I am beginning to be concerned

[cotswoldsman]

That will bore you silly John.

I know I need to get a life.

[adam1uk]

You seem to have a problem following this. They might well know the logger was for example in Burscough on 13 August 2014 but that makes no difference because they can not ask the system what boats were in Burscough on that day because the system is boat specific not location specific.

 

I'm not having a problem following this at all. I'm having a problem believing that no-one knows how often logging takes place. After all, the logger Betty spoke to in Berkhamsted seemed to know he did it every Tuesday and Thursday; Stoke Bruerne apparently has volunteers logging every evening; and someone of my acquaintance does volunteer logging on the Lancaster -- and I reckon he could look in his diary and tell me exactly which days he went out and collected boat numbers.

 

It's very simple. If they know Dean was in the same place on 17/7 and 18/8, but they also know it was logged on one or more dates in between but he doesn't show up on those dates, then it's fairly obvious he's moved.

[cotswoldsman]

 

I'm not having a problem following this at all. I'm having a problem believing that no-one knows how often logging takes place. After all, the logger Betty spoke to in Berkhamsted seemed to know he did it every Tuesday and Thursday; Stoke Bruerne apparently has volunteers logging every evening; and someone of my acquaintance does volunteer logging on the Lancaster -- and I reckon he could look in his diary and tell me exactly which days he went out and collected boat numbers.

 

It's very simple. If they know Dean was in the same place on 17/7 and 18/8, but they also know it was logged on one or more dates in between but he doesn't show up on those dates, then it's fairly obvious he's moved.

Seems like you are having difficulty I will say it one more time. The system is not location specific so can not tell you who was at any location on a specific date

[TheBiscuits]

 

I'm not having a problem following this at all. I'm having a problem believing that no-one knows how often logging takes place.

 

 

The people that do the logging know this.

 

The computer system that generates the letters/emails is not set up to work on this basis.

 

It is the conclusions drawn by the badly thought out programming that is the problem, not the loggers themselves.

[Southern Star]

Seems that CRT have accepted Dean's explanation then?

[Alan de Enfield]

 

I'm not having a problem following this at all. I'm having a problem believing that no-one knows how often logging takes place.

 

 

The system is computer driven - not human driven.

The computer gets information that a boat was seen at location 123 on date XXX, and again on date YYY. The computer is not programmed (or clever enough) to realise that there is a gap ZZZ days between the sightings.

 

The computer is not programmed to go thru' its records and see if the boat was seen elsewhere during period ZZZ and then make the 'assumption' that the boat must therefore have moved.

 

It is not the computers fault, it is the programmer who did not consider the implications of what he was doing, and / or not doing

Edited August 13, 2015 by Alan de Enfield

[cotswoldsman]

 

The system is computer driven - not human driven.

The computer gets information that a boat was seen at location 123 on date XXX, and again on date YYY. The computer is not programmed (or clever enough) to realise that there is a gap ZZZ days between the sightings.

 

The computer is not programmed to go thru' its records and see if the boat was seen elsewhere during period ZZZ and then make the 'assumption' that the boat must therefore have moved.

 

It is not the computers fault, it is the programmer who did not consider the implications of what he was doing, and / or not doing

Yes the system or should I say the programme is designed to track boat locations not to track what boats were at a specific location on any date

[TheBiscuits]

 

The system is computer driven - not human driven.

The computer gets information that a boat was seen at location 123 on date XXX, and again on date YYY. The computer is not programmed (or clever enough) to realise that there is a gap ZZZ days between the sightings.

 

The computer is not programmed to go thru' its records and see if the boat was seen elsewhere during period ZZZ and then make the 'assumption' that the boat must therefore have moved.

 

It is not the computers fault, it is the programmer who did not consider the implications of what he was doing, and / or not doing

 

 

But that is the exact thing it does do! Dean was not logged during period ZZZ at RD-024 or RD-023, where he travelled to, so the system assumes he was stationary at RD-025 for the whole period.

 

[Edit to correct Deans Location!]

Edited August 13, 2015 by TheBiscuits

[Arthur Marshall]

Seems that CRT have accepted Dean's explanation then?

They haven't got an option, really, have they? Unless they start employing lengthmen who log every bit of the system every day they aren't going to be able to prove what you've done between logs, and oop north, where there isn't really much of a problem, they aren't going to bother much unless they are targetting someone in particular of whom they are sure. It's fairly obvious that they are just trying to nudge people into considering their movements (if you'll pardon the phrase) and if they are a bit dodgy, to wake up to the fact and shift on a bit. i think we're just going to have to get used to it without always assuming that every letter/email like this is going to result in continual persecution.

I would also presume that a lot of us don't have email on the boats anyway or haven't given CRt our email addresses. Seems a good way of avoiding the problem in the first place. If they want to challenge me over anything, they'll have to bang on the roof.

[Emerald Fox]

We can beat the system! When they think we're there - we're not!

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I know you are trying hard but system is boat specific not location specific. Meaning you can't ask the system to tell you what boats were or were not at a location

The system is neither boat specific nor location specific. It is just the way that the enquiry on the SAP database is written.

 

The system could be made to do a sanity check to ascertain that that a boat was not recorded at a location when other boats were.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

But that is the exact thing it does do! Dean was not logged during period ZZZ at RD-026 or RD-027, where he travelled to, so the system assumes he was stationary at RD-025 for the whole period

 

Exactly - you have it in one.

 

The logging system is specific to a location - it logs the boats that are there, if there are no boats there it doesn't show any boats.

If a boat it at a 'logging location' the day after the logger has been there, then leaves the day before the logger comes on his next round - it has never been there.

 

If the boat then moves to another 'logging location' and the same happens again. it has still 'never been there'

 

If the boat (now maybe 3 weeks later) returns to where it was last logged, and it is now logged as being there, the 'system' shows it has been there for 3 weeks, despite having moved twice during that time, it has failed to be logged.

 

The only possible way for the system to be representative of the actual movements is for every stretch of the canal (moorings, VMs, marinas, bankside, offside, wherever) to be patrolled EVERY DAY, and every boat to be logged. The only way that can be achieved, in reality, is with a GPS tracker system that has a daily download of the position of the 30,000+ boats.

[magpie patrick]

 

 

The only possible way for the system to be representative of the actual movements is for every stretch of the canal (moorings, VMs, marinas, bankside, offside, wherever) to be patrolled EVERY DAY, and every boat to be logged. The only way that can be achieved, in reality, is with a GPS tracker system that has a daily download of the position of the 30,000+ boats.

 

Surely weekly, and getting on someone's case if they were found in the same place on five successive surveys (four weeks) would suffice. Even then, they may have a valid explanation, but having surveys three weeks apart and throwing even the most minor of accusations around on that basis is always likely to cause more problems than it solves

[DeanS]

I was not logged on the Pennine summit. I was not logged at Walsden. Next year, I'll be spending less time in Littleborough, and more time there...;-) I presume RD-024 was somewhere lower down the Rochdale....which is confusing, because I left my marina in May...came up the Rochdale in June (I think) ..and stopped for a few days at Mills Hills, Castleton, Rochdale, Smithy Bridge, and the first time they logged me was at the end of June...so a few weeks of loggless cruising. All very confusing, because I thought the data loggers walk a canal from point A to point Z...but it SEEMS...they are only logging certain hotspots...such as the water point at Littleborough..and no where else?

[nb Innisfree]

If C&RT don't know all the places a boat hasn't been, they don't know where it's always been.

 

In the absence of that which is not, that which is, is not.

 

I think...

[DeanS]

it's also interesting that they don't log above Duke 92 lock ...where I spent enough time.....in May....

If C&RT don't know all the places a boat hasn't been, they don't know where it's always been.

In the absence of that which is not, that which is, is not.

I think...

 

exactly.

[nb Innisfree]

Are dogging locations logged as logging locations, could a logger be a dogger?

[DeanS]

ok, so does this now mean that CRT no longer use places, locations, neighborhoods, etc, and ONLY use 1km zones, where you are allowed to remain for 14 days, and by day 15 you must be in another 1km zone.

 

Is this now the new official method we should all live by, and if we do....will that fix everything.

[dmr]

I suspect all this boat logging, and all the new draconian rules, were really aimed at the small (but growing) numbers of boats that don't want to move at all.It all started on the K&A. Trouble is CaRT have now started to apply this system to all boats. If a boater desires to move a short distance just once every 14 days then the current system will fairly accurately track their position, but if a boat moves quite a lot within a limited (but acceptable) range the system just can't cope.

 

............Dave

[DeanS]

I suspect all this boat logging, and all the new draconian rules, were really aimed at the small (but growing) numbers of boats that don't want to move at all.It all started on the K&A. Trouble is CaRT have now started to apply this system to all boats. If a boater desires to move a short distance just once every 14 days then the current system will fairly accurately track their position, but if a boat moves quite a lot within a limited (but acceptable) range the system just can't cope.

 

............Dave

 

so what you're saying is...I've moved too much?

 

it was obviously designed for CC-ers.....(who don't usually have a return journey), but doesn't work at all with marina boaters, who are always "returning".

 

what a mess

Edited August 13, 2015 by DeanS

[Allan(nb Albert)]

I was not logged on the Pennine summit. I was not logged at Walsden. Next year, I'll be spending less time in Littleborough, and more time there...;-) I presume RD-024 was somewhere lower down the Rochdale....which is confusing, because I left my marina in May...came up the Rochdale in June (I think) ..and stopped for a few days at Mills Hills, Castleton, Rochdale, Smithy Bridge, and the first time they logged me was at the end of June...so a few weeks of loggless cruising. All very confusing, because I thought the data loggers walk a canal from point A to point Z...but it SEEMS...they are only logging certain hotspots...such as the water point at Littleborough..and no where else?

RD-024 is roughly Bridge 43 (Punchbowl Bridge) to Bridge 45 (Pike House Bridge).

[Nightwatch]

I got an email for 'potentially' being two/three hours over. I don't think I was, but there you go. But I certainly near the mark on this occasion. We are definitely on the move now so this probably, or potentially, not occur again.

 

Martyn

[DeanS]

RD-024 is roughly Bridge 43 (Punchbowl Bridge) to Bridge 45 (Pike House Bridge).

 

I've never used Bridge numbers .....so would it make sense then to make a map, showing bridges...2kms apart...and ensure you are always in another 2km zone every 14 days, and by so doing, never have to worry about enforcement again....CRT aren't going to give us a map, so maybe we have to make our own.

 

Important question...HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS...do you have some sort of reference we can all share?

 

I got an email for 'potentially' being two/three hours over. I don't think I was, but there you go. But I certainly near the mark on this occasion. We are definitely on the move now so this probably, or potentially, not occur again.

 

Martyn

 

If you stay away for a month, and come back to that place...without being logged elsewhere during that time....you'll get another letter

Edited August 13, 2015 by DeanS

[dmr]

 

so what you're saying is...I've moved too much?

 

it was obviously designed for CC-ers.....(who don't usually have a return journey), but doesn't work at all with marina boaters, who are always "returning".

 

what a mess

 

I wasn't saying that but you do have a point. I suspect at some time in the future CC'ing will be totally regulated and we will all have to spend exactly 14 days at each location then on the nominated day move exactly to the next 1km neighbourhood. It would make CaRT monitoring task much easier.

Think of the money saved, Locks open and backpumps running for only one day every two weeks, and the fishermen would love it.

 

................Dave

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

If you stay away for a month, and come back to that place...without being logged elsewhere during that time....you'll get another letter

 

Dean - you are getting the hang of this now !!