View Full Version : Night Cache Placement Guidelines?



CARoperPhotography
05-25-2010, 06:06 PM
Can one of you point me in the correct direction for Groundspeak's Guidelines concerning the placing of a night cache? IE a cache in which you need to follow fire tacks or other reflective thing to the GZ?

Thanks....

brdad
05-25-2010, 06:36 PM
I don't think there are any specific guidelines that apply to night caches. However, regular guidelines would apply, mainly that there is permission to be at the location at night and the guidelines that say you can't "deface public or private property, whether a natural or man-made object, in order to provide a hiding place, a clue or a logging method" - it's a bit of a stretch that fire tacks would be against that guideline, but if you had permission from the property owner I think you'd have a good case.

Usually with these types of caches the more information and proof of permission you can provide the better! Sending me $50 might help as well....

WhereRWe?
05-25-2010, 06:40 PM
I don't think there are any specific guidelines that apply to night caches. However, regular guidelines would apply, mainly that there is permission to be at the location at night and the guidelines that say you can't "deface public or private property, whether a natural or man-made object, in order to provide a hiding place, a clue or a logging method" - it's a bit of a stretch that fire tacks would be against that guideline, but if you had permission from the property owner I think you'd have a good case.

I agree. Good answer Brdad.

But can anyone of you point me in the correct direction for Groundspeak's Guidelines concerning the placing of a guardrail cache? :p:p

brdad
05-25-2010, 06:54 PM
I agree. Good answer Brdad.

But can anyone of you point me in the correct direction for Groundspeak's Guidelines concerning the placing of a guardrail cache? :p:p

It is odd they specifically mention caches on Mars, but fail to mention guardrails!

I still find it hard to believe many GRCs would be allowed if proof of permission was required for them. However, I know a few have been given permission so perhaps I am wrong. A few guard rails are just not a great place to be placing caches IMO. One of my favorite GRCs, 101 DALMATIANS #66 (DAMIEN) (http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=69369978-21d8-4d97-b118-8540dd89b9cb) (GCWF4H) by Cache Maine (http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?id=240936) (1/1) is a great view, but scary to be standing there with the summer traffic whizzing around the corner.

And maybe I am wrong since I have not heard of any cacher getting hit at a guardrail, but I read one local GRC log where a car swerved around a cacher enough to break the side mirror off an oncoming car.

CARoperPhotography
05-25-2010, 09:08 PM
I saw that Mars reference today as I was perusing the official "guidelines"..... are they freakin high at Groundspeak?

Thanks for your assistance Brdad.... I will have to cross all of my t's and dot all my i's with this cache I guess, but I will make it a good one with a micro final in a guardrail after all that hard work in the dark ha ha

CARoperPhotography
05-25-2010, 09:10 PM
It is odd they specifically mention caches on Mars, but fail to mention guardrails!

I still find it hard to believe many GRCs would be allowed if proof of permission was required for them. However, I know a few have been given permission so perhaps I am wrong. A few guard rails are just not a great place to be placing caches IMO. One of my favorite GRCs, 101 DALMATIANS #66 (DAMIEN) (http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=69369978-21d8-4d97-b118-8540dd89b9cb) (GCWF4H) by Cache Maine (http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?id=240936) (1/1) is a great view, but scary to be standing there with the summer traffic whizzing around the corner.

And maybe I am wrong since I have not heard of any cacher getting hit at a guardrail, but I read one local GRC log where a car swerved around a cacher enough to break the side mirror off an oncoming car.

Aren't guardrails put in place by the government, more specifically public works departments, and owned and maintained by them? And come to think of it, the towns own the right of way several feet on the side of public roads hence making these all public property, open to caches without having written permission of a property owner?

brdad
05-25-2010, 09:21 PM
Aren't guardrails put in place by the government, more specifically public works departments, and owned and maintained by them? And come to think of it, the towns own the right of way several feet on the side of public roads hence making these all public property, open to caches without having written permission of a property owner?

