my first cache was not approved...please comment

October 3, 2003

This link is for reference; it shows my cache page.

This link is an old picture of the bridge that is the subject of the cache. Point 4 is where the picture indicates 'You Are Here'.

Aerial Picture

This link is an aerial picture of the area near part 4. I put a red X where I think the cache is.

This cache was just placed by me. However, it was not approved for the following reasons:

1) parts 3 and 4 are close to existing caches.

2) part 4 is close to an active railroad.

Concerning reason 1:

my part 3 is virtual, so I don't think that proximity matters. However, my part 4 is a container and is close to 'Middlefork' (384 feet) which is also a container. The reviewer pointed out that this area has become saturated with caches. However, I'd like to point out that all of the caches were placed by the same person/group. While I'm sure it was not their intent, it hardly seems fair for a single person/group to saturate an entire area and not allow any other geocachers from placing caches there. Furthermore, my cache cannot easily be moved, since it is on the ramp of an old bridge which is the main topic of my cache (the Ruin). Which brings us to reason #2...

Concerning reason 2:

Yes, the final cache is somewhat close to an active railroad. However, there are, I believe, 2 fences separating the cache from the railroad. The cache is on the ramp to an old bridge - see link above. The bridge itself no longer exists. However there is a chain link fence to keep you from the edge, which is about 20 feet above ground level. This is the only dangerous part, but someone would really have to be acting stupidly get hurt here.

This isn't the standard 'put a container in any old log' type of cache - I believe there is a lot of historical significance to this cache - it has that "wow! I never knew this was here!" characteristic.

I would welcome comments. The reviewer mentioned that if the majority on this forum think it's ok to approve this cache, then it would get approved.

Thanks for reading this long description

[This message was edited by xafwodahs on October 03, 2003 at 09:45 PM.]

[This message was edited by xafwodahs on October 03, 2003 at 09:58 PM.]

October 3, 2003

We cannot see any cache pages that have not been approved, so I dont have a very good idea what you are referring to.

I take it that this is a multi cache?

How close is the railroad track?

Is there a way to move your final stage a bit further away to put some distance between both the RR and the other cache nearby?

Guess I just need more info.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have never been lost. Been awful confused for a few days, but never lost!

N61.12.041 W149.43.734

4.8k · October 3, 2003

It's hard to beat the wrap of the "528 ft. edict". An email to the approver justifying it on the grounds of uniqueness might work (probably has to be pretty good though).

As far as the railroad issue, something in the description explaining that no climbing of fences, stay away from the railroad, type thing may help. We have a similar cache pretty close to a railroad, but way down an embakment. The description explicitly states to stay away from the railroad (helps to narrow the search too).

Good luck

Be not afraid of greatness: some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them. The rest go geocaching.

October 3, 2003

I updated the original post with an aerial photograph. This distance to the tracks is about 100 feet.

I could move the cache away from the tracks, I suppose, and still have it on the ramp. But how far would be appropriate? I think anyone who goes near there is going to go all the way up to check it out anyway.

21.9k · October 3, 2003

Hello,

Users cannot follow links to unapproved caches, so if there is info. from your cache page that you want forum readers to know, copy and paste it here.

I did look at your cache page and at the nearby caches. Yes, another hider put out 8 nearby caches. But they are the other hider's ONLY 8 caches. There are hiders out there with 100 or more caches hidden. There's no rule about "hogging" an area, other than the proximity rule (528 feet between caches). I don't think a limit on how many caches a person can hide would go over too well.

The only other rule is first come, first served. You've been a geocacher since January. He hid his caches in September. Them's the breaks... many of us have lost "the perfect spot" for a cache placement because of snoozing and losing... myself included. It's unfortunate, but hey it's just a game.

Your cache did look to be well thought-out and I hope that you might hide more like it.

Don't make me stop this car!

4.8k · October 3, 2003

Hi! Please cut and paste the cache info because the link to an unapproved cache won't work for the rest of us.

I'm thinking that the railway thing has been explained and I am OK with it. The closeness to another cache could be a problem. If it is close, but unique in terms of terrain, it might be OK. Otherwise, could you maybe move it beyond .1 mile? Then it would be OK. I understand your point about cache saturation by one group, but that rule is still in place.

