it mention right of way, and in fact specifically references items left on the roadbed. Geocaches are not hidden under the centerline. Perhaps this reviewer needs to be reviewed?

...

 

The real question is:

Do you, the reviewer that published the cache, or Groundspeak have the time and money and resources to argue your point should a government choose to challenge you in court?

 

To the layman I do not think this is a stretch to interpret the laws as it applies to geocaches.

"We" here, are experts in the field and understand the intricacies of a safe and carefully hidden geocache.

 

Better safe than sorry.

 

I'm sure the reviewer(s) and local caching group will sort this with the DOT.

 

To the OP, thanks for bringing this to our attention and pointing out the responsibility, tough decision and attentiveness of the reviewer in South Carolina.

Edited June 18, 2008 by ekitt10

[+9Key]

Hoo boy! I know of one extremely profilic cache hider in here in Texas that would be up a creek without a paddle if this ROW issue were enforced here.

[+J-Way]

This is completely state-specific, and the same issue applies to those roadside "memorials" where someone died in a car crash. The memorials consist of anything starting with just a plain cross to an elaborate structure with a large cross, flowers, signs, flag, etc. Some states allow them. Some states remove them for various reasons:

- no matter how elaborate and decorative, they're considered litter;

- they interfere with mowing, either by causing mowers to drive around them (costing time), stop to pick them up (costing time), or just running over them (serious litter problem)

- unless constantly maintained by the owner, they tend to get run down and look tatty fairly quickly

- they might actually cause accidents if someone is looking at the memorial instead of watching the road

 

Any state that allows roadside memorials might allow roadside geocaches. Any state that bans/removes roadside memorials will probably NOT allow roadside geocaches.

[Cache Whisperer]

This is a "Litter Law" put in place to protect motorists from damage by litter on the road.

 

Neither the letter of this law or it's intent prohibit geocaches placed away from the road.

 

Guardrail caches might very well be illegal (and good riddance) as they are part of the road.

 

Rest stops and scenic pullouts are also on highway "Rights of way". If it is indeed Groundspeaks policy to disallow ROW caches in SC would these also be archived?

Edited June 18, 2008 by Cache Whisperer

[Clan Riffster]

Different states/different rules, I reckon. Florida statute echoes eerily similar to the SC interpretation. Here in the Sunshine State, the definition of a "roadway" includes the right of way. The only law I can find that remotely applies would one forbidding leaving any object on a roadway, (which includes the right of way), which may obstruct traffic or injure tires. It would be a real stretch to think that a film canister could obstruct anything, but Gaia knows how bureaucrats think. I did hear from what I consider to be a reliable source that, in Florida, it is illegal for anyone other than the party responsible for maintaining a roadway, (DOT/county roads depts/etc), to attach/affix or place anything on any guardrail. I looked, but I can't find a statute to that effect.

[+ar_kayaker]

You might also want to check about the difference between a ROW and an easement in your area before you go pulling and archiving all the roadside caches.

 

I'm sure it varies from place to place how they are defined, but generally speaking a ROW is an area maintained (mowed) by the road crews, it's actually owned by the government. An easement on the other hand is the 15' (or other distance depending on the locale) near the road that is owned by a person or business, but that the city/state has decreed that the owner can't build on and/or that the city/state has legal access to. The governing entity may or may not mow an easement depending on local circumstances.

 

As far as the SC ordinance goes I'd say it's a stretch to apply this to geocaches. At the very least it would have to be an individual basis thing rather than a blanket ban because the key part of that ordinance as I read it is "No person may place, throw, or deposit upon any highway any glass bottle, glass, nails, tacks, wire, cans, or any other substance or object likely to injure any person, animal, or vehicle upon the highway." A geocache in a pull out, hidden in a rest area, 20 feet off the side of a rural road, or other location where the "object" isn't likely to cause some kind of damage (or place the seeker at risk of damage) shouldn't be an issue.

 

I could see it stretched to cover some guardrail caches I know of because IMHO they were in locations that put the seeker at risk of getting hit by a car. (Bridge guardrails where you had to walk in the road to get to it, on street signs where the only parking within half a mile was a narrow shoulder...I chose not to seek them because I considered it too hazardous to park there/walk there) However, the majority of roadside caches I've found could never be construed as "likely to injure" anyone.

 

AK

[+Deliveryguy428]

The "party line" is that it is not so much the placement of the cache but the dangers that could arise from the geocacher and the people driving by. This came from a cacher who called the DOT as a concerned citizen and was giving that answer.

[CoyoteRed]

Why am I not seeing this as a bad thing?

[+slackpacker]

Some examples -

 

This one is on a large, landscaped entrance sign for a town - well off the road -

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...4c-f619868520c9

 

This cache is part of 7-cache CITO series -

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...59-90674e5e61c1

 

It appears that the SC cache hiders have gotten the news and, to their credit, are quickly reacting to the new interpretation.

[+slackpacker]

I'm not saying the rule is a bad thing - obviously, highway safety (for both cachers and others) is the ultimate priority. I'm just saying that if the ROW rule is taken literally and applied uniformly - i.e., applied to caches under bridges on rural roads, in rest areas, in scenic pull-offs, etc. - there will a lot of fine caches archived (of course, there will many less-than-remarkable caches archived too - but that is a topic for another thread!)

[+sseegars]

 

To the OP, thanks for bringing this to our attention and pointing out the responsibility, tough decision and attentiveness of the reviewer in South Carolina.

 

Nicely said.

 

Why am I not seeing this as a bad thing?

 

Just because you don't like these particular types of geocaches don't discount the fact that this won't affect your kind of geocache.

 

As the roads in state parks are state maintained roads, who's to say that any cache in any SC State Park wouldn't fall under this interpretation of the law? Just a thought.

[+Deliveryguy428]

Someone has broken out the golden spoon I see....

 

 

First for the reviewer, the current reviewer for SC has done a wonderful job in research on this topic and has spent a lot of time in conversation with people from DOT and others who have talked to the DOT.

 

 

The DOT it seems is not so much concerned for the placement issue as much as the safety issue that could arise from both the cacher and people driving by.

 

 

I mean if you only have a few inches between you, a guardrail and the road I think safety would be a concern

 

 

While we do take chances sometime in doing some caches that is our choice yes, but if we are put into a siutation where it might not be safe for stupid reasons why risk it? well unless you are a number junkie...but anyways you get the point.

[+Morning Dew]

Sorry...choose to remove my reply. It didn't say anything that wasn't said before.....carry on.

Edited June 19, 2008 by Morning Dew

[CoyoteRed]

While we do take chances sometime in doing some caches that is our choice yes, but if we are put into a siutation where it might not be safe for stupid reasons why risk it?

If the issue is not having folks stopping or standing on the side of the road it's not just the folks doing the stopping or standing that is being put in danger. There are a lot of drivers who, when startled, make of over corrections in an effort to avoid whatever they are trying to avoid--off into the ditch they go.

 

As the roads in state parks are state maintained roads, who's to say that any cache in any SC State Park wouldn't fall under this interpretation of the law?

Because our state parks have a geocaching policy? Because the state parks are for recreation and geocaching is a recreational activity? Because the idea behind 57-7-20 is to prevent folks from creating hazards for other motorists and that is not consistent with trying to apply it to state parks?

 

Further, this a state law, not a SCDOT policy. The highway doesn't have to be maintained by the state.

 

Also, a definition straight from 56-1-10: "Highway" means the entire width between the boundary lines of every way publicly maintained when any part of it is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel.

 

The term "highway" is used in 57-7-20, not "right of way" which are two different things. One could make the argument that a pull-off is not part of the highway while still being in the right of way.

 

...or it could go the other way and in the case of an interstate the "highway" covers from the mowed area from one side of the interstate all the way to the other side to the back fence of a rest area. It just depends on whether one wants to take an absolute literal interpretation of the law or look at the spirit and apply it with discretion.

[+SimbaJamey]

Not that it actually applies...but just for poops and ha-has I'll add some information I got on the subject when I used to work for PenDoT (Pennsylvania) doing highway construction.

