Road Hazards

[+Confucius' Cat]

I will try to be somewhat generic in the topic, but my question is based upon a recent experience with a virgin micro that i sought for no other reason than to get a FTF.

 

The cache coordinates led to the median of a four-lane, semi-limited-access highway. The "attraction" for the cache was a county-line sign. There was nothing of "interest" (like a historical marker, roadside table, etc- nothing but signs and trash). There was no legal parking close by except the road shoulder and a private driveway (which, if used would require crossing the highway).

 

I was unable to find the cache after about 30 minutes searching on both sides of the road and in the median. Crossing the highway required precise timing and a good run. If I had misjudged or tripped, I would be a flat cacher. As I look back on it, I can't believe I took that much risk for a lousy micro.

 

I posted a no-find on the cache page which contained a warning that this cache's coordinates landed smack in the middle of a VERY BUSY >70MPH (speed limit 55... Riiiight!) divided highway and that searchers should be very cautious (so as not to get run over). The cache owner deleted the log without comment and posted a note that "the coords are a little off". I emailed the owner about my safety concerns and got no response.

 

My question is, since we do not allow caches near "active railroad tracks", why do we allow caches in the middle of (or on the shoulders of) high speed highways?

 

Consider that a train (hopefully) stays on the tracks and if you stand just 5 feet or more away from the tracks, a train SHOULDN'T hit you. Furthermore even the busiest RR tracks see no more than a few trains per day (with possible exception of big city commuter lines).

 

A four-lane highway, however is travelled by thousands of cars each day, driven by persons having all levels of driving abilities and persons in all stages of drunkenness/sobriety, and they are NOT constrained physically to staying on the road.

 

Furthermore, the activities of a cacher alongside the highway can present a distraction to drivers, making it even more likely that a vehicle might leave the roadway.

 

Working/playing alongside a high speed roadway is inherently very dangerous. Even professionals (police, fire, highway department) with the latest in lighting and safety equipment are often hit and killed or injured. When i took my police training (many years ago), accidents under these conditions were the NUMBER 2 cause of police officer deaths! These deaths have become so common NOW that many states have passed laws requiring drivers to change lanes to avoid officers working alongside the highway.

 

Ironic that there is a cross (indicating a fatality at the site) in the median a couple hundred feet away from the cache in question (hey this might BE the cache?).

 

Would I be wrong in posting an SBA note on this particular cache?

 

(and here goes the pot-stirrer) Should we have a *rule* against placing caches near such highways?

[+Renegade Knight]

It would take longer to explain the nuances of roadays and where caches would and would not be something to do.

 

However the median is not the place for a cache. Nor is anywhere where your care will be tagged and hauled off for you in short order.

 

For a specific cache I'd have to see the cache to form an opinion on it. For example our state transportation department owns a waterfall. Technically it's within the ROW but in reality a cache would be fine.

Edited March 3, 2005 by Renegade Knight

[+Jamie Z]

I'm peeved the owner deleted your log.

 

I actually think a link to the cache in question should be posted so we can review the details. Possibly look at an aerial photo of the area.

 

I would repost my DNF.

 

Jamie

[+Confucius' Cat]

One of the reasons that I have not really persued the possibility of SBA on this particular cache is that I did not FIND it. Therefore it might be in a place where it could be found without jeopardy.

 

Still, I think that if this is the case, the cache owner should place a clear warning or instructions that state that there is no need to cross the road or do othere things that are inherently dangerous.

 

It seems to me that this cacher (who is apparently very experienced) may have unwittingly put people in harms way.

Edited March 3, 2005 by ChurchCampDave

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

 

Would I be wrong in posting an SBA note on this particular cache?

 

(and here goes the pot-stirrer) Should we have a *rule* against placing caches near such highways?

That SBA button certainly appeals to control freaks I've discovered.

 

I once had a crybaby complain about a cache in the guardrail because it was on a busy road and there was no parking close by. The coordinates were accurate and it took you to the guardrail. You had to park safely about 200 yards away. The idiot parked where it was dangerous and then complained about it.

 

You could approach the cache and keep the guardrail between you and traffic but you'd think I was a criminal the way he went off.

 

I didn't delete his log, instead I allowed others to see what an idiot he was.

 

Umm, if you determined it's dangerous why did you spend so much time looking for it?

 

We need rules to protect you from yourself? Maybe you could try to police yourself instead of asking GC.com to do it.

