Chart Sticker Shock 2018

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Mariano

1* - I know it's Imperial, I just use the term AMERICAN to differentiate from the UK. .

Actually, it's NOT Imperial -- Mariano, you were right without even knowing it. We do NOT use Imperial measures in the U.S. -- we use U.S. Customary Units or USCU which differ from imperial measures in many respects (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compar...rement_systems). The Imperial system was actually a significant overhaul of the former traditional English units which happened in the early 19th century and so after U.S. independence, so our units diverged from that time. Some USCU units have been harmonized with Imperial -- like pounds and yards -- but others have not -- like all liquid measures. Interestingly, the harmonized yard is defined in reference to the meter -- ha, ha.

Nautical miles (and cables) in use today are NEITHER Imperial nor USCS -- they are defined by international agreement.

For us sailors, it doesn't make much difference which system we use. But for industry and science, the simplification, standardization, and rationalization of units has vast advantages, reducing the risk of mistakes in conversion, reducing overhead involved with calculating anything, improving visualization of unit. Non-metric units are simply not used in science, not anywhere -- ask any scientist what he thinks about the metric system. It's fine to wax over the quaint "beauty" of traditional measures, but this beauty is not visible to serious users of measures who have to do complex calculations involving different types of measures. Traditional systems of measures, often using fractions instead of decimals, with a large number of different measures with complex relationships to each other, and varying from one country to another (and formerly even from one county to another), are poorly suited to any kind of high level use of measures. For us, I said, it doesn't make much difference, and I'm happy with feet, fathoms, or meters for depth. But the world certainly needs the metric system, and traditional and national systems of measurement are serious impediments to efficiency and progress. They belong in the agrarian, feudal world they originated in, not in a modern, globalized, and high tech society.

[skipmac]

All this discussion about charts and old data reminds me of something I've run across a couple of times in the past.

I have read that governments are mainly focused on charting routes and harbors critical to commercial vessels, leaving many areas of interest to pleasure boaters poorly or not mapped or at least not updated. To remedy this I have seen mention of a couple of crowd sourcing projects that would take the data from the thousands of boaters that carry chart plotters and use it to update charts.

Seems like a really good idea but haven't seen or heard mention of any of these recently.

Anyone know if there's something like this currently active?

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by skipmac

All this discussion about charts and old data reminds me of something I've run across a couple of times in the past.

I have read that governments are mainly focused on charting routes and harbors critical to commercial vessels, leaving many areas of interest to pleasure boaters poorly or not mapped or at least not updated. To remedy this I have seen mention of a couple of crowd sourcing projects that would take the data from the thousands of boaters that carry chart plotters and use it to update charts.

Seems like a really good idea but haven't seen or heard mention of any of these recently.

Anyone know if there's something like this currently active?

Active Captain is the biggest one out there.

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by boatpoker

Active Captain is the biggest one out there.

I am aware of Active Captain, the nav alerts and other data posted to the online NOAA charts at the Active Captain web site but do they also add depth data generated by boaters' onboard electronics into those charts?

[Jim Cate]

Originally Posted by skipmac

I am aware of Active Captain, the nav alerts and other data posted to the online NOAA charts at the Active Captain web site but do they also add depth data generated by boaters' onboard electronics into those charts?

Not personally a user, but does not Navionics do the crowd source thing for soundings? I seem to recall a recent thread about that system's shortcomings.

Jim

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Not personally a user, but does not Navionics do the crowd source thing for soundings? I seem to recall a recent thread about that system's shortcomings.

Jim

Not using Navionics either so not sure what features they have. I do think there is some kind of input from users but no idea to what level or degree.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by skipmac

All this discussion about charts and old data reminds me of something I've run across a couple of times in the past.

I have read that governments are mainly focused on charting routes and harbors critical to commercial vessels, leaving many areas of interest to pleasure boaters poorly or not mapped or at least not updated. To remedy this I have seen mention of a couple of crowd sourcing projects that would take the data from the thousands of boaters that carry chart plotters and use it to update charts.

Seems like a really good idea but haven't seen or heard mention of any of these recently.

Anyone know if there's something like this currently active?

This is absolutely true!

I learned it the hard way in the Swedish and Finnish archipelagoes where the water is so complicated that no one has gotten around to surveying all the places where pleasure boats can go -- the only reliable depth information is in places where commercial vessels can go. I hit a rock in the precise spot on a chart indicating 30 meters of depth.

Navionics has a system of crowd-sourced depth just like what you suggest, which ought theoretically to help a lot in complex, poorly surveyed waters. From what I've heard, it does not seem to be working well so far, but maybe someone has more extensive knowledge.

Meanwhile what I learned was to be extra careful in areas ships can't go. And in the Baltic archipelagoes, use the marked fairways as much as possible, since all bets are off outside of them. There's a rock right in the middle of Kotka harbour in Finland which all the locals know about, but which is not on any chart, just to name one example. A Volvo Ocean Racing boat had its keel ripped right off of it just outside of Stockholm just a few years ago, on an unmarked rock. I've seen rocks awash in Sweden at the edge of marked fairways, which are not shown on the charts.

[Benz]

Originally Posted by Mariano

1* - I know it's Imperial, I just use the term AMERICAN to differentiate from the UK

2* - Nobody said its ilogical

3* - Better start using your calculator, 1 nautical mile is 6076.4 feet, oops.

4* - I know how to navigate very well, thank you, almost 40 years on the water.

5* - Never stated nothing against you, but I learned to think a long time ago, and I THINK you should learn to read (see point 2*) You are too grumpy, just relax and move on, life is too short to waste it complainig about everything.

Mariano

Fair winds

You said the metric system was LOGIC, thus implying that other systems were not.
If you want to split hairs, the International Nautical mile is 6,076.10333...feet, according to Bowditch, not .4 But for purposes of simple calculations in your head and with a pencil, when piloting or navigating by non-electronic means, to use 6,000 feet even is perfectly convenient and will get you there.
Don't take this personally friend--I am not against you yourself, just against the blind stupidity of the metric system--but I will point out that there are some who have been on the water more than forty years and still couldn't navigate out of a cardboard box.
It's interesting that however much invective they hurl, no one tells the metrophiles to chill and have a liter, but when the sensible rise up in defense of the only system that works across all necessary facets of navigation, they are subjected to severe obloquy.

[El Pinguino]

Who needs guns and anchors when you have this level of entertainment

I have a complete -paper- portfolio ( commercial standard ) covering the Baltic via Suez to SE Australia both north and south of the continent - handy ballast to counter my spare 70 metres of chain in the 'garden shed' - all reasonable offers considered.

I would never consider putting to sea without paper... that said I once went from Albany, WA, to Cape Otway using an A4 wefax map of Oz 'pollfaxed' at an Albany newsagents in 'pre plotter' days but that was due to an oversight at the planning stage....

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Benz

You said the metric system was LOGIC, thus implying that other systems were not.
If you want to split hairs, the International Nautical mile is 6,076.10333...feet, according to Bowditch, not .4 But for purposes of simple calculations in your head and with a pencil, when piloting or navigating by non-electronic means, to use 6,000 feet even is perfectly convenient and will get you there.
Don't take this personally friend--I am not against you yourself, just against the blind stupidity of the metric system--but I will point out that there are some who have been on the water more than forty years and still couldn't navigate out of a cardboard box.
It's interesting that however much invective they hurl, no one tells the metrophiles to chill and have a liter, but when the sensible rise up in defense of the only system that works across all necessary facets of navigation, they are subjected to severe obloquy.

Traditional measures are not necessarily devoid of LOGIC, but they are highly complex, relate to each other in complex ways, and are poorly standardized. They grow out of a different age and different level of technology. I agree with you, however, that they are fine for navigation. The internationally standardized nautical mile is beautiful and logical and relates to the only thing we really care about it relating to -- to degrees of latitude. The Cable is a superbly useful unit of measure, as is the Shot of Chain. If you want to use fathoms and feet from there instead of meters -- I don't see any problem with that. The Foot is at least standardized between the U.K. and her former colonies by special treaty, which also standardized the Pound.

And here we really get to the heart of the question of traditional vs. metric measures -- traditional measures grew up organically around particular ancient activities -- the acre and furlong are related to plowing, the mile to marching, chains and rods for surveying, and so forth. In isolation within those fields -- agriculture, land surveying, military -- the traditional measures remain very well suited. So it's the same for us -- we have our own units of measure which have always been our own and are still just fine for what we do. The fact that the Nautical Mile is 6,076.10333 feet is no problem for us, because we just don't ever need to convert between these units precisely, because of the nature of what we do, but in science or industry that would be simply an unacceptable disaster.

Whenever you use measures at a higher level or in a more complex way, in large scale planning or technology, or in a globalized activity (like trade) which is not limited to a narrow specific discipline (like navigation) you start to need the high degree of standardization, simplification, and rationalization, which greatly reduces the overhead of using measures and greatly improves their use across different disciplines and in different countries. That's the purpose of the metric system.

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

This is absolutely true!

I learned it the hard way in the Swedish and Finnish archipelagoes where the water is so complicated that no one has gotten around to surveying all the places where pleasure boats can go -- the only reliable depth information is in places where commercial vessels can go. I hit a rock in the precise spot on a chart indicating 30 meters of depth.

Navionics has a system of crowd-sourced depth just like what you suggest, which ought theoretically to help a lot in complex, poorly surveyed waters. From what I've heard, it does not seem to be working well so far, but maybe someone has more extensive knowledge.

