Bridges: Is my thinking flawed?

[+RenMin]

I feel I have a good understanding of the listing requirements and restrictions. I completely understand the issue with bridges and putting caches on or near bridges. To the passerby, people searching

under a bridge look suspicious especially if they are pulling off or putting something on it. However, in my neck of the woods there is a city park with walking paths, boat docks, basketball courts, softball courts that lies directly under a bridge structure (Rensselaer, Ny: Rensselaer Riverfront Park). Part of this park requires the public, if they want to enjoy, to walk under or near bridge structures in certain parts of the park. So my question is if you want to place a cache in this park does the bridge restriction apply if the cache is within the park boundaries and doesn't incorporate the bridge or structures of the bridge in its location? Am I missing something here?

 

This in response to my local reviewer not publishing a cache in this park due to the bridge restriction.

Edited August 6, 2013 by RenMin

[+briansnat]

Questions to ask yourself.

 

Does the bridge carry automotive traffic? If yes, consider:

 

If a bridge inspector found it and felt it to be alarming, could it cause a shut down of the roadway?

 

If someone was seen suspiciously placing (or replacing) the cache, could it cause a shut down of the roadway?

 

If the roadway is shut down might you face possible ramifications as the cache owner?

 

If the roadway is shut down could it cast a negative light on geocaching?

 

If you can answer no to all of these, then take your proposed site to appeals and see what they say.

Edited August 6, 2013 by briansnat

[+tozainamboku]

There seems to be a number bridges crossing the Hudson in this area and most (if not all) appear to be major highways. The bridge guideline falls under section of guidelines that refer to placements that may be problematic. This is generally determined by considering the consequences if the cache is found and reported as a suspicious object or if the actions of geocachers searching for the cache were to raise suspicions.

 

I would wager that if any of the bridges were closed, even for a short time, while the police brought in bomb sniffing dogs to secure the are, it would make the national news.

 

Geocaches are reported all the time as suspicious, and often the reaction is to treat them as a threat. However in most cases it's a local issue and may not even make the local news program. Groundspeak has a list of locations that are "problematic" because 1) these area may be more closely monitored and 2) should they be reported the incident would have more visibility.

 

Sometimes a park where people are frequently walking beneath a bridge may make the actions of geocachers seem less suspicious. And perhaps a micro or even a clearly labelled small container would not cause a bomb scare. However, the reviewer is likely going to err on the side of caution here. If there is room elsewhere in the park not as close to the bridge, why not place a cache there?

Edited August 6, 2013 by tozainamboku

[+T.D.M.22]

I don't think it matters what we, or other reviewer might think. The cache was denied. You understand the bridge rules. There is also the guideline saying, just because a cache has been allowed, doesn't mean that other similar ones will be allowed.

 

Also going to ask; did you explain all of this to your reviewer? If not, you can't really blame the reviewer for not knowing the full situation...

Edited August 6, 2013 by T.D.M.22

[Mr.Yuck]

So this cache is not ON the bridge or it's structure. You have not said whether or not it could be considered "underneath" the bridge though. There is an appeals process, by emailing appeals@geocaching.com. However, I'm of the opinion hardly anyone ever gets their rejection overturned. I do know someone who did once, and I'm sure it was a rejection by the same reviewer you are currently dealing with. If that's any consolation.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

So this cache is not ON the bridge or it's structure. You have not said whether or not it could be considered "underneath" the bridge though. There is an appeals process, by emailing appeals@geocaching.com. However, I'm of the opinion hardly anyone ever gets their rejection overturned. I do know someone who did once, and I'm sure it was a rejection by the same reviewer you are currently dealing with. If that's any consolation.

 

I think I know which bridge the OP might be referring to. Rensselear is a small city along the Hudson river a bit upriver from Albany. There a few bridges that cross the river, including one that is somewhat of a major highway. The river at that point is part of a deep water shipping channel thus the bridges are quite elevated and the riverfront area has been developed with some good restaurants (we went to Dinosaur BBQ) some small parks and a river walk along the water and under the bridges. It seemed to get a pretty fair amount of foot traffic, thus it probably wouldn't look suspicious at all to see someone hanging out under one of the bridges. What I can't find out though is why a cache would need to be under the bridge as there are probably lots of places along the riverwalk where one could hide a cache.

 

 

[+SirDonB]

I think I know which bridge the OP might be referring to. Rensselear is a small city along the Hudson river a bit upriver from Albany. There a few bridges that cross the river, including one that is somewhat of a major highway. The river at that point is part of a deep water shipping channel thus the bridges are quite elevated and the riverfront area has been developed with some good restaurants (we went to Dinosaur BBQ) some small parks and a river walk along the water and under the bridges. It seemed to get a pretty fair amount of foot traffic, thus it probably wouldn't look suspicious at all to see someone hanging out under one of the bridges. What I can't find out though is why a cache would need to be under the bridge as there are probably lots of places along the riverwalk where one could hide a cache.

 

I think you have Rensselaer mixed up with Troy (Dinosaur BBQ is in Troy)... Rensselaer is right across the Hudson from "Empire Plaza" where they shoot off the fireworks for 4th of July every year and other various reasons. I know the park that is being discussed and referenced... I will have to get some on the ground pics of the park so everyone can see what the setup looks like. There is plenty of space in Riverfront Park to house a couple of caches, it just happens that there is a bridge that goes over the park and is about 30 or so feet overhead. The bridge in question here connects Rensselaer directly to "Empire Plaza."

Edited August 8, 2013 by Bandit1979

[Mr.Yuck]

I think I know which bridge the OP might be referring to. Rensselear is a small city along the Hudson river a bit upriver from Albany. There a few bridges that cross the river, including one that is somewhat of a major highway. The river at that point is part of a deep water shipping channel thus the bridges are quite elevated and the riverfront area has been developed with some good restaurants (we went to Dinosaur BBQ) some small parks and a river walk along the water and under the bridges. It seemed to get a pretty fair amount of foot traffic, thus it probably wouldn't look suspicious at all to see someone hanging out under one of the bridges. What I can't find out though is why a cache would need to be under the bridge as there are probably lots of places along the riverwalk where one could hide a cache.

 

I think you have Rensselaer mixed up with Troy (Dinosaur BBQ is in Troy)... Rensselaer is right across the Hudson from "Empire Plaza" where they shoot off the fireworks for 4th of July every year and other various reasons. I know the park that is being discussed and referenced... I will have to get some on the ground pics of the park so everyone can see what the setup looks like. There is plenty of space in Riverfront Park to house a couple of caches, it just happens that there is a bridge that goes over the park and is about 30 or so feet overhead. The bridge in question here connects Rensselaer directly to "Empire Plaza."

 

Egads. How can you mix those two up? You must have some relationship with the Original poster? Take those pics. Send them in with an appeal. I think you have a good chance here. By the standards of having a good chance in an appeal, that is.

[4wheelin_fool]

This?

 

[+SirDonB]

I think I know which bridge the OP might be referring to. Rensselear is a small city along the Hudson river a bit upriver from Albany. There a few bridges that cross the river, including one that is somewhat of a major highway. The river at that point is part of a deep water shipping channel thus the bridges are quite elevated and the riverfront area has been developed with some good restaurants (we went to Dinosaur BBQ) some small parks and a river walk along the water and under the bridges. It seemed to get a pretty fair amount of foot traffic, thus it probably wouldn't look suspicious at all to see someone hanging out under one of the bridges. What I can't find out though is why a cache would need to be under the bridge as there are probably lots of places along the riverwalk where one could hide a cache.

 

I think you have Rensselaer mixed up with Troy (Dinosaur BBQ is in Troy)... Rensselaer is right across the Hudson from "Empire Plaza" where they shoot off the fireworks for 4th of July every year and other various reasons. I know the park that is being discussed and referenced... I will have to get some on the ground pics of the park so everyone can see what the setup looks like. There is plenty of space in Riverfront Park to house a couple of caches, it just happens that there is a bridge that goes over the park and is about 30 or so feet overhead. The bridge in question here connects Rensselaer directly to "Empire Plaza."

 

Egads. How can you mix those two up? You must have some relationship with the Original poster? Take those pics. Send them in with an appeal. I think you have a good chance here. By the standards of having a good chance in an appeal, that is.

 

I actually have no relation to the original poster... I just happen to not live far from that park and take my kids there often. I do know there is a mystery cache already hidden within the vicinity of the park, could be in the park for all I know. I think Renmin has already found it and would know its location to keep his caches location outside the min distance between caches.

 

This?

 

 

yes, that would be it... I will get some more pics, that is if they are even needed now.

