Canal & River Trust sets out plans to review boat licensing

[IanD]

All unpowered RFID-type systems have a range of at most a couple of feet, and the laws of physics say this can't increase by much.

Remote tracking of boat positions needs a power source, and a radio transmitter/receiver (what band? licensed how? what radio standard?), and infrastructure to deal with all this (cellular? something unique?).

[Jess--]

9 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

 

 

But the examples given assumes a reader no more than a few centimeters from the chip?

What the rest of the RBOA statement on this said, (and I only omitted it because it didn't until now seem relevant), is....

Something that required data checkers to run a scanner over your licence would NOT reduce the need or (significantly) the cost of CRT "hands on data checking.

And even if the chips could be recorded by canal side readers at some locations (could they?), would it help any more with locating the boat in an emergency.

From the discussion I was involved in I think RBOA think a system could use real time tracking, and say where my boat is now - not just where it might have happened to be maybe 2 or more weeks ago.

So is it practical to do real time tracking of an unpowered chip embedded in a licence?  I know what my guess is, but am I wrong?

 

realtime would need GPS and some form of transmitter to send the data, both of these need power, a possible solution would be to have a small solar cell charging a battery (think the type of solar used on garden lamps) and then have the tracker power up and send it's position at a certain time before powering down again.

RFID can (given the right setup) be read from several feet away and could be unpowered (on the boat) since the position of the reader would be known, however I wouldn't like to guess how long fixed canal-side readers would survive.

 

6 minutes ago, rowland al said:

So would you be happy to have to have a tracker fitted to your boat (assuming you have a boat)? 

Maybe it would be useful in the event of a boat being stolen but other than that there is no point. After all, there is no legal requirement to travel a certain distance. So what can CRT legally do with the data?

Maybe CRT could subject every boater to a lie detector test to find out wheter they REALLY intend to be on a  bona fide journey...lol.

I do have a tracker installed (obviously not a CRT one) it activates based on any movement or on demand by text message and will alert me if it moves more than 100 metres from it's normal mooring (if you want to see where my boat is you can see it as "Demo2" here)

If all boats had similar then CRT may be able to identify parts of the system that need more facilities (visitor moorings / water points etc) or plan better for winter closures based on movements in previous years, obviously data used in this way should be stripped of identifying data and the accuracy of positions reduced in precision (strip a few decimal places off the lat/long as position +/- a few hundred yards should be good enough)

[Alan de Enfield]

16 minutes ago, rowland al said:

So would you be happy to have to have a tracker fitted to your boat (assuming you have a boat)? 

Maybe it would be useful in the event of a boat being stolen but other than that there is no point. After all, there is no legal requirement to travel a certain distance. So what can CRT legally do with the data?

Maybe CRT could subject every boater to a lie detector test to find out wheter they REALLY intend to be on a  bona fide journey...lol.

Yes - I would have no problem at all in having a 'tracker' fitted -  I have nothing to hide.

There may be no legal requirement to move a certain / minimum distance but there is a requirement to move every 14 days (or less if 'posted') so it could be used for that purpose - however - you appear to have forgotten the purpose of the suggestion.

 

To charge for the licence in proportion to the use of the facilities (distance covered).

 

Again I would have no issue with the introduction of a 'pay-by-use' system, after all (for those who have problem with 'change') it is similar to how the original charges were made /paid.

[Robbo]

9 minutes ago, Jess-- said:

realtime would need GPS and some form of transmitter to send the data, both of these need power, a possible solution would be to have a small solar cell charging a battery (think the type of solar used on garden lamps) and then have the tracker power up and send it's position at a certain time before powering down again.

For basic tracking, if it's via GSM you could remove the GPS as you could use GSM triangulation for a general position.

[dmr]

This is all just plain daft. An increasing problem on some parts of the system is boats trying hard to move as little as possible, and now we are discussing a pay as you go system to financially encourage boaters to move as little as possible ?

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

[IanD]

47 minutes ago, Robbo said:

For basic tracking, if it's via GSM you could remove the GPS as you could use GSM triangulation for a general position.

Not much point, a GPS receiver is cheaper and consumes less power than a cellular modem.

[Robbo]

21 minutes ago, IanD said:

Not much point, a GPS receiver is cheaper and consumes less power than a cellular modem.

But your using GSM to transfer the data in th first place!

[WotEver]

2 hours ago, alan_fincher said:

But the examples given assumes a reader no more than a few centimeters from the chip?

Yes those examples do. However, Gen 2 chips (and Gen 3 are already in testing) have a range of about 12m. 

[WotEver]

2 hours ago, Robbo said:

And even if the chips could be recorded by canal side readers at some locations (could they?)...

Yes they could. 

[Robbo]

33 minutes ago, WotEver said:

Yes they could. 

I think that quote wasn't from me?

[WotEver]

54 minutes ago, Robbo said:

I think that quote wasn't from me?

How odd, no it wasn't...

i wonder how that happened. 

[rowland al]

3 hours ago, Jess-- said:

realtime would need GPS and some form of transmitter to send the data, both of these need power, a possible solution would be to have a small solar cell charging a battery (think the type of solar used on garden lamps) and then have the tracker power up and send it's position at a certain time before powering down again.

RFID can (given the right setup) be read from several feet away and could be unpowered (on the boat) since the position of the reader would be known, however I wouldn't like to guess how long fixed canal-side readers would survive.

 

I do have a tracker installed (obviously not a CRT one) it activates based on any movement or on demand by text message and will alert me if it moves more than 100 metres from it's normal mooring (if you want to see where my boat is you can see it as "Demo2" here)

If all boats had similar then CRT may be able to identify parts of the system that need more facilities (visitor moorings / water points etc) or plan better for winter closures based on movements in previous years, obviously data used in this way should be stripped of identifying data and the accuracy of positions reduced in precision (strip a few decimal places off the lat/long as position +/- a few hundred yards should be good enough)

 

[rowland al]

The references to the quotes are well messed up on here. 

