NM & NA

[+CanadianRockies]

The problem is that there is no way to determine where to draw the line. Geocaches are not allowed near Railroad tracks because of legal issues, not safety. There is no way for reviewers to come up with any consistent way of determining what is 'safe enough' and what isn't.

To suggest there is no way for Groundspeak or reviewers to draw a line regarding safety doesn't give them much credit. They are constantly making judgment calls about what is "adequate" permission, which locations are likely "terrorist" threats, what significant barriers justify bending the 0.1-mile saturation limit, when is a cache "buried," how close is "too close" to a school, etc.

 

Making decisions about which caches are unacceptably dangerous might be unpopular, but it could be done. Indeed, there probably is an unpublicized line that Groundspeak and the reviewers are unwilling to cross. I'd be very surprised if they knowingly would publish (or fail to archive) a cache they considered to be grossly negligent, since that likely would place them in legal jeopardy.

[+Arndtwe]

Any railroad with rails should be considered an active railroad. Period. Full stop.

Well, at some point, it's probably safe to say that the rails are no longer being used...

 

But yeah, I know of several rail lines that might look unused to some people, but actually see regular use. There may be only 1 train a day, or even 1 train a week, but the rails are still in use.

That's a really cool looking place... do you have a location for that pic? Would love to add it to a collection of places to visit...

[+Moose Mob]

The problem is that there is no way to determine where to draw the line. Geocaches are not allowed near Railroad tracks because of legal issues, not safety. There is no way for reviewers to come up with any consistent way of determining what is 'safe enough' and what isn't.

To suggest there is no way for Groundspeak or reviewers to draw a line regarding safety doesn't give them much credit. They are constantly making judgment calls about what is "adequate" permission, which locations are likely "terrorist" threats, what significant barriers justify bending the 0.1-mile saturation limit, when is a cache "buried," how close is "too close" to a school, etc.

 

Making decisions about which caches are unacceptably dangerous might be unpopular, but it could be done. Indeed, there probably is an unpublicized line that Groundspeak and the reviewers are unwilling to cross. I'd be very surprised if they knowingly would publish (or fail to archive) a cache they considered to be grossly negligent, since that likely would place them in legal jeopardy.

Reviewers can draw a line for safety, but would it be represtentative for everyone? No, not at all. Would all the reviewers draw it in the same place? No, people have a wide degree of perspctives.

 

There are instances where geocachers have died while at or enroute to a cache (slipped and fell dow a cliff). Many occurances of broken bones, bad cuts, and even poion oak/ivy.

 

Yes, I have denied caches that are 'grossly neglegent' and archived many soley on the basis of 'not a good idea'. But those are rare and not to be overplayed. I am sure other reviewers have done the same.

[+uxorious]

Near Los Angeles International Airport, Los Angeles, California

Log of June 20, 2009: "I found it, went on to the next two and on my way back saw discovered the entire area shut down by the police and bomb squad. As soon as I saw this I approached the police (I figured what had happened) to explain what was going on. I was interviewed, arrested, and fined 10K. BEWARE CACHES NEAR IMPORTANT PLACES!! I certainly will not forget this caching expedition."

 

I would have to call a huge BS on this log. <_<

 

Perhaps a cache hider could get arrested and fined for a cache hidden in an illegal spot. However, a person that would approch the police to try to explain what was going on, would never be fined $10,000.00. And it would be highly unlikely they would be arrested, unless the police thought you were the one that hid it. (even then it would be unlikely, but might be possable. Depending on where the hide was.)

Edited February 13, 2012 by uxorious

[+dprovan]

The problem is that there is no way to determine where to draw the line.

That's exactly why I've always assumed the rule was there: so individual reviewers wouldn't be required to draw arbitrary lines based on personal opinion.

 

Apparently you guys know that's not the reason for this rule, so I stand corrected. But, on the other hand, the blanket statement the local high school makes telling students to stay off the nearby railroad tracks are not made because railroads are private property.

[+CanadianRockies]

Reviewers can draw a line for safety, but would it be represtentative for everyone? No, not at all.

I'm not sure what that first sentence means, but if you're asking whether a line would be acceptable to everyone, then I agree that it wouldn't. But plenty of Groundspeak lines aren't acceptable to everyone.

