VDOT and guardrails

[+cimawr]

Moreover, the photo reveals a sidewalk, both paved and marked at the intersection.

 

No, it doesn't. That's a bike path, which doesn't connect to any sidewalks for at least 5-6 miles. Just out of range of the photo, it stops, makes a right turn, and becomes an unpaved mountain bike trail. Pedestrians wouldn't be in much danger there, but the path can only be accessed either through the woods, or (as mentioned upthread) by parking nearly half a mile away, crossing a 6-lane highway, then crossing back to the median when you get close to the cache site.

And that's not really an "intersection", either.

 

In any case, my point is that the cache listing doesn't mention any of this, so what people are actually DOING is parking in the middle of the highway. And it is a highway; it's a high-speed connector road, currently with nothing along it but a few office parks, and NO stop lights for about 10 miles.

Edited April 15, 2011 by cimawr

[+cimawr]

 

Where's the debate?

It sounds like it's illegal to get to this cache.

That should be worth mentioning to the reviewer.

 

See my replies upthread - technically speaking, it's not illegal to walk across the road, nor to be in the median strip. It's just dangerous due to the speed of traffic, the curves of the road, and that this is NOT a road where you normally EVER see pedestrians. IOW, nobody driving along here - especially at night (this road isn't lit at night, btw) - is going to be expecting people walking across the road.

 

What's questionable is the legality of PARKING in the middle, which is what people are doing.

 

Editing to add... my internal debate has to do not only with the fact that technically speaking, the cache itself is legal, but that I don't want to upset other cachers, including the CO who has some other hides I've really liked. (That's also, btw, why I'm not posting the cache listing; last thing I need is some exaggerated story about what I've said getting back to her.) There haven't been many finders for the cache, so I suspect quite a few others, like myself, drove to the vicinity, thought "No way in hell", and drove on by.

 

Also, if I didn't make it clear in my first post, I'm intimately familiar with the road - I drive the entire length of it at least once a week.

Edited April 15, 2011 by cimawr

[+WRASTRO]

Where's the debate?

It sounds like it's illegal to get to this cache.

That should be worth mentioning to the reviewer.

 

See my replies upthread - technically speaking, it's not illegal to walk across the road, nor to be in the median strip. It's just dangerous due to the speed of traffic, the curves of the road, and that this is NOT a road where you normally EVER see pedestrians. IOW, nobody driving along here - especially at night (this road isn't lit at night, btw) - is going to be expecting people walking across the road.

 

What's questionable is the legality of PARKING in the middle, which is what people are doing.

 

Editing to add... my internal debate has to do not only with the fact that technically speaking, the cache itself is legal, but that I don't want to upset other cachers, including the CO who has some other hides I've really liked. (That's also, btw, why I'm not posting the cache listing; last thing I need is some exaggerated story about what I've said getting back to her.) There haven't been many finders for the cache, so I suspect quite a few others, like myself, drove to the vicinity, thought "No way in hell", and drove on by.

 

Also, if I didn't make it clear in my first post, I'm intimately familiar with the road - I drive the entire length of it at least once a week.

Well it wasn't very difficult to figure out which cache your picture is from. None of the finders so far have had any complaints about it, in fact they are pretty positive. And Google maps shows the cache to be in the "pull off" area, not in the middle. One of the logs even mentions that a police car drove by while the cachers were at GZ and didn't stop. Based on the evidence I have seen this is much angst over a non-issue.

[jholly]

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.

and this is a problem because ...

[mresoteric]

Well it wasn't very difficult to figure out which cache your picture is from.

 

Can you post the GC Code code or PM it to me?

 

and this is a problem because ...

 

Post 18 has the answer you are seeking.

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=272212&view=findpost&p=4680179

[+cimawr]

And Google maps shows the cache to be in the "pull off" area, not in the middle.

 

A, I don't know what you're seeing on Google Maps (assuming you do have the correct cache), but there isn't any pull-off area there, and that's true for 98% of the highway in question. I hope I never have a breakdown in that section of it, because there's no room on the side of the road to get out of the traffic lane.

Some areas have grassy median strips with narrow strips of gravel on the edges that are just wide enough to get a disabled vehicle into, but that doesn't constitute legal parking for geocaching - and in order to park at the cache, you'd have to park in the landscaping, because the median there *doesn't* have the gravel strip.

