Major Highways

[+JL_HSTRE]

Fundamental Placement Guidelines 1.6.4:

 

"The cache is problematic due to its proximity to a public structure, including and not limited to, highway bridges, major roadways, dams, government buildings, schools, military installations, hospitals, airports and other such locations."

 

I believe the bolded part was added to the Guidelines sometime earlier this year.

 

1) What is considered a "major highway?"

 

2) Is there a rough distance guideline for major highways like there is for proximity to schools or railroads?

 

3) Is this intended as a catch-all verbiage for states like Virginia and South Carolina where the DOT has banned certain highway placements? (ex: VA's ban includes all federal and state highways, including rest areas) Or is it intended as a new across-the-map policy to cut down on roadside caches?

 

4) Is there something specific that prompted this change? The VA, SC, and similiar state policies? Rising safety concerns?

 

I have not had any of my caches run into problems with this Guideline, but it seems like a potentially significant change and I am looking for a clearer understanding. I don't think I saw any official announcement of the change so it would also seem like a good thing to bring to the attention of others.

Edited May 16, 2013 by Joshism

[+The A-Team]

Fundamental Placement Guidelines 1.6.4:

 

"The cache is problematic due to its proximity to a public structure, including and not limited to, highway bridges, major roadways, dams, government buildings, schools, military installations, hospitals, airports and other such locations."

 

I believe the bolded part was added to the Guidelines sometime earlier this year.

Based on the Wayback Machine, it looks like that term was added in the March 19th guideline update. It wasn't there in the September 18, 2012 version.

[AZcachemeister]

Until we see it actually being applied, who knows what it is really supposed to mean.

[+ByronForestPreserve]

I can't imagine current caches being archived for that, but maybe new ones won't be approved? I can see the reasoning, more or less--most major highways have signs around here that say stopping is for emergencies only. If a state trooper pulled over to help someone he or she thought was in distress and was jauntily told "I'm fine; just geocaching" I could see the authorities being less than pleased.

[4wheelin_fool]

I've noticed some around here pulled from interstates as well as the rest stops.

[+The A-Team]

I can't imagine current caches being archived for that, but maybe new ones won't be approved? I can see the reasoning, more or less--most major highways have signs around here that say stopping is for emergencies only. If a state trooper pulled over to help someone he or she thought was in distress and was jauntily told "I'm fine; just geocaching" I could see the authorities being less than pleased.

To me, not hiding caches along the side of a major roadway seems to fall under the general "common sense" guideline. Do we really need a guideline to tell us that it's a bad idea?

 

I bet someone tried to place a power-trail along the side of a major interstate, and when the reviewer refused to publish them, the CO pointed out that the guidelines didn't say you couldn't place them along the side of the interstate. Now they do.

[+GeoTrekker26]

To me, not hiding caches along the side of a major roadway seems to fall under the general "common sense" guideline. Do we really need a guideline to tell us that it's a bad idea?.

 

I agree about along the side of a major roadway, but "proximity to" could rule out the nearby quiet frontage road and rest areas, depending where in the rest area they are placed.

 

The larger issue is again lack of communication from Groundspeak. There have been several issues of he "newsletter" that could have contained word of the change. It's sad that GS keeps hiding caches without descriptions or hints.

[+ByronForestPreserve]

I can't imagine current caches being archived for that, but maybe new ones won't be approved? I can see the reasoning, more or less--most major highways have signs around here that say stopping is for emergencies only. If a state trooper pulled over to help someone he or she thought was in distress and was jauntily told "I'm fine; just geocaching" I could see the authorities being less than pleased.

To me, not hiding caches along the side of a major roadway seems to fall under the general "common sense" guideline. Do we really need a guideline to tell us that it's a bad idea?

 

I bet someone tried to place a power-trail along the side of a major interstate, and when the reviewer refused to publish them, the CO pointed out that the guidelines didn't say you couldn't place them along the side of the interstate. Now they do.

 

Based on the number of guardrail caches and the times I've seen posts about them...no, it's not common sense. I think wording it that way--a bit vague--allows the reviewer to use his judgement. I like that it doesn't say all roadways or specify guardrails, etc.

