Railroad overpass

[+RaneMokeev]

I've done a bit of searching and found several threads stating what I already know: don't place a cache anywhere near a railroad. But what about under a railroad overpass?

 

I have an idea for a cache back in my hometown, one based on a short story that was set there by Stephen King (who also spent his youth in that town). A scene in the story takes place under a railroad overpass, so I thought a cache dedicated to it could be kind of neat...if it wasn't for the railroad rule.

 

The cache itself would be off a sidewalk, and the only danger of a train would come from someone climbing up a hill and standing on the tracks (something easily avoided by a disclaimer on the cache page to NOT go up there).

 

Anyone have any ideas if this could ever be accepted? The cache would be located in Connecticut, and I'm not aware of the mods for that area, but maybe they could offer some advice. Any help is appreciated though!

Edited October 27, 2009 by RaneMokeev

[Motorcycle_Mama]

Would the cache be located within 150 feet of active railroad tracks?

 

If so, it likely would not be published on Geocaching.com.

[+WRASTRO]

By typing Connecticut into the search box on the home page of the GC.com site I was quickly able to locate caches in that state and determine that a current reviewer appears to be Pofe. I would suggest you contact Pofe and see what the response is.

 

I would expect the cache would be fine as long as it is properly described.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Would the cache be located within 150 feet of active railroad tracks?

 

If so, it likely would not be published on Geocaching.com.

 

Ah. Have the guidelines changed again? I thought that they were concerned with railroad ownership of right-of-way.

[+RaneMokeev]

Would the cache be located within 150 feet of active railroad tracks?

 

If so, it likely would not be published on Geocaching.com.

 

As I said in my post, this would be located under a railroad overpass. Sorry if that was unclear.

 

However, it would be located at a busy intersection in the center of town, and there's no way people could simply walk onto the tracks. If there was any danger at all it would come from cars on the road, but considering guardrail hides (hides that put you within inches of moving traffic) are fine, I thought this one might be as well.

[+Coyote's Girl]

I'm curious, too. Since there's this really awesome tunnel that just so happens to run under a very active railway. Every day when I pass it on my bus I wish I could put a cache down there. It's SO cool. But as far as I can tell... active railroad tracks=no cache. Le sigh.

[+bittsen]

The local reviewer here in Oregon stated that the 150 foot rule was designed to keep cachers from searching ON or NEAR the RR tracks if they are active tracks.

It was a safety issue in his reply to me.

[+RaneMokeev]

The local reviewer here in Oregon stated that the 150 foot rule was designed to keep cachers from searching ON or NEAR the RR tracks if they are active tracks.

It was a safety issue in his reply to me.

 

Understood, but technically you're not "near" tracks if they're up in the air and you clearly state that on your cache page. And as I mentioned, if safety is an issue, why are guardrail caches allowed? It's far more likely a car will veer off course and hit someone than a train.

 

Maybe the disclaimer on my page should read: Please don't jump the fence, climb the hill, and stand on the tracks waiting for a train with a blaring horn to hit you.

[+RaneMokeev]

By typing Connecticut into the search box on the home page of the GC.com site I was quickly able to locate caches in that state and determine that a current reviewer appears to be Pofe. I would suggest you contact Pofe and see what the response is.

 

I would expect the cache would be fine as long as it is properly described.

 

Thank you. I've emailed the mod in that area and will see what he/she says.

[+Hrethgir]

There's also the whole "no caches on/under bridges" thing, but I've found a cache on a bridge, so it's not a hard and fast rule.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

The local reviewer here in Oregon stated that the 150 foot rule was designed to keep cachers from searching ON or NEAR the RR tracks if they are active tracks.

It was a safety issue in his reply to me.

Not to argue with your Reviewer but it's not a safety issue and never has been. Caches are not evaluated for safety. It's about a reaction to an unfortunate incident caused by a cache on RR right-of-way early in the formation of this game and how effectively RR Police enforce right-of-way issues.

 

Distance exceptions can and have been made, just show that the cache is not on RR property or right-of-way and that the RR cannot be accessed from the cache site and you should be okay.

[+bittsen]

The local reviewer here in Oregon stated that the 150 foot rule was designed to keep cachers from searching ON or NEAR the RR tracks if they are active tracks.

It was a safety issue in his reply to me.

Not to argue with your Reviewer but it's not a safety issue and never has been. Caches are not evaluated for safety. It's about a reaction to an unfortunate incident caused by a cache on RR right-of-way early in the formation of this game and how effectively RR Police enforce right-of-way issues.

 

Distance exceptions can and have been made, just show that the cache is not on RR property or right-of-way and that the RR cannot be accessed from the cache site and you should be okay.

 

I'm just saying what the reviewer said.

I argued that there was a bus stop 50 feet from the RR tracks and he countered that people aren't going to be looking for a bus stop anywhere other than at the bus stop but a cache could be anywhere in a radius and it could put them too close to the tracks.

 

Who was I to argue at that point. I relocated my cache.

[+WRASTRO]

The local reviewer here in Oregon stated that the 150 foot rule was designed to keep cachers from searching ON or NEAR the RR tracks if they are active tracks.

It was a safety issue in his reply to me.

 

Understood, but technically you're not "near" tracks if they're up in the air and you clearly state that on your cache page. And as I mentioned, if safety is an issue, why are guardrail caches allowed? It's far more likely a car will veer off course and hit someone than a train.

 

Maybe the disclaimer on my page should read: Please don't jump the fence, climb the hill, and stand on the tracks waiting for a train with a blaring horn to hit you.

The fence thing is probably a big deal as far as approving the cache goes. I personally WOULD put the disclaimer on the page as you have described it. I would want to make the point that anyone who might choose to do so is clearly an idiot and was not searching for the cache as described.

[Keystone]

Here is the initial reviewer note on the cache to which Bittsen is referring. It's a good summary of the guideline, and borrows from the similar form letter that I use. (We all borrow from each other as it aids in consistency.)

 

Note there is nothing about safety in this summary. There might have been a reference to it in a private e-mail to which I obviously wouldn't have access. But the reasoning in the original note is sound. Find a spot 150 feet away or show evidence of permission if the tracks are active.

 

Good day,

 

I'm a volunteer geocaching.com reviewer taking a look at this cache to make sure it meets the guidelines for posting on geocaching.com.

 

I'm concerned about how close the cache is to the railroad track. Can you please describe the distance, whether there is a public pathway, and address the items described below?

 

So you know, it is a Federal offense to place an object like a Geocache near an active rail line. A Geocacher has been arrested, jailed, had to go to court and paid a large fine for placing a cache near an active railroad line. The local bomb squad destroyed his cache. If this is an active line, even if it is only used infrequently, this cache must be moved or removed. This is covered in the guidelines and requirements to place a cache: http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#offlimit The guidelines specifically say that caches may be quickly archived if we see the following and include this in the list: "Caches hidden in close proximity to active railroad tracks. In general we use a distance of 150 ft (46 m) but your local area's trespassing laws may be different. All local laws apply."

 

If it is a "rails to trails" area, if you can demonstrate that the tracks have been removed, or the cache is outside of a marked or bounded right-of-way, then I may be able to reconsider your cache submission.

 

For now, I am temporarily disabling this cache so you can place it in a location that meets the guidelines, or explain why the current location does meet the guidelines.

 

Please post a reviewer note on the cache page or write back to me with further details.

[Motorcycle_Mama]

Would the cache be located within 150 feet of active railroad tracks?

 

If so, it likely would not be published on Geocaching.com.

 

As I said in my post, this would be located under a railroad overpass. Sorry if that was unclear.

 

However, it would be located at a busy intersection in the center of town, and there's no way people could simply walk onto the tracks. If there was any danger at all it would come from cars on the road, but considering guardrail hides (hides that put you within inches of moving traffic) are fine, I thought this one might be as well.

Sorry if I was unclear.

 

Your post was clear that the cache would be under a railroad overpass, but it didn't specify how far under.

 

That's why I asked if it was within 150 feet.

[+RaneMokeev]

Here is the initial reviewer note on the cache to which Bittsen is referring. It's a good summary of the guideline, and borrows from the similar form letter that I use. (We all borrow from each other as it aids in consistency.)

 

Note there is nothing about safety in this summary. There might have been a reference to it in a private e-mail to which I obviously wouldn't have access. But the reasoning in the original note is sound. Find a spot 150 feet away or show evidence of permission if the tracks are active.

 

Thank you, that's also helpful and makes a lot more sense than saying it's a safety issue. I can understand laws can be pretty stringent and geocaching.com has no say in that.