In the mid '80s there was an explosion of "Pee bottles" found on the sides of highways. And by explosion I mean that the director of Iowas DoT said at a meeting (and then was later quoted in a newspaper, might be able to google it) that in ~1979 the Iowas DoT found 4 'pee bottles' on the side of it's state and interstate roads. Ten years later, she told us, they were then averaging 2,400 a month!!!!!!

(the weirdest part I remember her saying is that something like 80% are found at rest-stops on the ramp to get back onto the highway?!?!)

At that time they were discussing what they could do about the problem and I'm betting the SC law is one of the things they came up with. I don't know the speciffics of that law nor do I know the final outcome of the Pa. debate, but they were talking at the time about classifying a bottle of pee as a hazardous substance to bump the fines and penalties from the minor littering offense to a major big deal.

 

So...what I'm saying is, I have a feeling SC isn't the only state that's going to be doing something like this to try to stop people from leaving pee bottles everywhere...Roadside caches would seem to be collateral damage in the fight against people disgusting habits.

And I don't know about the right of way part, but in the eyes of the DoT, any paved or maintained roadway is referred to as a "Highway" in their documentation.

[+sseegars]

While we do take chances sometime in doing some caches that is our choice yes, but if we are put into a siutation where it might not be safe for stupid reasons why risk it?

If the issue is not having folks stopping or standing on the side of the road it's not just the folks doing the stopping or standing that is being put in danger. There are a lot of drivers who, when startled, make of over corrections in an effort to avoid whatever they are trying to avoid--off into the ditch they go.

 

As the roads in state parks are state maintained roads, who's to say that any cache in any SC State Park wouldn't fall under this interpretation of the law?

Because our state parks have a geocaching policy? Because the state parks are for recreation and geocaching is a recreational activity? Because the idea behind 57-7-20 is to prevent folks from creating hazards for other motorists and that is not consistent with trying to apply it to state parks?

 

Further, this a state law, not a SCDOT policy. The highway doesn't have to be maintained by the state.

 

Also, a definition straight from 56-1-10: "Highway" means the entire width between the boundary lines of every way publicly maintained when any part of it is open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel.

 

The term "highway" is used in 57-7-20, not "right of way" which are two different things. One could make the argument that a pull-off is not part of the highway while still being in the right of way.

 

...or it could go the other way and in the case of an interstate the "highway" covers from the mowed area from one side of the interstate all the way to the other side to the back fence of a rest area. It just depends on whether one wants to take an absolute literal interpretation of the law or look at the spirit and apply it with discretion.

 

Of course! If the state decided to pursue this matter to the literal letter of the law. That's my point. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. A state maintained road is a state maintained road. And don't think it might not come down to that considering what some of is here in SC learned about the way things work in state govt. A couple of years ago.

[+Happy Humphrey]

... It just depends on whether one wants to take an absolute literal interpretation of the law or look at the spirit and apply it with discretion.

If the section of the law quoted above is the one in question, it says "with malicious intent" so won't apply to geocaches, whether taken literally or not.

 

Except for those "evil hides", I suppose.

[+Renegade Knight]

Most all laws are subject to a lot of interpretation. Your law can be construed (based on other posts) to apply specifically to the roadway prism. It can be broadened to the ROW as a whole. Nobody would argue that it apples to ROW owned by the highway agency. People can argue that it doesn’t apply outside the roadway prism where the ROW is not actually owned by the highway agency. In that case the land owner can make a valid case that they land they own and pay tax on should be useable for any purpose that doesn’t interfere with the roadway purpose. In many cases a private use for public ROW is tolerated. Farming and landscaping to the edge of the roadbed for example.

 

Then there is another angle. A rest area isn’t “ROW” for the roadway” and yet it is ROW in that it’s owned by the highway department. Most highway agencies own land that’s not needed for the roadway ROW but which for a number of reasons they own just the same. This law likely wasn’t intended for those kinds of parcels because it’s roots were in keeping the travel ways safe for the public.

