CRT "Functional Location" Codes (like GU-164-003, for example).

[Alan de Enfield]

serious question?? surreal question.

 

I go out my front door, I walk a mile. and you ask ' am I in a different place? '.

 

whacko.

 

It was a serious question and your 'answer' does you no credit at all.

The question (as you well know) is in relation to the Inland Waterways and C&RTs interpretation of 'Place', and the need to move from place to place every 14 days.

 

We know that "Boston" was told that 2 miles was sufficient to comply, we know that the proposed "place maps" (since withdrawn for consultation) had "places" in excess of 20 miles apart.

 

So - I repeat the question to Alan Saunders, do you have any reason to believe that 1 mile takes you to another "C&RT" place ?

[Alf Roberts]

 

C&RTs interpretation of 'Place',

 

had "places" in excess of 20 miles apart.

 

another "C&RT" place ?

 

.....as I said completely surreal. now you seem to imply if I walk out the door I have to go 20 miles before I'm in another place.

 

or do places for boats somehow occupy a different space time continum?

 

oh.... before you criticise my comment again perhaps you might read Mr Justice Lewis' opinion on the same 'interpretation'

[cotswoldsman]

 

It was a serious question and your 'answer' does you no credit at all.

The question (as you well know) is in relation to the Inland Waterways and C&RTs interpretation of 'Place', and the need to move from place to place every 14 days.

 

We know that "Boston" was told that 2 miles was sufficient to comply, we know that the proposed "place maps" (since withdrawn for consultation) had "places" in excess of 20 miles apart.

 

So - I repeat the question to Alan Saunders, do you have any reason to believe that 1 mile takes you to another "C&RT" place ?

I spent a lot of time studying these maps long before they were put up here. I still have them and am struggling to find any places that are even over 10 miles let alone 20 having said that it does take some time to cover the complete system so could you be kind enough to tell me what canal these 20 mile places were on

[Alan de Enfield]

I spent a lot of time studying these maps long before they were put up here. I still have them and am struggling to find any places that are even over 10 miles let alone 20 having said that it does take some time to cover the complete system so could you be kind enough to tell me what canal these 20 mile places were on

 

I did not say "Canal".

 

Examples :- Two on the River Trent (Trent Bridge to Cromwell is just two places) and one on the River Witham (eg Lincoln to Boston)

[Tony Dunkley]

 

I did not say "Canal".

 

Examples :- Two on the River Trent (Trent Bridge to Cromwell is just two places) and one on the River Witham (eg Lincoln to Boston)

 

In complete contrast the 5 miles of Nottingham and Beeston Cut had at least 3, if not maybe 4 'places' between Meadow Lane and Beeston Locks.

 

I suppose if one wanted to be really pedantic about it, and you were tied up right on the boundary between two 'places' , then a couple of boats lengths would count as a move to the next one.

[Paul C]

serious question?? surreal question.

 

I go out my front door, I walk a mile. and you ask ' am I in a different place? '.

 

whacko.

 

It depends on where you start from, and where you end up; in other words, it depends where the place boundaries are.

[Alf Roberts]

Zeno:

 

"When he sets up his theory of placethe crucial spatial notion in his theory of motionAristotle lists various theories and problems that his predecessors, including Zeno, have formulated on the subject. One can again see here a problem for pluralism, for the second step of the argument concludes that there are many places. It is, however, a little hard to feel the full force of the conclusion, for why should there not be an infinite series of places of places of places of ? Presumably the worry would be greater for someone who (like Aristotle) believed that there could not be an actual infinity of things, for the argument seems to show that there are. But certainly today we need have no such qualms; there seems nothing problematic with an actual infinity of places; indeed, it seems very natural to think that every point of space is a distinct place, even if there are an infinity of points."

 

so you see CRT are merely continuing an interesting philosophical debate started millennia ago.

[cotswoldsman]

 

It depends on where you start from, and where you end up; in other words, it depends where the place boundaries are.

Sorry I seem to have missed the part of the Legislation that mentions Place Boundaries, to save me looking through all the legislation do you have a link? Thank you in advance

[Paul C]

Sorry I seem to have missed the part of the Legislation that mentions Place Boundaries, to save me looking through all the legislation do you have a link? Thank you in advance

 

You seem to miss a hell of a lot of simple stuff. Or, you choose to "complicate" certain aspects of it, or drape bizarre interpretations of common-sense aspects to skew the rules in your favour.

 

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this occasion if that's okay.

 

The law states (extract) "the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days"

 

Let's do a simple analysis: its blindingly obvious that there's going to be 2 or more places. Therefore, there is going to be at least 1 place boundary.

 

In fact, there's going to be hundreds or possibly thousands of places, of course one might choose to raise an argument on what these places are and how they're defined. No matter how they are, there will still be boundaries between the two. Also there is a debatable argument that a rural stretch in between eg villages or towns which are along the canal, may also be interpreted as a "place", so there's going to be a boundary which defines where a village ends and the area in between starts; and where this area ends as you travel along a canal (or road, or railway, or footpath etc etc) and you're into the next village/town/place etc.

 

As well you know, CRT have started a process of defining places; and as well you know, the initial consultation with boaters groups on these place definitions was leaked and has been subsequently removed; but that when it was publically (on this forum) available, it was generally positively received.

[jenlyn]

You seem to miss a hell of a lot of simple stuff. Or, you choose to "complicate" certain aspects of it, or drape bizarre interpretations of common-sense aspects to skew the rules in your favour.

 

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this occasion if that's okay.

 

The law states (extract) "the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days"

 

Let's do a simple analysis: its blindingly obvious that there's going to be 2 or more places. Therefore, there is going to be at least 1 place boundary.

 

In fact, there's going to be hundreds or possibly thousands of places, of course one might choose to raise an argument on what these places are and how they're defined. No matter how they are, there will still be boundaries between the two. Also there is a debatable argument that a rural stretch in between eg villages or towns which are along the canal, may also be interpreted as a "place", so there's going to be a boundary which defines where a village ends and the area in between starts; and where this area ends as you travel along a canal (or road, or railway, or footpath etc etc) and you're into the next village/town/place etc.

 

As well you know, CRT have started a process of defining places; and as well you know, the initial consultation with boaters groups on these place definitions was leaked and has been subsequently removed; but that when it was publically (on this forum) available, it was generally positively received.

I see no definition of "boundaries or boundary" in the legislation. So yet again we seem to be back where you would like to enforce your idea of boating onto others.

[mayalld]

I see no definition of "boundaries or boundary" in the legislation. So yet again we seem to be back where you would like to enforce your idea of boating onto others.

 

It is implicit in ANY definition of "place" that there must be a boundary where that "place" ends and the next begins.

 

Once can argue about the size of a place, but not that it is a discrete entity with boundaries.

[jenlyn]

It is implicit in ANY definition of "place" that there must be a boundary where that "place" ends and the next begins.

 

Once can argue about the size of a place, but not that it is a discrete entity with boundaries.

Facts please, not one of your fantasies..

[Alf Roberts]

It is implicit in ANY definition of "place" that there must be a boundary where that "place" ends and the next begins.

 

Once can argue about the size of a place, but not that it is a discrete entity with boundaries.

Logically and mathematically speaking you are wrong. The proof is simple;

 

"Between any place A and place B there must be a place C.

Therefore the set of places is a continuum and has no boundaries"

 

or to put it another way;

 

If I move from where I am moored no to water up and I do that every 14 days I have moved from one place to another place, namely my mooring spot to the water point about 100 yards, then I move back to my mooring spot still only about 100 yards. If someone moves into where I was moored while watering up I would move to another spot so in that case I will have been in 3 places in about the space of 1 hour, does that mean in your world I would have crossed 2 boundaries or would that be 3 boundaries or maybe only 1 boundary or maybe in your world no boundaries.

Edited November 20, 2014 by Alf Roberts

[cotswoldsman]

You seem to miss a hell of a lot of simple stuff. Or, you choose to "complicate" certain aspects of it, or drape bizarre interpretations of common-sense aspects to skew the rules in your favour.

 

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this occasion if that's okay.

 

The law states (extract) "the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days"

 

Let's do a simple analysis: its blindingly obvious that there's going to be 2 or more places. Therefore, there is going to be at least 1 place boundary.

 

In fact, there's going to be hundreds or possibly thousands of places, of course one might choose to raise an argument on what these places are and how they're defined. No matter how they are, there will still be boundaries between the two. Also there is a debatable argument that a rural stretch in between eg villages or towns which are along the canal, may also be interpreted as a "place", so there's going to be a boundary which defines where a village ends and the area in between starts; and where this area ends as you travel along a canal (or road, or railway, or footpath etc etc) and you're into the next village/town/place etc.

 

As well you know, CRT have started a process of defining places; and as well you know, the initial consultation with boaters groups on these place definitions was leaked and has been subsequently removed; but that when it was publically (on this forum) available, it was generally positively received.

So no link to boundaries then? I try nor to complicate things and try to stick to the law and the law makes no mention that when I move from one place to another place I need to cross a boundary. If I move from where I am moored now to water up and I do that every 14 days I have moved from one place to another place, namely my mooring spot to the water point about 100 yards, then I move back to my mooring spot still only about 100 yards. If someone moves into where I was moored while watering up I would move to another spot so in that case I will have been in 3 places in about the space of 1 hour, does that mean in your world I would have crossed 2 boundaries or would that be 3 boundaries or maybe only 1 boundary or maybe in your world no boundaries. Edited November 20, 2014 by cotswoldsman

[Paul C]

So no link to boundaries then? I try nor to complicate things and try to stick to the law and the law makes no mention that when I move from one place to another place I need to cross a boundary. If I move from where I am moored no to water up and I do that every 14 days I have moved from one place to another place, namely my mooring spot to the water point about 100 yards, then I move back to my mooring spot still only about 100 yards. If someone moves into where I was moored while watering up I would move to another spot so in that case I will have been in 3 places in about the space of 1 hour, does that mean in your world I would have crossed 2 boundaries or would that be 3 boundaries or maybe only 1 boundary or maybe in your world no boundaries.

