Jump to content

Railroad tracks...


Recommended Posts

Check this cache out. This is an active railroad track in the middle of town. According to the guidelines for hiding a cache the limit is 150 feet, and this is clearly about 40 feet or so from the tracks, and a heavily traveled road...how did this get published? I requested it be archived for safeties sake, but apparently the rules don't apply here...

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...32-9b818096f1ad

Link to comment

As I understand it, the "railroad tracks rule" is due to RRs being very persnickety about their right of ways (rights of way?). I know places where there are several businesses/homes well within 150' of tracks. Those properties obviously not being subject to those "RR rules" would leave room for exceptions, I would imagine...

 

I'm not sure what the rules are but I think there's some federal laws as to how far things can be from RR tracks, my guess is that the posting guidelines are in place to comply with those. I also know it's a federal offense to take or deface anything from the RR tracks.... but I don't know what the actual numbers are in regards to the law.

 

-Rozie

Link to comment

Yea, it just strikes me as odd that it would be approved at all, the rules say 150', and don't mention exceptions. Whatever I guess. The cache IS hidden on private property (presumably with permission) that runs parallel to the tracks.

 

That is a good point... maybe the person got special permission from the property owner. But you're right, that is definitely odd.

 

-Rozie

Link to comment

Lets not jump to conclusions.

 

The way i read the rules you can't place a cache near RR tracks that is on RR property. There should be no problem if the cache was clearly NOT on railroad property. It appears to be a guideline, that is all.

 

I have found a cache at a community park that is within 150 feet of tracks. It is clearly in the park and not on the RR property.

 

Just my 2 cents that don't mean much. Let's not hang someone before we have all the details now.

Link to comment
Yea, it just strikes me as odd that it would be approved at all, the rules say 150', and don't mention exceptions.

Depends on how you read it I guess :

but your local area’s trespassing laws may be different. All local laws apply.

Have you been to the hide? I did not see your SBA log, BTW - deleted by CO?

Link to comment

Lets not jump to conclusions.

 

The way i read the rules you can't place a cache near RR tracks that is on RR property. There should be no problem if the cache was clearly NOT on railroad property. It appears to be a guideline, that is all.

 

I have found a cache at a community park that is within 150 feet of tracks. It is clearly in the park and not on the RR property.

 

Just my 2 cents that don't mean much. Let's not hang someone before we have all the details now.

 

My first attempt at placing a cache was in a small town park near RR tracks. The driveway into the park, and into a small parking area, crossed the tracks and the park was on the other side of the parking lot. The cache was denied due to the proximity of the RR. The reviewer included a link in his response about an incident a few years ago where a cacho owner was actually prosecuted and received a stiff fine (about $5000 if I recall) because he had placed a tupperware container near the active RR tracks.

 

There are, however, a few exceptions where the proximity of the cache to the tracks is close but there is a physical barrier, but in general reviewers are likely going to err on the side of caution and deny the submission.

 

One of these days I'm going to get permission from the town park place a container a little further away (I think I can find a spot about 200' from the tracks) as it's also a really pretty spot at the edge of one of the Finger Lakes and I have a really good title for the cache.

Link to comment

Plenty of parks, homes, business, etc. near railroad tracks, especially ones that go through, as you wrote, "the middle of town". Are the tracks active? Many old railroad tracks have been turned into trails. Have you been to the cache site? On the satellite map it looks like it's on or behind a building which appears to be part of a business. Personally, as long as the cache isn't on RR property and there is a clear separation (fence, canal, hedge, end of parking lot, clearly defined property boundary, whatever) between you and the tracks, I don't see a problem. The first finder's log says "The cache is right at least 50 feet from the tracks and on tire stores property. No need to go near the tracks" Sounds good to me.

Link to comment

Picture this.

Soccermom pulls the family van up to an only convenient spot just off the road near where her GPSr shows a cache. Her 4 & 5 year old boys, already excited about the caches & kiddy toys they've found earlier, each over-eager to beat his brother to the next 'treasure pile', jump out & run ahead of mom - and who hasn't seen THAT from kids.....oblivious to mom's screams to stop. You can see this coming, can't ya? They reach the tracks just as the 2:15 express comes roaring thru.