[+Team Perks]

Hmm...if I go to a cache and don't like where I think it's placed, I just drive off. It's a lot easier that way.

 

I found a cache a few months ago that was in the center divider of a busy, higher-speed-limit street. We planned it out for a time that I knew wouldn't be busy, and it turned out to be a fantastic cache. Did I feel in danger there? Nope.

[+Confucius' Cat]

 

Would I be wrong in posting an SBA note on this particular cache?

 

(and here goes the pot-stirrer) Should we have a *rule* against placing caches near such highways?

That SBA button certainly appeals to control freaks I've discovered.

 

I once had a crybaby complain about a cache in the guardrail because it was on a busy road and there was no parking close by. The coordinates were accurate and it took you to the guardrail. You had to park safely about 200 yards away. The idiot parked where it was dangerous and then complained about it.

 

You could approach the cache and keep the guardrail between you and traffic but you'd think I was a criminal the way he went off.

 

I didn't delete his log, instead I allowed others to see what an idiot he was.

 

Umm, if you determined it's dangerous why did you spend so much time looking for it?

 

We need rules to protect you from yourself? Maybe you could try to police yourself instead of asking GC.com to do it.

Let's see now, I'm a "crybaby", a "control freak", and an "idiot"

 

Good job adhering to the "forum guidelines".

 

It's posts like this that cause people to get thoroughly disgusted with the forums.

 

It was a serious inquiry. If I was a "control freak" I WOULD have posted SBA intead of bringing the topic up on the forums. As to the other PERSONAL attacks, they are not worthy of response.

 

Sorry I offended you with my idiocy!

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

I didn't call you a crybaby, I called another unnamed user a crybaby. I didn't call you a control freak, you yourself said you didn't use the SBA button. I called you an idiot? I called the cacher who logged the whiney log on my cache an idiot.

 

You have taken everything personally and then accuse me of breaking forum rules.

 

But it's curious how you would take my post and apply it to yourself.

 

Good grief man, give it a rest. All I did was disagree with you. Doesn't mean I called YOU names or even dislike you.

 

You know why so many people don't like these forums? You really want to know why?

 

Naw, you'd take it personally again.

Edited March 3, 2005 by Lazyboy & Mitey Mite

[+JohnnyVegas]

Could the cache in question be a victum of bad coordinates, A cache that I tried a FTF on today appears to be a case of bad coordinate. Two other cachers tried this one today with the same results. This a link to this one Sonoma Aroma

Part of trying for a FTF can be First To Find Bad Coordinates

[+Confucius' Cat]

I think it definitely IS a case of bad coordinates. That is one reason I have not pushed the SBA button. But the nature of the "series" indicates that I was looking in approximately the right place. It would not be logical for the cache to be elsewhere than at the intersection. Even if the cache is 300' away or more, it is still on the highway median or berm.

 

My concern is that, even if it is way off the shoulder, children might be searching and get carried away and not pay attention to traffic.

 

Like others have said, ~ "why look for it if you think its dangerous?" Any parent that would LET their children look for it must be a little suspect. With that in mind, I guess there is no need to be concerned- if someone thinks it's unsafe, they can just pass on it.

 

But it's curious how you would take my post and apply it to yourself.

 

Context, Sir. Context.

 

Umm, if you determined it's dangerous why did you spend so much time looking for it?

 

That is a very good question. In fact, I looked for it again just last weekend, but this time I *drove* across the street and parked the car on the shoulder with the strobes and lightbar running so drivers could see me (so much for stealth- but then again maybe I could pass for highway dept).

 

The only conclusion I can draw as to why I would go out TWICE to look for it for so long is I'm an idiot! I guess a possible FTF means that much to me? Go figure!

 

Thanks. This has been very theraputic. I'll just let 'em go in the future when I see what I believe to be serious hazards that the cache owner(s) fail to post or acknowledge.

 

After all, THEY are the ones that will have to answer for people that might get hurt due to their "negligence". It's really none of MY business to look out for my neighbors.

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

Context? You claim I called you a crybaby and worse because of context? You never have logged a single cache of mine and I was talking about a user who had.

 

Good grief.

[+cache_test_dummies]

(and here goes the pot-stirrer) Should we have a *rule* against placing caches near such highways?

No.

 

But the owner shouldn't have deleted your log, IMO.

