Arctostaphylos uva-ursi

I have done pull tests in the past but we now use motion sensing.

Do they? I use Liros.

That was my thinking too. Pull test or Motion Sensing.

Interesting choice of rigging. Always nice to see how others do it. Cheers.

You're a smart alec Turnbull. But I like it!

Ah ok. Got you. I genuinely thought I had missed a trick there. I am surprised that the council did not instigate some further investigations/monitoring. I assume that they did not believe the homeowners assertion that the tree had started to lean more heavily. I would be interested to read about the fallout.

Do you think that look is now permanent? Sorry glad you're ok.

But in your last you repeated Picus. So how would you go about it with either? I am genuinely interested in learning something here.

oslac, I am intrigued to know how you go about testing for root decay with a Picus?

Sheffield council have released the following statement about recent stories across the internet about their street trees, in a bid to try and clear some things up: Streets Ahead is today setting the record straight on a number of myths around its street tree replacement work. Councillor Bryan Lodge, Cabinet Member for the Environment at Sheffield City Council, said: “There has been a lot of attention on the street trees replacement work in the Streets Ahead contract. We welcome the passion of the people who care as much as we do about street trees, and have committed to working in a more open and transparent way with affected residents across the city, but we also know that there are a number of myths around the city about the work. We want to take the opportunity to set the record straight on some of these issues. “We have also committed to getting out into the community to talk to people who have questions about this work. Please get in touch if you run a community group, and would like the opportunity to find out more about the Streets Ahead work.” Myth 1: Streets Ahead is replacing 20,000 street trees across the city Truth: The Streets Ahead programme plans to replace approximately 6000 street trees in the first five years (Core Investment Period) of the contract. All street trees are inspected by qualified professionals every three to five years to identify any works deemed necessary including replacement. Throughout the remainder of the contract, due to natural loss and extreme weather conditions, we believe we will need to replace around 200 trees per year to ensure the health of the city’s tree stock. The total estimated number of street trees to be replaced, on a one for one basis, over the full 25 year contract period, amounts to less than 0.3% of the city’s overall tree stock. In addition, Streets Ahead will plant an extra 600 street trees in Sheffield over the contract period meaning ultimately there will be more trees in the city than before the contract started in 2012. The street tree replacements are supplemented across the City where in recent times an additional 58,000 trees have been planted and 20 new woodlands are being created. Context: Before the 25 year highway maintenance contract was signed in 2012, many of our roadside trees had been neglected, leading to some of them being removed, usually without replacement, leaving some streets in the city with unmanaged and reduced tree stocks. A further survey in 2012 identified that some trees were dangerous, dead, dying or diseased and also recognised that over time; trees deteriorate and require continuous maintenance. Whilst the surveys identified that the health of street trees in Sheffield was diminishing, they did not take into account those trees which were damaging or blocking the highway. The Streets Ahead contract allows us to prevent a severe decline in the health of Sheffield’s street trees and to maintain and cultivate the city’s iconic tree landscape for generations to come. Myth 2: It’s cheaper to remove a tree than it is to retain it Truth: The costs associated with removing an existing tree followed by sourcing, planting and maintaining a replacement are greater than those associated with maintenance of a mature tree. This takes into account a number of factors including inspections and noticing; adherence to the required traffic management recommendations; the removal and disposal of arising’s; pit construction for new tree; purchase of tree and sundries, planting and maintenance for early years such as watering and replacement of any failures/vandalised trees. Context: The cost of tree replacements under the Streets Ahead contract not only take into account replacing the existing tree but also include maintenance of the tree for the duration of the 25 year contract. Over time, trees grow and can be affected by changes to their surrounding environment which subsequently can lead to required adaptations to their maintenance programme. These often unforeseen changes, including severe weather and changes to the highway network can now be managed under the Streets Ahead contract to ensure we not only replenish, but maintain our growing street tree stock. The Streets Ahead contract means Sheffield can make an investment in trees now so they can be enjoyed by generations to