Navionics and the phantom island or: Skippers beware !

[EugeneR]

Maybe put there deliberately to prove copyright infringement if someone somehow copies the charts?

I mean, better show an island where none exists, than show none where one exists....

 

[jwilson]

Maybe put there deliberately to prove copyright infringement if someone somehow copies the charts?

I mean, better show an island where none exists, than show none where one exists....

This could be true, and the coast of Israel is very little visited by leisure sailors, so a logical place to put a "canary trap".

 

[SailorBill]

This could be true, and the coast of Israel is very little visited by leisure sailors, so a logical place to put a "canary trap".

Surely the Canary Islands would have been the logical place.

 

[Birdseye]

It's another legal argument you have to win (= higher litigation costs) in the event of you trying to sue them. The more defensive arguments they have the less likely anyone will try to sue them.

/cynic


Is it right that they sell a product they try to absolve themselves of liability for? No, of course not. But they do it anyway. And we foolishly buy their products anyway.

/moral compass

Thats all a bit pious isnt it? If selling a product for £40 or so exposes you to serious risk of being sued for £ millions ( loss of life, permanent brain damage etc) then you simply dont sell the product. Not viable.

And the reality of navigational life is that charts are wrong to varying degrees. Admittedly not usually like this case but for decades the UK charts in some areas were out by hundreds of meters. In some parts of the world they are out by half a mile or more even now. There are so far undetected rocks and shallows. Not to mention shifting sand banks.

Much of the areas we sail in have not been surveyed in any detail at all and when they were it was in the days of lead lines and sextants. Whats more they wont be surveyed since the areas where big ships dont go dont matter.

 

[AntarcticPilot]

Thats all a bit pious isnt it? If selling a product for £40 or so exposes you to serious risk of being sued for £ millions ( loss of life, permanent brain damage etc) then you simply dont sell the product. Not viable.

And the reality of navigational life is that charts are wrong to varying degrees. Admittedly not usually like this case but for decades the UK charts in some areas were out by hundreds of meters. In some parts of the world they are out by half a mile or more even now. There are so far undetected rocks and shallows. Not to mention shifting sand banks.

Much of the areas we sail in have not been surveyed in any detail at all and when they were it was in the days of lead lines and sextants. Whats more they wont be surveyed since the areas where big ships dont go dont matter.

Unless you have immunity from legal proceedings as official government publications can (Crown Immunity), ANY map should carry a suitable disclaimer. As Birdseye states, ALL maps have errors - it is merely the size of the error that is in doubt. In the best case the error will be below the useful resolution of the product; in the worst it can be hundreds of metres - or even kilometres!

Disclaimers are a tricky business, though, and I very much doubt that a disclaimer stating "not for navigation" on a navigational device would cut the mustard and would be likely to be discounted by a court. When I was responsible for such things, I made a statement of the potential sources of error in the product and said that the product should be used taking into account these sources of error. In one case, where this was not feasible, people only got the data if I sent them a lengthy letter saying what the product was good for; the product was one intended for internal use, but as it was useful, other agencies asked us for it.

 

[Ido]

A friend updated me that there was a similar problem in navionics map of north Cyprus: A planned marina was shown as existing marina. After a year Navionics corrected this matter.