 

(Sorry, didn't mean to stray back on topic )

[+Confucius' Cat]

Context? You claim I called you a crybaby and worse because of context? You never have logged a single cache of mine and I was talking about a user who had.

 

Good grief.

The context was in response to my post.

 

You referred to these "other" cachers with obvious (to me at least) reference that they were similar to my post.

 

Therefore if you are calling someone else names, I inferred that you meant the names to apply to me also.

 

I will accept that you didn't really intend to call me the names you called the unnamed cacher and I'll let it go.

 

I'm sure the "unnamed cacher" would (will) be offended as well if he(she) reads your post.

 

A good way to avoid offending people is to not call ANYONE names such as "crybaby", "idiot", and "control freak". The namecalling did not add anything to your post.

 

Good Grief!

[Keystone]

Hello,

 

Let's return to the topic of discussing caches placed in potentially hazardous locations. Private bickering can be taken offline to PM's or e-mail, as it adds nothing to the topic. Thanks.

 

To move things back on topic, I'll note that I regularly disallow caches hidden in expressway cloverleafs and similar situations where pedestrians aren't expected to be. Also such caches are often near highway bridges which are specifically mentioned in the list of "off limits" areas. I guess I'd need to look at specific examples to offer opinions about them.

[+wimseyguy]

(and here goes the pot-stirrer) Should we have a *rule* against placing caches near such highways?

 

No. The policy against RR caches exists because the RR's are pretty serious that nothing interfere with their Right of Way. Just because a cache appears to be in the median doesn't always mean it's there. Sometimes part of the challenge of finding a cache is determining how to safely get to and from it's hiding place. As long as terrain and difficulty are properly rated, I see no reason to add more rules to a wonderful, yet silly sport.

[+vree]

Just because a cache appears to be in the median doesn't always mean it's there. Sometimes part of the challenge of finding a cache is determining how to safely get to and from it's hiding place.

i don't think there should be a new rule for this, but that's wishful thinking that people would use common sense in placing caches. if the cache "appears" to be in the median, but is not how safe is it to be wandering around on the median and/or on the shoulders? and the placer's response that the coords "are a little off" is troubling. at the very least, the placer should have left your dnf log with the concerns and/or made a note to use caution as the coords are not correct and that you may have to wander around traffic to find the cache.

 

i always feel bad hitting the SBA, but you are familiar with the area and the cache search. if you feel it's too dangerous, log a SBA. if you are correct, the cache will (should) be archived. if not, you've done all you can do and it will be left up to the placer and seeker.

[+bigredmed]

Caches near roads are a bad idea. Even if there is "safe parking" 200 yards away, there will be a risk of someone getting injured or killed near the cache.

 

With all the worry about keeping Jeremy and GC.com free of liability issues (the knife ban was largely due to this), I am really surprised that this kind of cache gets listed.

 

I shouldn't be as the Benchmarks listing has benchmarks that are in similar locations.

 

Do I think you should have SBA'd this? If the owner had not deleted your log, then no. Future cachers would have seen your log and made their own judgement. As he/she did, yes, I believe that you have experienced a demonstrably dangerous cache. I believe that a skillful attorney interested in suing you could use this forum to demonstrate that you knew that the cache was dangerous and considered pushing the SBA button, and if you didn't, you would get to share in the liability for the injuries suffered by the future cacher who got hurt hunting for it.

 

Given the actions of the cache owner and your reasonable concerns about your safety while there, you should SBA this cache.

 

On to the pot stirring question: Most cachers don't place these kind of caches. I think that we would ban something that doesn't happen all that much. I would suggest that the geocachers code of conduct would prohibit this kind of cache, and that SBA'ing it would probably get the local approver to take a closer look at this cache and the others placed by the owner.

 

If these kind of things became more common, then yes, we should ban them.

[+Miragee]

I have a micro in mind that is on a walking path. However, it is next to a busy roadway. In my description, should I make it very clear the parking is in the adjacent shopping center parking lot to prevent someone from trying to stop on the three-lane road to grab it?

[+bigredmed]

I have a micro in mind that is on a walking path. However, it is next to a busy roadway. In my description, should I make it very clear the parking is in the adjacent shopping center parking lot to prevent someone from trying to stop on the three-lane road to grab it?

Would a reasonable person (not necessarily an experienced geocacher) think that your cache was in a dangerous location? Would such a reasonable person, conducting themselves in a normal manner, taking reasonable precautions be able to find your cache without coming near the road?

