Jump to content

Why a 150ft standoff rule for caches near Rail Roads?


Glenn

Recommended Posts

What do you think is the reason for the 150ft standoff rule for caches near Rail Roads when cache in other "dangerous" places are accepted. I don't see a specific standoff rule for places like archery ranges or lamp posts. It wouldn't make sense if it was a safety issue because arrows are faster and quieter than trains. You can't even see electricity and when you feel it is too late. It wouldn't make sense if it was permissions issue because I doubt any one who owns an archery range would allow geocaching on the range. What do you believe is the reason for specifically mentioning Rail Road tracks in the guidelines?

Link to comment

Because Railroad companies don't permit anything on their property period. They are also subject to very strict regulations and they don't need to be bothered with games of any sort. Railroads are vital to national transport and national security and little packages hidden about the tracks and stations would cause some alarm and, from Grounspeak's perspective, bad press and poor public relations. But I suspect that the biggest reason is just that it's a safety factor, and it wouldn't have been too long before someone actually put one on the tracks and hiked up the difficulty level thinking it was okay.

Link to comment

The only felony conviction of a cache owner for a cache placement in the U.S. was for a cache on a railroad right-of-way (only one that I know about). This happened fairly early in the history of geocaching, and lead to the railroad right-of-way exclusion. It's illegal. Safety per se is not a guideline issue.

 

150 feet is a suggestion, based on the standard right-of-way width in a lot of the U.S. It's not enforced as "150 feet", it's enforced as the width of the railroad property. Where the available maps don't make it clear, a reviewer will use 150 feet. If it's clear the the property only extends 50 feet from the track, and a cache is placed 52 feet from the track, that could be published.

 

edit speeling

Edited by Isonzo Karst
Link to comment

What do you think is the reason for the 150ft standoff rule for caches near Rail Roads when cache in other "dangerous" places are accepted. I don't see a specific standoff rule for places like archery ranges or lamp posts. It wouldn't make sense if it was a safety issue because arrows are faster and quieter than trains. You can't even see electricity and when you feel it is too late. It wouldn't make sense if it was permissions issue because I doubt any one who owns an archery range would allow geocaching on the range. What do you believe is the reason for specifically mentioning Rail Road tracks in the guidelines?

Railroad property is Private Property, so anyone placing or looking for a cache on the railroad right of way is tresspassing and that is illegal!

I suspect the 150 rule is to help prevent people for breaking the law, since we need to respect no tresspassing laws.

Link to comment

I think (IMHO) that the rule gets more strictly applied in some cases though. I had a cache rejected because it was less then 150 feet from the tracks, but it was clearly on city owned property, next to a sidewalk/bike trail that followed the tracks but were still less then 150 feet. But then I also have one that is closer to the tracks, also on city property but on the other side of a fence. So basically I don't have a point because I've been on both sides of the issue... so just ignore this. Drat, I really wanted to make a great point about the unfairness of it all.

Link to comment

I think (IMHO) that the rule gets more strictly applied in some cases though. I had a cache rejected because it was less then 150 feet from the tracks, but it was clearly on city owned property, next to a sidewalk/bike trail that followed the tracks but were still less then 150 feet. But then I also have one that is closer to the tracks, also on city property but on the other side of a fence. So basically I don't have a point because I've been on both sides of the issue... so just ignore this. Drat, I really wanted to make a great point about the unfairness of it all.

 

If it is truely city property, then the railroad trespassing laws obviously don't apply. But be prepared to prove to your reviewer that the land really is city (or otherwise not railroad) property.

 

I went through that when I first started to hide caches. There was a paved city walking path and chainlink fence separating the cache from the railroad. Once I provided photos, the cache was approved, but not until then.

Link to comment

The only felony conviction of a cache owner for a cache placement in the U.S. was for a cache on a railroad right-of-way (only one that I know about). This happened fairly early in the history of geocaching, and lead to the railroad right-of-way exclusion. It's illegal. Safety per se is not a guideline issue.

 

 

It was this incident.

 

Hillwilly was given a fairly stiff sentence, and forbidden by the judge to hide any more caches.

 

Hi, this is Hillwilly and Di the cachers that put out Tunnel Vision 1909 on August 30, 2001. GC1A1C. The cache was placed 100-150 feet of the actual tunnel entrance. We didn't know about the 150' on either side of the RR property was private. Nothing was posted anywhere. This is quite a rural area. This is just across the border in California, for we live just a few miles across the border in Central Oregon, in Keno, Oregon.Spray paint was painted on a rock by the cache so the hillside wouldn't be tore up and the cache would be easy to find, because this is a very interesting tunnel sight.

Then, Hillwilly spray painted inside the tunnel along with all the other graffitti. (Hillwilly and Di and Jesus is Lord.)You think he'd of known better than that. Maybe this is why they call him Hillwilly!!!!!! He has been to the big city before though...Maybe it's a mid-life crisis thing.

