daltontrees

Collectively, you're just about there. 7. Tsuga mertensiana (Mountain Hemlock, high altitude replacement of T. heterophylla) 8. Wollemia nobilis 9. Abies concolor was a good shout but the needles are even bigger than that it's Abies bracteata. 10. Unmistakably Pseudotsuga menziesii (Douglas Fir)

I love the dog lead idea. I was going to try something similar a year ago but I bought a super cheapo dog lead that didn't even last an hour. Idea binned and forgotten about. A bit of rope does the same job but doesn't disappear into a casing when not in use. I would add that a small swing-cheek pulley on the lowering rope rather than a krab is a great improvement.

See my earlier post and Rupe's reply. A friction hitch on a standard climbing line is pretty jumpy with a rescued bod hanging on it. ZZ can't be much worse.

No. 10

No. 9, good luck. Not as vague as it might at first appear.

No. 8, a bit vague but please note the coin in the photo is a 10p so these needles are pretty big.

I am nominating the single elongating bud picture posted earlier this week in lieu of the missing no. 5. As ever, it is a screamingly obvious one to indentify if yoyu saw the whole tree. even so I got it within 10 metres based on just a couple of features that you can see in the picture. C'mon, put aside '100 leaves' and just look at it!

Dammit, you're good! 1. 'Camperdownii', gotta be with that weeping form. 2. P. strobus, as you say bark is distinctive 3. P. breweriana as already confirmed 4. N. menziesii for sure 5. Where IS it? I will post one shortly. 6. Cunninghamia lanceolata, check. 7. Nearly full marks up till this one but not even the right Genus. The Genus isn't obscure, the species is. I will give you a clue, if the picture of the whole tree had included the leader you might have got the Genus right away.

I just meant that if you calculate the actual RoH as 1:975,000 and rounded this to 1 significant figure you would get 1:1,000,000 and no action is required, but if you used the actual figure you are above the 1:1,000,000 threshold and action may be required. The consequences are probably trivial, I am just exploring the perception of some people that QTRA can have false precision and therefore whether this can result in false accuracy. The word 'ignored' was used by me in the mathematical sense, i.e. the treatment as insignificant of the smaller order digits in a rounded number. I am happy to leave the debate about precision there.

Donoghue v Stevenson (the snail in the ginger beer) case I remember as being ground-breaking, but Leakey seems a bit more rigorous because it relates (i) to heritable property and (ii) covers damage AND injury and (iii) allows for shades of grey in duty of care rather than black and white and (iv) clarifies that things originating on land but causing injury or damage on or to neighbouring land are included in the duty of care. I think it illustrates QTRA and ALARP principles better than Donoghue for those reasons, but that is just a personal view. Regarding Occupiers Liability Acts, the scottish Act 1960 is clearest of all but I think the english 57 and 84 Acts need a bit of thought before you can quite so readily conclude that together they are aligned to the wider common law (which of course they partly replaced). The differences are small and don't seem substantive, quirks of history rather than variations of intention. So, all is well there I hope. I for one need no further discussion on it.

No. 7, this one's (I think) really hard, I couldn't get it with the whole tree in front of me.

Will tell you what I think tomorrow.

Just going to give others a chance to have a go before saying.

No. 6. this one had no lable but I think it's not too obscure.

Here's a cracker (No. 4). Genus is easy enough, it's the species that is the challenge.

No. 3 is indeed Picea breweriana. Brewer's droop!

Honey Fungus doesn't always produce fruiting bodies, and as far as I can tell may only produce them when it has pretty much finished off its host. It could have decayed roots or killed the cambium enought to have cut off supply of nutrients to roots, causing them to die back and/or lose strength. Either way, rootplate movement like you describe would be enough to have me take the tree down regardless of what's wrong with it. A healthy birch should whip around in a strong wind, not teeter at the base. If you do take it down, any chance of examining the base a bit closer and letting us know what you find? In particular, maybe try prising off the bark close to the spots and see what's under there, like bootlaces or white sheets of mycelia.

Just going to leave it for a day or so to se eif anyone else wants a shot. And where's Rob Arb? I thought he'd be all over these like Dothistroma.

I think there is chat elsewhere on the forum about a system that is being developed to recognise qualifications better. Meantime the stickers are really just a gimmick, as someone said the whole team should be qualified appropriately but if one guy has one ticket the whole squad can stand behind the sticker. Just be good at what you have been taught and the rewards will come. The chancers may or may not get caught, hurt themselves or someone else, find they aren't insured when the appretice screws up etc. but lack of enforcmen tin the industry is something you just have to get used to like you do when you see the ladder-and-bow-saw merchants fly tipping in a farmer's field.

Another one (no.3) for practice.

Another one (no.2) for anyone wanting the practice.

Anyone that has passed one unit, say chainsaw maintenance and crosscutting can say they are NPTC qualified, because NPTC describe that as a 'qualification'. As I recall I got given a sticker when I passed it. I have gone on to get a few more, but I am still only qualified. It's the statement 'fully qualified' that I find irksome. Does it mean the person has every single NPTC certificate or would it be more honest to say 'adequately qualified' or 'appropriately qualified'? Can't see a sticker or marketing statement like that being as popular.

Aha! That's wher a schmidt hammer Schmidt hammer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia would come into its own. Fitted with different caps (nylon, wood, rubber).

Apologies. I said I didn't want to get into the wording of the law but I also see now that you quoted the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 but there is a different duty in the Scottish Act which is very similarly worded to the 1984 Act duty towards uninvited persons. For the benefit of other readers I shall do my best to quote it here "such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the person will not suffer injury or damage by reason of any such danger [which is due to the state of the premises]"

Fair enough, you will want to mak your point to other readers. I get the point. With one caveat, I am curious as to the source of your statement of common law. I always found Leakey v National Trust nice and clear viz. "a duty to do that which is reasonable in all the circumstances, and no more than what, if anything is reasonable, to prevent or minimize the known risk of damage or injury to one’s neighbour or to his property".