Parking on the Gloucester Sharpness

[alias]

12 minutes ago, Athy said:

Yes, that's what I said, but why should they be?

I think it goes:

- When a member views a thread, the posts that they can see are numbered sequentially.

- When a mod views a thread, the posts that they can see are numbered sequentially.

So where posts have been hidden for one audience, subsequent posts will have different numbers for the two audiences.

 

That doesn't answer your question "why", but that seems to be the way things are designed. 

[Athy]

2 minutes ago, peter n said:

I think it goes:

- When a member views a thread, the posts that they can see are numbered sequentially.

- When a mod views a thread, the posts that they can see are numbered sequentially.

So where posts have been hidden for one audience, subsequent posts will have different numbers for the two audiences.

 

That doesn't answer your question "why", but that seems to be the way things are designed. 

Yes, I agree.

Not very logical in my view, but then I'm not an I.T. boffin.

[1st ade]

Just now, Athy said:

Yes, I agree.

Not very logical in my view, but then I'm not an I.T. boffin.

I don't think it can ever be totally logical. Quite apart from the load on the database trying to be clever: -

• "As is now" confuses conversations about "post 92" when mods and non-mods are involved
• Number only visible posts would lead to mod's saying to mod's "the un-numbered post between 97 and 98"
• Number all posts (visible or not) would have all the non-mods up in arms "where's post 96, it goes straight from 95 to 97" (followed by rampant speculation about who's post it was, why it's been hidden and are the Mods doing a good job thus doubling the original post count...)

Having been moved on from many IT departments for over-engineering I'd probably try and add suffix's so the mod's see 97, 97a, 98 (where 97a is hidden) then have the guys managing the hardware complaining everything is running slowly.

[Athy]

Aaarrrgghh!

From 97B, sub-section three, good Lord preserve us.

It really makes no sense for a post to have two different numbers.

Edited August 27, 2020 by Athy

[ditchcrawler]

3 hours ago, doratheexplorer said:

Seems like the OP make the terminal mistake of using the two fateful letters in his initial query "CC".  From then on, many people showed their deeply held prejudice.  Even when it was clearly stated that they were wrong in their preconceptions, they refused to acknowledge it and pipe down.  Quite sad really.

So true. This gets more like some of the Facebook groups every day

[doratheexplorer]

33 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

And unless Dora has developed Mod 'powers' why is she referring to post numbers that Mods have, or, did she really mean that she needs this one explaining ?

 

Post 223

Yes... a few years ago I asked where I could park my car in Lymm on The Bridgewater. Got some great answers, very quickly, and all was good.

 

Cant believe the kind of answers some people provide to some questions here.

 

Confused.

Yes.  The difference in outcome referred to here stands in stark contrast to the response on this tread.

[Lewisdb]

38 minutes ago, Flyboy said:

If you publish what CaRT has said it would help others that want to use the G&S to CC. Maybe you don't want to help others but you did expect others to help you with your request for parking info. Interchange of info. is an integral part of boating after all.

I'm not publishing personal correspondence not least because it has nothing to do with the thread.

[doratheexplorer]

8 minutes ago, Lewisdb said:

I'm not publishing personal correspondence not least because it has nothing to do with the thread.

Well said.  And it's coming to something that you are even being asked.

[Richard10002]

2 hours ago, Murflynn said:

no he didn't.  He said "a genuine CC'r who has run his plans past CRT" which could mean something or nothing.  I questioned this and he never clarified what this involved.   For all we know he met a bloke on the cut who was employed by CRT and he said "it's fine".

 

if he corresponded with CRT and got a written reply then it would seem reasonable to know exactly what cruising pattern was proposed and found to be acceptable.

Given where we are now, I'd say it was none of your business. He just asked if there was somewhere to park his car.

 

As a consequence, you've put him in the Dock and behave like judge and jury. 

 

You have openly intimated that he is a pisstaker, and have not denied that you think he is a liar. 

[Flyboy]

28 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

Well said.  And it's coming to something that you are even being asked.

I only asked him so that it may help others. It's a bit like passing on stoppage info. that might help someone. You don't appear to understand the simple concept simple of shared knowledge..

Edited August 27, 2020 by Flyboy

[Captain Pegg]

1 hour ago, Flyboy said:

I only asked him so that it may help others. It's a bit like passing on stoppage info. that might help someone. You don't appear to understand the simple concept simple of shared knowledge..

The information is in the thread. The OP wishes to spend up to 4 months on the G&S in one period and cruise up to 200 miles elsewhere and says CRT have indicated that is OK. What isn’t known is how that 200 miles is composed but that isn’t relevant to the G&S.

 

What you have asked for is the proof, not the information. It’s not reasonable to ask a member to publish private correspondence and that’s not just from their point of view but also from that of the other party to the correspondence.
 

I regularly respond to requests for advice on hire boat holidays. I don’t do so I can share information directly with that party - that’s a product of the forum as a whole and by nature some are more willing and able than others to do that - and I certainly don’t ask for proof of the booking before I contribute.

 

Another relevant point about compliance is that what is deemed to satisfy the requirements for one licence holder does not automatically do so for all licence holders since what is considered to be ‘bona fide for navigation’ is specific to the particular circumstances of the boat and/or the boater. For instance the licence holder may be disabled or have some medical condition that applies in their circumstances. Other members should not insist on information that may disclose such.

 

Of course the poster could be lying, but presumably you wouldn’t be keen to share information with someone you thought to be lying?

 

JP

 

 

Edited August 27, 2020 by Captain Pegg

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, Captain Pegg said:

Another relevant point about compliance is that what is deemed to satisfy the requirements for one licence holder does not automatically do so for all licence holders since what is considered to be ‘bona fide for navigation’ is specific to the particular circumstances of the boat and/or the boater. For instance the licence holder may be disabled or have some medical condition that applies in their circumstances.

 

As I suggested earlier - he may have informed C&RT he has school aged children so they have OK'd his cruising range as 5km

[LadyG]

Before any posts are hidden, ie 1 to 199999r

after posts are hidden, then the posts are 1 to 199999 [-x]

Edited August 27, 2020 by LadyG

[Murflynn]

3 hours ago, LadyG said:

I think it was assumed by a load of trolls that he needed put in his place!

what you think is your own business.

3 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

And unless Dora has developed Mod 'powers' why is she referring to post numbers that Mods have, or, did she really mean that she needs this one explaining ?

 

Post 223

Yes... a few years ago I asked where I could park my car in Lymm on The Bridgewater. Got some great answers, very quickly, and all was good.

 

Cant believe the kind of answers some people provide to some questions here.

 

Confused.

maybe Dora is a mod's glove puppet 

[matty40s]

1 hour ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

As I suggested earlier - he may have informed C&RT he has school aged children so they have OK'd his cruising range as 5km

Or he may not.

[Captain Pegg]

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

As I suggested earlier - he may have informed C&RT he has school aged children so they have OK'd his cruising range as 5km

 

45 minutes ago, matty40s said:

Or he may not.

Yes that would be one possible circumstance to be considered but the range over the period of the licence in that particular case appears to be consistent with the minimum 20 miles (32km) that has previously been quoted as the minimum to avoid enforcement. Not very onerous in itself but definitely not 5 km, which isn’t even the requirement during term time as that is 10 km.

 

JP

[Alan de Enfield]

Just now, Captain Pegg said:

Not very onerous in itself but definitely not 5 km, which isn’t even the requirement during term time as that is 10 km.

But the radius he is expected to operate in from the school as the centre point is 5km.

He is never more than 5km from school.

 

You are talking about a DISTANCE of 10km (the distance between the two furthest point)

 

Dictionary definition :

 

The difference between distance and range

 is that distance is to move away (from) someone or something while range is to travel (over) (an area, etc); to roam, wander.

[Captain Pegg]

13 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

But the radius he is expected to operate in from the school as the centre point is 5km.

He is never more than 5km from school.

 

You are talking about a DISTANCE of 10km (the distance between the two furthest point)

 

Dictionary definition :

 

The difference between distance and range

 is that distance is to move away (from) someone or something while range is to travel (over) (an area, etc); to roam, wander.

So the distance they move away from the school is 5 km and since they are required to do so in two opposing directions in total they travel over a range of 10 km; as per the definition you provide.

 

 

[Lewisdb]

42 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

So the distance they move away from the school is 5 km and since they are required to do so in two opposing directions in total they travel over a range of 10 km; as per the definition you provide.

 

 

Just to be clear. If I spend no more than 2 weeks in any "place" and visit 6 or more "places" then I can spend 3 months on the G&S, no problem at all. And if I then spent the rest of the year navigating hundreds of miles on the rest of the network I would easily satisfy the CC regs. And that's my intention.

 

If any of you think that goes against the CC regs then you're barking mad. 

[Captain Pegg]

7 minutes ago, Lewisdb said:

Just to be clear. If I spend no more than 2 weeks in any "place" and visit 6 or more "places" then I can spend 3 months on the G&S, no problem at all. And if I then spent the rest of the year navigating hundreds of miles on the rest of the network I would easily satisfy the CC regs. And that's my intention.

 

If any of you think that goes against the CC regs then you're barking mad. 

Stop looking for an argument and read the posts in the thread objectively.

 

You’ve responded completely out of context to the post you’ve quoted, and most definitely picked the wrong person to take issue with as far as this thread goes.

 

 

[matty40s]

That's because you are now dissecting the kids at school CC secret guidance, when the guy hasn't mentioned kids once.

If this Carrie's On, (ooh matron), the rotating dog will appear here too.

 

Edited August 27, 2020 by matty40s

[Lewisdb]

13 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

Stop looking for an argument and read the posts in the thread objectively.

 

You’ve responded completely out of context to the post you’ve quoted, and most definitely picked the wrong person to take issue with as far as this thread goes.

 

 

I'm not looking for an argument.  I was explaining my plans and how the meet the CC guidelines and providing clarity on that point as it appeared the thread turned in to a debate about what I do during term times for the children I don't have.

 

(Edit) and the barking mad bit was not aimed at you.

Edited August 27, 2020 by Lewisdb
Addition

[ditchcrawler]

40 minutes ago, Lewisdb said:

Just to be clear. If I spend no more than 2 weeks in any "place" and visit 6 or more "places" then I can spend 3 months on the G&S, no problem at all. And if I then spent the rest of the year navigating hundreds of miles on the rest of the network I would easily satisfy the CC regs. And that's my intention.

 

If any of you think that goes against the CC regs then you're barking mad. 

One thing to watch out for is returning to the same spot too often. Just reading a chap got an overstay notification from CRT for being in the same spot for 6 weeks. He wasn't. He was clocked on the outward journey and again on the return, but nowhere between, so in CRT's eyes he hadn't moved in all that time. 

[Captain Pegg]

9 minutes ago, matty40s said:

That's because you are now dissecting the kids at school CC secret guidance, when the guy hasn't mentioned kids once.

If this Carrie's On, (ooh matron), the rotating dog will appear here too.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Lewisdb said:

I'm not looking for an argument.  I was explaining my plans and how the meet the CC guidelines and providing clarity on that point as it appeared the thread turned in to a debate about what I do during term times for the children I don't have.

 

(Edit) and the barking mad bit was not aimed at you.

Yes it may have been best to ignore that example as it isn’t relevant, but in my opinion it was misrepresented so I thought it worthy of challenge as all topics here veer off course and someone else may have read it and thought it factual.

 

I’ve expended far too much emotional energy on this subject this week and I’m sure my response there was partly borne out of the fact I’m knackered.

 

Range versus total distance is important but CRT are the arbiters and they’ve given their view so good luck with the boat search.
 

JP

 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

Just now, Captain Pegg said:

Range versus total distance is important but CRT are the arbiters and they’ve given their view so good luck with the boat search.

Yes - they have made their views quite clear in this email (which a boater was pleased to share with the 'community' to help others)

 

 

“When we are looking at boat movements we are looking for characteristics of bona fide navigation, these fall roughly into four categories:


· Range: by range we mean the furthest points a boat has travelled on the network, not merely the total distance travelled. While the BW act does not stipulate what that distance is the Trust has previously said that anyone travelling a range of less than say 20 miles (32km) would struggle to satisfy the Trust that they are engaged in bona fide navigation and that normally we would expect a greater range.


. For the avoidance of doubt, a small number of long journeys over a short period of time, followed or preceded by cruising in a small are of the network would not generally satisfy the Trust that you are engaged in bona fide navigation.


· Overstaying: we look to see how often boats overstay, either the 14 day limit on the main length of the canal, or shorter periods where local signage dictates, for example short stay visitor moorings.


While we are flexible with the occasional overstay from most boaters due to breakdown, illness or other emergencies, we will look at the overall pattern balanced with range and movement pattern in order to form a view.


Overstay reminders are issued when a boat is seen in the same area for more than 14 days. While we are unable to say how far you need to travel each time you move, we would advise that you normally travel further than a few km each time.


This will prevent you from getting reminders and depending on the length of other trips you make and how many times you turn back on yourself, should increase your overall range over the course of your licence.


· Movement: Continuous Cruiser Licences are intended for bona fide (genuine) navigation around the network, rather than for a boat to remain in one mooring spot, place neighbourhood or area.


We would expect boats on these licences to move around the network such that they don’t gravitate back to favoured areas too often i.e. in a way that it’s clear to us that they’re living in a small area of the waterway.


The basic principle of this is that these licences are not intended for living in an area and if it looks like a boat is habitually returning to a particular part of the waterway then this would not generally satisfy the Trust.


Within an acceptable range we’d expect a genuine movement, so for example it would not satisfy the Trust if a boat went on a 60 mile trip during the course of say two weeks, then returned to cruise in an area of say 5 miles the remainder of the time (figures are examples only