Disapproved Caches: Cache Appeal

[+gldwing_rider]

I would like to bring this up for some feedback from other cachers. I recently placed a cache in a neighboring state that I visit on a weekly basis. I have read and fully understand the cache placement guidelines and understand them to be just that…guidelines.

 

I appealed the decision of the reviewer and now following the next step in the appeal process.

Here is the guideline I would like to get your opinions on….

 

• Caches near, on or under public structures deemed potential or possible targets for terrorist attacks. These may include but are not limited to highway bridges, dams, government buildings, elementary and secondary schools, and airports.

 

I placed my cache (nothing special about the cache) at the base of a bridge inside a guardrail in a small town. I feel from my perspective…the bridge where this cache is placed is not one that would be considered or deemed a potential for a possible terrorist attack. The bridge in question is a small bridge on a secondary state road leading into this particular town.

 

After about a week of exchanges with the reviewer…I requested the decision be appealed. At first I honestly thought the hide would be approved as the reviewer enabled the cache and told me she or he would probably be approving the hide based on discussions with other reviewers.. The reviewer requested information as to what the sign said at the base of the bridge. Thinking the cache would be approved I go out of town. A couple days later the reviewer sends me a note with the explanation as follows. Request you move the cache as she or he is going with their gut feeling and disapprove the location.

 

I know of at least one other cache in this state that has a cache located in close to a bridge. I question the approval of the cache and was told an exception was made. I also know of other caches in this state located in university parking lots that have been approved.

 

I have talked with other cachers that are more experienced that I am….and they feel this particular cache does not fall under what would be considered a terrorist threat.

 

There are bridges in other states that I visited, Maryland and Virginia that have bridges such as the Woodrow Wilson bridge that I would not consider placing a cache. This bridge is a major artery connecting 395 to 495/95 Northbound to Maryland, leading to the eastern shore and other states such as PA, NY etc.

 

What are your thoughts?

[+sbell111]

Why are you so committed to this particular spot, given that you state that there's nothing special about the cache?

[+WatchDog2020]

My 1st thought is what is so special about this location and cache that you are appealing it? Is it the principle of it or a very very special location to you?

 

 

Edit - LOL, sbell111 and I have exact same post times and thoughts.

Edited October 14, 2008 by WatchDog2020

[Mr.Yuck]

 

I know of at least one other cache in this state that has a cache located in close to a bridge. I question the approval of the cache and was told an exception was made. I also know of other caches in this state located in university parking lots that have been approved.

 

I have talked with other cachers that are more experienced that I am….and they feel this particular cache does not fall under what would be considered a terrorist threat.

 

There are bridges in other states that I visited, Maryland and Virginia that have bridges such as the Woodrow Wilson bridge that I would not consider placing a cache. This bridge is a major artery connecting 395 to 495/95 Northbound to Maryland, leading to the eastern shore and other states such as PA, NY etc.

 

What are your thoughts?

 

I'd wait for the appeals process, and abide by that decision. I realize your frustration, but I'd forget about the other examples in other places.

[+StarBrand]

I've had this discussion before about a local hide. It got a bit ugly.

 

Bottom line is that the reviewers have some amount of discretion when it coms to that particular clause of the guidelines. I think that is apparent from the response and ultimate denial of the listing. Other reviewers and the HQ office are going to tend to support such a decsion and respect the reviewers "gut" feeling.

 

Having said that, did you obtain some explicit permission to place the cache at that location? Is the highway department aware of such a cache - if they were - how would they feel about it? The guideline exists to keep Geocaching from getting a "black eye" in public relations. Even a single "incident" because some out of town strangers were crawling around under the bridge - is not a welcome thing.

 

Just last weekend I visited a cache located on a bridge leading into a town. It was a dirt road, miles from the highway, Town of about 150, bridge about 40 foot long and at least 75 years old. Might see 7 or 8 cars a day. I have no problem with that. Where should we draw the line?? I don't know. As I mentioned above, I complained once about a cache on a 4 lane highway bridge with thousands of cars per day - and many agreed that it was ok to leave alone. We must default to the collective wisdom of our reviewers and respect what they decide.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Sounds like a bad location. Find a new spot that isn't under a bridge (that meets the other guidelines too) and you'll probably have it published right away.

