hi
hoping you can advise about what to do about the paving in my front garden...
currently made of old ugly concrete 3x2's, mostly whole slabs
The direct line-of-sight from the gate to the front door is at an angle, but from the gate end, the slabs are in a single straight line (so the path is 3 ft wide), then across to make an L shape; the inside of the L has been filled with a few slabs cut at an angle, leading to where the path meets a small patio in front of the doorstep
quick sketch:
(ww=wall, g=gate, f=front doorstep, x's show shape but not corresponding to slabs, .c = cut slabs)
wwwwwgggwwwww
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
cxxx
.cxxx
ccxxx
.ccxxx
cccxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxx
fff
i'd like to reduce the area of the path something like this:
wwwwwgggwwwww
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
////
cxxx
.cxxc
ccxc.
.ccxc
cccc.
.cxxxc
xxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxx
fff
So – aiming for the ‘path of least resistance' in terms of work involved to make any changes, while still minimising unsatisfactory results - the question is:
Should I leave everything where it is but just cut off bits that I don't want (the corner of the L) using some suitable cutting tool?
(ie more cutting but no re-laying)
Or should I cut the edge of the slab at /// to make an angle and then lift and relay the path from there onwards with a straight line of whole slabs (now lying at a slight angle to the slabs of those leading from the gate) until it meets the patio (where of course another piece cut wedge-shaped will be necessary to make the join)...? (ie only a couple of cuts, but several slabs re-laid at new angle)
thanks,
james
cutting vs relaying...?
-
84-1093879891
Sorry for the delayed response, but I'm off back to Ireland for a few days next week and so it's all been a bit hectic here for the last few days.
Here's your options....
If you opt to trim the right hand edge of the path, as in Option 1, you end with nasty little triangular pieces that are bound to break and the whole lot looks like a bodge, whereas, with Option 2, you have only 3 flags to cut and the job looks as though it's been designed that way, rather than bodged. :)
Here's your options....
If you opt to trim the right hand edge of the path, as in Option 1, you end with nasty little triangular pieces that are bound to break and the whole lot looks like a bodge, whereas, with Option 2, you have only 3 flags to cut and the job looks as though it's been designed that way, rather than bodged. :)
-
100-1093880202
-
100-1093880202
-
84-1093879891
For those of you who haven't figured it out yet....
...in the sketch on the left-hand side, the length of the angled cut made to Flag 2 is greater than the uncut edge of flag 1, so you end up with a small amount of 'overhang'.
Alright: it's not the end of the world or grossly offensive, but it just looks untidy when compared to a properly mitred joint shown on the right.
This also gives me the opportunity to mention a new page on the website looking at how mitred joints are calculated.
...in the sketch on the left-hand side, the length of the angled cut made to Flag 2 is greater than the uncut edge of flag 1, so you end up with a small amount of 'overhang'.
Alright: it's not the end of the world or grossly offensive, but it just looks untidy when compared to a properly mitred joint shown on the right.
This also gives me the opportunity to mention a new page on the website looking at how mitred joints are calculated.
-
100-1093880202
hi Tony
thanks again for your very helpful replies!
meanwhile --- aaarrgghhh... it looks like i have another problem to solve...
the layout of slabs is as in your diagram 'Option 2', except delete the one slab in the bottom right-hand corner, and orient the bottom row of slabs the other way, so the angled section meets the 2-foot edges (rather than the 3-foot edges as shown) - so there are two slabs immediately below the one marked 'Cut 3' - these two slabs extend from the corner of the patio (following the line of orientation of the patio slabs).
(for the next bit, please bear in mind, the patio is laid, the path from the gate is laid, it's a matter of the angled section of path that joins them)
i've just done some measurements etc, and i've realised that (i think) there's going to be a gap that's just too large for the slab joining the path to the patio to fill (the one needing Cut 3 in your diagram). In other words, the 2-foot edge next to the 'C' of 'Cut 3' will be just short to fill the gap, leaving an unsightly little triangle that i figure will probably be about 8cm x 3cm...
i suppose an alternative would be to adjust the angle of the section (from Cut2-Cut3) so that it shifts slightly across to the right. then the slab with Cut 3 will overhang the corner of the patio by about 8cm instead, and the overhang could be cut off, and the slab below cut at the same angle - but this will make the Cut3 slab a bit mis-shapen, and the path will look narrow at that point...
wondering what to do...
james
thanks again for your very helpful replies!
meanwhile --- aaarrgghhh... it looks like i have another problem to solve...
the layout of slabs is as in your diagram 'Option 2', except delete the one slab in the bottom right-hand corner, and orient the bottom row of slabs the other way, so the angled section meets the 2-foot edges (rather than the 3-foot edges as shown) - so there are two slabs immediately below the one marked 'Cut 3' - these two slabs extend from the corner of the patio (following the line of orientation of the patio slabs).
(for the next bit, please bear in mind, the patio is laid, the path from the gate is laid, it's a matter of the angled section of path that joins them)
i've just done some measurements etc, and i've realised that (i think) there's going to be a gap that's just too large for the slab joining the path to the patio to fill (the one needing Cut 3 in your diagram). In other words, the 2-foot edge next to the 'C' of 'Cut 3' will be just short to fill the gap, leaving an unsightly little triangle that i figure will probably be about 8cm x 3cm...
i suppose an alternative would be to adjust the angle of the section (from Cut2-Cut3) so that it shifts slightly across to the right. then the slab with Cut 3 will overhang the corner of the patio by about 8cm instead, and the overhang could be cut off, and the slab below cut at the same angle - but this will make the Cut3 slab a bit mis-shapen, and the path will look narrow at that point...
wondering what to do...
james
-
100-1093880202
> Summat like this....?
yes, just so!
i was trying to check & measure it again before making any cuts (not so easy!) to anticipate what exactly to expect at the join - and maybe the dart might be as small as a 15mm x 40mm triangle... (or alternatively, a corresponding c. 40mm overhang on the other side)
if the overhang is small (say 4cm), would you ever consider trimming the overhang, or would you always go for the half-flag the way you've shown. it's just that all the other flags are whole, so would a half-flag and triangle look out of place? it's hard to visualise the actual result - would trimming even a small overhang look worse?
the other possibility i wondered about - there are about 6 flags in the joining section - what if i reduce the angle of Cuts 1&2 by say about half, and then put in another pair of cuts (3&4) a flag or two along. could that get rid of the dart gap...?
thanks,
james
yes, just so!
i was trying to check & measure it again before making any cuts (not so easy!) to anticipate what exactly to expect at the join - and maybe the dart might be as small as a 15mm x 40mm triangle... (or alternatively, a corresponding c. 40mm overhang on the other side)
if the overhang is small (say 4cm), would you ever consider trimming the overhang, or would you always go for the half-flag the way you've shown. it's just that all the other flags are whole, so would a half-flag and triangle look out of place? it's hard to visualise the actual result - would trimming even a small overhang look worse?
the other possibility i wondered about - there are about 6 flags in the joining section - what if i reduce the angle of Cuts 1&2 by say about half, and then put in another pair of cuts (3&4) a flag or two along. could that get rid of the dart gap...?
thanks,
james
-
84-1093879891
The half-flag is the 'correct' solution, in that it complies with BS7533:Part 4, the Code of Practice for laying flags. It really doesn't look all that odd when on the ground - remember that the drawings above are a bird's eye view (plan view) whereas what you see when they're laid is from an acute angle, so they look quite natural.
The only time I'd change this solution is if the 'dart' was going to be less than 25mm. Even for a 40mm dart, although it sounds petty, I'd rather do it this way than effect a bodge, but, as this is your own project, you can do whatever you wish as you're the customer! :)
I can't say whether introducing a further dog-leg into the connecting path would eliminate the dart because I don't have an accurate site plan. However, I think that it would actually make that connecting path look odd - once you intriduce too many angle cuts, you either have to regularise them so that they are repeated at regular intervals and therefore intentional, or you learn to put up with the 'drunken flagger' look.
The only time I'd change this solution is if the 'dart' was going to be less than 25mm. Even for a 40mm dart, although it sounds petty, I'd rather do it this way than effect a bodge, but, as this is your own project, you can do whatever you wish as you're the customer! :)
I can't say whether introducing a further dog-leg into the connecting path would eliminate the dart because I don't have an accurate site plan. However, I think that it would actually make that connecting path look odd - once you intriduce too many angle cuts, you either have to regularise them so that they are repeated at regular intervals and therefore intentional, or you learn to put up with the 'drunken flagger' look.
-
100-1093880202
the gap on the right hand side is going to be about 306mm, which is almost exactly half the size of a flag (610mm).
so if I put in a half-flag, then the remaining wedge will actually be a triangle with a sharpish point on the right-hand end... (a nasty big dart in fact?)
is it ok to do it like that, or would it be better to cut the 'half-flag' a bit smaller, so that the wedge is shaped as in your diagram, with a short edge on the right-hand side...? if so, how much shorter would you recommend? (ie the minimum recommended length of that small right-hand edge)
so if I put in a half-flag, then the remaining wedge will actually be a triangle with a sharpish point on the right-hand end... (a nasty big dart in fact?)
is it ok to do it like that, or would it be better to cut the 'half-flag' a bit smaller, so that the wedge is shaped as in your diagram, with a short edge on the right-hand side...? if so, how much shorter would you recommend? (ie the minimum recommended length of that small right-hand edge)
-
84-1093879891