Chart Sticker Shock 2018

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by skipmac

Just speculating but I can think of one reason why new charts aren't printed with old data. If the agency responsible for printing the charts does not have recent or verified data I imagine they would be seriously concerned about liability. Someone using old data runs aground where the chart shows deep water, could be they're calling a lawyer.

Some charts are based on surveys literally centuries old. I don't know, but I would be surprised if the age of the data has anything to do with it.

It would sure be nice if charts were marked to show areas not recently or completely surveyed, with notes about the source of data.

[Cheechako]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Some charts are based on surveys literally centuries old. I don't know, but I would be surprised if the age of the data has anything to do with it.

It would sure be nice if charts were marked to show areas not recently or completely surveyed, with notes about the source of data.

Yep. What changes is man's things like bouys. And those change without warning anyway. I never rely on what a chart says for that stuff and use my eyes and location. In the Caribe and Mexico there may be no bouy at all, or it may be far off location. IIRC many sland in Mexico are a mile or more off location on the chart... which was surveyed in the 1800's...

Here's the problem I have with electronic charts (only). You are near an island, the wind is blowing and you are surfing at 8-9 knots. Running thru a channel between reefs and the island. The sun is bright. Looking at your E chart, it is not only hard to see in the light, but the detail is not there. You start concentrating on zooming, but now you need to see what rocks there are 1/4 mile ahead, you will be there very soon! You zoom out and lose the detail you need. Bottom line is you are now focused on your electronics and not on sailing and seeing the water.
OTOH, a paper chart in hand has what you need immediately.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by skipmac

Just speculating but I can think of one reason why new charts aren't printed with old data. If the agency responsible for printing the charts does not have recent or verified data I imagine they would be seriously concerned about liability. Someone using old data runs aground where the chart shows deep water, could be they're calling a lawyer.

This is where my thoughts go as well. I’m familiar with the area Benz refers to and have those same blank spots on my charts. Interestingly, my charts are quite old, decades old at least (I inherited them), so the charts he is referencing with data are exceedingly old.

Like I say, I don’t know why the data is not shown. Perhaps it was deemed to be sufficiently inaccurate as to be more of a danger. Perhaps it was the legal liability issue you raise. Perhaps it’s something else … who knows. I too would prefer some data rather than no data, but I also wish I was rich and good looking. Sometimes reality bites

The other fact is these areas are lightly travelled by anyone. It’s off the beaten path, and certainly no large commercial ships venture here. Local traffic prevails. I have travelled with charts where the soundings are decades or even 100+ years old (some areas of Lake Superior). Canada still prints those charts, so the fact that they don’t here leads me to suspect there is some other reason.

Either way, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the metric system.

[Benz]

Originally Posted by Mariano

Metric is a simple and LOGIC system, that is spreading as a world standard.

As an example: Metric: 1 ton = 1000 kg, 1 kg = 1000 gr, 1 km = 1000 meter, 1 mt = 100 cm (it's the same for all other measures)

American system: 1 mile = 880 fathoms = 1760 yards = 5280 feet = 63360 inches, 1 long ton = 2240 pounds = 35840 ounces, 1 short ton =2000 pounds = 32000 ounces

Nobody here said the american system is deficient, but it's old (metric is old too, it started en 1799) and it is complicated: every time you use fractions you need a calculator for precision .

Mariano

Fair winds

Mariano,
It's up to you to prove that the imperial (not american, BTW) system is illogical. I do not speak to statute miles, which have no bearing on marine navigation, but of nautical miles, and the beautiful synergy between all the numbers therein.
Check it out: one fathom is six feet. One nautical mile is six thousand feet. One nautical mile, then, is one thousand fathoms.
The navigational graticule (you'll need to use this if you ever try to navigate a boat), is set up in 360 degrees of sixty minutes each. Sixty is divisible by both six and ten. And twelve. And two. And twenty. And three as well as thirty. Oh, and fifteen, which is one fourth of it. In short, you can slice it up in all sorts of interesting and versatile ways that the metric system doesn't afford.
What is one third of 100? Dang, I could tell you if I ever got to the end of that ol' infinite repeating decimal. Maybe that's why the Canadian Hydrographic office can't fill in the blanks, they lost their infinite repeating decimal!
But seriously: there is nothing illogical in a system that is more versatile and divisible that metric. Inches/feet/fathoms/nautical miles is not worse: it is different, and in my opinion, far superior, even if it initially it requires a little thought. Perhaps that's why metric is popular in some regions: people have been told that they need not think to use it, and to them nothing is worse than having to think.
I urge you, Mariano, learn to think. It is a wonderful thing.

[Cheechako]

-So Metric time would be....? 10 hours a day?
-also ...get rid of degrees right?. 100ths of a circle I guess.
-Next we need to get rid of Pi as it's not divisible by 10 right? (Today is Pi day! 3.14)

[stormalong]

Originally Posted by Benz

Mariano,
It's up to you to prove that the imperial (not american, BTW) system is illogical. I do not speak to statute miles, which have no bearing on marine navigation, but of nautical miles, and the beautiful synergy between all the numbers therein.
Check it out: one fathom is six feet. One nautical mile is six thousand feet. One nautical mile, then, is one thousand fathoms.
The navigational graticule (you'll need to use this if you ever try to navigate a boat), is set up in 360 degrees of sixty minutes each. Sixty is divisible by both six and ten. And twelve. And two. And twenty. And three as well as thirty. Oh, and fifteen, which is one fourth of it. In short, you can slice it up in all sorts of interesting and versatile ways that the metric system doesn't afford.
What is one third of 100? Dang, I could tell you if I ever got to the end of that ol' infinite repeating decimal. Maybe that's why the Canadian Hydrographic office can't fill in the blanks, they lost their infinite repeating decimal!
But seriously: there is nothing illogical in a system that is more versatile and divisible that metric. Inches/feet/fathoms/nautical miles is not worse: it is different, and in my opinion, far superior, even if it initially it requires a little thought. Perhaps that's why metric is popular in some regions: people have been told that they need not think to use it, and to them nothing is worse than having to think.
I urge you, Mariano, learn to think. It is a wonderful thing.

You forgot to mention cable - one tenth of a nautical mile.

But seriously: Metric vs Imperial has been argued ad nauseum forever. It all boils down to what you are most familiar with. As an American trying to find imperial fasteners around the world I wish we had converted to Metric before the modern age of machinery.

A single worldwide system is essential in an international economy. Metric is used by most of the world now. Even England is on the Metric system.

So let's all have a pint and chill.

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Some charts are based on surveys literally centuries old. I don't know, but I would be surprised if the age of the data has anything to do with it.

It would sure be nice if charts were marked to show areas not recently or completely surveyed, with notes about the source of data.

I seem to recall some of my older paper charts that were labeled something like based on survey of XXX.

But yes, it would be very good information to have on charts from older surveys in particular.

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by Cheechako

Yep. What changes is man's things like bouys. And those change without warning anyway. I never rely on what a chart says for that stuff and use my eyes and location. In the Caribe and Mexico there may be no bouy at all, or it may be far off location. IIRC many sland in Mexico are a mile or more off location on the chart... which was surveyed in the 1800's...

Here's the problem I have with electronic charts (only). You are near an island, the wind is blowing and you are surfing at 8-9 knots. Running thru a channel between reefs and the island. The sun is bright. Looking at your E chart, it is not only hard to see in the light, but the detail is not there. You start concentrating on zooming, but now you need to see what rocks there are 1/4 mile ahead, you will be there very soon! You zoom out and lose the detail you need. Bottom line is you are now focused on your electronics and not on sailing and seeing the water.
OTOH, a paper chart in hand has what you need immediately.

Paper chart in hand when it's blowing 20 kts, spray flying and you're trying to read the chart and look ahead? Doesn't sound any better to me than a plotter. Plus that paper chart can blow away. Don't ask how I know this.

[Mariano]

Originally Posted by Benz

Mariano,
It's up to you to prove that the imperial (not american, BTW) system is illogical. I do not speak to statute miles, which have no bearing on marine navigation, but of nautical miles, and the beautiful synergy between all the numbers therein.
Check it out: one fathom is six feet. One nautical mile is six thousand feet. One nautical mile, then, is one thousand fathoms.
The navigational graticule (you'll need to use this if you ever try to navigate a boat), is set up in 360 degrees of sixty minutes each. Sixty is divisible by both six and ten. And twelve. And two. And twenty. And three as well as thirty. Oh, and fifteen, which is one fourth of it. In short, you can slice it up in all sorts of interesting and versatile ways that the metric system doesn't afford.
What is one third of 100? Dang, I could tell you if I ever got to the end of that ol' infinite repeating decimal. Maybe that's why the Canadian Hydrographic office can't fill in the blanks, they lost their infinite repeating decimal!
But seriously: there is nothing illogical in a system that is more versatile and divisible that metric. Inches/feet/fathoms/nautical miles is not worse: it is different, and in my opinion, far superior, even if it initially it requires a little thought. Perhaps that's why metric is popular in some regions: people have been told that they need not think to use it, and to them nothing is worse than having to think.
I urge you, Mariano, learn to think. It is a wonderful thing.

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

[Cheechako]

Originally Posted by skipmac

Paper chart in hand when it's blowing 20 kts, spray flying and you're trying to read the chart and look ahead? Doesn't sound any better to me than a plotter. Plus that paper chart can blow away. Don't ask how I know this.

True, you definitely have to pay attention! I fold mine 1/4 size usually.

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by Benz

Mariano,
It's up to you to prove that the imperial (not american, BTW) system is illogical. I do not speak to statute miles, which have no bearing on marine navigation, but of nautical miles, and the beautiful synergy between all the numbers therein.
Check it out: one fathom is six feet. One nautical mile is six thousand feet. One nautical mile, then, is one thousand fathoms.
The navigational graticule (you'll need to use this if you ever try to navigate a boat), is set up in 360 degrees of sixty minutes each. Sixty is divisible by both six and ten. And twelve. And two. And twenty. And three as well as thirty. Oh, and fifteen, which is one fourth of it. In short, you can slice it up in all sorts of interesting and versatile ways that the metric system doesn't afford.
What is one third of 100? Dang, I could tell you if I ever got to the end of that ol' infinite repeating decimal. Maybe that's why the Canadian Hydrographic office can't fill in the blanks, they lost their infinite repeating decimal!
But seriously: there is nothing illogical in a system that is more versatile and divisible that metric. Inches/feet/fathoms/nautical miles is not worse: it is different, and in my opinion, far superior, even if it initially it requires a little thought. Perhaps that's why metric is popular in some regions: people have been told that they need not think to use it, and to them nothing is worse than having to think.
I urge you, Mariano, learn to think. It is a wonderful thing.

Actually a nautical mile is 6076.12'. What a nice, round, even number that is. That converts to 1012.686666666666....... fathoms. Oh no, there's that repeating decimal.

By the way, no need to be insulting. Just because one prefers to use metric doesn't mean he or she is brain dead.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by stormalong

. . . A single worldwide system is essential in an international economy. Metric is used by most of the world now. Even England is on the Metric system.

So let's all have a pint and chill.

Good advice!

You are correct that England is, by and large, on the metric system, but the English do still use statute miles for distance on land, and not kilometers, and people are weighed in stones, not kg. Beer is still sold by the pint (conveniently, 25% bigger than our pints ) despite some hassles from the EU.

But they do use metric fasteners, and thank God for that. It sucks dealing with fasteners of more than one system, especially when you have to carry spares and tools on board. At one time I owned Porsches and old MG's at the same time, and I had to keep THREE sets of tools, as the MG's had a mixture of imperial and Whitworth fasteners

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by rognvald

We're planning our final escape from the Great Lakes this Summer and are amazed at the increase in price for nautical charts. It appears that it is less expensive to buy a chartbook than to buy individual NOAA charts for the Lakes and the St. Lawrence. We always plot our course on paper and only use our GPS for verifying our DR plot. Are chartbooks the way to go now until we hit the Atlantic and go offshore? $24.95 for one chart? Wow!
Thanks, Rognvald

Offshore to where ? it does make a difference.

[rognvald]

Originally Posted by boatpoker

Offshore to where ? it does make a difference.

Newfoundland to Florida, Boatpoker. Best, Rognvald P.S. And thanks to everyone for this very interesting discussion and many great ideas so far. This has been very good feedback! I hope there's some more to follow!

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by rognvald

Newfoundland to Florida, Boatpoker. Best, Rognvald P.S. And thanks to everyone for this very interesting discussion and many great ideas so far. This has been very good feedback! I hope there's some more to follow!

The Great Lakes are mostly rock and have not changed much since the 1800's when originally charted, Between Nfld. and Florida nothing much has changed in the last 30yrs, not counting the stuff that changes every two weeks

My first trip south in 1999 I had 99' charts and 71' charts. The 71' charts were way more accurate on the east coast of the US since all the sand had moved back to where it was in 76'.

Marks/buoys do move but the chances of you spending hours daily to keep up with Notices to Mariners are pretty slim. I have an old NoM from the Upper Chesapeake that I keep just for fun ..... It cites 54 buoy and marker changes in the month of March 1999.

If they accurately re-charted the whole route tonight, it would be wrong next month. I have never been concerned about using old charts in these waters as by far the most important navigation tool you have is your own eyesight.