Ocpn-Draw and Boundary

[jongough]

Gerhard,
I have fixed ODicons.cpp/h, this was an oversight as only my system it did not show an error as the png file existed in my test directory but I had removed it from git, so when you did a pull you would have got the error. I have also fixed the 'hack' (it was actually a typo that I got away with).

I am using gcc and gdb on linux and MS VS203 on windows. My main environment is linux as it is faster and easier, I only use VS2013 when building for windows and windows is far more pedantic than linux, it also has some 'strange' ways of using wxWidgets. To enable me to build the plugin I would rather get it working then fix up windows than fight windows at the same time. I don't have a Mac environment to use your stuff, so.... Also, I am not sure, in the case of OD, that you are saving much by your code modifications. I have minimised the code I have 'borrowed' from OCPN and all this is contained in the 'ocpnsrc' directory, so there should be little, if any, 'doubling up' of code. It would be nice to be able to build a 'standard' version of OCPN with OD and WD for Mac that could be used by others.

Jon

Originally Posted by CarCode

As I have said before already I strongly recommend you use a better compiler to see possible faults immediately. For an inexperienced programer it is very hard to find faults in a blind environment.
In your patch 664 you might have forgotten to alter the files ODicons.h and ODicons.cpp. Furthermore I can't find your function SetCellBackroundColours(). If you need help to program a grid table you might consult the file grid.h of wxWidgets or e.g. look at the table of the Grib plugin as an example (file GribTable.cpp).

Gerhard

Just found SetCellBackroundColours() which you have renamed from SetCellBackgroundColours() (the missing "g"). Nice hack to foul wxWidgets...

[jongough]

Roger,
The inclusion alarm is the 'Anchor' alarm. You need to provide the GUID of the boundary you want to stay inside. The Time and Distance alarms are all about approaching boundaries from the outside.

Jon

Originally Posted by RogerD

.......

As Gilletarom and NAV have pointed out there is currently no "Inclusion" alarm, only alarms for entering a bounry from outside.

.......
Roger

[Gilletarom]

Originally Posted by jongough

.....
But, for me, when I put the shading inside a zone I think of this as a no-go area, when I put the shading outside I think of this as a 'safe area'. But that is just me.
.....

And I think most naively that if an area is grided in OD while in WD or WR, or, a day, in other plug-ins, we decide to do as many different things as the use of plugins that same area.

Otherwise, in WD, I think:
With a boundary where one of the two zones is checkered:
- If an area is squared, if the boat between them, you have to launch the alert.
- If the boat out of the gridded area to enter the area, "not squared", complementary to the grid area, no alert.
With a boundary where neither of the two zones is checkered:
- If the boat crosses the line to change the area, you have to launch the alert.

And in this case, everything is simple. The user assigns each type of situation, what he pleases to understand. There is no need to put check boxes with items "All", "Exclusion", "Inclusion", "Any".

And although I know not encode, I am convinced that this is easy to do and everything is almost ready in the current code.

It is just necessary be able to add a comment to each area of a "boundary". Comment that I can tell by looking at the screen is how I understand the meaning I attributed personally to a zone.

I invent two examples:

First example: With a boundary A, I have two areas, one area A1 and A2 area. For example, A1 is associated with the comment "Wreck dangerous" and A2 will be associated to comment "Open water". In this case, the area A1 must have been squared in OD. And, WD run an alert when the boat go fron A2 to A1 and no alert when the boat go froml A2 to A1

Second example: With a boundary B having two non-grid areas and two areas B1 and B2. For example, B1 will "to move to the area west of the island" and B2 will be "to move to the area east of the Island". Here, at each time that I enter into one of these two areas, WD run an alert.

Gilletarom.

[Gilletarom]

hello All,

Note that for me, only the first type of alert "landfall" and type "alert zone" problematic. All other types of alert are working properly.

The "LanFall alert" is activated well before the boat is to accept the minimum distance from the land. But it can be replaced advantageously by an "alert zone" by drawing a boundary around the land area.

Are you Ok with this ?

[jongough]

Gilletarom,
When I first put the boundary alarm into WD there was no checking of the type of boundary. OD just returned to WD the first boundary it found, but this proved to be a problem (it is documented in this thread somewhere by Rick), as it is quite possible to have exclusion and inclusion boundaries close to each other. So I put in the ability to select what types of boundary to trigger the alarm, leaving the original version as 'All'. So you can have the first boundary found trigger the alarm, or you can be selective, i.e. only exclusion boundaries to trigger the alarm.

Is it possible for you to set up what you are saying in OCPN and then take a screen shot, as I am not quite sure I understand.

