Bridge Bomb Scare

[+jeff35080]

From here: http://www.gettysburgtimes.com/headlines/n...0305/front2.htm

 

Hobbyist inadvertently causes a stir among area law enforcement agencies

 

By JOHN MESSEDER - Times Staff Writer

 

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

 

A green metal box raised serious concerns Thursday morning when a bridge inspector found it snuggled beneath an Adams County creek crossing.

 

“I don’t mind a metal box lying around,” said Liberty Township police officer Dan Lanious, “but when it’s tucked in underneath a bridge, you just don’t know.”

 

The box turned out to be part of a hobby called geocaching, in which participants use satellite navigation to locate articles hidden by other participants.

 

The GPS (Global Positioning System) receivers collect signals from satellites stationed high over the Earth. Shipboard and aircraft navigators use them to cross oceans, and car drivers use them to cross cities.

 

“I’m 30 miles from my next turn, 53 miles to Penn’s Landing, ETA still 4:15,” Times photographer Bill Schwartz said by cell phone, enroute to an assignment.

 

A devotee of the hobby, he has located several hundred geocaches in the three years he has been looking for them. He explained the hobby’s roots lie in “caches” early trappers and traders once hid in summer, to provide food and other supplies in winter.

 

The cache owner had to use a compass and landmarks to navigate to the mini-storehouse.

 

Modern-day cache finders use satellites to locate trinkets and historic sites in 130 countries. According to Geocaching (www.geocaching.com), which claims to be “the official global GPS cache hunt site,” there are about 1,300 geocaches within a 50 mile radius of Gettysburg.

 

Finders can visit one of several web sites dedicated to the hobby. There they obtain latitude and longitude coordinates of a geocaches in their area.

 

They input the location to their GPS receiver and follow the display to the cache.

 

Then they return to the web site and log their finds, matching wits with other participants in such “scores” as the total number of caches found, or number of states visited to find caches.

 

“I got my 14th first-to-find the other day,” Schwartz commented, indicating the number of caches he had been the first to locate after their owners placed them.

 

Some sites are “virtual,” such as monuments the finder must identify.

 

Others are “travel bugs,” numbered tags a finder moves to another place for someone else to find and move.

 

Schwartz found a travel bug while on a trip to Florida. He has since checked the Web to learn the bug’s latest location.

 

“After I sent it on is way somebody in the Navy took it to Malta,” he said. “It’s been around Europe since he took it over there.”

 

Another type of cache may contain trinkets to be traded; the finder takes a small item, and leaves another, before signing a log and replacing the cache.

 

It was a traditional cache that got the attention of an unidentified PennDOT bridge inspector Thursday morning.

 

It was a green metal military ammunition can of the type available in many military surplus stores, and it had a sticker identifying its purpose.

 

Unfortunately, whoever last replaced the box in its hiding place also hid the sticker.

 

“The sticker on the side that was facing down,” Lanious said, pointing out that until the contents of the box was determined, no one was going to pick it up.

 

Cumberland Township police were called to close the bridge, and a state police bomb squad was called from Hershey.

 

Then a passer-by told police he thought he could identify the box. His wife is a geocache hider and finder.

 

He called his wife — police would not release her name — she talked with the police and identified the box, the bomb squad was told to return to its base and the bridge was reopened.

 

“Cache has been taken by the Liberty Township police,” the cache placer, identified online only as EpiduralGirl, a Gettysburg-area anesthesiologist, wrote Thursday in the site description. “I have no idea what is going to happen to it (or me!). In any event, it won’t go back there.”

 

Lanious said the box would be returned when the investigation is complete.

 

No charges are pending.

 

 

Readers may contact John Messeder at johnm@gburgtimes.com

[+Eric K]

At least for a change this story was objective and didn't really seem to slam Geocaching.

