Encroachment on private property? Safety issue?

[+John in Valley Forge]

I think that accusations of lying and questioning the CO's permission to place caches in parks is a bit over the top. I have seen nothing that leads me to believe that the CO is not acting in sincere good faith here.

 

Although I have reservations about this particular placement, I stand by the CO's right to investigate all open issues and appealing it as far as he sees fit.

[+Castle Mischief]

Yeah, but wouldn't taking the path of least resistance just be the thing to do in this case? Sometimes reviewers have knowledge of an area due to previous placements that went horribly wrong. Maybe the reviewer is trying to avoid some drama and by extension avoid the CO some drama? Maybe?

[+briansnat]

I don't see where verifying property lines is a requirement. I don't know of any one else that has been required to show verification of property lines. Requiring me to somehow verify the exact location of property lines would be discrimination.

 

Discrimination now? What a load of hooey.

 

Cachers are asked to verify the exact location of property lines all of the time when they are placing a cache a razor thin distance from it. Try placing a cache right on the boundary of NPS land and see whether or not you get a note back asking you to verify the property line.

 

You're assuming the trees are the property line. Your cache may well be on city property but if it is it's probably only by a matter of a few feet. It may also be a few feet onto RR property. The burden of proof is on you as the cache owner.

[+sanssheriff]

So is there another cache placement or some other factor keeping you from just moving it further away from the tracks and deeper into what is clearly park property?

I need to be as far to the west end of the park as possible to maintain the minimum distance from the cache across the street in John Vessey park which limits me to the tree line, or one large tree that is away from the tree line.

 

Moving away from the property line would pretty much limit my hiding spot to a large tree that is about 20' into the park from the original spot and would force me to reduce the size of the container to a micro. So far all of the caches in the downtown area are micros, and I was really hoping to have a regular but had to settle for a good sized small that's big enough to hold swag and trackables.

[+sanssheriff]

Sometimes reviewers have knowledge of an area due to previous placements that went horribly wrong. Maybe the reviewer is trying to avoid some drama and by extension avoid the CO some drama? Maybe?

That is a good point, but the reviewer said nothing about that when I asked him to take another look at it, so I assume there haven't been any issues like that here.

[+sanssheriff]

I think that accusations of lying and questioning the CO's permission to place caches in parks is a bit over the top. I have seen nothing that leads me to believe that the CO is not acting in sincere good faith here.

 

Although I have reservations about this particular placement, I stand by the CO's right to investigate all open issues and appealing it as far as he sees fit.

Thank you John!

[+sanssheriff]

I don't see where verifying property lines is a requirement. I don't know of any one else that has been required to show verification of property lines. Requiring me to somehow verify the exact location of property lines would be discrimination.

 

Discrimination now? What a load of hooey.

 

Cachers are asked to verify the exact location of property lines all of the time when they are placing a cache a razor thin distance from it. Try placing a cache right on the boundary of NPS land and see whether or not you get a note back asking you to verify the property line.

 

You're assuming the trees are the property line. Your cache may well be on city property but if it is it's probably only by a matter of a few feet. It may also be a few feet onto RR property. The burden of proof is on you as the cache owner.

Only because the word exact keeps getting thrown out there. To have an exact description of where the property line is would require it to be surveyed and surveyors don't come cheap.

[+StarBrand]

....

would require it to be surveyed and surveyors don't come cheap.

 

Who exactly asked for surveyor?

 

Just get the same guy that gave you permission to place caches a jingle and have him/her confirm you are on the park side of the boundry. Easy enough.

[+John in Valley Forge]

I don't see where verifying property lines is a requirement. I don't know of any one else that has been required to show verification of property lines. Requiring me to somehow verify the exact location of property lines would be discrimination.

 

Discrimination now? What a load of hooey.

 

Cachers are asked to verify the exact location of property lines all of the time when they are placing a cache a razor thin distance from it. Try placing a cache right on the boundary of NPS land and see whether or not you get a note back asking you to verify the property line.

 

You're assuming the trees are the property line. Your cache may well be on city property but if it is it's probably only by a matter of a few feet. It may also be a few feet onto RR property. The burden of proof is on you as the cache owner.

Only because the word exact keeps getting thrown out there. To have an exact description of where the property line is would require it to be surveyed and surveyors don't come cheap.

 

And that definitely poses a huge problem.

 

Can you get a copy of the metes and bounds description? It might be available at the town library or town hall. Perhaps it would shed some light on the subject. Hopefully there are survey markers (the old "iron pin driven into the ground" thing) that area still in existence. If you found them you could run a string along them to show the line and photograph it. I think something like that would go a long way towards clearing the property line question (is it in or out of the park boundaries).

 

Or, like those near NPS boundaries, a note from someone in the city (parks dept?) stating that the tree in question is definitely within the park boundaries.

 

I think Brian's point is that from an aerial photograph (which is all that most or us have to go by), it is ambiguous as to whether it is on park land or on RR land. It is incumbent on you, who are on the ground there, and who wishes to place the cache there, to prove that it is on the park side of the property line.

I know its a pain in the neck, but it would be proof positive.

[+sanssheriff]

....

would require it to be surveyed and surveyors don't come cheap.

 

Who exactly asked for surveyor?

 

Just get the same guy that gave you permission to place caches a jingle and have him/her confirm you are on the park side of the boundry. Easy enough.

StarBrand,

 

My profession is in zoning and land use. I work with surveyors and property lines almost on a daily basis. When someone needs an exact property line description, unless a survey has been done in the past and recorded at the county(98% of the time there isn't a survey) it would need to be surveyed. So when someone tells me I need an exact description o a property line, I instinctively reflect on what I know and sometimes have to tell our citizens, that it would need to be surveyed.

 

I do plan on asking Community Development Director Mr. M. W. (I'm not going to use his full name here in respect to him) if the treeline is within the parks boundary after the holiday.

[+sanssheriff]

I don't see where verifying property lines is a requirement. I don't know of any one else that has been required to show verification of property lines. Requiring me to somehow verify the exact location of property lines would be discrimination.

 

Discrimination now? What a load of hooey.

 

Cachers are asked to verify the exact location of property lines all of the time when they are placing a cache a razor thin distance from it. Try placing a cache right on the boundary of NPS land and see whether or not you get a note back asking you to verify the property line.

 

You're assuming the trees are the property line. Your cache may well be on city property but if it is it's probably only by a matter of a few feet. It may also be a few feet onto RR property. The burden of proof is on you as the cache owner.

Only because the word exact keeps getting thrown out there. To have an exact description of where the property line is would require it to be surveyed and surveyors don't come cheap.

 

And that definitely poses a huge problem.

 

Can you get a copy of the metes and bounds description? It might be available at the town library or town hall. Perhaps it would shed some light on the subject. Hopefully there are survey markers (the old "iron pin driven into the ground" thing) that area still in existence. If you found them you could run a string along them to show the line and photograph it. I think something like that would go a long way towards clearing the property line question (is it in or out of the park boundaries).

 

Or, like those near NPS boundaries, a note from someone in the city (parks dept?) stating that the tree in question is definitely within the park boundaries.

 

I think Brian's point is that from an aerial photograph (which is all that most or us have to go by), it is ambiguous as to whether it is on park land or on RR land. It is incumbent on you, who are on the ground there, and who wishes to place the cache there, to prove that it is on the park side of the property line.

I know its a pain in the neck, but it would be proof positive.

You are absolutely right John, the onus is on me as the CO. I just assumed the video would show what I know to be true. Obviously I was wrong in that assumption and will need to provide something else as proof of what I am asserting.

[+John in Valley Forge]

I just assumed the video would show what I know to be true. Obviously I was wrong in that assumption and will need to provide something else as proof of what I am asserting.

 

Obviously wrong? Quite the contrary. If you were obviously wrong, you would have gotten little to no support here at all. Instead, the thread seems to have started largely against the spot, then as more information was gathered, more began to support the spot while others opposed it. It seems it is still divided. (for the record, I've learned a lot about the way people in other places feel about and deal with proximity to RR tracks)

 

I have no idea how often such disputes arise, where the placement of the cache has to be so exactly determined in respect to some kind of boundary. I guess it probably happens a lot with the proximity to other caches, but property lines or ROW demarcations, I just don't know.

 

I think getting Mr MW to confirm the location would go a long way in the right direction.

[+StarBrand]

...

I do plan on asking Community Development Director Mr. M. W. (I'm not going to use his full name here in respect to him) if the treeline is within the parks boundary after the holiday.

 

ok - sounds like the right way to continue this.

[+sanssheriff]

Happy Thanksgiving Day everyone, time to overindulge!

[+tozainamboku]

I want to apologize to anyone who may have been insulted by the remark I made early on in this thread regarding how predictable it is when someone appeals a reviewer decision to the forums. It was certainly not my intent to imply that the reviewers give special treatment to people who agree with them in forums. Also given the way the topic continued during my suspension, it is obvious that not everyone automatically agrees with every reviewer decision and, in this particular case, it was also clear how with the evidence the cache owner was able to provide people could reasonably come to the conclusion that the cache should not be published. (I think I said as much in the same post that earned me the suspension). I will be more careful in the future to remember that people can reach a different conclusion then me without being influenced by a prior reviewer decision.

[+EscapeFromFlatland]

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 guideline would cause at least a hundred caches to get archived in the Portland metro area if it was applied to light rail or streetcar.

[+Walts Hunting]

Now that Garmin has the opencaching site you could post it there. They have no review process.

[+addisonbr]

That's why geocaching ... doesn't allow cachers to directly upload their hides.

Eerily prescient, given the news a couple of weeks after this quote.

 

(This is not intended to be a judgment one way or another on the proposed hide.)

[+tozainamboku]

Now that Garmin has the opencaching site you could post it there. They have no review process.

Not true. Anyone can report a cache listing on opencaching.com as being in violation of their guidelines. They seem to be doing a pretty good job of removing listings for caches that violate the guidelines.

 

Now they don't have a specific guideline about distance from a railroad track. Their guidelines do say that caches should not be place where there presence may set off alarms, and railroad tracks are given as an example. Also private property placements always require explicit permission, so if the cache is on railroad property and not in the park it is likely in violation of the guidelines. And they have a guideline not to put caches anywhere that might put the safety of geocachers in peril. So it is hard to say if this cache would meet the opencaching.com guidelines or not. It would probably be cachers who actually visit the cache who will determine if this in the city park and a safe distance from the railroad tracks, rather than a reviewer using a poorly drawn city map and an inconclusive YouTube video.

[+FireRef]

Now that Garmin has the opencaching site you could post it there. They have no review process.

Not true. Anyone can report a cache listing on opencaching.com as being in violation of their guidelines. They seem to be doing a pretty good job of removing listings for caches that violate the guidelines.

 

Now they don't have a specific guideline about distance from a railroad track. Their guidelines do say that caches should not be place where there presence may set off alarms, and railroad tracks are given as an example. Also private property placements always require explicit permission, so if the cache is on railroad property and not in the park it is likely in violation of the guidelines. And they have a guideline not to put caches anywhere that might put the safety of geocachers in peril. So it is hard to say if this cache would meet the opencaching.com guidelines or not. It would probably be cachers who actually visit the cache who will determine if this in the city park and a safe distance from the railroad tracks, rather than a reviewer using a poorly drawn city map and an inconclusive YouTube video.

 

But you have to admit that it will make this a very interesting debate over time - here, you submit a cache, hoping that it meets the website's standards, as well as the individual reviewer's (because some seem to let some things go or interpret guidelines differently than others), where there, you submit a cache, and it is posted... all you have to do is hope the website doesn't decide, based on complaints, that your cache violates their guidelines. They seem more reactive than proactive.

 

Sometimes this is a good thing, sometimes bad.

 

But I do think, and have expressed this before, that this website is a bit too proactive. Prohibiting hides which don't meet guidelines set up and enforced by the person who owns the company doesn't always benefit the game, as much as it protects the website and the person who owns it.

 

I would prefer having a site which is there for the benefit of the game. Will opencaching.com be it? Who knows. But competition is good - always.

[+sanssheriff]

 

Shortly after thanksgiving I emailed Mike about the property line. I patiently waited for, but didn't receive an answer. I figure that I didn't get an answer because I used my personal email and had the words "geocaching location" in the subject line. So I am sure he just took it as junk mail and deleted it.

 

Desperately wanting an answer, I emailed him today from my work email (we work for neighboring municipalities) and simply had "Bryan Park" in the subject line, he answered within an hour.

 

Below is my question above is his answer. This is a screen shot of my email.

 

Please discuss!

[+sbell111]

Pass the info along to your reviewer (or appeals) and see if you can't get your cache listed.

[+macatac1961]

The 150' buffer is a guideline to assist in preventing trespassing, and locating a cache on railroad property.

 

It's also to prevent people with spotty reception from getting hit by a train. There are a lot of children in this game, as well as people who walk blindly to wherever the gps is pointing while searching for a cache. I don't understand why you are not in the least concerned about safety here.

[+sbell111]

The 150' buffer is a guideline to assist in preventing trespassing, and locating a cache on railroad property.

 

It's also to prevent people with spotty reception from getting hit by a train. There are a lot of children in this game, as well as people who walk blindly to wherever the gps is pointing while searching for a cache. I don't understand why you are not in the least concerned about safety here.

The buffer has nothing to do with safety.

 

Read the thread.

[+niraD]

The buffer has nothing to do with safety.

Agreed. If safety (or lack thereof) is grounds for prohibiting a cache, then many of the true 5-star terrain caches would be prohibited. So would any cache that requires/encourages driving an automobile, but I digress...

[+John in Valley Forge]

I'm glad to hear that you got it verified in a way that is indisputable.

Time to send it to the Reviewer again. I look forward to seeing it published.

[+ironman114]

I don't see where verifying property lines is a requirement. I don't know of any one else that has been required to show verification of property lines. Requiring me to somehow verify the exact location of property lines would be discrimination.

 

Discrimination now? What a load of hooey.

 

Cachers are asked to verify the exact location of property lines all of the time when they are placing a cache a razor thin distance from it. Try placing a cache right on the boundary of NPS land and see whether or not you get a note back asking you to verify the property line.

 

You're assuming the trees are the property line. Your cache may well be on city property but if it is it's probably only by a matter of a few feet. It may also be a few feet onto RR property. The burden of proof is on you as the cache owner.

 

I have placed a cache very near the boundary of NPS land. I got a note saying that the reviewers map showed it inside the Park. I showed an online map that showed it was outside the park.

 

Result, cache approved and I was not asked to verify the property line. Another cacher placed on on the way in along the same boundary. Even though his was physically closer (within 5-10 feet) to the Park boundary, the maps showed it outside so his was approved with no note to verify the boundary.

 

I know this area being discussed, I have lived near here for over 40 years. Yes it is a narrow piece of land between the road and the railroad. It is part of the entrance into the city. As the email states the trees are in the park.

 

My first geocache was in a tree in a city park (the city where the OP works). The park had a paved path and the tree was next to a bench along the path. On the other side of the tree was about four feet of grass and then RR tracks. A spur that was used sometimes for switching cars. 10 feet from the tree the path merged onto a city street and the RR tracks went down the street. It got approved no questions asked. It was also across the street from the police station.

 

It also happened to be less than 520' from another cache but that is another discussion.

[+sbell111]

The 150' buffer is a guideline to assist in preventing trespassing, and locating a cache on railroad property.

 

It's also to prevent people with spotty reception from getting hit by a train. There are a lot of children in this game, as well as people who walk blindly to wherever the gps is pointing while searching for a cache. I don't understand why you are not in the least concerned about safety here.

I just had to revisit this post as I can't imagine that someone could blindly follow an arrow and not notice that they are standing on railroad tracks.

 

The beauty about trains is that they very, very rarely leave their tracks. If you don't stand on said tracks, your chances of getting splatted by a train go way down very fast.

[+sanssheriff]

I'm glad to hear that you got it verified in a way that is indisputable.

Time to send it to the Reviewer again. I look forward to seeing it published.

Thank you JiVF! Also, being one of the most vocally opposed, thanks for the intelligent discussion from beginning to end.

 

 

I have placed a cache very near the boundary of NPS land. I got a note saying that the reviewers map showed it inside the Park. I showed an online map that showed it was outside the park.

 

Result, cache approved and I was not asked to verify the property line. Another cacher placed on on the way in along the same boundary. Even though his was physically closer (within 5-10 feet) to the Park boundary, the maps showed it outside so his was approved with no note to verify the boundary.

Which is the way it should be. "As the cache owner, you are responsible for the placement and care of your cache"

 

 

I know this area being discussed, I have lived near here for over 40 years. Yes it is a narrow piece of land between the road and the railroad. It is part of the entrance into the city. As the email states the trees are in the park.

Thank you for the verification from a local cacher that knows the area.

 

Now forget everything you read about where the cache is hidden!

 

My first geocache was in a tree in a city park (the city where the OP works). The park had a paved path and the tree was next to a bench along the path. On the other side of the tree was about four feet of grass and then RR tracks. A spur that was used sometimes for switching cars. 10 feet from the tree the path merged onto a city street and the RR tracks went down the street. It got approved no questions asked. It was also across the street from the police station.

 

It also happened to be less than 520' from another cache but that is another discussion.

That was a fun find. That was my 31st find, and was one of the 60 or so that I did without a GPSr.

 

The 150' buffer is a guideline to assist in preventing trespassing, and locating a cache on railroad property.

 

It's also to prevent people with spotty reception from getting hit by a train. There are a lot of children in this game, as well as people who walk blindly to wherever the gps is pointing while searching for a cache. I don't understand why you are not in the least concerned about safety here.

I just had to revisit this post as I can't imagine that someone could blindly follow an arrow and not notice that they are standing on railroad tracks.

 

The beauty about trains is that they very, very rarely leave their tracks. If you don't stand on said tracks, your chances of getting splatted by a train go way down very fast.

Look out, you're on the RR tracks, and that loud clack-clack clack-clack noise you hear is a TRAIN!

[+Manville Possum]

I think that our local reviewer uses the 158 ft guideline. A local Park is bordered by a RR track, seperated by a fence. I also know of a few caches that are within 20 feet of the tracks, but 40 feet below them just off of the sidewalk along the highway.