The irony of GRC vs. nohting near a railroad

[+nthacker66]

I am reminded of this via this post http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=309876

 

The guideline that you cannot have a cache within 150 feet of a railroad track because it is "unsafe" vs. placing guard rail caches - which you are more likely to get hurt there than at a railroad.

 

i know asking this not to be debated would be a futile and fruitless request.

Edited April 17, 2013 by nthacker66

[+cheech gang]

I think upon further investigation you may discover that the railroad restriction is based upon trespassing concerns, not safety.

[+nthacker66]

I think upon further investigation you may discover that the railroad restriction is based upon trespassing concerns, not safety.

 

If that were the case, there would be very few tunnel caches.

 

But in fact, I have been cited many times that the reasons reviewers deny it is because of safety, not trespassing - 150 foot rule is cited for safety often. even if it is on public property.

[7rxc]

I am reminded of this via this post http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=309876

 

The guideline that you cannot have a cache within 150 feet of a railroad track because it is "unsafe" vs. placing guard rail caches - which you are more likely to get hurt there than at a railroad.

 

i know asking this not to be debated would be a futile and fruitless request.

 

Actually, in many cases they are the same, permission/ property manager type situations, NOT Safety related.

 

Many places have banned / prohibited guard rail and other types on Highway properties, BC here put a bit of a magnifier on the subject recently, but eased up from a total ban. Railway right of way restrictions were based on US typical right of way dimensions for railroads. They vary down there as well, many are not much wider than the ballast areas. Still ALL are private property of the Railroad in question. Permissions are hard / impossible to get, largely due to liability issues these days. This has been much discussed on the forums, and the one common thing is that DANGER in itself is not the problem, but it is something that cache placers SHOULD consider when placing any cache, and reflected on the Cache page if present.

 

Sides of highways are dangerous at any time traffic is present, and are poor places to visit from the highway side at very least by anyone as many 'officer struck videos' show.

 

Doug 7rxc

[+NanCycle]

I think upon further investigation you may discover that the railroad restriction is based upon trespassing concerns, not safety.

 

If that were the case, there would be very few tunnel caches.

 

But in fact, I have been cited many times that the reasons reviewers deny it is because of safety, not trespassing - 150 foot rule is cited for safety often. even if it is on public property.

 

Could you please post some examples of these many citations stating that the 150 ft rule is for safety and not against trespassing.

[+GeoTrekker26]

I think upon further investigation you may discover that the railroad restriction is based upon trespassing concerns, not safety.

 

If that were the case, there would be very few tunnel caches.

 

But in fact, I have been cited many times that the reasons reviewers deny it is because of safety, not trespassing - 150 foot rule is cited for safety often. even if it is on public property.

 

Please provide a citation showing GS has turned down a cache because of safety and the 150 foot guideline. I think you will find other posts, like yours, that say it is because of safety, but that is only the opinion of a cacher, not a statement of policy by GS.

 

Here is the quote from the guidelines:

 

"3. 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."

[+Brooklyn51]

 

Here is the quote from the guidelines:

 

"3. 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."

 

Any caches we've had that were seemingly too close to tracks were questioned by our reviewer because of possible trespassing issues, not safety concerns. It seems a little odd, then, that the guidelines would mention active tracks and not just tracks or easements that are still owned by the railroad, period, active or not.

[+Lieblweb]

Does it really matter why? 150 feet is the rule and covers a lot of different reasons. The Reviewers are not able to see each situation individually, so it covers EVERYTHING. I've been denied many times for being too close to railroad tracks. And to be totally honest - I don't have anything against the rule. Some railroad tracks are fenced off where nobody can get near them, other tracks are WIDE open for people to play on, other tracks are in/around bad or unsafe terrain. The LAST thing they need....is a cache that invites all sorts of people to be near the tracks. That's just asking for someone to get hurt. Trespassing or not...

 

It depends on the situation. If you are borderline - and can send photos of the area and pinpoint the exact location, they might let it slide. I have a cache that was denied until I sent them photos of the train bridge (far above the roadway) and the cache located in guardrail on the road underneath it.

Edited April 17, 2013 by Lieblweb

[+tozainamboku]

Why not the irony of a five star terrain scuba diving in a alligator infested swamp vs. nothing near a railroad.

