[knowschad]

There are a couple of notes on E.T. 001 (and others) that might be worth noting.

First, the CO posted the following note:

Quote

As per a VERY recent complaint, we have temporarily archived caches ET 091 - ET 0119. These caches will be replaced in a less busy area, where better visibility is obtainable. PLEASE do not replace these caches or look for them. These caches have been a big part of what is causing some of the problems. These caches are in an area where there isn't miles and miles visibility like the others. We will replace them as soon as our schedules permit. Please be responsible and help us help you to keep this trail alive. These caches have been deemed a safety concern. PLEASE, pass them by, 28 smileys aren't worth it. No need to respond on this page

Thank you for your understanding.

Followed by an Archived log by MissJen. I don't know which caches this applies to but I would assume all of those mentioned in the above note.

Quote

This cache is being archived after a request from The Nevada Department of Transportation. The Cache Owner, Clay4&whtwolfden, has received additional information and is responsible for physically removing the container from the location. The same applies for all other caches in this series. Drive safely.

Several Reviewers and Lackeys have teamed up to take all the necessary steps to archive the series and so you will see different usernames taking action on this series of many caches.

Groundspeak thanks everyone for their cooperation.

[Keystone]

I split the OP off from another thread about this series. This will confirm that Groundpeak is in the process of archiving the entire ET Highway series for the reason stated in the archive logs.

[M 5]

So, is the Nevada Department of Transportation mad? That has been one of my issues from the beginning. Sometimes reactionary is too late. I hope that is not the case and they will allow caching in other areas they govern. I'll be curious to hear how this came about exactly.

[hukilaulau]

I was going to say good riddance, but then I thought a better idea would be to make book on how many people would continue to claim finds before the caches are locked.
The recent log bragging about throwing down baggies to replace removed caches shows what lengths people will go to to be part of this sordid "history."
My guess is 24.

[StarBrand]

Parking along state highways for non-emergency purposes where there are no pullouts is an issue in most states.

Quote

PLEASE do not replace these caches or look for them

I love this clause.....I suspect there may be multiple caches at/near each location.

This post has been edited by StarBrand: 01 March 2011 - 12:55 PM

[briansnat]

It was just a matter of time.

Taking a low visibility, low impact sport and turning it into a high visibility, high impact one is not good for the future of geocaching.

[GOF and Bacall]

Add me to the list of those who are not surprised. It was inevitable.

[addisonbr]

It's too bad it got to the point where the DOT felt they needed to step in.

I wonder if they ever found out about the "see it from space" Alien Head design that's been carved into the terrain by jeep tracks.

[e-bird67]

Is the Alien Head also being archived, or just the series bits that are right by the highway?

[Sol seaker]

addisonbr, on 01 March 2011 - 01:10 PM, said:

It's too bad it got to the point where the DOT felt they needed to step in.

I wonder if they ever found out about the "see it from space" Alien Head design that's been carved into the terrain by jeep tracks.

Maybe we now have the answer to all those ancient tracks in the dirt that form big shapes when viewed from the air.
Ancient geocaching in an earlier form

[MissJenn]

Groundspeak has locked the caches for the moment. I know that some people legitimately found these and want to log their finds. They caches will be unlocked later in order to allow for that. For the moment, we simply want to prevent the caches from becoming a forum for discussion.

THIS thread is the correct forum for discussion.

[M 5]

MissJenn, on 01 March 2011 - 01:21 PM, said:

Groundspeak has locked the caches for the moment. I know that some people legitimately found these and want to log their finds. They caches will be unlocked later in order to allow for that. For the moment, we simply want to prevent the caches from becoming a forum for discussion.

THIS thread is the correct forum for discussion.

Legitimately? on that powertrail? That is too funny!!!!!!

[JeePSer]

I would have to say that I'm not surprised. Half of the JeePSer geocaching team was out there recently and saw first hand people driving in the desert beside the highway, people parking in the middle of the lane on the highway while they jumped out to retrieve caches and paper logs that people had placed on the ground next to containers because they didn't want to take the time to open or swap out the container.

I for one do not blame NDOT. This series being archived is completely the fault of bad geocachers. Thank you to all those who took every shortcut possible to try and complete the series in one day or be the fastest to finish it. Those are the people that the businesses can blame for lost revenue.

I hate to be the first one to say it but I hope this causes Groundspeak to review their retraction of the no power trails policy.

This post has been edited by JeePSer: 01 March 2011 - 01:27 PM

[Zeke's Uncle]

Now if they would just outlaw caches placed in the medians of divided roadways.

[knowschad]

I don't want to come across like a self-appointed moderator here, but I do want to say, as OP, that we should all be careful that this thread doesn't become another hotbed of opinions about the pros and cons of power trails.

[JeePSer]

knowschad, on 01 March 2011 - 01:44 PM, said:

I don't want to come across like a self-appointed moderator here, but I do want to say, as OP, that we should all be careful that this thread doesn't become another hotbed of opinions about the pros and cons of power trails.

Didn't mean to be the cause of any attempted thread hijack. Just trying to say that the only reason that the state agencies in Nevada got involved is due to irresponsible behavior by some of the people that cached the area.

[Ecylram]

JeePSer, on 01 March 2011 - 01:54 PM, said:

knowschad, on 01 March 2011 - 01:44 PM, said:

I don't want to come across like a self-appointed moderator here, but I do want to say, as OP, that we should all be careful that this thread doesn't become another hotbed of opinions about the pros and cons of power trails.

Didn't mean to be the cause of any attempted thread hijack. Just trying to say that the only reason that the state agencies in Nevada got involved is due to irresponsible behavior by some of the people that cached the area.

We don't know the reason why this happened. A couple of weeks ago NDOT said they only wanted a few caches moved. Something has changed since then and we don't know what changed.

[Cryptosporidium-623]

Ecylram, on 01 March 2011 - 01:57 PM, said:

JeePSer, on 01 March 2011 - 01:54 PM, said:

knowschad, on 01 March 2011 - 01:44 PM, said:

I don't want to come across like a self-appointed moderator here, but I do want to say, as OP, that we should all be careful that this thread doesn't become another hotbed of opinions about the pros and cons of power trails.

Didn't mean to be the cause of any attempted thread hijack. Just trying to say that the only reason that the state agencies in Nevada got involved is due to irresponsible behavior by some of the people that cached the area.

We don't know the reason why this happened. A couple of weeks ago NDOT said they only wanted a few caches moved. Something has changed since then and we don't know what changed.

Certainly some official statement from NDOT or GS explaining what happened would be welcomed.

This post has been edited by daschpeeg: 01 March 2011 - 02:06 PM

[M 5]

knowschad, on 01 March 2011 - 01:44 PM, said:

I don't want to come across like a self-appointed moderator here, but I do want to say, as OP, that we should all be careful that this thread doesn't become another hotbed of opinions about the pros and cons of power trails.

I wholeheartedly agree. It was archived, so we should only talk about the cons.

[knowschad]

JeePSer, on 01 March 2011 - 01:54 PM, said:

knowschad, on 01 March 2011 - 01:44 PM, said:

I don't want to come across like a self-appointed moderator here, but I do want to say, as OP, that we should all be careful that this thread doesn't become another hotbed of opinions about the pros and cons of power trails.

Didn't mean to be the cause of any attempted thread hijack. Just trying to say that the only reason that the state agencies in Nevada got involved is due to irresponsible behavior by some of the people that cached the area.

Sorry... I wasn't referring to anybody or any specific post. I just noticed a couple of posts that could easily swing this off topic very quickly. It will probably happen anyway, but it would be nice if we could avoid that and keep this as a spot for information only.

[GOF and Bacall]

I don't know the reasons for the action now being taken but I sure would like to. Or more exactly I sure would like those who plan on placing other power trails to know. It would be nice if the mistakes could be avoided in the future.

[jshults (Rally Dude)]

Since when is it OK to place caches in the medians of divided roadways ???? That's plain STUPID....

