Encroachment on private property? Safety issue?

[+sanssheriff]

Hello fellow cachers, thank you for your time.

 

I would appreciate your opinion on a cache that I submitted. The cache is GC2GXY7 "I'm Stumped! Who is Bryan Anyway? ".

 

Bryan is the name of the municipal memorial park where the cache was hidden. I have permission from the city of Montesano in Washington state to hide caches on city property. I have 3 others caches in 3 other parks in Monte and figured I'd stick one in Bryan Park as well. The southwest corner boundary of Bryan park is delineated by a row of cedar trees spaced only 3 or 4 feet apart. One of the trees met an early death for what ever reason and is now just a hollow stump about 6 or 7 inches diameter. A perfect place for a well crafted cache!

I used a peanut butter jar that fit perfectly in the hollow stump. On top of the jar I fashioned a little handle to aid in retrieval. I then made a camouflage cover to conceal the cache. I put some log book, some swag and a couple trackables in the jar, submitted my hide along with two others for review, and waited patiently.

 

It was obvious to me that there was something wrong because our local reviewer activated the other two caches quickly, but 4 days had passed with no word on Bryan Park. I looked it over and wasn't sure if the problem was with the proximity to another cache or because there was a set of railroad tracks about 30 or 40 feet away. So I posted a note to the reviewer, and when I got a response, it was the tracks! My cache location had been denied.

 

Although I respect the reviewers decision, I don't agree with it. I am appealing the decision, and in following protocol am at the point of asking for the opinion of the community.

 

My position is that this has been a memorial park where people can come and view the trees and reflect or do whatever since 1932. Even though the railroad could claim this land and make it a no trespass zone, they haven't found the need to do that. Also, there doesn't appear to be any danger in being in this area or it wouldn't be a park. There is a fence of scotch broom between the park and the tracks that would effectively keep people and pets on the park side. The walk from the parking area to the cache is probably accessible in a wheel chair. I feel strongly that this cache should be allowed. I am sure that I could obtain permission from the railroad if that's what it takes, as the company that runs these tracks is out of Elma WA, a town just 10 miles from my home and this cache.

 

Here is a video of the walk from the parking area to the cache.

 

A couple other things that may have an impact are that this is within city limits and the train is limited to I think 25mph, also this track is mostly used in the early morning hours.

 

I totally understand the need for requirements and appreciate responsible caching. I just feel that guidelines are just that, guidelines to help facilitate responsible caching, not rules etched in stone.

 

I leave it up to you guys. Thanks in advance for your time and replies.

[jholly]

The opinions expressed here count for naught. The only opinion that counts is that of the reviewer. If you don't agree with the reviewers opinion then the proper place to voice your opinion is at appeal@geocaching.com. Whatever is expressed here probably will not change the opinions of the ones that count.

Edited November 19, 2010 by jholly

[+sanssheriff]

The opinions expressed here count for naught. The only opinion that counts is that of the reviewer. If you don't agree with the reviewers opinion then the proper place to voice your opinion is at appeal@geocaching.com. Whatever is expressed here probably will not change the opinions of the ones that count.

You may be and probably are correct, however, I am following the procedure outlined in the Cache listing requirements and guidelines.

 

If your cache has been archived and you wish to appeal the decision, first contact the reviewer and explain why you feel your cache meets the guidelines. Exceptions may sometimes be made, depending on the nature of a cache. If you have a novel type of cache that "pushes the envelope" to some degree, then it is best to contact your local reviewer and/or Groundspeak before placing and reporting it on the Geocaching.com web site. The guidelines should address most situations, but Groundspeak administrators and reviewers are always interested in new ideas. If, after exchanging email with the reviewer, you still feel your cache has been misjudged, your next option is to ask the volunteer to post the cache for all of the reviewers to see in their private discussion forum. Sometimes a second opinion from someone else who has seen a similar situation can help in suggesting a way for the cache to be published. Next, you should feel free to post a message in the "Geocaching Topics" section of the Groundspeak Forums to see what the geocaching community thinks. If the majority believes that it should be published, then Groundspeak administrators and volunteers may review the submission and your cache may be unarchived. Finally, if you believe that the reviewer has acted inappropriately, you may send an email with complete details, waypoint name (GC*****) and a link to the cache, to Groundspeak’s special address for this purpose: appeals@geocaching.com. For all other purposes, whenever these Guidelines ask the cache owner to "contact Groundspeak," use the contact@geocaching.com email address.

