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. :) cheers Richard -- 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. _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
