Jump to content

LEGAL PLACES TO HIDE CACHES


geokman
Followers 1

Recommended Posts

Can you hide a geocache near railroad tracks that are still being used?

 

The bigger question you should ask is "can you hide a cache without reading the guidelines".

 

On the home page, click on "play" and then on "hide a cache". Read that through a couple times before you try to hide a cache. It will save you a lot of headaches later. :)

Link to comment

It's a case by case basis. If you put it in the woods 30 feet from railroad tracks... Probably not. But you could presumably get past the 150 ft guidelines. For example, hide it 80 feet away in the parking lot of a train stop. It would be very unlikely for someone to think it is on the otherside of the fence that they put up at all the stops (Which are too costly to put along the entire railroad line).

Link to comment

It's a case by case basis. If you put it in the woods 30 feet from railroad tracks... Probably not. But you could presumably get past the 150 ft guidelines. For example, hide it 80 feet away in the parking lot of a train stop. It would be very unlikely for someone to think it is on the otherside of the fence that they put up at all the stops (Which are too costly to put along the entire railroad line).

 

Is that what the Guidelines say?

 

No, I don't think so.

 

Is it a good idea to lead a new cacher astray with bad information?

 

No, I don't think so.

 

 

 

B.

Edited by Pup Patrol
Link to comment

It's a case by case basis. If you put it in the woods 30 feet from railroad tracks... Probably not. But you could presumably get past the 150 ft guidelines. For example, hide it 80 feet away in the parking lot of a train stop. It would be very unlikely for someone to think it is on the otherside of the fence that they put up at all the stops (Which are too costly to put along the entire railroad line).

 

Is that what the Guidelines say?

 

No, I don't think so.

 

 

B.

No, but the guidelines are that. A guideline, not a set in stone rule. I've seen a few caches in my area published like that. Every reviewer interprets them differently.

Link to comment
Is that what the Guidelines say?

 

No, I don't think so.

 

Is it a good idea to lead a new cacher astray with bad information?

 

No, I don't think so.

Coldgears didn't provide the best example, but I don't think he's lead the OP astray with bad information. I'm assuming that Coldgears meant caches can't ordinarily be placed within 150 feet of train tracks for safety reasons (cachers might wander onto or walk along the tracks) and for permission reasons (the tracks are private property), but they can be placed in a safe place as long as permission is given even if that place happens to be within 150 of railroad tracks.

 

A better example than Coldgears: there's a tourist attraction in Craigellachie, BC where the last spike of the CPR was hammered in. There is a gift shop and a monument there, which is only a few feet away from the tracks, separated by a fence. A cache near the gift shop or on the monument would probably be allowed with permission from the owners of the attraction, even though it would be within 150 of the tracks. My friend went there with his family a few years ago and let me use his photos to help illustrate this. The gift shop is in the background of the first photo.

 

3JGvb.jpg

 

Vq90X.jpg

Edited by Ambient_Skater
Link to comment
Is that what the Guidelines say?

 

No, I don't think so.

 

Is it a good idea to lead a new cacher astray with bad information?

 

No, I don't think so.

Coldgears didn't provide the best example, but I don't think he's lead the OP astray with bad information. I'm assuming that Coldgears meant caches can't ordinarily be placed within 150 feet of train tracks for safety reasons (cachers might wander onto or walk along the tracks) and for permission reasons (the tracks are private property), but they can be placed in a safe place as long as permission is given even if that place happens to be within 150 of railroad tracks.

 

 

Safety is not the reason caches are not allowed near RR tracks, it's a private property issue. Therefore both active and inactive tracks are against the guideline if they are RR property. Including photos of unused tracks with grass growing between the ties means nothing to a reviewer. Show the reviewer where the RR gave up title to the property and it is now public land. If you don't have that, whether or not the tracks are active is irrelevant.

 

The only exception to the guideline that I've seen, and one that I might grant as a reviewer, is when there is a public park that abuts RR tracks and is NOT RR property. Even then I'd want to see a fence or some other significant barrier that would prevent searchers from accidentally wandering onto RR property. Of course things change if you can obtain express permission from the RR, but good luck with that one.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment
Is that what the Guidelines say?

 

No, I don't think so.

 

Is it a good idea to lead a new cacher astray with bad information?

 

No, I don't think so.

Coldgears didn't provide the best example, but I don't think he's lead the OP astray with bad information. I'm assuming that Coldgears meant caches can't ordinarily be placed within 150 feet of train tracks for safety reasons (cachers might wander onto or walk along the tracks) and for permission reasons (the tracks are private property), but they can be placed in a safe place as long as permission is given even if that place happens to be within 150 of railroad tracks.

 

 

Safety is not the reason caches are not allowed near RR tracks, it's a private property issue. Therefore both active and inactive tracks are against the guideline if they are RR property. Including photos of unused tracks with grass growing between the ties means nothing to a reviewer. Show the reviewer where the RR gave up title to the property and it is now public land. If you don't have that, whether or not the tracks are active is irrelevant.

 

The only exception to the guideline that I've seen, and one that I might grant as a reviewer, is when there is a public park that abuts RR tracks and is NOT RR property. Even then I'd want to see a fence or some other significant barrier that would prevent searchers from accidentally wandering onto RR property. Of course things change if you can obtain express permission from the RR, but good luck with that one.

Thank you. You saved from having to post that again for the the fourth or fifth time this month.

Link to comment

I know of a cache that was archived for being on an old RR bridge that didn't even have rails anymore and hadn't been used in over 40 years.

 

I also know of a cache in Pennsylvania that is well within 100 feet of a very active RR. (I'll see if I can find it).

 

It has to do with tresspassing not safety. How many times do you have to cross a RR to get to and from your cache hunts or work or the store? That is dangerous as well, but it's legal to cross there. It's illegal to be on RR property elsewhere. It's that simple.

Link to comment

Look at GC3AMDQ and then click to the satellite map to get a better view of the location. This one is hidden on the RR overpass of an active RR line going to a coal mine. The road goes under the RR at this location. The reviewer didn't do his homework very well when he approved this one. Also note it was marked "needs archived" on 02/12/12 with no action by the reviewer. Being very familiar with the RR and mine they do not approve of trespassers and will prosecute.

Link to comment
Is that what the Guidelines say?

 

No, I don't think so.

 

Is it a good idea to lead a new cacher astray with bad information?

 

No, I don't think so.

Coldgears didn't provide the best example, but I don't think he's lead the OP astray with bad information. I'm assuming that Coldgears meant caches can't ordinarily be placed within 150 feet of train tracks for safety reasons (cachers might wander onto or walk along the tracks) and for permission reasons (the tracks are private property), but they can be placed in a safe place as long as permission is given even if that place happens to be within 150 of railroad tracks.

 

A better example than Coldgears: there's a tourist attraction in Craigellachie, BC where the last spike of the CPR was hammered in. There is a gift shop and a monument there, which is only a few feet away from the tracks, separated by a fence. A cache near the gift shop or on the monument would probably be allowed with permission from the owners of the attraction, even though it would be within 150 of the tracks. My friend went there with his family a few years ago and let me use his photos to help illustrate this. The gift shop is in the background of the first photo.

 

Yes, you are exactly correct, and your example is even better than mine! :)

 

And unlike the other guy who quoted you, I disagree with safety to playing an issue. Most lamp post and guard rail caches, are on private property without permission. The difference? The railroad people will arrest people for trespassing, because of the danger, and shopping malls don't care less because there is no danger.

 

It may not be direct, but it does play a part, indirectly.

Link to comment
Is that what the Guidelines say?

 

No, I don't think so.

 

Is it a good idea to lead a new cacher astray with bad information?

 

No, I don't think so.

Coldgears didn't provide the best example, but I don't think he's lead the OP astray with bad information. I'm assuming that Coldgears meant caches can't ordinarily be placed within 150 feet of train tracks for safety reasons (cachers might wander onto or walk along the tracks) and for permission reasons (the tracks are private property), but they can be placed in a safe place as long as permission is given even if that place happens to be within 150 of railroad tracks.

 

A better example than Coldgears: there's a tourist attraction in Craigellachie, BC where the last spike of the CPR was hammered in. There is a gift shop and a monument there, which is only a few feet away from the tracks, separated by a fence. A cache near the gift shop or on the monument would probably be allowed with permission from the owners of the attraction, even though it would be within 150 of the tracks. My friend went there with his family a few years ago and let me use his photos to help illustrate this. The gift shop is in the background of the first photo.

 

Yes, you are exactly correct, and your example is even better than mine! :)

 

And unlike the other guy who quoted you, I disagree with safety to playing an issue. Most lamp post and guard rail caches, are on private property without permission. The difference? The railroad people will arrest people for trespassing, because of the danger, and shopping malls don't care less because there is no danger.

 

It may not be direct, but it does play a part, indirectly.

