Jump to content

Highway caches?


pppingme

Recommended Posts

the last time i saw a cache located on a very clearly and aggressively posted (authorized vehicles only) pulloff on a limited access highway, i did not look for it, despite many happy logs about cachers putting their hoods up and pretending to have disabled vehicles or parking away from the pulloff but on the road's shoulder and walking up. some were pleased to note that they had authorized themselves to stop there.

 

nowhere were there any indications that there was a legal access to the cache from any direction.

 

in my note to the reviewer i said that while a legal access may in fact be present, i was unable to see where it might be.

 

later on it came out that the cache owner was unable to see any legal access, either, but hadn't thought it important when he submitted the cache. it was archived promptly, and no great loss if you ask me.

Link to comment

Has it been determined that this is a controlled highway, or just a four lane road? As far as I can tell we don't even know if is legal or not to park on the shoulder there.

 

It's a controlled highway, in the sense that it has on-ramps and off-ramps (like an Interstate) instead of intersections with traffic lights or stop signs. I don't know if it is legal or not to park on the shoulder.

 

That is how it looks to me. Usually on such roadways there in no parking except for in emergencies. If true, and there is no alternate access, then the cache is in a very poorly chosen location. If there is an alternate access point may or may not matter. Pedestrian traffic on the right of way of a controlled entry road is likely not legal.

Link to comment

The fact that he tells you to pull over on the highway with your flashers on is a big red flag to me. I would post a "Needs Archived" log with an explanation, and let the reviewer make a judgement call on it. Reviewers rely on other cachers to be their eyes and ears in the field.

 

Also, the fact that the cache owner is arguing that he's found similar caches - i.e. precedent - tells me that he hasn't looked at the guidelines.

Link to comment

The cache location is accessible from off the highway.

No, its not, that's the point.

Nonsense

 

Here you can see a distinctive path over the hillside. It looks to be a vehicle trail

hwycache.jpg

 

And here you can see a VERY obvious path behind the guard rail.

hwycache1.jpg

 

And if I was inclined I could show you how it would be easy to drive a car behind the guard rail, thus removing you from the highway and traffic.

 

There is NOTHING out of the ordinary or against the guidelines in regards to this cache.

Link to comment

The cache location is accessible from off the highway.

No, its not, that's the point.

Nonsense

 

Here you can see a distinctive path over the hillside. It looks to be a vehicle trail

 

And here you can see a VERY obvious path behind the guard rail.

 

And if I was inclined I could show you how it would be easy to drive a car behind the guard rail, thus removing you from the highway and traffic.

 

There is NOTHING out of the ordinary or against the guidelines in regards to this cache.

Oh, so now your condoning trespassing onto private land, of which there are NO ROADS that lead to anyway, thus most likely causing property damage, and even after the CO states the proper way is to illegally stop on the highway?

 

Wow, nothing like a contradiction.

 

There is no legal way to access this cache.

 

Oh, and the fact the guardrail is there because there is a large and dangerous drop-off at that point.

 

This isn't about making a cache a terrain 5 cache when its clearly about a 1.5 p&g, which happens to be illegal to park.

Link to comment

A bit of research shows that HIGHWAY 13 is a MO. Limited Access Highway. According to the MO. DOT, it is ILLEGAL to park on the side of a HIGHWAY (Highway 13 IS a highway) or to walk along such designated motorways. If you must stop on the HIGHWAY, REMAIN IN YOUR VEHICLE, DO NOT ATTEMPT TO WALK ALONG THE ROAD. STAY IN YOUR CAR AND AWAIT HIGHWAY PATROL ASSISTANCE!

So, according to these rules, the cache is in violation of the guidelines. The state maintains a minimum right of way of 50 from the edge of the road, this guardrail cache is in clear violation, even if you park else where and walk to it, you are breaking the law. MODOT would never have given permission for this cache to be placed on their right of way, as it violates their law.

Edited by Bergie Bunch
Link to comment

It's quite obvious that there was no discussion to be had. The OP has the position that they are right and wants to have people agree.

 

I won't agree and feel it's of no concern whether the cache stays or leaves but do feel that the OP has stepped WAY over the line and violated the spirit of geocaching.