come. Ultimately, the decision to replace a street tree falls to the Council. Myth 3: The Streets Ahead contract is preventing engineering solutions being applied Truth: Streets Ahead has a comprehensive list of engineering solutions that are considered to retain street trees, and many of these have already been used. For example, the digging up of footways for physical root examination prior to an ultimate decision being made was used to retain 3 trees on Rustlings Road in 2016. Context: Some of the engineering solutions outlined in the contract are highway maintenance related and are as such included in the contract without extra cost to the Council. These solutions will always be applied if feasible, and many of these have already been used to retain street trees in Sheffield. All of the options have limitations on the circumstances they can be used, for example, a footpath cannot be ramped that would cause water to drain into a household, we cannot leave a gap in a kerb that would cause a hazard to cyclists or encourages water to pool against a tree subsequently rotting its roots and some would only have a temporary effect. If a tree is identified to be damaging the roads, pavements or third party property, then a number of engineering options are considered. In addition to its legal duties under the Highways Act, the Council also has duties under the Equalities Act and is obligated to keep the pavements and roads safe and accessible for public use. Myth 4: The Streets Ahead programme is just about replacing street trees Truth: The Streets Ahead contract is a city wide highways maintenance contract between the Council and Amey to upgrade Sheffield’s roads, pavements, street lights, bridges and other items on and around our streets over a 25 year period. Achievements to date include: Resurfaced over 1081 miles of pavement Replaced 2,770 drainage gullies Installed over 45,500 new LED streetlights Responded to 25,000 reports of flytipping Resurfaced over 500 miles of road Repaired over 52,200 potholes Myth 5: Streets Ahead refuses to use flexible paving which would save most trees Truth: Flexible paving can only be used where a tree is ‘Damaging’ roads and pavements and the damage is caused by a raised root track- meaning that the number of trees it can be used on is limited. Context: Flexible paving is a porous pavement made from recycled rubber which increases the flexibility of the pavement material slightly. Flexible paving is one of the engineering options considered under the Streets Ahead contract. This option is limited by the height of the root track above the existing sub base in many instances and normal limits for this option are that the roots must not be above the desired finished footway surface. This type of product is generally designed for use in tree pits and to improve usable footway widths allowing trees to be planted in narrow footways. Whilst flexible paving products are improving continuously, this option is short term as a tree will continue to grow and so the problem will always get worse over time. Myth 6: The prices Amey quote to save trees, with engineering solutions, are too high Truth: The rates used by Amey were part of their contract and were assessed prior to the contract being awarded. The rates have been compared to previous rates used by the Council before Streets Ahead, and other tenderers, and were found to be value for money for a contract of this size and scope. Myth 7: All of the trees that form part of the Western Road war memorial site are the original trees that were planted in memory of those who gave their lives for this country Truth: In reality, a number of these trees have already been replaced since the memorial was dedicated and we recognise it is the lasting memorial that is of primary importance in this case. Commissioned age assessments of the trees in question on Western Road using both the “Mitchell’s Rule” And Forestry Commission methodologies, confirmed that some of the trees actually post-dated the war quite significantly. An examination of the current tree arrangement indicates that there have been 26 trees removed in the past without replacement. A project group has been set up, working closely with the War Memorials Trust to review the proposals for Western Road as well as Frecheville, Crookesmoor, Meersbrook and Springvale Road where we believe there are other war memorial trees. Myth 8: Street trees contribute significantly to the prevention of flooding Truth: Street trees are generally situated in a pavement surrounded by water-resistant material meaning heavy rainfall is directed away from the tree into highway drainage. Context: It is suggested that leaves capture quantities of rainwater delaying sudden water surface flows but that is at best likely to be very small quantities. A tree that is planted in a grass verge would soak up very little water in a flood but it is likely that the verge soil would make a much larger contribution than the tree. It is often the case that highway trees contribute to flooding through leaves blocking gullies and their roots blocking and collapsing drains and pipes. The statement can be viewed on The Sheffield council website.

