NOAA Plans to Stop Producing Traditional Paper Charts

[Tillsbury]

Originally Posted by jkleins

Are you saying your software actually has a feature that allows you to turn off seeing the lights? Or the rocks? This seems to me to be a software problem not a chart type problem. I have three programs that have the ability to view the government data and none can I get to give me that type of incomplete view. Certainly none came that way by default. The data is clearly there. The fact that poor developers may release software that hides some of it is not a problem with the data. We just have to demand higher quality software.

Jim

Requiem stated in his post that he had disabled the full light descriptions, in order to make the chart clearer. On a raster chart the light is always shown, with its qualities, and nothing is obfuscated in the process. I can't believe people put up with charts where you have to choose whether to have all the information available or whether to be able to see it clearly.

[requiem]

Originally Posted by jkleins

Are you saying your software actually has a feature that allows you to turn off seeing the lights? Or the rocks? This seems to me to be a software problem not a chart type problem. I have three programs that have the ability to view the government data and none can I get to give me that type of incomplete view. Certainly none came that way by default. The data is clearly there. The fact that poor developers may release software that hides some of it is not a problem with the data. We just have to demand higher quality software.

So, the examples I gave are somewhat contrived, and perhaps reveal more about the difference between behavior and expectations of professional vs. recreational software. The ENC charts are intended for use with ECDIS displays and assume an element of interactivity, balancing between removing extraneous detail and emphasizing elements critical to navigation. There are various levels of presentation allowed for this, all of which is defined by standards such as IHO's S-52.

Thus, text labels will be large and always placed in the same position relative to their object; one is expected to zoom the display until any overlap is resolved. Similarly, values for depth contours must also be user supplied, e.g. setting the safety depth and contour to be the sum of vessel draft with safety margin, allowance for quality of the chart soundings, allowance for squat, and finally subtracting the height of tide. The chart will then indicate which waters are "safe" for navigating, and dangers in shallow waters potentially omitted unless explicitly enabled.

In contrast, recreational users are more likely to expect a chart to be a static thing, such as might be printed on paper where anything potentially relevant is shown and could be used on any vessel. This is where NOAA's beta comes in, or tools like Navionics, to present views closer to what the recreational user might expect as well as being "safe for printing". (At least, that's my take on it, someone with more formal training or experience may be able to describe it better.)

[swordds]

I haven’t used a slide rule since Texas Instruments came out with an affordable scientific calculator, and despite the moanings of some elderly professors about how necessary skill with a slide rule was, in 50 years I haven’t missed it.

[Snore]

Originally Posted by swordds

I haven’t used a slide rule since Texas Instruments came out with an affordable scientific calculator, and despite the moanings of some elderly professors about how necessary skill with a slide rule was, in 50 years I haven’t missed it.

LOL. My college physics teacher did not let me use one as it was “cheating”.

[JBP]

Originally Posted by Nicholson58

Last I knew, Canada required paper charts. I’m sure there are other places too.

I believe Canada requires official Canadien paper charts, official ENC charts, or "local knowledge". Book charts or navionics charts are technically not legal. But recreational boaters are cut some slack.

The primary objective for NOAA charts are for commercial and military ships, the benefits for recreational boaters is secondary. ENC charts are sufficient for commercial shipping who don't care about local names or hazards that are not in the shipping lanes.

[Capt. Mike Maurice]

There is a lot of speculation going on in this thread. So, here is something to think about. I don't like vector charting. I much prefer the old style raster types(RNC). My favorite Android charting app is Marine Navigator by Ronald Koenig.
However, Ronald has not updated the program in over a year, and appears to be no longer supporting it. His code base is highly dependent on the RNC file type.
Vector charting has "potential" that is not readily apparent. For instance: I have a picture of a rock about 100 yards SE of Gorda Rock(which is about 13 miles south of Cape Mendocino). That picture, of the rock, which lies in about 60 feet of water looks like a school bus with a chimney at the back. The chimney is a spire about 5 feet across at the base and about a foot across at the top. The spire rises to within 10 feet of the surface. The picture was taken with "Side Scan Sonar".
Given enough cpu power and storage space, your vector chart system could render that sort of object just like in the picture.
In other words, not paper charts as we have known, but the actual side scan sonar rendering from the NOAA surveys.
Regards,
Mike

[abacaxi]

Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but I'm late to the party!

I see some limitations to the approach used to create NOAA's Custom Chart Tool. Most importantly: it renders the ENC data with a generic style. Raster nautical charts are so effective and beautiful because cartographers considered each feature individually when deciding how to portray it. I am working on a project to create a renderer that takes such considerations into account and creates local portrayal rules. The goal: effective and beautiful printable maps from ENC data.

If anyone is interested in learning more, or collaborating, please let me know.