 

What you have is a reason to take each cache on a case by case basis. A blanket archival policy is presumptuous.

[+Renegade Knight]

...I have learned that SC Title 57 Section 57-7-20 regarding putting foreign substances on highways can be interpreted to apply to placing items such as a geocache on a right of way.

As a result, I now have specific knowledge that nothing like a geocache may be legally placed on SC roadway rights of way. This trumps presumed adequate permission....

 

Can be interpreted one way, means can be intrpreted another. You don't have specific knowledge in a form that can be applied as a blanket policy. Even if you did apply it as a blanket policy the ambiguities (there are more than I wrote about) mentioned in the other post would start to surface. What you really have is a question for which different agencies, divisions of agencies, and people within the agency would have answers that vary. It doesn't trump adequate permission, and it may not trump presumed adequate permission.

 

Oh and most states would have similar laws. The point being to make litter illegal, keep our roads safe, efficient, and useful for their purpose. Not to ban the public enjoyment of ROW for appropriate casual use.

 

Here is another simple ambiguity for you. Rest areas have trash cans. We put refuse in them. Nothing at all gives us any right whatsover to do that. We are supposed to do that, but depositing refuse within the ROW is banned. In my state there is a law agaisnt placing debris on state property. It does apply. It's an inintended consequece that everone ignores. The caching consequence of this is that CITO can be construed as against the law if practiced within the ROW.

[+CCrew]

So...what I'm saying is, I have a feeling SC isn't the only state that's going to be doing something like this to try to stop people from leaving pee bottles everywhere...Roadside caches would seem to be collateral damage in the fight against people disgusting habits.

 

Virginia is working on something similar. Generally referred to as "bio-bombs" here because the official stance is that they are paramount to biological waste - which indeed they are.

 

-R

[+Deliveryguy428]

A guardrail mico is a bio-bomb???

[CoyoteRed]

Of course! If the state decided to pursue this matter to the literal letter of the law. That's my point. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. A state maintained road is a state maintained road. And don't think it might not come down to that considering what some of is here in SC learned about the way things work in state govt. A couple of years ago.

There's a couple of things wrong with that. If it's taken absolutely literally, then it doesn't apply to a geocache unless it's on the roadway, median, or the shoulder and in way way likely to cause harm. "Highway" doesn't mean "roadway." These are two different animals. Second, the statute doesn't say "state maintained road," it's says "highway." It protects county and city roads, and maybe even private roads open to the public.

 

So, you place an ammo can cache along a section of highway well away from the paved area, say, in the tall grass. A mower comes along, hits that ammo can which causes some injury to something or someone, then you'd be in violation.

 

Stick a decon container behind a guardrail and... ...I'm not sure how anyone can get injured. I doubt a plastic container would have any effect on the performance dynamics of the guardrail.

 

Encouraging someone to stop on the side of the road because of the way you placed your cache, then I can see you're going to start having a problem.

 

Then again, the same can be said of virtual stages of the a multi-stage cache. Parking along the side of the road can be just as hazardous for a stage as a final. I'm curious as to the stance of the multis with stages in the same situations as traditionals that have been archived.

[+Happy Humphrey]

So, you place an ammo can cache along a section of highway well away from the paved area, say, in the tall grass. A mower comes along, hits that ammo can which causes some injury to something or someone, then you'd be in violation.

No, because there's no malicious intent.

[+sbell111]

So, you place an ammo can cache along a section of highway well away from the paved area, say, in the tall grass. A mower comes along, hits that ammo can which causes some injury to something or someone, then you'd be in violation.

No, because there's no malicious intent.

Agreed. Geocaching does not violate that law because no malicious intent can be shown.

 

BTW, if you read the entire Section, you will note that 'highway' means 'road', whether it is part of the state highway system, or not.

[CoyoteRed]

So, you place an ammo can cache along a section of highway well away from the paved area, say, in the tall grass. A mower comes along, hits that ammo can which causes some injury to something or someone, then you'd be in violation.

No, because there's no malicious intent.

Reread 57-7-20 above. It doesn't have to be with malicious intent.