Engineers saw GEO-CACHERS at the scene. Going back a little bit, When September 11th hit us, everything changed our lives for the future. This happened to be the weekend that all the agencies were watching out for all the tunnels and bridges all over the country to be blown up. So they were being very cautious when they spotted someone at our cache placing the cache back in the rocks.

They found us by our Geo-Caching names painted on the tunnel wall. They would of found us anyway through Geo-caching which they did. The cache was a small ammo-can with wwwGeo-caching.com and the name of the cache Tunnel Vision 1909 on the outside of it.We contacted them when they contacted us through Ge-Caching, telling this that this is a very serious matter and if we didn't by that Friday that they were going to file terrorist charges on us in Washington D.C. We had nothing to hide so we contacted them immediately.(You know they always get their man).

There was a deputy Sheriff at the scene from a near-by town that is a GEO_CACHER that knew what this was all about and they wouldn't listen to him..... The police electronic instruments picked up an electrical signal coming from the ammo- can. That's when they called in the bomb squad.There happened to be batteries in there placed by a geo-cacher that we always put in there for trading items. That is the electronics that were picked up by their instruments..The ammo-box was opened up by the bomb squad by a water cannon.

The special agent out of Redding, California that was handling the case, was very kind and understanding and we want to thank him very much for being understanding in this matter.

The day in court:

The plea was no contest...guilty with an explaination. The judge was presented with Geo-Caching articles, pictures and cache pages, etc. which he was not interested in at all.Hillwilly brought up to the judge that he was never sighted,arrested nor ticketed for this matter. The charges were ciminal trespass (misdemeanor) and criminal vandalism (mis-demeanor) the judge said that it didn't matter if he wasn't sighted because they had a victim involved, which was the railroad. They incurred a 4 1/2 hour railroad train detainment while they stopped traffic on Highway 97 and also waited for the police, FBI and the bomb squad to show up.This caused the railroad shifts to go overtime so they had to call in new crews and taxi the old crews into Klamath Falls and put them into motels and then taxi them back to California the next day. So there was a very big expense to do this.

Total expenses to cover this was$1650.00 and with the court costs fines and fees the grand total was $2030.00 . Jail time 1 year, which he suspended that, and gave him 1 year probatiion to stay out of all trouble and away from all RR property for 1 year unless he is on the train.He has a loss of drivers license for 1 year in the state of Claifornia, which doesn't make any sense since he wasn't driving or this wasn't a moving violation of any kind. Hillwilly has an Oregon's drivers license so this makes the question even more difficult to understand.

, Stay out of California, Hillwilly.

OVER KILL???????

Just wanted to thank everyone for their support and the kind words to us. Happy trails to all, Geo-cachers------ Hillwilly and Di

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

Yowza. Never heard that story before. Although seeing the timeframe, it makes more sense why the penalty was so severe, but... wow.

 

I think that it was a gross over-reaction by everyone involved, especially when they had a deputy on scene that knew exactly what was going on. That said, they had hundreds of millions of dollars of freight sitting idle. They had railroad employees "dieing on the law", which means that they can only work so many hours and then must have so many hours of rest. They had to bring in "patch" crews to get the trains moving. This all could have been prevented if people were not trespassing on RR property. This is the exact same drill if a trespasser is struck by a train. There is never, ever a good reason to be trespassing on RR property. All of the major railroads have their own police forces and they take trespassing very seriously. The railroad is no place to be playing any sort of game.

 

Back to the incident that started the whole thing. I bet that the penalties would have been less severe if they had not also vandalized RR property. It's hard to show that you were just playing a harmless game when you have already shown that you have no respect for the law or other people's property. It's one thing to take a shortcut across someone's lawn. Quite different if you stop and tag their house with spray paint.

Edited by Don_J
Link to comment

Like Don J said they do have their own police forces, and in Canada they are FULL police officers, they can make traffic stops, drug busts and all that. Although the 150foot rule is specific for the US the reviewers will enforce it in Canada as well. I've been told by a reviewer that the only way they will allow it is if there is no way the cacher can go from the cache to the tracks, so a fence, under a bridge(if your reviewer will allow it) or in a building would all be allowed within 150 feet.

Link to comment

I think (IMHO) that the rule gets more strictly applied in some cases though. I had a cache rejected because it was less then 150 feet from the tracks, but it was clearly on city owned property, next to a sidewalk/bike trail that followed the tracks but were still less then 150 feet. But then I also have one that is closer to the tracks, also on city property but on the other side of a fence. So basically I don't have a point because I've been on both sides of the issue... so just ignore this. Drat, I really wanted to make a great point about the unfairness of it all.

 

If it is truely city property, then the railroad trespassing laws obviously don't apply. But be prepared to prove to your reviewer that the land really is city (or otherwise not railroad) property.

 

I went through that when I first started to hide caches. There was a paved city walking path and chainlink fence separating the cache from the railroad. Once I provided photos, the cache was approved, but not until then.

