Highway overpasses

[Storm Buster]

I live in a small town along a major interstate highway. There are several caches here but travelers seem to stick around for a long time. I was thinking about a place for a regular sized cache where geocachers could grab a traveler to move it along. Would a highway overpass be a good location? I was thinking about hiding a larger cache up on one of the beams. I'd put it on one where you could actually exit the highway. Seems like it might be a decent location for travelers. I'm just not sure about the safety aspect since someone could actually stop on the shoulder for the grab. Does anybody do this?

[NordicMan]

I think bridges are a no-no location for geocaches.. there's been cases where the bomb squad had to be called because some nervous citizen spotted a Geocache container & feared the worst

[+HawkLawless1]

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

 

Might recommend somewhere close off the highway that is easily accessible once they exit...but I'd stay away from the bridge.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

Barring anything else, if you have the slightest hesitation due to safety aspects, why would you even consider it?

 

BTW, exit ramps are part of the freeway itself, thereby parking is prohibited as is pedestrian traffic.

 

I know, you see it all the time, but that does not make it legal.

[+eightwednesday]

I would urge you not to citing safety issues, and you'd likely have to up the terrain or difficulty which could also deter those traveling through. Furthermore, maintenance and construction crews would likely consider it trash if they came across it so it may not last.

 

If there's a frontage road nearby, I recommend placing one there. I see you're from Texas so if there's a frontage road that allows to get on and off the highway easily that would likely be a good spot. I picked up and dropped off a number of travelers found along frontage roads in rural Arizona and they've all done very well!

[hoosier guy]

I agree with the others. But your idea of the TB hotel near the highway is a good one. Is there a rest stop or spot on a intersecting road that could be used?

[Storm Buster]

I see there are plenty of critical thinkers here and lots of folks into minutia. I probably should have worded my initial post better. With that in mind, let me point out a few minor details.

 

The overpasses I have in mind all have roads running under them. Said roads are not heavily trafficked. Said roads have more than adequate wide shoulders where parking and exiting a vehicle can be done safely and legally.

 

Let's be real here. Maybe overpasses are bridges. But, does anyone honestly believe that every single one of the millions of small highway overpasses is considered a terrorist's target? Remember, the guideline is speaking of targets. And if every single bridge and every single overpass is a "target" then how do they get approved in the first place? Again, I'm not talking about major spans here. I'm talking about "small" and insignificant "non-targets".

 

Safety? Of course. But to what extreme? Any cache within 300 feet of any moving vehicle could be considered a safety risk. So, why not just disallow any cache within 300 feet of any moving vehicle. Again, common sense. Safe ingress and egress is dependent on the surroundings and has a direct correlation with the human intelligence factor. I'd say that last factor might disqualify a large number of caches.

 

And, finally, parking on exit ramps. Are you serious? See the last sentence of the above paragraph. Oh, for the record, there are no highway overpasses here on exit ramps. I suppose I should have made that clear in the original post.

 

I've not made a decision in this case. And, I'll contact my local reviewer with details and photos before making that decision. If said reviewer approves placement, I would certainly include a warning not to park on the highway. I was primarily just wondering if it had been done before.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

for the record, from Cache Listing Requirements / Guidelines:

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

 

As far as minutia.... nevermind.

[+StarBrand]

Its a bad idea.

 

On a rural overpass in Idaho some years ago there was a rather major incident involving a geocache. It included the arrest of the cache owner and some fines.

 

Think about a new spot.

[hoosier guy]

Yes maybe some more information would have been good. Your phrasing in the second post kinda makes me wonder though if you were really looking for input.

[+Prime Suspect]

I see there are plenty of critical thinkers here and lots of folks into minutia. I probably should have worded my initial post better. With that in mind, let me point out a few minor details.

 

The overpasses I have in mind all have roads running under them. Said roads are not heavily trafficked. Said roads have more than adequate wide shoulders where parking and exiting a vehicle can be done safely and legally.

