Jump to content

Highway caches?


pppingme

Recommended Posts

 

I am not adamantly defending the cache placement as much as I am disappointed that a self appointed cache cop is out there and begging for us to give him backup. I am speaking out against that behavior which I feel violates the spirit of geocaching.

This.

 

In his latest log he has demanded that "it should be archived immidiately (sic)". Yep, violates the spirit.

 

There is definitely more to this story.

Oh yeah, it couldn't just be an illegal cache that could tar the name of geocaching.

Nope, you are way to worked up over it for it to be about the cache, and your notes on the cache page are way out of line.

Link to comment

 

I am not adamantly defending the cache placement as much as I am disappointed that a self appointed cache cop is out there and begging for us to give him backup. I am speaking out against that behavior which I feel violates the spirit of geocaching.

This.

 

In his latest log he has demanded that "it should be archived immidiately (sic)". Yep, violates the spirit.

 

There is definitely more to this story.

Oh yeah, it couldn't just be an illegal cache that could tar the name of geocaching.

Nope, you are way to worked up over it for it to be about the cache, and your notes on the cache page are way out of line.

 

They drove by it, but didnt stop soon enough and ended up on the bridge before they realized it. After they turned around and came back they tried to stop on the opposite side of the road, but several people honked at them so they drove down some more and eventually turned around and tried to make another pass but someone cut them off and flipped them "the bird", and they ended up spilling hot coffee all over the inside of the car... (wild guess)

Link to comment

The Archive note reads in part:

 

By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location.... We also assume that your cache placement complies with all applicable laws. If an obvious legal issue is present, or is brought to our attention, your listing may be immediately archived..

 

So why isn't every guardrail cache archived? Do ANY of them have permission?

Link to comment

We must have passed the Geocaching equivalent of Godwin's Law back at this point....

 

Maybe I should just forget getting an opinion here and call the bomb squad...

 

I propose "Touchstone's Law" as the point in any future threads that devolves to the point where someone threatens to call the bomb squad on someone's cache.

 

<_<

I expect that the existing laws against calling in a knowingly false bomb report will take care of anyone who does this quite nicely!

Link to comment

The Archive note reads in part:

 

By submitting a cache listing, you assure us that you have adequate permission to hide your cache in the selected location.... We also assume that your cache placement complies with all applicable laws. If an obvious legal issue is present, or is brought to our attention, your listing may be immediately archived..

 

So why isn't every guardrail cache archived? Do ANY of them have permission?

This isn't about a guardrail cache, this is about stopping on a major highway to retrieve a cache.

Link to comment

We must have passed the Geocaching equivalent of Godwin's Law back at this point....

 

Maybe I should just forget getting an opinion here and call the bomb squad...

 

I propose "Touchstone's Law" as the point in any future threads that devolves to the point where someone threatens to call the bomb squad on someone's cache.

 

<_<

I expect that the existing laws against calling in a knowingly false bomb report will take care of anyone who does this quite nicely!

Nothing was said of a false bomb report, those words were inferred in by others.

 

This thread is so full of misquotes and taking things out of perspective its sickening.

 

It really is a wonder that LE is as cache friendly as they are.

Link to comment

This isn't about a guardrail cache, this is about stopping on a major highway to retrieve a cache.

 

Not really. The sat images and the google photos clearly show a massive amount of ROW on either side of the paved road. You've got what, like 30-40 yards of wide open space in either ditch? I wish our roads had such construction. Plus, there is a dirt trail exiting the highway right before the guardrail starts. There are tire tracks on said path. It's quite clear that you can pull completley off the paved surface of the highway. Then you are not violating any don't park on the highway rule as you're no longer on the highway and you are behind the guard rail such that you can safely access the cache. Time of day will dictate how much traffic there is, so you would just have to avoid "rush" periods.

 

You can also get off on the exit to the SE and find a place to park on the side road that wraps back around behind this cache. Then you can walk the mile or two back to the cache in the bottom of the ROW ditch, plenty far from the highway itself and still on public land.

