VDOT Bans

[+JL_HSTRE]

Last year, Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) explicitly banned geocaches on guardrails. This summer they also explicitly banned caches at rest areas.

 

From a log I cam across:

"I learned today that as of 7/8/2012, VDOT is extending the prohibition of geocaches to all Virginia rest areas as well as other VDOT maintained property. Placing, seeking, finding or monitoring a cache on VDOT-controlled property will be considered a crime, a violation of Title 24 of the Virginia Administrative Code, a Class IV Misdemeanor."

 

I know by a strict interpretation of existing laws in most states placing things on state highway property is already technically a no-no, but it's not actively enforced.

 

1) I wonder if this law would apply to non-physical caches too? Other geocache listing sites still have Virtuals, an Earthcache at a rest area is unlikely but not necessarily impossible, and of course you could have an offset multi where you stopped at rest area(s) and got info on signs that gave you coords for a cache not on the interstate. I'd assume they would remain legal otherwise they have to start questioning everyone who reads a sign or takes a photo at a rest area. (Leaving the GPS in the car might be a good idea though...)

 

2) Did anything happen - bomb scares, accidents, etc - to trigger VDOT's explicit ban?

 

3) Have any other states instituted a similiar ban? I seem to recall SC having a guardrail ban last year, but I'm not certain and had no idea if any other states had done so recently. OTOH, I recall Nevada DOT being the reason the original ET Highway got pulled only to have them be persuaded by local business owners to reverse their ruling not long afterwards.

 

4) Do you think this will eventually lead to many/most states explicitly banning geocaches at rest areas and along state/federal highways within their borders? Or do you think states like VA are an exception?

[Chino1130]

It's probably the fear of the state's liability. They don't need someone getting killed by a truck while inspecting a guardrail. Sadly, in today's world, a scumbag of a lawyer would be able to get rule in favor of the hit cacher.

[jholly]

I seem to recall a discussion about Wisconsin or some other state banning caches in rest areas. The reason given was because of safety concerns. All the western states I have traveled in have geocaches in rest areas. I would think it would need some catalyst event to cause the ban of geocaches in rest areas in most other states.

 

The lay out of the original ET, in my opinion, was asking for trouble. Route 66, for the most part, and the current ET you can pull off the road and have your wheels to the right of the fog line and the caches are not located near blind curves. There were some newspaper articles and the local business did have some influence. It appears that geocaching was pumping money into the local economy.

[+The A-Team]

The British Columbia Ministry of Transportation is in the midst of drafting up their Geocaching policy. In August 2011, they sent a letter to Groundspeak requesting that they not publish any caches along MoT-owned or operated roads (triggered by an incident in one part of the province). This includes any numbered highway in the province. Within days of this directive, there were already hundreds of caches that were on hold because they were placed near MoT roads. It wasn't until June 2012 that they agreed to pull their letter while the policy is being drafted up. It still remains to be seen what the end result is when the policy is complete. Many caches placed along numbered highways may need to be archived.

[+SwineFlew]

Last year, Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) explicitly banned geocaches on guardrails. This summer they also explicitly banned caches at rest areas.

 

From a log I cam across:

"I learned today that as of 7/8/2012, VDOT is extending the prohibition of geocaches to all Virginia rest areas as well as other VDOT maintained property. Placing, seeking, finding or monitoring a cache on VDOT-controlled property will be considered a crime, a violation of Title 24 of the Virginia Administrative Code, a Class IV Misdemeanor."

 

I know by a strict interpretation of existing laws in most states placing things on state highway property is already technically a no-no, but it's not actively enforced.

 

1) I wonder if this law would apply to non-physical caches too? Other geocache listing sites still have Virtuals, an Earthcache at a rest area is unlikely but not necessarily impossible, and of course you could have an offset multi where you stopped at rest area(s) and got info on signs that gave you coords for a cache not on the interstate. I'd assume they would remain legal otherwise they have to start questioning everyone who reads a sign or takes a photo at a rest area. (Leaving the GPS in the car might be a good idea though...)

 

2) Did anything happen - bomb scares, accidents, etc - to trigger VDOT's explicit ban?

 

3) Have any other states instituted a similiar ban? I seem to recall SC having a guardrail ban last year, but I'm not certain and had no idea if any other states had done so recently. OTOH, I recall Nevada DOT being the reason the original ET Highway got pulled only to have them be persuaded by local business owners to reverse their ruling not long afterwards.

4) Do you think this will eventually lead to many/most states explicitly banning geocaches at rest areas and along state/federal highways within their borders? Or do you think states like VA are an exception?

 

I do feel that many states will go down this path. Geocaching is getting too popular and it will kill our hobby someday. There is going to be someone with some serious beef against geocaching and will lobby their way to ban geocaching. It starts small and build up from there.