[+pppingme]

You addressed the issue when you said (and I'm paraphrasing) that the public park is separated from the rr tracks by a fence, and the cache is on the park side of the fence.

 

Make sure the reviewer is clear on this (with pics if needed).

[+tozainamboku]

The opinions expressed here count for naught. The only opinion that counts is that of the reviewer. If you don't agree with the reviewers opinion then the proper place to voice your opinion is at appeal@geocaching.com. Whatever is expressed here probably will not change the opinions of the ones that count.

You may be and probably are correct, however, I am following the procedure outlined in the Cache listing requirements and guidelines.

 

If your cache has been archived and you wish to appeal the decision, first contact the reviewer and explain why you feel your cache meets the guidelines. Exceptions may sometimes be made, depending on the nature of a cache. If you have a novel type of cache that "pushes the envelope" to some degree, then it is best to contact your local reviewer and/or Groundspeak before placing and reporting it on the Geocaching.com web site. The guidelines should address most situations, but Groundspeak administrators and reviewers are always interested in new ideas. If, after exchanging email with the reviewer, you still feel your cache has been misjudged, your next option is to ask the volunteer to post the cache for all of the reviewers to see in their private discussion forum. Sometimes a second opinion from someone else who has seen a similar situation can help in suggesting a way for the cache to be published. Next, you should feel free to post a message in the "Geocaching Topics" section of the Groundspeak Forums to see what the geocaching community thinks. If the majority believes that it should be published, then Groundspeak administrators and volunteers may review the submission and your cache may be unarchived. Finally, if you believe that the reviewer has acted inappropriately, you may send an email with complete details, waypoint name (GC*****) and a link to the cache, to Groundspeak’s special address for this purpose: appeals@geocaching.com. For all other purposes, whenever these Guidelines ask the cache owner to "contact Groundspeak," use the contact@geocaching.com email address.

Since you're quoting the guidelines did you do the parts in red, or did you jump right to the section about posting to the forums?

[+sanssheriff]

Yes tozainamboku, I did do the steps you highlighted in red first.

[+Gamaliel]

You've included a lot of extraneous information. The case needs to be very simple: Is the cache within the official park boundary? Is there a clear physical barrier between the cache and the railroad tracks? If you can prove the answer is yes to both, then I'm sure your cache will be quickly published.

[+J the Goat]

I would agree, that IF everything is as you say, the cache should be published. I am not a reviewer however, and am not one to argue with them. I'm always tentative to take someone's story at face value, although of the one's I've read yours seems to be feasibly realistic. Good luck, and just remember that the reviewers do a tough job, and the vast majority of them do it very well.

[+palmetto]

Hi sanssherif,

 

I am one of the reviewers who responded to your request for further input in the reviewer forum.

 

I found a map of the park on the city's website, and put your cache on it. According to the city map, your cache is not in the park.

 

Your cache location is indicated on the map with the yellow triangle. It is on the north side of the tracks. According to the map provided by the city, Bryan Park ( 6 ), outlined in read, runs along the tracks on the south side, between the tracks and Olympic HWY (12). If you have other information on the park's boundaries, by all means, add it to the cache page!

 

[Keystone]

You addressed the issue when you said (and I'm paraphrasing) that the public park is separated from the rr tracks by a fence, and the cache is on the park side of the fence.

 

Make sure the reviewer is clear on this (with pics if needed).

It was the video which convinced me that the local reviewer was correct in not publishing the cache. Watch it. There's no fence. There are some weeds, which the CO calls a "scotch broom fence." A tall security fence or concrete wall would make it very clear where the edge of the railroad right-of-way is.

 

Most reviewers are not surveyors or real estate lawyers.* Instead, the Guidelines create a strong presumptive buffer around active railroad tracks so as to avoid trespassing on rights of way.

 

*Many reviewers are dogs.

[+Castle Mischief]

Wow.

[+John in Valley Forge]

From the title of the thread I expected this thread to be about angry homeowners threatening cache seekers for getting too close to their land. This is more about proximity to an active railroad.

 

I have a couple observations. I looked at the video as well as the map above.

 

- The location shown on the map (the yellow triangle) does not seem to fit with the video. The Triangle is in the dirt/gravel parking lot of the propane company (the end of Glenn St). Private property.

 

- The video seems to show a grassy area that looks more like the section just to the right of that. That spot is city owned land. County tax map The photo in the tax assessors office even looks like the video. Given its location though I wouldn't consider it as part of the park.