 

No. Briansnat is a mod and if I remember correctly is or has been a reviewer. His word carries a lot more weight than your opinion on his word. Multiple reviewers have said the same thing time and time again. Caches get archived all the time when reviewers find our they're on private property. If you find one and you have a problem with it, alert the reviewer.

Link to comment

And unlike the other guy who quoted you, I disagree with safety to playing an issue. Most lamp post and guard rail caches, are on private property without permission. The difference? The railroad people will arrest people for trespassing, because of the danger, and shopping malls don't care less because there is no danger.

 

It may not be direct, but it does play a part, indirectly.

 

"The other guy"? Do you mean Briansnat, the moderator?

 

Regardless, it's rude to refer to someone as "that other guy", whether they are a moderator or not. Take the 3 seconds and copy&paste their username if that's the only way you can show a little respect by using a name instead of a rude phrase like "the other guy".

 

Seriously, how many times does it need to be stated that the issue is "private property" and not safety? It must have been stated a few thousand times by now, so I'm not sure why the message is not getting through.

Link to comment

I didn't look at the username, and I certainly did not say "the other guy" as some sort of disrespect. I don't really look at username's unless it's important, an opinion is an opinion regardless of who it's from.

 

Either way, you guys missed my point.

 

Groundspeak doesn't ban railroad caches for danger, I get this. However, the reason railroads are considered trespassing (IE: you are banned from going there) is because of the danger inherently there.

 

It is indirect.

 

You missed the point.

Link to comment

The issue is "compliance with all applicable laws" including trespassing laws.

 

Some laws are enacted for the purpose of protecting the public safety. Therefore, when requiring that geocache placements comply with all applicable laws, safety is sometimes a side benefit. As a reviewer I don't think about safety expressly when deciding how to deal with a cache listing, but it's not like I'm "anti-safety" either.

Link to comment

There has to be some commom sense here.

 

All lamp post caches are on (within) private property. (lets not nit pick about lamp posts on gov property) While the parking lot by providing access to establishments doing commerce carries with it a consent of access to the general public, it is withing the rights of the owner to restrict access to the lot if that access is not for the purpose of partonage or support of those establishments.

 

In the strictest application of the lot owners rights any security gaurd could have you escorted out of the parking lot if they see you lifting a lamp post skirt. Note: I am an avid skirt lifter! Cachers are not interfering with access to establishments or damaging property enough to represent a safety or economic risk so as to come to the attention of law or security enforcement.

 

Public access to a RR right-of-way could be a significant risk to public safety or represent a possiblity of economic significant economic loss to the rail operators if access results in any question as to the condition of equipment of rails. The easiest and most cost effective way to ensure that there is no issue is to prohibit public access to RR right-of-ways except at controlled crossing points. Yes it is all about safety and money!

 

Other than above, caches are placed in areas that are private property all the time. It is the responsibility of the hider and the reviewers to try to prevent this. I have found many that are on private property and will notify the local reviewer if there could be any issue or make the find and ignore the issue if there is no "common sense" reason to be concerned.

 

Cache on!

Edited by klipsch49er
Link to comment

There has to be some commom sense here.

 

All lamp post caches are on (within) private property. (lets not nit pick about lamp posts on gov property) While the parking lot by providing access to establishments doing commerce carries with it a consent of access to the general public, it is withing the rights of the owner to restrict access to the lot if that access is not for the purpose of partonage or support of those establishments.

 

In the strictest application of the lot owners rights any security gaurd could have you escorted out of the parking lot if they see you lifting a lamp post skirt. Note: I am an avid skirt lifter! Cachers are not interfering with access to establishments or damaging property enough to represent a safety or economic risk so as to come to the attention of law or security enforcement.

 

Public access to a RR right-of-way could be a significant risk to public safety or represent a possiblity of economic significant economic loss to the rail operators if access results in any question as to the condition of equipment of rails. The easiest and most cost effective way to ensure that there is no issue is to prohibit public access to RR right-of-ways except at controlled crossing points. Yes it is all about safety and money!

 

Other than above, caches are placed in areas that are private property all the time. It is the responsibility of the hider and the reviewers to try to prevent this. I have found many that are on private property and will notify the local reviewer if there could be any issue or make the find and ignore the issue if there is no "common sense" reason to be concerned.

 

Cache on!

 

Okay, comic sans has to be the worst font ever (It's the only font people have ever actually tried to boycott.)

 

Anyway, thanks for helping me prove my point. I mentioned this in my second post (Before I had to clarify it). But I didn't do a good job explaining what I meant completely. Thanks.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 1
×
×
  • Create New...