+va griz Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Our reviewer posted this note on some archived caches: Archiving at the request of the Virginia DOT. Guardrail caches are now prohibited by VDOT. It seems obvious to me that the only reason the Department of Transportation would even be aware of geocaching is because there were caches placed in such a way that it was hazardous to look for them. Is there a way we could encourage people to consider our impact on traffic safety (for other states, the damage is done in Virginia) or do we have to rely on the usually unreliable common sense? Link to comment
+BBWolf+3Pigs Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 ...or do we have to rely on the usually unreliable common sense? Unreliable and uncommon. Link to comment
+A & J Tooling Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Every single one I've seen on a guard rail was in a place that would expose the finder to danger. I'm kinda' suprised they are allowed at all. I logged my 1st one and bypassed the rest. Link to comment
Mr.Yuck Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Our reviewer posted this note on some archived caches: Archiving at the request of the Virginia DOT. Guardrail caches are now prohibited by VDOT. It seems obvious to me that the only reason the Department of Transportation would even be aware of geocaching is because there were caches placed in such a way that it was hazardous to look for them. Is there a way we could encourage people to consider our impact on traffic safety (for other states, the damage is done in Virginia) or do we have to rely on the usually unreliable common sense? One down, 49 to go. I'll bet it just applies to like State Highways, and the majority of the guardrails across the Commonwealth are still OK. I could be wrong though. Link to comment
+Gitchee-Gummee Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 This was bound to happen/start somewhere. Not that all guardrail hides are dangerous, but some always seem to take it to the extreme (at least in the eyes of the people responsible for and/or maintaining such properties). Hence we all get to pay the price. Perhaps guardrail placements overall should be outside of the guidelines -- problem solved! Link to comment
+LSUFan Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 This was bound to happen/start somewhere. Not that all guardrail hides are dangerous, but some always seem to take it to the extreme (at least in the eyes of the people responsible for and/or maintaining such properties). Hence we all get to pay the price. Perhaps guardrail placements overall should be outside of the guidelines -- problem solved! Or possibly, so close to a road.....similar to the rr track guideline. Link to comment
+Ike 13 Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 I'm pretty sure this is already in affect in SC. You can hide them in a parking lot but not off a road. I don't know since I try not to hide caches in such places. Link to comment
+cimawr Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 (edited) This was bound to happen/start somewhere. Not that all guardrail hides are dangerous, but some always seem to take it to the extreme (at least in the eyes of the people responsible for and/or maintaining such properties). Hence we all get to pay the price. Perhaps guardrail placements overall should be outside of the guidelines -- problem solved! Or possibly, so close to a road.....similar to the rr track guideline. Re common sense, I shall quote my dearly departed Mamgi (grandmother): "Common sense ain't." The problem isn't the guardrail hides, per se, or even "close to a road", but caches placed in guardrails and/or on signs... or whereever - in locations where it's not legal to stop or park except in emergencies. There's a local cache here that just makes me cringe... it's on or near a sign that's in the middle of a 4-lane highway, at a spot where there's a gap to allow vehicles to cross to the far side. The ONLY way to access it is to be IN THE BLANKETY-BLANK TRAFFIC LANE... whether on foot or in a car, no way in hell should anybody be there. Yet not only did someone put a cache there, but people are parking their cars, getting out, and standing on the cars to reach the cache. It's only a matter of time until a State Trooper or County Mountie sees this, and/or somebody causes an accident. I've really been debating whether to contact the local reviewer about it. Edited April 14, 2011 by cimawr Link to comment
+va griz Posted April 14, 2011 Author Share Posted April 14, 2011 I haven't been able to find anything that VDOT has announced and their site doesn't mention it. So I'm not sure if it's a parking problem or a people in the roadway issue. The issue, and solutions, are the same either way. For what it's worth, I have seen Guardrail Caches where there was legal parking and they were positioned so they didn't cause the finder to be a highway hazard. 1 Link to comment
+dakboy Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 This was bound to happen/start somewhere. Not that all guardrail hides are dangerous, but some always seem to take it to the extreme (at least in the eyes of the people responsible for and/or maintaining such properties). Hence we all get to pay the price. Perhaps guardrail placements overall should be outside of the guidelines -- problem solved! Or possibly, so close to a road.....similar to the rr track guideline. Not too similar. The RR track guideline is due to the fact that railroad tracks, and a swath on either side of them, are private property. It's not necessarily about safety - it's trespassing. Link to comment
