Was this tree really climbed on 2013-06-20 and is 57,7 m really achieved by tape drop? If I recall correctly, the height was first over 58 m and you corrected it after we said the height must be measured to the average ground level, not to the lowest ground level.
Yes he was achieved by tape drop by the team of climbers in june 2013.
My first measure was made by laser and she was wrong because the I taked the lowest point of the trunk base.
I proposed in the case of the Oak of Ivenack (chêne pédonculé (Quercus robur) '1758') that if a tree has been measured by a reliable method (tape or laser), height measurements made by an unreliable method should not be added.
It is an equivalent case with this tree. Tape measurement has been universally considered as the most accurate and reliable method. I propose that a laser-measurement should not be added if a former tape measurement proves that the laser-measurement is inaccurate like in this case. Or is the top broken?
Hallo Kouta und Sisley,
entscheidend bei Tape-Drop ist aber auch, wie genau der Nullpunkt unten gemessen wurde. Steht der Baum am Hang, kann das schon eine Differenz ausmachen, wenn man unten ohne genauem Messgerät den Nullpunkt bestimmt. Und auch oben können beim Tape-Drop noch Probleme auftreten, den tatsächlich höchsten Trieb zu erwischen. Karlheinz ist hier zweimal hochgeklettert:http://www.monumentaltrees.com/de/bericht/1027/
Beidemal hatten wir da die Probleme bei der Abtastung der Spitze. Also auch da kann es zu Fehlern kommen. Also nicht zwingend muss Tape-Drop die genaueste Messung darstellen. Das Equipment von Karlheinz, also TruPulse 200X auf Stativ zur Spitze und Basis, und Leica Disto D8 vom Stativ aus zur Nullpunktbestimmung, sehe ich schon als sehr genau an. Eventuell genauer als Tape-Drop, wo nicht bekannt ist, wie exakt der Nullpunkt unten bestimmt worden ist und wie sich oben die Spitzenabtastung gestaltete.
Sisley, could you ask the measurers, how they defined the average ground level? Did they measure or estimate it? If estimated, that can really make an error, though likely not 1.4 m.
I believe it that Karlheinz had problems with measuring the top in tape measurement - one year ago he had no idea how to do that, until Michael Spraggon explained it to him.
The distance measuring of the 200X and Disto is undoubtely top-accurate, but the angle measurement not so. It may result in a ~50 cm error. We have already discussed this and the measurement gurus of NTS (Bob Leverett) have indirectly confirmed it.
The sequoias in Ribeauvillé and Niederbronn I measured about one to two meters less in height than my predecessors. That surprises me a lot. I have no explanation. The measurement conditions especially at the trees '12175 'and '8217' were good. I had a clear view simultaneously to the tree top and to a marker nearby the base. The measurement was performed with TruPulse 200X on tripod.
Kouta, your statement about accuracy of angle measurement with TruPulse 200X and Leica Disto D8 I can not confirm. In my earlier tests both clinometers matched very accurate. The measurement accuracy of the TruPulse is rather limited by the width of the laser beam, which does not allow pinpoint accuracy aiming at small targets.
Sisley, where is your home location? Maybe we could once meet somewhere in the middle, and together measure a tall tree.
Message #30 and onwards.
One possible explanation is that Pierron & Thomas have measured the tree to the lowest ground level like Sisley did at the beginning. Sisley, what do you think about this? Is it a usual way in France to measure trees to the lowest ground level = "low slope point"?
Hi, all poeple !
I know that the climbers measure from the top to the middle slop point.
L.Pierron said me his method, and my first measure of the sequoia of Ribeauvillé was 58,10 m at the low trunk point.
If I subtract approximately 0,75 m to join the middle slop point we find 57,35 m.
For the mapple tree it maybe possible that the real tope was not targeted ? I know, it was not obvious to found him without the leaves, therefore with the top is more hidden.
The tallest Douglas of Ribeauvillé was measured by tape of drop, 60,5 m, I found 62 m(measure not changed in page)and I see, Karlheinz found 61,5 m. The difference is not very important.
And for the trees near Niederbronn, my results were not so good, it was the first measures with laser and I did'nt have take the middle slop point.
The more important point that I see for the mistakes, is that I don't have pattern surveyor to set against the trunk.
In many situations this object would have helped me.
Last year I was in Ribeauvillé just on the go with Nikon. I had no other measurement equipment here. I did not think the readings for accurate enough to be entered into the data field for measurement. Only at the tallest Douglas of Ribeauvillé I brought a height value in the caption of the photo.
This year, I've come back, have brought my entire equipment and have done my best in the measurement. For base-determination on the slope ground I used the Leica Disto D8. As difference between low and high slope point at the sequoia of Ribeauvillé I determined 1.40 m, not much different from Sisley.
Without seeing the tree, I guess the difference is partly a consequence of different interpretations of the highest and lowest ground levels. On a steep slope it can make a big difference. And it is largely not up to used device but just interpretation.
