Accessing light characteristics info in Navionics charts on plotter

[RunAgroundHard]

I think the "not for navigation" nonsense is a licence term arbitrarily imposed by some IHO's when selling their chart data to leisure chart publishers. No actual relationship to accuracy, usability or safety.
Also AFAIK an ENC (Electronic Navigation Chart) is simply a bunch of chart data in vector format - sold for a much higher price than the same data to leisure craft suppliers (see above). On big commercial ships it is displayed via an ECDIS (Electronic Chart Display & Information System) which will decide what information is displayed.

ENCs and ECDIS meet internationally agreed standards for data, format, quality and operating methods. Leisure digital charts do not have to meet any of that stuff. There are good articles on the UK Hydrographic web site on the standards.

There has been a recent survey sent to RTCs from the RYA on how schools are using current plotter software. The survey is also being sent to other commercial, leisure operators. It looks like there is a beginning of a process to address the matter you raise.

 

[dunedin]

ENCs and ECDIS meet internationally agreed standards for data, format, quality and operating methods. Leisure digital charts do not have to meet any of that stuff. There are good articles on the UK Hydrographic web site on the standards.

There has been a recent survey sent to RTCs from the RYA on how schools are using current plotter software. The survey is also being sent to other commercial, leisure operators. It looks like there is a beginning of a process to address the matter you raise.

Not sure more complex international standards will aid navigation for leisure craft. If you read some of the MAIB accident reports the ECDIS create so many (in some cases hundreds) of warning messages the busy crew often simply suppress / ignore them, thereby missing something key amongst the hundred or so - like your course is about to hit a large lump of Scottish Island (actual example).
And as noted, I believe the "not for navigation" constraint is more commercial/pricing than safety related.

 

[awol]

And as noted, I believe the "not for navigation" constraint is more commercial/pricing than safety related.

I suspect more of an arse saving ploy ... or am I too cynical?

 

[dunedin]

I suspect more of an arse saving ploy ... or am I too cynical?

But it is a bit like selling a washing machine and insisting “not to be used for washing clothes”.
What in heck do the IHOs think the chart data they sell is going to be used for? It only has one possible use.

 

[RunAgroundHard]

Not sure more complex international standards will aid navigation for leisure craft. If you read some of the MAIB accident reports the ECDIS create so many (in some cases hundreds) of warning messages the busy crew often simply suppress / ignore them, thereby missing something key amongst the hundred or so - like your course is about to hit a large lump of Scottish Island (actual example).
And as noted, I believe the "not for navigation" constraint is more commercial/pricing than safety related.

I agree that full ENC / ECDIS standards would not be relevant to leisure sailors, but some base standard is required to ensure functionality and quality is satisfactory for the intent. That currently does not exist for leisure plotters but it could be argued that it is there and just not documented and agreed.

Anyway plotter only navigation is coming our way and is probably unavoidable and very likely an easy software update to whatever a minimum standard is eventually agreed, if at all.

 

[awol]

Anyway plotter only navigation is coming our way and is probably unavoidable and very likely an easy software update to whatever a minimum standard is eventually agreed, if at all.

"Easy software update" - when there is an opportunity to make it incompatible with existing hardware, I should cocoa. New hardware, new firmware, new software, and probably a new bus protocol - makes £30 for NP5012 look like the least of your worries.

 

[RunAgroundHard]

"Easy software update" - when there is an opportunity to make it incompatible with existing hardware, I should cocoa. New hardware, new firmware, new software, and probably a new bus protocol - makes £30 for NP5012 look like the least of your worries.

App based software packages are likely going to take over anyway from plotters. They are low cost. I don’t see it as an issue. Despite my recent purchase of a plotter and integration stuff, I have backup navigation that is App based and superior in many ways to a plotter.

 

[AntarcticPilot]

I agree that full ENC / ECDIS standards would not be relevant to leisure sailors, but some base standard is required to ensure functionality and quality is satisfactory for the intent. That currently does not exist for leisure plotters but it could be argued that it is there and just not documented and agreed.