Thanks
Jon

Originally Posted by Gilletarom

And I think most naively that if an area is grided in OD while in WD or WR, or, a day, in other plug-ins, we decide to do as many different things as the use of plugins that same area.

Otherwise, in WD, I think:
With a boundary where one of the two zones is checkered:
- If an area is squared, if the boat between them, you have to launch the alert.
- If the boat out of the gridded area to enter the area, "not squared", complementary to the grid area, no alert.
With a boundary where neither of the two zones is checkered:
- If the boat crosses the line to change the area, you have to launch the alert.

And in this case, everything is simple. The user assigns each type of situation, what he pleases to understand. There is no need to put check boxes with items "All", "Exclusion", "Inclusion", "Any".

And although I know not encode, I am convinced that this is easy to do and everything is almost ready in the current code.

It is just necessary be able to add a comment to each area of a "boundary". Comment that I can tell by looking at the screen is how I understand the meaning I attributed personally to a zone.

I invent two examples:

First example: With a boundary A, I have two areas, one area A1 and A2 area. For example, A1 is associated with the comment "Wreck dangerous" and A2 will be associated to comment "Open water". in this case, the area A1 must have been squared in OD.

Second example: With a boundary B having two non-grid areas and two areas B1 and B2. For example, B1 will "to move to the area west of the island" and B2 will be "to move to the area east of the Island"

Gilletarom.

[NAV]

Originally Posted by jongough

One thing I have found is that each user has a completely different idea of how to use OCPN. Some want things to scale, some don't, some have high res screens and want things bigger and better looking, some have touch screens and want alternatives to mouse usage, and so the list goes on. It would seem that if I restrict choice some section of the user community will feel constrained/restricted.

I fully understand, but as you will know, you will never be able to make everybody happy.

Originally Posted by jongough

I think we need to 'decouple' OD and WD a bit, i.e. focus on what each plugin does and not combine them into a 'super' plugin. When combinations are made the seeming complexity rapidly increases. The issue here is that there are so many different ways to set/build alarms that the WD plugin could get very complex in its settings. We already have Time, Distance, Anchor, AIS alarms some of which have boundary types and boundary states associated with them.

But this is happening now, isn't it? The settings are complex already and this is caused largely by the wish to keep everybody happy with additional functionality.

At sea it's best to keep things as simple as possible.

To finish: I admire your work, the results of it, the way you answer posts of others (with a lot of background explanations) and the fact that you try to deliver all the functionality others ask for. However, this last point may be a pitfall.

[rgleason]

With some use and discussion the focus of these two plugins will become much clearer.
It is my guess that reduction of complexity can possibly occur in Ocpn_Draw by creating more specific tools, for example the EBL tool could be split into several more specific tools. However the existing EBL is a quite versatile multi-tool which I find easy to understand.

Regarding the use of Boundaries, we need some time and more user experience for these tools.

I may be prejudiced, but I think Ocpn_Draw is a great tool and shows tremendous potential in a number of areas which sailors in particular will appreciate.

[Gilletarom]

Hello Jongough,

This post to talk about the translations. We now use versions that are built for testing. But in many and varied changes of strength, and probably for compilation of reasons, many of the items are still in English on the screens.
With Nevermind, we try to improve the translations in French, both OD for WD. Difficult to achieve in these conditions.

Is it possible to have a well-compiled version for both OD for WD to solve everything.

Thank you in advance. Gilletarom.

[CarCode]

Originally Posted by jongough

Gerhard,
It would be nice to be able to build a 'standard' version of OCPN with OD and WD for Mac that could be used by others.

Jon

I will have a look into your code again once it is more stable and doesn't change anymore each day.

Gerhard

[Gilletarom]

Originally Posted by jongough

Gilletarom,
.....
Is it possible for you to set up what you are saying in OCPN and then take a screen shot, as I am not quite sure I understand.
....Jon

ok, here 3 study case.

Case 1 :

Dinard front, there is a sandbar that is not on the charts because it changes much. Moreover, the differences between low tide and high tide varies. Whitewater, there is a difference in water depth of 10 meters. In backwaters, 2 meters difference only.
In all cases, at low tide, it is dangerous to cross the sandbar. hound is high risk. but at high tide, you can go without problems.
So I set up in OD, a "boundary" without grid, because it is sometimes possible to navigate inside the boundary.
I hope that in WD, the alarm rings once, regardless of the direction in which I pass through the boundary. That is to say :
- Either from the inside towards the outside of the boundary,
- Either from the outside towards the inside of the boundary.

see first and second screen copy.
------------------------------------------------
Case 2 :

To exit from St Malo to the north, leave, to port, a set of shoals, islets, and a fairly large island. in all cases, even in high tide, it's dangerous.

I built in OD, around this area, a boundary and I squared inside.