 

It may be a poor spot and very plain placement with a lame listing description and nothing noteworthy enough to make logging that cache anything but a numbers game, but there is nothing "illegal" about it.

 

If you don't like that spot due to the "safety" factor, please don't come up to Alaska for any caching. Most of our roadside caches really are more dangerous than that one (and yet most of them still have some kind of a view).

 

Time to put that cache on your ignore list and simply go on about your life.

Link to comment

This isn't about a guardrail cache, this is about stopping on a major highway to retrieve a cache.

 

Not really. The sat images and the google photos clearly show a massive amount of ROW on either side of the paved road. You've got what, like 30-40 yards of wide open space in either ditch? I wish our roads had such construction. Plus, there is a dirt trail exiting the highway right before the guardrail starts. There are tire tracks on said path. It's quite clear that you can pull completley off the paved surface of the highway. Then you are not violating any don't park on the highway rule as you're no longer on the highway and you are behind the guard rail such that you can safely access the cache. Time of day will dictate how much traffic there is, so you would just have to avoid "rush" periods.

 

You can also get off on the exit to the SE and find a place to park on the side road that wraps back around behind this cache. Then you can walk the mile or two back to the cache in the bottom of the ROW ditch, plenty far from the highway itself and still on public land.

 

It may be a poor spot and very plain placement with a lame listing description and nothing noteworthy enough to make logging that cache anything but a numbers game, but there is nothing "illegal" about it.

 

If you don't like that spot due to the "safety" factor, please don't come up to Alaska for any caching. Most of our roadside caches really are more dangerous than that one (and yet most of them still have some kind of a view).

 

Time to put that cache on your ignore list and simply go on about your life.

 

All good, but why then does the cache owner tell searchers on the page to park on the shoulder and use their flashers? If parking on the highway is illegal (and I will take Potato Finder at his word on the existence of signs that says it is), do we really want to encourage illegal behavior?

Link to comment

Let's stick to the issue at hand folks.

 

As briansnat has pointed out, safely or the lack or perceived lack thereof is not an element of consideration for publication of a cache. It's not a consideration. Period.

 

To the OP, if you have evidence that the cache was placed without proper permission of the landowner, please forward that to the cache reviewer and then move on.

 

Permission is the only issue at hand.

There is no landowner question, its clearly on a 4-lane highway and the cache owners instructions clearly state taking illegal actions to retrieve the cache.

 

Others have quoted the specific state laws in this thread.

 

Its not an issue of land ownership, its an issue of legality.

 

There is NO LEGAL WAY to retrieve this cache.

Ok. So send a note to the reviewer and move on.

Link to comment
but why then does the cache owner tell searchers on the page to park on the shoulder and use their flashers?

 

If you look at the statement prior to that suggestion it is very clear. Because the complaining cacher got to the CO and they felt the need to add that to the listing after the fact. I think the CO should remove that part and delete all the debate logs from the listing. If s/he were smart, they'd just relocate this cache over to the side road (the nearby cemetary was suggested), enter an adjust coordinates log and be done with the sniveling. There is no need to archive.

Link to comment

All good, but why then does the cache owner tell searchers on the page to park on the shoulder and use their flashers? If parking on the highway is illegal (and I will take Potato Finder at his word on the existence of signs that says it is), do we really want to encourage illegal behavior?

 

This became less about the cache and more about Potato Finder using this cache to settle a score with the finder.

 

My understanding is that logs are not to be used as forums. 2 separate SBA and a note qualify as a forum to further an agenda, The CO did the only mature thing they could do since they were not being allowed to work within the system and work it out with the reviewer. It is unfortunate they had to deal with the unhealthy obsession Potato Finder took in this case.

 

We have had issues with caches being used as forums around here with almost similar results and almost always there is a back story that is not apparent to all as there was here.

 

Anyone proud of the result here is in the extreme minority.

Edited by baloo&bd
Link to comment
There are tire tracks on said path.

Road crew? Oh, and just because someone did it means it's legal?

