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

[NigelMoore]

 

Please can you explain why these pages from a report show that the CRT boat logging system is not fit for purpose?

 

How could I, when I am not suggesting any such thing? The report is meaningless to me. Quinafloat said that he hadn’t seen one so was incapable of commenting on them, given that the initial report I copied on to here was not dealing with boat sightings.

 

I have merely responded to that and posted one for the analysis of those with the relevant expertise I lack.

 

 

Edit to add: neither have I the interest. So far as this case is concerned, the interest for me is how the law is being interpreted, and the appropriateness or otherwise of the sanction the authority seeks to apply.

 

Those are the crucial issues of interest for all concerned boaters. My position would be that, stipulating the mooring and cruising patterns were as claimed [i am not taking sides on whether they were or were not], the response is misconceived. IF lawful mooring regulations have been breached, then the law provides for what Parliament considered appropriate remedies. Section 8 is not such a remedy, nor does it assist in solving any genuine problem in ways useful to other boaters wishing to avail themselves of the moorings - it does in fact prolong the problem.

Edited August 10, 2014 by NigelMoore

[Allan(nb Albert)]

 

Please can you explain why these pages from a report show that the CRT boat logging system is not fit for purpose?

Nigel posted the report because someone said the had never seen one.

 

Regarding the report being fit for purpose, I suppose one has has to suggest what the purpose is.

 

In the case of Tony, one might suggest that the purpose of the report is evidence to demonstrate that he has not been 'cruising' in accordance with section 2.1 of the Licence Terms and Conditions.

 

As has been said earlier, boat sightings rely on a presumption that if two consecutive sightings are in the same location then the boat has been moored and not moved in the intervening period.

 

 

 

 

[Quinafloat]

Thanks Nigel. I will dig into it.

[Quinafloat]

Could someone give me a breakdown of the location codes used on the report?

 

format 1 xx-999-999

format 2 xx-999-999-99

format 3 xxx (shown on report as "MAC")

 

Thanks

[bassplayer]

Nothing is going to be accurate when it comes to logging a boat in a "place", unless they send someone every day, and across the whole system. The likelihood of them doing that is absolutely unlikely.

Yes, the same point I've made several times...definitely spin going on...tangled webs etc...media creates fear etc...what a load of boll@#s....

[NilesMI]

 

So far as this case is concerned, the interest for me is how the law is being interpreted, and the appropriateness or otherwise of the sanction the authority seeks to apply.

 

Those are the crucial issues of interest for all concerned boaters. My position would be that, stipulating the mooring and cruising patterns were as claimed [i am not taking sides on whether they were or were not], the response is misconceived. IF lawful mooring regulations have been breached, then the law provides for what Parliament considered appropriate remedies. Section 8 is not such a remedy, nor does it assist in solving any genuine problem in ways useful to other boaters wishing to avail themselves of the moorings - it does in fact prolong the problem.

 

That is my interest too.

 

In respect of the crucial issues you describe, this thread has been a huge distraction, by suggesting a problem exists with the logging system. I see no evidence of that and the supposed overwiting of logged locations in the printout has been revealled as nothing of the kind.

 

Given that the distraction was caused by Mr Dunkley, I'm sure I'm not the only one left wondering whether his case really is about CC rules being applied to a boat with a home mooring. Perhaps that claim is yet another distraction and as the facts unravel it proves to be about something else entirely.

 

 

Regarding the report being fit for purpose, I suppose one has has to suggest what the purpose is.

 

In the case of Tony, one might suggest that the purpose of the report is evidence to demonstrate that he has not been 'cruising' in accordance with section 2.1 of the Licence Terms and Conditions.

 

Well, that would be interesting. Because 2.1 of the licence terms allows the boat to be moored for short periods of up to 14 days and applies to all licenced boats, with or without a home mooring.

 

The spin has been that Tony's case was about the more onerous requirement for the boat to be used bona fide for navigation which should only apply to boats without a home mooring.

[bassplayer]

That is my interest too.

 

The spin has been that Tony's case was about the more onerous requirement for the boat to be used bona fide for navigation which should only apply to boats without a home mooring.

The spin is about 'big brother is watching you'...(everyone's fear...unless you make money from it)...meanwhile some of us are still contributing to the waterways and still enjoy cruising...(doesn't always revolve around money you know!)...there's good control and bad control...maybe it is time to switch off the media...