 

B, neither Google Maps nor Google Earth are particuarly accurate as to cache location- I find both to be significantly less accurate than even a low-quality GPS. I really hope you don't think that caches are located exactly where they show up on Google...

 

C, both of my GPS units, as well as everything in the cache listing and the logs, tell me that the cache is on one of the two signs in the median.

 

As far as "angst", none on my part... just concern that one of these days, a cacher's going to get flattened there. Oh, and I notice you didn't mention the note on the cache WRT not being able to look for it because of cops.

Edited April 15, 2011 by cimawr

[+WRASTRO]

And Google maps shows the cache to be in the "pull off" area, not in the middle.

 

A, I don't know what you're seeing on Google Maps (assuming you do have the correct cache), but there isn't any pull-off area there, and that's true for 98% of the highway in question. I hope I never have a breakdown in that section of it, because there's no room on the side of the road to get out of the traffic lane.

Some areas have grassy median strips with narrow strips of gravel on the edges that are just wide enough to get a disabled vehicle into, but that doesn't constitute legal parking for geocaching - and in order to park at the cache, you'd have to park in the landscaping, because the median there *doesn't* have the gravel strip.

 

B, neither Google Maps nor Google Earth are particuarly accurate as to cache location- I find both to be significantly less accurate than even a low-quality GPS. I really hope you don't think that caches are located exactly where they show up on Google...

 

C, both of my GPS units, as well as everything in the cache listing and the logs, tell me that the cache is on one of the two signs in the median.

 

As far as "angst", none on my part... just concern that one of these days, a cacher's going to get flattened there.

I have the correct cache. Google maps shows the same white car as the picture you posted. You certainly interpret the logs differently than I do.

[+cimawr]

Can you post the GC Code code or PM it to me?

 

I've quite clearly stated that I deliberately chose NOT to post the GC code because I don't want to upset the CO; I'd appreciate it if you'd respect both me and her & refrain from posting the code.

[+cimawr]

I have the correct cache. Google maps shows the same white car as the picture you posted. You certainly interpret the logs differently than I do.

 

Perhaps because I'm familiar with the actual cache location, AND with the local caching community?

[GOF and Bacall]

So ride your bicycle from wherever it is legal to park. I have done caches that require a much longer and arduous a journey. Hell, I even have hidden one that requires a round trip of just over 4 miles down the center of a creek. A mile or more on a paved sidewalk would be a walk in the park.

 

Now that doesn't mean that there aren't some who will be lazy and park at that emergency vehicles only pull off. But that isn't the cache owners fault. Millions of people speed on interstate highways every day. That isn't Eisenhower's fault.

[knowschad]

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.

 

So... take a bike, maybe?

[+WRASTRO]

I have the correct cache. Google maps shows the same white car as the picture you posted. You certainly interpret the logs differently than I do.

 

Perhaps because I'm familiar with the actual cache location, AND with the local caching community?

There is absolutely no doubt you are more familiar with the location and the local caching community.

 

But you brought your beef here to the forums, now didn't you.

 

Rather than continuing to attempt to pick a fight with posters here who don't tend to agree with you, why don't you contact the CO and discuss your concerns?

 

As you have so ably pointed out I am not familiar with your local caching community so I have no issues with posting the GC ID here so others can have a look and offer their opinions.

[GOF and Bacall]

I gotta say. It was amazingly simple to figure out which cache is being discussed. I got it right on my first try.

[+WRASTRO]

I gotta say. It was amazingly simple to figure out which cache is being discussed. I got it right on my first try.

What? I spent literally minutes finding the correct cache and checking out the sat photos. Are you stating my searching skills are lacking because it took me minutes to find the correct cache and then I spent some time browsing around using the sat photos? Seems kinda mean to me.

[mresoteric]

I have the correct cache. Google maps shows the same white car as the picture you posted. You certainly interpret the logs differently than I do.

 

Perhaps because I'm familiar with the actual cache location, AND with the local caching community?

 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this cache. The only reason this would possibly be a problem is if someone tried to turn this into a park and grab or someone's gps was really off AND they are not using their heads.