[kvhollis]

Ecylram, on 01 March 2011 - 01:57 PM, said:

We don't know the reason why this happened. A couple of weeks ago NDOT said they only wanted a few caches moved. Something has changed since then and we don't know what changed.

After all has cooled down I'd sure be interested in hearing what caused them to change their mind. I'm sure the local businesses appreciated the extra revenue and I'd bet they may have supported and voiced their opinions regarding the trail to NDOT.

[Mr.Yuck]

Ecylram, on 01 March 2011 - 01:57 PM, said:

JeePSer, on 01 March 2011 - 01:54 PM, said:

knowschad, on 01 March 2011 - 01:44 PM, said:

I don't want to come across like a self-appointed moderator here, but I do want to say, as OP, that we should all be careful that this thread doesn't become another hotbed of opinions about the pros and cons of power trails.

Didn't mean to be the cause of any attempted thread hijack. Just trying to say that the only reason that the state agencies in Nevada got involved is due to irresponsible behavior by some of the people that cached the area.

We don't know the reason why this happened. A couple of weeks ago NDOT said they only wanted a few caches moved. Something has changed since then and we don't know what changed.

I don't know. If anyone is interested, the owners were interviewed by xpunkx and DarrylW4 at Geocachingpodcast.com less than two weeks ago, and talked about how just those 30 or so caches that were on road signs needed to be archived. Here's the episode guide and it's the 2nd newest episode, #192.

I guess we just have to roll with what MissJenn said on the cache page.

[sabrefan7]

YEAH!!!!!! leap frogging power trail garbage,,, good riddance

[bradleyhenley]

Zeke, on 01 March 2011 - 01:35 PM, said:

Now if they would just outlaw caches placed in the medians of divided roadways.

The geocaches in the medians and on bridges are against the guidelines of Geocaching.com along with multiple other placements. Please refer to (http://support.Groun...=kb.page&id=306)
But the reviewer will continue to publish all geocache placements.
As I have run into down in East Texas little if any reviewing is being done at this time.
1) Geocache Nano’s approved on bridge guard rails.
2)100's of plastic geocache placements in the National Forest (that are prone to controlled burns every other year) with no permit being filed or approved.
3) I have seen a geocache on the big blue U.S. Post box outside the local post that had been active for just under 5 years with 80+ smiles.

Geocache - Responsibly
http://www.geocacheresponsibly.info

This post has been edited by bradleyhenley: 01 March 2011 - 02:40 PM

[StarBrand]

bradleyhenley, on 01 March 2011 - 02:38 PM, said:

Zeke, on 01 March 2011 - 01:35 PM, said:

Now if they would just outlaw caches placed in the medians of divided roadways.

The geocaches in the medians and on bridges are against the guidelines of Geocaching.com along with multiple other placements. Please refer to (http://support.Groun...=kb.page&id=306)
But the reviewer will continue to publish all geocache placements.
As I have run into down in East Texas little if any reviewing is being done at this time.
1) Geocache Nano’s approved on bridge guard rails.
2)100's of plastic geocache placements in the National Forest (that are prone to controlled burns every other year) with no permit being filed or approved.
3) I have seen a geocache on the big blue U.S. Post box outside the local post that had been active for just under 5 years with 80+ smiles.

Geocache - Responsibly
http://www.geocacheresponsibly.info

1 - not all bridges are off limits to Geocaches
2 - I know of no restriction in local National forests for either permits or metal boxes - so it isn't universal
3 - Did you post the appropriate NA log on that cache - it is possible the reviewer was unaware of the actual loaction.

The reviewers do not review for safety issues. But they do respond when offcials in the area have safety concerns.

[BBWolf+3Pigs]

bradleyhenley, on 01 March 2011 - 02:38 PM, said:

Zeke, on 01 March 2011 - 01:35 PM, said:

Now if they would just outlaw caches placed in the medians of divided roadways.