Regardless, please cut and paste the cache page so we can all have a better reference!

October 3, 2003

Ok, I made a copy of the cache page and changed the link in my original post. Now you can see the page.

2.1k · October 3, 2003

Someone could always pillage a few of that other person's caches to help spread the wealth for hiders in that area...

{ducks a tomato and a duck}

Hey! It was just a JOKE!

--

http://www.theonering.net/staticnews/1064605367.html

3.9k · October 3, 2003

Seems reasonable to me. I've been to a couple of caches that require walking by or close an active RxR. I think it should just be approved. I'm sure most cache hunters won't mind caches close together. I know I don't.

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I-

I took the one less traveled by,

And that has made all the difference.

Because now I am Lost.

[This message was edited by J&MBella on October 03, 2003 at 10:25 PM.]

3.9k · October 3, 2003

OK, I looked at the page and it should definately be approved. This is very unique and you obviously put a lot of work into it. Good Luck.

''Exceptions will sometimes be made, depending on the novel nature of a cache. If you have a cache idea you believe is novel, contact the site before placing and reporting it on this web site.''

The question is does this qualify as novel. I think so.

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I-

I took the one less traveled by,

And that has made all the difference.

Because now I am Lost.

[This message was edited by J&MBella on October 03, 2003 at 10:23 PM.]

October 3, 2003

How close is stage 3 from the other location. Seeing how it is a virtual, I am not sure how it could interfere with another cache. All the person is doing there is getting the information needed.

Stage 4 is the sticky one. Any chance you could move it 200 feet along the river or something? Would still give a view of the "ruin", yet would get the distance needed.

Sounds like a fun cache. Just need to work out the wrinkles to get the go ahead.

I have found that it sometimes helps to email your local approver and tell them what you have in mind for a cache. That way you can work with them on the parts they may not be comfortable with.

I just did that with a recent hide. I wanted to bring people to a memorial, yet did not feel comfortable placing a physical cache at the place where a man died. Got some feedback from the approver and made an offset cache using the date on the memorial plaque.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have never been lost. Been awful confused for a few days, but never lost!

N61.12.041 W149.43.734

9.4k · October 3, 2003

I think you've done a good job on setting up a multicache. However, looking at the map, there are 3 caches in close proximity already. Would adding a fourth really add to the area? Especially a 4-stage multi?

How likely are others to see the ruined bridge while hunting any of the other 3 caches? It looks like Middlefork is close enough already.

I like the idea and the work you've put into it, but I'm going to vote with the admin on this one and say there are enough caches in the immediate area.

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

October 3, 2003

If this cache is not being approved because of the proximity of another cache, try contacting the other cache owner and see if they would work with you so you can get yours approved.

I was just in this area last weekend and there is a lot of space there. See if the other geocacher is willing to move one of their caches a few hundred yards.

This looks like a neat cache and I would like do it.

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

October 3, 2003

In response to Team GPSaxophone's post:

"How likely are others to see the ruined bridge while hunting any of the other 3 caches? It looks like Middlefork is close enough already."

The bridge is completely shrouded in trees. You could be 100 feet away from it and not know it's there. Looks just like any other dense patch of trees (check the aerial photo I posted). That's one of the amazing things about this site - the old picture I posted shows the bridge with absolutely NO trees around, but now it's covered by them. It's amazing how the terrain can change.

I did Middlefork several weeks ago. Had I approached the cache the way most people would - using the trails in the savannah, I would never have seen the bridge ruins. It is only because I came from the wrong direction and had to walk along the railroad tracks (and hop a fence which I wasn't too happy about) that I happened to glimpse the bridge. But even from there, I almost missed it.

It is very unlikely that any of the other caches in the area would alert people to the presence of the bridge.

October 3, 2003

In response to GeoFool's post:

I had considered contacting Team Purdy to see if they could move Middlefork at little.

However, it seemed to me that the 'proximity to cache' issue was the lesser concern, since the .1 mile rule is really "just a guideline". I felt the 'proximity to railroad' issue would be the bigger problem.

If it turns out the main complaint is the proximity to the other cache, I can contact the owners.

