Booking system revamp

CNCC

Well-known member
1612914133.jpg


The CNCC?s online booking system has been in use for a couple of years now.

As well as providing a level of access facilitation that the landowners desire, with no problematic restrictions for cavers, the system has proved popular amongst cavers to avoid congestion in popular potholes. Although this was never one of the aims, feedback suggests that this aspect of the system is valued by cavers wanting to avoid delays and tangles on pitches.

The system has now been moved to a dedicated site: https://booking.cncc.org.uk


The former address will forward to this new site so any links/shortcuts should still work, and of course all users can still log in using existing details.

As before, the caves of Casterton Fell (Ease Gill), Leck Fell and Ingleborough Estate (including Gaping Gill, Allotment, Newby Moss, Hurnel Moss) are included in the booking system. Anybody can register for the system and it is extremely quick and easy to use.

The revamp has introduced a cleaner modern look, and several much-needed changes behind the scenes. Our webmaster was keen for the booking system to become a separate website, so that the CNCC website can now be overhauled without affecting the booking system.

Based on feedback, we have introduced one new feature as part of the revamp: Friend links.

You can now link your account to other users, which will enable you to see all bookings made by your linked friends. Simply navigate to the Friend Link section when logged in and enter the email address of the person you wish to link with; they will get an email to allow them to accept your request. You will then be able to see (but not change) eachothers bookings. This function has been requested by clubs and groups who have multiple meets organisers.

You can also use the booking system to opt-in (or out) of our mailing list. We keep subscribers of this list updated with occasional news about conservation, access, anchoring, training opportunities, safety warnings and other related information. You can also sign up to this list here: https://cncc.org.uk/mailing-list

Some interesting booking system statistics, as of 31st December 2020:
  • There were 641 registered users
  • Of those who specified a gender, 96 female and 462 male
  • Of those who specified an age, the youngest was 18 and the oldest 80
  • A total of 1625 bookings have been made since the system launched in November 2018
  • That?s an average of 65 bookings being made per month
We encourage use of the booking system out of respect to the landowners and other cavers. However, please use it responsibly and only book what you need; if everyone books lots of caves ?just in case? the system fails to work optimally for everyone. Use common sense, and please remember to cancel any bookings that are no longer needed.

Looking forward to a return to caving in Spring!
 

langcliffe

Well-known member
Looks very good - well done guys.

CNCC said:
As well as providing a level of access facilitation that the landowners desire, with no problematic restrictions for cavers, the system has proved popular amongst cavers to avoid congestion in popular potholes. Although this was never one of the aims, feedback suggests that this aspect of the system is valued by cavers wanting to avoid delays and tangles on pitches.

I believe it was Alex who suggested some months ago that the system could be extended to include other popular caves where rope congestion can be a problem. There's only room for so many ropes down Aquamole...

Was this suggestion considered, and if so, what was the outcome of the considerations?
 

CNCC

Well-known member
Hi Langcliffe

The primary aim of the CNCC's booking system is to provide a level of access management that the landowners of the major fells desired, while giving significant freedoms of access to cavers. This was needed to eliminate the old permit systems while still maintaining good relations. The primary desire remains entirely open and unrestricted access and we would not currently consider using the booking system where totally open/unrestricted access was available. The booking system is a tool for situations where this isn't possible or where landowner relations require a compromise.

To apply the booking system to caves where currently there are no advanced access requirements would be controversial, and the CNCC would potentially come in for criticism for instigating restrictions/processes where none currently exist (even if just introducing them as an optional tool).

Nonetheless, we know that lots of people like the concept of a booking system purely as an assistant for cavers to manage our own traffic. Being able to see which caves on Kingsdale are theoretically free each day would certainly help with trip planning and avoiding congestion. This is an interesting discussion point and we welcome more thoughts.
 

Badlad

Administrator
Staff member
langcliffe said:
Looks very good - well done guys.