 

That's the 'mind-pic' I always get when GrndSpk's RR rule pops up....every time. I've seen it, nearly happen, tho it wasn't geocaching related.....and I thank my lucky stars, every time, that those kids did suddenly skid to a halt in the nick of time, cuz that train didn't & it's sure's heck not something I'd ever have wanted to've witnessed.

 

Whatever Groundspeak's reason for the rule.....I got no repeat NO problem with it!

~*

Link to comment

OK, here is the deal. I contacted the reviewer, and he said basically what you all have said. Since it's not on railroad property, and is on private property with permission from the owner, the reviewer didn't see any problems with it. I still don't think it should've been approved but who am I? Just a concerned cacher is all.

 

Yes, I went to the cache last night, then reread the description..The owner requests that it be searched for during business hours only, presumably so the tire shop owner could watch you hunt, and also try and peddle you some tires.

 

I deleted the SBA log since the reviewer didn't see a problem with the cache.

Edited by LostMontanan
Link to comment

Yes, I went to the cache last night, then reread the description..The owner requests that it be searched for during business hours only, presumably so the tire shop owner could watch you hunt, and also try and peddle you some tires.

 

More than likely because he does not want people poking around his business after dark. It might also be to keep encounters with the boys in blue to a minimum.

 

Jim

Link to comment

Read the page.

If ya don't like 'em, leave (or don't go in the first place).

Don't assume.

Don't play on the tracks (although authentic, train-squashed pennies are way cool).

It ain't Pokemon, ya don't have to find them all.

 

I've been to caches which I have felt to be too close to the tracks (and other places) for comfort. Sometimes I do 'em anyways, sometimes I just walk away. If it looks like one I would really want to do and I think it questionable enough to walk (or keep on driving) away, I try to contact the cache owner first...

Edited by Jumpin' Jack Cache
Link to comment

Read the page.

If ya don't like 'em, leave (or don't go in the first place).

Don't assume.

 

LOL. I could care less really. I just thought it would be nice to make it a point to show the reviewer that the now flexible railroad guideline wasn't being adhered to. No biggie. I've had a cache get denied because it was at the base of a water tower, which the same reviewer said was a potential terrorist target. I guess bombing a water tower is a lot more dangerous than getting hit by a train. :blink:

Edited by LostMontanan
Link to comment

Read the page.

If ya don't like 'em, leave (or don't go in the first place).

Don't assume.

 

LOL. I couldn't care less really. I just thought it would be nice to make it a point to show the reviewer that the now flexible railroad guideline wasn't being adhered to. No biggie. I've had a cache get denied because it was at the base of a water tower, which the same reviewer said was a potential terrorist target. I guess bombing a water tower is a lot more dangerous than getting hit by a train. :blink:

 

I don't see any change in the "flexibility" of the guideline myself but I understand that there was one notable incident...

 

Real "train-squashed" pennies are still way cool but rarer than they used to be (in my experience). I used to walk the railroad tracks as a young'un with my mother to get to the local fruit market. Trying to only step on the ties or walk the rail was great fun in those days. 'Course, there were fatalities from people who didn't move in time...

 

Fatalities (or just "incidents") resulting from cache placements would/have reflect(ed) badly on our hobby, so I can understand caution in that area on the part of GS. I can aslo understand that there are situations where the guidelines seem to be violated but actually aren't, even when concerning RR tracks.

Link to comment

As I understand it, the "railroad tracks rule" is due to RRs being very persnickety about their right of ways (rights of way?). I know places where there are several businesses/homes well within 150' of tracks. Those properties obviously not being subject to those "RR rules" would leave room for exceptions, I would imagine...

 

I grew up with my bedroom about 70 feet from live RR tracks. And I turned out OK.

 

Seriously though, thanks to Keystone for the post about the guideline being more for right-of-way/tresspassing issues, and not safety issues. I'd always assumed it was the other way around.

Edited by TheWhiteUrkel
Link to comment

As I understand it, the "railroad tracks rule" is due to RRs being very persnickety about their right of ways (rights of way?). I know places where there are several businesses/homes well within 150' of tracks. Those properties obviously not being subject to those "RR rules" would leave room for exceptions, I would imagine...

 

I grew up with my bedroom about 70 feet from live RR tracks. And I turned out OK. I think.

 

~300-400' or so for me for a good part of my childhood but I never did like the house a'shakin. Learned to sleep through it most times, though. A noisy wheel would wake me up occasionally...

 

(Not intended to be a comment on whether TheWhiteUrkel is OK or not).

Link to comment

Hmmmm....

We have a bunch of rules for publishing caches (railroad distance etc.)

 

Additionally we're getting more and more problems with

- Bomb squads blowing up caches (US only)

- Spec. laws for gaslines etc (spec. in US)

- AntiGeocaching groups (they steel caches)

- Conservationist (they "fighting" against cache in caves to "safe" bats etc. etc.)

 

Next I see cachers who want to archive cache which are to "dangerous" (caves, canyon, diving...).

 

I thinks thats nearly too much.

Wondering where we're going with our hobby...

 

Hope you still have fun,

Martin

Link to comment

 

I grew up with my bedroom about 70 feet from live RR tracks. And I turned out OK.

 

Seriously though, thanks to Keystone for the post about the guideline being more for right-of-way/tresspassing issues, and not safety issues. I'd always assumed it was the other way around.

 

Me too. What a pair o' asses we are, huh?

& you, "OK"??....jury's still out on that one.

Bein' Rickroll'd, you're clearly damaged goods.

 

:blink:

 

Just an aside, but, don't always 'assume' re property rights, kids. We've got a case goin' on right here in my small town, which a RR runs thru. There's an old, beautifully architectured building just setback off 'Main St' that it turns out, was a stagecoach & carriage factory back in the Revolutionary days. Later became a Railroad Express depot, but long deserted now. The train passes within mere inches of one corner. Our local PTB's are on a History & Tourism jag, & want to restore the building & turn it into a Merchant's Mart. Much to their surprise, turns out the RR owns the land, and have just been letting the building stay. Now they've decided they want it gone....something about losing time & wasting fuel by having to slow down so much when they pass it. The historians are fighting them, & the RR's extended their deadline for clearance, saying dismantle & remove it if you wish, but come June 1st, it's REALLY history.

 

Heck of it is, I's planning to place a cache near the opposite corner (which meets the distance guideline) because of all its history, interesting structure, etc. Those plans are history as well.

 

~*

Link to comment

Hmmmm....

We have a bunch of rules for publishing caches (railroad distance etc.)

 

Additionally we're getting more and more problems with

- Bomb squads blowing up caches (US only)

- Spec. laws for gaslines etc (spec. in US)

- AntiGeocaching groups (they steel caches)

- Conservationist (they "fighting" against cache in caves to "safe" bats etc. etc.)

 

Next I see cachers who want to archive cache which are to "dangerous" (caves, canyon, diving...).

 

I thinks thats nearly too much.

Wondering where we're going with our hobby...

 

Hope you still have fun,

Martin

Ask geocachers in England about bomb squad and terrorist concerns and their effect on geocaching in Central London. Ask them, too, about "environmentalists" removing caches. Ask a Canadian about caches on highway bridges and the views expressed by law enforcement officials.

 

Geocaching became mainstream in the United States first. It's now clearly mainstream in much of Europe, and that is a very good thing. Unfortunately, a byproduct of becoming more visible is an increase in the types of issues you've listed.

 

Since this thread is about the railroad guideline, I will point out that the guideline is flexible, depending on local law (including property rights). If it's legal where you live to walk right along the train tracks, and you've obtained adequate permission, then by all means feel free to hide a cache there.