[+sTeamTraen]

Cache listing

[+JMBella]

Ya know.. for a bomb scare story, that's a pretty positive one.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Well at least they didn't mistakenly say that it was buried

[+VegasCacheHounds]

Wow, thats amazing! It spunds like for once, people calmly and logically figured it out without resorting to explosives

[+hoovman]

What comes to mind is: Was this a dropped ball on the part of the reviewer?

 

From the cache listing:

Cache is an ammo box near a beautiful old steel bridge.

This cache is located near an historic bridge

I mean, shouldn't this have been modified before activation so as to be clear of the bridge, to avoid just the type of trouble that resulted?

[+Team GPSaxophone]

What comes to mind is: Was this a dropped ball on the part of the reviewer?

 

From the cache listing:

Cache is an ammo box near a beautiful old steel bridge.

This cache is located near an historic bridge

I mean, shouldn't this have been modified before activation so as to be clear of the bridge, to avoid just the type of trouble that resulted?

It says near, not on.

[tossedsalad]

I seem to recall seeing EpiduralGirl's name a lot. Either she caches around Frederick, MD a lot or she posts in the forums a lot. I bet she is embarrassed. I thought we weren't supposed to put caches around bridges?

[+Prime Suspect]

What comes to mind is: Was this a dropped ball on the part of the reviewer?

 

From the cache listing:

Cache is an ammo box near a beautiful old steel bridge.

This cache is located near an historic bridge

I mean, shouldn't this have been modified before activation so as to be clear of the bridge, to avoid just the type of trouble that resulted?

From the guidelines (emphasis mine):

 

Caches near or under public structures deemed potential or possible targets for terrorist attacks. These include but are not limited to highway bridges, dams, government buildings, elementary and secondary schools, and airports.

 

This was a two-lane bridge over creek, out in the country. Note that the cache page says it was place "near" the bridge, not under it.

[Keystone]

The listing guidelines do include highway bridges as "off limits" areas -- and precisely for this reason, because of the higher frequency of bomb squad/law enforcement calls that result from caches hidden under bridges.

 

But as a practical matter, the reviewers can be convinced to distinguish interstate highway bridges vs. a covered bridge or historic/unusual bridge, like the one at issue here. We get a tremendous amount of pushback when we raise the "off limits" rule. A typical response would read "Oh come on, that would never happen, quit worrying, this is a popular fishing spot and everyone goes under this bridge."

 

In this particular case, the hider included a note to reviewer, assuring the reviewer that the cache was appropriately hidden. (I did not review this cache.) I don't think any balls were dropped by the reviewer.

 

It would be less time and trouble for me if I automatically archived any cache that showed on my map as being near a bridge. Be careful what you ask for.

 

Recently, I archived a cache when I discovered that the cache owner had misrepresented the cache location to me; it was hidden on a bridge support for a bridge that carried a major divided highway across a valley. The owner moved the cache to Terracaching where it was promptly listed without incident.

[Jeremy]

Recently, I archived a cache when I discovered that the cache owner had misrepresented the cache location to me; it was hidden on a bridge support for a bridge that carried a major divided highway across a valley. The owner moved the cache to Terracaching where it was promptly listed without incident.

"Bring me your tired, your poor, your inappropriate caches, yearning to be free"

 

Seems that the ball wasn't dropped by any reviewer here. Not to mention that listings can be changed by the cache owner after the listing is published to the site.

[+nfa]

I PM'd Keystone, asking for info on the cache and cacher, so that I can check it out...if the cache should be archived, the owner and their sponsors will be emailed, and the cache will be SBA'd

 

Any geocaching site (especially a new site) is capable of making mistakes, let's look at how the mistakes are dealt with before judging the newer sites.

 

nfa-jamie

Edited June 3, 2005 by NFA

[+hoovman]

I am not questioning Keystone's action on the "misrepresented" cache. Sounds like totally the right thing.

 

Also, I am not "judging" any geocaching site. I simply wish the reviewer on this one would have been a little more practical.

