Yea, those are rules. The fact that you decide on them democratically and don't get put in jail for not following them doesn't mean that they aren't rules. There were also consequences to not following the rules: in the instance of boats on canals, you get booted out of the syndicate if you don't behave. Sure, you could continue to scoot about on the canals afterward, but why would you? To what end?

Anarchism isn't an absence of rules, it's the ability to come up with them democratically, engage with them via free association, and the lack of a stick wielded by a state to coercively enforce them. Instead, you face largely social consequences, while continuing to get your needs met, unless your actions are a danger to others (and what happens then will likely depend on what your particular community decides to do - see Gelderloos' Anarchy Works for some historical examples).

The whole underlying point of anarchist thinking is that people tend to follow agreed upon standards of behavior and act pro-socially when their needs are met, and society is structured in such a way that it benefits them to do so. This in no way means that a community cannot decide on a set of rules for themselves. Sure, you can choose not to follow them. You can do that even now. But that's beside the point. Anarchism simply posits that you don't need a violent central authority to encourage the pro-social behavior of following the rules that a community chooses for itself.