Jump to content

Guardrail caches in Washington


OzzieSan

Recommended Posts

Howdy...

 

Recently I attempted to hide a guardrail cache and it was put on hold and I was asked who I talked to at the DOT. Well I had not talked to anyone (or at least gotten a reply) until today. Here is the reply.

 

Hi Kevin:

 

Thanks for your e-mail to the Washington State Department of

Transportation regarding geocaching.

 

One of our engineers will be in contact with you to answer your

questions. He will also contact the administrators at geocaching.com to

provide more information.

 

In short, we would not give permission to place a cache alongside an

active roadway regardless of traffic volumes. It's simply too dangerous

for the geocacher and other drivers. If someone is searching for a

geocache then they are not paying attention to traffic, which is when

accidents happen.

 

Guardrail caches should be on old abandoned sections of roadway like the

guardrail cache on SR 20 just north of Coupeville.

 

Also, F and S Grade Road is operated by Skagit County so you should

contact them regarding that geocache.

 

Thanks again for writing.

 

Sincerely,

 

Mike Murphy

WSDOT Communications

Northwest Region

Phone # Removed

Email Removed

 

 

I am going to talk to the Skagit County folks tomorrow but I don't expect their reply to be much different. If by chance someone has already contacted them and has a POC for blessing guardrail caches I'd like to know who to talk to.

 

Thanks

 

Kevin

Link to comment

I'm certain they will have to be removed as the state did not / has not mentioned grandfathering. If they are deemed un-safe by the state and they have gone on record as saying such then it seems like a big liability to allow them to stay.

Edited by OzzieSan
Link to comment

Well good for the State, let's hope the Counties and Cities follow the State's lead.

If we can't keep ourselves from placing crappy caches I guess the government will have to step in at at least stop us from placing one type of bad caches. Now if the State would only take jurisdiction of Lamp Posts.

Link to comment

Well good for the State, let's hope the Counties and Cities follow the State's lead.

If we can't keep ourselves from placing crappy caches I guess the government will have to step in at at least stop us from placing one type of bad caches. Now if the State would only take jurisdiction of Lamp Posts.

I'm sure that, with very few exceptions, the owners of the lamp posts have not given permission either.

Link to comment

Well good for the State, let's hope the Counties and Cities follow the State's lead.

If we can't keep ourselves from placing crappy caches I guess the government will have to step in at at least stop us from placing one type of bad caches. Now if the State would only take jurisdiction of Lamp Posts.

 

Really what should happen is the State should take ownership of Groundspeak, then the legislature can pass cache hide LAWS that can then be enforced by bureaucrats. Then caching courts can be established settle disputes amoung cachers, reviewers, moderators, cavers, etc. It will be utopian.....

Edited by Difranco
Link to comment

I'm no fan of guardrail caches, but really what would you expect them to say? There is much to be said for not asking. If giving permission then there is a legal responsiblity which must be assumed which doesn't exist otherwise with them having no knowledge.

 

Common sense is better than permission. Knowledge of and permission transfers legal responsiblity to the granter which they may not be subject to otherwise. (no I'm not a lawyer)

Link to comment

Im of the belief that the majority of caches placed are subject to someone's permission. Whether its state land, private land, or whatever the case may be. Neighborhood parks? If having to get 'permission' to place a cache were to become a reality, we'd be in big trouble.

 

Sure, guardrail caches are normally easy to find and dont require alot of time to place, but when you ask the D.O.T. for their opinion on the matter, they are going to say NO as would most other 'agencies'.

 

What interests me is that when Ozziesan submittted the placement of th guardrail cache, he states that it was placed on hold. Did all the rest of the guardrail caches have to go through this same "who did you ask at the D.O. L. process?

Link to comment

I'm no fan of guardrail caches, but really what would you expect them to say? There is much to be said for not asking. If giving permission then there is a legal responsiblity which must be assumed which doesn't exist otherwise with them having no knowledge.

