Railroad tracks

July 3, 2012

Hi, I had an idea for a great cache and a location picked out, however I have some questions that I havent seen answered yet.

The location is near a very scenic part of a local creek where the creek merges with a small, nice looking brook.

The issue is that in order to get back there you would need to walk about 1/4 mile down a set of RR tracks. Being that the tracks are owned by the railroad company, is it against the rules to place it there?

Given, I know the walk wouldnt be too thrilling, but the view on the tressle is wonderful, and not a lot of people know about the area.

So, is that frowned upon or against the rules?

One could conceivably walk/swim down the creek and never trespass, but lets be real.

And for what its worth, its not a fast passenger track, its just slow moving freight trains....and in all my time back in there fishing I have only seen 1 train ever run on it (apprx 400-500 hours spent back there throughout my lifetime)

7.3k · July 3, 2012

Hi, I had an idea for a great cache and a location picked out, however I have some questions that I havent seen answered yet.

The location is near a very scenic part of a local creek where the creek merges with a small, nice looking brook.

The issue is that in order to get back there you would need to walk about 1/4 mile down a set of RR tracks. Being that the tracks are owned by the railroad company, is it against the rules to place it there?

Given, I know the walk wouldnt be too thrilling, but the view on the tressle is wonderful, and not a lot of people know about the area.

So, is that frowned upon or against the rules?

One could conceivably walk/swim down the creek and never trespass, but lets be real.

And for what its worth, its not a fast passenger track, its just slow moving freight trains....and in all my time back in there fishing I have only seen 1 train ever run on it (apprx 400-500 hours spent back there throughout my lifetime)

Guidelines:

1.3. Inappropriate or Non-publishable Placements

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

B.

July 3, 2012

And again, for what its worth (not that itd matter), its not a micro or bison or whatever.

Its another custom cache Ive made out of an ammo can that Ive spent about 5 hours on.

So, as far as the 91 caches Ive come across, it would be worth the walk just for the scenery, if not the cache container

July 3, 2012

Hi, I had an idea for a great cache and a location picked out, however I have some questions that I havent seen answered yet.

The location is near a very scenic part of a local creek where the creek merges with a small, nice looking brook.

The issue is that in order to get back there you would need to walk about 1/4 mile down a set of RR tracks. Being that the tracks are owned by the railroad company, is it against the rules to place it there?

Given, I know the walk wouldnt be too thrilling, but the view on the tressle is wonderful, and not a lot of people know about the area.

So, is that frowned upon or against the rules?

One could conceivably walk/swim down the creek and never trespass, but lets be real.

And for what its worth, its not a fast passenger track, its just slow moving freight trains....and in all my time back in there fishing I have only seen 1 train ever run on it (apprx 400-500 hours spent back there throughout my lifetime)

Guidelines:

1.3. Inappropriate or Non-publishable Placements

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

B.

Gotcha, thanks for that

Darn!

July 3, 2012

It would be frowned upon then to say one would need a canoe or tube to reach the cache and leave the tracks up to them, I assume?

I guess Im gonna scratch that idea then. Thats too bad, its such a neat spot

July 3, 2012

•The cache is on property belonging to a railroad. In the United States we generally require a distance of 150 ft (46 m) from active tracks. Local laws may vary

The rule states 150 feet from the tracks but can we cross them if the cache is more then 150 feet on the other side...

I know of a few caches here that we HAVE to cross the tracks to get to them, there are no other ways to get to them...

7.3k · July 3, 2012

It would be frowned upon then to say one would need a canoe or tube to reach the cache and leave the tracks up to them, I assume?

I guess Im gonna scratch that idea then. Thats too bad, its such a neat spot.

I understand that the Reviewers check maps during the review process. If there is a live railroad, I'm sure it will appear on the maps, and be obvious to the Reviewer.

If there's an alternative method of reaching the cache location, then that would be good information to include in the cache submission page.

