Railroad question

[+coachstahly]

I'm working on a paddle/boat multi-cache and have one of my stages close to an active railroad. However, the only way to access the cache is via a boat. 2 questions - 1 - will it automatically get dinged by a reviewer for being close to an active RR? and 2 - are there grounds for appeal if it should get dinged by a reviewer because it's only accessible by boat? 2A - anyone know of any caches placed near an active RR that are boat only?

[+narcissa]

I'm working on a paddle/boat multi-cache and have one of my stages close to an active railroad. However, the only way to access the cache is via a boat. 2 questions - 1 - will it automatically get dinged by a reviewer for being close to an active RR? and 2 - are there grounds for appeal if it should get dinged by a reviewer because it's only accessible by boat? 2A - anyone know of any caches placed near an active RR that are boat only?

 

How close is close?

[+coachstahly]

20-25 feet from the tracks, 15 or so from the beginning of the embankment the tracks are laid down on

[+narcissa]

20-25 feet from the tracks, 15 or so from the beginning of the embankment the tracks are laid down on

 

I don't think it matters how you get to the cache, that's too close.

 

Did you get permission from the property owner, i.e. the railway?

[Blue Square Thing]

I've found caches 5 metres or so from railway lines, but only when there's been a fence in the way.

[+coachstahly]

The cache would be hidden underwater, in public waters, at a depth of 1 foot or less.

[+Lil Devil]

The cache would be hidden underwater, in public waters, at a depth of 1 foot or less.

Just explain that to your reviewer in a the reviewer note. That's exactly the kind of information that the reviewer note is for.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

20-25 feet from the tracks, 15 or so from the beginning of the embankment the tracks are laid down on

 

If the tracks are active I think they will say that's too close.

[+Isonzo Karst]

1 - will it automatically get dinged by a reviewer for being close to an active RR?

 

If the cache is on railroad property, or inside their right of way, that's a problem.

If it isn't on railroad land or right of way, you may need to demonstrate that somehow, or just explain it - although near tracks, the cache is NOT within railroad property. Maps, photos, some indication of a boundary.

this is a legal issue, not a safety issue. Cache on railroad property is illegal in the US

 

2 - are there grounds for appeal if it should get dinged by a reviewer because it's only accessible by boat?

 

only accessible by boat is fine

I'm wondering if you're asking if it's okay to be on railroad land if boat access only, and that answer is no.

 

On railroad land or right-of-way = no.

Edited August 29, 2014 by Isonzo Karst

[+coachstahly]

The cache would be hidden underwater, in public waters, at a depth of 1 foot or less.

Just explain that to your reviewer in a the reviewer note. That's exactly the kind of information that the reviewer note is for.

That's what I plan on doing if I were to submit the cache as is, but wanted to get some thoughts about whether or not the distance from the RR track would get this one denied, even with the fact that it's by boat only, NOT on RR property, but still close to the active tracks.

 

Only a small weighing in so far and it appears the consensus is pretty much that it would get denied. I'll attempt to move the stage farther away if I can. Is there a standard/consensus on how far away from a RR a cache needs to be?

Edited August 29, 2014 by coachstahly

[+coachstahly]

Here's a picture of the area in question. The cache is hidden right off the westernmost point of the turquoise section, just north of the train tracks and the embankment, in the water.

 

Edited August 29, 2014 by coachstahly

[+coachstahly]

Here's a closer picture with the word Cache placed where the Cache is hidden. The N/S orange line is the town boundary line according to the site.

 

Edited August 29, 2014 by coachstahly

[+DanOCan]

That's what I plan on doing if I were to submit the cache as is, but wanted to get some thoughts about whether or not the distance from the RR track would get this one denied, even with the fact that it's by boat only, NOT on RR property, but still close to the active tracks.

 

Only a small weighing in so far and it appears the consensus is pretty much that it would get denied. I'll attempt to move the stage farther away if I can. Is there a standard/consensus on how far away from a RR a cache needs to be?