CNCC said:
As well as providing a level of access facilitation that the landowners desire, with no problematic restrictions for cavers, the system has proved popular amongst cavers to avoid congestion in popular potholes. Although this was never one of the aims, feedback suggests that this aspect of the system is valued by cavers wanting to avoid delays and tangles on pitches.

I believe it was Alex who suggested some months ago that the system could be extended to include other popular caves where rope congestion can be a problem. There's only room for so many ropes down Aquamole...

Was this suggestion considered, and if so, what was the outcome of the considerations?

Hi langcliffe
#This has crossed with the previous post - but my thoughts anyway#

We are really reluctant to impose a system of access where one doesn't currently exist.  I think there would need to be some regular evidence of congestion causing problems and then a very clear mandate from cavers across the board for us to add caves or other areas to the list.  Caves in the current booking system have very distinct boundaries being on various well known fells/areas which have had historical access systems.  That is easy for cavers to understand, adding a few popular caves here and there might not actually work so well. 

Hope that helps
Cheers
Tim
CNCC Access
 

langcliffe

Well-known member
CNCC said:
To apply the booking system to caves where currently there are no advanced access requirements would be controversial, and the CNCC would potentially come in for criticism for instigating restrictions/processes where none currently exist (even if just introducing them as an optional tool).

I'm not actually suggesting that booking would be a prerequisite for going down, just that the CNCC extend their system so that people could make use of it. After all, there is a school of thought that says the system is only advisory for those caves in CROW areas...

As CNCC said in their post "Although this was never one of the aims, feedback suggests that this aspect of the system is valued by cavers wanting to avoid delays and tangles on pitches.",  so I don't think cavers would have a problem understanding the concept. Most cavers are quite bright.

Obviously I realise that there would be work involved in setting it up, but if that isn't too onerous I can't see the problem of trialling the system for, say, West Kingsdale.

Anyway, the suggestion lies on the table...

 

Badlad

Administrator
Staff member
You still need a strong consensus and a corresponding high compliance otherwise it doesn't work.  If your group, say, have booked Aquamole and when you get there another group who doesn't recognise or comply with the booking system is already rigging it, then a system aimed purely at preventing congestion doesn't work.  It can then lead to arguments over who has the 'right' to be in the cave. (bold is the important bit for me)

I understand the case you are making and it has value.  It has been discussed before and perhaps we will revisit it more formally at CNCC again in the future.
(y)
 

Alex

Well-known member
Can I just clarify one thing as my name was mentioned, I think I was only suggesting it, in the context of Covid, if I remember correctly. I don't think I was suggesting extending the system for general use outside of Covid times.
(should there ever be such a period).

I can see how such a system could be useful, but I am not that keen on it, outside of Covid.
 

langcliffe

Well-known member
Badlad said:
You still need a strong consensus and a corresponding high compliance otherwise it doesn't work.

Absolutely - I'm certainly not disputing that, although I don't agree that it will lead to contention when it doesn't work. As I said in a previous post, in my experience  cavers are bright enough to appreciate the limitations of such a system, although I appreciate that you may have a different view. The current system isn't perfect, either - I am sure that we all have had the experience of booking a cave on Leck Fell and finding another party down there. But that isn't a reason for not having the current system.

If I fancy Aquamole, and I see that someone else is going it, then I will find elsewhere somewhere else to go. It will reduce the risk of multiple parties, not eliminate it, but that's better than nowt. It would be particularly useful to know that a university is having a newbies trip into a cave. They will want the place to themselves, and other parties wouldn't want to get tangled up with them if they had the option.
 

langcliffe

Well-known member
Alex said:
Can I just clarify one thing as my name was mentioned, I think I was only suggesting it, in the context of Covid, if I remember correctly. I don't think I was suggesting extending the system for general use outside of Covid times.
(should there ever be such a period).

I can see how such a system could be useful, but I am not that keen on it, outside of Covid.

Apologies, Alex. I remembered half a story.

Why aren't you keen on the scheme being extended "outside Covid" given the discussion above?
 

