bridge cache

[GrandPotentate]

I looked for a multi cache that took me the pedestrian walk-way of a suspension bridge. Just to give you an idea of the size of the bridge, there are between 10,000 and 25,000 (ODOT survey) vehicles that cross it every day, it is almost 800 feet tall and about 3,000 feet long.

 

The coords take you to the middle of the span and the hint says to sit on the blue i-beam and to look under it when traffic clears. The blue i-beam in question is the only thing separating you from the traffic that crosses the bridge, and the only time that there is not traffic is about 3am. My concern is that there have been several people who have looked for this stage of the cache (including myself) and have not found it. This means there are caches who are spending several minutes looking about, poking and prodding, and just generally looking suspicious, the whole time in full view of traffic. I looked for about 5 minutes on Christmas day and had 3 different people honk at me, so I know that I did not go unnoticed.

 

My question is, should this be logged as a Needs Archived explaining my concerns and suggesting that the CO find a way to hide the coords to the next stage in such a way as to not leave people in the center of the span looking suspicious?

1. 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.

Or just log a DNF and hope that future cachers don't cause a panic?

[+JesandTodd]

800 ft tall??? That's.....crazy!

 

That's not even remotely close to drivers or traffic! 800ft?? Seriously?

 

Look. Just log your DNF and go about your way. I can't even see how anybody could see someone at 800ft. This...doesn't seem right...I'd love to see a GC # though ... How could any drivers see anything at 800ft up. Are you sure?

 

Merry Christmas!

[+BruceS]

800 ft tall??? That's.....crazy!

 

That's not even remotely close to drivers or traffic! 800ft?? Seriously?

 

 

I don't think you are reading what he is saying correctly. The bridge is 800 ft in air. The cars and the geocacher are both 800 ft up thus very little distance between the cacher and the traffic.

[+Chief301]

No, he never said he and/or the traffic were 800 feet in the air. He said the bridge is 800 feet tall. It's a suspension bridge. The towers are 800 feet tall, I would imagine, with the road surface at an ordinary bridge height. Think about the Golden Gate Bridge.

 

Sounds like maybe there's a pedestrian walkway alongside the traffic lane and the cache is somewhere on the protective barrier between the two. Causing the cacher to have to reach over or under or otherwise cross the barrier to get to it, exposing them to the traffic. Am I reading it right?

 

Does sound a little risky, but I guess you'd have to see it in person to see just how sketchy it is.

[+JesandTodd]

Guess not....all I could of think of was the new bridge over the Hoover dam....it's pretty darn high!

Edited December 26, 2013 by JesandTodd

[+T.D.M.22]

Log a DNF and a NM. I don't think this needs a NA log. From what you have said, I'll guess it's magnetic-and placed under the I-beam on the traffic side. No real need to sit on it, just reach over and feel. I think it's either missing, or someone else thought it was a bit dangerous and placed it on the pedestrian side.

 

As for it being dangerous-well you tried to find it, so it's not too dangerous for you. Would you be thinking the same way if you found it in three seconds? It's up to the finder to determine if a cache is too dangerous, not Groundspeak. With the right equipment any cache is safe. Climbing gear in a mountain. SCUBA gear underwater. It has been made clear that caches are not reviewed based on cacher safety. But they may be reviewed based on public perception. By that I mean I could place a cache on a bridge that has a pedestrian walkway. Traffic on my right side separated be concrete barrier. Cache could be a magnetic nano on the left handrail. That's safe-or as safe as walking on the pedestrian way. But let's say it's the only bridge through town-someone handling a suspicious package may result in a call to the bombsquad. That's why they included schools, hospitals, etc.

[4wheelin_fool]

It sounds like either the reviewer made an error, or that the location was intentionally left out of the listing, assuming you are not exaggerating. You may want to contact the police department and ask them a theoretical question about their possible response if someone reported a suspicious person searching the location, and see what they say. The CO may likely throw a public fit over an NA, so a short note to the reviewer would probably be best. However, a nano, a flat magnet, or a fake bolt may likely not be discovered or considered a threat, so it could be fine.