[+Walts Hunting]

 

To me, not hiding caches along the side of a major roadway seems to fall under the general "common sense" guideline. Do we really need a guideline to tell us that it's a bad idea?

 

I bet someone tried to place a power-trail along the side of a major interstate, and when the reviewer refused to publish them, the CO pointed out that the guidelines didn't say you couldn't place them along the side of the interstate. Now they do.

 

There's a common sense guideline???.?

[+T.D.M.22]

Fundamental Placement Guidelines 1.6.4:

 

"The cache is problematic due to its proximity to a public structure, including and not limited to, highway bridges, major roadways, dams, government buildings, schools, military installations, hospitals, airports and other such locations."

 

Number one it says major roadway not highway. That probably doesn't make any difference to me or you, but the term highway does have a legal definition, and it will differ depending on where you live. The term roadway would then encompass any road.

 

And see the part I've bolded. That means they won't make a full list and can add anything else at will.

 

What probably happened was that either somebody(or people) complained enough that their cache was denied for being to close to a road and it wasn't in the guidelines, or someone(a government agency perhaps) wanted it specifically added. I remember seeing somewhere that there would be no caches allowed along highways in British Columbia(Not sure if this is still in effect). Perhaps this has something to do with BC, or another similar situation.

[+The A-Team]

There's a common sense guideline???.?

It's one of those unwritten ones. And yes, I know, common sense isn't very common these days.

 

I remember seeing somewhere that there would be no caches allowed along highways in British Columbia(Not sure if this is still in effect). Perhaps this has something to do with BC, or another similar situation.

The Ministry of Transportation ban was in place from August 2011 to June 2012 and is no longer in effect. That ban was for any roads owned or maintained by the MoT. Basically, no caches along numbered highways.

[+ArtieD]

I can't imagine current caches being archived for that, but maybe new ones won't be approved?

 

You mean like this cache that was published today?

 

GC4C0QA - "PITA nano"

[+The A-Team]

I can't imagine current caches being archived for that, but maybe new ones won't be approved?

 

You mean like this cache that was published today?

 

GC4C0QA - "PITA nano"

Wow, how'd that one make it through? Not only is it under a highway overpass, but the description and hint even say so.

[+bjmccacher]

I recently placed a nano on the underside of a highway bridge, parking in a wildlife manament area about 150 feet Away from the bridge, no danger of the highway, people fish and have a campfire under the bridge. I was forced to archive it after a notable local Cacher dnf'd it. I was pretty upset because its a good hide, and I was getting great feedback from it! How is it problematic if there is no issue with the highway?!?!? To me, problematic would be if it was on the top without parking. What, is a car going to fall through the bridge?

[+The A-Team]

How is it problematic if there is no issue with the highway?!?!?

The guideline in question isn't about safety, but rather about public perception. Some members of the general public would find a person poking around under an overpass or the other areas listed in that guideline to be extremely suspicious and could call the police (or higher).

[4wheelin_fool]

I can't imagine current caches being archived for that, but maybe new ones won't be approved?

 

You mean like this cache that was published today?

 

GC4C0QA - "PITA nano"

Wow, how'd that one make it through? Not only is it under a highway overpass, but the description and hint even say so.

 

I'm guessing because it was a nano. The reason for the bridge guideline is bomb scares, which can even be triggered by a film can. A nano will only cause suspicious person complaints.

 

Although I don't know why bjmccacher's nano was archived due to complaints, unless it was because it involved climbing somewhere illegally.

Edited May 16, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

[+ByronForestPreserve]

I can't imagine current caches being archived for that, but maybe new ones won't be approved?

 

You mean like this cache that was published today?

 

GC4C0QA - "PITA nano"

At the reviewer's discretion, of course. One of the coolest caches I ever found was under an overpass...one that was waaaaaay overhead (http://coord.info/GCJ9M0). There's no chance of someone parking on the road to get to this cache. Nor of anyone being spotted and reported as suspicious. I am not sure if I'd question any nearby caches in light of that guideline...maybe the guardrail one I found that is in a cool spot (just about over a river) but that had no shoulder and was a bit hazardous...wait, why did I go for that one...

