Having seen the signs, I'd have to agree. Nicely worded and as discrete as you could hope for while still being noticeable, good to hear they are well away from the sites proper. Having a number to call when there's something to report is enormously helpful, slap on the back for those guys in my book.
Reply | with quote | Posted by CianMcLiam 28th June 2007ce 11:34 |
Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (Mirla, Jun 25, 2007, 15:18)- Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (tiompan, Jun 25, 2007, 16:30)
- Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (Hob, Jun 25, 2007, 17:18)
- Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (Mirla, Jun 26, 2007, 11:26)
- Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (goffik, Jun 26, 2007, 14:45)
- Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (Paulus, Jun 26, 2007, 23:14)
- Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (tomwatts, Jun 27, 2007, 14:57)
- Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (Paulus, Jun 27, 2007, 21:24)
- Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (FourWinds, Jun 28, 2007, 05:51)
- Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (goffik, Jun 28, 2007, 06:07)
- Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (ocifant, Jun 28, 2007, 06:30)
- Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (tuesday, Jun 28, 2007, 08:41)
- Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (Mustard, Jun 29, 2007, 18:04)
- New Code (nigelswift, Jun 28, 2007, 11:52)
- Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (Mirla, Jun 29, 2007, 15:27)
- Re: Ancient sites: Protect or Use? (Vybik Jon, Sep 17, 2012, 14:26)
|
|