 

I also doubt the suspension tower is 800 feet high. If its the bridge I suspect, the center span is nearly 800 feet in length, with a height of over 100 feet.

Edited December 26, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

[+wmpastor]

It sounds like either the reviewer made an error, or that the location was intentionally left out of the listing, assuming you are not exaggerating. You may want to contact the police department and ask them a theoretical question about their possible response if someone reported a suspicious person searching the location, and see what they say. The CO may likely throw a public fit over an NA, so a short note to the reviewer would probably be best. However, a nano, a flat magnet, or a fake bolt may likely not be discovered or considered a threat, so it could be fine.

Yes, if he's prepared for a lot of red tape.

[+BruceS]

My concern on type of location is not really the container at the location or the safety of the cacher but the drivers seeing a person acting oddly and calling in a suicide attempt or just a suspicious person report. If you want to see traffic get disrupted just have one of those called in on a bridge.

[4wheelin_fool]

It sounds like either the reviewer made an error, or that the location was intentionally left out of the listing, assuming you are not exaggerating. You may want to contact the police department and ask them a theoretical question about their possible response if someone reported a suspicious person searching the location, and see what they say. The CO may likely throw a public fit over an NA, so a short note to the reviewer would probably be best. However, a nano, a flat magnet, or a fake bolt may likely not be discovered or considered a threat, so it could be fine.

Yes, if he's prepared for a lot of red tape.

 

Perhaps in Philly. In most cases the nonemergency number would likely have someone who could give a coherent answer.

[+wmpastor]

The Verrazano-Narrows bridge has towers not quite 700 feet high, but the roadway is "only" 200-some feet above the water.

 

When it opened in 1964, the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge was the world's longest suspension span. Its monumental 693 foot high towers are 1 5/8 inches farther apart at their tops than at their bases because the 4,260 foot distance between them made it necessary to compensate for the earth's curvature. Each tower weighs 27,000 tons and is held together with three million rivets and one million bolts. Seasonal contractions and expansions of the steel cables cause the double-decked roadway to be 12 feet lower in the summer than in the winter.

[+wmpastor]

My concern on type of location is not really the container at the location or the safety of the cacher but the drivers seeing a person acting oddly and calling in a suicide attempt or just a suspicious person report. If you want to see traffic get disrupted just have one of those called in on a bridge.

Exactly. It's not a wise choice of location. And cachers do act oddly.

[4wheelin_fool]

The Verrazano-Narrows bridge has towers not quite 700 feet high, but the roadway is "only" 200-some feet above the water.

 

When it opened in 1964, the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge was the world's longest suspension span. Its monumental 693 foot high towers are 1 5/8 inches farther apart at their tops than at their bases because the 4,260 foot distance between them made it necessary to compensate for the earth's curvature. Each tower weighs 27,000 tons and is held together with three million rivets and one million bolts. Seasonal contractions and expansions of the steel cables cause the double-decked roadway to be 12 feet lower in the summer than in the winter.

 

Its not that bridge, and that's the second tallest one in the country. Eight hundred feet is pretty darn high, even for a suspension tower. If it was the Golden gate bridge, or the GW bridge, neither should have anything on them. He likely confused the center span length. Even so, the volume of traffic and the perception of others is what's pertinent.

Edited December 26, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

[+The_Incredibles_]

I think it should be archived by the reviewer, simply due to obvious lack of permission issues. I would email your reviewer about it.

[+WarNinjas]

I know our reviewer wouldn't have published it.

[+colleda]

If it's the Toledo Skyway, that's one very impressive bridge.

[+wmpastor]

If it's the Toledo Skyway, that's one very impressive bridge.

 

Yes, that one has a single pillar in the center, a dramatic look used in a few other new bridges. The pillar is 400 feet tall, & the roadway is 130 feet above the water.

[GrandPotentate]

Ok answering some questions:

1. It's not a safety issue, it's about being reported to the police as being suspicious on a major bridge.

2. I misread the stats on the bridge, the main span is almost 800 ft long. My point in the stats was to explain this is a very significant bridge.