 

If you really think Grounspeak needs to have cache safety guidelines say so. The truth is that there are no guidelines regarding safety per se. There are cases where a reviewer will ask whether there was permission granted because they tend to doubt the owner/land manager would give permission. Railroads are called out as a special case, because in the United States at least, the railroad companies have a record of prosecuting trespassing. Where there is not a clear boundary, the 150 foot rule applies.

[+Wes_and_Tara]

I once had a cache denied for being too close to a railroad. It hadn't even crossed my mind when I hid it because it was in a small city park. It turns out, though, that the whole park was within 150ft of the railroad.

 

I resolved the issue easily by making it a multi that started in the park and ended somewhere else.

 

But, the reasoning I was given for the guideline was not private property or safety (either of these would not be an issue in this little park). It was that in the past, there have been incidents where people had reported caches near railroads as potential bombs. Apparently, even 150 years after the Civil War, someone saw a person hiding or replacing a cache near a railroad and thought they must be trying to blow up a train. In one instance it was the engineer in the train that saw someone frantically re-hiding an ammo can, and called it in to the police.

 

So, for what it's worth, that's my understanding of the reason for the 150' rule.

 

One can argue the rationale, or choose to become angry about it, but I would rather find a simple solution (as I did) and hide a cache that meets the guidelines.

[+JL_HSTRE]

Many GRIMs can safely be accessed from behind the rail and thus not endangering the cacher unless they park in an unsafe location in their haste.

 

But I have always heard the railroad issue was tresspassing not safety. I have heard of a few cases where security was also an issue (cache got archived for being on a pedestrian bridge over an active RR).

[+T.D.M.22]

The fact is that is is railroad property. The rail companies don't want caches because of safety issues. I believe there have been allowances in the case of fences, buildings, bridges etc would prevent a cacher from going on the tracks. The railways do take our safety seriously-as far as having their own police forces. In Canada(possibly the same as the US) the railroad police have the same duties and obligations as a municpal force-they are even allowed to stop you for traffic violations.

 

There is enough issues without someone hiding ammo cans or acting suspiciously, or being near equipment. A cacher sees a train coming and drops the ammo can on the tracks. Train runs over the can-piece of it punctures the diesel tank-or a tanker with gasoline. Fuel ignites and starts a grassfire. It spreads and consumes thousands of acres of farm crop, causing towns to be evacuated and the loss of that years income for farmers, and possibly some homes. Or they could just deny caches on their property.

[AZcachemeister]

I think upon further investigation you may discover that the railroad restriction is based upon trespassing concerns, not safety.

 

If that were the case, there would be very few tunnel caches.

 

But in fact, I have been cited many times that the reasons reviewers deny it is because of safety, not trespassing - 150 foot rule is cited for safety often. even if it is on public property.

 

Are there a lot of caches in tunnels of active railroad lines in your area?

Please provide examples.

 

If your local reviewer is citing safety as the main concern, then they are not well versed in the (Toz will love this) rationale behind the guideline.

However, safety and liability IS the reason railroad companies don't like trespassers on their property.

[+gpsblake]

Apparently the rule doesn't apply to all geocaches. Here's one that is 15 feet from a very busy railroad line in Batesburg. It's archived now, only because the town cleaned up the shrubs and people are DNFing it.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC1PYJ6

 

You can even see the gravel the traintracks almost on the geocache location

 

[Keystone]

gpsblake, I'm curious about your opinion of the detailed notes exchanged between the cache owner and the reviewer prior to the publication of the cache you are citing. Based on that dialogue, why do you think that the guideline about railroad properties was not applied and evaluated properly?

[Clan Riffster]

I can't speak for gpsblake, however I can offer an opinion, which may, or may not, be valid.

Looking at the picture, I'm guessing that the cache owner was able to demonstrate that the railroad in question did not own the property where the cache was placed, which would make the permission/trespassing angle null.

Maybe?

[+wimseyguy]

I'm just surprised that someone who's been caching for ten years doesn't know the difference between archived and disabled.

 

Back OT, I think the rotund LEO might be onto something with his analysis.

[+Team Beard]

i know asking this not to be debated would be a futile and fruitless request.

