Diskussion Seite von Conifers

How can I get a Sequoia tree to plant on Kaua'i, I am currently living in Texas and plan on moving back to Hawaii when I retire (9 mos). I think it's our duty as sons and daughters to beautify our islands of Hawaii with these beautiful trees. I only see these type of trees down south Texas and California.

Thank You

Ray

There are Coast Redwoods (Sequoia sempervirens) planted on Maui, Hawaii (see e.g. here), it should be possible to find seedlings there. If you are looking for Giant Sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum), that won't grow well in the Hawaii climate.

Hi,

it is indeed apparently possible as some are doing it.

You have probably seen this:

• http://www.monumentaltrees.com/en/usa/hawaii/hawaiicounty/1020_hawaiianoceanviewestates/1801/

• http://www.monumentaltrees.com/en/users/maijastina/discussion/

Kind regards,

Tim

This is a Ficus elastica Roxb. ex Hornem.

Thanks! I have made the change.

Thanks Conifers.

Regards,

Tim

Hi all,

In the past I have started some discussions on the image-quality of this site. I Always pressed on the images and the selection-mechanism that's coming from that way of seeing. On the risk of being to pressing, I still want to share my current experioence.

I am ready for a short trip to Rijnland-Paltz. (Excuse me for the spelling mistakes. At the moment I am not interested in spelling and want to communicate)So I looked up MT and want to find some interesting trees. When I do so, I get a list of trees and a possibility to explore the trees by images of most valued trees.

To you all, try it. Does that really work. ? Do you stick to the site here and explore?

My ideal for this short trip would be; Get images of the most fantastic trees in this area and visit them.

Second, if there are not very interesting trees, find them.

And last of all, struggle through the lists of uploaded trees, of which 3/4 of them will not interest me at the moment!!! This is not a qualifying statement.

Hope to start thinking on an important subject.

Greetings

Wim Brinkerink

Let me explain some more details. I am very much interested in architecture, urban development, nature, railways, stations, human behaviour aso. i am having a short break in Biersdorf am see. And I want to get the maximum of this short trip. So I plan to visit the beautiful Railway-station of Calatrava in Liege and want to check my earlier view of Hastiëre. in between there are so much possibilities.!!I really would like that MT is decisive in that choicemaking.

Wim

If I was going somewhere, I'd look at the map and see what is close and accessible. I guess a lot depends on how far you're able to go from where you are staying - if you're limited to foot or bus, there aren't likely to be many registered trees nearby; with a car the choice is larger.

Thanks for your reaction. I am by car, but I am restrained anyway. Cannot bother my wife constantly with my urges to visit a tree somewhere. nevertheless I will make the best of it. In June I will be in England and I am really looking forward to it. I thinj I will have a look in Luxembourg when I am in Eiffel.

Liebe Leute

Ich würde mir wünschen, daß die Baumfinder, welche ja den meisten Aufwand betreiben auch als solche bei einem registrierten Baum namentlich aufscheinen.

Derzeit ist es so, um ein Extrembeispiel zu nennen, daß jemand der nach kilometerlanger Wanderung in einem dichten Wald einen Baumriesen entdeckt, aber Höhe und Stamm nur schätzt, sowie keine Kamera mit sich führt und daher auch kein Bild machen kann, diesen Baum aber registriert, nach Nachbegehung von anderen (Messern und Photographen) nirgends mehr aufscheint!

Das heißt diejenigen, die sich die meiste Mühe machen, sind am Ende die "unbekannten Deppen".

lg Scholem

Hallo Scholem,

vor ein paar Monaten habe ich das so ähnlich bei Tim mal angesprochen. Also da ging es mehr darum, dass man bei seiner eigenen Statistikseite, unter Benutzerbeiträge, wo man die eigenen Fotos anwählen kann, auch die selbst registrierten Bäume anwählbar sein sollten. So dass man selbst nicht den Überblickt verliert, welche Bäume man schon registriert hat und welche nicht. Das hat Tim damals in seine ToDo-Liste aufgenommen. Bei diesem Schritt der Umstellung könnte man dann auch noch beim jeweiligen Baum mit aufführen, wer in registriert hat. Das hängt ja dann miteinander zusammen. Ich werde mal Tim dahingehend kontaktieren.

Viele Grüße,

Rainer

Hallo Scholem und Rainer,

Tim macht auf diesem Moment eine Reise, so soll er noch nicht antworten.

Grüße, Jeroen

Hallo Jeroen,

danke für den Hinweis. Das wusste ich nicht.

Viele Grüße,

Rainer

Hallo Leute

Es ist ja nichts was sofort geschehen muß, ich wollte es nur mal ansprechen.

An Tim, viel Spass!

Scholem

Could someone add a brief English summary of the discussion, please? For some unknown reason, google translate isn't making clear sense of it. Danke!

Hi Conifers,

Scholem asked if it is possible that the original reporter of a tree or location could be registrated at the website, even if he did not send photos or measurements. Now the first reporter of a tree cannot be seen at the website, although he perhaps has done the most work by looking for the tree and registrating its location.

This can be done by Tim if he likes, but he is on holiday now, so we have to wait for his answere.

Jeroen

Hello, I'm back :)

The person who registered the tree is always logged by the system, already from day 1, so this information is known by the system. I have simply not made it visible on the website. The reason why I did not do that in the beginning was because there was much other work and for most of the trees the same person added a measurement or photos anyway and I would get text like: PersonA added the tree, PersonA added the photos, PersonA added the measurements, ... (the same name repeated all over the page).

I will add it to the list to make the "registrar" visible on the tree's page if you feel it would be necessary.

As always, you can see planned improvements here:

planned improvements.

Kind regards,

Tim

Liebe Leute

Mir geht es eigentlich nicht nur um das Aufscheinen eines Namens, sondern um eine grundsätzliche Auseinandersetzung mit der derzeitigen Situation. Die Anzahl der User steigt unaufhörlich, und es sind unter denen nicht immer nur wohlgesonnene sondern auch Trolle. Derzeit ist es so, daß jeder User jede Eintragung überschreiben kann, beispielsweise eine Messung. Wenn ich heute eine Messung eintrage, bin ich auf den Goodwill aller angewiesen, dies nicht zu überschreiben.

Ich bin nicht willens, mir jeden Tag die Frage zu stellen, ob meine heutigen Eintragungen morgen auch noch stimmen, oder ob sich wieder ein paar Spinner ausgetobt haben. Ich bin hier um Bäume zu registrieren und soweit möglich vorzustellen und alles Andere ist eigentlich nebensächlich.

Ich finde grundsätzlich sollte der Registrator das alleinige Recht zur Änderung der Eintragungen erhalten, bis er diese an andere abgibt oder nicht mehr mitmacht. Zusätzlich sollten nur admins dazu in der Lage sein, wenn sie additionelle Informationen oder Änderungen anbringen.

Ich könnte noch weiter philosophieren, aber es sollte sich jeder mal selber Gedanken machen.

liebe Grüße

Scholem

Ich spreche mich für die Angabe des Registrierenden bei den Bäumen aus, bin jedoch strikt gegen eine Rechtserweiterung für diesen, wie Scholem vorschlägt. Ein Baum ist nicht zu Vergleichen mit Dingen wie einem Stein zum Beispiel, die einem gehören, wenn man sie findet. Jeder kann sie kennen lernen, bewundern und vermessen. Das ist es doch, warum wir sie hochladen. Das ist der einzige Grund. Damit man sein Wissen teilt, anderen eine Chance gibt sie leichter zu finden oder sie einfach nur auf online veröffentlichten Bildern zu bewundern. Diese Seite trägt gerechtfertigt den Namen Monumentale Bäume, nicht Monumentale Bäume-hochlader.

Dass durch das Hinzufügen neuer Messungen durch andere Benutzer der Name des Registrierenden von der Bildfläche verschwindet ist nicht gut und wird hoffentlich bald geändert. Was ich allerdings nicht verstehe Scholem, und das spreche ich jetzt ganz öffentlich ungeachtet jeder bisherigen Handlung deiner- und meinerseits an, ist dein Zorn, wenn ich oder Acerus Schätzungen korrigieren. Der Grund, warum wir das tun ist der, weil wir es gerne genau Wissen und anderen gerne exaktes Wissen zu Verfügung stellen. ( Was nicht bedeuted, das wir es können, nur das wir es versuchen wollen. es gibt auch unter meinen registrierten viele falsch gemessene, das gebe ich unumwunden zu. ) Was nicht im geringsten bedeutet, das du das nicht kannst oder nicht tust! Aber jetzt, da ich mein Nachkorrigieren von Messungen, welches in keinster Weise als Kritik oder Angriff gedacht war, begründet habe: Was ist deine Begründung für dein Problem damit?