• Sub-section A defines the actions and provides a punishment of "a fine of not more than one hundred dollars or imprisonment for not more than thirty days."
  
• Sub-section B adds the "with malicious intent" and ups the punish to "a fine of not less than two hundred nor more than one thousand dollars or imprisoned for not less than ten nor more than sixty days."
  
• Sub-section C adds "and causes personal injury" and ups the punishment to "a fine of not less than five hundred nor more than two thousand dollars or imprisoned for not less than one nor more than three years, or both."
  
• Then sub-sectiond D adds "and death results" and ups the punishment to be consistent with murder. (That's the mention of 16-3-20.)
  

So, as you can see, you can still be punished even without malicious intent therefor it doesn't have to be with malicious intent to be illegal.

 

EDIT: Highlighting the pertinent part so it stands out.

Edited June 20, 2008 by CoyoteRed

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Hoo boy! I know of one extremely profilic cache hider in here in Texas that would be up a creek without a paddle if this ROW issue were enforced here.

Yeah, like, folks, can you all help me here? Like, where ELSE is there to hide geocaches other than on guardrails at the side of busy highways? Huh? In fact, all of our 88 hides are guardrail hides, and I have never heard of any other kind of geocache hide here on the east coast, except for an occasional lamp post cache in a Wal Mart parking lot, but the Difficulty and Terrain rating on that latter type of cache is too high for me to be bothered with them. Besides, I might hafta get out of my car to retrieve the cache.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[+sbell111]

So, you place an ammo can cache along a section of highway well away from the paved area, say, in the tall grass. A mower comes along, hits that ammo can which causes some injury to something or someone, then you'd be in violation.

No, because there's no malicious intent.

Reread 57-7-20 above. It doesn't have to be with malicious intent.

• Sub-section A defines the actions and provides a punishment of "a fine of not more than one hundred dollars or imprisonment for not more than thirty days."
  
• Sub-section B adds the "with malicious intent"...
  

So, as you can see, you can still be punished even without malicious intent therefor it doesn't have to be with malicious intent to be illegal.

In that case, I'll take the following fallback position: The clause 'upon any highway' makes it clear that the law refers to items placed on the actual roadway. I have yet to find a cache on the actual roadway, but you guys might do it differently in South Carolina. Edited June 20, 2008 by sbell111

[+Sioneva]

Hoo boy! I know of one extremely profilic cache hider in here in Texas that would be up a creek without a paddle if this ROW issue were enforced here.

Yeah, like, folks, can you all help me here? Like, where ELSE is there to hide geocaches other than on guardrails at the side of busy highways? Huh? In fact, all of our 88 hides are guardrail hides, and I have never heard of any other kind of geocache hide here on the east coast, except for an occasional lamp post cache in a Wal Mart parking lot, but the Difficulty and Terrain rating on that latter type of cache is too high for me to be bothered with them. Besides, I might hafta get out of my car to retrieve the cache.

 

 

 

 

Psst! Vinny! You forgot that nano you put on the back of the stop sign, at the junction of five very busy roads! I distinctly remember how good Sue's aim was that day, when you made her throw it out the window...

 

I was in awe.

[Mushtang]

So, you place an ammo can cache along a section of highway well away from the paved area, say, in the tall grass. A mower comes along, hits that ammo can which causes some injury to something or someone, then you'd be in violation.

No, because there's no malicious intent.

Reread 57-7-20 above. It doesn't have to be with malicious intent.

• Sub-section A defines the actions and provides a punishment of "a fine of not more than one hundred dollars or imprisonment for not more than thirty days."
  
• Sub-section B adds the "with malicious intent" and ups the punish to "a fine of not less than two hundred nor more than one thousand dollars or imprisoned for not less than ten nor more than sixty days."
  
• Sub-section C adds "and causes personal injury" and ups the punishment to "a fine of not less than five hundred nor more than two thousand dollars or imprisoned for not less than one nor more than three years, or both."
  
• Then sub-sectiond D adds "and death results" and ups the punishment to be consistent with murder. (That's the mention of 16-3-20.)
  