 

Common sense is better than permission. Knowledge of and permission transfers legal responsiblity to the granter which they may not be subject to otherwise. (no I'm not a lawyer)

 

I just what to add/stress one or two things here:

By not "asking permission" you protect the agency or manager of the property.

By not using "Common Sense" you put everyone at risk including caching!

 

My views only.

Link to comment

I'm no fan of guardrail caches, but really what would you expect them to say?

They said exactly what I thought they would say. But I was asked who I talked to and now they know.

 

There is much to be said for not asking. If giving permission then there is a legal responsiblity which must be assumed which doesn't exist otherwise with them having no knowledge.

No not really. That's how things end up going haywire in the long run.

 

Common sense is better than permission.

I will kindly agree that we will disagree on a blanket statement like that. The cache I was wanting to place was benign compared to other "guardrail" caches I've done. Mine certainly would not have had these comments in it.

There is a pull out nearby, but you’ll have to walk a little bit. Be careful of your little ones (kids and animals); it’s somewhat of a blind corner for drivers. The good news is that they’ll be going so fast they won’t have time to wonder what you’re doing on the side of the road.

Where on earth is the common sense there?

 

Knowledge of and permission transfers legal responsiblity to the granter which they may not be subject to otherwise. (no I'm not a lawyer)

Correct, and it lookes like Groundspeak Inc./Geocaching.com did not want to take responsibility for this one.

 

 

I'm still a bit confused as to why mine was not approved and there are many others out there that were. I guess I could have not mentioned in the cache description (like so many others) that it was a "guardrail" cache (don't ask, don't tell). But then that knid of short changes the seeker, especially if they desire not to do this type of cache.

Link to comment

The very first thing stated in the "Hide and Seek a Cache" link under the "Hide a cache...

To hide a new geocache in your area..." section is this:

 

Please make sure to obtain permission from the landowner or land manager and read the guidelines for reporting a cache (last update 02/21/08) prior to placing your geocache.

 

I'm going to guess that the OP put somewhere in their cache listing that this was on a guardrail. If not, the reviewer probably suspected as much. Either way, with the prior statement the landowner is going to be the DOT and the reviewer is justified in asking for the permission obtained.

 

Do I know this for sure? No, but I think it's a pretty good guess...or I could be completely wrong. Unless the reviewer in question or OP says something, we won't know.

Link to comment

Allanon,

 

Have you actually read the thread?

 

I said...

 

I guess I could have not mentioned in the cache description (like so many others) that it was a "guardrail" cache (don't ask, don't tell).

 

...

 

It's not a mater of the reviewer asking if I obtained permission, but rather how the heck did the other ones get approved. I know how the ones got approved that did not mention the word guardrail in the description, and that seems a little lacking in ethics.

Edited by OzzieSan
Link to comment

Allanon,

 

Have you actually read the thread?

 

I said...

 

I guess I could have not mentioned in the cache description (like so many others) that it was a "guardrail" cache (don't ask, don't tell).

 

...

 

It's not a mater of the reviewer asking if I obtained permission, but rather how the heck did the other ones get approved. I know how the ones got approved that did not mention the word guardrail in the description, and that seems a little lacking in ethics.

On the hiders' part yes it is a matter of ethics. Afterall, they are the ones that checked the box they understood all the ground rules and obtained the necessary permissions.

 

I personally don't like chasing guardrail caches for the very reason stated in the reply letter. They are not barriers. They are crash deterrants designed to slow a car down from high speed to a stop in as little distance as possible while "trying" to avoid killing the driver and passengers.

Link to comment

 

 

There is a pull out nearby, but you’ll have to walk a little bit. Be careful of your little ones (kids and animals); it’s somewhat of a blind corner for drivers. The good news is that they’ll be going so fast they won’t have time to wonder what you’re doing on the side of the road

 

Just in case you don't believe such a cache exists...

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...=y&decrypt=

Link to comment

I'm kinda sorry I ever got in on this one. I'm not saying never ask permission, however, what I say is true;

Knowledge of and permission transfers legal responsiblity to the granter which they may not be subject to otherwise. Thus I have seen a couple of cases where the agency could have cared less about a cache until they were presented with a request for formal permission.

Take it for what it is worth, which is just what I seen. Others take on this may and will be different.

Link to comment

Allanon,

 

Have you actually read the thread?

 

I said...

 

I guess I could have not mentioned in the cache description (like so many others) that it was a "guardrail" cache (don't ask, don't tell).

 

...

 

It's not a mater of the reviewer asking if I obtained permission, but rather how the heck did the other ones get approved. I know how the ones got approved that did not mention the word guardrail in the description, and that seems a little lacking in ethics.

Your question: Have I read the thread?

My answer: Yes. Would I reply if I hadn't?

 

My return question: Did I memorize it?

I'll answer for you: No, I didn't. Nor did I go back and re-read every post again before I expressed my opinion. But it turns out my 'guess' was right, wasn't it?

 

:ph34r:

 

OK, so you put it in your description. Looks like I was right by accident. Now ask if the others saw what you wrote. my guess is no since at least one person before I answered (accidentally, remember?).

 

To answer your question, because 'the others' didn't mention where the caches were hidden, the reviewers didn't know and since they didn't know they are not obligated to ask. Since you blatantly said where yours was, they were obligated to ask about permission. Hard concept isn't it? Time for another :P .

 

Looks like the Reviewer was justified in their question. My recommendation to you, find a better spot that someone may actually want to visit instead of trying to avoid traffic and not get killed. How about a nice park or trail somewhere?

 

Enough for me. I'm done with this thread.

Link to comment
Please make sure to obtain permission from the landowner or land manager and read the guidelines for reporting a cache (last update 02/21/08) prior to placing your geocache.

 

Seriously, how many people really follow this particular guideline?

I was wrong, one more reply.

 

If I'm putting a cache on or in someone's private property, yes I always do ask permission. I can even provide examples.

Edited by Allanon
Link to comment

Makes a mental note of this comment. :)

 

Why be sad???

 

Realistically, it's would be nearly impossible to get permission for EVERY cache placed on public lands or private land with public access (Walmart). The number of emails and phone calls requesting permission would eventually shutdown geocaching in these areas because most likely they would move to a "no geocache" policy to avoid the time drain from other agency/business duties.

 

And if GC was really wanting to enforce this rule then they would do what Earthcache.org does.... right on the cache submission page you MUST place Owner / Manger name and contact information so that a reviewer can verify cache placement approval.

 

A requirement of this order should mean that it be retro-active to all previously placed caches if only out of respect to property rights and possible envirnomental concerns. This isn't like other rule changes where changes were made to cache type or other caching nuances.

Link to comment

 

If I'm putting a cache on or in someone's private property, yes I always do ask permission. I can even provide examples.

 

I don't disagree with this practice and I have gotten caches archived because they were placed on private land without permission.

 

However, the topic here is focusing public lands and more specifically the common ways used for travel.

Link to comment

I'm kinda sorry I ever got in on this one. I'm not saying never ask permission, however, what I say is true;

Knowledge of and permission transfers legal responsiblity to the granter which they may not be subject to otherwise. Thus I have seen a couple of cases where the agency could have cared less about a cache until they were presented with a request for formal permission.

Take it for what it is worth, which is just what I seen. Others take on this may and will be different.

 

My take is the same, though :-)

 

Many officials who would legally not be allowed to give permission and thereby assume responsibility would prefer never to be asked and forced to make a decision.

 

Indeed, on private land, asking for permission is imperative. On public land, common sense should suffice.

 

Common sense includes:

- don't endanger anyone

- don't violate laws

- don't knowingly violate regulations

- don't create situations in which other people will endanger others or violate laws.

Link to comment

OK, apparently I was wrong...I am going to comment some more...

 

Makes a mental note of this comment. :)

Why be sad???