 

If the answers are that a reasonable person would think it was dangerous, or that a reasonable person taking reasonable precautions would find it dangerous, then yes, you should.

 

Every knows that even a short walk in the woods could break an ankle or result in a laceration or other injury, but a reasonable person would be able to limit their risk in that situation. (If the cliff is muddy and slippery, you don't go walking on the edge, you come back some other day or find a different way around.)

 

I was at a cache at a rest stop along I-80 that was about 100 feet from the off ramp. Yes, a car could have left the ramp at high speed and landed on me. But it would be ridiculously unlikely, so a reasonable person could have found that cache without endangering themselves. There is a bench mark that is about 2 miles from my house that is literally on the middle support column of a 6 lane bridge in the middle of an 8 lane interstate. No way, you find that benchmark without putting yourself at unreasonable risk.

 

The cache in the original post was in such an environment. IMHO, he was right to comment, the owner was wrong to delete the log, and the poster has a moral and legal obligation to SBA it. Whether it comes off the site or not is up to TPTB.

[+Confucius' Cat]

Sorry for my bad behaviour. Thanks for rescuing the topic.

 

i always feel bad hitting the SBA, but you are familiar with the area and the cache search. if you feel it's too dangerous, log a SBA. if you are correct, the cache will (should) be archived. if not, you've done all you can do and it will be left up to the placer and seeker.

 

I, too feel bad about using the SBA. I have done so 3 times in 250 some-odd finds. Two of the three were archived, in the other one the owner had posted a preferred route into the cache site which subsequently got posted no trespass. This owner changed the cache page to list another way in which stayed on public property and the cache was saved. The other two were in a park system that strictly banned off-trail activities and I was told to so notify TPTB by a park ranger.

 

These things do not make my day, but the better good of the sport is served by obeying laws and thinking of everyone involved, the hider, the seeker, the land manager, and even the muggle.

 

I suppose a case could be made that the cacher who seeks it should have enough common sense to avail themselves of proper protective gear or not do the cache, but highway safety gear is not all that common among typical cachers.

 

That people will try for caches in places they know they really shouldn't go is pretty common knowledge. Mea Culpa.

 

In my case, I drove 50 miles to look for what admittedly I expected to be a "lame" cache for no other reason than to get another FTF. (I don't know why FTF's are that special). Turning around and going home without looking for it was out of the question. I admit that that is stupidity. I think it is probably somewhat typical cacher behaviour- we are fanatics, otherwise why would we do what we do in the first place?.

 

Perhaps we don't need a rule to protect ourselves from ourselves. I don't think that would be possible as long as some are fanatical about the sport. But we may have a group liability issue here. It is somewhat like putting a swing up on a cliff where a kid could "bail" over the cliff... most kids wouldn't dare, but sure as one does, the swing maker and the person who planted the tree 50 years ago would surely be hauled in to court. Shoot.. They would sue God for making the cliff!

 

Would it be worthwhile, perhaps to use the "hazardous area" icon? Maybe we could add a "traffic hazard" icon?

[+fly46]

You know, I really want to say something snotty, but a certain mod would spank me for it. Actually... On second thought....

 

 

 

 

 

Seriously, though... All additional fun activities aside, Has anyone else tried to find this cache since your post (that you're aware of?)? I really think you should post that so everyone knows - or at least inform the local mod.

 

The fact that the cache placer in question deleted your note is kinda fishy to me.

[TahoeJoe]

It sounds like a location I would not go searching for a cache. I had a friend (father of twins) who was killed when he ran out of gas and was walking along the side of the road and was hit by a drunk driver. Drunk drivers will sometimes focus on a visual stimulus and instead of avoiding it will be drawn toward it like a magnet. I think most cachers would use common sense on this cache and say forget it.

[+JohnnyVegas]

There comes a point in geocacing were common sense has to come into play. If someone thinks course they are using to get to a cache is not safe, then they should find an safer way. There is more to finding a cache then following the arrow on a GPS screen. Then again what one person feels is not safe another may not see a problem with. There have been times when Julie has told me she felt a trail I have wanted to use in not safe, but I know there is nothing wrong with it She does not like getting off of fire roads, to her a trail is the size of a fire road.

 

As Fly stated, it would be nice to know if anyone had found the cache

A link to the cache would be handy.