 

Sure, this old bridge isn't on a terrorist's list of targets - I'll grant that. But as long as we're talking about practical matters, law enforcement agents are more likely to see ammo cans near/under any type of navigable bridge as a possible threat, whether it's a likely threat or not.

 

I just think any ammo can near or under a bridge of any type is a "bad bet". Perhaps it's a "legitimate" place for a cache. I guess it's a question of how preventative hiders/reviewers choose to be. Fact is that muggles get wiggy about ammo cans, but there seems to be consensus that ammo cans by themselves are OK. Fact is that muggles get wiggy about stuff hidden near/under bridges. Combine these two facts and the situation reported in the article is bound to happen sometimes.

 

I mean, is it asking the hider to make such a sacrifice if a reviewer ask them to either:

• change it from an ammo can if it's near a bridge?
  
• put it a good distance from a bridge?
  

Aren't we just talking about common sense here?

 

SIDE NOTE:

Caches near or under public structures...

The fact alone that it was hidden "near" as two of you pointed out doesn't make it automatically acceptable as you would suggest, since the word is used directly in the guidelines.

[+sbell111]

Golly, what a great article. It was nice and positive about geocaching.

 

In my opinion, the cache was not inappropriately hidden. Haven't we all found 100 caches just like this one? In fact, if the last finder had placed it back correctly, there likely would be no problems at all with it. I hope EpiduralGirl gets her cache back without further incident.

 

From that article, it would appear that the area is swarming with cachers.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

I PM'd Keystone, asking for info on the cache and cacher, so that I can check it out...if the cache should be archived, the owner and their sponsors will be emailed, and the cache will be SBA'd

 

Any geocaching site (especially a new site) is capable of making mistakes, let's look at how the mistakes are dealt with before judging the newer sites.

 

nfa-jamie

Why do you say it's the site's fault? The site didn't place the cache there. Responsibility lies with the owner, the site only lists caches if they appear to meet the guidelines.

 

Placing a cache "near" a bridge can imply that it's within view (50-100 feet or much more). It can also mean that it's close to it. This cache was actually "on" the bridge supports, if I read the article correctly. That's a bit different than "near", wouldn't you say?

 

I'm not saying it was wrong to place a cache there, pedestrian bridges or rural road bridges would hardly be "terrorist targets". I'm just saying you shouldn't be pointing your finger at the site.

[+sbell111]

... But as long as we're talking about practical matters, law enforcement agents are more likely to see ammo cans near/under any type of navigable bridge as a possible threat, whether it's a likely threat or not.

 

I just think any ammo can near or under a bridge of any type is a "bad bet". Perhaps it's a "legitimate" place for a cache. I guess it's a question of how preventative hiders/reviewers choose to be. Fact is that muggles get wiggy about ammo cans, but there seems to be consensus that ammo cans by themselves are OK. Fact is that muggles get wiggy about stuff hidden near/under bridges. Combine these two facts and the situation reported in the article is bound to happen sometimes. ...

I couldn't disagree with you more. By your logic, we should all throw our GPSrs in the trash because someone might think we are up to no good while we are wandering about.

 

Further, I think the actions of the authorities in this case prove your premise wrong. It seems clear that they never got wiggy. They were cautious, sure. But they were open-minded and allowed the box to be identified.

 

In fact, I doubt very much that there even would have been an issue if the GC label was showing. If anything, this article only goes to show the importance of labeling your caches and returning caches as you found them.

[Keystone]

Once again, I was *not* the reviewer of this cache.

 

Once again, note that the guidelines refer to caches hidden on highway bridges that are deemed to be terrorist targets.

 

What hoovman refers to as "practical" -- disallowing a cache hidden "near" a really neat rural bridge -- is quite different than the label placed on cautious reviewer decisions by the owners of caches like this. It is my practice not to reproduce e-mail correspondence here in the forums unless directly relevant, but oh boy do I have some stellar examples, including some where I questioned bridge placements.