But I wouldn't try to dupe a Reviewer.

B.

Edited July 3, 2012 by Pup Patrol

1.4k · July 3, 2012

The issue is that in order to get back there you would need to walk about 1/4 mile down a set of RR tracks. Being that the tracks are owned by the railroad company, is it against the rules to place it there?
Given, I know the walk wouldnt be too thrilling, but the view on the tressle is wonderful, and not a lot of people know about the area.

Around here the RR security have been handing out tickets to people walking down the tracks, or crossing the tressles. It doesn't seem to slow down the number of people I see there.

Every few months I read in the papers about someone getting killed by slow moving freight trains, because they were walking down the tracks.

July 3, 2012

Yeah, I dont wanna try to go about this by any shady means, so Im gonna scratch the idea.

It really is a wonderful little spot though.

I just wanted some input about it before I put any more thought in to it.

And yeah, I dont want to put anybody in harms way.

Im not even sure if they're still active tracks, but thats irrelevent.

Thanks for the input, guys and gals

2.6k · July 3, 2012

Would it be absolutely necessary to place the cache on the railroad trestle? Could you place it a couple hundred feet away, on the creek bank somewhere, and still have a nice view? As long as you place it the prescribed distance away from railroad property, it's beyond your control how people choose to get there.

July 3, 2012

The cache wouldnt have been on the trestle, but you wouldve needed to walk over it to get there...and it appears that wont work.

Im on my phone, so I cant get the GPS coordinates, but if you want to get an idea of the place its in Beloit WI (on the IL stateline, in the center)...off Colley rd where Turtle creek runs under it, follow creek south until you see trestle. The brook is right there, just hard to see from satelite

38.2k · July 3, 2012

It would be frowned upon then to say one would need a canoe or tube to reach the cache and leave the tracks up to them, I assume?

I guess Im gonna scratch that idea then. Thats too bad, its such a neat spot

Is RR track the only way to access it? If it is far enough away from the tracks and there are alternate approaches, even if a long hike, then you'd be good to go.

1.3k · July 3, 2012

Here?

N 42° 30.221′ W 089° 00.440′

If so, it appears that there might not be an approach besides the train tracks which isn't on private property.

Too bad -- looks nice.

July 3, 2012

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC3K75D

Check out this cache...he even tells you to park at the tracks and they are high speed freight tracks...

The road actually ends at the tracks....CNR dug a ditch about 15 feet deep on both sides of the tracks....

4X4`s and ATV have tried to cross to no avail.....CN police have handed out tickets....

Edited July 3, 2012 by choochoo1996

14k · July 4, 2012

And again, for what its worth (not that itd matter), its not a micro or bison or whatever.

Its another custom cache Ive made out of an ammo can that Ive spent about 5 hours on.

So, as far as the 91 caches Ive come across, it would be worth the walk just for the scenery, if not the cache container

The quality of the container does not matter, as far as the review process goes. Reviewers don't, nor should they, review for cache quality. A cache isn't more likely going to be published if it's a gold plated ammo can nor less likely to be published if it's fast food chain receipt stuff in a glad bad and tossed in a bush.

The issue is that a cache can't be placed within 150' of active RR tracks. It seems to me that if the cache is not on private property and can be accessed via a public right of way (which is often the case for a navigable stream bed) and it's more that 150' from the tracks that it might not violate any guidelines. Still, it might just be asking from trouble to expect that nobody is going to walk down the RR tracks to get to it.

The location sounds somewhat like a spot along the Noyo river near Ft. Bragg, California. I have relatives that own property along the river and close to the RR tracks that run over the hills inland. I walked down those tracks many years ago until I got to a trestle over the river then went down and caught a nice steelhead.

July 4, 2012

N 42° 30.221′ W 089° 00.440′

Yes, thats it! Thanks for that, Frinklabs

NYpaddle

I said that moreso to defend myself before the definate onslaught of eyerolls and so forth about bad placements and poor cache containers.

