Guardrails & Guidelines

3k · February 18, 2013

From The Guidelines: "Caches are placed so that the surrounding environment, whether natural or human-made, is safe from intentional or unintentional harm. Property must not be damaged or altered to provide a hiding place, clue, or means of logging a find."

My questions about this part of the Guidelines (inspired by actual caching experiences) pertain to guardrail hides. Most GRIMs are something simple: a magnetic container (magkey, nano, fake bolt, double cap, slim bob) stuck to the metal or a non-magnetic container stuck in a open end hole. However, some are much more clever...yet perhaps verboten. And rules > creativity.

For purposes of these questions, let us assume a state where GRIMs are not expressly banned (i.e. not Virginia).

1) The guidelines apply equally to all guardrails, regardless of location. Even if the guardrail is not important for safety reasons, another cacher might copy the hide on a more important guardrail.

2) Removing or modifying any bolt, wood block, metal block, or any other part of the guardrail is unacceptable even if the part is replaced and/or need not be removed again to get the cache. It does not matter if tools are not required for the hide or retrieval (ex: bolt was already loose but still in place).

3) Bolting, screwing, drilling, or nailing anything into a guardrail is not allowed. This includes the foam or wood blocks that are part of some guardrails (between the rail & post).

4) If a bolt is already missing or extra holes already present in some part of the guardrail then those can exploited for a hide. So a fake bolt could replace a real bolt, so long as the real bolt was already missing and not removed by the CO. Or a bison tube could be put in a hole in a guadrail post so long as the hole was not created by the CO.

Are all 4 points correct?

Feel free to share examples of clever/non-typical guardrail hides (with photos if possible) you have encountered, including whether they were acceptable or got archived because of Guidelines violations or other problems.

P.S. Please no "GRIMs are lame" or similiar posts. The purpose of this thread is about guidelines and how to be creative without breaking them.

February 18, 2013

This is one of the reasons I don't like guard rail caches.

Guard rails are put out there to stop out of control vehicles.

It would not be a good day if someone was looking for a cache at the end of this guard rail.

18.9k · February 18, 2013

I've been around the block enough times in these forums to know when I am being led down a path to a certain story with a desired outcome.

So what is the story here?? and what outcome so you desire?

2k · February 18, 2013

I lol'd when I read 'slim bob'. I've never heard that term. After searching it in the forums, I know what they are. I've found many, but in my area we call them 'geopouches'.

1.1k · February 18, 2013

From The Guidelines: "Caches are placed so that the surrounding environment, whether natural or human-made, is safe from intentional or unintentional harm.

4) If a bolt is already missing or extra holes already present in some part of the guardrail then those can exploited for a hide. So a fake bolt could replace a real bolt, so long as the real bolt was already missing and not removed by the CO. Or a bison tube could be put in a hole in a guadrail post so long as the hole was not created by the CO.

Are all 4 points correct?

OK, I'll play...One could argue that adding a fake bolt in the spot of a missing bolt could interfere with a guard rail inspector observing a maintenance need, thus causing unintentional harm.

9.3k · February 18, 2013

Without wandering down the "GRIMs are lame/not lame" path, I do think virginia got it right. I would imagine that guardrails in most states belong to some bureaucratic government agency, such as Department of Transportation or county/municipal roads departments. As such, I would think that the guidelines, as I interpret them, would require explicit permission, as opposed to the implied permission that so many GRIM hiders seem to rely on.

Being bureaucrats, their default position to any question which is not already addressed in their 80 bazillion page policy manual is to say "No", enthusiastically. As such, I can't imagine any GRIM ever receiving explicit permission. Granted, there will be folks who will claim that their GRIM has explicit permission, but I would be willing to act as a go between, contacting that state's agency to verify such claims.

3k · February 18, 2013

So what is the story here?? and what outcome so you desire?

In 3 years of caching I have seen more than one GRIM that made me question whether it was within the Guidelines. I am trying to clarify my understanding for future encounters so I can better know how often to drop NA logs on them.

3.8k · February 20, 2013

P.S. Please no "GRIMs are lame" or similiar posts. The purpose of this thread is about guidelines and how to be creative without breaking them.

I am not sure what bugs me more, people that hijack a thread or guardrail hides (especially on busy highways).

5.7k · February 20, 2013

Without wandering down the "GRIMs are lame/not lame" path, I do think virginia got it right. I would imagine that guardrails in most states belong to some bureaucratic government agency, such as Department of Transportation or county/municipal roads departments. As such, I would think that the guidelines, as I interpret them, would require explicit permission, as opposed to the implied permission that so many GRIM hiders seem to rely on.

