Continuous Cruising Maps

[cotswoldsman]

I don't think these maps have anything to do with distance (I might be wrong) I think they define place. This will help with the guidance on place. I am sure Jenlyn will correct me if I am wrong.

Why not all ccers rather than just those already bending the rules?

If I was to come under enforcement with a Pre cc1 then I would find a map very useful as it is having moved over 200 miles this year I have no need at this stage for a map (google earth works for me)

[Paul C]

I reckon they should be widely publicised because 1) the information is then available for prospective CCers to decide if its a lifestyle they wish to sign up to, or if they'll seek a home mooring/etc 2) it gives an opportunity for a wider audience to give feedback on the maps/definitions of places to ensure or corroborate that they're an accurate reflection of the canal in their local area or known area(s).

[Tuscan]

I believe CRT have been looking at mapping the whole system for quite a few months now. I imagine the aim will be to change their crusing guidance yet again to incorporate these mapped "places" and then the " no return" rule will probably be linked to this thus effecting all boaters whether marina based or CC. There seems no stopping our new charity exercising its new independence .

[by'eck]

 

Some folk would prefer to CC (within the guidelines) , rather than moor in a marina. If those guidelines say 2 miles, or 20miles or 200miles, it gives people a proper choice..whether they can or cant achieve what the guidelines expect.

 

At this moment in time, people cant actually make that decision, because there's no clarity.

 

 

 

eta there not their

 

I may be naive but can I not assume that most here are bright enough to understand basic CC rules, regulations and recommendations. Its those that continuously try to push the envelope of what is allowable that seem to be the subject here forcing C&RT to offer nannying guidance.

 

Since each area differs in terms of available moorings, facilities etc., each requires individual attention adding to C&RT workload.

[DeanS]

 

I may be naive but can I not assume that most here are bright enough to understand basic CC rules, regulations and recommendations. Its those that continuously try to push the envelope of what is allowable that seem to be the subject here forcing C&RT to offer nannying guidance.

 

Since each area differs in terms of available moorings, facilities etc., each requires individual attention adding to C&RT workload.

 

hmmm.....I'm not so sure. When I first bought our boat, we were CC-ers with no home mooring. We were new, and the only "guidance" we had...was this forum. ....nothing "real" from CRT in terms of how far we were supposed to travel. The forum advice wasnt really guidance at all...just huge arguements among members....which 3 yrs later...hasnt changed much

[jenlyn]

I may be naive but can I not assume that most here are bright enough to understand basic CC rules, regulations and recommendations. Its those that continuously try to push the envelope of what is allowable that seem to be the subject here forcing C&RT to offer nannying guidance.

 

Since each area differs in terms of available moorings, facilities etc., each requires individual attention adding to C&RT workload.

It's not extra workload for CRT, as local boaters have done most of the running. Also, looking long term, it would save CRT substantial money from court cases.

[Richard10002]

Im on The Bridgewater and don't know exactly how it works but: Presumably CRT don't make the law/s relating to Continuous Cruising. There is a law which CRT are entitled to interpret and enforce, and which action a license holder, who purports to be a Continuous Cruiser, may dispute. If CRT don't agree with the dispute, the license holder might take legal action to try and get CRT to desist.... Or, if the license holder doesn't abide by the warnings, CRT might eject them from the waterway, or take legal action to get permission to eject them.

 

It seems to me that, in issuing a variety of forms of guidance, CRT, and BW before them, are saying to license holders, "if you follow these guidelines, and don't take the mickey, (whatever we may deem "the mickey" to be), we won't pursue you for breaching the terms of your Continuous Cruising License". Presumably the maps are another attempt to advise boaters how to avoid being pursued.

 

It also seems to me that there is a cruise which is clearly a continuous cruise, and a cruise which is blatantly not. Between these two boundaries are cruises that fall within a grey area, which may, or may not be, continuous cruises. Law generally only becomes an issue when a rule is either blatantly breached, or where someone's actions are on the margins.

 

With this in mind, it is then for the Continuous Cruiser to decide whether they follow the guidelines, and perhaps exceed them by an amount enough to ensure that they could not be considered in breach....... Or whether to blatantly breach them and take their chances, .... Or whether to cruise in the grey area in between.