+cimawr Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 For what it's worth, I have seen Guardrail Caches where there was legal parking and they were positioned so they didn't cause the finder to be a highway hazard. Yep, nearly all the ones I've seen that are actually in guardrails have been both reasonably safe and legal. They're not on major highways, have plenty of pulloff room, and in a lot of cases are beside parking lots to parks and so forth. 1 Link to comment
+Gitchee-Gummee Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Agreed that many locations are safe and legal.... and a geocacher can "ignore" whatever type cache they please to.... BUT, not all guardrails caches would be deemed "safe" or legal (any Interstate freeway-type would be illegal to park upon or be a pedestrian on/along a such a freeway -- not the roadway alone, but the RIGHT-OF-WAY in its' entirety). What does come into play is... common sense. Being the negative-type person that I am (rather, can be), I would point out that as you look at situations as this, many show a perceived lack of common sense. When an authoritative entity (such as a Dept. of Transp.) sees or views itself as the subject of liability because they allowed such cache placements, you can well bet that they will put an end to those placements, be they safe or not -- it doesn't matter. They will simply adopt a blanket policy, and not concern themselves with "exceptions". You cannot blame them, as the saying goes, "Give 'em a yard, and they (geocachers, in this case) will take a mile". Link to comment
+A & J Tooling Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Now if that guardrail is at the end of a road or somewhere to stop people from riding a bicycle or somesuch off the trail, I'd consider them okay. I just watched a couple of 'kids' (under thirty), park and block a one lane bridge to look along the outer edge of the guardrail to find the cache. Now, to me, the person who placed the cache there, the reviewer who allowed it to be placed there and the people who blocked the bridge are all at fault. Link to comment
GOF and Bacall Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Now if that guardrail is at the end of a road or somewhere to stop people from riding a bicycle or somesuch off the trail, I'd consider them okay. I just watched a couple of 'kids' (under thirty), park and block a one lane bridge to look along the outer edge of the guardrail to find the cache. Now, to me, the person who placed the cache there, the reviewer who allowed it to be placed there and the people who blocked the bridge are all at fault. You seem awful eager to hand out the blame there. Is that the only way to access that cache? Is there a reason that a pedestrian should not be on that bridge? Is it reasonable to believe the reviewer should know any of this? 1 Link to comment
+Gitchee-Gummee Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Parking on a bridge goes back to an earlier COMMON SENSE statement... wouldn't you think? Link to comment
+TreasureFerret Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Agreed that many locations are safe and legal.... and a geocacher can "ignore" whatever type cache they please to.... Most of the guardrail caches I have seen or heard of in this area do not even mention in the description that they are hidden on the guardrail, so that makes it difficult to ignore them based on the fact Link to comment
+Gitchee-Gummee Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Agreed that many locations are safe and legal.... and a geocacher can "ignore" whatever type cache they please to.... Most of the guardrail caches I have seen or heard of in this area do not even mention in the description that they are hidden on the guardrail, so that makes it difficult to ignore them based on the fact An easy way to ignore is that when you pull up and see that it is going to be a guardrail -- hit your internal "ignore" button. Link to comment
+NYPaddleCacher Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Every single one I've seen on a guard rail was in a place that would expose the finder to danger. I'm kinda' suprised they are allowed at all. I logged my 1st one and bypassed the rest. I supposed just going outside could be considered dangerous but I've encountered guard rail caches that were at the side of a parking lots that could very safely be retrieved. For example, there's one right next to Abner Doubleday Field in Cooperstown, NY. Doubleday Field hosted the annual hall of fame game from 1940 until 2008 held during the annual induction weekend of the nearby Baseball Hall of Fame. For anyone with an interest in Baseball it's a pretty significant location and it would be a shame to lose a cache at that spot. I've also encountered quite a few caches on guardrails that were either next to roads which had very little traffic or were easily accessible from the opposite side of the road. I got an idea. How about creating a proximity limitation such that caches can't be placed within 150' of an active roadway? 1 Link to comment
