Highway "Right of Way" Caches

[+Mopar]

Thanks Brad, for clarifying even further what was already crystal clear to almost everyone posting. I'm sure someone will still need to "logically question those statements".

[Mushtang]

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

Or maybe we could leave it open, and not enter the thread if it's something we don't want to read. There are others apparently enjoying this debate (people that are participating as well as those just reading).

[+FireRef]

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.

 

And in any society, blind obedience of the rules leads to a major problems. To avoid a recurrance of whatever law that was that said a certain country and its historical problem always will come up, I won't mention any names. Besides, we don't have rules - we have guidelines, which even have written into them that they can be changed or ignored by TPTB anytime they want. I think clearer rules with less random exceptions would be much easier to follow and better liked by everyone.

 

As for not accepting it, until other sites become more popular and have more caches listed, that isn't a good option - as for the society issue, picking up my ball and going to another country is a little extreme - working for social change which would benefit the game is more useful at this time.

 

And I did not ignore any rules, demand that any be changed, or throw a temper tantrum. I just simply disagree. I consider the disagreement I have done to be respectful. Some would consider any disagreement to be disrespectful, so I won't go into that.

 

Finally, with the clarification in the message above mine, I have nothing more to argue on this issue, assuming the poster was the aforementioned reviewer brought up in the OP. It sounds like their clarification wasn't based on their own assumption, but actual research with the appropriate authorities. Thanks for being so thorough, and clarifying your point.

Edited June 22, 2008 by FireRef

[+mtn-man]

Finally, with the clarification in the message above mine, I have nothing more to argue on this issue,

[+sseegars]

Thanks again Brad! As for what Mushtang had to say, WE have already been through this in the state forums. It is not enjoyable to sit here and argue about this with folks that it isn't affecting. Believe me this is not a personal attack in anyway, just making my point clear.

Edited June 24, 2008 by DoctorWho

[+sbell111]

Thanks again Brad! As for what Mushtang had to say, WE have already been through this in the state forums. It is not enjoyable to sit here and argue about this with folks that it isn't affecting. Believe me this is not a personal attack in anyway, just making my point clear.

I'm sorry that it hasn't been enjoyable for you, but if the issue is going to be addressed in these forums, it should be able to be discussed in these forums. Just because you've tired of chatting about it in some local forum somewhere doesn't mean that it can't be discussed here.

 

Personally, I believe that themoderator was led astray by a poor interpretation of the law and that many geocachers are only going along with it because they don't believe that it will affect thecaches that they like. Others are even promoting it because it furthers their war against any and all caches that they have personally deemed as lame.

 

While it would be simple for many of us to shrug our shoulders and move on because we have no interest in ever visiting South Carolina, that would be a mistake. History tells us that while these kinds of decisions made by the reviewing team (and TPTB) may start out in isolated areas that most of us have no desire to ever be caught in, they have a habit of spreading to other areas. Therefore, failing to determine whether the decisions are based on the faulty interpretation of laws and personal feelings regarding certain caches would be a huge mistake, in my opinion.

Edited June 24, 2008 by sbell111

[+derangedlunatech]

And in any society, blind obedience of the rules leads to a major problems. To avoid a recurrance of whatever law that was that said a certain country and its historical problem always will come up, I won't mention any names.

 

There are proper ways to question and challenge the rules. But when said rules are based on the laws of a state (or nation) then you need to address the laws, not those who are abiding by them. Simple common sense dictates that.

 

Besides, we don't have rules - we have guidelines, which even have written into them that they can be changed or ignored by TPTB anytime they want. I think clearer rules with less random exceptions would be much easier to follow and better liked by everyone.

 

I think the rules are pretty clear. And as with most rules, there is a way to ask for an exception. It seems to work for the overwhelming majority of the users here.