So, as you can see, you can still be punished even without malicious intent therefor it doesn't have to be with malicious intent to be illegal.

 

EDIT: Highlighting the pertinent part so it stands out.

Does this apply only to highways, or are there other laws on the books for other areas?

 

For instance, if you hide an ammo can in the woods at a park or other public land and someone gets hurt, can you still be punished for that too, even though there was no malicious intent?

Edited June 20, 2008 by Mushtang

[CoyoteRed]

Does this apply only to highways, or are there other laws on the books for other areas?

 

For instance, if you hide an ammo can in the woods at a park or other public land and someone gets hurt, can you still be punished for that too, even though there was no malicious intent?

Not that I know of. You just never know unless you read and study the entire code--it's several volumes.

 

I believe the intent of the section in question is simply to protect the motoring public and maybe the maintenance crews. When you have idiots that will throw cinder block off overpasses you know you'll have idiots who will think it funny to throw tire shredding hazards in the road simply to have the knowledge they might have cost someone a flat tire.

 

That's not to mention folks hauling trash, letting it blow out the back, and causing the same tire shredding hazard.

 

I suspect the reason the section is extended to include the whole highway, and not just the road, is so folks won't fear pulling safely off the road when it is needed in case it might cause damage to their vehicle. (Well, any more than they do now, as I know I dislike pulling off the roadway, even into the emergency lane, because of a higher chance of picking up a puncture.)

 

I suspect any ordinances that cover what you're asking about would probably come under provisions similar to those that the NPS have protecting against leaving personal property, littering, etc. Our state parks have a geocaching policy so we're covered there. I'm not aware of a general statute covering such things, though. The rest of the parks are probably covered, or not, under the individual authorities for those parks.

Edited June 20, 2008 by CoyoteRed

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Hoo boy! I know of one extremely profilic cache hider in here in Texas that would be up a creek without a paddle if this ROW issue were enforced here.

Yeah, like, folks, can you all help me here? Like, where ELSE is there to hide geocaches other than on guardrails at the side of busy highways? Huh? In fact, all of our 88 hides are guardrail hides, and I have never heard of any other kind of geocache hide here on the east coast, except for an occasional lamp post cache in a Wal Mart parking lot, but the Difficulty and Terrain rating on that latter type of cache is too high for me to be bothered with them. Besides, I might hafta get out of my car to retrieve the cache.

 

 

 

 

Psst! Vinny! You forgot that nano you put on the back of the stop sign, at the junction of five very busy roads! I distinctly remember how good Sue's aim was that day, when you made her throw it out the window...

 

I was in awe.

Sheesh, Sionevil, am I embarrassed! Yes, you are, of course, totally right, we did indeed place a drive-by toss-out magnetic nano on the back of a stop sign at a busy 5-way intersection, and in fact, that geocache has consistently been rated as perhaps our best geocache hide ever! Boy, do I feel silly for having forgotten that one! And yes, it was Sue who threw the thing while I drove right through the stop sign, without stopping, at about twenty miles per hour. In fact, we pride ourselves on the fact that we have never needed to leave our car to place any of our one hundred and eighty-eight caches, all of which are drive-by-and-grabs!

[+FireRef]

From the original post...

 

"..can be interpreted..."

 

So this means that because this reviewer has, himself, chosen to interpret this particular statute in this particular fashion, all caches that fit under this particular interpretation are going to be pulled? Did I miss the law degree or court interpretation which backs this one person's interpretation?

[+briansnat]

From the original post...

 

"..can be interpreted..."

 

So this means that because this reviewer has, himself, chosen to interpret this particular statute in this particular fashion, all caches that fit under this particular interpretation are going to be pulled? Did I miss the law degree or court interpretation which backs this one person's interpretation?

 

Did I miss where a law degree was required for reviewers to be able to read laws and regulations and interpret them?

[+FireRef]

I don't think that is a stretch to say that someone, such as a reviewer, reading a law and then making a somewhat controversial interpretation of it, then changing a specific aspect of this game because of it, is going a little far.