 

It may just be our state but I had the same experience as you. We have rail roads all over here right next to public property. When I placed one of my caches I gave a detailed description to the reviewer knowing he would see the rail road near by. Explained not only it thoroughly fenced off but there was no potential for a cacher to possibly accidentally wander on to that property and trespass and that the coordinates are far enough away so people won't be hanging by the fence and in fact the cache is over a big hill as well. There were ample barriers between the public property and the railroad property in that case. I'm fairly certainly I'm within about 100 feet of that track.

Link to comment

We got a park here that is owned by the railroad, but the railroad allows the city to have a park there. To prove that to a reviewer will be tricky. All depend on the reviewers as well.

 

The track is like 25 to 50 feet from park. The track itself is in the street.

Edited by SwineFlew
Link to comment

I had a cache recently that was published 20 meters from railroad tracks.

 

Apparently there are exceptions if there is an impenetrable barrier between the cache and the tracks and the cache is on a public trail.

 

They do not want people trespassing and also for safety reasons do not want caches so close to tracks. With the possilbility of inaccurate coordinates/GPS devices, some people may end up searching on the tracks.

 

Not from my reviewer: "the cache is about 20 metres from railroad tracks. Traditionally, geocaches cannot be published if they are under 46 metres from tracks. Sometimes exceptions are allowed if the cache is on a public trail built by the city/parks board and there is a barricade that blocks geocachers from wandering onto the tracks. Please post a reviewer note explaining the nature of the hide and whether there is a fence or an impenetrable wall of brambles/bush that hinders people from crossing the tracks. If this is the case, please also mention that the cache cannot be found from crossing the tracks."

Edited by The_Incredibles_
Link to comment

The only felony conviction of a cache owner for a cache placement in the U.S. was for a cache on a railroad right-of-way (only one that I know about). This happened fairly early in the history of geocaching, and lead to the railroad right-of-way exclusion. It's illegal. Safety per se is not a guideline issue.

 

150 feet is a suggestion, based on the standard right-of-way width in a lot of the U.S. It's not enforced as "150 feet", it's enforced as the width of the railroad property. Where the available maps don't make it clear, a reviewer will use 150 feet. If it's clear the the property only extends 50 feet from the track, and a cache is placed 52 feet from the track, that could be published.

 

edit speeling

 

Great info! I didn't remember any geocacher being convicted of trespassing on railroad property. I don't think I was active in the forums at the time and it has been over 10 years now. I was wondering if there was an event that caused the guidelines to be this specific about just this one thing. If you look at the rest of the guidelines there are other area that are suggested as off limits but there are no specific distances given like there is for the railroads. If it just about trespassing then you would think that the guidelines would list other specific for areas where it is against the law to trespass.

Link to comment
there are other area that are suggested as off limits but there are no specific distances given like there is for the railroads. If it just about trespassing then you would think that the guidelines would list other specific for areas

 

The effort is made to keep the guidelines as short as possible. Part of the Inappropriate Placements section is covered by "all local laws...apply". Railroads are specifically mentioned, with the distance to aid in making a decision about "how close" (as online mapping improves, it may be possible to remove that at some point) schools and military installations are mentioned twice, once in the first section and again in Inappropriate Placements.

 

I review in the US, and can tell you that where I review, certain places attract a lot of caches - railroads, (especially trestles and tunnels), schools , airports, bridges over major highways and military base perimeters (and occasionally inside). It's helpful to have explicit reference to them in the guidelines. There are likely other places in other parts of the world that become persistent cache attractors. Staff in Seattle are in a position to decide when some specific area needs mention in the guidelines. If you started listing all the places in the world where it's possibly/probably illegal to place a cache, the guidelines would run on and on and on and on and on and on.....

Link to comment
there are other area that are suggested as off limits but there are no specific distances given like there is for the railroads. If it just about trespassing then you would think that the guidelines would list other specific for areas

 

The effort is made to keep the guidelines as short as possible. Part of the Inappropriate Placements section is covered by "all local laws...apply". Railroads are specifically mentioned, with the distance to aid in making a decision about "how close" (as online mapping improves, it may be possible to remove that at some point) schools and military installations are mentioned twice, once in the first section and again in Inappropriate Placements.

 

I review in the US, and can tell you that where I review, certain places attract a lot of caches - railroads, (especially trestles and tunnels), schools , airports, bridges over major highways and military base perimeters (and occasionally inside). It's helpful to have explicit reference to them in the guidelines. There are likely other places in other parts of the world that become persistent cache attractors. Staff in Seattle are in a position to decide when some specific area needs mention in the guidelines. If you started listing all the places in the world where it's possibly/probably illegal to place a cache, the guidelines would run on and on and on and on and on and on.....

 

Another way to phrase my question would be. Why are railroads the only structure with a specific distance specified?

Highway bridges, dams, government buildings, schools, military installations, hospitals, and airports are all mentioned but no specific standoff distance is given. It just says "problematic due to its proximity" but gives no specific distance guidance.