[GOF and Bacall]

I gotta say. It was amazingly simple to figure out which cache is being discussed. I got it right on my first try.

What? I spent literally minutes finding the correct cache and checking out the sat photos. Are you stating my searching skills are lacking because it took me minutes to find the correct cache and then I spent some time browsing around using the sat photos? Seems kinda mean to me.

 

Oh shut up and have a donut!

[mresoteric]

As you have so ably pointed out I am not familiar with your local caching community so I have no issues with posting the GC ID here so others can have a look and offer their opinions.

 

I don't think the CO would mind the GC ID being posted for that one. The only reason I can see for not posting it is to keep us from seeing just how accessible it is.

[mresoteric]

C, both of my GPS units, as well as everything in the cache listing and the logs, tell me that the cache is on one of the two signs in the median.

 

Once you go find the cache I think you will change your opinion.

[+Sioneva]

There's a simple enough solution.

 

Just move the signs onto the bike path. Off to one side, so the bikes won't collide with them, and damage the cache.

 

Problem solved! Neeeeeext?

[+WRASTRO]

I gotta say. It was amazingly simple to figure out which cache is being discussed. I got it right on my first try.

What? I spent literally minutes finding the correct cache and checking out the sat photos. Are you stating my searching skills are lacking because it took me minutes to find the correct cache and then I spent some time browsing around using the sat photos? Seems kinda mean to me.

 

Oh shut up and have a donut!

Thanks for the suggestion but I just had dinner. Maybe in the morning, if I can manage to find the morning, or the donut given my limited searching abilities.

[GOF and Bacall]

I gotta say. It was amazingly simple to figure out which cache is being discussed. I got it right on my first try.

What? I spent literally minutes finding the correct cache and checking out the sat photos. Are you stating my searching skills are lacking because it took me minutes to find the correct cache and then I spent some time browsing around using the sat photos? Seems kinda mean to me.

 

Oh shut up and have a donut!

Thanks for the suggestion but I just had dinner. Maybe in the morning, if I can manage to find the morning, or the donut given my limited searching abilities.

 

Get yourself a guide dog. I hear they can very easily be taught to find a donut. But no guide cats. All they are any good for is finding tuna salad samiches.

[+WRASTRO]

I gotta say. It was amazingly simple to figure out which cache is being discussed. I got it right on my first try.

What? I spent literally minutes finding the correct cache and checking out the sat photos. Are you stating my searching skills are lacking because it took me minutes to find the correct cache and then I spent some time browsing around using the sat photos? Seems kinda mean to me.

 

Oh shut up and have a donut!

Thanks for the suggestion but I just had dinner. Maybe in the morning, if I can manage to find the morning, or the donut given my limited searching abilities.

 

Get yourself a guide dog. I hear they can very easily be taught to find a donut. But no guide cats. All they are any good for is finding tuna salad samiches.

Sounds like a good emoticon for cat lovers. Let's get a vote going. Where is Sol Seeker?

[+cimawr]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this cache. The only reason this would possibly be a problem is if someone tried to turn this into a park and grab or someone's gps was really off AND they are not using their heads.

 

Sigh. I'm really trying not to get snarky here, despite the attitude you're copping, but:

 

It's quite clear from the logs that people ARE treating it as a cache'n'dash/park'n'grab. And just because one LEO didn't notice or pay attention to it doesn't mean the next one along is going to... especially since the cache is located where LEOs sometimes sit to speedtrap people coming around that curve at 70mph... namely in the middle of the highway. (Why, pray tell, do you think the cache is named the way it is?)

 

As far as me looking for the cache... it's not going to happen. I'm not interested in parking in a commercial parking lot, crossing a 6-lane highway (with no traffic lights or stop signs for miles) on foot, walking .38 miles on a bike path, then walking into the middle of a 4-lane highway to look for a nano on a traffic sign in the median.

Edited April 17, 2011 by cimawr

[+cimawr]

I don't think the CO would mind the GC ID being posted for that one. The only reason I can see for not posting it is to keep us from seeing just how accessible it is.

 

My reason for not posting it is the reason I already stated, pure and simple. If you want to see how accessible it is, pm the guy who figured out the GC code.... then put your money where your mouth is and go look for the cache. The listing isn't going to tell you how accessible the cache is; only going to the location (which, as I've stated, I drive past several times a week) is really going to tell you that.

 

And if you're comfortable with being in the middle of a highway, looking for a nano, knock yourself out.

 

Editing to add: Shouldn't take you more than a couple of hours to drive from New Jersey to Maryland.

Edited April 17, 2011 by cimawr

[+cimawr]

There's a simple enough solution.

 

Just move the signs onto the bike path. Off to one side, so the bikes won't collide with them, and damage the cache.

 

Problem solved! Neeeeeext?

 

I like the way you think. Although it still wouldn't solve the problem that people are going there thinking it's a cache'n'dash, when in reality the only place to legally park is .38 miles up the road.

[+cimawr]

Once you go find the cache I think you will change your opinion.

 

Erm... unless you've been caching under another name, and/or only started logging your finds when you became a premium member a couple of months ago, this cache is not one of the 20 you've found so far, nor do you even live in the same state as me. So I'm curious as to why you're so sure that you know more than I do about the cache.

[+cimawr]

 

But you brought your beef here to the forums, now didn't you.

 

Rather than continuing to attempt to pick a fight with posters here who don't tend to agree with you, why don't you contact the CO and discuss your concerns?

 

 

Sorry, but no, I didn't "bring a beef to the forums". I contributed to an already started conversation, regarding a similar/related issue to the original subject: Caches in roadway areas that have the potential to cause traffic hazards, which in turn may cause reactions on the part of LEOs and/or DOTs.

And as I stated in my original post, I've not made up my mind whether to say something to the CO, drop a line to the reviewer, or leave it alone and let LEOs, the DOT, or the construction crews deal with it if they see people stopped in the middle and think they shouldn't be there.

 

And I'm hardly "picking a fight"... just responding to questions asked. The "picking a fight" going on here isn't on my part.

[+Nealio302]

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?

 

Jumping back on topic, I brought this issue up with out local reviewer here, just to see if they had heard anything through the grapevine. I got this e-mail reply back.

 

"Unfortunately, it's true. One cacher took it upon themselves to dig into the matter and contact VDOT. This is the new template that will be used for any new caches on VDOT property.

 

On April 11, 2011 a geocacher received a letter from VDOT requesting all geocaches placed on VDOT property be removed. VDOT property is any signage or guardrail on any state maintained road..."anything on the roadway such as a sign, guardrail, bridge, light post, etc is VDOT/state property and are NOT to be receptacles for geocache items."

 

Any new caches will, of course, be denied. Any caches requiring maintenance will be archived.

 

We don't have the manpower to look through all the caches in VA, but as they appear on disabled lists, they will be archived. Sad to say, but it IS VDOT property.

 

It does look as if they are removing them as they find them."

 

Not ALL guardrail caches are lame and uninsipring. I had one that was a sandwich-sized lock-n-lock that had been magnetized and placed on the back of a guardrail. It caught a lot of people off-guard, as no one expects a cache of that size on a guardrail. It was along a road that wasn't used very often and didn't get a lot of traffic. I found it to be missing a couplf of days ago, and I can only assume that VDOT removed it, since it was in a place not likely to be muggled.

[+WRASTRO]

But you brought your beef here to the forums, now didn't you.

 

Rather than continuing to attempt to pick a fight with posters here who don't tend to agree with you, why don't you contact the CO and discuss your concerns?

 

 

Sorry, but no, I didn't "bring a beef to the forums". I contributed to an already started conversation, regarding a similar/related issue to the original subject: Caches in roadway areas that have the potential to cause traffic hazards, which in turn may cause reactions on the part of LEOs and/or DOTs.

And as I stated in my original post, I've not made up my mind whether to say something to the CO, drop a line to the reviewer, or leave it alone and let LEOs, the DOT, or the construction crews deal with it if they see people stopped in the middle and think they shouldn't be there.

 

And I'm hardly "picking a fight"... just responding to questions asked. The "picking a fight" going on here isn't on my part.

You did bring your particular beef to the forums as a part of this thread. You posted a pic which was pretty easy to use to identify the cache you are concerned about. The maps seem to show a different location that what you claim. Fish or cut bait. Work up the intestinal fortidue to contact the CO, who you seem to kow, or email the reviewer and express your concerns. Easy peasy.

[+Pack355Mom]

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.

[+Pack355Mom]

 

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!

[+Pack355Mom]

I wish you would have contacted me before all of this. You are complaining about a cache you have not yet found. If you could not find it, you should have posted a DNF or emailed me. As the CO of this cache I would have given you a hint like I did with others who did not find it right away. It is NOT in the median of this road. It is safely off the side. If you look at the picture you posted it is below the "crosswalk" in the picture. The reviewer contacted by email and said [b]"It is quite clear to me from Google maps that the cache is located safely and legally in the middle of the guardrail with easy access from a paved bike trail."[/b] I travel this road on a regular basis and always see people walking, jogging or riding their bike through here, as a matter of fact I had to come back twice in order to hide the cache because so many people walk this path during the day!

[knowschad]

I think I just had a Paul Harvey moment.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

So much for Google maps and overlays, what?

I wonder how many are gonna bookmark this?

[+mtn-man]

I think I just had a Paul Harvey moment.

One thing I have learned as a reviewer is that Google is close, but not perfect in many cases. Some of the more interesting spots are the areas where images are stitched together. Satellite images are not always spot on. Sometimes they are, but it isn't something you use as an absolute. This case shows that pretty well.

[+Pack355Mom]

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.

[doshman]

Unlike cimawr, I have found the cache in question. It is not in the median, and there is plenty of room to pull over and not be in the way of the walking path. There are no signs that parking there is not allowed and it's not that tough of a hide that it should take that long to find it. I don't know if cimawr has tried to find it but it's clear that he/she doesn't have accurate information (including that speed limit is 45mph--and few people go much over that as there are OFTEN cops running radar there--note the name of the cache).

 

cimawr--please don't start a flame thread if you don't have your facts straight. First effort should have been to contact the CO if you have questions/issues with a cache. As a CO, I never take affront at someone asking questions about my caches.

[+Pack355Mom]

As the CO of this cache that makes you cringe, I would like to say that if a person is going to complain about a cache, they should have found it first to verify where the cache was placed. You should have followed the rules and logged it as a DNF. This would have given me the oppertunity to email you to ask where you looked and I could have responded to your question. This cache is NOT in the median of a 4 lane highway as you claim. It is off the paved path beyond the marked "crosswalk". If people were not meant to use this are (and MANY people do), there would be no need for the county to mark a crosswalk here. Even the reviewer stated...."It is quite clear to me from Google maps that the cache is located safely and legally in the middle of the guardrail with easy access from a paved bike trail." I will even go one step farther to say, that it is NOT in the guardrail! If you read the logs posted for this cache, you will see that no one said they felt that their life was in danger. Comments were made, however, that this can be a busy road. I can only say that maybe your gps was not accurate on the day you tried to find this cache. True, some people will try to make their hides more challenging, but not me. I would not hesitate to take my 9 year old to look for this cache!

[+va griz]

 

Jumping back on topic, I brought this issue up with out local reviewer here, just to see if they had heard anything through the grapevine. I got this e-mail reply back.

 

"Unfortunately, it's true. One cacher took it upon themselves to dig into the matter and contact VDOT. This is the new template that will be used for any new caches on VDOT property.

 

snipped for brevity

 

Thanks for the info Nealio. I would rather not see that as policy but it's difficult to please everybody I guess.

[mresoteric]

So I'm curious as to why you're so sure that you know more than I do about the cache.

 

I emailed the cache owner and asked.

[+roziecakes]

As the CO of this cache that makes you cringe, I would like to say that if a person is going to complain about a cache, they should have found it first to verify where the cache was placed. You should have followed the rules and logged it as a DNF. This would have given me the oppertunity to email you to ask where you looked and I could have responded to your question. This cache is NOT in the median of a 4 lane highway as you claim. It is off the paved path beyond the marked "crosswalk". If people were not meant to use this are (and MANY people do), there would be no need for the county to mark a crosswalk here. Even the reviewer stated...."It is quite clear to me from Google maps that the cache is located safely and legally in the middle of the guardrail with easy access from a paved bike trail." I will even go one step farther to say, that it is NOT in the guardrail! If you read the logs posted for this cache, you will see that no one said they felt that their life was in danger. Comments were made, however, that this can be a busy road. I can only say that maybe your gps was not accurate on the day you tried to find this cache. True, some people will try to make their hides more challenging, but not me. I would not hesitate to take my 9 year old to look for this cache!