 

Its incredibly convenient for a continuous moorer if the places; or boundaries between these places, shift and sway like the tides.

[Alf Roberts]

Its incredibly convenient for a continuous moorer if the places; or boundaries between these places, shift and sway like the tides.

By definition a 'continuous moorer' is one that doesn't move therefore your 'boundary' is, to them, irrelevant.

 

You are letting your prejudice get in the way of your argument.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

Sorry I seem to have missed the part of the Legislation that mentions Place Boundaries, to save me looking through all the legislation do you have a link? Thank you in advance

You are quite right. The law does not mention place boundaries.

 

However, it does appear to give an indications of what a place is.

 

From the BW Act 1995 -

 

...... the Board are satisfied that a mooring or other place where the vessel can reasonably be kept and may lawfully be left will be available for the vessel, whether on an inland waterway or elsewhere; or

 

 

..... so a mooring is a place.

 

Depending on circumstances, it would seem to me that the boundaries of a 'mooring' might be as small as the footprint of the boat....

 

 

 

Edited November 20, 2014 by Allan(nb Albert)

[Mike Todd]

 

Many thanks - mistake - I had it the wrong way around

 

 

Not sure what the latest dated Nicholsons is but on my copy the "mile posts" are in miles spacing, whilst the posts them selves are in Km spacing.

 

On the Trent, as you get further away from Nottingham the error is compounded and the 'mile posts' are actually nowhere near where they are shown in the guide.

I did not think that Nicholsons shows mileposts - only distances fromn theoir own datum.

Here is one I saw today so you can see exactly where it is

When we came through there on 16th Oct we saw trhat notice - but nothing at all had been done, despite it being started on 10th and operational by 18th!

[mayalld]

Facts please, not one of your fantasies..

 

It is a fact that whether a place has a size of 1mm or 1km, it MUST have a boundary.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I did not think that Nicholsons shows mileposts - only distances fromn theoir own datum.

When we came through there on 16th Oct we saw trhat notice - but nothing at all had been done, despite it being started on 10th and operational by 18th!

I might be looking at an old Nicholsons but it has what it calls 'mile markers'.

[Alf Roberts]

It is a fact that whether a place has a size of 1mm or 1km, it MUST have a boundary.

It is a fact that whether two places have a size of 1mm or 1km there must be a place between them.

[Mike Todd]

Logically and mathematically speaking you are wrong. The proof is simple;

 

"Between any place A and place B there must be a place C.

Therefore the set of places is a continuum and has no boundaries"

 

or to put it another way;

 

My maths may be a bit rusty but I do not recognise that as being well-founded!

 

In Newtonian mechanics, you have to be in one place at a time. If by place you mean position then it becomes relatively easy to see that there is an infinity of places such that moving a boat just 1 mm justifies saying that it has changed places.

 

In Quantum mechanics, such precision about position (and in this conext place) is not possible. It is also possible to move from one postion to another without having been observed at any intermediate position.

 

However, we are not dealing with physics but law and in this context the notion of place is probably (but has not yet been adequately tested) meant to indicate a range of positions. The debate mainly focusses on what range of position constitutes a 'place' and whether one has moved from one place to another. It seems likely that not all 'places' will have the same range of position so that it is not possible to say that having moved x distance between two positions constitutes changing place or not.

 

In a legal context, a reasonableness test may also mean that the definition of place is not necessarily precise so that it may not be possible to define a boundary as having a position but itself having a range of position.

 

Whether or not you want to have a particular definition does depend on what outcome you seek! It would help - but only perhaps - if the law had not been written in terms of moving place but moving a minimum distance but that ignores the fact that part of the charm of the canal system is that it still reminds us of former times, times when everyone knew their place and stayed in it!

 

It is implicit in ANY definition of "place" that there must be a boundary where that "place" ends and the next begins.

 

Once can argue about the size of a place, but not that it is a discrete entity with boundaries.

Sorry, I can so argue!

[jenlyn]

It is a fact that whether a place has a size of 1mm or 1km, it MUST have a boundary.

Obviously your a good dancer, as you have neatly sidestepped the issue in hand....... as usual....

[Alf Roberts]

Whether or not you want to have a particular definition does depend on what outcome you seek!

And there, Mr Todd, we are in total agreement.

 

my proof, incidentally, was a corollary of Cantor's uncountability proof and very well founded (speaking mathematically)

 

Speaking legally however;

 

"Mr Justice Lewis also observed that “Place” could be as small as an individual boat length, by stating that the mooring or other “place” to keep a boat required by s.17(3)©(i) has the same meaning as the “place” used in s.17(3)©(ii)."

Edited November 20, 2014 by Alf Roberts

[Allan(nb Albert)]

It is a fact that whether two places have a size of 1mm or 1km there must be a place between them.

Would that be the '1m place' or the 'boundary place'?