Active RR Track-Cache Placement Guidelines

[+TeamSeekAndWeShallFind]

I'm holding the cache at GZ and there's the active RR tracks 58' away. I thought the guidelines were 250' from active tracks unless there's a physical boundary such as a fence surrounding a park or a road or a body of water ?

 

I'm totally confused by the RR/cache placement guidelines. Another cache we visited recently is 38' from very active tracks where 4 trains went by in a matter of 20 minutes. The "boundary," is a strip of grass AND the posted coords put searchers in the middle of a highway ?

 

Another cache we found recently is hidden 39' from very active tracks. Boundary in between those tracks and cache ? None. A few trees.

 

Where can I find the guidelines for placing caches near RR tracks ?

 

[GOF and Bacall]

The restriction is because of trespassing issues, not safety. If the cache is on property that adjoins the railroad right of way but does not belong to the railroad there is no trespassing issue. Or rather not a trespassing issue with the railroad. I've seen a cache in a parking lot that was about 30 feet from the tracks.

[+Isonzo Karst]

You can find the guidelines here

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

 

And the section that outlines Inappropriate Placements is here http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=306

 

The issue with railroads is trespass, not safety.

 

There places where the railroad property extends 20 feet or less from the rail edge. The listing guidelines use 150 feet as a rough approximation. It's about right in much of the western US. That could be clarified in the guideline, I think.

 

we visited recently is 38' from very active tracks where 4 trains went by in a matter of 20 minutes. The "boundary," is a strip of grass AND the posted coords put searchers in the middle of a highway ?

 

If the cache was in the middle of a highway, it wasn't simultaneously in a railroad right of way. If you find a cache that seems clearly to be on part of an active railroad, contact the owner and then perhaps the reviewer. Maps on cache pages aren't always accurate, and that's all the reviewer is working with.

[+nittanycopa]

It's typically much less in the Eastern US. You may be looking at 50' or so here, sometimes less. Keep an eye out for "No trespassing" or railroad property signs placed by whichever rail company lays claim to the tracks. I'd question any caches placed where the route to get to them involves walking along an active track. That's a no-no.

 

And in the case of abandoned rails and bridges, they're pretty fair game for a hide. The former rail company that held them probably held an X year lease that ran out and the township, city, or municipality that they are located in generally does not want to take responsibility (liablity) for them. Generally if a muni/city/twp has claim of abandoned tracks or a bridge, they'll be posted or fenced off.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

It's typically much less in the Eastern US. You may be looking at 50' or so here, sometimes less. Keep an eye out for "No trespassing" or railroad property signs placed by whichever rail company lays claim to the tracks. I'd question any caches placed where the route to get to them involves walking along an active track. That's a no-no.

 

And in the case of abandoned rails and bridges, they're pretty fair game for a hide. The former rail company that held them probably held an X year lease that ran out and the township, city, or municipality that they are located in generally does not want to take responsibility (liablity) for them. Generally if a muni/city/twp has claim of abandoned tracks or a bridge, they'll be posted or fenced off.

 

If you rely solely on no trespassing signs, you may well end up in a pot of boiling water. Realize that it is incumbent on the person to recognize they are/may be on or utilizing a railroad right-of-way, not the company posting signs. That is a partial (at least) reason that the guidelines use the 150' distance.

 

One should also take note that just because a right-of-way "appears" abandoned, it may not be. There is a difference between abandonment and disuse.

[+sbell111]

If you rely solely on no trespassing signs, you may well end up in a pot of boiling water. Realize that it is incumbent on the person to recognize they are/may be on or utilizing a railroad right-of-way, not the company posting signs.

In many (most?) jurisdictions, in order to be guilty of trespassing, either the land must be posted or you must have failed to leave (or returned) after being asked to leave.

[+nittanycopa]

It's typically much less in the Eastern US. You may be looking at 50' or so here, sometimes less. Keep an eye out for "No trespassing" or railroad property signs placed by whichever rail company lays claim to the tracks. I'd question any caches placed where the route to get to them involves walking along an active track. That's a no-no.

 

And in the case of abandoned rails and bridges, they're pretty fair game for a hide. The former rail company that held them probably held an X year lease that ran out and the township, city, or municipality that they are located in generally does not want to take responsibility (liablity) for them. Generally if a muni/city/twp has claim of abandoned tracks or a bridge, they'll be posted or fenced off.