 

- Based on the above, I wonder if the posted coordinates are wrong, or if Google Maps is wrong in where it places GZ (we have all heard about Google maps and its mysterious shift of a few hundred feet recently). Verify it with Bing maps too for a sanity check. Then it is a simple explanation. The difference in where it shows and where I suspect it really is could well be in the error radius range.

 

The railroad tracks are more of a concern than the property ownership. I used the distance measuring tool in Google Maps and it looks like less than 20 feet between the tree line with your stump and the gravel railroad bed. Obviously this is not super accurate, but its not even close to the norm of at least 150 feet. Looking at your video I can see the gravel rail bed in the frame as you look down at the stump. The stump is the last tree before the rail bed. There is nothing between the stump and the train tracks.

 

It is a nice stump and if it were out in the woods I would say go for it. Where it is now? No way would I want my kids tramping around looking for it with me. Its just too close and exposed.

 

Once you place a cache and walk away, you have no control whatsoever over who searches for it. Smart people, stupid people, kids and dogs. It is a safety issue and it just isn't worth messing with trains. Even the coolest cache placement isn't worth that.

 

I would suggest you cancel this proposed placement and look for another spot.

[+Ecylram]

I support the reviewer on this one.

 

You state the cache is 30-40 feet away from the tracks. Someone with a poor GPSr (or a bad day) could be looking on the tracks for cache. It isn't safe.

 

Sounds like a great hide and that you've taken a lot of care & effort to make this a good cache, but...I agree with the reviewer.

[+BaylorGrad]

I support the reviewer on this one.

 

You state the cache is 30-40 feet away from the tracks. Someone with a poor GPSr (or a bad day) could be looking on the tracks for cache. It isn't safe.

 

Sounds like a great hide and that you've taken a lot of care & effort to make this a good cache, but...I agree with the reviewer.

 

I second this motion.

 

Even though most of us on these forums would know better than to search on the railroad for the cache, some newbie preteens with iPhones (God forbid!) might not know better.

Edited November 19, 2010 by BaylorGrad

[+GeoGeeBee]

I just watched the video. I agree with the reviewer, the cache is too close to the tracks. That row of weeds is not a barrier.

[+Stargazer22]

Sorry, but I'll have to side with the reviewer on this one, too. A real fence between the tracks and the cache might make a difference, but a few plants does not create enough of a barrier.

The location is too close to the tracks to be viable as a cache.

Also, railroads are generally very strict about trespassing on their property and there is just not enough of a barrier here to prevent searchers from trespassing on railroad property.

[+sanssheriff]

Would it help if I were to add to the cache description that you do not need to leave the park. Or "Do not pass the tree line, you will be trespassing on railroad property". Thanks for all your replies.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Once you place a cache and walk away, you have no control whatsoever over who searches for it. Smart people, stupid people, kids and dogs.

This is true of every cache.

 

It is a safety issue and it just isn't worth messing with trains. Even the coolest cache placement isn't worth that.

 

Incorrect. Groundspeak does not evaluate cache listings for safety.

 

The proximity issue with Railroads is right-of-way trespass.

[+John in Valley Forge]

Would it help if I were to add to the cache description that you do not need to leave the park. Or "Do not pass the tree line, you will be trespassing on railroad property". Thanks for all your replies.

 

No, I don't think so, because people don't always read them.

[+Castle Mischief]

Would it help if I were to add to the cache description that you do not need to leave the park. Or "Do not pass the tree line, you will be trespassing on railroad property". Thanks for all your replies.

 

That's not going to help because a reviewer has already pointed out that the coordinates you've provided aren't in the park to begin with based on the information they have access to. Burden of proof is on you to provide facts to counter that.

 

Hi sanssherif,

 

I am one of the reviewers who responded to your request for further input in the reviewer forum.

 

I found a map of the park on the city's website, and put your cache on it. According to the city map, your cache is not in the park.

 

Your cache location is indicated on the map with the yellow triangle. It is on the north side of the tracks. According to the map provided by the city, Bryan Park ( 6 ), outlined in read, runs along the tracks on the south side, between the tracks and Olympic HWY (12). If you have other information on the park's boundaries, by all means, add it to the cache page!

Edited November 19, 2010 by Castle Mischief

[Pup Patrol]

Would it help if I were to add to the cache description that you do not need to leave the park. Or "Do not pass the tree line, you will be trespassing on railroad property". Thanks for all your replies.

 

No, that wouldn't help at all. Very few people seem to read cache pages nowadays. They just download coords and go.

 

A better option would be finding a different cache location.

[+John in Valley Forge]

Once you place a cache and walk away, you have no control whatsoever over who searches for it. Smart people, stupid people, kids and dogs.

This is true of every cache.

 

It is a safety issue and it just isn't worth messing with trains. Even the coolest cache placement isn't worth that.

 

Incorrect. Groundspeak does not evaluate cache listings for safety.

 

The proximity issue with Railroads is right-of-way trespass.

 

Correct, although true of every cache, not every cache is that close to an active rail line. I was thinking the CO needs to realize that people dont always use common sense and should take that into consideration when placing.

It makes sense about the proximity issue rather than safety being the reason behind it. I suppose that if they rated for safety, they would open themselves up to lawsuits.

[Keystone]

If we reviewed caches for safety, I'd begin by archiving all the caches that require or encourage driving a vehicle. More geocachers are killed or injured through this dangerous activity than from any other cause.

 

Eventually I would get around to archiving all the tree climbing and rock climbing caches, but it would be awhile.

[knowschad]

If we reviewed caches for safety, I'd begin by archiving all the caches that require or encourage driving a vehicle. More geocachers are killed or injured through this dangerous activity than from any other cause.

 

Eventually I would get around to archiving all the tree climbing and rock climbing caches, but it would be awhile.

... and most of those would already have been archived by your prior actions.

[+John in Valley Forge]

 

Here is the actual tax map.

 

I think it is a real stretch to call the strip of land part of the park. It does not look like it is even an overflow parking area since it is undisturbed and the parking area for the park is up at the other end of Barkley St.

 

The park is the area at the top of the pic, with the baseball diamond. The city owned land where the CO thinks cache is located is shaded with red.

 

However, the cache is located at the far edge of the tree line, up against the gravel rail bed (you can clearly see how close in your video). This is a separate parcel of land, with no ownership listed on the tax rolls. That makes me think it is the RR land. You would probably need a probably need a professional survey or at least to find the edges. Even if you are a few feet onto city land, I think it is too close and has no real barrier.

 

In my opinion you have no case to argue.

[+StarBrand]

Too close to the railroad and very likely in the ROW. Not clearly a part of the park .

 

Sorry.

[+tozainamboku]

Would it help if I were to add to the cache description that you do not need to leave the park. Or "Do not pass the tree line, you will be trespassing on railroad property". Thanks for all your replies.

 

That's not going to help because a reviewer has already pointed out that the coordinates you've provided aren't in the park to begin with based on the information they have access to. Burden of proof is on you to provide facts to counter that.

 

Hi sanssherif,

 

I am one of the reviewers who responded to your request for further input in the reviewer forum.

 

I found a map of the park on the city's website, and put your cache on it. According to the city map, your cache is not in the park.

 

Your cache location is indicated on the map with the yellow triangle. It is on the north side of the tracks. According to the map provided by the city, Bryan Park ( 6 ), outlined in read, runs along the tracks on the south side, between the tracks and Olympic HWY (12). If you have other information on the park's boundaries, by all means, add it to the cache page!

I found this map on the city website last night and thought that it might be the cause of the problem. The map is inconsistent with descriptions of Bryan Park I found elsewhere. The same website indicated that blocks have been installed along the south boundary of the park between the park and the railroad tracks. In addition, I found a description that the park is on Pioneer Ave. I think the hand drawn map is wrong; the park is clearly on the north side of the tracks.

 

The video is unclear as to whether there is a fence or something else separating the park from the tracks.

 

Hopefully, the OP can find some better evidence to show the cache is in the park and not on railroad property. I understand the reviewers decision based on what they saw. We now know the reasons they rejected the cache and that may help is finding evidence need to show that it really is in the park.

[+DanOCan]

There is a fence of scotch broom between the park and the tracks that would effectively keep people and pets on the park side.

 

I think your personal attachment to this cache location has impacted your view of things. Having watched the video I can clearly state the "fence of scotch broom" would do absolutely nothing to stop my dog from running onto those railway tracks should he get off leash.

 

Too close to active tracks. Sorry to pile on, but I think the reviewer is correct.

[+tozainamboku]

There is a fence of scotch broom between the park and the tracks that would effectively keep people and pets on the park side.

