Encroachment on private property? Safety issue?

[+John in Valley Forge]

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?

 

OP stated early on that he has permission from the city. We don't need to go off on that tangent

[+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?

 

OP stated early on that he has permission from the city. We don't need to go off on that tangent

 

My bad.

[+sanssheriff]

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?

Yes I got permission from the Parks and Rec Director for the city of Montesano. I have 3 other caches in 3 other parks in Montesano. One is in John Vessey Park and although it's on the other side of Pioneer it is within 150' of the tracks as well. Someone else has had one at the "Welcome to Montesano" sign down the street for a year and a half, is on the north side of Pioneer, and closer than 150' to the tracks.

[+tozainamboku]

 

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.

The section in red was to indicate why the reviewer may have rejected the cache despite the fact that, IMO, it should be approved. The intent was to guide the OP in where additional information may be needed to get the decision overturned.

 

I've been given timeouts in the past for saying the same thing as the section in green, only in a more colorful way. So it wouldn't surprise me if a moderator gives me a warning or even a timeout for this. I find it predictable whenever someone appeals a decision in the forum that there will be people who automatically assume the person making the appeal is wrong and they should leave the dead horse alone and accept the ruling. In fact there are times when the appeal to the forum has resulted in the cache being published. Usually, someone will be able to suggest something to the hider that could make the cache work. In this case, I believe, additional evidence might show the cache is in the park and that people would not go on the tracks to look for it. Instead of telling the OP to stop beating a dead horse and accept the reviewers ruling, I am trying to help find a way the cache can be published. Instead of looking at the evidence and seeing that it proves the reviewers stance, I look at it and see where it is not conclusive.

 

The city website indicates blocks have been installed along the south boundary of the park between the park and the railroad tracks. I did not see this in the video but perhaps these are there and would serve as a sufficient marker for the park.

Edited November 19, 2010 by tozainamboku

[+StarBrand]

I agree with the reviewer - not because of thier god like authority - but rather because I am an experienced cacher and that just too easily looks like it has to be on the RR right of way and is not a part of the park, no matter who planted the treeline.

 

(Nevermind that many of us do fear Keystone's Chemical X.)

[+John in Valley Forge]

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?

Yes I got permission from the Parks and Rec Director for the city of Montesano. I have 3 other caches in 3 other parks in Montesano. One is in John Vessey Park and although it's on the other side of Pioneer it is within 150' of the tracks as well. Someone else has had one at the "Welcome to Montesano" sign down the street for a year and a half, is on the north side of Pioneer, and closer than 150' to the tracks.

 

I think that the other cache, is on the other side of the road. The road would serve as an effective barrier to accidentally stepping on to the tracks.

[+sanssheriff]

I agree with the reviewer - not because of thier god like authority - but rather because I am an experienced cacher and that just too easily looks like it has to be on the RR right of way and is not a part of the park, no matter who planted the treeline.

 

(Nevermind that many of us do fear Keystone's Chemical X.)

In my profession I have come to learn that short of hiring a licensed surveyor, the only way to tell where a property line starts and or stops is through visual keys. The trees were obviously planted to form a sort of property delineation. Another visual key here is the fairly well maintained grass yard that runs to and just beyond the tree line. For clarity, I am the Code Enforcement Officer/Building Inspector for the city of Hoquiam WA., and have been the mediator in many property line disputes, as well as determining almost daily whether a project is encroaching into the property line setbacks. I feel that I am kind of an expert on determining where property lines may or may not be.

 

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?

Yes I got permission from the Parks and Rec Director for the city of Montesano. I have 3 other caches in 3 other parks in Montesano. One is in John Vessey Park and although it's on the other side of Pioneer it is within 150' of the tracks as well. Someone else has had one at the "Welcome to Montesano" sign down the street for a year and a half, is on the north side of Pioneer, and closer than 150' to the tracks.

 

I think that the other cache, is on the other side of the road. The road would serve as an effective barrier to accidentally stepping on to the tracks.

