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

[NigelMoore]

 

I fully understand what the system is designed to do: to show where your boat is at the time it is recorded. Nothing more than that, and it seems to be doing that perfectly, even if it is primitive.

You are expecting (nee demanding) that it should do something different, and to do something that it is not designed to do.

 

 

Regardless of what the system may have been designed to do, surely the problem is [or it becomes a problem] when CaRT use it for – on your argument – purposes other than that for which it was designed, i.e. to establish a movement pattern.

 

I do not think Jenlyn is either expecting or demanding that the system do anything other than what you claim for it, rather, he has expressed concern that the system should be ”accurate and accountable for the decisions it helps to make”; some such decisions being, as exemplified in the Dunkley case and others, to take court action to remove boats from CaRT’s jurisdiction on the grounds of non-compliance with boat movement requirements.

 

If, as you assert, the record taking system is designed to record boat locations at particular times and “nothing more than that”, then you will necessarily be in agreement that if used in a court of law to establish ‘proof’ of “more than that” – as it is, to establish lack of compliance with boat movement patterns – then CaRT are the ones “expecting it to do a lot more than it was designed for”.

 

And, moreover, expecting the courts to accept this misapplied [on your argument] system, to justify removal or seizure of people’s homes.

 

That being CaRT's purpose - in the current context - you are obviously supporting the view that the system is NOT fit for that purpose.

[mayalld]

 

Regardless of what the system may have been designed to do, surely the problem is [or it becomes a problem] when CaRT use it for – on your argument – purposes other than that for which it was designed, i.e. to establish a movement pattern.

 

I do not think Jenlyn is either expecting or demanding that the system do anything other than what you claim for it, rather, he has expressed concern that the system should be ”accurate and accountable for the decisions it helps to make”; some such decisions being, as exemplified in the Dunkley case and others, to take court action to remove boats from CaRT’s jurisdiction on the grounds of non-compliance with boat movement requirements.

 

If, as you assert, the record taking system is designed to record boat locations at particular times and “nothing more than that”, then you will necessarily be in agreement that if used in a court of law to establish ‘proof’ of “more than that” – as it is, to establish lack of compliance with boat movement patterns – then CaRT are the ones “expecting it to do a lot more than it was designed for”.

 

And, moreover, expecting the courts to accept this misapplied [on your argument] system, to justify removal or seizure of people’s homes.

 

That being CaRT's purpose - in the current context - you are obviously supporting the view that the system is NOT fit for that purpose.

 

I, as an analyst/programmer, would say that the system is fit for purpose.

 

It satisfactorily records sightings.

 

The fact that the sample rate doesn't provide it with sufficient data isn't a defect in the system, it is a limitation of the business process.

 

The system records facts. It is for the people involved in any issue to argue as to what interpretation can be made on the facts.

 

My personal view is that the mainstream recording of sightings isn't sufficient evidence of failure to move, and that CRT should use it merely as a tool to refine the need for targeted observation.

 

If the sightings show possible lack of movement, then that boat should be scheduled for daily observation for a 3 week period.

[jenlyn]

I, as an analyst/programmer, would say that the system is fit for purpose.

 

 

My personal view is that the mainstream recording of sightings isn't sufficient evidence of failure to move, and that CRT should use it merely as a tool to refine the need for targeted observation.

 

So in your eyes it's fit for purpose but, it's not fit for purpose in the way it is being used at the moment?

[Tuscan]

Agree it's the accuracy and frequency of the data that's the issue , not the electronic means of processing it. It would be in Dunkley's favour perhaps to get a volunteer in court to testify as to his training and the consistency of his timing , accuracy of the location recorded and whether he understood that he was gathering data to be used in this way. I assume the data gathered does not indicate the direction,

[matty40s]

I have said previously, that the data would be more valid IF they did as they have done with Jenlyn, and record ALL boats, moored and passing them.

 

However, this August, I have been passed with no record by 5 data loggers - 4 whilst cruising and 1 whilst stood on the back of my boar chatting to people on the towpath.

[jenlyn]

Agree it's the accuracy and frequency of the data that's the issue , not the electronic means of processing it. It would be in Dunkley's favour perhaps to get a volunteer in court to testify as to his training and the consistency of his timing , accuracy of the location recorded and whether he understood that he was gathering data to be used in this way. I assume the data gathered does not indicate the direction,

The data indicates that you were spotted at that geographical location. No other data.

I also queried the fact that my own data was not totally accurate, (we keep 3 daily logs on jenlyn). I was told that the system used does not always get a signal at your location, and some data collectors use notepad and paper to record. The reason I queried my log, was the fact I had been recorded on 48 hour moorings for 4 days at Stoke bruerne, when in fact, I had been on the 7 day moorings. I was assured by Mathew Symmonds that CRT would not act on this given it was human error by backroom staff, who had been confused with using two separate systems.