 

If he was that concerned about it, seeking legal counsel and finding that his "interpretation" was correct would have carried a lot more weight with myself, and probably a decent number of other people, rather than just deciding that his specific and directional interpretation of a law had to be the only and correct one, and acting on that decision accordingly.

 

If it was that easy to interpret laws, our court system would be much simpler, cost much less taxpayer money, and solve questions of law much more quickly than it does. Oh, and we wouldn't need lawyers. I'm sure GS has at least 1-2 reviewing stuff to keep themselves out of hot water.

 

I'm not saying that his interpretation is not one possible one. I'm saying it is not necessarily the only one, and again, not necessarily the correct one, as it relates to this game.

[+briansnat]

I don't think that is a stretch to say that someone, such as a reviewer, reading a law and then making a somewhat controversial interpretation of it, then changing a specific aspect of this game because of it, is going a little far.

 

You know what, everything reviewers do is controversial as long as there are busybodies and gadflies around.

[+FireRef]

As the presumed insult is being dealt with through a report, I will simply address the other portion of the post - What you're saying, then, is apparently the players of this game have no interest in questioning controversial decisions which may negatively affect the way this game is played? We are just expected to blindly accept the decisions of people who happen to be selected by TPTB?

 

I'm sorry - I don't accept this in any other aspect of life, and I certainly wouldn't accept it here.

 

(Edited to move a misplaced modifier which changed the meaning of the last sentence of the first pgh.)

Edited June 22, 2008 by FireRef

[+Mopar]

As the presumed insult is being dealt with through a report,

So I guess I should hit the report button on your presumed insults against the reviewer in SC. Got it.

 

As I read the OP, the reviewer you are insulting in your posts hasn't interpreted any thing. He contacted the land manager (in this case the SC DOT) directly and got the land manager's interpretation of the law. Several other posts in this thread appear to confirm that.

 

It doesn't matter what the reviewer thinks, if the land manager has told him they interpret the law to cover geocaches, his hands are tied.

As usual, your attacks are misguided at best.

[+Deliveryguy428]

Seeing how this thread has degraded to attacking the reviewer and making assumed statements I think this topic has run its course. If you go back and re-read the OP you will see where it stated the reviewer actually was in contact with SC DOT.

 

 

Sadly it is what it is and ripping the reviewer in a state you do not live in is not going to solve anything, instead it just makes us a better cacher by having to find different more unique places to hide, nothing wrong with that.

[+FireRef]

Seeing how this thread has degraded to attacking the reviewer and making assumed statements I think this topic has run its course. If you go back and re-read the OP you will see where it stated the reviewer actually was in contact with SC DOT.

 

 

Sadly it is what it is and ripping the reviewer in a state you do not live in is not going to solve anything, instead it just makes us a better cacher by having to find different more unique places to hide, nothing wrong with that.

 

I was not insulting or ripping into any reviewer. Not a personal attack, such as calling someone a gadfly. It is a logical questioning of the statements. I am simply questioning this part of his statement:

 

(Quote from OP)

 

To satisfy my own curiosity I contacted the SC DOT and learned that the land from the edge of a roadway to the property line of the adjacent land is part of the road’s right of way. Upon further investigation, I have learned that SC Title 57 Section 57-7-20 regarding putting foreign substances on highways can be interpreted to apply to placing items such as a geocache on a right of way.

As a result, I now have specific knowledge that nothing like a geocache may be legally placed on SC roadway rights of way. This trumps presumed adequate permission.

 

(End quote from OP)

 

He contacted DOT to find out what the right of way was. He "further investigated", which no detail is given, and learned that it "can be intrepreted". So since it "can" (and not "is", or "must") be interpreted that way, he makes the leap to "specific knowledge".

 

In PA, if checking vehicle speed by electronic means (which, I believe, no one does otherwise unless they're using a mechanical stopwatch), you cannot be given a ticket for speeding for less than a certain amount over the speed limit (except work zones and school zones). Therefore, the law "can be interpreted" that it is legal to speed a certain amount over the speed limit, since you cannot receive a speeding ticket below that threshhold. Therefore, I have specific knowledge that I can go up to that specific speed (which is 10mph over the posted limit up to 55mph), and am not breaking the law.