 

IMHO

Link to comment

Has it been determined that this is a controlled highway, or just a four lane road? As far as I can tell we don't even know if is legal or not to park on the shoulder there.

 

It's a controlled highway, in the sense that it has on-ramps and off-ramps (like an Interstate) instead of intersections with traffic lights or stop signs. I don't know if it is legal or not to park on the shoulder.

 

I agree with the nice cemetery nearby as 9Key stated, although I'm not quoting him.

 

It does appear to be a controlled highway for the first 10 or so miles of it's length (it starts maybe a mile or two south of the cache location). This of course includes the cache location. But if you follow it further north into more rural areas it becomes a two lane road with plenty of intersections. Dirt road intersections even.

Link to comment

Has it been determined that this is a controlled highway, or just a four lane road? As far as I can tell we don't even know if is legal or not to park on the shoulder there.

 

It's a controlled highway, in the sense that it has on-ramps and off-ramps (like an Interstate) instead of intersections with traffic lights or stop signs. I don't know if it is legal or not to park on the shoulder.

 

I agree with the nice cemetery nearby as 9Key stated, although I'm not quoting him.

 

It does appear to be a controlled highway for the first 10 or so miles of it's length (it starts maybe a mile or two south of the cache location). This of course includes the cache location. But if you follow it further north into more rural areas it becomes a two lane road with plenty of intersections. Dirt road intersections even.

It's completely rural. There are no on/off ramps immediately before and after the cache location. There's even a turnaround about a half mile directly south of the cache.

 

As I said. The OP just wants to complain and wants everyone to agree. Anything else will not satisfy.

Link to comment

It's quite obvious that there was no discussion to be had. The OP has the position that they are right and wants to have people agree.

 

I won't agree and feel it's of no concern whether the cache stays or leaves but do feel that the OP has stepped WAY over the line and violated the spirit of geocaching.

 

IMHO

No, you just happen to be WRONG when you pointed out imaginary things in the pics.

 

This cache is clearly against the law, and all people want to debate is can the law be circumvented, not if the cache is actually appropriate.

 

Its no wonder LE's are going around blowing stuff up all the time, because common sense and applicability of the law wasn't applied when the cache was placed.

 

I've stated nothing but facts, you on the other hand saw a picture and wanted to apply an imaginary scenario to it.

 

Maybe I should just forget getting an opinion here and call the bomb squad and tell them I see people hanging around at the end of this bridge, which happens to be the only way to cross a major river for 30 miles in either direction. Maybe instead of ridicule, they might take the situation seriously.

Link to comment

The proper answer, when you have a concern such as this, is to bring it to the reviewer's attention. Threatening to call the bomb squad does not seem to be in the geocaching spirit.

Danger is not a consideration. I know someone who complained about a guard rail cache 3' from the highway. He was told that if he feels the cache was too dangerous, he should not hunt for it. Legality, however, is a consideration. We do not know that the land is privately owned, though one could assume so. The distance from the dirt road appears to be about 800'. Parking regulations vary from state to state, and road to road. I cannot park on US 206, but I can walk down the side. As far as I can tell, I can park on the side of State Highway 10. Though I would never encourage anyone to do so. And there are no posted signs as there are for the interstates.

So, the proper route is, if you have a concern about the legality, to take it to the reviewer. If the reviewer has no problem with your concerns, then you have done what you assume to be your responsibility.

Link to comment

I think the point is that this cache was hidden with the intent of it being accessed from the highway. Assuming the other access was not private property, if he put on the page "Please do not access this from the highway, parking can be found at ______", it would be a different story. Instead he instructs searchers to pull onto the shoulder and put their flashers on, thus encouraging what is quite likely illegal behavior.

Link to comment

A highway cache can be very safe if you wait until the highway is shut down because of major accident, snow storm, wild fires, etc. Then you helicopter in and make the grab.

 

I keep a helicopter warmed up at all times just in case such an opportunity arises.

<_<

 

As Mr Dolphin mentioned above, it's not an issue of safety. There is no requirement that caches be safe. There is a question of legality. If it's not legal for motorists to stop there, and there is no other legal access the cache should be archived.