October 3, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by xafwodahs:
In response to Team GPSaxophone's post:

"How likely are others to see the ruined bridge while hunting any of the other 3 caches? It looks like Middlefork is close enough already."

The bridge is completely shrouded in trees. You could be 100 feet away from it and not know it's there. Looks just like any other dense patch of trees (check the aerial photo I posted). That's one of the amazing things about this site - the old picture I posted shows the bridge with absolutely NO trees around, but now it's covered by them. It's amazing how the terrain can change.

I did Middlefork several weeks ago. Had I approached the cache the way most people would - using the trails in the Savannah, I would never have seen the bridge ruins. It is only because I came from the wrong direction and had to walk along the railroad tracks (and hop a fence which I wasn't too happy about) that I happened to glimpse the bridge. But even from there, I almost missed it.

It is very unlikely that any of the other caches in the area would alert people to the presence of the bridge.

I did all those caches in the Savannah. I didn't see this bridge though.

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

October 3, 2003

For more complete reference information, here are the answers to the clues, so that anyone in this discussion can - if they choose - see/plot where the actual points are.

A=4. There are 4 gates.

B=6. Designed in 1916.

C=5. It is a 5 star restoration project.

October 4, 2003

actually, i think the proximity issue is the biggest one. far from being a guideline, the .1 is something of a hard and fast rule.

___________________________________

who's got the pig?

2.1k · October 4, 2003

Good luck on getting the cache approved. It's been discussed here before about using info at spots near other cacehs as part of a multi to complete a multi cache. They also are treating each stage as a cache now, even though you only get credit for the final stage. So each stage can not be within the .1 mile of another cache. I think it all depends on which approver took on yours. As far as the active railroad bit. I think common sense is an issue there. If it's Grand Central Station, then no I would agree with the rule. If it's not on the railroad track or at least as far away as one would stop their car at a railroad crossing, then I see no problem. I think it all depends on the RR track as well. Is it a track that gets 4 or 5 trains at the most a day or is it one that gets 10-20? I've seen caches that you had to cross an active RR track to find the cache. There was no danger in it, unless of course you try to beat a train. But that goes with urban caches as well. Some require you to cross busy roads as well.

I will say that another cache owner that has placed their cache shouldn't be asked to move theirs so you can place yours though. I agree, first come first serve. How much difference does 144 ft? (528-384). Approvers allow other instances of close cache placement. This is one reason why I think it's better to have people in the area approving that can go and look or at least have someone that can go do it.

Brian

www.woodsters.com

9.4k · October 4, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by xafwodahs:
The bridge is completely shrouded in trees. You could be 100 feet away from it and not know it's there. <snip>

It is very unlikely that any of the other caches in the area would alert people to the presence of the bridge.

I don't see a problem with the railroad, since you mentioned earlier that there are two fences between the cache and the tracks.

Is it possible to move the cache to the other side of the bridge (furthest from the nearest cache) and stay on the same side of the tracks?

Yes, .1 miles is a guideline, and I don't see it as a problem for your virtual stages. You may want to make the bridge itself another virtual stage (and remove #3 which was really close to another cache) and place the container within view of the bridge but not on the ramp.

You might also try asking the owner of Middlefork if he would be willing to relocate his cache 100 feet further from the bridge. It would still be close enough to the original spot the be the same cache and it would then be close to 500 feet from yours. It doesn't hurt to ask.

Like I said before, I think you've done a good job on this cache so far. Working with the locals will make it better.

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

October 4, 2003

I'm glad to see the discussion on this one (as I was the one that had to initially archive it). I never like archiving well thought out caches like this one. But even the best thought out and most prepared cache could be a problem if there's another cache or a railroad in the area.

Stage 3 being close to the other existing cache is not a problem. I'm not as worried about intermediary stages of a multi-cache bending the guidelines a little on proximity (but don't quote me on this - your mileage may vary, dealer invoice not directly related to dealer profit®). Of course - the fact that stage 3 is a virtual helps the cause.

Stage four is the bigger problem: Yes, stage four is close to the tracks and there needs to be some compelling information given that there is NO chance for someone to get arrested for problems (see http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=4597382d-8fb1-4211-b7ab-42a1f12066bf ).