I hope that in WD, the alert sounds every time my boat into the inner area.

see third screen copy
------------------------------------------------
Case 3 :

To go from St Malo to Jersey, from south to north, there is a danger zone: the "plateau of the Minquiers." To go from St Malo to Jersey, we can move from the west or the east. It depends :
- From the time
- The wind,
- Tidal currents which are east to west, rising tide and vice versa at low tide.

I build 3 boundary:
- A boundary to inner grid that contains the hazardous area. It must be alerted by entering inside.
- A boundary without grid west (red). A boudary without grid east (green). I need to be alerted if I change area.

see last screen copy
-------------------------------------------------

Jongough, have I responded to your expectations or do you want that I try to add more explanations?

B.R. Gilletarom.

[Gilletarom]

And a fourth case study.

The swinge channel is very dangerous, all along Alderney. The current is very strong. And it is not large. Only 0.5 Nm.

So I place a boundary with grid outside. And, when the boat is inside, I want an alert if the boat go outside of the area.

Yes, there is an alert when I enter in the good area. This is not important. And same, there is an alert when I go out of the area, in front habour. This is not important.

[Gilletarom]

Hello,

I complete a few.

As I've said in a previous post, no need to "All", "Exclusion", "inclusion" or "Any". I confirm.

By cons, it came me an idea.

Since OD is just a structure for drawing, we should draw grid everywhere. Inside and outside. But they should be left disabled.
and it is in WD we should choose:
- Or let the disabled inside and outside
- Or activating the inside gate, and the only one,
- Or to activate the gate outside, and the only one.

And this because it is in WD we should actually define the role associated with boundary. it is in WD that how the alert are running.

[jongough]

Gilletarom,
What happens in the case that you do not use WD? The OD drawing would have less functionality and you would not be able to represent the cases you have mentioned above. If WD and OD were combined then this idea may OK, but with them separate I think it is not.

As OD is just a drawing tool it is up to the user what and how they want to represent areas on the chart, I certainly cannot guess how that would be, so I have given the options, i.e. grids, colours, line types, line widths.

WD is an alarm tool and tries to work with information that is available to it, i.e. coast lines, speed, etc. Again, it is up to the user how they want to use alarms

The difficulty, and complexity, seem to come when we combine two or more plugins to gain extra capabilities. In this case some options appear to be redundant, i.e. why have boundary types in both OD & WD? To make WD control the boundaries when it is active, but leave OD to do this when it WD is inactive or not installed would make OD/WD more complex, and I think, more confusing.

Jon

Originally Posted by Gilletarom

Hello,

I complete a few.

As I've said in a previous post, no need to "All", "Exclusion", "inclusion" or "Any". I confirm.

By cons, it came me an idea.

Since OD is just a structure for drawing, we should draw grid everywhere. Inside and outside. But they should be left disabled.
and it is in WD we should choose:
- Or let the disabled inside and outside
- Or activating the inside gate, and the only one,
- Or to activate the gate outside, and the only one.

And this because it is in WD we should actually define the role associated with boundary. it is in WD that how the alert are running.

[NAV]

In some case described by Gilletarom, I would prefer the possibility to use a route and observe the XTE (however, presently OpenCPN core has not built in an XTE alarm ....). An XTE alarm might be a good feature for the future.

[Gilletarom]

hello JonGough,

Originally Posted by jongough

Gilletarom,
What happens in the case that you do not use WD? The OD drawing would have less functionality and you would not be able to represent the cases you have mentioned above. If WD and OD were combined then this idea may OK, but with them separate I think it is not.

As OD is just a drawing tool it is up to the user what and how they want to represent areas on the chart, I certainly cannot guess how that would be, so I have given the options, i.e. grids, colours, line types, line widths.

WD is an alarm tool and tries to work with information that is available to it, i.e. coast lines, speed, etc. Again, it is up to the user how they want to use alarms

The difficulty, and complexity, seem to come when we combine two or more plugins to gain extra capabilities. In this case some options appear to be redundant, i.e. why have boundary types in both OD & WD? To make WD control the boundaries when it is active, but leave OD to do this when it WD is inactive or not installed would make OD/WD more complex, and I think, more confusing.

Jon

On the other hand, I propose ideas without being able to coded and I do not maitrise the state of the current code.

I dream of simplification, but who knows .... what is achievable. And I'm not alone in proposing ideas.

So it's up to you to sort out my ideas, provided that they fall at least possible and / or useful.

Gilletarom.

Note: You can put into production what already exists because there are many things that work well.

Only the use of zones of alerts that are difficult to use. Optionally disable this type of alert by preventing run them.

And as I've said, quietly resuming the beta, to solve this problem.