 

I think your personal attachment to this cache location has impacted your view of things. Having watched the video I can clearly state the "fence of scotch broom" would do absolutely nothing to stop my dog from running onto those railway tracks should he get off leash.

 

Too close to active tracks. Sorry to pile on, but I think the reviewer is correct.

A reviewer has already stated that dangerous is not a reason for denying a cache. If there is a fence and it marks the ROW of the railroad then it show that the cache is in the park and cachers can go there. I think right now the issue is that the reviewers did not find convincing evidence the cache is in the park and being so close to the tracks have decided to err on the side of caution (the cache may encroach on railroad property or encourage seekers to do so. From what I am seeing I believe the OP may be able to provide additional evidence that the cache is in the park and the boundary of the park is clearly delineated so that seekers will not encroach on the railroad's property.

[+John in Valley Forge]

 

I think it is a real stretch to call the strip of land part of the park. It does not look like it is even an overflow parking area since it is undisturbed and the parking area for the park is up at the other end of Barkley St.

 

The park is the area at the top of the pic, with the baseball diamond. The city owned land where the CO thinks cache is located is shaded with red.

 

 

I have to amend this statements after looking at the town website. This strip of land is not part of the ball field park, but rather it is a park in its own right. It is a 200 yard long park, a few yards wide.

[+sanssheriff]

Hi sanssherif,

 

I am one of the reviewers who responded to your request for further input in the reviewer forum.

 

I found a map of the park on the city's website, and put your cache on it. According to the city map, your cache is not in the park.

 

Your cache location is indicated on the map with the yellow triangle. It is on the north side of the tracks. According to the map provided by the city, Bryan Park ( 6 ), outlined in read, runs along the tracks on the south side, between the tracks and Olympic HWY (12). If you have other information on the park's boundaries, by all means, add it to the cache page!

 

 

palmetto, Thank you for your response here and in the reviewer forum. I do appreciate the time and effort that you guys as reviewers donate to our sport.

 

I didn't realize how far off the cartographer was on this map. If it were actually where the line was drawn, it would be between the highway and the railroad with no access. If you look at this description you will see that this is an "Historic park reaching about 200 yards along Pioneer Avenue", you can also see the sign at the east end of the park is on the north side of Pioneer Rd. (a cache is hidden here), as well as the description of where the new blocks have been placed "along the south boundary between the park and the railroad tracks. My cache is within the city park known as Bryan Park.

 

John in Valley Forge, Here is a screen shot of the tax parcel along with the owner information showing this area to belong to the City of Montesano..

The left photo was taken from the east end looking west and the photo on the right was taken from the west looking east. The park across the street is John Vessey Memorial Park.

 

Sorry John, it took me too long to write out this post and I didn't notice your amendment.

Edited November 19, 2010 by sanssheriff

[+Chokecherry]

I'm not going to pile out about how it's not safe to put a cache there. But rather I'm going to start a new pile.

 

Really, is it that good of an idea to place a small, suspicious container that close to a rail road in the first place? Is that really a good choice?

[+John in Valley Forge]

 

I didn't realize how far off the cartographer was on this map. If it were actually where the line was drawn, it would be between the highway and the railroad with no access. If you look at this description you will see that this is an "Historic park reaching about 200 yards along Pioneer Avenue", you can also see the sign at the east end of the park is on the north side of Pioneer Rd. (a cache is hidden here), as well as the description of where the new blocks have been placed "along the south boundary between the park and the railroad tracks. My cache is within the city park known as Bryan Park.

 

Can you mark up the map in Paint or PS to show us where exactly the cache really is? What are the coordinates?We only have descriptions and a video to go by.

[7rxc]

I think I'll point out that like many GIS systems I've used, this ones image layers are a bit out of sync.

The lot information lines and ROW are shifted North and West a small amount, scaling may be out of register as well. This will affect reading the image... this one uses a single line for (I'm assuming) the center line of streets. JiVF's image shows the ROW a bit clearer, but with similar shifts.

 

I won't take sides here, but it might be a point of confusion... Add shifts in GE etc. for coordinates, GPS wander and so on... well, it is messy. As for making it an active cache, regardless of merits, safety and so on.

With that spoiler, what would be the point... reminds me a bit of "Alices's Restaurant" complete with circles and arrows ...

 

Good luck with getting it in the right position to start with... if it is a park and safety is an issue in general... perhaps it needs a fence anyway... cache or not!

