The Virtual BCN Challenge 2020

[cheshire~rose]

Teams: you have email!

[Richard T]

4 hours ago, cheshire~rose said:

 

 

 

Tam (name yet to be decided) 

 

 

 

 

The team will be known as Whisky Galore!!

[Captain Pegg]

1 hour ago, cheshire~rose said:

Teams: you have email!

First check through and a few points to consider:

 

- not sure the limited overnight mooring options won’t be too restrictive (I’ll try to plan and see if that’s the case). Might be worth allowing folks to nominate sensible additional places or allow day lengths to be adjusted and averaged out.

 

- the dead end closed sections seem to be listed with only one way’s distance and locks which is different from how the open sections are listed. Might cause some confusion.

- Two locks line?

 

- Smethwick summit? Or will I need a virtual craft with wings for that?

 

JP

Edited April 25, 2020 by Captain Pegg

[cheshire~rose]

37 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

First check through and a few points to consider:

 

- not sure the limited overnight mooring options won’t be too restrictive (I’ll try to plan and see if that’s the case). Might be worth allowing folks to nominate sensible additional places or allow day lengths to be adjusted and averaged out.

It is supposed to be a challenge. ?

37 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

 

- the dead end closed sections seem to be listed with only one way’s distance and locks which is different from how the open sections are listed. Might cause some confusion.

The lost sections count both ways unless stated

37 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

- Two locks line?

You edited your post to add this after I had communicated with @Capt Ahab so I am unable to answer at present 

37 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

 

- Smethwick summit? Or will I need a virtual craft with wings for that?

 

JP

What are you asking about Smethwick Summit? 

[Capt Ahab]

23 minutes ago, cheshire~rose said:

It is supposed to be a challenge. ?

The lost sections count both ways unless stated

You edited your post to add this after I had communicated with @Capt Ahab so I am unable to answer at present 

What are you asking about Smethwick Summit? 

I am guessing you mean the original Brindley summit vs the current Smeaton Summit. 

Interesting thought because you would get 4 pts per mile for the uppermost route. However, the Brindley summit was so short it didnt really seem worth trying to include it.  

I think I overlooked the Two Locks line.....sorry

[Captain Pegg]

34 minutes ago, cheshire~rose said:

It is supposed to be a challenge. ?

The lost sections count both ways unless stated

You edited your post to add this after I had communicated with @Capt Ahab so I am unable to answer at present 

What are you asking about Smethwick Summit? 

I know it’s a challenge but I mapped out 7 hour days only to find that some of those days could only be about 4 hours long to fit designated mooring locations. It makes me think that if people produce plans that are heavily restricted by mooring and then daily obstacles to cruising are thrown in (as implied above) that it may actually become unfeasible to comply with the rules.

 

I understand how the lost dead end sections score, it’s explained on the sheet. What I was attempting to point out is that the way the miles and locks for the open dead end sections are listed is different to how the lost ones have been added and that may result in planning errors by participants that only become apparent when they have submitted their score sheets.

 

Two Locks line and Smethwick Summit are omitted. The latter may be deliberate as the through route is essentially still there (but then again would that also apply to Bradley loop that is listed?).

 

On the subject of connecting non-BCN waters there is actually a precedent on the real Challenge, which is Aston to Salford via Garrison. This section incorporates the B&F Digbeth branch which is BCN and the Warwick & Birmingham Junction Canal that has never been BCN but does score.

 

To follow the same logic it should probably the case that the connecting waterways score at a factor of 1.
 

Otherwise it would be better to have Churchbridge locks branch as an out and back together with the Cannock Extension and omit the Hatherton (which wasn’t BCN anyway but is included in the scoring).

 

Is it the intention that folks should also start from a designated mooring location? That’s important when considering non-BCN stretches.

 

JP

 

 

Edited April 25, 2020 by Captain Pegg

[cheshire~rose]

8 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

I know it’s a challenge but I mapped out 7 hour days only to find that some of those days could only be about 4 hours long to fit designated mooring locations. It makes me think that if people produce plans that are heavily restricted by mooring and then daily obstacles to cruising are thrown in (as implied above) that it may actually become unfeasible to comply with the rules.

 

I understand how the lost dead end sections score, it’s explained on the sheet. What I was attempting to point out is that the way the miles and locks for the open dead end sections are listed is different to how the lost ones have been added and that may result in planning errors by participants that only become apparent when they have submitted their score sheets.

 

Two Locks line and Smethwick Summit are omitted. The latter may be deliberate as the through route is essentially still there (but then again would that also apply to Bradley loop that is listed?).

 

On the subject of connecting non-BCN waters there is actually a precedent on the real Challenge, which is Aston to Salford via Garrison. This section incorporates the B&F Digbeth branch which is BCN and the Warwick & Birmingham Junction Canal that has never been BCN but does score.

 

To follow the same logic it should probably the case that the connecting waterways score at a factor of 1.
 

Otherwise it would be better to have Churchbridge locks branch as an out and back together with the Cannock Extension and omit the Hatherton (which wasn’t BCN anyway but is included in the scoring).

 

Is it the intention that folks should also start from a designated mooring location? That’s important when considering non-BCN stretches.

 

JP

 

 

It could have been helpful if you had elaborated on these points to start with then we might have had a better idea what it was you were asking.

 

It is far too late tonight for us to give any proper thought to this now I am afraid. 

 

Any precedents set in the real challenge do not have to be followed in this challenge and in a virtual challenge logic may be less important than imagination.

 

?   It might be interesting to try and persuade the organisers of the real BCN Challenge that a precedent had been set in this challenge that cruising The Bentley Canal scored points and so their score sheet should be amended to include it, seems perfectly logical to me at this time of night ??

[Captain Pegg]

36 minutes ago, cheshire~rose said:

Any precedents set in the real challenge do not have to be followed in this challenge and in a virtual challenge logic may be less important than imagination.

 

Agreed. Hence a concern, based upon my first attempts at compiling a route, that it could become dominated by quite complex planning rather than the submitted narrative (and I’m far better at logic than imagination).
 

It’s not so much the precedent but the thinking behind it that I was considering. It’s done to make an outlying branch more readily accessible and particularly to encourage folk to poke their noses into Typhoo Basin.

 

The lost sections of the BCN that are likely to be most interesting for the narratives are the longer stretches that mostly head off limits, hence thoughts toward ensuring there is sufficient encouragement to use them.

 

That’s the same reason I asked the last question on start points. One participant has already said they intend to start at an outlying junction but not one that’s listed as a mooring location. We’d had the same thought (but not the same location). 

 

JP

[john6767]

Do you have to start from one of the listed mooring locations?

[RebelMike]

1 hour ago, john6767 said:

Do you have to start from one of the listed mooring locations?

We've had an interesting evening poring over Bradshaw's, old online OS maps and Captain Ahab's blog trying to work out how the names on the spreadsheet link to bits of canal - I think we're just about getting there, thank you for the challenge!

 

I would like to join the chorus of people asking if you have to start from one of the listed locations   We're currently assuming you don't have to.

 

The added restriction of where to moor is definitely going to be a pain when planning!  Could you clarify what points deduction applies if we fail to arrive on time?  Does any cruising over 7 hours simply not count, or is it a fixed points per time over penalty?  If some cruising isn't counted can we choose whether to take that at the start or end of the day? (or even in the middle?)

 

I'm assuming that winding doesn't cost any time, but you can only wind at junctions or winding holes.  Correct?

 

Finally, I think this is probably obvious but I don't think it's been clearly stated - is the base score (before bonus factor) 1 point per mile and 1 point per lock, regardless of length of virtual craft?

[john6767]

Oh another interesting question, do we assume that on the close canals there are no winding holes, and that you can therefore only turn at junctions on closed sections?

[Ange]

Unfortunately Team Iona will have to stand down but I will be following with interest. Have fun everyone.

[Captain Pegg]

May I propose the following additions to the mooring locations:

 

Huddlesford Junction

Selly Oak Junction

Oldbury Junction (or similar in that area)

 

It’s impossible to include the W&E Huddlesford section unless starting at Huddlesford.

 

JP

[Keeping Up]

9 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

 

It’s impossible to include the W&E Huddlesford section unless starting at Huddlesford.

Strictly speaking not impossible, but at the sacrifice of some points-scoring time.

[Captain Pegg]

1 minute ago, Keeping Up said:

Strictly speaking not impossible, but at the sacrifice of some points-scoring time.

Possible without mooring at an unauthorised location and sparking fourteen pages of accusation and counter accusation elsewhere on the forum that you’ve single handedly caused a CV-19 spike in South Staffordshire?

 

JP

[Captain Pegg]

2 hours ago, john6767 said:

Oh another interesting question, do we assume that on the close canals there are no winding holes, and that you can therefore only turn at junctions on closed sections?

That raises a point that I’ve always felt is ambiguous in the real thing.

 

I thought whole sections had to be completed to be scored and it appears to be the same in the virtual challenge. So other than at the terminuses of dead end branches - were it surely is assumed you can wind - why would you need to wind?

 

And It’s just struck me in asking that question your likely answer will be “to fill days up to 7 hours duration and be able to comply with the mooring restrictions”.

 

JP

[Keeping Up]

13 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

Possible without mooring at an unauthorised location and sparking fourteen pages of accusation and counter accusation elsewhere on the forum that you’ve single handedly caused a CV-19 spike in South Staffordshire?

 

JP

Perfectly possible, but of course that wouldn't stop the 14 pages of false accusations.

[Captain Pegg]

4 minutes ago, Keeping Up said:

Perfectly possible, but of course that wouldn't stop the 14 pages of false accusations.

Aha, you’re using imagination whereas I only have logic in my armoury.

 

Catshill to Fazeley - 14 miles, 30 locks, no intermediate mooring locations permitted. That’s 8 hours. Are you assuming it’s OK to cruise beyond 7 hours, or just assuming that doesn’t matter if it isn’t in a scoring section? I read that as not being allowed because you have to make a continuous journey within the permitted cruising time.

 

Even then it requires to not score Catshill to Ogley Jn which is only listed as part of Catshill to Anglesey and return.

 

Starting at Huddlesford and proceeding to Catshill via Anglesey is within 7 hours and scores throughout hence my comment that starting at Huddlesford is the only way of including that section. At least in full not in part.

 

JP

[cheshire~rose]

Announcment

 

The organisers would like to thank the participants for their critique. You will understand that in the unprecedented times we have had to organise this in a very short time and so there has been little time to test it out properly. We appreciate the work you are putting in and have responded.

 

We convened an emergency meeting of BOVINE (Brumigum Organisation of Virtual Intelligence of Navigational Extent) overnight to try and make suitable amendments to the challenge and answer your queries.

 

It is a priority of ours to ensure all participating teams are kept safe for the duration of the challenge. It has become apparent that, just like the Covid-19 testing, you demanding we deliver more safe moorings. We are now able to announce that we will be declaring any canal junction which links to a current navigable canal as a a Covid Safe Mooring.

 

Starting point can be any recognised canal junction of your choice (we will not accept obscure or unidentfiable bridges, narrows etc)

 

The ommision of Smethwick top summit and Two Locks does not make any material difference.  They are both very short but would have created a significant amount of additional work to add it when it was noticed late yesterday afternoon. It was our priority to deliver the planning sheet to you without further delay.

 

It is possible to wind at the head of navigation of all branches - they were built for a purpose and there will usually be a wharf there, unless they had managed to teach the horses to walk backwards when towing the boats.

 

 

 

 

 

[cheshire~rose]

A suggestion of a few places that people might find useful for research:

 

The obvious place is here:

 

Birmingham Canal Navigations Society you will find a lot of links to ther useful resources there too.

 

When you feel an insight into the thoughts and knowledge of one of the organisers might be helpful you could check here:

https://bcnsociety.com/canal-hunter/

 

Other potentially useful links:

 

https://www.lapalcanal.co.uk/

 

http://www.hawnebasin.org.uk/

 

https://lhcrt.org.uk/

 

https://swcanalsociety.co.uk/

 

https://wbdcs.org.uk/

 

https://canalplan.uk/

[RebelMike]

47 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

That raises a point that I’ve always felt is ambiguous in the real thing.

 

I thought whole sections had to be completed to be scored and it appears to be the same in the virtual challenge. So other than at the terminuses of dead end branches - were it surely is assumed you can wind - why would you need to wind?

I don't think it comes up that much in the real thing as there aren't many winding holes at locations that aren't specified on the score sheet, but we've started from locations half way along a scoring section in the past and just claimed for the distance traveled with no complaint from the organisers.

 

However, in this challenge I think it is clear that you can navigate parts of a section, as many of the junctions with histroic canals aren't explicitly specified, so if you turn down e.g. the Bentley Canal you won't complete the whole of the Horseley to Birchills section, so you must just log the miles you have completed.

 

I assume therefore that if you can wind somewhere along a specified section then you can score the part of the section you've travelled.

 

I'd be interested to see how the organisers will handle people claiming they've turned onto a branch without going up/down enough locks or travelling the right number of miles   Though hopefully everyone will do the necessary research to avoid that!

[Captain Pegg]

6 minutes ago, RebelMike said:

I don't think it comes up that much in the real thing as there aren't many winding holes at locations that aren't specified on the score sheet, but we've started from locations half way along a scoring section in the past and just claimed for the distance traveled with no complaint from the organisers.

 

However, in this challenge I think it is clear that you can navigate parts of a section, as many of the junctions with histroic canals aren't explicitly specified, so if you turn down e.g. the Bentley Canal you won't complete the whole of the Horseley to Birchills section, so you must just log the miles you have completed.

 

I assume therefore that if you can wind somewhere along a specified section then you can score the part of the section you've travelled.

 

I'd be interested to see how the organisers will handle people claiming they've turned onto a branch without going up/down enough locks or travelling the right number of miles   Though hopefully everyone will do the necessary research to avoid that!

Good point about the missing junctions. Of course they are all on Canal Plan so we can use that to determine the actual distances and locks. I think it’s pretty straightforward for teams to declare where they have had to make a calculation. There are a number of adjustments that would need to be made to the scoring sheet to reflect all the new sub-sections but that would be a PITA to do and it isn’t necessary providing all competitors agree that each team can submit their amended calculations for scrutiny on the logs.

 

I’d still say though that to score points a junction to junction section needs to be completed. I have known boats wind in mid-section on the real event but whether that part section was included by the organisers in the final scores I know not.

 

JP

[Keeping Up]

Forgive me for asking a stupid question, just to be certain: is the score for a section equal to the number of miles plus the number of locks, multiplied by any relevant bonus?

[Keeping Up]

1 hour ago, cheshire~rose said:

We are now able to announce that we will be declaring any canal junction which links to a current navigable canal as a a Covid Safe Mooring

Sorry to appear dense - but does this mean that all junctions between two current navigable canals within the BCN are regarded as safe

[cheshire~rose]

On 19/04/2020 at 19:37, cheshire~rose said:

Each Participating crew must ensure that they end their Virtual BCN Challenge at Bradley Workshops no later than 6pm on Saturday 9^th May 2020. Failure to arrive at the destination by the deadline will result in a points deduction equivalent to the time taken to reach the official destination from the point their virtual cruise came to an end. Final score sheet must be received by the organisers NO LATER THAN 6:30pm on Saturday 9^th May 2020.

As I have been asked where the challenge will end I suspect this information may have got lost in a very long and wordy post so I am quoting the relevant section here as a reminder to all of those who are working on your routes.

 

Please feel free to fire question at us if something is unclear to you. If it is not something that has already been defined elsewhere we will post with a response to all the questions tomorrow