 

Finally, I would like to clarify Jeremy's statement about cache owners changing their cache descriptions after the cache is reviewed. While this happens from time to time -- and it's very annoying when it does -- there's no suggestion that it happened here with EpiduralGirl's cache (it did happen with the other cache, the one that I archived). The current cache description for EpiduralGirl's cache is consistent with the "note to reviewer" written by the hider when the cache was submitted. In fact, the reviewer thanked the hider for the "helpful" note.

Edited June 3, 2005 by Keystone

[Jeremy]

Also, I am not "judging" any geocaching site. I simply wish the reviewer on this one would have been a little more practical.

I'm getting real tired of the lack of assumed responsibility by the cache owner in such topics. Passing the buck seems to be more irresponsible than a cache being published to the site because of errors or omissions in the cache description.

 

Why don't we try and take a non-permissive stance and put the sole responsibility of the cache placment on the cache owner? We already assume that adequate permission was given for the placement. From there we can only make general decisions on the appropriateness of the listing - not the cache itself.

[+Renegade Knight]

The cache was fine. It was a minor bridge. I agree with keeping caches away from high profile terrorist targets. But you have to have a line between high profile and fair game for a cache. Minor bridges are ok. Especially if they are historical or scenic, or in a scenic area.

 

It doesn't sound like anyone dropped the ball here and everyone did what they were supposed to do. Remember this is an era when someone shipping personal effects in an empty truck can cause a bomb scare because someone saw a wire sticking out of the box that turned out to be a coat hanger. In Boise before the anthrax scare they had a "box with a strong chemical smell" that shut down the airport for hours. Turns out is was some harmless exotic food that had the container it was in break. False alarms are part of the price of being vigilant. People like having something to blame but the truth is more people are paying attention and reporting things they don't "get". I don't see that as a problem. However if we start banning exotic foods, shipping personal effects, and activities, then we have a problem.

[+sept1c_tank]

Just curious.

 

Keystone, if someone edits a cache page after approval, is there a record of it?

[+tozainamboku]

Also, I am not "judging" any geocaching site. I simply wish the reviewer on this one would have been a little more practical.

I'm getting real tired of the lack of assumed responsibility by the cache owner in such topics. Passing the buck seems to be more irresponsible than a cache being published to the site because of errors or omissions in the cache description.

 

Why don't we try and take a non-permissive stance and put the sole responsibility of the cache placment on the cache owner? We already assume that adequate permission was given for the placement. From there we can only make general decisions on the appropriateness of the listing - not the cache itself.

It seems like most of what gets discussed in these forums are suggestions to make more work for the volunteer approvers: ban lame micros, make sure permission was given, make sure the container is appropriately labelled, etc. If you complain now about how long it takes to get your caches approved, just wait till the approvers are required to verify everything in the guidelines. Jeremy has set up a system where the primary responsibility for following the guidelines is on the cache placer. The volunteers can only do so much checking. I suspect if there is a rash of caches being mistaken for bombs the volunteers will be asked to check these situations more closely.

[+briansnat]

I think its fine to make a distinction between major bridges and rural and historic bridges. I have a cache on one myself. Its an historic bridge, built in the 1800's and still carries traffic. Its no way a major bridge, as it only services a few homes.

 

Still, the container is an important thing to consider. Ammo boxes and PVC pipe caches are very likely to cause alarm if accidently discovered. A film canister far less likely to do so. Just use common sense when placing caches in spots like these and use an appropriate container.

[ATMouse]

I've actually found this cache and it is very country, very rural. VERY.

 

I guess I'm a "wuss". I always figure that TPTB will reject or question one of my caches if I don't include in the reviewer note that I actually have permission. I've even included NAMES at time. Besides, if you don't have permission, it just WRONG.

 

'Course, I don't know if this cache didn't have permission.

[+sbell111]

Who would you ask permission from?

 

"Mr. Bridge, do you mind if I stick this box up your nether regions?"

