Free quantified tree risk assessment method

[arb culture]

Hello all,

 

I've been scratching my head about quantifying risks from tree for years and years now, and I'm not really happy with what's out there at the moment for all sorts of reasons.

 

Therefore, I was wondering if anyone would be interested in getting together to create a quantified tree risk assessment method that's open to all.

 

No hidden calculations, no unexplained arbitrary numbers, no mystical mathematical methods, no members only discussion forums...

 

I've done a lot of work on this already but I don't want it to be my thing - ideally I'd like it to be everyone's thing.

 

[Acer ventura]

Hello all,

 

I've been scratching my head about quantifying risks from tree for years and years now, and I'm not really happy with what's out there at the moment for all sorts of reasons.

 

Therefore, I was wondering if anyone would be interested in getting together to create a quantified tree risk assessment method that's open to all.

 

No hidden calculations, no unexplained arbitrary numbers, no mystical mathematical methods, no members only discussion forums...

 

I've done a lot of work on this already but I don't want it to be my thing - ideally I'd like it to be everyone's thing.

 

Hi James

 

I'd encourage you to go for it and see where it takes you. I do like the idea of an open source tree risk assessment method that quantifies tree risk, but I think you'll be surprised how many hours it consumes, no matter how altruistic your time budget. Moreover, the costs of training (which I can tell you from first hand experience is essential) and administering such a thing are not going to be cheap if you want it to have credibility, and not have everyone customise the hell out of it to suit their own biases.

 

I'm afraid it's not of interest to me though because I have some idea of what your journey is going be like, and any contributions I might have been able to make are already in the melting pot of how QTRA can marginally evolve. However, if you produce something superior to QTRA then I'll drop QTRA, use what you've developed, and then look to contribute.

 

As I'm sure you're aware, you do need to be careful of copyright though because I can' t think of a way of quantifying tree risk that isn't going to look suspiciously similar to QTRA.

 

I've subscribed to the thread and will be interested to see how you get on.

 

Cheers

 

Acer ventura

[arb culture]

Hi Acer,

 

Thank you for your encouragement, and for your thoughts.

 

James

[arb culture]

Acer,

 

You do raise a valid question about copyright. I was wondering who actually owns the copyright to QTRA?

 

Presumably later versions are copyrighted by QTRA Ltd, but the only peer reviewed version of QTRA that I'm aware of appears to be copyrighted by AB Academic Publishers.

 

Anyway, this is an aside - what I've come up with so far is not like QTRA, so we can all relax.

[arb culture]

Sorry, I got the wrong journal - I meant that the only peer reviewed version of QTRA seems to be copyrighted by the ISA.

 

That's quite interesting.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Sorry, I got the wrong journal - I meant that the only peer reviewed version of QTRA seems to be copyrighted by the ISA.

 

That's quite interesting.

 

I would have thought that was more likely to be the 'Matheny & Clark' system of Tree Risk Assessment.

 

Paul

[arb culture]

The only peer reviewed version of QTRA that I am aware of appeared in a 2005 edition of the ISA's Journal of Arboriculture, every page of this article clearly states "©2005 International Society of Arboriculture".

 

I thought that was interesting.

[daltontrees]

As I recall Mike Ellison published his original article about QTRA in 1985 in the AJ. Surely it is his?

 

Personally I have independently evolved a quantified TRA system, possibly having common ancestry in Matheny & Clark but also in standard tree risk practice of people I know who are professional risk managers. I even did someting similar when I was a surveyor dealing with investment risk management. The fundamentals definitely can't be anyones intellectual property.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Hello all,

 

I've been scratching my head about quantifying risks from tree for years and years now, and I'm not really happy with what's out there at the moment for all sorts of reasons.

 

Therefore, I was wondering if anyone would be interested in getting together to create a quantified tree risk assessment method that's open to all.

 

No hidden calculations, no unexplained arbitrary numbers, no mystical mathematical methods, no members only discussion forums...

 

I've done a lot of work on this already but I don't want it to be my thing - ideally I'd like it to be everyone's thing.

 

 

Im liking your style there fella:thumbup1:

[daltontrees]

Hello all,

 

I've been scratching my head about quantifying risks from tree for years and years now, and I'm not really happy with what's out there at the moment for all sorts of reasons.

 

Therefore, I was wondering if anyone would be interested in getting together to create a quantified tree risk assessment method that's open to all.

 

No hidden calculations, no unexplained arbitrary numbers, no mystical mathematical methods, no members only discussion forums...

 

I've done a lot of work on this already but I don't want it to be my thing - ideally I'd like it to be everyone's thing.

 

 

Tentatively count me in, resistance to QTRA is futile and I am willing to spend some time on an open system. However, as stated elsewhere I am already quite far on with a publishable article with that in mind and wouldhave to be cautious about going off half-cock. I think Acer is right (gosh did I really agree with him...?) about keeping it contained initially.

 

If you send me a PM I could to and fro with you for a bit until it is ready to go public.