 

If you rely solely on no trespassing signs, you may well end up in a pot of boiling water. Realize that it is incumbent on the person to recognize they are/may be on or utilizing a railroad right-of-way, not the company posting signs. That is a partial (at least) reason that the guidelines use the 150' distance.

 

One should also take note that just because a right-of-way "appears" abandoned, it may not be. There is a difference between abandonment and disuse.

 

I'm aware not all active tracks have signs posted. Actually, most (freight lines) don't. I was pointing out that the signs do exist in some areas with active tracks or active yards. Depends on the area, also. If it's in an urban area where there is a lot of vandalism and activity present you may be more likely to see signs. Might be more of a regional thing now that I'm re-reading what I posted. If we're talking about active passenger lines or metro transport - those are pretty obvious.

 

It usually takes a bit of research and walking around to determine if a track is abandoned. Your first clue is Google maps. Does the line even appear as marked on the map? If no, there's clue 1 that it's abandoned. 2nd is to use the map and note if there is active industry nearby that could be served. If the industry is no longer there or defunct, it's another sign the rail line serving it may have been abandoned. 3rd clue is to walk the line and note its general condition. Like you say, just because it's in poor condition doesn't necessarily indicate it's abandoned - but chances are if there are no active controls on the line or its in serious disrepair, the line is no longer used. You can also go beyond that and check online rail forums, rail fan sites, as well as public maps.

[jholly]

Your first clue is Google maps. Does the line even appear as marked on the map? If no, there's clue 1 that it's abandoned.

not 100%. I have seen clearly abandoned rail lines, like the track is gone, still showing as a rail line on google maps.

[+sbell111]

Your first clue is Google maps. Does the line even appear as marked on the map? If no, there's clue 1 that it's abandoned.

not 100%. I have seen clearly abandoned rail lines, like the track is gone, still showing as a rail line on google maps.

I don't think your post actually disagrees with his.

 

He's making the point that if it isn't on google maps, then it's abandoned. (I have no idea if this is 100% correct.) This position allows for the fact that rail lines that show on google maps may or may not be abandoned (or removed completely).

[+nekom]

It's typically much less in the Eastern US. You may be looking at 50' or so here, sometimes less. Keep an eye out for "No trespassing" or railroad property signs placed by whichever rail company lays claim to the tracks. I'd question any caches placed where the route to get to them involves walking along an active track. That's a no-no.

 

And in the case of abandoned rails and bridges, they're pretty fair game for a hide. The former rail company that held them probably held an X year lease that ran out and the township, city, or municipality that they are located in generally does not want to take responsibility (liablity) for them. Generally if a muni/city/twp has claim of abandoned tracks or a bridge, they'll be posted or fenced off.

 

I think it varies greatly how (or even if) the real estate is disposed of when a railroad goes under or a line goes dead. If it's a closed line but the railroad still exists, they may hold on to the right of way even if the track is removed just in case they ever see fit to reopen the line. In at least one case around here a line was abandoned in the 70's and the real estate was simply sold off. One guy I know who owns a coal reclamation business owns a big chunk of land and a narrow strip a few miles long but only a hundred or so feet wide of former raliroad proprety. Kinda an odd bit of land to own, not of much use if you're not operating a railroad, but that's what happened in that case. In many cases they wind up rails to trails, which is almost always an excellent place to put a cache.

 

As to current railroad operations, take that no trespassing seriously because they darn sure do. Long before geocaching I know someone who was arrested by railroad police for fishing too close to railroad property. The whole group was fined $350 a piece. Serious business.

[+nittanycopa]

Your first clue is Google maps. Does the line even appear as marked on the map? If no, there's clue 1 that it's abandoned.

not 100%. I have seen clearly abandoned rail lines, like the track is gone, still showing as a rail line on google maps.

I don't think your post actually disagrees with his.

 

He's making the point that if it isn't on google maps, then it's abandoned. (I have no idea if this is 100% correct.) This position allows for the fact that rail lines that show on google maps may or may not be abandoned (or removed completely).

 

I'm a she, but it's cool.

 

It's really hard to rely on one source, in this case Google maps, to verify.