 

The road that has traffic that is moving faster and way more frequent than a train. Again, it's not about safety, if it were I don't think I would have been scaling 12' up some rip rap along side of a hwy with a speed limit of 55mph, and the only good parking on the other side of the hwy, just the other day to grab an FTF.

[+kayak-cowboy]

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.

 

In the website history of Bryon Park it said there was Large concrete blocks put along the border of the park. They was placed between the park and the rail road.

Can you get photos of where these blocks are in comparison as to where the cache is located? It could actually be the only way to get this cache published.

[+John in Valley Forge]

I find it predictable whenever someone appeals a decision in the forum that there will be people who automatically assume the person making the appeal is wrong and they should leave the dead horse alone and accept the ruling. In fact there are times when the appeal to the forum has resulted in the cache being published. Usually, someone will be able to suggest something to the hider that could make the cache work. In this case, I believe, additional evidence might show the cache is in the park and that people would not go on the tracks to look for it. Instead of telling the OP to stop beating a dead horse and accept the reviewers ruling, I am trying to help find a way the cache can be published. Instead of looking at the evidence and seeing that it proves the reviewers stance, I look at it and see where it is not conclusive.

 

The city website indicates blocks have been installed along the south boundary of the park between the park and the railroad tracks. I did not see this in the video but perhaps these are there and would serve as a sufficient marker for the park.

 

The OP asked for opinions and received them.

I've spent enough time trying to help him understand the situation.

My final opinion is that he needs to appeal it.

[+Don_J]

Clearly, your only option is to move the stump.

 

Either that or find another place to hide your cache.

Edited November 20, 2010 by Don_J

[+sanssheriff]

In the website history of Bryon Park it said there was Large concrete blocks put along the border of the park. They was placed between the park and the rail road.

Can you get photos of where these blocks are in comparison as to where the cache is located? It could actually be the only way to get this cache published.

 

Thank you for your suggestion, however, the blocks are at the east end of the park where the tracks are much closer to Pioneer. They were placed there so that they could level the ground of the park.

[+sanssheriff]

Clearly, your only option is to move the stump.

 

Either that or find another place to hide tour cache.

lol, if only I could.

 

For me , this is about having a cache at Bryan Park, but if I have to stay 150' away from the railroad tracks, it would be impossible to have one there.

[+Coldgears]

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).

Watch it. There's no fence. There are some weeds, which the CO calls a "scotch broom fence."

 

As much as I agree with your 1337 r3v3iwing Sk1llz. There is actually a fence there, weeds are just growing on it. It's a dark video, try highering your contrast it's pretty clear.

Edited November 19, 2010 by Coldgears

[+sanssheriff]

I find it predictable whenever someone appeals a decision in the forum that there will be people who automatically assume the person making the appeal is wrong and they should leave the dead horse alone and accept the ruling. In fact there are times when the appeal to the forum has resulted in the cache being published. Usually, someone will be able to suggest something to the hider that could make the cache work. In this case, I believe, additional evidence might show the cache is in the park and that people would not go on the tracks to look for it. Instead of telling the OP to stop beating a dead horse and accept the reviewers ruling, I am trying to help find a way the cache can be published. Instead of looking at the evidence and seeing that it proves the reviewers stance, I look at it and see where it is not conclusive.

 

The city website indicates blocks have been installed along the south boundary of the park between the park and the railroad tracks. I did not see this in the video but perhaps these are there and would serve as a sufficient marker for the park.

 

The OP asked for opinions and received them.

I've spent enough time trying to help him understand the situation.

My final opinion is that he needs to appeal it.

You are correct, I asked for opinions and have received a number of them. Am I limited to how many I can have?

 

What I didn't do was ask for your help in understanding my situation.

 

That is the next step, once I am satisfied with the number of comments I have received regarding my cache. If it's overwhelmingly negative then I probably will go no further.

 

I did learn something during this conversation, that making a determination whether a cache is safe or not is just opening up a nasty mess of liability concerns for Groundspeak. Which is why they don't evaluate for safety.

[+John in Valley Forge]

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).

Watch it. There's no fence. There are some weeds, which the CO calls a "scotch broom fence."

 

As much as I agree with your 1337 r3v3iwing Sk1llz. There is actually a fence there, weeds are just growing on it. It's a dark video, try highering your contrast it's pretty clear.

 

Maybe I am wrong then because I saw no fence. It appeared to be and was described by the OP as "scotch broom". I don't know anything about the plant is that it is considered an invasive species in the PNW. I wonder if dies off in the winter?

 

I did see a gravel railroad bed within a few feet of the stump. I've never seen a railroad 30-40 feet of excess gravel beside the tracks, it would be a waste of money. That suggests to me that the rails are closer than the OP estimates. I know I am lousy at estimating distances.

[+sanssheriff]

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).

Watch it. There's no fence. There are some weeds, which the CO calls a "scotch broom fence."

 

As much as I agree with your 1337 r3v3iwing Sk1llz. There is actually a fence there, weeds are just growing on it. It's a dark video, try highering your contrast it's pretty clear.

Thanks, but there is no fence.

[+John in Valley Forge]

Sorry bout the double post, not sure how it happened.

 

It's a new feature they added to the site. I use it all the time too.

[+sanssheriff]

Sorry bout the double post, not sure how it happened.

 

It's a new feature they added to the site. I use it all the time too.

 

I see, and the randomness of this new feature keeps you on your toes.

[+d+n.s]

If nothing else, this thread has been interesting and informative. Perhaps the OP could not post it FOR NOW and begin a call for concrete blocks in this area too... you know, for the kids and stuff After they fight the good fight and get the blocks installed they willl be a hero to everyone and could try the cache again

Edited November 20, 2010 by d+n.shults

[+TerraViators]

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?

The guy can post if he wants to.

[+TerraViators]

IMO, not posting caches near RR tracks is ridiculous. Climbing a 50 foot tree is more dangerous than standing near a track.

[+TerraViators]

nm

Edited November 20, 2010 by TerraViators

[+hotshoe]

I think that the memorial park does need a cache and I bet the stump hide is the best possible hide in the park. I think the reviewer(s) should reverse the decision to deny the cache. A fairly large cache (peanut butter jar) hidden in a fairly obvious place (the one dead stump in the whole area) will not cause stupid cachers to suddenly lose their minds and start wandering around on the tracks.

 

It's absolutely clear that the park is city property and the cache hider already has permission from the city to hide a cache there. The reviewer(s) should stop obstructing a responsible cache owner and a cooperating city park department.

[+Don_J]

IMO, not posting caches near RR tracks is ridiculous. Climbing a 50 foot tree is more dangerous than standing near a track.

 

Please understand, as has been noted several times in this thread, the reviewers are not reviewing for safety. They are however, reviewing for property lines. Railroads are very restrictive about their property. As a "Railfan" I know this all to well. They simply do no want people to trespass on their Right Of Way (ROW), and the reviewers respect this. By his own admission, the OP says that the row of cypress represents the property line. He has hidden his cache in a stump along this line. Hiding a cache exactly on the property line pushes the issue. If I were a reviewer, I would not approve the cache.

Edited November 20, 2010 by Don_J

[+briansnat]

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?

 

If the park is such a wonderful spot for a cache, would it be so difficult to find another location within the park that is clearly within the park boundary instead of fighting over this questionable location?

[+briansnat]

I think that the memorial park does need a cache and I bet the stump hide is the best possible hide in the park. I think the reviewer(s) should reverse the decision to deny the cache. A fairly large cache (peanut butter jar) hidden in a fairly obvious place (the one dead stump in the whole area) will not cause stupid cachers to suddenly lose their minds and start wandering around on the tracks.

 

It's absolutely clear that the park is city property and the cache hider already has permission from the city to hide a cache there. The reviewer(s) should stop obstructing a responsible cache owner and a cooperating city park department.

 

It's not absolutely clear that it is in the park and that is the issue. It is close enough to the boundary that only a surveyor could be qualified to determine if it is in or out.

 

IMO, not posting caches near RR tracks is ridiculous. Climbing a 50 foot tree is more dangerous than standing near a track.

 

As it's been pointed out several times in this thread it's not a matter of safety. Caches are not reviewed for safety. It's a matter of it possibly being on private property.

Edited November 20, 2010 by briansnat

[+John in Valley Forge]

I think that the memorial park does need a cache and I bet the stump hide is the best possible hide in the park. I think the reviewer(s) should reverse the decision to deny the cache. A fairly large cache (peanut butter jar) hidden in a fairly obvious place (the one dead stump in the whole area) will not cause stupid cachers to suddenly lose their minds and start wandering around on the tracks.

 

It's absolutely clear that the park is city property and the cache hider already has permission from the city to hide a cache there. The reviewer(s) should stop obstructing a responsible cache owner and a cooperating city park department.

 

It's not absolutely clear that it is in the park and that is the issue. It is close enough to the boundary that only a surveyor could be qualified to determine if it is in or out.

 

IMO, not posting caches near RR tracks is ridiculous. Climbing a 50 foot tree is more dangerous than standing near a track.

As it's been pointed out several times in this thread it's not a matter of safety. Caches are not reviewed for safety. It's a matter of it possibly being on private property.

 

I think that the nebulous nature of the property line is a huge issue. No one knows for sure who planted those trees or on which side of the property line they grow on. When these trees were planted the land may have had private ownership, probably the house across the street or next door. It is not likely that the RR planted the trees as a buffer, RR's were not all that nice and caring. The property owner (or just the neighbor in case the property was not owned) may have decided to plant them as a noise and sight buffer. The tree planter then estimates the property line and plants a row of saplings on a weekend. 50 years later people assume it is the property line. But no one really knows.

 

But does the property line even matter? Isn't it still well within the 150' exclusion with no barrier? Or is that just for areas where the line is unknown? I know rail-to-trail paths that run close to active tracks so there must be some exceptions. This one is, however, within a few unobstructed feet of the rail bed.

 

As far as the safety issue, it has been pointed out several times in the thread that the 150' exclusion is a property rights rule, not a safety rule. That does not change the fact that the proposed cache will be located along a rail road track across the street from a baseball field park. Logically the ball field will be used by children. Some of them will eventually hear about this cache and go look for it. (Wouldn't this cache likely get muggled quickly?) My statements (admittedly skewed by my parenting experience) about the danger of the placement revolves around this. Do you want to place a cache that can place children or dogs or inattentive adults, in such danger? We are not talking about a 3/3 rating. The cache described would have a 1.5/1.5 at most (OP indicates it might even be wheelchair accessible). Some people here think it is a bad idea to court such danger.

 

LPCs are allowed, but are they good? Debatable.

 

Also, I look around the area and think the reason it has to be placed in this area is the saturation rule. The particular is a hollow stump and another has already suggested that the OP may be enamored so much by the stump that he is ignoring the downside. There are two caches right there. One at the other end of this 200yd long strip of land, one in the baseball park across the street. The rest of the town and area is almost devoid of caches.

 

I've walked away from seemingly perfect hiding spots because of other factors that I didn't like, even if they were allowable. I (and maybe some others here) think the OP should abandon this one and look for a better spot in his wide open town.

[+Ladybug Kids]

There is another potential resolution this...talk to the local railroad security folks.

 

Up here, the Alaska Railroad parallels Turnagain Arm of the Cook Inlet for about forty miles of prime, truly it's about the location, caching territory. The National Scenic Byway Seward Highway parallels the railroad as does a bicycle path from Bird to Girdwood. Both the highway and the bike path are within the railroad's right of way for significant stretches.

