Guess what question I sometimes ask YM candidates.

[john_morris_uk]

But my argument is that the taxpayer already pays for it via the armed forces which we pay for throughour taxes.

But that isn’t quite how the books are balanced. The military bit pays for the military use and data (much of which isn’t available to you or me). A sizeable (majority?) chunk of UKHO income comes from sales. As I’ve said before, if you want to increase taxation to give us yotties free charts, try and argue that with your MP..,

 

[Buck Turgidson]

Here’s your only clue.
View attachment 151425

Which surveys did you take part in?

 

[dunedin]

But my argument is that the taxpayer already pays for it via the armed forces which we pay for throughour taxes.

What is your basis for that assertion?
The UKHO financial report includes a breakdown of its income - which is over 90% Commercial segment. Defence and Government segments combined are under 10% of income.
Source - https://assets.publishing.service.g...25334/UKHO_AR2021_22-Web_Final-01_11_2022.pdf

 

[john_morris_uk]

What is your basis for that assertion?
The UKHO financial report includes a breakdown of its income - which is over 90% Commercial segment. Defence and Government segments combined are under 10% of income.
Source - https://assets.publishing.service.g...25334/UKHO_AR2021_22-Web_Final-01_11_2022.pdf

Quite! I hadn’t appreciated it was that much. I don’t think people appreciate that the MOD fund survey work that doesn’t enter the public domain. It’s not secret that it happens but the data certainly is highly classified. Suggesting that our taxes are paying for something we ought to have access to (in this context) is silly.
Furthermore a lot of survey work is subcontracted out to civilian survey companies. (I used to go and visit the handful RN surveyors working on their boats.)

 

[john_morris_uk]

Which surveys did you take part in?

Don’t laugh. I actually drove the survey vessel doing some lines over a WW2 wreck we were surveying in the Med. (And yes it’s position remains classified to stop divers helping themselves on a war grave, and no it’s not on the charts.). I said I’d had fun when I was with H for a year or so….

 

[Neeves]

Many of us buy one chart which we use for the lifetime that we sail in that area. If you simply sail locally the cost of the chart is, effectively, zero and thus excellent value for money. Most of us now also have electronic charts that are sold with our GPS/Chart plotter. Again the costs are minimal.

The charts are not free - but as near as dammit - free and excellent value for, little, money.

Some of us stray a bit further and need other charts - but I suspect the yachting public mostly sail locally. When transmitting the NSW coast we rely largely on the charts in the chart plotter but add detailed, paper, charts for locations where we might anchor/and or stay for an extended period. For those locations where we have a long term stay we also use the Oz equivalent of the OS maps, 1" to a mile (or the metric equivalent). One purchase and they are good for at least 20 years, coastlines simply do not change, neither do hills. Look after your charts, or maps, and they will last a lifetime (or as long as you actually need them).

Over 20 years the costs of our paper or electronic mapping is.....Zilch.

We do have blank areas defined on the chart as 'Unsurveyed' and expecting the Hydrographic service to fill in these gaps is unrealistic given the number of charts that might be purchased. On the SW coast of Tasmania, which I suspect is similar to the UK's Scots outer islands, Patagonia, Northern Norway or Labrador we see very few other yachts - we simply do not offer an attractive market opportunity. Expecting a Hydrographic service with a limited resource to answer our leisure needs is a joke.

I do expect the entrance to Sydney Harbour to be a different case, like specific waters round Hong Kong or the Channel (English) etc as the coastline does change (Hong Kong) and buoys are changed and moved - but the constant updating is paid for by the commercial traffic - not us.

The idea that leisure sailors make any meaningful contribution to the direct costs of charts is laughable.

I was involved, 40 years ago, in terrestrial mapping, Swiss Glaciers for a Hydro Company, and the costs are huge. The manpower involved (then - might be cheaper now, maybe electronics have made it easier) the aerial photography and the photogrammetric plotting. The maps are now completely out of date, the glaciers have retreated, but the maps are very relevant as they define exactly how much they have retreated. I suspect the retreat of the ice in Antarctica or Alaska merits attention, cruise ships and global warming being the drivers - not us.

Jonathan

 

[Beneteau381]

Quite! I hadn’t appreciated it was that much. I don’t think people appreciate that the MOD fund survey work that doesn’t enter the public domain. It’s not secret that it happens but the data certainly is highly classified. Suggesting that our taxes are paying for something we ought to have access to (in this context) is silly.
Furthermore a lot of survey work is subcontracted out to civilian survey companies. (I used to go and visit the handful RN surveyors working on their boats.)