Link to comment

Groundspeaks policy makes sense to me. If it were all about safety, we wouldn't have caches adjacent to roads either, but most folks manage those without too much drama. So it's more an issue of permission than safety.

 

I'm sure there are others, but locally GCM1B6 is very close to an active railroad, but is in a park and is separated from the tracks by a fence. It would be very difficult to get to it from the track side of the fence. Maybe the cache mentioned by the OP is like that?

Link to comment

Check this cache out. This is an active railroad track in the middle of town. According to the guidelines for hiding a cache the limit is 150 feet, and this is clearly about 40 feet or so from the tracks, and a heavily traveled road...how did this get published? I requested it be archived for safeties sake, but apparently the rules don't apply here...

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...32-9b818096f1ad

 

Why do you insist on being the enforcer? You may have no idea about the circumstances. Ignore the cache if it bothers you.

Link to comment

....clearly about 40 feet or so from the tracks, and a heavily traveled road...

 

Do you know this from actually visiting the site, or from looking at a map?

 

I had a cache published that was 130' from an active railroad. It was in a green space in a city square that had two rows of parking spaces and a street between the park and the road. I explained this in a reviewer note and it was published with no problems.

Link to comment

Groundspeaks policy makes sense to me. If it were all about safety, we wouldn't have caches adjacent to roads either, but most folks manage those without too much drama. So it's more an issue of permission than safety.

 

I'm sure there are others, but locally GCM1B6 is very close to an active railroad, but is in a park and is separated from the tracks by a fence. It would be very difficult to get to it from the track side of the fence. Maybe the cache mentioned by the OP is like that?

 

I hope that you aren't inadvertantly suggesting that cache hiders ignore complying with state and local highway right of way encroachment laws and regulations.

Link to comment

Groundspeaks policy makes sense to me. If it were all about safety, we wouldn't have caches adjacent to roads either, but most folks manage those without too much drama. So it's more an issue of permission than safety.

 

I'm sure there are others, but locally GCM1B6 is very close to an active railroad, but is in a park and is separated from the tracks by a fence. It would be very difficult to get to it from the track side of the fence. Maybe the cache mentioned by the OP is like that?

 

I hope that you aren't inadvertantly suggesting that cache hiders ignore complying with state and local highway right of way encroachment laws and regulations.

 

I can't figure out what in my post would suggest that, but no, I am not. I believe caches should comply with federal, state, and local laws and be placed with permission.

Link to comment

Groundspeaks policy makes sense to me. If it were all about safety, we wouldn't have caches adjacent to roads either, but most folks manage those without too much drama. So it's more an issue of permission than safety.

 

I'm sure there are others, but locally GCM1B6 is very close to an active railroad, but is in a park and is separated from the tracks by a fence. It would be very difficult to get to it from the track side of the fence. Maybe the cache mentioned by the OP is like that?

 

I hope that you aren't inadvertantly suggesting that cache hiders ignore complying with state and local highway right of way encroachment laws and regulations.

 

I can't figure out what in my post would suggest that, but no, I am not. I believe caches should comply with federal, state, and local laws and be placed with permission.

 

Thanks. Me too. I don't recall, do you know if there is a guideline wrt roadway placement similar to that wrt railroads?

Edited by Team Cotati
Link to comment

I've had placements near the interstate questioned because it's illegal to stop on the interstate unless it's an emergency*. But as far as I know it's not against the guidelines to put one right by any other road. In my opinion it isn't a good idea to put one right by a busy road, but that's just me.

 

*I can hear it now, "but officer, FTF is an emergency!"

Link to comment

I've had placements near the interstate questioned because it's illegal to stop on the interstate unless it's an emergency*. But as far as I know it's not against the guidelines to put one right by any other road. In my opinion it isn't a good idea to put one right by a busy road, but that's just me.

 

*I can hear it now, "but officer, FTF is an emergency!"

 

Odd that RR right of way encroachment would be given such 'special attention'. Since we know that safety is not the issue, you'd think that roadways would be given similar attention.