Yep, check the guidelines. Specifically Section I.1.6.3

 

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.

 

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.

 

You might be fine with the existing location since the railway guideline is purely about railroad land ownership and not safety. Because of the proximity, you will have a high burden of proof placed on you to show that you are actually off their land. Get 46m away from the tracks and that burden of proof will be much lower.

[+narcissa]

I think you'll have a tough time getting it published there, regardless of the intended mode of transportation.

[+wmpastor]

You say it's only assessable by boat. Yet if a person were to get to the land close to the railroad, they *could* walk there, correct? Given that many do not have boats, the question then is whether this would encourage trespassing on railroad property (and how that affects things).

[+Panther&Pine]

Ask your reviewer directly. They'll have specific information on that railroad line.

I wouldn't want to be the cache owner who encourages people to play chicken with the train even if that isn't the intent. I live in a town with a historic train, people play chicken with it all the time.

[+mrreet]

The cache is located in less than 1ft of water near shore. How again is this assessable only by boat? I have walked to an island in 2ft of water.

 

[+Mudfrog]

The cache would be hidden underwater, in public waters, at a depth of 1 foot or less.

Just explain that to your reviewer in a the reviewer note. That's exactly the kind of information that the reviewer note is for.

 

I was at first, going to say that i didn't think it had too much of a chance but then i saw the images posted. The 25 feet is pretty close but i think the main thing a reviewer will be checking is whether or not it is on RR property. I believe a railroad's property can be under 25 feet but there's no doubt there are times when it extends more than that.

 

I'd say run it by your reviewer, with details you've given here, and see what issues he/she might see.

[+The A-Team]

You say it's only assessable by boat. Yet if a person were to get to the land close to the railroad, they *could* walk there, correct? Given that many do not have boats, the question then is whether this would encourage trespassing on railroad property (and how that affects things).

^This

While it may be intended that the cache be accessed by boat, it appears this is not the only way that someone could potentially access the cache. If there's a much easier way to get to the cache that involves a bit of trespassing, expect some people to use that route. If you really want to make it boat/swimming access only, it should be placed farther from shore and in an area where people won't be tempted to trespass to get closer to GZ on land.

[+Mudfrog]

You say it's only assessable by boat. Yet if a person were to get to the land close to the railroad, they *could* walk there, correct? Given that many do not have boats, the question then is whether this would encourage trespassing on railroad property (and how that affects things).

^This

While it may be intended that the cache be accessed by boat, it appears this is not the only way that someone could potentially access the cache. If there's a much easier way to get to the cache that involves a bit of trespassing, expect some people to use that route. If you really want to make it boat/swimming access only, it should be placed farther from shore and in an area where people won't be tempted to trespass to get closer to GZ on land.

 

There are plenty of caches out that are supposed to be accessed by way of open/public property but at the same time, could also be approached by way of private property from another direction. Not sure a reviewer would deny a cache just because someone could come in from the wrong way.

[+Lil Devil]

Not sure a reviewer would deny a cache just because someone could come in from the wrong way.

It depends on the likelyhood. In this case, there is a road crossing just 1,900 feet down the tracks, but the nearest boat put in (that I can tell) is 1/2 mile away. If this were in my review territory I'd probably deny it because it's likely (IMO) that many would trespass on RR property because it's easier.

Edited August 30, 2014 by Lil Devil

[4wheelin_fool]

The first stage of a multi, perhaps someone might walk to it. I don't know why if it's a paddle to, but it's possible. If it's the second stage or more, then I doubt it. Being in the water, it's not on RR property.

 

If it was a traditional, I'd say it was a bad idea, but a multi? Should be fine if the stage before it was only accessible by boat. There was a paddle to near a RR here several years ago, and the FTF walked on the tracks upsetting the CO, but nobody else did. It was far enough from RR property to be out of proximity for denial.

