Reed's Almanac & Ireland

[lpdsn]

I was a bit critical of Reed's in a thread a couple of week's back, saying I thought there were errors in most ports down the E coast of Ireland, as a result of which I got a bit of criticism from another forumite about not sending in corrections. At the time I felt what was needed was more than the odd tweak, but without the latest almanac in front of me had no info for a sensible reply.

So I've had a bit of a look at the 2018 version. Seriously it gives the distinct impression of being written circa 1950 with a few tweaks since then. The whole balance is off with commonly used harbours as little chartlets and infrequently used places treated as major yachting centres. In particular it doesn't reflect the impact of the changes of the last two or three decades.

So starting from Rathlin southwards are a few comments. Rathlin, Ballycastle & Glenarm are still treated as the minor small harbours they were in teh 1950s, albeit with a sop of little chartlets.

Rathlin. The chartlet is several years out of date. Tide and weather conspired against my visiting in 2017, but the extra pontoons were already there, as reported in Welcome Anchorages 2016. I guess Reed's don't cross check WA for discrepancies. I doubt the quoted depths. I remember having a fairly consistent 0.1 to 0.2 under my 2.1m keel when leaving at LW-1 a couple of years back. Local tidal heights are irregular, but I doubt that irregular. And it appeared freshly dredged.

I'd also warn against turning for the pontoons immediately after coming through the outer breakwater as you can run aground.

Glenarm. This is now the main passage port up the coast so really deserves a section on its own. It would be good of Reed's to give a bit more info on avoiding the fish farm as it could be quite a trap for the ill prepared. I'd also warn of fearsome gusts in many conditions when heading south along the coast. It can easily take you by surprise.

Larne. Good that they have a full entry and detailed plan, but despite being the ferry port it's not really the yachting centre along this coast.

Other than that they do appear to like yachts to report using the main channel and tend to challenge on approaching without making contact. VHF channels in the Almanac are wrong. 11 is the main one. http://www.portoflarne.co.uk/marine/

Carrickfergus Nothing to report. Don't know why it isn't worth an entry of it's own these days.

Bangor. Ditto about it being treated as minor entry within Belfast Lough. Again, perfactly valid in 1950 when there would just have been a few moorings, but it's been the largest marina in NI for a while now.

Also traffic signals should be mentioned. Not used that frequently but you don't want to ignore them and try nipping through the fish harbour when a minesweeper or very large trawler is manouvering.

Belfast Deserves more than two lines. OK it is not a huge marina, but if the Almanac is any use it should outline the rules for transiting the busy harbour and provide a plan. The VTS will talk to you in terms of the wharves and quays when discussing shipping movements so a handy plan is very valuable.

Strangford. Entrance OK. I would emphasise the need for early planning to pass the tidal turbine safely. Far bigger hazard than the ferry, otherwise seems fine.

Bit of a disservice to yachtsmen to take a Dragons Be Here approach to the rest of the Lough.

Ardglass. Well used passage marina so a bigger and better plan would be helpful. The one doesn't really show enough to prepare a first time visitor for what he'll find when he arrives at the marina. I'd once in there isn't the space for indecision or nipping to the chart table to double check.

I've never found the sector light hard to pick up against the shore lights. Just a row of cottages behind it I would warn though that the N edge of the white sector does put you very close to some vicious rocks, especially at LW.

Anyway, I'll stop before I get on to Carlingford Lough.

My thinking was to post this and see what others think then try to draw Reed's attention to it. I have to admit I'm in two minds about crowdsourcing data for a book that is sold at £44 each year, but never mind.

And of course nothing in this post implies that the Solent section isn't completely up to date.

 

[alant]

I was a bit critical of Reed's in a thread a couple of week's back, saying I thought there were errors in most ports down the E coast of Ireland, as a result of which I got a bit of criticism from another forumite about not sending in corrections. At the time I felt what was needed was more than the odd tweak, but without the latest almanac in front of me had no info for a sensible reply.

