Police To Prosecute Geocacher?

[lauraPalmtree]

(note: found this today in a local WA paper which also covers Idaho stories. I will watch for any followup stories.)

 

September 27, 2005

 

Highway 55 Reopened After Suspicious Object Identified

 

(SMITHS FERRY - AP) -

Police reopened Idaho Highway 55 just north of Smith's Ferry Tuesday afternoon after a suspicious object under Rainbow Bridge closed it for most of the day.

 

Police say the object had been placed under the bridge by some people playing a game of hide-and-seek using a portable Global Positioning System.

 

The highway is one of two major north-south routes in the state. It shut off the main route between Smith's Ferry and Cascade while law enforcement personnel investigated the object.

 

It reopened at about 4 p.m. Tuesday afternoon.

 

Police say the man who stashed the object under the bridge has come forward and charges might be filed against him.

 

Built in 1933, Rainbow Bridge is a concrete span over the North Fork of the Payette River and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

 

-30-

 

http://www.klewtv.com/x68098.xml

[+JohnnyVegas]

I guess he did not read the guidelines

[+yumitori]

I guess he did not read the guidelines

Or is listing it on a site that doesn't believe in such 'rules'. I haven't been able to find a cache on geocaching.com that matches the location yet.

 

There's the start of a discussion in the Northwest forums if we want to keep everything in one thread.

[+TeamAO]

I hate bad news.

 

Although, it is the cachers own fault for placing such a cache. I'm crossing my fingers that everything turns out ok for him.

[gringo_nordestino]

I guess he did not read the guidelines

With ALL apologies beforehand, and pardon the ignorance, it could be he didn't read the guidelines, BUT, and I am just asking this to learn, how did it get approoved? When he submitted it, is he supposed to say where it is? Wouldn't the word "bridge" in his application set off bells and whistles?

[WH]

It's possible that either he had just placed it and hadn't submitted it for approval yet or it was listed on another site.

 

I do not think for a moment that a reviewer on this site would have approved it.

[tossedsalad]

I wonder what charges could be filed, littering???

[CacheNCarryMA]

I wonder what charges could be filed, littering???

With Homeland Security, who says they need to file charges?

[+JohnnyVegas]

I guess he did not read the guidelines

With ALL apologies beforehand, and pardon the ignorance, it could be he didn't read the guidelines, BUT, and I am just asking this to learn, how did it get approoved? When he submitted it, is he supposed to say where it is? Wouldn't the word "bridge" in his application set off bells and whistles?

Well I have found 3 or 4 new caches in the past two years that were under bridges.

 

Police say the man who stashed the object under the bridge has come forward and charges might be filed against him.

Might be filed is a far sry from will be filed. My guess is they have no idea what law may have been broken that the DA would want to follow through on.

In most cities the DA is going to be pretty busy with major crimes. He might get cited for littering. If cited for littering it would be smart to pay the fine instead of doing the time. I can see it now, QWhat are you in forAPutting a box of MacToys under a bridge

[tossedsalad]

Isn't that what happens in "Alice's Restaurant" on the group W bench?

 

"Kid, whad'ya get?"

 

"I didn't get nothing, I had to pay $50 and pick up the garbage."

 

A tribute to officer Obie

Edited September 28, 2005 by tossedsalad

[+Salvelinus]

It's possible that either he had just placed it and hadn't submitted it for approval yet or it was listed on another site.

 

I do not think for a moment that a reviewer on this site would have approved it.

Really? While this is not to second guess my approvers, I have seen several recently approved that are hidden on road bridges.

 

Example 1

 

Example 2

 

I think we both would agree these would probably cause little problems since they are both on secondary roads. But where do you draw the line? Maybe the fact that they are micros let them be approved...I dont know.

 

Salvelinus

[WH]

From the section of the cache posting guidelines that outline off limit cache placement areas.

 

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.

 

The bridge referred to by the OP is clearly a major traffic artery and would obviously violate cache submission guidelines.

 

Smaller secondary bridges such as the ones cited in your example would be judged on a case by case basis.

Edited September 28, 2005 by WH

[+mini cacher]

and both of those are micro/nano caches... which might make the difference. I can imagine far fewer people reporting a suspicous key holder stuck on a bridge than an ammo can.