Pitlamp

Well-known member
I suspect the problem may be that, if adding your trip on the system isn't necessary for caves not needing a CNCC booking, many folk simply wouldn't bother. The overall value of such a system would then be diminished.

There's also the issue of clubs engaged in projects which (for any number of reasons) they'd prefer the caving community at large didn't know about.

I can see that Langcliffe's suggestion could certainly have benefits.  But this does need to be balanced against concerns over CNCC maintaining a solely "maximum access" stance and distancing itself from anything which even suggests that going in a particular system could be "letting the side down".
 

Ed

Active member
looks good.

Next job dragging Wharfedale / Stump Cross access into 21st century -- at least start by accepting email.

No wonder most folk ignore and just "pirate" trips (if not locked )

CNCC has no reliable data on the number using these caves
 

Pitlamp

Well-known member
Ed said:
No wonder most folk ignore and just "pirate" trips (if not locked )

Can you give any evidence to support that? In my experience most reputable clubs, at least, don't do what you seem to suggest here.
 

Alex

Well-known member
Next job dragging Wharfedale / Stump Cross access into 21st century -- at least start by accepting email.

Aye, still only been down there once because of this! There's lots of passage to explore, when it's dry so being able to arrange a trip a day or two ahead, rather than months, would make this possible as we all know one of the biggest issue with the advanced permit system is the weather makes it a complete gamble, either that or you book it for several dates, meaning no permit for anyone else. So yes this sort of system would be ideal for those caves too.
 

JoshW

Well-known member
Pitlamp said:
Ed said:
No wonder most folk ignore and just "pirate" trips (if not locked )

Can you give any evidence to support that? In my experience most reputable clubs, at least, don't do what you seem to suggest here.

I can't believe anyone would possibly pirate trips :halo:
 

langcliffe

Well-known member
Pitlamp said:
I suspect the problem may be that, if adding your trip on the system isn't necessary for caves not needing a CNCC booking, many folk simply wouldn't bother. The overall value of such a system would then be diminished.

That would be a good point, except that 'CNCC' seems to be saying that it isn't necessary to use the current booking system, otherwise they wouldn't have said "As well as providing a level of access facilitation that the landowners desire, with no problematic restrictions for cavers, the system has proved popular amongst cavers to avoid congestion in popular potholes. Although this was never one of the aims, feedback suggests that this aspect of the system is valued by cavers wanting to avoid delays and tangles on pitches."

There would be no reason for any congestion if all people were using the booking system, as only one party would be down the cave on any particular day.

My suggestion was simply to extend this "best efforts" scheme to other caves.
 

Beardy

Member
Pitlamp said:
Ed said:
No wonder most folk ignore and just "pirate" trips (if not locked )

Can you give any evidence to support that? In my experience most reputable clubs, at least, don't do what you seem to suggest here.
Hi Pitlamp
For info:-
I rarely cave with a permit in the Dales
And I rarely use the CNCC booking system.
Most of the caves that I visit are on access land and I believe that these should be able to be visited without permission or booking under the CROW legislation
Regards
Beardy
(member of several large Dales based clubs)


Sent from my LLD-L31 using Tapatalk

 

Cavematt

Well-known member
I don't think many people would disagree that cavers have a right to access all these caves under CRoW. However, the CNCC clearly had a decision to make. They could tell the landowners of Leck, Casterton etc that they were not willing to facilitate access in any way despite their requests to do so, thus endorsing unfacilitated access, which of course we as cavers are entitled to under CRoW... but potentially damaging the goodwill generated over the years and future digging prospects. Or they could establish the online booking system which is pretty much as good as open access but maintains goodwill of three estates. The CNCC chose the latter and I'm sure they are very grateful to cavers who support that decision by using the system, but equally supportive and understanding of those who don't for whatever reason. The CNCC are there to support cavers, not landowners, but sometimes a compromise is beneficial to both. Ultimately, this is no longer an arguement of rights/entitlement under CRoW like it was with the old permit system, just one of compromise.
 
Top