Terminology - new word needed for targets.

[Stephen Blair]

A target is hit or missed!

We try and miss them .

[TGB]

A target is hit or missed!

We try and miss them .

As above - in ground-to-ground but mainly air-to-ground terms, a 'target' can be both something or someone, to be hit or not to be hit.

 

Also, the notion of referring to a target as a hazard, would be fine in itself, until you get to working on a gilt course:

 

"The accident occurred, when the limb landed between the two hazards and hit Mr Jenkins, as he appeared out of the rough onto the fairway."

 

Or in other words:

"The accident occurred, when the limb landed between the lake and the bunker, hitting Mr Jenkins, as he appeared out of the rough onto the fairway."

[likeitorlumpit]

I don't see targets as simply obstacles in the drop zone

I see targets as more a reason to do work to a tree- such as that tree needs to go as it is diseased and there are targets. (high value assets or roads/ school/ lots of people passing under)

If there arn't 'targets' then it is often OK to do nothing.

The tree hits the target then you lose.

[Craobh]

P I A equals things that are in the way .........lmo folks love to use fancy words it kinda impresses ..........not lol

[treeseer]

asset works, or "property", but I like "hazard" best; very descriptive.

 

I agree w Shane, "target" is oxymoronic.

[broonie]

EU bureaucrats ... they are always coming up with things to get in they way of progress ..

[Owen Green]

I like target, as likeitorlumpit said, they are objects that the tree could damage if it failed (playground/carpark/shed ect...) Targets being present necessitates the need for works to be carried out.

 

 

Sent using Arbtalk Mobile App

[daltontrees]

I wouldn't use 'hazard', that means the thing that might cause harm, not the thing or person that could be harmed.

If anyone can come up with a single word that describes 'the thing or person that could be harmed' they doing well! I think hazard is used because there is no better word even though it is not a good word for the situation. It has to be applicable for passing pedestrians, cars in driveways, houses etc. when the tree might blow over itself. Stricly speaking if you were doing a risk assessment for a downtaking, 'target' should be the word used. We call them 'obstacles' or 'that ffff... shrub again', things to be moved aside, protected, avoided or if all else fails to be sacrificed then replaced.

[David Humphries]

I tend to use 'target' but classify that based on the importance/value I (or manager/owner/client) place upon it.

 

ie;

principal target

secondary target

low target

 

 

 

 

.