Many dangerous errors in new Navionics cartography

[prv]

It does NOT reassure you?
They have acknowledged their mistake, they have corrected their mistake (whether by survey vessel or reference to everyone elses' charts),

I think at least part of the worry is that it might have been "corrected" by reference to a random email from someone on the Internet.

They are a company that trades on charts. For goodness sake, do you REALLY think that they would change a chart on the basis of an email without sophisticated checking procedures.

If they had a sophisticated checking procedure, they wouldn't have invented two completely non-existent deep-water channels across the St Vaast oyster beds, would they? Ergo, they do not have a sophisticated checking procedure and no, I don't trust them not to change a chart based on scanty and unverified information. They have form.

Pete

 

[Vega1447]

I think at least part of the worry is that it might have been "corrected" by reference to a random email from someone on the Internet.



If they had a sophisticated checking procedure, they wouldn't have invented two completely non-existent deep-water channels across the St Vaast oyster beds, would they? Ergo, they do not have a sophisticated checking procedure and no, I don't trust them not to change a chart based on scanty and unverified information. They have form.

Pete

Navionics *could* have simply used my data without checking (I gave them lat/long for a missing lateral mark) but I I doubt it.
A pal who has Navionics on iPhone tells me that the mark never disappeared from the iPhone version.

So I expect that they checked against their iPhone database at the very least.
The navigation authority could presumably also confirm the location.

I decided not to tell Navionics that the missing mark was visible on Google Earth at max magnification!

It does seem odd that the Android version had an error not present in the iPhone version.

 

[AntarcticPilot]

Sorry, but I disagree on so many levels.

They seem to be very good at importing errors without a proper checking process.
If only it was a single error, then I would also wonder what the fuss was about. But it isn't. There is a worrying trend here.
The RYA doesn't produce charts, let alone decide where the contours go. On the assumption that you probably meant the UKHO then at least they use survey vessels to do the work.
The response from Navionics looked like a pretty standard (possibly computer generated) email.

I could go on....

The speed of the response is worrying, too. It takes TIME to properly integrate changes and do QA; a single change can mean re-checking a large database to ensure there are no "knock-on" effects. In the worst case, it can take months, though most of the things reported here would not take that long. Still, I'd expect even the simplest of changes to take at least a week or two to work through the system.

 

[Roberto]

Sorry, but I disagree on so many levels.

They seem to be very good at importing errors without a proper checking process.
If only it was a single error, then I would also wonder what the fuss was about. But it isn't. There is a worrying trend here.
...

I could go on....

Agree 100% with Angele

if anyone is interested just refer to the French forum thread I linked above (which has several tens of examples of errors from incorrect methodology, simply deriving from the method they use to buld and update their charts.
It's not just a few examples of incorrectly charted features, it's the whole system which is questionable to say the least.

 

[{151760}]

In think it is six monthly but I also seem to recall being prompted for a download at another time.

That sounds good, assuming it works.