 

Let's be real here. Maybe overpasses are bridges. But, does anyone honestly believe that every single one of the millions of small highway overpasses is considered a terrorist's target? Remember, the guideline is speaking of targets. And if every single bridge and every single overpass is a "target" then how do they get approved in the first place? Again, I'm not talking about major spans here. I'm talking about "small" and insignificant "non-targets".

 

Safety? Of course. But to what extreme? Any cache within 300 feet of any moving vehicle could be considered a safety risk. So, why not just disallow any cache within 300 feet of any moving vehicle. Again, common sense. Safe ingress and egress is dependent on the surroundings and has a direct correlation with the human intelligence factor. I'd say that last factor might disqualify a large number of caches.

 

And, finally, parking on exit ramps. Are you serious? See the last sentence of the above paragraph. Oh, for the record, there are no highway overpasses here on exit ramps. I suppose I should have made that clear in the original post.

 

I've not made a decision in this case. And, I'll contact my local reviewer with details and photos before making that decision. If said reviewer approves placement, I would certainly include a warning not to park on the highway. I was primarily just wondering if it had been done before.

Parking is the least of the problems your submission would have. Expect a "No".

[Storm Buster]

for the record, from Cache Listing Requirements / Guidelines:

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

 

As far as minutia.... nevermind.

 

As long as we're highlighting...

 

for the record, from Cache Listing Requirements / Guidelines:

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

 

I have a pretty good understanding of the above sentence structure. I also have a pretty good understanding of the word "may". And finally, just for the record, I have personally logged two caches "near, on or under" public water supply tanks/towers.

 

So, here's where we are. Have already been told not to expect the golden orb of happiness on this one. Case closed with my apologies for being so "trite" as to appear my mind was made up (it wasn't).

[Keystone]

Understanding individual word definitions and understanding the listing guidelines can be two entirely different things. Here in the Getting Started forum, we are happy to help with interpreting the guidelines. As others have said, this issue is pretty clearly a NO.

[+Anno Lynke]

I live in a small town along a major interstate highway. There are several caches here but travelers seem to stick around for a long time. I was thinking about a place for a regular sized cache where geocachers could grab a traveler to move it along. Would a highway overpass be a good location? I was thinking about hiding a larger cache up on one of the beams. I'd put it on one where you could actually exit the highway. Seems like it might be a decent location for travelers. I'm just not sure about the safety aspect since someone could actually stop on the shoulder for the grab. Does anybody do this?

 

What I dont understand is...

1 you ask for help

2 when your questions are answered you argue with the answers

3 several of the people that answered you questions are reviewers

[Storm Buster]

What I dont understand is...

1 you ask for help

2 when your questions are answered you argue with the answers

I responded with my personal interpretations and observations based on my reading of the guidelines. Given the fact that bridge caches do exist, it seems reasonable enough that some interpretation of and liberty with the guidelines is apparently in order. I've seen plenty of seasoned cachers' *interpretations* corrected by reviewers in these forums. That is why I went to the trouble of posting here in the first place.

3 several of the people that answered you questions are reviewers

I don't see any clear indication that "several" are reviewers. I have a hunch one is my local reviewer. But it's just a hunch. I am quite content with the answer from Prime Suspect considering the charter member status. On the other hand, I've not been around long enough to become privy to personal account names so how would I know who is or isn't a reviewer? I am not liberal enough to think that just because someone "says so" is good enough reason. Some might argue that it was silly of me to even post or ask follow-up questions. I don't have a problem with that.

Edited April 23, 2010 by alwarren56

[+StarBrand]

Nobody expects you to know who is or is not a reviewer but when a clear concensus forms - it really should grab your attention.

 

Keystone IS a reviewer.

 

 

(ps - I guess my 'Charter Status' didn't impress you much?? - {2 posts before Prime's} )

[+Prime Suspect]

(ps - I guess my 'Charter Status' didn't impress you much?? - {2 posts before Prime's} )

You obviously haven't been using Ronco's Charter Polish. Keeps your Charter sparkling clean, and lemon fresh!

[Storm Buster]

(ps - I guess my 'Charter Status' didn't impress you much?? - {2 posts before Prime's} )

Sorry Star. I missed that one. My eyes are not my best quality. Not that I have a best quality. I do like a debate though, heh.