[jholly]

 

I do feel that many states will go down this path. Geocaching is getting too popular and it will kill our hobby someday. There is going to be someone with some serious beef against geocaching and will lobby their way to ban geocaching. It starts small and build up from there.

I would argue that being popular is the reason it will not be killed. Lots of people will be up in arms and remind their elected officials that besides geocaching they also vote.

[+SwineFlew]

 

I do feel that many states will go down this path. Geocaching is getting too popular and it will kill our hobby someday. There is going to be someone with some serious beef against geocaching and will lobby their way to ban geocaching. It starts small and build up from there.

I would argue that being popular is the reason it will not be killed. Lots of people will be up in arms and remind their elected officials that besides geocaching they also vote.

The number of people that geocache wont influence vote. Why? Geocaching is world wide and only a handful of cachers in any given area. (beside the ET drama)

[4wheelin_fool]

Cachers need to use common sense when hiding and not believe that they are entitled to hide things anywhere the general public may be allowed. Being on the side of a busy road is fine for other activities such as emergency stopping, but not necessarily for caching. The attitude that " since they don't have a geocaching policy we can do what we want" is wrong.

[+Sol seaker]

I do agree with 4Wheelin Fool. We need to be smart about it.

Just because Groundspeak doesn't have safety rules (and can't have them) doesn't mean we should ignore people's safety when placing them on public roads. We need to do this to keep our sport safe as much as for the safety of the participants.

 

In WA State caching was outlawed in Olympic National forest, and I think the State Parks were having problems with it for a while.

 

Our WA State geocaching association jumped on it and worked with the agencies and got caching reinstated at Olympic National Park (at least on a limited trial basis, and they have also got caches at a major Seattle Park again. The state parks now have a permit system for the caches. This makes them allowed in the park still.

 

I wouldn't get too discouraged.

If Virginia caches work with the agencies in question they might work out a working agreement between them.

 

For one park (Cougar Mtn with something like 70 caches in the park) the agreement is to keep the caches within reach of the trail among other things.

 

We just have to work with the agencies and find out what their concerns are and what they want. Many will work things out with us.

 

Discovery park took years to get caches back in the park, but every year cachers did a CITO that eventually had an effect on the management. They came to some agreements there too. They did a trial cache, and now we have a few caches there.

 

This game has gotten big enough where we just can't pretend we're invisible anymore.

We are here, and we are big.

 

We just have to start acting like we're here and we're big.

[+Amorak]

Don't forget that these are YOUR roads and parks, if YOU want caching to continue in these areas then YOU MUST make yourself heard. If the politicians won't listen then get them booted out of office!

[Mr.Yuck]

 

I do feel that many states will go down this path. Geocaching is getting too popular and it will kill our hobby someday. There is going to be someone with some serious beef against geocaching and will lobby their way to ban geocaching. It starts small and build up from there.

I would argue that being popular is the reason it will not be killed. Lots of people will be up in arms and remind their elected officials that besides geocaching they also vote.

 

Don't forget that these are YOUR roads and parks, if YOU want caching to continue in these areas then YOU MUST make yourself heard. If the politicians won't listen then get them booted out of office!

 

Guys, guys, c'mon. You really don't know what a fringe minority we are? Think about your own area. I live in a metro area of 1,000,000 people. What, about 500 people have found a Geocache? We are not going to grab our torches and pitchforks, and vote the bums out.

[+Indotguy]

Don't forget that these are YOUR roads and parks, if YOU want caching to continue in these areas then YOU MUST make yourself heard. If the politicians won't listen then get them booted out of office!

 

Yea right. Good luck with that.

[+Manville Possum]

Don't forget that these are YOUR roads and parks, if YOU want caching to continue in these areas then YOU MUST make yourself heard. If the politicians won't listen then get them booted out of office!

I'm not good at searching the forums here, but as a resident of the Commonwealth that had to relocate some of my listings to comply, I remember the issue. It was politics. Two geocachers could not get along and one had a friend that was high up in VDOT. One geocacher with an agenda is to blame.

 

Seems this is the original thread, which is locked now. That's my key to leave.

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=272212&hl=vdot ban&st=0

Edited August 29, 2012 by Manville Possum Hunters

[+The_Incredibles_]

This is a shame and I hope nothing similar happens here (we live in Canada).

 

I understand banning caches along side of a busy road, but can't understand banning them at rest stops.

 

Caches at rest stops are something we really look forward to when we travel and I don't see the harm in them.

[+OZ2CPU]

lets ban :

people take a leak anywhere other people also walk (it smeels bad)

bad dog owners (we are tired of walking arround in their left poo)

people throw their trash anywhere they exist, it looks bad.

 

when this is solved, I say yes, lets move a few of the most badly located caches

so seekers are in no danger to normal traffic.

But do we realize anyone who transport him self from one location to another

is a pain to others who do the same ?

my life is MUCH easier if all other people just stay home, the whole day...

realistic ??