+va griz Posted April 14, 2011 Author Share Posted April 14, 2011 I got an idea. How about creating a proximity limitation such that caches can't be placed within 150' of an active roadway? I realize that the comment was something of a tongue in cheek remark designed to sell more popcorn. But that limitation would probably do away with 3/4 of all downtown caches. So common sense is at least possible, even though rare. 1 Link to comment
+Ike 13 Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 (edited) Now if that guardrail is at the end of a road or somewhere to stop people from riding a bicycle or somesuch off the trail, I'd consider them okay. I just watched a couple of 'kids' (under thirty), park and block a one lane bridge to look along the outer edge of the guardrail to find the cache. Now, to me, the person who placed the cache there, the reviewer who allowed it to be placed there and the people who blocked the bridge are all at fault. -1 The reviewer is not to blame. There is no guideline that the guardrail cache violated (unless that state does not allow caches on DOT property). If there is post a NA log on it. The hider can take a little blame for placing a park and grab cache with no parking. But the only true person to blame is the finders who broke a law by illegally stopping. Edited April 14, 2011 by IkeHurley13 Link to comment
+StarBrand Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 Our reviewer posted this note on some archived caches: Archiving at the request of the Virginia DOT. Guardrail caches are now prohibited by VDOT. It seems obvious to me that the only reason the Department of Transportation would even be aware of geocaching is because there were caches placed in such a way that it was hazardous to look for them. Is there a way we could encourage people to consider our impact on traffic safety (for other states, the damage is done in Virginia) or do we have to rely on the usually unreliable common sense? While not unreasonable - you really did take a leap in logic there. - I find it equally plausible that they became aware of Geocaching because they discovered a cache during a routine inspection and simply did not want any kind of foreign object attached to their property. I've seen similar thinking out here in Nebraska. Link to comment
mresoteric Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 There's a local cache here that just makes me cringe... it's on or near a sign that's in the middle of a 4-lane highway, at a spot where there's a gap to allow vehicles to cross to the far side. The ONLY way to access it is to be IN THE BLANKETY-BLANK TRAFFIC LANE... whether on foot or in a car, no way in hell should anybody be there. Yet not only did someone put a cache there, but people are parking their cars, getting out, and standing on the cars to reach the cache. It's only a matter of time until a State Trooper or County Mountie sees this, and/or somebody causes an accident. I've really been debating whether to contact the local reviewer about it. This is a really good reason reviewers need to be more vigilant when approving caches. If you are debating reporting this caches, then I have to think there are a lot of more border line caches that go unreported. Link to comment
Clan Riffster Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 But that limitation would probably do away with 3/4 of all downtown caches. Wait... Are you saying that's a bad thing? Link to comment
+Manville Possum Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 I haven't been able to find anything that VDOT has announced and their site doesn't mention it. So I'm not sure if it's a parking problem or a people in the roadway issue. The issue, and solutions, are the same either way. For what it's worth, I have seen Guardrail Caches where there was legal parking and they were positioned so they didn't cause the finder to be a highway hazard. I have a few myself, but they are all in legal parking areas. Link to comment
+Sol seaker Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 This was bound to happen/start somewhere. Not that all guardrail hides are dangerous, but some always seem to take it to the extreme (at least in the eyes of the people responsible for and/or maintaining such properties). Hence we all get to pay the price. Perhaps guardrail placements overall should be outside of the guidelines -- problem solved! Or possibly, so close to a road.....similar to the rr track guideline. Re common sense, I shall quote my dearly departed Mamgi (grandmother): "Common sense ain't." The problem isn't the guardrail hides, per se, or even "close to a road", but caches placed in guardrails and/or on signs... or whereever - in locations where it's not legal to stop or park except in emergencies. There's a local cache here that just makes me cringe... it's on or near a sign that's in the middle of a 4-lane highway, at a spot where there's a gap to allow vehicles to cross to the far side. The ONLY way to access it is to be IN THE BLANKETY-BLANK TRAFFIC LANE... whether on foot or in a car, no way in hell should anybody be there. Yet not only did someone put a cache there, but people are parking their cars, getting out, and standing on the cars to reach the cache. It's only a matter of time until a State Trooper or County Mountie sees this, and/or somebody causes an accident. I've really been debating whether to contact the local reviewer about it. Where's the debate? It sounds like it's illegal to get to this cache. That should be worth mentioning to the reviewer. About the topic: We have a lot of guard rail hides here in WA but I haven't seen one yet that is dangerous. We have a lot of guard rails in silly places, like on sidewalks and the like. Link to comment
+SwineFlew Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 "Common sense is not so common." Mark Twain Link to comment
Keystone Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 Now, to me, the person who placed the cache there, the reviewer who allowed it to be placed there and the people who blocked the bridge are all at fault. This is a really good reason reviewers need to be more vigilant when approving caches. If you are debating reporting this caches, then I have to think there are a lot of more border line caches that go unreported. It sounds like it's illegal to get to this cache. That should be worth mentioning to the reviewer. Assuming that the guardrails in these situations are not located along VA highways or SC highways, please cite the state law or land manager geocaching policy that's been violated. If you can't cite to a law, then please quote the section of the cache listing guidelines that are violated in the situations described in your respective posts. Reviewers don't review for stupidity. There are lots of stupid cache placements. We are issued nose plugs as part of our training kits. Reviewers don't review for safety. There are lots of unsafe cache placements. If Groundspeak retroactively bans unsafe caches, I could start by archiving all the tree climbing caches and it will be awhile before I get around to the guardrail caches. Finally, reviewers aren't lawyers -- we don't research all the federal, state and local laws on every cache we review. To the contrary, many reviewers are dogs. Link to comment
mresoteric Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 Reviewers don't review for stupidity. There are lots of stupid cache placements. We are issued nose plugs as part of our training kits. First, you included responses to 2 different caches. 2 of us were responding to the one in the middle of the 4 lane highway that cimawr mentioned. The other was in response to the one on the bridge. Assuming the bridge cache doesn't violate the section of the guidelines that forbids terrorist targets, I agree with you. I think that problem was strictly stupid finders. But concerning the one in the middle of the 4 lane highway which would endanger not just the geocachers but the general public, you are saying that even if cimawr were to report it that there is nothing a reviewer can do? Link to comment
Keystone Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 No, what I was trying to say was "WOOF." Link to comment
GOF and Bacall Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 Reviewers don't review for stupidity. There are lots of stupid cache placements. We are issued nose plugs as part of our training kits. First, you included responses to 2 different caches. 2 of us were responding to the one in the middle of the 4 lane highway that cimawr mentioned. The other was in response to the one on the bridge. Assuming the bridge cache doesn't violate the section of the guidelines that forbids terrorist targets, I agree with you. I think that problem was strictly stupid finders. But concerning the one in the middle of the 4 lane highway which would endanger not just the geocachers but the general public, you are saying that even if cimawr were to report it that there is nothing a reviewer can do? please cite the state law or land manager geocaching policy that's been violated. If you can't cite to a law, then please quote the section of the cache listing guidelines that are violated Link to comment
+B+L Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 Assuming that the guardrails in these situations are not located along VA highways or SC highways, please cite the state law or land manager geocaching policy that's been violated. If you can't cite to a law, then please quote the section of the cache listing guidelines that are violated in the situations described in your respective posts. Reviewers don't review for stupidity. There are lots of stupid cache placements. We are issued nose plugs as part of our training kits. Wow, that's a lot of attitude. Rather than citing laws, which I could, I'll cite the placement guidelines: You assure us that you have the landowner's and/or land manager's permission before you hide any geocache, whether placed on private or public property. I'm sure you can show us an example of a cache that was given explicit permission to be hidden in a highway right of way. Link to comment
mresoteric Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 Assuming that the guardrails in these situations are not located along VA highways or SC highways, please cite the state law or land manager geocaching policy that's been violated. If you can't cite to a law, then please quote the section of the cache listing guidelines that are violated in the situations described in your respective posts. Reviewers don't review for stupidity. There are lots of stupid cache placements. We are issued nose plugs as part of our training kits. Wow, that's a lot of attitude. Rather than citing laws, which I could, I'll cite the placement guidelines: You assure us that you have the landowner's and/or land manager's permission before you hide any geocache, whether placed on private or public property. I'm sure you can show us an example of a cache that was given explicit permission to be hidden in a highway right of way. What he said. This is worse than hiding on the side of the road where you can likely pull off safely. The way cimawr describes it, it is located in the median between the 4 lanes of traffic. I seriously doubt the hider has anything resembling adequate permission to put a cache there. If so, I might just put out a power trail located on the inside guardrails of the Deleware Expressway/I95. Link to comment
mresoteric Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 Reviewers don't review for stupidity. There are lots of stupid cache placements. We are issued nose plugs as part of our training kits. I've been reading through IowaAdmin's blog and it does seem to me that not all reviewers make use of their nose plugs. Some of them exercise some common sense whether we like it or not and it seems that Groundspeak supports them. Link to comment
Keystone Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 I might just put out a power trail located on the inside guardrails of the Deleware Expressway/I95. I am quite certain that the Delaware reviewer would not publish that cache. I95 is a limited access interstate highway. We have not established that any of the other examples are located on roads subject to a well-known traffic law like the laws governing interstate highway rights-of-way. Link to comment
+cimawr Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 (edited) This is worse than hiding on the side of the road where you can likely pull off safely. The way cimawr describes it, it is located in the median between the 4 lanes of traffic. Yep. And it's a narrow median strip with *no* pullover space around it. The only way to access it that I can see is to either park on the side of the highway and walk into the middle, or stop in the traffic lane. Edited April 15, 2011 by cimawr Link to comment
mresoteric Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 I might just put out a power trail located on the inside guardrails of the Deleware Expressway/I95. I am quite certain that the Delaware reviewer would not publish that cache. I95 is a limited access interstate highway. We have not established that any of the other examples are located on roads subject to a well-known traffic law like the laws governing interstate highway rights-of-way. I'm not planning to put out any power trail anytime. I was expressing my point in an absurb manner as you were making yours. You can't really believe that anyone should publish a cache in a location where there is no legal way to access it? Perhaps cimawr would be kind enough to post the GC code for the cache in question. Then we could see where it actually located. Seems pointless to debate it unless we know what we are debating. Link to comment
Keystone Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 Seems pointless to debate it unless we know what we are debating. But yet it's perfectly fine for you to criticize reviewers for their alleged lack of vigilance? That is why I am posting. Thanks for seeing the point. Link to comment
mresoteric Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 Seems pointless to debate it unless we know what we are debating. But yet it's perfectly fine for you to criticize reviewers for their alleged lack of vigilance? That is why I am posting. Thanks for seeing the point. You took my statement "reviewers should be more vigilant" as "reviewers are not doing their job at all and are really big idiots who are not worth anything"? I was not making commentary on reviewers. I was saying that because geocachers are reluctant to report obvious issues, that reviewers need to be evermore vigilant when they review caches. And I see no reason why we can't debate a given set of circumstances whether they are germane to a real cache or a hypothetical one. But your statement made it very obvious that you were not open to any discussion without hard facts and/or case law to support. So I suggested that cimawr provide us with the needed GC code so we can both go look at the cache in question. Link to comment
+cimawr Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 Perhaps cimawr would be kind enough to post the GC code for the cache in question. Then we could see where it actually located. Seems pointless to debate it unless we know what we are debating. How about a photo? The cache is located in the point of the median strip just below where the white car is. The speed limit is 40, but cars routinely go 50+ here. Link to comment
mresoteric Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 How about a photo? The photo is great. But can we get the GC code? Link to comment
+NYPaddleCacher Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 But that limitation would probably do away with 3/4 of all downtown caches. Wait... Are you saying that's a bad thing? It's worse than that...it would also eliminate most power trails. Link to comment
sabrefan7 Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 But that limitation would probably do away with 3/4 of all downtown caches. Wait... Are you saying that's a bad thing? It's worse better than that...it would also eliminate most power trails. Link to comment
