Canalplan Bug Tracker

Anonymous Login
2019-06-18 01:56 BST

View Issue Details Jump to Notes ]
IDProjectCategoryView StatusLast Update
0000547Canalplan [All Projects] Feature Requestpublic2019-02-12 13:33
Assigned ToNick Atty 
PlatformGenericOSN/AOS VersionN/A
Product VersionProduct Build 
Target VersionFixed in Version 
Summary0000547: Add mooring for use of facilities only
DescriptionAt locks, waterpoints, sanitary stations etc, mooring is usually only permitted for use of the facilities.

None of the current options for the 'what's mooring like here' dropdown reflect this properly.
Steps To ReproduceExamine the dropdown for mooring quality.
Additional InformationSuggested phrasing:

"Stopping here is for use of the facilities only, usually for not more than 30 mins."
TagsNo tags attached.
Attach Tags (Separate by ",")
Attached Files


-Upload File
Select File
Maximum size: 5,000 KB
+Upload File



Nick Atty (administrator)

I think I disagree with this one. The intention behind "mooring" was to access the suitability of places to tie the boat up while you sleep, go for a visit, eat a meal etc. All facilities should have reasonable physical mooring capabilities, and all of them should be no use for this at all.

I think facilities should be flagged with "impossible" - I changed the description of that to "it may be physically impossible, forbidden, or allowed only for specific short-term purposes" a bit ago, and I really think that this is enough.

But leaving this open for others to disagree - what benefit would adding another class give?


Aegidian (reporter)


But yeah, if facilities (locks, sanitary stations waterpoint) were automagically marked so that changing the mooring rating there wasn't possible that would be great.

But for simplicity and flexibility, adding a rating that represents facilities-use-only. seems the easiest way to go.


Aegidian (reporter)

"Mooring here is impossible (it may be physically impossible, forbidden, or allowed only for specific short-term purposes) ."

This is now looking particularly clumsy as a cover-all.


Nick Atty (administrator)

It is. I can change it back to "don't try it!" if you'd prefer. I only changed it because people complained that it was physically possible to moor at sanitary stations and therefore they shouldn't be marked as not suitable for mooring.

The idea of collecting mooring information is so that, once we have enough, and when I stop having to chase around changing things at the whim of enormous companies, the system can suggest good moorings for people.

Perhaps I should relabel the information. It was always intended, for this reason, to be "suitability of this as a mooring place". People have decided they want it to be "it is physically possible to moor".

I can divide it into a thousand different subtypes, ranging from "not possible because of mud", "not possible because of stones" and "not possible because of Shoppie ledge", through "farmer with loud voice", "farmer with aggressive solicitor" and "farmer with shotgun" right up to "brilliant mooring except for daft people who want to use the water point", but I can't come up with any scenario where the typical user of the site will gain any benefit. Instead I foresee endless discussion for each page on just how sticky the mud is, and complaints that people have misidentified the type of shotgun.

I'd much rather we more data at a suitable level of granularity than a lot less all perfectly subdivided into categories that don't make any difference.


Aegidian (reporter)

I understand a need for granularity, yes

Some sort of distinction should still perhaps be made between "How easy is it to tie up here?" and "How suitable is this place to stop overnight?" It would be useful I think, for the route planning process.

I'm sorry you're reluctant to make this change. I obviously feel it would be useful, but I respect your opinion too, and think I've advocated for it enough. I'll leave more thinking about what to do, to you.

-Add Note
View Status
Upload File
Maximum size: 5,000 KB
+Add Note

-Issue History
Date Modified Username Field Change
2019-02-02 20:34 Aegidian New Issue
2019-02-02 21:05 Stephen Atty Assigned To => Nick Atty
2019-02-02 21:05 Stephen Atty Status new => assigned
2019-02-03 18:01 Nick Atty Note Added: 0002125
2019-02-04 08:30 Aegidian Note Added: 0002129
2019-02-09 23:10 Aegidian Note Added: 0002150
2019-02-12 07:46 Nick Atty Note Added: 0002158
2019-02-12 13:33 Aegidian Note Added: 0002159
+Issue History