Guidelines and railroads

[+nekom]

I seem to recall asking this question before but I can't seem to find the thread. First let me state that I fully understand and fully agree with GS's policy of staying the heck away from active railroad tracks. Not only can they be dangerous, but at least in the United States you can get in a LOT of trouble for trespassing on railroad property. Now I have a cache idea in mind, but it's on the `other' side of the railroad tracks where the nearest actual road crossing is VERY far away. I'm not certain if I would want to make this a multi (probably would, there are a LOT of things to see. Settlement ponds, abandoned rusted out car where one shouldn't have been able to get to, old grinding wheel on the river bank, old mining ruins, a spring, to name a few) or just a traditional with parking and instructions on how to cross the tracks legally.

 

There is a tunnel under the railroad tracks through which a small creek runs. It can easily be walked through, though your feet will almost certainly get wet. Would this be considered a legal railroad crossing? There is also an overgrown road (still listed as a road on google earth and old topographic maps) that crosses the tracks and heads to the river, however there is no evidence of a crossing there, and the road is just overgrown grass and thorns now. Would this be considered a legal crossing?

 

The only other legal option would be to use a boat. If I were a cacher doing this cache, I'd be tempted to just illegally cross the tracks, and truth be known there's a 99.999865% chance nothing would go wrong with that, but I'm hoping to do such a cache where at least a legal option is available so I'm guessing the creek would be the best way to set that up? Maybe put a stage of a multi near the creek so that it becomes the most appealing option? I know one can't force cachers not to `cheat' and cross illegally, but if a legal option exists, it should be within the guidelines, right?

[knowschad]

In some ways, this question is rather similar to the other thread running currently regarding public access to a roadside. It really doesn't matter too much what the laws are, as much as what the perception is, and I'd be willing to guess that, without even checking with their lawyers, the railroad personnel would consider the tunnel to be trespassing.

Edited February 6, 2011 by knowschad

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

It way also fall under the category of "terrorist targets". If a person walking by sees people poking around a tunnel under a railroad, you can be sure someone will eventually call the police.

[GOF and Bacall]

It way also fall under the category of "terrorist targets". If a person walking by sees people poking around a tunnel under a railroad, you can be sure someone will eventually call the police.

 

I don't think the OP is talking about hiding the cache in the tunnel. If we are going to eliminate every cache that requires us to pass by, over, or through a possible terror target we won't have many caches left. The question is if these rail crossings are legal. I agree with Knowschad. The railroad is likely to call it trespassing.

[+nekom]

For what its worth, this is a dirt road where 4WD is almost required year round. The railroad is a single tracked line which probably sees only a few trains a day. The likelihood of running into railroad security is extremely remote, however it is of course not zero. The likelihood of anyone calling the police suspecting terrorist activity is even more remote, however also not quite zero. If I make this a boating only cache, the vast majority of finders are going to just cross the tracks one way or another. I know I would. I could place at least one stage across the river, I do have a canoe. But people could easily just drive around to get the stages, although that's about a half hour of driving to the nearest bridge and back down the other side. The nearest street crossing is in a small town with really no entry into the woods you'd need to get to without going dangerously close to people's houses and yards, so that's not a very appealing option. Just trying to make this work, maybe it can't and I should abandon the idea.

[+uxorious]

If the creek it a natural creek, you have a right to walk up it. Staying within the highwater marks. Not too sure it the tunnel part would make a difference, but if there was a bridge, and you passed under it, you would be just fine. (if you stay in the creek, between the highwater marks.)

 

You should be able to cross the tracks on the road, if you have a right to use the road. A road does not have to be marked to be a legal crossing.

[g_o_caching]

The tunnel is just as much railroad property as the tracks, the railroad built it to go over the stream. The road is called "right of way", and it is usually railroad property too. The property is normally defined by a fenceline or markers down both sides. Railroads don't like unauthorized personnel on their property because of lawsuits for injuries. In my state, a river is private property from the riverbank and extends at a right angle to the imaginary center of the river. It belongs to the landowner that has the adjoining land. If it is a navigational river, you can be on the water (boat, barge, canoe etc.) but you can not step onto a island or the bed of the river. I don't think creeks, and streams qualify as navigational and would be private property. Every state has its own laws. I would ask a LEO or at the court house for that county.

[+nekom]

It's a natural creek but it's certainly not navigable in any way. The river is the Monongahela River, which is quite navigable and sees a lot of recreational boat traffic as well as coal barges and the occasional but rare something other than coal on a barge going by. So I'm sure the river has plenty of right of way for the public use, but I'm not so certain about the creek. I'd say it's a good 60-80 feet from the railroad tracks to the creek and the tunnel has a good 20' ceiling. There is another area, albeit much farther away, that has a railroad bridge over a creek. Does it matter whether it's a bridge or a tunnel? Seems it would be the same situation to me, but perhaps the law has a distinction I'm not aware of.

[+nekom]

They say a picture is worth 1000 words, so here's a marked up topographic map of the area showing what I have in mind:

[Keystone]

Is the tunnel designed for vehicle and pedestrian traffic, or is it just a culvert designed to carry a stream under the railroad grade? I just published a cache a few days ago that's next to a public access boat ramp. You have to go through a tunnel under the main line railroad tracks to get to the boat ramp. Clearly, the public is meant to use that tunnel.

 

If it's just a stream culvert, then I'd be asking the owner of the land between the river and the tracks: "How do you get there from here, legally?" Then I would tell my reviewer the answer.

 

Under NO circumstances would I say "this cache is likely to cause forseeable grave harm." That could really hold up publication of your cache.

[+nekom]

It is designed only to carry the tracks over the stream, it was never designed for pedestrian or vehicular traffic.

 

Actually, I do know the owner of the land, but he wouldn't have an answer to that question. He only owns it because he wound up with it somehow, he has no interest in it really as he owns better riverfront property elsewhere. It was once owned by coal mining companies but the real estate was disposed of by them decades ago. He either got it in a tax sale or bought it from them or bought it from someone who did, not sure what the chain of ownership was there, but I do actually know the owner, he's a good friend of my uncle's. There really is no way to get there other than crossing over or under the railroad tracks, crossing at the nearest street crossing and going through people's yards, then a fenced off business, then a ton of ponds of muck, or using a boat. There is a boat launch just 5 miles or so down the river on the same side of the lock. Other than that, going under the tracks is about the only way I can think of that MIGHT be legal when it comes to railroad property.

 

I can honestly say that the cache would not be LIKELY to cause forseeable grave harm.

[+Harry Dolphin]

As a compendium of useless information, having wasted decades reading stuff that interests me, I seem to recall (though have no legal references to support this), that, in New Jersey, a waterway is a public right of way. If the brook runs through your property, I may walk up that brook (as long as I stay within that brook).

You may wish to read up on the laws of your state (or commonwealth) to see if this is true there. This would, of course, require a legal way to access that brook.

[+Sol seaker]

Actually to me the real question here, is WHERE WILL CACHERS BE LOOKING FOR IT?

 

If you put it in the tunnel under the tracks, cachers will be looking for coordinates only. They will have no idea if it's under or on top of the tunnel.

 

Even if you state on the cache page that the cache is IN the tunnel, even if you have a picture with diagrams and arrows pointing to the cache, it is well know that a lot of people download without looking at the cache page. They will search on railroad property.

 

That rule was designed to keep people safe and to keep them from tresspassing. Putting it in the tunnel will cause problems with both.

[+uxorious]

As a compendium of useless information, having wasted decades reading stuff that interests me, I seem to recall (though have no legal references to support this), that, in New Jersey, a waterway is a public right of way. If the brook runs through your property, I may walk up that brook (as long as I stay within that brook).

You may wish to read up on the laws of your state (or commonwealth) to see if this is true there. This would, of course, require a legal way to access that brook.

Many years ago I did some study on this. As I recall, a waterway being public right of way, is Federal not state.

 

I live on a creek, my property line is in the creek. However, I have no legal right to keep anyone from walking up and down the creek.

 

As for a road crossing the tracks, someone had the right to put that road there. If you have a right to use the road you would not be trespassing, even while crossing the tracks.

[+hukilaulau]

Unless I am reading it wrong, I believe you are overthinking this. Is the cache in a legal location? Then give it a fairly high terrain rating and let people figure it out. In a recent thread the concensus was that reviewers are only responsible for determining if a cache meets the guidelines. While you may not be able to say "Walk under the railroad tracks," I don't believe you are obligated to say, "Don't walk under the railroad tracks."

[Keystone]

Unless I am reading it wrong, I believe you are overthinking this. Is the cache in a legal location? Then give it a fairly high terrain rating and let people figure it out. In a recent thread the concensus was that reviewers are only responsible for determining if a cache meets the guidelines. While you may not be able to say "Walk under the railroad tracks," I don't believe you are obligated to say, "Don't walk under the railroad tracks."

I think that nekom is quite right to be asking these questions. The railroad guideline always forces me to ask "how do you cross the railroad property legally?" because of the railroad guideline and the guideline about complying with all applicable laws.

 

I am happy to hear that nekom knows the property owner. I would simply ask the property owner's opinion about how to cross the tracks legally. If the property owner says, "use that old unimproved road," that would be good enough for me. I always enjoy reviewing nekom's caches because he thinks through all the issues in advance, and is very honest with his cache reviewer.

[+Ecylram]

I always enjoy reviewing nekom's caches because he thinks through all the issues in advance, and is very honest with his cache reviewer.

That is high praise indeed. Nekom is obviously doing something right.

Edited February 7, 2011 by Ecylram

[+TeamSeekAndWeShallFind]

Our personal experience with the near ( or REALLY CLOSE TO....less than 250' ), RR tracks and/or near ( or REALLY CLOSE TO ), a school cache placement (guidelines)... ??? I'll keep it simple, honest and factual...the guidelines do not apply to everyone.

 

We hunt caches everyday on top of RR tracks or in school yards.