 

A local cacher approached the railroad's security agent and got the following guidance:

 

The Alaska Railroad has a legal 100' Right of Way (ROW) on both sides of the centerline of the tracks. Geocaches should not be placed inside this ROW for safety reasons with the following exceptions (per Jim Adams, Alaska Railroad Security Agent):

 

Land on the opposite side of the bicycle trail from the tracks where the bicycle trail falls within the 100' ROW.

 

Land within the vehicle transportation corridor including pull outs that falls within the 100' ROW. These areas are usually delineated by a fence or guardrail.

 

People are discouraged from crossing or walking along the tracks for safety reasons.

 

Note: Groundspeak imposes a 150' buffer between caches and tracks unless specific exemptions are identified such as those above. The use of the word "safety" is the railroad's wording.

Edited November 20, 2010 by Ladybug Kids

[+John in Valley Forge]

There is another potential resolution this...talk to the local railroad security folks.

 

Up here, the Alaska Railroad parallels Turnagain Arm of the Cook Inlet for about forty miles of prime, truly it's about the location, caching territory. The National Scenic Byway Seward Highway parallels the railroad as does a bicycle path from Bird to Girdwood. Both the highway and the bike path are within the railroad's right of way for significant stretches.

 

A local cacher approached the railroad's security agent and got the following guidance:

 

The Alaska Railroad has a legal 100' Right of Way (ROW) on both sides of the centerline of the tracks. Geocaches should not be placed inside this ROW for safety reasons with the following exceptions (per Jim Adams, Alaska Railroad Security Agent):

 

Land on the opposite side of the bicycle trail from the tracks where the bicycle trail falls within the 100' ROW.

 

Land within the vehicle transportation corridor including pull outs that falls within the 100' ROW. These areas are usually delineated by a fence or guardrail.

 

People are discouraged from crossing or walking along the tracks for safety reasons.

 

Note: Groundspeak imposes a 150' buffer between caches and tracks unless specific exemptions are identified such as those above. The use of the word "safety" is the railroad's wording.

 

Whether it is the railroad or the lillypad making the statement, there are underlying safety issues involved in playing next to the railroad track.

 

Getting hit by the actual train is not the only danger along the track side. I grew up near a busy yard. Despite my mother's admonitions, many of the kids played near them. I've bushwacked along tracks. They are dangerous. Stuff falls off of trains. Stuck gets kicked up by trains as they pass by. I've walked along the rail bed? There are all kids of train related objects and debris that have landed quite far from the actual track. Ever been behind a truck and it kicks up a stone that hits your windshield? Imagine that stone kicked up by the wheel of a locomotive, or something falls off the train, a bolt or a piece of scrap?

 

I just would not encourage anyone to play in such a place. Especially when there are other places available.

[+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.

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.

 

Sorry, I wasn't clear in my post. I wasn't saying the reviewer was correct because of a safety issue, I was attempting to point out that one's personal interest in a cache location often clouds our judgement, the "fence of scotch broom" being an example. From the video it is clear the cache is quite close to active railway tracks, which is a violation of the guidelines. That puts the burden of proof on the cache owner to show why the cache should be allowed an exception. Nothing to do with a safety issue at all.

[+Renegade Knight]

... 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!...

 

The RR rule is a general rule. Any cache outside the actual RR Right of Way is ok for that rule. This site uses a generic width.

 

Show that it's outside the RR Right of way. Show in an allowed public access area under another jurisdiction. Show the track is not active (aka abandoned). and all should get you an approved caches.

 

If you can't show these it won't get approved. Rail Roads have a zero tolerance policy of people being on their lands. That's their generic rule.

[+myotis]

I think now a days most caches are in bad locations. I think this one is a good location and should be approved. I think the burden to show there is permission and it is on park property has been adequately met. I got a good laugh out of some of the comments. My favorite was the one objecting to the location because if their dog got off its leash there would be nothing to keep the dog from going on the tracks. I feel sorry for that dog-I guess it never goes anywhere-what if it got off it leash walking around the block with nothing to stop it from running in the street? Its in a town with railroad crossing, the train will be blowiing its horn to warn cars at the crossing. Safety - afraid of the trains? What about all these stupid guard rail caches? For many of these there are REAL safty issues. At least sanssheriff's cache is in an interesting location. Once you've seen one guardrail/highway you've seen them all. Yes lots of caches have been blown up. If this cache was this close to a playground, I would agree. But come on-give me a break. If someone wanted to blow up a train, they would bury it in the rocks around the track.

[+Coldgears]

 

Looks like a fence.

[+wimseyguy]

No, it looks like a row of scotch broom plants with a railroad track in the background.

[+Don_J]

There is another potential resolution this...talk to the local railroad security folks.

 

 

There is no way that any railroad, large or small, is going to give up it's property rights so that someone can play a game.

[+John in Valley Forge]

 

Looks like a fence.

 

I think you are alone in that opinion. Even the CO has stated, directly, that it is a line of plant matter.

[+Renegade Knight]

There is another potential resolution this...talk to the local railroad security folks.

 

 

There is no way that any railroad, large or small, is going to give up it's property rights so that someone can play a game.

Ladybug kids already showed how a RR allowed caching within it's ROW. Giving up property rights is not involved in giving permission for a ache.

[+John in Valley Forge]

There is another potential resolution this...talk to the local railroad security folks.

 

 

There is no way that any railroad, large or small, is going to give up it's property rights so that someone can play a game.

Ladybug kids already showed how a RR allowed caching within it's ROW. Giving up property rights is not involved in giving permission for a ache.

 

I think the example Ladybug Kids references is slightly different, given it revolves around an established bike trail and the instrcutions were clear that the cache be placed on the opposite side of the trail from the RR. It also appears to be a considerable distance away from the rails (more than 100 feet).

[+Don_J]

There is another potential resolution this...talk to the local railroad security folks.

 

 

There is no way that any railroad, large or small, is going to give up it's property rights so that someone can play a game.

Ladybug kids already showed how a RR allowed caching within it's ROW. Giving up property rights is not involved in giving permission for a ache.

 

No, they gave permission to a city government to allow a bike path. I contend that no such thing will ever happen to allow a single Geocacher to place a cache.

[+John in Valley Forge]

There is another potential resolution this...talk to the local railroad security folks.

 

 

There is no way that any railroad, large or small, is going to give up it's property rights so that someone can play a game.

Ladybug kids already showed how a RR allowed caching within it's ROW. Giving up property rights is not involved in giving permission for a ache.

 

No, they gave permission to a city government to allow a bike path. I contend that no such thing will ever happen to allow a single Geocacher to place a cache.

 

It does seem unlikely and probably required going through a lot of red tape, but the cache seems to be GC285YD

[+GeoGeeBee]

I think that the memorial park does need a cache

 

I don't think there's any place that actually needs a cache. In fact, I'm starting to notice that cache descriptions containing the phrase "this spot needed a cache" are a valuable indicator for my personal caching aesthetic.

[+sbell111]

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.

Your opinion as to whether any specific spot is 'god' for a cache is irrelevent in regards to whether a cache should be listed in that location.

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.

I think that it doesn't matter.

 

You appear to keep falling back to a safety issue. As many people have mentioned, safety is not an issue.

 

Related to this specific proposed cache, there are only two issues:

1. Is the cache within the railroad ROW.
   
2. Should a cache that is near to a railroad track but not on within the ROW be denied based on the 'terrrorism' guideline?
   

If the cache is actually in a city park, it does not violate the RR guideline. I would put a note on the cache page advising not to approach the cache from the south and/or that no one should enter the ROW when looking for the cache.

 

While I do think that the 'terrorism' guideline should make us carefully consider the cache container for a cache hidden near a RR track, I don't think that it should rule out all caches in the location. A clear PB jar seems like a good container for such a location.

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

I'd actually do a couple things first:

1. Return to the scene to verify my coordinates.
   
2. Verify that the tree line is within the park.
   
3. Take some pictures that make all issues perfectly clear.
   
4. Contact the reviewer with all of the info. See if you can't clear up any misunderstanding with him. You may end up clearing up his misgivings and getting the cache approved.
   
5. If that doesn't work, you can try the 'appeals' address or give up on this spot.
   

[+sbell111]

I think that the nebulous nature of the property line is a huge issue. No one knows for sure who planted those trees or on which side of the property line they grow on.

I would find it hard to believe that city personnel, who gave permission for the cache to be placed in the park, did not know where the boundary is.

There is another potential resolution this...talk to the local railroad security folks.

There is no way that any railroad, large or small, is going to give up it's property rights so that someone can play a game.

Ladybug kids already showed how a RR allowed caching within it's ROW. Giving up property rights is not involved in giving permission for a ache.

I think the example Ladybug Kids references is slightly different, given it revolves around an established bike trail and the instrcutions were clear that the cache be placed on the opposite side of the trail from the RR. It also appears to be a considerable distance away from the rails (more than 100 feet).

LK's example differs in that the location actually was in the RR ROW. The proposed cache, on the other hand, appears to merely be placed in a city park that is adjacent to the ROW.

[+GeoGeeBee]

I think that the nebulous nature of the property line is a huge issue. No one knows for sure who planted those trees or on which side of the property line they grow on.

I would find it hard to believe that city personnel, who gave permission for the cache to be placed in the park, did not know where the boundary is.

 

Perhaps the OP will chime in to clarify, but I don't think the city personnel gave explicit permission to put a cache in this exact spot. From the original post:

I have permission from the city of Montesano in Washington state to hide caches on city property.

 

That doesn't sound like anyone from the city has vetted this placement. It sounds more like he has blanket permission to place theoretical geocaches on hypothetical city property.

[+sbell111]

I think that the nebulous nature of the property line is a huge issue. No one knows for sure who planted those trees or on which side of the property line they grow on.

I would find it hard to believe that city personnel, who gave permission for the cache to be placed in the park, did not know where the boundary is.

 

Perhaps the OP will chime in to clarify, but I don't think the city personnel gave explicit permission to put a cache in this exact spot. From the original post:

I have permission from the city of Montesano in Washington state to hide caches on city property.

 

That doesn't sound like anyone from the city has vetted this placement. It sounds more like he has blanket permission to place theoretical geocaches on hypothetical city property.

Either way, he appears to have a relationship with people who would know whether or not the cache was placed within park boudaries.

[+John in Valley Forge]

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.

Your opinion as to whether any specific spot is 'god' for a cache is irrelevent in regards to whether a cache should be listed in that location.

 

It is relevent ONLY in that the OP has asked for the "opinion of the community". My opinion is just that, my personal opinion stated as a part of the community.

 

I think that it doesn't matter.

 

You appear to keep falling back to a safety issue. As many people have mentioned, safety is not an issue.

 

I thought I had clarified this statements before, but perhaps not well enough.

The cache may turn out to be within the park property in which case it might be allowable under the Groundspeak guidelines. I really don't know since the guidelines do not speak to the Right of way, they speak to a specific distance from the tracks. Nor do they provide a reason why, though it is alluded to, by the reference to trespassing laws. They state: "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." An earlier poster included a note received from a railroad (don't know if it the same railroad that owns these tracks) and that note alluded to safety reasons.

 

I did not raise the safety issue in regards to the guideline. I raised the safetly issue over the wisdom, not the legality, of placing a cache in such close proximity of an active rail track. I have a cache that is in a park adjoining a busy rail yard. When scouting out the area I could have placed it anywhere in the park. One of those spots had a nice view of the river beyond the rail tracks, but I felt (in my own opinion) that it was not a good spot because it was at the top of a steep hill that led right down to the tracks. I instead chose a spot in a different corner of the park and lead them past the overlook using stages that take them along a paved walking path. I got the same effect, but I don't worry about anyone getting too close tot he tracks.

 

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

 

It turns out I was very wrong about this. There are apparently several reviewers in the forums and some have commented here. I think they had varied opinions too.

 

I'd actually do a couple things first:

1. Return to the scene to verify my coordinates.
   
2. Verify that the tree line is within the park.
   
3. Take some pictures that make all issues perfectly clear.
   
4. Contact the reviewer with all of the info. See if you can't clear up any misunderstanding with him. You may end up clearing up his misgivings and getting the cache approved.
   
5. If that doesn't work, you can try the 'appeals' address or give up on this spot.
   

Good point, especially the part about verifying the ownership status of the exact location. That does seem to be a big unknown. I got the impression that is had already been through multiple appeals to volunteer reviewers, directly and through their private forum.

[+sbell111]

I'd actually do a couple things first:

1. Return to the scene to verify my coordinates.
   
2. Verify that the tree line is within the park.
   
3. Take some pictures that make all issues perfectly clear.
   
4. Contact the reviewer with all of the info. See if you can't clear up any misunderstanding with him. You may end up clearing up his misgivings and getting the cache approved.
   
5. If that doesn't work, you can try the 'appeals' address or give up on this spot.
   

Good point, especially the part about verifying the ownership status of the exact location. That does seem to be a big unknown. I got the impression that is had already been through multiple appeals to volunteer reviewers, directly and through their private forum.

I think that you continue to overstate how 'unknown' the ownership is. The OP is certainly positive that he knows and he appears to be in a position of knowing this information. My suggestion that he verify this information was merely part of crossing the 'T's for the reviewer (or TPTB).

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Clearly, your only option is to move the stump.

 

Either that or find another place to hide tour cache.

lol, if only I could.

 

For me , this is about having a cache at Bryan Park, but if I have to stay 150' away from the railroad tracks, it would be impossible to have one there.

 

After placing my first cache the next cache I tried to place was rejected due the RR proximity guidelines. In my case, it was in a town park, about 125' from the RR tracks and there were a small parking area between the tracks and where I wanted to place the cache. I was pretty disappointed since the spot was also a place where I frequently launched my kayak and has a beautiful few of our local lake. When the reviewer first asked about the RR tracks he/she provided a link to a cache that was archived a few years ago that was near RR tracks. In that case, the cache owner was prosecuted and fined $1000 or so for placing the cache within the limits of the railroad right-of-way. I could have moved the cache a bit further away, and provided explicit written permission from the town park department acknowledging that the cache with within NNN feet of the railroad right-of-way but even for a pretty spectacular location it didn't seem worth the effort.

[+John in Valley Forge]

I think that you continue to overstate how 'unknown' the ownership is. The OP is certainly positive that he knows and he appears to be in a position of knowing this information. My suggestion that he verify this information was merely part of crossing the 'T's for the reviewer (or TPTB).

 

I thought I was overstating the safety issue

 

You too suggest that he should verify that the tree line is in the park.

The OP certainly is sure that the line of trees is in the park. I haven't heard any reason why this is a certainty. Maybe there are surveyor stakes out there that I am unaware of. The trees look like they have been there a while. There is no way of knowing which side of the property line they are on.

 

The county does not provide the metes and bounds online to see where the property line is. That is the only way to prove where the line is, survey it. The line of trees or even a fence may well be assumed to be a property line because it follows where people think it should be. But it can be way off. I learned that when replacing a fence that had been installed long before I bought my house. It turns out that the was not the property line, but rather it crossed the property line, drifting into his yard at one end and too far into my yard at the other.

[+sbell111]

I never stated that you were overstating the safety issue. You were merely misapplying it (since 'safety' doesn't apply to whether a cache should be listed).

 

Actually, it appears that you are just clinging to one excuse after another about why this cache shouldn't be placed. Do you have a personal issue with the OP that the rest of us are not aware of or should we just chalk up your posts to overconfident newbishness?