Ich bin bereit, Messungen an Bäumen die du hoch lädst zu unterlassen, allgemein und ohne Ausnahme. Weil ich bereit bin, deiner Arbeit ihren gebührenden Respekt zu zollen. Aber ich wünsche mir dafür eine friedliche Lösung, eine friedliche rationale Begründung, zu welcher du, davon bin ich hundertprozentig überzeugt, mehr als in der Lage bist.

Das nur mal vorab.

Guten Abend.

I am for the additional declaration of the uploader of new trees, but I am strictly aigainst privileges for uploaders.

A tree is not comparable to things like a stone for example, which you can find and than they are yours. Everybody can become acquainted with them, everybody is able to admire an measure them. I Think that's it, that is why we upload them. To share them with everyone. That is the only reason, isn't it?

I mean, this site is named monumental trees, not monumental-tree-uploaders.

I don't think it's good that the name of the uploader disappears from the viewpoint of visitors in case that other users corrected or changed their measurements.

What I, however, don't understand Scholem ( and i comment on our difficulties despiting every action we accomplished till now ) is your anger in case of a correction of one of your measurements by me or Acerus. There is just one reason why we do this: because we want to know everything very accurate, and we also want to serve exact information to others. ( That doesn't mean we can do it, it only means that we are minded to try it. Many of my older uploaded trees are not measured very accurate yet, i admit for example ) And that is not meant to be an offense to you or as an assumption that you are not able to do that on you own, no, clearly not.

I constituted my act, not with the claim to be better than anyone and i want to know: What is your reason for your problem with our corrections?

I am willing to forborne corrections at the measurements of trees you upload, gernerally and without exceptions. Because I am willing to due respect your work. But I am only able to do that when you are willing to find a peacefull agreement, a peacefull rational explanation. And I am sure you are able to do that.

... of which more later.

Good Evening.

PS: Excuse my bad English -.^

Hi Scholem, Mr. Green and others,

For this moment only a short reaction (its time to sleep): the solution of extra rights for the first registrar of a tree wich Scholem proposes is not necessary and not the best. I agree with MrGreen that the tree is not owned by the first registrar.

It is good that this registrar is marked / named at the page of the tree. To keep the original measurements there is already the system Tim made: each new measurement can be written down at the page so that a table is created with several girth measurements.

See for example these pages (Dutch version, with explaining text):http://www.monumentaltrees.com/nl/nld/gelderland/brummen/131_privetuin/

http://www.monumentaltrees.com/nl/nld/gelderland/brummen/132_landgoedvoorstonden/176/

http://www.monumentaltrees.com/nl/nld/gelderland/voorst/2347_ruinevanslotnijenbeek/

So you can see the growth of a tree in time. I hope you all (and all regular users of MT) have respect for each others measurements and reports.

I don't know if you two have the possibility to change measurements of other persons. This you should not do, just give your own measurement at a new date.

In some cases trees are measured less good, for example only estimated or measured just with armlengts around the trunk or only at the base of the tree (near the ground). In that case this should be remarked at the information page.

With heights sometimes there are real mismeasurements reported, but lucky enough this is scarce at MT. The height estimates you two give are no problem but when somebody measures the height with a good instrument that is of course better.

Kind regards,

Jeroen

I'm not sure if I understood everything correctly, but it should not be possible to overwrite measurements except your own (except for some very limited number of admin users). Any user can add any measurement to any tree (as a tree is not the "private property" of the original uploader), but existing measurements cannot be overwritten. You can only overwrite your own measurements and this is so to fix any unintentional error you might have made. Any new measurement should be added a new measurement, not by updating on older measurement of your own. If a tree has a lot of measurements over a wide range of time, I plan to create graphs with the growing speed and fitting curves on that graph (juvenile, adult, senile phase) to e.g. automatically estimate the age of the tree based on these measurements - that would be really nice, I think.

By the way: if a user changes a description, tree name, age estimate, whatever, ... then the older versions are always stored. If a user would appear to be a vandalising user, any edit can be rolled back and the older version can be restored (that's how I designed the whole thing). This means that a user with no good intentions whishing to destroy the database cannot do that. It can look destroyed for a moment, but his edits can be rolled back easily and the user blocked or removed.

Hello Tim and Jeroen

I make measurements at the botanical garden in Vienna, then Acerus overwrote them and now I overwrote it with the first (original) number.

In between, I made an agreement with Acerus, that he can measure all of my (first) estimates, if he want. But only if he (they) rethink their measurement process. This was the reason to start the discussion about a Messbasis:http://www.monumentaltrees.com/de/diskussion/110#717 in which I make shure that they are not using the measurement rules of the MT.

lg scholem

Can you give me the number of a tree for which you both added measurements?

This is what I think happened: I assume you and Acerus were not overwriting each others measurement (because I think you both don't have the technical rights to do that - I should check), but you both added a measurement in the same year. For any given year, the system only shows the most recently entered measurement. I should improve the visualization of the measurements so it shows all (so all measurements of all users). I also think that now your measurements of 2013 for that tree are registered twice (as you added them twice). Note to myself: I should make it impossible for a user to add more than one measurement for a tree per year. If you would like to change that measurement, you can overwrite/edit your own measurement.

Kind regards,

Tim

Hello Tim

For exemple the MT-record fraxinus americanahttp://www.monumentaltrees.com/de/aut/wien/landstrasse/5840_botanischergartenderuniversitatwien/11515/

First I make an estimation of about 7 meters, then I make a measurement to 6,18 meters, then Acerus changed it to some 5,.. and now I overwrite it again to 6,18 meters.

lg scholem

Für mrgreen und Acerus

Wenn Ihr die Regeln von MT beherzigt, dann könnt Ihr alle meine Schätzungen vermessen. Zum Beispiel Rathauspark, Herrmann Gmeiner Park, Volksgarten sowie alle anderen Bäume in den Wiener Parks.

Aber lasst solche aus, welche ich schon vermessen habe, also wo steht "ist x m" und nicht "ungefähr". Die könnt Ihr dann in einigen Jahren vermessen um zu bestimmen wie sich das Wachstum entwickelt.

Ihr könnt aber auch mit offenen Augen durchs Leben gehen, dann werden Euch jeden Tag besondere Bäume auffallen.

Scholem

Danke

Mr.Green.

Es geht nicht darum, wer die meisten Bäume registriert. Wir wollen, dass die monumentalen Bäume registriert und möglichst genau gemessen werden, wobei Qualität vor Quantität geht.

Hier wurden in den letzten Monaten viele Bäume registriert, die meiner Meinung nach keine Rekordbäume und nicht monumental sind. Wer einen monumentalen Baum findet wird sich in aller Regel doch auch die Mühe machen, diesen zu fotografieren und zu messen – wie sonst will er wissen und zeigen, dass es ein monumentaler Baum ist? Wer einen Baum sorgfältig vermisst und fotografiert, dessen Name darf an erster Stelle genannt werden! Das erzieht zu Sorgfalt und gewährleistet am besten die Qualität des registrierten Bestandes.

Ich lade jeden ein, die von mir gemeldeten Werte nachzumessen und ggf. als neue Messung einzutragen. Ich freue mich über ein Feedback, es hilft mir, meine eigenen Messmethoden zu überprüfen und zu verbessern.

Today the 18th April 2013 The Pontfadog Oak sadly collapsed at 02:20am due to high winds. Rob McBride Tree hunter.

Here is a mail by David Alderman, director of the Tree Register:

"Not sure if you have heard but the champion Pontfadog Oak fell over in strong winds last night. The Woodland Trust press release has just gone out live.

Here is the link:http://www.woodlandtrust.presscentre.com/News-Releases/Wales-loses-its-oldest-oak-tree-the-Pontfadog-Oak-de3.aspx

Please circulate to others who may be interested. Jeroen Pater and Krystov I am sure visited the tree.

Regards

David"

Its a shame, when nobody is interest to save this old trees. We have a similar situation with a very old and very big tree in austria.

Sad that it should be gone, but (for Scholem) it would not have been possible to do anything to save it. In the photos at the Woodland Trust link, it is easy to see that the roots were completely rotted away. And the wind strength yesterday reached 120 km/h, hurricane strength. It is actually good to know that it died from natural causes, not because of any human action.

Conifers, thanks for the background. "Our" tree was burned down by a bikergroup who made a fire beside....

Beste Han,

Hier gebeurt iets dat statistisch niet kan.

Na 4 stemmen stond er een 4,5. Na vijf stemmen staat er een 3,65. Dat kan alleen als de 5e stemmer een -/- (lees minus) stem heeft uitgebracht. Er gaat iets niet goed, lijkt me.

4 x 4.5 = 18 + .25 = 18.25 / 5 = 3.65 there is a Troll online.

Beste Wim

Ik heb als tweede persoon dacht ik een 4,75 gegeven, omdat ik het een prachtige foto vindt en een prachtige boom. En als er weer iemand is die moeilijk loopt te ddoen moet je je daar niet druk over maken. We weten dat dit gebeurt en je houdt het echt niet tegen.

Dus laten rusten.

Heb je de boom zelf ook gezien?

Grioet van Han

It wasn't me, but I would be inclined also give this tree a very low vote - sorry to say so, but I think it is hideous, a dreadful example of man's inhumanity to trees. To me, there is no beauty in a tree mistreated like this, just ugliness. Mutilation of trees like this should really not be allowed!

Sorry, Wim!

Hallo Han,

Ik heb de boom niet zelf gezien. Ik kwam hem tegen in het blog van een vrouw werkzaam in Brussel en omgeving. Ik vond de foto erg mooi en wilde hem graag op deze site. Ik heb toestemming gevraagd en gekregen. Later bleek zij niet de rechthebbende. Zij meende dat het publiek domein was dat je mocht gebruiken, Ik heb inmiddels contact met erfgoed België en met de gemeente Mol. De boom is bijzonder omdat dergelijke geschoren lindes van die leeftijd en kwaliteit niet vaak op privé-terrein staan. Ik verwacht dat de foto gewoon mag blijven staan en ik blijf zoeken naar rechthebbende. Zodra ik in de buurt ben bel ik aan en zal navraag doen en eventueel zelf een foto maken. Misschien woon jij nog dichter bij? Ik heb ook Tim afzonderlijk op de hoogte gesteld.

Overigens was ik niet geïrriteerd door de anti-stem. Ik ben dat punt wel voorbij. Wel hou ik allerlei bewegingen graag in de gaten , zodat ik weet wat voor vlees ik in de kuip heb.

Wim

To Conifers:

Thank you for reacting. What I think is special about this tree is that it has been able to develop in spite of natural surroundings, in a way that hits people. Off course, people are hit by very different "cultural" expressions. Say for instance in music; I think hip-hop and R&b are disgusting expressions of bad taste especially since they originate in criminal (sub)culture (american gangs) On the other hand the advocates of these kind of popular music vomit over Bach, Beethoven and Brahms. Others hate or love Beatles, Rolling Stones, aso. I think that a genuine cultural expression has to be judged on a broad background and not only on possibilities of nature, but also manmade culture. And if I don't like it, I ignore it. And I am sure that you mostly act the same.

Kind greetings

Wim

The votes are indeed 4.25, 4.75, 4.75, 4.25, 0.25, and 3.5. I don't put the names here, but can confirm Conifers isn't the 0.25 vote.

I personally feel people are still greatly overestimating the value of the rating system, but I'm willing to post this once so you understand where it comes from. Only this once, as I don't have the time to do this frequently or to participate in endless discussions on this.

Kind regards,

Tim

Hi Wim - if it was as simple as comparing different styles of music, then it would be no problem. But it is much more than that; to me, it is like comparing this with this or this, or even this — there are 'hard' differences in the value of the items shown in the images which are based on more than just opinion or personal preference.

Hi Conifers,

I agree in your disgust about the degrading treatment of animals. Your examples of those elephants are shocking and they still go on. But we differ in extending this view to trees.

Wim

Hi Conifers and Wim,

Sure the mistreating of animals is disgusting, the poaching of elephants for ivory is horrible but the training methods in Asia are also very bad.

But the pruning or pollarding of trees like willows and limes is not quite the same, as trees are adapted to living on after they have lost branches or even their whole crown. Some people of the Ancient Tree Forum / Ancient Tree Hunt like Ted Green say even that oaks and other trees often become older than maiden trees. This could be true because they are less vulnerable to storms. I have seen big oaks wich were hit by a storm and lost their main crown, wich now live as a low tree with small branches, so they look like a natural pollard. The type of pruned Lime of the photo as well as pollarded willows are the product of old habits by man. I don't think they are in the same way a mistreatment of the trees as the butchering of elephants for their tusks.

Jeroen

Hallo Wim,

i must admit (to my shame) I must have been the 3.5, but only because of not understanding the voting technics. Being new to this page and this my first vote ever I didn´t see that pressing the vote button did mean to vote right in this moment. I thought there would come another window or menu. So I voted what was average rating then.

I like the picture and the tree very much so I originally intended to vote with 4.5 or 4.75. Sorry for that. Hope you will forgive me.

Where I come from, Frankonia, there are a Dancing Lime Trees in some villages that have been cut for hundreds of years. I will show some here.

Best wishes from Berlin in this never ending winter.

Andreas

Hi Andreas,

Thank you for your reaction. I understand what went wrong. Can happen. Nevertheless everyone has a right to vote according to his preferences. Even if it is a 0,25 like someone has done. I do not have any emotional binding with this picture. I just think it is a qualitatively very good picture and a remarkable tree, especially since it is on private grounds and in Belgium and not in Germany. I know the enormous amount of limes in Germany and the cultural habits. I have visited some of them and I am really impressed. I started the discussions on voting earlier in order to understand what was happening and why people vote extreme on (in my view) ordinary or good pictures. Now I know better how the weight of some preferences in some cases.

Kind regards

Wim

Wim, do you have a colour photograph of this Lime, the black and white photo makes the tree seem more harsh than it is in reality probably. It reminds me of a helicopter. It is a very unusual tree whatever anyone says, never seen anything like it before myself.

Hi Rob,

Don't have it. I met this tree on the blog of somebody else. It impressed me, perhaps because of the same reasons you mention, and I decided to upload it here. Since then I have had some contacts about the origins of the tree. Contact with the municipality, Belgium heritage organisation and so on. I even located the inhabitants of the real estate and made contact. I hope to hear from them and perhaps than I can add more pictures and information. Until then I am just as curious as you are.

Wim

This one still needs to be corrected to Thuja plicata!

I thought that this tree should be put in it's right place, I put 2002 in the date for height and girth, no day or month, but it has not worked here. David Alderman of the TROBI measured this in 2002.

I've moved the marker slightly to get it in the right place; it is among the big Douglas-firs downstream of the old iron footbridge

Hello Conifers, I meant register it's height so it appears in it's right place on the height list rather than location. That said, thanks for putting it in it's right location as the Maps app doesn't always work for me.

In the third photo down on this link (the photos don't appear in the same order every time but it was third down this time) there is a solid looking conifer just to the left of the photo centre, can anyone identify it from this distance? I wish that I had photographed from nearer and taken notice what it was? Does it look like a Cypress of some sort or Thuya? Whatever it is it is a fair size.

Just going back to a comment by Conifers, I wouldn't rate a 'natural' tree or wood above a place like this just because it a place untouched by man. Cragside is a superb location and pretty spectacular because of it's giant trees, I have not seen any natural wood that remotely compares to it. Can you find a 'natural' wood or tree in the UK that has been untouched by man, even places called ancient like Sherwood Forest, Scyrwuda originally, or Knaresborough Forest are/were not natural, they were managed royal hunting reserves.

Hi Rob,

Of course in a country like the UK where there are very few natural forest and no real old growth forests left old estates often are the most impressive places where you can see beautiful big, old trees.

But a natural forest in the Pacific Northwest of the USA with the huge and tall conifers of the same species you like so much in the UK estates (Redwood, Giant Sequoia, Douglas Fir, Grand Fir, Noble Fir, Sitka Spruce, Western Hemlock, Western Red Cedar, Sugar Pine, Ponderosa Pine, etc) in their natural surroundings will be a different thing.

I very much like the old estates in the UK, but as a whole the few primeval forests I have seen in Europe like Bialowieza, Perucica and Biogradska Gora were even more imressive to me. That has something to do with the wildness, the natural processes going on there and the large size.

Jeroen

PS I very much liked the rather natural looking forests with mainly Sessile Oak in the Lake District, for example in Borrowdale.