In addition, the clinometer error of the 200X (max. +/-0.2° according to the user manual) may explain a part of the difference. Note that even if the device gives repeated the same angle, it does not mean the angle is correct. If my "one metre long" tape measure is too long, it gives repeated the same result but it is not correct.
Kouta, I know that you think your Nikon 550 for the best instrument in the world! And I guess, Sisley also measures with Nikon, is that right? In the manual of my Nikon 550 I find no specification for clinometer error. Do you really think a manufacturer that conceals the error tolerance of his unit, has the higher quality sensor? The readings with Nikon have a greater range of variation compared to Leica and TruPulse and they are more dependent on interpretation by the measurer.
The Nikon is for our purposes certainly a recommendable device. But we should not expect any accuracy that can not give the unit. The competition between European record trees which are only a few decimeters apart is hardly to decide with Nikon.
It is very clear that all the TruPulses are more accurate than Nikon. I have never denied it. But here we were comparing 200X vs. tape. Everybody can do a bit trigonometry and calculate how big height error can -0.2° error at the base and a +0.2° error at the top (the worst case) make. One could think that if the distance measurement is centimetre precise, height measuring is centimetre precise, too. I also believed so at first - for example, I wrote "Disto gives accurate distances to the nearest centimetre, so using a reference point did not decrease the accuracy" in my report about the tallest beech (http://www.monumentaltrees.com/en/report/772/
). But the clinometers of these devices are simply not accurate enough for that accuracy. Karlheinz, could it be time to accept that. In Finland much cited is a statement of a former president: "the beginning of all the wisdom is the confession of the facts". And I am not speaking for Nikon, which is, of course, less accurate and less reliable. I would buy 200X, too, if it was much less than 1000€. I am ready to give 2000€ for a good camera but measuring is simply not important enough for me and has recently become still less important due to this like disputes.
Tape drop as well as instrument measurements, both can be accurate or inaccurate. That depends very much on the care is measured by, how favorable are the measuring conditions in the individual case, and how accurate are the measuring devices. I can not say from the outset that a particular measurement method always results in the most accurate value. If all conditions are optimal, I would prefer the tape-drop measurement result to a Trupulse 200X measurement, presumed when tape drop it is possible to determine the residual height to treetop safely.
For Koutas presumption of an influential inaccuracy of the 200X tilt sensor there is no confirmation, not even in the forums of the NTS (ent-bbs.org). In my estimation, the fault tolerance of the TruPulse 200X is not based on the tilt sensor, but on the wide laser beam when it impinges on inclined or uneven surfaces. Who wants to know more about how I judge the accuracy of my instruments, can read about it in my article in the Bulletin of ENTS, Volume 9, 2014 "Testing Three Different Range Finder With Built in inclinometer":
The source or "confirmation" for the tilt sensor accuracy/inaccuracy was the user manual. You once gave me this info yourself. Why I referred to the NTS forum was that you first claimed the tilt sensor error is always the same, thus the error at the treetop would counteract the error at the base. Then Bob said it implies to the mechanical clinometers only, and after that you stopped to claim that. Disto's tilt sensor accuracy is actually lower than that of 200X: -0.2°/+0.3° outside the room temperature, according to the user manual. You have not tested the tilt sensors yourself.
A wide beam is a further error source, indeed. (Yes, applies to Nikon, too.)
200X and Disto are great instruments without doubt, but they also have their limits. You once said the other measurers will hate you because you have better instruments. I don't think that is true. It is great that you have them and make accurate measurements. But it is strange that you sometimes make statements that are based on nothing being essentially "religious".
I found the old email of Karlheinz. The tilt sensor error of 200X is +/- 0.1 degrees "typical". Only Leica's user manual tolds how much adds low or high temperature. So this was my mistake.
I thought that a 58 metre Sequoiadendron had been reported on here, a Scottish tree measurer called Chic Henderson recently measured the Sequoiadendron at Benmore as 56.4 metres which looked like the second tallest in Europe which I just couldn't re-find on here?
as you certainly noticed by now, we have conflicting readings. From the record sequoias in Benmore and along the Big Trees Walk Uig I miss individual photos. It seems unclear to me whether these trees can be identified on site at all. Under these circumstances, no one will take the long journey to go there and to confirm the measurements. Even from the highest Douglas firs in UK I can not find individual photos.
Hello Karlheinz, the Sequioadendrons at Benmore were visited and re-measured a couple of months ago by David Alderman and Chic Henderson with matching Forestry Pro lasers. The Uig tree was 56.4 metres, 498cm girth, there is a photo of this tree on the TROBI site. The tree in the avenue at Benmore was 56.4 metres to the top, which was dead, 54 metres to the highest live part of the tree, 602 cm girth. The Sequoiadendron at Blair Atholl, Diana's Grove could be the tallest of all as it was 54.50 metres in 2007 with a long wispy spire tip. I believe that Chic Henderson will be visiting this at some point as he is systematically re-measuring the trees across Scotland (about to check a reputed 30 metre Juglans Regia measurement) Chic said that he might join MT so may post some photos.
