Jump to content

Is C&RT's Boat/Location Logging System Fit for Purpose?


Tony Dunkley

Featured Posts

From the little I know of relational databases, I'd bet the data is not overwritten. I'd lay money on the flaw being in the statement being used to query the database.

 

 

MtB

 

In order to win or lose your money you would need to know the same answers as TD is trying to find out. What is/was the specification of the processing of that transaction type and does the actual processing actually follow that specification.

 

I very much doubt that historic links between home mooring entities and boater entities are retained as this would would severely complicate any query process unless the most current link was, in some way, used as a default. Personally, if I were designing such a system I would record such changes to the transaction audit trail and hold a single current copy of the relationship.

 

Do you know that a relational database is in fact being used, not that it is particularly important? Virtually any database or file organisation that is supported by SQL or similar query facilities would/should react in much the same manner.

 

Of course the main question is, how much money are you wanting to lay on your prognoses? I might be interested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In case some of you experts might be of greater help having sight of the document itself, I think this is the print-out being referred to –

 

TDMooringshistory_zps1ccf414c.jpg

 

 

I believe that the boat was a BW customer at 'their' moorings at Holme Lock from 2003 to 2011, and that the Barton mooring was only taken up from 2011 to present.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The underlying data is probably fine (but can't be sure from the printout) but the report is probably slightly incorrect in that it shows the location of the current home mooring not necessarily the historical data. It might well be that the database deletes previous home mooring locations anyway, due to the requirement of the data protection act meaning that personal info shouldn't be kept longer than necessary. I can't see a particular reason why CRT would need to keep historical records of previous home moorings anyway.

 

Also worth saying, that printout definitely isn't anything to do with boat MOVEMENTS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Provided that your comments on the mooring years are correct, then the report is quite obviously telling porkies.

 

My guess is that the relationship between the boat and the mooring has been changed at some point and the true historic situation has been lost. The earlier post by TD about his experts findings look, at face value, to be perfectly correct.

 

I do not understand the headings. FunctLocDescript and Func. Loc. (if I am reading that right, it's a bit fuzzy) could mean anything that the author of the report wishes it to mean. A full English description of the names assigned to the data should be requested.

 

My best guess is simply sloppy systems design. The alternative (which would support MtB comments) could be that the query did not check up on available history.

 

It would be good practice in any financial reporting system that an exact copy of any financial transaction is retained. This report looks to be a composite of financial transactions and what the author of the query presumed were static data such as location and boat name (neither has any reason not to change in reality).

 

It is quite possible that independent, paper /fiche/image records have been archived which show the true transactions. These should also be requested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In case some of you experts might be of greater help having sight of the document itself, I think this is the print-out being referred to –

 

TDMooringshistory_zps1ccf414c.jpg

 

 

I believe that the boat was a BW customer at 'their' moorings at Holme Lock from 2003 to 2011, and that the Barton mooring was only taken up from 2011 to present.

It was on a BW Long Term Mooring at Holme Lock from 2010 to 2011. Prior to that, 2009 - 2010 Licenced as CC'er. Prior to July 2009, not in my ownership, as correctly indicated in column 11, but I do know that with it's previous owner to me it was 2 years at Castle Marina with 2 years CC'ing(approx). Before that, I don't know.

Columns 2,3,5,6 & 7 are quite interesting. The ZM code is for Mooring Charges, Sales Doc is Invoice No. . . . so that's me and previous owners being invoiced by BW/C&RT for moorings they don't own and now, apparently, believe not to be genuine.

Edited by tony dunkley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The quote below is from a C&RT e-mail to me in response to my enquiry about their dubious record keeping (or creating) . . .

 

" . . . the information held within our corporate systems can be extracted and displayed in many different ways depending on the reason or purpose it is needed."

 

. . . well, at least that seems to be true.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Provided that your comments on the mooring years are correct, then the report is quite obviously telling porkies.

 

My guess is that the relationship between the boat and the mooring has been changed at some point and the true historic situation has been lost. The earlier post by TD about his experts findings look, at face value, to be perfectly correct.