There are 2 routes, both are on the tracks, both are on colley road (the tracks make a turn). Athough, I suppose an attribute needing special equipment (canoe, helicopter) could circumvent things. I just dont wanna cause issues for folks...cachers or reviewers

Edited July 4, 2012 by Mushroom420

July 4, 2012

Our store is across the street (state hwy) from a track - and people continually try to set up watermelon stands, flag sales, etc on the catty corner from us. The RR keeps chasing them away, so I know they don't want them on their property.

July 4, 2012

JI know that it doesnt change anything, but RR men arent out in these parts. Ever since General Motors closed shop 2 years ago (Janesville WI) there are hardly any trains that even run through town these days. Ive spent a lot of time, mostly in my youth, but some as an adult, walking tracks and whatnot and have never come across an employee(except engineers running their rigs).

Im sure theyre out near the railyards, but the nearest one is 15 miles from here.

Again, I know that doesnt change things, but that isnt much of an issue around here.

But yeah, I dont want my cache seekers (and future favorite point designators, lol) to be put in any compromising positions

19k · July 4, 2012

It isn't only against the guidelines, but it is against the law. I know that most of us (those of us that were boys or tomboys, at any rate) considered RR tracks to be our own playground when we were kids, but in more recent years, the railroads have taken a very serious stance against trespassing. Simply walking the tracks as you suggest could get you charged with trespassing. In fact, it is the trespass laws that are the basis for the geocaching guideline in the first place, not safety.

I agree that its a shame in your case, because that does look like a nice spot for a cache.

July 4, 2012

Thanks, Chad.

I still really enjoy that spot, and its great for Smallmouth Bass and Buffalo, so I suppose Im gonna keep being an outlaw when I go for my treks

That's unfortunate that it's against the law to walk the tracks. I had no idea it was such an issue with the RR folk.

6.1k · July 4, 2012

If its not on the RR property I would write it up as a paddle-to multi, which would be fine. Place stages in places where a boat could quickly access each part, but would be extremely long or difficult PITA for someone hiking. How you access to hide or check on it is your business.

2.6k · July 4, 2012

A while back I found a magnetic key holder that was actually on a live track. However, it was right at the end of a dead end spur but there were cars parked only about a hundred yards away or so. The spur terminated about 50 feet from crossing a road. There were no barriers or stops on the spur, either. Still an active cache, I don't know how this one got published. I didn't think it was unsafe, though.

GC199QG, "Whistle Stop"

.http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=4903679b-fa18-489a-adef-cfdc2dd6c5ea

July 4, 2012

Thats not a bad idea at all.

Id just really hate for a fellow cacher to be put in a bad spot due to my desire to bring people there.

....and while the area is great, the true treat is seeing it all from atop the trestle.

You look north and its Turtle Creek with tranquil Spring Brook gently flowing in to it, along with a green pasture to compliment it all. Turn around and look south and you're treated to gentle rapids and a beaver hut, along with some cool looking misc log jams. (No pun)

I wouldnt be able to tell folks to walk around and get up to the trestle and enjoy the view...

So, dang, oh well I guess.....win some, lose some

July 4, 2012

And on the tracks on the way there, there is a horse stable and the horses always come to the fence and check out what you're up to. They have a bunch of baby horses there alot, too (colts??)

For being plain ol' RR tracks that hardly anybody knows about (to my knowledge) its actually a pretty bitchin' chunk of the USA

Not to mention, they're flanked by the creek on the other side.

Edited July 4, 2012 by Mushroom420

7.8k · July 4, 2012

Place stages in places where a boat could quickly access each part, but would be extremely long or difficult PITA for someone hiking.

It doesn't matter how much of a PITA it is to get to it over land, some will do it.

July 4, 2012

I know this is waaaaay off topic, but I cant find my answer and its not worth another thread.

How do I search for local caches by keywords. Say all caches with the keyword "cemetery" within 50 miles of 53511.