I o

Quite! I hadn’t appreciated it was that much. I don’t think people appreciate that the MOD fund survey work that doesn’t enter the public domain. It’s not secret that it happens but the data certainly is highly classified. Suggesting that our taxes are paying for something we ought to have access to (in this context) is silly.
Furthermore a lot of survey work is subcontracted out to civilian survey companies. (I used to go and visit the handful RN surveyors working on their boats.)

Silly I am not, your training as a god botherer makes you adept at arguing.
My point is that the US as part of its charting work, paid for by its tax payers, gives the results free to its tax payers, their argument is that the tax payer has paid for it therefore the tax payer can have the part of it that is relevant to their needs.
I am making the point that we should have the same. Anything else is just froth and you know it. Quite interesting that in one of your posts you dissed their abilities at chart making! As part of your work in the RMs did you do that then?

 

[AngusMcDoon]

My point is that the US as part of its charting work, paid for by its tax payers, gives the results free to its tax payers, their argument is that the tax payer has paid for it therefore the tax payer can have the part of it that is relevant to their needs.

For electronic data, the UKHO sell the information for peanuts. You can get all the charts for the UK in electronic form for OpenCPN from O-charts in oeSENC format for €18.50. For that you are paying for the UKHO fee for the data as well as O-charts' costs of processing, distributing and administering everything to get it to you. Visit My Harbour have a similar deal - all UK charts (825 of them) for £9.99 - about 1p per chart.

The likes of Navionics and C-Map sell the same data at much higher cost because they make a hefty profit on it. As for whether the guvmint should give out the data for free as in the USA - I'd rather pay a tenner for my charts and get my health care paid for than get free chart data but live in a country where some poor people die from diabetes because they can't afford insulin.

 

[tross]

I would say it signifies gullies or ridges that are formed due to the volcanic action?

 

[Never Grumble]

Quite. Some of us learned our nav pre Decca and GPS. Old habits of being sceptical of our position die hard.

I suspect there are quite a few of us on here that learnt pre GPS. Desmond Decca was a horrible bit of kit necessitating changing of chains as you went from one chart to another. The broken lines I thought of as "unreliable" and I am sure when I went out to the West Indies in the 80s we had some of them black and white charts to navigate with .... ?

 

[Skylark]

Here’s your only clue.
View attachment 151425

Given the likely stressful exam scenario, a candidate my legitimately question the wisdom of having a chart seemingly out of date or not showing evidence of having been updated since 2002. Next, if unfamiliar with the pecked contour line, a reasonable candidate response would surely be “not familiar with these symbols, I’ll take a quick look in 5011 to check”

 

[john_morris_uk]

Given the likely stressful exam scenario, a candidate my legitimately question the wisdom of having a chart seemingly out of date or not showing evidence of having been updated since 2002. Next, if unfamiliar with the pecked contour line, a reasonable candidate response would surely be “not familiar with these symbols, I’ll take a quick look in 5011 to check”

Very droll I’m sure. If.a candidate says they’re not sure when I ask them about pecked contour lines and suggests that they look it up in 5011 then that’s perfectly acceptable as far as I’m concerned.

The chart I pictured happens to be the one on my chart table atm. I’ve got the latest updates on my Navionics chip in my MFD (if anyone is going to be Mr Picky about my own Nav!) I wasn’t suggesting it was about to get used in an exam - although if I was blessed with a candidate who was as comprehensive in their answers as you it would start ticking lots of chart knowledge boxes. .

What’s better about the paper chart compared to the MFD or Navionics on my phone is that it’s honest about its sources of data…

 

[Skylark]

Very droll I’m sure. If.a candidate says they’re not sure when I ask them about pecked contour lines and suggests that they look it up in 5011 then that’s perfectly acceptable as far as I’m concerned.

The chart I pictured happens to be the one on my chart table atm. I’ve got the latest updates on my Navionics chip in my MFD (if anyone is going to be Mr Picky about my own Nav!)

What’s better about the paper chart is that it’s honest about its sources of data…

I didn’t mean it as a droll comment, John so I’m sadden by your interpretation. Many posters over the course of time ask question about RYA courses and MCA CoC. I thought it reasonable to point out that “I don’t know so I’ll go and find out” is a reasonable answer to the question posed. The chart, with its 2002 last visible update, also demonstrates two equally valid points about examiners and glass houses but I’ll let you figure that one out for yourself

 

[RunAgroundHard]

It was just a bit of fun from the OP and all of a sudden the OPs beliefs are questioned and the integrity of the RYA and MCA. I exaggerate of course, lighten up guys. Chill!