 

It's called "irony". Why? In case you or others don't know, TM is one of the local reviewers. I'm willing to bet now that B, N & Z, oh, and now you, make statements like you did, TM will now be watching any cache submissions from you or them just a little more closely, especially with regards to permissions.

 

 

If I'm putting a cache on or in someone's private property, yes I always do ask permission. I can even provide examples.

I don't disagree with this practice and I have gotten caches archived because they were placed on private land without permission.

 

However, the topic here is focusing public lands and more specifically the common ways used for travel.

Trouble with that statement is that the guardrails in question, those on active roads, are not public lands. They are for use by the public while traveling, but they are the responsibility of the DOT...in essence owned by the DOT.

Link to comment

OK, apparently I was wrong...I am going to comment some more...

 

Makes a mental note of this comment. :)

Why be sad???

 

It's called "irony". Why? In case you or others don't know, TM is one of the local reviewers. I'm willing to bet now that B, N & Z, oh, and now you, make statements like you did, TM will now be watching any cache submissions from you or them just a little more closely, especially with regards to permissions.

 

 

If I'm putting a cache on or in someone's private property, yes I always do ask permission. I can even provide examples.

I don't disagree with this practice and I have gotten caches archived because they were placed on private land without permission.

 

However, the topic here is focusing public lands and more specifically the common ways used for travel.

Trouble with that statement is that the guardrails in question, those on active roads, are not public lands. They are for use by the public while traveling, but they are the responsibility of the DOT...in essence owned by the DOT.

I'll reinforce this statement. You may or may not have noticed, but there are No Tresspassing signs being posted under bridges of highways and byways above the pedestrian throughways. They are considered a danger and hazard and persons can be prosecuted if caught in those areas.

Link to comment

OK, apparently I was wrong...I am going to comment some more...

 

Makes a mental note of this comment. :)

Why be sad???

 

It's called "irony". Why? In case you or others don't know, TM is one of the local reviewers. I'm willing to bet now that B, N & Z, oh, and now you, make statements like you did, TM will now be watching any cache submissions from you or them just a little more closely, especially with regards to permissions.

 

Allanon hit the nail on the head. It was also supposed to be a subtle reminder to everyone. I assume that adequate permission has been obtained unless I have reason to think otherwise. Private property would be a place I'd question regardless of the cache placer, the same with a cache in a State Park.

 

Showing blatant disregard for the permission portion of the guidelines does not make it easy for me to assume that you've obtained adequate permission for your hide.

Link to comment

"In case you or others don't know, TM is one of the local reviewers. I'm willing to bet now that B, N & Z, oh, and now you, make statements like you did, TM will now be watching any cache submissions from you or them just a little more closely, especially with regards to permissions. "

 

Interesting that Team Misguided, who is also THE moderator of this particular thread has allowed a poster to, for lack of a better term 'fingerpoint'.

 

I sent a private message to Team Misguided asking them to lock the thread since Allanon had singled me and one other party out. Not only did Team Misguided NOT do anything, they re-inforced what Allanon had said.

 

Thanks for pointing out that Team Misguided are local reviewers. I had no idea.

Link to comment

Sorry I didn't pickup the 'Irony' or Sarcastic nature of being 'Sad'; I took TM at face value. These nuances do not always translate well through text on a screen. I do know that that Team Misguided are reviewers, my comments wasn't intended as a dig at or about them.

 

As for DOT {INSERT AGENCY} being the owners of all State maintained common ways {INSERT PUBLIC PROPERTY TYPE} then fine so be it. However, if you assume this logic then you must use this logic with ALL public lands... national forests, DNR forests, county roads, city roads & sidewalks, etc.

 

Really as a community and even for simplicity sake, there needs to be consistancy to avoid confusion. Even if it means that GC has to setup a groups in every state to go out and get an audience with the powers that be of every property managing public agency for them to develop geocaching guidelines. This certainly has simplified working with National Parks, State Parks and Weyerhauser. This sort of approach also avoides confusion, negative experiences (Discovery Park), and bad press for Geocaching.

 

When there is a "permission issue" on cache or an agency changes or forms a stance regarding geocache hides, this is the type change I think should be retro-active on all other caches affected by these type of change. I can think of at least a two caches that 'pre-date' the State Parks guidelines for hiding geocaches and I bet the Rangers do not know about these caches. I think this probably goes against the 'spirit' of the 'get permission' rule as well as the agreement made between geocachers and State Parks regarding geocaches.

 

I know the pain of getting a permission, I am trying get permission for an Earthcache right now. Nobody at the agency I am working with wants to take on the 'responsibility' for saying "YES", so I keep getting forwarded around to different departments.

Link to comment

I assume that adequate permission has been obtained unless I have reason to think otherwise. Private property would be a place I'd question regardless of the cache placer, the same with a cache in a State Park. Showing blatant disregard for the permission portion of the guidelines does not make it easy for me to assume that you've obtained adequate permission for your hide.

I'm not sure that's so different from what you made the "sad mental note" of ...

Please make sure to obtain permission from the landowner or land manager and read the guidelines for reporting a cache (last update 02/21/08) prior to placing your geocache.

Seriously, how many people really follow this particular guideline?

Makes a mental note of this comment. :P

I think I see you saying that reviewers essentially ignore the permission requirement ("Please make sure to obtain permission from the landowner or land manager ... prior to placing your geocache."), at least on public lands that don't have specific restrictions - or at least, "assume" that permission has been obtained, when I think we all know it generally has not. I think we all knew that. Of the several dozen caches I've placed, I don't recall ever being asked by a reviewer about permission - even for at least one that is clearly on private property; I've never once asked for permission. I think that approach to reviewing cache submissions makes sense, and I agree with those who suggest that asking public land managers for permission is likely to lead to a lot of denials, when in fact they really don't care one way or the other. I'm not sure what is wrong with recognizing these facts - including the assumption that reviewers seem to make as a matter of course. I don't see it as "blatant disregard." Though the term often makes me cringe, I agree with EraSeek that there is a lot of value in "common sense" here.

Link to comment

However, if you assume this logic then you must use this logic with ALL public lands... national forests, DNR forests, county roads, city roads & sidewalks, etc. Really as a community and even for simplicity sake, there needs to be consistancy to avoid confusion. Even if it means that GC has to setup a groups in every state to go out and get an audience with the powers that be of every property managing public agency for them to develop geocaching guidelines.

Or, we can just exercise good judgment. We don't need a one-size-fits-all approach to public lands. I think most of us are capable of figuring out the differences between, say, national parks, prison yards, city and county parks, hunting lands, public libraries, courthouses, state and national forests, military bases, freeways, and residential streets - and are capable of discerning what is appropriate in each such setting. Rather than requiring explicit permission in every setting, perhaps we as a community should apply more peer pressure to discourage those caches that are placed against better judgment. Certainly reviewers are the first line of defense here (and do a good job), but I see room for constructive criticism in logs, too.

Link to comment

Oh, I SO agree with lightning Jeff. And a great point. The approvers are just part of the community. It is also up to us to keep things right. Peer pressure can be a positive thing, not just negative.

 

One thing that has always made me cringe is the concept of 'zero tolerance' because it dumbs down human judgement. Its too easy. We were given judgement abilites to use and sharpen, not to avoid. Likewise I always defined guidelines as a guide of parameters. Such a thing allows a degree of variance and judgement, wereas strict rules are laws to be adhered closely to. If we go to that scenerio than I think GC becomes more than it wishes to be both legally and socially.

Link to comment

"In case you or others don't know, TM is one of the local reviewers. I'm willing to bet now that B, N & Z, oh, and now you, make statements like you did, TM will now be watching any cache submissions from you or them just a little more closely, especially with regards to permissions. "

 

Interesting that Team Misguided, who is also THE moderator of this particular thread has allowed a poster to, for lack of a better term 'fingerpoint'.

 

I sent a private message to Team Misguided asking them to lock the thread since Allanon had singled me and one other party out. Not only did Team Misguided NOT do anything, they re-inforced what Allanon had said.

 

Thanks for pointing out that Team Misguided are local reviewers. I had no idea.

I only saw Allanon reply and state the obvious. I saw your post and thought the very same thing. You weren't singled out. You were however, advised of the possibilities. TMG merely confirmed it. And to ask a thread to be closed based on those fears when a healthy discussion is going on is correctly ignored particularly when you are not the OP.

 

A point for everyone to consider, and it is valid today as the day I was given the analogy. The Internet is like a high school restroom wall. What is put there, stays there. Keep it in mind when you converse. :P

Link to comment

Oh, I SO agree with lightning Jeff. And a great point. The approvers are just part of the community. It is also up to us to keep things right. Peer pressure can be a positive thing, not just negative.

 

One thing that has always made me cringe is the concept of 'zero tolerance' because it dumbs down human judgement. Its too easy. We were given judgement abilites to use and sharpen, not to avoid. Likewise I always defined guidelines as a guide of parameters. Such a thing allows a degree of variance and judgement, wereas strict rules are laws to be adhered closely to. If we go to that scenerio than I think GC becomes more than it wishes to be both legally and socially.

Totally agree with both you and LJ.

Link to comment

We have been somewhat taken aback by the laissez-faire attitude many cachers have about, what to us, are clearly illegal cache placements and I am not referring specifically to this thread. My own common sense tells me that a road right-of-way usually grants me nothing more than the right to use it to travel from one place to another. There are other types of rights-of-way, such as natural gas pipelines which explicitly grant other types of access, such as recreational use, but that is not what we are talking about.

 

I'm sure we would all prefer it if all caches were creatively hidden in places of great natural beauty, or places that are intriguing for other reasons, but just about everyone will make exceptions. I suspect geocaching will eventually go the way of other booms (tennis anyone?) and perhaps issues like this will all blow over without us getting regulated to death. In the meantime, we would be all be better served if we stopped abusing the trust granted to us by the reviewers and took care use our common sense in terms of sound judgment, rather than as a synonym for willful ignorance.

 

I realize some people might take that last bit as a shot at them, but that is not my intention. I could probably find a more artful way to write the above paragraph, but as I stated earlier, I am really more concerned about general attitudes than anything expressed by anyone in this particular thread and this thread has actually been fairly encouraging overall.

 

I've included the relevant law from the Pierce County Code. The State, other counties, and most municipalities will all have all something similar on the books. Be my reading, geocaches placed in the right-of-way require written permission from the County Engineer and there appears to be very little room for interpretation.

 

Before anyone jumps on me for suggesting some type of cache should be banned or claiming I'm playing cache cop, you should know we learned pretty early on how to deal with caches like this -- we ignore them. There are more caches we've ignored than we've found and it will probably always be like that. If more us ignored caches of this type, would they become less popular hiding places? Who knows, but it would be an interesting experiment.

 

Pierce County Code

 

12.28.010 Permission Required - Removal.

A. No person, organization, or agency shall place, erect, or install any object of any nature

whatsoever, within a County road right-of-way without the express permission in

writing of the County Engineer, and any such object now in place within a County road

right-of-way without written permission of the County Engineer is declared illegal;

provided, that this Section shall not apply to mailboxes and attached newspaper boxes,

placed on the County right-of-way, where these are placed as far removed from the

driving portion of the right-of-way as possible, except that said placement shall be

subject to approval of the Pierce County Engineer.

B. Any person placing any object within a County right-of-way in violation of this Section

shall be responsible for the removal of the object within 48 hours of receipt of written

notice from Pierce County. If the object is not removed within 48 hours and it

unreasonably hampers or prevents the proper use of the right-of-way, it may be

summarily removed by the County; provided, that the notice requirement may be waived

and the object may be immediately removed by Pierce County if it presents an

immediate threat of physical harm to persons or property.