 

As for not accepting it, until other sites become more popular and have more caches listed, that isn't a good option

 

Sure it is. What I think you fail to understand is that by voluntarily deciding to play here, you are agreeing to the terms, conditions, and rules. Sure it is fine to question and opine on them, but when demands such as "I won't accept it" are made, then all you are doing is throwing a temper tantrum and demanding to get your way. If you don't like the rules, then don't play - it is that simple.

 

- as for the society issue, picking up my ball and going to another country is a little extreme - working for social change which would benefit the game is more useful at this time.

 

No-one suggested that you leave the country. And by all means involve yourself in social change - just be prepared for a surprise when you discover that making demands will not, in and of themselves, bring change.

 

And I did not ignore any rules, demand that any be changed, or throw a temper tantrum. I just simply disagree. I consider the disagreement I have done to be respectful. Some would consider any disagreement to be disrespectful, so I won't go into that.

 

"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."

 

That is certainly not respectful, nor is it a mere disagreement. It is a demand that things MUST be done your way. And to most rational and intelligent people, namecalling and insults don't really fall into the category of "respectful." The simple fact of the matter is that you really have 2 choices - you can accept the rules, or you can go away. Quite frankly, either option is fine with me.

Edited June 24, 2008 by derangedlunatech

[CoyoteRed]

I'm wondering if folks are really wanting to discuss the issue then why aren't they discussing the issue instead of discussing the discussion. What I see is the thread has gone from talking about the issue to talking about closing/keeping the thread and blindly following rules.

 

My only issue with the interpretation is saying the right of way is the same as the highway. The law reads different. Otherwise, it comes down to permission from the land stewards, i.e. SCDOT. Reading the law to mean something is not the same as permission. If the SCDOT come down and says they don't want caches on the property they maintain, then so be it. It would be no different than caches on rail right of way.

[+sbell111]

Unfortunately (for those who live in SC), title 57 defines 'highways' basically as any road in South Carolina, not just those that are part of the State highway system. Interpreting this law to include caches placed on the right of way along such roads would result in the archival of many caches that were placed in the ROW, even if permission was obtained from the landowners.

[Mushtang]

Thanks again Brad! As for what Mushtang had to say, WE have already been through this in the state forums. It is not enjoyable to sit here and argue about this with folks that it isn't affecting. Believe me this is not a personal attack in anyway, just making my point clear.

Again, if you don't wish to "sit here and argue about this" then why even open the thread? I doubt that the mere existence of the thread could be a problem for you if you didn't read the posts.

 

I'm wondering if folks are really wanting to discuss the issue then why aren't they discussing the issue instead of discussing the discussion. What I see is the thread has gone from talking about the issue to talking about closing/keeping the thread and blindly following rules.

Some of us that lurk in threads like this might be interested in the on topic conversations that others are having because outside of your state there are also roads, right of ways, caches, and laws which get to be enforced. Maybe we'll learn something. We weren't following along in the state forums we haven't seen these points before. If someone wants to close the thread just because they've read this before, I'll step in and give a reason why it shouldn't be closed.

[+gpsfun]

I'm wondering if folks are really wanting to discuss the issue then why aren't they discussing the issue instead of discussing the discussion. What I see is the thread has gone from talking about the issue to talking about closing/keeping the thread and blindly following rules.

...

Some folks see or would like to see these forums as a place to ask questions, find information, learn, etc. Some others see it as a place to demonstrate debating skills, take a contrarian view to most anything, to snipe at each other just below the threshold of moderator involvement, etc. Some others enjoy the entertainment value. Like geocaching, people can play however they want.

[+HockeyPuck]

I'm wondering if folks are really wanting to discuss the issue then why aren't they discussing the issue instead of discussing the discussion. What I see is the thread has gone from talking about the issue to talking about closing/keeping the thread and blindly following rules.

...

Some folks see or would like to see these forums as a place to ask questions, find information, learn, etc. Some others see it as a place to demonstrate debating skills, take a contrarian view to most anything, to snipe at each other just below the threshold of moderator involvement, etc. Some others enjoy the entertainment value. Like geocaching, people can play however they want.