I imagine the towns (or state) own (or at minimal have control/right of way over) the land the guardrails are on, maybe the guardrails as well. I do know in the cases where I heard permission was given for a GRC, it was from the MDOT.

Either way, public property does not constitute permission.

CARoperPhotography
05-25-2010, 09:55 PM
I imagine the towns (or state) own (or at minimal have control/right of way over) the land the guardrails are on, maybe the guardrails as well. I do know in the cases where I heard permission was given for a GRC, it was from the MDOT.

Either way, public property does not constitute permission.

Actually, it does. I pay taxes. I am the public. I give myself permission to place my cache on the property of the political municipality that owns said property due to the fact that I pay taxes. Simple as that...

.... and besides, you may of one GRC that had permission, but tell me, how many don't?

brdad
05-25-2010, 10:04 PM
Actually, it does. I pay taxes. I am the public. I give myself permission to place my cache on the property of the political municipality that owns said property due to the fact that I pay taxes. Simple as that...

.... and besides, you may of one GRC that had permission, but tell me, how many don't?

Yeah, our taxes pay for fighter jets too, but every time I try to get into the base to fly one, they make me go home. :D

I am assuming very few GRCs have individual permission. And it is probable that the gc.com guidelines requiring "adequate permission" is good enough for most GRCs. But I would bet you - if a cacher were to get hit by a car while doing a GRC, many if not all GRCs would be banned.

CARoperPhotography
05-25-2010, 10:18 PM
Yeah, our taxes pay for fighter jets too, but every time I try to get into the base to fly one, they make me go home. :D

I am assuming very few GRCs have individual permission. And it is probable that the gc.com guidelines requiring "adequate permission" is good enough for most GRCs. But I would bet you - if a cacher were to get hit by a car while doing a GRC, many if not all GRCs would be banned.

I doubt that many if all GRCs would be banned if a cacher got hit by a car... remember, cachers assume all risk and liability for seeking a cache. So... using your point, then could we say that if a cacher has a tree fall on him deep in the woods while seeking one your Brdad's caches, then all ammo cans deep in the woods will be banned?

There are instances in any placement, that there is the chance that someone will get hurt seeking that cache, minor injury or serious injury and I don't think that Groundspeak would outlaw a certain type of hide due to injury or accident. If this was so, they wouldn't allow caches such as my GC21KNP , or the recently published GC28N8G.

What about when a cacher who is seeking a water access only cache via kayak has his boat capsize and dies? Will Groundspeak outlaw any caches that you need a boat to get to GZ? Doubtful. Sorry but your logic doesn't hold up.

And as far as comparing guardrails and F-16s, there is no comparison so don't even start...

Ekidokai
05-25-2010, 11:09 PM
Well, they both are big and metal.

brdad
05-26-2010, 05:34 AM
I doubt that many if all GRCs would be banned if a cacher got hit by a car... remember, cachers assume all risk and liability for seeking a cache. So... using your point, then could we say that if a cacher has a tree fall on him deep in the woods while seeking one your Brdad's caches, then all ammo cans deep in the woods will be banned?

There are instances in any placement, that there is the chance that someone will get hurt seeking that cache, minor injury or serious injury and I don't think that Groundspeak would outlaw a certain type of hide due to injury or accident. If this was so, they wouldn't allow caches such as my GC21KNP , or the recently published GC28N8G.

What about when a cacher who is seeking a water access only cache via kayak has his boat capsize and dies? Will Groundspeak outlaw any caches that you need a boat to get to GZ? Doubtful. Sorry but your logic doesn't hold up.

And as far as comparing guardrails and F-16s, there is no comparison so don't even start...

My logic is fine. You are misunderstanding who would be banning them. Gc.com would not ban them. Recently a cacher fell off a cliff and died, gc.com did not ban all cliff caches. It would be the DOT/State/Town/Other governing body that would ban them, or at minimal require approval for each individual one. Gc.com rarely explicitly bans caching from any location, and even then they allow for exceptions. However, there are many cases where landowners have banned all caches on their property when one or two caches create problems.

The F-16 part was more of a joke, but an example nonetheless. But the truth is there is very little our taxes pay for that we have full rights to. Heck, the gov't tries to control everything we buy for ourselves! They'd like to tell us what to eat and what time of day to take a crap. But that's a topic for another thread - another site actually. :rolleyes::):rolleyes:

Funny story - once on a trip to NH we passed an area where a guy had a small SUV with a small trailer behind it, parked next to a guardrail near a steep bank protected by a retaining wall of ragged rocks about a foot or so long. Well, this guy was taking the rocks and loading them in his trailer! I bet he had 3/4 ton worth on the trailer when we went by. I'm sure he figured his taxes paid for them and he wanted his share. Live Free or Die, but I bet the NH DOT would not be happy about it!

Waterski
05-26-2010, 01:11 PM
There must be some type of regulation on what we can put on public property such as guard rails. The case could be that you may want to put tupperware and someone else may want to put ....old telephones, chairs, picture frames, dog food bowls, or whatever. How much can a guardrail hold?? Is it just first come, first served? I guess that some people may consider our tupperware and caches the same a dumping anything else special to their own hearts.
(That person may be Mr. DOT) Just a drivial thought..

cano
05-26-2010, 03:04 PM
How much can a guardrail hold?

I accept this challenge!

Sudonim
05-26-2010, 03:16 PM
Aren't guardrails put in place by the government, more specifically public works departments, and owned and maintained by them? And come to think of it, the towns own the right of way several feet on the side of public roads hence making these all public property, open to caches without having written permission of a property owner?

Just because we write the checks doesn't mean that all public property is allowed for caching. Military installations, railroad right of ways (some publicly owned) and national parks are explicitly forbidden for cache placement. Other areas may be allowed, but, like it or not, part of our check pays for land managers who make that decision.

WhereRWe?
05-26-2010, 04:04 PM
Aren't guardrails put in place by the government, more specifically public works departments, and owned and maintained by them? And come to think of it, the towns own the right of way several feet on the side of public roads hence making these all public property, open to caches without having written permission of a property owner?

I think Dubord would be the best person to comment on this, but from my experience, a "right of way" is not ownership. It only allows access for a specific purpose, like maintaining a road or powerline. The property owner still OWNS the land.

I researched this several years ago when people were digging up flowers along the road near my house, and using the argument that it was "public property". WRONG! I still own the land. The town has a right of way to maintain a road, but no other use. The town DOES NOT own the land, and it IS NOT public property.

:D:D

(But I agree that I would not feel the need to ask permission to place a GRC, a cache on a power line right of way, or in a rest area open to public access.)

Sudonim
05-26-2010, 04:10 PM
I think Dubord would be the best person to comment on this, but from my experience, a "right of way" is not ownership. It only allows access for a specific purpose, like maintaining a road or powerline. The property owner still OWNS the land.

I researched this several years ago when people were digging up flowers along the road near my house, and using the argument that it was "public property". WRONG! I still own the land. The town has a right of way to maintain a road, but no other use. The town DOES NOT own the land, and it IS NOT public property.

:D:D

(But I agree that I would not feel the need to ask permission to place a GRC, a cache on a power line right of way, or in a rest area open to public access.)

And the town still "lets" you pay property taxes on the right of way portion:rolleyes:

CARoperPhotography
05-26-2010, 04:12 PM
Just because we write the checks doesn't mean that all public property is allowed for caching. Military installations, railroad right of ways (some publicly owned) and national parks are explicitly forbidden for cache placement. Other areas may be allowed, but, like it or not, part of our check pays for land managers who make that decision.

I did not say that just because we write the check all public property should be open to caching... however It damn well should be! I also think that if the public actually had access to see openly what the government actually spent (and wasted) our hard earned money on, there would be a revolt in this country. Not to get onto a political rant here, but ladies and gentlemen, the Government in the United States is downright evil and they have no respect for you and I.

CARoperPhotography
05-26-2010, 04:13 PM
And the town still "lets" you pay property taxes on the right of way portion:rolleyes:

And the town expects you to clear that right of way portion of snow and not put it in the road....

brdad
05-26-2010, 04:26 PM
I think Dubord would be the best person to comment on this, but from my experience, a "right of way" is not ownership. It only allows access for a specific purpose, like maintaining a road or powerline. The property owner still OWNS the land.

I researched this several years ago when people were digging up flowers along the road near my house, and using the argument that it was "public property". WRONG! I still own the land. The town has a right of way to maintain a road, but no other use. The town DOES NOT own the land, and it IS NOT public property.

I found the opposite a few years back while having my property surveyed. Even though it was a rural side road, it used to be Route 9 so setback from the center of the road was further than expected - 50 or 60 feet I think (State routes have more setback than town roads). And it was on that line that my property started. Perhaps on some rural roads that setback is small enough that it only covers a foot or two off the edge of the road.

I also remember some controversy a few years back regarding roadside memorials and who owned the land they were put upon, not sure what was decided there.

In many cases it probably comes down to who has the better lawyer. :D

brdad
05-26-2010, 04:30 PM
And the town expects you to clear that right of way portion of snow and not put it in the road....

Exactly! The city won't officially let me mess with the lawn between the sidewalk and road in front of my house, but they want me to keep it clear of snow and ice in the Winter!

WhereRWe?
05-26-2010, 04:53 PM
I found the opposite a few years back while having my property surveyed. Even though it was a rural side road, it used to be Route 9 so setback from the center of the road was further than expected - 50 or 60 feet I think (State routes have more setback than town roads). And it was on that line that my property started. Perhaps on some rural roads that setback is small enough that it only covers a foot or two off the edge of the road.


The general rule is, that if you own the property on both sides of the road, you own the land underneath the road. If you own property on one side, your property line is at the center of the road. But there are many twists, such as where the property lines were before the road was built, and was the property bought from the property owner or was the property (right of way) taken by right of way?

A few years ago, I granted an easement (a right of way is also an easement) to the telephone company to put one of their distribution stations on a corner of my property. I was paid for the easement, but if the telephone company ever abandons the station (i.e., no longer necessary), the easement is dissolved and the property reverts to me.

If a town ever abandons a road, the rights revert to the abutting property owners. Then you get into laws regarding "landlocked property", etc.

firefighterjake
05-27-2010, 07:40 AM
Exactly! The city won't officially let me mess with the lawn between the sidewalk and road in front of my house, but they want me to keep it clear of snow and ice in the Winter!

We're with the government . . . and we're here to help. ;):D

firefighterjake
05-27-2010, 07:45 AM
In terms of roads and who owns what all I know is that I've been lucky . . . guess I have a good lawyer . . . well my wife anyways.

A few years back the Town was coming through and clearing limbs from overhanging trees since they got a grant to do so after the Ice Storm. However, in short order the workers figured out that it was a lot easier to cut down entire trees vs. taking the time to use the pole saw and trim individual branches.

When they got to my house they started whacking down my beloved maples and oaks . . . until my wife yelled at them and told them that I would be very angry if they cut the trees down and instead she told them they should only use the pole saws . . . and they listened . . . at least until they got to the other side of my property and they fired up the chainsaws . . . until once again my wife came out and told them that I would also be angry if my apple tree was cut down and again the pole saws came out. ;) :) My wife can be quite persuasive . . . which is why I rarely win any debates.

And then just last year the town did me a favor by cutting down a very large dead elm on my property. A neighbor across the way was concerned that it would fall down on the road and crush the Amish passing by in their buggies (I can't make that last part up . . . she actually said that). In any case they wanted me to cut down the tree until my wife told them that it was on their right of way and so the Town actually sent up a Tree Crew to cut down the tree . . . and then I ended up with the wood.

CARoperPhotography
05-27-2010, 07:52 PM
We're with the government . . . and we're here to help. ;):D

The nine scariest words to ever be heard...