Aurel Sercu Posted 16 March , 2015 Share Posted 16 March , 2015 Pic 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurel Sercu Posted 16 March , 2015 Share Posted 16 March , 2015 Pic 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurel Sercu Posted 16 March , 2015 Share Posted 16 March , 2015 Well, this one is less reassuring of course. :-( Aurel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick D Posted 17 March , 2015 Share Posted 17 March , 2015 It looks awfull, especially the last photograph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrislock Posted 17 March , 2015 Share Posted 17 March , 2015 For those of you on facebook. Here is a comprehensive set of images taken on and around the immediate the site yesterday. https://www.facebook.com/richard.duval.7399/media_set?set=a.1553722524892235.1073741856.100007635064510&type=1&pnref=story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tootrock Posted 17 March , 2015 Share Posted 17 March , 2015 Chris, Getting the message "This content is currently unavailable" Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrislock Posted 17 March , 2015 Share Posted 17 March , 2015 Will check out privacy settings. Wait out..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrislock Posted 17 March , 2015 Share Posted 17 March , 2015 How is that Martin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithmroberts Posted 17 March , 2015 Share Posted 17 March , 2015 I have just looked at your images Chris. Superficially awful. I do take the point made elsewhere by Martin Brown that sometimes it makes good archaeological sense to provide properly designed pathways to preserve a site from excessive deterioration through the lack of organised routes, but this hardly looks sensitive in terms of its process and in the short term the heavy machinery used must have caused more damage to the surfaces than a great many visitors. Jobs like this, if they are really needed, should be done with greater regard to the whole site, and lighter more specialised equipment should surely be specified to limit the collateral damage. Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurel Sercu Posted 17 March , 2015 Share Posted 17 March , 2015 Caterpillar Crater. (The path around it is not visible. Sorry. Next posting.) Aurel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tootrock Posted 17 March , 2015 Share Posted 17 March , 2015 Chris, Works fine now. Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurel Sercu Posted 17 March , 2015 Share Posted 17 March , 2015 Pic 2 of the Caterpillar crater. Yes, I know, that's my wife. But I left her there when taking the photo. To give you an idea of the size. (Of the path ! Not of my wife ! ) I should have taken the pic showing the whole width. Of the path that is. But it was so cold there. Said my wife. Aurel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger H Posted 17 March , 2015 Share Posted 17 March , 2015 Aurel Your wife deserves a medal! Surely by now she is an expert on the Ypres Salient? Roger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egbert Posted 17 March , 2015 Share Posted 17 March , 2015 ....... but this hardly looks sensitive in terms of its process and in the short term the heavy machinery used must have caused more damage to the surfaces than a great many visitors. Jobs like this, if they are really needed, should be done with greater regard to the whole site, and lighter more specialised equipment should surely be specified to limit the collateral damage. Keith .... and that's why I asked earlier here why the supervising body's as shown on the construction sign neglected their responsibility to properly supervise the constructions or their own established specifications for the construction work! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveMarsdin Posted 17 March , 2015 Share Posted 17 March , 2015 It doesn't say that they were supervising the work but it would be interesting as to what input if any the CWGC did have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egbert Posted 17 March , 2015 Share Posted 17 March , 2015 It doesn't say that they were supervising the work but it would be interesting as to what input if any the CWGC did have. Not necessarily "supervising" (although I certainly would expect that from the ordering party) - but also what the specifications demand from the constructor, the specifications ordered and established by the ordering party at contract award. They are the basis for the work how it shall be carried out and are binding for the constructor company. So to speak "who is responsible for the mess, the constructor or the ordering party"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrislock Posted 17 March , 2015 Share Posted 17 March , 2015 Glad you can all see the images now that I have changed my privacy settings but not so glad what they reveal!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Mackenzie Posted 17 March , 2015 Share Posted 17 March , 2015 I suppose we should wait until the work is completed before making a final judgement but it looks horrible. Neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurel Sercu Posted 17 March , 2015 Share Posted 17 March , 2015 It is certainly not that I want to defend the works (I think they were unnecessary), but there are still undamaged areas on Hill 60. (See my photos) And as the works reportedly have been stopped (?) I think this is good (?) news ? Aurel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bert Heyvaert Posted 17 March , 2015 Share Posted 17 March , 2015 Just wanted to let people know that minister-president Geert Bourgeois, head of the Flemish goverment and minister responsible for scheduled monuments (like hill 60) will be interpelated on the matter in the parlementary commission for monuments and landscapes. As you can see things have allready got through to top level politics in Flanders. I will report on the outcome of the interpelation once the notes of the meeting are published (most likely next week or a week later) on line. Plans for these works came from the province of West Vlaanderen, but everything was approved by the monuments and landscapes administration of the Flemish goverment, who were also responsible for the supervision. In my opinion both authorities share responsibilities. The erosion on the hill is a problem that should be dealt with, but homework should be done over and, most important, other sites such as Vimy and Newfoundland park should be studied to see how the problem is dealt with elsewhere. I also think that the expensive landscape architects who came up with this terrible idea should be releaved of their job and that the authorities should look at the anglo-saxon world, where there is actually some knowledge available when it comes to responible battlefield conservation. .Bert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick D Posted 18 March , 2015 Share Posted 18 March , 2015 How is that Martin? Chris, I cannot view them ! Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrislock Posted 18 March , 2015 Share Posted 18 March , 2015 Martin can open them by clicking on the link as I can also. Perhaps your end Mick? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mick D Posted 18 March , 2015 Share Posted 18 March , 2015 Chris, The Facebook page says that the content is currently unavailable, will that be due to the fact I' m not on Facebook or I'm viewing on an iPad ? Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigelcave Posted 18 March , 2015 Share Posted 18 March , 2015 Just wanted to let people know that minister-president Geert Bourgeois, head of the Flemish goverment and minister responsible for scheduled monuments (like hill 60) will be interpelated on the matter in the parlementary commission for monuments and landscapes. As you can see things have allready got through to top level politics in Flanders. I will report on the outcome of the interpelation once the notes of the meeting are published (most likely next week or a week later) on line. Plans for these works came from the province of West Vlaanderen, but everything was approved by the monuments and landscapes administration of the Flemish goverment, who were also responsible for the supervision. In my opinion both authorities share responsibilities. The erosion on the hill is a problem that should be dealt with, but homework should be done over and, most important, other sites such as Vimy and Newfoundland park should be studied to see how the problem is dealt with elsewhere. I also think that the expensive landscape architects who came up with this terrible idea should be releaved of their job and that the authorities should look at the anglo-saxon world, where there is actually some knowledge available when it comes to responible battlefield conservation. .Bert What I cannot understand (and I have contacted them and am awaiting a reply) is that Hill 60 'belongs' to the CWGC and they are (or should be) responsible for what is going on up there; there is nothing about this work on their web site. Anyhow, I am off up there today and shall have a look see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrislock Posted 18 March , 2015 Share Posted 18 March , 2015 Mick. Not to do with IPad use but you will need a FB account. Sorry mate. Perhaps if somebody with IT skills far better than mine, please feel free to copy, paste or transfer images directly onto this site please. My median tablet says no d'oh!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now