 

Doug 7rxc

[+Jenischmeni]

I'd have to ask this... "Why THIS particular site?" Sometimes you do find a spot, but it's just not going to work with placing a geocache.

 

Would I want to have small children with me that close to a railroad track? Probably not. Cool spot or not. Would I want to have my dog with me that close to the tracks? Probably not. If I train came rumbling by (slow or not), I think it would scare us both!

 

I think the guidelines are there for a reason. Maybe we know why they exist and maybe we don't (because of issues with past caches).

 

IMHO, it's a poor place for a city park to begin with! Of course, you as a cache owner have no control over that.

 

I have had similar issues with my own caches. Two of them have been moved repeatedly because I love the spot, but the cache either keeps getting muggled or gets washed away by flood. On one of those, I just finally gave up and figured it wasn't worth the fight. (None of these had issues with publication, it was all due to the lay of the land.)

 

Sometimes you just have to say to yourself, it's not worth it! (And yes, I know how hard that can be!)

[+Castle Mischief]

It bears repeating- the proximity to railroad property guideline has nothing to do with safety.

[+sanssheriff]

Can you mark up the map in Paint or PS to show us where exactly the cache really is? What are the coordinates?We only have descriptions and a video to go by.

Yes, here are the coordinates and where google maps places it.

 

 

It looks close to the tracks, but as was stated earlier "Groundspeak doesn't evaluate for safety" so this is nothing more than a trespassing question. It is clearly within the boundary of the park as delineated by the row of cedars. This is clearly property that hasn't been taken from the city because of its status as a city park. Therefore no trespassing is taking place. As for parking in Pat Connally's property, he doesn't have it marked as no trespassing and I am confident that as a colleague of mine would grant permission to use his property for parking.

[+Chokecherry]

I'm referring to this guideline:

 

"Caches hidden in close proximity to active railroad tracks. In the United States we generally use a distance of 150 ft (46 m) but your local area’s trespassing laws may be different. All local laws apply."

 

That and the fact that we have caches blown up regularly due to looking like bombs. So really do you want to place a suspicious package that close to the railroad?

 

I don't care about the safety issue those are choices individuals have to make. I support the reviewer based on proximity to the railroad alone based on that guideline as well as issues with caches looking suspicious.

 

Just because there's a strip of land there unoccupied by any caches doesn't mean there has to be a cache there. Better to leave a cache that gives a good name to geocaching than one that could give it a bad name.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

The debate in this thread about where the cache really is makes the Reviewer's point... if it's that hard to determine exactly where it is and what the boundaries are then it's likely not a good idea.

[+tozainamboku]

The debate in this thread about where the cache really is makes the Reviewer's point... if it's that hard to determine exactly where it is and what the boundaries are then it's likely not a good idea.

True. If the fence was clear in the video that would show clearly the cache is inside the park. I still believe the OP may be able to provide better evidence that the cache is in the park and the boundary would be clear to those hunting the cache. But given what they had to work with, the reviewers are going to err on the side of caution.

[+John in Valley Forge]

Here is the view from standing right over the cache, clipped from the video provided.

The exact location of the property line is almost irrelevant here. Even if the stump is a few feet north of the railroad property line, it is well within 150 feet of those tracks.

I wonder how far it really is?

Not that it makes any difference.

 

It is a generally bad location for a cache.

 

You came here asking for peer review of your proposed cache. You have received responses from 21 experienced cachers along with your local reviewer. None that I recall were supportive of the idea of placing the cache at the particular location.

 

The horse is dead. It does not need to be beaten any more. There are other spots to place caches at.

[+tozainamboku]

You came here asking for peer review of your proposed cache. You have received responses from 21 experienced cachers along with your local reviewer. None that I recall were supportive of the idea of placing the cache at the particular location.

 

The horse is dead. It does not need to be beaten any more. There are other spots to place caches at.

Sorry, I'm an experienced cacher who believes that the cache is in a legitimate location. I've seen many caches within 150 ft of railroad tracks. The issue has always been that the cache is not located on railroad property so that cachers would be allowed to search there. When the cache is as close as this one and the property line isn't obvious, reviewers might turn the cache down because in searching for a cache the seeker may wander onto railroad property. I have seen caches approved if the hider says something like "Don't go past the tree line" but since people don't always read the cache page, this might not be enough for some reviewers. This cache is questionable, since even with all the satellite images and even the video the OP shot, the reviewers still aren't convinced the cache is in the park and that seekers will know how far from the tracks they need to be.

 

I salute the OP for following the guidelines for appealing the cache. As usual though the forums are full of people who think the reviewers are infallible and will go overboard to point this out. I hope they all have reviewers who notice this and they get their brownie points for being so supportive.

[+John in Valley Forge]

The debate in this thread about where the cache really is makes the Reviewer's point... if it's that hard to determine exactly where it is and what the boundaries are then it's likely not a good idea.

True. If the fence was clear in the video that would show clearly the cache is inside the park. I still believe the OP may be able to provide better evidence that the cache is in the park and the boundary would be clear to those hunting the cache. But given what they had to work with, the reviewers are going to err on the side of caution.

 

There is no fence. It is a line of high grass that the OP refers to as "a fence of scotch broom". I realize my editing skills stink so my screen grab is not well labeled, but if you look at the video, it is obvious that this tree stump is is within feet of the gravel bed of the rail road.

Edited November 19, 2010 by John in Valley Forge

[+sanssheriff]

I'm referring to this guideline:

 

"Caches hidden in close proximity to active railroad tracks. In the United States we generally use a distance of 150 ft (46 m) but your local area’s trespassing laws may be different. All local laws apply."

 

That and the fact that we have caches blown up regularly due to looking like bombs. So really do you want to place a suspicious package that close to the railroad?

 

I don't care about the safety issue those are choices individuals have to make. I support the reviewer based on proximity to the railroad alone based on that guideline as well as issues with caches looking suspicious.

 

Just because there's a strip of land there unoccupied by any caches doesn't mean there has to be a cache there. Better to leave a cache that gives a good name to geocaching than one that could give it a bad name.

The skippy peanut butter jar is transparent and its contents are clearly visible.

 

The debate in this thread about where the cache really is makes the Reviewer's point... if it's that hard to determine exactly where it is and what the boundaries are then it's likely not a good idea.

It's clear that the row of planted cedar trees are property of the park and the city. The stump is from one of those trees.

 

 

The exact location of the property line is almost irrelevant here. Even if the stump is a few feet north of the railroad property line, it is well within 150 feet of those tracks.

I wonder how far it really is?

Not that it makes any difference.

 

It is a generally bad location for a cache.

 

You came here asking for peer review of your proposed cache. You have received responses from 21 experienced cachers along with your local reviewer. None that I recall were supportive of the idea of placing the cache at the particular location.

 

The horse is dead. It does not need to be beaten any more. There are other spots to place caches at.

 

The relevance of the property line is that I am not trespassing on railroad property. The 150' buffer is a guideline to assist in preventing trespassing, and locating a cache on railroad property.

 

Sorry to differ with you, but not all the responses have been negative.

[+GeoGeeBee]

 

Sorry, I'm an experienced cacher who believes that the cache is in a legitimate location. I've seen many caches within 150 ft of railroad tracks. The issue has always been that the cache is not located on railroad property so that cachers would be allowed to search there. When the cache is as close as this one and the property line isn't obvious, reviewers might turn the cache down because in searching for a cache the seeker may wander onto railroad property. I have seen caches approved if the hider says something like "Don't go past the tree line" but since people don't always read the cache page, this might not be enough for some reviewers. This cache is questionable, since even with all the satellite images and even the video the OP shot, the reviewers still aren't convinced the cache is in the park and that seekers will know how far from the tracks they need to be.

 

I salute the OP for following the guidelines for appealing the cache. As usual though the forums are full of people who think the reviewers are infallible and will go overboard to point this out. I hope they all have reviewers who notice this and they get their brownie points for being so supportive.

 

Excuse me, but your comments which I have highlighted in red appear to contradict your statement which I have highlighted in blue.

 

And the comment in green seems completely uncalled for.

[+Castle Mischief]

 

Sorry, I'm an experienced cacher who believes that the cache is in a legitimate location. I've seen many caches within 150 ft of railroad tracks. The issue has always been that the cache is not located on railroad property so that cachers would be allowed to search there. When the cache is as close as this one and the property line isn't obvious, reviewers might turn the cache down because in searching for a cache the seeker may wander onto railroad property. I have seen caches approved if the hider says something like "Don't go past the tree line" but since people don't always read the cache page, this might not be enough for some reviewers. This cache is questionable, since even with all the satellite images and even the video the OP shot, the reviewers still aren't convinced the cache is in the park and that seekers will know how far from the tracks they need to be.

