Unacceptable Cache Hides - In Your Opinion

[+Too Tall John]

They are unacceptable to me as a hider and a finder because they are not permitted by any utility known to me, thus making them against guidelines due to permission. To the best of my understanding, utility companies do not permit attachments because of safety issues, for both those who would come in contact with the pole because of the attachment, and for the utility workers themselves who have to deal with it.

 

So, to answer your bullets:

 

Yes.

So basically it's a guidelines issue for you and not a safety issue. You did say that you thought it was a safety issue for the power company, and that's why you didn't think they'd issue permission, but you didn't say it was because you thought the risk of danger was too high.

 

So since it's a permission/guidelines issue for you, what if you found out about a cache on a transformer and you were told that the reviewer saw explicit permission before they published the cache page. Would that be okay with you?

I'm sorry I didn't spell it out for you, but because the power company is concerned about the safety issue (see my line, highlighted in blue), I am as well.

 

So, to answer your last question:

 

No. It would be unlikely that I would hunt such a cache. If it met the standards that the reviewer held it up to, there would be little I could do about it.

 

Are you saying that you have such a cache in mind?

Edited January 8, 2009 by Too Tall John

[Mushtang]

They are unacceptable to me as a hider and a finder because they are not permitted by any utility known to me, thus making them against guidelines due to permission. To the best of my understanding, utility companies do not permit attachments because of safety issues, for both those who would come in contact with the pole because of the attachment, and for the utility workers themselves who have to deal with it.

 

So, to answer your bullets:

 

Yes.

So basically it's a guidelines issue for you and not a safety issue. You did say that you thought it was a safety issue for the power company, and that's why you didn't think they'd issue permission, but you didn't say it was because you thought the risk of danger was too high.

 

So since it's a permission/guidelines issue for you, what if you found out about a cache on a transformer and you were told that the reviewer saw explicit permission before they published the cache page. Would that be okay with you?

I'm sorry I didn't spell it out for you, but because the power company is concerned about the safety issue (see my line, highlighted in blue), I am as well.

 

So, to answer your last question:

 

No.

 

Are you saying that you have such a cache in mind?

I don't have plans on hiding any myself, but I'm under the impression that there are some already hidden that do have express permission granted. To me it makes them totally acceptable to me, and I'm more than willing to find them and I don't worry about anyone else finding them either.

 

Some people are against finding them because they don't want to risk getting electrocuted themselves, but feel that if other people want to risk it then it's their business.

 

Some people are against these caches even being in existence and want them all banned because they need to protect other people from themselves since it's obviously only a matter of time before a cacher gets electrocuted.

 

Both opinions exist despite all the checks in place to make the chance of electrocution of a cacher being ridiculously small.

[+tozainamboku]

So, my simple answer is:

• Utility Poles
  
• Transformers
  
• Equipment Associated with Utility Poles and Transformers.
  

These are what I would consider Unacceptable Cache Hides - In My Opinion

Are these unacceptable to you:

• As a hider only
  
• Both as a hider and as a finder
  
• Because of risk of injury
  
• Because they're against guidelines?
  

They are unacceptable to me as a hider and a finder because they are not permitted by any utility known to me, thus making them against guidelines due to permission. To the best of my understanding, utility companies do not permit attachments because of safety issues, for both those who would come in contact with the pole because of the attachment, and for the utility workers themselves who have to deal with it.

 

So, to answer your bullets:

 

Yes.

I found the following statement another site. Of course one should not believe everything they read on the internet.

Pole owners are usually pretty laid-back about unauthorized pole attachments as long as they don't get in their way. But if unauthorized attachments get in the way, pole owners don't hesitate to remove them. Sometimes gently, sometimes not.

My take is that utility company policies regarding attachments to their poles and ground equipment is motivated by the desire to not have thing that interfere with the utility company workers to safely maintain the equipment and by the desire to not provide a platform for advertising or promoting agendas (Where have I heard of companies with that policy before?) Certainly one can imagine a person using an attachment mechanism that compromises the safety purpose of the pole or enclosure itself. I would say it would always be unacceptable to drill holes in a transformer enclosure to attach something with anchor bolts.

 

I have found nanos on the guy-wires supporting a telephone pole. These are unobtrusive and don't interfere with workers who may need to climb the pole. I suppose they belong to the power company but wonder if you really need to get permission to leave these.

I believe a utility worker has chimed in and mentioned that the yellow PVC tubing on these lines is there to insulate the average passer-by from being electrified by touching one if the line becomes electrified. I'd imagine that means there is some level of risk, thus I doubt the company would say "Yes."

I'm not a utility worker and did not see the claim made that the PVC is an insulator. I tend to not believe this. The PVC tubing is so a pedestrian, bicyclist, skateboarder, etc. will see the wire and not run into it. Many poles have metal half-tube clamped to the guy wire instead of PVC. In fact the nanos I have found are most often attached to this metal. Much higher up - out of reach of the man on the ground, the guy-wires have a ceramic insulator just in case of stray voltage on the upper part of the guy. Poles and ground equipment enclosure are actually safety equipment to protect people from the dangerous current in the wires and the transformers. Utility company rules prohibiting attachments are no doubt are in part to prevent someone compromising the safety provided by the pole or enclosure. This doesn't necessarily mean that a utility might not give permission if the attachment does not compromise safety - or more likely they might not really care. They are protected from lawsuits (somewhat) because of their blanket rule and because their employees will remove anything that does compromise safety as soon at they become aware of it.

[+TrailGators]

Great guys like Johnnygeo give Geocaching electrical safety training:

 

Here is an example of an unacceptable cache that Johnny posted on his blog:

 

 

Any bets on permission being given for that one?