[+J-Way]

Just because somebody else got a cache published somewhere else doesn't mean that you can get a similar cache published. And calling a reviewer's attention to the other cache will likely just get the other one archived.

 

If it's such a small bridge, have you considered taking a digital picture and emailing it to your reviewer? Not a close-up of the cache hide, but an overall picture showing the relative size of the bridge, what it's crossing, how tall it is, etc. If everything you say is true, then your reviewer might approve it after seeing the area. If your reviewer still refuses to publish after seeing the area, then give up.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Well, OP, since you have asked, here is my opinion, as follows:

 

I find it had to believe that anyone is getting worked up over the refusal of a reviewer to publish a guardrail microcache.

 

You may need to realize that ALL placements of caches near ANY kinds of bridges, even small ones, are considered as somewhat touchy nowadays.

[+vwaldoguy]

I'm very new to the geocaching game, so am just asking this for personal knowledge, but could this also be a safety issue? A small bridge on a secondary state road means 2-lane road, possibly without shoulders (or parking). If the micro cache were placed inside the guardrail, wouldn't the finders have to be on the road to get it, which could put them very close to traffic?

Edited October 14, 2008 by vwaldoguy

[+sbell111]

I'm very new to the geocaching game, so am just asking this for personal knowledge, but could this also be a safety issue? A small bridge on a secondary state road means 2-lane road, possibly without shoulders (or parking). If the micro cache were placed inside the guardrail, wouldn't the finders have to be on the road to get it, which could put them very close to traffic?

Whether any one thing in life is too dangerous is largely a personal decision that others should not make for you.

 

Personally, I would not believe that a guardrail at the base of a small bridge on a secondary state road leading to a small town to be inherently dangerous.

[+briansnat]

I think that you probably don't want to be responsible for the bridge being shut down because someone reported a suspicious person or package next to it. The reviewer may be saving you some future grief.

Edited October 14, 2008 by briansnat

[+DanOCan]

People are paranoid now. While to most people it isn't a terrorist target, all it takes is one person with too much time on their hands and too much imagination to make this into a security issue and a black eye for caching.

 

Always remember this part from the guidelines:

 

First and foremost please be advised there is no precedent for placing caches. This means that the past listing of a similar cache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the listing of a new cache.

 

Pointing out previous examples of similar caches which were approved is not likely to get you anywhere.

[+mtn-man]

I'm very new to the geocaching game, so am just asking this for personal knowledge, but could this also be a safety issue? A small bridge on a secondary state road means 2-lane road, possibly without shoulders (or parking). If the micro cache were placed inside the guardrail, wouldn't the finders have to be on the road to get it, which could put them very close to traffic?

Whether any one thing in life is too dangerous is largely a personal decision that others should not make for you.

 

Personally, I would not believe that a guardrail at the base of a small bridge on a secondary state road leading to a small town to be inherently dangerous.

Looking at the cache page, that is a misrepresentation. There is a house there, so the cache could be seen to be on private property. There is no parking next to the cache as there are three houses total in that area. I don't actually see any legal parking other than parking in one of the marinas, and only if they would allow it. There are three fairly large marinas right next to this bridge and several smaller boat storage/dock locations as well. Panning out on Google, they are the largest in the area and this is about the busiest part of the entire 5 to 7 mile area around this cache.

 

Ironically, there is a legal parking lot on the other side of the bridge, but my guess is that there are signs on the bridge that ban fishing from that bridge. All the more reason for not having a cache on the bridge if that is indeed the case.

Edited October 14, 2008 by mtn-man

[+sbell111]

I'm very new to the geocaching game, so am just asking this for personal knowledge, but could this also be a safety issue? A small bridge on a secondary state road means 2-lane road, possibly without shoulders (or parking). If the micro cache were placed inside the guardrail, wouldn't the finders have to be on the road to get it, which could put them very close to traffic?

Whether any one thing in life is too dangerous is largely a personal decision that others should not make for you.