 

personally, if you are a genuine Continuous Cruiser, I don't see that there need be any difficulty in keeping well on the right side of the grey area. If you are obstinate, you risk having a judge decide for you, and if you are blatantly in breach, you may suffer the penalties if caught.

 

On "place" one would assume that if somewhere on the canal has a different name from somewhere adjacent on the canal, then they are two different "places". Given that a days cruising could be about 32 lock miles, and that you are entitled to remain in a "place" for 14 days, a days cruising every 14 days would almost certainly guarantee that you were not staying in one "place" for more than 14 days. If, on occasion, your days cruise did not actually take you to a different "place", I don't think CRT would be concerned, (or even know), as it would not happen more than rarely.

 

I guess distance and turn round would depend upon the circumstances of each particular case.

 

I know what I would aim for if I didn't have a home mooring - I wouldn't be operating at the margins.

[by'eck]

I still think that present rules ought to be adequate for interpretation by most. Whilst offering area specific guide lines and maps may help C&RT enforce those areas, I'm concerned it may simply increase the allowable envelope which some will just see as an opportunity to push to the new limit and maybe a tad beyond.

[DeanS]

I know what I would aim for if I didn't have a home mooring - I wouldn't be operating at the margins.

 

What margins? There is NO current guidance. Boaters have to GUESS for themselves. Why the heck should I (if I was a CC-er), have to constantly worry that if I (for example), travel from Doncaster to Sheffield....turn around....back to Doncaster....then think...oh heck...I'm not allowed to go back to Sheffield now...because someone will think I'm bridge hopping...so I guess I'll have to spend 7hrs going up the Navigation...and head for Castleford. I dont really want to go to Castleford....I prefer Sheffield...but heck...I have no idea if ....I decide to revisit Sheffield, ....someone is going to come and issue me with an enforcement ticket.

 

get it?

[Paul C]

 

What margins? There is NO current guidance. Boaters have to GUESS for themselves. Why the heck should I (if I was a CC-er), have to constantly worry that if I (for example), travel from Doncaster to Sheffield....turn around....back to Doncaster....then think...oh heck...I'm not allowed to go back to Sheffield now...because someone will think I'm bridge hopping...so I guess I'll have to spend 7hrs going up the Navigation...and head for Castleford. I dont really want to go to Castleford....I prefer Sheffield...but heck...I have no idea if ....I decide to revisit Sheffield, ....someone is going to come and issue me with an enforcement ticket.

 

get it?

 

There are current guidelines. For all their faults, they have been subject to a judicial review which found them to be okay (however this is being challenged). They define bona fide navigation as going from place to place - assuming that people would know what a place is. It appears they don't, hence the need to define 'place'.

[DeanS]

And..I'll raise this issue again....anyone who doesnt have a home mooring, isnt always on a trip to Timbucktoo....they just dont like living in a marina. So...some guidance would be helpful for those folk....I plan on being one of those folk again someday. I dont like having a home mooring, I dont use my home mooring for 8mths a year, but I am not on a long journey. I just want to float around....within the "ALLOWED" distance...without continuously worrying that I'm a bad boater. If CRT say you cant float around within the same 10miles....so be it.....if they say 100miles...so be it....but some official guidance would really be great.

 

 

ETA....I have just worked out why Bath is so full of boats. Every CC-er who is trying to be legitimate, has to go to Bath....to say they've gotten to the end of the canal system....and then they turn round and head for Ripon again.

Edited August 7, 2013 by DeanS

[Paul C]

Dean you keep mentioning distances, but they are irrelevant. The law, or the CRT guidelines which are an interpretation of it, are based on places. You go from place to place. I guess if you really want the distance defined, then its the distance between 2 adjacent places - but this will varely (widely) between different geographical areas, thus its not worth mentioning a figure.

[DeanS]

Dean you keep mentioning distances, but they are irrelevant. The law, or the CRT guidelines which are an interpretation of it, are based on places. You go from place to place. I guess if you really want the distance defined, then its the distance between 2 adjacent places - but this will varely (widely) between different geographical areas, thus its not worth mentioning a figure.

 

sigh. If you like 2 places very much, and want to travel back and forward between them, because they are your favourite places on earth....is this inside or outside the non existant rules ? If you say No, then I extend the argument to 3 places. If you say No, I extend the argument to 4 places. etc. When you or CRT then answer Yes....then hooray, we will have an official guideline.

 

thank you.

[Paul C]

I don't think you've read the guidance. Here is a link:

 

http://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/633.pdf

 

the bit which answers your question is :

 

 

 

What the law requires is that, if 14 days ago the boat was in neighbourhood A, by day 15 it

must be in neighbourhood B or further afield. Thereafter, the next movement must be at least to

neighbourhood C, and not back to neighbourhood A (with obvious exceptions such as reaching the

end of a terminal waterway or reversing the direction of travel in the course of a genuine cruise).

 

What constitutes a ‘neighbourhood’ will vary from area to area – on a rural waterway a village or

hamlet may be a neighbourhood and on an urban waterway a suburb or district within a town or city

may be a neighbourhood. A sensible and pragmatic judgement needs to be made.

 

It is not possible (nor appropriate) to specify distances that need to be travelled, since in densely

populated areas different neighbourhoods will adjoin each other and in sparsely populated areas they

may be far apart (in which case uninhabited areas between neighbourhoods will in themselves usually

be a locality and also a “place”).

 

Exact precision is not required or expected – what is required is that the boat is used for a genuine

cruise.

 

[DeanS]

I graciously bow out from the discussion. We all know that real CC-ers just get on with it and dont worry about what you or I think.

[Lesd]

I don't think you've read the guidance. Here is a link:

 

http://canalrivertrust.org.uk/media/library/633.pdf

 

the bit which answers your question is :

 

 

This implies you can move between three places only, ABC, and then return to A and start again. I know several people who are having enforcement issues who move further than that. Even our friend Davies moved between more than 3 places ???

[Paul C]

The Davies' case is a bit of an anomaly.

[DeanS]

This implies you can move between three places only, ABC, and then return to A and start again. I know several people who are having enforcement issues who move further than that. Even our friend Davies moved between more than 3 places ???

 

I rest my case.

[Paul C]

This implies you can move between three places only, ABC, and then return to A and start again. I know several people who are having enforcement issues who move further than that. Even our friend Davies moved between more than 3 places ???

 

I bet there's more to it than that! I don't want to ask for further details though, what they do is between them and CRT, to be honest.

[Tuscan]

If ALL the boats in the congested areas ( which is where all this stems from) all moved every 14 days to anew place within the confines of the area would there still be the same number of boats within these congested areas or would some additional space magically be found to accommodate the increasing number of boats still heading that way. Just a night time thought.

[DeanS]

..

Edited August 8, 2013 by DeanS

[magpie patrick]

This implies you can move between three places only, ABC, and then return to A and start again. I know several people who are having enforcement issues who move further than that. Even our friend Davies moved between more than 3 places ???

 

It implies it, whether that is true I'm less sure, because even the guidance is not the actual source text of the law. The guidance categorically states as fact that having travelled from A to B the next journey must not be back to A (with fairly obvious caveats), it doesn't psecifically say that having moved to C it is alright to go back to A, and it can definitely be implied that having reached C one can not return to B.

 

In any event, this is how one might define the 14 day rule, it doesn't necessarily fulfill the "Bona Fide" bit. It could be argued that an ABC cruising pattern is necessary but not sufficient.

 

Can someone come up with an algebraic formula?

 

One thing I think Jenlyn is spot on with is the idea as to what constitutes "off the radar" in a given geographic location. It is inappropriate to give generic guidance on how many locks and miles but may be appropriate to give area specific guidance.

[Naughty Cal]

What would happen if CRT decided that CCing was too much hassle to regulate and insisted all boaters had a home mooring?

[blodger]

What would happen if CRT decided that CCing was too much hassle to regulate and insisted all boaters had a home mooring?

If it were possible to implement I suspect they would find that it did not cure any of the 'congestion' problems that current and imminent enforcement and improvement therein are in the main expected to resolve

 

They would have to go further and say that you must not leave your home mooring without good reason!

Edited August 8, 2013 by blodger

[cotswoldsman]

What would happen if CRT decided that CCing was too much hassle to regulate and insisted all boaters had a home mooring?

They would have to take 7,000 boaters to court most probably 8,000 bu the end of next year