Link to comment

If you look at the rest of the guidelines there are other area that are suggested as off limits but there are no specific distances given like there is for the railroads.

 

Another way to phrase my question would be. Why are railroads the only structure with a specific distance specified?

Highway bridges, dams, government buildings, schools, military installations, hospitals, and airports are all mentioned but no specific standoff distance is given. It just says "problematic due to its proximity" but gives no specific distance guidance.

 

The distance specified for railroads was specified by railroads. That is why there is a specific distance in that case.

 

We didn't "struggle to have a hobby" back before all the stop-sign and lampskirt caches. We are "hung up" over quality caches because, well... we prefer quality caches. That's why we call them "quality", don'tcha know. - knowschad
Hey... I've been signaturized! Awesome!! Edited by knowschad
Link to comment
Another way to phrase my question would be. Why are railroads the only structure with a specific distance specified?

 

150 feet is the standard right-of-way in much of the U.S. When this guideline was first written the available mapping was pretty weak, so 150 feet is there as a baseline.

If the map is good, and shows the right-of-way to be less, a cache may be published at less then 150 feet from the tracks. The issue is entirely whether a cache is on railroad property, not whether a cache is 150 feet from tracks.

 

The other stuff is all "problematic due to its proximity" without a specific distance, because it's so variable.

Link to comment

In 2010 alone, 442 people were killed, and 388 injured as a result of trespassing on RR property.

It can take over a mile to stop a train. When the engineer sees you, it's too late, and all he can do is pray for for soul.

The train doesn't hit a car, the car hits the train. Even if he's stopped, he drove into the path. The train can't swerve.

The FRA spends millions of dollars, just to raise awareness of how dangerous it is to be too close to the tracks, to try and cross when the warning signal is going, etc...

Here is a trainspotter's safety page. He describes some of the dangers. Stuff can fly off trains and hit and kill you. It happens. That's why they don't want you close by. Makes you think. So think!

There are plenty of places to hide caches without putting them near an active (even if it's once a week) railroad track.

Edited by Planet
Link to comment

In 2010 alone, 442 people were killed, and 388 injured as a result of trespassing on RR property.

It can take over a mile to stop a train. When the engineer sees you, it's too late, and all he can do is pray for for soul.

The train doesn't hit a car, the car hits the train. Even if he's stopped, he drove into the path. The train can't swerve.

The FRA spends millions of dollars, just to raise awareness of how dangerous it is to be too close to the tracks, to try and cross when the warning signal is going, etc...

Here is a trainspotter's safety page. He describes some of the dangers. Stuff can fly off trains and hit and kill you. It happens. That's why they don't want you close by. Makes you think. So think!

There are plenty of places to hide caches without putting them near an active (even if it's once a week) railroad track.

Yep... someone got killed this past week near here. http://www.registerguard.com/web/newslocalnews/28728275-41/police-chase-train-accident-junction.html.csp

 

Now here is the twist...the boy that got killed was a relative that got killed two years ago by a train in the same area.... http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Teen-killed-by-train-where-train-killed-relative-in-2010-169378126.html

Link to comment

In 2010 alone, 442 people were killed, and 388 injured as a result of trespassing on RR property.

It can take over a mile to stop a train. When the engineer sees you, it's too late, and all he can do is pray for for soul.

The train doesn't hit a car, the car hits the train. Even if he's stopped, he drove into the path. The train can't swerve.

The FRA spends millions of dollars, just to raise awareness of how dangerous it is to be too close to the tracks, to try and cross when the warning signal is going, etc...

Here is a trainspotter's safety page. He describes some of the dangers. Stuff can fly off trains and hit and kill you. It happens. That's why they don't want you close by. Makes you think. So think!

There are plenty of places to hide caches without putting them near an active (even if it's once a week) railroad track.

Yep... someone got killed this past week near here. http://www.registerguard.com/web/newslocalnews/28728275-41/police-chase-train-accident-junction.html.csp

 

Now here is the twist...the boy that got killed was a relative that got killed two years ago by a train in the same area.... http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Teen-killed-by-train-where-train-killed-relative-in-2010-169378126.html

 

D'oh!

 

An impromptu memorial has been erected at the site, and many friends were gathered there Sunday evening, Chase said. For the most part, folks were staying clear of the tracks, but some parents and youth had to be reminded earlier in the day that they were trespassing on the tracks, he said.
Link to comment

In 2010 alone, 442 people were killed, and 388 injured as a result of trespassing on RR property.

It can take over a mile to stop a train. When the engineer sees you, it's too late, and all he can do is pray for for soul.

The train doesn't hit a car, the car hits the train. Even if he's stopped, he drove into the path. The train can't swerve.

The FRA spends millions of dollars, just to raise awareness of how dangerous it is to be too close to the tracks, to try and cross when the warning signal is going, etc...

Here is a trainspotter's safety page. He describes some of the dangers. Stuff can fly off trains and hit and kill you. It happens. That's why they don't want you close by. Makes you think. So think!

