eNavigation

[lustyd]

Why don't we just tell them to use an appropriate boat? appropriately manned? equipped with appropriate medical supplies? an appropriate anchor? an appropriate liferaft and appropriate personal flotation?

Why not? It’s what we do with traditional navigation.

You’re extremely confused about what I have and have not said here.

 

[benjenbav]

Whilst appreciating that this thread is a million posts into an argument about something else, would anyone kindly enlighten me on a question about the source data for UKHO mapping?

I imagine that it must be electronic in some format and that what appears on paper charts is, in effect, a downloaded rendering of that source data.

That is to say, no longer are hydrographic tests recorded on paper and reprinted direct. They are stored and amended in an electronic database before renderings of same are made available to users.

If so, why should a rendering of that database onto paper be in any way superior to its rendering on a screen?

 

[lustyd]

Careful, you’ll get the raster faction excited.

 

[ylop]

Why not?

You really are going to have an anyurism if you try to code your boat. Even just doing the PPR course will have you shouting at the “examiner”!

In the real world the public left to their own devices are idiots and chancers and the coding spec has evolved over decades of “well that’s not appropriate” and “well nobody told us that” to remove that ambiguity.

It’s what we do with traditional navigation.

No the expectation is the charts are supplied/approved by UKHO.

You’re extremely confused about what I have and have not said here.

I’m not. You could just admit you might have overreacted and blamed the wrong people, for a problem that doesn’t really affect you anyway!

 

[ylop]

Whilst appreciating that this thread is a million posts into an argument about something else, would anyone kindly enlighten me on a question about the source data for UKHO mapping?

I imagine that it must be electronic in some format and that what appears on paper charts is, in effect, a downloaded rendering of that source data.

That is to say, no longer are hydrographic tests recorded on paper and reprinted direct. They are stored and amended in an electronic database before renderings of same are made available to users.

Yes. ships are already using HO sourced electronic data almost exclusively.

If so, why should a rendering of that database onto paper be in any way superior to its rendering on a screen?

It’s not. I think the question that the hydrographic offices globally want to be sure of is that what is displayed is what is in the trusted data. So can a manufacturer decide that undersea cables are unnecessary clutter and not show it, or a manufacturer allow crowd sourced sonar data to over rule the official depths, or use symbols or colours which might be confusing etc.

More cynically they may also want to protect their revenue streams as allowing any source of data could undercut them. The UKHO (and others) are quite keen to get rid of paper, like all government and international bodies these things move slowly - but they do have at least another 5 yrs before a true solution is needed. The longer they take the less likely a spec nobody actually meets will get published - as that would not be a solution.

 

[lustyd]

No the expectation is the charts are supplied/approved by UKHO.

And yet all the other stuff is entirely open to interpretation. Tool, it seems don’t require tight specifications

 

[lustyd]

I’m not. You could just admit you might have overreacted and blamed the wrong people, for a problem that doesn’t really affect you anyway!

I didn’t overreact, that’s all in your imagination. Perhaps you should have kept your thoughts to yourself since you didn’t understand the conversation

 

[ylop]

Lusty - in your free for all utopia where the skippers judgement is what matters - do you as a future Charter Skipper want to be in the dock explaining why you thought your choice was appropriate whilst an expert witness says it was not? Would you gamble your life savings and maybe even your liberty on your certainty that the jury would find you more credible than the experts the MCA finds? You can’t even answer my five simple questions (which don’t necessarily have wrong answers) - how can you convince the jury you were competent to assess the system.

And should a skipper who decided to use OpenSeaMap on a laptop feel the same confidence you do that they could defend their decision. Regulations are a pain to comply with, sometimes overkill, but they also offer reassurance to professionals that you are compliant and it will be fine. When there’s no decent official guidance it just creates a market for consultants to sell people advice - often covering their own ads by over specifying stuff.

 

[ylop]

Spoofing is a solved problem in GNSS with certificate signing entirely preventing spoofing. This is not currently available to civilians but if spoofing were to become an issue it could be rolled out in minutes.

sounds like you think there should be a standard where any navigation system has to support receiving certificate signing? So it can be turned on if needed?