 

[john_morris_uk]

I didn’t mean it as a droll comment, John so I’m sadden by your interpretation. Many posters over the course of time ask question about RYA courses and MCA CoC. I thought it reasonable to point out that “I don’t know so I’ll go and find out” is a reasonable answer to the question posed. The chart, with its 2002 last visible update, also demonstrates two equally valid points about examiners and glass houses but I’ll let you figure that one out for yourself

The very droll was because I thought you were point scoring against me. Your last comment suggests I was correct in my assumptions.
Which bit of my explanation of the picture of the chart and my personal approach wasn’t clear.
I certainly wasn’t suggesting I would use that chart in an exam. It happened to be on my chart table and the multitude of pecked lines reminded me of questions about data I sometimes ask.I thought people might be interested and it would provoke some discussion.

I’ve explained how I personally navigate with the latest updates electronically alongside paper charts that might be out of date. I suggest your comments about glasshouses is out of order.

And besides which. perhaps you also don’t appreciate I’ve got no control over what charts a candidate in their boat turns up with.

PS You ant be sure that’s not the latest edition and latest up date. Unlikely but without checking NTM and publication dates you can’t be sure.

 

[john_morris_uk]

It was just a bit of fun from the OP and all of a sudden the OPs beliefs are questioned and the integrity of the RYA and MCA. I exaggerate of course, lighten up guys. Chill!

Quite!

 

[Skylark]

The very droll was because I thought you were point scoring against me. Your last comment suggests I was correct in my assumptions.

Wrong but feel free to interpret as you wish. I was simply try to point out to anyone putting themselves forward for an exam that they do not need to have digested every page of 5011. The exam for many is an intimidating experience. For anyone to suggest that I am questioning the integrity of the RYA and MCA is an utterly bizarre interpretation of my posts. The point of my last comment was that we are all human. However, lesson learned.

 

[Beneteau381]

I didn’t mean it as a droll comment, John so I’m sadden by your interpretation. Many posters over the course of time ask question about RYA courses and MCA CoC. I thought it reasonable to point out that “I don’t know so I’ll go and find out” is a reasonable answer to the question posed. The chart, with its 2002 last visible update, also demonstrates two equally valid points about examiners and glass houses but I’ll let you figure that one out for yourself

I remember years ago, I knew an amateur referee, he used to delight in highlighting little known parts of the rules to demonstrate how much he knew. I think that the OP post demonstrates a certain mindset. As you quite rightly say, the candidate is under intense pressure and to throw curveballs like this is not very nice IMHO.

 

[john_morris_uk]

I remember years ago, I knew an amateur referee, he used to delight in highlighting little known parts of the rules to demonstrate how much he knew. I think that the OP post demonstrates a certain mindset. As you quite rightly say, the candidate is under intense pressure and to throw curveballs like this is not very nice IMHO.

We will have to agree to differ. Firstly I don’t expect any candidate to have digested and learned every symbol in 5011. I remember when I was doing rule of the road tests as part of the RN Hydrographic Squadron they always used to throw in a symbol at the end as a little tester to see how well we knew charting symbols. I freely admit that there were often obscure symbols that I couldn’t remember. However as I’ve said before so long as you know where to look them up that’s absolutely fine. Perhaps you’d be amazed at the number of candidates who don’t know where to look things up?

Regarding the difficulty of the question, I think knowing something about data sources and the information on the chart showing you how confident you can be in the data is a pretty basic level of knowledge. Sadly it’s lacking in lots of sailors nowadays as we believe what’s on the screen without question. How many people go aground or hit reefs in distant lands because they’ve grown up sailing where they know or experience the charting to be entirely accurate. They’re then amazed that the reefs aren’t where the chart says it is.
There are very few black and white pass/fail questions or moments in a YM Exam. You always have to remember that there’s no such thing as the perfect candidate and nerves and exam pressure take their toll. You get an overall picture of a candidate and you make a judgement.
Of course if you are really concerned you can approach the RYA and ask their opinion. I’m fairly confident that the powers that be might already be watching this thread with interest.

 

[capnsensible]

I didn’t mean it as a droll comment, John so I’m sadden by your interpretation. Many posters over the course of time ask question about RYA courses and MCA CoC. I thought it reasonable to point out that “I don’t know so I’ll go and find out” is a reasonable answer to the question posed. The chart, with its 2002 last visible update, also demonstrates two equally valid points about examiners and glass houses but I’ll let you figure that one out for yourself

How do you know that there have been any updates to that particular chart since 2002? Lots of charts are rarely updated.