 

I'm going to use these forums as a way to offer props and kudos to GPSfun for making a tough decision, looking at the big picture and considering the requests of the DOT Land managers and safety of motorists before a serious accident and a black mark about geocaching is posted on the headline of a SC newspaper.

 

Thanks for looking out for my safety!

[+sbell111]

I'm going to use these forums as a way to offer props and kudos to GPSfun for making a tough decision, looking at the big picture and considering the requests of the DOT Land managers and safety of motorists before a serious accident and a black mark about geocaching is posted on the headline of a SC newspaper.

 

Thanks for looking out for my safety!

I find the issue of motorist and cacher safety to be a red herring. I've been playing this game for a little while now and I have yet to see a cache that presented a safety issue to motorists. Further, I have yet to see one that presented an unreasonable amount of danger to geocachers.

[+HockeyPuck]

I find the issue of motorist and cacher safety to be a red herring. I've been playing this game for a little while now and I have yet to see a cache that presented a safety issue to motorists. Further, I have yet to see one that presented an unreasonable amount of danger to geocachers.

 

I agree that few cache locations on or near the side of the road presents an unreasonable amount of danger without fair warning on the cache page. The intention of my post was to suggest that poor decision making by some cachers about how and where they park and how and where they cross the street will affect the decisions of other motorists and the possibility of chain reaction events.

 

I also agree that the scenario is un-likely but I'd rather err on the side of safety.

 

I'm also making the assumption that GPSfun's original post summarized the conversation with the DOT. I believe he acted in the best interest of both Grounspeak and the S.C. DOT.

[+sbell111]

I find the issue of motorist and cacher safety to be a red herring. I've been playing this game for a little while now and I have yet to see a cache that presented a safety issue to motorists. Further, I have yet to see one that presented an unreasonable amount of danger to geocachers.

I agree that few cache locations on or near the side of the road presents an unreasonable amount of danger without fair warning on the cache page. The intention of my post was to suggest that poor decision making by some cachers about how and where they park and how and where they cross the street will affect the decisions of other motorists and the possibility of chain reaction events. ...

That situation simply isn't directly related to the law being discussed. People are just as likely to park on the side of the road to obtain caches that are not placed in the road's ROW. Also, I believe that trying to build the guidelines to regulate how the dumbest cachers drive, park, and cross streets is an effort in futility that will only succeed in damaging the game for all.

 

It should also be noted that "fair warning on the cache page" already exists for all caches. I see no reason to include another warning for those caches that may be placed near a street.

 

CAUTION: This cache is placed near a street on which motorized vehicles drive. Contact by one of these vehicles may be hazardous to you health.

 

or

 

WARNING: The State of South Carolina has determined that being struck by a minivan may be hazardous to your health.

 

or

 

SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Quitting Getting Hit by Cars Now Greatly Reduces Serious Risks to Your Health.

 

or

 

WARNING: Getting hit by a car may reduce the blood flow and cause impotence

 

Edited June 24, 2008 by sbell111

[+HockeyPuck]

CAUTION: This cache is placed near a street on which motorized vehicles drive. Contact by one of these vehicles may be hazardous to you health.

 

Keep in mind we are discussing South Carolina! Maybe the literate residents would appreciate the warning.

[+Renegade Knight]

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

 

Generally speaking a highway connects towns, regions, areas. States maintain highways. Local roads are another animal. Those are normally left to local government agencies.

 

Also highways are not ROW. ROW and a Road are related but not the same thing. My agency owns a waterfall for example. Nice for a cache. Crappy for a Higway.

 

Blind application of a law that's not designed for caches and which is subject to a lot of intrepretation by departments within the agency who's tasked with enforcing the law is not the way to go.

 

Personally I don't have a lot of use for a cache on a highway. However I have a lot of use for a cache by that waterfall my agency owns and other locations like it.