The sticking pointis that stage four (the box on the bridge) is only 384 feet from another existing cache (different from the one that is in close proximity to stage 3).

I really like the suggestion of working with Team Purdy and the Middlefork cache to see if something can be done.

[edit - thanks to Sax for stating what took me a long time to type ]

[This message was edited by ILAdmin on October 04, 2003 at 06:05 AM.]

2.1k · October 4, 2003

Glad you pointed that out IlAdmin. I think that story should go in reference to just about every situation and not train tracks. I think a big part of the story is that it was on RR property. I think people should take that into account when placing caches anywhere. I think the rule of don't ask that many, many people use is just trouble for them on their part and possibly for geocachers going after their caches.

I recommend that people ensure that they have specific permission to place a cache anywhere than to assume it's ok.

Brian

www.woodsters.com

7.2k · October 4, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:
I recommend that people ensure that they have specific permission to place a cache anywhere than to assume it's ok.

That is key. I wanted to place a couple of microcaches near a mall on the perimeter road area. Rather than just throw them out I went to the mall office yesterday. The mall management and security office personnel were very nice and gave me their blessing. It took me about 30 minutes and I don't have to worry about the cache being a problem. Cache seekers don't have to worry about being nervous as they look either.

I think the railroad issue is a major concern too. Remember that you are the one that will go to jail and pay the fines. I don't think it is worth the chance myself.

What about trying to find one more location for the cache box that will make this cache work for all issues concerned? You would just be adding one more stage to the cache. Maybe you could hide a luggage tag or an engraved dog tag near the bridge and get cachers to a final location that meets all the guidelines. I don't worry about middle stages that are somewhat within 528 feet, but the final stage needs to have the approved distance for sure.

mtn-man... admin brick mason

October 4, 2003

I just picked up a cache this morning which I had planted on Wednesday. It was disapproved. I didn't realize that the railroad tracks near this roadside park were that close. Heck..picnic tables are closer to the tracks than my cache was. Oh well, better safe than sorry. I picked it (cache) up and will find an even better hiding place for it. I would much rather do that then pay a hefty fine. I THANK the admin (gpsfun) for pointing out the flaw with this hide.

************************************************************

"Sometimes you gotta look like an *** to get that cache!"...huntforit

************************************************************

October 4, 2003

This question is a tiny bit off topic (but related). What is the rational behind the prohibition of "Caches hidden by active railroad tracks"? Is this a a private property concern, a safety concern, a security concern, or all of the above?

I know of a cache that is hidden in a public city park less than 100 feet from a railway track - the park is separated from the track by a high chainlink safety fence. There is a public path in the park between the cache and the fence. There is obviously no safety concern, or private property concern with respect to this cache being close to the tracks.

I can't imagine the prohibition being a "security" concern, otherwise there would be many, many more places that caches would not be allowed near (airports, dock areas, public buildings, any places where crowds congregate etc.). If it is a private property concern, then the rule is redundant. If it is a safety concern only, then I think the rule needs to be clarified - perhaps to specifically exempt caches that are hidden on public property that is separated from the tracks by a safety fence.

Another point: If it is only a safety concern, then wouldn't it be appropriate to have a rule prohibiting caches from being hidden near an active highway?

I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me.

[This message was edited by seneca on October 04, 2003 at 12:49 PM.]

October 4, 2003

I vote for approval the way it is.

However, the suggestion to make step 4 another virtual with a final box hidden somewhere 0.1 away from others is a logical workaround if I'm with the minority.

I believe the 528' should be a black and white rule for approvers to follow the first time around, but appropriate justification warrants it being a guideline. The purpose after all is to reduce saturation and be sure the incorrect nearby cache isn't found when searching for another.

Ironically the workaround of making another stage increases density! A case where the hard and fast rule causes the problem it was designed to prevent.

So again, I vote for approval without modification if the other owners aren't interested in accommodating this one.

Enjoy,

Randy

9.4k · October 4, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by RJFerret:
Ironically the workaround of making another stage _increases_ density! A case where the hard and fast rule causes the problem it was designed to prevent.

Not at all. Stage 3 could be removed, since it is close to another cache. Stage 4 would then become stage 3 (on the bridge/ramp) with the new stage 4 nearby.