 

Sometimes even if the line has been converted to a rails to trails, it may still show up as RR tracks on Google maps. This may also be due to a rails to trails trail running parallel to another line - active or abandoned. Abandonedrails.com is a good go-to. If you have a local group of rail fans, they're usually a wealth of knowledge about land rights and abandoned tracks. Depending on whom you speak with from a municipality, county, etc. about who owns the property, you may get a mixed bag of answers. I usually like to have a good idea of where the line goes, etc. if I'm out with a group exploring it.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Your first clue is Google maps. Does the line even appear as marked on the map? If no, there's clue 1 that it's abandoned.

not 100%. I have seen clearly abandoned rail lines, like the track is gone, still showing as a rail line on google maps.

I don't think your post actually disagrees with his.

 

He's making the point that if it isn't on google maps, then it's abandoned. (I have no idea if this is 100% correct.) This position allows for the fact that rail lines that show on google maps may or may not be abandoned (or removed completely).

 

Google is worthless. Just my humble opinion.

New cache series nearby. Google map view:

 

 

What that bridge actually looks like:

 

 

As far as I can tell, that line was abandoned in 1954, but it's still on Google. Fortunately, the reviewer knows better.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

If you rely solely on no trespassing signs, you may well end up in a pot of boiling water. Realize that it is incumbent on the person to recognize they are/may be on or utilizing a railroad right-of-way, not the company posting signs.

In many (most?) jurisdictions, in order to be guilty of trespassing, either the land must be posted or you must have failed to leave (or returned) after being asked to leave.

Generally, you would be correct. BUT, in the case of railroads, because of the rail barons and the fed gov't (in bed together way back when), you are trespassing simply being on a rail R-O-W either w/o permission OR engaged in business with that rail line, regardless of state or local regs. This is, of course, in the U.S., not necessarily elsewhere.

 

This is from long ago, but is still in effect, occasionally enforced -- mostly by railroad police. Yes, they too, still exist, paid by the rail lines but have full police powers. It is enforced pretty strongly in areas that receive enough snow that generate recreational snowmobile activities.

[+Shop99er]

I'm holding the cache at GZ and there's the active RR tracks 58' away. I thought the guidelines were 250' from active tracks unless there's a physical boundary such as a fence surrounding a park or a road or a body of water ?

 

I'm totally confused by the RR/cache placement guidelines. Another cache we visited recently is 38' from very active tracks where 4 trains went by in a matter of 20 minutes. The "boundary," is a strip of grass AND the posted coords put searchers in the middle of a highway ?

 

Another cache we found recently is hidden 39' from very active tracks. Boundary in between those tracks and cache ? None. A few trees.

 

Where can I find the guidelines for placing caches near RR tracks ?

 

 

Here's one for you...I found a cache within 15 feet---yes, 15 FEET!! of a very busy BNSF mainline in Tacoma a while back. This particular section handles all of the N/S freight and passenger traffic in and out of the area.

 

When I contacted the publishing Reviewer, and GS, they just collectively shrugged their shoulders, and did nothing.

[+sbell111]

Your first clue is Google maps. Does the line even appear as marked on the map? If no, there's clue 1 that it's abandoned.

not 100%. I have seen clearly abandoned rail lines, like the track is gone, still showing as a rail line on google maps.

I don't think your post actually disagrees with his.

 

He's making the point that if it isn't on google maps, then it's abandoned. (I have no idea if this is 100% correct.) This position allows for the fact that rail lines that show on google maps may or may not be abandoned (or removed completely).

 

Google is worthless. Just my humble opinion.

New cache series nearby. Google map view:

 

 

What that bridge actually looks like:

 

 

As far as I can tell, that line was abandoned in 1954, but it's still on Google. Fortunately, the reviewer knows better.

You are making nittaycopa's argument stronger. If even that derelict track is on google's map, then certainly those that aren't on the map are defunct.

[+nittanycopa]

Your first clue is Google maps. Does the line even appear as marked on the map? If no, there's clue 1 that it's abandoned.

not 100%. I have seen clearly abandoned rail lines, like the track is gone, still showing as a rail line on google maps.

I don't think your post actually disagrees with his.

 

He's making the point that if it isn't on google maps, then it's abandoned. (I have no idea if this is 100% correct.) This position allows for the fact that rail lines that show on google maps may or may not be abandoned (or removed completely).

 

Google is worthless. Just my humble opinion.

New cache series nearby. Google map view:

 

 

What that bridge actually looks like:

 

 

As far as I can tell, that line was abandoned in 1954, but it's still on Google. Fortunately, the reviewer knows better.

You are making nittaycopa's argument stronger. If even that derelict track is on google's map, then certainly those that aren't on the map are defunct.

As an aside, dude, I really want to go check out that derelict bridge!!!