I cant believe I havent figured this out yet.

Sorry and thank you

7.8k · July 4, 2012

I know this is waaaaay off topic, but I cant find my answer and its not worth another thread.

How do I search for local caches by keywords. Say all caches with the keyword "cemetery" within 50 miles of 53511.

I cant believe I havent figured this out yet.

Sorry and thank you

At the moment, you can't. The only way would be to download all caches within that 50 mile area into something like GSAK and do a search there. What you're looking for has been suggested before, but it hasn't yet materialized.

July 4, 2012

Thanks, Mr T.

That's too bad....both my subjects in this thread

1.2k · July 4, 2012

I think you could maybe park at the power station of Colley RD and follow the stream. Staying on that side of the stream you should be far enough off and still in the same general area.

6.1k · July 4, 2012

Place stages in places where a boat could quickly access each part, but would be extremely long or difficult PITA for someone hiking.

It doesn't matter how much of a PITA it is to get to it over land, some will do it.

Only the FTFers might.

Plus, they would not be absolutely certain the other stages would be land accessible.

July 4, 2012

I think you could maybe park at the power station of Colley RD and follow the stream. Staying on that side of the stream you should be far enough off and still in the same general area.

Good eye, bud!

The only problem is that they would need to get across the brook to get near the trestle...unless I hid it on the north side of the brook.

Its funny hearing strangers talk about my home area :anitongue:

edit...upon looking further that MAY work. If you look closely theres a fence along the creek (triangle shaped) and as long as theres room between the fence and trees I could place it back there....

Thoughts, folks?

Edited July 4, 2012 by Mushroom420

July 4, 2012

Mushroom420,

You don't need to give up on you cache placement. It can be accessed by boat only on the river. There are lots of caches that are landlocked which can only be legally accessed by boat. Keep in mind that it would be likely to have less visitors due to the restraints of access.

One thing that you definitely need to consider is if the location away from the tracks is actually on public property. If it is landlocked as you mention, most surrounding property is likely to be private.

1.2k · July 4, 2012

Mushroom420,

You don't need to give up on you cache placement. It can be accessed by boat only on the river. There are lots of caches that are landlocked which can only be legally accessed by boat. Keep in mind that it would be likely to have less visitors due to the restraints of access.

One thing that you definitely need to consider is if the location away from the tracks is actually on public property. If it is landlocked as you mention, most surrounding property is likely to be private.

If it's still within 150 it's still trespassing.

1.2k · July 4, 2012

I think you could maybe park at the power station of Colley RD and follow the stream. Staying on that side of the stream you should be far enough off and still in the same general area.

Good eye, bud!

The only problem is that they would need to get across the brook to get near the trestle...unless I hid it on the north side of the brook.

Its funny hearing strangers talk about my home area

edit...upon looking further that MAY work. If you look closely theres a fence along the creek (triangle shaped) and as long as theres room between the fence and trees I could place it back there....

Thoughts, folks?

I suggest staying to the north side of the brook. This way it is not within the rail right of way, and thus no issues with trespassing on their property. The question then becomes about the electric company property. I've done quite a few behind stations like this and as long as you stay outside the gate (and don't park right in front of the gate) it's usually okay. But if there are signs then I wouldn't go forward.

July 4, 2012

Alrighty, thanks alot, folks.

I'll go down and check it out here in a few days when it cools off a bit

14k · July 5, 2012

I think you could maybe park at the power station of Colley RD and follow the stream. Staying on that side of the stream you should be far enough off and still in the same general area.

Good eye, bud!

The only problem is that they would need to get across the brook to get near the trestle...unless I hid it on the north side of the brook.

Its funny hearing strangers talk about my home area

edit...upon looking further that MAY work. If you look closely theres a fence along the creek (triangle shaped) and as long as theres room between the fence and trees I could place it back there....

Thoughts, folks?

Since you describe the waterway as a brook it sounds like it's not navigable by boat.

Whenever there have been discussions about other caches where private property might be an issue one of the suggestions is to make the cache a multi so that you can "direct" finders to follow a specific route to the cache. You might consider that option for this location. Yes, it won't get found as often and it wouldn't be the easiest route to the cache but a multi stage cache to a very scenic location will get a reputation as a must do cache and will get a high percentage of favorite points. The way I see it, there are already a *lot* of caches that are easy to get to and easy to find and there's always room for a challenging multi that might take a few hours to get to and find.

July 5, 2012

If you look from the google map theres a creek which is canoe and tube accessable, and the little brook which is not.

Not a bad suggestion, just gotta go in person and check it out

July 5, 2012

If you follow the trail to MD's oldest cache, you have to cross active railroad tracks to reach it.

July 5, 2012

Obviously if you walk the RR tracks (or any part of the right-of-way), you could be cited for tresspassing. Well you can cross a track on foot or by vehicle at a marked crossing, but what if you are simple crossing at another spot?

July 5, 2012

and what if the cache is within 150 feet of the tracks, but there is a creek between the rails and the placement?

Does the 150 ft rule still stand?...since the RR people cannot own the water.

14k · July 5, 2012

and what if the cache is within 150 feet of the tracks, but there is a creek between the rails and the placement?

Does the 150 ft rule still stand?...since the RR people cannot own the water.

First of all, I believe that the 150 ft. rule is more of a guideline, and probably a *minimum". Depending on the RR a review might require explicit permission from the RR company if that cache is some distance greater than 150 ft.

You'll probably find exceptions to the 150 ft. guideline, but I suspect that, today, you'd probably have to demonstrate that there is a significant physical barrier between the RR tracks and the cache *and* get explicit permission from the RR company.

One of the first caches I tried to place was actually in a frequently used town park that was accessible by driving across some infrequently used RR tracks (twice a day) into a parking lot. The small park was at the edge of a local lake and it's theoretically possible to approach it by boat. When I submitted the listing the cache location was about 130' from the tracks and even though there was a physical barrier (the parking lot) between the tracks and the cache the reviewer asked for explicit permission both from the RR company *and* the town park manager. I could have moved it closer to the waters edge (and further from the tracks) but never pursued the issue. In reality, I seriously doubt that the cache would ever have caused a problem, but I understand that a reviewer ought to bend over backwards to make absolutely sure that a cache place "close" to RR tracks won't jeopardize the game.

July 5, 2012

NYPaddle, punch the coordinates listed above into google maps and take a look at what im talking about.

The tracks are on the west side of the creek, the new idea is placement on the east side of the creek, possibly within 150ft of the tracks, but public land (the creek) is between the two points. The RR folks would not own the land on the east side of the creek. So, I guess Im asking if the creek being there would nullify the 150ft guideline.

Thanks in advance and thanks for the continuing assistance with this specific issue

Edit...upon further looking at the map the same situation applies with the east/west tracks with the brook between the two points.

My new placement idea would be on the north east section of the creek/brook junction

Edited July 5, 2012 by Mushroom420

July 5, 2012

If it's still within 150 it's still trespassing.

Not necessarily. Most railroads do not own all the land within 150 feet of the track. I know of one located only 25 +/- feet from an active railroad track on City property. There is a fence between the cache and the tracks making it safe to visit.

July 5, 2012

and what if the cache is within 150 feet of the tracks, but there is a creek between the rails and the placement?

Does the 150 ft rule still stand?...since the RR people cannot own the water.

First of all, I believe that the 150 ft. rule is more of a guideline, and probably a *minimum". Depending on the RR a review might require explicit permission from the RR company if that cache is some distance greater than 150 ft.

You'll probably find exceptions to the 150 ft. guideline, but I suspect that, today, you'd probably have to demonstrate that there is a significant physical barrier between the RR tracks and the cache *and* get explicit permission from the RR company.