Anyway plotter only navigation is coming our way and is probably unavoidable and very likely an easy software update to whatever a minimum standard is eventually agreed, if at all.

The full standards include traceability of every feature, so you can see it's history, who charted it and lots more. It's way overkill for our needs, and even for most commercial needs. But it does mean that if you want you can see when a feature was mapped, who mapped it and lots more. Essential data for mapping types like me, and essential when it comes to post mortems after "incidents". I did something similar for Antarctic mapping; the source and date of every feature was recorded. For the knowledgeable user, it's valuable information about the reliability of data - something we don't usually need to think about in well-charted regions, but which gets important in places where the metadata says "Surveyed by Lt Bligh in 17xx" or "Datum: Astro fix at (latitude and longitude) by xxxx in 19yy" The latter was commonplace in Antarctica!

 

[RunAgroundHard]

The full standards include traceability of every feature, so you can see it's history, who charted it and lots more. It's way overkill for our needs, and even for most commercial needs. But it does mean that if you want you can see when a feature was mapped, who mapped it and lots more. Essential data for mapping types like me, and essential when it comes to post mortems after "incidents". I did something similar for Antarctic mapping; the source and date of every feature was recorded. For the knowledgeable user, it's valuable information about the reliability of data - something we don't usually need to think about in well-charted regions, but which gets important in places where the metadata says "Surveyed by Lt Bligh in 17xx" or "Datum: Astro fix at (latitude and longitude) by xxxx in 19yy" The latter was commonplace in Antarctica!

I fully understand that but it’s not the point. What do you think a leisure system should like?

 

[capnsensible]

What's wrong with basic passage planning???

 

[westhinder]

PS. When using Navionics on a plotter it may be the plotter software not Navionics that controls the user interface.

That is a valid point. I will take this up with Raymarine, as I really find it unacceptable that light characteristics do not come up with the first level of info when clicked.

 

[AntarcticPilot]

I fully understand that but it’s not the point. What do you think a leisure system should like?

I think that source data should be available. Not important in the UK, but not everyone sails in well-charted areas. I think it's wrong that it isn't; the source data that people like Navionics use certainly has it, but it is usually stripped out of leisure products.

But the whole debate hinges on the question of using the right tool for the job. Plotters are brilliant for situational awareness, but charts are better for the "big picture". The bottom line is that even the biggest leisure plotter screen is far smaller than a chart, and has less space for additional information. So if you want things like light characteristics for a wide area, you use a chart. But if I want to lay a course for a specific buoy, I use the plotter.

When it comes to charts and plotter, it should be "both", not "either/or". I carry both, and if not in an area I know, the chart is open on the chart table.

 

[RunAgroundHard]

I think that source data should be available. Not important in the UK, but not everyone sails in well-charted areas. I think it's wrong that it isn't; the source data that people like Navionics use certainly has it, but it is usually stripped out of leisure products.

But the whole debate hinges on the question of using the right tool for the job. Plotters are brilliant for situational awareness, but charts are better for the "big picture". The bottom line is that even the biggest leisure plotter screen is far smaller than a chart, and has less space for additional information. So if you want things like light characteristics for a wide area, you use a chart. But if I want to lay a course for a specific buoy, I use the plotter.

When it comes to charts and plotter, it should be "both", not "either/or". I carry both, and if not in an area I know, the chart is open on the chart table.

Many commercial vessels are navigating without paper rather successfully. In Scotland we have Antares charts, superior to any paper version. While paper chart withdrawal from the UK had been delayed, it may likely come in my lifetime. I like the USA option where there are no paper charts but print on demand is still available for those that need it, the UK should retain that option in my view. I agree that many plotter screen sizes are shit, which is why I bought the largest that I could afford. I am convinced that plotters are out of date, they just don’t know it, and that App based navigation software, on large screens, will be the cost effective solution that maintains the advantage of large paper charts, to a degree. Modern yachts and many older yachts have the bulkheads to take large monitors: lots of options, including touch screen, slave or dual displayes. Paper is yesterday’s tech, in my opinion.