Edited August 30, 2014 by 4wheelin_fool

[+The_Incredibles_]

You might be able to get under the allowable distance if there is an 'impenetrable barrier between the cache and the tracks'. At least, when I was hiding one of my caches near train tracks, that's what I was told. Fortunately there were thick bushes in the way so it got published.

 

The rule is not just about private property, but also to prevent idiots (like me) from dodging trains to get to a cache. Not a smart thing to do.

[+hzoi]

The rule is not just about private property, but also to prevent idiots (like me) from dodging trains to get to a cache.

Well, no, it's not. The rule itself is because railroads enforce their rights of way, and that's been made clear on the forums in the past.

 

I fully recognize that this is a semantic distinction, because RRs enforce their rights of way in order to avoid running people over and getting sued. But that is the RR motivation for the rule they make Groundspeak enforce, not the rule.

[+The_Incredibles_]

The rule is not just about private property, but also to prevent idiots (like me) from dodging trains to get to a cache.

Well, no, it's not. The rule itself is because railroads enforce their rights of way, and that's been made clear on the forums in the past.

 

I fully recognize that this is a semantic distinction, because RRs enforce their rights of way in order to avoid running people over and getting sued. But that is the RR motivation for the rule they make Groundspeak enforce, not the rule.

 

You can argue with me all you want, but this is how my reviewer explained it to me.

[+BCandMsKitty]

So just hide the cache further East along the land. You'll eventually get far enough from the tracks.

[+wmpastor]

So just hide the cache further East along the land. You'll eventually get far enough from the tracks.

Too easy - then there'd be no thread.

 

Sound like they like this spot best and want to use it if possible.

[+wmpastor]

The rule is not just about private property, but also to prevent idiots (like me) from dodging trains to get to a cache.

Well, no, it's not. The rule itself is because railroads enforce their rights of way, and that's been made clear on the forums in the past.

 

I fully recognize that this is a semantic distinction, because RRs enforce their rights of way in order to avoid running people over and getting sued. But that is the RR motivation for the rule they make Groundspeak enforce, not the rule.

 

You can argue with me all you want, but this is how my reviewer explained it to me.

 

Let's not fight. The fact is *both* railroads & Groundspeak want to avoid accidents, in part because of humanitarian concerns & in part because of legal issues.

 

As for GS, picture this new hypothetical situation: a proposed cache can be reached by boat from an access point 10 miles away. But it can also be reached by parking a half block away and walking across tracks to non-RR property on the other side. If i owned a listing service, would I publish that? Never! Safety? Yes. Respect for RR rules? Yes. Preventing my azz from being hauled into court after the cacher was hit by a train? You bet!

[+uxorious]

The rule is not just about private property, but also to prevent idiots (like me) from dodging trains to get to a cache.

Well, no, it's not. The rule itself is because railroads enforce their rights of way, and that's been made clear on the forums in the past.

 

I fully recognize that this is a semantic distinction, because RRs enforce their rights of way in order to avoid running people over and getting sued. But that is the RR motivation for the rule they make Groundspeak enforce, not the rule.

 

You can argue with me all you want, but this is how my reviewer explained it to me.

 

You can argue all you want, but Groundspeak has made it clear, as have most reviewers who post in the forums, the rule is because of railroad right-of-way. Check into the history of the rule, you will see it was clearly done because of trespassing on the RR property.

[+dprovan]

You can argue all you want, but Groundspeak has made it clear, as have most reviewers who post in the forums, the rule is because of railroad right-of-way. Check into the history of the rule, you will see it was clearly done because of trespassing on the RR property.

I believe you're correct that the GS rule is exclusively about RR right-of-way, but I think that's because it's a useful legal position immune from discussion about whether any given case is safe or not. We mustn't forget that the right-of-way's themselves are intended to keep people off the track, so the GS rule about right-of-ways is only technically not about safety because it's one step removed from an actual safety argument. Everyone's relieved that the rule keeps people from crossing or searching around tracks, even while we recognize that that's theoretically only by happenstance.

[+wmpastor]

The rule is not just about private property, but also to prevent idiots (like me) from dodging trains to get to a cache.

Well, no, it's not. The rule itself is because railroads enforce their rights of way, and that's been made clear on the forums in the past.

 

I fully recognize that this is a semantic distinction, because RRs enforce their rights of way in order to avoid running people over and getting sued. But that is the RR motivation for the rule they make Groundspeak enforce, not the rule.

 

You can argue with me all you want, but this is how my reviewer explained it to me.

 

You can argue all you want, but Groundspeak has made it clear, as have most reviewers who post in the forums, the rule is because of railroad right-of-way. Check into the history of the rule, you will see it was clearly done because of trespassing on the RR property.

 

Better yet, let's not argue!

 

RR's are a no-no. Everyone agrees. The exact scope of the rule can be debated (like what about caches where the easiest way to get there is to cross the RR).

 

I'm not sure why the exact historical derivation of the rule is so crucial. Is someone writing a treatise on the history of caching?

[+coachstahly]

Thanks for the discussion. It is the 6th stage of a multi and there's no good way to walk to this from there. However, I ended up finding a spot farther north and a bit east of this location to render this topic moot.

[+dprovan]

Thanks for the discussion. It is the 6th stage of a multi and there's no good way to walk to this from there. However, I ended up finding a spot farther north and a bit east of this location to render this topic moot.

A brilliant solution!

[+hzoi]

The rule is not just about private property, but also to prevent idiots (like me) from dodging trains to get to a cache.

Well, no, it's not. The rule itself is because railroads enforce their rights of way, and that's been made clear on the forums in the past.

 

I fully recognize that this is a semantic distinction, because RRs enforce their rights of way in order to avoid running people over and getting sued. But that is the RR motivation for the rule they make Groundspeak enforce, not the rule.

 

You can argue with me all you want, but this is how my reviewer explained it to me.

It's not really an argument if I'm right, it's just me stating facts and you disagreeing with me.

 

No offense to your reviewer, I'm sure he or she is swell, but when it comes to interpreting rules, I'll take Keystone's word for it, as he's been a reviewer for almost 10 more years than yours has. Besides, you've posted in a number of threads that made it clear it's a property/trespass issue, not a safety one; didn't you read them?

Edited September 1, 2014 by hzoi

[+wmpastor]

The rule is not just about private property, but also to prevent idiots (like me) from dodging trains to get to a cache.

Well, no, it's not. The rule itself is because railroads enforce their rights of way, and that's been made clear on the forums in the past.

 

I fully recognize that this is a semantic distinction, because RRs enforce their rights of way in order to avoid running people over and getting sued. But that is the RR motivation for the rule they make Groundspeak enforce, not the rule.

 

You can argue with me all you want, but this is how my reviewer explained it to me.

It's not really an argument if I'm right, it's just me stating facts and you disagreeing with me.

 

No offense to your reviewer, I'm sure he or she is swell, but when it comes to interpreting rules, I'll take Keystone's word for it, as he's been a reviewer for almost 10 more years than yours has. Besides, you've posted in a number of threads that made it clear it's a property/trespass issue, not a safety one; didn't you read them?

 

Sure the RR property rights are important. After long pondering of why people could possibly want to argue heatedly about this lore, all I could come up with is that if you consider the property rights issue as preeminent, then you avoid endless debate about whether or not a given cache is safe or not. But what is the *practical* effect??? Caches on RR property are not allowed because RR's enforce their property rights. Why do they enforce their property rights? SAFETY - and the risk of liability unless they do all they can to avoid unsafe situations.

 

So safety and RR property rights go hand in hand.

 

And GS has always respected property rights and safety.

 

As I understand the rule, it's absolutely no caches on RR property (recognizing RR property rights AND the safety concerns of both RR's AND GS), & as far as caches anywhere *near* a RR, it's a judgment call as to whether there's a risk that cachers will trespass on RR property to get to the cache (due to easier acess, shorter distance, etc.).

[4wheelin_fool]

It's due to an arrest for trespassing and vandalism in 2002, in which a geocacher spray painted a track to indicate a hide, and placed a cache nearby.

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=52574

 

There is no review for safety.

Edited September 2, 2014 by 4wheelin_fool

[+wmpastor]

It's due to an arrest for trespassing and vandalism in 2002, in which a geocacher spray painted a track to indicate a hide, and placed a cache nearby.

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=52574

 

There is no review for safety.

 

There *is* a review for safety if the cache is *near* (not on) RR property, I understand, especially if cachers may cross the RR property. (Possible but highly unlikely that cachers will use RR property? Ok. Probable? Not ok.)

 

Good citation to the events in the "early days," like 2002. Interesting read. My point is this: the property rights enforcement by the RR is itself not based on some curmudgeonly dislike of tresspassers, but on SAFETY. A read of the 2002 materials reminded me that the safety concerns of the RR, which in turn lead to their strict enforcement of their property rights (with GS following suit), was not *only* based on a concern for the safety of the trespassers, but even more with the safety of RR personnel and passengers because of 9/11-type issues.

 

Safety or property rights enforcement? Chicken or the egg? Safety concerns of the RR (not GS) is the driver, which lead to property rights enforcement, which dictated GS policy..

[+The_Incredibles_]

 

Safety or property rights enforcement? Chicken or the egg? Safety concerns of the RR (not GS) is the driver, which lead to property rights enforcement, which dictated GS policy..

 

EGGactly. The reason they really don't want you trespassing is 'cause trains are fast and people are dumb.

[+wmpastor]

 

Safety or property rights enforcement? Chicken or the egg? Safety concerns of the RR (not GS) is the driver, which lead to property rights enforcement, which dictated GS policy..

 

EGGactly. The reason they really don't want you trespassing is 'cause trains are fast and people are dumb.

So true, sadly. There was a guy I went to school with who tried to board a train that was already leaving the station. It turned out very badly.

[4wheelin_fool]

...

Edited September 2, 2014 by 4wheelin_fool

[4wheelin_fool]

Safety concerns of the RR (not GS) is the driver, which lead to property rights enforcement, which dictated GS policy..

 

Correct. There is no review for safety by Groundspeak.

 

There *is* a review for safety if the cache is *near* (not on) RR property, I understand, especially if cachers may cross the RR property. (Possible but highly unlikely that cachers will use RR property? Ok. Probable? Not ok.)

 

No, that review is for trespassing, due to the RRs concern for safety. Hope that helps.

[+wmpastor]

Safety concerns of the RR (not GS) is the driver, which lead to property rights enforcement, which dictated GS policy..

 

Correct. There is no review for safety by Groundspeak.

 

There *is* a review for safety if the cache is *near* (not on) RR property, I understand, especially if cachers may cross the RR property. (Possible but highly unlikely that cachers will use RR property? Ok. Probable? Not ok.)

 

No, that review is for trespassing, due to the RRs concern for safety. Hope that helps.

 

Aha! So you ADMIT that the RR has safety concerns?!!

 

I'm happy to hear there's some concern for safety out there, whoever might have them!

 

Have we beaten the dead horse enough?

[+dprovan]

Aha! So you ADMIT that the RR has safety concerns?!!

I'm not sure where you got that anyone was denying RRs have safety concerns. That's one of many reasons they defend their right-of-ways.

 

I'm happy to hear there's some concern for safety out there, whoever might have them!

And I'm not sure where you got that anyone was denying that there's concern for safety. We aren't talking about concern for safety, we're talking about responsibility for safety, both in the casual sense that everyone must keep in mind that, above all else, the CO are ultimately responsible for the safety of any seekers, and in the very real legal sense that GS, reviewers, and RRs never, ever want to be in a position of having given official permission to go into a dangerous area.