 

No offense intended, but I giggle a little every time a phrase such as this is posted anywhere on the internet.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

I don't think safety and geocaching have a lot to do with each other. As soon as you get over a 2.5 or 3 terrain the danger begins to escalate. My wife and I have done PLENTY caches where with one miss-step we could have been seriously injured or killed but the terrain was rated 4 or 5 so we knew what we were getting in to. A GRC blocking a dead end road in the middle of no where is super safe ( wasps & spiders exempted )and should be a 1 terr where a GRC in a busy area would be a 3.5 terr.

As long as a caches terrain is rated properly and the cache page ( which too many ignore )describes the cache accurately there should be no problem. Geocaching is only as safe as the next cache you attempt and even then there are surprises. On a 1.5 terr at the edge of a ballpark I was stung a dozen times by a swarm of bees ( all fine in an hour) as well as bitten by a spider (over a year before pain was gone). We've had bad falls as well, all on relatively easy terrains. So far we've done O.K. on the tough terrains.

Safety glasses, hats, long pants/shirt sleeves,hiking boots, walking sticks,bug spray,and gloves are a few things everyone can use to minimize damage. I also carry a first aid kit and a pair of crutches in the truck.

[+Off Grid]

I am reminded of this via this post http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=309876

 

The guideline that you cannot have a cache within 150 feet of a railroad track because it is "unsafe" vs. placing guard rail caches - which you are more likely to get hurt there than at a railroad.

 

i know asking this not to be debated would be a futile and fruitless request.

I'm having this discussion with a reviewer now actual

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

My wife and I have done PLENTY caches where with one miss-step we could have been seriously injured or killed but the terrain was rated 4 or 5 so we knew what we were getting in to.

 

Like this one?

 

[+Off Grid]

Apparently the rule doesn't apply to all geocaches. Here's one that is 15 feet from a very busy railroad line in Batesburg. It's archived now, only because the town cleaned up the shrubs and people are DNFing it.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC1PYJ6

 

You can even see the gravel the traintracks almost on the geocache location

 

by what just happened to me

in attempting to place one near a railroad a cache

but quite a bit away is that you can not have the cache there at all

[+K13]

Kadir beneath Mo Moteh.

[Clan Riffster]

Kadir beneath Mo Moteh.

Kiteo, his eyes closed

[+wimseyguy]

Canadian haiku-eh perhaps?

Edited April 18, 2013 by wimseyguy

[AZcachemeister]

Canadian haiku-eh perhaps?

 

Too many syllables.

Post-modern haiku?

[AZcachemeister]

I can't speak for gpsblake, however I can offer an opinion, which may, or may not, be valid.

Looking at the picture, I'm guessing that the cache owner was able to demonstrate that the railroad in question did not own the property where the cache was placed, which would make the permission/trespassing angle null.

Maybe?

 

That's what I was thinking.

Why put up an impressive plaque if the railroad cops were going to chase everyone away and give them tickets?

[+JL_HSTRE]

If you are place a cache near a RR but you feel it is far enough that it should be published then submit some photographic evidence to your Reviewer to help defend your case.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I can't speak for gpsblake, however I can offer an opinion, which may, or may not, be valid.

Looking at the picture, I'm guessing that the cache owner was able to demonstrate that the railroad in question did not own the property where the cache was placed, which would make the permission/trespassing angle null.

Maybe?

 

That's what I was thinking.

Why put up an impressive plaque if the railroad cops were going to chase everyone away and give them tickets?

 

As Keystone suggests, since nobody except the reviewer and cache owner are privy to the dialog which took place prior to the cache being published all we can do is speculate as to why this cache still remains active.

 

As far as property ownership goes, even if a RR company does not own property close to an active railway, there are still right-of-way allowances when RR tracks go through public land. From the references I found that typically extends 100' on each side of the tracks, which probably led to the 150' proximity guideline that generally is used by reviewers.

[+edscott]

It seems that making the actual RR property or right of way off limits would make more sense than selecting some arbitrary distance.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

It seems that making the actual RR property or right of way off limits would make more sense than selecting some arbitrary distance.