There are plenty of places to hide caches without putting them near an active (even if it's once a week) railroad track.

Yep... someone got killed this past week near here. http://www.registerguard.com/web/newslocalnews/28728275-41/police-chase-train-accident-junction.html.csp

 

Now here is the twist...the boy that got killed was a relative that got killed two years ago by a train in the same area.... http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Teen-killed-by-train-where-train-killed-relative-in-2010-169378126.html

 

D'oh!

 

An impromptu memorial has been erected at the site, and many friends were gathered there Sunday evening, Chase said. For the most part, folks were staying clear of the tracks, but some parents and youth had to be reminded earlier in the day that they were trespassing on the tracks, he said.

Yes... I go by there just about everyday and there's a memorial that been there for two years now. If there was no memorial there, this second accident would never happen. :ph34r: As far I know, its not on RR property, but right on the line and there is no fence or anything to keep people off the tracks.

Link to comment
there are other area that are suggested as off limits but there are no specific distances given like there is for the railroads. If it just about trespassing then you would think that the guidelines would list other specific for areas

 

The effort is made to keep the guidelines as short as possible. Part of the Inappropriate Placements section is covered by "all local laws...apply". Railroads are specifically mentioned, with the distance to aid in making a decision about "how close" (as online mapping improves, it may be possible to remove that at some point) schools and military installations are mentioned twice, once in the first section and again in Inappropriate Placements.

 

I review in the US, and can tell you that where I review, certain places attract a lot of caches - railroads, (especially trestles and tunnels), schools , airports, bridges over major highways and military base perimeters (and occasionally inside). It's helpful to have explicit reference to them in the guidelines. There are likely other places in other parts of the world that become persistent cache attractors. Staff in Seattle are in a position to decide when some specific area needs mention in the guidelines. If you started listing all the places in the world where it's possibly/probably illegal to place a cache, the guidelines would run on and on and on and on and on and on.....

 

Another way to phrase my question would be. Why are railroads the only structure with a specific distance specified?

Highway bridges, dams, government buildings, schools, military installations, hospitals, and airports are all mentioned but no specific standoff distance is given. It just says "problematic due to its proximity" but gives no specific distance guidance.

 

Seems like a reasonable question. 150 feet seems like a reasonable distance for railroad tracks. It might also be a reasonable number for highway bridges and hospitals. However, it might not be the best number for military installations, government buildings, dams, or airports, or even some farmers field posted with No Trespassing signs.

 

I think the name dropping canine hit the nail on the head. The 150 guideline, although suggest by a Railroad company, gives the reviewers a distance that can be used to determine whether more information is necessary. Anything less than 150' will pretty much ensure that the reviewer will ask for more information for why a particular hide should be granted an exception. For example, I hide a cache that was in a town park but about 130' from RR tracks. I was asked to provide explicit permission from the RR company *and* the town park. The reviewer also sent me a link to the HillWilly log which described what can happen when a cache is hidden on RR property.

Link to comment
there are other area that are suggested as off limits but there are no specific distances given like there is for the railroads. If it just about trespassing then you would think that the guidelines would list other specific for areas

 

The effort is made to keep the guidelines as short as possible. Part of the Inappropriate Placements section is covered by "all local laws...apply". Railroads are specifically mentioned, with the distance to aid in making a decision about "how close" (as online mapping improves, it may be possible to remove that at some point) schools and military installations are mentioned twice, once in the first section and again in Inappropriate Placements.

 

I review in the US, and can tell you that where I review, certain places attract a lot of caches - railroads, (especially trestles and tunnels), schools , airports, bridges over major highways and military base perimeters (and occasionally inside). It's helpful to have explicit reference to them in the guidelines. There are likely other places in other parts of the world that become persistent cache attractors. Staff in Seattle are in a position to decide when some specific area needs mention in the guidelines. If you started listing all the places in the world where it's possibly/probably illegal to place a cache, the guidelines would run on and on and on and on and on and on.....

 

Another way to phrase my question would be. Why are railroads the only structure with a specific distance specified?

Highway bridges, dams, government buildings, schools, military installations, hospitals, and airports are all mentioned but no specific standoff distance is given. It just says "problematic due to its proximity" but gives no specific distance guidance.

 

Seems like a reasonable question. 150 feet seems like a reasonable distance for railroad tracks. It might also be a reasonable number for highway bridges and hospitals. However, it might not be the best number for military installations, government buildings, dams, or airports, or even some farmers field posted with No Trespassing signs.

 

I think the name dropping canine hit the nail on the head. The 150 guideline, although suggest by a Railroad company, gives the reviewers a distance that can be used to determine whether more information is necessary. Anything less than 150' will pretty much ensure that the reviewer will ask for more information for why a particular hide should be granted an exception. For example, I hide a cache that was in a town park but about 130' from RR tracks. I was asked to provide explicit permission from the RR company *and* the town park. The reviewer also sent me a link to the HillWilly log which described what can happen when a cache is hidden on RR property.