 

Another thing... while the "no bridges" part of the guidelines is for Groundspeak, is there actually a law against placeing a benign object under a bridge (besides littering)? Do people get "charged" with littering? Isn't it kind of like speeding where you get a ticket to either pay or you see a judge about working it off?

[+StarshipTrooper]

This incident is, of course, being discussed on the Idaho Geocachers forum.

 

There is no listing on this cache that has yet been found. Navicache doesn't have anything even in the area. (It has a scant few in Idaho at all )

 

It now appears, according to a reported sighting of the cache placement in progress, that the cache was new and probably had just been submitted as late as last Sunday. At any rate - my guess is that it would NOT have been approved. Any map of that location would have shown that it was on a major HIGHWAY bridge over a river *and railroad tracks*. I think that would have set off all kinds of "cache approver alarms".

 

Now they are considering sending the hhider a bill for the police man-hours in the incident.

Edited September 28, 2005 by StarshipTrooper

[+StarshipTrooper]

Oh yea - BTW, the "object" in question was a five-gallon bucket. I'm sure the hider also attempted to list it as a "large" cache. That would be the nail in the "archive" coffin!

[+mini cacher]

Now they are considering sending the hhider a bill for the police man-hours in the incident.

Assuming the hider pays taxes... they already get a bill once a year. Do the police send a bill every time they visit a house for some stupid arguement over who drank the last beer?

[+StarshipTrooper]

Now they are considering sending the hhider a bill for the police man-hours in the incident.

Assuming the hider pays taxes... they already get a bill once a year. Do the police send a bill every time they visit a house for some stupid arguement over who drank the last beer?

Well - for the sake of argument...it's apples to oranges.

 

The bridge was built and maintained for highway traffic. It was not intended to be part of a game. Having to stop traffic to check out the container that was placed there would be considered "extraordinary circumstance", and therefore the county might seek recovery of expense.

 

OTOH, it is perfectly normal to drink beer and have an argument in your house (sadly, this is true).

 

It's all in what is considered "normal".

 

Maybe we *should* have the police charge individually for all their services. Maybe that would put a damper on a whole lot of unsociable activity!

[+briansnat]

It's possible that either he had just placed it and hadn't submitted it for approval yet or it was listed on another site.

 

I do not think for a moment that a reviewer on this site would have approved it.

Really? While this is not to second guess my approvers, I have seen several recently approved that are hidden on road bridges.

 

Example 1

 

Example 2

 

I think we both would agree these would probably cause little problems since they are both on secondary roads. But where do you draw the line? Maybe the fact that they are micros let them be approved...I dont know.

 

Salvelinus

I think the fact that they are micros on minor bridges makes a difference. A hide-a-key on a bridge that gets 50 cars a day is not likely to cause a major thorughfare to be shut down and send the bomb squad out.

Edited September 28, 2005 by briansnat

[+mini cacher]

It's all in what is considered "normal".

Well, most of the time it is considered "normal" to have large amounts of trash along highways and under bridges. Many of those trash items could have a bomb in them as well. So what ever they thought of this bucket should be thought about a lot of things along the road. All this is going to do is cause really bombs to be placed in a crumpled up McDs bag where it can lay under a bridge for weeks without anyone noticing.

[+StarshipTrooper]

Well, most of the time it is considered "normal" to have large amounts of trash along highways and under bridges...

Not in this particular area.

 

I agree with the rest of your post 100%.

 

I'm not excusing them for wanting to charge the hider - just offering the logic that they will employ.

[+blindleader]

I must be caching in the wrong state. Think I'll go to Idaho to get some of those GPS units they hide for others to find.

[+Renegade Knight]

It's all in what is considered "normal".

Well, most of the time it is considered "normal" to have large amounts of trash along highways and under bridges. Many of those trash items could have a bomb in them as well. So what ever they thought of this bucket should be thought about a lot of things along the road. All this is going to do is cause really bombs to be placed in a crumpled up McDs bag where it can lay under a bridge for weeks without anyone noticing.

In an adjoining state they found a propane cylinder rigged to explode when jostled a certain way. It was along side the highway where people toss their litter. Highway maintenance workers found it, and another maintenance crew in my state found this cache as well.