 

Given accuracy of a GPS it's probably more reasonable to add an additional 50' to the proximity restriction. If someone placed a cache 80 feet from a set of RR tracks the coordinates that were submitted might show it to be 110 from the tracks due to GPS accuracy.

[+Off Grid]

It seems that making the actual RR property or right of way off limits would make more sense than selecting some arbitrary distance.

I agree make a rule for it to be off limits

[7rxc]

Canadian haiku-eh perhaps?

 

Too many syllables.

Post-modern haiku?

Star Trek: TNG reference. Metaphor language.

 

Edit: Tamarian Language

 

Doug 7rxc

Edited April 19, 2013 by 7rxc

[+JL_HSTRE]

It seems that making the actual RR property or right of way off limits would make more sense than selecting some arbitrary distance.

 

100-150 ft is typical, but this varies. Finding out the exact distance for each section of track would probably be very difficult. It is much easier to have one constant distance.

[+Lieblweb]

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC1PYJ6

 

 

Perhaps the rules were different in 2009 when that was published and is 'grandfathered in'

[AZcachemeister]

It seems that making the actual RR property or right of way off limits would make more sense than selecting some arbitrary distance.

 

This would be a great idea, if we could only get the railroad companies to clearly mark off their property.

 

They don't.

 

In some cases it is pretty clear where the railroad property is, but in others it isn't.

 

Like the city park that is thirty feet from the tracks.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

http://www.geocachin...aspx?wp=GC1PYJ6

 

 

Perhaps the rules were different in 2009 when that was published and is 'grandfathered in'

 

Nope. I ran into an issue when I tried to place my first cache in 2007 in a small town park near some RR tracks. In fact, in order to enter the small parking lot of the park one had to cross the RR tracks. The reviewer mentioned an incident that occurred 2-3 years before that involving a cache owner that was arrested and fined for placing a cache near RR tracks and asked for explicit permission from the RR company *and* the town park department before he could publish a cache in the location (the coordinates indicated that it was about 100' from the tracks on the other side of the parking lot from the tracks.

[4wheelin_fool]

I have one very close to RR tracks which was able to be published due to the 6' chain link fence separating the 2 properties.

[+wmpastor]

I think upon further investigation you may discover that the railroad restriction is based upon trespassing concerns, not safety.

 

If that were the case, there would be very few tunnel caches.

I'm new to caching, but I've never seen a tunnel cache, or even a tunnel cache listing.

 

Hey, here's an idea - a cache in a railroad tunnel! The best of both worlds! That should satisfy those who enjoy high thrills like the caches in an "alligator-filled swamp scuba cache."

[medoug]

So, with many rails-to-trails still shown on maps as rail lines, how does a reviewer know whether a cache is on a legitimate walking trail or illegally placed too close to an active railroad?

 

I can think of at least one recently placed cache that appears to break the 150-foot rule, and the only conclusion that I can imagine is that the reviewer may have misinterpreted the railroad as being a trail.

[AZcachemeister]

So, with many rails-to-trails still shown on maps as rail lines, how does a reviewer know whether a cache is on a legitimate walking trail or illegally placed too close to an active railroad?

 

By (hopefully) being familiar with the 'rails-to-trails' trails in their area.

 

I can think of at least one recently placed cache that appears to break the 150-foot rule, and the only conclusion that I can imagine is that the reviewer may have misinterpreted the railroad as being a trail.

 

Have you been to the location?

Do you know for sure the rail line there is active?

 

If so, please be a whistle-blowing cache cop and report what you see to the reviewer.

Peoples lives could be at stake, and certainly a trespassing ticket from a railroad cop is no laughing matter.

[medoug]

So, with many rails-to-trails still shown on maps as rail lines, how does a reviewer know whether a cache is on a legitimate walking trail or illegally placed too close to an active railroad?

 

By (hopefully) being familiar with the 'rails-to-trails' trails in their area.

 

I think this would be difficult as reviewers often cover a very large area.

 

I can think of at least one recently placed cache that appears to break the 150-foot rule, and the only conclusion that I can imagine is that the reviewer may have misinterpreted the railroad as being a trail.

 

Have you been to the location?

Do you know for sure the rail line there is active?

 

I'm familiar with the area and know that it is indeed an active rail line, but I have not attempted to find the caches yet. I guess there's a possibility that there is a natural barrier between the cache and the rails as some others had mentioned earlier in this thread.

[medoug]

So, with many rails-to-trails still shown on maps as rail lines, how does a reviewer know whether a cache is on a legitimate walking trail or illegally placed too close to an active railroad?

 

By (hopefully) being familiar with the 'rails-to-trails' trails in their area.

 

I can think of at least one recently placed cache that appears to break the 150-foot rule, and the only conclusion that I can imagine is that the reviewer may have misinterpreted the railroad as being a trail.

 

Have you been to the location?

Do you know for sure the rail line there is active?

 

If so, please be a whistle-blowing cache cop and report what you see to the reviewer.

Peoples lives could be at stake, and certainly a trespassing ticket from a railroad cop is no laughing matter.

 

Nevermind. I've done some additional investigation.

Although the geocaching maps show the railroad VERY close to the caches in question, Google maps aerial views show that the railroad is actually the proper distance from the caches. Apparently the rail line shown on the geocaching map is off a bit (more than 100') from where it is really located.

Edited April 21, 2013 by medoug

[+NYPaddleCacher]

So, with many rails-to-trails still shown on maps as rail lines, how does a reviewer know whether a cache is on a legitimate walking trail or illegally placed too close to an active railroad?

 

By (hopefully) being familiar with the 'rails-to-trails' trails in their area.

 

I think this would be difficult as reviewers often cover a very large area.

 

 

Which is why, if there is any question, a reviewer will ask for clarification. I had one that was on a rail trail that not yet been developed but the tracks were long gone. On at least map it showed the graphics for RR tracks and all it took was a confirmation from me that it was not an active RR for the cache to get published.

[AZcachemeister]

 

Nevermind. I've done some additional investigation.

Although the geocaching maps show the railroad VERY close to the caches in question, Google maps aerial views show that the railroad is actually the proper distance from the caches. Apparently the rail line shown on the geocaching map is off a bit (more than 100') from where it is really located.

 

Hmmm, well it could be that BOTH maps are off about 50 feet, and there MIGHT be an issue.

 

There's no substitute for 'boots on the ground, eyes on the scene' observation.

[+Off Grid]

I had an issue trying to publish one recently there was a five foot fence and a small walk to the tracks and a huge hill in the way I got a no. Than when I went geocaching a few days later I came across a cache right beside the tracks and was told that that's OK cause it was already there

 

Hahaha ugh shouldnt it be not OK

¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿??????

[+TheWeatherWarrior]

There are plenty of caches within 150 feet of a Railroad. You just have to make sure you clearly define restrictions on your cache page, and be communicative with the reviewer upon submission. In some cases, fences, walls, etc. can reduce the needed 150 feet as preventions for RR property trespassing.

 

I'd also wonder about active RR versus barely used RRs. Not sure a reviewer would even know the difference, but I'm thinking of some RR lines out in the central US that see maybe two or three trains a month, and are out in the middle of field. Now, granted, why one would bother with a cache in such a featureless spot, don't know, but it is just what pops in the head at the moment.

[medoug]

 

Nevermind. I've done some additional investigation.

Although the geocaching maps show the railroad VERY close to the caches in question, Google maps aerial views show that the railroad is actually the proper distance from the caches. Apparently the rail line shown on the geocaching map is off a bit (more than 100') from where it is really located.

 

Hmmm, well it could be that BOTH maps are off about 50 feet, and there MIGHT be an issue.

 

There's no substitute for 'boots on the ground, eyes on the scene' observation.

 

Agreed. Here's what the maps show (approximately same scale):

You can see why the geocaching.com map had me concerned, but the google aerial view map looks much better.

[+TheWeatherWarrior]

That is true...the geocaching background maps are terrible for such things. Hell, my (now adopted) cache for the northern most corner of DC actually showed it was in Maryland because the lines were way off. I mean the official corner stone was right there, and I know I placed it in DC, but it kept insisting it was Maryland. Luckily the cache page you can override the state designation.

[+Trucker Lee]

So, with many rails-to-trails still shown on maps as rail lines, how does a reviewer know whether a cache is on a legitimate walking trail or illegally placed too close to an active railroad?

 

Plug the coords into Google Earth and take a look at it.