 

Personally, I would not believe that a guardrail at the base of a small bridge on a secondary state road leading to a small town to be inherently dangerous.

Looking at the cache page, that is a misrepresentation. There is a house there, so the cache could be seen to be on private property. There is no parking next to the cache as there are three houses total in that area. I don't actually see any legal parking other than parking in one of the marinas, and only if they would allow it. There are three fairly large marinas right next to this bridge and several smaller boat storage/dock locations as well.

 

Ironically, there is a legal parking lot on the other side of the bridge, but my guess is that there are signs on the bridge that ban fishing from that bridge. All the more reason for not having a cache on the bridge if that is indeed the case.

I think that you are misinterpreting my post. It wasn't a treatise on why the cache should be approved. It was merely a statement as to the fact that the location in question is likely not too dangerous for a pedestrian. Edited October 14, 2008 by sbell111

[+mtn-man]

I understand, but looking at the page, I think it is dangerous. It is in a curve to boot. There has to be a better place than a bridge near three marinas in a curve where there is no parking or sidewalks/crosswalks to take the kids out to go geocaching.

[+sbell111]

I understand, but looking at the page, I think it is dangerous. It is in a curve to boot. There has to be a better place than a bridge near three marinas in a curve where there is no parking or sidewalks/crosswalks to take the kids out to go geocaching.

I have no doubt that you would never think of walking anywhere near that bridge for any reason unlike myself who would likely have little hesitation to ride my bicycle right over it, stopping near the guardrail on the road if I chose to do so.

 

That's the beauty of free will. Each of us is able to decide for ourselves what we find to be too dangerous.

[+mtn-man]

Darwinism is a wild concept, isn't it.

[+Prime Suspect]

DoHS has asked the Nation's trucking industry drivers to be on alert for anything suspicious they see along their routes, and to report it to the authorities. People wandering around under a bridge, wearing backpacks and carrying electronic equipment, could easily cause concern.

 

And most states have some requirement that bridges and underpasses undergo scheduled inspections. That's how one geocache shut down a highway and brought out the bomb squad.

[GPS-Hermit]

If I think that my looking for a cache would cause reasonable concern by any responsible person I will NOT seek the cache at all. I once was seeking a cache where the GPS was leading me to a childrens playground swings and felt like I might be judged a pervert so I left. Told the owner what I felt and that was it.

 

I don't like the Police being bothered by our game and work hard to avoid it.

 

Placing a cache under a bridge to me is only appropriate when it is in a very remote location that no one would care about. I have seen many caches hidden under bridges - but not highway busy ones with close residents near by.

 

I would prefer all caches make a huge effort to be muggle free.

Edited October 14, 2008 by GPS-Hermit

[+Harry Dolphin]

Placing a cache under a bridge to me is only appropriate when it is in a very remote location that no one would care about. I have seen many caches hidden under bridges - but not highway busy ones with close residents near by.

 

I would prefer all caches make a huge effort to be muggle free.

 

Muggle-free caches?!? That would take half the fun out of life!

No bridges I can understand. No need for caches anywhere near bridges.

Available parking? That's a different story. I have several a mile from parking! Of course, I usually suggest a parking spot. But many times, it is up to the cacher to figue out safe and legal parking.

But muggle-free??? Nah! I've got two where you have to avoid wedding parties getting photos taken.

Some with spectacular views. And the bus loads of foreign tourists who come to see the view. The caches are there to bring you to the view.

[+Sioneva]

If I think that my looking for a cache would cause reasonable concern by any responsible person I will NOT seek the cache at all. I once was seeking a cache where the GPS was leading me to a childrens playground swings and felt like I might be judged a pervert so I left. Told the owner what I felt and that was it.

 

I don't like the Police being bothered by our game and work hard to avoid it.

 

Placing a cache under a bridge to me is only appropriate when it is in a very remote location that no one would care about. I have seen many caches hidden under bridges - but not highway busy ones with close residents near by.

 

I would prefer all caches make a huge effort to be muggle free.

 

Today's muggle could be tomorrow's cacher.

[+Wild Thing 73]

I had the "same" happen to me...But I got over it and I think that would be the right thing for you to do....If you don't, it will just bother and upset you. There is lots of land out there waiting for a cache hide that meets the geocaching guidelines....In this situation, believe the reviewer will not change their mind, because the reviewer has their guidelines that we are not aware of and we don't see. Like, 150 feet from bridges, active train tracks, schools, etc......It is best to live in harmony and for "goodness sake", keep on placing caches for the caching community to enjoy....Being a Premium Member and placing/hiding caches is a great way to "payback" this game of Geocaching. Happy Trails

[+twigg2324]

There is way too much paranoia in these here parts about bridges.

 

No one is idiot enough to place a cache under the Golden Gate, and if they did they would be refused a listing and probably arrested.

 

MOST bridges are not remotely terrorist targets, not. even. remotely.

 

At what point do we sacrifice our freedoms and just tell the terrorists that they won?

 

Refusing a listing for the sole reason that a cache is under a bridge is completely contrary to the FAQ, and without adhering to the FAQ how the hell do any of us know where we can place a cache.

 

I had a reviewer use the *terrorist* clause in the FAQ to try to refuse a listing. He then went on to mention that I might need DOT permission to place a cache near a highway. I was on the point of submitting about 50 000 caches to him for archiving.

 

If the DOT don't want you to walk alongside a roadway, then the least they could do is put up a sign asking you not to. They don't.

 

The reality is that on most smaller rivers and creeks, the only access to the bank is alongside a bridge. Parking is usually close by and most creeks and rivers flow extensively through private land. Therefore any members of the public wanting to fish or picnic will be very close to bridges.

 

Bridges, and their immediate surroundings often make for very peaceful and secluded spots perfect for hiding a cache. To suggest that they shouldn't be used because some crazy trucker might get his panties in a wad is nonsense.

 

Clearly there has to be judgement excorcised. Major highway bridges are probably a bad idea, for a number of reasons. But most bridges are fair game, and nothing in the FAQ suggests otherwise.

 

Gut feeling or no.

 

just sayin'

[+Sioneva]

There is way too much paranoia in these here parts about bridges.

 

No one is idiot enough to place a cache under the Golden Gate, and if they did they would be refused a listing and probably arrested.

 

MOST bridges are not remotely terrorist targets, not. even. remotely.

 

At what point do we sacrifice our freedoms and just tell the terrorists that they won?

 

<snip>

 

Oh, no! I can't put a micro under a bridge! Armaggedeon!

 

Let's try to keep a sense of perspective?

[+twigg2324]

There is way too much paranoia in these here parts about bridges.

 

No one is idiot enough to place a cache under the Golden Gate, and if they did they would be refused a listing and probably arrested.

 

MOST bridges are not remotely terrorist targets, not. even. remotely.

 

At what point do we sacrifice our freedoms and just tell the terrorists that they won?

 

<snip>

 

Oh, no! I can't put a micro under a bridge! Armaggedeon!

 

Let's try to keep a sense of perspective?

 

Hey .... I felt that snip

[+Sioneva]

There is way too much paranoia in these here parts about bridges.

 

No one is idiot enough to place a cache under the Golden Gate, and if they did they would be refused a listing and probably arrested.

 

MOST bridges are not remotely terrorist targets, not. even. remotely.

 

At what point do we sacrifice our freedoms and just tell the terrorists that they won?

 

<snip>

 

Oh, no! I can't put a micro under a bridge! Armaggedeon!

 

Let's try to keep a sense of perspective?

 

Hey .... I felt that snip

 

Oops... sorry?

[TheStripedOne]

[content removed by admin]

[+Sioneva]

Clearly there has to be judgement excorcised.

 

I think that most reviewers and mods have had this very thing done. Their judgment has been exorcised from them so that they will act like the robots that Groundspeak wants them to be.

 

 

Do I detect some... sour grapes?

[+twigg2324]

Clearly there has to be judgement excorcised.

 

I think that most reviewers and mods have had this very thing done. Their judgment has been exorcised from them so that they will act like the robots that Groundspeak wants them to be.

 

You got the snark, huh?

 

[+Okiebryan]

Twigg, I feel your pain. I've been asked to get specific verifiable permission for a hide in a rest area on I-40. I archived the cache. But the one in a rest area on the Turner was just fine... I'm not sure where I can and can't hide anymore.

Edited October 15, 2008 by Okiebryan

[+TotemLake]

This bridge is a major artery connecting 395 to 495/95 Northbound to Maryland, leading to the eastern shore and other states such as PA, NY etc.

 

...and you placed an innocuous mundane cache at it that will cause suspicious activity. Enough said.

[+Too Tall John]

This bridge is a major artery connecting 395 to 495/95 Northbound to Maryland, leading to the eastern shore and other states such as PA, NY etc.

 

...and you placed an innocuous mundane cache at it that will cause suspicious activity. Enough said.

I think they meant the Woodrow Wilson bridge, not the one they placed a cache at.

 

I have to agree with the overall sentiment, though: Put the cache in a new spot, away from a bridge.

[+Okiebryan]

This bridge is a major artery connecting 395 to 495/95 Northbound to Maryland, leading to the eastern shore and other states such as PA, NY etc.

 

...and you placed an innocuous mundane cache at it that will cause suspicious activity. Enough said.

 

That's not at all what the OP said. You might wish to reread it.

[+twigg2324]

Twigg, I feel your pain. I've been asked to get specific verifiable permission for a hide in a rest area on I-40. I archived the cache. But the one in a rest area on the Turner was just fine... I'm not sure where I can and can't hide anymore.

 

The whole *permission* thing is a bit of a non-issue.

 

By any account, vast numbers of caches are hidden in places where there is clearly no specific permission either sought or granted.

 

Geocaching is a perfectly respectable normal use of public facilities, and should be treated as such. The only time permission is really required is when caches are placed in any area that the public generally doesn't have access to, or areas where the activity is expressley forbidden.

 

Reviewers, bless 'em all, appear to use the permission clause to deny a cache they are unhappy with, but can't quite justify not publishing.

 

The DOT was mentioned in my case (now published, btw). If that were a real issue, then most Oklahoma caches would have to be archived. This would be ridiculous, by any measure.

 

Don't get me wrong. I do see the need for responsible placement, but it has to be consistent, and we have to know the rules .... all of the rules. So how about de-mystifying the process and sharing the Reviewer's Guidlines. It can only help.

[+Rockin Roddy]

In the OP, I believe you said something to the effect that you were placing the cache just to place a cache (nothing of interest there or some such???), yet you continue to allow the refusal of publishment to annoy you? Let it go my friend! Move the cache to a better, more interesting place and give the caching community a quality cache you'll be proud to own!

 

Life is just too short to continue worrying about something this.

[Keystone]

Don't get me wrong. I do see the need for responsible placement, but it has to be consistent, and we have to know the rules .... all of the rules. So how about de-mystifying the process and sharing the Reviewer's Guidlines. It can only help.

Here is a link to the big book of guidelines used by the reviewers. I could lose my job for leaking this.

 

Seriously... contrary to popular belief, there is not a 50 page secret rules manual in addition to what I've linked to above. Reviewers do have informal guidance on what to do in specific situations arising from the published guidelines. Reading the guidelines ought to be enough to spot whether your cache might present an issue. You can then ask if unsure. In this case, a placement near a bridge shouldn't surprise the cache owner, since bridges are specifically mentioned in the public guidelines.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

This bridge is a major artery connecting 395 to 495/95 Northbound to Maryland, leading to the eastern shore and other states such as PA, NY etc.

 

...and you placed an innocuous mundane cache at it that will cause suspicious activity. Enough said.

 

That's not at all what the OP said. You might wish to reread it.

Although I am not Totem Lake, the poster whom you were addressing, I feel the need to jump in here. Speaking for myself, I find the posts from the OP to be extremely dense, disorganized and confusing, and I must confess that, with my limited intelliegence, I usually have no idea what she or he is really trying to say. And, I must admit that the OP's first post in the thread made it sound as if the bridge in question was an extremely minor bridge on an extremely minor and little-traveled side road, but, much as Totem Lake has indicated, in the OP's later posts it now sounds like she/he is admitting that the bridge in question is one for a major highway artery. If it was NOT the intent of the OP to tell us that, then, frankly, the OP is gonna need to learn to send more clear and coherent posts to the forum. So, for now, I must agree with Totem Lake: it appears that the OP has admitted in later posts that the bridge in question is a major bridge on a major interstate highway, and there seems to be little doubt about that.

