[Talk-GB] Waterways Map (was invisible)

Richard Fairhurst richard at systemed.net
Thu Jan 20 12:21:58 GMT 2011

Someoneelse wrote:
> I suspect that you could probably get a larger boat along the top 
> bit (just south of Ambergate) without too many issues, but I think 
> the bottom bit had signs suggesting not to disturb anything.

>From WW's most recent article on the Cromford:

"As a gateway to the World Heritage Site, this [Ambergate] could offer ample
moorings for permanent and  visiting boats. Boaters could possibly proceed
for the final five miles to Cromford through the SSSI section by horse-drawn
boat, for which only dredging would be required. Such dredging is equally
essential to restore the quality of the currently much deteriorated SSSI.
Having struggled for finance for this highly scenic and very popular five
miles of canal, Derbyshire County Council was recently awarded £800,000
towards bank stabilisation, structural improvements and dredging."

And indeed, since 2005 (WW January 2006), FCC do run occasional horse-drawn
boat trips there. (Unpowered boats obviously create less disturbance to
vegetation in the channel - similar reasoning is behind the 2mph limit on a
stretch of the Montgomery IIRC.)

So the correct way to tag the stretch from Ambergate to Cromford would be
something indicating horse-drawn boats yes, powered boats no. I'll leave it
to the wikifiddlers to decide what key/value pair works for that. :)


View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Re-Waterways-Map-was-invisible-tp5941444p5943533.html
Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

More information about the Talk-GB mailing list