 

Would all the reviewers draw it in the same place? No, people have a wide degree of perspctives.

Since reviewers are humans, of course you'll find inconsistencies among different reviewers' decisions (and, perhaps, even among a single reviewer's decisions). For example, there are different perspectives on what is "commercial" or what is an "agenda."

 

Yes, I have denied caches that are 'grossly neglegent' and archived many soley on the basis of 'not a good idea'. But those are rare and not to be overplayed. I am sure other reviewers have done the same.

I'm guessing all reviewers don't draw the "grossly negligent" line in exactly the same place. And I'd bet that some reviewers would have allowed certain caches that you considered "not a good idea." That doesn't mean lines cannot or should not be drawn.

[+niraD]

Well, at some point, it's probably safe to say that the rails are no longer being used...

 

But yeah, I know of several rail lines that might look unused to some people, but actually see regular use. There may be only 1 train a day, or even 1 train a week, but the rails are still in use.

That's a really cool looking place... do you have a location for that pic? Would love to add it to a collection of places to visit...

Sorry, no. I just did a Google image search for "abandoned railroad tracks" (or something similar) and that photo popped up.

[+AussieCacheHunter]

Sorry, no. I just did a Google image search for "abandoned railroad tracks" (or something similar) and that photo popped up.

 

According to this flickr page it's in Helensburgh NSW Australia.

[+Moose Mob]

Reviewers can draw a line for safety, but would it be represtentative for everyone? No, not at all.

I'm not sure what that first sentence means, but if you're asking whether a line would be acceptable to everyone, then I agree that it wouldn't. But plenty of Groundspeak lines aren't acceptable to everyone.

 

Would all the reviewers draw it in the same place? No, people have a wide degree of perspctives.

Since reviewers are humans, of course you'll find inconsistencies among different reviewers' decisions (and, perhaps, even among a single reviewer's decisions). For example, there are different perspectives on what is "commercial" or what is an "agenda."

 

Yes, I have denied caches that are 'grossly neglegent' and archived many soley on the basis of 'not a good idea'. But those are rare and not to be overplayed. I am sure other reviewers have done the same.

I'm guessing all reviewers don't draw the "grossly negligent" line in exactly the same place. And I'd bet that some reviewers would have allowed certain caches that you considered "not a good idea." That doesn't mean lines cannot or should not be drawn.

Lets look at this from the legal perspective. If Groundspeak assumed authority over 'what is safe' and someone gets hurt while seeking it, then Groundspeak now has a liability beacuase the reviewers have deemed that cache as 'safe for seeking'. Not saying that I agree, just saying that it is what it is.

 

Edit to add: After thinking about this a tad more, I realized the line has been drawn when it comes to personal safety... the line was drawn at the person.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Moose Mob

[+RedjackRyan]

Here is what my reviewer sent to me on one of my caches that was within 150' of railroad tracks:

 

This cache appears to be placed close to a railroad track. It is a federal offense to place an object like a geocache near an active rail line. A geocacher has been arrested, jailed, had to go to court and paid a large fine for placing a cache near an active railroad line. The local bomb squad destroyed his cache. You can read more about it here: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=21328&log=y#322202

Pay attention to the May 5, 2002 log titled Hillwilly's Day In Court.

 

We try to use 150 feet as a standard for the distance a cache can be placed from a railroad, though local standards may be different. If there is a barrier between the cache and the tracks (a wall, fence or ravine), the cache might be acceptable. If not and if this is an active line, even if it is only used infrequently, this cache must be moved or removed. This is covered in the guidelines and requirements to place a cache:

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=306

 

If it is a rails to trails area, and there are no other issues with the cache, then the cache can be allowed.

[+AneMae]

Very Sad.

 

Two strikingly similar tragedies in two very different parts of the country are underscoring the dangers of not being in tune with one's surroundings when walking along train tracks.

 

Sixteen-year-old Jacob Hicks died Monday night, just hours after he was struck by a train in Oshawa, Ont.

 

The train's engineer told CTV News that Hicks appeared to be listening to music and was fixated on a handheld electronic device as he traversed the tracks at a level-crossing.

