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

[Tony Dunkley]

To make an argument that your home mooring hasn't changed? To show your home mooring history?

I don't know, but interestingly, neither do C&RT.

[John V]

 

Maybe there's a particular requirement based on the work they do, eg carrying 'passengers', and the local MCA surveyor has stipulated they must have it fitted?

 

https://mcanet.mcga.gov.uk/public/c4/solas/solas_v/Annexes/Annex17.htm

 

Tim

 

 

http://www.workboat.com/newsdetail.aspx?id=10933

[Tony Dunkley]

I can't see post numbers on my phone.

From Post 547 : --

False Records as Trial Evidence

Tony Dunkley

Aug 20 (11 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.

Edited August 31, 2014 by tony dunkley

[Naughty Cal]

Go pick a fight with someone who can be bothered

You asked the question I gave the answer

[Timleech]

 

 

http://www.workboat.com/newsdetail.aspx?id=10933

 

That's USA based. I assume the MCA page I linked to is current for the UK, if not the MCA should be told .

 

Edit to add - just twigged, your mate is Thames based, and it's the PLA who are requiring the AIS.

 

http://www.pla.co.uk/Safety/Thames-AIS

 

Tim

Edited August 31, 2014 by Timleech

[alan_fincher]

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.

 

I have no idea what queries or reports are automatically available in their system, and I accept someone may have told you this.

 

it is highly unlikely though that all the data is not held in a database that can be queried with SQL. Either two trivial queries could be used , (one to establish on what dates between the 3rd and 29th they recorded boats, and another to show what boats were there on those days), but anyone with even the most basic grounding in SQL could easily combine both into a simple query.

 

The simple answer is they surely could find out if they wanted to, but it might take a couple of minutes for someone to query the underlying database directly.

 

i used to specialise in databases as the day job for many years, so have seen some atrocious database design and supporting software, but even if we allow for this having been done by an incompetent software house, you would struggle to "design" anything that would make such queries impossible to do.

[John V]

 

That's USA based. I assume the MCA page I linked to is current for the UK, if not the MCA should be told .

 

Tim

 

I couldn't find one with the changes (but I will look further later) It might be a Port of London Authority requirement...certainly my friend would not be forking out the amount he has had to for 4 boats unless he had to....certainly another friend with the "Sir Claude Inglis" has had to have one (at 16 metre length)

[Timleech]

 

I couldn't find one with the changes (but I will look further later) It might be a Port of London Authority requirement...certainly my friend would not be forking out the amount he has had to for 4 boats unless he had to....certainly another friend with the "Sir Claude Inglis" has had to have one (at 16 metre length)

 

You must have read my post before I edited it

 

I expect the MCA would love to do something similar in due course, but to the best of my knowledge they haven't yet.

 

Tim

[mayalld]

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.

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, you say that they can't do that, but from what we have seen of the system, we have a fairly good grasp if what the data structures are.

 

Those data structures would support a query based on location and a query as to what dates sightings were taken

[jenlyn]

John, you say that they can't do that, but from what we have seen of the system, we have a fairly good grasp if what the data structures are.

Those data structures would support a query based on location and a query as to what dates sightings were taken

Your twisting it to make it sound ok. The fact is, it's not ok. It cannot state categorically where my boat was between the 3rd and 29th of August, hence them having to ask. As far as the computer is concerned, it was at Braunston, because it had not been logged elsewhere.

[Naughty Cal]

Your twisting it to make it sound ok. The fact is, it's not ok. It cannot state categorically where my boat was between the 3rd and 29th of August, hence them having to ask. As far as the computer is concerned, it was at Braunston, because it had not been logged elsewhere.

The system doesn't need to say where you were though.

[jenlyn]

The system doesn't need to say where you were though.

........... I think your camel has legged it......

Edited August 31, 2014 by jenlyn

[mayalld]

Your twisting it to make it sound ok. The fact is, it's not ok. It cannot state categorically where my boat was between the 3rd and 29th of August, hence them having to ask. As far as the computer is concerned, it was at Braunston, because it had not been logged elsewhere.

The "system" simply provides answers to the questions asked. It was asked "where was index number 123456 sighted.

 

The next question is "on what dates were boats sighted at Floc GU-999-001".

 

The data is there it just needs to be queried

[Sabcat]

The "system" simply provides answers to the questions asked. It was asked "where was index number 123456 sighted.

 

The next question is "on what dates were boats sighted at Floc GU-999-001".

 

The data is there it just needs to be queried

 

That's not the question though, is it? What if no boats were sighted at Floc GU-999-001 because none were there? Is the absence of boats recorded - patrol dates and locations in the same database? Because if they aren't then the system leaves you making guesses.

[jenlyn]

The "system" simply provides answers to the questions asked. It was asked "where was index number 123456 sighted.

The next question is "on what dates were boats sighted at Floc GU-999-001".

The data is there it just needs to be queried

You know very well ( i hope) a good system will only equate from the info it has been given. Your obviously not good at dancing around, so stop trying.

[Alan de Enfield]

Or :-

 

1) On which dates was boat 123456 seen at GU-99-001

2) On what dates were 'sightings' taken at GU-99-001

3) List all boats sighted, by date, between 1st Aug and 29th August for GU-99-001

 

If any 'sighting dates' show that 123456 was not there between the two dates (1st Aug & 29th Aug) then the boat was elsewhere,

However if there were no sightings undertaken between those dates the system would show that 123456 had not moved.

 

If 3) showed that boat 123456 was not logged/sighted then the assumption is that it was not there.

 

Edit - the system can only work by proving a negative, ie - the boat wasnt there.

Edited August 31, 2014 by Alan de Enfield

[Sabcat]

Or :-

 

1) On which dates was boat 123456 seen at GU-99-001

2) On what dates were 'sightings' taken at GU-99-001

3) List all boats sighted, by date, between 1st Aug and 29th August for GU-99-001

 

If any 'sighting dates' show that 123456 was not there between the two dates (1st Aug & 29th Aug) then the boat was elsewhere,

However if there were no sightings undertaken between those dates the system would show that 123456 had not moved.

 

If 3) showed that boat 123456 was not logged/sighted then the assumption is that it was not there.

 

Which is perfect, if the dates that sightings are taken are recorded and not just sightings made. It all falls down if the lack of boats at a location is not recorded.

[jenlyn]

Or :-

 

1) On which dates was boat 123456 seen at GU-99-001

2) On what dates were 'sightings' taken at GU-99-001

3) List all boats sighted, by date, between 1st Aug and 29th August for GU-99-001

 

If any 'sighting dates' show that 123456 was not there between the two dates (1st Aug & 29th Aug) then the boat was elsewhere,

However if there were no sightings undertaken between those dates the system would show that 123456 had not moved.

 

If 3) showed that boat 123456 was not logged/sighted then the assumption is that it was not there.

4. We don't log a boat as having left, we have no sighting of you elsewhere, so you must have been there. However, if we had a system that brought up the previous sighting of boat numbers, we could log you as not being here. That would help immensely. It would also behhelpful if our loggers only logged boats that were moored. This would give us a clearer picture of how the moorings are being used.

(just a lightlbulb moment) ;-)

[Alan de Enfield]

Alan de Enfield, on 31 Aug 2014 - 3:51 PM, said:

Or :-

 

1) On which dates was boat 123456 seen at GU-99-001

2) On what dates were 'sightings' taken at GU-99-001

3) List all boats sighted, by date, between 1st Aug and 29th August for GU-99-001

 

If any 'sighting dates' show that 123456 was not there between the two dates (1st Aug & 29th Aug) then the boat was elsewhere,

However if there were no sightings undertaken between those dates the system would show that 123456 had not moved.

 

If 3) showed that boat 123456 was not logged/sighted then the assumption is that it was not there.

 

 

Which is perfect, if the dates that sightings are taken are recorded and not just sightings made. It all falls down if the lack of boats at a location is not recorded.

 

Correct - which is why No2

 

2) On what dates were 'sightings' taken at GU-99-001

 

Is so important - not what boats were sighted, but on what dates were sightings undertaken.

[Sabcat]

But do we know if that information is recorded in the C&RT database at present or is there no updates made until a boat sighting is logged. If what cotswoldsman said is correct "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." it would suggest not.

[cotswoldsman]

I have no idea what queries or reports are automatically available in their system, and I accept someone may have told you this.

 

it is highly unlikely though that all the data is not held in a database that can be queried with SQL. Either two trivial queries could be used , (one to establish on what dates between the 3rd and 29th they recorded boats, and another to show what boats were there on those days), but anyone with even the most basic grounding in SQL could easily combine both into a simple query.

 

The simple answer is they surely could find out if they wanted to, but it might take a couple of minutes for someone to query the underlying database directly.

 

i used to specialise in databases as the day job for many years, so have seen some atrocious database design and supporting software, but even if we allow for this having been done by an incompetent software house, you would struggle to "design" anything that would make such queries impossible to do.

Alan I know what your day job was I am just telling you what I was told at a meeting in Gloucester by CRT when they were looking at introducing 48 hour moorings and we asked for the information of number of boats logged at one of the sites concerned. Just out of interest when you were opposing the SEVM if you know there system can produce this information concerning for example SB why did you not ask for it?

[mayalld]

You know very well ( i hope) a good system will only equate from the info it has been given. Your obviously not good at dancing around, so stop trying.

I merely point out that the system records data. That data can be analysed in various ways.

 

The data is there for the analysing

[jenlyn]

I merely point out that the system records data. That data can be analysed in various ways.

The data is there for the analysing

I feel a yawn moment.....

[mayalld]

I feel a yawn moment.....

Indeed. I feel sure that you do.

 

Systems analysis can be deathly boring.

 

However I do have more than a little knowledge of what systems can do

[jenlyn]

Indeed. I feel sure that you do.

Systems analysis can be deathly boring.

However I do have more than a little knowledge of what systems can do

Strangely, your last comment does nothing to instill confidence. Especially as you seemingly use evasive tactics.