 

And, to briefly revisit my earlier opinion on this matter, I still cannot believe that someone is getting bent out of shape over the fact that a reviewer refused to publish a cache that is a micro on a guardrail.

 

Gosh, the reviewer's refusal to publish this all-important critical cache sounds like a major crime to me -- for we all know that the world is suffering from a major shortage of guardrail micros, and we all realize, with dread in our hearts, and with fear and loathing to boot, that the planet will start to die, and that civilization will grind to a halt any day unless geocachers who love God and their planet get their butts out the door and start emplacing hundreds of thousands of additional guardrail micros! Worse, there are stil entire countries where there is still not a single guardrail micro emplaced! For example, there is not a single guardrail micro cache in Nepal, in India, in Malaysia, in Thailand or in Nicaragua. In fact, I feel so strongly about this issue (that is, the dire and urgent need of Planet Earth for more guardrail micros) that I plan to dip deeply into my personal savings today and launch a major advertising campaign, primarily via banner ads on websites on the Interweb, highway billboards on major traffic arteries in countries across the world, and via 15-second TV commercial "spots", urging geocachers to emplace hundreds of thousands of additional guardrail micros across the world, else doom may befall the earth and all humankind.

[+Rockin Roddy]

Don't get me wrong. I do see the need for responsible placement, but it has to be consistent, and we have to know the rules .... all of the rules. So how about de-mystifying the process and sharing the Reviewer's Guidlines. It can only help.

Here is a link to the big book of guidelines used by the reviewers. I could lose my job for leaking this.

 

Seriously... contrary to popular belief, there is not a 50 page secret rules manual in addition to what I've linked to above. Reviewers do have informal guidance on what to do in specific situations arising from the published guidelines. Reading the guidelines ought to be enough to spot whether your cache might present an issue. You can then ask if unsure. In this case, a placement near a bridge shouldn't surprise the cache owner, since bridges are specifically mentioned in the public guidelines.

 

OUCH!! I hope this isn't the case and you'll be given only a stern warning!

 

V&S....my thoughts exactly, but I sugar-coated it a bit!

[+Sioneva]

If we outlaw bridge guardrail micros, only outlaws will have bridge guardrail micros!

[+sbell111]

This bridge is a major artery connecting 395 to 495/95 Northbound to Maryland, leading to the eastern shore and other states such as PA, NY etc.

 

...and you placed an innocuous mundane cache at it that will cause suspicious activity. Enough said.

That's not at all what the OP said. You might wish to reread it.

Although I am not Totem Lake, the poster whom you were addressing, I feel the need to jump in here. Speaking for myself, I find the posts from the OP to be extremely dense, disorganized and confusing, and I must confess that, with my limited intelliegence, I usually have no idea what she or he is really trying to say. And, I must admit that the OP's first post in the thread made it sound as if the bridge in question was an extremely minor bridge on an extremely minor and little-traveled side road, but, much as Totem Lake has indicated, in the OP's later posts it now sounds like she/he is admitting that the bridge in question is one for a major highway artery. If it was NOT the intent of the OP to tell us that, then, frankly, the OP is gonna need to learn to send more clear and coherent posts to the forum. So, for now, I must agree with Totem Lake: it appears that the OP has admitted in later posts that the bridge in question is a major bridge on a major interstate highway, and there seems to be little doubt about that. ...

Ummm, the OP has only made one post. Ever. In any thread.

[+sbell111]

Darwinism is a wild concept, isn't it.

