Boating acronyms

[Captain Pegg]

What we need is to limit the terms used to the correct ones.

 

Licence holder:

 

- with a home mooring;

- without a home mooring;

 

and:

 

- is not overstaying

- is overstaying

 

[doratheexplorer]

2 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

What we need is to limit the terms used to the correct ones.

 

Licence holder:

 

- with a home mooring;

- without a home mooring;

 

and:

 

- is not overstaying

- is overstaying

 

Yes, very good.

 

Nobody actually cruises continuously and there are many rule breakers who occassionally move.

 

Overstayers v not-overstayers is a much more helpful distinction.

 

[Captain Pegg]

3 hours ago, doratheexplorer said:

Yes, very good.

 

Nobody actually cruises continuously and there are many rule breakers who occassionally move.

 

Overstayers v not-overstayers is a much more helpful distinction.

 

 

I think I've fulfilled all of my listed descriptions just in the validity of my current licence. I don't like to be associated with a group.

[IanD]

20 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

 

I think I've fulfilled all of my listed descriptions just in the validity of my current licence. I don't like to be associated with a group.

And that's part of the problem -- a lot of "real boaters" are solitary people who don't want to be associated with a group. And that's why the CMers and NBTA get so much more attention and traction, and aren't cracked down on for flaunting the rules, because there isn't an equally united/strong/vocal "real boaters" group to oppose them... 😞

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

4 hours ago, doratheexplorer said:

Yes, very good.

 

Nobody actually cruises continuously and there are many rule breakers who occassionally move.

 

Overstayers v not-overstayers is a much more helpful distinction.

 

That’s why I’ve never liked the term continuous cruiser and would not call myself one. 
I think the term is misleading and causes a lot of trouble and confusion. It’s a term adopted to place an emphasis where there shouldn’t be one, ie to perhaps be on the move daily and covering long distances. 
 

One either has a home mooring or not. 
Both have to follow the 14 day rule. 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, Goliath said:

One either has a home mooring or not. 
Both have to follow the 14 day rule. 

 

The difference being that a boat with a home mooring does not have to be in a new place every 14 days ( a few yards movement is legally sufficient) whilst a boat without a home mooring MUST move to a new place (parish, county, canal, - whatever the definition is today) every 14 days.

 

 

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

13 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

The difference being that a boat with a home mooring does not have to be in a new place every 14 days ( a few yards movement is legally sufficient) whilst a boat without a home mooring MUST move to a new place (parish, county, canal, - whatever the definition is today) every 14 days.

 

 

Didn’t CRT resign to the fact they couldn’t define ‘new place’ and dropped it from their statement?

 

 

[Captain Pegg]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

And that's part of the problem -- a lot of "real boaters" are solitary people who don't want to be associated with a group. And that's why the CMers and NBTA get so much more attention and traction, and aren't cracked down on for flaunting the rules, because there isn't an equally united/strong/vocal "real boaters" group to oppose them... 😞

What problem is this?

 

And who determines what constitutes a “real boater”?

 

[Alan de Enfield]

20 minutes ago, Goliath said:

Didn’t CRT resign to the fact they couldn’t define ‘new place’ and dropped it from their statement?

 

 

 

It was a Judge who said they should not have one word having two meanings in the same piece of legislation and said that their (the 95 Act **) use of 'place, was bound to lead to confusion - and P!ss taking (no, he didn't actually say that bit)

 

For a boat without a home mooring the word 'place' means another location some (unspecified) distance from its previous location. Nominally taken as 'a couple of kilometres', or the next Parish.

 

For a Boat with a home mooring or 'other place' (Garden, trailer, on the hard etc etc) the word 'place' means a boat shaped, and boat sized, piece 'space' where it can be left.

For a boat with a home mooring the requirement to move to a new place every 14 days if the boat moves by more than its own length, it is then in a new 'place'.

 

There is also no legal requirement under the Act for a boat with a home mooring to actually move every 14 days - but as NIgel Moore explained it is not unreasonable that the 14 day rule should apply to HMers or they could have action taken against them for 'obstrution'.

 

Whilst CCers have the legal right to remain in one place for up to 14 days,  HMers have no such legal right and the fact that they are allowed in simply 'permissive' and could be revoked if C&RT wanted to.

 

**

(i)the Board are satisfied that a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel, whether on an inland waterway or elsewhere; or

 

(ii)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances.

 

Edited November 9, 2022 by Alan de Enfield

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

It was a Judge who said they should not have one word having two meanings in the same piece of legislation and said that their (the 95 Act) use of 'place, was bound to lead to confusion - and P!ss taking (no, he didn't actually say that bit)

 

For a boat without a home mooring the word 'place' means another location some (unspecified) distance from its previous location. Nominally taken as 'a couple of kilometres', or the next Parish.