 

I understand that these are known as 'public' roadways but that is hardly a green light to do what you want, where you want, when you want. Just read those restriction signs posted at the entrance to most Interstate Highways. For instalce, I think that hitch hiking is prohibited and non-motorized vehichles, all kinds of stuff.

 

Lots of places and things are 'public' but never the less have prohibitions in force. Anza-Borrego for example.

Edited by Team Cotati
Link to comment

LOL, this thread delivers. I'm through with it. I'm not trying to be an "enforcer". I was under the impression that NO cache could be hidden within 150' of the tracks, as I thought it was a safety issue, not a trespassing issue. I've accepted that I was wrong, won't be doing this cache, and am sorry it was ever mentioned.

Link to comment

Read the page.

If ya don't like 'em, leave (or don't go in the first place).

Don't assume.

 

LOL. I could care less really. I just thought it would be nice to make it a point to show the reviewer that the now flexible railroad guideline wasn't being adhered to. No biggie. I've had a cache get denied because it was at the base of a water tower, which the same reviewer said was a potential terrorist target. I guess bombing a water tower is a lot more dangerous than getting hit by a train. :laughing:

 

For the life of me, I cannot recall an account of a train swerving off of it's tracks, into the parking lot of a tire shop, running over a family of Geocachers and then swerving back and continuing on it's voyage. What exactly is the issue here?

 

BTW, I grew up in an area that has a very active rail line that winds through a mountainous area and a series of three train tunnels. (Chatsworth CA, where the tragic Metrolink accident occurred last September.) I currently live 250' from this line. A major part of my childhood and teenage years was spent as a trespasser on the railroad's "Right of Way", (ROW). Over the years, I have chased entire familys and their dogs off of the tracks just moments before an AMTRAK came silently around the bend in "push mode", (engine in the back). I take railroad safety very seriously. I listen to to their radios, I understand their signals and the way that they move their trains. I learned very early in my life, you don't walk on the tracks. If you have to cross them, stop, listen, look both ways and then get it over with.

 

I do apologize for the sarcasm of my first paragraph, but I get the impression that 150' is not an absolute, but an indication for the reviewer to request further information. Obviously, an asphalt parking lot that is safe to park cars, should be safe to hide a Geocache. Unless something goes catastrophically wrong, the greatest risk is of getting hit by a car as opposed to being hit by a train.

Link to comment

Read the page.

If ya don't like 'em, leave (or don't go in the first place).

Don't assume.

 

LOL. I could care less really. I just thought it would be nice to make it a point to show the reviewer that the now flexible railroad guideline wasn't being adhered to. No biggie. I've had a cache get denied because it was at the base of a water tower, which the same reviewer said was a potential terrorist target. I guess bombing a water tower is a lot more dangerous than getting hit by a train. :laughing:

 

For the life of me, I cannot recall an account of a train swerving off of it's tracks, into the parking lot of a tire shop, running over a family of Geocachers and then swerving back and continuing on it's voyage. What exactly is the issue here?

 

BTW, I grew up in an area that has a very active rail line that winds through a mountainous area and a series of three train tunnels. (Chatsworth CA, where the tragic Metrolink accident occurred last September.) I currently live 250' from this line. A major part of my childhood and teenage years was spent as a trespasser on the railroad's "Right of Way", (ROW). Over the years, I have chased entire familys and their dogs off of the tracks just moments before an AMTRAK came silently around the bend in "push mode", (engine in the back). I take railroad safety very seriously. I listen to to their radios, I understand their signals and the way that they move their trains. I learned very early in my life, you don't walk on the tracks. If you have to cross them, stop, listen, look both ways and then get it over with.

 

I do apologize for the sarcasm of my first paragraph, but I get the impression that 150' is not an absolute, but an indication for the reviewer to request further information. Obviously, an asphalt parking lot that is safe to park cars, should be safe to hide a Geocache. Unless something goes catastrophically wrong, the greatest risk is of getting hit by a car as opposed to being hit by a train.

 

Ships make "voyages", not trains.

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...