C. Abatement of any object or encroachment in Pierce County right-of-way which does not

interfere with the proper and legitimate use of such right-of-way may be effected

through an injunctive suit by Pierce County authorities.

D. Nuisance Cleanup Special Assessment and Lien.

1. For purposes of this Chapter, any object situated on or in a County road right-of-way

without permission of the County Engineer and not otherwise permitted by PCC

12.28.010 shall be deemed a nuisance.

2. In addition to any other provision authorized by law, the cost of abating a nuisance

shall be a special assessment on the land or premises on which the nuisance is

situated. The special assessment shall defray or reimburse the County for the cost of

abating the nuisance. This assessment shall constitute a lien against the property that

shall be of equal rank with state, county, and municipal taxes. The special

assessment and lien shall come into existence and attach upon compliance with the

provisions of subsection 3.

Link to comment

Im of the belief that the majority of caches placed are subject to someone's permission. Whether its state land, private land, or whatever the case may be. Neighborhood parks? If having to get 'permission' to place a cache were to become a reality, we'd be in big trouble....

In China permission is required to reincarnate. They want to keep tabs on certain Buddists.

 

Most states would not give permission for a guardrail cache. Those same states give permission for roadside crosses which are far more dangerous. That's politics.

Link to comment

We have been somewhat taken aback by the laissez-faire attitude many cachers have about, what to us, are clearly illegal cache placements and I am not referring specifically to this thread. My own common sense tells me that a road right-of-way usually grants me nothing more than the right to use it to travel from one place to another....

 

Well now, you need to understand intent, and reality when it comes to laws and what your common sence is telling you. Politicians sure seem to think they can blanket the roadways with their signs and while technically it's against the law in reality is well established and accepted. Then there is the issue of ROW vs. OWNERSHIP.

 

I'm not saying guardrail cache are good. Generally they aren't. But I am saying there is a lot of variation out there and caches should be taken on their own merit.

Link to comment

Well now, you need to understand intent, and reality when it comes to laws and what your common sence is telling you. Politicians sure seem to think they can blanket the roadways with their signs and while technically it's against the law in reality is well established and accepted. Then there is the issue of ROW vs. OWNERSHIP.

 

In this instance, the County Code is very plain in its intent. And yes, the county cleverly addresses ownership in D.2.

 

OT, a story about ownership:

 

During the big pre-Christmas windstorm in 2006, We had some pretty big trees blow down. I spent a couple of days bucking and splitting before I decided I really ought to rent a log splitter. There was still too big of a mess to maneuver the splitter where it would be most useful, so I rolled a bunch of rounds down the bank and split them on the shoulder. I live on a road with very little traffic, mostly just my neighbors, so I figured the wood would be OK sitting on the shoulder until the next morning. In the morning, I looked out and saw one of my neighbor's loading wood into the trunk of his car. When I went out and asked him what he thought he was doing, he had the nerve to tell me the wood was sitting on the public right-of-way and thus free for the taking. I told him that since he often parks his car on the public right-of-way, maybe I'll stop by and "borrow" it next time I need to go uptown. He got in and drove off without another word, taking a few pieces of my wood with him. We haven't spoken since.

Link to comment

I sent a private message to Team Misguided asking them to lock the thread since Allanon had singled me and one other party out. Not only did Team Misguided NOT do anything, they re-inforced what Allanon had said.

 

Thanks for pointing out that Team Misguided are local reviewers. I had no idea.

Imo, you kinda singled yourselves out with your comments.

 

But it is funny you didn't know TM were reviewers, considering they are shown as the publishers of many of your caches, including the Sumner Cache Machine.

Link to comment

Well now, you need to understand intent, and reality when it comes to laws and what your common sence is telling you. Politicians sure seem to think they can blanket the roadways with their signs and while technically it's against the law in reality is well established and accepted. Then there is the issue of ROW vs. OWNERSHIP.

 

In this instance, the County Code is very plain in its intent. And yes, the county cleverly addresses ownership in D.2....

 

D.2 says the county can put a lein against the property. Which doens't address the ROW vs. Land Onwership issue I was alluding to. Quite often the land owner owned to the middle of the road and the ROW is an easment. Plus this is a county code. Each county can be different.

 

In my state some counties claim a ROW on every section and quater section line. Per that code a cache in a remote tract of land there with the owners permission could be seized and a lein places against the film canister. Which gets me back to my generic point. Each cache needs to be taken on it's own merit.

 

Addressing your OP. More than once I've cut trees in the ROW without a thought as to who may have owned them. They had fallen across the road.

Link to comment

....

I am going to talk to the Skagit County folks tomorrow but I don't expect their reply to be much different. If by chance someone has already contacted them and has a POC for blessing guardrail caches I'd like to know who to talk to.

 

Thanks

 

Kevin

 

Guardrail can be state, County, City, or Private. If your state has Highway Districts they can also be quasi government owned. Each would have their own policy and permissions status. The more local the better the odds of permission.

Link to comment

D.2 says the county can put a lein against the property. Which doens't address the ROW vs. Land Onwership issue I was alluding to. Quite often the land owner owned to the middle of the road and the ROW is an easment. Plus this is a county code. Each county can be different.

 

In my state some counties claim a ROW on every section and quater section line. Per that code a cache in a remote tract of land there with the owners permission could be seized and a lein places against the film canister. Which gets me back to my generic point. Each cache needs to be taken on it's own merit.

 

Addressing your OP. More than once I've cut trees in the ROW without a thought as to who may have owned them. They had fallen across the road.

 

As I said, the County handled the ownership issue very cleverly.

 

Section lines, etc. are not necessarily road rights-of-way and are thus not under discussion. Again, the State (Washington), counties, and various municipalities will all have their own codes either explicitly or by reference. I used Pierce County as an example on purpose. Last time I went to Mt. Rainier during "sign season" one more sign in the right-of-way could possibly have knocked the Earth of its axis.

Link to comment

I think your missing the point.

 

The property that a road is built on can be privately owned with a public easement granting a "right of way", or the land can be publically owned in which case no right of way is needed. In this case we (the public) own the land.

 

The same is true of parks and national forests etc. If only we could grant ourselves permission, but alas we employ managers to make these decisions for us.

Edited by MarcusArelius
Link to comment

I think your missing the point.

 

The property that a road is built on can be privately owned with a public easement granting a "right of way", or the land can be publically owned in which case no right of way is needed. In this case we (the public) own the land.

 

The same is true of parks and national forests etc. If only we could grant ourselves permission, but alas we employ managers to make these decisions for us.

 

I guess you are referring to me when you say "missing the point", if so, you've lost me. What point am I missing? I fail to see the relevance of section easements in Idaho. The OP tried to place a guardrail cache and to his credit, he was upfront about its location. As a result, the cache will now get held up until he manages to get permission for it from the County (and good luck with that).

 

There are, in fact, rights-of-way on public lands, such as when a county road crosses or adjoins state land. The right-of-way itself is often public land, but that does not mean there are no restrictions. The County Code I quoted earlier explicitly denies permission for placing any objects in the right-of-way. Fortunately, there are innumerable locations to hide caches without needing to "grant ourselves permission" because we have already been granted implicit permission to do so.

 

One of the best things about geocaching is the somewhat loosely defined guidelines that leave plenty of room for people to play however they like. But, if geocaching continues to grow as fast as it has over the past couple of years and it remains a common practice to place caches justified by whatever dubious rationale people can conjure up and "adequate permission" is really "I gave myself permission" even though explicit permission was required, will we not inevitably end up with less guidelines and more rules? I do not look forward to the day when all geocachers are licensed, all caches require permits, and the geocaching underground is busy geo-tagging our public places. Oh, wait... we already have drive-by caching.

 

Actually, it is not all that hard to imagine the guidelines requiring proof of permission in writing before a cache will be published. I think very few people actually would want that. Least of all, the reviewers.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...