Being bureaucrats, their default position to any question which is not already addressed in their 80 bazillion page policy manual is to say "No", enthusiastically. As such, I can't imagine any GRIM ever receiving explicit permission. Granted, there will be folks who will claim that their GRIM has explicit permission, but I would be willing to act as a go between, contacting that state's agency to verify such claims.

One of my fellow geocachers here in Virginia was a VDOT employee in charge of right of ways for the State when the Law was changed. If VDOT owns or maintains it, no geocache placements are allowed. So that includes State rest areas also. I have found many that GC.com has now archived, and moved some of mine to comply. The worst part about guardrail hide from my experience is that Wasp's love to nest in them where the good dry hiding place is.

5k · February 21, 2013

Could someone please tell me what the letters G R I M stand for? I'm pretty sure I know what three of them are.

1.1k · February 21, 2013

Hi Don,

GRIM = UGLY in Danish :-)

5k · February 21, 2013

Hi Don,

GRIM = UGLY in Danish :-)

I've actually asked this question about five times over the past few months, and I can't seem to get a proper answer. I know that it's a guard rail micro, but for the life of me, I can't figure out what the I stands for.

As far as the topic, I have seen a rigid cylindrical container put into and completely filling the round hole drilled at the bottom of a wooden support post. The post is actually a "break-away" post that absorbs energy while breaking so as not to act like an unmovable object. I wondered if the container would increase the break-away threshold, thus increasing G-force. Probably not to the point that it mattered, but would you technically be tampering with a traffic control safety device?

7.3k · February 21, 2013

From a G.R.I.M. listing, "Grim standing for Guardrail Madness."

3k · February 21, 2013

I must say the limited amount of really useful replies on this issue has been disappointing.

I would really like to hear from some Reviewers on this issue since it involves Guidelines.

February 21, 2013

Here's a good guardrail hide that doesn't interfere with anything:

A 35mm film canister slid in the open space between the metal rail and the post. does not interfere with operation or maintenance or anything. However it could fall out pretty easy...

3.4k · February 21, 2013

I have only one concern when it comes to guardrail hides - place them in guardrails which are far removed from traffic. Often these are surrounding pull-outs, for a vista parking lot or at the end of an extended road which does not continue for more than several feet past an interesection.

Any modification of the guardrail: using glue, adhesive back Velcro, drilling, unbolting, etc. does not follow Leave No Trace.

The extent of my guardrail placements: 1 blinky, painted white, sitting on the end of a bolt at a dead end of infrequently used road. The entire (wooden) guardrail is painted white, including hardware. So the bolt with the blinky on the end is hiding in plain sight, and actually fools a lot of cachers. (These are the best hides, IMHO, in plain sight.)

At some point in the future construction will begin and the cache will be removed and archived. For the present the GZ area serves as a place for criminals to dispose of their execess furniture, delinquents to leave beer bottles and morons to burn up their tires doing 'donuts'.

5k · February 21, 2013

From a G.R.I.M. listing, "Grim standing for Guardrail Madness."

Okay, my OCD is really starting to get to me here. If you guys in Florida simply made up an acronym that makes no sense, just say so. Do I need to start a new topic to specifically ask what the letters "G" "R" "I" "M" represent. Was the "I" just thrown in so ya'll didn't sound like you were mumbling.

3.1k · February 21, 2013

I must say the limited amount of really useful replies on this issue has been disappointing.

I would really like to hear from some Reviewers on this issue since it involves Guidelines.

I'm confused about what you want. The guidelines are pretty clear on the subject, and individual Reviewers are better versed on the local guidelines, rules and laws related to each individual case. There isn't going to be a 1-size-fits-all answer here.

In some places, guardrail caches are allowed; in others, they are not. In some circles they are acceptable; in others, they are not.

The idea of finding a creative, but guideline-meeting new way to hide on a guardrail is silly. You've outlined most of the ways it would make sense to hide on one without breaking the law or guidelines. Asking for an exhaustive list from the forums (or individual Reviewers) isn't productive, as it is asking for ideas that are or are not allowed based on the particular location.

This isn't meant to be a "guardrail hides are lame" statement, but the fact of the matter is, there are many better places to concentrate your energy on for a creative cache. In addition, there are safer places to concentrate your energy on a creative cache. Simply said, you've got your list of ways to hide and meet the guidelines. What else do you want? :unsure:

7.3k · February 21, 2013

From a G.R.I.M. listing, "Grim standing for Guardrail Madness."

Okay, my OCD is really starting to get to me here. If you guys in Florida simply made up an acronym that makes no sense, just say so. Do I need to start a new topic to specifically ask what the letters "G" "R" "I" "M" represent. Was the "I" just thrown in so ya'll didn't sound like you were mumbling.

The G.R.I.M series began in Texas, as far as I know. You'd have to ask a Texan about the "I"... ;-)

See DrHogg, here's one, and a bit about the "I" too.

