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

[Sabcat]

 

1) I realise that, and as I was answering SABCAT, whom I believe to be a CCer and was relevant, particularly as he stated that :-

If C&RT can't provide categoric data to prove that a boat has not moved then that should be their problem,

 

2) Good point - so the C&RT's T&C's (that are not enshrined in law) are worthless - has that actually been tested in court ?

I'm not a ccer I live aboard but on a permanent mooring, I even pay council tax.

[Alan de Enfield]

I'm not a ccer I live aboard but on a permanent mooring, I even pay council tax.

 

Sorry - I stand corrected - I had the impression from some of your posts that you were a CCer

[Quinafloat]

Tony, the only real issue, from the pure IT point of view, is that you have enough information as to the meanings of codes, headings, etc. to fully understand the content of the reports they are using as evidence. Your requests seem to cover those points

 

My recent comment was more in relation to the original question of whether the system is fit for purpose and is much less important than the ones you are pursuing at the moment.

 

I am able to request the movement data for my own boat as I am currently not on CaRT waters to check the point I raised as I am sure you are busy enough at the moment. If I get an "interesting" reply I will post it here.

 

Incidentally I requested from CaRT a breakdown of their location code formats, I am still waiting for a reply from them.

[alan_fincher]

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?

 

It can't suggest anything, because a vital piece of information is missing.

 

It is highly unlikely, I suspect, that they did no recording of boats at Braunston in well over 3 weeks, so there is every chance that data was collected on other dates between the 3rd and the 29th. What you and we don't know is how many recordings took place at Braunston between those dates.

 

If you were not sighted there when they walked the patch at any time between the 3rd and the 29th, then they have data that establishes you were not there continually.

 

The fact that you were not actually sighted anywhere else between those dates doesn't establish that they are incapable of knowing you were somewhere else for at least some of that period.

 

(This is not saying I believe their system is adequate, only that you can't safely conclude anything from the data you have given, and they may well have other information that confirms you were not being "non compliant".)

[Naughty Cal]

I wouldn't be happy with GPS on my boat. I'm also not happy with the concept of proving where I've been - who's business is it but mine? If C&RT can't provide categoric data to prove that a boat has not moved then that should be their problem, not the poor sap who they're pursuing because they've logged them in the same place weeks apart.

Why?

 

If you have nothing to hide what's the issue with CRT knowing where your boat is?

 

Both of those two e-mails were sent in response to a request to C&RT to tell me if they knew where my boat had been between two specified dates, so they're not much use in answering your question, but I could ask on Monday for a printout showing my boat location for that period.

I have made an FOI Request which may possibly bring out a bit more useful info, but if there are any additional questions you think would help, then I am more than happy to ask them.

 

Tony Dunkley

Aug 20 (10 days ago)

to Sarina, richard.parry, roger.hanbury, Steven, tracey.bose

Request for Information

 

 

I refer to your communication dated 6 August 2014 which neither addresses my concerns or answers the question I asked. My concern is that Canal and River Trust has provided information to the Court (a printout on Page 83 of Exhibit SAG1) which purports to show 19 financial transactions relating to my boat "Halcyon Daze" Index No.52721, a great many of which never took place. The document also indicates that, since 2003 (a period of 11 years), the vessel has always been declared, for Licencing purposes, as having a home mooring at Barton In Fabis. This is untrue and seriously misleading, as when read in conjunction with a list of boat sightings at Holme Lock on the River Trent, also contained in Exhibit SAG1 as evidence of "overstaying" at that location, the printout disguises the fact that for part of the period covered by the list of sightings, I was paying BW for a Long Term mooring at Holme Lock.

In the absence of any meaningful response from you regarding the appropriateness of FOI or SAR, I have taken some further advice.

The advice received is that you should have informed me that it it is not necessary to be specific regarding FOI or SAR and that you should have told me that was the case. Perhaps I should be questioning why C&RT, in the person of Stuart Garner, produced this document as evidence knowing that it is inaccurate. However, I am told that this better left to the Court.

 

The document, which consists of column headers and 19 rows of data was extracted from your database. However, it does not accurately record my financial transactions with the Trust (and its predecessor British Waterways). Neither, does it accurately record declarations of home moorings made in order satisfy you regarding the British Waterways Act 1995 Section 17 (3)©(i).