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

October 4, 2003

With the way the bridge is setup, there is only one good way to get to part 4. The reason I put part 3 where it is was to force the cacher to approach part 4 from the correct/easiest direction. If approached from any other direction, it would be *very* difficult to get thru. The easy path is just grass and the trees/branches seem to get cut back to keep a relatively open path. From any other direction, it is dense trees and foliage.

With respect to placing the cache container elsewhere - I resist this idea because the bridge is really the climax of the cache. The cache container has a laminated picture of the old bridge (the same picture that is in my original post). So the point is to discover the ruin, open the cache, and find out what it used to look like.

1.5k · October 4, 2003

I've done a cache that's directly on a train, ON railroad tracks not too far from home. Granted, it's on a 'museum' train, on an inactive set of tracks adjacent to active tracks, but...

Nothing to see here, move along.

October 4, 2003

Aprrove! That railroad thing is a bunch of crap, I can't tell you how many caches I've been near, gotten or was going too that were within 50' or tracks (lack of consistency). Common sense dictates peoples safety, not god forsaken rules approved or disapproved by someone not familiar with a certain area. Not trying to stir anything, just "the rules' seem to be wishy washy at best at times. I think it should be up to the seeker to decide if a cache is safe enough for them to get, not some blind comittee.

Firehouse16 & Code3

"Dave, Teresa & the 2 kids"

October 5, 2003

I decided the following note was warranted for part 4 - I modified the link in my original post...

NOTE: There is no need to cross the chain link fence or go near the railroad...

4.8k · October 5, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by seneca:
This question is a tiny bit off topic (but related). What is the rational behind the prohibition of "Caches hidden by active railroad tracks"? Is this a a private property concern, a safety concern, a security concern, or all of the above?

Aside from the obvious safety concern, it's actually a federal offense (i.e. felony) to walk along railroad tracks. Granted, the law is not used much, it's mostly there for safety concerns.

I learned that tidbit of trivia from one of my son's video's ("There Goes a Train"). I think he got the message, because now when we're near railroad tracks, active or not, he'll scream at me, "GET OFF THE TRACKS, GET OFF THE TRACKS".

Be not afraid of greatness: some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them. The rest go geocaching.

October 5, 2003

Aprrove! That railroad thing is a bunch of crap, I can't tell you how many caches I've been near, gotten or was going too that were within 50' or tracks (lack of consistency). Common sense dictates peoples safety, not god forsaken rules approved or disapproved by someone not familiar with a certain area. Not trying to stir anything, just "the rules' seem to be wishy washy at best at times. I think it should be up to the seeker to decide if a cache is safe enough for them to get, not some blind comittee.

Firehouse16 & Code3, that was one of the most senseless things I've heard in a while at these boards. I'm sure Hillwilly would have had nothing happen to him had the Conductor not seen him and considering the current situation. The point is it did happen so precautions to prevent it from happening should be commended. Who says someone doesn't try this cache at night, ill prepared and gets hurt somehow. If everyone had common sense then we'd never here anyone getting hit by trains. However, it happens, and for it to happen because of geocaching would be really, really bad. I say we don't push are luck and keep this game safe for everyone, even if those with common sense know better or not...

October 5, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:
Aside from the obvious safety concern, it's actually a federal offense (i.e. felony) to walk along railroad tracks. Granted, the law is not used much, it's mostly there for safety concerns.

There is no question that a cache should not be hiddin on an railway track. I don't think a special rule is needed for that type of cache: such a cache would obviously be dangerous, be on private property, and be a federal offence. My question was related to the prohibition of caches that are "by" active railway tracks. (I don't really understand what "by" means (as used in the guidelines) and I would probably have a better understanding if I knew what the rational of the guideline was). One of the reasons that the proposed cache of the topic starter was rejected was because it was "close" to an active railroad, even though it was separated from the railway by two fences. What is the problem with that?

I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me.

2.1k · October 5, 2003

I think if "safety" is the concern of the RR thing, rather than trespassing and criminal offenses, then all caches that require you to cross or go near RR tracks need to be pulled. If safety is the reason then there should be zero tolerance, to include older caches. Just because they were there before the thought of it, doesn't make them any safer.

