New Cache Idea

[+Okiebryan]

"Frogger" would be a cache hidden in the center divider of a busy freeway. It would be pretty dangerous at night, and downright insane to attempt during the day. There would be adequate disclaimers and warnings on the cache page. Has this been done? What are your thoughts?

Edited July 30, 2008 by Okiebryan

[+wesleykey]

And the street department would grant you permission to hide an object for others to seek in the middle of the street? WOuld parking in the road be permitted?

[+Always & Forever 5]

"Frogger" would be a cache hidden in the center divider of a busy freeway. It would be pretty dangerous at night, and downright insane to attempt during the day. There would be adequate disclaimers and warnings on the cache page. Has this been done? What are your thoughts?

 

Well, the use of the words "pretty dangerous" and "downright insane" in your own post pretty much answer your question, don't they? Do you really need this answered?

[+wapahani]

LMAO, this isn't a smart idea at all.

I'm sure that if (IF) you got it published, there would be a few that would go after it.

I'm also pretty sure you would have some liability with it too.

[+wimseyguy]

Nah-those terms are OK, I can think of plenty of caches that are insane and/or dangerous.

 

What will stop this plan is that I doubt any of the reviewers would publish this without any confirmed permission from someone with the appropriate authority to grant this cache placement. If that were accomplished it might get published.

[+Always & Forever 5]

Nah-those terms are OK, I can think of plenty of caches that are insane and/or dangerous.

 

What will stop this plan is that I doubt any of the reviewers would publish this without any confirmed permission from someone with the appropriate authority to grant this cache placement. If that were accomplished it might get published.

There's a difference between caches that are dangerous and insane, and making one purposely that fits those categories. Anyone who would put a cache in the median of a busy highway, where there are millions of other places instead, is just trying to get someone hurt.

 

What is unique about this particular median? Why wouldn't you want to put a cache out that would draw people to a different, or beautiful, or adventurous place? Not many medians are worth seeing, especially when you have to cross traffic to get there.

[+mousekakat]

Why in heaven's name would ANYONE want to do a cache that would put so many lives potentially in danger?

 

Not only the IDIOTS that would be trying to cross the traffic to get to the cache, but also the people driving the car who would be traumatized by someone darting in front of them and the accidents caused because of it.

 

Some folks just don't think!

 

Naomi

[+Okiebryan]

Ok, lets dispense with the insults. Not necessary. I'm not an idiot, and I do think, thank you very much.

 

Thousands of caches get placed in street and highway rights of way without express permission. It's public property, right?

 

There's a difference between caches that are dangerous and insane, and making one purposely that fits those categories.

Ok, so it's ok if it is ACCIDENTALLY dangerous or insane? I fail to see the difference. Please enlighten me.

 

What is unique about this particular median? Why wouldn't you want to put a cache out that would draw people to a different, or beautiful, or adventurous place? Not many medians are worth seeing, especially when you have to cross traffic to get there.

I have plenty of hides that are in unique or beautiful or interesting places. This one would not be for that purpose. Just like every lamppost micro or magnetic keyholder on a guardrail is not for the purpose of bringing finders to a unique or interesting place. Unique or beautiful is positively wonderful, but it isn't the prime directive of geocaching.

 

How would you expect this cache to be rated?

[+Always & Forever 5]

Ok, lets dispense with the insults. Not necessary. I'm not an idiot, and I do think, thank you very much.

Please point out where you were insulted? Nobody called you an idiot.

 

Ok, so it's ok if it is ACCIDENTALLY dangerous or insane? I fail to see the difference. Please enlighten me.

If you don't see the difference between a cache that requires a mountain to be climbed, for instance, and your idea, then there's no use pointing it out.

 

How would you expect this cache to be rated?

You're obviously not really looking for input, just trying to stir the pot. I'm not interested in stoking the fire any longer.

Edited July 30, 2008 by Always & Forever 5

[+trainlove]

There are plenty of caches that one would think are in the middle of the road as one motors by at 65MPH and is paying total attention to their GPS and had never read the cache page since one puts 500 caches on the GPS all at once. But the one particular cache I'm talking about is 100 feet above a river, on a walking path mere feet from an interstate. One has to exit the road 2 miles away and go backroads to that cache, if one 'parks on the bridge' then ...

 

Then there is another cache that's about 25 feet above you on a country road bridge over an interstate.

 

I think nobody would visit your cache. I think everyone who visits the two caches I mention do it the smart way and know where they are caching before attempting a cache.

 

But to be honest, I know an interstate in NH that the northbound lane is about 0.8 miles from the southbound lane and there are hundreds of acres of great space between. But of course that's all off limits, there are clearly signs on the many dirt roads between any two lanes on ANY interstate highway that state 'Authorized Vehicles Only'. And as such nobody would ever get permission to plant a cache there, and therefore no reviewer would ever publish such a cache.

 

Notice how hyperbolic I've been here, nobody, never, ever, any, plenty, everyone...

[+Okiebryan]

I just talked to one of my caching buddies, and he reminded me that just last week, we had 2 people run across another freeway and get killed when they got their dumb selves hit by cars.

 

So, here is what I decided. The freeway is out. Not gonna happen.

 

We have a number of multi-lane divided surface streets. The traffic is much slower, and one can park at a business on the side of the road.

 

One would still have to cross 3 lanes of traffic, but the traffic is broken up by stoplights, and the average speed is closer to 45 than 70.

 

So.. how would you rate that?

[Keystone]

All local laws apply.

[+Okiebryan]

You're obviously not really looking for input, just trying to stir the pot. I'm not interested in stoking the fire any longer.

I am really looking for input, but that doesn't necessarily mean I agree with all of the input I received. Some of the points I felt were valid, while others I thought were silly.

 

Some folks just don't think!

Not only the IDIOTS that would be trying to cross the traffic to get to the cache...

sounded like an insult to me....and if someone else hid the original cache I was talking about, I'd go get it and sign my name on the little bitty log! I might even be FTF! I'd just do it at 3AM when traffic is light. Doesn't make me an IDIOT.

 

Sorry that you feel that my sole purpose was to start something. I actually really wanted feedback. I'd already placed the cache and got coords early this morning. I sat down to write the cache page and thought that maybe I should get some other opinions about this. No pot stirring here.

 

Stoke or don't stoke, your choice.

Edited July 30, 2008 by Okiebryan

[+mousekakat]

You're just not getting it, are you?

 

It's not just cachers that you're considering putting in danger, but it's innocent people in the cars that you are even CONSIDERING jeopardizing.

 

You have this in your profile, but with this "idea," I'm questioning the integrity part of it...:

 

 

and even more importantly, you have two photos of your beautiful daughters posted, along with their names, on your profile page where anyone here can already click your name and see them anyway.

 

What kind of example are you thinking you'd set to those beautiful kids?

 

What if they were in the car when momma or daddy hit someone and killed them running across the road to get a cache that was placed so irresponsibly? How would you explain to them what happened? How would you feel knowing that someone's kids were in a car that hit someone dashing across the road to get a cache? How would you feel knowing that your cache was the reason someone got killed and maybe left a couple of beautiful kids like that without a parent, or maybe a teenager had his life stopped too soon because he figured he could "make it" across the traffic?

 

How would you rate a life, the life of a child, or the lives impacted by your cache?

 

Think about it.

 

I truly hope you're just asking and, as someone said, trying to stir the pot, and that you are NOT serious about this at all.

Edited July 30, 2008 by mousekakat

[+Okiebryan]

Please remove pictures of my kids from this forum. NOW.

 

OUT OF BOUNDS

[+Always & Forever 5]

One would still have to cross 3 lanes of traffic, but the traffic is broken up by stoplights, and the average speed is closer to 45 than 70.

 

So.. how would you rate that?

I'd rate it, "A little better, but still a stupid idea". If it was in my area, I'd put it on my ignore list, as there are too many other GOOD caches worth going after.

[+MountainRacer]

Opinions aside, I severely doubt that any reviewer would even consider publishing a cache in a freeway median. As for your 'divided street' idea, it depends. If there were a median of decent width there, with maybe a micro-park or fountain or something, then I'd say that's a little bit better. If the divider is nothing wider than a Jersey barrier topped with a fence, off of which you'd hang a bison tube, then I'd say forget it.

[+Okiebryan]

Please remove pictures of my kids from this internet forum. NOW.

 

OUT OF BOUNDS

 

Besides, that's 100% a red herring. Hiding a dangerous cache (with appropriate disclaimers) has nothing to do with integrity, and who would take their little kids to do a known dangerous cache? Besides, that is their responsibility to decide.

[+Okiebryan]

If it was in my area, I'd put it on my ignore list, as there are too many other GOOD caches worth going after.

and I would fight for your right to do exactly that.

[+mousekakat]

I find it rather ironic that you are so upset about your kids pics being here when simply clicking on your name takes you right to the profile where you've got their pics AND names listed.

 

I don't understand, it's bad to post pics of kids here that are linked directly to the website and your forum, but it's not bad to place a cache that could seriously damage children and others who might be involved in a possible fatal accident with a cacher who is more concerned with numbers than safety and dashing across traffic to get to a poorly, dangerously placed cache.

 

I'm mean, I'm all for the Darwin awards and such, but only when noone else innocent is injured.

 

Interesting.

 

I'll get those pics removed....

[+ReadyOrNot]

Please remove pictures of my kids from this internet forum. NOW.

 

OUT OF BOUNDS

 

Besides, that's 100% a red herring. Hiding a dangerous cache (with appropriate disclaimers) has nothing to do with integrity, and who would take their little kids to do a known dangerous cache? Besides, that is their responsibility to decide.

 

I think posting pictures of your kids is a little overboard. I would report that post ASAP. You never know what kind of weirdos troll around and I certainly wouldn't want my kids pictures posted on the internet.

 

As far as your original question: I believe any pedestrian activity is illegal on the highway, so that right there should make it an easy decision.

[+ReadyOrNot]

I truly hope you're just asking and, as someone said, trying to stir the pot, and that you are NOT serious about this at all.

 

I truly hope that if a cache was placed in the middle of a highway, you wouldn't take your kids with you to get it. I'm disgusted at your use of someone's very personal pictures in an attempt to win a forum argument.

 

Shame on you!

[+mousekakat]

I didn't say that people would take their kids to retrieve the cache, I'm concerned about people in cars that are driving on the road who may have kids in the car with them when they run over some idiot cacher who is running across the road and concentrating on their gps instead of the traffic.

 

As far as posting the pics, they are on his profile, folks. I didn't go hunting for them. I clicked his name to find out more info about them and there the kids were. If you don't want your kids on the net, don't post them somewhere where it is so easy for people to find the photos!

 

A little common sense goes a long way.

[+MountainRacer]

I truly hope you're just asking and, as someone said, trying to stir the pot, and that you are NOT serious about this at all.

 

I truly hope that if a cache was placed in the middle of a highway, you wouldn't take your kids with you to get it. I'm disgusted at your use of someone's very personal pictures in an attempt to win a forum argument.

 

Shame on you!

She isn't a stalker; get a grip. Hopefully seeing his own kids rattled some sense of human fragility into him.

[+Okiebryan]

I want to have my kids on my profile. I DON'T want some yahoo posting them on a public message board. Just because you aren't smart enough to understand the difference is irrelevant. They are MY PHOTOS of MY KIDS, and you should know better than to link to them.

 

And really.... WHO? is going to cross a busy street looking at their GPS? I mean, CMON???

 

I guess she's mad cause I'm not "thinking of the CHILNDREN" or however it was spelled.

[+J-Way]

I truly hope you're just asking and, as someone said, trying to stir the pot, and that you are NOT serious about this at all.

I truly hope that if a cache was placed in the middle of a highway, you wouldn't take your kids with you to get it. I'm disgusted at your use of someone's very personal pictures in an attempt to win a forum argument.

Shame on you!

For what it's worth, mousekat did NOT post the kid pictures to the internet. Okiebryan posted pictures of his own kids to a public location on the internet, then complained when mousekat copied the links and posted them in a different public place on the internet. Click here to see Okiebryan's profile and the pictures are still there!! Or, as mousekat said, you can click on Okiebryan's name to the left of every single one of his posts.

 

Also, mousekat never said she or anyone else would bring kids to a cache like that. What she DID say was that those kids could be in the back of a car (a muggle car, if you prefer) driving down the road. Those innocent kids could be put in danger if the driver is surprised and swerves when some gung-ho geocacher dashes across in front of them trying to get to a cache in the median.

[+Okiebryan]

Now that we've recovered from the threadjack, my question remains:

 

Cache hidden in the center median of a divided, multilane, surface street with traffic broken up by stoplights, and average speed 45mph, plenty of parking nearby.... not difficult to find... HOW WOULD YOU RATE THIS HIDE?

[+mousekakat]

I truly hope you're just asking and, as someone said, trying to stir the pot, and that you are NOT serious about this at all.

I truly hope that if a cache was placed in the middle of a highway, you wouldn't take your kids with you to get it. I'm disgusted at your use of someone's very personal pictures in an attempt to win a forum argument.

Shame on you!

For what it's worth, mousekat did NOT post the kid pictures to the internet. Okiebryan posted pictures of his own kids to a public location on the internet, then complained when mousekat copied the links and posted them in a different public place on the internet. Click here to see Okiebryan's profile and the pictures are still there!! Or, as mousekat said, you can click on Okiebryan's name to the left of every single one of his posts.

 

Also, mousekat never said she or anyone else would bring kids to a cache like that. What she DID say was that those kids could be in the back of a car (a muggle car, if you prefer) driving down the road. Those innocent kids could be put in danger if the driver is surprised and swerves when some gung-ho geocacher dashes across in front of them trying to get to a cache in the median.

 

Thank you, J-Way. Maybe you posted it in a sense that is easier to understand.

 

Naomi... a cacher AND a mother.

[+Okiebryan]

I truly hope you're just asking and, as someone said, trying to stir the pot, and that you are NOT serious about this at all.

I truly hope that if a cache was placed in the middle of a highway, you wouldn't take your kids with you to get it. I'm disgusted at your use of someone's very personal pictures in an attempt to win a forum argument.

Shame on you!

For what it's worth, mousekat did NOT post the kid pictures to the internet. Okiebryan posted pictures of his own kids to a public location on the internet, then complained when mousekat copied the links and posted them in a different public place on the internet. Click here to see Okiebryan's profile and the pictures are still there!! Or, as mousekat said, you can click on Okiebryan's name to the left of every single one of his posts.

 

Also, mousekat never said she or anyone else would bring kids to a cache like that. What she DID say was that those kids could be in the back of a car (a muggle car, if you prefer) driving down the road. Those innocent kids could be put in danger if the driver is surprised and swerves when some gung-ho geocacher dashes across in front of them trying to get to a cache in the median.

 

MY photos of MY kids to put where I want on MY profile. Like I said earlier, if you aren't smart enough to know the difference, and why that was WAY beyond inappropriate, I can't help you.

 

As to the poor little CHILNREN in the back of the car, that's a ridiculous argument. Guess we should outlaw dogs, since a dog in the street could cause a car to swerve and hurt innocent CHILNREN.

 

THINK ABOUT THE CHILNREN!

Edited July 30, 2008 by Okiebryan

[+mousekakat]

I truly hope you're just asking and, as someone said, trying to stir the pot, and that you are NOT serious about this at all.

I truly hope that if a cache was placed in the middle of a highway, you wouldn't take your kids with you to get it. I'm disgusted at your use of someone's very personal pictures in an attempt to win a forum argument.

Shame on you!

For what it's worth, mousekat did NOT post the kid pictures to the internet. Okiebryan posted pictures of his own kids to a public location on the internet, then complained when mousekat copied the links and posted them in a different public place on the internet. Click here to see Okiebryan's profile and the pictures are still there!! Or, as mousekat said, you can click on Okiebryan's name to the left of every single one of his posts.

 

Also, mousekat never said she or anyone else would bring kids to a cache like that. What she DID say was that those kids could be in the back of a car (a muggle car, if you prefer) driving down the road. Those innocent kids could be put in danger if the driver is surprised and swerves when some gung-ho geocacher dashes across in front of them trying to get to a cache in the median.

 

MY photos of MY kids to put where I want on MY profile. Like I said earlier, if you aren't smart enough to know the difference, and why that was WAY beyond inappropriate, I can't help you.

 

As to the poor little CHILNREN in the back of the car, that's a ridiculous argument. Geuss we should outlaw dogs, since a dog in the street could cause a car to swerve and hurt innocent CHILNREN.

 

THINK ABOUT THE CHILNREN!

 

Ya know, at this point in time, you're REALLY not helping your cause any....

 

You go ahead and discuss your cache, but honestly, I think you have already pretty much... well... never mind, dear, you just go ahead!

 

Naomi

[+Creami Cannoli]

HOW WOULD YOU RATE THIS HIDE?

 

On the scale of 1-Stupid, probably a 9.5.

 

Not every idea is a good idea, even if you are the one that had the idea. Know when to accept that.

[+J-Way]

I wasn't slamming Okiebryan or his hatred of non-geocaching chilnren. I was just pointing out that some people had apparently mis-interpreted a few posts. Also, I agree there is a difference between a public forum and a public profile; specifically, forum posts can be mined by search engines but I don't think this applies to profiles. That being said, Okiebryan did post pictures of his daughters (along with their name, ages, and favorite fish) to a public place on the internet that can be seen by anyone who bothers to sign up for a free account. He was right to be upset when their faces showed up in this topic, but he should not be surprised. THEY ARE NOW IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.

 

Back on topic...

 

Now that we've recovered from the threadjack, my question remains:

 

Cache hidden in the center median of a divided, multilane, surface street with traffic broken up by stoplights, and average speed 45mph, plenty of parking nearby.... not difficult to find... HOW WOULD YOU RATE THIS HIDE?

If 45mph is the average speed, what's the MAXIMUM speed? How much traffic? Is it busy 24/7, is it only busy only during rush hour, or is it even busy at all? Also, how wide is the median, and is there ample shoulder for parking?

 

If you can legally park on the inner shoulder and easily get in and out of your vehicle, the lanes are fairly widely spaced (over 25-ft or so of grass), and the cars are few and far between then this is no different from any other park-n-grab.

 

If you have to park on the outer shoulder (or adjacent parking lot), dash across the active lanes such that the never-ending stream of cars has to hit the brakes to miss you, and search for the cache with cars streaming by at an average speed of 45mph (max speed of 55 mph-60mph?) 5-ft on either side of you, then both the terrain and difficulty go WAY up.

[+J-Way]

"Frogger" would be a cache hidden in the center divider of a busy freeway. It would be pretty dangerous at night, and downright insane to attempt during the day. There would be adequate disclaimers and warnings on the cache page. Has this been done? What are your thoughts?

Also remember that "Frogger" sometimes got squished.

[+trainlove]

All the park and grabs I've ever done do not put you and your car in harms way. This idea seems to be just the opposite.

[+Jennifer&Dean]

Now that we've recovered from the threadjack, my question remains:

 

Cache hidden in the center median of a divided, multilane, surface street with traffic broken up by stoplights, and average speed 45mph, plenty of parking nearby.... not difficult to find... HOW WOULD YOU RATE THIS HIDE?

 

Is it wheelchair accessible?

If yes- 1/1

If no- 1/1.5

 

I've seen this kind of cache before, and archived a similar one I placed that was hanging off a bridge.

-J

[+Jennifer&Dean]

HOW WOULD YOU RATE THIS HIDE?

 

On the scale of 1-Stupid, probably a 9.5.

 

Not every idea is a good idea, even if you are the one that had the idea. Know when to accept that.

I agree with this rating system.

[+Okiebryan]

45 is the speed limit. Some go faster, some go slower. It is like a ghost town at 3AM, and at 5:30PM it couldn't be safely done. There is plenty of parking at business all along the street. The center median is likely 20 feet wide, grassy, with medium size trees.

 

No inner shoulder to park. You would have to cross 3 lanes of traffic, and how much traffic depends greatly on what time you choose to attempt the cache.

 

For the record... dangerous caches are not necessarily bad. There are lots of them. The ONLY reason I decided to abandon the freeway idea, is that I don't want someone getting geocaching in the news when they get hit by a car. That would most definitely hurt the sport. Well, that and pedestrian activity on the freeway is illegal.

 

I believe that people are free to do or not do dangerous, insane, or extreme geocaches. So long as no rules are broken, we are all free to hide lame, or dangerous, or anti-chilnren caches as we see fit.

Edited July 30, 2008 by Okiebryan

[+Creami Cannoli]

You can stop trying to justify it. We can tell your mind is made up to go through with this idea.

 

Why bother posting for feedback when you just wanted validation?

[+Okiebryan]

You can stop trying to justify it. We can tell your mind is made up to go through with this idea.

 

Why bother posting for feedback when you just wanted validation?

 

I'm asking for help rating the new, revised, less dangerous, and not illegal cache idea.

[+J-Way]

All local laws apply.

Actually, this may just be the best response. In quite a few cities it is illegal to cross any roadway unless you do so at a crosswalk. You could get a ticket for jaywalking.

 

Also, contrary to popular belief, just because a road is "public" doesn't always mean you can legally put something there. Some states have specific policies about things left (intentionally or not) on road right-of-way. It's called "littering". Yes, I know, there are a bazillion caches stuck to the back of guard rails and such, but that doesn't make them legal (it also doesn't make them illegal - it depends on where you are).

 

I was kinda picturing a 4-lane residential boulevard type of road. What you're describing now is a major commuting artery with several thousand cars per day. I don't do much caching at 3:00AM, so I'd probably put this cache on my ignore list.

 

And probably my final response on the rating thing... your best bet would be to figure out the rating if it were in a "normal" situation then add a half to a whole star to the terrain because of the extra danger. Give plenty of warnings in the description so people with chilnren will know to skip this cache.

[+va griz]

I look at it like this: When I place a cache, I'm inviting people to try it. They are my guest for the short time they are there. I can not insure their safety at all times, but I want my guests to be at least as safe around my cache as they were while driving there.

 

So my criteria would be:

 

If I had a great place to bring a guest and they had to be very careful getting there, I would warn them about the dangers and list it.

 

If my sole purpose for for bringing them there is to test their ability to dodge traffic, I would not.

[+9Key]

You can stop trying to justify it. We can tell your mind is made up to go through with this idea.

 

Why bother posting for feedback when you just wanted validation?

 

I'm asking for help rating the new, revised, less dangerous, and not illegal cache idea.

Well, since its a city street there's probably a curb involved, so not handicap accessible. 1.5 terrain maybe? The difficulty would be the traffic I guess. Is the hide evil too?

[Motorcycle_Mama]

Now that we've recovered from the threadjack, my question remains:

 

Cache hidden in the center median of a divided, multilane, surface street with traffic broken up by stoplights, and average speed 45mph, plenty of parking nearby.... not difficult to find... HOW WOULD YOU RATE THIS HIDE?

 

How would I rate it?

 

Bad idea, probably/likely in violation of local laws, ill-advised, dangerous to others beyond the cachers, a dangerous distraction to motorists, not likely to get published on this site.

 

Now, perhaps on a 25 mph street, it might be doable. But on a 45 mph street, it's absolutely a horrible idea.

[+Okiebryan]

I look at it like this: When I place a cache, I'm inviting people to try it. They are my guest for the short time they are there. I can not insure their safety at all times, but I want my guests to be at least as safe around my cache as they were while driving there.

 

So my criteria would be:

 

If I had a great place to bring a guest and they had to be very careful getting there, I would warn them about the dangers and list it.

 

If my sole purpose for for bringing them there is to test their ability to dodge traffic, I would not.

 

I respect and appreciate your perspective. However, I don't share it. Just a quick search of the keyword "extreme" shows 137 caches. "Insane" brings up 32. While I'm sure that not all of these are dangerous caches, I know for a fact that some of them are, and are very popular. Just look at Vinnie's caches!

 

I guess since you don't only want to hide caches in safe places, then only hide caches in safe places. Watch out for PI!

[+va griz]

I look at it like this: When I place a cache, I'm inviting people to try it. They are my guest for the short time they are there. I can not insure their safety at all times, but I want my guests to be at least as safe around my cache as they were while driving there.

 

So my criteria would be:

 

If I had a great place to bring a guest and they had to be very careful getting there, I would warn them about the dangers and list it.

 

If my sole purpose for for bringing them there is to test their ability to dodge traffic, I would not.

 

I respect and appreciate your perspective. However, I don't share it. Just a quick search of the keyword "extreme" shows 137 caches. "Insane" brings up 32. While I'm sure that not all of these are dangerous caches, I know for a fact that some of them are, and are very popular. Just look at Vinnie's caches!

 

I guess since you don't only want to hide caches in safe places, then only hide caches in safe places. Watch out for PI!

 

OK, we'll just disagree on the joys of playing in the street. As long as it's legal, approved by the reviewer, and the description warns of the danger then go right ahead. To answer your question, I'm not sure how to rate it. Maybe 1-1N4D to account for the night and day difference?

[+Creami Cannoli]

I don't Vinnie's caches have people dodging cars, almost getting squished by them. Are you going to leave 1-UPs on the other side of the freeway for the cachers that might need them to get back across?

[+Okiebryan]

I don't Vinnie's caches have people dodging cars, almost getting squished by them. Are you going to leave 1-UPs on the other side of the freeway for the cachers that might need them to get back across?

 

I'm assuming you meant "doubt" instead of "don't"...

 

Look at these examples of some of Vinnie and Sue Team caches:

GCTA5E

 

GCT66Z

 

GCQHBH

 

GCY72P

 

There are many others. Just look at the hides on this profile! Kinda makes crossing the street to get a cache seem a little tame, doesn't it?

[+mtn-man]

You can stop trying to justify it. We can tell your mind is made up to go through with this idea.

 

Why bother posting for feedback when you just wanted validation?

 

I'm asking for help rating the new, revised, less dangerous, and not illegal cache idea.

So, the city is giving you permission for this hide? Be sure to add the name of the city official that gives you permission for this hide in your reviewer note when you submit the cache.

 

If you do not have permission, it isn't a legal hide is it.

[+Okiebryan]

It's illegal to cross the interstate on foot. It's not illegal to cross a city street.

[AZcachemeister]

I have recovered more than a few benchmarks in the freeway median, and will probably go after quite a few more before I am finished.

That being said, the benchmarks were put there for an important purpose, and not just for entertainment.

If the Highway Department gives you permission, then go for it!

 

________________________________________________________________

 

If someone wanted to, they could post links to your kids photos on SOME OTHER FORUM, and you would never know...would you?

Maybe a forum a lot less tasteful than Geocaching.com...

 

EDIT: Because the line didn't work out right.

Edited July 31, 2008 by AZcachemeister