 

Anyhow, I appreciate what Johnny is doing even though I'm sure that many of you think it's a waste of time because it's 'never going to happen.'

[+sbell111]

Here is an example of an unacceptable cache that Johnny posted on his blog:

 

I kinda wonder why Johnny didn't just close up the panel and report the cache.

 

No one is arguing that that particular cache should be allowed. Of course, you know that because in all of the related threads that you have participated in, it's been stated over and over again.

Edited January 8, 2009 by sbell111

[+JamGuys]

The problem is, those arguing the 'con' side have been unable to accurately define exactly what types of caches in which locations that are referring to. The argument is all over the board to the point that I'm not sure if they are talking about LPCs, fake electrical boxes, caches attached to power line transformers forty feet in the air, caches magnetically attached or sitting next to that green box at the end of your driveway (next to the sidewalk) or caches in a bush ten feet from some electrical whatsit. Further, it has been shown that many caches placed in these 'impossible to obtain permission' locations have been placed with explicit permission.

Hey, what IS that thing, anyway?

[+Too Tall John]

They are protected from lawsuits (somewhat) because of their blanket rule and because their employees will remove anything that does compromise safety as soon at they become aware of it.

Exactly! There is no way a utility will remove the protection of that blanket by giving permission for such a hide.

[+sbell111]

The problem is, those arguing the 'con' side have been unable to accurately define exactly what types of caches in which locations that are referring to. The argument is all over the board to the point that I'm not sure if they are talking about LPCs, fake electrical boxes, caches attached to power line transformers forty feet in the air, caches magnetically attached or sitting next to that green box at the end of your driveway (next to the sidewalk) or caches in a bush ten feet from some electrical whatsit. Further, it has been shown that many caches placed in these 'impossible to obtain permission' locations have been placed with explicit permission.

Hey, what IS that thing, anyway?

I dunno.

[+TrailGators]

Here is an example of an unacceptable cache that Johnny posted on his blog:

 

I kinda wonder why Johnny didn't just close up the panel and report the cache.

 

No one is arguing that that particular cache should be allowed. Of course, you know that because in all of the related threads that you have participated in, it's been stated over and over again.

I have been told in this very thread that the 'problem doesn't exist.' Also you asked for some specifics a few posts back....

 

That cache was archived. Which guideline do you think was enforced?

[Mushtang]

Great guys like Johnnygeo give Geocaching electrical safety training:

 

Anyhow, I appreciate what Johnny is doing even though I'm sure that many of you think it's a waste of time because it's 'never going to happen.'

Nobody is suggesting that high voltage power lines and wires energized to 4000 volts aren't dangerous. Of course, you know that because in all of the related threads that you have participated in, it's been stated over and over again.

[Mushtang]

I have been told in this very thread that the 'problem doesn't exist.' Also you asked for some specifics a few posts back....

 

That cache was archived. Which guideline do you think was enforced?

You've been told that the problem doesn't exist of people putting nano caches inside open lamp posts near the wires? I'm curious where.

 

Or were you just taking that statement out of context to refute Sbell's correct statement that nobody here thinks a cache like the one picture should be allowed?

[+TrailGators]

Great guys like Johnnygeo give Geocaching electrical safety training:

 

Anyhow, I appreciate what Johnny is doing even though I'm sure that many of you think it's a waste of time because it's 'never going to happen.'

Nobody is suggesting that high voltage power lines and wires energized to 4000 volts aren't dangerous. Of course, you know that because in all of the related threads that you have participated in, it's been stated over and over again.

What else can you tell us about his 45 minute training session? I'm all ears!

[Mushtang]

Great guys like Johnnygeo give Geocaching electrical safety training:

 

Anyhow, I appreciate what Johnny is doing even though I'm sure that many of you think it's a waste of time because it's 'never going to happen.'

Nobody is suggesting that high voltage power lines and wires energized to 4000 volts aren't dangerous. Of course, you know that because in all of the related threads that you have participated in, it's been stated over and over again.

What else can you tell us about his 45 minute training session? I'm all ears!

What are you talking about? I've never been to his training session and haven't told you anything about it ever. That image was from your post.

[+Moose Mob]

Jeez, why don't you all just shut up. Who moderates this kind of crap?

Something tells me you're going to be moderated. Heh.

Only because he said it before I did.

[+TrailGators]

I have been told in this very thread that the 'problem doesn't exist.' Also you asked for some specifics a few posts back....

 

That cache was archived. Which guideline do you think was enforced?

You've been told that the problem doesn't exist of people putting nano caches inside open lamp posts near the wires? I'm curious where.

 

Or were you just taking that statement out of context to refute Sbell's correct statement that nobody here thinks a cache like the one picture should be allowed?

 

That example tied back to something you said earlier:

 

Keystone has said, in this thread, that there are so many of these electrical themed caches that do have permission, that he published them all without even asking if permission has been granted.

 

People keep trying to offer solutions to a problem that doesn't exist.

 

So I gave an example of a cache that existed to show you that they do exist. I'm sure that's why Johnnygeo took the photo before he closed the lid on that one.

[+Moose Mob]

Great guys like Johnnygeo give Geocaching electrical safety training:

 

Anyhow, I appreciate what Johnny is doing even though I'm sure that many of you think it's a waste of time because it's 'never going to happen.'

Nobody is suggesting that high voltage power lines and wires energized to 4000 volts aren't dangerous. Of course, you know that because in all of the related threads that you have participated in, it's been stated over and over again.

What else can you tell us about his 45 minute training session? I'm all ears!

What are you talking about? I've never been to his training session and haven't told you anything about it ever. That image was from your post.

Conversation over.