 

For a Boat with a home mooring or 'other place' (Garden, trailer, on the hard etc etc) the word 'place' means a boat shaped, and boat sized, piece 'space' where it can be left.

For a boat with a home mooring the requirement to move to a new place every 14 days if the boat moves by more than its own length, it is then in a new 'place'.

 

There is also no legal requirement under the Act for a boat with a home mooring to actually move every 14 days - but as NIgel Moore explained it is not unreasonable that the 14 day rule should apply to HMers or they could have action taken against them for 'blocking the navigation'.

 

 

(i)the Board are satisfied that a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel, whether on an inland waterway or elsewhere; or

 

(ii)the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances.

 

Right’o,

 

And this is why the ‘Ghost Mooring’ is so important. 
If I had a home mooring as cheap as chips ( or whatever the cost) somewhere I could legitimately shuffle my way around London without bother. ??

Perhaps take the boat home for Xmas and get it logged as being home. 

 

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, Goliath said:

Right’o,

 

And this is why the ‘Ghost Mooring’ is so important. 
If I had a home mooring as cheap as chips ( or whatever the cost) somewhere I could legitimately shuffle my way around London without bother. ??

Perhaps take the boat home for Xmas and get it logged as being home. 

 

 

 

You then become a CSer (a Continuous Shuffler)

[IanD]

22 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

What problem is this?

 

And who determines what constitutes a “real boater”?

 

The problem is that the only boaters who seem to have a strong voice and get a lot of press attention -- and rule changes -- are the CMers and the NBTA, and their interests seem to conflict with those of many "real boaters" (see below).

 

"Real boaters" is in inverted commas because -- as I said before, but was ignored -- it means different things to different people, there is no definition of it, but I'd say it certainly means "not CMers".

 

I take it to mean boaters who have a genuine interest in and commitment to the canals for reasons other than just being a cheap place to live (which could just as well be a caravan or shack), others may have their own definition.

 

Going by posts on here -- and the fact that this is a canal forum -- I'd say a lot of people here are "real boaters" who don't want to see the canals downgraded and misused by people who don't care about them... 🙂

 

But it's equally obvious that a lot don't want to be part of any group and just be left alone to do their own thing -- and they're perfectly entitled to do this. But then it's a bit rich to complain that the canals and the way they're used (e.g. by CMers) are ruining them, when part of the reason is "real boaters" not being part of a strong group which opposes this... 😞

 

(and it's clear that there isn't any such group to join any more, the IWA used to be but sadly the NBTA is now what we have instead)

Edited November 9, 2022 by IanD

[Captain Pegg]

49 minutes ago, IanD said:

The problem is that the only boaters who seem to have a strong voice and get a lot of press attention -- and rule changes -- are the CMers and the NBTA, and their interests seem to conflict with those of many "real boaters" (see below).

 

"Real boaters" is in inverted commas because -- as I said before, but was ignored -- it means different things to different people, there is no definition of it, but I'd say it certainly means "not CMers".

 

I take it to mean boaters who have a genuine interest in and commitment to the canals for reasons other than just being a cheap place to live (which could just as well be a caravan or shack), others may have their own definition.

 

Going by posts on here -- and the fact that this is a canal forum -- I'd say a lot of people here are "real boaters" who don't want to see the canals downgraded and misused by people who don't care about them... 🙂

 

But it's equally obvious that a lot don't want to be part of any group and just be left alone to do their own thing -- and they're perfectly entitled to do this. But then it's a bit rich to complain that the canals and the way they're used (e.g. by CMers) are ruining them, when part of the reason is "real boaters" not being part of a strong group which opposes this... 😞

 

(and it's clear that there isn't any such group to join any more, the IWA used to be but sadly the NBTA is now what we have instead)

 

 

There's no such thing as a real boater, or even a "real boater". You're either boating or you're not boating. Right now I'm not boating.

 

All anyone has to do to contribute is to buy a licence and adhere to the conditions under which it is issued. Any other notions of how to behave or what to believe are irrelevant.

 

The real irony here is that the very law we're discussing was fought for by the IWA representing the interests of a certain group of boaters who wanted to avoid a cost they didn't believe represented value to them.

 

Now it seems that same group of people don't want others to benefit from that same privilege on what appears to be little more than the grounds of "they're not like me".

 

It matters not to me as a boater how often anyone moves since I will only pass them in one place. I'm also well aware that forcing people to move more often than is required isn't in anyone's interest.

 

What has the NBTA actually achieved that annoys you?

 

It's not lost on me that many of the fans of the CRT era canal - wealthy middle-aged and retired buyers, pub lunching gongoozlers, volunteers - hail from the same sort of demographic as those who 50 years ago would have regarded boat people as dirty, illiterate ne'er-do-wells to be avoided. The canals have always been a home to folk marginalised by "decent" society. They've as much right to be there as anyone else.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[IanD]

51 minutes ago, Captain Pegg said:

 

 

There's no such thing as a real boater, or even a "real boater". You're either boating or you're not boating. Right now I'm not boating.

 

All anyone has to do to contribute is to buy a licence and adhere to the conditions under which it is issued. Any other notions of how to behave or what to believe are irrelevant.

 

The real irony here is that the very law we're discussing was fought for by the IWA representing the interests of a certain group of boaters who wanted to avoid a cost they didn't believe represented value to them.

 

Now it seems that same group of people don't want others to benefit from that same privilege on what appears to be little more than the grounds of "they're not like me".

 

It matters not to me as a boater how often anyone moves since I will only pass them in one place. I'm also well aware that forcing people to move more often than is required isn't in anyone's interest.

 

What has the NBTA actually achieved that annoys you?

 

It's not lost on me that many of the fans of the CRT era canal - wealthy middle-aged and retired buyers, pub lunching gongoozlers, volunteers - hail from the same sort of demographic as those who 50 years ago would have regarded boat people as dirty, illiterate ne'er-do-wells to be avoided. The canals have always been a home to folk marginalised by "decent" society. They've as much right to be there as anyone else.

 

 

As I see it -- and feel free to disagree, there are plenty of generalisations and stereotypes here -- there are fundamentally two types of "boater" (see below)...

 

One may be interested in the canals and see them as a valuable part of our industrial heritage, and/or loves the canal lifestyle and the ability to move about, and/or likes living on a boat be it traditional or modern, narrowbeam or widebeam, whatever flavour of toilet or heating or engine or equipment or hull type it has. They may currently live on or own a boat, or may share/hire boats, or have done so in the past -- or even have a working boat. They may have a home mooring (online or marina), or are a CCer. They may be well-off or poor, old or young, have a shiny boat or a scruffy one, or none. They probably think that CART aren't doing a very good job of running the canals and grumble about it (but they mostly follow the rules anyway), what they really want is a properly-maintained canal system with locks that work, that gives more priority to boaters (not just cyclists/walkers/fishermen/wellbeing), and can actually be used for cruising -- not all the time, but sometimes.

 

There's no accepted term for people like this (who fall into many categories anyway), I used "real boaters" to try and signify that their interest is -- at least partially -- in the canals and the boats and people on them. Lots of people on CWDF seem to be "real boaters" given this definition. Maybe it's not the right term, but I can't think of a better one -- "canal enthusiasts", perhaps?

 

The second is only really interested in the canals as a cheap place to live, they have little or no interest in the canals or boating as such, they resent any attempts to make them either cough up for a mooring or follow the CC rules, and if all the locks closed tomorrow they not only wouldn't care, they'd be happy because it would make it much harder for CART to get them to move on. If they could find a caravan or shack that was as cheap and possibly more convenient to live in they'd do it like a shot, but they can't -- and because of this their numbers have increased greatly in recent years as housing has become increasingly unaffordable. Their increased numbers are a problem for "real boaters" (see above) because not wanting to follow the rules includes overstaying on visitor moorings, lock landings, "towpath squatting", mooring in stupid places, covering towpaths with crap, and often (but not always) doing whatever is to their own benefit regardless of the negative impact it has on others.

 

Again there's no umbrella definition for people like this, who again fall into many categories -- CMers is one of them, pejorative ones include "towpath squatters" and others -- but the difference is that their interest in the canals is only for what they can deliver for them (e.g. a cheap place to live), anything else which did the same but wasn't a boat on a canal (e.g. a fixed caravan) would probably be just as good -- in fact maybe better since it wouldn't have some of the hassles of living on a boat.

 

I'm sure people will object to these definitions, but they're not intended to be accurate or complete or definitive -- the basic distinction is between people (of all kinds) who care about the canals (and perhaps even love them) and want to see them carrying on working, and people (of all kinds) who don't and just use them and wouldn't care if they stopped working so long as they could still live on them.

 

At the moment it seems that most of the noise and attention is garnered by the "non-canal-lovers", as often represented by the NBTA -- and in response to the question "What has the NBTA done that annoys me", the answer is backing and encouraging people to evade/fight the rules which were put in place to try and make the canals work for *all* stakeholders, including those who want to use them as canals to travel on and/or live on in a manner that doesn't negatively impact other people.

 

It's nothing to do with "not like me", it's objecting to people who think it's OK to selfishly ignore rules that they don't like because they can get away with it, to the detriment of people who do follow the rules. This isn't just happening on the canals, it happens in many other aspects of society today -- or maybe that's because more and more people think "there's no such thing as society", only themselves... 😞

 

There, rant over, time for dinner -- or tea, depending where you come from 🙂

Edited November 9, 2022 by IanD

[Captain Pegg]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

 

As I see it -- and feel free to disagree, there are plenty of generalisations and stereotypes here -- there are fundamentally two types of "boater" (see below)...

 

One may be interested in the canals and see them as a valuable part of our industrial heritage, and/or loves the canal lifestyle and the ability to move about, and/or likes living on a boat be it traditional or modern, narrowbeam or widebeam, whatever flavour of toilet or heating or engine or equipment or hull type it has. They may currently live on or own a boat, or may share/hire boats, or have done so in the past -- or even have a working boat. They may have a home mooring (online or marina), or are a CCer. They may be well-off or poor, old or young, have a shiny boat or a scruffy one, or none. They probably think that CART aren't doing a very good job of running the canals and grumble about it (but they mostly follow the rules anyway), what they really want is a properly-maintained canal system with locks that work, that gives more priority to boaters (not just cyclists/walkers/fishermen/wellbeing), and can actually be used for cruising -- not all the time, but sometimes.

 

There's no accepted term for people like this (who fall into many categories anyway), I used "real boaters" to try and signify that their interest is -- at least partially -- in the canals and the boats and people on them. Lots of people on CWDF seem to be "real boaters" given this definition. Maybe it's not the right term, but I can't think of a better one -- "canal enthusiasts", perhaps?

 

The second is only really interested in the canals as a cheap place to live, they have little or no interest in the canals or boating as such, they resent any attempts to make them either cough up for a mooring or follow the CC rules, and if all the locks closed tomorrow they not only wouldn't care, they'd be happy because it would make it much harder for CART to get them to move on. If they could find a caravan or shack that was as cheap and possibly more convenient to live in they'd do it like a shot, but they can't -- and because of this their numbers have increased greatly in recent years as housing has become increasingly unaffordable. Their increased numbers are a problem for "real boaters" (see above) because not wanting to follow the rules includes overstaying on visitor moorings, lock landings, "towpath squatting", mooring in stupid places, covering towpaths with crap, and often (but not always) doing whatever is to their own benefit regardless of the negative impact it has on others.

 

Again there's no umbrella definition for people like this, who again fall into many categories -- CMers is one of them, pejorative ones include "towpath squatters" and others -- but the difference is that their interest in the canals is only for what they can deliver for them (e.g. a cheap place to live), anything else which did the same but wasn't a boat on a canal (e.g. a fixed caravan) would probably be just as good -- in fact maybe better since it wouldn't have some of the hassles of living on a boat.

 

I'm sure people will object to these definitions, but they're not intended to be accurate or complete or definitive -- the basic distinction is between people (of all kinds) who care about the canals (and perhaps even love them) and want to see them carrying on working, and people (of all kinds) who don't and just use them and wouldn't care if they stopped working so long as they could still live on them.

 

At the moment it seems that most of the noise and attention is garnered by the "non-canal-lovers", as often represented by the NBTA -- and in response to the question "What has the NBTA done that annoys me", the answer is backing and encouraging people to evade/fight the rules which were put in place to try and make the canals work for *all* stakeholders, including those who want to use them as canals to travel on and/or live on in a manner that doesn't negatively impact other people.

 

It's nothing to do with "not like me", it's objecting to people who think it's OK to selfishly ignore rules that they don't like because they can get away with it, to the detriment of people who do follow the rules. This isn't just happening on the canals, it happens in many other aspects of society today -- or maybe that's because more and more people think "there's no such thing as society", only themselves... 😞

 

There, rant over, time for dinner -- or tea, depending where you come from 🙂

 

I'll let that stand as the last word on subject.

[RichM]

Thanks all, we continue to review suggestions and add them where possible. I'm particularly keen to add any acronyms for names of canals, we've got many but would be good to add more, e.g:

BCN

L&L

G&S

A&CN

GUC

etc etc

When we add the definition to our dictionary, it will mean that users can simply hover their mouse pointer over the acronym to see the definition. - Great for people who may be new to canals/boating or those who are not sure what it means. 

 

Cheers

[tree monkey]

On 08/11/2022 at 17:00, Goliath said:

I think that means Go F*** A Monkey. 😳

Even stranger

I see no one bothers to ask the forums actual monkey if his wants to be involved 

[David Mack]

56 minutes ago, RichM said:

it will mean that users can simply hover their mouse pointer over the acronym to see the definition.

Not on my android phone. I get the dotted underlining, but no definition.

Edited November 12, 2022 by David Mack

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

2 minutes ago, David Mack said:

Not on my android phone. I get the dotted underlining, but no definition.

Same on iPhone 

[ChrisRichmond94]

This was very useful to read!