Darwinism? I assume from this remark that you are suggesting that anyone who dares walk (or bicycle) along a secondary state road is somehow defective and it would, therefore, be better if they were culled from the gene pool. Personally, I find this position to be somewhat off-base. After all, you stated that the mystery location is near some houses and a couple marinas. Is it not reasonable to assume that the people who live in these homes occasionally approach the road in front of their homes? Certainly, it could be argued that if the road supports driveway access to private homes, then it's quite possible that it is safe to walk or bicycle along it, perhaps to the nearby marinas or boat docks. This is, of course, a moot point since safety (and nearby parking availability)has nothing to do with whether a cache should be published and because we don't necessarily disagree on the denial of the cache listing in this instance. Since the actual location has not been released to those of us in the cheap seats, we can only assume that the reviewer made the correct decision.

 

I do wonder something about your prior post, however. You stated this:

Ironically, there is a legal parking lot on the other side of the bridge, but my guess is that there are signs on the bridge that ban fishing from that bridge. All the more reason for not having a cache on the bridge if that is indeed the case.

I wonder a hypothetical fishing ban has to do with geocaching. I didn't read that the OP's proposed cache was an ALR with a 'catch a fish from the bridge' requirement.

... Placing a cache under a bridge to me is only appropriate when it is in a very remote location that no one would care about. I have seen many caches hidden under bridges - but not highway busy ones with close residents near by.

As near as I can tell, the OP's cache was neither under a bridge, nor was the local road a 'highway'.

[+Rockin Roddy]

[As near as I can tell, the OP's cache was neither under a bridge, nor was the local road a 'highway'.

 

Base of the bridge would lead me to believe it was placed under the bridge...maybe there's different bridges than around here though?

[+TotemLake]

This bridge is a major artery connecting 395 to 495/95 Northbound to Maryland, leading to the eastern shore and other states such as PA, NY etc.

 

...and you placed an innocuous mundane cache at it that will cause suspicious activity. Enough said.

 

That's not at all what the OP said. You might wish to reread it.

I did. That's a quote in his last paragraph. You might wish to reread it.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

This bridge is a major artery connecting 395 to 495/95 Northbound to Maryland, leading to the eastern shore and other states such as PA, NY etc.

 

...and you placed an innocuous mundane cache at it that will cause suspicious activity. Enough said.

That's not at all what the OP said. You might wish to reread it.

Although I am not Totem Lake, the poster whom you were addressing, I feel the need to jump in here. Speaking for myself, I find the posts from the OP to be extremely dense, disorganized and confusing, and I must confess that, with my limited intelliegence, I usually have no idea what she or he is really trying to say. And, I must admit that the OP's first post in the thread made it sound as if the bridge in question was an extremely minor bridge on an extremely minor and little-traveled side road, but, much as Totem Lake has indicated, in the OP's later posts it now sounds like she/he is admitting that the bridge in question is one for a major highway artery. If it was NOT the intent of the OP to tell us that, then, frankly, the OP is gonna need to learn to send more clear and coherent posts to the forum. So, for now, I must agree with Totem Lake: it appears that the OP has admitted in later posts that the bridge in question is a major bridge on a major interstate highway, and there seems to be little doubt about that. ...

Ummm, the OP has only made one post. Ever. In any thread.

Oops! You are entirely correct!! I realize now that in writing my post, I had made the mistaken assumption -- based upon flaky memory -- that the content in the second half of the OP's original post was actually contained in a later post from the OP!

[+TotemLake]

This bridge is a major artery connecting 395 to 495/95 Northbound to Maryland, leading to the eastern shore and other states such as PA, NY etc.

 

...and you placed an innocuous mundane cache at it that will cause suspicious activity. Enough said.

 

That's not at all what the OP said. You might wish to reread it.

I did. That's a quote in his last paragraph. You might wish to reread it.

I stand corrected on what the OP meant. My statement still stands.

 

You placed an innocuous mundane cache at it that will cause suspicious activity. There has been enough bomb squad activity that has probably caused Groundspeak to reconsider any newly placed bridge caches. Enough said.

[+sbell111]

[As near as I can tell, the OP's cache was neither under a bridge, nor was the local road a 'highway'.

 

Base of the bridge would lead me to believe it was placed under the bridge...maybe there's different bridges than around here though?

I surmised that from the OP's omission that it was on a guardrail and mtn-man's mention that there was legal parking on the 'other side of the bridge'. Also his comment that there might be a sign banning fishing from the bridge, which while strangely off-topic, did identify the bridge as one going over water.