 

I feel bad that this is happening to you here on the forums. I do wish that folks would not jump to conclusions.

[Mr.Yuck]

So I'm curious as to why you're so sure that you know more than I do about the cache.

 

I emailed the cache owner and asked.

 

And let me guess, you just happened to mention the fact that it was being discussed in the forums?

[+roziecakes]

So I'm curious as to why you're so sure that you know more than I do about the cache.

 

I emailed the cache owner and asked.

 

And let me guess, you just happened to mention the fact that it was being discussed in the forums?

 

It sure appears that way, doesn't it?

[jholly]

So I'm curious as to why you're so sure that you know more than I do about the cache.

 

I emailed the cache owner and asked.

 

And let me guess, you just happened to mention the fact that it was being discussed in the forums?

 

It sure appears that way, doesn't it?

There we go again, jumping to conclusions!

[+roziecakes]

There we go again, jumping to conclusions!

 

Oh snap!

[mresoteric]

So I'm curious as to why you're so sure that you know more than I do about the cache.

 

I emailed the cache owner and asked.

 

And let me guess, you just happened to mention the fact that it was being discussed in the forums?

 

I provided a link to the post with the picture and asked where in the picture it was.

[+chihuahuak94me]

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?

 

Jumping back on topic, I brought this issue up with out local reviewer here, just to see if they had heard anything through the grapevine. I got this e-mail reply back.

 

"Unfortunately, it's true. One cacher took it upon themselves to dig into the matter and contact VDOT. This is the new template that will be used for any new caches on VDOT property.

 

On April 11, 2011 a geocacher received a letter from VDOT requesting all geocaches placed on VDOT property be removed. VDOT property is any signage or guardrail on any state maintained road..."anything on the roadway such as a sign, guardrail, bridge, light post, etc is VDOT/state property and are NOT to be receptacles for geocache items."

 

Any new caches will, of course, be denied. Any caches requiring maintenance will be archived.

 

We don't have the manpower to look through all the caches in VA, but as they appear on disabled lists, they will be archived. Sad to say, but it IS VDOT property.

 

It does look as if they are removing them as they find them."

 

Not ALL guardrail caches are lame and uninsipring. I had one that was a sandwich-sized lock-n-lock that had been magnetized and placed on the back of a guardrail. It caught a lot of people off-guard, as no one expects a cache of that size on a guardrail. It was along a road that wasn't used very often and didn't get a lot of traffic. I found it to be missing a couplf of days ago, and I can only assume that VDOT removed it, since it was in a place not likely to be muggled.

 

This is not exactly correct, the letter received said "In order to maintain the safety of our citizens and your members, we ask that you suspend all placement of materials on or in our property." It doesn't say "requesting all geocaches placed on VDOT property be removed. VDOT property is any signage or guardrail on any state maintained road..."anything on the roadway such as a sign, guardrail, bridge, light post, etc is VDOT/state property and are NOT to be receptacles for geocache items."

 

It doesn't list any of the specific items at all. It simply requests that we don't "place" materials "on" or "in". What prompted this entire argument in the first place wasn't even a guardrail.

 

It involved a local geocacher who decided to take it upon himself to be the cache police and report anything he thought suspicious.

 

He has created quite a problem for cachers in our area.

[mresoteric]

He has created quite a problem for cachers in our area.

 

Do you think he would be able to cause problems if permission had been obtained for those hides?

[+chihuahuak94me]

He has created quite a problem for cachers in our area.

 

Do you think he would be able to cause problems if permission had been obtained for those hides?

 

Point taken. However, the original cache in question had been in place for over two years and over 100 finds with no problems. I understand the permission issue. Doesn't make it right. But, if he had raised his question to the CO an adjustment could have been made and saved guard rail caches in the state of Virginia. He went all the way to the top and forced them to issue a blanket statement which does not allow for any wiggle room.

[+roziecakes]

Yes! This is what I call "ruining the game for everyone else," and I imagine it HAS caused a big problem for cachers in your area. I am all for getting permission, and I think it's important when it's necessary; but this is a mess.