The geocaches in the medians and on bridges are against the guidelines of Geocaching.com along with multiple other placements. Please refer to (http://support.Groun...=kb.page&id=306)

Nothing about medians in there that I can see.

[MooseJawSpruce]

bradleyhenley, on 01 March 2011 - 02:38 PM, said:

Geocache - Responsibly
http://www.geocacheresponsibly.info

Huh, interesting link.

[GOF and Bacall]

bradleyhenley, on 01 March 2011 - 02:38 PM, said:

Zeke, on 01 March 2011 - 01:35 PM, said:

Now if they would just outlaw caches placed in the medians of divided roadways.

The geocaches in the medians and on bridges are against the guidelines of Geocaching.com along with multiple other placements. Please refer to (http://support.Groun...=kb.page&id=306)
But the reviewer will continue to publish all geocache placements.
As I have run into down in East Texas little if any reviewing is being done at this time.
1) Geocache Nano’s approved on bridge guard rails.
2)100's of plastic geocache placements in the National Forest (that are prone to controlled burns every other year) with no permit being filed or approved.
3) I have seen a geocache on the big blue U.S. Post box outside the local post that had been active for just under 5 years with 80+ smiles.

Geocache - Responsibly
http://www.geocacheresponsibly.info

Stop making up your own rules.

[jholly]

GOF and Bacall, on 01 March 2011 - 02:14 PM, said:

I don't know the reasons for the action now being taken but I sure would like to. Or more exactly I sure would like those who plan on placing other power trails to know. It would be nice if the mistakes could be avoided in the future.

The CO's logged a note regarding 18 caches (091-119) being archived because of a problem and then being moved. The next note is from Miss Jenn announcing the entire series is being archived. Sounds like a sledge hammer being used to drive a tack to me.

[sabrefan7]

If you break the rules of caching in Texas is there a death penalty?

This post has been edited by sabrefan7: 01 March 2011 - 02:59 PM

[M 5]

jholly, on 01 March 2011 - 02:59 PM, said:

GOF and Bacall, on 01 March 2011 - 02:14 PM, said:

I don't know the reasons for the action now being taken but I sure would like to. Or more exactly I sure would like those who plan on placing other power trails to know. It would be nice if the mistakes could be avoided in the future.

The CO's logged a note regarding 18 caches (091-119) being archived because of a problem and then being moved. The next note is from Miss Jenn announcing the entire series is being archived. Sounds like a sledge hammer being used to drive a tack to me.

Really good math, and even better analogy.

[knowschad]

MooseJawSpruce, on 01 March 2011 - 02:49 PM, said:

bradleyhenley, on 01 March 2011 - 02:38 PM, said:

Geocache - Responsibly
http://www.geocacheresponsibly.info

Huh, interesting link.

Small membership at the present time, but its a positive step.

[knowschad]

jholly, on 01 March 2011 - 02:59 PM, said:

GOF and Bacall, on 01 March 2011 - 02:14 PM, said:

I don't know the reasons for the action now being taken but I sure would like to. Or more exactly I sure would like those who plan on placing other power trails to know. It would be nice if the mistakes could be avoided in the future.

The CO's logged a note regarding 18 caches (091-119) being archived because of a problem and then being moved. The next note is from Miss Jenn announcing the entire series is being archived. Sounds like a sledge hammer being used to drive a tack to me.

I was wondering about that as well, and I'd sure love to get more information about it! Which, by the way is why I wish that people would keep their opinions on power trails, medians, and football teams out of this thread!!

Thank you.

[Trekks]

M 5, on 01 March 2011 - 01:24 PM, said:

Legitimately? on that powertrail? That is too funny!!!!!!

Yes, there are some of us who visited and signed every single one of the containers. It takes more than one full day.

[Cryptosporidium-623]

knowschad, on 01 March 2011 - 03:13 PM, said:

I was wondering about that as well, and I'd sure love to get more information about it! Which, by the way is why I wish that people would [b]keep their opinions on power trails, medians, and football teams out of this thread!!

If only there was some sort of forum-assigned authority figure who could monitor threads and keep them on topic...

[Trekks]

daschpeeg, on 01 March 2011 - 03:17 PM, said:

knowschad, on 01 March 2011 - 03:13 PM, said:

I was wondering about that as well, and I'd sure love to get more information about it! Which, by the way is why I wish that people would [b]keep their opinions on power trails, medians, and football teams out of this thread!!

If only there was some sort of forum-assigned authority figure who could monitor threads and keep them on topic...

Oh yeah, now I remember why I don't visit the forums, the people suck.

[the4dirtydogs]

Kinda knew something bad was going to happen to this trail. Good thing it wasn't an accident or someone hitting a cow. Might as well shut down the Route 66 series too .

[masterninja]

knowschad, on 01 March 2011 - 03:13 PM, said:

jholly, on 01 March 2011 - 02:59 PM, said:

GOF and Bacall, on 01 March 2011 - 02:14 PM, said:

I don't know the reasons for the action now being taken but I sure would like to. Or more exactly I sure would like those who plan on placing other power trails to know. It would be nice if the mistakes could be avoided in the future.

The CO's logged a note regarding 18 caches (091-119) being archived because of a problem and then being moved. The next note is from Miss Jenn announcing the entire series is being archived. Sounds like a sledge hammer being used to drive a tack to me.

I was wondering about that as well, and I'd sure love to get more information about it! Which, by the way is why I wish that people would keep their opinions on power trails, medians, and football teams out of this thread!!

Thank you.

I too was wondering about the axe coming down on the power trail when one moment you get a notice from the CO about some being achived and then Miss Jenn mostly a reveiwer comes out to say that they all are being achived.

I had been watching this since Oct. last year and haddn't seen any indication of problems from the trail until recently. Even had e-mailed the CO's last week to let them know what our intensions were in regrads to doing the run and at that time they haddn't said anything about the situation getting to this point. I have booked airfare tickets for 4 to do this run and now have to figure another plan. So now it's up to Plan D. I thought that maybe a warning would have been a better idea from Groundspeak with a time limit as to achiving would have been a better way to go. Seen that there are others out there in the same shoes expecting a chance to do the trail.

Just a little more notice in advance would have been nice I thought.

This post has been edited by masterninja50: 01 March 2011 - 03:49 PM

[cache_test_dummies]

the4dirtydogs, on 01 March 2011 - 03:32 PM, said:

Good thing it wasn't an accident or someone hitting a cow.

Yeah! Good thing!

[humboldt flier]

sabrefan7, on 01 March 2011 - 02:59 PM, said:

If you break the rules of caching in Texas is there a death penalty?

Naaaaah they just send you to Newark, N.J.

[Ecylram]

daschpeeg, on 01 March 2011 - 03:17 PM, said:

knowschad, on 01 March 2011 - 03:13 PM, said:

I was wondering about that as well, and I'd sure love to get more information about it! Which, by the way is why I wish that people would [b]keep their opinions on power trails, medians, and football teams out of this thread!!

If only there was some sort of forum-assigned authority figure who could monitor threads and keep them on topic...

Insert "Herding Cats" analogy here.

[the4dirtydogs]

masterninja50, on 01 March 2011 - 03:37 PM, said:

knowschad, on 01 March 2011 - 03:13 PM, said:

jholly, on 01 March 2011 - 02:59 PM, said:

GOF and Bacall, on 01 March 2011 - 02:14 PM, said:

I don't know the reasons for the action now being taken but I sure would like to. Or more exactly I sure would like those who plan on placing other power trails to know. It would be nice if the mistakes could be avoided in the future.

The CO's logged a note regarding 18 caches (091-119) being archived because of a problem and then being moved. The next note is from Miss Jenn announcing the entire series is being archived. Sounds like a sledge hammer being used to drive a tack to me.

I was wondering about that as well, and I'd sure love to get more information about it! Which, by the way is why I wish that people would keep their opinions on power trails, medians, and football teams out of this thread!!

Thank you.

I too was wondering about the axe coming down on the power trail when one moment you get a notice from the CO about some being achived and then Miss Jenn mostly a reveiwer comes out to say that they all are being achived.

I had been watching this since Oct. last year and haddn't seen any indication of problems from the trail until recently. Even had e-mailed the CO's last week to let them know what our intensions were in regrads to doing the run and at that time they haddn't said anything about the situation getting to this point. I have booked airfare tickets for 4 to do this run and now have to figure another plan. So now it's up to Plan D. I thought that maybe a warning would have been a better idea from Groundspeak with a time limit as to achiving would have been a better way to go. Seen that there are others out there in the same shoes expecting a chance to do the trail.

Just a little more notice in advance would have been nice I thought.

Maybe you could be part of the clean-up crew when they go out and pick up all the caches.

[bradleyhenley]

StarBrand, on 01 March 2011 - 02:44 PM, said:

bradleyhenley, on 01 March 2011 - 02:38 PM, said:

Zeke, on 01 March 2011 - 01:35 PM, said:

Now if they would just outlaw caches placed in the medians of divided roadways.

The geocaches in the medians and on bridges are against the guidelines of Geocaching.com along with multiple other placements. Please refer to (http://support.Groun...=kb.page&id=306)
But the reviewer will continue to publish all geocache placements.
As I have run into down in East Texas little if any reviewing is being done at this time.
1) Geocache Nano’s approved on bridge guard rails.
2)100's of plastic geocache placements in the National Forest (that are prone to controlled burns every other year) with no permit being filed or approved.
3) I have seen a geocache on the big blue U.S. Post box outside the local post that had been active for just under 5 years with 80+ smiles.

Geocache - Responsibly
http://www.geocacheresponsibly.info

1 - not all bridges are off limits to Geocaches
2 - I know of no restriction in local National forests for either permits or metal boxes - so it isn't universal
3 - Did you post the appropriate NA log on that cache - it is possible the reviewer was unaware of the actual loaction.

The reviewers do not review for safety issues. But they do respond when offcials in the area have safety concerns.

1) As far as bridges - Ask Prime Reviewer - When I wanted to place a bridge series - I was told that placing any caches no mater what size near a bridge was against the guidelines of geocaching. Being that when a bridge would be maintained the cache could be considered a bomb. Note the multiple bomb scares recently.

2) As for the National Forest restrictions and permits. The National Forest, State Parks, and Historical sights/Markers all fall under Federal rule. Which are under several different reglatory offices. example the southern National Forest Referance (http://www.fs.fed.us...y_fs_manual.pdf) And before you comment on the law stating Atlanta, Georga. Atlanta, Georgia is where the regional office is for region 8.

3)I have stated "NM" and "NA"
on the mail box it was Archived with hast.
on the National Forest that has created another issue that is getting resolved but it will take some time. There are 100's of caches with several different owners.

Ignorance is no longer an excuse. Please learn your states laws associated with Geocaching. We would like the sport to continue for a long time.

[bradleyhenley]

BBWolf+3Pigs, on 01 March 2011 - 02:44 PM, said:

bradleyhenley, on 01 March 2011 - 02:38 PM, said:

Zeke, on 01 March 2011 - 01:35 PM, said:

Now if they would just outlaw caches placed in the medians of divided roadways.

The geocaches in the medians and on bridges are against the guidelines of Geocaching.com along with multiple other placements. Please refer to (http://support.Groun...=kb.page&id=306)

Nothing about medians in there that I can see.

Cache is problematic due to its ""proximity"" to a public structure ""including and not limited"" to highway bridges, dams, government buildings, military bases, schools, hospitals, airports and other such locations.

prox•im•i•ty 
–noun
nearness in place, time, order, occurrence, or relation.

[bradleyhenley]

MooseJawSpruce, on 01 March 2011 - 02:49 PM, said:

bradleyhenley, on 01 March 2011 - 02:38 PM, said:

Geocache - Responsibly
http://www.geocacheresponsibly.info

Huh, interesting link.