In this request, I will refer to several database terms which are in common usage. However, I understand that sometimes different terminology is used so please contact me immediately if you are unsure about the information I am requesting.

Please provide the following:-

• The metadata for each column header in the attached document.
• The SQL (or similar) used for the query which produced the document.
• The database schema as it relates to the document (i.e. tables, together with columns within those tables, indexes and relationships etc). Please note, I am only asking for the part of the schema that relates to the query that produced the document.

I note from other information that you have supplied to the Court (a licence renewal document) that my customer number is 8040832. This number only appears in the last 10 rows of the Sold to column (rather than all 19 rows). Please provide -

4. The customer information relating to the first nine rows (or confirm that the first nine rows do not relate to financial transactions between us or declarations I have made in regard to the BW 1995 Act).

I note that the SaTY (Sales Type?) consists of a two digit alpha code optionally followed by an optional two digit numeric code.

5. I believe that ZL is is the code for licence transaction and ZM the code for a mooring transaction. Also that the numeric code represents the number of months and its absence one month. Please confirm this or provide corrected information.

 

6. I note that five ZM rows (mooring transactions) contain the code - L6 Mooring after Barton In Fabis. Please provide a list of these mooring codes with their meanings.

7. Please provide details of any audit or historical information logged when data relating to the columns in the document is created, amended or deleted.

 

Please treat this as a request, in all or part, as a request under the FOI, EIR and DPA as appropriate.

Signed A.K.Dunkley.

Head in hands moment.

 

Tony. You really don't do your cause much good.

 

You would do better just being silent and avoiding communication with CRT!

[jenlyn]

Why?

what's the issue with CRT knowing where your boat is?

Not only are folk entitled to some privacy, some actually enjoy it, me included. Having a tracking system on your boat is invasive beyond need, and very very over the top for such a silly issue that is not even big enough to warrant such expense.

Your question is actually quite meaningless, probably because it's the only retort you ever come up with.

 

edited as probably a bit harsh.....

Edited August 30, 2014 by jenlyn

[jenlyn]

It can't suggest anything, because a vital piece of information is missing.

 

It is highly unlikely, I suspect, that they did no recording of boats at Braunston in well over 3 weeks, so there is every chance that data was collected on other dates between the 3rd and the 29th. What you and we don't know is how many recordings took place at Braunston between those dates.

 

If you were not sighted there when they walked the patch at any time between the 3rd and the 29th, then they have data that establishes you were not there continually.

 

The fact that you were not actually sighted anywhere else between those dates doesn't establish that they are incapable of knowing you were somewhere else for at least some of that period.

 

(This is not saying I believe their system is adequate, only that you can't safely conclude anything from the data you have given, and they may well have other information that confirms you were not being "non compliant".)

So you think they input data that states my boat is no longer there?

 

Another example. I moor at Cosgrove for 6 nights, leave, stop at Gifford facilities, get logged. I don't stop there overnight. I go to fenny Stratford, stay for 5 nights, and don't get logged. I leave and head back for stoke bruerne, but stop at facilities in giffard again. I decide to overnight on the 7 day before moving on. The number checker gets me in the morning before I leave.

 

Looking at that, what would it look like?

Edited August 30, 2014 by jenlyn

[Sabcat]

If they record where data has been collected and when then yes, they effectively record that every boat that wasn't there, wasn't there

[alan_fincher]

So you think they input data that states my boat is no longer there?

 

No I don't.

 

I think they input what boats are there.

 

I would expect that if on the 3rd and the 29th of August, "Jenlyn" is amongst boats recorded at Braunston, but if (say) on 10th August it is not, that they have the wit to realise you have not been there continually for 26 or 27 days.

 

Have they actually used this particular data you are quoting, to claim you overstayed, or are you just saying they could, but haven't?

Edited August 30, 2014 by alan_fincher

[NigelMoore]

You would do better just being silent and avoiding communication with CRT!

 

My instinct also, it is a very dangerous tactic.

 

Having said which, however, Tony has nonetheless thereby succeeded [as evident from the quoted emails above] in extracting much that can be used to counter certain allegations, presumably owing to the fact that their woeful inter-departmental co-ordination has never yet been improved upon.

 

And that is despite the fact that, as again evidenced above, every email is cc'd to Mr Parry and all other CaRT correspondents in the relevant differing departments.

[jenlyn]

No I don't.

 

I think they input what boats are there.

 

I would expect that if on the 3rd and the 29th of August, "Jenlyn" is amongst boats recorded at Braunston, but if (say) on 10th August it is not, that they have the wit to realise you have not been there continually for 26 or 27 days.

 

Have they actually used this particular data you are quoting, to claim you overstayed, or are you just saying they could, but haven't?

I'm giving you data, but I have changed the place.

No, they have not accused me of overstaying, but I can see where the confusion comes from with the use of this system. Several of their sightings do not match with my logs. If they presented the data they have given to me before a judge, it could look bad on my part. By the way, they don't log you as gone from a place, and I believe they should have that ability.

 

Having been spotted 101 times in 24 months, I freely admit I feel a little harassed.

Edited August 30, 2014 by jenlyn

[Jerra]

Having been spotted 101 times in 24 months, I freely admit I feel a little harassed.

I think it would also be frightening if you knew how many times a car is picked upon NPR cameras but nobody seems concerned about that.

[jenlyn]

I think it would also be frightening if you knew how many times a car is picked upon NPR cameras but nobody seems concerned about that.

It did begin to bug me, that's why I gave up driving.

The whole digital thing bugs me to be honest, I seldom do anything wrong, but seemingly like the rest of society, am followed everywhere, even now on the canals.

Yeh, it's the age we are in I know, doesn't mean I have to like it though.

[Jerra]

It did begin to bug me, that's why I gave up driving.

The whole digital thing bugs me to be honest, I seldom do anything wrong, but seemingly like the rest of society, am followed everywhere, even now on the canals.

Yeh, it's the age we are in I know, doesn't mean I have to like it though.

If you move around at all it is possible to track you either by CCTV cameras picking you up or your mobile phone why worry about it we can't change it.

 

Those who are keen on being tracked in their boat by a tracking device don't seem too concerned about being tracked (possibly) when off the boat.

[John V]

It did begin to bug me, that's why I gave up driving.

The whole digital thing bugs me to be honest, I seldom do anything wrong, but seemingly like the rest of society, am followed everywhere, even now on the canals.

Yeh, it's the age we are in I know, doesn't mean I have to like it though.

 

I haven't given up driving but I do know exactly how you feel, as I mentioned earlier all commercial boats have to have AIS and there is some talk about all vessels over a certain size having to as well.....It does make you feel you are under a microscope all the time!

[alan_fincher]

I'm giving you data, but I have changed the place.

Whether your example was completely factual, part factual or just invented to make a point, what I said still stands.

 

Having been spotted 101 times in 24 months, I freely admit I feel a little harassed.

You should be grateful then if they missed you for nearly that whole month, or it would have been even more than 101 times in 24 months!

 

However, having been in Stoke Bruerne no more than 3 hours a two days ago, and having apparently had each boat recorded twice, (once by CRT man with the proper machine, and again by CRT volunteer with a phone), I would agree that the whole thing seems to have gone more than slightly bonkers. I have never understood the point of so much effort placed on recording people, but so little placed on enforcement based on any data collected. They must know heaps about who is overstaying, but almost never do much about it!

[Naughty Cal]

 

I haven't given up driving but I do know exactly how you feel, as I mentioned earlier all commercial boats have to have AIS and there is some talk about all vessels over a certain size having to as well.....It does make you feel you are under a microscope all the time!

Really?

 

Some of you must really struggle with day to day life if you don't like being watched.

 

Cameras and npr are everywhere, why worry. Same with GPS, your phone tells people where you are at all times you have it on your person. Is it really a problem? I think not.

 

Fitting tracking devices to boats isn't so far fetched and in the scheme of things wouldn't be an overly expensive task to carry out.

 

Of course there will be people who don't like the idea but more often than not these will be the ones with something to hide!

 

As with most things if you have nothing to hide you have no need to worry.

[cotswoldsman]

No I don't.

 

I think they input what boats are there.

 

I would expect that if on the 3rd and the 29th of August, "Jenlyn" is amongst boats recorded at Braunston, but if (say) on 10th August it is not, that they have the wit to realise you have not been there continually for 26 or 27 days.

 

Have they actually used this particular data you are quoting, to claim you overstayed, or are you just saying they could, but haven't?

Alan where you theory goes slightly wrong is that the logging system logs boats not moorings. So for example they can not go into the system and ask who was on Braunston Visitor Moorings on 14 August.

Really?

Some of you must really struggle with day to day life if you don't like being watched.

Cameras and npr are everywhere, why worry. Same with GPS, your phone tells people where you are at all times you have it on your person. Is it really a problem? I think not.

Fitting tracking devices to boats isn't so far fetched and in the scheme of things wouldn't be an overly expensive task to carry out.

Of course there will be people who don't like the idea but more often than not these will be the ones with something to hide!

As with most things if you have nothing to hide you have no need to worry.

I have nothing to hide (at least I don't think I do) but would not want a tracking device on my boat . I value my privacy

[John V]

Really?

 

Some of you must really struggle with day to day life if you don't like being watched.

 

Cameras and npr are everywhere, why worry. Same with GPS, your phone tells people where you are at all times you have it on your person. Is it really a problem? I think not.

Your's might mine doesn't, my phone makes phone calls and that's it.

Fitting tracking devices to boats isn't so far fetched and in the scheme of things wouldn't be an overly expensive task to carry out.

I presume from that remark you haven't had an AIS transmitter fitted on Naughty Cal

 

Of course there will be people who don't like the idea but more often than not these will be the ones with something to hide!

Rubbish

As with most things if you have nothing to hide you have no need to worry.

Oh Yeah!

 

Edited August 31, 2014 by John V

[Tuscan]

 

I totally agree. IMO there needs to be rethink of what's CRTs strategy should be on enforcement (and congestion), what's the purpose of it, what options/tools do they have and what resources are available. One of the reasons we don't stop at Stoke Breune now is i find the constant monitoring to big brother like.

[Naughty Cal]

 

 

Really?

 

Some of you must really struggle with day to day life if you don't like being watched.

 

Cameras and npr are everywhere, why worry. Same with GPS, your phone tells people where you are at all times you have it on your person. Is it really a problem? I think not.

Your's might mine doesn't, my phone makes phone calls and that's it.

Fitting tracking devices to boats isn't so far fetched and in the scheme of things wouldn't be an overly expensive task to carry out.

I presume from that remark you haven't had an AIS transmitter fitted on Naughty Cal

 

Of course there will be people who don't like the idea but more often than not these will be the ones with something to hide!

Rubbish

As with most things if you have nothing to hide you have no need to worry.

Oh Yeah!

 

One of this winters upgrades to Naughty-Cal is to fit a new plotter with an AIS transmitter and receiver. They are not overly expensive.

 

For boats based inland AIS isn't necessary. A basic GPS unit would suffice.

 

For those who "value their privacy" I take it you don't use mobile phones?

[jenlyn]

One of this winters upgrades to Naughty-Cal is to fit a new plotter with an AIS transmitter and receiver. They are not overly expensive.

For boats based inland AIS isn't necessary. A basic GPS unit would suffice.

For those who "value their privacy" I take it you don't use mobile phones?

This is quickly turning into your "swingbridge" phenomenon, with your slight naivety, and challenging provocation.

[John V]

One of this winters upgrades to Naughty-Cal is to fit a new plotter with an AIS transmitter and receiver. They are not overly expensive.

 

For boats based inland AIS isn't necessary. A basic GPS unit would suffice.

 

For those who "value their privacy" I take it you don't use mobile phones?

Go pick a fight with someone who can be bothered

[jenlyn]

Whether your example was completely factual, part factual or just invented to make a point, what I said still stands.

If you don't understand the system, there's not really much you can add is there. So the sentence above, and the rest of the post I am not quoting, was a bit pointless.

 

Oh, and you were at Stoke bruerne slightly longer than the time you state. I logged you :-D :-D

Edited August 31, 2014 by jenlyn

[costalot]

Alan where you theory goes slightly wrong is that the logging system logs boats not moorings. So for example they can not go into the system and ask who was on Braunston Visitor Moorings on 14 August.

 

John, Provided CRT collected all the boat index numbers at Braunston on 14 August then the database should be able to produce a report. However CRT would need to collect data on consecutive days to prove a boat had overstayed.

As an aside, during my conversation with the CRT Enforcement Officer who claimed to cover Braunston to Coventry I was informed he checked the entire length of canal once every fortnight. However he didn't walk or cycle the entire length, but drove from bridge to bridge.