[+budd-rdc]

I did a little detective work last night after seeing this thread and the other in the Northwest forums. Here's an information of interest:

 

Idaho 55 Rainbow Bridge (from Idaho Transportation Department website, with image)

 

Looks like a nice area, but not necessarily an inviting terrain for a cache hide. I don't see an obvious place for parking/access to go under the bridge, unless one approaches on the river level.

 

Nearest cache is GCGF88, and looking at the map, I speculate that the location is about 2 miles NE from there, where the highway crosses the river from west to east going northbound. (there are no active caches at that location)

 

Hopefully, someone at Groundspeak is involved in communicating with the authorities on this one. I don't see this as a bad thing for the sport, since the hider did come forward on his own, and there have been incidents of this nature in the past. Looks like a case of bad judgement by an individual, not something encouraged by Geocaching.

 

However, I have no control over how the general public will react to this.

[+nfa]

As geocaching gains greater and greater visibility over time, we will inevitably have to alter the way people hide and seek geocaches in order to remain in the good graces of local and federal authorities...I'm not saying that that's a good thing or a bad thing...it's just a thing

 

nfa-jamie

[tossedsalad]

In an adjoining state they found a propane cylinder rigged to explode when jostled a certain way. It was along side the highway where people toss their litter.  Highway maintenance workers found it, and another maintenance crew in my state found this cache as well.

Hey! I bet a propane cylinder would make a nice geocontainer! A propane cylinder is much less likely to be muggled too!

[+Airmapper]

Some guy just posted saying he was on TV over this and posted a link to a news site. The topic was locked because it is already being discussed here.

 

http://www.idahostatesman.com/apps/pbcs.dl...EWS01/509280313

 

The suspicious object turned out to be a geocache, a container with a GPS tracking device used for a kind of scavenger hunt called geocaching. Players hide GPS units for others to find, Idaho State Police spokesman Rick Ohnsman said.

 

I wish they were hiding GPS units in caches, talk about an expensive swag item.

 

That is a very bad description of Geocaching, amazing how something will get twisted by the time it hits the press.

Edited September 28, 2005 by Airmapper

[+Salvelinus]

Idaho 55 Rainbow Bridge (from Idaho Transportation Department website, with image)

That's a major thorofare?!

 

Since I was only in Idaho once before while visiting the Yellowstone area, I guess it could be considered a major thorofare for that state. But, I expected something that looked....less remote.

 

Geeesh, there has to be plenty of better spots to hide that bucket in the vicinity of that bridge. Looks like a beautiful place. Why tie the thing to it? I guess if you want to hide a cache on a bridge...use a micro.

 

Salvelinus

[+mini cacher]

I guess it could be considered a major thorofare for that state. But, I expected something that looked....less remote.

Have you ever driven I-5? There are plenty of very remote looking (and feeling) stretches along the MAJOR highway between WA and CA. Also some very remote places along I-10 between Los Angeles and Pheonix. But not nearly as beautiful as that bridge area.

[+briansnat]

I dunno, I might even call the cops if I were to see something like this attached to a bridge support:

 

Edited September 28, 2005 by briansnat

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I have a few observations to offer...

• First, this bridge was apparently and indisputably a MAJOR highway bridge. Not real smart (at least for more than a nano or a micro), and not likely to have been approved by ANY geocaching.com reviewer.
  
• Second, the hide was NOT a micro container nor simply a marker (a sign pointing to the next stage of a multi) but rather a LARGE container.
  
• Third, it appears that the container was NOT clearly marked on the exterior as a cache container, although I am NOT claiming that such markings would have prevented the crisis from occurring.
  
• Fourth, the reviewer at geocaching.com for Idaho (I know for sure, as I just got an extreme microcache on an abandoned RR bridge in Idaho approved by him) is MT Fellwalker, known amongst almost all cachers in the Rockies and beyond as one of the toughest and most demanding cache reviewers in the world; he does not hesitate to ask LOTS of questions to ensure that the cache hider has done due diligence and that the cache placement is legal and sane. There is, in my mind, NO way that this reviewer would have approved such a cache placement.
  

Having said the above, lets move on...

Much in line with the observations about, and examples of, other bridge caches made by several previous posters, I must respectfully point out -- without naming caches -- that there are several regular-size caches under highway (including MAJOR highway) bridges within 100 miles of my home. These caches were, and are, fully approved by gc.com. In fact, one of the caches in question was NOT -- until recently -- marked as a geocache on the exterior. So, practice does not always conform with reality -- folks do not necessarily follow the rules as closely as a casual reading of the rules might suggest.

 

An excellent second example of this matter is caches placed in national parks: Techically, it is illegal for (physical) caches to be placed in national parks. Plain and simple, no exceptions. However, during my recent week spent in the ID/WY area (that is when I placed the two most recent Psycho Backcountry Caches in that region with my friend Greta, who is a backcountry guide), I noticed two caches (real caches, not virtual) located smack-dab inside national parks. And, these caches were not legacy caches, placed years before any ban, but caches placed in the recent past, well after the ban took place.

 

Bottom line, for me, is this: I could see approving a cache -- in certain cases -- for a bridge under a major highway if the container were a micro or a nano or were simply a sign/sticker pointing to the next stage of a multi, and providing any (tiny) container were well-marked as a geocache. Beyond that, I am at a loss to understand how a cacher would even CONSIDER placing a cache container under a major bridge, given the level of paranoia and hyper-vigilance in this country in the post 9/11 days.

 

My last thought, though, on reading reports of things like this recent incident, is: "There but for the grace of God go I". Let's face it, we all make mistakes of judgement at times. I hope that the cache hider has learned her/his lesson, and I personally hope that he/she does not end up facing charges or having to pay a fine.

[+mini cacher]

As more info comes out I can see charges that would apply in this case.. beyond the littering. Attaching some pullies to the bridge could be seen as vandelism. And I'm not sure if the act of climbing us under the bridge supports is treaspassing. Probably not unless there are posted sign not to treaspass. Obviously a lot of thought/effort went into the container/hide but not so much into picking a location.

[WH]

But he said he's not aware of rules for bridges or other potential terrorist targets.

 

"There are guidelines, but there's never been a guideline for that," he said.

 

It looks like someone hasn't read the guidlines very thoroughly.

[+Yamahammer]

From what I'm reading here, anyone can list a cache, on a secondary bridge as long as it is a micro. Now, I can say it is a micro, but is it? Who knows? And a lot of secondary bridges are used as detours when road construction or accidents occur. The secondary becomes a primary. Is the Approver to know this? ... IMO, all bridges should be off limits - Period. Better safe than sorry.

 

And if someone doesn't read the guidelines, ignorance is no excuse or so they say.

 

[+vulture19]

Just my $0.02

 

The size of the container doesn't matter. I had a micro disapproved recently because it was too near a little 6' dam on a creek. The reason I got was that they don't want people walking around these things with electronic devices, as it makes people nervous.....

[Jeremy]

Some may not consider it as such, but the publishing process on the geocaching.com site is a courtesy to ensure that listings are at least under a modicum of scrutiny before they are listed for other users.

 

As stated already, this listing was not listed on geocaching.com and perhaps it would never have been listed here due to the nature of the placement, size, and location of the container. However, keep in mind it is the hider's responsibility that the container is hidden properly and with permission (if required). Whether the reviewer "should have known better" is irrelevant to the discussion since the reviewer only has the information available to them by the hider. It is the hider that ultimately knows what the container is and where it is hidden. The buck stops there.

 

There's enough shirking of responsibilities in the world today so I hope that it does not happen here.

[+Yamahammer]

If the cache is under a bridge, should listed caches, approved, be reported or at least asked about, by the finder? Maybe we take the proactive stance in this case. Maybe the hiding cacher didn't read the guidelines or ignored them. ... I've found, hmmmm, 2 caches under bridges. To prevent scrutiny, should we at least ask about it with the owner, the area approver? Or is this a 'don't ask- don't tell' thing?

 

[+Airmapper]

I have a cache near a dam. My cache examiner retracted it because it was, he also asked for details about the cache. After I gave him info that the dam was an old river dam and that fishermen are walking around it all the time, it got approved. In my case this a dam in a rural area and is a very nice place to watch the water go over, it even has a picnic area.

The point is, if you ban something altogether, you'll also ban the exceptions and rid people of a potentially nice caching experience.

[Keystone]

If the cache is under a bridge, should listed caches, approved, be reported or at least asked about, by the finder? Maybe we take the proactive stance in this case. Maybe the hiding cacher didn't read the guidelines or ignored them. ... I've found, hmmmm, 2 caches under bridges. To prevent scrutiny, should we at least ask about it with the owner, the area approver? Or is this a 'don't ask- don't tell' thing?