 

A local bylaw prohibits train crews from using their horns in the area, but the driver of the train told CTV he did blow the whistle in an attempt to get the teen's attention.

 

The crossing was also equipped with automated lights and bells that were active at the time, but Durham Regional Police said he was wearing headphones that likely prevented him from hearing the warnings.

 

"If people are able to walk in the area of a train and their music is so loud that they are not able to hear when the arms are going down and the bells are going off, that's problematic," Insp. Dave Saliba told CTV News.

 

The Grade 11 student was taken to an area hospital before being transferred by air ambulance to Toronto's Sunnybrook hospital where he later died.

 

Another teenaged boy suffered a similar fate in Leduc, south of Edmonton on Monday afternoon, when he was struck and killed by a freight train.

 

RCMP believe the boy, whose name and age had not been released at the time of writing, was listening to music that drowned out the noise of the approaching train, its squealing brakes and its horn when he was struck from behind.

 

Emergency responders arrived in time to confirm that he had succumbed to his injuries.

 

According to pedestrian safety guidelines posted on the CN website, children are advised to remove headphones whenever they're near railway tracks.

 

"Do not count on hearing a whistle to warn that a train is coming," CN warns, noting that pedestrians should only try to cross rail lines at designated crossings.

 

The U.S.-based rail safety education group Operation Lifesaver advises pedestrians to avoid all manner of electronic distraction including texting, emailing or even phonecalls when near train tracks.

The group warns that modern trains can extend a metre or more beyond the width of the tracks, and may not give the warning you might expect.

"Today's trains are quieter than ever, and an approaching train is always closer and moving faster than you think," the group said in a statement.

 

A freight train travelling at 80 kph can take almost two kilometres to come to a stop.

[+Moose Mob]

Very Sad.

 

Two strikingly similar tragedies in two very different parts of the country are underscoring the dangers of not being in tune with one's surroundings when walking along train tracks.

 

Sixteen-year-old Jacob Hicks died Monday night, just hours after he was struck by a train in Oshawa, Ont.

 

The train's engineer told CTV News that Hicks appeared to be listening to music and was fixated on a handheld electronic device as he traversed the tracks at a level-crossing.

 

A local bylaw prohibits train crews from using their horns in the area, but the driver of the train told CTV he did blow the whistle in an attempt to get the teen's attention.

 

The crossing was also equipped with automated lights and bells that were active at the time, but Durham Regional Police said he was wearing headphones that likely prevented him from hearing the warnings.

 

"If people are able to walk in the area of a train and their music is so loud that they are not able to hear when the arms are going down and the bells are going off, that's problematic," Insp. Dave Saliba told CTV News.

 

The Grade 11 student was taken to an area hospital before being transferred by air ambulance to Toronto's Sunnybrook hospital where he later died.

 

Another teenaged boy suffered a similar fate in Leduc, south of Edmonton on Monday afternoon, when he was struck and killed by a freight train.

 

RCMP believe the boy, whose name and age had not been released at the time of writing, was listening to music that drowned out the noise of the approaching train, its squealing brakes and its horn when he was struck from behind.

 

Emergency responders arrived in time to confirm that he had succumbed to his injuries.

 

According to pedestrian safety guidelines posted on the CN website, children are advised to remove headphones whenever they're near railway tracks.

 

"Do not count on hearing a whistle to warn that a train is coming," CN warns, noting that pedestrians should only try to cross rail lines at designated crossings.

 

The U.S.-based rail safety education group Operation Lifesaver advises pedestrians to avoid all manner of electronic distraction including texting, emailing or even phonecalls when near train tracks.

The group warns that modern trains can extend a metre or more beyond the width of the tracks, and may not give the warning you might expect.

"Today's trains are quieter than ever, and an approaching train is always closer and moving faster than you think," the group said in a statement.

 

A freight train travelling at 80 kph can take almost two kilometres to come to a stop.

Wow. I think somebody is getting pretty desperate to prove a point.

 

Since this is also the basis for not wearing headphones while driving a car, would this mean that you should use a GPS while driving a car? Walking down the street? trail (can't hear the rattlesnake)?