 

I salute the OP for following the guidelines for appealing the cache. As usual though the forums are full of people who think the reviewers are infallible and will go overboard to point this out. I hope they all have reviewers who notice this and they get their brownie points for being so supportive.

 

Excuse me, but your comments which I have highlighted in red appear to contradict your statement which I have highlighted in blue.

 

And the comment in green seems completely uncalled for.

 

Uncalled for and unnecessarily belittling, if not predictable.

[+Castle Mischief]

The skippy peanut butter jar is transparent and its contents are clearly visible.

 

Historically, not a 100% fool-proof method for insuring it won't result in a bomb-squad call.

[+sanssheriff]

The debate in this thread about where the cache really is makes the Reviewer's point... if it's that hard to determine exactly where it is and what the boundaries are then it's likely not a good idea.

True. If the fence was clear in the video that would show clearly the cache is inside the park. I still believe the OP may be able to provide better evidence that the cache is in the park and the boundary would be clear to those hunting the cache. But given what they had to work with, the reviewers are going to err on the side of caution.

 

There is no fence. It is a line of high grass that the OP refers to as "a fence of scotch broom". I realize my editing skills stink so my screen grab is not well labeled, but if you look at the video, it is obvious that this tree stump is is within feet of the gravel bed of the rail road.

 

I agree, fence was a poor choice of a word to describe the patch of scotch broom, having said that, it is irrelevant anyway. Trespassing is the issue not safety!

 

This cache is placed in a memorial park with a rich history that people can learn from and enjoy. It is not just some magnetic key case stuck to the back of a guardrail at the side of a state highway, or a skirt lifter in a walmart parking lot. And did that person placing those caches get permission from walmart or the State Department of Transportation prior to placing them?

[+Castle Mischief]

And did that person placing those caches get permission from walmart or the State Department of Transportation prior to placing them?

 

You opened this can of worms... did you get permission from the organization that maintains the park? Maybe they could help clear up the property issue for you?

[+John in Valley Forge]

I'm referring to this guideline:

 

"Caches hidden in close proximity to active railroad tracks. In the United States we generally use a distance of 150 ft (46 m) but your local area’s trespassing laws may be different. All local laws apply."

 

That and the fact that we have caches blown up regularly due to looking like bombs. So really do you want to place a suspicious package that close to the railroad?

 

I don't care about the safety issue those are choices individuals have to make. I support the reviewer based on proximity to the railroad alone based on that guideline as well as issues with caches looking suspicious.

 

Just because there's a strip of land there unoccupied by any caches doesn't mean there has to be a cache there. Better to leave a cache that gives a good name to geocaching than one that could give it a bad name.

The skippy peanut butter jar is transparent and its contents are clearly visible.

 

The debate in this thread about where the cache really is makes the Reviewer's point... if it's that hard to determine exactly where it is and what the boundaries are then it's likely not a good idea.

It's clear that the row of planted cedar trees are property of the park and the city. The stump is from one of those trees.

 

 

The exact location of the property line is almost irrelevant here. Even if the stump is a few feet north of the railroad property line, it is well within 150 feet of those tracks.

I wonder how far it really is?

Not that it makes any difference.

 

It is a generally bad location for a cache.

 

You came here asking for peer review of your proposed cache. You have received responses from 21 experienced cachers along with your local reviewer. None that I recall were supportive of the idea of placing the cache at the particular location.

 

The horse is dead. It does not need to be beaten any more. There are other spots to place caches at.

 

The relevance of the property line is that I am not trespassing on railroad property. The 150' buffer is a guideline to assist in preventing trespassing, and locating a cache on railroad property.

 

Sorry to differ with you, but not all the responses have been negative.

 

I did the lookups of the property lines to try to help you. In the end my opinion is that the cache site is not good. You say It's clear that the row of planted cedar trees are property of the park and the city. Clear to who? We cannot even seem to be able to decide it the property lines on the GIS match up with the map.

 

I would say that your video is the clearest indictment AGAINST the cache spot. There is absolutely nothing but some high grass between your searchers and an oncoming freight train. If you were 125 feet from the tracks you might have a better argument for a little leeway. But you estimate it to be 30-40 feet. From the satellite photos and video, I think that may be an overestimation.

 

And it turns out that not everyone is against the cache. But I don't think any of us in the forum are in a position to approve the cache.

 

I think your next step would be to write an email to appeal@geocaching.com