[Tony Dunkley]

Could someone give me a breakdown of the location codes used on the report?

 

format 1 xx-999-999

format 2 xx-999-999-99

format 3 xxx (shown on report as "MAC")

 

Thanks

This from C&RT e-mail in response to similar question:--

 

a. Floc affected Functional location affected

b. RT-011-003 Holme Lock

c. RT-011-002 Holme Lock

d. RT-012-005 Holme Lock

e. RT-011 Holme Lock

f. RT-011-003 Holme Lock

g. RT-011-013 Holme Lock

h. Functional loc Functional Location

i. UT-011-001 Barton in Fabis

j. MAC Mooring awaiting confirmation. Used where a customer has not notified CRT of their home mooring.

k. RT-011-002-01 Holme Lock

l. BW-065-007 Sap code for a boat declared as a Continuous Cruiser

m. TE-005-008-01

n. BW-016-007 Old Sap code used for a continuous cruiser

o. ZE Sap code for an enforcement case

p. DUP Sap code for duplicate notification.

q. SIG Sap code for a boat sighting, This will just signify that the boat was sighted without any notification being raised.

r. ZC Sap code for a boat sighting. Each ZC will have an individual ZC reference number

Floc.Affected = location of boat sighting

Functional Location = Home mooring

They don't seem to want say anything more about the seven different codes for Holme Lock, but one of them may be the length of piled wall on the EA owned land -- possibly RT-011-002.

Edited August 11, 2014 by tony dunkley

[GUMPY]

CRT mooring codes used to be as follows

RT = waterway in this case River Trent

011-003 = distance from a fixed point in this case I believe Trent Lock

It always used to be in miles and furlongs, you can guess how far the area of Holme Lock is from Trent Lock.

If you shuffle a short distance, as you have been, the code will change......

Its the same type of number on licences for those that have a home mooring.

Edited August 11, 2014 by Loddon

[NigelMoore]

In respect of the crucial issues you describe, this thread has been a huge distraction, by suggesting a problem exists with the logging system.

 

To be fair, I don’t believe that any distraction was intended, because rather than bring this aspect up within the general discussion on the Section 8 topic, it has been made a discrete topic all on its own.

 

Nor is the fact that various issues have been brought to light elsewhere, anything of Tony’s creation – the background correspondence from CaRT itself demonstrates, as Tony has revealed previously, that a multitude of differing explanations for their successive actions have been forwarded.

 

It was sensible to keep this specific element as a distinct head of discussion, and it is certainly one that has exercised others in the past. This time, some explicit facts have been presented for dissection, rather than relying on hearsay – so although I might not be particularly interested and certainly incapable of meaningful contribution on the specifics, it is of definite value to those who are.

 

I would hope, along with Paul G2, that Tony’s sense of moral indignation over this is not allowed to cloud the discernment of the more fundamental issues at stake, but it is something the court would take account of, and meanwhile let the forum take advantage of the fresh material made available.

[mayalld]

 

Perhaps these pages from a report from their boat logging system will help then?

 

 

 

Sound advice preceding those wishes.

 

They do indeed help.

 

They help, because they show that two of the central accuasations about the logging system are not factually accurate.

 

1) That the home mooring is overwritten each lime it changes - The logs show that the home mooring changes with each sighting, and we can reasonably conclude that the underlying data is correct, but that the other print out isn't using the dated nature of the Home moorintg field in its join.

2) That "the system" replicates each sighting until the boat is seen again. - It may be that people interpretting the reports make assumptions (and certainly the report indicates nothing about "non-sightings"), but zero evidence of the system creating extra entries.

[jenlyn]

They do indeed help.

 

They help, because they show that two of the central accuasations about the logging system are not factually accurate.

 

1) That the home mooring is overwritten each lime it changes - The logs show that the home mooring changes with each sighting, and we can reasonably conclude that the underlying data is correct, but that the other print out isn't using the dated nature of the Home moorintg field in its join.

2) That "the system" replicates each sighting until the boat is seen again. - It may be that people interpretting the reports make assumptions (and certainly the report indicates nothing about "non-sightings"), but zero evidence of the system creating extra entries.

It does indeed show two things

 

1. The system is not fit for purpose owing to the fact it does not get the data needed to make it accurate.

 

2. It gives a few like yourself the opportunity to bend it enough to spout the rubbish that fits your agenda.

 

Armchair debaters......