Edited March 5, 2005 by JohnnyVegas

[+Confucius' Cat]

The Cache in Question has been found and is in one of the places I looked, but did not find it.

 

The logs that are on the page now are significant spoilers, and using these logs, a seeker could at least avoid the danger of CROSSING the highway. You can actually park right next to it on the shoulder (and if the coords have been revised and are now accurate, that would be obvious).

 

The fact that the sign the cache is placed upon HAS BEEN HIT RECENTLY is clear evidence of the level of hazard here. (The hit occurred between my first and second trips to the cache site)

 

There is still a large element of danger as exists any time that you exit your vehicle adjacent to expressway-speed traffic. The legality of parking next to the sign is debatable. It is not posted no-parking, but it is very close to the intersection and the entire roadway might be posted "emergency stopping only" I am not sure.

 

The sign is about 8 feet high and that is probably why I did not find it the first time. Even in its "knocked down" state, I couldn't reach the sign itself.

 

<edit>

After re-reading the cache description, I also noted that there is a reference to a "park" here. I could not find anything like a "park" at the intersection. I believe the referenced "park" is a few miles away.

 

This is somewhat misleading but I am not sure how this would cause any further danger.

 

I have concluded, personally, that it is not worth an SBA, but I still think the owner should post that the cache is in a dangerous location, at the least.

</edit>

 

 

I expect this post will "put it to bed" on the specifics of this cache, but I mainly posted for the larger question. -which is still open.

 

IMHO, caches that cause people to wander around near a high speed highway are not a good idea.

 

If anyone cares, Here is my deleted log.

Edited March 7, 2005 by ChurchCampDave

[+JohnnyVegas]

Myself. I see nothing wrong with your deleted log.

[+welch]

My question is, since we do not allow caches near "active railroad tracks", why do we allow caches in the middle of (or on the shoulders of) high speed highways?

 

Consider that a train (hopefully) stays on the tracks and if you stand just 5 feet or more away from the tracks, a train SHOULDN'T hit you. Furthermore even the busiest RR tracks see no more than a few trains per day (with possible exception of big city commuter lines).

Because RR often own the property on either side of the tracks for a certain distance. Roads on the other hand are usually owned by the public anyways, so someone being there may not be illegal (tresspassing, etc). Public areas, trails or walkways might be nearby, but likely wouldn't in the case of a RR.

Roads and highways happen all over the place, trying to keep all caches away from them would be an additional confusing cumbersome rule. And unneeded since the approver would likely question something listed in a median anyways (as KA does).

[+wimseyguy]

Unless there is more to the story (as there frequently is with forum tales of woe) I see nothing wrong with your log at all. There is no more of a spoiler in it than the cache owner's note regarding the coords.

[+briansnat]

Myself. I see nothing wrong with your deleted log.

I agree. I really don't like it when owners sanitize their cache logs. They are denying valuable info to future finders.

 

I won't even go into this guy's choice of a freeway for his cache when it passes through thousands of acres of state forest .

[+Kit Fox]

There are more spoilers in these two logs than a normal hint.

 

Found the cache. We could see it but couldn't reach it! So we couldn't sign the log.

Ironically they still logged it as a find.

 

Talked to cache owner while at the cache site and explained that sign had been hit recently. Replaced cache container per owners request. Thanks for the find!

 

I also agree with others that your log shouldn't have been deleted. On a personal note, I would have skipped this cache, because a smiley isn't worth being hit by a vehicle.

[WH]

Areial photo of cache site:

 

[+sbell111]

Much ado about nothing.

 

I see nothing wrong with this cache. I'm glad the coords have been corrected, but bad coords happen.

 

There are plenty of roads around here with medians that do not restrict pedestrian access. As long as pedestrians are allowed, I see no reason why a cache placed in a median shouldn't be approved.

 

You safety concerns are not valid reasons to log a SBA, in my opinion. There are safety concerns inherent in hunting a large number of caches. It is up to the seeker to determine if the smiley is worth the risk.

[+Confucius' Cat]

Yeah, I think the topic's pretty much dead.

 

Really great picture. The original coords would have put the dot in the median. I thought about modifying the pix to show where the original was, but it really is pointless.

 

Apparently the problem has been fixed on this cache.

 

On the larger question, I can accept that posting warnings about hazardous locations is up to the owner, but I don't think an owner should delete reasonable warnings posted by seekers.

 

Will leave thread open for final comments and close shortly.