3. It seems the majority of the DNFs logged are at the bridge, roughly 1/3 of all visit logs involve problems at that stage, including one that mentioned police questioning.

4. I don't think ODOT would have granted permission for a stage to be placed on such a bridge, but stranger things have happened.

5. It is not the Toledo Skyway Bridge. You are right, it is a very impressive bridge, they even lite is up like Tom Baker's scarf for the 50th anniversary of Doctor Who.

[+T.D.M.22]

Permission issues aside, lets look at this like a cache in the woods, or an LPC. You said there have been some DNF's. Has anyone posted a NM log? Just because it has DNF's does not mean its not there. Especially if there are people who have found it between the DNF's. You have even said it is possible that there is permission- did you contact the CO? Maybe there is plin fact permission. And maybe you could get a hint. Then again it might also be missing.

 

My point is that people seem to be focusing on the fact the cache shouldn't be allowed there, and are not suggesting the usual ideas in this situation...

[Mr.Yuck]

Ok answering some questions:

1. It's not a safety issue, it's about being reported to the police as being suspicious on a major bridge.

2. I misread the stats on the bridge, the main span is almost 800 ft long. My point in the stats was to explain this is a very significant bridge.

3. It seems the majority of the DNFs logged are at the bridge, roughly 1/3 of all visit logs involve problems at that stage, including one that mentioned police questioning.

4. I don't think ODOT would have granted permission for a stage to be placed on such a bridge, but stranger things have happened.

5. It is not the Toledo Skyway Bridge. You are right, it is a very impressive bridge, they even lite is up like Tom Baker's scarf for the 50th anniversary of Doctor Who.

 

Yes, went over the Toledo Skyway Bridge on the way to MidWest Geobash. Very impressive. But there is no pedestrian walkway, and it's "only" 400 feet high.

 

It's an absolute no-brainer this stage of a multi should not be on this bridge. I don't know how you want to approach it though, maybe tell the owner your not going to report it, but if anyone ever does, the whole cache is history?

[GrandPotentate]

Permission issues aside, lets look at this like a cache in the woods, or an LPC. You said there have been some DNF's. Has anyone posted a NM log? Just because it has DNF's does not mean its not there. Especially if there are people who have found it between the DNF's. You have even said it is possible that there is permission- did you contact the CO? Maybe there is plin fact permission. And maybe you could get a hint. Then again it might also be missing.

 

My point is that people seem to be focusing on the fact the cache shouldn't be allowed there, and are not suggesting the usual ideas in this situation...

 

There has been maintenance done. And I don't know if permission has been granted or not, but my concern is with the guidline:

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.

[+BCandMsKitty]

Permission issues aside, lets look at this like a cache in the woods, or an LPC. You said there have been some DNF's. Has anyone posted a NM log? Just because it has DNF's does not mean its not there. Especially if there are people who have found it between the DNF's. You have even said it is possible that there is permission- did you contact the CO? Maybe there is plin fact permission. And maybe you could get a hint. Then again it might also be missing.

 

My point is that people seem to be focusing on the fact the cache shouldn't be allowed there, and are not suggesting the usual ideas in this situation...

 

There has been maintenance done. And I don't know if permission has been granted or not, but my concern is with the guidline:

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.

 

Bolding is mine ... this is a no brainer .... the cache shouldn't be there. With America's current paranoia about terrorists and perceived threats, I can't believe anyone would support a cache placement like this. It's just begging for another huge black eye on caching if a bomb threat call goes in for that one! Even here in Canada, where the threat of terrorist action isn't as high, a cache like this would never be approved!

 

I don't think I'd have looked for it when I saw where it was, and I'd be sending an email to the reviewer. Not saying we should be cache police, but if we don't regulate ourselves with something as obvious as this, then who will?