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Cachers need to use common sense when hiding and not believe that they are entitled to hide things anywhere the general public may be allowed. Being on the side of a busy road is fine for other activities such as emergency stopping, but not necessarily for caching. The attitude that " since they don't have a geocaching policy we can do what we want" is wrong.

 

I agree with this and want to elaborate. While the relative numbers of geocachers to the general population is small, it's become mainstream enough such that organizations like VDOT, BLM, National and State park services are almost forced to adopt some sort of geocaching policy for the land these organizations manage. An official geocaching policy is not, per se, bad but as a community we want a policy that is favorable (even if it is not ideal) to geocaching. It's unclear how much research any of these organizations might take before adopting a policy but it's likely that policies are based upon the perception someone at the organization get about what geocaching is all about and how the game is played. If a large part of that perception is derived from "Suspected bomb turns out to be a geocache" headlines the policy adopted is probably not going to be very favorable.

 

As players in this game we are all potential ambassadors. Whenever we hide a cache, that might be the one that is used as an example for how geocaches are hidden. Whenever we go out and find caches, the approach we take in an attempt to find them may be used as an example of how geocachers play the game. Yes, we have guidelines which mostly determine whether or not a cache can be published but that only defines whether a cache *can* be published. We also need to consider whether or not a cache *should* be placed in a certain spot and the criteria for that simply boils down to whether the placement might create an unfavorable impression about geocaching to non-geocachers.

[+DanOCan]

Caches in rest stops are often the only ones I find when traveling. When pulling an RV it's often difficult to find a place where you can park safely while finding caches along the route.

 

Banning caches on guardrails along highways isn't necessarily a bad idea, but removing them from rest stops sounds like an agency sliding down that slippery slope we're always worried about.

[Chino1130]

Maybe when logging a cache there should be some sort of opinionated flag option along the lines of unsafe or poor placement. If enough people flag it as such, maybe the CO will take it upon themselves to move it to another location.

[+OZ2CPU]

>Maybe when logging a cache there should be some sort of opinionated flag option along the lines of unsafe or poor placement.

>If enough people flag it as such, maybe the CO will take it upon themselves to move it to another location.

 

we are allready encuraged to express our true feeling about all caches we find,

in the normal log text.

if you really like some caches, feel free to give it a favorite,

if you really dislike for safety reasons too, use the NA or even write to a reviewer,

if you do care, use your options, and not just TFTC.

Edited August 29, 2012 by OZ2CPU

[Mr.Yuck]

Don't forget that these are YOUR roads and parks, if YOU want caching to continue in these areas then YOU MUST make yourself heard. If the politicians won't listen then get them booted out of office!

I'm not good at searching the forums here, but as a resident of the Commonwealth that had to relocate some of my listings to comply, I remember the issue. It was politics. Two geocachers could not get along and one had a friend that was high up in VDOT. One geocacher with an agenda is to blame.

 

Seems this is the original thread, which is locked now. That's my key to leave.

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=272212&hl=vdot ban&st=0

 

I was going to add something along that lines as a second paragraph to my first post in the thread. You know, where I said we're a fringe minority, and are not going to grab our torches and pitchforks?

 

I did not remember for sure, and did not want post anything though. However, it is clear the VDOT ban came about from Geo-drama, and a disgruntled Geocacher "reporting" Geocaches to them.

 

Anyone want to make a "I Geocache and I Vote" bumper sticker though?

 

I love regular sized rest stop caches in the woods. I even professed my love last time.

[AZcachemeister]

>Maybe when logging a cache there should be some sort of opinionated flag option along the lines of unsafe or poor placement.

>If enough people flag it as such, maybe the CO will take it upon themselves to move it to another location.

 

we are allready encuraged to express our true feeling about all caches we find,

in the normal log text.

if you really like some caches, feel free to give it a favorite,

if you really dislike for safety reasons too, use the NA or even write to a reviewer,

if you do care, use your options, and not just TFTC.

 

The problem is 'Is the CO willing to listen to reason?', or will they simply delete your log?

If you fight to get it re-instated, will Groundspeak look beyond the general criticism and see that there may be a real issue at hand?

 

Sadly, it will take state laws to get anything done, and even then the reviewer will likely not be able to tell if a cache is 'on a guardrail' until someone reports it.

And then it will only matter if Groundspeak tells them not to publish such caches.

[+Ike 13]

The best thing to do is work with the organization before bans come down. Work with them on coming up with rules for placing a cache on their property that lets them feel safe and gives us some leeway. I'm not going to cry over losing caches on guardrails on the side of the road. It is a shame they are no longer allowing them at rest stops. I can see them not wanting people to walk across the entrance where cars come speeding in, but I don't see why you have to elminate them completly.

[+bflentje]

I know that Virginia is home to THE MOST DENSE population of fear mongering politicians than anywhere else in the country. Good luck to you.

[+AneMae]

Some CO's don't take into account common sense and safety. GC33GRH Was placed on an island of land bordered by three major highways- the only way to access it was to stop on one of these roads. There are no designated stop areas and to boot there is a major busy truck stop on the corner.

Oh, and it was on land owned by the Ministry of Transportation without permission. When they found out about it the terms "disaster waiting to happen" and "grossly negligent to put people there" were used. I would imagine this raised a few red flags and they, like other jurisdictions they will come out with their own policy soon enough. All because one CO was more interested in his cache than the well being of others.

 

And yes, it was me that brought this to the local community safety committee I sit on, the local police force and the ministry officials- all of us were in agreement. Call me a "cache cop" if you want- I will NOT sit around and let other geocachers put the people in my community at undue risk for the sake of a game.

On the same hand Cachers looking for this cache should also have had enough sense to realize the danger they were placing themselves in, and taken action to be pro-active and report the situation. Instead they gave it a bunch of favourite points. I think we are in an age where common sense and critical thinking are things of the past.

 

On another note- if a reviewer had taken a close look this one should not have been published int he first place.

I have asked GS to specifically detail how reviewers are selected and what type of training/guidance they receive- so far they just wont answer me. I find it concerning that I have found caches that clearly violate the guidelines (most in a minor way) that are approved by reviewers, then later on logged by the same reviewer as a find (under their caching name), yes we know who they are here, rather than dealt with as they should be.

 

People get so wrapped up and obsessed in this game that they ignore some of the basic principals that will keep it "healthy" In the end Geocaching will suffer with more rules and bans placed on it by outside agencies- Like provincial, state and federal agencies. It is already happening. What is GS doing about it?

[+OZ2CPU]

less people on rest places, with loose running arround kids and dogs = less problems = less chance of bad accidents ?

----------

I must say I do see the point if they think:

less caches on guardrails = less people stopping near them,

less people looking at the rails and not cars and such,

while people do wierd things near the rails,

other people look at that, not mind the road and important stuff,

hi risk of accidents.

[Mr.Yuck]

Some CO's don't take into account common sense and safety. GC33GRH Was placed on an island of land bordered by three major highways- the only way to access it was to stop on one of these roads. There are no designated stop areas and to boot there is a major busy truck stop on the corner.

Oh, and it was on land owned by the Ministry of Transportation without permission. When they found out about it the terms "disaster waiting to happen" and "grossly negligent to put people there" were used. I would imagine this raised a few red flags and they, like other jurisdictions they will come out with their own policy soon enough. All because one CO was more interested in his cache than the well being of others.

 

And yes, it was me that brought this to the local community safety committee I sit on, the local police force and the ministry officials- all of us were in agreement. Call me a "cache cop" if you want- I will NOT sit around and let other geocachers put the people in my community at undue risk for the sake of a game.

 

 

I agree, a horrifically stupid place for a cache, and I can't believe no one was ever stopped by law enforcement while searching for it. (Assuming they all parked on the on-ramp).

 

But please tell me you didn't have anything to do with it repeatedly going missing.

[+J the Goat]

Some CO's don't take into account common sense and safety. GC33GRH Was placed on an island of land bordered by three major highways- the only way to access it was to stop on one of these roads. There are no designated stop areas and to boot there is a major busy truck stop on the corner.

Oh, and it was on land owned by the Ministry of Transportation without permission. When they found out about it the terms "disaster waiting to happen" and "grossly negligent to put people there" were used. I would imagine this raised a few red flags and they, like other jurisdictions they will come out with their own policy soon enough. All because one CO was more interested in his cache than the well being of others.

 

And yes, it was me that brought this to the local community safety committee I sit on, the local police force and the ministry officials- all of us were in agreement. Call me a "cache cop" if you want- I will NOT sit around and let other geocachers put the people in my community at undue risk for the sake of a game.

On the same hand Cachers looking for this cache should also have had enough sense to realize the danger they were placing themselves in, and taken action to be pro-active and report the situation. Instead they gave it a bunch of favourite points. I think we are in an age where common sense and critical thinking are things of the past.

 

On another note- if a reviewer had taken a close look this one should not have been published int he first place.

I have asked GS to specifically detail how reviewers are selected and what type of training/guidance they receive- so far they just wont answer me. I find it concerning that I have found caches that clearly violate the guidelines (most in a minor way) that are approved by reviewers, then later on logged by the same reviewer as a find (under their caching name), yes we know who they are here, rather than dealt with as they should be.

 

People get so wrapped up and obsessed in this game that they ignore some of the basic principals that will keep it "healthy" In the end Geocaching will suffer with more rules and bans placed on it by outside agencies- Like provincial, state and federal agencies. It is already happening. What is GS doing about it?

 

GS has absolutely no obligation to explain their process of finding/training reviewers to you or anyone else. Your idea of safety may becompletely different than somebody elses. I refuse to let people with your attitude dictate how and where I can go geocaching, your word isn't gospel. Deal with it.

 

That being said, this issues is another example of how "numbers cachers" and folks who put a cacher here just because there isn't one here can affect the game for the rest of us. Rest stop caches can be quality caches. Getting them banned because of altoids tins on guardrails just goes to show that. Unfortunately, those who cache irresponsibly won't recognize that and there will be more and more agencys that decide they don't want to deal with cachers at all based on a small minority that give the rest of us a bad name in said agency's eyes. Will caching get a complete ban? Nope, not a chance I say. Will we see more of this kind of unfortunate policy? Absolutely.

[+AneMae]

No I never touched the cache. What would be the point of that? People would still come to look for it. I used local resources and the tools set up by GS to deal with it- re: the NA option. Sadly many seem to be afraid to use that when it is truly required. The fact that a large number of "experienced" cachers let this one slide really makes me wonder where their heads are? Too focused on the find and numbers to the exclusion of major issues & violations.

[+AneMae]

Some CO's don't take into account common sense and safety. GC33GRH Was placed on an island of land bordered by three major highways- the only way to access it was to stop on one of these roads. There are no designated stop areas and to boot there is a major busy truck stop on the corner.

Oh, and it was on land owned by the Ministry of Transportation without permission. When they found out about it the terms "disaster waiting to happen" and "grossly negligent to put people there" were used. I would imagine this raised a few red flags and they, like other jurisdictions they will come out with their own policy soon enough. All because one CO was more interested in his cache than the well being of others.

 

And yes, it was me that brought this to the local community safety committee I sit on, the local police force and the ministry officials- all of us were in agreement. Call me a "cache cop" if you want- I will NOT sit around and let other geocachers put the people in my community at undue risk for the sake of a game.

On the same hand Cachers looking for this cache should also have had enough sense to realize the danger they were placing themselves in, and taken action to be pro-active and report the situation. Instead they gave it a bunch of favourite points. I think we are in an age where common sense and critical thinking are things of the past.

 

On another note- if a reviewer had taken a close look this one should not have been published int he first place.

I have asked GS to specifically detail how reviewers are selected and what type of training/guidance they receive- so far they just wont answer me. I find it concerning that I have found caches that clearly violate the guidelines (most in a minor way) that are approved by reviewers, then later on logged by the same reviewer as a find (under their caching name), yes we know who they are here, rather than dealt with as they should be.

 

People get so wrapped up and obsessed in this game that they ignore some of the basic principals that will keep it "healthy" In the end Geocaching will suffer with more rules and bans placed on it by outside agencies- Like provincial, state and federal agencies. It is already happening. What is GS doing about it?

 

GS has absolutely no obligation to explain their process of finding/training reviewers to you or anyone else. Your idea of safety may becompletely different than somebody elses. I refuse to let people with your attitude dictate how and where I can go geocaching, your word isn't gospel. Deal with it.

 

That being said, this issues is another example of how "numbers cachers" and folks who put a cacher here just because there isn't one here can affect the game for the rest of us. Rest stop caches can be quality caches. Getting them banned because of altoids tins on guardrails just goes to show that. Unfortunately, those who cache irresponsibly won't recognize that and there will be more and more agencys that decide they don't want to deal with cachers at all based on a small minority that give the rest of us a bad name in said agency's eyes. Will caching get a complete ban? Nope, not a chance I say. Will we see more of this kind of unfortunate policy? Absolutely.

 

GS is responsible for having caches placed and approved in my community (and yours) . Because of that reason alone they absolutely have a responsibility to explain in detail the process' and tools used by reviewers to get these caches approved. They also have the same responsibility to explain to CO's when caches are not approved. If they are going to set up and run this service they should be openly accountable. They must be if they wish to be a part of the community in a positive light. If they are not open and accountable, and dangerous situations are found, or public resources are used up (i.e.. bomb threats) then you will see limitations placed on caching by everything from local to national governments. It won't be long until one community has a situation arise that is of enough concern to them that they will make a by-law (or regulation) banning all caches in their jurisdiction.

[+bflentje]

It won't be long until one community has a situation arise that is of enough concern to them that they will make a by-law (or regulation) banning all caches in their jurisdiction.

 

Fortunately, there are still some community authorities out there that are reasonable. Sad to hear that VDOT isn't one of them.

[+cerberus1]

I'd think that any safety concerns a State had with caches in rest areas may be countered with the rest area hide itself.

Much safer to travel taking breaks along the way, instead of pushing on, maybe fatigued and innattentive.

By getting out of the car at intervals, taking a nice stroll, getting fresh air... now awake and alert, wouldn't that make a safer drive?

Here in PA, the turnpike commission has asked for a study on the effects of caching at their rest stops. Groundspeak has temp disabled caches at turnpike rests. Once the PTC has completed a study of caches placed in rest areas, Groundspeak will contact the cache owner with instructions to enable the listing as-is, to move the cache to an approved spot in the rest area, or to archive the listing.

