High Voltage Tower Ban

[+tozainamboku]

It may not be exactly guidelines creep, since it is probably covered by a combination of permission and avoiding caches that are in locations that may cause reports of suspicious activity. And I have heard of cases where the caches were place on or directly under towers and the utility asked they be moved. However the following cut and paste has appeared on several cache that the local reviewer has been archiving:

 

It has come to my attention that this cache has been placed on or near a high voltage transmission line tower.

 

Over the past few years, there have been a number of problems with caches placed on transmission line towers and as a result we will no longer publish caches placed on or near these towers. As previously published caches come to our attention, we have been asked to archive them.

 

If the cache owner addresses the issue that caused this cache to be archived, it may be possible to unarchive the cache. The cache owner can contact me via my profile page: (visit link) . Be sure to include the GC code in your message.

 

Groundspeak Volunteer Cache Reviewer

 

What isn't clear to me why caches are archived for being near transmission lines/towers. Has Groundspeak received specific request from utilities to do this? How near is near?

 

Often in urban areas, power line right of way has been turned into public greenspace. Generally the power company has warning signs to keep people off the towers (as well as spikes or other attachments to make it impossible). You can walk under towers and eat your picnic or whatever. While there may be concerns over something attached to a tower, it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to ban cache just because they are hidden in a pile of rocks at the base or in the bush a few feet away. In mountainous area, power company roads to maintain towers are often used as hiking trails. Here there would be even less suspicion finding a cache near a transmission line tower.

 

Now, it's possible that utility right of ways are like railroad right of ways. However, once the power line right of way is opened to the public, I've never heard of them prosecuting someone for trespassing just because they came within a few feet of a tower (or even if they stood right under one). They may want to make a claim that any property someone leaves in that area without permission is a problem. But frankly, I've seen all sort of objects left near powerlines. Seems like an overreaction except in a few cases where a major transmission line might be seen as a potential terrorist targe.

 

There are tons of caches, both on urban greenbelts and along "Edison" roads, that are going to be affected by a blanket non-grandfathered ban.

[4wheelin_fool]

I suppose it's a overreaction due to someone in the power company. A few years ago the utility company around here clear cut every tree within 100 feet of the power lines. I suppose someone thought that they were a terrorist target and that the area was safer open. Banning geocaches seems to be even more of a hysterical reaction to this. I'm guessing that it's just one power company in particular that's involved.

Edited January 29, 2015 by 4wheelin_fool

[+SwineFlew]

Anyone remember these caches? http://coord.info/GC24QNV

 

[+larryc43230]

There's a growing trend, at least in Ohio, to clear cut a wide swatch around high-voltage power transmission lines and larger pipelines of various sorts. A power line runs through Blendon Woods, a Metro Park near my home, and a few years ago they cut down every tree and removed all the brush under the line. It created a truly ugly, naked swath through the middle of the park.

 

The reason for the clear cutting, according to a newspaper article quoting the electric company, was to speed up and lower the cost of inspecting the line. Instead of putting boots on the ground, they could now just fly a helicopter along the line.

 

The "preventing terrorism" thing was added later as an afterthought.

 

--Larry

[JASTA 11]

The power company routinely clears high-voltage line cuts around here. I don't know how much it has to do with terrorism, but inspecting the lines by helicopter is becoming commonplace. Soon they'll be using drones to do the job.

 

Once again Groundspeak injects subjectivity into it's 'guidelines'.

 

While 'on' the transmission tower is quite clear, they leave the 'near' part up to interpretation.

 

What constitutes 'near'?

 

My guess is that 'near' will be determined arbitrarily by reviewers, or by whoever decides to dime your cache out.

[+narcissa]

The answer is clear.

 

"As previously published caches come to our attention, we have been asked to archive them."

 

They have been ASKED to archive them. End of story.

[+Bear and Ragged]

The answer is clear.

 

"As previously published caches come to our attention, we have been asked to archive them."

 

They have been ASKED to archive them. End of story.

 

ASKED by who? Groundspeak, or the utility company...

[+tozainamboku]

Anyone remember these caches? http://coord.info/GC24QNV

 

I thought about mentioning the Trail Of Gods PT in my OP.

 

Not all power transmission lines are the same. These caches were place at or near the towers of the major transmission line from Hoover Dam to Southern California. Clearly this line has higher security concerns. A caravan of geocachers stopping at each tower (or leapfroging towere ) might look suspicious to others driving the dirt road or even from people on the highway where the power linese run near the highway. I believe the concern of the utilities was that they would have to send crew out to see what was going on and to inspect the towers after any reports of suspicious activity.

 

I believe most power transmission line would not have this kind of issue. I might understand that reviewer would be hard pressed to know which lines are more critical so they want a blanket ban. But you could argue the same goes for which LPCs are more likely to get a bomb squad call.

The answer is clear.

 

"As previously published caches come to our attention, we have been asked to archive them."

 

They have been ASKED to archive them. End of story.