Which Douglas Firs do you want photos of Karlheinz, the Reelig Glen tree and others are on here already?
a photo from Benmore trees shows the "Avenue of Giant Redwoods." I can not identify the specific tree '1715' with the record size of 56.40 m. How can I find this particular tree? I mean, if a record tree is reported on MT, it should be described so accurately that it clearly can be located in the field without further Internet research.
The highest Douglas-fir in the UK is still the '15298 'in Reelig Glen with 66,40 m. The only photo on MT shows a group of trees. There is no photo, e.g. from the base of the trunk, that uniquely could identify this particular tree. The photo of the second highest Douglas-fir '15299' in Reelig Glen shows the same group of trees and again no individual picture of this tree. From the third highest Douglas-fir '15562' there not any photo is shown. When I am in Reelig Glen, how can I detect which is the respectively measured tree?
The scientific name should be: Populus
'Petrowskiana'. It is a clone, probably hybrid between Populus deltoides
and Populus laurifolia
Anyway, good that you measured it!
Maarten, do you measure with Nikon Forestry 550/Pro or what?
You mihgt be right. When I search the books and the Internet (f.i. USDA, Wiki sites orhttp://scholar.google.com) I see three variants: P. x petrowskiana, P. petrowskiana and P. "Petrowskiana" No doubt there will come more comments so we find the correct spelling. Then we ask Tim to change it, I cannot do it myself.
Yes, I use the Nikon 550 AS. This tree I measured from south-east side (A) and north side (B). Results A 31.60 + 1.40 =33.00 and B 32,40 + 1,80 = 34.20. Avarage = 33,60. A and B are the results of scanning the top a few times, not point & shoot, and more times pointing the foot of the tree.
Best Wishes, Maarten
About the picture from 1990: I removed it and asked a member of the board of the Dendrologian Seura (DS) to discuss my question to use that foto here. I think you know DS is updating the register of giants for a new publication.
Best wishes, Maarten
In my opinion, we could also accept P.
, but P. petrowskiana
is clearly wrong as it is not a species. A reason for the name confusion is that Finnish/Russian 'Petrowskiana' and North American petrowskiana seem to be different taxa. Canadian studies have shown that taxa called P.
'Rasumowskiana' and P.
have the same genetic composition and thus are synonyms; consequently they are not believed to be clones. However, these taxa in Finland are very distinct; even I can differentiate them. The Canadian studies have used Canadian material. Apparently the material has mixed when transported from Europe, maybe by early colonizers, who know. Finnish specialists have this opinion (Pentti Alanko said something like "when you see these taxa in other countries, you immediately see something is wrong"). In Finnland they are single clones, so 'Petrowskiana' would be the best in this case.
Good that you asked DS about the image. With who are you communicating? They recently visited the Netherlands and Belgium, did you meet them there?
Yes, I know they are updating the list.
Interesting facts about this tree and the differences on worldscale. I think we should follow Pentti Alanko's vision.
DS: Juha R., tree specialist at Helsinki Kaupunki. He is also in the board of DS.
This looks a lot like a Quercus petraea 'Mespilifolia'.
I'd agree with that.
Q. p. 'Mespilifolia' is not correct, the leaves are different, inbetween Q. robur and Q. petraea, likely Q. x rosaceae.
Hallo Martin, Conifers und Leo,
ihr denkt also eher in Richtung Quercus Petraea? Hier hatte ich schon etwas darüber geschrieben:
Ich meine auch Weidenähnliche Blätter auszumachen. Bin mir aber nicht sicher. Im Park gibt es aber auch eine Quercus imbricaria, zumindest laut Schild am Stamm. Diese Eiche hat leider kein Schild.
Danke und viele Grüße,
I've looked at different images of Quercus petreae 'Mespilifolia' and Q. rosacae, but I still think this is a 'Mespilifolia' due to the forms of leaf at the base; drooping along the leafstalk.
ich habe mir jetzt im Internet auch Bilder zu Quercus petreae 'Mespilifolia' angeschaut. Ja, ich denke nun auch, dass es sich darum handelt. Die Blätter haben starke Ähnlichkeiten. Ich werde es entsprechend abändern.
Danke und viele Grüße,
Das ist nicht die 'Mespilifolia'. Die echte 'Mespilifolia' hat fast alle Blätter ungelappt, aber viele Blätter dieses Baumes haben völlig normale Traubeneichenähnliche Form. NB: im Foto '32927' sind einige gelappte Blätter gefressen oder sonst in schlechtem Zustand und sehen deswegen ungelappt aus. Ich weiss nicht, ob es die Zurückkreuzung zwischen der 'Mespilifolia' und der normalen Traubeneiche gibt - ein Bisschen sowas sieht dieser Baum aus.
