paulmorgan

Hello, We deployed a fix for the Home option on Friday. This *should* address some of the problems mentioned in the thread in terms of returned results when that option is selected. Paul

Hello, Yes, the problem resides mainly with the "Roles from home" checkbox. We've been going through the code and we think we have a fix that will work with the other specific ways the search has been defined to us. We should hopefully get this rolled out next week, based against the other priorities we currently have. Thank you for the feedback, it's genuinely useful to gain an insight into how different people use, and expect things to function. I will also send this thread to the National Volunteering Manager who is looking at the whole process of how we collect Volunteering opportunity information, and then how we search over it and present it back it to the people who are minded to help us. Paul

All being well, should be back-end of next week. Some new changes are being tested and the initial final data is being entered by the respective regions for their planned notices. I think they should be entered by next Friday, so check back later on that day. Cheers, Paul

I've passed the thread onto Victoria Peckett - Digital Media Manager. No promises that anything will come of it, but we are updating various elements of the site - just comes down to time, resources, priorities and other requirements as always. Leave any further feedback in this thread if you like, I'll check it later this week. Cheers, Paul

I've posted this response from Sarina in Customer Services at Canal & River Trust. I hope it clarifies some queries expressed in this thread. Hello Alan, A colleague of mine alerted me to your thread on Canalworld discussion forum today about our notices site. I hope you don’t mind me writing to you directly but it’s something I’ve been personally involved in so I’m naturally quite passionate about it! You’re all right, the detail in bold at the top of the notice e-mail alert is automated text. It’s extracted from the location data that the waterway team enters when they create the notice. The “Location 42” related to the ‘functional location’ (FL) information for the start and end points of the stoppage. It’s not exciting, or particularly technical, but essentially every km length, bridge, lock, culvert, weir, sanitary station etc. has an associated FL. As you rightly deduced, each FL is written in the following way AA-012-345. AA will be a unique reference for each waterway, 012 relates to the relevant km of that waterway and 345 will define the structure or ‘asset’ within that km. The reason it displayed in this particular notice is because of that very annoying thing none of us can completely eliminate…human error. Instead of choosing a specific location on the 42nd km length of the Oxford canal, they chose the whole km. To prevent this happening again we (actually, not me, but colleagues who are more IT literate) are in the process of stopping this being possible. Having now spoken to the South East office I understand that they’re currently under extreme pressure. They have numerous incidents of flooding across their waterways and simply wanted to make sure that you were all provided with some warning and information about the present situation in this area. I hope you’ll agree that the content of the notice is clear and helpful. All that aside, you were right to voice your annoyance. “Oxford Canal – 042” is meaningless, irrelevant and potentially confusing information for you and I’m sorry that it slipped past us and out into general circulation. I also see that “john6767” mentions the difficulties we’ve experienced in offering a twitter feed of these notices. Being limited to only 140 characters whilst also including a link to the actual notice is the biggest limiting factor in being able to provide something immediately understandable. Since releasing the notices site and the Twitter feed I’d say that we’ve tweaked the Twitter feed so many times that I’ve lost count! We’ve fine-tuned them now to include: whether the notice is new or an update the date(s) the notice applies the navigation the nature of the notice (i.e. Navigation restriction/navigation closure/Advice/Towpath Closure etc.) That’s pretty much all we can squeeze onto these Tweets. Some of the changes we’ve made have happened quite recently so I’d be really grateful (if he’s interested) if “john6767” would have a look at the Twitter feed and let me know what he thinks? I also see that “nicknorman” has realised that some of the Tweets which we’re, in fact, updates to tell you that a closed navigation was now open still displayed ‘navigation closed’ in the Tweet. We spotted this too some time ago. To stop this from happening I’ve asked all my colleagues in the waterways to also update the notice type. It’s something different for them to do and most people are remembering but there’s still the possibility for error. If any of you spot them then you can let me know (@CRTSarina) and I’ll send a reminder round. In fact, We’d be really grateful for all your feedback on any part of the new notices system. If you’d like to send it to me (Sarina.young@canalrivertrust.org.uk), I’ll share it with my colleagues and we’ll see what we can do. It’s new and there are still some changes that we’re making to it (even as I write this e-mail) but we are keen to get it right – so please don’t feel as though you’d be wasting your time. Kindest regards, Sarina Young Customer Service Co-Ordinator