 

:ph34r: I know one farmer thats like that. So far, no caches near his farm grounds. Since I know him personal and I can get away with it, but the rest of the cachers, I dont think so. Hes very difficult to work with.

Link to comment

Police can take the railroad track trespassing thing very very seriously. I know a fauxtographer who is currently serving a prison sentence because he always took seniors out to the railroad tracks to shoot them (against our advice). After being politely ushered away a few times and told not to shoot there any more, one of the officers spotted him shooting there again, cuffed him, and took him to the sheriff's department to hold him until the TSA got there. He was nice enough not to arrest the student and her mother though.

 

Basically, according to federal law in the US, railroad tracks fall under the same category and protection as airports. They are essential for commerce in the US and are therefore considered a prime target, and afforded the precautions associated with that status. Besides looking suspicious while in a parking log gets the manager notified, doing on railroad tracks can get a 911 call, especially now that people are on alert for things that are "out of the ordinary."

 

Tracks being "inactive" or "abandoned" has no affect on this status. The ONLY exception are railroad tracks that have been sold along with the land they were originally placed on. The problem is that the vast majority of tracks are on land that was leased long term to the railroad for an up-front fee and it doesn't cost them anything to leave the tracks there just in case they ever need to reopen the line. Repair is a lot cheaper than replacement after all. Beyond that, there is a lot of valuable material in those tracks, so if the lease won't be renewed, the tracks themselves are stripped and either restored for use in new tracks or sold for salvage.

 

I am only aware of two locations where there are railroad tracks you can go on legally. One is in an old quarry where the tracks were left because it is a historical site (the tracks leading into and out of the property have been removed) and the other is in a similar park that originally didn't have tracks at all, the owner purchased tracks from a rail salvage company and built a 200 yard long section of track in the park so he would have a place to park his caboose.

Link to comment

Someone mentioned something similar before, but when I was matriculating at Colorado State U., there was an active RR track going through the East end of Campus. Check out N40 34.560 W105 4.735 in GE. Don't know if it is still active or not, but while I was there, there was an "establishment" that offered 50% discounts on your refreshment of choice if you could yell out your order while the train was passing. :laughing: Nevertheless, while that specific location may have had a lot of foot traffic crossing the tracks at any and every location on campus, it wasn't someplace you wanted to be when the train came by.

 

As the dog said much earlier, this topic related to caching is all about the property that the railroad owns, and they don't want caches on their property.

Link to comment

If you look at the rest of the guidelines there are other area that are suggested as off limits but there are no specific distances given like there is for the railroads.

 

Another way to phrase my question would be. Why are railroads the only structure with a specific distance specified?

Highway bridges, dams, government buildings, schools, military installations, hospitals, and airports are all mentioned but no specific standoff distance is given. It just says "problematic due to its proximity" but gives no specific distance guidance.

 

The distance specified for railroads was specified by railroads. That is why there is a specific distance in that case.

 

 

That isn't true. The distance specified for railroads right of ways is specified in Law by Congress. The current Law says that the right of way is 100ft on either side of the central line.

 

The only place that I see mention of 150ft is on that GEO-COURT virtual. I don't know how to look up old version of laws. If this law was changed from 150ft to 100ft then perhaps Groundspeak could change the guideline to reflect the change in the law.

Link to comment

Seems like a reasonable question. 150 feet seems like a reasonable distance for railroad tracks. It might also be a reasonable number for highway bridges and hospitals. However, it might not be the best number for military installations, government buildings, dams, or airports, or even some farmers field posted with No Trespassing signs.

 

But why only offer a suggested distance for railroads? Why not suggest distances for other structures too. I don't think it would complicate the guidelines any more than listing a distance for railroads does. It would also be helpful reference when placing a cache.

Link to comment

In 2010 alone, 442 people were killed, and 388 injured as a result of trespassing on RR property.

It can take over a mile to stop a train. When the engineer sees you, it's too late, and all he can do is pray for for soul.

The train doesn't hit a car, the car hits the train. Even if he's stopped, he drove into the path. The train can't swerve.

The FRA spends millions of dollars, just to raise awareness of how dangerous it is to be too close to the tracks, to try and cross when the warning signal is going, etc...

Here is a trainspotter's safety page. He describes some of the dangers. Stuff can fly off trains and hit and kill you. It happens. That's why they don't want you close by. Makes you think. So think!

There are plenty of places to hide caches without putting them near an active (even if it's once a week) railroad track.

 

Sorry, Groundspeak doesn't deal with safety issues.

Link to comment

Seems like a reasonable question. 150 feet seems like a reasonable distance for railroad tracks. It might also be a reasonable number for highway bridges and hospitals. However, it might not be the best number for military installations, government buildings, dams, or airports, or even some farmers field posted with No Trespassing signs.

 

But why only offer a suggested distance for railroads? Why not suggest distances for other structures too. I don't think it would complicate the guidelines any more than listing a distance for railroads does. It would also be helpful reference when placing a cache.

