I'm not sure I completely understand the guidelines.

[+Coldgears]

I have always thought that the reason that caches aren't allowed near railroad tracks was because of the danger of a train hitting someone. But, recently I found a few caches that are WAY more dangerous then that. One in a nuclear reactor, and some where you have to climb 1000 feet up a verticle pillar. Why exactly are caches not allowed? I'm pretty sure now it is because the tracks are private property... Am I right?

[GOF and Bacall]

I have always thought that the reason that caches aren't allowed near railroad tracks was because of the danger of a train hitting someone. But, recently I found a few caches that are WAY more dangerous then that. One in a nuclear reactor, and some where you have to climb 1000 feet up a verticle pillar. Why exactly are caches not allowed? I'm pretty sure now it is because the tracks are private property... Am I right?

 

It was a trespassing issue. I know of caches that are closer than the 150 foot setback. They are in public parks so are not an issue.

[+dfx]

railroad tracks are terrorist targets, that's why.

 

Edited September 12, 2010 by dfx

[+Max and 99]

There's a cache in a nuclear reactor? And that's not a trespassing issue? Huh?

[+addisonbr]

There's a cache in a nuclear reactor? And that's not a trespassing issue? Huh?

"JB" says it's okay.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...86-c332841529da

[+palmetto]

I have always thought that the reason that caches aren't allowed near railroad tracks was because of the danger of a train hitting someone.

 

No, it's because there's been a conviction for criminal trespass over a cache on a railroad right of way. 150 feet is mentioned because it's a pretty standard ROW width in much of the central and western U.S.

If the right of way is narrower, and the cache owner can demonstrate that it is, a cache can be nearer.

Danger is NOT a guidelines issue.

[+JL_HSTRE]

There's a cache in a nuclear reactor? And that's not a trespassing issue? Huh?

"JB" says it's okay.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...86-c332841529da

 

My mind reels at that cache: that the CO wanted to place it there and that 38 found it.

 

I have always thought that the reason that caches aren't allowed near railroad tracks was because of the danger of a train hitting someone.

 

No, it's because there's been a conviction for criminal trespass over a cache on a railroad right of way. 150 feet is mentioned because it's a pretty standard ROW width in much of the central and western U.S.

If the right of way is narrower, and the cache owner can demonstrate that it is, a cache can be nearer.

Danger is NOT a guidelines issue.

 

At least here in Florida, at railroad crossings there will be short concrete posts at the edge of the RR property noting 'FEC Railroad property no tresspassing' (FEC = Florida East Coast)

[+thecaswellfamily]

There's a cache in a nuclear reactor? And that's not a trespassing issue? Huh?

"JB" says it's okay.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...86-c332841529da

 

WOW!

[+Cornell Finch]

Read all the information on that cache, it's full of warnings about the dangers, it's a five five and a three stage (I think) cache and if I was in the US I would certainly be planning how to safely grab that cache!

 

Even went so far as to find some others to fly over with me just to grab the cache and fly home again!

[+t4e]

There's a cache in a nuclear reactor? And that's not a trespassing issue? Huh?

"JB" says it's okay.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...86-c332841529da

 

WOW!

 

check out all their Psycho Urban Cache placements

[+Tequila]

railroad tracks are terrorist targets, that's why.

 

 

As stated in other posts, it is a trespassing issue.

[+scaramedic]

There's a cache in a nuclear reactor? And that's not a trespassing issue? Huh?

"JB" says it's okay.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...86-c332841529da

 

Ummm no. Read the logs, people are talking about phony radiation sickness issues in a tongue in cheek manor. . If there was an 'abandoned nuclear reactor' that was still hot do you think it would accessible to the public? In Washington we have old nuclear reactors that are cold and have multiple layers of security. The CO talks about the site being under the DNR and that the DNR has given permission for people to enter a hot containment area.

 

A real abandoned and hot site would be under the jurisdiction of the NRC or the DOD or both. More than likely it is an abandoned industrial site but not a nuclear reactor. Cute though.

 

Rails are privately owned but are also considered a 'vital interest' and are protected federally as well as locally. Kind of like, oh I don't know, abandoned nuclear reactors maybe.

[+DavidMac]

I had a cache that was less than 150' from an active railroad track. When submitting the listing I described to the reviewer how it was in a narrow public park with a two lane street between the park and the tracks, and that a chain link fence separated the road from railroad property. It was approved without issue. When you think your cache may appear to conflict with the guidelines, it helps to clarify with as much information as is necessary to clear up confusion in a reviewer note.

[4wheelin_fool]

I have always thought that the reason that caches aren't allowed near railroad tracks was because of the danger of a train hitting someone.

 

No, it's because there's been a conviction for criminal trespass over a cache on a railroad right of way. 150 feet is mentioned because it's a pretty standard ROW width in much of the central and western U.S.

If the right of way is narrower, and the cache owner can demonstrate that it is, a cache can be nearer.

Danger is NOT a guidelines issue.

 

That happened in 2001. The cacher added spray paint to the tracks, and was convicted of vandalism also, and had to do some community service or something and was forbidden by the judge to hide any more caches. I checked his profile later and there were a bunch of caches hidden afterwards listed, but they all had other names on the page.

[+TerraViators]

railroad tracks are terrorist targets, that's why.

 

Isn't everything? Just to play Devil's advocate, when has a terrorist targeted a railroad track? I agree they should be a distance away due to trespassing laws, but not because of terrorism.

Edited September 14, 2010 by TerraViators

[+scaramedic]

railroad tracks are terrorist targets, that's why.

 

Isn't everything? Just to play Devil's advocate, when has a terrorist targeted a railroad track? I agree they should be a distance away due to trespassing laws, but not because of terrorism.

 

May 2010

[+Tequila]

railroad tracks are terrorist targets, that's why.

 

Isn't everything? Just to play Devil's advocate, when has a terrorist targeted a railroad track? I agree they should be a distance away due to trespassing laws, but not because of terrorism.

 

Jesse James 1863