[+Team Cotati]

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

 

Might recommend somewhere close off the highway that is easily accessible once they exit...but I'd stay away from the bridge.

 

This, dare I say, seeming prohibition wrt 'bridges' that you site there, is that something relatively new?

[Keystone]

In July 2002 the guideline language said "under public structures deemed targets for terrorist attacks." In November 2003 the guideline was expanded to include highway bridges, dams, government buildings and airports as specific examples of this. Schools were added later.

 

I wouldn't call that "recent" but rather "well settled" in geocaching terms.

Edited April 23, 2010 by Keystone

[+Team Cotati]

In July 2002 the guideline language said "under public structures deemed targets for terrorist attacks." In November 2003 the guideline was expanded to include highway bridges, dams, government buildings and airports as specific examples of this. Schools were added later.

 

I wouldn't call that "recent" but rather "well settled" in geocaching terms.

 

So in that case, what would be the status of all the geocaches hidden in such places?

[Keystone]

The status would be either "archived" or "active.". Thanks for playing.

[+Team Cotati]

The status would be either "archived" or "active.". Thanks for playing.

 

You're most welcome. Mega dittos.

[+blb9556]

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

 

Might recommend somewhere close off the highway that is easily accessible once they exit...but I'd stay away from the bridge.

[+Trucker Lee]

Overpasses are not the best of hiding spots, IMHO. And for those of us in larger vehicles, parking needs to be safe and off the road. A quick look of the caches along the interstate through your area shows mostly shopping center micros, doable but not worth the aggravation unless stopping for another reason.

 

Note, there are no caches near the Petro, Pilot, Wayside, or Loves, and in the new rest areas west of town, only 1 micro in the westbound. These are the places where truck and RV based cachers can get to, along with other travelers. There are some wooded areas near each of these, but unknown if access is allowed or legal. Owners can be found through county property tax records if you wish.

 

Note, all my finds in your area are north of town, but that is only because my mother-in-law lives up that way.

[Storm Buster]

Thanks, Trucker. I have my eyes on a spot west of town that should be easy on/off in both directions and maybe even trucker friendly. The overpass thing was just a thought that came floating across my brain. I should never have posted before giving it more thought. I'm still not convinced every highway overpass fits the rule but doesn't matter since my mind is made up to avoid those.

 

I am glad you brought up trucker friendly though. I would have never considered that. Now you have me thinking about the local truck stops. Maybe I can come up with a few (non-LPCs) that wouldn't be too far of a hike.

[+Prime Suspect]

Maybe I can come up with a few (non-LPCs) that wouldn't be too far of a hike.

... 'cause there's never anything going on in the woods by the truck stop.

[+Trucker Lee]

 

I am glad you brought up trucker friendly though. I would have never considered that. Now you have me thinking about the local truck stops. Maybe I can come up with a few (non-LPCs) that wouldn't be too far of a hike.

 

GeoTrucker guidelines....... http://geotruckers.com/forums/index.php?topic=115.0

 

Maybe I can come up with a few (non-LPCs) that wouldn't be too far of a hike.

... 'cause there's never anything going on in the woods by the truck stop.

Rest areas maybe, near the truck stops not so much. There is a problem with litter at most, and cachers should attempt to avoid these. I have walked away from a few caches without the find because I chose not to go diving into a containerless dumpster. Still, with some careful scouting, locations can be found within reasonable walking distance, perhaps half mile one way. I do have a cache about half mile from the truck stop at Terrell, and have been looking at another couple further east. Hope to be submitting shortly, but held all up after the water problems prompted me to change container type.

[+Prime Suspect]

 

I am glad you brought up trucker friendly though. I would have never considered that. Now you have me thinking about the local truck stops. Maybe I can come up with a few (non-LPCs) that wouldn't be too far of a hike.

 

GeoTrucker guidelines....... http://geotruckers.com/forums/index.php?topic=115.0

 

Maybe I can come up with a few (non-LPCs) that wouldn't be too far of a hike.

... 'cause there's never anything going on in the woods by the truck stop.

Rest areas maybe, near the truck stops not so much.

Wrong.