I've heard that the 150 ft on each side of the center line of the track is fairly typical RR right-of-way, at least in certain parts of the country. My guess is that when Groundspeak was drafting this guideline they were either told that when not otherwise demarcated they should assume a 150 ft. right of way. Perhaps they were told that if caches were placed more than 150 ft from tracks where would never be a problem with right-of-way.

 

What probably causes difficulty is when the hider knows just where the right-of-way ends but there isn't a fence or other indication that the review can see. A reviewer is likely to deny the cache and the hider is likely to think they've been treated unfairly. However when a cache is over 150 ft from the tracks the reviewer can be relatively certain that the cache is not on the right-of-way and doesn't need any other evidence to decide on this guideline.

 

Perhaps schools and government buildings are the issue here. The guidelines say caches are not placed on school property or on military installations. Yet elsewhere the guidelines say a cache may be archived if "the cache is problematic due to its proximity to a public structure, including and not limited to, highway bridges, dams, government buildings, schools and military installations, hospitals, airports and other such locations." There is no number of feet here indicating proximity. I read this as a cache would not get publish if is on school property or if the reviewer thinks it would be problematic.

 

The real issue is with these guidelines is that if a cacher can show permission the reviewer (or sometimes only Groundspeak) may still publish the cache. Why are railroad tracks, schools, highway bridges, etc. treated differently than parking lots, shopping malls, and churches, where reviewers assume you have permission? Why are there some locations where explicit permission is required to place a cache and for other locations permission is assumed?

Link to comment

Hell, I played on the tracks all the time as a kid. Cool way to smash pennies!

 

You get a cache turned down near the tracks or what? Why beat it to death?

 

I must have gone through a couple bucks worth of pennies and another 10 or 20 in other coinage on the tracks, good times.

Them fancy machines gots nothin' on a plumb slick, train-run-over penny :D

 

You gotta pay for those fancy machines and that's money you could be throwing on the train tracks:)

 

Actually there's an idea for a cache, call it train wreck or something like that, place it 151 feet from the tracks and fill it with run over coins for trade.

Edited by Roman!
Link to comment

 

That isn't true. The distance specified for railroads right of ways is specified in Law by Congress. The current Law says that the right of way is 100ft on either side of the central line.

 

The only place that I see mention of 150ft is on that GEO-COURT virtual. I don't know how to look up old version of laws. If this law was changed from 150ft to 100ft then perhaps Groundspeak could change the guideline to reflect the change in the law.

 

Not all right of ways are 100 feet. The law says "The right of way through the public lands of the United States". This would mean any tracks through BLM, Forest Service or State lands. There are many places the property right up next to the tracks is private, city or county owned.

 

I have said in other similar posts that I think that if the cache is NOT on railroad property but is within in the 150 feet AND there is safe access to the site then no reviewer should reject or not allow a cache. I think they should do their due diligence to have the cache owner provide information that it is not on RR property but afterwards they should allow the cache.

 

I have friends whose backyards are within 150 feet of active tracks and if they wanted to hide a cache there they should be allowed.

ShoshoneAvenue_WestCusterStreet-GoogleMapscopy.jpg

PokyRR.jpg

 

I have a cache very close to some city owned tracks that were formerly owned by the UP Railroad. I just explained to the reviewer that they are no longer active and NOT owned by the RR and are on city property that I received permission to place a cache on. On the cache page I also posted parking coordinates and made it clear (i think) on how to approach the cache. My cache was approved with no problems.

Link to comment

If you look at the rest of the guidelines there are other area that are suggested as off limits but there are no specific distances given like there is for the railroads.

 

Another way to phrase my question would be. Why are railroads the only structure with a specific distance specified?

Highway bridges, dams, government buildings, schools, military installations, hospitals, and airports are all mentioned but no specific standoff distance is given. It just says "problematic due to its proximity" but gives no specific distance guidance.

 

The distance specified for railroads was specified by railroads. That is why there is a specific distance in that case.

 

 

That isn't true. The distance specified for railroads right of ways is specified in Law by Congress. The current Law says that the right of way is 100ft on either side of the central line.

 

The only place that I see mention of 150ft is on that GEO-COURT virtual. I don't know how to look up old version of laws. If this law was changed from 150ft to 100ft then perhaps Groundspeak could change the guideline to reflect the change in the law.

 

That's kind of funny there. You link to a law from 1875, (since repealed), and then in the next paragraph, say that you don't know how to look up old laws. What you linked to is part of the grant law that the Federal government used to encourage the railroads to expand across the US. I'm not sure of its relevance to modern railroads running through modern cities. I believe that Groundspeak came up with fixed boundaries for railroads because unlike schools, airports, etc., you can't easily see where the railroad's property ends. Suggesting that you remain a certain distance from the known center of the right of way, (the tracks), ensures that you are not inadvertently trespassing. Keep in mind that they are asking us to consider proximity to other structures for an entirely different reason. It is so that we do not cause undue concern about sensitive areas, the whole terrorism thing. The railroad guideline only addresses trespassing on private property.