Can it be that this is in fact a Quercus petraea cv. 'Mespilifolia', but with a lot of backlash to the original Q. petraea. I can't make out the distribution of mespilifolia-type leafs in comparison with the other leafs. We see this in more trees like Ulmus x hollandica 'Wredei' to 'Dampieri'.
Hallo Kouta und Martin,
heute habe ich zufällig in einem Park eine Quercus petraea 'Mespilifolia' mit 3 m Umfang gesehen. Zumindest laut Schild. Also die Blätter haben schon starke Ähnlichkeiten zu diesem Baum hier gezeigt. Der Stamm war aber völlig anders, eigentlich untypisch für eine Traubeneiche. Passt denn der Stamm hier für eine 'Mespilifolia'?
I agree with Kouta: it is not a 'Mespilifolia', but Q. x rosaceae
Der Stamm von der 'Mespilifolia' ist identisch mit dem von der normalen Traubeneiche. Nur die Blätter sind anders.
Found good pictures of leafs etc. of Quercus x rosacea at www.aphoto.com.
Agree this tree is a hybrid oak. (quercus_x_rosacea_hybrid_oak_tree_05-10-06_2.jpg 640x480 pixels)
ich habe es jetzt in Quercus × rosacea abgeändert, mit dem Vermerk, dass es sich auch um Quercus petraea 'Mespilifolia' handeln kann. Ich denke, so dürfte es jetzt passen, nach den bisherigen Stimmen hier.
Danke und viele Grüße,
Please can I suggest that a rule now be implemented, imposed on this site, no tree posted without accompanying at least one photo and preferably from several aspects for record trees. Just posting trees with no accompanying photographs is not a proper record for each tree, the photograph is a/the visual of the tree which will be kept on this site as a long lasting record. I am still waiting to see a photograph of the 35.8 metre Sweet Chestnut which I have requested several times now, new record trees have been measured in Ireland and photographs still not added yet? Please, if you are recording trees please do it fully and properly, take photographs of the tree and post them with the tree when you add it. The record of each tree is not complete in my opinion without accompanying photographs, they are as important as the measuring, a a visual record.
Of course photographs give extra information and are valuable. For part of our members they are the most important aspect of this website. For most of them the photographs have an esthetic value or are meant to document the esthetic quality of trees. For me this also is important. For others the website is important as a database with species and measurements. For them photographs have a value as a document underlining the determinations or the measurements.
Both aspects I support strongly. Still, when you don't have good photographs of a tree it can be interesting to document its existance somewhere as well as its measurements. I have added rather many tall common oaks in the Netherlands: of the 38 locations at MT with Quercus robur of 35 m and taller 17 locations are in the Netherlands (in stead of 6 in Germany, 5 in the UK, 3 in Poland, only 1 in France, etc.), not because we have taller oaks, but because I measured and documented many locations.
I did it just to document the many places where there are oaks above this height. I added photos of several of them but I don't think it is necessary to have photos of all of them as they often are tight grown forest specimen wich look alike a lot and are difficult to photograph.
My conclusion: very nice when there are photographs of a tree but also measurement information without photos can be valuable.
Tim has given all these possibilities and I hope these will be there in future.
About Ireland: Leo wrote it was raining a lot so photographing was not always possible. Also, adding photos is time consuming wich not everybody has in the same measure.
And there are times where publishing photos - and accurate locations - is not advisable for security reasons. Pinus longaeva "Methuselah" and Sequoia sempervirens "Hyperion" spring to mind.
What I would personally like, is that if a photo is added, that a small caption is added too.
Now this functionality is used rarely, and it would be good if photos would be annotated with a caption that contains some info of the specific content of the photo. After uploading I might redirect to the 'add caption page' instead of the uploaded image, to stimulate captions.
Hello Jeroen, the Netherlands were extremely impressive in thrashing Spain the other night by the way, I don't think that the raining argument can be used as a real excuse, it was hammering down when I visited Cragside last year for example but I still managed to take some decent photos.
Will gladly add captions to photos if required, will figure out how to do it as Owen is already doing it.
You are probably right Conifers with exceptional trees like Hyperion and the fear of over visiting and damage. The article that I read recently somewhere (think it was on here) about gangs going about in California cutting burls off living Coast Redwoods to sell and leading to the trees being damaged and some dying was appalling. Over here there doesn't seem to be the interest in trees apart from some of us enthusiasts, for example I don't think anyone in Betws Y Coed gives a stuff about the huge trees growing there, certainly not the proprietors of the B&B where I stayed and who asked me why I was visiting.
RedRob and Jeroen are right in their own point of view. I support them both. On the other hand I did have some problems with the fact that people have registered trees without pictures. I met the trees and had quite some problems in assigning the right measurements to the tree I saw.
Sometimes I meet trees, I measure them and make pictures. (I Always make pictures), but when I want to register I see someone has registered a kind of vague tree on approximately the same place. Where do I post my trees??? A new one?, or an existing one??