 

Always begin with the owner. The more questions that can be resolved between owner and finder amicably, the less flaming forum threads we will see as a result. And that is a good thing. Often, people will contact me and say "you have to do something about this cache because ______" and all I have to go on is their two sentence e-mail, the cache page, and any correspondence exchanged with the hider prior to publication. Until Jeremy starts reimbursing me for gas, I can't dash out and inspect every questionable site. Well-documented reports from known geocachers receive more attention.

 

For example, a hider once lied to me when I saw his cache coordinates were near a bridge for a Federal four-lane divided highway. I was assured that there was nothing to worry about. In fact, the cache was offset from the posted coordinates and the description was modified after publication. A leading geocacher in the area provided me with a detailed report, and the cache was archived.

 

Probably because of that incident, I unfortunately cannot trust everyone as much as I'd like. I now routinely ask follow up questions when the cache page states or suggests that the cache is on or near a bridge. I ask for details to help me decide whether this is the type of cache that ought to be published (a micro placed near a scenic covered bridge on a sleepy two lane road with safe parking) versus one that should not (a PVC pipe under an interstate highway overpass). Last month when I dared to ask such questions, a cache owner filed a complaint against me with Groundspeak for being too difficult and having a grudge against him.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I wonder what charges could be filed, littering???

With Homeland Security, who says they need to file charges?

I'll agree with CacheNCarryMA. Meaningless security measures that approach a police state.

That being said, Discretion is the better part of valor. NYNJPA has a policy making it illegal to take pictures from bridges or within tunnels. I guess it prevents traffic accidents, but is basically a meaningless regulation, trying to look like security!

But, we do need to keep a low profile, and try to avoid entanglements with the authorities (Wimp!) So, rightfully, bridges are off-limits.

Funny that my only runs in with the police were while searching for benchmarks. Oh, well.

In the meantime, I have a fantastic collection of pictures of New York New Jersey Port Authority Bridges, taken from under the bridges, where it is perfectly legal. What kind of security does this provide, again> Not sure that I understand.

Oh, well. Here is my latest bridge picture. Bridges are very beautiful! The Manhattan Bridge

I would not hide a cache here. I'm not that stupid.

[+Bjorn74]

Last month when I dared to ask such questions, a cache owner filed a complaint against me with Groundspeak for being too difficult and having a grudge against him.

But did you? (It wasn't me, so that's a fair question. )

 

I'd like to hear how this settles out, but I think we may never know for sure. I'd like to have something to show folks when a cache is on the line or just over it.

[+OConnellz]

I guess he did not read the guidelines

Or is listing it on a site that doesn't believe in such 'rules'. I haven't been able to find a cache on geocaching.com that matches the location yet.

Fine words from someone who approves caches, yet also places them on bridges!

 

Oddly enough, no site seems to be able to identify this cache! Accusations and finger pointing in ignorance is the worst possible reaction. Makes me wonder if you were ever the head of FEMA?

 

While you will find caches that have slipped through the 'cracks' on any listing site, I think you would find that terracaching.com doesn't have as many caches that violate the geocaching.com standards as you would expect. Considering that most (98%?) of the players over there are also players on geocaching.com, those are basically the rules widely accepted by the people that do all of the playing, and approving (Sponsors serve as the approvers for their sponsorees). Before you throw stones, watch your own glass house!

 

I have also found at least one cache in the embankment of a very active railroad, one cache on a very popular bridge in Missoula, and one at a memorial site on state capitol grounds. At least in Montana:

45-6-104. Desceration of capitol, place of worship, or memorial

(1) In this section, "capitol" means the Montana state capitol building and any permanent monuments on the capitol grounds.

(2) A person commits the offense of desecration if the person purposely:

( places on or attaches to the capitol or a place of worship, cemetery, or public memorial any mark, design, or material not properly a part of the capitol, place of worship, cemetery, or public memorial;

 

I am not trying to start a debate about which site harbors more violations. I am just pointing out that they will be found anywhere, sometimes where you least expect it. For the record, when I found out about the memorial cache mentioned above, I emailed the owners, and they said that they are going to re-tool the cache.

 

I think that this situation should bring to mind the value of some of these guidelines, that don't always make sense when they rival what the placer considers to be a great idea. As a community of communities, we need to cache responsibly, and try to make sure that others do the same. At a time when local, state, and federal agencies are starting to turn an eye at caching, we especially need to be mindful of the activities of our respective communities and the impression those actions make.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Some may not consider it as such, but the publishing process on the geocaching.com site is a courtesy to ensure that listings are at least under a modicum of scrutiny before they are listed for other users.

 

As stated already, this listing was not listed on geocaching.com and perhaps it would never have been listed here due to the nature of the placement, size, and location of the container. However, keep in mind it is the hider's responsibility that the container is hidden properly and with permission (if required). Whether the reviewer "should have known better" is irrelevant to the discussion since the reviewer only has the information available to them by the hider. It is the hider that ultimately knows what the container is and where it is hidden. The buck stops there.

 

There's enough shirking of responsibilities in the world today so I hope that it does not happen here.

I feel that this is very well put, well-stated. And that is all that any listing website CAN do. Ultimate responsibility for placement "sanity" and conformity with guidelines commonly accepted in the geocaching community lies with the cache placer.

[+budd-rdc]

Slightly off-topic:

 

When I visited Deception Pass in Washington State last May, there was a guy standing under the Deception Pass Bridge watching all the activities. He was either a ranger, or a security personnel of some sort. He would shout at people getting too close to the cliffs or the water, but it's possible his reason for being there was for Homeland Security.

 

There were many caches in the area, but none under the bridge, and he did not care if I walked under it, as long as I was moving and on the trail. I'd guess that he would have shouted at me or called back up if I were staying under the bridge fiddling with a container of some sort.

 

More on-topic:

 

I'm puzzled by caches hidden under road and highway bridges, since teens and vagrants like to hang out there, risking cache plundering. This incident might be a good reminder (as opposed to a "regular" bomb scare) for us to avoid this type of hide in the future, regardless of the Guidelines.

[+OConnellz]

Some may not consider it as such, but the publishing process on the geocaching.com site is a courtesy to ensure that listings are at least under a modicum of scrutiny before they are listed for other users.

 

As stated already, this listing was not listed on geocaching.com and perhaps it would never have been listed here due to the nature of the placement, size, and location of the container. However, keep in mind it is the hider's responsibility that the container is hidden properly and with permission (if required). Whether the reviewer "should have known better" is irrelevant to the discussion since the reviewer only has the information available to them by the hider. It is the hider that ultimately knows what the container is and where it is hidden. The buck stops there.

 

There's enough shirking of responsibilities in the world today so I hope that it does not happen here.

I feel that this is very well put, well-stated. And that is all that any listing website CAN do. Ultimate responsibility for placement "sanity" and conformity with guidelines commonly accepted in the geocaching community lies with the cache placer.

I agree! No matter what site you list it on, the hider has the ultimate responsibility. Now, if only there was a way to get them to actually read ALL the guidelines before they start placing caches! It is hard to be aware of all the guidelines, local regulations, etc. In Montana, we have the MT Geocaching Advocacy Council (started by Jennifer of Jennifer and Dean). It serves as an information sharing connection, so that members can be aware of the land management issues across the state. The primary focus was to try to help promote a positive geocaching policy with the main agency that oversees state lands. <cheers to Jennifer!>

[bogleman]

Not wanting to get too far off topic but as a courtesy I have provided pictures and descriptions of a few of my hides to my approver when I submitted a cache for approval. I want to make their job as easy as possible. Forrest Gump - it happens. Run Forrest, RUN.

[Keystone]

While you will find caches that have slipped through the 'cracks' on any listing site, I think you would find that terracaching.com doesn't have as many caches that violate the geocaching.com standards as you would expect. Considering that most (98%?) of the players over there are also players on geocaching.com, those are basically the rules widely accepted by the people that do all of the playing, and approving (Sponsors serve as the approvers for their sponsorees). Before you throw stones, watch your own glass house!

Thanks for the best laugh I've had all day! As you sputter in your indignation, please take a moment to read my prior post.... the one about the offset cache that was submitted as a traditional, but was actually located under a divided highway bridge. After this problem cache was archived, it was promptly listed by Terracaching. It was only after I discussed the cache here a few months later that some responsible Terracachers got involved, and the cache was archived by one of the hider's two out of state sponsors.

 

You can come up with examples pretty much anyplace you look.

[+Ed & Julie]

People are questioning the charges that may be filed. They are probably talking about civil charges, not criminal (like vandalism).

 

The cache owner may be sued civilly for the bomb squad call out.

 

Ed

[+Jennifer&Dean]

Some may not consider it as such, but the publishing process on the geocaching.com site is a courtesy to ensure that listings are at least under a modicum of scrutiny before they are listed for other users.

 

As stated already, this listing was not listed on geocaching.com and perhaps it would never have been listed here due to the nature of the placement, size, and location of the container. However, keep in mind it is the hider's responsibility that the container is hidden properly and with permission (if required). Whether the reviewer "should have known better" is irrelevant to the discussion since the reviewer only has the information available to them by the hider. It is the hider that ultimately knows what the container is and where it is hidden. The buck stops there.

 

There's enough shirking of responsibilities in the world today so I hope that it does not happen here.

I feel that this is very well put, well-stated. And that is all that any listing website CAN do. Ultimate responsibility for placement "sanity" and conformity with guidelines commonly accepted in the geocaching community lies with the cache placer.

I agree! No matter what site you list it on, the hider has the ultimate responsibility. Now, if only there was a way to get them to actually read ALL the guidelines before they start placing caches! It is hard to be aware of all the guidelines, local regulations, etc. In Montana, we have the MT Geocaching Advocacy Council (started by Jennifer of Jennifer and Dean). It serves as an information sharing connection, so that members can be aware of the land management issues across the state. The primary focus was to try to help promote a positive geocaching policy with the main agency that oversees state lands. <cheers to Jennifer!>

Now I'm embarassed...

Even worse... we own a cache that is suspended from a bridge.... OVER live railroad tracks! (Its a bison capsule but still... We are currently rethinking the commonsense rules of caching as they apply to all our caches. And finding a few that we are no longer comfortable about keeping active.)

 

The hardest part about guidelines isn't enforcing them... it's telling folks that they exist in the first place!

Maybe an e-mail could be sent to all geocachers with active geocaches that tells them the guidelines for placing caches. Kinda like the Waypoint e-mail that went out. And at the end add something along the lines of "these are the current guidelines for Geocaching.com caches and all caches will be asked to conform to these guidelines and if you have any caches that do not currently conform to these guidelines we may be asking you to rethink the placement due to ongoing issues"

I bet that would start a few wars!

 

Scott- I believe the bridge cache you mention is probably not going to be a security issues, much like my Chronological Progression cache out in Bonner is- both on walking bridges that rarely see automobile traffic. Whereas my It's Ornamental cache probably SHOULD be archived due to it's being on a bridge on Hwy 93 over the RR tracks.

-Jen

[+WAAS-up]

While you will find caches that have slipped through the 'cracks' on any listing site, I think you would find that terracaching.com doesn't have as many caches that violate the geocaching.com standards as you would expect. Considering that most (98%?) of the players over there are also players on geocaching.com, those are basically the rules widely accepted by the people that do all of the playing, and approving (Sponsors serve as the approvers for their sponsorees). Before you throw stones, watch your own glass house!

Thanks for the best laugh I've had all day! As you sputter in your indignation, please take a moment to read my prior post.... the one about the offset cache that was submitted as a traditional, but was actually located under a divided highway bridge. After this problem cache was archived, it was promptly listed by Terracaching. It was only after I discussed the cache here a few months later that some responsible Terracachers got involved, and the cache was archived by one of the hider's two out of state sponsors.

 

You can come up with examples pretty much anyplace you look.

Aren't you both saying the exact same thing? That is:

 

1. Responsibility is ultimately on the cache owner.

2. It's possible to fool any approver some of the time.

3. There are mechanisms in place at both places to catch these untruthful or un-knowledgeable owners.

Edited September 29, 2005 by WAAS-up

[Pylon]

So much bashing of this poor cacher just out to do a fun thing.

 

I'm gonna give this guy some slack, he may have been misinformed in the rules and might not have thought it out completely. I seriously doubt though that this guy had ill intentions but was really just trying to have fun with this sport we all enjoy and love.

 

Mistakes happen, i hope the cops go easy on this guy.