+GeoGeeBee Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 Perhaps cimawr would be kind enough to post the GC code for the cache in question. Then we could see where it actually located. Seems pointless to debate it unless we know what we are debating. How about a photo? The cache is located in the point of the median strip just below where the white car is. The speed limit is 40, but cars routinely go 50+ here. You keep saying that there is no legal way to access that cache. The picture you posted proves that you are wrong. This is no limited-access interstate highway. On the bottom of your picture there's what appears to be the right-of-way for an intersecting road that has not yet been built. One could park there and walk across the road. Given that the road has a speed limit of 40 MPH, it is inconceivable that walking across it would be a crime. Link to comment
+StarBrand Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 Perhaps cimawr would be kind enough to post the GC code for the cache in question. Then we could see where it actually located. Seems pointless to debate it unless we know what we are debating. How about a photo? The cache is located in the point of the median strip just below where the white car is. The speed limit is 40, but cars routinely go 50+ here. You keep saying that there is no legal way to access that cache. The picture you posted proves that you are wrong. This is no limited-access interstate highway. On the bottom of your picture there's what appears to be the right-of-way for an intersecting road that has not yet been built. One could park there and walk across the road. Given that the road has a speed limit of 40 MPH, it is inconceivable that walking across it would be a crime. In the grassy area?? I certainly don't see that area as overly dangerous - after all there seems to be a walking/biking path immediately adjacent to the roadway. Some available parking nearby and no road barriers. Link to comment
+va griz Posted April 15, 2011 Author Share Posted April 15, 2011 That photo also shows a good example of what could easily be a safe and legal (in some states) guardrail cache. Link to comment
+B+L Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 We have not established that any of the other examples are located on roads subject to a well-known traffic law like the laws governing interstate highway rights-of-way. Traffic laws are not necessarily even relevant. Most DOTs are granted broad rule-making authority. There does not need to be an explicit ban on an activity for it to be disallowed. The dichotomy between the published guidelines and actual practice will have predictable consequences. Link to comment
jholly Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 But that limitation would probably do away with 3/4 of all downtown caches. Wait... Are you saying that's a bad thing? It's worse than that...it would also eliminate most power trails. Most power trails are downtown? Wow, I didn't know that. Link to comment
+NYPaddleCacher Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 But that limitation would probably do away with 3/4 of all downtown caches. Wait... Are you saying that's a bad thing? It's worse than that...it would also eliminate most power trails. Most power trails are downtown? Wow, I didn't know that. Uh, the implication was that caches on many power trails are probably less than 150' from the road. Link to comment
+Gitchee-Gummee Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 How about a photo? The cache is located in the point of the median strip just below where the white car is. The speed limit is 40, but cars routinely go 50+ here. You keep saying that there is no legal way to access that cache. The picture you posted proves that you are wrong. This is no limited-access interstate highway. On the bottom of your picture there's what appears to be the right-of-way for an intersecting road that has not yet been built. One could park there and walk across the road. Given that the road has a speed limit of 40 MPH, it is inconceivable that walking across it would be a crime. Moreover, the photo reveals a sidewalk, both paved and marked at the intersection. If you are in danger in the median, you most likely are in danger on the sidewalk too! Link to comment
+cimawr Posted April 15, 2011 Share Posted April 15, 2011 You keep saying that there is no legal way to access that cache. Please quote where I said that? What I actually said was "no way in hell should people or cars" be in the traffic lane. (And I only said it once. ) On the bottom of your picture there's what appears to be the right-of-way for an intersecting road that has not yet been built. One could park there and walk across the road. Sorry, but you've jumped to an incorrect conclusion. That's an "official vehicles only" fire road, closed off with a gate, and it would be impossible to park there without obstructing the bike path. Decidedly NOT legal parking. There is currently construction on the *other* side of the road, but it's not legal to park there either; it's in the early stages and there's nothing but mud, gravel, and "no trespassing" signs. (One of my concerns WRT safety is that construction vehicles need to drive through the middle area where people have been parking.) The nearest legal and/or safe place to park is .36 miles away, in an office center. IOW, the cache CAN be accessed legally (technically speaking)if you park .37 miles away, walk across what is at that point a 6-lane highway, walk up the bike path, then cross the highway again. Oh, and I mis-spoke about the speed limit; it's 50, and at night people routinely go up to 70+ there. And did I mention the cache site is around a curve? Link to comment
Recommended Posts