Edited June 3, 2005 by sbell111

[+hoovman]

... But as long as we're talking about practical matters, law enforcement agents are more likely to see ammo cans near/under any type of navigable bridge as a possible threat, whether it's a likely threat or not.

 

I just think any ammo can near or under a bridge of any type is a "bad bet".  Perhaps it's a "legitimate" place for a cache. I guess it's a question of how preventative hiders/reviewers choose to be. Fact is that muggles get wiggy about ammo cans, but there seems to be consensus that ammo cans by themselves are OK. Fact is that muggles get wiggy about stuff hidden near/under bridges. Combine these two facts and the situation reported in the article is bound to happen sometimes. ...

I couldn't disagree with you more. By your logic, we should all throw our GPSrs in the trash because someone might think we are up to no good while we are wandering about.

 

Further, I think the actions of the authorities in this case prove your premise wrong. It seems clear that they never got wiggy. They were cautious, sure. But they were open-minded and allowed the box to be identified.

 

In fact, I doubt very much that there even would have been an issue if the GC label was showing. If anything, this article only goes to show the importance of labeling your caches and returning caches as you found them.

Activating a bomb squad, even if they don't have to recover or detonate something, isn't free. I think as stewards of our activity, we ought to consider the probability of costing taxpayers money as a result of our hides. It wouldn't take too many "appropriately handled" incidents like this one before some stuffed-shirt city councilman starts trying to pass local ordinances to restrict or ban our beloved passtime.

 

When thinking about likely outcomes, a tupperware near/under a bridge has a *much* lower probability of a bomb squad call than does an ammo can. Labels on both sides would be a good thing to lower probability too.

[+prm]

It seems like we're missing something, which SBell pointed out a few posts back. From reading the article, it sure looks like this would have been a non-issue, or at least much less of an issue, if the "Geocache" sticker had been visible without moving the cache. Perhaps we should just be noting "put the cache back carefully so the sticker is visible." Lesson noted....

[ATMouse]

Permission for a bridge...I'll bet that that bridge is either a village or a township bridge. I'd ask the town supervisor (or his /her equivalent) or submit it to the town board or whatnot. That's what I did.

[+sbell111]

Activating a bomb squad, even if they don't have to recover or detonate something, isn't free. I think as stewards of our activity, we ought to consider the probability of costing taxpayers money as a result of our hides. It wouldn't take too many "appropriately handled" incidents like this one before some stuffed-shirt city councilman starts trying to pass local ordinances to restrict or ban our beloved passtime.

 

When thinking about likely outcomes, a tupperware near/under a bridge has a *much* lower probability of a bomb squad call than does an ammo can. Labels on both sides would be a good thing to lower probability too.

Get ready for it. This is where someone will point at the creed and tell me I'm a bad guy...

 

Again, our actions are suspicious. The authorities may be called anytime we're wandering about playing this game. The argument that I should act differently because bad people are out there is lost on me. I would sooner hand the keys to the country over to those same baddies than change my behaviour based on their actions.

 

Also, there are enough examples of detonated tupperware to make me not buy into the 'only use plastic' crowd. Besides, you are making an assumption that the container in question didn't have a sticker on both sides. The article mentioned that the box was replaced so the sticker was on the bottom. A sticker on the opposite side would have been 'up' in this case and similarly hidden.

[+sbell111]

... I'd ask the town supervisor (or his /her equivalent) or submit it to the town board or whatnot. That's what I did.

In this instance, I wouldn't have asked Jack for squat.

[+Renegade Knight]

...When thinking about likely outcomes, a tupperware near/under a bridge has a *much* lower probability of a bomb squad call than does an ammo can. Labels on both sides would be a good thing to lower probability too.