One of the first caches I tried to place was actually in a frequently used town park that was accessible by driving across some infrequently used RR tracks (twice a day) into a parking lot. The small park was at the edge of a local lake and it's theoretically possible to approach it by boat. When I submitted the listing the cache location was about 130' from the tracks and even though there was a physical barrier (the parking lot) between the tracks and the cache the reviewer asked for explicit permission both from the RR company *and* the town park manager. I could have moved it closer to the waters edge (and further from the tracks) but never pursued the issue. In reality, I seriously doubt that the cache would ever have caused a problem, but I understand that a reviewer ought to bend over backwards to make absolutely sure that a cache place "close" to RR tracks won't jeopardize the game.

I don't think you should have needed the RR companies permission (park manager's, yes) if the cache was not on their property. By having a rail crossing they are already giving you permission to cross the tracks. You can cross tracks by car/bike if it is a proper rail crossing. A reviewer should not disallow a cache because you have to cross tracks to get to it if it is a proper, legal rail crossing.

The town I grew up in had tracks through the middle of it and most of the crossing are on grade and they include pedestrian / sidewalk crossings.

If you couldn't have a cache where you might cross tracks, half the town would be off limits.

July 5, 2012

Could I email a local reviewer and give them the coordinates and ask them how they'd rule the placement? Or is that bad form to do so?

14k · July 5, 2012

Could I email a local reviewer and give them the coordinates and ask them how they'd rule the placement? Or is that bad form to do so?

Not at all. I suspect that most reviewers would appreciate the initiative you take to ensure that's a viable location before submitting a listing. I'd take lots of photos from various angles which indicate distances between where you want to hide the cache, private property, etc.

July 5, 2012

I just walked back there to scope out the possible new locale.

Meh, its nothing special from this angle. Plus you gotta walk thru waist high grass and burrs to get back there. I snapped a few pics if ya'll wanna see this angle (and from the ground).

dadgum near had heat stroke walking this. 105 and all sun..urg, that was rough.

Plus were in a drought, so the creek and brook are really, really low and the new, exposed bank doesnt look as nice as it usually does.

Edited July 5, 2012 by Mushroom420

July 5, 2012

Here is the view of the power station from Colley rd

here is the trestle from ground level, across the brook...and the junction

and the brook from the ground...which is way low

14k · July 5, 2012

If it's still within 150 it's still trespassing.

Not necessarily. Most railroads do not own all the land within 150 feet of the track. I know of one located only 25 +/- feet from an active railroad track on City property. There is a fence between the cache and the tracks making it safe to visit.

Trespassing isn't the only issue here. There are many places where a road goes over a creek/stream where the stream bed may be publicly accessible (many states have laws which allow public access to stream beds if the waterway is determined to be navigable). However, if that bridge is determined to be a "sensitive location" because it's a major road the private property issue would be irrelevant.

7.9k · July 5, 2012

I just walked back there to scope out the possible new locale.

Meh, its nothing special from this angle. Plus you gotta walk thru waist high grass and burrs to get back there. I snapped a few pics if ya'll wanna see this angle (and from the ground).

dadgum near had heat stroke walking this. 105 and all sun..urg, that was rough.

Plus were in a drought, so the creek and brook are really, really low and the new, exposed bank doesnt look as nice as it usually does.

Looks like a nice area, and I would trade 20-30 parking-lot lampskirt finds for one in that area (out of view of the sub-station).

If it was me, I would post the co-ordinates for the nearest parking, state that the cache should be accessed via the waterways, also state that any logs describing access via the railroad bridge will be deleted, and let the seekers make up their own minds how they want to get to the cache.

As a benchmark hunter, I have walked and driven along railroad tracks for many miles, and I have yet to be given any grief from railroad workers. Still, you can't (and I wouldn't) suggest walking over the bridge.

P.S. Here's a picture of a TRESTLE.

Railroad tracks

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment