Another black eye for geocaching

[+GrateBear]

"Treasure hunt game device halts Metra trains

 

4:12 p.m. CDT, June 1, 2011

 

Inbound and outbound Metra Union Pacific West Line trains was delayed this afternoon after a suspicious package -- later determined to be a scavenger hunt-style game device -- was discovered hanging over the train tracks, officials said.

 

A passerby found the device suspended in mid-air by fishing line underneath the Illinois Prairie Path overpass above the Union Pacific Railroad tracks in Wheaton at about about 1:35 p.m., Wheaton officials said in a news release.

 

Authorities later determined that the device didn't contain any explosive material and was a game device commonly referred to as a "geocaching" game piece, officials said.

 

Geocaching is a real-world outdoor treasure hunting game, where hunters use GPS and other navigating systems to locate their prize, according to a website devoted to the game.

 

To accommodate an investigation by Wheaton police, Metra officials halted several inbound and outbound trains, which has led to delays of up to 98 minutes."

 

Seriously, how stupid does someone have to be to place a cache like this?

[+Cryptosporidium-623]

Seriously, how stupid does someone have to be to place a cache like this?

 

Truly there is no accounting for the stupidity of some. That said, I can imagine all sorts of sports that might receive "black eyes" if this person participated in them. I wouldn't blame the sport itself for that person's actions, however (unless the sport encouraged the behavior.)

 

"Oh, You mean I wasn't suppose to skeet shoot on the P.E. field at the Elementary school?"

 

Edited June 1, 2011 by daschpeeg

[Night_Hiker]

People should think before hiding caches in places like that. It's ignorance and obviously destroys the rep. for the entire sport, come on now people we're better than this

[+joranda]

Wonder which cache it was?

[+StarBrand]

I wonder which site it was primarily listed on?

[Night_Hiker]

Wonder which cache it was?

woonder if the bomb squad signed the logg

[+Michaelcycle]

Wonder which cache it was?

 

GC2K7KW

 

Just follow the trail 'til it crosses the Metra: bingo!

[+Manville Possum]

I wonder which site it was primarily listed on?

Had to be this one. One of the other sites have lots of volunteer reviewers.

LMAO!!!

[GOF and Bacall]

I wonder which site it was primarily listed on?

 

It was listed on this site in December. It has been found 14 times and DNFed 11.

Edited June 1, 2011 by GOF and Bacall

[mtbikernate]

Wonder which cache it was?

Found it.

 

http://coord.info/GC2K7KW

[+JJnTJ]

Not really directly relating to the subject, but I always smile when I see that "Abe Froman" is the reviewer for that area.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

Looks liek you can find a picture of the pedestrian bridge here.

[+user13371]

Pedestrian bridge over railroad tracks? Reviewer have anything to say about it?

Edited June 1, 2011 by Portland Cyclist

[+StarBrand]

For God's sake - how did the reviewer miss that??!!

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Not really directly relating to the subject, but I always smile when I see that "Abe Froman" is the reviewer for that area.

Have you ever met the Sausage King of Chicago?

 

 

I have.

Edited June 1, 2011 by Team GPSaxophone

[+Michaelcycle]

Looks liek you can find a picture of the pedestrian bridge here.

 

Yes, in another photo from that group you can see a bicyclist on the bridge.

 

Caches on railtrail bridges are pretty common, I've found several (given my fondness for railtrails) just not on any that crossed over an active track. I'm guessing the reviewer did not know it was suspended from below (if what the news report indicated is true)

[GOF and Bacall]

Well, the railroad guideline is about trespassing. The cache was on the public bike path so that isn't an issue. I guess it is all a matter of how the reviewer thinks the infrastructure proximity guidelines should be interpreted.

 

A cache may be disabled or archived if (list is not exhaustive) one or more of the following is true. If your cache is located within one of the areas listed below and you have complied with special regulations by obtaining written permission or a permit, please explain this in a "Note to Reviewer."

 

Placement does not meet all guidelines.

Cache placement is in an area that is highly sensitive to additional foot and vehicular traffic including but not limited to archaeological sites, historical sites and cemeteries.

Cache defaces or destroys property (public or private) either in the hiding of or searching for the cache.

Cache is near active railroad tracks. In the United States we generally use a distance of 150 ft (46 m) from tracks. Other local laws may vary.

Cache is problematic due to its proximity to a public structure including and not limited to highway bridges, dams, government buildings, military bases, schools, hospitals, airports and other such locations.

 

The point is where is the specific violation? I'd think it would fall under 'other such locations' but I'm not the reviewer.

Edited June 1, 2011 by GOF and Bacall

[+StarBrand]

Sat view

[+Ike 13]

I don't want to blame the reviewer, but at the same time I highly doubt my reviewer would publish this. The good news is people usually forget about these things quickly.

[+JBnW]

I wonder which site it was primarily listed on?

Had to be this one. One of the other sites have lots of volunteer reviewers.

LMAO!!!

And you've done such a wonderful job of reviewing caches you know nothing about.

[+geodarts]

Despite the cache title, perhaps it is still a mad, mad world. It reminds me of caches I have seen that are placed on pedestrian crossings over the interstate - except for dangling style of hide. But in any event, it was interesting to note that the person that the police called as a geocaching expert has the username SpanishBombs.

Edited June 1, 2011 by mulvaney

[GOF and Bacall]

I wonder which site it was primarily listed on?

Had to be this one. One of the other sites have lots of volunteer reviewers.

LMAO!!!

And you've done such a wonderful job of reviewing caches you know nothing about.

 

Perhaps a discussion about how another listing service does things would be better left to their site?

[Mr.Yuck]

Not really directly relating to the subject, but I always smile when I see that "Abe Froman" is the reviewer for that area.

 

Yes, some of the reviewers have been coming up with some clever names. Better yet, the guy who posted the SBA, and was sought out by the Police as a Geocaching expert was "Spanish Bombs". That's a Clash song, by the way.

 

This might shock some people, but I don't think this was all that "stupid". I've seen much worse. This was a pedestrian bridge. Am I crazy, or should I give it up and grab my torch and pitchfork?

[+JBnW]

I wonder which site it was primarily listed on?

Had to be this one. One of the other sites have lots of volunteer reviewers.

LMAO!!!

And you've done such a wonderful job of reviewing caches you know nothing about.

 

Perhaps a discussion about how another listing service does things would be better left to their site?

You are most certainly correct.

 

(Did I really just type that??)

[knowschad]

How many cachers visited this but said nothing, this incident could have been avoided. Favorites points no less.

 

+1

[knowschad]

I don't want to blame the reviewer, but at the same time I highly doubt my reviewer would publish this. The good news is people usually forget about these things quickly.

 

I would be willing to bet that there was a dialog with the reviewer and CO before this was published. Perhaps the reviewer just didn't think to ask the right question(s).

[+Ike 13]

I don't want to blame the reviewer, but at the same time I highly doubt my reviewer would publish this. The good news is people usually forget about these things quickly.

 

I would be willing to bet that there was a dialog with the reviewer and CO before this was published. Perhaps the reviewer just didn't think to ask the right question(s).

I know that's why I don't want to throw the reviewer under the bus. Technically a cache on a pedestrian bridge is okay. But the fact that it is over a railroad raises flags. I'm guessing the CO told the reviewer he had permission and maybe he did. Permission only means that one person is okay and knows about it. It is impossible to make every person aware of the cache.

[+skisidedown]

Not really directly relating to the subject, but I always smile when I see that "Abe Froman" is the reviewer for that area.

 

Yes, some of the reviewers have been coming up with some clever names. Better yet, the guy who posted the SBA, and was sought out by the Police as a Geocaching expert was "Spanish Bombs".

 

 

That gave me a chuckle - seems to be an unfortunate choice of name, but they did remember him, didn't they.

 

I just can't imagine how it would feel to be contacted by the police and be told they had something that "'looked like a pipe bomb' so they were wondering if I knew anything about it."

"Um, no officer. But, I am flattered that you thought of me ... "

[+sword fern]

The Chicago tribune. That newspaper has been broadcasting geocaching in a negative way again. Like 5 times this year.

[GOF and Bacall]

I wonder which site it was primarily listed on?

Had to be this one. One of the other sites have lots of volunteer reviewers.

LMAO!!!

And you've done such a wonderful job of reviewing caches you know nothing about.

 

Perhaps a discussion about how another listing service does things would be better left to their site?

You are most certainly correct.

 

(Did I really just type that??)

 

If more people would just admit that we would all be happier.

[knowschad]

The Chicago tribune. That newspaper has been broadcasting geocaching in a negative way again. Like 5 times this year.

 

Another black eye for the Trib?

[knowschad]

I wonder which site it was primarily listed on?

Had to be this one. One of the other sites have lots of volunteer reviewers.

LMAO!!!

And you've done such a wonderful job of reviewing caches you know nothing about.

 

Perhaps a discussion about how another listing service does things would be better left to their site?

You are most certainly correct.

 

(Did I really just type that??)

 

If more people would just admit that we would all be happier.

 

Who let that clown in here?

 

 

 

 

.

Edited June 2, 2011 by knowschad

[+TaranWanderer]

I know that's why I don't want to throw the reviewer under the bus.

 

Don't fret--I'll do it for you. There's no way that this cache should have been approved, pedestrian walkway or not--it's too close to the RR, period. I'm a cacher and a RR fan, and I don't want two intersecting at all. I was married to a certain reviewer once and I'm pretty sure she wouldn't have approved this cache either. It's just plain dumb.

[knowschad]

I know that's why I don't want to throw the reviewer under the bus.

 

Don't fret--I'll do it for you. There's no way that this cache should have been approved, pedestrian walkway or not--it's too close to the RR, period. I'm a cacher and a RR fan, and I don't want two intersecting at all. I was married to a certain reviewer once and I'm pretty sure she wouldn't have approved this cache either. It's just plain dumb.

Was it trespassing on RR property? If not, then which guideline are you using to "throw the reviewer under the bus"?

[+mynetdude]

I know that's why I don't want to throw the reviewer under the bus.

 

Don't fret--I'll do it for you. There's no way that this cache should have been approved, pedestrian walkway or not--it's too close to the RR, period. I'm a cacher and a RR fan, and I don't want two intersecting at all. I was married to a certain reviewer once and I'm pretty sure she wouldn't have approved this cache either. It's just plain dumb.

 

I don't see how its dumb, its not affecting the railway directly (ie: not on tracks, near tracks, near electrical systems, switches, signaling devices, etc)

 

Its on a Pedestrian bridge for heaven's sakes its 20ft up or so (or more); granted if it were a bomb it would do damage to the bridge maybe not and if it did it might affect trains about to pass under, sure but does that mean every time there is an object on the ground or dangling midair mean its a bomb?

 

If the cache was suspended midair UNDER the bridge I could see an issue, if it was suspended midair ABOVE the pedestrian walkway (although what's the point of that?) I don't see a problem but then again I am not a reviewer. The issue isn't necessarily poor placement of the cache or the reviewer is stupid let alone the CO the ISSUE here is people reporting something that isn't. Does anyone remember the incident in California in Sacramento (or near) a cache was in a park adjacent to school property some KID thought it was suspicious so the CHP was called in along with the USAF bomb squad to diffuse a cache that wasn't a bomb.

 

I'll bet this might help: "IF the cache was properly labeled and WELL labeled" you might have a different situation here.

[+Ecylram]

This cache story made it onto Fark with a dumb[bleep] tag.

[+rjb43nh]

GOF and Bacall-"The point is where is the specific violation? I'd think it would fall under 'other such locations' but I'm not the reviewer."

 

The violation is clearly stated in your own quote of the guidelines where it says: "Cache is near active railroad tracks. In the United States we generally use a distance of 150 ft (46 m) from tracks. Other local laws may vary.

 

TaranWanderer picked up on this and is correct that it is a proximity issue, and the others who say that the cache is ok because it isn't actually on RR property are wrong. If you look at the photo from Google Earth, the cache is directly over the middle of the 3 tracks. Any location on that bridge would be in violation of the guidelines.

[+WRASTRO]

GOF and Bacall-"The point is where is the specific violation? I'd think it would fall under 'other such locations' but I'm not the reviewer."

 

The violation is clearly stated in your own quote of the guidelines where it says: "Cache is near active railroad tracks. In the United States we generally use a distance of 150 ft (46 m) from tracks. Other local laws may vary.

 

TaranWanderer picked up on this and is correct that it is a proximity issue, and the others who say that the cache is ok because it isn't actually on RR property are wrong. If you look at the photo from Google Earth, the cache is directly over the middle of the 3 tracks. Any location on that bridge would be in violation of the guidelines.

The RR owns the air above the tracks? I don't find a way to agree with your argument.

[+Ecylram]

GOF and Bacall-"The point is where is the specific violation? I'd think it would fall under 'other such locations' but I'm not the reviewer."

 

The violation is clearly stated in your own quote of the guidelines where it says: "Cache is near active railroad tracks. In the United States we generally use a distance of 150 ft (46 m) from tracks. Other local laws may vary.

 

TaranWanderer picked up on this and is correct that it is a proximity issue, and the others who say that the cache is ok because it isn't actually on RR property are wrong. If you look at the photo from Google Earth, the cache is directly over the middle of the 3 tracks. Any location on that bridge would be in violation of the guidelines.

The RR owns the air above the tracks? I don't find a way to agree with your argument.

 

Yes, they could own the air above the tracks.

 

Either way, based on the pictures a cache on that bridge would be within 150 feet of the tracks.

[+WRASTRO]

GOF and Bacall-"The point is where is the specific violation? I'd think it would fall under 'other such locations' but I'm not the reviewer."

 

The violation is clearly stated in your own quote of the guidelines where it says: "Cache is near active railroad tracks. In the United States we generally use a distance of 150 ft (46 m) from tracks. Other local laws may vary.

 

TaranWanderer picked up on this and is correct that it is a proximity issue, and the others who say that the cache is ok because it isn't actually on RR property are wrong. If you look at the photo from Google Earth, the cache is directly over the middle of the 3 tracks. Any location on that bridge would be in violation of the guidelines.

The RR owns the air above the tracks? I don't find a way to agree with your argument.

 

Yes, they could own the air above the tracks.

 

Either way, based on the pictures a cache on that bridge would be within 150 feet of the tracks.

To what elevation? Public right of way would overcome RR right of way where there is a public path.

[GOF and Bacall]

Do a search. We have covered this many many times in these forums. The setback rule for RR tracks is for trespassing. That being the case there is not a problem with the cache on the bridge from a rules standpoint. There are many caches that are less than 150 feet from the tracks.

 

Like I said earlier. If there is a violation it is for 'proximity to a public structure'. But that is kind of a judgement call for the reviewer.

 

A cache may be disabled or archived if (list is not exhaustive) one or more of the following is true. If your cache is located within one of the areas listed below and you have complied with special regulations by obtaining written permission or a permit, please explain this in a "Note to Reviewer."

 

Placement does not meet all guidelines.

Cache placement is in an area that is highly sensitive to additional foot and vehicular traffic including but not limited to archaeological sites, historical sites and cemeteries.

Cache defaces or destroys property (public or private) either in the hiding of or searching for the cache.

Cache is near active railroad tracks. In the United States we generally use a distance of 150 ft (46 m) from tracks. Other local laws may vary.

Cache is problematic due to its proximity to a public structure including and not limited to highway bridges, dams, government buildings, military bases, schools, hospitals, airports and other such locations.

[+rjb43nh]

WRASTRO-"The RR owns the air above the tracks? I don't find a way to agree with your argument."

 

You’ve completely misinterpreted what I said. This has nothing to do with what the RR owns(as I said before). It is about the Groundspeak guidelines. If Groundspeak says it’s a violation, it is a violation-period.

[GOF and Bacall]

So far Groundspeak has not said it was in violation. In fact they published the listing.

[+rjb43nh]

GOF and Bacall-“So far Groundspeak has not said it was in violation. In fact they published the listing.”

Just to get you up to speed, Groundspeak has archived the cache so in fact they see it as a violation.

[GOF and Bacall]

GOF and Bacall-“So far Groundspeak has not said it was in violation. In fact they published the listing.”

Just to get you up to speed, Groundspeak has archived the cache so in fact they see it as a violation.

 

Thanks.

They archived it because it was removed by the bomb squad.

[knowschad]

GOF and Bacall-"The point is where is the specific violation? I'd think it would fall under 'other such locations' but I'm not the reviewer."

 

The violation is clearly stated in your own quote of the guidelines where it says: "Cache is near active railroad tracks. In the United States we generally use a distance of 150 ft (46 m) from tracks. Other local laws may vary.

 

TaranWanderer picked up on this and is correct that it is a proximity issue, and the others who say that the cache is ok because it isn't actually on RR property are wrong. If you look at the photo from Google Earth, the cache is directly over the middle of the 3 tracks. Any location on that bridge would be in violation of the guidelines.

 

That 150 foot generalization is based upon trespassing laws. The bridge was a public byway. To be on the bridge for any other reason is not trespassing, obviously, so legally, the trespassing laws do not apply to vertical distances or that overpass (which is certainly less than 150 feet) could never have existed in the first place.

 

Edit: If there is a guideline that can be used against this cache, it would have to be what I believe used to be worded as the "terrorist target" clause, which, I think, has been reworded to:

 

Cache is problematic due to its proximity to a public structure including and not limited to highway bridges, dams, government buildings, military bases, schools, hospitals, airports and other such locations.

Edited June 2, 2011 by knowschad

[+rjb43nh]

GOF and Bacall-“They archived it because it was removed by the bomb squad.”