[+cerberus1]

Would be interesting to see how this relates to roadside power runs in the future.

[+Don_J]

Geocaches are not placed in restricted, prohibited or otherwise inappropriate locations.

 

Additional regulations and laws that apply only to your country and region may further restrict cache placement. A cache may be disabled or archived if one or more of the following is true. Please note that the list is not exhaustive; there are many reasons why a cache may be disabled or archived.

 

If your cache is reported by the land owner or land manager as being an unwanted intrusion, Groundspeak will respect the wishes of the land owner or manager.

The cache placement is in an area that is highly sensitive to additional foot and/or vehicular traffic including, but not limited to, archaeological sites, historical sites and cemeteries. Note that some cemeteries permit cache placement.

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

The cache is problematic due to its proximity to a public structure, including and not limited to, highway bridges, major roadways, dams, government buildings, schools, military installations, hospitals, airports and other such locations.

 

The way that I see it, it gives the reviewer a way to archive an otherwise acceptable cache, if it becomes problematic. In other words, it you stick an ammo can in a tree in a rest stop and the state police confiscate it, you may just get your listing archived.

[+Don_J]

Would be interesting to see how this relates to roadside power runs in the future.

 

I think that most are reading this wrong. It doesn't prohibit roadside caches. It says that they can be archived if they become problematic. The entire original ET Hwy PT was archived by Groundspeak for that very reason. When the owners showed that they could re-do it without it causing the original problems, it was allowed.

[+Isonzo Karst]

 

To me, not hiding caches along the side of a major roadway seems to fall under the general "common sense" guideline. Do we really need a guideline to tell us that it's a bad idea?

 

I bet someone tried to place a power-trail along the side of a major interstate, and when the reviewer refused to publish them, the CO pointed out that the guidelines didn't say you couldn't place them along the side of the interstate. Now they do.

 

There's a common sense guideline???.?

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#commonsense

 

geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#commonsense

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Fundamental Placement Guidelines 1.6.4:

 

"The cache is problematic due to its proximity to a public structure, including and not limited to, highway bridges, major roadways, dams, government buildings, schools, military installations, hospitals, airports and other such locations."

 

Number one it says major roadway not highway. That probably doesn't make any difference to me or you, but the term highway does have a legal definition, and it will differ depending on where you live. The term roadway would then encompass any road.

 

That's a good point. A designated highway, at least in California has some regulations that don't exist for a major road. At the entrance to a designated highway there's usually a sign which indicates that pedestrians, bicycles, and horses are not allowed. Typically, you can't stop along the side of the road except in an emergency as well. In fact, when one gets a learners permit for driving in California, you can't drive on a designated highway, and a motorcycle must have at least 15hp to be used on a highway. A "major road" has not official designation. A major road through the heart of silicon valley (such as the El Camino Real...and has a lot of caches within close proximity) is nothing like a major road in Africa. It seems to me that the "must comply with all laws" guideline should be sufficient. If there is a "no stopping except for emergencies" ordinance on a road, placing a cache on the side of the road would violated that ordinance. Similarly, many major roads have designated rest stop and pull off areas that *should* be okay to place a cache.

 

 

[+Maingray]

 

The larger issue is again lack of communication from Groundspeak. There have been several issues of he "newsletter" that could have contained word of the change. It's sad that GS keeps hiding caches without descriptions or hints.

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=308782

[+CanadianRockies]

Would be interesting to see how this relates to roadside power runs in the future.

I think that most are reading this wrong. It doesn't prohibit roadside caches. It says that they can be archived if they become problematic. The entire original ET Hwy PT was archived by Groundspeak for that very reason. When the owners showed that they could re-do it without it causing the original problems, it was allowed.

While this guideline certainly has been applied retroactively to archive caches that prove to be problematic, it more commonly has been applied proactively to deny publication to cache types that historically have been determined to be problematic. If you submit a cache that is on a highway bridge or near a dam, school, military installation, or cemetery, then it's unlikely that it will get published.

 

If someone tried to create a power trail along a busy highway that only allows emergency parking, then I wouldn't be surprised if it was proactively denied publication.

[+redwoodkestrel]

I recently placed a nano on the underside of a highway bridge, parking in a wildlife manament area about 150 feet Away from the bridge, no danger of the highway, people fish and have a campfire under the bridge. I was forced to archive it after a notable local Cacher dnf'd it. I was pretty upset because its a good hide, and I was getting great feedback from it! How is it problematic if there is no issue with the highway?!?!? To me, problematic would be if it was on the top without parking. What, is a car going to fall through the bridge?

 

I looked at that cache and am not sure why you archived it after the DNF? It just sounded like he didn't feel comfortable going after it due to his own safety/limitations - nothing about the fact that it was under an overpass. I DNF caches that are big tree climbs all the time, because I know my own limitations and that I'd probably fall right out of the tree. It doesn't mean I expect the CO to archive it, nor am I complaining that it's hard to get to - I'm just stating why I personally won't be getting it. You have it as a T5, so not everyone can or will be able to get it - that's pretty normal with a T5.

 

I just didn't get the feel of "complaining" from his log, or why you felt you were "forced" to archive it when others had found it (and others had DNF'd it). Just my $0.02!

[+sasqwatches]

Sorry for getting off topic but what is the guideline for the proximity to a school I have not been able to find a definitive distance or even a reference to a imaginary distance "out of line sight" "not within sight of" or anything along those lines. I live really close to a school but would like to put a hide in my front yard.

[+briansnat]

Sorry for getting off topic but what is the guideline for the proximity to a school I have not been able to find a definitive distance or even a reference to a imaginary distance "out of line sight" "not within sight of" or anything along those lines. I live really close to a school but would like to put a hide in my front yard.

 

That's because there is no definitive distance. Most reviewers use the "would someone hunting a cache be easily visible from the school and likely to raise an alarm" standard. It could be 50 feet in a city or 500 yards in rural Nebraska.

Edited May 16, 2013 by briansnat

[+sasqwatches]

Sorry for getting off topic but what is the guideline for the proximity to a school I have not been able to find a definitive distance or even a reference to a imaginary distance "out of line sight" "not within sight of" or anything along those lines. I live really close to a school but would like to put a hide in my front yard.

 

That's because there is no definitive distance. Most reviewers use the "would someone hunting a cache be easily visible from the school and likely to raise an alarm" standard. It could be 50 feet in a city or 500 yards in rural Nebraska.

thanks your explantion is a better answer than the guideline which seems to be raising more questions than answers

[+Don_J]

Fundamental Placement Guidelines 1.6.4:

 

"The cache is problematic due to its proximity to a public structure, including and not limited to, highway bridges, major roadways, dams, government buildings, schools, military installations, hospitals, airports and other such locations."

 

Number one it says major roadway not highway. That probably doesn't make any difference to me or you, but the term highway does have a legal definition, and it will differ depending on where you live. The term roadway would then encompass any road.

 

That's a good point. A designated highway, at least in California has some regulations that don't exist for a major road. At the entrance to a designated highway there's usually a sign which indicates that pedestrians, bicycles, and horses are not allowed. Typically, you can't stop along the side of the road except in an emergency as well. In fact, when one gets a learners permit for driving in California, you can't drive on a designated highway, and a motorcycle must have at least 15hp to be used on a highway. A "major road" has not official designation. A major road through the heart of silicon valley (such as the El Camino Real...and has a lot of caches within close proximity) is nothing like a major road in Africa. It seems to me that the "must comply with all laws" guideline should be sufficient. If there is a "no stopping except for emergencies" ordinance on a road, placing a cache on the side of the road would violated that ordinance. Similarly, many major roads have designated rest stop and pull off areas that *should* be okay to place a cache.

 

You have your definitions a little confused. What you have described is a "Limited Access Highway", more commonly known in California as a "Freeway". They are typically fenced off except at the access points and have rules that don't apply to other Designated Highways. The term Highway as opposed to Roadway is jurisdictional and has more to do with ownership, responsibility and maintenance. In the Santa Clarita Valley, State Route 14-ALT, Sierra Hwy, was recently un-designated with the state relinquishing control of it to the county. In my area, SR-27, Topanga Canyon Blvd is a designated highway which the state is responsible for. 99% of it's daily users know it only as a 2-6 lane street that connects Malibu to Chatsworth. It has businesses, apartments and houses along it's length and many geocaches.

Edited May 16, 2013 by Don_J

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Fundamental Placement Guidelines 1.6.4:

 

"The cache is problematic due to its proximity to a public structure, including and not limited to, highway bridges, major roadways, dams, government buildings, schools, military installations, hospitals, airports and other such locations."

 

Number one it says major roadway not highway. That probably doesn't make any difference to me or you, but the term highway does have a legal definition, and it will differ depending on where you live. The term roadway would then encompass any road.

 

That's a good point. A designated highway, at least in California has some regulations that don't exist for a major road. At the entrance to a designated highway there's usually a sign which indicates that pedestrians, bicycles, and horses are not allowed. Typically, you can't stop along the side of the road except in an emergency as well. In fact, when one gets a learners permit for driving in California, you can't drive on a designated highway, and a motorcycle must have at least 15hp to be used on a highway. A "major road" has not official designation. A major road through the heart of silicon valley (such as the El Camino Real...and has a lot of caches within close proximity) is nothing like a major road in Africa. It seems to me that the "must comply with all laws" guideline should be sufficient. If there is a "no stopping except for emergencies" ordinance on a road, placing a cache on the side of the road would violated that ordinance. Similarly, many major roads have designated rest stop and pull off areas that *should* be okay to place a cache.

 

You have your definitions a little confused. What you have described is a "Limited Access Highway", more commonly known in California as a "Freeway". They are typically fenced off except at the access points and have rules that don't apply to other Designated Highways. The term Highway as opposed to Roadway is jurisdictional and has more to do with ownership, responsibility and maintenance. In the Santa Clarita Valley, State Route 14-ALT, Sierra Hwy, was recently un-designated with the state relinquishing control of it to the county. In my area, SR-27, Topanga Canyon Blvd is a designated highway which the state is responsible for. 99% of it's daily users know it only as a 2-6 lane street that connects Malibu to Chatsworth. It has businesses, apartments and houses along it's length and many geocaches.

 

Yes, I was referring to a freeway but that's a term that I haven't heard much since I moved from California (I lived there for 40 years) so I didn't use it. Perhaps "major roadway" is generic enough for the guideline because anything else isn't used globally.

[+Don_J]

Fundamental Placement Guidelines 1.6.4:

 

"The cache is problematic due to its proximity to a public structure, including and not limited to, highway bridges, major roadways, dams, government buildings, schools, military installations, hospitals, airports and other such locations."

 

Number one it says major roadway not highway. That probably doesn't make any difference to me or you, but the term highway does have a legal definition, and it will differ depending on where you live. The term roadway would then encompass any road.

 

That's a good point. A designated highway, at least in California has some regulations that don't exist for a major road. At the entrance to a designated highway there's usually a sign which indicates that pedestrians, bicycles, and horses are not allowed. Typically, you can't stop along the side of the road except in an emergency as well. In fact, when one gets a learners permit for driving in California, you can't drive on a designated highway, and a motorcycle must have at least 15hp to be used on a highway. A "major road" has not official designation. A major road through the heart of silicon valley (such as the El Camino Real...and has a lot of caches within close proximity) is nothing like a major road in Africa. It seems to me that the "must comply with all laws" guideline should be sufficient. If there is a "no stopping except for emergencies" ordinance on a road, placing a cache on the side of the road would violated that ordinance. Similarly, many major roads have designated rest stop and pull off areas that *should* be okay to place a cache.

 

You have your definitions a little confused. What you have described is a "Limited Access Highway", more commonly known in California as a "Freeway". They are typically fenced off except at the access points and have rules that don't apply to other Designated Highways. The term Highway as opposed to Roadway is jurisdictional and has more to do with ownership, responsibility and maintenance. In the Santa Clarita Valley, State Route 14-ALT, Sierra Hwy, was recently un-designated with the state relinquishing control of it to the county. In my area, SR-27, Topanga Canyon Blvd is a designated highway which the state is responsible for. 99% of it's daily users know it only as a 2-6 lane street that connects Malibu to Chatsworth. It has businesses, apartments and houses along it's length and many geocaches.

