Thanks Thanks:  0
Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: Mortar Topped Walls

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    North Wales
    Posts
    676

    Default

    Have a read of this Topic on the UK GC forums regarding the Archiving of a cache which was in a Mortared Top Wall. Reading the comments from team_loumon who are Professional Wallers on how vulnerable Mortared Top walls are. Made me realise that the guidelines need changing to add Mortared Top Walls to Dry Stone Walls where caches may not be placed.

    May be a member of the committee who is not involved in the discussion on GC, this is not an attack at Moote who started the topic. But to avoid claims of bias against him, contacts an independent Dry stone and Mortared stone Waller and obtains some clear advice on the issue of Mortared Walls, before deciding if the Guidelines need changing to include Mortared Top Walls.

    Dave
    My post is my personal opinion and as such you do not have my permission to quote me outside of these forums!

    Dave
    Brenin Tegeingl
    Formerly known as Mancunian Pyrocacher on GC

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0

    Default

    I think you will fingd the wall in question was of a cut stone construction and had a mortared top.

    It has had better attempts at damage than most cachers can manage. The big scars in the stone where cars have bounced of it.

    I think what really needs questioning are the motives of the person who wrote the email to Lactodorum rather than the construction of the wall. This person by the way has made no comment in the forums they just loaded the gun and let others fire the bullets.

    I have nothing further to say on this subject.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    North Wales
    Posts
    676

    Default

    I'm sorry Tony but the person who sent the email whether they reply to the topic or not is a separate issue to this. I raised this issue here because it has highlighted a grey area in the GAGB's Guideline as not all Mortared Top Walls are made of cut stone but just a Dry Stone Wall with the copping stones mortared into place.

    From team_loumon who is from his comments a Dry Stone Waller, post on GC


    The assumption that a mortar topped wall is sturdier is not necessarily true. A mortar topped wall can be sturdier but more often than not it is simply an added weakness.
    As a wall settles it locks all the individual stones in place increasing in strength (that includes the toppers/copes) if they're mortared in place they're unable to settle and form a bridge over the top/last course of stones. The whole point of top stones is to lock both faces of the wall into place by their weight across the top of both faces. One or both faces will eventually collapse if the toppers are not in contact and leave a hole beneath the mortared tops.

    We advise all our clients that if they want mortared tops we will return after 6 to 12 months to finish up after the wall has settled. (a square yard of DSW has about 1 ton of stone in it)
    Which was posted in reply to Mootes (a committee member's) initial Post

    I have just noticed a cache which has been Archived due to people thinking that it was in a Drystone wall, when in fact it is not it is in a Mortared topped wall. Why do people jump up and down when they think it is a Drystone wall, should we not use our eyes investigate if the wall is Drystone or not!

    Mortared top wall were often used in the late 19th and early 20th centuries around building projects like dams and Quarries, as they are considered sturdier than a Drystone wall.
    Which does not describe the wall in question is made from cut slab stones, but does give the impression that all Dry Stone Walls with a Mortared Top are all the same. And highlighted the Grey area in the GAGB guidelines

    from my post on GC

    For those interested in the issue I've posted a new thread on GAGB regarding adding Mortared Top Walls to the GAGB Guidelines. Please if your going to post any comments to the thread keep it factual and No personal attacks.
    I kept my comments factual about a issue that I strongly believe needs to be clarified and apologize if you and the rest of the committee feel that this has nothing to do with GAGB. But I personally believed that the GAGB was created to support all aspects of Geocaching in the UK, not just Landowner agreements.

    Dave
    My post is my personal opinion and as such you do not have my permission to quote me outside of these forums!

    Dave
    Brenin Tegeingl
    Formerly known as Mancunian Pyrocacher on GC

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0

    Default

    My reply is as an individual.

    Miltons post was as an individual

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    North Wales
    Posts
    676

    Default

    Originally posted by Mongoose39uk@Apr 24 2006, 03:20 PM
    My reply is as an individual.
    Ok I accept that Tony. If I may make a suggestion, when posting as a individual you sign your post as such so that I and others do not take it your replying as a member of the committee.

    And Just so everyone is clear my posts are solely relating to what I saw as a grey area in the Guidelines, and have no connection with the cache or any persons actions involved with it.

    I have actually found a cache which was in a Dry Stone Wall, I emailed both the placer, (who only had 3 finds at the time of placement) and one of our reviewers regarding my concerns. And also put them in my on-line log. So in that case my actions were completly open, which I believe everyone should be if they have concerns over the placement of a cache.

    Dave

    And to make sure everyone understands that I do not have any beef with you, the next time we meet the first Pint's on me

    As long as it's a Pint of............water :P
    My post is my personal opinion and as such you do not have my permission to quote me outside of these forums!

    Dave
    Brenin Tegeingl
    Formerly known as Mancunian Pyrocacher on GC

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0

    Default

    Like I said, I am choosing to stay out of this.

    I know who itwas and know it wasnt you.

    Cheers

    Tony

  7. #7
    moote01 Guest

    Default

    In honesty I believe that all who have replied to the thread on the GC.com site with the exception of Dallan72 have not done this cache, so I find that without actually having visited how can they pass judgement. I have no issue with Lactodorum archiving the cache, this he did under the infuance of others words, but it is a shame that others just come out and make issue without a fuller picture.

    Milton

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    209

    Default

    I think this thread was started as a means to discuss the GAGB guidelines as adopted by the UK approvers and whether or not there is a weakness in reference to dry stone walls. I shall keep my post to that subject.

    Way back when June and I were Admin for GC.com we established the GAGB guidelines in close co-operation with HCC who were the first "official" body to support caching.

    Much input and immense help was given by Dave and Debbie (The Bramblers) and the topic of dry stone walls was discussed at length. Because there are no dry stone walls in Hampshire we called on the services of a much more qualified authiority. June and I remember the meeting well.

    We were advised that a dry stone wall is a dry stone wall whether or the top had been mortared or not. Often the top had been mortared recently in an attempt to help preserve the wall.

    The bottom line remains, a dry stone wall is a dry stone wall whether or not the top had been mortared.

    The guidelines were kept as short as possible and in plain English to ensure that they don't become like trying to read up on the laws of this land. You know the sort of thing where every statement has a long list of referrals to some subparagraph of some obscure relationship to some other part of the law of this land.

    There are loads of other places to place caches, why take the risk of damaging something which is so precious, let alone the reputation of caching.

    Tim & June
    <span style=\'font-size:10pt;line-height:100%\'><span style=\'color:green\'><span style=\'font-family:Arial\'>totally brassed off </span></span></span>

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    North Wales
    Posts
    676

    Default

    Moote please read my comments on both here and GC, at no time have I passed comment on the cache in question&#33; My comments have been to raise what I saw as a grey area in the GAGB guidelines. Tim and June&#39;s explanation for which I thank them, has explained things. May I make a suggestion that a small description of a Dry Stone Wall along the lines of " a wall constructed of lose laid stones, some times with a mortared top" be added to the guidelines just so that everyone is clear of the description. As the wall in question is constructed of slab stones it will be obvious to look at it that it has the stones set in place. This would help alleviate part of the issue which has annoyed you in future.

    Dave
    My post is my personal opinion and as such you do not have my permission to quote me outside of these forums!

    Dave
    Brenin Tegeingl
    Formerly known as Mancunian Pyrocacher on GC

  10. #10
    moote01 Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Mancunian@Apr 25 2006, 05:55 PM
    Moote please read my comments on both here and GC, at no time have I passed comment on the cache in question&#33; My comments have been to raise what I saw as a grey area in the GAGB guidelines. Tim and June&#39;s explanation for which I thank them, has explained things. May I make a suggestion that a small description of a Dry Stone Wall along the lines of " a wall constructed of lose laid stones, some times with a mortared top" be added to the guidelines just so that everyone is clear of the description. As the wall in question is constructed of slab stones it will be obvious to look at it that it has the stones set in place. This would help alleviate part of the issue which has annoyed you in future.

    Dave
    Dave

    I was not commenting on your particular posts, it was more the lets jump on board and rant about this subject. I&#39;m sorry if it looked as if I was getting at you.

    Milton

  11. #11
    moote01 Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by Tim and June@Apr 25 2006, 01:40 PM
    I think this thread was started as a means to discuss the GAGB guidelines as adopted by the UK approvers and whether or not there is a weakness in reference to dry stone walls. I shall keep my post to that subject.

    Way back when June and I were Admin for GC.com we established the GAGB guidelines in close co-operation with HCC who were the first "official" body to support caching.

    Much input and immense help was given by Dave and Debbie (The Bramblers) and the topic of dry stone walls was discussed at length. Because there are no dry stone walls in Hampshire we called on the services of a much more qualified authiority. June and I remember the meeting well.

    We were advised that a dry stone wall is a dry stone wall whether or the top had been mortared or not. Often the top had been mortared recently in an attempt to help preserve the wall.

    The bottom line remains, a dry stone wall is a dry stone wall whether or not the top had been mortared.

    The guidelines were kept as short as possible and in plain English to ensure that they don&#39;t become like trying to read up on the laws of this land. You know the sort of thing where every statement has a long list of referrals to some subparagraph of some obscure relationship to some other part of the law of this land.

    There are loads of other places to place caches, why take the risk of damaging something which is so precious, let alone the reputation of caching.

    Tim & June
    Tim & June

    I think you will find that there are 2 kinds of Mortared topped walls. One type which the Drystone wall fraternity is interested in are old walls which have been reinforced with a Mortared top. Then there are walls which have been made to look like Drystone walls. The wall in question is the latter, as Mongoose39UK pointed out many a car has bounced off this wall in the past and it has performed better than a red brick wall in that respect.

    There are caches which I feel might deserve archiving for real, highly important ecological reasons, but I will not pass comment on these until I actually visit the locations, as assumptions on a situation are not always the best way to approach a subject. I do feel that if I approached this in a gung-ho way it would upset UK caching severely, therefore I am planning a trip to the relevant area in the near future and I will openly inform the owner if I feel that there is a serious issue.

    Why do I tell you this, well I am giving the cache a chance, as I am assuming the placer has taken all the necessary steps to maintain what I believe is a UK protected area. But these areas are not inclusive in our guidelines; and to some degree is of far greater importance than a man made structure. This is not saying I condone the placing in areas like Drystone walls, it is agreeing to, in all respects, with your comment of the Guidelines being as short as possible and in plain English.

    To finish this is not a classic Drystone wall it is more a false façade built around 1930 during the construction of a dam.

    Milton

  12. #12
    civilised Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by moote01@Apr 25 2006, 06:43 PM


    I do feel that if I approached this in a gung-ho way it would upset UK caching severely, therefore I am planning a trip to the relevant area in the near future and I will openly inform the owner if I feel that there is a serious issue.



    Moote - is this not part of the problem ?

    Why do you feel that an action on your part would &#39; upset UK caching severely &#39; ?

    The opinions of any of us are of as much, or as little, importance as yours.

    What happens in the forums, here and elsewhere, is as nothing to the vast majority of people - they never even see it.

    If any of us - and particularly a GAGB committee member - attaches so much importance to their own influence, then there is something sadly wrong with UK caching.

    civilised

  13. #13
    moote01 Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by civilised+Apr 25 2006, 09:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (civilised &#064; Apr 25 2006, 09:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
    Originally posted by moote01@Apr 25 2006, 06:43 PM

    I do feel that if I approached this in a gung-ho way it would upset UK caching severely, therefore I am planning a trip to the relevant area in the near future and I will openly inform the owner if I feel that there is a serious issue.
    Moote - is this not part of the problem ?
    [/b]


    Not sure what you are questioning here&#33; I intend to check out a cache which I feel severely interferes with a nesting bat population, is that me causing a problem? I feel it is me showing concern for an endangered UK species group.

    Originally posted by civilised@Apr 25 2006, 09:45 PM


    Why do you feel that an action on your part would &#39; upset UK caching severely &#39; ?

    Well if the said cache is, I would actually be honour bound to report the cache to the relevant Police force under the legislation which protects the English bat population.

    Originally posted by civilised@Apr 25 2006, 09:45 PM


    The opinions of any of us are of as much, or as little, importance as yours.

    Your opinion is your opinion, I can&#39;t deny anyone their opinion, the above remark is meaning less

    Originally posted by civilised@Apr 25 2006, 09:45 PM

    What happens in the forums, here and elsewhere, is as nothing to the vast majority of people - they never even see it.
    And how do you arrive at the above statement. Surely that is just a sweeping generalisation

    <!--QuoteBegin-civilised
    @Apr 25 2006, 09:45 PM

    If any of us - and particularly a GAGB committee member - attaches so much importance to their own influence, then there is something sadly wrong with UK caching.
    [/quote]

    That is just a complete mound of waffle, there certainly would be something wrong with UK caching if we allowed Bat populations to be disturb.

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    0

    Default

    Ok, I have said I will stay out of this but




    dry stone wall?

  15. #15
    nobbynobbs Guest

    Default

    moote i may have read this wrong as it is stupid o&#39;clock but it would appear that you are suggesting that as i haven&#39;t actually visited that cache i can&#39;t really comment?
    but the topic was a general one about whether caches ok in that position?

    the danger lies that any cache placed within any structure requiring stone/ bricks to be removed to retreive it is going to cause long term damage to the structure.
    with the best will in the world some will remove the wrong stone and the stones will be replaced slightly off.
    this damage accumulates and can eventually lead to the collapse of the wall or the need for repairs.
    so it doesn&#39;t matter if morteared or not really.

    does the owner of the wall agree to the placement? if so then ideal, they have decided they don&#39;t mind the risk of their property being damaged, if not then we get into the realms of criminal damage.

    we will not legislate ourselves out of sites. is there not nearly always somewhere within a short distance that could be used to hide the cache? is it not easier all round to just say no caches within structures that require the removal of loose material, it&#39;s not much different from the reasons of no digging.

    not all of us are as responsible as others. it may only be a small minority but within any group of people there will always be the slow of thinking sub set that potentially ruins it for the rest. and i&#39;m certainly not suggesting anyone here falls into that group.

    just my rather large 5p worth.

  16. #16
    civilised Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by moote01+Apr 25 2006, 10:22 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (moote01 &#064; Apr 25 2006, 10:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
    Originally posted by civilised@Apr 25 2006, 09:45 PM

    Originally posted by moote01@Apr 25 2006, 06:43 PM

    I do feel that if I approached this in a gung-ho way it would upset UK caching severely, therefore I am planning a trip to the relevant area in the near future and I will openly inform the owner if I feel that there is a serious issue.
    Moote - is this not part of the problem ?
    Not sure what you are questioning here&#33; I intend to check out a cache which I feel severely interferes with a nesting bat population, is that me causing a problem? I feel it is me showing concern for an endangered UK species group.

    <!--QuoteBegin-civilised
    @Apr 25 2006, 09:45 PM


    Why do you feel that an action on your part would &#39; upset UK caching severely &#39; ?

    Well if the said cache is, I would actually be honour bound to report the cache to the relevant Police force under the legislation which protects the English bat population.


    [/b][/quote]



    It&#39;s the way in which you suggest that something you might do would upset the rest of us severely. It implies that your views, opinions and actions in some way carry more weight than anyone else’s.

    That was the reason for my post, which was about dry stone walls.

    Why this has now moved on to bats is beyond me, except as a debating device.


    civilised

  17. #17
    moote01 Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by civilised+Apr 26 2006, 07:11 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (civilised @ Apr 26 2006, 07:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
    Originally posted by moote01@Apr 25 2006, 10:22 PM
    Originally posted by civilised@Apr 25 2006, 09:45 PM

    Originally posted by moote01@Apr 25 2006, 06:43 PM

    I do feel that if I approached this in a gung-ho way it would upset UK caching severely, therefore I am planning a trip to the relevant area in the near future and I will openly inform the owner if I feel that there is a serious issue.
    Moote - is this not part of the problem ?
    Not sure what you are questioning here&#33; I intend to check out a cache which I feel severely interferes with a nesting bat population, is that me causing a problem? I feel it is me showing concern for an endangered UK species group.

    <!--QuoteBegin-civilised
    @Apr 25 2006, 09:45 PM


    Why do you feel that an action on your part would &#39; upset UK caching severely &#39; ?



    Well if the said cache is, I would actually be honour bound to report the cache to the relevant Police force under the legislation which protects the English bat population.




    It&#39;s the way in which you suggest that something you might do would upset the rest of us severely. It implies that your views, opinions and actions in some way carry more weight than anyone else’s.

    That was the reason for my post, which was about dry stone walls.

    Why this has now moved on to bats is beyond me, except as a debating device.


    civilised [/b][/quote]
    I mentioned this, as I know of a cache which from it&#39;s description and information provided, leads me to assume that a cache is actually placed in a bats roost, no one has moaned about this cache and in fact it gets a very high percentage rating on G:UK; but in reality if the situation is what I assume, then this cache should not be available. I know this as I have been involved in bat conservation for many years, It might upset many if I think this is a no go area, as the cache is very popular.

    Not one single cacher has raised this as an issue, and this is a possible local ecological disaster in the making; but we see something that we think is a Drystone wall and we are all jumping up and down in annoyance, when most have not visited (See the GC.com forum posts).

    Also Tim and June mentioned that the Guidelines are not totally inclusive, so in reality clarification on matters can be hard as the Guidelines are flawed in this respect. I noted that after reading Tim and June’s post that this could cause issues, because people read them as verbatim.

    The mention of Bats was because I identifed that this case is not covered by the present guidelines

  18. #18
    Bambi&amp;Thumper Guest

    Default

    As a lurker I rarely post, but I&#39;m getting fed up with this...

    This is my understanding of the guidlines:

    Drystone walls are sensitive because a succession of cachers seeking that small box may dismantle the wall and not put it back quite right, causing a progressive degredation. Thus, it is the searching, not the hiding, that is the problem.* Now, this applies equally to mortar topped walls and, as such, the spirit of the guideline (if not the letter) includes mortar topped walls and indeed any other wall with a significant contribution from loose stones.

    Period.

    If it helps to clarify the law by adding some phrase like that, then go ahead and add it. Personally, I feel it&#39;s clear enough and there will always be grey areas (for example, what about the wall where the mortar has crumbled away to such a degree that all the stones/bricks are now "dry"?), but perhaps clarification will help. And yes, I know, each case is different. Ideally every indvidual wall should be assessed, but the reviewers don&#39;t have time, and in any case, opinions vary, so lets stop arguing and go out and hunt some boxes&#33;

    Just my thoughts...

    Bambi.


    * It is for this reason that we include a phrase in all our cache notes to say "As per the guidlines, none of our caches are buried, placed in animal holes or hidden in dry stone walls" whether they are near an animal hole/wall/in a concrete jungle or not. This way it doesn&#39;t give anything away about the hide either.

  19. #19
    moote01 Guest

    Default

    The cache which sparked this has been reinstated, it is still by the same wall but is in a more acceptable position. This has led me to think that maybe as well as the Basic Guidelines, we might require a more in depth clarification on theses.

  20. #20
    civilised Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by moote01@Apr 26 2006, 05:42 PM
    The cache which sparked this has been reinstated, it is still by the same wall but is in a more acceptable position. This has led me to think that maybe as well as the Basic Guidelines, we might require a more in depth clarification on theses.
    As a GAGB committee member, are you not in a position to get the ball rolling ?

    civilised

  21. #21
    moote01 Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by civilised+Apr 26 2006, 08:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (civilised @ Apr 26 2006, 08:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-moote01@Apr 26 2006, 05:42 PM
    The cache which sparked this has been reinstated, it is still by the same wall but is in a more acceptable position. This has led me to think that maybe as well as the Basic Guidelines, we might require a more in depth clarification on theses.
    As a GAGB committee member, are you not in a position to get the ball rolling ?

    civilised [/b][/quote]
    Yes, and I am presently looking at this; of course anyone is free to submit ideas and information

    Moote

  22. #22
    nobbynobbs Guest

    Default

    not to go way off topic but the bat cave... most people wouldn&#39;t know that the cave was a bat roost not knowing the signs to look for and unless you went at dusk/dawn how would you know?

    hope that no damage/ disturbance has been caused to these lovely misunderstood animals

    again hopefully the cache can be moved a short distance away so that the location is not lost but made so that everyone is happy. why not arrange to go with the owner and sort it out in one visit? :huh:

  23. #23
    MCL Guest

    Default

    Originally posted by moote01@Apr 25 2006, 06:43 PM

    What happens in the forums, here and elsewhere, is as nothing to the vast majority of people - they never even see it.


    And how do you arrive at the above statement. Surely that is just a sweeping generalisation


    Simple logic of course. I wouldn&#39;t want to insult you by explaining what is surely obvious to a man of your calibre.

    Unless, of course, you insist.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •