The Virtual BCN Challenge 2020

[cheshire~rose]

2 hours ago, Keeping Up said:

Yes I know - but just to confirm that it can be part one day and part the next even if those parts are not actually contiguous, eg if you turn off at that junction the next morning, and then complete the missing bit of the first section later that second day?

Providing the lengths are completed in full by the end of the challenge this is ok - the route sheet just needs to make it clear what has been done and for contestants to be very honest about scoring

[cheshire~rose]

A Mr Harry Webb has been in touch asking if he can enter with his vessel. 

 

While we have suggested that people can exercise their imagination when deciding which vessel they choose to navigate the BCN in this should serve as a reminder that not every vessel will be completely practical 

 

https://youtu.be/uNR5_GZzRU0

[RebelMike]

6 minutes ago, cheshire~rose said:

Providing the lengths are completed in full by the end of the challenge this is ok - the route sheet just needs to make it clear what has been done and for contestants to be very honest about scoring

Hold on, does that mean the lengths named in the sheet need to be completed in full to score?  Our planned route turns off existing canals on to historic through canals and doesn't always come back to complete the other part of the length.  I had expected we'd just enter the actual distance travelled in the scoresheet - we'd need to do that on the entries for each day anyway.

If the intention is that the score at the end will only count completed named sections on the route planner, then could I request that long sections that have a junction with a through canal in the middle be broken up?  I have broken them up in our version of the spreadsheet based on Bradshaws so could supply the sections and lengths for you to base a revision on if that would be helpful.

[Captain Pegg]

14 minutes ago, RebelMike said:

Hold on, does that mean the lengths named in the sheet need to be completed in full to score?  Our planned route turns off existing canals on to historic through canals and doesn't always come back to complete the other part of the length.  I had expected we'd just enter the actual distance travelled in the scoresheet - we'd need to do that on the entries for each day anyway.

If the intention is that the score at the end will only count completed named sections on the route planner, then could I request that long sections that have a junction with a through canal in the middle be broken up?  I have broken them up in our version of the spreadsheet based on Bradshaws so could supply the sections and lengths for you to base a revision on if that would be helpful.

I’m sure we are all the same boat. We need to agree what the constituent parts of each canal are.

 

The big issues are far as I can see will be Wednesfield Jn, Anson Branch/Bentley Canal Junction, Anson Branch Jn, Moorcroft Jn, Toll End Jn, Tipton Green Jn and one that’s kind of missing from the normal scoresheet which is Tipton Jn (and I don’t mean Factory Jn).
 

Plus there’s the issue of Bradley Locks Branch Jn, Batman’s Hill Jn, Bradley Workshops and possibly the southern end of the Wednesbury Oak Loop/ Rotten Brunt cut off; and the splitting out of Catshill to Ogley Jn from the Anglesey branch entry.

 

Can you make sure all those are included.

 

Thanks,

 

JP

 

PS - sneak the Two Locks line in while you’re at it but remember to split the bits it joins (not that we’re planning to include it).

[Keeping Up]

One problem with dividing everything up into really small sections, is that scoring to the nearest half-mile could give some significant cumulative errors.

[Captain Pegg]

1 hour ago, Keeping Up said:

One problem with dividing everything up into really small sections, is that scoring to the nearest half-mile could give some significant cumulative errors.

Is it that important?

 

We at least need to have a breakdown at the junctions between through routes. Branches aren’t so important as generally when you get back to the main canal you carry on the same way you were going.

 

JP

[RebelMike]

8 hours ago, Captain Pegg said:

I’m sure we are all the same boat. We need to agree what the constituent parts of each canal are.

I'm quite happy if the rule is that each team needs to have done their research and the organisers can quibble your scoresheet if they disagree with what you enter.  We found it quite a challenge to work out how everything fitted together on the basis of the limited info in the spreadsheet, so it feels like specifying a lot of this information would reduce that challenge.

 

On the other hand, specifying everything would maybe make things a bit fairer by ensuring everyone was rounding the same way, and probably save the organisers some pain arguing route lengths with teams after the scoresheets have been submitted.

 

However, if the rule is that named sections in the existing spreadsheet have to be completed in full then I believe it becomes impossible to cruise some of the historic through canals without doing a significant amount of non-points scoring cruising, which surely can't be the intention.

[haggis]

I am so impressed by how seriously some teams appear to be taking the virtual challenge and I look forward to reading  how teams performed, especially taking into account time travel and the "design" of the boat. I wonder if a vessel which could change shape to fit into tunnels and bridges and even grow wings for for flying will appear. 

 

haggis

Edited April 29, 2020 by haggis

[Keeping Up]

I don't actually think it's an issue to have to repeat a section, not scoring on the second time around. After all, you have to do that occasionally on the "real" challenge. It is  completely fair, as it's the same for everybody, and in fact I am finding that it adds to the fun of this challenge.

[cheshire~rose]

1 hour ago, haggis said:

I am so impressed by how seriously some teams appear to be taking the virtual challenge and I look forward to reading  how teams performed, especially taking into account time travel and the "design" of the boat. I wonder if a vessel which could change shape to fit into tunnels and bridges and even grow wings for for flying will appear. 

 

haggis

I find it incredible that anyone who has any experience of the members of this forum could expect they wouldn't take this seriously ?

 

The good thing is that if we dither about answering the questions long enough the teams work out between them how they will interpret the rules .......

 

[Captain Pegg]

45 minutes ago, Keeping Up said:

I don't actually think it's an issue to have to repeat a section, not scoring on the second time around. After all, you have to do that occasionally on the "real" challenge. It is  completely fair, as it's the same for everybody, and in fact I am finding that it adds to the fun of this challenge.

That’s not really the issue that @RebelMike is raising. It’s the way the scoring seems to imply you have to cruise entire sections to get points such that if you were to arrive, say, at Anson Branch Jn intending to head to the Bradley Locks Branch you’d first have to go to Walsall Junction without scoring any points, then turn around and go right through to Tame Valley Jn to score the points in order to turn again and head back to Moorcroft Jn for no further points and overall taking 3 hours and 40 minutes - of which only 1 hr 50 minutes will score - to do what would otherwise be a 1 hour journey.

 

Blatantly Anson Branch Jn, Moorcroft Jn and Toll End Jn should all be intermediate scoring points along the Walsall. I’m planning on that basis and using Canal Plan rounded to the nearest half mile for distance. I’ll enter that on the score sheet irrespective of what the official score sheet shows. I’d be surprised if every participant doesn’t need to adopt a similar methodology somewhere in their itinerary.

 

I’ve also split the Anson Branch to allow use of the lower half mile to the junction with the Bentley Canal.

 

With a fixed cruising speed and a time limit on each days’ cruising it’s not really sensible to force participants to have to cruise any specific section of canal.

 

6 minutes ago, cheshire~rose said:

I find it incredible that anyone who has any experience of the members of this forum could expect they wouldn't take this seriously ?

 

The good thing is that if we dither about answering the questions long enough the teams work out between them how they will interpret the rules .......

 

Which is fine. It’s sometimes difficult to interpret the real Challenge scoring despite knowing the canals and being able to study up to date maps. To cover all the nuances created by the lost 60 miles would be a massive task. The crews can work it out for themselves for those bits for which they need an answer.

 

Maybe we should post our answers to get consistency?

 

JP

Edited April 29, 2020 by Captain Pegg

[cheshire~rose]

16 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

 

Which is fine. It’s sometimes difficult to interpret the real Challenge scoring despite knowing the canals and being able to study up to date maps. To cover all the nuances created by the lost 60 miles would be a massive task. The crews can work it out for themselves for those bits for which they need an answer.

 

Maybe we should post our answers to get consistency?

 

JP

We are still putting a massive amount of work in behind the scenes for the other daily challenges we will be posting and while we are happy to tweak the sheet a bit here and there is it would be beneficial we all have other things we are buy with during lock down (you know, like feeding the sourdough culture and checking all the supermarkets for delivery slots at five minute intervals ? )

 

I think it would be very helpful if the competing teams had an open discussion about what they can live with and what really needs a bit of clarification so we can direct our efforts to where it will be most helpful 

 

We know there will always be an element of discussion among the organisers regarding the score sheets you lot send us and what is and is not allowed.  I know from personal experience how unsatisfactory it is if you do not get a reliable answer to a question you ask and we would want to avoid that happening if at all possible BUT the organisers decision will be final AND we have recruited a panel of non-CWDF boaters who are going to be assisting us with judging so we can try and avoid any element of bias creeping in 

 

Please will everyone agree  and then let us know what you want us to do to help you best 

Edited April 29, 2020 by cheshire~rose

[john6767]

I am with what Captain Pegg has said, lets just not make it too complicated, its only a bit of fun from the sofa.  It's not like you are putting the effort that the real challenge takes, when you do want the rules and scoring to be unambiguous.  Any way I don't want to have to keep re-configuring my software, it was enough effort to all in all those new sections (of course I am not taking this seriously). 

 

As long as the scoring can be managed when you do parts of sections, the Walsall being a good example, that's fine.  To not get any score for a partial section would not be a good solution though, but the planning sheet is fine as is for me.

[Captain Pegg]

Just now, john6767 said:

I am with what Captain Pegg has said, lets just not make it too complicated, its only a bit of fun from the sofa.  It's not like you are putting the effort that the real challenge takes, when you do want the rules and scoring to be unambiguous.  Any way I don't want to have to keep re-configuring my software, it was enough effort to all in all those new sections (of course I am not taking this seriously). 

 

As long as the scoring can be managed when you do parts of sections, the Walsall being a good example, that's fine.  To not get any score for a partial section would not be a good solution though, but the planning sheet is fine as is for me.

I have to keep reminding myself that we won’t actually all be meeting up at Bradley at the end. ??

[cheshire~rose]

3 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

I have to keep reminding myself that we won’t actually all be meeting up at Bradley at the end. ??

Perhaps we can set up a Zoom meeting there? 

[john6767]

9 minutes ago, cheshire~rose said:

Perhaps we can set up a Zoom meeting there? 

You already have that planned don't you!

[Captain Pegg]

So straight away I run into a problem but I think it may be on the core scoring. On the normal Challenge score sheet Pudding Green Jn to Walsall Jn (at the bottom of Walsall Locks) is 8 miles overall. On Canal Plan it is 6.5 miles. We may need some adjustment to the future score sheets for the real Challenge.

 

Using Canal Plan I get the following:

 

Walsall Canal

Pudding Green Jn to Ryders Green Jn - 0.5 miles and 0 locks

Ryders Green Jn to Toll End Jn - 1 mile and 8 locks

Toll End Jn to Tame Valley Jn - 0.5 miles and 0 locks

Tame Valley Jn to Moorcroft Jn - 1 mile and 0 locks

Moorcroft Jn to Anson Branch Jn - 2.5 miles and 0 locks

Anson Branch Jn to Walsall Jn - 1 mile and 0 locks

 

 

[RebelMike]

17 minutes ago, john6767 said:

I am with what Captain Pegg has said, lets just not make it too complicated, its only a bit of fun from the sofa.  It's not like you are putting the effort that the real challenge takes, when you do want the rules and scoring to be unambiguous.  Any way I don't want to have to keep re-configuring my software, it was enough effort to all in all those new sections (of course I am not taking this seriously). 

 

As long as the scoring can be managed when you do parts of sections, the Walsall being a good example, that's fine.  To not get any score for a partial section would not be a good solution though, but the planning sheet is fine as is for me.

I agree - I don't think there's any need for a new version of the spreadsheet, providing it is agreed that we can claim the points for miles we actually (virtually) travel, without having to complete entire named sections on the sheet in order to score them.

 

11 minutes ago, cheshire~rose said:

Perhaps we can set up a Zoom meeting there? 

Yes, that would be great!

[David Mack]

12 hours ago, cheshire~rose said:

A Mr Harry Webb has been in touch asking if he can enter with his vessel. 

 

While we have suggested that people can exercise their imagination when deciding which vessel they choose to navigate the BCN in this should serve as a reminder that not every vessel will be completely practical 

 

https://youtu.be/uNR5_GZzRU0

I thought that was going to link to the rather improbable Tardis-like conversion of Yarwood-built narrow boat Cypress, which became Mr Webb's home in the film, and which had slopy go-faster windows on the outside and the roomy interior of a wide beam. Sadly Google doesn't find any images.

[Captain Pegg]

Assuming we adopt agreed part-section scores we need to agree how many times they can score. I propose that the answer is that every part section can only be scored ONCE during the Challenge irrespective of direction. That’s easiest and consistent with the general principles.

 

We should also be clear that you do have to account for time spent on non-scoring sections within the BCN as well as those off it.

 

Of course there are some sections that appear in both directions on the score sheet, Newton Jn to Tame Valley Jn (or Rushall Jn to Ocker Hill Jn if you prefer) and Windmill End to Hawne Basin being two I have identified. I suggest we just leave those alone and these can be scored TWICE providing it is once in each direction as per the sheet. I’ll hazard a guess no one will use this option in any case.

 

For clarity the non-BCN linking sections are:

 

Selly Oak Jn to Old Turn Jn* - 3 miles and 0 locks

Fazeley Jn to Huddlesford Jn** - 7 miles and 0 locks

Hatherton Jn to Aldersley Jn - 6 miles and 0 locks

 

* - I know the last few yards from Worcester Bar to Old Turn are BCN but they aren’t on the normal scoresheet and it will round up half a mile on the high side if it is separated out.

 

** - opportunity to be creative?

 

I can only recall the last of those sections being granted toll free passage. Make of that what you will.

 

JP

 

 

[RebelMike]

4 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

So straight away I run into a problem but I think it may be on the core scoring. On the normal Challenge score sheet Pudding Green Jn to Walsall Jn (at the bottom of Walsall Locks) is 8 miles overall. On Canal Plan it is 6.5 miles. We may need some adjustment to the future score sheets for the real Challenge.

I've handled this by fiddling some distances slightly so the miles fit the spreadsheet.  I think it's ok to allow teams a bit of leeway when counting the miles on stretches like this, providing totals match what's in the spreadsheet and any part lengths claimed are plausible.

 

The organisers are clearly putting in a bunch of extra work behind the scenes preparing for the challenge days so asking them to fix up errors they've inherited from the real challenge or verify large numbers of extra sections at this stage is maybe a bit much - providing they are happy to allow us to use a little bit of discretion when planning and scoring our routes.

[Captain Pegg]

3 minutes ago, RebelMike said:

I've handled this by fiddling some distances slightly so the miles fit the spreadsheet.  I think it's ok to allow teams a bit of leeway when counting the miles on stretches like this, providing totals match what's in the spreadsheet and any part lengths claimed are plausible.

 

The organisers are clearly putting in a bunch of extra work behind the scenes preparing for the challenge days so asking them to fix up errors they've inherited from the real challenge or verify large numbers of extra sections at this stage is maybe a bit much - providing they are happy to allow us to use a little bit of discretion when planning and scoring our routes.

Who is going to choose to virtual cruise the entire length of the Walsall?

 

It did strike me though that at 2.5 mph at might be the only bit that’s quicker than the real thing. Especially if it’s a mile and a half shorter.

 

We should grant anyone that brave (or is it stupid) the extra 1.5 miles for free.

 

JP

Edited April 29, 2020 by Captain Pegg

[Keeping Up]

1 hour ago, Captain Pegg said:

That’s not really the issue that @RebelMike is raising. It’s the way the scoring seems to imply you have to cruise entire sections to get points such that if you were to arrive, say, at Anson Branch Jn intending to head to the Bradley Locks Branch you’d first have to go to Walsall Junction without scoring any points, then turn around and go right through to Tame Valley Jn to score the points in order to turn again and head back to Moorcroft Jn for no further points and overall taking 3 hours and 40 minutes - of which only 1 hr 50 minutes will score - to do what would otherwise be a 1 hour journey.

...

 

JP

On the contrary, that's exactly what I am referring to when I say I'm perfectly happy with it, as long as it's the same for everybody, and in fact I'm finding that it adds to the fun if the Challenge.

[RebelMike]

1 minute ago, Captain Pegg said:

Assuming we adopt agreed part-section scores we need to agree how many times they can score. I propose that the answer is that every part section can only be scored ONCE during the Challenge irrespective of direction. That’s easiest and consistent with the general principles.

 

We should also be clear that you do have to account for time spent on non-scoring sections within the BCN as well as those off it.

 

Of course there are some sections that appear in both directions on the score sheet, Newton Jn to Tame Valley Jn (or Rushall Jn to Ocker Hill Jn if you prefer) and Windmill End to Hawne Basin being two I have identified. I suggest we just leave those alone and these can be scored TWICE providing it is once in each direction as per the sheet. I’ll hazard a guess no one will use this option in any case.

I would say a part section can only ever be scored once traveling in the same direction, and can only be scored once in each direction if it is explicitly marked as scoring in both directions, it is part of an "and return" section, or it explicitly appears in each direction on the score sheet.

[cheshire~rose]

28 minutes ago, john6767 said:

You already have that planned don't you!

No I don't but I do think it could be fun. I don't have the zoom licence but we do have a shallenger who does I believe so perhaps if we ask him nicely ....

5 minutes ago, RebelMike said:

The organisers are clearly putting in a bunch of extra work behind the scenes preparing for the challenge days so asking them to fix up errors they've inherited from the real challenge or verify large numbers of extra sections at this stage is maybe a bit much - providing they are happy to allow us to use a little bit of discretion when planning and scoring our routes.

It appears "The organisers" may have just pulled a virtual blinder by getting the participants to do the organising for them

 

?