[+sbell111]

Unless I am reading it wrong, I believe you are overthinking this. Is the cache in a legal location? Then give it a fairly high terrain rating and let people figure it out. In a recent thread the concensus was that reviewers are only responsible for determining if a cache meets the guidelines. While you may not be able to say "Walk under the railroad tracks," I don't believe you are obligated to say, "Don't walk under the railroad tracks."

I think that nekom is quite right to be asking these questions. The railroad guideline always forces me to ask "how do you cross the railroad property legally?" because of the railroad guideline and the guideline about complying with all applicable laws.

 

I am happy to hear that nekom knows the property owner. I would simply ask the property owner's opinion about how to cross the tracks legally. If the property owner says, "use that old unimproved road," that would be good enough for me. I always enjoy reviewing nekom's caches because he thinks through all the issues in advance, and is very honest with his cache reviewer.

If he used a 'boat required' attribute, would this cache be listed without fuss, since there would be no need to cross railroad property?

[+nekom]

I did some googling for relevant statutes and it turns out that Federal law DOES allow public use of ANY waterways that are navigable. They do not need to be navigable at all times or in both directions, they do not need to be navigable by any particular size of boat nor is there any specific measurement used. They do not need to be deemed navigable by any courts, if they are navigable in practice, then they are navigable by law.

 

Even using the most liberal interpretation of this vague statute, noone could possibly argue that this small creek is in any way navigable. So the way I see it, there are 3 options here:

 

1. List it as a terrain 5 knowing full well that noone (well ALMOST noone) will actually use a boat to get there when there is another way. Still though, there IS a legal way, so this should be within the guidelines, right?

2. List it as a far more honest terrain 2, maybe 2.5 or so and note the tunnel as the best access point, still up in the air as to whether or not that is legal but it's probably at least a far sight better than actually walking up over the railroad tracks (which is quite possible, but definitely trespassing on railroad property), or

3. Drop the idea and move on to my next one.

 

I have a series highlighting a former railroad and the caches placed on the abandoned portions don't have this problem. Problem is that some of that former railroad is also a current railroad, and again I FULLY agree with Groundspeak's policy on keeping the heck away from railroads. I personally know someone who was fishing on railroad property and got a $350 fine for trespassing. My backup plan for highlighting this area with a cache wouldn't be anywhere near as cool, and it would be really close to town. I'm not sure how `friendly' the locals are, though I do know a few families there.

 

Sometimes an idea simply isn't workable, perhaps this is one of those times.

[+John in Valley Forge]

How about asking RR security? Looks like there is a pretty big switch yard in West Brownsville, where Rt 40 crosses the river.

If it is anything like the big switchyard near me, they have maintenance and security offices there.

Take your topo map and ask them if you can walk under the bridge or use the old road to access your friend's land.

There is no harm in asking. The worst they can say is no.

 

I'll be waiting to hear what happens here as I have the nearly exact same bridge scenario near my impound basin cache and would love to get access to the other side where there are some paddle caches. I have not looked into it too much cause the water is too darn cold to wade through nowadays.

[AZcachemeister]

I seem to recall asking this question before but I can't seem to find the thread. First let me state that I fully understand and fully agree with GS's policy of staying the heck away from active railroad tracks. Not only can they be dangerous, but at least in the United States you can get in a LOT of trouble for trespassing on railroad property. Now I have a cache idea in mind, but it's on the `other' side of the railroad tracks where the nearest actual road crossing is VERY far away. I'm not certain if I would want to make this a multi (probably would, there are a LOT of things to see. Settlement ponds, abandoned rusted out car where one shouldn't have been able to get to, old grinding wheel on the river bank, old mining ruins, a spring, to name a few) or just a traditional with parking and instructions on how to cross the tracks legally.

 

There is a tunnel under the railroad tracks through which a small creek runs. It can easily be walked through, though your feet will almost certainly get wet. Would this be considered a legal railroad crossing? There is also an overgrown road (still listed as a road on google earth and old topographic maps) that crosses the tracks and heads to the river, however there is no evidence of a crossing there, and the road is just overgrown grass and thorns now. Would this be considered a legal crossing?

 

The only other legal option would be to use a boat. If I were a cacher doing this cache, I'd be tempted to just illegally cross the tracks, and truth be known there's a 99.999865% chance nothing would go wrong with that, but I'm hoping to do such a cache where at least a legal option is available so I'm guessing the creek would be the best way to set that up? Maybe put a stage of a multi near the creek so that it becomes the most appealing option? I know one can't force cachers not to `cheat' and cross illegally, but if a legal option exists, it should be within the guidelines, right?

 

I once found a cache where the owner gave co-ordinates for a legal crossing point some distance away from the actual cache.

They stated that any logs describing any other means of access would be deleted.

I didn't describe my means of access.

 

OTOH, your stream-tunnel sounds pretty cool, as well as the other sights.

I would make it a multi so that the finders would see all that can be seen.

Too many of us spend too little time at many caches because there are so many caches that deserve so little of our time.