sloth

Oh, it also automatically plots all the trees/RPAs etc too, which saves time, and time is money...

I'm using a getac ps236, it's pretty old now, but fairly indestructible and fully waterproof! It's essentially a Windows mobile device, but rugged and with a GPS receiver, using pocketgis for mapping. I think you can get all sorts of options now, including android rather than Windows. Ultimately I went for pear because it was didn't involve an autocad licence and learning that, the pear mapper is pretty intuitive and there support is second to none. They can, while on the phone, take over your map programme and talk you through things even. The time saved in not having to type out hand taken surveys into Excel makes it so worthwhile! A survey of 20 or 30 trees might take me a few hours by the time I've gone back and double checked it all, with the gadget I plug it in and it's there in minutes, which is nice. The full pear package cost me a couple of grand I think (several years ago now) at a time when I really debated if I could afford/justify it, it was worth every penny...

My thoughts too. If you're having to argue your case down to metre or two being the difference between too close and OK, it's probably a bit contentious anyway! I do use a GPS data logger, which I think is accurate to about 2m, but this can vary depending on the weather/canopy cover/high buildings/number of available satellites etc... Which is fine for safety surveys (with tags to be sure sometimes), and for using with topos with tree positions added. Sub meter or less equipment is a big price jump, and producing your own topo from scratch is different job entirely and not something for a lowly arb! Using a mastermap is fine for small sites with no topo ime, if you can measure from a fixed point (like a building being extended) so it's all relative. However OS mastermaps are quite limited for planning use I think - they don't have many important site features and buildings aren't always true to shape/size/orientation etc. Also they vary in accuracy of data points depending on the scale by +/-1m up to many meters (see https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business-and-government/help-and-support/products/topography-layer.html tab 'how accurate is OS mastermap topography layer?') which makes the sub meter accuracy GPS equipment kind of pointless; unless you have been provided a pro produced site topo, but then you'd expect to see the trees plotted anyway! I don't use gis, but as I understand it that's more like clicking a point on a map and being presented with data relative to that point (a tree for example). In that respect I think it's more suited to LA TPO maps online, as opposed to a written report and plan on paper. Would the speaker have James England? He helped me decide when looking at GPS gear options, vary knowledgeable chap with arbcentric experience...

I use pear's mapper, so any dwg file has to be converted to dxf first which tends to feck with title bits etc. In any case I add all my own titles etc, but acknowledge the source of the base map (including original drawing name/revision etc if appropriate). If you are concerned about copyright just give the producer of the original a call. I normally need to anyway to ask for the file as a dxf, I tell them what for and have never been refused permission...

Looks like a dinosaur has taken a bite out of the stem!

Never encountered a hackberry before, is that how the fruits normally look, and I presume the whole tree would normally be in full leaf by now? Looks like could be drought stress, or a wilt disease of some sort. Maybe Treeseer, the resident US Arb, will be able to be more specific...

That's generally how I do it most of the time, use the largest trees for RPAs and indicate the overall canopy edge, then roughly extrapolate the RPAs across in line to join up. Or if there are no significantly larger trees I'll take a few measurements to work out a mean average, then whatever the radius of the RPA is will become the distance from the tree line I plot as the RPA. I've justify my reasons for either method in the AIA and haven't had a problem with this to date... Of course the above only applies when construction is near a woodland /group of trees. If construction activities are to be within the trees you would I think need to be fussy and particular...

Helpful in as much as knowing I'm not the only one doing it that way!

Just out of interest, when doing 5837 surveys on small scale residential developments do you insist on a full topo survey prior to carrying out any tree survey? I'd be interested too in any current or former TOs opinions on the matter. It says in 5837 4.2.1 "An accurately measured topographical survey should be undertaken showing all relevant features." ('should', not 'must') In my experience, on these small developments there is rarely an accurate professionally produced topo available, or if there is it was produced prior to any kind of arb input and therefore is often missing relevant trees. How do you work around these situations? I tend to measure from significant fixed points and add the trees in myself; obviously this won't be 'pro topo' accuracy, but accurate enough in most cases. Where a tree is obviously (by several or many meters) away from potential impacts I am happy with this, otherwise I will obviously say so, and in any case I mention this is how I have produced the AIA etc and that it has been a limitation. Up until now, this has never been an issue for me - to be honest the site owner in this case really should have got a topo produced anyway (as he had been advised to by the LA planning dept.), so I was just working with what I had been provided with, however there is one tree in particular which has prompted this query. Perhaps I should refuse to carry out any survey in future until an accurate topo has been produced, but I suspect for many of the small household extension type jobs (which make up a good portion of my 5837 work) this would lose me work... Bit of a rambling post, sorry, I'm tired and it's been long day already!

I think it would be more appropriate if someone 'crochet bombed' some granny's bloomers on it, give it some decency!

I'd prefer to see that than a fell a grind. With cyclical removal of regrowth (a la pollard) it could be good for decades, and with all the eco benefits of standing deadwood and hollows, minibeasts, birds, bats etc...

Excellent, didn't seem quite like the typical resi I often see on oaks. I don't often walk through hornbeam woods, there don't seem to be many near me in north Essex, but going towards London they become more frequent. It was only a little woodland (Duck Wood, the Manor , Romford) but plenty of deadwood and interesting bits and pieces - I thoroughly enjoyed it!

Ta muchly, was a busy little thing!

Do you reckon it is a lucidum then? I've never found one before, and haven't got home to my books yet...

Stemonitus, like slacks above maybe? And Ganoderma, lucidum? On the very rotten roots of a fallen hornbeam...

Any takers?

Interesting tree, with two 'intact' circular cross sectioned stems at the base, seamlessly becoming a single circular stem above. I've driven past this tree many times down the A12 into London, working round the corner from it so took a snap. Can anyone place it?

Thanks Jon, I'll have a look at that now...

Once or twice, certainly not very common though. Nice find...

Very nice indeed, jammy git!

How on earth did that come about? Tree related?

Shaking by one minute, went till two. I reckon I could do 2:30-3 on a good day. Not bad as I stopped climbing 5 years ago and do nothing physical except a bit of gardening etc...

Very cool...

I know, I feel I may be missing the obvious too!

What is the reason for the works? Could you achieve a similar end goal by shortening the two limbs rather than removing them? Honestly, I wouldn't spec their removal to the stem (based on the one pic) and think the TO has a point. Oh, and the pedant in me must point out it wouldn't expose wound wood. It may expose wounded wood, but I expect he means ripewood...