In idaho I had one of my caches called in. It was hidden near a pond. It was called in as a suspected drug stash. Why drugs on mine? Why bombs on another? There are things we can do to make it less likely that the call is made. But nobody who can tell is with any authority has ever stepped up to the plate to help geocaching out in this regard. People assume plastic containers will reduce the issue, yet plastic containers were used in spain for the real deal. I agree there is probably an answer, but I don't have it and I've asked the right people every now and then.

Edited June 3, 2005 by Renegade Knight

[ATMouse]

In this instance, I wouldn't have asked Jack for squat.

 

Okay, I'm dumb - why not?

[+Eric K]

Without reading every post in this thread I'll comment on a few things.

 

I don't think the sticker would have made a difference if someone thought it was bomb and doesn't know what geocaching is.

 

That's kind of like expecting the bomb squad to ignore a cache under a bridge because the container says. "Not a bomb inside"

 

As far as law enforcement goes, even if they are aware of what geocaching is I don't think any of the bomb squad would want to go their superiors and say they ignored a suspected bomb because it had a sticker on it saying it was a geocache.

 

Secondly and more importantly, this thread is starting to remind me of some work places I've been in. Instead of trying to find ways to prevent these incidents from happening in a productive way, pointing fingers and sayings whose fault it was doesn't fix anything.

 

I think it would be more productive to discuss ways to prevent these incidents from happening (like several of you are doing in this thread already) than to point fingers and place blame.

Edited June 3, 2005 by Eric K

[+Renegade Knight]

Permission for a bridge...I'll bet that that bridge is either a village or a township bridge. I'd ask the town supervisor (or his /her equivalent) or submit it to the town board or whatnot. That's what I did.

It depends on the town.

 

It can be the towns road department.

The County Road Department.

If it's a rural highway the State Road Department.

They could have quasi government entities that do roads but are not the town or county.

If it's government land it could be BLM or the Forest Servcie etc. (But they tend to let the state handle roads, but not always)

 

If it's in a Reservation it could be the BIA or the Tribe depending on the agreement worked out.

 

If it's on the boundary of two jourisdictions (and bridges do often straddle boundaries) then one or both could be the right entity.

 

If it's in one agencies area but easier for the other agency to maintain they could have operational control over the bridge.

 

The land owner could own the land and the roadway/bridge is only on an easment, and the land owner may give permission.

 

I'm sure there are a few cases that I couldn't think up.

[+sbell111]

In this instance, I wouldn't have asked Jack for squat.

 

Okay, I'm dumb - why not?

Ummm, because its just a little, rural bridge.

[+CW Iams]

I am with you, Eric K:

 

That's kind of like expecting the bomb squad to ignore a cache under a bridge because the container says. "Not a bomb inside"

Exactly...

 

I think it would be more productive to discuss ways to prevent these incidents from happening (like several of you are doing in this thread already) than to point fingers and place blame.

The sad thing is, this is not the only thread to feel this effect. Many of them are tending to go in circles, pointing fingers, flaming replies, etc...

 

From my point of view, it appears there are no parties in the wrong. This just happened, as things tend to do...

Edited June 3, 2005 by CW Iams

[+sbell111]

Eric is right. Most of the time, if the bomb squad is called, the cache is toast. However, the lesson to be learned from this thread have nothing to do with permission, container type, approval, or labelling.

 

The lesson is about hiding it as you found it. Everything else is just drama.

 

I have little doubt from reading the article that if the sticker was visible, the police would have followed up with the site or the cache owner, in this case.

Edited June 3, 2005 by sbell111

[+hydee]

Actually the cache isn't always toast, if the container is well labeled there are some bomb squads that do take the time to contact either us or the cache owner. We have stopped a few caches from being blown up just because the container was well labeled.

 

Now as for this listing, it doesn't seem as if it was inappropriately listed at all. So finger pointing isn't necessary.

 

Personally, I would like to see more responsibility go to the cache owner and the caching community when it comes to what is appropriate and what is not in your area. If you see a cache in a container that you think might be of concern, then notify the cache owner. Just remember to be kind in your email, sending a snarky email will get you no where in cache owner/cacher relations.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Actually the cache isn't always toast, if the container is well labeled there are some bomb squads that do take the time to contact either us or the cache owner.  We have stopped a few caches from being blown up just because the container was well labeled. 

 

Now as for this listing, it doesn't seem as if it was inappropriately listed at all.  So finger pointing isn't necessary. 

 

Personally, I would like to see more responsibility go to the cache owner and the caching community when it comes to what is appropriate and what is not in your area.  If you see a cache in a container that you think might be of concern, then notify the cache owner.  Just remember to be kind in your email, sending a snarky email will get you no where in cache owner/cacher relations.

Snark snark snark

 

[+sbell111]

I was thinking that 'snarky' must have been added to the official Groundspeak lexicon.

[+hydee]

I was thinking that 'snarky' must have been added to the official Groundspeak lexicon.

I have always liked the word snarky

[+sbell111]

I like 'irascible'.

[+Jeep_Dog]

Omigosh. There y'all go again, teaching me something.

 

"snark

 

n. [Lewis Carroll, via the Michigan Terminal System] 1.

A system failure. When a user's process bombed, the operator would

get the message "Help, Help, Snark in MTS!" 2. More generally, any

kind of unexplained or threatening event on a computer (especially

if it might be a boojum). Often used to refer to an event or a log

file entry that might indicate an attempted security violation. See

snivitz. "

 

Well, I suppose if one was to be "snarky" it is perhaps less threatening then being "boojumy."

Edited June 3, 2005 by Jeep_Dog

[+hydee]

define:snarky

 

A colloquialism meaning short-tempered or snappish.

[+sbell111]

It looks more fun in Russian.

[+Harry Dolphin]

And, for an entirely different perspective on the subject, here's my photograph for Benchmark KU3940. Jeffreys Hook Lighthouse, a.k.a. The Little Red Lighthouse. Located in Fort Washington Park.

Albeit, this is not a geocache (the nearest one is a half mile north), this is directly under the George Washington Bridge, and is a city park, and gets a lot of foot traffic. I guess what I'm thinking is that sometimes, the security brouhaha is overdone, and sometimes it's underdone.

There does not seem to be any consistancy.

[+Deliveryguy428]

Problem is this and this has nothing to do with the reviewer at all. I could post the coords to my "final" location and they are say maybe 500ft or so from a bridge, but yet at the final spot you find a little note saying you must go 500ft or more to find the actual true cache so the reviewer has no control over people not sometimes thinking to smart when they go and hide a cache.

 

There is a case where their is some PRIME location for a cache location but it never will get approved cause there is a train track that runs over head by about 200 plus feet. So based on what I have seen and heard don't go taking your free shots at the reviewers cause you can over this. Some people just don't think when putting out caches.

[+Team Dromomania]

Apparently the 60+ geocachers who found it didn't see a problem to report. Either self-policing didn't work or else everybody thought the cache's location was fine. I think I'd go with the latter.

[+reveritt]

If there is any concern that your cache might be mistaken for a bomb, use a semi-transparent plastic container, instead of an ammo box. Yes, I like ammo boxes, too, but they do have the potential to frighten people when placed in certain settings.

 

I also like to use geocaching stickers on my containers. They won't deter the bomb squad, but they do help convey the message that my cache is part of a legitimate, organized activity.

[+Mopar]

As I recall, there have been more clear plastic tupperware style caches blown up by bomb squads then ammo cans. Clear plastic is what terrorists used to plant bombs on RR tracks in Spain, so they are just as "scary looking" as an ammo box to a bomb squad.

 

Personally I don't think anyone would bother blowing up this bridge:

 

 

But then once the call is made, they HAVE to check it out, no matter what the container, no matter what it says on it. I don't think there is much that can be done differently in this case. I remember a cache in NJ that was mistaken for a bomb last year and that was a wooden box in the woods with "Geocache" written all over it.