If it's the criminal thing and trespassing, then again, they need to be yanked. But then that can construed to all private property. So where does it end? lol The judge isn't going to say, well the cache was grandfathered in through geocaching.com .

Brian

www.woodsters.com

October 5, 2003

Not senseless at all. When you doing any sport like this you need to use your noodle just a bit. I see no difference in the railroad track issue or a cache being near a road where someone may have to cross it or walk along a guard rail to get a micro. More people are killed by cars than trains. And of all the train accidents I've been on, quite a few, most were suicides. But how in gods name could you walk on a train track and not feel or hear the train coming or realize one could be coming. Every train has a loud air horn it uses when approaching intersections or people too. I'm out weekly on tracks taking train photos and I'm more likely to hear a train coming 200' away than I would be a car coming 200' away. Just my opinion, but then I have common sense.

My point though was about the approval process and the lack of consistency of it. Like I said, I've been to plenty of caches right near railroad tracks. I say though if you want to keep the game completely safe issue people bubble suits to wear. Life itself is not safe, that's why I have the job I do!

Firehouse16 & Code3

"Dave, Teresa & the 2 kids"

3k · October 5, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:
I think if "safety" is the concern of the RR thing, rather than trespassing and criminal offenses, then all caches that require you to cross or go near RR tracks need to be pulled.

Then to be consistent, the site would also have to ban every cache placement that might conceivably place a geocacher in any danger of physical harm. That would undoubtedly include everything from caches hidden atop cliffs to caches where one has to climb the curb ... so clearly, safety is not the issue. Trespassing must therefore be the issue.

4.8k · October 5, 2003

quote:
My question was related to the prohibition of caches that are "by" active railway tracks. (I don't really understand what "by" means (as used in the guidelines) and I would probably have a better understanding if I knew what the rational of the guideline was). One of the reasons that the proposed cache of the topic starter was rejected was because it was "close" to an active railroad, even though it was separated from the railway by two fences. What is the problem with that?

I agree that the rule should be clarified a bit. I've heard something about 150 ft stated in this thread, which probably corresponds to the legal right of way for the railroads. I see no problem with caches placed near railways that are seperated by barriers of some sort. The addition of a statement in the description saying to, "stay away from the tracks", type of thing would help too.

What Woodster says is an interesting point too. Case in point, a recent cache located in a wilderness area of CO was archived by the approver, and a post was made for a volunteer to go in and yank the container. A few days later I was searching for some caches on the east side of the Sierra, when I noticed a cache within the Ansel Adams Wilderness (I think it was placed in 2001). Lack of consistency seems to be a problem here.

Be not afraid of greatness: some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them. The rest go geocaching.

2.1k · October 5, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

Then to be consistent, the site would also have to ban _every_ cache placement that might conceivably place a geocacher in any danger of physical harm. That would undoubtedly include everything from caches hidden atop cliffs to caches where one has to climb the curb ... so clearly, safety is not the issue. Trespassing must therefore be the issue.

Exactly and why I said where would it end. The thing on trespassing baffles me somewhat. They state "active" railroads. Are inactive railroads not private property as well? I think there are some inactive tracks still out there that are still owned by the RR's.

Brian

www.woodsters.com

October 5, 2003

I'm on a railroad group and I've posted the question about legalities and RR tracks. I should have an answer shortly.

Firehouse16 & Code3

"Dave, Teresa & the 2 kids"

October 5, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by xafwodahs:
The reviewer mentioned that if the majority on this forum think it's ok to approve this cache, then it would get approved.

I just saw this in the original post. For the benefit of all concerned, I'll quote my e-mail exactly:

quote:
If you think this cache has merit that would allow it to supersede the guidelines, please feel free to post the cache description and the proximities to other caches in the Geocaching.com forum for debate. If the majority of the members think that this cache should be listed it may be reconsidered by Groundspeak personnel.

I have brought the discussion up with the Groundspeak personnel.

4.8k · October 5, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Firehouse16 & Code3:
I'm on a railroad group and I've posted the question about legalities and RR tracks. I should have an answer shortly.

