Free quantified tree risk assessment method

[daltontrees]

...can't we have one tiny part of the world wide web where t.r.a. can be discussed without fear of being badgered?

Edited June 2, 2014 by Amelanchier
Enforcing an entente cordiale...

[arb culture]

Hello all,

 

This thread was set up to discuss the possibility of creating an open source quantified risk assessment system for the benefit of everyone - arbs, tree owners, private business, charities etc. Please don't engage with the haters.

 

I would suggest to the moderators of this site that any further attempts to attack the personal or professional standing of contributors of this thread are treated as 'flaming' and are immediately removed.

 

Thanks

[Amelanchier]

...can't we have one tiny part of the world wide web where t.r.a. can be discussed without fear of being badgered?

 

I would suggest to the moderators of this site that any further attempts to attack the personal or professional standing of contributors of this thread are treated as 'flaming' and are immediately removed.

 

Here's what we're going to do - we're going to start again. Sort of.

 

This time though, consider this your part of the sandpit where you are free from the callous pernicious tactics of the intergalactic hegemony of the evil QTRA empire. Free to stand tall and proud; free to muse on the suitability of different acronyms and the value of a statistical life (or part thereof); free to reinvent the wheel if you so choose... Free to stick it to the man and bring down the system. I'll be here supervising and I'll delete all off topic threads.

 

One condition though. No discussion of QTRA . Otherwise I'll be obliged to offer a right to reply.

 

Solomon himself couldn't be fairer.

Edited June 2, 2014 by Amelanchier

[daltontrees]

Here's what we're going to do - we're going to start again. Sort of.

 

This time though, consider this your part of the sandpit where you are free from the callous and pernicious tactics of the intergalactic hegemony of the evil QTRA empire. Free to stand tall and proud; free to muse on the suitability of different acronyms and the value of a statistical life (or part thereof); free to reinvent the wheel if you so choose... Free to stick it to the man and bring down the system. I'll be here supervising and I'll delete all off topic threads.

 

One condition though. No discussion of QTRA . Otherwise I'll be obliged to offer a right to reply.

 

Solomon himself couldn't be fairer.

 

Cheers, Solomon. Inevitably reference to QTRA, as in the system and not its company or any individuals, is bound to come up, and I think it would be somewhat artificial to discuss the quantification of tree risk assessment without using QTRA as a reference source, but personally I would be happy not to go beyond the published and free to use practice note available at their website. Similarly with THREATS and the ISA stuff and any other methodologies in the public domain.

 

Would it also be appropriate to state from the outset that anyone using any principles or techniques of tree risk assessment discussed or offered on this site do so entirely at their own risk without liability to Arbtalk or the individual contributors? If such a generalised disclaimer is understood by one and all then people may be able to express themselves more candidly without having to add a postscript of disclaimers and caveats at the end of every posting?

 

If so, roll on Wiki-tra, and I will switch off the lawyer on my shoulder who is always tut-tutting at me.

Edited June 2, 2014 by Amelanchier

[arb culture]

Cheers Tony,

 

Let's try and keep it positive people

[Amelanchier]

Inevitably reference to QTRA, as in the system and not its company or any individuals, is bound to come up, and I think it would be somewhat artificial to discuss the quantification of tree risk assessment without using QTRA as a reference source...

 

Humour me. I can only think of two ways in which QTRA (the system) would arise in discussion; in a discussion on the facts or in a discussion of the merits of those facts. In either discussion, there is the potential for dispute - for example Acer may disagree with your assessment of what constitutes a fact about QTRA and would be in a position to complain that you have misrepresented the system on a public forum. Similarly it is not too hard to imagine that he may also disagree with your opinion on them.

 

In either event it would be unfair of me to to prevent him from responding - just as it would be if I prevented your comments on QTRA from being heard elsewhere on the site.

 

So I can keep the thread on track provided we don't enter that territory or we can just allow arbtalk to do its thing and you'll have to put up with the involvement of one or more critical voices and derailing by people who like the idea but will never help you move it forward beyond a protest against what's there already.

 

With regard to your caveat - wait til you've posted something that needs it!

[arb culture]

Humour me. I can only think of two ways in which QTRA (the system) would arise in discussion; in a discussion on the facts or in a discussion of the merits of those facts. In either discussion, there is the potential for dispute - for example Acer may disagree with your assessment of what constitutes a fact about QTRA and would be in a position to complain that you have misrepresented the system on a public forum. Similarly it is not too hard to imagine that he may also disagree with your opinion on them.

 

In either event it would be unfair of me to to prevent him from responding - just as it would be if I prevented your comments on QTRA from being heard elsewhere on the site.

 

So I can keep the thread on track provided we don't enter that territory or we can just allow arbtalk to do its thing and you'll have to put up with the involvement of one or more critical voices and derailing by people who like the idea but will never help you move it forward beyond a protest against what's there already.

 

With regard to your caveat - wait til you've posted something that needs it!

 

Tony,

 

I'm totally with you on this - and I am very grateful indeed for your offer of a free space to discuss ideas without interference. So I ask others - please let's not discuss any other methods or ideas other than our own.

 

As for me - someone has, quite rightly, warned about copyright matters, and I thank them for that. However, this has raised a couple of questions for me, so I am going to discuss my ideas with my solicitor before I go any further on this. I'll let you know how I get on, but it won't be for another week.

 

I don't predict any legal problems, but I'm not a lawyer so I better check first. Obviously, I should have checked this out before starting this thread - sorry

 

[daltontrees]

All good, all I meant was that any discussion about tree risk assessment without being able to cite published scholarly articles or practice notes is going to be difficult. So for example I would rely on Matheny & Clark's important published work, and Mike Ellison's too, and others like Lonsdale, Barrell and some less obvious ones that are not specifically about trees.

 

I was never suggesting that I could snipe with impunity from an Arbtalk bunker. I don't seek or want immunity from criticism. The key is what I think criticism means. In common language it nusually means slagging off, knocking, having a go at etc. But if you go bac t the dawn of civilisation it is possible to indetify that criticism can and did mean something ese, namely (and these days we have to add a word of clarification)' constructive criticism. What arb culture just called keeping it positive. It is the defining quality of philosophy.

[daltontrees]

Tony,

 

I'm totally with you on this - and I am very grateful indeed for your offer of a free space to discuss ideas without interference. So I ask others - please let's not discuss any other methods or ideas other than our own.

 

As for me - someone has, quite rightly, warned about copyright matters, and I thank them for that. However, this has raised a couple of questions for me, so I am going to discuss my ideas with my solicitor before I go any further on this. I'll let you know how I get on, but it won't be for another week.

 

I don't predict any legal problems, but I'm not a lawyer so I better check first. Obviously, I should have checked this out before starting this thread - sorry

 

 

I am very interested, if you have something substantial enough to need a bit of legal steering, it sounds exciting and worth a debate. Likewise I think I have quite a few fresh perspectives on tra that are worth discussing. I have a vast wad of research papers and workings that are ready for peer review, and if all this suff hadn't come up it would probably be with Taylor & Francis by now. Discussion with like-minded (and refreshingly non-tree) friends over the weekend is beginning to persuade me that my line of thinking would be be stronger if supported with some further research which I think I can turn around in 2 months.

 

Let's open the channels of communicaton as wie as we dare as soon as we dare. Everyone.

[Gary Prentice]

I'm looking forward to this- for selfish reasons I might add. I've a risk matrix to create for tree risk assessment for an assignment, so any research or references will be useful. I fear your article is going to come too late though Jules.

 

Let's have some new perspectives and I might actually be able to have some input into this.