[+K13]

Aha! So you ADMIT that the RR has safety concerns?!!

I'm not sure where you got that anyone was denying RRs have safety concerns. That's one of many reasons they defend their right-of-ways.

 

I'm happy to hear there's some concern for safety out there, whoever might have them!

And I'm not sure where you got that anyone was denying that there's concern for safety. We aren't talking about concern for safety, we're talking about responsibility for safety, both in the casual sense that everyone must keep in mind that, above all else, the CO are ultimately responsible for the safety of any seekers, and in the very real legal sense that GS, reviewers, and RRs never, ever want to be in a position of having given official permission to go into a dangerous area.

I think you are incorrect about who is responsible for the safety of seekers. As a cache owner, my responsibility lies in placing a cache. It is SOLELY the seeker's responsibility to be safe. When I place a cache requiring the use of scuba gear to retrieve, I am not responsible to make sure you are dive certified... That is only the responsibility of the seeker.

[4wheelin_fool]

Aha! So you ADMIT that the RR has safety concerns?!!

I'm not sure where you got that anyone was denying RRs have safety concerns. That's one of many reasons they defend their right-of-ways.

 

I'm happy to hear there's some concern for safety out there, whoever might have them!

And I'm not sure where you got that anyone was denying that there's concern for safety. We aren't talking about concern for safety, we're talking about responsibility for safety, both in the casual sense that everyone must keep in mind that, above all else, the CO are ultimately responsible for the safety of any seekers, and in the very real legal sense that GS, reviewers, and RRs never, ever want to be in a position of having given official permission to go into a dangerous area.

 

The CO is not responsible for safety. That responsibility is completely that of the cache finder. Should LPCs be disabled in the winter because the parking lot has ice, snow, and someone could slip and injure their back? Perhaps. but if it isn't, the cache seeker is completely responsible for their own safety. There's just too many people trying to avoid responsibility for their own actions these days. The CO should feel a duty to warn of any hazards, but being responsible? No.

 

I'm not even sure the RR is necessarily concerned about safety. Likely they are concerned about being sued for injuries.

[+dprovan]

The CO is not responsible for safety.

I think this overstates the obvious point that the seeker is ultimately responsible for their own safety. A CO that willfully leads a seeker into a dangerous situation that isn't obvious still bears some responsibility.

 

At any rate, if the CO isn't responsible, then clearly the reviewer isn't responsible, which was my point. The reviewer will still be concerned about safety, and any reasonable CO will be, too.

[+narcissa]

The CO is not responsible for safety.

 

No, but the CO is responsible for having adequate permission to place a cache in a particular spot.

[Andronicus]

The CO is not responsible for safety.

I think this overstates the obvious point that the seeker is ultimately responsible for their own safety. A CO that willfully leads a seeker into a dangerous situation that isn't obvious still bears some responsibility.

 

At any rate, if the CO isn't responsible, then clearly the reviewer isn't responsible, which was my point. The reviewer will still be concerned about safety, and any reasonable CO will be, too.

The reviewer is not concerned with safety at all. The whole RR issue is strictly a tresspass legality.

[+dprovan]

The reviewer is not concerned with safety at all.

I'm sorry, but you've lost the thread of the conversation here. Of course the reviewer's concerned with safety. We're all concerned with safety. The point is that the reviewer isn't responsible for insuring anything about safety.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

The reviewer is not concerned with safety at all.

I'm sorry, but you've lost the thread of the conversation here. Of course the reviewer's concerned with safety. We're all concerned with safety. The point is that the reviewer isn't responsible for insuring anything about safety.

 

I'm sure that GS is concerned about safety as well. Suppose reviewers *did* consider safety when determining whether or not a cache should be published. The presumption would then be that if a cache was published, that it would be "safe". What do you suppose would happen when someone was injured while searching for a cache that GS (through the reviewer) had blessed to be safe. A flood of lawsuits, perhaps?