 

From these comments and the angst regarding the cache being potentially dangerous, I made the assumption that the guardrail in question was along the road leading up to the bridge, and not underneath it.

[+sbell111]

This bridge is a major artery connecting 395 to 495/95 Northbound to Maryland, leading to the eastern shore and other states such as PA, NY etc.

 

...and you placed an innocuous mundane cache at it that will cause suspicious activity. Enough said.

 

That's not at all what the OP said. You might wish to reread it.

I did. That's a quote in his last paragraph. You might wish to reread it.

I stand corrected on what the OP meant. My statement still stands.

 

You placed an innocuous mundane cache at it that will cause suspicious activity. There has been enough bomb squad activity that has probably caused Groundspeak to reconsider any newly placed bridge caches. Enough said.

I agree completely with this post. In fact, that is the very reason for my initial reply to the thread. I was trying to assertain why this location was so important to see if there was anything that one would reasonably believe would override the reason for the guideline. The fact that is a minor road would likely be part of it, but there should certainly be something more, like perhaps the cache being actually along a nearby walking trail, the hide not being actually on or directly under the bridge and the container being one that would not be confused for something esplody.

[+Rockin Roddy]

[As near as I can tell, the OP's cache was neither under a bridge, nor was the local road a 'highway'.

 

Base of the bridge would lead me to believe it was placed under the bridge...maybe there's different bridges than around here though?

I surmised that from the OP's omission that it was on a guardrail and mtn-man's mention that there was legal parking on the 'other side of the bridge'. Also his comment that there might be a sign banning fishing from the bridge, which while strangely off-topic, did identify the bridge as one going over water.

 

From these comments and the angst regarding the cache being potentially dangerous, I made the assumption that the guardrail in question was along the road leading up to the bridge, and not underneath it.

 

Gotcha....yes, that is a bit misleading as is much of what the OP has typed. I doubt we'll get the whole story here!

[+gldwing_rider]

Thanks for the responses.

 

If the original post seems disorganized....sorry for that. Just wanted to get some feed back from others with more experience than I. I did not want to tell the exact location of the cache before I made my decision.

 

Since I have pulled the cache....the location of the cache was in Deale MD. The bridge in question is a small bridge with guard rails going up to the side walk of the bridge. No way would I even attemp to put a cache on 495...

 

As much as I enjoy the sport...(over 500 finds in about 6 month) I did find one post interesting.

 

With all the caches that are hidden....how many actually have received permission to place a cache some one. The caches I am referring to are those place in mall parking lots....under the skirting of the lamp posts...along guard rails....in that tree behind that local eating establishment.

 

I can almost guarantee we (me including) do not take the time to contact the owners or property managers to seek their permission....but enough.

 

Thanks again for your feedback and hope to meet more cachers along the way!

 

v/r

Ken

aka

gldwing_rider

[+Rockin Roddy]

Thanks for the responses.

 

If the original post seems disorganized....sorry for that. Just wanted to get some feed back from others with more experience than I. I did not want to tell the exact location of the cache before I made my decision.

 

Since I have pulled the cache....the location of the cache was in Deale MD. The bridge in question is a small bridge with guard rails going up to the side walk of the bridge. No way would I even attemp to put a cache on 495...

 

As much as I enjoy the sport...(over 500 finds in about 6 month) I did find one post interesting.

 

With all the caches that are hidden....how many actually have received permission to place a cache some one. The caches I am referring to are those place in mall parking lots....under the skirting of the lamp posts...along guard rails....in that tree behind that local eating establishment.

 

I can almost guarantee we (me including) do not take the time to contact the owners or property managers to seek their permission....but enough.

 

Thanks again for your feedback and hope to meet more cachers along the way!

 

v/r

Ken

aka

gldwing_rider

 

I agree that there needs to be more people getting permission, but the examples you mention are not ones which are listed as potential terrorist hotspots (not that the bridge in question is, but all bridges seem to be included in the "heads-up" list).

 

I applaud your attempt to give back to the caching community, and would encourage you to try again. Just pick a better location and go with it!