I read this as "Groundspeak has asked the reviewers to archive them".

 

I'm not questioning that reviewers are following direction they got from Groundspeak (other than usual rant about secret memos ). It could be that Groundspeak's decision was made because of specific requests from utilities. But even then, it would be nice to know if Groundspeak tried to educate the utilities about the nature of geocaching to reach some compromised that allowed for caches to be place near the base of a tower (perhaps just not on the tower).

Edited January 29, 2015 by tozainamboku

[+uxorious]

There's a growing trend, at least in Ohio, to clear cut a wide swatch around high-voltage power transmission lines and larger pipelines of various sorts. A power line runs through Blendon Woods, a Metro Park near my home, and a few years ago they cut down every tree and removed all the brush under the line. It created a truly ugly, naked swath through the middle of the park.

 

The reason for the clear cutting, according to a newspaper article quoting the electric company, was to speed up and lower the cost of inspecting the line. Instead of putting boots on the ground, they could now just fly a helicopter along the line.

 

The "preventing terrorism" thing was added later as an afterthought.

 

--Larry

 

Around here,(western Washington) they have kept the area around the towers cleared for a lot longer then they have used helicopters to inspect them. If they don't keep the trees cut down they will grow up into the wires, not a good thing. Keeping the bigger brush away from the base of the towers and away from the roads allows for easier inspections of areas that may not be able to be checked from the air.

[+MartyBartfast]

This guideline has been implemented in the UK now for several years, http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=292589&view=findpost&p=5002445 so nothing new, I can't say whether the reviewers have sought out and archived pre-existing caches though.

Edited January 29, 2015 by MartyBartfast

[+narcissa]

It could be that Groundspeak's decision was made because of specific requests from utilities. But even then, it would be nice to know if Groundspeak tried to educate the utilities about the nature of geocaching to reach some compromised that allowed for caches to be place near the base of a tower (perhaps just not on the tower).

 

We're not talking about parks here. We're talking about major infrastructure. It is in no way unreasonable for them to ban geocaching on or close to their towers.

[4wheelin_fool]

Great. Looks like I'll have to scale a tower about 30' and chain up an ammo can with the word Opencache written in tiny lettering on the side to see what happens..

[+GeoTrekker26]

The answer is clear.

 

"As previously published caches come to our attention, we have been asked to archive them."

 

They have been ASKED to archive them. End of story.

 

End of story? Hardly. Who ASKED and where?

[+narcissa]

The answer is clear.

 

"As previously published caches come to our attention, we have been asked to archive them."

 

They have been ASKED to archive them. End of story.

 

End of story? Hardly. Who ASKED and where?

 

Actually, no, it is the end of the story. Cache owners are required to have permission, and the onus is on them to get that permission. It's not up to Groundspeak to get that permission for you, and they are absolutely in the right to act cautiously.

[4wheelin_fool]

I'd rather hear a tale about a fairy godmother getting fired from her executive position at Cracker Barrel and getting a job with the utility company.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Anyone remember these caches? http://coord.info/GC24QNV

 

 

I was thinking of those as well. Notice the first six logs on that cache where six cachers involved in the placement of the caches all claimed a find (and did so for every cache in the trail.)

[+cerberus1]

I believe most power transmission line would not have this kind of issue.

I agree.

Around here, many game lands properties have power or gas lines running through them.

I can't see Homeland Security as an issue here, when hunters are in the woods pretty-much year 'round.

One area has huge windmills that supply much of the energy for a large Town (isn't that major Infrastructure?) with those power lines, winding along a mountain ridge.

- I've hunted along with many underneath them and cached there too.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

There's a growing trend, at least in Ohio, to clear cut a wide swatch around high-voltage power transmission lines and larger pipelines of various sorts. A power line runs through Blendon Woods, a Metro Park near my home, and a few years ago they cut down every tree and removed all the brush under the line. It created a truly ugly, naked swath through the middle of the park.

 

The reason for the clear cutting, according to a newspaper article quoting the electric company, was to speed up and lower the cost of inspecting the line. Instead of putting boots on the ground, they could now just fly a helicopter along the line.

 

The "preventing terrorism" thing was added later as an afterthought.

 

--Larry

 

Around here,(western Washington) they have kept the area around the towers cleared for a lot longer then they have used helicopters to inspect them. If they don't keep the trees cut down they will grow up into the wires, not a good thing. Keeping the bigger brush away from the base of the towers and away from the roads allows for easier inspections of areas that may not be able to be checked from the air.

 

I always assumed that the clear cutting of the large paths where towers were place was as a fire break. The metal towers might not burn and any insulation on the wires and other equipment would. It sounds like are several reasons why the power co. would want to keep the area around the towers clear.

[+cerberus1]

This guideline has been implemented in the UK now for several years, https://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=c7755aaf-d3da-4f87-b759-1574d78d74d6 so nothing new, I can't say whether the reviewers have sought out and archived pre-existing caches though.