9.3k · February 21, 2013

Here's a good guardrail hide that doesn't interfere with anything:

A 35mm film canister...

I'm assuming that, in this case, the term 'good' has nothing to do with quality? <_<

1.1k · February 21, 2013

I must say the limited amount of really useful replies on this issue has been disappointing.

I would really like to hear from some Reviewers on this issue since it involves Guidelines.

I tried to get an exchange going on #5, but then I read you were looking to drop volumes of NA logs and didn't want my opinion to be any part of that.

3k · February 21, 2013

then I read you were looking to drop volumes of NA logs and didn't want my opinion to be any part of that.

Should I not be vigilant about alerting Reviewers to caches I find that violate guidelines?

These aren't caches that can be armchair NA'd or have problems apparent during the review process; only those that find a GRIM will know how it is hidden and have any idea if they should be concerned about a Guidelines issue.

3.1k · February 21, 2013

then I read you were looking to drop volumes of NA logs and didn't want my opinion to be any part of that.

Should I not be vigilant about alerting Reviewers to caches I find that violate guidelines?

These aren't caches that can be armchair NA'd or have problems apparent during the review process; only those that find a GRIM will know how it is hidden and have any idea if they should be concerned about a Guidelines issue.

Honestly, if you post a NA log that is legitimate under the guidelines or related local laws, so be it. However, there is a big difference in doing so in a kind, polite, reasonable manner and acting out as revenge for caches that you don't think should be allowed.

It's a thin line, and this is why one sees so many anxiety-fueled threads about NM and NA logs and entitlement junkies/cache police/purists/mean people.

Assume the owner has permission for the hide. They check a box saying that they do. (Yes, yes, we all know that isn't always the case, but is it really up to us to go through every single cache listing and make sure that it has proper permissions? No. That's between a cache owner, the property owner and the Reviewer to sort out.) Now, if someone approaches you and says that a cache shouldn't be in that location, then you can surely have grounds to post a NA log.

So, if you are just creating this thread as a way to ease your mind about NA scattershot on guardrail caches, that's too bad. If you're seeking methods to hide on a guardrail that meet the guidelines, you've already outlined the possibilities. What else is this about?

1.1k · February 21, 2013

then I read you were looking to drop volumes of NA logs and didn't want my opinion to be any part of that.

Should I not be vigilant about alerting Reviewers to caches I find that violate guidelines?

These aren't caches that can be armchair NA'd or have problems apparent during the review process; only those that find a GRIM will know how it is hidden and have any idea if they should be concerned about a Guidelines issue.

What I meant was I didn't want my devil's advocate comments to be misunderstood and action taken. Not that I question your judgement, but one never really knows anyone in here.

February 21, 2013

then I read you were looking to drop volumes of NA logs and didn't want my opinion to be any part of that.

Should I not be vigilant about alerting Reviewers to caches I find that violate guidelines?

These aren't caches that can be armchair NA'd or have problems apparent during the review process; only those that find a GRIM will know how it is hidden and have any idea if they should be concerned about a Guidelines issue.

Might want to throw in the LPCs for lack of permission while you're on your cache police terror. Seriously... gaurd rail hides. I'm sure you have better things to do. :rolleyes:

5k · February 22, 2013

From a G.R.I.M. listing, "Grim standing for Guardrail Madness."

Okay, my OCD is really starting to get to me here. If you guys in Florida simply made up an acronym that makes no sense, just say so. Do I need to start a new topic to specifically ask what the letters "G" "R" "I" "M" represent. Was the "I" just thrown in so ya'll didn't sound like you were mumbling.

The G.R.I.M series began in Texas, as far as I know. You'd have to ask a Texan about the "I"... ;-)

See DrHogg, here's one, and a bit about the "I" too.

Thank you! So the "I" came form an insignificant letter from the center of a word. In other words, GRiM is basically meaningless, and should simply be GRM, or better, the more common, GRC which allows for any size cache. Sorry to hijack the thread, it's just been bothering me as I can usually figure these things out. Also, sorry for blaming it on Florida.

Edited February 22, 2013 by Don_J

3.1k · February 22, 2013

From a G.R.I.M. listing, "Grim standing for Guardrail Madness."

Okay, my OCD is really starting to get to me here. If you guys in Florida simply made up an acronym that makes no sense, just say so. Do I need to start a new topic to specifically ask what the letters "G" "R" "I" "M" represent. Was the "I" just thrown in so ya'll didn't sound like you were mumbling.

The G.R.I.M series began in Texas, as far as I know. You'd have to ask a Texan about the "I"... ;-)

See DrHogg, here's one, and a bit about the "I" too.