Firehouse16 & Code3

"Dave, Teresa & the 2 kids"

Great question! I have one recent cache along an abandoned rail line. The sorrounding land has been donated from DOD to the State Parks, but I'm not sure about the rail line itself. I know that other sections of the line have been retained by the railroad (SP I think), becuase the county just worked out a deal to purchase the right of way from the rail company.

Be not afraid of greatness: some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them. The rest go geocaching.

October 5, 2003

The RR thing does not strike me as a big problem. One could argue that crossing a road is dangerous, and that caches have to be on the same side of the road as parking places, or that caches near water are dangerous because a person could drown, etc.

The issue with proximity to the other caches seems to be the real issue. Why can't you keep the historical aspects by just adding one more waypoint, with the cache in a location that is 0.1 miles from others? Then they still could go to your ruin site, and another location too.

Just change the cache name if necessary.

October 5, 2003

Wow I stirred quite a can of worms on my railfan forum. But at the same time I'm educating some on the sport since their initial opinions were wrong. Even a fellow geocacher is on the list and posted. Still trying to find the legal answer though.

Firehouse16 & Code3

"Dave, Teresa & the 2 kids"

October 5, 2003

I feel compelled to point out that a recent new cache to the area (GCGZ7Q - Red Raspberry) is only 74 feet by my measurement from the very same railroad tracks. Any because I know the area, I can tell you that this is by a trail which actually crosses the tracks, so there is no fence.

If this could get approved, then it doesn't seem like the railroad should be any issue for my attempted cache.

That only leaves the proximity to the 'Middlefork' cache. But it has been pointed out that this is often a guideline to prevent saturation, not a 100% rule.

I would also like to point out that 'Middlefork' and 'Red Raspberry' are 2 of 8 caches in this area all placed by the same person and all within the last 3 weeks!

I have no problem with someone enjoying a place and putting caches there, but at this rate, I'm concerned I'll have more than just 1 cache within .1 mile of the bridge by the time this discussion has concluded!

October 5, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by xafwodahs:
With the way the bridge is setup, there is only one good way to get to part 4. The reason I put part 3 where it is was to force the cacher to approach part 4 from the correct/easiest direction. If approached from any other direction, it would be *very* difficult to get thru. The easy path is just grass and the trees/branches seem to get cut back to keep a relatively open path. From any other direction, it is dense trees and foliage.

What about providing the waypoint to the bridge in #2, however in your description "suggest" they head towards another set of coordinates first to make an easier passage.... not necessarily a waypoint itself but more a reference? Just as some people do for trailheads?

I'm not sure how to answer for the railroad issue, you already stated that there is no way you can see the bridge unless you are within a certain distance. Possibly (if the approvers allow) just to add the "ruin" as stage 3 (if you use my combined method above for stage 2) and place the cache (stage 4) in an area that is within the guidelines of .1 mile.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bob - can ya beer me now?

Sandy - bite me

[This message was edited by Bob & Sandy on October 05, 2003 at 09:44 PM.]

7.2k · October 5, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by ILAdmin:
Stage four is the bigger problem: Yes, stage four is close to the tracks and there needs to be some compelling information given that there is NO chance for someone to get arrested for problems (see http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=4597382d-8fb1-4211-b7ab-42a1f12066bf ).

Did anyone read that log???

Here is the cache page as well:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=21328&log=y

Read it.

mtn-man... admin brick mason

October 6, 2003

Team Purdy Here.

We have 8 caches in "Middlefork Savannah". We did a bit of math on the area, and something like 30 caches can be placed there keeping in the 528 foot limit.

We know the bridge and passed it by due to the closeness of a previous cache - darn it! It is a good site.

And I have found it often takes several days to get an OK for a cache site.

Good Luck!

October 6, 2003

Thanks for replying, Team Purdy.

I tend to agree with you. The .1 mile rule is supposed to prevent saturation, but I don't think the area is saturated yet.

It has been suggested in the above posts that I ask you to move 'Middlefork' a couple hundred feet, but I really don't want to do that unless the Groundspeak personnel refuse to allow the cache as is. So far, I have not heard from them.

Again, thanks for entering the discussion.

October 6, 2003

I can see no reason we could not move Middlefork a bit. I can ask the powers that be.

Team Purdy

my first cache was not approved...please comment

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment