Overstaying and Sighting Record

[TheBiscuits]

Interesting map I've not seen before. Thanks for posting that.

 

Do we know this is officially for public consumption, rather than a CRT internal link that has escaped into the wild?

 

It is linked from the Canal & River Trust Public Map Gallery :

 

https://canalrivertrust.maps.arcgis.com/apps/PublicGallery/index.html?appid=69fda7ed7d6d4918af06cca1a3a44886

 

The text of the page is :

 

Welcome to the Canal & River Trust Public Map Gallery. These maps have been provided to highlight opportunities for interacting with the canals.

 

About This Page

 

Gallery of interactive maps to support public access to the Canal & River Trust and to provide resources for education and boat operations.

I can't think this is a secret squirrel document with that preface, just not very well advertised.

Edited September 15, 2016 by TheBiscuits

[biggles47]

Alan is right to correct you on this assumption, but it may be helpful if more people knew WHERE the boundaries are.In a few locations we like to spend time at, knowing which mooring sites are logged as different locations can make a lot of difference.The official map is available for public viewing:https://canalrivertrust.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapTools/index.html?appid=b46e3e0bda4a44a0be267df7674139a5Zooming in to a section and clicking on the line of the canal/river gives you the functional location code of that stretch, and highlights where it runs from and to.

My advice would be to not allow ones self to worry about it and just stay within the law. The law is far less complicated. I don't beleive the C&RT would risk unraveling a can of worms in court.

[TheBiscuits]

PS What about that for a logo for a window sticker 'The Sad Few'

"We few, we sad few, we band of mother's" - the St. Shipman's Day speech ?

 

Note the abbreviation so it scans ...

[Señor Chris]

Zooming in to a section and clicking on the line of the canal/river gives you the functional location code of that stretch, and highlights where it runs from and to.

 

Does this mean you are in a different 'place' if you move across a km boundary? In some places, it would mean just moving to the other end of the same mooring spot.

[Tony Dunkley]

 

Rumour has it that TD is a 5th columnist.

His posts and up coming court case are just a screen so he can get access to the 'inner core' & assess the 'grass roots' feelings.

It appears that his cover has been blown as so many do not accept / bite at what he posts.

 

I was never quite convinced that going to work undercover for C&RT was a good career move, . . . . I should have stuck with my old job with the Government's Diplomatic Service.

[TheBiscuits]

My advice would be to not allow ones self to worry about it and just stay within the law. The law is far less complicated. I don't beleive the C&RT would risk unraveling a can of worms in court.

The law is vague, as anyone who reads this site regularly will know.

 

The undefined concept of "place" is the sticky point, but the locations on this map are what CRT use to log boats. If the computer sees you in a different location code to last week, and it is not just the same one or two, the warning letters do not get sent out.

 

Using the map when we need to means we can return visit places or stay longer in a small range and remain within the letter of the guidelines.

 

Just remember the not hopping between 2 places guideline and don't lose any sleep over it.

 

Last year we wanted to stay in a very small area for various reasons, so I asked the local enforcement chap what he would like us to do as a minimum range for the summer, and we deliberately tripled it.

 

So far we have not had a single contact from CRT regarding our cruising pattern. (That should generate one!)

Does this mean you are in a different 'place' if you move across a km boundary? In some places, it would mean just moving to the other end of the same mooring spot.

That is exactly what we did this week, about 200 yards or so.

 

We don't usually push it that tight, as I don't know if the spotters have accurate GPS on the handhelds or if they have to manually select a location.

 

Next week we will be miles away at a different pub mooring site.

[Tony Dunkley]

My advice would be to not allow ones self to worry about it and just stay within the law. The law is far less complicated. I don't beleive the C&RT would risk unraveling a can of worms in court.

 

Complying with what is laid down in Statute is no guarantee that you won't attract some unwelcome attention from the Enforcement gang.

 

As for C&RT not wanting to risk opening a can of worms in Court, it's far too late for that, they've already done it.

[MtB]

 

Does this mean you are in a different 'place' if you move across a km boundary? In some places, it would mean just moving to the other end of the same mooring spot.

 

 

And immediately, we have another 'limit tester'.

 

I suggest you try this for a couple of months and report the results back to the board. I think everyone would be most grateful.

[Horace42]

 

 

Interesting map I've not seen before. Thanks for posting that.

 

Do we know this is officially for public consumption, rather than a CRT internal link that has escaped into the wild?

Public or not, Is the the map that will be updated to show winding holes - or perhaps more usefully the width* of the canal to show the maximum length of boat that can be turned in the stretch between the functional location markers.

 

* PS: and depth !

Edited September 15, 2016 by Horace42

[TheBiscuits]

 

 

And immediately, we have another 'limit tester'.

 

I suggest you try this for a couple of months and report the results back to the board. I think everyone would be most grateful.

 

Be patient Mike.

 

Wait for a licence renewal.

[MtB]

 

Be patient Mike.

 

Wait for a licence renewal.

 

 

Oh yeah. Do it for as year then report back, please!

In reality, if Señor Chris complies with the other requirement not to alternate between two adjacent 'places', he will be only be able to do as he suggests once, and CRT probably will neither notice nor care.

[biggles47]

The law is vague, as anyone who reads this site regularly will know.

 

 

I presume you mean the 'satisfying the board you are on a Bona Fide journey' bit.

 

If they aren't satisfied and it goes to court, the courts interpretaion will take precedence over the C&RT's interpretation of the law, as it would over the boater's.

 

That's why staying within the spirit of the 1995 act is best.

[Alan de Enfield]

If they aren't satisfied and it goes to court, the courts interpretaion will take precedence over the C&RT's interpretation of the law, as it would over the boater's.

 

 

 

In theory that is true - however - the court will often view 'big public authorities' as being the 'experts' in their field and unless something is totally at odds with the law, will assume that the 'authority' has the knowledge that the court does not, and will 'lean towards' their intepretation being correct.

[Señor Chris]

 

 

Oh yeah. Do it for as year then report back, please!

In reality, if Señor Chris complies with the other requirement not to alternate between two adjacent 'places', he will be only be able to do as he suggests once, and CRT probably will neither notice nor care.

 

Blimey! Talk about jumping to conclusions! My annual cruising range is way in excess of the minimum required for licence renewal so no worries there. The reason for wanting to know the limits of the tracking system is so I can stay within it. This makes their life easier and therefore mine too.

[Naughty Cal]

 

Blimey! Talk about jumping to conclusions! My annual cruising range is way in excess of the minimum required for licence renewal so no worries there. The reason for wanting to know the limits of the tracking system is so I can stay within it. This makes their life easier and therefore mine too.

If you already know you comply then why worry?

[MtB]

 

Blimey! Talk about jumping to conclusions! My annual cruising range is way in excess of the minimum required for licence renewal so no worries there. The reason for wanting to know the limits of the tracking system is so I can stay within it. This makes their life easier and therefore mine too.

 

Yes but that's what we do here!

 

Seriously though, I fully understand the point you make. I like to know the parameters too, even if I am way within them.

[Señor Chris]

If you already know you comply then why worry?

 

It's the 14-day rule which is the problem due to the fact that there is no way of knowing where the next 'place' is. Using km boundaries removes the uncertainty and makes it easy to stay onside although it does mean two different places can be in the same km or one place can be in different kms. Some you win, some you lose.

 

CRT did experiment with a pre-defined 'places' map a while ago but seem to have abandoned that idea in favour of km lengths. I just work with what I'm given.

[Paul C]

I presume you mean the 'satisfying the board you are on a Bona Fide journey' bit.

 

If they aren't satisfied and it goes to court, the courts interpretaion will take precedence over the C&RT's interpretation of the law, as it would over the boater's.

 

That's why staying within the spirit of the 1995 act is best.

 

WRONG - If they aren't satisfied they'll cancel your licence or not renew it. Then if you hang around, they'll s.8 the boat.

[Mike Todd]

 

I was never quite convinced that going to work undercover for C&RT was a good career move, . . . . I should have stuck with my old job with the Government's Diplomatic Service.

Now we know - you are really Boris in disguise

[MtB]

 

It's the 14-day rule which is the problem due to the fact that there is no way of knowing where the next 'place' is. Using km boundaries removes the uncertainty and makes it easy to stay onside although it does mean two different places can be in the same km or one place can be in different kms. Some you win, some you lose.

 

CRT did experiment with a pre-defined 'places' map a while ago but seem to have abandoned that idea in favour of km lengths. I just work with what I'm given.

 

 

If one moves slightly more than one km, one can guarantee to have crossed one km boundary wherever it is.

[Señor Chris]

 

 

If one moves slightly more than one km, one can guarantee to have crossed one km boundary wherever it is.

 

But what if the BEER is less than 1km away?

[Naughty Cal]

 

WRONG - If they aren't satisfied they'll cancel your licence or not renew it. Then if you hang around, they'll s.8 the boat.

WRONG - If they aren't satisfied they will contact you and give you a chance to remedy the situation first.

 

It is a long process between first contacting a boater expressing their concerns and revoking/refusing a licence.

[biggles47]

WRONG - If they aren't satisfied they'll cancel your licence or not renew it. Then if you hang around, they'll s.8 the boat.

I'm sure those who go along with the C&RT's tactics would agree with you. I don't know of anyone who has had a section 8 who hasn't stretched things or are looking for trouble.

[Paul C]

WRONG - If they aren't satisfied they will contact you and give you a chance to remedy the situation first.

 

It is a long process between first contacting a boater expressing their concerns and revoking/refusing a licence.

 

 

I'm sure those who go along with the C&RT's tactics would agree with you. I don't know of anyone who has had a section 8 who hasn't stretched things or are looking for trouble.

 

I think we're somewhat losing sight of the issue here. CRTs movement records, flawed as they are, aren't used in court proceedings. They are simply used "internally" by CRT to decide when to escalate a potential overstay into an enforcement issue.

 

If anything, I'd have thought the low quality of CRTs movement records was a subtle advantage to the marginally-compliant boater. With such poor initial data, the boater merely has to produce a movement record of their own which is slightly better than the low bar set, and CRT seem to accept these (possibly in recognition that their data is massively flawed). Of course, this scenario doesn't fit with the argumentitive or those who have not moved for ages.

[TheBiscuits]

 

It's the 14-day rule which is the problem due to the fact that there is no way of knowing where the next 'place' is. Using km boundaries removes the uncertainty and makes it easy to stay onside although it does mean two different places can be in the same km or one place can be in different kms. Some you win, some you lose.

 

CRT did experiment with a pre-defined 'places' map a while ago but seem to have abandoned that idea in favour of km lengths. I just work with what I'm given.

 

 

Precisely this.

 

Two spots that we quite like as moorings appear on the map in the same Km of canal. The spots certainly feel very different "places", one urban and one rural, but the computer says not. We now decide which one of the two spots to stay in when passing through that part of the system, usually depending on the weather at the time.

 

I do agree that it is not possible to only move between a few close locations and not end up on the radar, but as we are not trying to stay in exactly the same place anyway it does not matter to us.