 

So by that theory, Groundspeak has archived the cache because they agree with the bomb squad’s removing the cache because it’s a violation, not just that it happened to be muggled. No matter how you look at it, the cache was in violation of Groundspeak guidelines about caches being within 150 feet of active RR tracks. You’re arguing with the guidelines trying to justify a position that is incorrect.

 

Knowschad-“ That 150 foot generalization is based upon trespassing laws. The bridge was a public byway. To be on the bridge for any other reason is not trespassing, obviously, so legally, the trespassing laws do not apply to vertical distances or that overpass (which is certainly less than 150 feet) could never have existed in the first place.”

 

Wrong, this has nothing to do with trespass laws or right of way, it is based on Groundspeak guidelines(did I mention that before?). If you want to prove otherwise, try placing a cache anywhere within 150 feet of active RR tracks and tell your reviewer truthfully what you’re doing. Any bets on their answer?

[knowschad]

GOF and Bacall-"They archived it because it was removed by the bomb squad."

 

So by that theory, Groundspeak has archived the cache because they agree with the bomb squad's removing the cache because it's a violation, not just that it happened to be muggled. No matter how you look at it, the cache was in violation of Groundspeak guidelines about caches being within 150 feet of active RR tracks. You're arguing with the guidelines trying to justify a position that is incorrect.

 

Knowschad-" That 150 foot generalization is based upon trespassing laws. The bridge was a public byway. To be on the bridge for any other reason is not trespassing, obviously, so legally, the trespassing laws do not apply to vertical distances or that overpass (which is certainly less than 150 feet) could never have existed in the first place."

 

Wrong, this has nothing to do with trespass laws or right of way, it is based on Groundspeak guidelines(did I mention that before?). If you want to prove otherwise, try placing a cache anywhere within 150 feet of active RR tracks and tell your reviewer truthfully what you're doing. Any bets on their answer?

 

Groundspeak has stated here numerous times that the reason for the 150 foot railroad guideline is because of trespassing laws. That is not mere speculation on my part.

[+Coldgears]

GOF and Bacall-"They archived it because it was removed by the bomb squad."

 

So by that theory, Groundspeak has archived the cache because they agree with the bomb squad's removing the cache because it's a violation, not just that it happened to be muggled. No matter how you look at it, the cache was in violation of Groundspeak guidelines about caches being within 150 feet of active RR tracks. You're arguing with the guidelines trying to justify a position that is incorrect.

 

Knowschad-" That 150 foot generalization is based upon trespassing laws. The bridge was a public byway. To be on the bridge for any other reason is not trespassing, obviously, so legally, the trespassing laws do not apply to vertical distances or that overpass (which is certainly less than 150 feet) could never have existed in the first place."

 

Wrong, this has nothing to do with trespass laws or right of way, it is based on Groundspeak guidelines(did I mention that before?). If you want to prove otherwise, try placing a cache anywhere within 150 feet of active RR tracks and tell your reviewer truthfully what you're doing. Any bets on their answer?

 

Groundspeak has stated here numerous times that the reason for the 150 foot railroad guideline is because of trespassing laws. That is not mere speculation on my part.

I want to know what this guy is getting his information from. He has four people disagreeing with him now, I too have saw this proof in an old thread where Keystone, a reviewer, has stated the reasoning behind this rule.

 

EDITING IN OTHER POST DUE TO OTHER POST BEING ON PAGE TWO

 

I couldn't find the keystone one, but I made a thread a while back SPECIFICALLY asking why the rule was. I assumed it was due to people getting hit by a train, and I received an answer by none other then palmetto.

 

I have always thought that the reason that caches aren't allowed near railroad tracks was because of the danger of a train hitting someone.

 

No, it's because there's been a conviction for criminal trespass over a cache on a railroad right of way. 150 feet is mentioned because it's a pretty standard ROW width in much of the central and western U.S.

If the right of way is narrower, and the cache owner can demonstrate that it is, a cache can be nearer.

Danger is NOT a guidelines issue.

Edited June 2, 2011 by Coldgears

[+Coldgears]

I couldn't find the keystone one, but I made a thread a while back SPECIFICALLY asking why the rule was. I assumed it was due to people getting hit by a train, and I received an answer by none other then palmetto.

 

I have always thought that the reason that caches aren't allowed near railroad tracks was because of the danger of a train hitting someone.

 

No, it's because there's been a conviction for criminal trespass over a cache on a railroad right of way. 150 feet is mentioned because it's a pretty standard ROW width in much of the central and western U.S.

If the right of way is narrower, and the cache owner can demonstrate that it is, a cache can be nearer.

Danger is NOT a guidelines issue.

Edited June 2, 2011 by Coldgears