Talk:Kissing gate: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:22, 28 March 2022

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Architecture Start‑class Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United Kingdom Start‑class Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Agriculture Start‑class Low‑importance

	Agriculture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Livestock cannot pass through, not sure as published

The article says they can't but if a young animal was nibbling inside the "partial enclosure" of the gate and a wind came along and blew a poorly weighted/sprung example (without latches) against the field, that animal would probably escape. Any recorded instances, published?- Adam37 Talk 20:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that inquisitive lambs have managed to get through kissing gates. PhilUK (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution

I've never seen a kissing gate in Continental Europe. Are they unique to Britain and the US? And is there another name for them? PhilUK (talk) 18:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility

The section on 'disabled access' (which I might prefer to be called 'accessibility') says "DEFRA in England suggested in this context that kissing gates and stiles should in time be replaced or supplemented by a type that would allow access to a wider range of users". The references do not support this and indeed are not references to DEFRA. The DEFRA guidance is complex and refers to all sorts of gates and stiles. It seems to suggest that if a structure is essential, it should be the least restrictive to users of the way that is consistent with the landowner’s requirements - which in many cases will mean removing a kissing gate but not always. This is a complicated issue and I think it would be best to either not mention this at all - as this is a topic well beyond just kissing gates - or explain it more fully. Comments welcomed. Naturenet | Talk 10:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As per the above, I looked at expanding the 'Disabled access' section and decided it would be best to remove it entirely for now. This issue of accessibility on public paths is important, but not limited to kissing gates. The DEFRA guidance originally mentioned does not apply particularly to kissing gates either. If this topic needs to be on Wikipedia I think a better home should be found for it. Naturenet | Talk 14:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 10:40, 14 December 2021 edit Naturenet (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers 4,400 edits →‎Accessibility: new section ← Previous edit		Revision as of 14:22, 28 March 2022 edit undo Naturenet (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers 4,400 edits →‎Accessibility Next edit →
Line 14:		Line 14:

	The section on 'disabled access' (which I might prefer to be called 'accessibility') says ''"DEFRA in England suggested in this context that kissing gates and stiles should in time be replaced or supplemented by a type that would allow access to a wider range of users"''. The references do not support this and indeed are not references to DEFRA. The DEFRA guidance is complex and refers to all sorts of gates and stiles. It seems to suggest that if a structure is essential, it should be the least restrictive to users of the way that is consistent with the landowner’s requirements - which in many cases will mean removing a kissing gate but not always. This is a complicated issue and I think it would be best to either not mention this at all - as this is a topic well beyond just kissing gates - or explain it more fully. Comments welcomed. [[User:Naturenet\|Naturenet]] \| [[User talk:Naturenet\|Talk]] 10:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)		The section on 'disabled access' (which I might prefer to be called 'accessibility') says ''"DEFRA in England suggested in this context that kissing gates and stiles should in time be replaced or supplemented by a type that would allow access to a wider range of users"''. The references do not support this and indeed are not references to DEFRA. The DEFRA guidance is complex and refers to all sorts of gates and stiles. It seems to suggest that if a structure is essential, it should be the least restrictive to users of the way that is consistent with the landowner’s requirements - which in many cases will mean removing a kissing gate but not always. This is a complicated issue and I think it would be best to either not mention this at all - as this is a topic well beyond just kissing gates - or explain it more fully. Comments welcomed. [[User:Naturenet\|Naturenet]] \| [[User talk:Naturenet\|Talk]] 10:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
			: As per the above, I looked at expanding the 'Disabled access' section and decided it would be best to remove it entirely for now. This issue of accessibility on public paths is important, but not limited to kissing gates. The DEFRA guidance originally mentioned does not apply particularly to kissing gates either. If this topic needs to be on Wikipedia I think a better home should be found for it. [[User:Naturenet\|Naturenet]] \| [[User talk:Naturenet\|Talk]] 14:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)