 

It's quite clear that you can pull completley off the paved surface of the highway. Then you are not violating any don't park on the highway rule as you're no longer on the highway and you are behind the guard rail such that you can safely access the cache.

What's the definition of "highway?" I suspect it's same as SC where the "highway" is total land that is improved for movement of vehicles. This is basically from ditch to ditch, or in the case of most controlled access highways, from fence to fence. The "roadway" is the traveled part, the part you're saying is the highway.

 

Therefore, you're wrong in that if you pull off onto the grass you're all of a sudden legal.

Link to comment
We have had issues with caches being used as forums around here with almost similar results and almost always there is a back story that is not apparent to all as there was here.

Yeah, a lot of the time the moral of the story is don't screw with other cachers lest your illegal placements be highlighted to the world. <_<

 

Does that in any way make an illegal placement any less illegal?

 

Actually, in hind sight, I would have liked a cache cop pointing out improper placements in some DNR controlled areas in SC. Maybe then we wouldn't have a law prohibited them in all DNR controlled or managed areas.

Link to comment

I don't think that this thread had anything to do with that cache. I believe Potato Finder merely sas a personal gripe with the other cacher.

 

It won't be long before another thread pops up regarding some dispute the two of them are having.

 

The best way to handle a dispute is to send a note to the reviewer.

 

The next best way is to send it to the cacher (and hope for the best)

 

An Needs Archived note, really is too public and is not that good.

 

Possibly the worst way is to start a thread about it..

Link to comment
Nothing was said of a false bomb report, those words were inferred in by others.

Seriously? Is there another "Potato Finder" here? 'Cuz I found a post by someone with the same moniker:

Maybe I should just forget getting an opinion here and call the bomb squad

Would you be calling the bomb squad to get directions to your local Wally World?

Or would you, perhaps, be calling them to report a suspicious object?

Link to comment

I don't think that this thread had anything to do with that cache. I believe Potato Finder merely sas a personal gripe with the other cacher.

 

It won't be long before another thread pops up regarding some dispute the two of them are having.

 

The best way to handle a dispute is to send a note to the reviewer.

 

The next best way is to send it to the cacher (and hope for the best)

 

An Needs Archived note, really is too public and is not that good.

 

Possibly the worst way is to start a thread about it..

 

I agree with all these observations. I have a few of my own. :)

 

Potato finder never named the cache, someone went into his profile and his finds, and figured it out and posted the link.

 

Potato finder was a little crazy obsessed with having this cache terminated, and the "call the bomb squad myself" thing was quite unfortunate.

 

I do not believe there is any bad blood between him and the Cache owner. The owning account has been Geocaching less than a month. An account given credit for co-placing the cache has been caching only since July 2009, and has about 60 finds.

 

So yeah, this was kind of ugly, and no one should be proud of the way it went down. I think this was a horrible location for a cache (and I agree probably illegal to access), and just a newbie blunder. Personally, I think the best way to have handled it was anonymously through the local reviewer. But then again, that puts them on the spot and makes them look like the bad guy.

Link to comment
We have had issues with caches being used as forums around here with almost similar results and almost always there is a back story that is not apparent to all as there was here.

Yeah, a lot of the time the moral of the story is don't screw with other cachers lest your illegal placements be highlighted to the world. :)

 

Does that in any way make an illegal placement any less illegal?

 

Actually, in hind sight, I would have liked a cache cop pointing out improper placements in some DNR controlled areas in SC. Maybe then we wouldn't have a law prohibited them in all DNR controlled or managed areas.

 

This issue was far beyond any desire of the OP to simply get an illegal cache removed, there is no doubt in my mind it was personal against the CO.

Link to comment
This issue was far beyond any desire of the OP to simply get an illegal cache removed, there is no doubt in my mind it was personal against the CO.

Could very well be. However, the OP did not place an illegal cache in the cache owner's name.

 

The point is if you don't tick off folks then they're not as motivated to see you suffer. In this case, the OP was bringing the hammer of this sites guidelines to bear on his opponent. (If this is a personal vendetta.) This is easy and further harms the other one due to the public spanking.

