Continual cruising

[bassplayer]

Why would it matter if the boat was moving or not?

 

If it is logged somewhere, moored or traveling is irrelevant. The sighting records evidence of a pattern of movement.

 

 

MtB

If it's not logged as moving it could be assumed it was moored there. If the boat isn't logged again until say a month later CRT could erroneously claim it was moored at that location for a month....I think that might be the problem...

 

 

Edited to say Jenlyn beat me to it

Edited October 9, 2014 by bassplayer

[jenlyn]

What if you used binoculars and spotted an enforcement officer/data logger in the distance; and quickly untied, to tootle down the canal 100 yds or so, giving a friendly wave as you pass him. Then reverse 100 yds and moor up again?

 

Or, you were in a queue for a lock and there's already a boat on the lock landing, its a windy day so you are obliged to stop by the towpath and tie up for a few minutes?

Do you still have the tooth fairy putting a shilling under your pillow?

[Paul C]

Exactly - its not a simple black/white issue to say a boat's moored or not - a judgement would be required, and no doubt a boater would complain strongly if that judgement were perceived as incorrect.

[bassplayer]

...and if it wasn't logged when it was moving at that time CRT could claim your boat was moored up even longer at it's previous location. This has been my whole argument about poor sampling.

 

The only way around it would be to have GPS loggers on every boat (which can be rigged or walked around) or recognition cameras every mile or so.

[jenlyn]

Exactly - its not a simple black/white issue to say a boat's moored or not - a judgement would be required, and no doubt a boater would complain strongly if that judgement were perceived as incorrect.

Obviously we are not all as devious as you. Your actually very anti CCer, I've noticed that. Actually, I'll rephrase that, you come across to me, as being very anti CC'er.

Edited October 9, 2014 by jenlyn

[bassplayer]

Exactly - its not a simple black/white issue to say a boat's moored or not - a judgement would be required, and no doubt a boater would complain strongly if that judgement were perceived as incorrect.

I don't get this. If the boat is moving and it's not tied up, it's not moored up surely....

[Paul C]

...and if it wasn't logged when it was moving at that time CRT could claim your boat was moored up even longer at it's previous location. This has been my whole argument about poor sampling.

 

The only way around it would be to have GPS loggers on every boat (which can be rigged or walked around) or recognition cameras every mile or so.

 

No, if they don't log if its moved or mooring, they can't claim anything except that the boat was there, at that time. In the same way jenlyn (incorrectly) accuses me of being anti-CC, I could accuse you of being anti-CRT. Its not a competition between the two though. Its about getting a proper, workable enforcement regime in place so that the GENUINE CCers can go about their boating without the worry that they'll be caught for something they've not done.

I don't get this. If the boat is moving and it's not tied up, it's not moored up surely....

 

See post #625. HTH

[bassplayer]

No, if they don't log if its moved or mooring, they can't claim anything except that the boat was there, at that time. In the same way jenlyn (incorrectly) accuses me of being anti-CC, I could accuse you of being anti-CRT. Its not a competition between the two though. Its about getting a proper, workable enforcement regime in place so that the GENUINE CCers can go about their boating without the worry that they'll be caught for something they've not done.

 

See post #625. HTH

I'm not anti CRT. I'm just saying the poorly sampled data CRT use can't be used in enforcement as they would have to log the position of every boat every day to draw a sensible conclusion. Seeing as so many people on here are concerned there isn't enough enforcement, it's an important matter.

[bassplayer]

 

See post #625. HTH

See post #627

[Sir Nibble]

Perhaps this rides upon different constructions of "place". If you have been logged fifteen times in three weeks motoring past the same bridge then you have clearly been at least based in the general locale for some time. Now whilst I'm certainly not nailing my colours to such an opinion that brushes hard up against what may be considered an insufficient pattern of movement. Whilst I accept the possible errors arising from being showed two or three times in the same area may give a false impression, I don't think CaRt are actually going to take any real notice until it gets to 20 or 30 times, do you? Basically I think this is a complete red herring of little relevance.

[MtB]

Asking around today it turns out the OP has a bit of a reputation locally for CMing.

 

No evidence, just what I was told. But if true this casts a different light on things.

 

 

MtB

[Sir Nibble]

Asking around today it turns out the OP has a bit of a reputation locally for CMing.

 

No evidence, just what I was told. But if true this casts a different light on things.

 

 

MtB

No shit Sherlock!

[MtB]

Yes shit, Sherlock!

 

 

MtB

[Paul C]

I'm not anti CRT. I'm just saying the poorly sampled data CRT use can't be used in enforcement as they would have to log the position of every boat every day to draw a sensible conclusion. Seeing as so many people on here are concerned there isn't enough enforcement, it's an important matter.

 

(I didn't think you were anti-CRT, it was worth making the point to show that simply because someone provides a counterargument doesn't attach a label to them - so apologies for the provocative previous post!)

 

I agree, that the sample rate is absolutely key here. Sightings 2 weeks apart aren't much use because a lot of things can happen in the days in between each sighting. I believe that CRT previously didn't use their sightings records to pursue CCers except for those extreme cases of (possible) non-movement where a boat had been sighted on 6 or more occasions in the same place - in other words, they set the bar for enforcement well below the legal requirement of movement, pursuing only those who were believed to move less than 10 miles/year (or some other extremely low figure). There is an issue with using the same sampling rate and sightings process to enforce much more than these cases - which I believe is being (slowly) addressed by a revamped computer system. The fact remains, that there is always a question mark when sightings are 'spot' sightings rather than a continuous watch but the finer the granularity of the sightings, the more confident one can become that they reflect what actually occurred.

 

The "blue sky effect" in observation, one might say.

[jenlyn]

Perhaps this rides upon different constructions of "place". If you have been logged fifteen times in three weeks motoring past the same bridge then you have clearly been at least based in the general locale for some time. Now whilst I'm certainly not nailing my colours to such an opinion that brushes hard up against what may be considered an insufficient pattern of movement. Whilst I accept the possible errors arising from being showed two or three times in the same area may give a false impression, I don't think CaRt are actually going to take any real notice until it gets to 20 or 30 times, do you? Basically I think this is a complete red herring of little relevance.

It can also mean a certain spot is busy and warrants a 48hr mooring. Don't be fooled by this, it has many implications.

Asking around today it turns out the OP has a bit of a reputation locally for CMing.

 

No evidence, just what I was told. But if true this casts a different light on things.

 

 

MtB

Oh my goodness, and this coming from a dumper...

[Alan de Enfield]

ok what I am doing is going from the City Centre of Oxford up to Anyho the distance being a total of 18 miles, I stop at around 8 places for about 14 days each. I work in Oxford so I do not intend to go further North. I am Adhering to the rules set by C&RT. My point is that if the warden does not patrol the areas I am moored and only sees me at about 4 mooring places then to C&RT I am not moving far enough. I have to prove that I am by taking photos, this cannot be right.

I have actually been told by Lisa Jarvis that I need to take photos to prove that I am moving outside the range of the warden and moving 18 miles

 

Just a reminder - in her own words, of the cruising pattern that is under question.

 

Start at A after 14 days - move 2 miles,to point B, stay 14 days.

Move 2 miles to point C, stay 14 days

Move 2 miles to point D, stay 14 days

Move 2 miles to point E stay 14 days

Move 2 miles to point F stay 14 days

Move 2 miles to point G stay 14 days

Move 2 miles to point H stay 14 days

Move 4 miles to point I stay 14 days

 

Approximately 18 weeks to do 18 miles.

 

Turn around and return to point H, stay for 14 days

Move to point G .......

 

etc etc.

 

The OP is not going A to B to A she is going

 

A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H-I-H-G-F-E-D-C-B-A-B-C.......................

 

Allegedly C&RT are satisfied that these two-mile hops meet the requirements of being in a new place evry 14 days and are just asking for evidence that this patern is actually achieved because not all of the area is covered by Patrol Ofiicers

[bassplayer]

Here's an idea (and it is just an idea!).

 

Would you be prepared to update a CRT log of where you moor up (with times to the nearest hour)? If CRT continue to do some moderate logging themselves to effectively spot check (audit) our logs, and it shows compliance, would CRT be satisfied?

[Paul C]

Here's an idea (and it is just an idea!).

 

Would you be prepared to update a CRT log of where you moor up (with times to the nearest hour)? If CRT continue to do some moderate logging themselves to effectively spot check (audit) our logs, and it shows compliance, would CRT be satisfied?

 

You mean like submitted meter readings, with the electric/gas company doing their own (a person visits) meter reading every 6 months or year?

[bassplayer]

You mean like submitted meter readings, with the electric/gas company doing their own (a person visits) meter reading every 6 months or year?

Deep breath...yes !

[jenlyn]

Here's an idea (and it is just an idea!).

Would you be prepared to update a CRT log of where you moor up (with times to the nearest hour)? If CRT continue to do some moderate logging themselves to effectively spot check (audit) our logs, and it shows compliance, would CRT be satisfied?

No, I would not be happy to do that. I came on here to get away from all that sort of crap. It's CRT's cock up, and to be honest, I think it's time they stood on their own two feet.

[Paul C]

Its a good idea but the issue remains that the people who are the target of enforcement, aren't the same people who would voluntarily submit their logs to CRT (and/or fill in online forms etc). And CRT couldn't force people to do it. It may help a small number of people who are compliant CCers but who believe that they don't move very much at all and might come under the enforcement radar for the wrong reasons.

[matty40s]

just wondering why CRT have no enforcement officers /data checkers covering that 18 mile stretch of canal at least once a week.....could it be because the towpath is so overgrown they can't get down there??

They are all on bikes round here, 3 times a week is normal.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

No, I would not be happy to do that. I came on here to get away from all that sort of crap. It's CRT's cock up, and to be honest, I think it's time they stood on their own two feet.

Would you prefer for CRT to send people around on a daily basis to photograph your boat and location? Is this what you mean by '...standing on their own two feet...'?

[bassplayer]

No, I would not be happy to do that. I came on here to get away from all that sort of crap. It's CRT's cock up, and to be honest, I think it's time they stood on their own two feet.

Yeah but....

 

I thought one of the big issues for us CC'ers (particularly for you and the ACC) was being tainted with same brush as CM'ers. Anything which prevents us CC'ers being falsely accused has got to be a good idea surely. Why's it crap?

[b0atman]

Because they're in marinas checking boats are licenced ? what do they do in the none NAA marinas. ?

Marinas should police themselves .

I think that Health and Safety maybe stopped these number crunchers on the south oxford due to the impassable towpaths.