 

Not paying attention to your surroundings is unsafe. Whether you are rocking out to your favorite music while walking down the tracks or wearing dark shades in a dark room and tripping over a chair. As sad as it is, the kid was not using his common sense and that got him killed. I wouldn't expect the person that sold the headphones to give him a full briefing on when and where to wear them and how loud it was to play it.

[+CanadianRockies]

Lets look at this from the legal perspective. If Groundspeak assumed authority over 'what is safe' and someone gets hurt while seeking it, then Groundspeak now has a liability beacuase the reviewers have deemed that cache as 'safe for seeking'. Not saying that I agree, just saying that it is what it is.

Except that it's not.

 

Not publishing a cache due to safety issues isn't the same as certifying that all published caches are safe (especially when Groundspeak has disclaimers saying the opposite). Just like not publishing a cache due to it being on private property without permission isn't the same as certifying that all published caches on private property have permission.

 

You've noted that you've not published some caches that you've deemed "grossly negligent" and have archived many others solely because you considered them "not a good idea." By doing so, you probably decreased your and Groundspeak's legal liability -- not increased it.

 

If you can cite or link to anything that supports your assertion that judging danger imposes a legal liability, then please make a contribution to this thread. You would be the first to provide such evidence.

[+Moose Mob]

Lets look at this from the legal perspective. If Groundspeak assumed authority over 'what is safe' and someone gets hurt while seeking it, then Groundspeak now has a liability beacuase the reviewers have deemed that cache as 'safe for seeking'. Not saying that I agree, just saying that it is what it is.

Except that it's not.

 

Not publishing a cache due to safety issues isn't the same as certifying that all published caches are safe (especially when Groundspeak has disclaimers saying the opposite). Just like not publishing a cache due to it being on private property without permission isn't the same as certifying that all published caches on private property have permission.

 

You've noted that you've not published some caches that you've deemed "grossly negligent" and have archived many others solely because you considered them "not a good idea." By doing so, you probably decreased your and Groundspeak's legal liability -- not increased it.

 

If you can cite or link to anything that supports your assertion that judging danger imposes a legal liability, then please make a contribution to this thread. You would be the first to provide such evidence.

It seems this is pulling the discussion well onto a tangent that is already being discussed in a different thread. I will go read that thread and I will contribute if needed.

 

As far as this thread, it was asked that a line be drawn to determine what is 'safe' and what isn't. I can only repeat what was said... the line of personal saftey is drawn at the person. You may not agree, but again, you don't have to leave the house either.

 

Groundspeak or the reviewers are not assuming the role to pass judgement on caches to determine if they are safe for you or not. Each person needs to be responsible for their own judgements and not make someone else responsible for their own decisions. There are plenty of warning labels on the cache page.

[Trinity's Crew]

<snip>

Very Sad.

Wow. I think somebody is getting pretty desperate to prove a point.

 

Since this is also the basis for not wearing headphones while driving a car, would this mean that you should use a GPS while driving a car? Walking down the street? trail (can't hear the rattlesnake)?

 

Not paying attention to your surroundings is unsafe. Whether you are rocking out to your favorite music while walking down the tracks or wearing dark shades in a dark room and tripping over a chair. As sad as it is, the kid was not using his common sense and that got him killed. I wouldn't expect the person that sold the headphones to give him a full briefing on when and where to wear them and how loud it was to play it.

+1

Edit: shortened original quoted post.

Edited February 14, 2012 by Trinity's Crew

[Trinity's Crew]

From the other thread...

 

I can back you up on that -- it seems to come up when there is a question about a cache being "too close" to railroad tracks. The guidelines ask for (I believe) 150 feet between a railroad track and any cache. And it has been claimed that the reason for that guideline is that people going too close to railroad tracks are trespassing on that property. Therefore, it is further claimed that the issue with railroad tracks has **NOTHING** to do with the danger of being hit by a train, it is simply about trespassing.

 

That is correct, the issue is related to tresspass, not safety. There have been plenty of caches published within the 150' of active railway lines, providing the cache owner can prove the location is on public property and not on the railway's land.

 

So apparently the cache is ok if it's placed on public land or at least not on railroad property.

[+Mitragorz]

Unfortunately, I don't think there's anyone to blame but the kid. Situational Awareness. Watch what you're doing, plain and simple.

[+Shop99er]

 

Groundspeak or the reviewers are not assuming the role to pass judgement on caches to determine if they are safe for you or not. Each person needs to be responsible for their own judgements and not make someone else responsible for their own decisions. There are plenty of warning labels on the cache page.

 

Sadly, there is a large portion of the population that wants everyone else to be responsible for the mistakes they make, and their safety. I have noticed in the last couple of decades, a real shift to "who can I blame" and away from "well, I was a dumb-butt!"

 

Even worse, these same people will bellow like enraged bulls, if you have the temerity to disagree, or ask them to put on their big-kid skivvies, and grow up.

 

Life is full of risks. We all know that's true.

 

Either take them, with your eyes open, and your mouth shut, or stay home, and get out of the way.

[+hydnsek]

 

Groundspeak or the reviewers are not assuming the role to pass judgement on caches to determine if they are safe for you or not. Each person needs to be responsible for their own judgements and not make someone else responsible for their own decisions. There are plenty of warning labels on the cache page.

 

Sadly, there is a large portion of the population that wants everyone else to be responsible for the mistakes they make, and their safety. I have noticed in the last couple of decades, a real shift to "who can I blame" and away from "well, I was a dumb-butt!"

 

Even worse, these same people will bellow like enraged bulls, if you have the temerity to disagree, or ask them to put on their big-kid skivvies, and grow up.

 

Life is full of risks. We all know that's true.

 

Either take them, with your eyes open, and your mouth shut, or stay home, and get out of the way.

+1

[+AneMae]

Try not to miss the point I was making with that last post (The news article):

 

The U.S.-based rail safety education group Operation Lifesaver advises pedestrians to avoid all manner of electronic distraction including texting, emailing or even phonecalls when near train tracks.

 

The group warns that modern trains can extend a metre or more beyond the width of the tracks, and may not give the warning you might expect.

 

"Today's trains are quieter than ever, and an approaching train is always closer and moving faster than you think," the group said in a statement.

[+Mr.Benchmark]

The group warns that modern trains can extend a metre or more beyond the width of the tracks, and may not give the warning you might expect.

 

 

That is quite a bit closer to the tracks than the cache where you posted NA, isn't it? That one was more like 15-20m, right? Or was your concern private property in that case?

[+Rainbow's Connections]

The "right tools" for your visit were "Needs Maintenance" and "DNF".

 

Touché! That's EXACTLY what I was thinking, especially in light of this comment:

 

(He also went on to point out how he has more finds than me and is therefore more knowledgable about Geocaching- this tells me he is in this for the numbers. Clearly he doesn't care about the quality or state of his own caches.)

 

If he were TRULY interested ONLY in using "the right tools when they are clearly needed" and "expect(s) the basic standard that Groundspeak sets for caches" to be followed, then he would know and follow the "basic standard" that Groundspeak sets for the logging of physical caches:

 

"Physical geocaches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed." (http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=309)

 

and NOT care that the logs before his were accepted by the CO as finds, even though the logbook had not been signed. It seems hypocritical to gripe about some commonly accepted practices (that you don't agree with) while actively using others (that you DO agree with).

 

Really!?! I'd have thunk that the responses here were more towards 'cache cop' than reinforcing your opinion. Oh, well. Different strokes for different folks. Read what you want to, to reinforce your preconceived notions.

 

+2 based on the fact that when an opinion differs from his, it is dismissed with:

 

Time to move on. This is getting a little off topic.

 

Funny, I thought that using the right tools for the right purpose to ensure that the basic standard set by Groundspeak is adhered to WAS the topic. Maybe I'm confused.

 

Elf of Rainbow's Connections

/me dons +7 flame retardant forum armour

Edited February 21, 2012 by Rainbow's Connections

[+TOMTEC]

/me dons +7 flame retardant forum armour

Are you sure +7 is enough? This IS the Groundspeak forums...

 

TOMTEC

[+Rainbow's Connections]

/me dons +7 flame retardant forum armour

Are you sure +7 is enough? This IS the Groundspeak forums...

 

TOMTEC

 

 

Elf