Link to comment

...I can't say for sure in other states, the the only reason you are allowed to stop on a major highway here is if you are having some kind of mechanical difficulty (engine, tire, etc), or something along those lines. ...

 

You would be hard pressed to find a transportation department that would allow a cache within the clear zone on a highway. To be perfectly blunt, I'm willing to bet that not one of the 50 states would allow such a cache. Adequate, let alone explicit permission is unlikely in this case.

 

This is both a safety and good will issue. Since we know that permission is unlikely we can be pro-active and get that cache into compliance.

 

In your shoes I'd give the cache owner a chance to do the right thing. Then when they don't (that's where the odds seem based on your experience thus far) contact the review to have them ask about adequate permission.

Link to comment

Let's stick to the issue at hand folks.

 

As briansnat has pointed out, safely or the lack or perceived lack thereof is not an element of consideration for publication of a cache. It's not a consideration. Period....

 

It is a consideration for the land owner. In this case no self respecting transportation department is going to allow a cache in the clear zone on any highway in their system.

 

This will hold true regardless how you may access the cache. While the OP and cache owner may have bad blood, it doesn't change this fact.

 

Any reviewer can and should question a cache's permission that appears to be this close to a highway just as they would for a rail road. Any cache that does get permission would be an exception to to the rule.

Link to comment

...Please tell me which ones of these say it's illegal to stop for a moment to retrieve a geocache from a guardrail?...

 

Your barking up the wrong tree. There is a 99.999999% chance that cache doesn't have adequate permission. There is an excellent chance of bad blood by the transportation department if any kind of incident ever happened there as a result of that cache.

 

The placment sucks, the risk of harm to geocaching is high, and the permission doesn't exist. Even if you use the frisbee rule, this cache should not be there.

 

Here is why:

Link to comment

The "transportation department" doesn't "own" the public lands that the roads are built adjacent to. If it weren't for public road right of ways, I believe that a quarter of the caches in Alaska wouldn't be allowed. It is one of the most popular hides up this way. They are allowed as public land is public land be it park or roadside. Telling the reviewer that the cache is within the public road right of way is all the "permission" that they require.

 

Other states clearly have different rules, or at least different "takes" on the rules. But I have to remember that you guys don't allow caches on bridges and such and for some strange reason a pocket knife or box of waterproof matches as swag gets out-of-staters all riled up. ;)

Link to comment
This issue was far beyond any desire of the OP to simply get an illegal cache removed, there is no doubt in my mind it was personal against the CO.

Could very well be. However, the OP did not place an illegal cache in the cache owner's name.

 

The point is if you don't tick off folks then they're not as motivated to see you suffer. In this case, the OP was bringing the hammer of this sites guidelines to bear on his opponent. (If this is a personal vendetta.) This is easy and further harms the other one due to the public spanking.

And abused the site and guidelines by turning the COs cache listing into his personal Forum to berate the CO. Nothing can excuse that, NOTHING.

Link to comment

The "transportation department" doesn't "own" the public lands that the roads are built adjacent to. If it weren't for public road right of ways, I believe that a quarter of the caches in Alaska wouldn't be allowed. It is one of the most popular hides up this way. They are allowed as public land is public land be it park or roadside. Telling the reviewer that the cache is within the public road right of way is all the "permission" that they require....

 

Can you focus this to a point, or counterpoint?

 

My point is pretty clear. No Transportation Department will allow a cache in the clear zone. Few (if any) will allow one inside the band of ROW that defines a highway outside the clear zone. Many will allow a cache inside ROW that's not subject to the dangers of a highway that create the need for a clear zone. (Rest Area, Auxillary lands etc.).

 

This is different than what your reviewer may or may not accept as adequate permission. I'm telling you that inside that clear zone, the caches do not have adequate permission becuase nobody in their right mind would ever give it in any remotely normal circumstance and no cacher could ever talk their way out of the stupidity of putting one there if it ever became an issue.

 

You only have the ability to harm geocaching if you in any way support these caches.