Anyway, to pick up om Alan's point, I'm not trying to hide anything either. However, I am very surprised how many people on here don't mind their privacy being potentialy invaded by unscrupulous parties. 

I see technology fail and get abused a lot. Are you comfortable with that? I'm not.

 

[alan_fincher]

I'll be taking a trip up to the Wyrley and Essington and back over the next couple of weeks.

If the RBOA supported idea of having a chip in your licence comes to being, I might just start to offer a service when doing similar trips in future.  Simply pay me a small agreed fee, and I'll carry your chipped licence with me to get a lot of miles and locks recorded against it................

[rowland al]

43 minutes ago, alan_fincher said:

I'll be taking a trip up to the Wyrley and Essington and back over the next couple of weeks.

If the RBOA supported idea of having a chip in your licence comes to being, I might just start to offer a service when doing similar trips in future.  Simply pay me a small agreed fee, and I'll carry your chipped licence with me to get a lot of miles and locks recorded against it................

Trouble is Alan, we'll all end up being chipped in our heads soon, so they will be able to work out we are not with boat.

Come on guys, is this really where we want to go? 

[Jerra]

2 hours ago, rowland al said:

The references to the quotes are well messed up on here. 

Anyway, to pick up om Alan's point, I'm not trying to hide anything either. However, I am very surprised how many people on here don't mind their privacy being potentialy invaded by unscrupulous parties. 

I see technology fail and get abused a lot. Are you comfortable with that? I'm not.

 

Is it really any more invasive than being subject to all the CCTV surveillance and police NPR cameras etc that we get everyday?

[rowland al]

4 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Is it really any more invasive than being subject to all the CCTV surveillance and police NPR cameras etc that we get everyday?

I suppose we have to ask ourselves whether we are comfortable with that. I personally believe it's all gone too far. Who are we really protecting with this technology anyway? How far do we let this pendulum swing?

I'm really not convinced CM'ers are a national threat. 

[peterboat]

18 minutes ago, rowland al said:

I suppose we have to ask ourselves whether we are comfortable with that. I personally believe it's all gone too far. Who are we really protecting with this technology anyway? How far do we let this pendulum swing?

I'm really not convinced CM'ers are a national threat. 

Maybe they are perhaps its time to round them all up and drop them in the middle of the Atlantic!! as a message to us all to toe the line If nothing else it will free up a bit of space in London

[Jerra]

7 hours ago, rowland al said:

I suppose we have to ask ourselves whether we are comfortable with that. I personally believe it's all gone too far. Who are we really protecting with this technology anyway? How far do we let this pendulum swing?

I'm really not convinced CM'ers are a national threat. 

Why do people keep mentioning CMers?   The discussion is about changes in the way CRT charges licences.

[Scholar Gypsy]

12 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Why do people keep mentioning CMers?   The discussion is about changes in the way CRT charges licences.

... and a new licence structure can be used (as the current one is) to encourage or discourage certain categories of boat, or certain types or patterns of use. For example unpowered boats are cheaper - I think I can see an argument for that.  

I think this consultation process needs to discuss the "congestion charging" options, eg paying more if you spend more than X days in given geographical area, and don't have a permanent mooring.

[Jerra]

4 minutes ago, Scholar Gypsy said:

... and a new licence structure can be used (as the current one is) to encourage or discourage certain categories of boat, or certain types or patterns of use. For example unpowered boats are cheaper - I think I can see an argument for that.  

I think this consultation process needs to discuss the "congestion charging" options, eg paying more if you spend more than X days in given geographical area, and don't have a permanent mooring.

I would agree the licence structure can be used to encourage or discourage different behaviours.    However CMing seems to be so much on everybody's mind (either because they see it as a problem or because they think it is a none existent problem ) that they harp back to CMing much more than is necessary.

[rowland al]

44 minutes ago, Jerra said:

I would agree the licence structure can be used to encourage or discourage different behaviours.    However CMing seems to be so much on everybody's mind (either because they see it as a problem or because they think it is a none existent problem ) that they harp back to CMing much more than is necessary.

Ok, well could soneone answer this putting aside technical 'solutions' for a sec?

Someone earlier mentioned that this is an attempt to create a solution for a problem which diesn't exist. So who has pushed CRT into believing they need to 'review' the boat licencing and what were the reasons? Has anyone been complaining about the current scheme?

 

[system 4-50]

It all started to go wrong when people started having names. Since then the authorities, good or bad, have been able to track us and use or misuse that information. It is time to go back to being anonymous. And yes, I have been moaning about the current licensing scheme. But who am I?

[Jess--]

26 minutes ago, rowland al said:

Ok, well could soneone answer this putting aside technical 'solutions' for a sec?

Someone earlier mentioned that this is an attempt to create a solution for a problem which diesn't exist. So who has pushed CRT into believing they need to 'review' the boat licencing and what were the reasons? Has anyone been complaining about the current scheme?

 

If I had to guess I would come up with one of 2 options

1. Narrow boat owners complaining that a boat that takes up to twice their width pays the same price as them

2. CRT decided that welding 2 boats together side by side (so they are classed as one boat) shouldn't reduce their license cost by half

[rowland al]

18 minutes ago, system 4-50 said:

It all started to go wrong when people started having names. Since then the authorities, good or bad, have been able to track us and use or misuse that information. It is time to go back to being anonymous. And yes, I have been moaning about the current licensing scheme. But who am I?

Any chance of telling us what it is you don't like about the current system?

By the way, the problem isn't so much about names but as you say it is about information being abused for bad purposes.

Ir's never been easier to be framed.