Hello All, I've corrected the problem, it was caused by us having a redirect in place for the registration sign up that was put in place for others urls .e.g the boaters update, but the stoppages page was obviously missed. My apologies for the frustration experienced by you all. To be clear on some other points raised in this topic. - The login details used on waterscape should be your waterscape details, NOT your CRT site sign-in details. We have added a note on the login page for the waterscape login to point this out based on your comments. - Yes, both sites are still running, albeit waterscape is only really live for the stoppage notifications until we finish the migration of that facility over to the new CRT site. Most if not all other url's should redirect to the CRT site. Migrating the stoppages across is taking time as we have to integrate the data that was/is held on waterscape to the system that allows registration and stores your profile on the new CRT site. We did not want to take down the stoppage notifications whilst we did this, so we decided to run both in tandem - this is not unusual, but I think we could have been clearer in communicating the difference of sign-in details needed. We will contact the people that use the service from waterscape and let them know of the process to go through for migration to the new CRT site. We are aiming to minimise the amount of admin a person would have to do, by merging accounts where possible so they won't need to do anything. However, I know you will still check I would expect more details to be communicated to you via the Boaters Update or directly from Damian Kemp at some point. If you're still having problems signing in, please do contact me directly (via this forum) and I will be glad to assist on this specific matter. Note: I would offer my email directly, but I get enough SPAM as it is, so please use the forum's facilities if you need to. Once again, my apologies. Paul

Hi, We stopped the stoppages services yesterday just after 12pm. We had asked the Works managers to send out the ones they could at that time knowing there would be a gap whilst we moved server networks and they could then add them quickly this morning hence the very small window of interruption. The network move happened quickly for this and we have been going through tidying up various things for various sites. The stoppages mailer came back online just after 11am today. We did not think that you would want another stoppage mail saying it had been activated as you would obviously see the stoppages coming through again. Two stoppages have been raised for the droitwich area. One for droitwich canals and one for the barge canal. I got one around 14:45pm today and the other just after 15:05pm. If you haven't received any and you think you should have, please log into waterscape and check your preferences you have set up, and obviously check your Junk Mail folders and the like. We also sometimes get complaints where the customer has signed up with one address and then starts using another and expects them to automagically come through to the new one. We sometimes get this where say btinternet.com migrate customer accounts to btopenworld.com and they do not realise they have been migrated to the newer domain. Kind regards, Paul

Hi, Just saw the thread. Have posted the stoppage onto waterscape, so at least people should get an email shortly. I'm sure Jeff and his team will amend as more details become available. =35&search_data_by[]=stoppage&start_day=8&start_month=1&start_year=2012&end_period=all&end_day=8&end_month=1&end_year=2012&subtn=+Find+Stoppages+"]Link Looks like there will be a few stoppages from Feb onwards in that area, from Fishery Lock upwards. Kind regards, Paul

@Allan hi Allan, finally managed to grab some quick time with the lawyer involved in the case and they are happy with the wording in the press release. It sets a precedent at that court level and within that level there are also different levels of judge: circuit and then district AIUI. In future cases, judges in higher courts are not obligated to adopt the ruling, but if they disagree they will need to set where those points of difference occur and why. AIUI, there are few other cases that will come up shortly and so there is a possibility that some of the greyer areas may or may not get defined more precisely. Time will tell I suppose. Anyway, I just wanted to follow up as I said I would. Thanks for you patience. paul

Hi Allan, Just an update. Haven't been able to catch up with the lawyer involved yet as either I've been ooto or she has. As soon as I do speak with her I will reply back. I'm just catching up with this thread (from page 6) so may have more to add later. All the best, Paul

Spesh, I'll ask the lawyer handling the case for BW if she's in the office tomorrow about it, and I'll try and speak to the press office and see if anything comes back. The press releases are entered by the press office into the system, so I have no direct input into them... apart from making sure it doesn't fall over. BTW, to add more fuel to your discussions I've googled around and found this interesting Wikipedia article on "Stare decisis" and "jurisprudence constante" which may give things a little more context. In particular, read the opening summary and then the English Legal System, Interpretation and Judicial resistance sections - the wrinkle seems to be in a civil as opposed to criminal context. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis Anyway hth, Paul Dude! shush! I'm making a fortune in Moon rocklets on ebay. is it this FOI request on whatdotheyknow.com that you want to see Spesh? http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/british_waterways_vs_davies#incoming-174565 All the best, Paul

Hi All, The revised mooring guiduance has been edited to show to differences between the previous and the current versions, so it is easier to see what has been changed. Hopefully, that should be the last edit for a while. All the best, Paul

Hi Allan, Simples, because I'm not the person responsible for that subject area, it's the Head of Boating, Sally Ash (the senior manager responsible). I would guess it's similar to your position at NBW - you have certain responsibilities and others have the same according to their specialism/ area of expertise. I got a number of documents from a BW lawyer and needed to clarify what went up and where. As part of this update, we are removing a superfluous page and amending another existing one where this information sits better in context. Whilst this may take some time, we don't want to hold up you getting the documents that you have requested... I mean, you might think it a conspiracy if we took too long edited to add: The documents et al are now available at: http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/our-work/boating/long-term-moorings-provision and we have removed the page that lived under this section - it was the holding page that had the text you referenced on it. http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/listening-to-you/consultations-and-reviews We have also changed the short url for http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/bristol_cc_ruling to the long term moorings provision page. All the best, Paul

Allan, I'm just waiting for the all clear to publish them from the senior manager responsible, that is all. I have it all waiting to go. Will let this thread know when it's done. All the best, Paul

You could see what others have bid by using the Bid History button on the details page for each individual auction. So, what you could do, is have two browser tabs open, one with the page to bid and one with the bid history and just refresh the bid history page periodically to watch the bids (if there are any placed) being submitted. The point of the anti-sniping is to allow others 5 minutes thinking time after a counter-bid has been placed to determine if they really do want to continue with the process. All the best, Paul

Hi Hermit, Apologies for the delay - I don't check back here every day. Alan has done the job for me (thanks). So you can use either: http://www.britishwaterways.co.uk/contact-us and go for the relevant region on the LHS or you could go to waterscape, type in say 'fradley' in the search, take the first option which is: http://www.waterscape.com/in-your-area/staffordshire/places-to-go/572/fradley-junction and then use either the telephone or fax number at the top of that page just under the address. Failing that, you can go by waterway page, in this case either Coventry Canal or Trent and Mersey Canal and then choose 'contact info' in the LHS menu. http://www.waterscape.com/canals-and-rivers/coventry-canal All the best, Paul

http://www.waterscape.com/in-your-area/cheshire/boating/moorings has 19 results. If you lock it down to chester then that number drops to 2. You can also try: https://www.bwmooringvacancies.com/ and search for moorings near where you are. hth, Paul

Couple of questions which would really help me if you could share... Could you tell me the version of FF you are using? In our tests, FF and Chrome were fast, it was IE that was the problem, especially IE6 (that does freeze depending upon the amount of data points that are included in area you are viewing). What type of connection are you using, a home b/band or are you using a mobile connection on a boat by any chance? I could understand the lag then due to the data points that need to be pulled down. Are you on Windows as well? XP / Vista or 7? Thanks, paul

Heh! wondered when you'd pop up Png is very nice, was that Illustrator and perl all the way? Paul

first point already been answered. Second point, love it! ...except Wensleydale. Was sick once and had eaten that not long before, so prolly dislike by association. Red Leicester is my fave, then Danish Blue, then Cheddar. All the best, Paul

Hi Allan, IANAL, so hopefully the other m'learned friends can be super accurate, but AIUI, the judge made his judgement in open court - that can be reported on, but the fully qualified judgement had not - at that time - been created that can be referenced for the future. I would suggest that it is the same as when a murder trial or similar is reported in the news, the summary judgement is reported on and the full judgement is handed down at a later date. Due to the complexity of the case, the judge wanted to consider any further points and allow both counsels time to check over the judgement before sealing it. The judgement as such has been passed, but the full written one had not been completed. AIUI further, anyone can issue a press release for any case if it's ongoing or not, so long as it doesn't prejudice the case, otherwise how would court reporters do their job? In this instance the case had completed, so 'that' press release was issued. All the best Paul

I don't know about that side of things, I don't go to the meetings or form policy for boating, so from as neutral a perspective as you may allow me, I can understand why you might want to do so. The risk (if any) is borne by you, so you do as you please just as you would with any other law in this fair land and any consequences are fully your own. We are responsible adults on here after all. All the best, Paul

Hi, Waterscape has a number of online maps: www.waterscape.com/map for the general one. We expose information we either own or have collected at different levels. You can turn a layer off if you think the map is getting cluttered and most icons are clickable to give any further information we might have. To be clear, the waterways shown are the ones that BW maintains, so waterways such as the Thames, Nene etc are not included. Each waterway (that BW maintains) has one as well, e.g. www.waterscape.com/canals-and-rivers/oxford-canal/map as you zoom in, we expose different types of information .i.e. locks, bridges etc are shown at greater zoom levels. We also do it by area / town where possible, e.g. www.waterscape.com/in-your-area/leicestershire/foxton/map As part of the move to a charity we are looking to improve the maps further, so if anyone has comments where you think / want us to make them better (particularly from a boating perspective) then please tell me here so others can also comment. Also, is there anything with the boaters guides that you'd like us to improve / change. We're looking at rolling them out for other audiences such as walkers or cyclists, but is there anything fundamental that you think needs to be on them. They are one of the popular facilities on waterscape and if we can make them more useful then all the better. Cheers, Paul

Hi, I've spoken to our lawyer who worked on the case and the 'judgement' shown on other websites is not the full judgement. We are still awaiting the full one, once it has been received from the court. I've been chasing this since the day of the case, indeed we were hopeful to get it up there shortly thereafter. However, as I was told, the judge took it home with him and had not returned it back to court for some time hence the delay. I chased it again last Thursday and again today - it's a delay we could do without as it spreads FUD, but it is out of our hands at present. Our lawyer did mention that other websites purporting to carry the full judgement might be in trouble if someone complained to the appropriate authorities, but that is there risk, not BW's. As soon as get it, we will publish it, as I am sure will others. hth, Paul

hi, I'd say leather definitely. The Mirror 'should' have some scales down to, and along the lateral line IIRC. This looks more like a leather that has maybe been cross-bred with a mirror. Anyway, nice catch. Paul