 

If you like, you can do some legwork and come to this conclustion by talking to your transportation department. If you get the right person you will get some good info, if you get another kind of right person, you will get the thunder called down and a policy statment banning all caches on transportation department lands. Or if you like I can get in touch with one of my contacts and pose the question, but that would not leave you in control of the outcome. Or you can take my word for it, at least you can got some good info without calling down the thunder.

Link to comment

Offer "taken". Seein's how I deal with DOT all the time at my day job, this won't be difficult at all. ;)

 

I was half bluffing, I was hoping you would actually do your own leg work.

 

So my question to you for the moment is this:

 

Did you want me to try to exercise some modicum of discression and try to inquire about the leanings of the Alaksa DOT and clear zone caches, or just go for blanket permission of all caches in AK in the clear zone (which will not happen) and hope that it doesn't result in a blanket ban? In my own state this is a lot easier. I can walk down the hall and we can all have a good laugh. Did you need a letter or personal call since you already haven't listed to the real answer from me, I'm thinking you would need a 2nd direct opinon on it.

 

If you deal with the DOT in your day job and don't already know the answer to the question though, you really have me wondering what the heck you do.

 

Edit:

I didn't wait for an answer and went for option 1 via a cacher to start. Before I hit up my DOT friend you may want to do your own leg work and ask your contacts. The folks who issue utility permits are well aware of the laws as they relate to placing objects in the ROW and if the AK DOT would ever give permission. If that doesn't work the AK equivilent of a maintenance engineer would be the next person to ask. I'll check back in this thread tonight before I email my friend. Good luck.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment
This issue was far beyond any desire of the OP to simply get an illegal cache removed, there is no doubt in my mind it was personal against the CO.

 

Looks to me like it could be frustration from a failed FTF attempt on the 23rd, actually.

 

And with no hides of his own at stake, the OP has nothing to lose by being a geojerk.

Link to comment

Send a note to the reviewer with photos of the area and let them decide. From there, put it on your ignore list and move on.

 

Don't know the circumstances, but I can see the headline:

 

INTERNET HOBBY KILLS FAMILY OF 4

An internet game called geocaching encourages participants to illegally stop on a busy highway. Mr. John Jones illegally stopped his 1997 Dodge minivan partially in the roadway to hop out and play geocaching game leaving his wife of 7 years, Susan, and twin daughters Sara and Stephanie, 4 in the van. As he returned a semi truck struck the minivan killing all four instantly.

 

Congressman R.T. Bullworth (D) stated that this game is getting out of hand and has introduced a bill in Senate to outlaw the hobby with this state. "It's time to put a stop to these holligans who have no respect for the law, propterty rights, the citizens of this fine state, or even themselves!"

 

The governor stated they he will sign the bill if it reaches his desk.

 

The cache placement doesn't sound right, and from what I have read it definitely would not be included in a GeoTruckers list because of the lack of safe parking. Safety is a concern.

 

I do take offense to the news article above, and would suggest that the van has a greater chance of being hit by a teenager texting, or a soccer mom selling real estate behind the wheel than a semi truck.

Link to comment

Send a note to the reviewer with photos of the area and let them decide. From there, put it on your ignore list and move on.

 

Don't know the circumstances, but I can see the headline:

 

INTERNET HOBBY KILLS FAMILY OF 4

An internet game called geocaching encourages participants to illegally stop on a busy highway. Mr. John Jones illegally stopped his 1997 Dodge minivan partially in the roadway to hop out and play geocaching game leaving his wife of 7 years, Susan, and twin daughters Sara and Stephanie, 4 in the van. As he returned a semi truck struck the minivan killing all four instantly.

 

Congressman R.T. Bullworth (D) stated that this game is getting out of hand and has introduced a bill in Senate to outlaw the hobby with this state. "It's time to put a stop to these holligans who have no respect for the law, propterty rights, the citizens of this fine state, or even themselves!"

 

The governor stated they he will sign the bill if it reaches his desk.

 

The cache placement doesn't sound right, and from what I have read it definitely would not be included in a GeoTruckers list because of the lack of safe parking. Safety is a concern.

 

I do take offense to the news article above, and would suggest that the van has a greater chance of being hit by a teenager texting, or a soccer mom selling real estate behind the wheel than a semi truck.

 

Or the big rig herder who was surfing porn while driving. It just happened near here last month.

Link to comment

Offer "taken". Seein's how I deal with DOT all the time at my day job, this won't be difficult at all. :lostsignal:

 

I was half bluffing, I was hoping you would actually do your own leg work.

 

So my question to you for the moment is this:

 

Did you want me to try to exercise some modicum of discression and try to inquire about the leanings of the Alaksa DOT and clear zone caches, or just go for blanket permission of all caches in AK in the clear zone (which will not happen) and hope that it doesn't result in a blanket ban? In my own state this is a lot easier. I can walk down the hall and we can all have a good laugh. Did you need a letter or personal call since you already haven't listed to the real answer from me, I'm thinking you would need a 2nd direct opinon on it.

 

If you deal with the DOT in your day job and don't already know the answer to the question though, you really have me wondering what the heck you do.

 

Edit:

I didn't wait for an answer and went for option 1 via a cacher to start. Before I hit up my DOT friend you may want to do your own leg work and ask your contacts. The folks who issue utility permits are well aware of the laws as they relate to placing objects in the ROW and if the AK DOT would ever give permission. If that doesn't work the AK equivilent of a maintenance engineer would be the next person to ask. I'll check back in this thread tonight before I email my friend. Good luck.

 

Smoke and mirrors. Mostly smoke.

Do not take the bait.

Link to comment

I think the point has become how childish and improperly this was handled.

 

On the 23rd, Potato Finder missed the FTF and immediately posted a SBA. The reviewer either thought it a non-issue or was working behind the scenes with the CO.

 

On the 27th, Potato Finder, feeling the reviewer should archive it immediately on his word, posted another SBA and came straight over here to start whining to see if there would be any back-up or further publicly humiliate the CO. Clever, not stating the GC since anyone who has ever been on these forums knew someone would find it.

 

- I did not see a guardrail in the "updated" pix he posted.

- The CO, not the reviewer archived it, from the tone of his note, because there was some harassing going on behind the scenes.

- Two people found it before and two after. The two after did not seem to have any issue with it and the two before, only one made a comment of cars whizzing by, not how close they were. One after even comment on how nice the placement was, an experienced cacher none the less.

 

The proper way to handle this, as Motorcycle Mama put it, was to post the SBA and move on. Not take the guidelines, mis-use them to exact some sort of punishment for some yet to be known reason, and then violate several guidelines himself.

 

Other than personal reasons toward the CO, the only other thing I can think of to make it so public is he needed to get what he felt were deserved kudos because he was the only cacher "brave enough to stand up and be heard". The one thing that is fairly obvious is that if better safety was what resulted here it was by accident, not intentional.

 

Yes, I take this personally. I don't like seeing someone who actively participates in giving back to the hobby needlessly attacked by someone who can not be bothered to.

Link to comment

I think the point has become how childish and improperly this was handled.

 

On the 23rd, Potato Finder missed the FTF and immediately posted a SBA. The reviewer either thought it a non-issue or was working behind the scenes with the CO.

 

On the 27th, Potato Finder, feeling the reviewer should archive it immediately on his word, posted another SBA and came straight over here to start whining to see if there would be any back-up or further publicly humiliate the CO. Clever, not stating the GC since anyone who has ever been on these forums knew someone would find it.

 

- I did not see a guardrail in the "updated" pix he posted.

- The CO, not the reviewer archived it, from the tone of his note, because there was some harassing going on behind the scenes.

- Two people found it before and two after. The two after did not seem to have any issue with it and the two before, only one made a comment of cars whizzing by, not how close they were. One after even comment on how nice the placement was, an experienced cacher none the less.

 

The proper way to handle this, as Motorcycle Mama put it, was to post the SBA and move on. Not take the guidelines, mis-use them to exact some sort of punishment for some yet to be known reason, and then violate several guidelines himself.