 

One other thing I have noted is that a data collector does not always collect your id at your location. We note data collectors in our log when they do not stop to take jenlyn's details.

In total, we have been logged on 101 occasions over a 24 month period (from Paddington to Buckby).

This is quite a contrast to the log data copies I have been given by some in the north.

[MtB]

There are repeated anecdotes about data loggers appearing to record some boats and ignore others while they are out logging data.

 

It would be interesting and illuminating to know why.

 

 

 

MtB

[jenlyn]

There are repeated anecdotes about data loggers appearing to record some boats and ignore others while they are out logging data.

 

It would be interesting and illuminating to know why.

 

 

 

MtB

I did ask the question on the phone yesterday, but did not get a direct reply. To be honest, after 15 minutes of listening, I felt as if I was going around the twist. A mistake is made, and they convince themselves that it's me making it. Some won't understand that sentence, but those who have had in depth meetings with CRT will.

[Alan de Enfield]

Have you actually seen one of these boat sighting documents?

 

An example, if I was logged as seen at Braunston on the 3rd of August, then no more sightings until I was logged again at Braunston on the 29th August, what would that suggest to you or a third party?

 

Guilty until proven innocent - now you need a photographic log with the daily newspaper in the foreground and a landmark in the bakground to prove where you were each day.

 

Another convert who has seen the light - now try and get Naughty Cal to accept it.

[MtB]

 

Guilty until proven innocent - now you need a photographic log with the daily newspaper in the foreground and a landmark in the bakground to prove where you were each day.

 

Another convert who has seen the light - now try and get Naughty Cal to accept it.

 

Will a photo of your boat taken with your mobile phone not do?

 

My iPhone geo-tags the photos so time, date and location are recorded. The only thing left for them to quibble about would be if the photo taken is actually my boat, or forged in some way.

 

I am trying to remember to photo my boat regularly as this seems an almost effortless way of creating an evidence trail of where I've been, and when.

 

 

MtB

[NigelMoore]

 

I, as an analyst/programmer, would say that the system is fit for purpose.

 

It satisfactorily records sightings.

 

The fact that the sample rate doesn't provide it with sufficient data isn't a defect in the system, it is a limitation of the business process.

 

The system records facts. It is for the people involved in any issue to argue as to what interpretation can be made on the facts.

 

My personal view is that the mainstream recording of sightings isn't sufficient evidence of failure to move, and that CRT should use it merely as a tool to refine the need for targeted observation.

 

If the sightings show possible lack of movement, then that boat should be scheduled for daily observation for a 3 week period.

 

I, as someone for whom analysts/programmers are a species of magician, am offering no opinion on this at all. I was commenting only on the fact that the comments of Graham Davies were effectively agreeing that the system, however fit for the purpose for which it was designed, was “NOT fit for that purpose”, i.e. fit for the purpose of establishing extent of movement as proof of breach of mooring times.

 

You, as someone properly qualified to do so, are apparently likewise adding yourself to the number who regard the system as unfit for that extrapolated purpose - with, moreover, some sound advice on how it could be made fit for THAT purpose. A consensus of the experts appears to be forming.

[MtB]

 

I, as someone for whom analysts/programmers are a species of magician, am offering no opinion on this at all. I was commenting only on the fact that the comments of Graham Davies were effectively agreeing that the system, however fit for the purpose for which it was designed, was “NOT fit for that purpose”, i.e. fit for the purpose of establishing extent of movement as proof of breach of mooring times.

 

 

It certainly ought to be suitable for supplying part of the information needed for proving the movements of a boat. That a boat was at 'x' location at 'y' time and date.

 

I think Tony is attempting to show it doesn't even succeed at that though, from memory of how the thread started.

 

ISTR jenlyn also saying the system has a record of his being somewhere at a date and time his own records contradict.

 

 

MtB

[Tony Dunkley]

I did ask the question on the phone yesterday, but did not get a direct reply. To be honest, after 15 minutes of listening, I felt as if I was going around the twist. A mistake is made, and they convince themselves that it's me making it. Some won't understand that sentence, but those who have had in depth meetings with CRT will.

I am not all that sure it's themselves they're trying to convince, but you are quite right about how it feels when trying to have a useful and sensible conversation with them. A few days ago, someone fairly new to the joys of talking to and dealing with C&RT described the experience as something akin to attempting to nail sh*t to a wall.

[Tony Dunkley]

Having received my movements log in data form from CRT, I can say quite categorically that the system is not fit for purpose.

It does not log when you have left a mooring place and it does not list you as moving when you are sited actually moving. It does not log you as filling with water, or using facilities. It just logs you as being at that place.

 

 

This really does depend on what that purpose may be. It has been acknowledged by C&RT that it can produce 'records' that say what they want said, as in this extract from an e-mail . . . From Sarina Young [C&RT FOFI officer] -

"To explain, 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."

Could this be an early example of the new 'openness' as proclaimed by Mr Parry?

[MtB]

This really does depend on what that purpose may be. It has been acknowledged by C&RT that it can produce 'records' that say what they want said, as in this extract from an e-mail . . . From Sarina Young [C&RT FOFI officer] -

"To explain, 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."

Could this be an early example of the new 'openness' as proclaimed by Mr Parry?

 

 

I think it's more an illustration of the flexibility available in creating two dimensional written reports from the multi-dimensional underlying database.

 

 

MtB

[cotswoldsman]

 

 

I think it's more an illustration of the flexibility available in creating two dimensional written reports from the multi-dimensional underlying database.

 

 

MtB

Ah well MtP you have made me laugh on this bleak day

[Tony Dunkley]

 

 

I think it's more an illustration of the flexibility available in creating two dimensional written reports from the multi-dimensional underlying database.

 

 

MtB

Are the two dimensions you're thinking of a wide range of tall stories?

[cotswoldsman]

Are the two dimensions you're thinking of a wide range of tall stories?

No just complete nonsense

[MtB]

Are the two dimensions you're thinking of a wide range of tall stories?

 

No, just the height and width of the piece of paper the report is printed on.

 

You can directly print out the data stored in a two-dimensional array, or grid. Once you try to represent on paper the data stored in a three-dimensional array (e.g. a cube instead of a square) you run into trouble.

 

I expect the CRT database is a multi-dimensional grid running into dozens or hundreds of dimensions so printing it all on paper cannot be done in any intelligible way. It HAS to be filtered. I'm not sure you still fully grasp this concept Tony.

 

 

MtB

Edited August 30, 2014 by Mike the Boilerman

[Alan de Enfield]

 

No, just the height and width of the piece of paper the report is printed on.

 

You can directly print out the data stored in a two-dimensional array, or grid. Once you try to represent on paper the data stored in a three-dimensional array (e.g. a cube instead of a square) you run into trouble.

 

I expect the CRT database is a multi-dimensional grid running into dozens or hundreds of dimensions so printing it all on paper cannot be done in any intelligible way. It HAS to be filtered. I'm not sure you still fully grasp this concept Tony.

 

 

MtB

 

Have you ever played 3D "O & X's", or even 3D Chess. Its mind bogling

[MtB]

 

Have you ever played 3D "O & X's", or even 3D Chess. Its mind bogling

 

 

No.

 

My mind has been boggled enough already thanks...!

 

Mainly by Nigel's posts

 

 

MtB

[Tony Dunkley]

 

No, just the height and width of the piece of paper the report is printed on.

 

You can directly print out the data stored in a two-dimensional array, or grid. Once you try to represent on paper the data stored in a three-dimensional array (e.g. a cube instead of a square) you run into trouble.

 

I expect the CRT database is a multi-dimensional grid running into dozens or hundreds of dimensions so printing it all on paper cannot be done in any intelligible way. It HAS to be filtered. I'm not sure you still fully grasp this concept Tony.

 

 

MtB

So C&RT's printouts would read correctly if done on cubic pieces of paper rather than sheets. Wouldn't this make them very expensive to send through the post?

[MtB]

So C&RT's printouts would read correctly if done on cubic pieces of paper rather than sheets. Wouldn't this make them very expensive to send through the post?

 

Nope, you're still not getting it.

 

The concept of more than three dimensions is difficult as we live in a 3D world. There may turn out to be four, eight or even hundred-dimensional worlds out there. The hundred-dimensional world could probably print the CRT database. Just!

 

 

MtB

Mind you, you should see their stamps!!

[cotswoldsman]

So C&RT's printouts would read correctly if done on cubic pieces of paper rather than sheets. Wouldn't this make them very expensive to send through the post?

The information CRT can get in any report is very limited for the simple reason that information going in is boat specific and only gives 3 bits of information boat index number, location and date. It does not give direction of travel, it does not specify if boat was moored or moving. The data report I received recently for 24 months logged me less than 50 times in 24 months and 13 of those were in one place on one day

Edited August 30, 2014 by cotswoldsman

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Nope, you're still not getting it.

 

The concept of more than three dimensions is difficult as we live in a 3D world. There may turn out to be four, eight or even hundred-dimensional worlds out there. The hundred-dimensional world could probably print the CRT database. Just!

 

 

MtB

Mind you, you should see their stamps!!

Well, glad we can agree on something at last, C&RT certainly do perform like something from another planet.