So I've had a bit of a look at the 2018 version. Seriously it gives the distinct impression of being written circa 1950 with a few tweaks since then. The whole balance is off with commonly used harbours as little chartlets and infrequently used places treated as major yachting centres. In particular it doesn't reflect the impact of the changes of the last two or three decades.

So starting from Rathlin southwards are a few comments. Rathlin, Ballycastle & Glenarm are still treated as the minor small harbours they were in teh 1950s, albeit with a sop of little chartlets.

Rathlin. The chartlet is several years out of date. Tide and weather conspired against my visiting in 2017, but the extra pontoons were already there, as reported in Welcome Anchorages 2016. I guess Reed's don't cross check WA for discrepancies. I doubt the quoted depths. I remember having a fairly consistent 0.1 to 0.2 under my 2.1m keel when leaving at LW-1 a couple of years back. Local tidal heights are irregular, but I doubt that irregular. And it appeared freshly dredged.

I'd also warn against turning for the pontoons immediately after coming through the outer breakwater as you can run aground.

Glenarm. This is now the main passage port up the coast so really deserves a section on its own. It would be good of Reed's to give a bit more info on avoiding the fish farm as it could be quite a trap for the ill prepared. I'd also warn of fearsome gusts in many conditions when heading south along the coast. It can easily take you by surprise.

Larne. Good that they have a full entry and detailed plan, but despite being the ferry port it's not really the yachting centre along this coast.

Other than that they do appear to like yachts to report using the main channel and tend to challenge on approaching without making contact. VHF channels in the Almanac are wrong. 11 is the main one. http://www.portoflarne.co.uk/marine/

Carrickfergus Nothing to report. Don't know why it isn't worth an entry of it's own these days.

Bangor. Ditto about it being treated as minor entry within Belfast Lough. Again, perfactly valid in 1950 when there would just have been a few moorings, but it's been the largest marina in NI for a while now.

Also traffic signals should be mentioned. Not used that frequently but you don't want to ignore them and try nipping through the fish harbour when a minesweeper or very large trawler is manouvering.

Belfast Deserves more than two lines. OK it is not a huge marina, but if the Almanac is any use it should outline the rules for transiting the busy harbour and provide a plan. The VTS will talk to you in terms of the wharves and quays when discussing shipping movements so a handy plan is very valuable.

Strangford. Entrance OK. I would emphasise the need for early planning to pass the tidal turbine safely. Far bigger hazard than the ferry, otherwise seems fine.

Bit of a disservice to yachtsmen to take a Dragons Be Here approach to the rest of the Lough.

Ardglass. Well used passage marina so a bigger and better plan would be helpful. The one doesn't really show enough to prepare a first time visitor for what he'll find when he arrives at the marina. I'd once in there isn't the space for indecision or nipping to the chart table to double check.

I've never found the sector light hard to pick up against the shore lights. Just a row of cottages behind it I would warn though that the N edge of the white sector does put you very close to some vicious rocks, especially at LW.

Anyway, I'll stop before I get on to Carlingford Lough.

My thinking was to post this and see what others think then try to draw Reed's attention to it. I have to admit I'm in two minds about crowdsourcing data for a book that is sold at £44 each year, but never mind.

And of course nothing in this post implies that the Solent section isn't completely up to date.

Don't they rely upon contributions from locals?

 

[lpdsn]

Don't they rely upon contributions from locals?

Your perhaps even more cynical than me. As they seem not to be interested in checking port and marina websites or rival publications relying on locals may be their only source. It's a common way of doing things on the web. Hardly the way to get an authorative reference though. Perhaps they should just give up and hand it all over to Wikipedia.

 

[Jonas]

I have an interest to declare, in that I am a Reeds local representative albeit Scotland rather than Ireland. I have an area that covers a couple of pages of the almanac, and once a year I am asked to submit any amendments for my area as well as any comments on entries for places that I have visited outwith my area. In return I get an almanac.
I would say that my predecessors were about the most knowledgeable local sailors that I know, and have great respect for their experience. I was suggested by my immediate predecessor, a very experienced chap, so flatter myself that he believed I was up to the job. I take the responsibility seriously and always take time to check my area thoroughly and put in any amendments. My copy for the 2019 almanac is already entered, so there is a significant time delay involved. Sometimes it has taken a while for things to change which can be a bit frustrating.
As a result I always have an up to date almanac on board, I suspect like others I also have a selection of other publications to cross reference before making my mind up - for example in Ireland I use the ICC sailing guides (but my copies are a bit old now!). I know the East coast of Ireland quite well, so perhaps don't pay as much attention to the local entries as I'm just re-visiting places so only any recent changes would be of interest.
The almanac is a very wide ranging and complicated document so there are bound to be areas where things aren't 100%, plus knowing how my area works I can see that it could take a year or two before things are updated. Along with other publications on board I refer to it often, particularly for information on tides, passages and holding ground in unfamiliar waters.
I'm not an employee nor an apologist, but from my point of view it's a bit more involved than Wikipedia! I suspect more attention is paid to more frequented areas, as well as there being a greater density of representatives available.

 

[Angele]

My thinking was to post this and see what others think then try to draw Reed's attention to it. I have to admit I'm in two minds about crowdsourcing data for a book that is sold at £44 each year, but never mind.

I think the cost of Reeds would be rather higher if they had to employ staff to go around every port entry to provide the updates. Instead, the business model is one of local reps (like Jonas) and corrections submitted by the (seafaring) public. Fair enough in my opinion.

I have submitted a couple of corrections (Normandy west coast) where I felt their descriptions were misleading, and my suggestions made it into the almanac (on the second attempt - they lost the first email).

I think you should do the same if you feel it would improve the end product.

 

[Leopold Bloom]

I sent them updates for Cork but they have ignored them and the almanac still contains errors.

 

[macd]

I sent them updates for Cork but they have ignored them and the almanac still contains errors.

Does that take into account the almanac's lead times, which are considerable (as per Jonas' post)?

 

[[70521]]

I was a bit critical of Reed's in a thread a couple of week's back, saying I thought there were errors in most ports down the E coast of Ireland, as a result of which I got a bit of criticism from another forumite about not sending in corrections. At the time I felt what was needed was more than the odd tweak, but without the latest almanac in front of me had no info for a sensible reply.

So I've had a bit of a look at the 2018 version. Seriously it gives the distinct impression of being written circa 1950 with a few tweaks since then. The whole balance is off with commonly used harbours as little chartlets and infrequently used places treated as major yachting centres. In particular it doesn't reflect the impact of the changes of the last two or three decades.

So starting from Rathlin southwards are a few comments. Rathlin, Ballycastle & Glenarm are still treated as the minor small harbours they were in teh 1950s, albeit with a sop of little chartlets.

Rathlin. The chartlet is several years out of date. Tide and weather conspired against my visiting in 2017, but the extra pontoons were already there, as reported in Welcome Anchorages 2016. I guess Reed's don't cross check WA for discrepancies. I doubt the quoted depths. I remember having a fairly consistent 0.1 to 0.2 under my 2.1m keel when leaving at LW-1 a couple of years back. Local tidal heights are irregular, but I doubt that irregular. And it appeared freshly dredged.

I'd also warn against turning for the pontoons immediately after coming through the outer breakwater as you can run aground.

Glenarm. This is now the main passage port up the coast so really deserves a section on its own. It would be good of Reed's to give a bit more info on avoiding the fish farm as it could be quite a trap for the ill prepared. I'd also warn of fearsome gusts in many conditions when heading south along the coast. It can easily take you by surprise.

Larne. Good that they have a full entry and detailed plan, but despite being the ferry port it's not really the yachting centre along this coast.

Other than that they do appear to like yachts to report using the main channel and tend to challenge on approaching without making contact. VHF channels in the Almanac are wrong. 11 is the main one. http://www.portoflarne.co.uk/marine/

Carrickfergus Nothing to report. Don't know why it isn't worth an entry of it's own these days.

Bangor. Ditto about it being treated as minor entry within Belfast Lough. Again, perfactly valid in 1950 when there would just have been a few moorings, but it's been the largest marina in NI for a while now.

Also traffic signals should be mentioned. Not used that frequently but you don't want to ignore them and try nipping through the fish harbour when a minesweeper or very large trawler is manouvering.

Belfast Deserves more than two lines. OK it is not a huge marina, but if the Almanac is any use it should outline the rules for transiting the busy harbour and provide a plan. The VTS will talk to you in terms of the wharves and quays when discussing shipping movements so a handy plan is very valuable.

Strangford. Entrance OK. I would emphasise the need for early planning to pass the tidal turbine safely. Far bigger hazard than the ferry, otherwise seems fine.

Bit of a disservice to yachtsmen to take a Dragons Be Here approach to the rest of the Lough.

Ardglass. Well used passage marina so a bigger and better plan would be helpful. The one doesn't really show enough to prepare a first time visitor for what he'll find when he arrives at the marina. I'd once in there isn't the space for indecision or nipping to the chart table to double check.

I've never found the sector light hard to pick up against the shore lights. Just a row of cottages behind it I would warn though that the N edge of the white sector does put you very close to some vicious rocks, especially at LW.

Anyway, I'll stop before I get on to Carlingford Lough.

My thinking was to post this and see what others think then try to draw Reed's attention to it. I have to admit I'm in two minds about crowdsourcing data for a book that is sold at £44 each year, but never mind.

And of course nothing in this post implies that the Solent section isn't completely up to date.

You have informed the authors?

 

[lpdsn]

I have an interest to declare, in that I am a Reeds local representative albeit Scotland rather than Ireland. I have an area that covers a couple of pages of the almanac, and once a year I am asked to submit any amendments for my area as well as any comments on entries for places that I have visited outwith my area. In return I get an almanac.
...
I'm not an employee nor an apologist, but from my point of view it's a bit more involved than Wikipedia! I suspect more attention is paid to more frequented areas, as well as there being a greater density of representatives available.

That's interesting. I noticed that they advertise for local reps with the reward being a free almanac. The only vacancy in the British Isles for 2018 seems to be the Thames Estuary. You'd think that system would help, but it wasn't clear to me what the density was.

If they have one poor guy covering from Galway to Howth I can well understand him being unable to cover everywhere. You say you cover a couple of pages, so hopefully coverage would be more dense than that. I find it hard to believe that that's the main model for data gathering in this day and age. I'd've presumed that the editors would phone up each HM/Port/marina at least annually and would compare their entries to each place's website and check for discrepancies. And whilst plagerising a freebie publication like Welcome Anchorages is obviously a no no, having a quick peek to see if they got the same answer doesn't seem unreasonable.

After all they do say in the disclaimer that they've taken every care in compiling the almanac, so I'd guess that is more than just giving out a few free copies to locals and then sitting back and waiting for errors to be reported.

 

[Quandary]

You have informed the authors?

Did you read all of the OPs post that you copied to your post no.8?
Aaah, thought not

I last used Reeds in the early seventies for cruising in the area the OP describes, it seemed no more relevant then.

 

[[70521]]

Did you read all of the OPs post that you copied to your post no.8?
Aaah, thought not

I last used Reeds in the early seventies for cruising in the area the OP describes, it seemed no more relevant then.

Of course I did hence my questioning comment. I have a questioning mind and don't see any use in posting comments here about a publication who, in my 2013 version (section 0.3), actively encourage readers to notify them of any improvements and corrections.

Yes, I know it is five years out of date and I am not planning to update mine for another few years and do wish they would improve the quality of the ring binders they provide.

 

[dunedin]

I don’t get the concept of Reeds. Seems a bit like a jack of all trades with associated consequences.

If I want details of harbours and pilotage I buy one of the excellent pilot books for the area in question - and have one for East Coast of Ireland that I use when visiting.
When I want details of tides I consult Absolute Tides App for UK waters, or a web site if I prefer a monthly view in advance.

 

[Jonas]

To me the beauty of the almanac is havng so much information in one place. Apart from the areas there is loads of interesting and useful stuff in the early chapters.
I don't always know where I'll end up, but there's always something in there for somewhere nearby. For example may have to divert from Ireland to say Islay and not have the relevant pilot book with me.
Absolutely no point up here expecting to be able to access the internet to get tidal predictions; OK you could download them in advance but again end up somewhere else without the information. The almanac gives all the proper tidal curves for standard ports as well as corrections for others.
Seems like a good thing to me, I'd rather have an almanac than a fancy mobile telephone.

 

[lpdsn]

Of course I did hence my questioning comment. I have a questioning mind and don't see any use in posting comments here about a publication who, in my 2013 version (section 0.3), actively encourage readers to notify them of any improvements and corrections.

Yes, I know it is five years out of date and I am not planning to update mine for another few years and do wish they would improve the quality of the ring binders they provide.

Don't worry about the section along the Antrim & Down coast being 5 years out of date in your 2013 Almanac, almost all the items I've listed are older than that.

I can't help thinking that the more important points arising from this thread are going over the top of your head. If I can go through the Almanac for part of the UK coast and point out errors in almost every entry, what is the rest of it worth? What about the less frequently visited part of the contnental coast? Are the German & Danish parts, or the coast beyond Brest, worth the paper they're written on? Is there a systematic failing in the way data is gathered?

Back to this part of the NI coast. I really think it needs a re-write to bring it into the late 20th century not a few minor corrections.

After all that, yes there are a few corrections I could send in that they might not ignore or lose. That would still leave me wondering just how reliable the rest of the data in there is. Do other people have long lists of issues with their local waters? Or is the rest of it as reliable as Solent waters?

 

[Angele]

Do other people have long lists of issues with their local waters? Or is the rest of it as reliable as Solent waters?

To be honest, I don't have clear view on that. I don't tend to reread the Reeds entry on a particular port after I have entered it for the first time. That said, I am aware of a number of places I know where there have been changes made to the Almanac - most often spotted by me when applying the monthly updates. Things like the update to say that visitor moorings on Sark are now free. That update came along pretty soon after the change happened, IIRC.

 

[[70521]]

After all that, yes there are a few corrections I could send in that they might not ignore or lose. That would still leave me wondering just how reliable the rest of the data in there is. Do other people have long lists of issues with their local waters? Or is the rest of it as reliable as Solent waters?

To be honest I use Reeds like any other reference book these days - it is a source that at some point in time was correct, a bit like looking at a chart and noting that it was last surveyed by Capt J Cook in 1763. (It is the anniversary of his and my late father's death today).

I suspect that 80% of the material is current and use it as the base material for my own personal "almamac" that holds all sorts of notes about places I've visited and is usually at least three years out of date.

There have been a number of websites, Three Point Fix comes to mind, that have attempted to crowd source data, but sadly lack user input.

 

[Lucky Duck]

Three Point Fix comes to mind

Is that still a 'thing'?

 

[[70521]]

Is that still a 'thing'?

True and I use it every time I am on the water, but no longer a really useful web site about harbours and anchorages. VisitMyHarbour has some useful posts about harbours that are helpful.

 

[lpdsn]

True and I use it every time I am on the water, but no longer a really useful web site about harbours and anchorages. VisitMyHarbour has some useful posts about harbours that are helpful.

It's a shame, but no one on-line site ever got sufficient dominance to be the 'go to' site. I put a fair bit of data into threepointfix, but the originator lost interest (got a job) and it started to fade away.

 

[lpdsn]

To be honest I use Reeds like any other reference book these days - it is a source that at some point in time was correct, ...

OK, I've a few out of date reference books myself that are still handy, but I don't buy them again every year and nobody tels me I need them to sail safely. Maybe Reed's claim to be The Yachtsman's Bible has some substance if parts of it were written at the same time as the real Bible.

I suspect I may just stop buying it. It's a lot of money to get tide times more than a month in advance.