 

Other than personal reasons toward the CO, the only other thing I can think of to make it so public is he needed to get what he felt were deserved kudos because he was the only cacher "brave enough to stand up and be heard". The one thing that is fairly obvious is that if better safety was what resulted here it was by accident, not intentional.

 

Yes, I take this personally. I don't like seeing someone who actively participates in giving back to the hobby needlessly attacked by someone who can not be bothered to.

 

That pretty much sums it up, too.

 

^5

Link to comment

I think the point has become how childish and improperly this was handled.

<snip>

Yes, I take this personally. I don't like seeing someone who actively participates in giving back to the hobby needlessly attacked by someone who can not be bothered to.

Word. I have been in communication with the CO and from the documentation he provided this was personal in nature. I really feel sorry for the guy because he was trying his best to deal with this in a mature manner but got bullied.

 

Note that I have no opinion about whether this cache meets (met) the current guidelines.

Link to comment

Offer "taken". Seein's how I deal with DOT all the time at my day job, this won't be difficult at all. :)

...Did you need a letter or personal call since you already haven't listed to the real answer from me, I'm thinking you would need a 2nd direct opinon on it....

 

Smoke and mirrors. Mostly smoke....

 

SSO JOAT, has proven to be smoke. I hope he steps up to the plate. It would help to get some contact info from him. If I can't get him a direct answer, Plan B is a generic answer for all cachers in AK and that has a far higher risk of becoming a policy.

 

As for you: You don't know enough, to know when you got a real answer. Neither did SSO JOAT. Of course you are bluster and smoke in this case too. I would like to invite you to make your case, or better still do your own legwork so that maybe you will understand the issues at play that make it so there is no permission to be had on any cache within the clear zone.

================================================================

Follow Up:

 

The AK cacher I had in mind doesn't work for the DOT. Time to follow up with my friend. Pick a state. The answer will not change. No state DOT will allow a cache in the Clear Zone. You would have to show why it's not in the clear zone to have a hope of approval close to a highway.

Link to comment
SSO JOAT, has proven to be smoke...

 

Whoa there buckaroo! You might want to back off on the flaming just a little bit. For one thing, I took you up on your offer to do some of my own "leg work", so I don't understand why you're coming back at me with your childish bully tactics. Wish I would have seen your attack post from a few days ago as I would have given you an eye-full at that point. But then I don't spend much time in these forums due to the extremely hostile attitude of folks like you. Just been bored over the last week, but that all ends tomorrow when my weekend starts.

 

How do you support the sport of geocaching by threatening people with getting most of the caches in their area shut down? Think about that for a minute or two. I've looked over the map of 300 miles of highway between my current location and Anchorage. Over 80% of the caches along that route are DOT-ROW placements. And you really want them all to be banned and removed? What a piece of work.

 

For your info, I have talked to one of the folks I know over at DOT (and intend to talk to others when I get a chance). The same DOT headquarters that has a rather famous geocache hidden right in their front yard... on DOT property. First, geocaches on the public ROW isn't an issue. Second, what the heck is a "clear zone"??? I was kinda wondering that as well and assumed you were talking about the ditch alongside the road that has no trees in it. Of course that cleared area is only a small portion of the ROW. But since the DOT guy didn't know what a "clear zone" was, I'll have to assume that it is some stateside term that doesn't apply to Alaska. Thus proving that you haven't got a clue as to what goes on in my area and should stick to banning people from caching in your own town.

 

:)

Link to comment
Second, what the heck is a "clear zone"??? I was kinda wondering that as well and assumed you were talking about the ditch alongside the road that has no trees in it. Of course that cleared area is only a small portion of the ROW. But since the DOT guy didn't know what a "clear zone" was…

Considering I googled "clear zone" and the very first response was this, I'd say your contacts in the DOT really don't know their behinds from a hole in the ground. Maybe, they're the one's that stand around holding up a shovel?

 

The last I heard Alaska was still park of The United States and thus under federal highway rules? Or does Alaska has so much oil money they don't need federal money. If that's the case and all roads are states roads, then knock yourself out.

Link to comment
I do take offense to the news article above, and would suggest that the van has a greater chance of being hit by a teenager texting, or a soccer mom selling real estate behind the wheel than a semi truck.

Don't get too upset. I've held a CDL since 1985 and have driven off and on since. My wife still drives and even participates in truck rodeos. Yes, 18 wheels and everything. 2007 SC state champion and went to nationals. Generally places every other year at state level.

 

So, yes, I know about truck drivers as I've been one and married to one. Hell, even my mother is one.

 

That said, not a week ago I pulled one over that continually drifted out of his lane. His excuses? He was putting on his boots and surfing the web on his new phone. There are bad truck drivers just like bad drivers of every other mode of transportation. Over the years I've reported several that tailgate, speed, or drift out of their lanes. A team mate of mine loss her mom a few months ago by a speeding chip truck going too fast to stop, swerved to miss one car and hit another. She likes to think her mother was killed instantly by the impact and not suffer due to being crushed under several tons of wood chips. Last I heard the driver was sleepy.

 

Then, it doesn't have to the be the fault of the driver, only that he was involved. Sissy turned over a truck avoiding a minivan doing an illegal u-turn. This was along a 55mph, 4 lane divided highway. If she hadn't swerved she was have struck the van where an infant was strapped in her car seat. A 15 ton vehicle (she was empty returning to the yard) doing 55mph versus a 2 ton vehicle doing maybe 10mph would have been horrific. Luckily there was a place for her to go without hitting anything else. She eased off onto the grassy shoulder, but the wet grass combined with the slope caused the rig to slide and then flip. No one was hurt, in case you're wondering.

 

Stuff happens. You're not supposed to stop on the side of a highway for recreation for a reason.

Link to comment
SSO JOAT, has proven to be smoke...

 

Whoa there buckaroo! You might want to back off on the flaming just a little bit. ...Thus proving that you haven't got a clue as to what goes on in my area and should stick to banning people from caching in your own town....

 

We had a cache in front of our local office as well. I'm thinking you don't know why that would be ok, let alone why that doesn't conflict with what I've been saying. CR figured it out from the hint that I dropped. You work in the Biz and missed the hint? That's ok, it's a big industry with a lot of room to learn.

 

So back to the question at hand. I need your contact info (otherwise you are blowing smoke) so I can ask my friend to either call you or have someone call you. I'm asking them to set you straight on the issue, or set me straight. Either way works for me. I'm only 99.9% sure so that does leave room for error. A simple email through Groundspeak would work fine.

Link to comment

...For your info, I have talked to one of the folks I know over at DOT (and intend to talk to others when I get a chance). The same DOT headquarters that has a rather famous geocache hidden right in their front yard... on DOT property. First, geocaches on the public ROW isn't an issue. Second, what the heck is a "clear zone"??? I was kinda wondering that as well and assumed you were talking about the ditch alongside the road that has no trees in it. Of course that cleared area is only a small portion of the ROW. But since the DOT guy didn't know what a "clear zone" was, I'll have to assume that it is some stateside term that doesn't apply to Alaska. Thus proving that you haven't got a clue as to what goes on in my area and should stick to banning people from caching in your own town....

 

Clear Zone. That area you noticed without trees is the clear zone. If you give drivers who run off the road some space free of obstacles they survive at a lot higher rate. It’s why roadside parking on highways is discouraged. It’s a roadway design consideration for all state and federal transportation agencies. Alaska does have some special considerations but they are going to be on board with clear zone like every other state.

 

Traffic & Safety in Fairbanks said they would recommend against approval of caches within their ROW. There is no policy in place at this point. I’m going to close with my original point. There is no permission to be had for any cache within the clear zone on a highway in any state. Few would approve a cache within the larger ROW outside the clear zone. I won’t say there can’t be exceptions because I know what they would be. However they would be exceptions. Think of the Clear Zone & ROW the same way you do the RR ROW.

 

In time you will bump into the right person with your own legwork and get the same answer. I’ve asked my friend if they are willing to give you a call. They are.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...