Edited December 26, 2013 by BC & MsKitty

[+J Grouchy]

Permission issues aside, lets look at this like a cache in the woods, or an LPC. You said there have been some DNF's. Has anyone posted a NM log? Just because it has DNF's does not mean its not there. Especially if there are people who have found it between the DNF's. You have even said it is possible that there is permission- did you contact the CO? Maybe there is plin fact permission. And maybe you could get a hint. Then again it might also be missing.

 

My point is that people seem to be focusing on the fact the cache shouldn't be allowed there, and are not suggesting the usual ideas in this situation...

 

There has been maintenance done. And I don't know if permission has been granted or not, but my concern is with the guidline:

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.

 

Bolding is mine ... this is a no brainer .... the cache shouldn't be there. With America's current paranoia about terrorists and perceived threats, I can't believe anyone would support a cache placement like this. It's just begging for another huge black eye on caching if a bomb threat call goes in for that one! Even here in Canada, where the threat of terrorist action isn't as high, a cache like this would never be approved!

 

I don't think I'd have looked for it when I saw where it was, and I'd be sending an email to the reviewer. Not saying we should be cache police, but if we don't regulate ourselves with something as obvious as this, then who will?

 

I think I have to +1 this ^^. It seems like a stage or two could have been set up in such a way as to require walking across it or up to a good vantage point of the bridge, but the hide being not actually on the bridge or in an area where security would be an issue. To me it seems like a no-brainer to just always err on the side of caution. I know perhaps we are a bit too jumpy these days, but why make trouble for people if you really don't have to? It's one thing to place a cache on a cliff or up a tree where there is physical danger in retrieving it...but danger from law enforcement is just something everyone ought to avoid.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

There used to be a guideline that you could not hide caches on bridges. I was in contact with the reviewer and although the bridge was an old steel one crossing a creek with gravel road ( no traffic )I was required to move it.

That said, we have found many caches on bridges ( some abandoned ).

[+Waggy6]

I'm familiar with this cache, it is in toledo. The stage on the bridge doesn't have a container, just some coord numbers you're supposed to find, but it might still create the issue of people looking suspicious.

Once again, there is not container on the bridge though.

[+terrkan78]

I'm familiar with this cache, it is in toledo. The stage on the bridge doesn't have a container, just some coord numbers you're supposed to find, but it might still create the issue of people looking suspicious.

Once again, there is not container on the bridge though.

Interesting! So if I'm understanding right, a virtual (information-gathering) stage of a multi is on a big, high-traffic bridge, and you are required to sit on an i-beam (with a zillion cars blowing past you only a couple feet away from where you sit) while you try to find the numbers under the i-beam?

 

If you can access the numbers without actually sitting on the i-beam (in other words, if you can fully stand/sit/kneel on the pedestrian side and read the numbers), then that's one thing, but if you actually have to get halfway into the traffic side of the i-beam (by sitting on it), then that's another. Permission (by the bridge authority) would be an issue for the latter but not for the former.

[+J Grouchy]

I'm familiar with this cache, it is in toledo. The stage on the bridge doesn't have a container, just some coord numbers you're supposed to find, but it might still create the issue of people looking suspicious.

Once again, there is not container on the bridge though.

Interesting! So if I'm understanding right, a virtual (information-gathering) stage of a multi is on a big, high-traffic bridge, and you are required to sit on an i-beam (with a zillion cars blowing past you only a couple feet away from where you sit) while you try to find the numbers under the i-beam?

 

If you can access the numbers without actually sitting on the i-beam (in other words, if you can fully stand/sit/kneel on the pedestrian side and read the numbers), then that's one thing, but if you actually have to get halfway into the traffic side of the i-beam (by sitting on it), then that's another. Permission (by the bridge authority) would be an issue for the latter but not for the former.

 

I don't read from the description that it's "virtual" (i.e., pre-existing information somehow written or stamped onto the beam). As I read it, it's information provided by the CO and put onto the beam.

 

If it's something written, painted or scratched onto the beam...that's defacing property.

If it's a tag pasted or magnetically attached to the beam...it's still a public safety + permission matter.

[+Semper Questio]

If I went to this location and saw what I thought may be a major safety concern and a potential guidelines conflict, I would simply take a picture or two of the area and send an email to the local review. The reviewer can then review the cache listing and logs and, i fneeded, communicate with the CO about the situation.

[+Waggy6]

Good point. I didn't consider that a sticker or writing the numbers would be bad, but it is tiny graffiti I guess. I was only thinking about the fact that there isn't a box to scare the police. You don't need to go into the traffic side to see it, visible from the sidewalk.

[+tozainamboku]

There used to be a guideline that you could not hide caches on bridges. I was in contact with the reviewer and although the bridge was an old steel one crossing a creek with gravel road ( no traffic )I was required to move it.

That said, we have found many caches on bridges ( some abandoned ).

There was never a guideline you could not hide caches on bridges. The guideline was (and still is) Geocaches are not placed in restricted, prohibited or otherwise inappropriate locations. The guidelines give some examples of inappropriate locations. The list is not meant to be exhaustive and reviewers have some discretion in determining what is in appropriate.

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.
  

#4 mentions highway bridges. This is the what gets interpreted as no bridges. But in reality the reviewer must decide if the cache could be problematic. It appears your reviewer was overly strict in denying your cache and maybe you should have appealed his decision.

 

The cache in question in this thread certainly appears to be on the type of bridge the guidelines means to call out. However, the reviewer may have had additional information and determined that the cache was Ok here.

[Mr.Yuck]

Good point. I didn't consider that a sticker or writing the numbers would be bad, but it is tiny graffiti I guess. I was only thinking about the fact that there isn't a box to scare the police. You don't need to go into the traffic side to see it, visible from the sidewalk.

 

Graffiti is a definite no-go. That would be archived in a nanosecond if it were "reported".

 

Am I correct in saying there is no pedestrian walkway on the Glass City Skyway? And so where does Toledo have an 800 foot high bridge then?

[4wheelin_fool]

If it's something written, painted or scratched onto the beam...that's defacing property.

Correct.

If it's a tag pasted or magnetically attached to the beam...it's still a public safety + permission matter.

Not likely. Its entirely legal to walk there, and really makes no difference if the tag is preexisting and the seeker needs to do math or to find a certain number, and if the CO hid a magnetic flat item there. There is no container and nothing for any bomb squad to find. A virtual preexisting tag in place would be routinely published and not interfere with the proximity of any other hides. Someone acting oddly on a pedestrian walkway, but not retrieving anything may be questioned, but not cause any panic.

[Keystone]

The "bridge stage" of the multicache in question is not on the (fairly) famous Toledo Skyway bridge, which carries an interstate highway across the Maumee River. It's a different, smaller bridge.

 

I published this multicache nearly five years ago based on the trusted hider's assurance that "the final coords are very visable (about knee high) for anyone to see who may walk by them." Since there is a pedestrian walkway, there's no hidden container, and the clue is in plain sight, I didn't see an issue under the "highway bridges" guideline. (I'm not even sure it qualifies as a "highway" like the interstate bridge would.) I do see that the cache design may have changed since then, making the clue at stage two harder to see. And, if the clue involved defacing an object, that would be bad.

 

I've not heard a peep by way of complaints about this cache over the years, prior to this forum thread. Not even from my paid spies, or from their dogs.

[7rxc]

Not hard to find out which one... I don't think most cachers would find it at all dangerous... that blue beam would be almost as high as the railing on the river side and also has turn back rails on the road side of the beam as well for even more distance from the roadway. People stop on walkway/bike paths like that all the time in 'scenic' areas. Just looking and taking pictures.. I suppose a few have other purposes as well, but most would not be seen by most drivers... I saw one guy on a bike that was only head and shoulders high behind the beam.

Google Street View.

 

Never saw anything in the logs that indicated the final was up there, however there was reference to a 'sticker' on one of the logs.

 

So it boils down to whether or not permission is in place and the other aspects of the guidelines. I bet we hear from the reveiwer before long as to those aspects.

 

Myself, I'd go for it if I was in the area, but I'm not. Perhaps it just needs some tweaking to get legal.

If it was a stage anywhere but on the major bridge itself, it would be considered in public space IMO.

edit: I see he beat me.

Doug 7rxc

Edited December 26, 2013 by 7rxc

[GrandPotentate]

The "bridge stage" of the multicache in question is not on the (fairly) famous Toledo Skyway bridge, which carries an interstate highway across the Maumee River. It's a different, smaller bridge.

 

I published this multicache nearly five years ago based on the trusted hider's assurance that "the final coords are very visable (about knee high) for anyone to see who may walk by them." Since there is a pedestrian walkway, there's no hidden container, and the clue is in plain sight, I didn't see an issue under the "highway bridges" guideline. (I'm not even sure it qualifies as a "highway" like the interstate bridge would.) I do see that the cache design may have changed since then, making the clue at stage two harder to see. And, if the clue involved defacing an object, that would be bad.

 

I've not heard a peep by way of complaints about this cache over the years, prior to this forum thread. Not even from my paid spies, or from their dogs.

 

I'm not trying to complain, just more concerned about public safety. If Keystone has been made aware of the situation and still feels that this cache does not have public safety issues, then I have my answer.

[Keystone]

I am not an arbiter of safety.

[+cheech gang]

Been there, done that. There is NO safety issue. The information (no container) is readily visible from the public sidewalk, which is separated from the traffic. No need to perform any Cirque du Soleil maneuvers.

 

Other issues such as permission, muggle or LEO curiosity, etc. may be questioned, but safety is not an issue.

 

I will; however, admit that I was not all that comfortable loitering there for more than a few minutes.

[Keystone]

No need to perform any Cirque du Soleil maneuvers.

I would pay good money to watch Cheech Gang swing on a trapeze while wearing leotards and make-up, so if someone could please hide that cache, I will publish it and drive over.

[GrandPotentate]

I logged my visit as a NM and expressed my concerns of a motorist noticing "suspicious" activity and calling LEO

[Keystone]

Have you ever seen Cheech Gang in leotards? If you did, you'd probably want to log "Needs Maintenance" on him, too.

[GrandPotentate]

Have you ever seen Cheech Gang in leotards? If you did, you'd probably want to log "Needs Maintenance" on him, too.

 

Just seeing Cheech Gang in regular street clothes prompted a NA log.

[Keystone]

Thanks for that report. I have temporarily disabled Cheech Gang until he gets a new container.

[+cheech gang]

[+NeverSummer]

I was under the impression that physical caches on vehicle bridges were verboten. I read the guidelines to say as much as well, but never really had to revisit the thought until reading this thread; I don't place caches on bridges, and haven't encountered many at all on vehicle bridges. (I'm saying "vehicle" because they seemed to be treated differently after 9/11/01, and pedestrian/bicycle bridges seemed to be a different issue)

 

So, assuming permission (which, I'm sorry, I have to doubt many have received permissions) was granted, a cache on a "highway bridge" is:

a. Allowed under the guidelines

b. Not allowed under the guidelines

c. Allowed by some Reviewers and not allowed by others, based on their own interpretation of the related guideline

d. None of the above (Please supply your own ____________________ )

 

Again, it doesn't really matter much to me beyond knowing where the guidelines are drawn. I'm not planning a hide on a highway bridge, because it seems like a bad idea. And, I have not encountered enough highway bridge caches to think that they exist in numbers where I might encounter one. But, I would like to know if there is a black/white answer here, or if caches on bridges are more of a grey area.

[4wheelin_fool]

I was under the impression that physical caches on vehicle bridges were verboten. I read the guidelines to say as much as well, but never really had to revisit the thought until reading this thread; I don't place caches on bridges, and haven't encountered many at all on vehicle bridges. (I'm saying "vehicle" because they seemed to be treated differently after 9/11/01, and pedestrian/bicycle bridges seemed to be a different issue)

 

So, assuming permission (which, I'm sorry, I have to doubt many have received permissions) was granted, a cache on a "highway bridge" is:

a. Allowed under the guidelines

b. Not allowed under the guidelines

c. Allowed by some Reviewers and not allowed by others, based on their own interpretation of the related guideline

d. None of the above (Please supply your own ____________________ )

 

Again, it doesn't really matter much to me beyond knowing where the guidelines are drawn. I'm not planning a hide on a highway bridge, because it seems like a bad idea. And, I have not encountered enough highway bridge caches to think that they exist in numbers where I might encounter one. But, I would like to know if there is a black/white answer here, or if caches on bridges are more of a grey area.

 

A, B, C, all are correct. If it is a state or federal highway carrying a high volume of traffic, it is not allowed. Smaller bridges are, although some reviewers will not publish them as stated by BAMBOOZLE.

 

This is in fact, not a cache nor container, but a stage of a multi. A flat item with visible coordinates.

[+tozainamboku]

I was under the impression that physical caches on vehicle bridges were verboten. I read the guidelines to say as much as well, but never really had to revisit the thought until reading this thread; I don't place caches on bridges, and haven't encountered many at all on vehicle bridges. (I'm saying "vehicle" because they seemed to be treated differently after 9/11/01, and pedestrian/bicycle bridges seemed to be a different issue)

 

So, assuming permission (which, I'm sorry, I have to doubt many have received permissions) was granted, a cache on a "highway bridge" is:

a. Allowed under the guidelines

b. Not allowed under the guidelines

c. Allowed by some Reviewers and not allowed by others, based on their own interpretation of the related guideline

d. None of the above (Please supply your own ____________________ )

 

Again, it doesn't really matter much to me beyond knowing where the guidelines are drawn. I'm not planning a hide on a highway bridge, because it seems like a bad idea. And, I have not encountered enough highway bridge caches to think that they exist in numbers where I might encounter one. But, I would like to know if there is a black/white answer here, or if caches on bridges are more of a grey area.

I hope you now know the guideline calls out highway bridges and not vehicle bridges. You are correct that 9/11 made a difference, though these ideas were discuss before 9/11. There seem to be two issues.

 

First is what happens when a geocache (particularly a small or regular size container) is found by a bridge crew or someone else. We know that unknown packages left in certain locations will be treated as suspicious. Bomb squads get called. A major highway bridge is one of those areas where items are likely to be viewed as suspicious. In addition, while the suspicious package is being evaluated and possible disarmed, the bridge could very likely be closed to traffic. This will no doubt get lots of publicity.

 

Second is that geocachers searching for a cache may rouse the suspicions of passersby. Particular when the geocachers are on or near a part of the bridge where pedestrians are not likely to go. Rarely though will this situation close a bridge or bring out the bomb squad. A search may be made of the area if law enforcement arrives after the cachers are gone. When the cachers are there, they can explain what they were doing. Worse that happens is that the authorities request the cache be archived.

 

In the case in question, it appears that the reviewer considered all the facts as known to him at the time and determined this stage of the cache was permitted under the guidelines. While the bridge has significant traffic, it is not a major highway (in the opinion of the reviewer). The container was likely a micro or perhaps even just a magnetic strip with coordinates. Again, the experienced reviewer determined that this sort of container, if found accidentally, would not have been view as suspicious. And finally the cache was hidden on the pedestrian walkway of the bridge. Cachers were not likely to raise suspicion looking for the cache here.

[+Don_J]

I was under the impression that physical caches on vehicle bridges were verboten. I read the guidelines to say as much as well, but never really had to revisit the thought until reading this thread; I don't place caches on bridges, and haven't encountered many at all on vehicle bridges. (I'm saying "vehicle" because they seemed to be treated differently after 9/11/01, and pedestrian/bicycle bridges seemed to be a different issue)

 

So, assuming permission (which, I'm sorry, I have to doubt many have received permissions) was granted, a cache on a "highway bridge" is:

a. Allowed under the guidelines

b. Not allowed under the guidelines

c. Allowed by some Reviewers and not allowed by others, based on their own interpretation of the related guideline

d. None of the above (Please supply your own ____________________ )

 

Again, it doesn't really matter much to me beyond knowing where the guidelines are drawn. I'm not planning a hide on a highway bridge, because it seems like a bad idea. And, I have not encountered enough highway bridge caches to think that they exist in numbers where I might encounter one. But, I would like to know if there is a black/white answer here, or if caches on bridges are more of a grey area.

I hope you now know the guideline calls out highway bridges and not vehicle bridges. You are correct that 9/11 made a difference, though these ideas were discuss before 9/11. There seem to be two issues.

 

First is what happens when a geocache (particularly a small or regular size container) is found by a bridge crew or someone else. We know that unknown packages left in certain locations will be treated as suspicious. Bomb squads get called. A major highway bridge is one of those areas where items are likely to be viewed as suspicious. In addition, while the suspicious package is being evaluated and possible disarmed, the bridge could very likely be closed to traffic. This will no doubt get lots of publicity.

 

Second is that geocachers searching for a cache may rouse the suspicions of passersby. Particular when the geocachers are on or near a part of the bridge where pedestrians are not likely to go. Rarely though will this situation close a bridge or bring out the bomb squad. A search may be made of the area if law enforcement arrives after the cachers are gone. When the cachers are there, they can explain what they were doing. Worse that happens is that the authorities request the cache be archived.

 

In the case in question, it appears that the reviewer considered all the facts as known to him at the time and determined this stage of the cache was permitted under the guidelines. While the bridge has significant traffic, it is not a major highway (in the opinion of the reviewer). The container was likely a micro or perhaps even just a magnetic strip with coordinates. Again, the experienced reviewer determined that this sort of container, if found accidentally, would not have been view as suspicious. And finally the cache was hidden on the pedestrian walkway of the bridge. Cachers were not likely to raise suspicion looking for the cache here.

 

After reading the hint, it appears that whatever is there is on the highway side. The hint is asking you to sit on the barrier that separates traffic from the pedestrians, wait until there is no traffic, then look under the highway side of the I-Beam. If I drove by and saw someone sitting on that barrier, I would be concerned and be very tempted to dial 911. I would think that this person was likely drunk, on drugs or perhaps suicidal.

 

So, assume that I do call 911 and the local or state patrol caches up with that person and he explains that they are simply playing a game? Physical cache or not, the outcome could be very detrimental to the game. I believe that it was a problem with one cache that got caches banned on all Virginia DOT right-aways. Do we need to add Ohio as well over one cache?

[+cheech gang]

After reading the hint, it appears that whatever is there is on the highway side. The hint is asking you to sit on the barrier that separates traffic from the pedestrians, wait until there is no traffic, then look under the highway side of the I-Beam.

 

Addressing ONLY the above issue, yes the wording of the hint is unfortunate. If you were to actually sit on the beam (not recommended) facing the river it would be under your seat. There is no need to actually take your feet off the sidewalk.

 

I am not defending the hide, as I mentioned before I was not comfortable loitering in the area.

 

I don't consider this photo to be a spoiler as it does not show the actual location.

 

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

Oh wow! Just realized this may be one we DNFd during a trip up there.

[4wheelin_fool]

After reading the hint, it appears that whatever is there is on the highway side. The hint is asking you to sit on the barrier that separates traffic from the pedestrians, wait until there is no traffic, then look under the highway side of the I-Beam.

 

Addressing ONLY the above issue, yes the wording of the hint is unfortunate. If you were to actually sit on the beam (not recommended) facing the river it would be under your seat. There is no need to actually take your feet off the sidewalk.

 

I am not defending the hide, as I mentioned before I was not comfortable loitering in the area.

 

 

If its not visible from the pedestrian side and requires leaning into traffic, it is not what was originally hidden and published, and is likely to cause problems. The DOT would not be happy with it, nor the bridge commisioners, or the police. A container is bad. A flat item, fine. On the wrong side, bad..