Mike Todd

It is pretty much standard on new ones - only those interested in matching historical experiences will think to ask! My point remains for all such phones.

Why is it so different from a mobile phone? Especially as the phone is usually left on all the time whilst a camera is not.

I haven't checked recently but when I was buying a replacement last spring I found that almost all cameras in the pocket-size range have dropped the GPS function which was a bit of a disappointment. I found it very useful to be able to locate a photo (of a canal feature such as a milestone) that is hard to find via Google Maps etc. Given that mobile phones have it almost by default these days (and when the market is feature-driven) it was not easy to understand this trend.

That's fine when on board, steering or not, but not really when off, working locks. Or perhaps you have crew to do that? . . .

Whilst I have long coveted a 'proper'camera (last one was long ago back in the days of film) on a boat I really do need a pocket sized one, together with a neck strap. I have only actually lost one - that was climbing up a lock ladder - but I don't want to do so again. I lost a number of pix of canal features that took several years to replace as we did not go back there for that length of time. The problem with a larger non-pocket camera is when working locks. When I get off I want to take pix of the lock itself and special features eg an unusual weir. I find that having something swinging around is all but impossible to cope with not to mention endangering the camera itself. Sadly I find that my smartphone take better pix than the separate higher end pocket camera but does not come with a tethering point and I do not intend to risk losing it into the murky depths.

Kevin Walsh's website: http://www.kevinwalshoriginals.com/index.html seems he specialises in images meant for licensing o products such as jigsaws and other items.

It is statutory - only a different body of law. statutory = decided or controlled by law contract law provides a framework in which parties may enter voluntarily into an enforceable agreement that involves the exchange of a consideration. In the particular, CaRT are entitled to control who has access (as in marina entrances) to the canals (subject to some arcane exceptions - see Nigel M for detail!) To make the contract valid, the marina operator has to give CaRT a consideration. Of course, CaRT can choose the level of that payment just as potential marina developers can choose whether to pay it or not. Overall, CaRT have to balance their books and to make charges - where they are permitted to do so - at a level that, in a market context, maximises their total income. Too low a charge and their income falls below what could be achieved at a higher level. Too high a level and the numbers drop off and the total income falls. If someone decided that CaRT should reduce the NAA to a peppercorn (still not zero) then my guess is that they would increase some other charges to compensate. Or, to put it another way, by levying the NAA then CaRT are reducing the licence fee to all other boaters (compared with what it would, have been in the absence of such an income stream). Since no-one is forced to pay the NAA (only if they wish to enter into a contract with CaRT to permit them to operate a marina in the first place) it can hardly be described as an abuse of power since the level of charges is market-driven. As there are new developers continuing to agree to the arrangement then it looks as if they have got it somewhere about right. Mooring charges are also market-driven and if the NAA charges were removed there would be no requirement for the marina operator to reduce mooring charges. Previous discussions on this topic seemed to suggest that mooring fees at marinas which existed prior to this scheme were much the same as elsewhere, taking into account the facilities provided. You are perfectly entitles to campaign for the reduction of NAA charges but to succeed you will need to build a strong case for doing so. At the moment, as I think is obvious, you have very little to offer CaRT to persuade them it would be a good thing - I doubt whether a court would begin to entertain an argument that the charges are illegal.

In general, mobile broadband is charged by the quantity of data transferred (either way) and connection time is 'free'. Hence it does not matter how long you are connected but it does matter what you do with the internet. As is the way of things, the quantities increase over time, just because web site providers are always seeking to increase the user experience. You dismiss having a smart phone. In practice, there will soon be little else (although a new concept will no doubt come along to make today's smart phone a commonplace). We find that with the current Three tethering limit and with at least three devices regularly connected, we keep within the monthly limit - although we are rarely on board for a full month at a time, our usage levels are consistent with that. We do make quite extensive use of the internet and I don't think that at home we use much more, except that we are less cautious about watching YouTube links. Downloading or streaming music does not seem to use excessive bandwidth. We do not have an external aerial and only occasionally do we have an issue - just place the phone near to a window and only rarely does it matter which side of the boat the window is on. I would only consider anything more expensive than our current solution if we were permanently on board and our lives (or livelihoods) depended on greater data transfers.

You need the licence to be in this marina just as much as you (or anyone else) need a licence to be on the canal itself - these are valid arrangements made by people who are entitled to do so. The only argument you could advance is one of fairness - ie it is not so much a matter that you don't need a licence to be in the marina as you don't want to have one. Very different. I don't want to have a licence for my car but I need one! Changing the law (which not only includes the specific statutes relating to the canals and CaRT but also more general contract law) when it is a matter of fairness, given that the underlying costs have to come from somewhere, is about changing public opinion. In a zero sum game, reducing the costs for you means increasing them for someone else to pay for your benefit - they might not like doing that! Given the reactions here to your complaints and also how it appears that people have responded to the various consultations about licencing, I suspect that you are on a losing wicket here. Would it not be better to learn to live with the facts of life just like everyone else? Or do you just get pleasure in needling the world . . . As it happens, I think that it is quite a good rule (not a bad one) even though I am currently paying it whilst our boat languishes in a marina whilst we live the rest of our lives. I just happen to take the view that it is worthwhile raising money this way to keep the attached system (without which the marina would not be there anyway) in working order. Some people and some organisations obsess about minimising (often to the point of extinction) their tax liability - most of us accept that the two certainties are death and taxes and I am perhaps more concerned about putting off one rather than the other!

As I have pointed out before: when the towpaths were maintained solely for navigation purposes they became all but impassable in many places - horses no longer pulled boats and so the towpath was a low priority. My memory starts over 50 years ago when it was a lottery whether you could walk along the towpath to find a phone call box to summon assistance when broken down! Even as recently as 10 years ago I recall stretches that could not be walked along. What changed was when local authorities discovered that towpaths were a relatively low cost way of extending their provision for access and recreational exercise, along with other bodies such as Sustrans. The result is that impassable towpaths are very rare and I struggle to think of one that I have encountered in the past 5 years - OK some are a bit muddy underfoot but still a world away from how they once became. There is an issue in that the financial input is, I think, predominantly capital and, as is so often when capital is given, little is done about funding the on-going maintenance. What will happen when the nice new tarmac cycle motorway becomes full of potholes - will CaRT have to divert its funds to repair them? Would they be allowed to de-prioritise towpaths in the way that BWB once did?

I am unclear how an app can be more accurate at lower speeds assuming it is dependent on GPS which has a fixed accuracy whatever. At low speeds the problem is that the location which the GPS returns dithers around - not a problem at higher speeds but disproportionately so at low speed. Whilst one can smooth out the location in a time series, it does not do much for the speed accuracy. Some GPS units do give speed themselves in the data stream - those I have looked at have very unstable values at low speeds. Just because something says 2.35 mph rather than 69 mph does not mean that it is anywhere near as accurate as the resolution implies.

Resolution is not the same as Accuracy!

. . . And n'er a breakdown.

As far as I can see, wandering around the system, there are - as with any market - different levels of facility for different customers. There are the destination marinas (like Mercia) which, as with gastro pubs, have found a market well beyond just offering a safe haven for boats. Others, such as where we are at the moment at Droitwich, provide just what boaters need - above all a friendly location with water, elsan and rubbish disposal and good laundry facilities. For some the option of a 'proper' shower is also welcome. Others, sometimes just otherwise disused side arms or backwaters, appear to be the home to boats that are mostly liveaboard and perhaps fall into the category that b0atman suggests would be unwelcome elsewhere. The more modern marinas are often the more expensive as they have to carry the cost of the NAA whilst older established ones do not although I suspect that this is only marginal. More likely the variation depends on the capital cost of the facilities offered. I for one would not want our canal network to be an imitation of the plastic, g&t boat palace places that extend along many coastlines. Whilst I have no wish to be in a state that imperils my welcome in a marina, I am more than happy for the canals to be proper reflection of life across all of society. Yes, some boats cost well into the six figure sum (at least when new) whilst others next to nothing (there is one lying in Diglis basin that we saw an advert on the facility block door with the strapline Boat for Free although the details were honest about its current state and the work needed!) That said, my prejudices do lie in the direction of wanting to limit the number of boats moored on-line at any one location, just for variety whilst cruising.

I suspect you are confusing efficiency with consumption. You can be efficient of inefficient whatever level of consumption you use.

Depends somewhat on how you treat capital.

I would have expected that they had to approve it, assuming it is Listed. We really don't want to go down the US route where every town hall post us elected and changes each time. Not the best way to run things that do need some expertise.

Most motorways have what to the uninitiated look like identikit bridges and assume that one design was used for them all. Well, yes as far as general appearance is concerned but from an engineering point of view each one has to be designed individually to take into account the specific location, ground levels and conditions, different purposes for the bridge and so on. In the case of Listed structures, Historic England and the local planning officers will require that the design is individually tailored, not just for engineering reasons, but also heritage ones as well. Each viaduct, or location requiring a set of railings, will itself have been separately designed, possible generations apart. Even if the client says, "Can I have one like this one?" that is far from the end of the matter. This is not a lot to do with CaRT or any other owner of a listed building/structure - who just has to follow the rules. It's called a democracy - the majority get to decide the rules for the minority . . .

Have you done the sums aka a Business Plan?

Looked to me on the news at 1pm as if they had about six bow thrusters - well one was a bow thruster, another was at the stern and the other tugs (pushers actually) were lined up in between . . .

Sounds to me like a reporter desperately trying to make a story out of a quite ordinary situation. Anyone ever been involved in a large construction project - whether land or water based? Even our new nb was having snags fixed by the builder several months after handover (only a very small number I hasten to add in case anyone can work out which builder it was!).

A bucket and checkit tale: In 1969, or thereabouts, we were running a cub scout pack and took a group on a canal holiday (before the days of written risk assessments I hasten to add!) We hired/borrowed a 70ft boat that was really little more than a camping boat - the lads loved it. (At that time our own helming experience was limited to boats about a third in length!) The toilet provision was b&c. One morning one lad came to report that he had lost his torch during the night when he dropped it in the toilet. Rather later when I was in the chuckit phase of the process I emptied the said bucket into the hole which I had just dug in a field only to find the torch still with its light on! I cleaned it off (sort of disinfected it) and returned it to the lad's parents at the end of the trip with due warnings about its travel experience!

Our first experience (1967) on a hire boat had a yacht-type toilet that pumped straight into the canal. That was banned soon after and for a few years we knew all about digging holes under hedges and the pros and cons of different types of shovel. Anyone for the good old days?

My perception is that the current situation is more complex than you suggest: Both online and offline moorings have significant vacancies in some places whilst others have waiting lists longer than a lifetime. Not all online moorings, judging by the CaRT site, are cheaper although some EOG ones might well be if they are not really run on a commercial basis - especially if they had to meet any new minimum standards for services and access. The reality is that the London market is barely served by off line moorings, those that exist are expensive but then so is other housing and land. New marinas would have to meet the level of return on the capital that is offered by the alternative uses, especially little housing boxes. There is clearly some desire for online moorings that goes well beyond a simple rental consideration. I know of at least one marina in London where the small number of on line moorings are more highly desired than those inside the marina just a few metres away. Whilst for many, especially in the London area where housing costs are beyond reason, the cost of the mooring may be a deciding factor, elsewhere it appears to be less so. Marinas are only located where their investors choose to put them and are patchy. Towpaths, however, go (almost) everywhere and so comparisons are again difficult. If you live 30 miles from a marina then it is likely that you will be prepared to pay more for a comparable towpath mooring with limited facilities than for one outside a competitively priced full service marina. My main comment on the proposed policy is that it is a too simplistic response to a complex situation and, as a result, will have as many - but different - problems as the existing one. This is not uncommon in policy reviews (and a lot else as well) where someone comes along and says, "You know that problem you have with xxx - here is a solution" and indeed it does appear to solve the presenting issue. However, what is often overlooked but vital to do, it to look at the existing policy or whatever and see how many of the things that it does cover very well are carried over into the new proposal. All too often you find that in the effort to chase a solution to a specific problem an idea that overall is much worse is presented and, sometimes foolishly, adopted.

But is is suggested that this is dropped.