[Mr.Yuck]

Well no one cares if some guy from New Jersey posts pictures to the Groundspeak forums. The original poster needs to send them with his appeal. There's a park under there, for pete's sake. It's not like he's attaching a keyholder to to the underside of an Interstate overpass in the middle of a major City or something, in a spot where the general public would not have any reason to ever visit. All my opinion, of course.

Edited August 9, 2013 by Mr.Yuck

[4wheelin_fool]

Well no one cares if some guy from New Jersey posts pictures to the Groundspeak forums. The original poster needs to send them with his appeal. There's a park under there, for pete's sake. It's not like he's attaching a keyholder to to the underside of an Interstate overpass in the middle of a major City or something, in a spot where the general public would not have any reason to ever visit. All my opinion, of course.

 

The first picture shows that the roadway is raised up considerably from the park, and the second shows artwork commissioned by the city underneath different section. While it unlikely to cause a problem, the potential is still there. Just because it's a park doesn't mean that it's fine. If someone in the park calls and says a suspicious person who was trying to hide what they were doing left a package there, the police may believe the bridge is a target, or maybe not. An ammo box would have a much different response than a nano. I suppose the only way to find out what they would do, is to leave a small ziplock container under the bridge, and then call the police and report that a suspicious guy left it there. :ph34r:

Edited August 9, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

[+SirDonB]

Well no one cares if some guy from New Jersey posts pictures to the Groundspeak forums. The original poster needs to send them with his appeal. There's a park under there, for pete's sake. It's not like he's attaching a keyholder to to the underside of an Interstate overpass in the middle of a major City or something, in a spot where the general public would not have any reason to ever visit. All my opinion, of course.

 

The first picture shows that the roadway is raised up considerably from the park, and the second shows artwork commissioned by the city underneath different section. While it unlikely to cause a problem, the potential is still there. Just because it's a park doesn't mean that it's fine. If someone in the park calls and says a suspicious person who was trying to hide what they were doing left a package there, the police may believe the bridge is a target, or maybe not. An ammo box would have a much different response than a nano. I suppose the only way to find out what they would do, is to leave a small ziplock container under the bridge, and then call the police and report that a suspicious guy left it there. :ph34r:

 

Or you can go down to the local police department, tell them what you are doing and why. I did this while finding a nano in a parking lot after being surrounded by the local PD. Once I explained what it was I was doing, they took a flyer I had with me, asked a few questions, and seemed interested in going out and caching themselves. Communication goes along way.

[Mr.Yuck]

Well no one cares if some guy from New Jersey posts pictures to the Groundspeak forums. The original poster needs to send them with his appeal. There's a park under there, for pete's sake. It's not like he's attaching a keyholder to to the underside of an Interstate overpass in the middle of a major City or something, in a spot where the general public would not have any reason to ever visit. All my opinion, of course.

 

The first picture shows that the roadway is raised up considerably from the park, and the second shows artwork commissioned by the city underneath different section. While it unlikely to cause a problem, the potential is still there. Just because it's a park doesn't mean that it's fine. If someone in the park calls and says a suspicious person who was trying to hide what they were doing left a package there, the police may believe the bridge is a target, or maybe not. An ammo box would have a much different response than a nano. I suppose the only way to find out what they would do, is to leave a small ziplock container under the bridge, and then call the police and report that a suspicious guy left it there. :ph34r:

 

Eh, I just think it's an overly strict interpretation of "the bridge guideline" to pretty much close off a park because there are highly elevated bridges over it. And if you find it on the map, there are several "bridges", a cloverleaf type situation. For all we know, people have tried to place caches in it for years, and have been rejected because of "the bridge guideline".

[+RenMin]

Appreciate the discussion here but I think the moral of the story is to lean on the side of caution. A spot in park away from bridge structures is being looked at as an alternative.

[4wheelin_fool]

Well no one cares if some guy from New Jersey posts pictures to the Groundspeak forums. The original poster needs to send them with his appeal. There's a park under there, for pete's sake. It's not like he's attaching a keyholder to to the underside of an Interstate overpass in the middle of a major City or something, in a spot where the general public would not have any reason to ever visit. All my opinion, of course.