I have met this problem more than once. Today I met the problem with some trees in Limburg, Netherlands.
I will solve the issue, but it makes one think if we make registering as profitable as we can.
In rethinking the issue I support Redrob's view.
Let's put an example. I could easily post the magnificent Baobabs on Madagascar. I can locate the trees quite exact and add a lot of information. Some people would do that to have a result on their name. (Some people here have done this)
What are the consequences? Will there anybody be triggered to meet the trees and make pictures and measure them? If it is that easy to do it from their lazy chair?
In spite of this thinking, I will go there and make pictures and measure them, but it is not fair, that people have the opportunity to post without actually having seen the tree,
Contributions to this site without foto's has, in my opinion, little value.
Lists with only figures can be valuable for scientist if the figures are produced accoording to sientific rules. On this site this is not the case.
The monumentality of a tree (whatever definition you use) is the reason that someone is impressed and like to show the tree he likes. Without picure this is not possible.
Let's suppose the following scenario: A tall tree lover from Australia visits his relatives in France. Besides his family activities he also wants to visit a tall tree. He makes an Internet search with 'tallest tree of france'. The corresponding MT page is first in the search results. Now he finds the 66.44-metre Douglas-fir. There is no photo but there are coordinates and he can visit the tree. If there was a rule "don't add any tree if you don't have a photo", he would think there are no that tall trees in France.
Conclusion: Additions of remarkable tall, thick and old trees even without a photo has a value. But I am ready to support the view that rather ordinary-sized trees should not be added without a photo. Actually I wonder why members add such trees at all (there are lots of such trees on MT).
From my own experience in trying to relocate many trees to re-measure, the value of a photograph as really been apparent, if there had been a photograph then you could study it and note it's shape, form and position when going searching for it. Even with GPS co-ordinates it is quite difficult to re-locate trees precisely, I don't have a GPS mobile so for me I cannot use GPS anyway but rely on directions. I think many people with just a passing interest in trees might not use or know about GPS either. I think someone coming from Australia would find a tree much, much easier to locate having seen a photograph or photographs for reference. As it says on registering a tree on here, it is also proof that the tree exists.
Of course, it is much better if also photos are added, but my point was that adding a tree without photos should not be banned.
Is there really abuse? Are there people who post trees who don't exist? I always try to post pictures, but i agree with KoutaR! Even measurements without pictures can be valuable and guid us to a 'tre(e)asures' :-).
I don't think anyone has added Yggdrasil
yet . . . but maybe?? ;-)
I have never heard that anyone would have reported a non-existing tree in any tree-related forum. Some "almost-accidental" over-measuring may happen. Apparently there are honest people here.
About Yggdrasil... Seriously, the trees of mytology could be a new area for MT in the far future. I am not a fan but I think that many laymen and particularly laywomen at least in Germany are much more interested in tree mythos than measurements.
Aha, there is a new Yggdrasil. It is alrerady on this site.
frêne élevé (Fraxinus excelsior) '4279'
This tree is called Yggdrasil (see the book Monumentale Bomen in Europa by Jeroen Pater).
Hello tree friends,
that's my opinion on this topic:
A registered tree must be clearly identified on site for review. This is best achieved with a photo. The quality of the photo is not important for this purpose. Also a photo by mobile phone from the base of the trunk accomplishes this purpose and is always possible, even in rain. I do not understand why that's a problem for some users.
Solely on the specified coordinates the reliable identification of the tree is often not possible, especially in the woods with many trees of the same species. Unfortunately coordinates can not be entered and documented as a measured value like girth or height. Positioning the tree by clicking the Google satellite map is often a gamble and everyone is allowed to try his luck. You can not find out who has set or moved the coordinates, and when he did so. In such circumstances, the exact calibration of the coordinates via GPS device does not make much sense; on the accuracy of the coordinates it is better not to rely.
I would never register a tree without photographic evidence. A mandatory field for photo, height, girth and coordinates would improve the quality of our database.
I am looking for the highest Douglas Fir of Europe. I have to review and remeasure the highest 66.44 and 66.40 meter Douglas Firs in France and Scotland. From the French tree there is no photo on MT, as Kouta already stated. From the Scottish tree there is only a photo with a group of trees. Should I risk the costly trips for an only incompletely registered tree which on site I possibly can not identify exactly?
Hi Jeroen and Wim
I think these two examples in Forstgarten Kleve make clear why I think a photograph for identification of the tree is essential and should be a required field:
1) platane (Platanus × hispanica) '4461' This is an avenue of plane trees, on the left and right side of the street at small intervals there are old plane trees, no photo.
2) châtaignier européen (Castanea sativa) '16908' A sweet chestnut in a dense park area, no photo, girth and height both unknown.