 

[IanCC]

And the one option nobody on a comittee is considering is just letting people use whatever is appropriate. The very idea that we must have a standard and must thrust it upon commercial vessels is borne of comittee thinking. The vast majority of small commercial boats have no requirement for any navigation equipment on board at all, never leave familiar waters, never go to new places, never go out in adverse conditions.

Follow the money.
It isn't ever going to happen.
It would destroy the model of the owners of the data. Legalise leisure products at affordable cost and watch the commercial market slowly evaporate. It will need some sort of major market disrupter to produce change.

 

[lustyd]

sounds like you think there should be a standard where any navigation system has to support receiving certificate signing? So it can be turned on if needed?

Actually this is the part you seem so entirely unable to comprehend. This is a firmware update. If your beloved regs were overly prescriptive it turns into a multi-year nightmare update process before that very simple firmware can be released.

 

[ylop]

I didn’t overreact, that’s all in your imagination. Perhaps you should have kept your thoughts to yourself since you didn’t understand the conversation

So you still stick by your claims on page 1:

we need them to stop holding everyone back.

I wonder which organisation has been holding it back? Oh yes. RYA.

Granddad at the RYA is telling us we should care about this electromagomical stuff,

But the most bizarre thing is you made this claim:

it’s embarrassing and they need to get some fresh blood on this stuff.

But scoff at the suggestion you should even talk to the RYA or go to the RIN meeting!

Telling people to keep their thoughts to themselves is a strange thing to do in a discussion thread you started where you warn of dictatorships through regulation. Perhaps you need to ask yourself WHY you started the thread and what YOU were hoping to get out of it? Were we all just supposed to say “you are absolutely right”, “you are a genius lusty” and “if you want to run for RYA president and overthrow the system we are right behind you”?

 

[ylop]

Actually this is the part you seem so entirely unable to comprehend. This is a firmware update. If your beloved regs were overly prescriptive it turns into a multi-year nightmare update process before that very simple firmware can be released.

My so called beloved regs don’t exist. We have no idea if the existing products can or cannot support their requirements. Not where any gaps are. But it is very likely that some GPS systems happily doing their job today can’t support certificate signing, even with firmware updates. Are you suggesting that part of being a competent professional skipper is knowing the inner workings of your GPS chip to determine if it can support signature signing? I think most skippers would rather the MCA/UKHO/IMO just give them a list of approved devices!

 

[dunedin]

Whilst appreciating that this thread is a million posts into an argument about something else, would anyone kindly enlighten me on a question about the source data for UKHO mapping?

I imagine that it must be electronic in some format and that what appears on paper charts is, in effect, a downloaded rendering of that source data.

That is to say, no longer are hydrographic tests recorded on paper and reprinted direct. They are stored and amended in an electronic database before renderings of same are made available to users.

If so, why should a rendering of that database onto paper be in any way superior to its rendering on a screen?

UKHO official data - and all other hydrographic offices data - is held in a vector format. Currently held in S57 standard format but in the process of moving to the S100 series of standards which allows more enriched data (mostly not about the charts themselves but other aspects).
Paper charts are derived from these vector master sources, but generally currently requires manual intervention to determine how best to represent some details - and hence very expensive to produce (perhaps AI will be used to maintain the option of paper charts for a bit longer). Hence paper charts are often less up to date than ENCs.
The UKHO doesn’t as far as I know actually print any paper charts - these are done via Print on Demand by Admiralty Chart Agents.

Electronic Navigation Charts (ENC) are the official vector charts required to be used on large commercial ships on their highly regulated ECDIS systems. These are very expensive compared to leisure charts - make that EXTREMELY costly compared to current leisure charts if need a wide of coverage, like a current Navionics card.
The MCA (not RYA) have in MGN 319 decreed that small coded vessels (including charter yachts and training yachts) can ONLY use paper charts or their SVECS system with the expensive ENCs. Personally I think that is a mistake, and I don’t know if the MCA understood the scale of cost differential when imposing that rule.

Also, whilst official ENCs are great for waters used by large ships, they often lack essential data needed by leisure craft in inshore waters - eg layouts of yacht marinas etc. Plus they can be very slow to update in places like river entrances with shifting sand or shingle bars.
Official UKHO charts are good - but NOT always the most up to date or accurate compared to some commercial leisure charts. Many of us on here have hit rocks not shown on official UKHO charts.

Hope that helps your understanding.

 

[lustyd]

We have no idea if the existing products can or cannot support their requirements. Not where any gaps are.

You might not, but the extremely large number of boats using them, including most small commercial vessels do have an idea and are very happy.

 

[ylop]

You might not, but the extremely large number of boats using them, including most small commercial vessels do have an idea and are very happy.

You are misreading again. NOBODY knows if the existing products meet a future standard because the future standard doesn’t exist yet. This is the ridiculousness of your argument you don’t want a standard without even knowing what the standard would say. It could quite reasonably define criteria the existing commercial plotters from the big names already meet and say if you have this plus any other marine navigation system powered from a separate battery then you are all good. At the same time, possibly quite reasonably, preventing some startup company with no track record and no QA processes from sticking OpenSeaMap data and some crowd sourced depth into a plotter and commercial skippers adopting for navigation because it’s cheap.

 

[lustyd]

WOW. You're literally building your argument from nothing for no purpose at all. You're utterly obsessed with standards and ignoring every time I explain that the specifics of the navigation system don't need to be defined, you're literally imagining a need that's not there. I don't know how much more plainly I can say this. We don't have a standard for rulers, breton plotters, compasses or pencils and we don't need one for electronic plotters. The only outcome of strictly defining such a standard will be slower development and obstruction when change is necessary. See my firmware comment above that you slithered around with yet more pointless waffle.
I'll say it again, almost all commercial boats too small for ECDIS are currently using existing plotters exclusively for navigation, ergo they are fit for purpose. You have a problem with that statement, but I assure you it's your problem.

 

[lustyd]

But it is very likely that some GPS systems happily doing their job today can’t support certificate signing, even with firmware updates. Are you suggesting that part of being a competent professional skipper is knowing the inner workings of your GPS chip to determine if it can support signature signing?

Explain how this is different to the standard changing and making a system obsolete, aside from the two year delay? Everything ages and stops being fit for purpose, normal humans can work this out just fine.

 

[benjenbav]

Careful, you’ll get the raster faction excited.

Bob Marley lives!

 

[benjenbav]

Yes. ships are already using HO sourced electronic data almost exclusively.

It’s not. I think the question that the hydrographic offices globally want to be sure of is that what is displayed is what is in the trusted data. So can a manufacturer decide that undersea cables are unnecessary clutter and not show it, or a manufacturer allow crowd sourced sonar data to over rule the official depths, or use symbols or colours which might be confusing etc.

More cynically they may also want to protect their revenue streams as allowing any source of data could undercut them. The UKHO (and others) are quite keen to get rid of paper, like all government and international bodies these things move slowly - but they do have at least another 5 yrs before a true solution is needed. The longer they take the less likely a spec nobody actually meets will get published - as that would not be a solution.

Thanks. I’m interested in the questioned I asked both for its own sake and also a parallel with a separate interest in the law as it relates to real property.

In the latter arena, most land titles in England and Wales stem from the electronic register maintained by HM Land Registry.

This register, though, is made up from paper sources that have been converted, sometimes well but not universally so.

If issues arise it’s sometimes possible to correct the register by adducing evidence to the contrary.

In that type of case it’s quite interesting to look at how the legislation deals with it; which is where the parallels with maritime (electronic) charting and possible future solutions appear.

For a start, all Land Registry plans are marked to state that boundaries are general and susceptible to change subject to relevant evidence being produced.

Secondly, many errors in the register convert to a financial compensation claim rather than a restitutory claim.

Would legislation to similar effect work in the maritime environment?

Obviously, there’s a difference between losing your house to fraud and being shipwrecked on rocks that didn’t exist on a chart.

But, there has to be - and always has been - an acceptance that charts of whatever nature may not be complete in every respect and so, potentially, the only solution is a compensation regime.