Terrorist Target

Hounddog · Post by **Hounddog** » 23 September 04 1:57 am

I noticed a recent approval for a cache on the Sydney Harbour Bridge.

I have been wanting to locate my own cache on the bridge but did not go ahead with it because of the rule (quoted below).

"""Caches near or under public structures deemed potential or possible targets for terrorist attacks. These include but are not limited to highway bridges, dams, government buildings and airports. """

Has this rule been withdrawn or were there some special circumstances negotiated. I raise this point because I can see a possibilty of misunderstanding by the bridge securty officers. I for one would not like to be confronted by them after seeing me acting suspiciously in their extensive CCTV coverage.

Perhaps one of the approvers can enlighten me us on how the rule works, or how they deems "likely terroirsts targets", and whether we can expect to do this cache without raising too much alarm.

Nervous Dog.

embi · Post by **embi** » 23 September 04 8:08 am

I have archived the cache until I can discuss it with the approver

Team Piggy · Post by **Team Piggy** » 23 September 04 8:59 am

I have firecrackers !i!i!

GEK · Post by **GEK** » 23 September 04 9:51 am

This cache is in the EXACT place I was planning to put a cache late last year. However as I was scouting out the location I got some very suspicious looks from a security guard and I shelved the idea.

The rule about "terrorist targets" seems very broad in its wording. It could actually apply to any number of current cache locations. I can think of at least a dozen off the top of my head. However none of them have constant security monitoring and I think that is what makes this location different.

I think common sense has prevailed on this occasion. Paranoia abounds at the moment and it's important that we try to stay off the radar or geocaching could find itself in trouble

GEK

riblit · Post by **riblit** » 23 September 04 10:19 am

Firstly it's a guideline, not a rule - there is a difference. If it were a hard and fast rule than Ansett's Lament, M5 Madness, Old Rusty, David, Cables by the Oval to name a few off the top of my head would not be there.

My opinion is that the cache description and hint practically scream out the location so it should be be found without 'acting suspicious', which is the reason it was approved.

Of course this leads to the question - should the reviewers be allowed to use their own discretion in interpreting the guidelines, taking into account local conditions, or should they apply them rigidly as rules?

SNIFTER · Post by **SNIFTER** » 23 September 04 11:39 am

And you think that Ansetts Lament is in a terrorist area? Sorry to tell you but the area where this cache is located is on a public beach used for swimming and fishing. There is a canal between it and the airport and also a public parking area. Now if there was a terrorist problem in that area the whole place would be blocked off. Its not.

GEK · Post by **GEK** » 23 September 04 12:01 pm

I definitely agree that the approvers should be allowed some degree of discretion. If you want to be pedantic about the rules then half the caches out there would be toast.

However this forum is a good way of reviewing the approver's decisions. So long as we don't get over-critical I think all cache approvals should be open to debate.

Ultimately it's the approvers who have the final say. Those of us who disagree with their decisions should avoid the temptation to act like GeoNazis.

I would have to disagree with approving any cache on the Harbour Bridge but that's just my opinion. As far as I'm concerned the approvers are the experts as they deal with this all the time. If it is eventually approved then that's fine by me too.

GEK

The Rats · Post by **The Rats** » 23 September 04 2:00 pm

I for one dont think we should have a cache on the bridge..... I think most us would like to have our own cache on the bridge, but nowadays these type of landmarks are becoming increasing difficult to access for caching purposes.<br>I'm currently on the lookout for a hiding spot in Sydney that is user friendly and unfortunately have had to rule out a number of high profile locations simply because of video surveilance, but stay tuned.

<P>Like GEK said, ultimately the approver has the final say.

riblit · Post by **riblit** » 23 September 04 2:47 pm

SNIFTER wrote:And you think that Ansetts Lament is in a terrorist area? Sorry to tell you but the area where this cache is located is on a public beach used for swimming and fishing. There is a canal between it and the airport and also a public parking area. Now if there was a terrorist problem in that area the whole place would be blocked off. Its not.

But it's near the airport, and the airport is deemed a terrorist target according to Houndog's 'rules' quote.
It also says Terrorist Target, not Terrorist Problem.

If this cache involved any kind of real search it wouldn't have been approved, however the description and reviewer notes indicated it is an easy find. Probably all of 30 secs.

If the general feeling is that it shouldn't be there I'll leave it archived.

Geof · Post by **Geof** » 23 September 04 4:12 pm

What are peoples feeling about caches covered by CCTV in low risk areas?

Cached · Post by **Cached** » 23 September 04 4:15 pm

Why not do like the Australia Zoo one (Crikey!) and remove it if it becomes a problem?

SNIFTER · Post by **SNIFTER** » 23 September 04 6:02 pm

DILLIGAFF to the problem.

Devar · Post by **Devar** » 23 September 04 6:43 pm

Terrorism? Score: -1, Overrated.

:P

juzmac · Post by **juzmac** » 23 September 04 9:33 pm

Being fairly new to the game ourselves (coming up on 1 year) I'm only going to say that we don't feel comfortable placing or near places that are potential security nightmares for people watching over... Walking around with the GPSr can be very suspicious in itself. We prefer the non urbanised caches simply because we don't want to be confronted by the owner's of the property where the cache may be located...

We just run by the 'when in doubt about the location - make it a virtual'...

Thanks
Justin

EcoTeam · Post by **EcoTeam** » 24 September 04 8:16 pm

My opinion is that The Bridge should be off limits and I am surprised it was approved. In fact I thought there was a general assumption that the Bridge WAS off limits. A few of us have talked about about it over the years, and I'm sure most of us have thought about it, but nobody ever acted on it because it's, well, The Bridge!
Don't get me wrong, I would LOVE to have a cache on The Bridge, that would be so cool. But in practice I think that it's just a bad idea that can only backfire on us. The Bridge has lots of cameras, lots of security, and is the surely the highest profile target in Oz.
Have a virtual for sure, but not an actual cache where people have to hunt around for it. It doesn't matter how simple a cache sounds, or even if you are are told exactly where it is, some people will just have a hard time finding it.
Some places should be left alone out of respect and practicality. The Bridge is one of them.

BTW, I really enjoyed Ideologies 007 cache at the Opera House when it was around. But I really felt bad sneaking around, like I was doing a drug dropoff or something. Nothing like having 100 people watching you through windows while you extract a ziplock bag from under the Opera House sail! The Opera House should reluctently be off limits too.
It ranks right up there with my attempt to climb over the walls of Kirrabilly House for Achillies!

EcoDave

[/i]