 

Whoops... I am breaking the law if I do that. I'm just not able to be punished.

 

See the problem I have with this chain of logic? You're going from A to B to C to F - without having a D or E in there.

 

Then again, its possible the "Further investigation" meant contacting a lawywer, who specifically stated that geocaches must be included. But if his further investigation was that clear, I don't see why he wouldn't have clearly stated something that relevant.

[+Mopar]

I was not insulting or ripping into any reviewer. Not a personal attack, such as calling someone a gadfly. It is a logical questioning of the statements.

 

So....

You know what, everything reviewers do is controversial as long as there are busybodies and gadflies around.

is a personal attack, even though it's plural and general and someone's opinion (and is it an attack if it's a fact?)......

but....

So this means that because this reviewer has, himself, chosen to interpret this particular statute in this particular fashion, all caches that fit under this particular interpretation are going to be pulled? Did I miss the law degree or court interpretation which backs this one person's interpretation?

and....

I don't think that is a stretch to say that someone, such as a reviewer, reading a law and then making a somewhat controversial interpretation of it, then changing a specific aspect of this game because of it, is going a little far.

 

If he was that concerned about it, seeking legal counsel and finding that his "interpretation" was correct would have carried a lot more weight with myself, and probably a decent number of other people, rather than just deciding that his specific and directional interpretation of a law had to be the only and correct one, and acting on that decision accordingly.

 

If it was that easy to interpret laws, our court system would be much simpler, cost much less taxpayer money, and solve questions of law much more quickly than it does. Oh, and we wouldn't need lawyers. I'm sure GS has at least 1-2 reviewing stuff to keep themselves out of hot water.

and....

We are just expected to blindly accept the decisions of people who happen to be selected by TPTB?

 

I'm sorry - I don't accept this in any other aspect of life, and I certainly wouldn't accept it here.

...are not attacks but just "a logical questioning of statements"?

 

I don't see any logic at all in that reasoning.

[+sseegars]

I would think that this thread has run its course as well. Close it. Do I hear a second?

[+J-Way]

Seeing how this thread has degraded to attacking the reviewer and making assumed statements I think this topic has run its course. If you go back and re-read the OP you will see where it stated the reviewer actually was in contact with SC DOT.

 

I would think that this thread has run its course as well. Close it. Do I hear a second?

Technically, the doc is the "second". Now it's time for a show of hands.

 

er...

 

Voice vote?

 

no...

 

Show of pixels?

[+derangedlunatech]

We are just expected to blindly accept the decisions of people who happen to be selected by TPTB?

 

I'm sorry - I don't accept this in any other aspect of life, and I certainly wouldn't accept it here.

 

Seems to me that you absolutely do not have to accept it. If you disagree with the rules, you can take your ball and go home.

 

Most rational and intelligent people understand that for a society (or any subset thereof) to function, there have to be rules, and that those within the society (or aforementioned subset thereof) need to follow them.

 

Considering that when we are talking about geocaching, we can be talking about issues personal safety, legal and ethical responsibilities, and liabilities, we have to be pretty careful about what we do and how we do it. I think most people would agree that it is better to err on the side of caution rather than risking the safety of others and the integrity of the game. Just because you may not like the rules does not give you the right to ignore them, demand that they be changed, or throw temper tantrums about them. You might want to consider acting a little mature and responsible about it, and consider "the bigger picture" rather than just your own personal inconvenience.

[+gpsfun]

The interpretation of the SC law came from the operational personnel and their direct management that have responsibility for initiating enforcement actions. Confirmation of their interpretation was obtained from high level management department personnel at the state capitol.

 

This thread is now returned to the practice of brilliant imagination, illogical assumptions, and Olympics-level jumping to conclusions.

 

But first - congratulations and thanks to Vinny for spending the extra bucks to acquire the new state of the art magnetic containers that will adhere to aluminum road signs after being thrown from a moving vehicle.