Sorry, maybe I'm just not getting it, but what does that person's profile have to do with a guideline?

[+MartyBartfast]

 

Sorry, maybe I'm just not getting it, but what does that person's profile have to do with a guideline?

Doh!!! pasted the wrong clipboard, it should be http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=292589&view=findpost&p=5002445

 

I've corrected it in the post above.

[+cerberus1]

I always assumed that the clear cutting of the large paths where towers were place was as a fire break.

Same here. Since a kid (back when God made dirt) , always called a fire break.

When the public relations guy came around, asking if we'd mind if they sprayed herbicide along the property line, he said they were running the entire fire break.

[+tozainamboku]

It could be that Groundspeak's decision was made because of specific requests from utilities. But even then, it would be nice to know if Groundspeak tried to educate the utilities about the nature of geocaching to reach some compromised that allowed for caches to be place near the base of a tower (perhaps just not on the tower).

 

We're not talking about parks here. We're talking about major infrastructure. It is in no way unreasonable for them to ban geocaching on or close to their towers.

No we are talking about parks here. The archived caches were in parks or greenbelts that had power tranmission lines runnning thru them. Even more common are power lines that run through state parks, national forests, and other open lands.

 

The permission argument might be applied to caches placed on towers. The towers themselves are clearly the property of the utility and they can decide that they never give permission to place things on towers. (Though it is hard to imagine that a magnetic micro placed where it can be reached without climbing the tower has any impact on the tower). It is the 'near' towers that is concerning. The utilities seem to have no concern with people walking their dogs, eating a picnic, or playing Frisbee near the tower. What makes a geocache place under some rocks at the base of tower so different from these other activities?

Edited January 29, 2015 by tozainamboku

[+narcissa]

No we are talking about parks here. The archived caches were in parks or greenbelts that had power tranmission lines runnning thru them. Even more common are power lines that run through state parks, national forests, and other open lands.

 

The permission argument might be applied to caches placed on towers. The towers themselves are clearly the property of the utility and they can decide that they never give permission to place things on towers. (Though it is hard to imagine that a magnetic micro placed where it can be reached without climbing the tower has any impact on the tower). It is the 'near' towers that is concerning. The utilities seem to have no concern with people walking their dogs, eating a picnic, or playing Frisbee near the tower. What makes a geocache place under some rocks at the base of tower so different from these other activities?

 

Obviously, there are easements or other arrangements surrounding the land, which permits them to perform maintenance and keep debris away from the lines.

 

Dude, when the owner/manager of major infrastructure says they don't want geocaches on their land or their stuff, the only responsible thing Groundspeak can possibly do is archive the listings.

 

Frisbees and dogs generally aren't mistaken for bombs. If people's frisbees started causing power outages or public alarm, then I'd expect they'd go after them too.

 

If you feel so very strongly that you ought to be allowed to put your geocache on a tower, then it's up to you to get permission. It's not up to Groundspeak to fight on your behalf. They are absolutely in the right to archive caches when local authorities or land managers request it.

[+tozainamboku]

One can blindly accept that the owner/manager of "major" infrastructure can withold permission, or one can question if that makes sense. One can also question what they are entitled to withold permission from.

 

Groundspeak generally assumes that cache hiders have gotten adequate permission. Reviewers are only asked to make additional checks in a few instances.

 

I can believe that there are some cases where a utility asked for caches to be removed. I find it much harder to believe that every utility has asked that every cache be removed from every power line. I haven't seen an effort to have caches archived for being on local utility poles (even though most utilities have policies against posting anything on these poles). Why have high voltage towers have been singled out?

Edited January 29, 2015 by tozainamboku

[+NeverSummer]

I dunno, seems to me that if there is a ROW for a utility or the like, it isn't our land to play on...even with a frisbee. If someone were to ask permission from the utility who controls the ROW, I'll bet they would be met with, at best, a blank stare.

 

Because we all play this game we have a skewed opinion of what should be able to fly (like a frisbee...), but we really need to think like a land owner, land manager, business owner, or whatever who has no context and no interest in seeing this game happen on their land. They can, in fact, scream "GET OFF MY LAWN!", and we have to take our toys and leave.

 

If the owner of these caches decides that the game--these containers on/near critical infrastructure and utility property/ROW--are important enough to have around, they can ask the utility for permission that they remain. However, it seems that either the utility contacted GS, GS made a call based on recommendation of their legal counsel, a Reviewer was contacted by the utility or concerned party, or a combination of all has occurred.

 

I would, because I know how this game is "harmless", think that we could play anywhere I'd be ok to play catch with a frisbee...yes. But not everyone sees random, hidden containers left behind by random, unknown parties as "harmless". You can thank xenophobes for most of that, but it also comes down to property rights, and a reminder that there are many more people who neither play nor understand this game we play.

[+GeoTrekker26]

The answer is clear.

 

"As previously published caches come to our attention, we have been asked to archive them."

 

They have been ASKED to archive them. End of story.

 

End of story? Hardly. Who ASKED and where?

 

Actually, no, it is the end of the story. Cache owners are required to have permission, and the onus is on them to get that permission. It's not up to Groundspeak to get that permission for you, and they are absolutely in the right to act cautiously.

 

Now you are changing the plot of the story.

[+DannyDangerously]

Here in New Zealand, there is a Health and Safety requirement for all High Voltage Transmission lines to have minimum 4 metres (about 13') clearance to any vegetation directly below the conductor (power line) to reduce the risk of flash over ignition. They are also required to have a wide corridor cut either side of the lines (around 100 feet), for the same reason, as the conductors sag in high heat conditions, and move laterally by a significant amount in high wind conditions.

 

There is a high risk of electrocution to anyone within a radius of up to 10 meters ( 33 feet) from the base of the transmission tower, during certain weather conditions, if they are not correctly earthed.

 

Transpower (NZ national power grid operator) actively prosecute people found undertaking activities around their towers (when caught) as it is considered an extreme health and safety risk.

 

As far as maintenance checks and repair goes, it is common to use Helicopters and even Drones in most remote areas here, but the conductors and towers still need to have manual inspections on a regular basis, as it is not always possible to ascertain condition of high stress items remotely, or even from a helicopter, so clearing maintenance tracks and areas makes good sense.

 

Placing a Cache directly beneath a conductor tower in New Zealand is prohibited, and prosecution is likely for anyone who does.

[+marshajean]

I feel the transmission companies get a bad rap from the general public when they clear cut the trees in their right-of-way along their transmission lines. Here is a blurb from a brochure published by a major transmission company in regards to their vegetation management policy:

 

Q: Why is it necessary to cut down my trees when you have pruned them in the past?

A:

In an effort to protect against electric outages like the one that occurred in the Blackout of 2003, the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) drafted

stringent standards governing how utilities operate their transmission grids. The standards cover a broad range of

topics, including vegetation management. Utility companies engaged in transmission must eliminate all power outages

caused by vegetation interference with power lines. Failure to meet this zero-outage mandate may lead to fines of up to

$1 million per day. To meet this stringent federal mandate and because vegetation growth can be aggressive (especially

in summer months), ******* and its subsidiaries have adopted an approach that calls for tree removal, where necessary

and permissible, to maintain the safety and reliability of the transmission grid.

 

Sometimes we need to compromise.

[+tozainamboku]

I'm not sure why this has turned into a discussion of utility companies clear cutting trees around power lines. It supposed to be about Groundspeak reviewers being told to archive caches on or near towers when they find out about them.

 

Clearly utilities have responsibility for safety and operation of transmission lines. Perhaps this extend to removing magnetic hide-a-keys from tower or small tupperware containers under a rock at the base of a tower?

 

Let it be stipulated that utilities companies can do a whole lot of thing in order to ensure the lines are safe and they operate safely and reliably. But, to my knowledge, I've ever heard of a cache on or near a powerline that would cause a safety problem or interfere with operation. The only concern I've ever heard was that a cache or a group of cachers looking for the cache would appear suspicious and at that as part of their responsibility the utility may have to send a crew to investigate or inspect the towers. I do not believe this concern extends to every transmission line.

 

Once again. Urban areas are often crisscrossed by transmission lines and often these line run through parks or the area under the line is turned into greenbelt or a bike path. Caches searching for caches in these area are no more suspicious that another example a few years back of a highway overpass with a park underneath. The reviewer denied this cache, but it was allowed on appeal.

 

In addition, where I live, transmission lines often traverse mountainous terrain. The service roads the utility built for construction and maintenance of the towers are now hiking trails. Despite brush clearance around the base of towers, the areas near the base often are good places to hide caches. Sure you could place a cache further away from the tower, but then I would like to know what near means. If I can't put the cache right up against the foot of the tower, if 5 ft far enought? 10 ft?

[Keystone]

If I can't put the cache right up against the foot of the tower, if 5 ft far enought? 10 ft?

Be sure to ask this in your permission conversation. One land manager or one utility company may give a different answer than another.

[+tozainamboku]

If I can't put the cache right up against the foot of the tower, if 5 ft far enought? 10 ft?

Be sure to ask this in your permission conversation. One land manager or one utility company may give a different answer than another.

It isn't always clear when the reviewers are told to presume someone got permission or are supposed to hold up publication until the cache owner provides proof of permission.

 

In some ways my question is similar to the one that occurs when some places a cache near a school. Reviewers may use their judgement. Sometimes a park next to a school is a reasonable place for a cache.

 

I've never placed a cache on a power line tower (or any closer than a few hundred feet). But I have hidden caches on trails that are "Edison" roads. These trails are in national forests or state open space that have relatively permissive geocaching rules. I don't need explicit permission but I have to follow GC guidelines and a few additional park manager guidelines (such as not off trail, not too close to streams, etc.) So it makes sense to me to ask when putting a cache on on property of the state park or national forest, and the trail passes a transmission tower, how far do I have to be from the tower. Perhaps the reviewers and Groundspeak don't want to answer and I need to ask the park what their policy is when utility lines cross their property?

[+briansnat]

I wouldn't call it guideline creep. I never have published a cache on a transmission line ROW without express permission from the power company (and I've never had someone show me proof of permission).

[+JL_HSTRE]

I have come across about 5 caches in CANT holes in concrete power poles. Not sure if any of those caches are still active as I found all of them years ago.

Edited February 1, 2015 by Joshism

[+tozainamboku]

I wouldn't call it guideline creep. I never have published a cache on a transmission line ROW without express permission from the power company (and I've never had someone show me proof of permission).

You never knowingly published a cache on a transmission line ROW.

 

In my OP I said it probably isn't guidelines creep and gave at least 2 guidelines that might apply.

 

I personally don't mind if I find a hide-a-key on the leg of a tower. But I agree that it is unlikely for a utility to give permission to attach something to a tower.

 

It seems many people imaging a power line right-of-way as something akin to the RR right-of-way. My experience is that utility companies have much less control. If there lines cross open space, the trail will go right under the lines and often use the utility company built roads. The trail may go right next to the towers. In many urban areas, the "open space" provided by the transmission line right-of-way has been turned into bike paths and greenbelts. People are encouraged to ride bikes and walk their dogs under the transmission lines. Several cities have created dog parks under power lines, and the dogs don't have to ask permission to mark their territory on the base of the towers.

 

These all seem reasonable places to put caches, and many seem like places where rules for caches in city or state parks apply.

[+NeverSummer]

I wouldn't call it guideline creep. I never have published a cache on a transmission line ROW without express permission from the power company (and I've never had someone show me proof of permission).

You never knowingly published a cache on a transmission line ROW.

 

In my OP I said it probably isn't guidelines creep and gave at least 2 guidelines that might apply.

 

I personally don't mind if I find a hide-a-key on the leg of a tower. But I agree that it is unlikely for a utility to give permission to attach something to a tower.

 

It seems many people imaging a power line right-of-way as something akin to the RR right-of-way. My experience is that utility companies have much less control. If there lines cross open space, the trail will go right under the lines and often use the utility company built roads. The trail may go right next to the towers. In many urban areas, the "open space" provided by the transmission line right-of-way has been turned into bike paths and greenbelts. People are encouraged to ride bikes and walk their dogs under the transmission lines. Several cities have created dog parks under power lines, and the dogs don't have to ask permission to mark their territory on the base of the towers.

 

These all seem reasonable places to put caches, and many seem like places where rules for caches in city or state parks apply.

And in other areas or utility "ROW", there are explicit "No Tresspassing" signs, or reminders that get put in newspapers that riding your snowmobile, 4-wheeler, or bike are not allowed on those cuts.

 

I'll say again: It seems that either the utility contacted GS, GS made a call based on recommendation of their legal counsel, a Reviewer was contacted by the utility or concerned party, or a combination of all has occurred.

[+Ladybug Kids]

There are (at least) two aspects to this issue:

 

1) Placement of a geocache on a piece of utility infrastructure, whether it be a transformer, high voltage tower, mile marker, telephone pole, or wind generator should be done only with permission from the utility that owns the said piece of infrastructure. I am unaware of any utility ever giving permission.

 

2) Placement of a geocache within a utility right-of-way should be done with permission of the Land Owner, who is most likely NOT the utility. Some examples given in here refer to municipal parklands that are crossed by the utility or were built in conjuction with the utility. In those cases, the municipality's geo-policy stipulates placement within the corridor (excluding items in #1, above). Another example exists in my own back yard. A high voltage transmission line and a natural gas line cross a corner of Chugach State Park. Placement of caches on transmission line or gas line infrastructure is not allowed because the owner of neither entity has granted permission, but placement everywhere else is covered by the Alaska State Parks statewide special use blanket permit.

 

Right of way (ROW) clearing is done for any number of maintenance and regulatory reasons. An electrical utility might learn over time it is cheaper, safer, and easier to clear-cut a ROW than to return annually to trim branches high in the air. A pipeline might be ordered by the Office of Pipeline Safety to clear the brush from its ROW to facilitate aerial inspection, even if said brush cutting results in permafrost degradation.

Edited February 3, 2015 by Ladybug Kids

[+Harry Dolphin]

AFAIK, utilities purchase a right-of-way that permits the utility to use the land to run its power line or pipeline. The utility does not own the land. It owns the right-of-way.

Big controversy when the utility wanted to upgrade the Susquehanna-Roseland power line. It does go through several parks, and crosses the Appalachian Trail. The utility won because there was no other way to run the new power line. The land is owned by the land owners, not the utility. The utility has the right to run the utility there, and to do upkeep, including tree trimming/deforestration. Frequently, the trails in the parks run along the ROW. That ROW has been graded! Far easier for trails. For a fair while, I maintained the Terrace Pond North Trail in Wawayanda State Park. The pipeline is far easier to climb than the puddingstone outcroppings! You can do almost anything permitted in the park along the ROW.

Of course, many people do not understand that a ROW still belongs to the land owner. My parents owned a piece of land in upstate New York, with a gas pipeline running across it. Both side were posted with No Hunting signs. So, one day, we were out walking, and saw a Ford Pinto with a deer attached to the roof stuck on a very steep slope. "I'm sorry, but you're not allowed to hunt here. It is posted." Two jeeps were attempting to free the Pinto. "The easy way out is to continue down the pipeline, and out on our road. But you are no allowed to hunt here." Someone took out our mailbox that day. Hmm.

The utility does not own the land, but has a right of way for the pipeline or power line. When the ROW crosses a park, the park owns the land, and has the right to say what is permitted there. The power tower is owned by the utility, so no one should put a cache on it. But the land is owned by the land owner, who may, or may not, permit a cache to be hidden there.

[+tozainamboku]

And in other areas or utility "ROW", there are explicit "No Tresspassing" signs, or reminders that get put in newspapers that riding your snowmobile, 4-wheeler, or bike are not allowed on those cuts.

Maybe, but I'll say again that my experiences it exactly the opposite. While I've seen "Keep Off" and "No Climbing" signs on towers themselves and sometimes seen powerline ROW in urban areas fenced off, many places actual require the utility to allow use of their access roads. The road on which the TOG power trail was placed was utility access road, but the BLM requires the utility to allow the public use of the road. I'll agree that the utility company may have some rights to prevent stuff being left on or near towers, but I don't think the reasons given in the TOG case apply everywhere.

I'll say again: It seems that either the utility contacted GS, GS made a call based on recommendation of their legal counsel, a Reviewer was contacted by the utility or concerned party, or a combination of all has occurred.

OK. Groundspeak certainly has reasons to abide by the wishes of a land manager or even a ROW user and archive caches when asked. What I question here is a blanket ban on transmission line towers. When Cracker Barrel asked that caches no longer be placed on their property did Groundspeak issue a blanket ban on caches at restaurants? There are many companies involved in the transmission of electricy and different high voltage lines used for different purposes. It just seems that a one-size-fits-all restricition based on a few requests doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

[+narcissa]

OK. Groundspeak certainly has reasons to abide by the wishes of a land manager or even a ROW user and archive caches when asked. What I question here is a blanket ban on transmission line towers. When Cracker Barrel asked that caches no longer be placed on their property did Groundspeak issue a blanket ban on caches at restaurants? There are many companies involved in the transmission of electricy and different high voltage lines used for different purposes. It just seems that a one-size-fits-all restricition based on a few requests doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

 

Since their services are entirely free, the blanket ban is more reasonable than expecting them to keep track of individual companies, especially if they've been receiving requests.

 

If you can obtain clear permission from a utility that is willing to confirm that permission to a reviewer, then maybe they would exempt you from the ban.

[+tozainamboku]

Since their services are entirely free,...

Really? I pay $30 a year for a premium membership.

 

Sure. I get it that Groundspeak is a private company and can have guidelines for what caches they will publish or not publish. But I reserve my right to argue about guidelines that I don't agree with. I've stated elsewhere that the blanket ban on "burying" caches (whatever that means, since it keeps changing) also makes no sense to me.

 

It amazes me that geocachers so easily accept bans on various caches without knowing what issues led Groundspeak to come up with the guidelines. I accept that is likely that there were a few cases where a utility asked for a cache to be removed from a tower. The problem is that usually it is easier to ban an entire class of hides rather than address the real concerns of some property owner/land manager. It may not be Groundspeak's job to educate property owners/land managers about geocaching. But without the information that was given to Groundspeak when a request was made to remove a particular cache, it is impossible for the community to know if this is even a fight worth fighting. (And now we have to fight with not only the utility to get permission but with Groundspeak who may come back to say they don't want to make exceptions)

 

I also understand that even if all areas on or near towers (though nobody seem to want to say what "near" means) are banned there there are still plenty of places to hide caches. When the State of Virginia Dept. of Transportation decided to ban all guardrail caches, there are still plenty of places in Virginia to hide caches. When states, cities, or archdioceses ban caches in cemeteries (or even access to cemeteries) there are still places to hide cache besides cemeteries. It isn't the end of the world to ban transmission towers. But I'm the sort of person who prefers fewer rules and restriction and likes to know the rationale for any restrictions that may really be necessary.

[knowschad]

Since their services are entirely free,...

Really? I pay $30 a year for a premium membership.

 

Sure. I get it that Groundspeak is a private company and can have guidelines for what caches they will publish or not publish. But I reserve my right to argue about guidelines that I don't agree with. I've stated elsewhere that the blanket ban on "burying" caches (whatever that means, since it keeps changing) also makes no sense to me.

 

It amazes me that geocachers so easily accept bans on various caches without knowing what issues led Groundspeak to come up with the guidelines. I accept that is likely that there were a few cases where a utility asked for a cache to be removed from a tower. The problem is that usually it is easier to ban an entire class of hides rather than address the real concerns of some property owner/land manager. It may not be Groundspeak's job to educate property owners/land managers about geocaching. But without the information that was given to Groundspeak when a request was made to remove a particular cache, it is impossible for the community to know if this is even a fight worth fighting. (And now we have to fight with not only the utility to get permission but with Groundspeak who may come back to say they don't want to make exceptions)

 

I also understand that even if all areas on or near towers (though nobody seem to want to say what "near" means) are banned there there are still plenty of places to hide caches. When the State of Virginia Dept. of Transportation decided to ban all guardrail caches, there are still plenty of places in Virginia to hide caches. When states, cities, or archdioceses ban caches in cemeteries (or even access to cemeteries) there are still places to hide cache besides cemeteries. It isn't the end of the world to ban transmission towers. But I'm the sort of person who prefers fewer rules and restriction and likes to know the rationale for any restrictions that may really be necessary.

 

Edited February 3, 2015 by knowschad

[4wheelin_fool]

It may not be Groundspeak's job to educate property owners/land managers about geocaching. But without the information that was given to Groundspeak when a request was made to remove a particular cache, it is impossible for the community to know if this is even a fight worth fighting. (And now we have to fight with not only the utility to get permission but with Groundspeak who may come back to say they don't want to make exceptions)

 

It may not be their job to work with property owners, but perhaps it would be better if it was in some cases. Although the onus for getting permission is on cache owners, Groundspeak has gotten big enough that it would be nice if the public relations department worked with major land owners and took the weight off of the shoulders of geocachers. They likely could do much more with permission in national and state parks, as well as utility companies an large businesses, in contrast to ordinary geocachers who may have no experience and have to make contact in their spare time.

[+SwineFlew]

I just remember someone hidden a cache near a high voltage tower in my area and was asked to move it. He made one extra trip to move it and finally got the cache published by the reviewer. This happen last year.

[+narcissa]

Since their services are entirely free,...

Really? I pay $30 a year for a premium membership.

 

Cache publication doesn't require a premium membership. Reviewers aren't paid.

Edited February 3, 2015 by narcissa

[+NeverSummer]

And in other areas or utility "ROW", there are explicit "No Tresspassing" signs, or reminders that get put in newspapers that riding your snowmobile, 4-wheeler, or bike are not allowed on those cuts.

Maybe, but I'll say again that my experiences it exactly the opposite. While I've seen "Keep Off" and "No Climbing" signs on towers themselves and sometimes seen powerline ROW in urban areas fenced off, many places actual require the utility to allow use of their access roads. The road on which the TOG power trail was placed was utility access road, but the BLM requires the utility to allow the public use of the road. I'll agree that the utility company may have some rights to prevent stuff being left on or near towers, but I don't think the reasons given in the TOG case apply everywhere.

I think you're right. I don't know where there is a "blanket ban" across all of Groundspeak/geocaching.com on the subject. I think that for certain areas across the globe the circumstances are different for these ROW issues. Some places might have a "blanket ban", but that only applies to that specific area under that specific blanket. Whereas I don't like to see more areas off limits to geocache placement when it is clearly harmless (in the minds of we, the players...), I also understand times where there is a convergence of circumstances which close down an area to geocaches. This can be as I describe in the quote below:

 

I'll say again: It seems that either the utility contacted GS, GS made a call based on recommendation of their legal counsel, a Reviewer was contacted by the utility or concerned party, or a combination of all has occurred.

OK. Groundspeak certainly has reasons to abide by the wishes of a land manager or even a ROW user and archive caches when asked. What I question here is a blanket ban on transmission line towers. When Cracker Barrel asked that caches no longer be placed on their property did Groundspeak issue a blanket ban on caches at restaurants? There are many companies involved in the transmission of electricy and different high voltage lines used for different purposes. It just seems that a one-size-fits-all restricition based on a few requests doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

 

I haven't heard anything from my local Reviewer on the subject other than their adherence to the existing guidelines--I have to have permission of the landowner to place a cache there, especially in the case where utility and other land manager/land owner is also involved. (See above State Park+Utility=no cache example)

 

To one of the points I see you making within this thread, I also wish that we could just place caches in "harmless" places. The problem is that we don't play this game like we did back in the early days. Groundspeak has grown, and people who use this site for listing geocaches are now having to abide by the guidelines and stricter restrictions for placement because of the corporate nature of this listing service.

 

If we want to get down to it, what we can all do is go back to the "anarchy caches" I remember back in the Portland area (which have now mostly died out): Place a cache of your own style in any place of your choosing and then list where it is hidden online somewhere other than on this website.

 

We're automatically drawn to geocaching.com and other larger websites who list placements of "geocaches" because it brings a global audience together to increase visitation to our caches. We like playing this game with others, and we also like playing "against" others. If we really want to get down to it, if we're so upset about losing out on places we can hide caches, we can list them somewhere else. I've often thought about reviving the "anarchy cache" idea, but most people I now know that play are members of this site. That means any "anarchy cache" goes against their better judgement as they compare gameplay and the understanding about why there are so many guidelines restricting placements on geocaching.com--the guidelines make sense when we get down to it: Don't place caches where you don't have permission.

 

I could hide a container and provide coordinates within a National Wildlife Refuge, for example. It wouldn't get published here, but nothing stops me from doing it on a site that would host that information. But when the Department of Interior finds that cache or discovers that listing online, I'm going to take the violation of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) on my head. Those same CFRs have been cited by Groundspeak and USFWS/DOI personnel for why we can't place caches on Refuge land.

 

I used to get bent out of shape when local or state geocaching organizations would be, what they called, "proactive" about cache placement on public lands. All too often I saw bringing the game to the attention of a city, county, borough, or state entity meant a ban or restriction on that land--land that until then was played on under the good ol' "frisbee rule". What I now see is this going one of two ways: Either we bring it to their attention and risk a ban or restriction, or someone decides to place a cache in a misguided manner which results in a full ban.

 

Because of how geocaches are reviewed on this site, it isn't all too uncommon to see a "bad" cache slip through the cracks and cause a "blanket ban". This is where good introduction to the game falls on the shoulders of Groundspeak, and on the volunteer efforts of local geocaching organizations. And yet, we still can't guarantee that someone will want to be educated on the finer points of the game, and they'll sneak a cache by a Reviewer on a transmission tower...and then we see a ban. Nuts.

 

What I'm saying is that this is the "price we pay" for playing on this website--it's big and growing, and there are going to be more restrictions that come up as more and more people are made aware of what it is we do here: Leave a container, often camouflaged, in a location for random people to find and re-hide. To an outsider, this is beyond "muggle" interactions, and more closely sets hairs on end for xenophobes in this newly hyper-alert era we live in. "It's a bomb!" or "I saw a drug drop!" or "There's some strange people visiting a tiny camouflaged container over there..." are often how law enforcement or uninitiated land managers are introduced to our game. What we can do is challenge and educate those who have "blocked" or banned geocache placement on their land or ROW. Breakthroughs have already happened with many places which once banned geocaching. Whereas this sounds like a "loss" for how one might wish to play this game, we still have many, many great places to hide caches around the planet... for now!

Edited February 3, 2015 by NeverSummer

[Andronicus]

There's a growing trend, at least in Ohio, to clear cut a wide swatch around high-voltage power transmission lines and larger pipelines of various sorts. A power line runs through Blendon Woods, a Metro Park near my home, and a few years ago they cut down every tree and removed all the brush under the line. It created a truly ugly, naked swath through the middle of the park.

 

The reason for the clear cutting, according to a newspaper article quoting the electric company, was to speed up and lower the cost of inspecting the line. Instead of putting boots on the ground, they could now just fly a helicopter along the line.

 

The "preventing terrorism" thing was added later as an afterthought.

 

--Larry

 

Around here,(western Washington) they have kept the area around the towers cleared for a lot longer then they have used helicopters to inspect them. If they don't keep the trees cut down they will grow up into the wires, not a good thing. Keeping the bigger brush away from the base of the towers and away from the roads allows for easier inspections of areas that may not be able to be checked from the air.

 

I always assumed that the clear cutting of the large paths where towers were place was as a fire break. The metal towers might not burn and any insulation on the wires and other equipment would. It sounds like are several reasons why the power co. would want to keep the area around the towers clear.

Remember the NYC Power Outage of 2003? It effected 55,000,000 people. That was cause by a chain of fault, but it started with poor maintenenc of the trees and brush under a high voltage power line.

 

I also think the Helecopter inspection is part of the issue as well.

Edited February 5, 2015 by Andronicus

[+narcissa]

Remember the NYC Power Outage of 2003? It effected 55,000,000 people. That was cause by a chain of fault, but it started with poor maintenenc of the trees and brush under a high voltage power line.

 

I also think the Helecopter inspection is part of the issue as well.

 

Yep, virtually ALL of Ontario lost power because of a problem with the lines in, I believe, Ohio. I'm inclined to give Groundspeak and the power authorities the benefit of the doubt if they say they don't want geocaches near the lines.

[+doc73]

Not to get to far off topic but talking of helicopter maintenance... Did anyone ever see that Imax (I was a kid so 15 years ago maybe) when they followed one of those guys and put him on the wires.. FROM THE HELICOPTER!!!

 

I loved the arc that grounded him to the wires before he stepped onto them!!! Now that is crazy!! -Ok back on topic..

Edited February 5, 2015 by doc73