 

Yes, I was referring to a freeway but that's a term that I haven't heard much since I moved from California (I lived there for 40 years) so I didn't use it. Perhaps "major roadway" is generic enough for the guideline because anything else isn't used globally.

 

It still gets confusing. CA-SR-1, Pacific Coast Hwy, would be considered a major highway. There are open sections with 55 MPH speed limits where you can legally park and cross when it is safe to do so.

 

SR-58, through the Mojave Desert has sections that go from limited access to regular highway where it is legal to park, but would be near suicidal to actually do so. Cars stopping to find a geocache would be very problematic.

[+Manville Possum]

I've noticed some around here pulled from interstates as well as the rest stops.

Same here.

[+ArtieD]

If I am not wrong, around here in Missouri you cannot have a cache that forces people to pull off to the side of the road if it's fairly major or four-laned.

Edited May 17, 2013 by Arthur & Trillian

[+ArtieD]

I can't imagine current caches being archived for that, but maybe new ones won't be approved?

 

You mean like this cache that was published today?

 

GC4C0QA - "PITA nano"

Wow, how'd that one make it through? Not only is it under a highway overpass, but the description and hint even say so.

 

Well, this one is gone. After a note expressing concern about a legal and safe parking area, the reviewer archived the cache, stating in part that the cache wasn't "quite as safe as the impression I was given" and that the particular road this cache was hidden on was the "type of highway [that] isn't a safe or a family friendly atmosphere for caching."

Edited May 17, 2013 by Arthur & Trillian

[+Don_J]

I can't imagine current caches being archived for that, but maybe new ones won't be approved?

 

You mean like this cache that was published today?

 

GC4C0QA - "PITA nano"

Wow, how'd that one make it through? Not only is it under a highway overpass, but the description and hint even say so.

 

Well, this one is gone. After a note expressing concern about a legal and safe parking area, the reviewer archived the cache, stating in part that the cache wasn't "quite as safe as the impression I was given" and that the particular road this cache was hidden on was the "type of highway [that] isn't a safe or a family friendly atmosphere for caching."

 

This is just plain wrong.

 

1. Reviewers do not review for safety. This reviewer just opened a can of worms that Groundspeak has been trying to keep closed for a long time.

 

2. It is not a requirement that caches present a "a safe or a family friendly atmosphere".

 

3. Of course, I'm not there, but Street view shows this as any other four lane roadway out in the countryside. I see no signs limiting parking, and while I can't see the side of the road that has the cache, the opposite side has a shoulder that appears to be more than wide enough to park a car. If not, go down the road and walk. Bring your bicycle.

 

4. Was the cache problematic? It looks to me that a few whined to the reviewer because they were not up to the task of getting the cache. This from a cacher that never even went to GZ. "Looking at the satellite maps I am not seeing anywhere that is safe, or legal, to park. Is there a legal and safe place to park to grab this one?"

 

5. If the reviewer really wanted to axe the cache, he should have decided that US-75 is a terrorist target, not safety. Plenty of caches are placed in spots where you are not allowed to park. If you want to find the cache, park where it is safe, get your butt out of the car and walk. Unless of course, it is now illegal to walk down a road in Kansas.

[+CanadianRockies]

1. Reviewers do not review for safety. This reviewer just opened a can of worms that Groundspeak has been trying to keep closed for a long time.

While it's not widely publicized, Volunteer Reviewers can and have archived caches for safety reasons. For example, see this post.

 

2. It is not a requirement that caches present a "a safe or a family friendly atmosphere".

While there are no public guidelines to back it up, I know from personal experience that caches have been not been published because they did not present a family-friendly atmosphere.

 

I believe it was you who commented:

 

What if I created a puzzle that required you to watch a specific porn video and count how many positions the actors performed in. It's a slam dunk that it wouldn't be accepted on the website. Do we really need to recite chapter and verse as to why?

[4wheelin_fool]

The history of prohibiting caches underneath of overpasses was due to percieved bomb threats, not safety. I recall a cache covered in electronic pc boards and hung with a cord underneath of one. It was called into the bomb squad before the cacher even attempted to list it.

[+jellis]

I can't imagine current caches being archived for that, but maybe new ones won't be approved?

 

You mean like this cache that was published today?

 

GC4C0QA - "PITA nano"

At the reviewer's discretion, of course. One of the coolest caches I ever found was under an overpass...one that was waaaaaay overhead (http://coord.info/GCJ9M0). There's no chance of someone parking on the road to get to this cache. Nor of anyone being spotted and reported as suspicious. I am not sure if I'd question any nearby caches in light of that guideline...maybe the guardrail one I found that is in a cool spot (just about over a river) but that had no shoulder and was a bit hazardous...wait, why did I go for that one...

I believe it was the note from the CO in the logs that said this that raised a red flag:

Approach southbound on Topeka Blvd./old U.S. 75. Park on the shoulder of the highway just north of the overpass. Happy geocaching!

[+Don_J]

The history of prohibiting caches underneath of overpasses was due to percieved bomb threats, not safety. I recall a cache covered in electronic pc boards and hung with a cord underneath of one. It was called into the bomb squad before the cacher even attempted to list it.

 

But that's not why it was archived. It was archived because someone said they couldn't find safe parking from the satellite view.

[+Don_J]

1. Reviewers do not review for safety. This reviewer just opened a can of worms that Groundspeak has been trying to keep closed for a long time.

While it's not widely publicized, Volunteer Reviewers can and have archived caches for safety reasons. For example, see this post.

 

2. It is not a requirement that caches present a "a safe or a family friendly atmosphere".

While there are no public guidelines to back it up, I know from personal experience that caches have been not been published because they did not present a family-friendly atmosphere.

 

I believe it was you who commented:

 

What if I created a puzzle that required you to watch a specific porn video and count how many positions the actors performed in. It's a slam dunk that it wouldn't be accepted on the website. Do we really need to recite chapter and verse as to why?

 

Yes, I wrote that in context to a cache listing, not the conditions at any particular ground zero. The family friendly guideline applies to cache listings, not cache locations. Would Vinnie's radioactive cache present a safe or family friend atmosphere? Would a cache in an alligator infested swamp meet that litmus test? What about a 50 mile hiking multi where there is a real risk of being attacked by a bear? How many caches are adjacent to homeless encampments? Is that a place where you want to bring your kids?

[+Don_J]

I can't imagine current caches being archived for that, but maybe new ones won't be approved?

 

You mean like this cache that was published today?

 

GC4C0QA - "PITA nano"

At the reviewer's discretion, of course. One of the coolest caches I ever found was under an overpass...one that was waaaaaay overhead (http://coord.info/GCJ9M0). There's no chance of someone parking on the road to get to this cache. Nor of anyone being spotted and reported as suspicious. I am not sure if I'd question any nearby caches in light of that guideline...maybe the guardrail one I found that is in a cool spot (just about over a river) but that had no shoulder and was a bit hazardous...wait, why did I go for that one...

I believe it was the note from the CO in the logs that said this that raised a red flag:

Approach southbound on Topeka Blvd./old U.S. 75. Park on the shoulder of the highway just north of the overpass. Happy geocaching!

 

What's wrong with parking on the shoulder of a highway if it is not specifically prohibited?

 

Edit to add: It was the FTF that posted that note, not the CO.

Edited May 18, 2013 by Don_J

[+ArtieD]

I think it all boils down to the idea that there is no precedent when it comes to cache placements. The reviewer apparently thought it was a bad idea to make people park along a highway and go looking under an active highway bridge for a cache, and so it was archived. I, for one, can't fault the reviewer for archiving it at all. You know in this terrorism-obsessed country of ours, even such an activity as caching in this spot would raise red flags whether totally innocent or not. Why even begin to bring negative attention to this hobby? It's not worth it.

[+CanadianRockies]

2. It is not a requirement that caches present a "a safe or a family friendly atmosphere".

While there are no public guidelines to back it up, I know from personal experience that caches have been not been published because they did not present a family-friendly atmosphere.

 

I believe it was you who commented:

 

What if I created a puzzle that required you to watch a specific porn video and count how many positions the actors performed in. It's a slam dunk that it wouldn't be accepted on the website. Do we really need to recite chapter and verse as to why?

 

Yes, I wrote that in context to a cache listing, not the conditions at any particular ground zero. The family friendly guideline applies to cache listings, not cache locations. Would Vinnie's radioactive cache present a safe or family friend atmosphere? Would a cache in an alligator infested swamp meet that litmus test? What about a 50 mile hiking multi where there is a real risk of being attacked by a bear? How many caches are adjacent to homeless encampments? Is that a place where you want to bring your kids?

There is no family-friendly guideline regarding cache listings. The Terms of Use Agreement prohibits uploading vulgar, profane, or obscene material to Groundspeak's websites, but even that doesn't apply to videos that aren't uploaded.

 

There is, however, a guideline that states, "Geocaches are not placed in restricted, prohibited or otherwise inappropriate locations." (Emphasis added.)

 

In either case, the solution appears to be rather obvious. If there's a location or website you don't want your kids to visit, then don't take them there. I think it's safe to say that parents generally are better able to make that determination rather than Groundspeak.

 

Having vague or unwritten guidelines gives lots of discretion to Volunteer Reviewers to determine what is or is not appropriate. While this has certain advantages, it also has many disadvantages. One of the disadvantages is that they might make a decision with which you (and many others) might disagree.

Edited May 18, 2013 by CanadianRockies

[+Don_J]

I think it all boils down to the idea that there is no precedent when it comes to cache placements. The reviewer apparently thought it was a bad idea to make people park along a highway and go looking under an active highway bridge for a cache, and so it was archived. I, for one, can't fault the reviewer for archiving it at all. You know in this terrorism-obsessed country of ours, even such an activity as caching in this spot would raise red flags whether totally innocent or not. Why even begin to bring negative attention to this hobby? It's not worth it.

 

I have no problem with the reviewer archiving the cache. It's what he wrote as the reason, and why he wrote it. Simply put, all cache locations do not have to be safe and family friendly. The fact that he did it because a geocacher knows how to use a satellite view but apparently not how to use Street View shouldn't be the basis for archiving a cache.

 

Terrorism? If the reviewer really thinks so, okay. Typically a cache like that gets by if it's out in the sticks. The Four-Level in Downtown LA, perhaps not.

[+Don_J]

2. It is not a requirement that caches present a "a safe or a family friendly atmosphere".

While there are no public guidelines to back it up, I know from personal experience that caches have been not been published because they did not present a family-friendly atmosphere.

 

I believe it was you who commented:

 

What if I created a puzzle that required you to watch a specific porn video and count how many positions the actors performed in. It's a slam dunk that it wouldn't be accepted on the website. Do we really need to recite chapter and verse as to why?

 

Yes, I wrote that in context to a cache listing, not the conditions at any particular ground zero. The family friendly guideline applies to cache listings, not cache locations. Would Vinnie's radioactive cache present a safe or family friend atmosphere? Would a cache in an alligator infested swamp meet that litmus test? What about a 50 mile hiking multi where there is a real risk of being attacked by a bear? How many caches are adjacent to homeless encampments? Is that a place where you want to bring your kids?

There is no family-friendly guideline regarding cache listings. The Terms of Use Agreement prohibits uploading vulgar, profane, or obscene material to Groundspeak's websites, but even that doesn't apply to videos that aren't uploaded.

 

There is, however, a guideline that states, "Geocaches are not placed in restricted, prohibited or otherwise inappropriate locations." (Emphasis added.)

 

In either case, the solution appears to be rather obvious. If there's a location or website you don't want your kids to visit, then don't take them there. I think it's safe to say that parents generally are better able to make that determination rather than Groundspeak.

 

Having vague or unwritten guidelines gives lots of discretion to Volunteer Reviewers to determine what is or is not appropriate. While this has certain advantages, it also has many disadvantages. One of the disadvantages is that they might make a decision with which you (and many others) might disagree.

 

We've had this discussion twice already, you can have the last word.

[+bjmccacher]

I was told to move it or archive it in an email. No choice to keep the dt correct, I had to archive. There was no danger of the highway, and no climbing gear needed. It was placed with a pole and retrievable with a pole.