summerlands
|
Re: What's acceptable when interacting with sites?
May 16, 2011, 20:53
|
|
Thanks for the link June!
|
summerlands
|
Re: What's acceptable when interacting with sites?
May 16, 2011, 20:55
|
|
There is obviously a story here!... LOL!
|
thesweetcheat
|
Re: What's acceptable when interacting with sites?
May 16, 2011, 21:33
|
|
drewbhoy wrote: I thought that was a sock puppet!
Definitely a monkey, no sock puppets here Drew.
|
summerlands
|
Re: What's acceptable when interacting with sites?
May 16, 2011, 21:37
|
|
Oh I really am a wally sometimes!! Got it!
|
drewbhoy
|
Re: What's acceptable when interacting with sites?
May 16, 2011, 21:57
|
|
thesweetcheat wrote: drewbhoy wrote: I thought that was a sock puppet!
Definitely a monkey, no sock puppets here Drew.
I know m8!
|
goffik
|
Re: What's acceptable when interacting with sites?
May 16, 2011, 22:03
|
|
thesweetcheat wrote: drewbhoy wrote: I thought that was a sock puppet!
Definitely a monkey, no sock puppets here Drew.
Not any more, anyway! Lol!
G x
|
scubi63
|
Re: What's acceptable when interacting with sites?
May 16, 2011, 22:07
|
IMHO, the old saying 'Take only photographs and leave only footprints' is my number one rule and applies everywhere and to everyone.
Putting something on a site to photograph or as a votive offering and then removing it straight away once you have finished is fine in my opinion but leaving something is just littering no matter what it is or the intention behind it.
Next would be to only climb or walk on a monument if you have to! e.g. at Wideford Hill you have to physically walk on the tomb to be able to enter it through the 'trap door' in the centre. Similarly with WKLB which is not ideal but that's the way it works.
Constant climbing on and walking around a standing stone say, could destabilise it over time. Although this can happen through natural erosion there is no need to speed up the process is either.
Creating rain gutters by walking the same route at a site will accelerate damage but as long as there is some official body to monitor it and kept in check then thats ok however common sense would say to me if everybody walk on less eroded areas then that spreads the erosion and rain would not be so easily channelled to on and cause further problems (but I am no expert).
Touching...well we all like touch...don't we? I am not sure how easily lichen are damaged by touch although Rhiannon may be able to help on that front but constant touching of stone in a single area obviously does produce wear and this should be bourn in mind with such things as RA.
Oh, and graffiti of any sort (e.g chalk) is just plain wrong and those responsible should be... (add your own sentence here).
just my tuppence worth :o)
|
Sanctuary
|
Re: What's acceptable when interacting with sites?
May 16, 2011, 22:16
|
|
tjj wrote: You seem to have covered most aspects Nicki, there is also this charter which is basic common sense
http://www.stone-circles.org.uk/stone/charter.htm
I have noticed that English Heritage are also putting something on their information boards about prohibiting unauthorised metal detecting at sites they are responsible for. Its easy to forget about issues such as erosion which is a big problem at Avebury and on West Kennet Long Barrow as people always walk on the banks and to the end of the long barrow.
Walking all over the WKLB infuriates me yet it is tolerated it would seem. Place one foot on Silbury however and you're shot at dawn! Is there/should there be a difference? I feel not, although I have admitted in the past to climbing the hill twice when a lot younger, but I've never trampled over the barrow ever!
|
Rhiannon
|
Re: What's acceptable when interacting with sites?
May 17, 2011, 06:30
|
so you're back from your travels to the far north are you?
Are you going to get the slide projector out?!
|
summerlands
|
Re: What's acceptable when interacting with sites?
May 17, 2011, 07:35
|
|
Oh yeah, you must not long be back Scubi??
|
