Latest Geocaching Bomb Scare

Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 6:55 pm

The thing about this one that makes me mad is that it never would have been aproved because it was on a bridge.

Story Link

Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 9:53 pm

It made Yahoo too
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2628&ncid=2628&e=79&u=/ap/20060117/ap_on_re_us/geocaching_prosecution

Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 2:50 am

Start with PERMISSION and you can avoid this sort of thing. Follow the guidelines and you can stay out of the evening news. ~tb

Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 5:54 am

quote:
Originally posted by QwertyToo:
[B]The thing about this one that makes me mad is that it never would have been aproved because it was on a bridge.

Ummm.. does a walking bridge count?

Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 7:36 am

Interesting point, PCFrog. I have found a few caches here and there under path bridges, including one ammo box.

Joined: 2002-02-18 Posts: 3399 Location: West Allis, Wi

Yikes!

Like QwertyToo said, this would never have made it through the approval process...I hope.

There are so many types of bridges. Which ones does the Bridge rule apply to? Good question.

It obviuosly applies to highway bridges. Highway bridges are inspected on a regular basis. Inspectors go over the bridge with a fine tooth comb looking for cracks and defects. A geocache would be discovered during the inspection and would probably cause alarm in today's climate.

I have seen many geocaches submissions that were placed near bridges. When reviewing the cache, I take into account how likely it would be to get discovered during an inspection. Is it actually part of the bridge structure? If the geocache was located and someone thought it was a bomb, would it's placement blow up the bridge.

It gets pretty tricky to review these sometimes. We always error on the side of safety. We really don't want to see any of our friends getting arrested.

Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 8:10 am

I do not think enough people read the guidelines before placing their caches. Therefore they have no idea about some of the restrictions.

Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 9:52 am

Per personal "taste" would be that if I place anything "close" to a bridge or under a "foot path" bridge ... not that I have as of yet ... I would select a "non-threatening" containter to help error on the side of caution.

A small clear tuperware, magnetic key case or film cansiter just has to raise less alarms than a "green pail" or metal ammo can.

[This message has been edited by EnergySaver (edited 01-18-2006).]

Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2006 2:41 pm

its really funny how old news gets picked up and made new again. this story was all over the GC.com forum at least a month ago.(maybe even two)
if the search was working on the gc.com forum, there was more photos and info about this.

EDIT: the tech news site digg.com has the same story up on the front page tonight, linking to CNN.com
http://digg.com/technology/Geocaching_Panics_Terror_Officials

[This message has been edited by hogrod (edited 01-18-2006).]

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2006 2:07 pm

FWIW, recreational bridges (such as rails to trails ones) are a different "type" than a highway bridge. If you look at the intent, avoiding placing near infrastructure that could be a terrorist target is the idea, right? I have one placed on an old railroad bridge that is now part of a rec system and the approver had no problem with it when I detailed where it was located, that it was not used for traffic, etc. Oh, and it is not an ammo can. I don't get hiding under an interstate overpass calling it an "extreme cache" myself. Cest la vie.