Thank you! So the "I" came form an insignificant letter from the center of a word. In other words, GRiM is basically meaningless, and should simply be GRM, or better, the more common, GRC which allows for any size cache. Sorry to hijack the thread, it's just been bothering me as I can usually figure these things out. Also, sorry for blaming it on Florida.

All these years I thought we were supposed to blame Canada

GRC certainly covers "Guard Rail Cache". GRiM just happens to be handy due to it being an actual word...just like the hide itself can actually be! :laughing: But, alas, I think GRiM is just another idea like Jeeks... :lol:

3k · February 22, 2013

Should I not be vigilant about alerting Reviewers to caches I find that violate guidelines?

These aren't caches that can be armchair NA'd or have problems apparent during the review process; only those that find a GRIM will know how it is hidden and have any idea if they should be concerned about a Guidelines issue.

Might want to throw in the LPCs for lack of permission while you're on your cache police terror. Seriously... guard rail hides. I'm sure you have better things to do.

LPCs would seem to fall under the category of "adequate permission". And GRIMs seem to be treated the same way in most states. The issue here isn't permission for a hide, but the hide itself. Unless someone is, for example, sawing one of the bolts under the lamp skirt or drilling into the metal pole; that would fall into the same category as the guardrail hides I am asking about, although I'd think the danger would be more apparent there. I don't recall ever finding a LPC that required anything more than simply lifting the skirt.

As for my "cache police terror" your hyperbole grossly overestimates the numbers involved.

3.1k · February 22, 2013

Should I not be vigilant about alerting Reviewers to caches I find that violate guidelines?

These aren't caches that can be armchair NA'd or have problems apparent during the review process; only those that find a GRIM will know how it is hidden and have any idea if they should be concerned about a Guidelines issue.

Might want to throw in the LPCs for lack of permission while you're on your cache police terror. Seriously... guard rail hides. I'm sure you have better things to do.

LPCs would seem to fall under the category of "adequate permission". And GRIMs seem to be treated the same way in most states. The issue here isn't permission for a hide, but the hide itself. Unless someone is, for example, sawing one of the bolts under the lamp skirt or drilling into the metal pole; that would fall into the same category as the guardrail hides I am asking about, although I'd think the danger would be more apparent there. I don't recall ever finding a LPC that required anything more than simply lifting the skirt.

As for my "cache police terror" your hyperbole grossly overestimates the numbers involved.

So your agenda about your OP is clear. Advice? Contact the local reviewer, make your case, and let it go. Let the reviewer sort out the guidelines for that specific hide. There might be context in Reviewer notes, etc that you don't see.

I don't see this ending well, however.

Jeeks...heh heh

February 22, 2013

Should I not be vigilant about alerting Reviewers to caches I find that violate guidelines?

These aren't caches that can be armchair NA'd or have problems apparent during the review process; only those that find a GRIM will know how it is hidden and have any idea if they should be concerned about a Guidelines issue.

Might want to throw in the LPCs for lack of permission while you're on your cache police terror. Seriously... guard rail hides. I'm sure you have better things to do.

LPCs would seem to fall under the category of "adequate permission". And GRIMs seem to be treated the same way in most states. The issue here isn't permission for a hide, but the hide itself. Unless someone is, for example, sawing one of the bolts under the lamp skirt or drilling into the metal pole; that would fall into the same category as the guardrail hides I am asking about, although I'd think the danger would be more apparent there. I don't recall ever finding a LPC that required anything more than simply lifting the skirt.

As for my "cache police terror" your hyperbole grossly overestimates the numbers involved.

I've never found a guard rail hide that has altered ANY part of the guard rail EVER. If you see a cache in violation of the guidelines then report it. I pull my Badge out every once in awhile. Bringing this to the forum seems you're up to something.

Edited February 22, 2013 by the4dirtydogs

3.4k · February 22, 2013

G R I M - GuardRails In Mordor

Mind the orcs, they muggle caches! (And cachers, come to that...)

Edited February 22, 2013 by DragonsWest

February 23, 2013

There has been a request to Groundspeak to have these caches banned due to safety reasons. Ground speak has stated that this a a world wide game and thus won't entertain the thought.

IN BC 2011 there was a older cacher who stepped over a guardrail and fell to his death. BC Highways has not been too happy with this as guardrails are placed there for safety reasons.

I for one just plain hate them.

Phil

3.3k · February 24, 2013

This is one of the reasons I don't like guard rail caches.

Guard rails are put out there to stop out of control vehicles.

It would not be a good day if someone was looking for a cache at the end of this guard rail.

Okay, guardrails get hit by cars. Did you know that trees fall & kill people? Does that make you hate forest caches?

By the way, you do realize the smashed car is the cachemobile, don't you? It was a FTF rush!

Guardrails & Guidelines

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

Join the conversation