Not sure if it's for safety concerns, possible damage to the areas, or impact on flora/fauna/other visitors, but this is the government - it could take years.

Yet our second-longest interstate (80) has them. We've talked to managers of many rest areas who know of the hides and most say they're happy folks take the time to get off the road.

[+Mike & Jess]

Maybe when logging a cache there should be some sort of opinionated flag option along the lines of unsafe or poor placement. If enough people flag it as such, maybe the CO will take it upon themselves to move it to another location.

 

Needs Archive

 

This with a note will bring the cache to the local reviewer's attention and should bring a solution to the specific cache's safety issues.

[+emmett]

.

 

Interesting that government recognizes what the GC.com powers that be have not - caches on guardrails are foolish at best and dangerous at worst. If this government prohibition expands to other states, maybe GC.com will finally have to give quality caching some thought.

 

.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

No I never touched the cache. What would be the point of that? People would still come to look for it. I used local resources and the tools set up by GS to deal with it- re: the NA option. Sadly many seem to be afraid to use that when it is truly required. The fact that a large number of "experienced" cachers let this one slide really makes me wonder where their heads are? Too focused on the find and numbers to the exclusion of major issues & violations.

 

This sounds like an example of a cache that *can* be published because reviewer do not consider safety issues related to finding the cache, but one that probably *should not* have been placed, or *should* be archived and removed by the cache owner.

 

If the cache only has safety issues (but otherwise does not violate any guidelines) a reviewer might not archive it. When does a cache cross the boundary from safe to unsafe? Do we really want our reviewers making that subjective determination? I suspect that most geocachers would rather make the decision themselves whether or not a specific cache is safe to retrieve.

[Mr.Yuck]

I'd think that any safety concerns a State had with caches in rest areas may be countered with the rest area hide itself.

Much safer to travel taking breaks along the way, instead of pushing on, maybe fatigued and innattentive.

By getting out of the car at intervals, taking a nice stroll, getting fresh air... now awake and alert, wouldn't that make a safer drive?

Here in PA, the turnpike commission has asked for a study on the effects of caching at their rest stops. Groundspeak has temp disabled caches at turnpike rests. Once the PTC has completed a study of caches placed in rest areas, Groundspeak will contact the cache owner with instructions to enable the listing as-is, to move the cache to an approved spot in the rest area, or to archive the listing.

Not sure if it's for safety concerns, possible damage to the areas, or impact on flora/fauna/other visitors, but this is the government - it could take years.

Yet our second-longest interstate (80) has them. We've talked to managers of many rest areas who know of the hides and most say they're happy folks take the time to get off the road.

 

Interesting. Although the first Pa. Turnpike (I-76) rest stop I looked at has 2 caches at it, and only one is disabled. I'm sure there's a logical explanation for that though, I can't imagine the reviewer missed one. I wonder why the Turnpike Commission wanted to undertake this study. Any idea?

[+JL_HSTRE]

Nice point about encouraging people to stop and take a short break while driving long distances is good.

 

Some rest area hides can seen as unsafe because finding them requires crossing parking areas - usually without crosswalks and often involving large semis. I'd imagine there is also some concern about terrorism risks with caches close to the rest area buildings.

[+SwineFlew]

Nice point about encouraging people to stop and take a short break while driving long distances is good.

 

Some rest area hides can seen as unsafe because finding them requires crossing parking areas - usually without crosswalks and often involving large semis. I'd imagine there is also some concern about terrorism risks with caches close to the rest area buildings.

I owe 4 rest stop caches and I will say that most people that find it were glad to be able to stop and take a break. All of my rest stop caches are not near any buildings for a reason. And all of them are away from the parking alots and roads.

 

I found a cache at a rest stop could can be dangerous. Its location in one of those islands in the middle of the parking alot. The cache last for years without getting muggled. I wonder why.

[+AneMae]

Some safety issues are glaringly obvious:

 

 

I would expect any reasonable person/cacher to do the right thing when they come up on something as obvious as this.

No, my word is not gospel, but it has gotten 100% of the caches I posted NA logs for dealt with, and made caching not only safer but better in my community . So apparently my words do have power.

Bottom line: Step up and do the right thing when you see something that is clearly wrong and places people at risk.

That could be anything from an NA log to let a reviewer decide to removing it on the spot- that would be your call to make.

I do not sit on fences- I take actions.

 

As we have seen other organizations (like the VDOT) are taking actions as well. Bad CO's and cachers made this mess, it will be up to the good ones to try to turn it around.

[+TL&MinBHIL]

Interesting that government recognizes what the GC.com powers that be have not - caches on guardrails are foolish at best and dangerous at worst. If this government prohibition expands to other states, maybe GC.com will finally have to give quality caching some thought.

"Quality caches" is a relative term. There are those who don't mind, or downright enjoy, doing guardrails & LPC's. What's foolish to you may not be to others. Not to mention, not all guardrail caches are created equal. One that comes to mind is one that we came across. There were identical reflective strips on either side of the guardrail. Turned out to be one was stuck on and one was magnetic with the log on the back. We thought it was clever, brought challenge to an otherwise typical hunt, and we thoroughly enjoyed it.

 

The problem I see here begs the question, where does Govt. intervention stop? OK, so they ban guardrail caches...and not because you don't like them, but because it can place the cacher in a dangerous situation. Even though I don't mind finding them, I can understand that. But then they step in and ban them from rest stops. No danger involved as they're usually placed out of harm's way. Oh sure, there's always a chance for an accident and I assume the Govt. doesn't want to be held responsible since it's on State property, but there's a chance of an accident anywhere we cache. So what's next, where else does the Govt. decide to ban them? If this "government prohibition" (as you call it) expands, where does it stop? Municipalities could then decide to ban city park caches because there's risk of an accident (or whatever the excuse the State is using to ban them at rest stops). Things could get out of control.

[+SwineFlew]

Some safety issues are glaringly obvious:

 

 

I would expect any reasonable person/cacher to do the right thing when they come up on something as obvious as this.

No, my word is not gospel, but it has gotten 100% of the caches I posted NA logs for dealt with, and made caching not only safer but better in my community . So apparently my words do have power.

Bottom line: Step up and do the right thing when you see something that is clearly wrong and places people at risk.

That could be anything from an NA log to let a reviewer decide to removing it on the spot- that would be your call to make.

I do not sit on fences- I take actions.

 

As we have seen other organizations (like the VDOT) are taking actions as well. Bad CO's and cachers made this mess, it will be up to the good ones to try to turn it around.

I have to agree with that part. In the early days, they were digging holes and burying caches part way in.

[+frinklabs]

Some safety issues are glaringly obvious:

 

[scary picture removed]

 

I would expect any reasonable person/cacher to do the right thing when they come up on something as obvious as this.

No, my word is not gospel, but it has gotten 100% of the caches I posted NA logs for dealt with, and made caching not only safer but better in my community . So apparently my words do have power.

Bottom line: Step up and do the right thing when you see something that is clearly wrong and places people at risk.

That could be anything from an NA log to let a reviewer decide to removing it on the spot- that would be your call to make.

I do not sit on fences- I take actions.

 

As we have seen other organizations (like the VDOT) are taking actions as well. Bad CO's and cachers made this mess, it will be up to the good ones to try to turn it around.

 

A needs-archived on a clearly unsafe cache doesn't work up here:

 

 

Apparently the reviewers are not the safety police

[+AneMae]

Laws are different everywhere- however in many jurisdictions, If someone got hurt at this cache, let say electrocuted, and they could show that GS, the Reviewer, CO etc.... were aware of the potential hazards and chose not to do anything about it- I would say you would have a good civil case for negligence etc....

All you have to do is convince 12 people, and in a civil case it is NOT beyond a reasonable doubt. It is simply on the basis of probabilities. (Think OJ- he got off criminally but not civilly)

Anyone can say that "they are not responsible" That doesn't make one immune from lawsuits etc....

Even if one were sued and found not negligent think of the entire mess it would make in the mean-time- legal bills, stress, accusations, media reports etc....

 

Why risk it? I can understand why many groups/places would not want caches on their lands- they simply don't want to deal with a potential mess- so it is easier to say no. GS and cachers need to be out there being pro-active- and not simply saying we are not responsible for what we do.

 

And caches like the one you posted above NEED to be dealt with by reviewers. Period.

[4wheelin_fool]

Reviewers should not have to check for safety. However, they sure can check for permission. If someone has a legitimate safety concern, it is best for a cache owner to bring it to the property managers attention, rather than a disgruntled cacher, or muggle. If the cache owner is not interested in contacting anyone for permission, perhaps it should be archived, or temporarily disabled until someone does make contact, rather than having someone else complain to them.

[jholly]

You need to study your law a bit more. In a civil case you only need to convince 9 people. But your right that in a civil case it is only a preponderance not beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

But this safety thing is a real slippery slope for Groundspeak. Yeah, in the case of the lamp post with the wires inside it might be a safety issue, but I would think the government agency is more at risk than GS. This particular case seems fairly black and white, but what about one where you need to do rock climbing or rappelling? Could be that in order to do it you need to be very experienced and near the top of the class. What about someone that does not have the experience or all the equipment needed and they get hurt? Should GS have archived or prevented the publication of the cache because of safety concerns? Or one on an island in a white water river? You could argue that if you don't have the experience and equipment it is not safe. In both cases these can be perfectly fine caches as long as you have the experience and equipment. Only the individual can make that decision, not Groundspeak. If GS rules on safety and someone gets hurt because they did not have the equipment or skill then GS is in a bad position. If GS does not rule on safety then you can not come back on GS. Each individual cacher is responsible for their own safety. If you don't think it is safe don't do it. I have walked away from those types of lamp post caches in the past and will continue to in the future.

