Why even bother with a plotter when you can get this!

[Simi 60]

Why even bother with a compass?

We haven't taken the cover off of ours in over 6 years of full time cruising
But it does make a convenient stand for the tablet

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by sv_pelagia

Mike, go to the CHS NONNA10 site and view latest (most current) sounding data.

Login as guest (scroll through to end of terms, then agree and login). Turn on NONNA10 (NONNA100 less accurate):

https://data.chs-shc.ca/dashboard/map

Cursor will indicate lat/lon and depth in metres.

[As I indicated, the depths can all be downloaded as a text file and plotted onto an image using SASPLANET and SAT2CHART... sorry, PC only]


Perhaps you'll be especially interested in Newfoundland and Labrador.


You might also be interested in the CHS interactive ENC chart viewer (all up to dare ENC chart data shown):

https://e-nav.ccg-gcc.evouala.com/ap...n/950/embedded
(getting the highest resolution ENC is awkward on this web app... it is new and needs "work")

Cool tools P. Thanks.

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Mine was a screen capture using my MacBook Pro. Actually, if you compare the two images, yours is 100% low-rez, while mine includes low and hi rez.

You’re joking, right? Here’s some zoom levels, showing boats anchored and moving. Pretty easy to select anchorages imho…

The 2nd image is max. zoom level and many times better than any chart.

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by Simi 60

Why even bother with a compass?

We haven't taken the cover off of ours in over 6 years of full time cruising
But it does make a convenient stand for the tablet

I agree, I removed mine. Just another app on the iPhone

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

You’re joking, right? Here’s some zoom levels, showing boats anchored and moving. Pretty easy to select anchorages imho…

The 2nd image is max. zoom level and many times better than any chart.

Why would I be kidding . I just showed our two images, side by side. Of course you can zoom in. That doesn't address the underlying limitations of using satellite images in this way.

It's a useful tool. A better tool is quality, dedicated nautical charts. But in their absence, or as an adjunct, satellite imagery is definitely useful.

[s/v Jedi]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Why would I be kidding . I just showed our two images, side by side. Of course you can zoom in. That doesn't address the underlying limitations of using satellite images in this way.

It's a useful tool. A better tool is quality, dedicated nautical charts. But in their absence, or as an adjunct, satellite imagery is definitely useful.

Are you actually reasoning that charts are more precise than satellite imagery?

[s/v Jedi]

I read posts saying that satellite imagery doesn’t have markers, buoys etc. I beg to differ. Here is the approach to Scheveningen harbor. Second image a closeup with a sailboat on the left and the approach marker on the right.

[s/v Jedi]

And here another example, a typical Florida marina with the entry channel with markers on both sides.

It clearly demonstrates that 1) you can see the markers and 2) that you don’t need them because the precise image allows safe navigation through the channel without the markers.

Edit: and I added the chart. As you can see, in reality, marker 13 is not there and marker 16 is way further south. The chart throws you off.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

Are you actually reasoning that charts are more precise than satellite imagery?

Nope... wanna try again?

[Off Trail]

Funny how much of this debate sounds like the "paper charts" controversies from 10 years ago.

Basically the same arguments pro/con...

[Shanachie]

My problem with the satellite photos is that there's no way to tell the actual depth, just that the darker color seems to indicate deep.


Sure, you can see the sandbar. But does the water get darker at 4 feet, 6 feet or 8 feet? And what effect do the different bottoms have?



With the different boats we all sail, that's important.

[AKA-None]

Originally Posted by Jammer

5200.

Or less permanent maybe a mag charger?

[PippaB]

Here are 4 different images of Mole Harbor in SE Alaska.

Bing:


Google Maps


Best Available Google Earth


Most Recent NOAA ENC


In reality, none of them does justice to the mole that is formed when the tides go out. The chart and the Google images show a few rocks, but you can walk just about a mile along the mole with dry feet at mid-tide and lower. The pictures sure make it look like you could cut the corner coming from the south - you can't. Even at high tide a very shallow craft would find it challenging. And that very nice looking cove on the south side of the bay? About 1' of water at a normal low tide, completely dry to the mouth at spring lows. Can be suitable for anchoring with shoal draft at neaps.

This anchorage is frequently quite bouncy for about 4 hours at the top of every tide cycle when the mole gets submerged, but for the remaining 8 hours it is flat as a mill pond, completely protected by the natural breakwater that forms at the entrance to the bay.

[Simi 60]

Originally Posted by Shanachie

My problem with the satellite photos is that there's no way to tell the actual depth, just that the darker color seems to indicate deep.


Sure, you can see the sandbar. But does the water get darker at 4 feet, 6 feet or 8 feet? And what effect do the different bottoms have?



With the different boats we all sail, that's important.

You can in clear water with experience
Reef and sand areas are pretty easy to judge where you can and can't go.

[Simi 60]

Originally Posted by s/v Jedi

I read posts saying that satellite imagery doesn’t have markers, buoys etc. I beg to differ. Here is the approach to Scheveningen harbor. Second image a closeup with a sailboat on the left and the approach marker on the right.

But that's not google maps is it?
Most of the world you aren't getting that detail.