 

My initial question still stands, however, and that is whether or not the cache is on RR property when it's clearly hidden on a road/sidewalk underneath those tracks.

[+RaneMokeev]

 

Sorry if I was unclear.

 

Your post was clear that the cache would be under a railroad overpass, but it didn't specify how far under.

 

That's why I asked if it was within 150 feet.

 

Oh, my mistake. No this would be a regular railroad overpass over a main road, well under 150ft in the air.

[Keystone]

When you ask for permission from the agency (such as the local Roads Department) who controls the road/sidewalk, you will find out whether the railroad's easement rights are an issue. You could also contact the railroad directly, or perhaps search the county real estate records to find out the easement and right of way terms.

 

Or, you could find a spot 150 feet away from the tracks, horizontally.

[+RaneMokeev]

When you ask for permission from the agency (such as the local Roads Department) who controls the road/sidewalk, you will find out whether the railroad's easement rights are an issue. You could also contact the railroad directly, or perhaps search the county real estate records to find out the easement and right of way terms.

 

Or, you could find a spot 150 feet away from the tracks, horizontally.

 

Interesting, thank you.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

... When you ask for permission from the agency (such as the local Roads Department) who controls the road/sidewalk...

 

The ultimate Reviewer card! I believe that not 1 cache in 10,000 (a guess, and probably way low) placed along a road or sidewalk has any sort of permission, but if a cache needs blocking then this card is hard to beat!

 

While exceptions can be made when access to the RR is physically blocked I think you can give up on this one.

 

Also, once a cache dispute is brought to the forum you will rarely see a Reviewer change his mind... always better to work these things out directly with your Reviewer.

[+bittsen]

Here is the initial reviewer note on the cache to which Bittsen is referring. It's a good summary of the guideline, and borrows from the similar form letter that I use. (We all borrow from each other as it aids in consistency.)

 

Note there is nothing about safety in this summary. There might have been a reference to it in a private e-mail to which I obviously wouldn't have access. But the reasoning in the original note is sound. Find a spot 150 feet away or show evidence of permission if the tracks are active.

 

Good day,

 

I'm a volunteer geocaching.com reviewer taking a look at this cache to make sure it meets the guidelines for posting on geocaching.com.

 

I'm concerned about how close the cache is to the railroad track. Can you please describe the distance, whether there is a public pathway, and address the items described below?

 

So you know, it is a Federal offense to place an object like a Geocache near an active rail line. A Geocacher has been arrested, jailed, had to go to court and paid a large fine for placing a cache near an active railroad line. The local bomb squad destroyed his cache. If this is an active line, even if it is only used infrequently, this cache must be moved or removed. This is covered in the guidelines and requirements to place a cache: http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#offlimit The guidelines specifically say that caches may be quickly archived if we see the following and include this in the list: "Caches hidden in close proximity to active railroad tracks. In general we use a distance of 150 ft (46 m) but your local area's trespassing laws may be different. All local laws apply."

 

If it is a "rails to trails" area, if you can demonstrate that the tracks have been removed, or the cache is outside of a marked or bounded right-of-way, then I may be able to reconsider your cache submission.

 

For now, I am temporarily disabling this cache so you can place it in a location that meets the guidelines, or explain why the current location does meet the guidelines.

 

Please post a reviewer note on the cache page or write back to me with further details.

 

Yes, that was the reviewer note however this was a response from GeoCrater when I countered the canned response.

 

The concern is that when one seeks the cache, one only has coordinates to guide. And, with variances in sat coverage, this may lead folks to search near the tracks. As to bus stops, when one seeks the bus stop, it it obvious where one needs to go.

 

I took it to be concern over safety.

[Keystone]

You took it wrong.

[+flask]

 

Also, once a cache dispute is brought to the forum you will rarely see a Reviewer change his mind... always better to work these things out directly with your Reviewer.

 

true, but a personal dialogue with the reviewer is rarely so educational (or entertaining) for the community at large.

 

best not to use the forum as a appeals process, but it makes a handy educational tool.

 

caches that sometimes get approved near railroad tracks:

 

cache on small island in lake below high railroad bridge

cache in public park with railroad passing through; coordinates and description are such that nobody will mistake railroad for hiding place

railroad ROW fenced off and inaccessible to public use area in which cache is placed

 

these are just some examples of which i'm aware. as always, you may not cite precedence as a reason an exception should be made for your cache.

[+RaneMokeev]

 

Also, once a cache dispute is brought to the forum you will rarely see a Reviewer change his mind... always better to work these things out directly with your Reviewer.

 

true, but a personal dialogue with the reviewer is rarely so educational (or entertaining) for the community at large.

 

best not to use the forum as a appeals process, but it makes a handy educational tool.

 

caches that sometimes get approved near railroad tracks:

 

cache on small island in lake below high railroad bridge

cache in public park with railroad passing through; coordinates and description are such that nobody will mistake railroad for hiding place

railroad ROW fenced off and inaccessible to public use area in which cache is placed

 

these are just some examples of which i'm aware. as always, you may not cite precedence as a reason an exception should be made for your cache.

 

Oh I have no plans of disputing anything with the reviewer on here. I know they're just a poor volunteer that's being bombarded by dozens of caches they have to reject everyday (mostly because someone didn't know, or ignored, the rules). I just thought someone on here might have had some experience in this area.

 

It sounds like it might be possible, considering the tracks are up a hill and blocked off, and that the area of the hide would stand out clearly from the RR. I'll just have to see what the reviewer says if and when they get back to me.

 

Thanks to all for the advice though. I certainly learned a lot lol

[+bittsen]

You took it wrong.

 

If you say so, Keystone. If you say so...

[+SooMukwas]

I did not feel safe doing this one back when I was still new to caching. It had me cross the tracks(as description says where to park) and is about 15 feet away from the tracks. I'm confused......GC19V16

[+briansnat]

Would the cache be located within 150 feet of active railroad tracks?

 

If so, it likely would not be published on Geocaching.com.

 

Ah. Have the guidelines changed again? I thought that they were concerned with railroad ownership of right-of-way.

 

Trespassing is just one issue. A RR bridge also falls under the category of potential terrorism targets. A cache under a RR bridge is about as good an idea as a cache under a major automotive bridge.

 

As others mentioned it isn't a safety issue because caches aren't evaluated for safety.

Edited October 28, 2009 by briansnat

[+Castle Mischief]

Just as a point of interest, is there a vertical range to property borders?

[+wimseyguy]

Probably, but there isn't likely to be any standard range. Each land ownership group will have their own, and I am sure there are plenty of areas where there will be some agreement to disagree on the ownership. It's also quite possible that one entity claims ownership of the land under it's bridges, but the local or regional agencies are responsible for the maintenance of those areas.

Edited October 28, 2009 by wimseyguy

[+power69]

Would the cache be located within 150 feet of active railroad tracks?

 

If so, it likely would not be published on Geocaching.com.

 

Ah. Have the guidelines changed again? I thought that they were concerned with railroad ownership of right-of-way.

And the railroad most likely owns the land underneath the overpass. my guess: NOGO.

[+EscapeFromFlatland]

I wonder if I can use that 150ft rule to archive a few dozen geocaches located near the light rail and streetcar lines in Portland... because obviously the streetcar has a right-of-way halfway thru the city block!

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I wonder if I can use that 150ft rule to archive a few dozen geocaches located near the light rail and streetcar lines in Portland... because obviously the streetcar has a right-of-way halfway thru the city block!

 

The guidelines are written to allow a certain amount of flexibility and discretion. That's why they are not called rules. You can use the guidelines to identify all sorts of cache violations... when you have a full understanding of the guidelines you will find that most caches violate one or more. Unless it is egregious this is a problem best left alone. I suspect, for example, that Reviewers could not enjoy caching if they had to deal with every violation they found while caching, so they deal with only the most serious offenses and let the rest slide. That's probably a good approach for all of us to take.

[+briansnat]

,,,when you have a full understanding of the guidelines you will find that most caches violate one or more...

 

Maybe your area is different, but I've only found a very small percentage of caches that violateed one or more guidelines.

[knowschad]

,,,when you have a full understanding of the guidelines you will find that most caches violate one or more...

Maybe your area is different, but I've only found a very small percentage of caches that violateed one or more guidelines.

Glad to see that I'm not the only one confused by that remark!

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

,,,when you have a full understanding of the guidelines you will find that most caches violate one or more...

Maybe your area is different, but I've only found a very small percentage of caches that violateed one or more guidelines.

Glad to see that I'm not the only one confused by that remark!

The problem is that this can't be discussed honestly here without outing the caches and risking getting them shut down, and thus becoming a very unpopular 'cache cop'.

 

I will do this... pick at random any 50 caches in the 35210 zip code and privately, off-line, if you agree not to share the info, I can tell you how 30 of them violate the guidelines in some way! And that stands for any area of the country, I only chose 35210 because that's where I live.

 

Actually you can do this for yourself. Print the guidelines and go caching. Evaluate each cache against each of the written guidelines. I strongly suspect that you will find more violations than you would likely expect. That's not a bad thing, that's just the reality of this game.

 

I've said for years that geocaching's 'dirty little secret' is that most caches have no permission at all, much less adequate or express, but again, to prove that position one would have to out a bunch of caches and no one wants to go there. Knowing something and proving it are sometimes different matters. The same goes for other guideline violations.

 

In other threads Reviewers have been known to use "Do you have the permission of the city/state/landowner to place a cache on that street/sidewalk/right-of-way?" which is a literal but not-often-used fact of the written guidelines. Fortunately they don't often enforce that, but that only means that thousands of caches that need permission don't have it and nobody is going to push the point.

 

I don't mind that we don't enforce all the guidelines all the time, that's reality, but it is irritating when folks pretend that we do.

Edited October 29, 2009 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+42at42]

I've got a hide that is close to tracks. It is about 30 feet south of the tracks, but it is on the remnants of an old tressel 30 feet above the level of the tracks. it is a large stone wall. I mentioned that this should be a significant barrier from the tracks. (I think the fall would probably keep you from reaching the tracks). It has been published. GC1RE84 Ships, Trains and Automobiles.

[+Renegade Knight]

...

Anyone have any ideas if this could ever be accepted? The cache would be located in Connecticut, and I'm not aware of the mods for that area, but maybe they could offer some advice. Any help is appreciated though!

 

Railroads typically own the ground. Thus even with a road under the RR the answer would be "No" on the East Coast some Railroads came in AFTER the roads and so the roadway entity can be the owner.

 

Your reviewer is going to be your best guide if they have dealt with the naunces that can exist on RR property.

[+jhauser42]

I wonder if I can use that 150ft rule to archive a few dozen geocaches located near the light rail and streetcar lines in Portland... because obviously the streetcar has a right-of-way halfway thru the city block!

 

I doubt that a city streetcar line has the same 150' right-of-way that an actual railroad line has.

[+Renegade Knight]

... when you have a full understanding of the guidelines you will find that most caches violate one or more....

 

Thankfully when you have a fuller understanding of why caches have guidelines you know when you have an exception. Plus we always have in our back pocket that it's our cache and the guidlines are about listing the cache, not owning it, placing it, or being responsible for it.

 

However for folks who are challenged in the noggin the guidlines make a handy substitute for thinking.

[+Renegade Knight]

I wonder if I can use that 150ft rule to archive a few dozen geocaches located near the light rail and streetcar lines in Portland... because obviously the streetcar has a right-of-way halfway thru the city block!

 

Maybe, maybe not. 150' was a guideline for reviewers to look for. It may or may not match conditions on the ground.

 

IF your street car came about after roads then the odds are there is no special railroad easments or right of way as it's all under "public ROW" for transportation use.

 

If the street car was always there and the road came up around it. Maybe they do have the ROW and the road is on an easment. Most cities abandoned their urban rail and had to recreate them later to bring them back.

 

The right thing to do though is work under the assumption the reviewer did their job and all is good unless specificly proven otherwise. Unless you were being scarscastic in which case this entire answer was wasted ditial ink.

[+Castle Mischief]

I wonder if I can use that 150ft rule to archive a few dozen geocaches located near the light rail and streetcar lines in Portland... because obviously the streetcar has a right-of-way halfway thru the city block!

 

I doubt that a city streetcar line has the same 150' right-of-way that an actual railroad line has.

 

IIRC, the 150' is a rule-of-thumb based on varying RoW limits across the country. In some parts it may be as little as 50', in some as much as 200'. I believe that the 150' is more like a threshold for reviewers to alert them to archive the cache by default and sort out the details later.

 

My point being that the same *may* be true for street cars. The RoW range may ebb and flow depending on the local laws and in reaction to environment in which it exists.