Meanwhile what I learned was to be extra careful in areas ships can't go. And in the Baltic archipelagoes, use the marked fairways as much as possible, since all bets are off outside of them. There's a rock right in the middle of Kotka harbour in Finland which all the locals know about, but which is not on any chart, just to name one example. A Volvo Ocean Racing boat had its keel ripped right off of it just outside of Stockholm just a few years ago, on an unmarked rock. I've seen rocks awash in Sweden at the edge of marked fairways, which are not shown on the charts.

Yes I recall your close encounter with an unmarked rock a couple of years ago. That's one of the incidents that keeps this idea in the back of my mind.

I remember reading a few years ago about a group collecting data to develop open source charts not unlike the OpenCPN project for nav software. Think I'll go ask Mr Google about this and see what pops up.

[Benz]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Traditional measures are not necessarily devoid of LOGIC, but they are highly complex, relate to each other in complex ways, and are poorly standardized. They grow out of a different age and different level of technology. I agree with you, however, that they are fine for navigation. The internationally standardized nautical mile is beautiful and logical and relates to the only thing we really care about it relating to -- to degrees of latitude. The Cable is a superbly useful unit of measure, as is the Shot of Chain. If you want to use fathoms and feet from there instead of meters -- I don't see any problem with that. The Foot is at least standardized between the U.K. and her former colonies by special treaty, which also standardized the Pound.

And here we really get to the heart of the question of traditional vs. metric measures -- traditional measures grew up organically around particular ancient activities -- the acre and furlong are related to plowing, the mile to marching, chains and rods for surveying, and so forth. In isolation within those fields -- agriculture, land surveying, military -- the traditional measures remain very well suited. So it's the same for us -- we have our own units of measure which have always been our own and are still just fine for what we do. The fact that the Nautical Mile is 6,076.10333 feet is no problem for us, because we just don't ever need to convert between these units precisely, because of the nature of what we do, but in science or industry that would be simply an unacceptable disaster.

Whenever you use measures at a higher level or in a more complex way, in large scale planning or technology, or in a globalized activity (like trade) which is not limited to a narrow specific discipline (like navigation) you start to need the high degree of standardization, simplification, and rationalization, which greatly reduces the overhead of using measures and greatly improves their use across different disciplines and in different countries. That's the purpose of the metric system.

Exactly so, mostly--I just wish the world had all gone to Imperial, and made that the universal standard. The reason you had to search for both SAE and metric bolts for your old cars was that the manufacturers half-heartedly tried to go metric. If they'd kept it all SAE (and the whole world as well, while we're at it), there would not be this confusion of trying to find metric bolts. It would have been just as easy, back then, to make feet and inches the world standard, and that they did not is truly a pity.

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by Benz

Exactly so, mostly--I just wish the world had all gone to Imperial, and made that the universal standard. The reason you had to search for both SAE and metric bolts for your old cars was that the manufacturers half-heartedly tried to go metric. If they'd kept it all SAE (and the whole world as well, while we're at it), there would not be this confusion of trying to find metric bolts. It would have been just as easy, back then, to make feet and inches the world standard, and that they did not is truly a pity.

I have lived and worked extensively in both systems and feel exactly the opposite. Metric as Dockhead points out, works much better across disciplines, for example where there is interaction between between physics, thermodynamics, electromagnetics, etc. Maybe it just makes more sense to me because I have an engineering background and had to deal with all the above. When I was

I know you consider this a weakness instead a benefit but metric is also simpler. Very easy to move from small to large measurements. Units are consistent between all measurements like mass, force, distance, etc. If you know what a kilogram is you can figure out what a kilometer is.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Benz

Exactly so, mostly--I just wish the world had all gone to Imperial, and made that the universal standard. . ..

Just remember, we don't have Imperial We have USCU, which has significant differences. But anyway,

[Benz]

Originally Posted by skipmac

I have lived and worked extensively in both systems and feel exactly the opposite. Metric as Dockhead points out, works much better across disciplines, for example where there is interaction between between physics, thermodynamics, electromagnetics, etc. Maybe it just makes more sense to me because I have an engineering background and had to deal with all the above. When I was

I know you consider this a weakness instead a benefit but metric is also simpler. Very easy to move from small to large measurements. Units are consistent between all measurements like mass, force, distance, etc. If you know what a kilogram is you can figure out what a kilometer is.

I can't speak to the mixing of sciences--all I do is build things and navigate boats. But I will point out that the way we measure time, while it has been given a metric definition, doesn't really fit the paradigm of tens, hundreds, thousands, etc. Yet time is critical to many (most, all?) scientific endeavors. So not quite across all disciplines, and it is that awkwardness that bothers me. Time just works so well with the duodecimal system, that I believe the world would have been better served to make everything--money, measurements, weights, all of it--duodecimal.