[ll JK ll]

Coming from a VA native this is sad news. I can understand VDOT wanting to ban caches on guardrails for safety/liability concerns but banning them at rest areas seems extreme.

 

At least my rest area cache cannot be touched. J.H. Phillips Wayside (along highway 29) borders a nature reserve owned by Randolph College, who gave me permission for the cache I adopted. So, if you're passing through central VA this can be a safe haven for traveling geocachers.

[+briansnat]

Reviewers should not have to check for safety. However, they sure can check for permission. If someone has a legitimate safety concern, it is best for a cache owner to bring it to the property managers attention, rather than a disgruntled cacher, or muggle. If the cache owner is not interested in contacting anyone for permission, perhaps it should be archived, or temporarily disabled until someone does make contact, rather than having someone else complain to them.

 

Exactly. Reviewers do not review for safety. They do review for legality. If a cache can not be accessed legally (e.g. on a median strip where local statutes prohibit non emergency stopping on the highway) they will respond to that. They will also respond to permission issues.

[+J the Goat]

Some safety issues are glaringly obvious:

 

 

I would expect any reasonable person/cacher to do the right thing when they come up on something as obvious as this.

No, my word is not gospel, but it has gotten 100% of the caches I posted NA logs for dealt with, and made caching not only safer but better in my community . So apparently my words do have power.

Bottom line: Step up and do the right thing when you see something that is clearly wrong and places people at risk.

That could be anything from an NA log to let a reviewer decide to removing it on the spot- that would be your call to make.

I do not sit on fences- I take actions.

 

As we have seen other organizations (like the VDOT) are taking actions as well. Bad CO's and cachers made this mess, it will be up to the good ones to try to turn it around.

 

I'm assuming that that's not a cache and is just here for shock value

 

Every one of your caches is dangerous. Every one of mine is. They all pose a threat to whoever seeks them. Lets just archive them all and call it a day. I maintain that safety issues should not be addressed by GS. Legal issues, permission issues, landowner/agency requests? All yes. Judging for safety is in the hands of an individual. If you're enough of an uh.... daredevil to reach into exposed wiring to either place or retrieve a cache, that's all on you. That's dumb. You've made a dumb decision. That's nobody elses fault but your own. If you decide to walk on a busy road to get an altoids tin from the guardrail and you get hit by a car, that's on you. Repelling; on you. Scuba? Yup, that too. Risking getting stung by a bee at a park? Yes. All on the seeker. To suggest otherwise is jsut evidence of the lack of accountability that our culutre seems to have taken on. We're all responsible for our own decisions. If somebody makes a poor decision, they suffer the consequences.

 

I don't advocate caches like the above listed train wrecks. I'd love to see a ban on guardrail caches, walmart parking lot micros, and the like. Not, however due to safety or even quality. Quality means different things to different people as well. The permission issue is where these fall into problems usually though, and like I've stated before, caches placed without permission affect the game for those of us who play by the rules.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Some safety issues are glaringly obvious:

 

But it's not glaringly obvious safety issues that are going to cause drama between reviewers and potential cache owners *if* reviewers considered safety as a criteria for publishing a cache.

 

It's the borderline cases where a CO considers it to be reasonable safe and the reviewer does not, or the case where the reviewer considers a cache safe enough to be published, then someone comes along and thinks it's too dangerous and should be archived.

 

Consider a cache hidden in a tree. If it's 10 feet off the ground is that too dangerous? How about 15 or 20? Every reviewer and every cache owner is going to have their own subjective opinion on the relative safety of a hide, and when they don't agree there's going to be drama.

[+SwineFlew]

There is a shoe tree not too far from where I live and I had like 3 to 4 cachers asking me to place a cache there and I told them, are you NUTS?!?!?! There is no real pull off of any kind near the tree but there is a place to park about .50 of a mile away but most power cachers arent going to park there but on the side of the road with very little shoulders. The speed on that road is well over the posted 55 MPH. Most of the cars are pushing around 65 to 75...some are pushing it higher. I do place caches along roads but they are on roads that dont see any traffic. Oh I know my reviewer will published the cache if I try.

 

I got the area "taken" (if it works) to keep other from placing a cache there. Safely is HUGE issue there(I know someone very personal got killed on that road).

 

Any roads with high risk of accidents does make the state nervous when geocachers are finding caches in guardrails and etc. Its an accident waiting to happen.

[+Glenn]

This isn't the first and won't be the last. I forget which state it was in but in 2005 a law maker proposed a bill that would ban geocaches in all cemeteries, archeological sites, and historical properties statewide. A bunch of geocachers from that state worked tirelessly to make sure that the bill would not passed in to law and they succeeded. It takes a lot of time and effort to get a government to listen to reason but if you get organized it can be done.