Link to comment

That's kind of funny there. You link to a law from 1875, (since repealed), and then in the next paragraph, say that you don't know how to look up old laws. What you linked to is part of the grant law that the Federal government used to encourage the railroads to expand across the US. I'm not sure of its relevance to modern railroads running through modern cities. I believe that Groundspeak came up with fixed boundaries for railroads because unlike schools, airports, etc., you can't easily see where the railroad's property ends. Suggesting that you remain a certain distance from the known center of the right of way, (the tracks), ensures that you are not inadvertently trespassing. Keep in mind that they are asking us to consider proximity to other structures for an entirely different reason. It is so that we do not cause undue concern about sensitive areas, the whole terrorism thing. The railroad guideline only addresses trespassing on private property.

 

As far as I can tell that law is still current and hasn't been repealed. It does appear to have changed over the years. What I meant by old versions is that sometimes laws get amended or changed. I don't know how to look up the previous versions. These law library website don't have very intuitive version controls.

Link to comment

In 2010 alone, 442 people were killed, and 388 injured as a result of trespassing on RR property.

It can take over a mile to stop a train. When the engineer sees you, it's too late, and all he can do is pray for for soul.

The train doesn't hit a car, the car hits the train. Even if he's stopped, he drove into the path. The train can't swerve.

The FRA spends millions of dollars, just to raise awareness of how dangerous it is to be too close to the tracks, to try and cross when the warning signal is going, etc...

Here is a trainspotter's safety page. He describes some of the dangers. Stuff can fly off trains and hit and kill you. It happens. That's why they don't want you close by. Makes you think. So think!

There are plenty of places to hide caches without putting them near an active (even if it's once a week) railroad track.

 

Sorry, Groundspeak doesn't deal with safety issues.

 

:laughing:

Link to comment

The only felony conviction of a cache owner for a cache placement in the U.S. was for a cache on a railroad right-of-way (only one that I know about). This happened fairly early in the history of geocaching, and lead to the railroad right-of-way exclusion. It's illegal. Safety per se is not a guideline issue.

I know of the conviction and incarceration of a geocacher for seeking a cache and taking a shortcut across a railroad right-of-way. We aren't talking about spending one night in jail and then bailing out. Unlike Hillwilly, this more recent incident didn't result in a suspended sentence.

 

150 feet is a suggestion, based on the standard right-of-way width in a lot of the U.S. It's not enforced as "150 feet", it's enforced as the width of the railroad property. Where the available maps don't make it clear, a reviewer will use 150 feet. If it's clear the the property only extends 50 feet from the track, and a cache is placed 52 feet from the track, that could be published.

This is how I apply the guideline. I also liked what you said in a later post about 150 feet being a good rule of thumb developed back in the day when reviewers worked with online maps that didn't have property boundaries, and there were no high-resolution aerial photo views. We had to walk uphill in a snowstorm just to publish a cache back then, but we were careful not to cross any RR tracks.

Link to comment

In 2010 alone, 442 people were killed, and 388 injured as a result of trespassing on RR property.

It can take over a mile to stop a train. When the engineer sees you, it's too late, and all he can do is pray for for soul.

The train doesn't hit a car, the car hits the train. Even if he's stopped, he drove into the path. The train can't swerve.

The FRA spends millions of dollars, just to raise awareness of how dangerous it is to be too close to the tracks, to try and cross when the warning signal is going, etc...

Here is a trainspotter's safety page. He describes some of the dangers. Stuff can fly off trains and hit and kill you. It happens. That's why they don't want you close by. Makes you think. So think!

There are plenty of places to hide caches without putting them near an active (even if it's once a week) railroad track.

 

Sorry, Groundspeak doesn't deal with safety issues.

 

:laughing:

 

No, it's not their job to watch over over you from afar, but the railroad does deal with safety issues, and geocachers should. It's common sense that one shouldn't kill oneself.

Link to comment

If you look at the rest of the guidelines there are other area that are suggested as off limits but there are no specific distances given like there is for the railroads.

 

Another way to phrase my question would be. Why are railroads the only structure with a specific distance specified?

Highway bridges, dams, government buildings, schools, military installations, hospitals, and airports are all mentioned but no specific standoff distance is given. It just says "problematic due to its proximity" but gives no specific distance guidance.

 

The distance specified for railroads was specified by railroads. That is why there is a specific distance in that case.

 

 

That isn't true. The distance specified for railroads right of ways is specified in Law by Congress. The current Law says that the right of way is 100ft on either side of the central line.

 

The only place that I see mention of 150ft is on that GEO-COURT virtual. I don't know how to look up old version of laws. If this law was changed from 150ft to 100ft then perhaps Groundspeak could change the guideline to reflect the change in the law.

 

Why 150 feet instead of 100 feet, I can't answer. Why railroads have a specified distance and other structures/areas do not, that is the question I believe that I answered.

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...
×
×
  • Create New...