 

I do not understand the headings. FunctLocDescript and Func. Loc. (if I am reading that right, it's a bit fuzzy) could mean anything that the author of the report wishes it to mean. A full English description of the names assigned to the data should be requested.

 

My best guess is simply sloppy systems design. The alternative (which would support MtB comments) could be that the query did not check up on available history.

 

It would be good practice in any financial reporting system that an exact copy of any financial transaction is retained. This report looks to be a composite of financial transactions and what the author of the query presumed were static data such as location and boat name (neither has any reason not to change in reality).

 

It is quite possible that independent, paper /fiche/image records have been archived which show the true transactions. These should also be requested.

C&RT say that these are their codes for Home mooring name and Home mooring location.

It's incidental to this thread, but this printout is part of C&RT's evidence in support of their Application for an Injunction. I have asked them and Shoosmiths why they have produced it and how it assists their Claim/Application. They say they are not really sure, but that it is proof I have a Home Mooring !?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

C&RT say that these are their codes for Home mooring name and Home mooring location.

It's incidental to this thread, but this printout is part of C&RT's evidence in support of their Application for an Injunction. I have asked them and Shoosmiths why they have produced it and how it assists their Claim/Application. They say they are not really sure, but that it is proof I have a Home Mooring !?!

 

Tony, this report is in all probability an Ad Hoc report for management use, and management may well be aware of it's shortcomings. It is the base data, archived original documents (if they exists) that should be obtained that should show the correct location. If those archived documents do not exist then your case is strengthened that their systems are not fit for purpose.

 

It is possible also that the person who created the report selected the wrong location data. That is the current location rather than the financial transaction location (if such data exists), hence the need to clarify the exact meaning of the headings if this document is important to your case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Tony, this report is in all probability an Ad Hoc report for management use, and management may well be aware of it's shortcomings. It is the base data, archived original documents (if they exists) that should be obtained that should show the correct location. If those archived documents do not exist then your case is strengthened that their systems are not fit for purpose.

 

It is possible also that the person who created the report selected the wrong location data. That is the current location rather than the financial transaction location (if such data exists), hence the need to clarify the exact meaning of the headings if this document is important to your case.

Yes, that may well be so, but doesn't that make it all the more strange that they produce it to back up their legal action. I think its importance relevant to my case is that it demonstrates just how unreliable their records are when presented as proof of boat locations at any specific time. I will ask them about the archived original documents as you have suggested. Thanks for your help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, that may well be so, but doesn't that make it all the more strange that they produce it to back up their legal action. I think its importance relevant to my case is that it demonstrates just how unreliable their records are when presented as proof of boat locations at any specific time. I will ask them about the archived original documents as you have suggested. Thanks for your help.

 

I expect they will prove their records are reliable, but you might be able to say the report (which has been sca'nned and posted here) is difficult to comprehend, and CRT will explain its interpretation and say its not designed for customers to interpret but its an internal report whose purpose is ONLY to prove or not that a boater has paid/is recorded as declaring they have a home mooring for the current licence period. Ie its not designed to show a historical account of home moorings.

 

Basically if you're using this as an element of your defence, I think its going to fail. I'd concentrate on other aspects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically if you're using this as an element of your defence, I think its going to fail. I'd concentrate on other aspects.

 

From #134, it appears that it was part of the Claim, not the Defence.

 

As Tony suggests, this speaks only to the reliability or otherwise of the computerised record - he does not need to prove his home mooring, which has belatedly been acknowledged as existing anyway. It is only the fact of his lack of intent to use it that is claimed to invalidate it for the purposes of s.17(3)( c )(I).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I expect they will prove their records are reliable, but you might be able to say the report (which has been sca'nned and posted here) is difficult to comprehend, and CRT will explain its interpretation and say its not designed for customers to interpret but its an internal report whose purpose is ONLY to prove or not that a boater has paid/is recorded as declaring they have a home mooring for the current licence period. Ie its not designed to show a historical account of home moorings.

 

Basically if you're using this as an element of your defence, I think its going to fail. I'd concentrate on other aspects.

You're missing the point. The printout is just factually incorrect rubbish. Post 131 is the true Mooring history for my boat. The C&RT printout is pure fiction . . . even listing their Invoicing for a mooring they neither own nor control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're missing the point. The printout is just factually incorrect rubbish. Post 131 is the true Mooring history for my boat. The C&RT printout is pure fiction . . . even listing their Invoicing for a mooring they neither own nor control.

 

FunctLocDescrip doesn't mean anything without interpretation. It is neither "correct" nor "factually incorrect rubbish", it is basically an abbreviation for something which needs to be explained properly. If they have given you this printout then they have probably served the basic requirement they did to do so, but it would have been nice to offer an explanatory note on how to interpret the data presented on the piece of paper.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

FunctLocDescrip doesn't mean anything without interpretation. It is neither "correct" nor "factually incorrect rubbish", it is basically an abbreviation for something which needs to be explained properly. If they have given you this printout then they have probably served the basic requirement they did to do so, but it would have been nice to offer an explanatory note on how to interpret the data presented on the piece of paper.

Nothing needs interpreting . . . the printout lists my boat as having a home mooring(FunctLoc) at Barton-in-Fabis since 2003 - wrong! . . it lists BW/C&RT Invoices for that mooring(lines with ZM code) but BW/C&RT don't, and have never owned or controlled any moorings at Barton-in-Fabis . . so wrong again! When words and figures are printed onto a sheet of paper they are intended to be read and taken to mean what they say, and these words and figures are just plainly and simply misleading and wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony, your boat movement records may well have been recorded by one of their datalogger machines and will have been recorded as Longitude/Latitude rather than location name. Possibly even a mixture of the two. If you need any help interpreting the Long/Lat data to an exact physical location just PM me with the data and I will plot it out for you.

 

If they have place names and no Long/Lat coordinates then ask for them as reverse geolocation (determining place names from Long/Lat coordinates) is a black art with no guarantee of accuracy in the result unless in an urban environment. You would need three items for each position, the Longitude, the Latitude, and the accuracy of the GPS fix.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In case some of you experts might be of greater help having sight of the document itself, I think this is the print-out being referred to –

 

TDMooringshistory_zps1ccf414c.jpg

 

 

I believe that the boat was a BW customer at 'their' moorings at Holme Lock from 2003 to 2011, and that the Barton mooring was only taken up from 2011 to present.

 

OK,

 

systems analyst hat on.

 

What you have there is a report taken from a database. It doesn't show you the underlying database structure, and it doesn't show you what the linkage used is.

 

It is clearly a report showing financial transactions against a particular boat index, for licences (ZL) and mooring permits (ZM).

 

The functional location of the Home mooring isn't something that would be expected to appear in a sales transaction on an even vaguely normalised database.

 

Rather, I would expect the CURRENT functional location to (possibly) appear as a memo field on the Boat record in that table, and a history of functional locations to appear in a separate table.

 

If that is the case, the joining the boat table to the finance table and dragging in the Func Loc is always going to bring in the current location.

 

It doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with the underlying data, and the printout doesn't say that the ZM entries relate to the FL shown.

 

Indeed, the Current FL is noted as a L6 mooring, and you don't get mooring permits for L6 moorings

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=10154&p=151940

 

I could fairly easily construct a database that would churn out this kind of report even with good underlying data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

OK,

 

systems analyst hat on.

 

What you have there is a report taken from a database. It doesn't show you the underlying database structure, and it doesn't show you what the linkage used is.

 

It is clearly a report showing financial transactions against a particular boat index, for licences (ZL) and mooring permits (ZM).

 

The functional location of the Home mooring isn't something that would be expected to appear in a sales transaction on an even vaguely normalised database.

 

Rather, I would expect the CURRENT functional location to (possibly) appear as a memo field on the Boat record in that table, and a history of functional locations to appear in a separate table.

 

If that is the case, the joining the boat table to the finance table and dragging in the Func Loc is always going to bring in the current location.

 

It doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with the underlying data, and the printout doesn't say that the ZM entries relate to the FL shown.

 

Indeed, the Current FL is noted as a L6 mooring, and you don't get mooring permits for L6 moorings

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=10154&p=151940

 

I could fairly easily construct a database that would churn out this kind of report even with good underlying data.

 

It would seem to me that a financial transaction for a mooring would (among many other things) be intersection data between a boat record and a mooring place record. At the point of creation of the intersection data a copy of both the (then) current boat name, and the (then) current mooring place key should be stored on the intersection data record as either entity record could change over time. This would allow a historic query, such as the above, to show valid data in that respect.

 

Whether this is sloppy systems design, or sloppy query design is the point at issue. If the consideration of historical queries has not been taken into account then no amount of data normalisation would have helped as the attributes of the intersection data would be short of those fields. It is, after all, part of an analyst's responsibilities to ensure that what a system reports is both correct and intelligible. That is not the situation here. The current location is being shown in association with a date where it is not valid.

 

I agree with you that, if the current location is being shown, and if it is the only location being shown, it should be shown separately clearly labelled as what it is. I also agree with you that such a report could be produced with valid underlying data. The thing is that if the underlying data is valid, then producing such a report is misrepresenting the facts contained in the data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sort of dip in and out of this thread and mainly speed read it know nothing about IT but seem from what I have read that the location of the home mooring is in doubt (I may have that all wrong) surely the licence index numbers give the location of the home mooring

Sorry if I have misunderstood what is being discussed at present

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

OK,

 

systems analyst hat on.

 

What you have there is a report taken from a database. It doesn't show you the underlying database structure, and it doesn't show you what the linkage used is.

 

It is clearly a report showing financial transactions against a particular boat index, for licences (ZL) and mooring permits (ZM).

 

The functional location of the Home mooring isn't something that would be expected to appear in a sales transaction on an even vaguely normalised database.

 

Rather, I would expect the CURRENT functional location to (possibly) appear as a memo field on the Boat record in that table, and a history of functional locations to appear in a separate table.

 

If that is the case, the joining the boat table to the finance table and dragging in the Func Loc is always going to bring in the current location.

 

It doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with the underlying data, and the printout doesn't say that the ZM entries relate to the FL shown.

 

Indeed, the Current FL is noted as a L6 mooring, and you don't get mooring permits for L6 moorings

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=10154&p=151940

 

I could fairly easily construct a database that would churn out this kind of report even with good underlying data.

So, in other words, C&RT's computer system has produced a printout which is just a load of misleading tripe. If it can do the same job on boat sightings then it may go some way towards explaining why some people are being wrongly accused of overstaying.

Edited by tony dunkley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sort of dip in and out of this thread and mainly speed read it know nothing about IT but seem from what I have read that the location of the home mooring is in doubt (I may have that all wrong) surely the licence index numbers give the location of the home mooring

Sorry if I have misunderstood what is being discussed at present

 

No worries, the IT problem being discussed is the systems analysts worst nightmare, how to ensure correct historical context is being maintained. The problem is not where TD's mooring is, but where it was some years ago when it was in a different place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the 'Dark Side' but relevant :

 

Paul Griffin of the C&RT Enforcement team stated :

 

He went on to explain that the phsical checks were carried out fortnightly on the canals and monthly on the rivers. Here it should be noted that once a physical sighting of a boat's position has been logged by a Data Checker, the computer then replicates that sighting until such time as a Data Checker follows up with a further sighting.

 

So the C&RT system, once a boat has been logged, assumes the boat doesnt move until it is sighted again.

 

If it is logged on the River (say) 1st July, then one month later, having been down the Witham to Boston and back to the same mooring by the 1st of August - C&RT assume the boat has not moved and will become subject to enforcement.

 

Doesnt sound like a very robust sytem !!

 

http://www.narrowboatworld.com/index.php/news-flash/7189-all-treated-as-continuous-cruisers

 

Edit for spoolings

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.