Link to comment

I think the point is that this cache was hidden with the intent of it being accessed from the highway. Assuming the other access was not private property, if he put on the page "Please do not access this from the highway, parking can be found at ______", it would be a different story. Instead he instructs searchers to pull onto the shoulder and put their flashers on, thus encouraging what is quite likely possibly illegal behavior.

 

Fixed

 

<_<

Link to comment

A highway cache can be very safe if you wait until the highway is shut down because of major accident, snow storm, wild fires, etc. Then you helicopter in and make the grab.

 

I keep a helicopter warmed up at all times just in case such an opportunity arises.

<_<

 

As Mr Dolphin mentioned above, it's not an issue of safety. There is no requirement that caches be safe. There is a question of legality. If it's not legal for motorists to stop there, and there is no other legal access the cache should be archived.

Many laws are created for the sole purpose of promoting safety, and enforced by public safety officers. If a trend becomes hazardous, it often becomes a catalyst for new laws and/or guidelines.

Link to comment

I think the point is that this cache was hidden with the intent of it being accessed from the highway. Assuming the other access was not private property, if he put on the page "Please do not access this from the highway, parking can be found at ______", it would be a different story. Instead he instructs searchers to pull onto the shoulder and put their flashers on, thus encouraging what is quite likely possibly illegal behavior.

 

Fixed

 

<_<

So you just want to keep circumventing the real issue here (the law) in an attempt to do what? Put a bad name on geocaching?

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 and legal access are the only issues.

Edited by Motorcycle_Mama
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.

Link to comment

I think the point is that this cache was hidden with the intent of it being accessed from the highway. Assuming the other access was not private property, if he put on the page "Please do not access this from the highway, parking can be found at ______", it would be a different story. Instead he instructs searchers to pull onto the shoulder and put their flashers on, thus encouraging what is quite likely possibly illegal behavior.

 

Fixed

 

<_<

So you just want to keep circumventing the real issue here (the law) in an attempt to do what? Put a bad name on geocaching?

 

If you say so.

 

I was just reading the statutes

 

Stopping, standing or parking prohibited.

300.440. 1. Except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic, or in compliance with law or the directions of a police officer or official traffic control device, no person shall:

 

(1) Stop, stand or park a vehicle:

 

(a) On the roadway side of any vehicle stopped or parked at the edge or curb of a street;

 

(:D On a sidewalk;

 

© Within an intersection;

 

(d) On a crosswalk;

 

(e) Between a safety zone and the adjacent curb or within thirty feet of points on the curb immediately opposite the ends of a safety zone, unless the (traffic authority) indicates a different length by signs or markings;

 

(f) Alongside or opposite any street excavation or obstruction when stopping, standing, or parking would obstruct traffic;

 

(g) Upon any bridge or other elevated structure upon a highway or within a highway tunnel;

 

(h) On any railroad tracks;

 

(i) At any place where official signs prohibit stopping.

 

(2) Stand or park a vehicle, whether occupied or not, except momentarily to pick up or discharge a passenger or passengers:

 

(a) In front of a public or private driveway;

 

(:rolleyes: Within fifteen feet of a fire hydrant;

 

© Within twenty feet of a crosswalk at an intersection;

 

(d) Within thirty feet upon the approach to any flashing signal, stop sign, or traffic control signal located at the side of a roadway;

 

(e) Within twenty feet of the driveway entrance to any fire station and on the side of a street opposite the entrance to any fire station within seventy-five feet of said entrance (when properly signposted);

 

(f) At any place where official signs prohibit standing.

 

(3) Park a vehicle, whether occupied or not, except temporarily for the purpose of and while actually engaged in loading or unloading merchandise or passengers:

 

(a) Within fifty feet of the nearest rail of a railroad crossing;

 

(:rolleyes: At any place where official signs prohibit parking.

 

2. No person shall move a vehicle not lawfully under his control into any such prohibited area or away from a curb such a distance as is unlawful.

 

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

 

I have bolded the one that makes ALL the difference. By specifically indicating highway on a bridge or in a tunnel, it would indicate that stopping on highways may be legal. Further analysis says "unless posted as no stopping" signs.

In the absence of no stopping signs and the absence of a bridge and/or a tunnel, it appears to be OK to stop there.

Edited by bittsen
Link to comment

I think the point is that this cache was hidden with the intent of it being accessed from the highway. Assuming the other access was not private property, if he put on the page "Please do not access this from the highway, parking can be found at ______", it would be a different story. Instead he instructs searchers to pull onto the shoulder and put their flashers on, thus encouraging what is quite likely possibly illegal behavior.

 

Fixed

 

<_<

So you just want to keep circumventing the real issue here (the law) in an attempt to do what? Put a bad name on geocaching?

 

If you say so.

 

I was just reading the statutes

 

Stopping, standing or parking prohibited.

300.440. 1. Except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic, or in compliance with law or the directions of a police officer or official traffic control device, no person shall:

 

(1) Stop, stand or park a vehicle:

 

(a) On the roadway side of any vehicle stopped or parked at the edge or curb of a street;

 

(:D On a sidewalk;

 

© Within an intersection;

 

(d) On a crosswalk;

 

(e) Between a safety zone and the adjacent curb or within thirty feet of points on the curb immediately opposite the ends of a safety zone, unless the (traffic authority) indicates a different length by signs or markings;

 

(f) Alongside or opposite any street excavation or obstruction when stopping, standing, or parking would obstruct traffic;

 

(g) Upon any bridge or other elevated structure upon a highway or within a highway tunnel;

 

(h) On any railroad tracks;

 

(i) At any place where official signs prohibit stopping.

 

(2) Stand or park a vehicle, whether occupied or not, except momentarily to pick up or discharge a passenger or passengers:

 

(a) In front of a public or private driveway;

 

(:rolleyes: Within fifteen feet of a fire hydrant;

 

© Within twenty feet of a crosswalk at an intersection;

 

(d) Within thirty feet upon the approach to any flashing signal, stop sign, or traffic control signal located at the side of a roadway;

 

(e) Within twenty feet of the driveway entrance to any fire station and on the side of a street opposite the entrance to any fire station within seventy-five feet of said entrance (when properly signposted);

 

(f) At any place where official signs prohibit standing.

 

(3) Park a vehicle, whether occupied or not, except temporarily for the purpose of and while actually engaged in loading or unloading merchandise or passengers:

 

(a) Within fifty feet of the nearest rail of a railroad crossing;

 

(:rolleyes: At any place where official signs prohibit parking.

 

2. No person shall move a vehicle not lawfully under his control into any such prohibited area or away from a curb such a distance as is unlawful.

 

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

 

I have bolded the one that makes ALL the difference. By specifically indicating highway on a bridge or in a tunnel, it would indicate that stopping on highways may be legal. Further analysis says "unless posted as no stopping" signs.

In the absence of no stopping signs and the absence of a bridge and/or a tunnel, it appears to be OK to stop there.

Since the signs DO exist at every onramp to the highway...

 

Oh, AND

 

This is on the starting edge of a bridge across a major highway.

 

So, there are two clear points against the cache.

Link to comment

Since the signs DO exist at every onramp to the highway...

 

Oh, AND

 

This is on the starting edge of a bridge across a major highway.

 

So, there are two clear points against the cache.

 

As I said in a previous post, the entrance to the highway immediately before the cache, in both directions, is not an on ramp. It's a T-intersection.

The cache in question may be close to a bridge but the statutes clearly state "on" a bridge, not "near" a bridge.

 

If the reviewer reads the statutes, there would be NO reason to archive this cache.

 

I'm sorry that you disagree but your argument doesn't hold water.

Link to comment

 

Again, it's not a question of safety, but of legality. If it is illegal to park there, the cache is encouraging law breaking.

I got that. The OP has made that point both here and on the logs of the cache. Right now however it's still "if". The cache owner has made concessions and seems to be making an effort to work with the reviewer. And the OP still seems to be quite upset. If the reviewer lets it stand, it stands. I was working towards a kinder, gentler solution.

Link to comment

Since the signs DO exist at every onramp to the highway...

 

Oh, AND

 

This is on the starting edge of a bridge across a major highway.

 

So, there are two clear points against the cache.

 

As I said in a previous post, the entrance to the highway immediately before the cache, in both directions, is not an on ramp. It's a T-intersection.

The cache in question may be close to a bridge but the statutes clearly state "on" a bridge, not "near" a bridge.

 

If the reviewer reads the statutes, there would be NO reason to archive this cache.

 

I'm sorry that you disagree but your argument doesn't hold water.

If you are looking at google overhead views, you are looking at images that are years old, and those don't exist anymore. This is a 4 lane controlled access highway and has been for several years. The google images I saw don't even show this as being paved yet, still under construction.

Link to comment
Its not an issue of land ownership, its an issue of legality.

Putting aside for the moment all the other reasons this cache might be a bad placement, (I don't know for sure since I've never been there myself), if you really want this one to get archived, your best bet is to approach it from a land management angle. In this case, the owner of the guardrail, as well as the blacktop upon which the guardrail rests, would probably be the Missouri Department of Transportation. If it's a county road, not a state road, then the county in which it resides would be your best bet.

 

Look them up and give them a call. Write down who you speak to. Ask if any permission has been granted for a game piece that was placed on one of their guardrails at that location. If the answer is "No", forward everything you discovered to your reviewer. The reviewer would need to determine if a guardrail should have explicit permission or just adequate permission. Trying to get it archived based on legality might prove to be a losing battle, as there are too many grey areas in the applicable statutes.

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.

 

<_<

Link to comment

Here is where your road your so sure about USED to exist, clearly gone:

 

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=39....,45.12,,0,10.12

 

OK, you proved that I was looking at an older map (which is likely the same map the reviewer would look at).

 

Now, about those statutes that don't forbid stopping at the guardrail?

 

You shoud just take it to the reviewer and let him (or her) deal with it.

Or you could call the bomb squad (which would actually be illegal).

Or, just decide that being a cache maggot should be the best way to handle caches you don't like.

 

It's up to you.

Link to comment

Here is where your road your so sure about USED to exist, clearly gone:

 

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=39....,45.12,,0,10.12

 

OK, you proved that I was looking at an older map (which is likely the same map the reviewer would look at).

 

Now, about those statutes that don't forbid stopping at the guardrail?

 

You shoud just take it to the reviewer and let him (or her) deal with it.

Or you could call the bomb squad (which would actually be illegal).

Or, just decide that being a cache maggot should be the best way to handle caches you don't like.

 

It's up to you.

On the surface this cache appears to be a poor location at best. Why are you supporting it so adamantly? I just don't get it. One of the biggest challenges we face with this game is poor decisions on cache placement. Even if this placement is legal it appears to be a poor placement. Why would anyone encourage others to place caches in poorly chosen locations? The reviewer has been notified via the logs. We should have some additional info in the next day or so.

Link to comment

Here is where your road your so sure about USED to exist, clearly gone:

 

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=39....,45.12,,0,10.12

 

OK, you proved that I was looking at an older map (which is likely the same map the reviewer would look at).

 

Now, about those statutes that don't forbid stopping at the guardrail?

 

You shoud just take it to the reviewer and let him (or her) deal with it.

Or you could call the bomb squad (which would actually be illegal).

Or, just decide that being a cache maggot should be the best way to handle caches you don't like.

 

It's up to you.

On the surface this cache appears to be a poor location at best. Why are you supporting it so adamantly? I just don't get it. One of the biggest challenges we face with this game is poor decisions on cache placement. Even if this placement is legal it appears to be a poor placement. Why would anyone encourage others to place caches in poorly chosen locations? The reviewer has been notified via the logs. We should have some additional info in the next day or so.

 

It is a poor location. If the DOT finds out about it, it could ultimately lead to the shotgun archival of many guardrail caches which are in safer, out of the way locations.

 

The CO could be charged with creating an "attractive nuisance", and seekers could be liable for "hindering the flow of traffic", depending on local laws which vary from state to state.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

Here is where your road your so sure about USED to exist, clearly gone:

 

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=39....,45.12,,0,10.12

 

Whoa!! So you're telling me this is what Missouri Rt 13 looks like today, and the screen shots myself and Bittsen posted are old? That changes everything! (Seriously). What you have there is a full-blown 4 lane limited access divided highway. Is it a 65 MPH zone? I can't believe someone would even think it's OK to place a cache there, newb or no newb. This thing'll be history tomorrow. And there will be mournful cries of "The self-appointed Geocaching Police win again". <_<

Link to comment

Has anyone thought to ask the OP how he knows the cache is on the guardrail? Looking, it appears they did not find or even look for it.

 

To correct a previous comment, no parking signs on ramps are strictly for the ramps. They generally are designed to keep OTR drivers from parking there to sleep which is fairly common across the country.

 

Personally, I don't know if it is legal or not. It obviously wasn't too much of a concern as the reviewer did not immediately disable while it was being checked. I must admit I dton't understand why the OP so vehemently attacked the placement rather than just post a NM or NA and move on.

 

Why be so quick to turn it into a vendetta like this? Especially in light of the fact tha the OP has never bothered to make any type of placement themselves.

Link to comment

On the surface this cache appears to be a poor location at best. Why are you supporting it so adamantly? I just don't get it. One of the biggest challenges we face with this game is poor decisions on cache placement. Even if this placement is legal it appears to be a poor placement. Why would anyone encourage others to place caches in poorly chosen locations? The reviewer has been notified via the logs. We should have some additional info in the next day or so.

 

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.

 

The complaintant has gotten his wish. The reviewer posted a note on the cache page, bolded for emphasis which is the reaction of a squeaky wheel getting greased. And the cache remains in play.

 

If I were the cache owner I would delete the argumentative notes from the cacher with the axe to grind but leave the reviewer note.

Link to comment

Here is where your road your so sure about USED to exist, clearly gone:

 

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=39....,45.12,,0,10.12

 

Whoa!! So you're telling me this is what Missouri Rt 13 looks like today, and the screen shots myself and Bittsen posted are old? That changes everything! (Seriously). What you have there is a full-blown 4 lane limited access divided highway. Is it a 65 MPH zone? I can't believe someone would even think it's OK to place a cache there, newb or no newb. This thing'll be history tomorrow. And there will be mournful cries of "The self-appointed Geocaching Police win again". <_<

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. I'm not real sure why google has such old images up (13 was actually moved east about 1/2 mile, and the "old" 13 is missing from the images, so right through there somewhere is a line where they updated). The "drive by" images are more accurate, and show the "interstate quality" of the highway. That whole area is quite a bit different than what the overheads show.

 

The first (and only legal) access to the south (the only way to approach this cache, get on south of the cache and head north) is where 13 crosses 224. None of those side roads temporary roads, and other things that were in place while it was being built no longer exist.

 

Where the guard rail is, there is one more "bump" in the landscape to the north, then it becomes a bridge and stays that way until you are over the river.

Link to comment

On the surface this cache appears to be a poor location at best. Why are you supporting it so adamantly? I just don't get it. One of the biggest challenges we face with this game is poor decisions on cache placement. Even if this placement is legal it appears to be a poor placement. Why would anyone encourage others to place caches in poorly chosen locations? The reviewer has been notified via the logs. We should have some additional info in the next day or so.

 

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.

 

The complaintant has gotten his wish. The reviewer posted a note on the cache page, bolded for emphasis which is the reaction of a squeaky wheel getting greased. And the cache remains in play.

 

If I were the cache owner I would delete the argumentative notes from the cacher with the axe to grind but leave the reviewer note.

So you, just like the cache owner, want to hide the fact that the cache isn't legal, and just hope you don't get caught?

Link to comment

Has anyone thought to ask the OP how he knows the cache is on the guardrail? Looking, it appears they did not find or even look for it.

Because the owner acknowledges its there, no further need for speculation on the subject

To correct a previous comment, no parking signs on ramps are strictly for the ramps. They generally are designed to keep OTR drivers from parking there to sleep which is fairly common across the country.

I didn't say these were no parking signs, your assuming. There are signs on almost every highway entrance in this state that specify the rules of the highway, such as no stopping, no non-moterized vehicles, and about 6 others such rules.

Link to comment

So you, just like the cache owner, want to hide the fact that the cache isn't legal, and just hope you don't get caught?

 

Not correct.

 

I, like the cache owner, don't think it's illegal. I think you are wrong about the legality. I think you have a strong opinion and will never relent even if you are proven wrong beyond a doubt.

You switched your argument from "not safe" to illegal. That indicates you just have an issue with this cache in general.

 

As long as you asked.

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.

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.

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.

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