[NigelMoore]

. . . meanwhile some of us are still contributing to the waterways and still enjoy cruising...(doesn't always revolve around money you know!)...there's good control and bad control...maybe it is time to switch off the media . . .

 

That is certainly a worthwhile observation, but in fact, is that not just exactly what Tony is trying to do? He wants to be “still contributing to the waterways”, but CaRT won’t take his money. He wants to “still enjoy cruising” – his way – but CaRT won’t accept his definition of that.

 

Even if one accepts that his situation has arisen due to the provocative behaviour of a grumpy old git in the face of being told what to do by some upstart whippersnapper [not saying that either characterisation holds true] I would be dismayed to think that we have all reverted [or should] to forelock-tugging ‘umbles.

 

If the constant presence of this boat at the location complained of was causing a problem for other boaters, I would certainly recommend moving it off. But if it wasn’t creating congestion, then the exercise is merely one of asserting power, in the interests of making a new point that the legal department have come up with.

 

If so, maybe it is timely to switch media spotlight on a developing situation with this control issue.

[mayalld]

It does indeed show two things

 

1. The system is not fit for purpose owing to the fact it does not get the data needed to make it accurate.

 

2. It gives a few like yourself the opportunity to bend it enough to spout the rubbish that fits your agenda.

 

Armchair debaters......

 

I don't know why I'm bothering, but here goes;

 

How on earth does it show that it doesn't get the data needed to make it accurate?

 

A report shows the data that it is asked for, no more no less. We might try to infer what the underlying data is (and in some cases the data extracted shows what the underlying data MUST be). However, we have no way of knowing whether that report shows the totality of the data recorded.

 

What data do you assert that we now KNOW isn't held?

 

As to your second point (or rather ad-hominem, because it didn't make a point); I'm not twisting anything, just commenting upon an issue that I am eminently well able to comment on. I have no agenda to push here, and indeed the contributions that I have made cannot do other than help TD, by giving him the sound advice that his arguments as to the fitness for purpose of the system are ill founded, and doomed to fail.

[jenlyn]

I don't know why I'm bothering, but here goes;

 

How on earth does it show that it doesn't get the data needed to make it accurate?

 

A report shows the data that it is asked for, no more no less. We might try to infer what the underlying data is (and in some cases the data extracted shows what the underlying data MUST be). However, we have no way of knowing whether that report shows the totality of the data recorded.

 

What data do you assert that we now KNOW isn't held?

 

As to your second point (or rather ad-hominem, because it didn't make a point); I'm not twisting anything, just commenting upon an issue that I am eminently well able to comment on. I have no agenda to push here, and indeed the contributions that I have made cannot do other than help TD, by giving him the sound advice that his arguments as to the fitness for purpose of the system are ill founded, and doomed to fail.

I don't know why I am bothering either. The system is only as reliable as the input it is given, which in the case of this system is cr#p. Your bending it to suit your argument, which is pretty limp.

 

As for the second remark, let me remind you of your little speech regarding your attempt at council election

 

"CRT must manage waterways for the benefit of all boaters, balancing the needs of leisure and residential, moored and cruising, unswayed by those seeking to change things only for their own benefit, and to the detriment of others. It must welcome other users, but not at the expense of boating users."

[mayalld]

I don't know why I am bothering either. The system is only as reliable as the input it is given, which in the case of this system is cr#p. Your bending it to suit your argument, which is pretty limp.

 

As for the second remark, let me remind you of your little speech regarding your attempt at council election

 

"CRT must manage waterways for the benefit of all boaters, balancing the needs of leisure and residential, moored and cruising, unswayed by those seeking to change things only for their own benefit, and to the detriment of others. It must welcome other users, but not at the expense of boating users."

 

You keep saying that it is crap, yet you seem unable to say a single concrete thing that is actually wrong with the input.

 

I thank you for your reminder of my words, which I stand by. We should have consistently managed waterways. Allowing anybody who wants to do something different to do just as they please isn't that.

[bassplayer]

That is certainly a worthwhile observation, but in fact, is that not just exactly what Tony is trying to do? He wants to be “still contributing to the waterways”, but CaRT won’t take his money. He wants to “still enjoy cruising” – his way – but CaRT won’t accept his definition of that.

 

Even if one accepts that his situation has arisen due to the provocative behaviour of a grumpy old git in the face of being told what to do by some upstart whippersnapper [not saying that either characterisation holds true] I would be dismayed to think that we have all reverted [or should] to forelock-tugging ‘umbles.