[+StarBrand]

I have talked to highway offciials from one nearby state and they are ok with Geocaches in the right-of-way as long as there is clear, reasonable, safe, off highway parking that has obvious access to the cache location. Also the Geocache should be located as far from the roadway as can be. However, they declined to draft any sort of formal policy or give me anything official. I think it would be hard to deny a cache that adhered to the above reasonable request unless there was some formal declaration that caches were outlawed.

 

Maybe somebody could propose a similar rule be made formal?

[+Hockeyhick]

Between this forum and our own state forum (--> subject discussed here <--) this has been a heated debate. (snide comments aside)

 

As I did there, here I offer the same solution.

[+Renegade Knight]

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....

 

Given how state DOT's are organized you have verification in one district that a cache on a highway is a bad idea. Since you really haven't released any details on who you spoke to, their position on the organization chart and how they fit into the big picture what we really have is your own intrepretation of a converstation that may not may not have a lot of impact on other districts, or areas off the roadway prism and outside clear zones.

 

Operations is different from Maintenance. Maintenance are the guys who will deal with any caches. There is a local (distirct) component to maintenance and a headquarters component. Some small states can combine all functions but larger states tend to have regions/districts. I won't complicate it further than that. Suffice it to sat that if you had that same conversation in my state, you would not have invalidated my presumed adequate permission for my caches on transporation department facilities.

 

If you can picture why that's the case, then you would undertstand the point I've been making.

[Clan Riffster]

As I did there, here I offer the same solution.

An interesting resolution. I haven't read your local forums. Has their been any argument raised?

[CoyoteRed]

Some folks see or would like to see these forums as a place to ask questions, find information, learn, etc. Some others see it as a place to demonstrate debating skills, take a contrarian view to most anything, to snipe at each other just below the threshold of moderator involvement, etc. Some others enjoy the entertainment value. Like geocaching, people can play however they want.

Can I bookmark this so when the next round of wrist-slappings occur because folks make slightly off-topic posts I can refer back?

[+Deliveryguy428]

1. Not endanger myself or others--putting a micro on a guardrail might break this rule depending on how close the rail and the road are and YES I have been to a cache that you pretty much had to stand on the road to get the cache
   
2. Observe all laws & rules of the area--SCDOT says no, their rule.
   
3. Respect property rights and seek permission where appropriate--All rules have exceptions, in this case, it is not so much the placement as is a safety issue
   
4. Avoid causing disruptions or public alarm--If I was driving by and saw someone placing a small black box on a guardrail and I did not know about geocaching I might worry and report it to the police.
   

[Mushtang]

Some folks see or would like to see these forums as a place to ask questions, find information, learn, etc. Some others see it as a place to demonstrate debating skills, take a contrarian view to most anything, to snipe at each other just below the threshold of moderator involvement, etc. Some others enjoy the entertainment value. Like geocaching, people can play however they want.

Can I bookmark this so when the next round of wrist-slappings occur because folks make slightly off-topic posts I can refer back?

Like this wrist slap I got for explaining why the thread shouldn't be closed? I think it would definitely have been appropriate. Go right ahead and bookmark it.

Edited June 24, 2008 by Mushtang

[+Confucius' Cat]

Judging from the text in post #3, if accurately quoted and current in revision, based upon a layperson's common-sense rendering of plain American English words contained therein (not lawyer's interpretation), I do not see any application whatsoever of this law to geocaching unless a cache was made using a glass bottle.

 

The gist of the law is "you can't place something on the roadway that might cause injury to a user of the road and if you accidentally do so (such as by wrecking your car) you gotta get it offa there right away."

 

Unless it could be shown that a cache was in some way inherently hazourdous and was placed there for that purpose, how it would fall under this law is beyond me.

[+sseegars]

CAUTION: This cache is placed near a street on which motorized vehicles drive. Contact by one of these vehicles may be hazardous to you health.

 

Keep in mind we are discussing South Carolina! Maybe the literate residents would appreciate the warning.

 

HEY! Some of us resemble that remark!

 

I would think that ultimately it comes down to one thing and one thing only, permission.

 

Real, true, honest to God, I have a contact this contact said that I can place this here and yes he/she has a phone number or contact information if need be PERMISSION.

 

Hockey Hicks solution is probably one of the most viable I've seen in this forum and in the SCGA forum. (Our state group forum.)

[+sbell111]

CAUTION: This cache is placed near a street on which motorized vehicles drive. Contact by one of these vehicles may be hazardous to you health.

 

Keep in mind we are discussing South Carolina! Maybe the literate residents would appreciate the warning.

 

HEY! Some of us resemble that remark!

 

I would think that ultimately it comes down to one thing and one thing only, permission.

 

Real, true, honest to God, I have a contact this contact said that I can place this here and yes he/she has a phone number or contact information if need be PERMISSION.

 

Hockey Hicks solution is probably one of the most viable I've seen in this forum and in the SCGA forum. (Our state group forum.)

If one were to interpret that law to include caches in the ROW, land owner permission would not matter. Even if permission was obtained, the cache would not be listed.

[+Hockeyhick]

After having more conversations in this matter, I am more convinced that there is much grey-area in this issue.

 

"Right of Way" and property "ownership" are two separate things.

 

I own property that also has a highway at one border. I own and maintain that property, including the ditch and culvert for a driveway.

 

I put that culvert there, the "State" did not. It belongs to me.

 

Thus, should I choose to do so, I can hide a cache inside of it, regardless of the "right-of-way" claimed by the state.

 

If the state placed a guardrail there, and I wanted to place a magnetic on it, then that would NOT be my property.

[+TotemLake]

I'm not really sure what all the hullaballoo is about.

Edited July 4, 2008 by TotemLake

[+gpsfun]

After having more conversations in this matter, I am more convinced that there is much grey-area in this issue.

 

"Right of Way" and property "ownership" are two separate things.

 

I own property that also has a highway at one border. I own and maintain that property, including the ditch and culvert for a driveway.

 

I put that culvert there, the "State" did not. It belongs to me.

 

Thus, should I choose to do so, I can hide a cache inside of it, regardless of the "right-of-way" claimed by the state.

 

If the state placed a guardrail there, and I wanted to place a magnetic on it, then that would NOT be my property.

I understand what you are saying; however, after having been informed of the SC DOT's position, until someone at or above that organization's level of authority provides a contrary position I need to work within what I have been told is the interpretation of the law by those who are able to instigate enforcement action.

[+bigeddy]

...after having been informed of the SC DOT's position, until someone at or above that organization's level of authority provides a contrary position I need to work within what I have been told is the interpretation of the law by those who are able to instigate enforcement action.

I stumbled across this interesting discussion. I'm not quite sure what to make of it. I sympathize with the reviewer although I find it amusing that the extreme action of banning caches within highway rights-of-way resulted from "curiosity." It can be dangerous to talk to highway agencies!

 

I say this with a smile because I have worked with federal, state and local transportation agencies on plans and projects, mostly on the west coast. I don't know the situation in SC but DOTs tend to be--how shall I put it?--rather single-minded in their purpose and that purpose is to keep cars moving. Also, they are classic bureaucracies. Ask different employees, departments or agencies something and you may get very different answers.

 

Frankly, I would take what the DOT officials say with a grain of salt, and use common sense and accepted local practice in making geocaching decisions with regards to roads and highways. There are traffic safety considerations, of course, but in a broader perspective the public rights-of-way are intended for many transportation, economic and social uses including recreation. DOTs frequently ignore these other uses, often claiming safety concerns, until pressed.

 

Intriguing subject that I'm sure we'll hear more about as geocaching grows even more popular.