I.hispidus

We have just established that the rope wrench is a climbing aid and therefore does not require CE approval. If by some misfortune the rope wrench were to fail your hitch would hold you. So as long as your hitch cord was CE marked you should be ok to use the wrench no? This is of course rhetorical. As I am sure the ban is just an exercise in petty bureaucracy.

Eh? but you just said "I'd charge a €100 or so to do that work" I had assumed you had taken travel costs into consideration:001_tt2:

Perhaps you should post your contact details Mick so the OP can take you up on your offer.

.....and we will see you back here in 5 years!

By continually cutting the tops out you are increasing the likelihood of decay setting in and therefore the risk of them failing in the future. Cut them down and plant some apples on dwarf rootstocks in their place. Planting with the same will only continue to feed your misplaced anxiety!

Yeah me to.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Yep. Just learn to do it on your lap. With practice it becomes second nature. Just make sure your teeth are the same length either using a vernier or small nut and bolt.

For the uneducated, could someone explain why macs are not subject to viruses?

Ask yourself which of the following you think will cost them more: underpinning foundations or removing the odd tree? Therein lies the answer! Might not be just, but the trees will almost always lose out.

More Bureaucratic nonsense! What is the point of CE approval?

Google Translate offers this: The past week ended with a bang-bang: sale and use of the SRT devices Rope Wrench, Rope Runner, Unicender and Hitch Hiker were prohibited. It is clear that this leads to some discussions, but also raises questions. Our Managing Director Johannes Bilharz summarized the background and took a position on the issues. Dear customers, Dear tree climbers, The Trade Inspection Office has clearly pointed out to FreeWorkers that the sale and use of certain SRT products is not permitted under European and national legislation. We are therefore requested to discontinue the sale. The trade supervisor was active because it was pointed out by the SVLFG. It is probable that the professional association has been reported to the trade supervisory authorities or has been urged to take action. When it comes to the question of use, it is irrelevant whether the devices are used anywhere in the world. It does not matter whether there were accidents or not, or what great things are possible with it. It is all about the lack of approval of the equipment, which is why sales and use are prohibited. The letter from the trade supervisor indicates to us in the event of an infringement "possible cost-effective measures". I interpret this as follows: If we do not act, then there is a criminal complaint or a criminal case and it becomes expensive. We act, we are finally traders! (Hoax) background The trade supervisor explained this to me as follows: If I would like to sell a car from the USA in Germany, it must be approved according to European safety standards (the same way). It may not be sold or driven on the road. Whether the US recognizes the safety of the car plays no role. What is certain, every country or union decides for itself. It is not about who is right. Rather, it is a matter of the kind of security a community has chosen. This is, of course, understandable and reasonable, and serves the purpose of protection against arbitrariness. For example, as you can see from many Chinese plagiarism, other countries have very curious notions of security. Also traders are in the temptation to see only the profit and take it with the security not so exactly. This is then fast in the direction of Mafia and Schwarzmarkt. We expressly dissociate ourselves as a dealer. The dealer is liable Before a dealer introduces and sells a new product, he must check whether the product is approved for use. The dealer is held responsible for this. As a trader, I am asking for protection, for customers. As you can see now, it can also be paternal. The customer is convinced of the safety and wants it, but does not get it. The employer is liable It goes however still further. Not only the dealer is taken into account but also the employer. In accordance with German law, the latter must ensure that PSA is made available where it is needed. He may only give an authorized PSA to an employee. Otherwise he makes himself punishable. And this is no joke, as the Trade Inspectorate told me. The Berufsgenossenschaft is also clear: In the event of an accident with the RopeWrench, the Berufsgenossenschaft rejects the insurance benefit! In addition, the employer is the process. Oh This can not only be expensive, but can endanger the existence of the company. The insurance cover can be excluded in case of gross negligence. The transfer of unauthorized PSAs to employees appears to be classified as such, otherwise the Berufsgenossenschaft would not be so clear. And even worse: in the case of gross negligence, the entrepreneur is personally liable. There is also no limited liability company. progress I believe that progress requires courageous visionaries. Only these are based on unknown terrain, without knowing exactly the dangers. Unfortunately they are heroes only if the trip goes well. Otherwise, they stand fast in the offside and are regarded as failures. This is the risk. Nobody can ultimately say what courts will decide in the individual case and how high the penalties will be. Whoever goes on now, does so at his own risk and without a double ground. Use of non-approved PSA devices To our Facebook post I read a comment with the reference, there would be no safer procedure than the SRT-Climbing with the RopeWrench. Therefore, the technology is still used. The estimation as the safest method is certainly a bit overdone. Never is a thing generally secure, but always only in relation to concrete situations. But there is a thought behind this: I believe that if I think a thing is safe and there are good reasons for its use, I can also use devices without a standard. The reasons I must however clearly in a hazard determination or operating instructions list. I also have to do everything I can to make sure that people are safe, and that people instruct and instruct them. Whether this is before the court is a hot matter. The court will, among other things, ask: What are the reasons for this assessment? Are there any legal alternatives? Instead of the SRT, there would be the alternative of the double rope technique, the use of the I'D or similar devices. For SRT fans certainly no alternative. Whether ergonomics, speed, and the other benefits are enough to convince the court? Why is the trade union now driving the hard line? Actually, the Berufsgenossenschaft (SVLFG) itself has to answer. I can think of it and I can not blame it on the Berufsgenossenschaft. To understand: the professional association is certainly not about the use of the popular RopeWrench or the SRT procedure to prohibit. The Berufsgenossenschaft insists on compliance with the law. And these clearly state that manufacturers have to admit their devices according to the PSA standard. If I have understood correctly, the professional association would support the manufacturers by consulting. There was therefore a meeting of climbers, traders, the employers' liability insurance association and representatives of the manufacturer on the German tree nursery 2016. There, the manufacturer has assured to ensure a certification (corrected me if it was different). Since then, little has happened and requests from the professional association are not answered according to their own statement. The end for SRT as well as RopeWrench and Co.? SRT is called "Single Rope Technic" (in German: single rope technology or single rope technique). SRT has been around for a long time (industry) and will continue to exist. The manufacturers are however legally requested to have the devices tested according to the European directive. Unfortunately there is no special standard for the application. This is the difficulty. It therefore does not make a standardization impossible. For many novelties there is no standard standard. For this reason, there is the sensible possibility to test devices "in line" with standards. The special use is targeted and tested. Of course, this is more complex, because only a test procedure is devised and must be described in the manual exactly. This is and remains the problem of pioneers and innovations. It is a hurdle, but it is not insuperable. Conclusion We hope for the manufacturer ISC. With the RopeWrench (and the other SRT devices), it will definitely go on as soon as a certification is done. The sales stop seems to have a positive effect. ISC has already indicated that it is feverish to work on certification. Further information and solutions are to be presented promptly. Last but not least, the time would now be for the relevant trade associations to take the issue into their hands and to strengthen their members. Love associations, now you can "profile! Now you can show the advantages of a merger and explain why it makes sense to have a professional association!

pyracantha, rowan, persian iron wood, foxglove tree, iroko, teak, balsa

Why? Who enforces the ban and how?