 

If the constant presence of this boat at the location complained of was causing a problem for other boaters, I would certainly recommend moving it off. But if it wasn’t creating congestion, then the exercise is merely one of asserting power, in the interests of making a new point that the legal department have come up with.

 

If so, maybe it is timely to switch media spotlight on a developing situation with this control issue.

Sorry, you missed out the first part of my quote..."The spin is about 'big brother is watching you'...(everyone's fear...unless you make money from it)"....

[jenlyn]

You keep saying that it is crap, yet you seem unable to say a single concrete thing that is actually wrong with the input.

 

I thank you for your reminder of my words, which I stand by. We should have consistently managed waterways. Allowing anybody who wants to do something different to do just as they please isn't that.

I've already stated that the data cannot be relied upon because it's not collected on a daily basis across the whole system. I have many records that have been given to me by owners who have requested the info on them. Some of the data is an absolute joke. One record states that a boater did over a 100 miles in a day! (and no, it wasn't Alan fincher).

The system is flawed, and it's more often than not causing problems that are not there. It needs to be rectified.

[costalot]

Am I correct in assuming the latest report shows the boat has had a home mooring at Barton in Fabis (UT-011-001) since 8 May 2012 but has never been recorded by CRT as being at the declared home mooring. During the same period it was always sighted at Holme Lock (RT-011).

 

From the provided data it appears to me that since Aug 2009 the boat has always been sighted at Holme lock (Floc Affected)

 

The data shows that in the recorded three months of 2014 (Jan - Mar) the boat was recorded at Holme Lock 13 times and each sighting was less than 14 days after the previous sighting. That suggests to me it was on the CRT "Watch List".

 

From this data I would assume the boat had a home mooring that was never used and instead moored permanently at Holme Lock.

[bassplayer]

You keep saying that it is crap, yet you seem unable to say a single concrete thing that is actually wrong with the input.

 

 

The concrete thing is that the input is crap because of the low sample rate being used.....

[Alan de Enfield]

Am I correct in assuming the latest report shows the boat has had a home mooring at Barton in Fabis (UT-011-001) since 8 May 2012 but has never been recorded by CRT as being at the declared home mooring. During the same period it was always sighted at Holme Lock (RT-011).

 

From the provided data it appears to me that since Aug 2009 the boat has always been sighted at Holme lock (Floc Affected)

 

The data shows that in the recorded three months of 2014 (Jan - Mar) the boat was recorded at Holme Lock 13 times and each sighting was less than 14 days after the previous sighting. That suggests to me it was on the CRT "Watch List".

 

From this data I would assume the boat had a home mooring that was never used and instead moored permanently at Holme Lock.

 

If you go back a few pages you should find that in fact the boat had a paid for 'Home Mooring' adjacent to Holme Lock, for which (although C&RT did not own the land - the EA owned it) they charged for, and a copy of the print-out showing the receipt of charges was posted.in this thread.

[mayalld]

The concrete thing is that the input is crap because of the low sample rate being used.....

 

The low sample rate certainly impacts on the extent to which the data can be used to infer a particular situation.

 

As such, it is entirely open to Mr Dunkley to claim that he returned to his home moorings for days on end, and that sheer chance meant that he was always at Holme Lock when the datalogger called.

 

It is, of course, not feasible to collect data daily. Do you argue, on that basis, that they should not collect data and that there should be a free for all instead.

[jenlyn]

It is, of course, not feasible to collect data daily. Do you argue, on that basis, that they should not collect data and that there should be a free for all instead.

There you go yet again, bending it to suit your view. For the collection of data to be used in the manner to which CRT wish, it should be collected correctly and efficiently.

[NigelMoore]

Sorry, you missed out the first part of my quote..."The spin is about 'big brother is watching you'...(everyone's fear...unless you make money from it)"....

 

So I did.

 

I only quoted that part of your posting which I was interested in responding to. As I had nothing I wished to say about the part I missed out, I missed it out.

 

No reflection intended on that part of your observations.

[bassplayer]

 

Do you argue, on that basis, that they should not collect data and that there should be a free for all instead.

Er...no...where on earth did you get that idea from? If you read what I've said earlier, the only way to get true records of boat movement is for us all to have GPS loggers fitted to our boats....which of course is open to abuse (as is the CRT system, if they choose to amend records in the database). That's why these systems should be independently audited....