Anouncement made on canal and river trust fb page by Damian Kemp

[Gordias]

About one photograph per week taken with a phone or camera with GPS would be enough to show CaRT where a boat has been.

[Willber G]

About one photograph per week taken with a phone or camera with GPS would be enough to show CaRT where a boat has been.

Only if CRT accept boaters' data, which it appears they don't:

 

"Herein lies the problem; we have asked for, and received the signings log for the last twelve months.

 

However, we were on the Trent and Mersey, the Shropshire, Ashton and Rochdale Canals last year; but have not been logged on any of these and have only been logged on the Peak Forest and Macclesfield Canals. When we asked if we could add our data and make any corrections, we were told you didn't accept boater's own data."

 

From this post earlier in this thread:

 

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=74395&page=3#entry1524813

[Gordias]

CaRT have stated that they will accept a boater's log.

 

They also have good reason to believe that a small subset of boaters would be prepared to fake data of this kind.

 

Photographs are a good way to ensure they have no reason to suspect the quality of the data provided by the boater, and very time-efficient. A phone/camera with GPS is just a "nice to have" in this respect, but there's a significant potential to automate "interpretation" of the pix based on a relatively rather simple program to analyze the metadata and extract the timestamp and location. A bit easier for the boater too, because they wouldn't always need to "pose" the boat together with a local landmark.

 

FWIW a smartphone app would be even easier for all concerned. When I first mentioned this it drew some bizarre responses, but things have changed a little since then, so a meaningful discussion might be possible now.

Edited March 7, 2015 by Gordias

[Willber G]

CaRT have started that they will accept a boater's log.

 

That doesn't seem to tally with Star's experience that I highlighted.

[jenlyn]

CaRT have started that they will accept a boater's log.

 

They also have very good evidence that a small subset of boaters are prepared to fake data of this kind.

 

Photographs are a good way to ensure they have no reason to suspect the quality of the data provided by the boater, and very time-efficient. A phone/camera with GPS is just a "nice to have" in this respect, but there's a significant potential to automate "interpretation" of the pix based on a relatively rather simple program to analyze the metadata and extract the timestamp and location. A bit easier for the boater too, because they wouldn't always need to "pose" the boat together with a local landmark.

Have you ever had the chance to present any of the above, spoke to them over the phone regards your movements?

Are you a continuous cruiser, or home moorer, hirer, sharer?

[Alf Roberts]

Wow BSP that is so good you have said it all

innit.

Edited March 7, 2015 by Alf Roberts

[Maffi]

Thanks for the clarity

Regards kris

Who are you thanking?

[Gordias]

 

That doesn't seem to tally with Star's experience that I highlighted.

 

That depends on the details of the exchange between Star and CaRT. One possible interpretation is that CarT's phone people aren't able to update the database with information from their location recorders.

 

My impression is that their IT systems haven't caught up with their latest processes - in which case a scenario like that is to be expected. They should consider information from all sources during the enforcement process - but Star's post didn't say she was under enforcement so I assumed it as a less formal interaction. Or did I miss something?

 

As for something like a mobile app: at this point it's something the majority of boaters should be asking for. Most (but not all) boaters are highly unlikely to be subjected to the enforcement process, and most (but not all) have a mobile device with GPS and network access. That subset (which could easily be 80+ % of all boaters) would benefit from a convenient and efficient tool to help with logging their location often enough to keep CaRT happy (about once per week, perhaps less).

Edited March 7, 2015 by Gordias

[GoodGurl]

 

That depends on the details of the exchange between Star and CaRT. One possible interpretation is that CarT's phone people aren't able to update the database with information from their location recorders.

 

My impression is that their IT systems haven't caught up with their latest processes - in which case a scenario like that is to be expected. They should consider information from all sources during the enforcement process - but Star's post didn't say she was under enforcement so I assumed it as a less formal interaction. Or did I miss something?

 

As for something like a mobile app: at this point it's something the majority of boaters should be asking for. Most (but not all) boaters are highly unlikely to be subjected to the enforcement process, and most (but not all) have a mobile device with GPS and network access. That subset (which could easily be 80+ % of all boaters) would benefit from a convenient and efficient tool to help with logging their location often enough to keep CaRT happy (about once per week, perhaps less).

The point being CRT are NOT logging boats correctly which at some point COULD put a boater into an enforcement situation.

[kris88]

Who are you thanking?

Have you read the thread?

Regards kris

[Gordias]

The point being CRT are NOT logging boats correctly which at some point COULD put a boater into an enforcement situation.

 

Right now, what are the odds that CaRT go after a boater that's been recorded well away from any "hotspot", but has relatively sparse location data recorded (a scenario I'd expect to be quite common for CCers)?

 

It's clear they're going to start with boats they can prove barely move: well-recorded boats in "hotspots". I'd expect that will keep them busy until next year

 

This leaves a lot of "genuine CCers" uncertain, but they can thank the weirdly-worded legislation and the questionable behavior of a small proportion of boaters for that. It's not in CaRT's interest to provide "rules", because they know any such rules will be abused. Their only alternative is to be vague, and hope that other boaters pay attention to their press releases (like the one about x% move within a 5 km (**) range, and X% within a 20km range).

 

**

I don't remember the shorter range and don't feel like checking - perhaps 5km, but maybe 10?

Edited March 7, 2015 by Gordias

[Willber G]

That depends on the details of the exchange between Star and CaRT.

Indeed, although Star's highlighted quote does seem unequivocal to me. You'll have to ask her for more detail if you want it, though.

 

Of course the development of more suitable tools would be welcome, as long as CRT's policies, procedures and people are geared up to use them effectively.

[GoodGurl]

 

Right now, what are the odds that CaRT go after a boater that's been recorded well away from any "hotspot", but has relatively sparse location data recorded (a scenario I'd expect to be quite common for CCers)? Wrong, most CC'rs log their movements

 

It's clear they're going to start with boats they can prove barely move: well-recorded boats in "hotspots". I'd expect that will keep them busy until next year Correct

 

This leaves a lot of "genuine CCers" uncertain, but they can thank the weirdly-worded legislation and the questionable behavior of a small proportion of boaters for that. It's not in CaRT's interest to provide "rules", because they know any such rules will be abused. Their only alternative is to be vague, and hope that other boaters pay attention to their press releases (like the one about x% move in a 5 km (**) range, and X% in a 20km range). Wrong, CRT should provide clear rules to comply with.you wouldnt open a high interest account at a bank without knowing the interest rate would you?

 

**

I don't remember the shorter range and don't feel like checking - perhaps 5km?

[John Williamson 1955]

 

 

Right now, what are the odds that CaRT go after a boater that's been recorded well away from any "hotspot", but has relatively sparse location data recorded (a scenario I'd expect to be quite common for CCers)? Wrong, most CC'rs log their movements

 

It's clear they're going to start with boats they can prove barely move: well-recorded boats in "hotspots". I'd expect that will keep them busy until next year Correct

 

This leaves a lot of "genuine CCers" uncertain, but they can thank the weirdly-worded legislation and the questionable behavior of a small proportion of boaters for that. It's not in CaRT's interest to provide "rules", because they know any such rules will be abused. Their only alternative is to be vague, and hope that other boaters pay attention to their press releases (like the one about x% move in a 5 km (**) range, and X% in a 20km range). Wrong, CRT should provide clear rules to comply with.you wouldnt open a high interest account at a bank without knowing the interest rate would you?

 

**

I don't remember the shorter range and don't feel like checking - perhaps 5km?

Yes, 5km is the shorter range in the press release, and the rule in the 1995 Act all CC'ers are following (Or, according to the press release, that a sizeable majority of them are not following) wasn't written by CRT or even BW before them, it was written by a committee working for the Government of the day, taking advice from interested parties. The distance required was deliberately not mentioned as that was seen as being too prescriptive and limiting options both for the boater and the enforcement authorities, and the law as stated is actually concerned more with the purpose of the journey than the distance travelled, as mentioned by the judge in the Mayers case.

[MtB]

It seems quite clear to me. CRT are saying that should they start 'enforcement' against a boater, they will accept cruising log data, photos etc produced by the boater and drop the action.

 

If the boater can't produce any data contradicting the CRT records then enforcement will continue.

 

MtB

[jenlyn]

^^^^^^^^round and round and round we go^^^^^^^^^

[adam1uk]

Only if CRT accept boaters' data, which it appears they don't:"Herein lies the problem; we have asked for, and received the signings log for the last twelve months.

However, we were on the Trent and Mersey, the Shropshire, Ashton and Rochdale Canals last year; but have not been logged on any of these and have only been logged on the Peak Forest and Macclesfield Canals. When we asked if we could add our data and make any corrections, we were told you didn't accept boater's own data."

From this post earlier in this thread:

http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=74395&page=3#entry1524813

When are we talking about though?

 

I read it that she's asked for the logging data, saw the gaps, and offered to fill them. I woldn't expect them to accept data at this stage. As I said in post #123, CRT could be swamped by photos if hundreds of boaters decided to tell them where they were just in case they hadn't been logged.

 

But if CRT have raised concerns about someone's movement pattern, then I would expect them to accept evidence -- otherwise, what's the point of asking.

 

Star needs to say which set of circumstances she was talking about.

[madcat]

And round and round and round.

[tillergirl]

Boaters without a Home Mooring: How far is far enough?

Following our recent communication, a number of boaters have asked for clarification of the legal requirement to cruise throughout the period of their licence and, in particular, what is the minimum distance that should be covered in order to comply with the Trusts Guidance for Boaters without a Home Mooring.

 

We recognise that boaters want clarity over this. However the BW Act 1995 does not stipulate a minimum distance. It does set out the requirement to use the boat bona fide for navigation, and the Trusts Guidance is our interpretation of this requirement.

Whilst this means that we cannot set a universal minimum distance for compliance, we can advise that it is very unlikely that someone would be able to satisfy us that they have been genuinely cruising if their range of movement is less than 15-20 miles over the period of their licence. In most cases we would expect it to be greater than this.

 

We will be advising those boaters without a home mooring whose range of movement falls short of this distance that their movement needs to increase or we may refuse to renew their licence. Our statutory right to refuse to renew a licence arises from section 17 of the BW Act 1995 which states that we can refuse to issue a licence if we are not satisfied that a boat either has a home mooring or intends to continuously cruise.

 

 

Forgive me if this has been mentioned. I interpret this to mean you tell us you do as many miles as you like but if the range (area) of your cruising isn't more than 20 miles you are in trouble buddy.

[GoodGurl]

There should be a "use by" date on some threads.

[BlueStringPudding]

 

What exactly do they need to spell out? The minimum cruising distance? Because that won't help for the simple reason that it cannot be enforceable.

Absolutely. Which is why CRT should have sought legal advice before writing to boaters about cruising "far enough"

[Graham Davis]

As I said in the other thread, fit every boat with a GPS data logger and that will solve the problem of recording who moves or who doesn't.

[cotswoldsman]

 

 

But if CRT have raised concerns about someone's movement pattern, then I would expect them to accept evidence -- otherwise, what's the point of asking.

 

Star needs to say which set of circumstances she was talking about.

But CRT have raised concerns by sending a letter stating what is going to happen if Star does not move far enough

[tree monkey]

As I said in the other thread, fit every boat with a GPS data logger and that will solve the problem of recording who moves or who doesn't.

It's a canal boat hardly the crime of the century, I think we need a reality check here, why should I have a GPS tracker fitted to my boat because a very very small minority don't move much?

[Mike Todd]

Surely they mean that over the period of the licence the furthest apart points you have travelled between must be at least 15-20 miles apart.

 

Which raise the question that if over 12 months you do one trip to a point 21 miles away and immediately return back again, but otherwise shuffle betwee 2 or 3 bridges, are you compliant?

It says nothing about what is compliant. It only says that less than the stated range is non-compliant.