In the case of châtaignier européen (Castanea sativa) '16908' I decided not to post pictures because I couldn't make up which pictures belonged to which tree. I had two meaurements of two nearbye trees, 3,65 en 3,95. I couldn't assign the meaurements to either the sequoia or the chestnut. Furthermore I was there in a period when there were no leaves on the trees. I must have thought I will find it later.
But in essence I agree with you that pictures are essential. This is one of the rare moments I haven't posted one. I will post a pic of the tree now. I have found the right picture.
kind regards WIm
in reference to the two chestnuts in Forstgarten Kleve I can say the following:
The coordinates of both trees are faulty. Tree '16908' could not be identified with the original sparse information. Looking at your photo, the plate hangs at the left chestnut. The right chestnut has no plate and I have not measured it. You used this plate for the description of the tree '16909', but you uploaded now its photo at tree '16908'. I suggest you delete the photo of the plate at '16908' and upload it at '16909'. The chestnut '16909' with the plate is pretty much at this position: N51.79845 E6.12768. The specified value for girth is suitable.
At the current Google satellite maps from Forstgarten Kleve reliable positioning of trees is hardly possible, that's my opinion. Each sets the position elsewhere. The trees are tumbling wildly. A GPS device is more suitable. But also on the German base map (Deutsche Grundkarte, DGK5) you can determine the locations more accurately. In this map all parkways are located. For NRW you will find it here: http://www.tim-online.nrw.de (or herehttp://www.geoserver.nrw.de).
Hurra! Nun sind die beiden "Abwerter" wieder da ;-)(2 Stimmen = 2,13; ev. ist es nur einer mit zwei Anmeldungen bei MT).
In diesem Schloss und Garten haben die berühmten Brüder Humbodt ihre Kindheit verlebt.
Ihr Vater, Alexander Georg von Huboldt ließ viele Bäume im Schloßpark pflanzen.
Unterstützt wurde er dabei vom Erzieher der Humboldtbrüder Christian Kunth, der als Pflanzenliebhaber und Gärtner Anregungen gab und selbst manchen Baum im Park pflanzte.
Diese besondere Liebe der Humboldts zu alten Baumbeständen und seltenen Pflanzen und die Tatsache, daß die Söhne Alexander und Wilhelm von Humboldt im Schloßpark ihre Kindheit verbrachten, kann als Grundlage für den weltweit anerkannten Ruf des Naturforschers Alexander Georg von Huboldt angesehen werden. Ohne seine Forschungen wäre vielleicht auch so manche Baumart bis heute unentdeckt geblieben. Insofern meine ich, ist dieses Foto auch für MT-Nutzer von Interesse.
Ich bin gespannt auf die Meinung der Bewerter.
viele Grüße Frank
as the system logs all votes I can see who votes (and do not plan to make that public as this would trigger endless recurring discussions, and I also do not plan to check who votes regularly). I will react here once, because I would want to let you know there is no such thing as 'the abwerter'. It is rarely the same person or persons, and it is not or not always who you would expect or not always anybody from the very active group of users.
What could be the reason for the second vote (a 0.25 on 5 vote), I can only guess, but an obvious reason would be: "there is not a monumental tree or a tree on the picture". Sad, because people should vote on the photographic qualities of the photo, as I have said before, and for me, this is clearly a very good photograph. And it adds value, as it is a single photograph showing a very recognizable landmark of that location.
Ich mag deine Fotos sehr und möchte gern manche von ihn bei den bestbewerteten Fotos sehen. Du bist wahrscheinlich der einzige Fotograf bei MT, dessen Fotos richtige KOMPOSITIONE sind. Doch schätzen viele Mitglieder solche Attribute gar nicht. Es geht nur um die Baumqualitäten. Das ist die Realität. Deswegen schlag ich vor, dass du ein anderes Forum für deine Fotos suchst. Ich wünsche es keinenfalls und ich meine auch nicht, dass du deine Fotos aus MT wegnehmen solltest, aber in einem anderen Forum würden deine Fotos die Bewertung kriegen, die sie verdienen. Z.B. bei www.fotocommunity.de kriegt man keine numerische Bewertung aber viele positivische Kommentare von künstlerischen Qualitäten.
I am new here but I must say that I hope you continue post photos here, your almost daily updates are very appreciated by me and surely many others.
I also have to confess that I was an accidental "Abwerter" some weeks(?) ago. I accidentaly hit vote before I had chosen any points and then gave the same low rating as the voter before me, even though my intention was to try to raise the average points for that very photo. If I recall correcly it was one of theese red beeches, which I actually like, they are very "photogenic".
I disagree with Kouta's statements on looking for another forum. That should not be a "solution" to the issue that an appreciably large part of the voters mis-use the voting and only vote for the trees dimensions (which is not the purpose). Rather the voting as such and what is done with it could be revised. I plan to rework this in the future, and already have ideas about this, bbut now I don't have time for it. Please keep posting Frank, it is appreciated at least by me, and I'm sure by many others!
I also disagree with Kouta's remark on the lack of composition of the other photographers. While of course not all photos are National Geographic Photography Award winners, it think the photo collection on MT.com has become a real treasure with many beautiful photos of trees of all kinds and sorts (tall, wide, common, remarkable, ...).
As I wrote, I wish that Frank stays with us. I made my suggestion because I see that Frank is clearly frustrated with poor ratings to his superb photos.
One possibility to improve the rating system would be that (I have already proposed this sometimes) there would be two ratings: one for the tree and environment (without taking into account the artistic qualities) and another for the artistic qualities of the photo (without taking into account the tree characteristics). Though it is possible that some members nevertheless give top ratings to their favourite trees in the second category, too.
That only Frank's photos are compositions was an exaggeration, of course. Actually almost every photo is an intentional composition. And many other members have fine photos and fine compositions. But in my opinion, Frank has an exceptional talent to build compositions. Tree and surroundings are always in fine balance.
vielen, vielen Dank für deine erklärenden Worte und auch für deine Bemühungen und die fleißige Arbeit als Administrator von MT. Ich habe verstanden und werde die manchmal niedrigen Wertungen nicht so ernst nehmen (manchmal bekomme ich auch für eher schlechte Fotos viel zu hohe Bewertungen). Mit der Bezeichnung „Abwerter“ wollte ich lediglich die entsprechenden Bewerter etwas aus der Anonymität locken, welches mir leider bisher nicht gelungen ist.
Aber wie wir sehen können ist die Diskussion zu diesem Thema doch für einige aktiven Mitglieder interessant und trägt vielleicht etwas zur Aufklärung bei. Vielleich dient sie auch zu einem offenen und fairen Online-Dialog. Ich werde also MT treu bleiben und mich weiterhin mit Bandmaß, Stativ und Fotoapparat in die „Wildniss“ der europäischen Kulturlandschaft begeben um nach attraktiven Bäumen zu fahnden.
Hier noch eine Bitte: Kannst du bitte für den stärksten Baum in Berlin den richtigen Umfang von 7,68 m eintragen? chêne pédonculé (Quercus robur) '17184' Ich habe ihn vor kurzem (mehrfach) Vermessen und es gibt auch Einigkeit mit Christopher dazu, welcher den Umfang lediglich ohne Bandmaß auf 8,20 m geschätzt hatte. Meine Versuche zur Korrektur sind leider nur in der Listen-Ansicht zu sehen. Auch gehört meines Erachtens hinter den Baum-Namen nicht der Link auf Christophers Seite.
Viele Grüße aus Potsdam, Frank
Hallo KoutaR, hallo Rayn,
vielen Dank für eure freundlichen und anregenden Kommentare. Ich glaube alle Bewerter sollten einfach nur die von Tim auf der Hauptseite genannten Grundsätze unter „Worum geht es hier?“ befolgen. Bei der Bewertung von Fotos anderer Mitglieder und deren Auffassungen sollte etwas mehr Respekt und Toleranz vorherrschen, dann brauchen wir auch keine zweite Bewertung.
Warum sollte zum Beispiel ein Foto von einem Baum mit ungewöhnlichem Wuchs, bei stimmungsvoller Beleuchtung und eventuell an einem nicht alltäglichen Ort stehend, oder auch eine seltene Art oder eine interessante Varietät in einem alten Park die keine Rekord-Maße hat schlechter bewertet werden als Urwaldbaum mit Rekord-Maßen? Ich kann es nicht verstehen! Wir leben doch nun mal zu 99 % in einer (oft wunderschönen) Kulturlandschaft. Und auch unsere Möglichkeiten in die letzten Urwälder dieser Welt zu reisen um nach Rekordbäumen zu suchen sind doch in der Regel sehr begrenzt. Unser größter Wirkungskreis ist doch die eingene Region (Land).
Zudem halte ich die Veröffentlichung von Fotos von Bäumen die jeder Interessierte auch selbst ohne großen Aufwand aufsuchen kann für weit wichtiger und wirksamer für ein breites Publikum.
Viele Grüße aus Potsdam,
Douglas fir (Renaison, France)
The two climbers who measured the Douglas and Giant sequoia near Ribeauvillé in France the last year, have measure a specimen already registred and they find 66,44 for the tallest of the area.
Could you changes the name of the measurer (Sisley)for girth and height (2014) by Laurent PIERRON and Jérémie THOMAS.
ich habe es mal entsprechend abgeändert.
Great news! That is the tallest reliable measured conifer in Europe! You should update the description, at least remove "The method is'nt noticed" as the method of the newest measurement is known.
Superb, would love to see it, please can we have some photographs posted of this tree, usual request.
For the first method of measurement I don't know how it was made, but probably by a hypsometer.
A video of the spedition to measure the tree :
I think that the champion specimen in England can be a little more tall today.
Thanks for the video link, Sisley!
I meant that the text, the description, of the tree should be changed as the method of the newest (2014) IS known. I changed it for you. I wrote that the method of the 2010 measurement is not known. I hope it is ok that I changed the text. If not, change it again yourself.
A link to the video could be placed into the page, as well.
Tim, when a tree dies, is it best to click 'Remove' on the record or is there another way of keeping it for historic interest but indicating clearly that it's no longer there?
1. Click "Edit data of this tree" (below the measurements).
2. Change "Has the tree been cut down or did the tree die?" (third from bottom) from "No" to "Yes".
3. Click "Save" (bottom left).
Thanks for replying Kouta.
Indeed, it would make no sense to remove all info on a tree after it ceased to exist, so currently these trees can be marked as "does not longer exist". In the future I plan to create historic lists and record lists including dead trees, but currently these trees are still rare on the site, so there's no hurry.
Can anyone please verify or dispute if this lime is a tilia cordata?
To me the leafs are more characteristic for Tilia platyphyllos in size, shape, hairs and colors. But I can't make out if there are hairs on the leafstalk. Others can see it in the shape and form of the bundles of flowers, so maybe there is another way of determining the species correct.
I assumed it couldnt be platyphyllos as they only grow in the very south of Sweden but I read just now that they can be planted to grow here in favorable locations.
Leaves are quite small though guessing 6-10 cm.
My thought is T. × europaea, but difficult to be sure. The map location makes it look to be a cultivated tree.
I agree this is a planted tree. It don't look like a T. cordata. But if it is a T. platyphyllos or T. x europaea I can't make out. Most europeae's have a lot of growth around the base. This tree shows no sings of that. Both have hairs on the twigs, leafs and leafstalks but T. x europaea loose most of them when the leafs are fully developed.
There is since long time ago a tradition of planting europaea, there are many younger europaeas planted next to houses and old farms nearby. If cordata is ruled out europaea sounds likely given the tradition. If no one oppose im gonna change to europaea? Thank you very much for your help :-)
I would be happy for it to be changed to T. × europaea.
The main reason it is the commonest Tilia in cultivation, is that it is very easy and cheap to propagate compared to the other species.
I also think it is either T. platyphyllos
. For Tilia
identification, you should always take close-up photos of leaf undersides. Or still better, identify them by yourself in situ
. In principle, the characteristics are not difficult to learn:
- T. cordata: leaf underside blue-green, BROWN hairs in the vein axils, otherwise glabrous, veins parallel to the mid-vein are weak
- T. × europaea: leaf underside pale green to weakly bluish, hairs in the vein axils yellow-white, otherwise glabrous or hairy only along the veins, veins parallel to the mid-vein are strong
- T. platyphyllos: leaf underside not bluish, THOROUGHLY HAIRY, veins parallel to the mid-vein are strong
- The hybrid also occurs in the nature and may form back-crosses (F2) with the parent species. The back-crosses may be difficult to identify. I have seen trees that have all the other characteristics of the hybrid but don't have basal sprouts at all; I suppose they could be back-crosses between the hybrid and T. cordata.
- The characteristics are somewhat continuous and overlapping. In a study conducted in Hainich National Park, Germany, some trees identified morphologically as T. platyphyllos proved to be hybrids by a molecular analyse, and some trees thought to be hybrids were in reality T. cordata
- When identifying planted Tilia trees, don't forget that many other taxa have been and are planted, besides the three mentioned above. These include e.g. T. × euchlora, T. × petiolaris and T. tomentosa, though these are likely not to be expected this far north.
I would be happy to identify this tree as a Tilia x europaea.
KoutaR thanks for this overview of these three tree-species!
Gentlemen, thank you for your help, your guidelines will be very much helpful for my own species determination from here on!
New functionality: showing tall and wide trees
since today it is possible to show the tallest trees and largest girth trees first on the photo page:
For the tall trees I have only taken exactly measured trees into account.
I hope you think this is an improvement.
Hi Tim, I like this new possibility. Thanks again for this great website.
Good addition, thanks! Only one problem, the stoutest trees listing is (unlike the other stoutest trees listings under each species) dominated by multistemmed trees which have girths not matching their true cross-sectional size.
Good addition indeed! Perhaps those users, who rate photos by tree dimensions only, are now ready to change their rating strategy.
as you probably noticed I have split up the "show wide trees first" link on the photo pages into "show single trunk trees " and "all trees", so you can choose yourself wether or not you want to see multistemmed trees.
This will however likely trigger more discussions in the future on "single trunk vs. multiple trunks", which can not be determined with certainty for some cases and will always be prone to the personal opinion of the person who registered the tree first.
Excellent! As well as the two sortings for girth, would it be possible to have two sortings for height please, showing all heights, and accurately measured heights? At the moment, it only shows accurate (laser- or tape-drop-measured) heights.
I thought about adding a sorting option that includes all height estimations too but did not do it as some are rough guesses at best, dito for age estimations. As there appears to be a demand for this, I have added these options to the general image overiew pages.
The same options were also added to the user image overview pages.