 

The first picture shows that the roadway is raised up considerably from the park, and the second shows artwork commissioned by the city underneath different section. While it unlikely to cause a problem, the potential is still there. Just because it's a park doesn't mean that it's fine. If someone in the park calls and says a suspicious person who was trying to hide what they were doing left a package there, the police may believe the bridge is a target, or maybe not. An ammo box would have a much different response than a nano. I suppose the only way to find out what they would do, is to leave a small ziplock container under the bridge, and then call the police and report that a suspicious guy left it there. :ph34r:

 

Or you can go down to the local police department, tell them what you are doing and why. I did this while finding a nano in a parking lot after being surrounded by the local PD. Once I explained what it was I was doing, they took a flyer I had with me, asked a few questions, and seemed interested in going out and caching themselves. Communication goes along way.

 

That's what normal people would do. Geocachers hide from muggles and protect wet film cans from prying eyes.

You could act that way to the police and put on a good impression, but then someone dressed in camo and covered head to toe covered in mud shows up at the park and starts sneaking around and feeling underneath everything, and crawling around on his hands and knees, along with his buddy, who is carrying a clipboard and orange vest and holding a GPS up to his ear pretending its a phone. With that going on, the outcome may not be predictable.

[+RenMin]

I decided to take Mr. Yucks advice and submit this issue for an appeal. I feel it is an exception and should be given special consideration. I have

given them and the reviewer all the information and have not sugarcoated it to make it look better. We shall see. I also may contact the local police and let them

know (if I get a publish) about placment.

Edited August 19, 2013 by RenMin

[+wimseyguy]

Just because a location under a bridge is OK for people to be seen walking or biking doesn't automatically make it OK to have a hidden camouflaged container placed there. If you think contacting the local PD is a wise move, why not do so before hiding the cache and submitting it for review?

[+RenMin]

Just because a location under a bridge is OK for people to be seen walking or biking doesn't automatically make it OK to have a hidden camouflaged container placed there. If you think contacting the local PD is a wise move, why not do so before hiding the cache and submitting it for review?

 

Nor does it make it an automatic denial. The access to this area by the public includes cachers too. It would not look weird or concerning for somebody to be around GZ, but completely normal. One of the purposes

of the bridge restriction is to prevent caches from being placed where the public is not allowed and presence of people would raise red flags. This applies to most bridges but not here.

The cache was hidden with ease in mind so cachers would find it quickly and be on their way. No lingering or extended searches.

 

Secondly, if the reviewer suggested I call local PD prior to publish I would have, but they denied it solely on the bridge restriction.

 

Either publish the cache as is or rewrite the bridge guideline to include this type of situation. Currently, and in my opinion, this cache fulfills requirements for publish. Again, just my opinion.

[+tozainamboku]

Just because a location under a bridge is OK for people to be seen walking or biking doesn't automatically make it OK to have a hidden camouflaged container placed there. If you think contacting the local PD is a wise move, why not do so before hiding the cache and submitting it for review?

 

Nor does it make it an automatic denial. The access to this area by the public includes cachers too. It would not look weird or concerning for somebody to be around GZ, but completely normal. One of the purposes

of the bridge restriction is to prevent caches from being placed where the public is not allowed and presence of people would raise red flags. This applies to most bridges but not here.

The cache was hidden with ease in mind so cachers would find it quickly and be on their way. No lingering or extended searches.

 

Secondly, if the reviewer suggested I call local PD prior to publish I would have, but they denied it solely on the bridge restriction.

 

Either publish the cache as is or rewrite the bridge guideline to include this type of situation. Currently, and in my opinion, this cache fulfills requirements for publish. Again, just my opinion.

I think you are missing the rationale of the guidelines. It is not prevent caches where the public is not allowed. There are other guidelines (permission) that address this issue. It is not to address issues where simply the presence of people would raise red flags. Rather it addresses the concerns over what would happen should someone not aware of geocaching either find the container or see people acting in what they perceive to be a suspicious manner.

 

Any cache, anywhere, can result in someone calling the authorities to report something suspicious. If the cache is in a location where the authorities are likely to take a report of a suspicious package or suspicious activity more seriously then this is not a good location for a cache. It's hard to draw a line in the sand about what locations are taken more seriously, however highway bridges over bodies of water that are also use as major shipping and transportation routes would seem to qualify. If in fact you believe the authorities in this area would not shut down the highway and the river to trafic while investigating a report of a suspicious package or or activity near the bridge, then make your case that this location is not what the guidelines address.

[+DukeOfURL01]

I decided to take Mr. Yucks advice and submit this issue for an appeal. I feel it is an exception and should be given special consideration. I have

given them and the reviewer all the information and have not sugarcoated it to make it look better. We shall see. I also may contact the local police and let them

know (if I get a publish) about placment.

 

Well, let us know the outcome when it happens...

[4wheelin_fool]

I decided to take Mr. Yucks advice and submit this issue for an appeal. I feel it is an exception and should be given special consideration. I have

given them and the reviewer all the information and have not sugarcoated it to make it look better. We shall see. I also may contact the local police and let them

know (if I get a publish) about placment.

 

Talking to the police should occur before placement, and would only help your cause. What do you say afterward? By the way, there may be a problem here, but you should ignore it? Should every police officer be instructed to dismiss potential problems, simply because there is a geocache nearby? I don't think they would go for that.

[+RenMin]

Just because a location under a bridge is OK for people to be seen walking or biking doesn't automatically make it OK to have a hidden camouflaged container placed there. If you think contacting the local PD is a wise move, why not do so before hiding the cache and submitting it for review?

 

Nor does it make it an automatic denial. The access to this area by the public includes cachers too. It would not look weird or concerning for somebody to be around GZ, but completely normal. One of the purposes

of the bridge restriction is to prevent caches from being placed where the public is not allowed and presence of people would raise red flags. This applies to most bridges but not here.

The cache was hidden with ease in mind so cachers would find it quickly and be on their way. No lingering or extended searches.

 

Secondly, if the reviewer suggested I call local PD prior to publish I would have, but they denied it solely on the bridge restriction.

 

Either publish the cache as is or rewrite the bridge guideline to include this type of situation. Currently, and in my opinion, this cache fulfills requirements for publish. Again, just my opinion.

I think you are missing the rationale of the guidelines. It is not prevent caches where the public is not allowed. There are other guidelines (permission) that address this issue. It is not to address issues where simply the presence of people would raise red flags. Rather it addresses the concerns over what would happen should someone not aware of geocaching either find the container or see people acting in what they perceive to be a suspicious manner.

 

Any cache, anywhere, can result in someone calling the authorities to report something suspicious. If the cache is in a location where the authorities are likely to take a report of a suspicious package or suspicious activity more seriously then this is not a good location for a cache. It's hard to draw a line in the sand about what locations are taken more seriously, however highway bridges over bodies of water that are also use as major shipping and transportation routes would seem to qualify. If in fact you believe the authorities in this area would not shut down the highway and the river to trafic while investigating a report of a suspicious package or or activity near the bridge, then make your case that this location is not what the guidelines address.

 

I agree that "any cache, anywhere, can result in someone calling the authorities." In fact, I have one not far from here (Decked Out) that was removed after somebody saw a man put something on the deck of the local eatery. The police responded to call and removed cache. The only thing was the cache was placed with permission. The owner apologized for not telling all her staff about the cache and I replaced it. It has been in place without incident ever since. Bridge, no bridge if the authorities are called they will remove cache. I do agree that the presence of the bridge structure makes this placement a bit unique. However, the size of the cache and the ease of finding it will reduce the likelihood of the authorities being called. Secondly, the park itself has been open and operational for many, many years so the pedestrian flow is, again, expected.

If this area of the park was deemed a sensitive area to authorities I would have thought they would have closed it off years ago. They havn't and it remains to this day a place to view the Hudson or drop a fishing

line by the locals. I have submitted case for appeal and if it is rejected I will move cache and resubmit. I think, at least, it is worthy of this process. We shall see.

[+RenMin]

I must eat crow here for starting a discussion that may not have been necessary. Just got off the phone with the City of Rensselaer and they are in favor of this cache placement.

They want all the information about the cache with my contact information and I am free to place. I did not expect this response (and maybe that is why I didn't call to start).

Permission to place goes a long way. Hope to see this one up and running by next week.

[4wheelin_fool]

I must eat crow here for starting a discussion that may not have been necessary. Just got off the phone with the City of Rensselaer and they are in favor of this cache placement.

They want all the information about the cache with my contact information and I am free to place. I did not expect this response (and maybe that is why I didn't call to start).

Permission to place goes a long way. Hope to see this one up and running by next week.

 

That's great to hear. See, it wasn't that bad.

[+RenMin]

I must eat crow here for starting a discussion that may not have been necessary. Just got off the phone with the City of Rensselaer and they are in favor of this cache placement.

They want all the information about the cache with my contact information and I am free to place. I did not expect this response (and maybe that is why I didn't call to start).

Permission to place goes a long way. Hope to see this one up and running by next week.

 

That's great to hear. See, it wasn't that bad.

 

Yeah, I thought that getting permission was a slam dunk publish. My reviewer thinks otherwise and archived the listing. Still in appeals too.

[+SirDonB]

Remin, good luck with your appeal, I am also awaiting permission from a local establishment in Rensselaer before I try to publish my next hide. I also have a family friend that works in City Hall, so if you ever need some help, contact me, and we will see what we can do. I also have another family member that is a city police officer... if you ever need some assistance with your caches, let me know.

[+MI_CO]

Do an appeal, or simply place the cache in another location within the park. Do you need to get permission to place the cache in the park? Certain municipalities require registering a cache with their office prior to placement. Since the officials are aware of the exact location, this cuts down on continuously check a spot where someone might report 'suspicious activity.'

 

I actually applaud your reviewer. Reviewers in my area allow caches in places where they do not belong. My biggest peeve is allowing caches on elementary school grounds. I thought this was a universal no-no, guess not!

[+RenMin]

Do an appeal, or simply place the cache in another location within the park. Do you need to get permission to place the cache in the park? Certain municipalities require registering a cache with their office prior to placement. Since the officials are aware of the exact location, this cuts down on continuously check a spot where someone might report 'suspicious activity.'

 

I actually applaud your reviewer. Reviewers in my area allow caches in places where they do not belong. My biggest peeve is allowing caches on elementary school grounds. I thought this was a universal no-no, guess not!

 

I agree that the reviewers hesitancy here only ensures a safer placement. However, when permission is obtained and the reviewer still doesn't publish makes you wonder. One would think that obtaining permission

by a landowner or government body overseeing/ managing land would be a slam dunk pubish. But again, kicking this one back to appeals ensures a higher level of safety. Also keep in mind that reviewers rely on the

information given by CO. If they mislead or hold back on details, i.e, school grounds, then the reviewer may publish without knowledge. Does that explain a cache I attempted this year that is actually under a bridge wedged between rocks and the bridge wall?

[+SirDonB]

Been a while since last update, but Renmin has gotten it published and I am one of the early finders of this cache location.

[+RenMin]

Been a while since last update, but Renmin has gotten it published and I am one of the early finders of this cache location.

 

Yeah, I guess I should relay the story. While in appeals I decide to call the city and speak with somebody about the cache (after being transferred several times). They love the idea and give me verbal permission

to place exactly where I want to; near the bridge structure, and in the city park. I attach his name and contact info to the listing with a note about our conversation and enable the cache. The reviewer archives stating that, "even with permission" he/she will not publish. Keep in mind this baby is in appeals while it was archived. This begs the questions about the power of permission. The next week I hear back from HQ about the appeal and they ask me to secure "written permission" before they publish. Ok. I call the city again, speak to my contact, he cooks up a letter for the mayor to sign. The letter states I have permission to place cache and they wish me good luck. I get the letter in the mail the next week, copy it, and send it to HQ. The cache is unarchived but before it publishes I need to attach a note to the listing stating how I got special permission to place. I enable and get the publish. So, yes, I get the cache up and running but no, the issues at the heart of the appeal are not openly disussed. The appeal process only worked to ensure I would hold full liability if this cache goes sour. In all fairness this process has only ensured the safety of the placement but I don't see the same concern and standard being upheld across our local geo landscape. If it was and other CO's, on similar hides, were put through the same paces, I would have not issue.

 

Two questions for consideration:

 

Is permission all you need to get a cache published? Does it "trump" guidelines or allow them to be bent a bit?

 

Should any action be taken against a disabled cache in the appeals process?

[+Walts Hunting]

Do an appeal, or simply place the cache in another location within the park. Do you need to get permission to place the cache in the park? Certain municipalities require registering a cache with their office prior to placement. Since the officials are aware of the exact location, this cuts down on continuously check a spot where someone might report 'suspicious activity.'

 

I actually applaud your reviewer. Reviewers in my area allow caches in places where they do not belong. My biggest peeve is allowing caches on elementary school grounds. I thought this was a universal no-no, guess not!

Can you give us a GC number or two to verify your claim.