This is my attempt to get the information together for future referance

[BuckeyeClan]

masterninja50, on 01 March 2011 - 03:37 PM, said:

knowschad, on 01 March 2011 - 03:13 PM, said:

jholly, on 01 March 2011 - 02:59 PM, said:

GOF and Bacall, on 01 March 2011 - 02:14 PM, said:

I don't know the reasons for the action now being taken but I sure would like to. Or more exactly I sure would like those who plan on placing other power trails to know. It would be nice if the mistakes could be avoided in the future.

The CO's logged a note regarding 18 caches (091-119) being archived because of a problem and then being moved. The next note is from Miss Jenn announcing the entire series is being archived. Sounds like a sledge hammer being used to drive a tack to me.

I was wondering about that as well, and I'd sure love to get more information about it! Which, by the way is why I wish that people would keep their opinions on power trails, medians, and football teams out of this thread!!

Thank you.

I too was wondering about the axe coming down on the power trail when one moment you get a notice from the CO about some being achived and then Miss Jenn mostly a reveiwer comes out to say that they all are being achived.

I had been watching this since Oct. last year and haddn't seen any indication of problems from the trail until recently. Even had e-mailed the CO's last week to let them know what our intensions were in regrads to doing the run and at that time they haddn't said anything about the situation getting to this point. I have booked airfare tickets for 4 to do this run and now have to figure another plan. So now it's up to Plan D. I thought that maybe a warning would have been a better idea from Groundspeak with a time limit as to achiving would have been a better way to go. Seen that there are others out there in the same shoes expecting a chance to do the trail.

Just a little more notice in advance would have been nice I thought.

If Groundspeak got word from somebody official that these caches were not supposed to be there, they would (I assume) proceed to archive them immediately. Groundspeak probably won't give the details as to why they are being archived because of confidentiality. And since they locked the cache pages to prevent them from becoming "forums", the CO's can't post a reason there. Hopefully the CO's will post something to this thread to explain everything; if not, we won't likely find out the whole story.

[BBWolf+3Pigs]

bradleyhenley, on 01 March 2011 - 04:14 PM, said:

BBWolf+3Pigs, on 01 March 2011 - 02:44 PM, said:

bradleyhenley, on 01 March 2011 - 02:38 PM, said:

Zeke, on 01 March 2011 - 01:35 PM, said:

Now if they would just outlaw caches placed in the medians of divided roadways.

The geocaches in the medians and on bridges are against the guidelines of Geocaching.com along with multiple other placements. Please refer to (http://support.Groun...=kb.page&id=306)

Nothing about medians in there that I can see.

Cache is problematic due to its ""proximity"" to a public structure ""including and not limited"" to highway bridges, dams, government buildings, military bases, schools, hospitals, airports and other such locations.

prox•im•i•ty 
–noun
nearness in place, time, order, occurrence, or relation.

But what does proximity to bridges or other public structures have to do with medians? Medians can be miles from any of the listed items. It's the prox•im•i•ty that's the issue, not the fact that it's a median.

[bradleyhenley]

GOF and Bacall, on 01 March 2011 - 02:49 PM, said:

bradleyhenley, on 01 March 2011 - 02:38 PM, said:

Zeke, on 01 March 2011 - 01:35 PM, said:

Now if they would just outlaw caches placed in the medians of divided roadways.

The geocaches in the medians and on bridges are against the guidelines of Geocaching.com along with multiple other placements. Please refer to (http://support.Groun...=kb.page&id=306)
But the reviewer will continue to publish all geocache placements.
As I have run into down in East Texas little if any reviewing is being done at this time.
1) Geocache Nano’s approved on bridge guard rails.
2)100's of plastic geocache placements in the National Forest (that are prone to controlled burns every other year) with no permit being filed or approved.
3) I have seen a geocache on the big blue U.S. Post box outside the local post that had been active for just under 5 years with 80+ smiles.

Geocache - Responsibly
http://www.geocacheresponsibly.info

Stop making up your own rules.

Please refer to original responce I do not make up rules. I have just informed myself as best I could.