Ocpn-Draw and Boundary

[CarCode]

Jon,

can you please explain how this help picture should be translated to other languages?

Please think about user friendliness a little bit more...

Gerhard

[Gilletarom]

Hello Carcode, Hello Jongough, Hello All,

Originally Posted by CarCode

Jon,
can you please explain how this help picture should be translated to other languages?
Please think about user friendliness a little bit more...
Gerhard

1° There two versions, one is a jpg, one is an html page.
The jpg is fix content !
So you can use the html page, translate it and then if you want, with a screen copy you have your own picture.

If you don't know how to change the content in a html page, pleease, send me the translations of each word, then I change the content and I send you the new html page.

2° JonGough,
We can create also a single html page with as much areas as languages used by OpenCPN.

After that :

Each translator can offer translations that will be established in the collective page.

see example joined.

We can also add more explainations.

B.R. Gilletarom.

[RogerD]

I have been reviewing the 4.2 manual about Draw and Watchdog alarms. There appears to be either a mistake in the manual or I don't get the logic of the WD alarms.

Excerpts from the manual (witt my underline & bold):
Boundary Types
....Note: in WD you can set the alarm for every kind of boundary. So, you can set alarms that get triggered when you get in (or too close to) a boundary of the type "Exclusion" but you can also set alarms that get triggered when you get in (or too close to) a boundary of the type "Inclusion"...
....We advise you to use "Inclusion" boundaries as "OK to get in", ....
....The type of message each boundary type would send to you, would then be something like this:
....Boundary Type Exclusion says: “Don’t you come near me (and “inside me” is an absolute No No!)”.
....Boundary Type Inclusion says: “Stay with me, please”.....

Boundary Alarm: “Distance” or “Time”
.... If you choose “Boundary-Distance”, you can type how many nautical miles you want as a margin from the boundary.
.....
Boundary Alarm: “Boundary Type”
....If you set a WD Boundary Distance-alarm for Inclusion, the alarm will be triggered as soon as you enter a boundary of the type “Inclusion”.

This wording indicates to me that the Exclusion and Inclusion alarms both operate when a boat approaches or enters a zone from outside the zone.

Roger

[CarCode]

Gillaterom,

bien sure en peux faire ca avec html par example. Mais il ne as pas faire ca et je voulu demontrer cette probleme. De toute facon il as aussi autre choses pour faire cette logicielle mieux a utiliser. Par example pourquoi il as deux symboles dans le barre des outils? Une symbole c'est assez. L'autre pour dessiner peux etre dans le fenetre du plug-in et ne pas dans le barre des outils.

Gerhard

[Gilletarom]

Hello All,

First :
With the VDR file and GPX file that are in this page, I got the results of this table. But maybe I made a mistake. I always have a doubt between "inclusion" and "exclusion".
I can be swapped their role? Who knows ?

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2048729

Anyway, I do not trust the explanations are in the website "opencpn.org". Anyway, I do not understand them well.

Please, repeat my tests and say if you find the same thing? (With "boundary activated), and checking only" exclusion "or" inclusion "in the type of boundary.

Second :
I think some of you are waiting alerts that are not provided in the current WD. Never, the alert will sound if the boat is "outside" a "boundary". The alerts will only sound when the ship enters a "boundary".

I thought, too, that will ring alert, in some cases, if a boat out of a "Boundary". Obviously this is not expected. Or it is a bug and it does not work.

This is something we will have to ask the flyspray for a future version of the WD.

In the current state of the debate, I refuse to conflict with JonGough. He has done a lot of work. And even if the website's explanations "opencpn.org" are wrong, I refuse to enter into conflict with the editor of the page dedicated to OD.
It would have taken more beta testers. Alas, I was the only one who tried to test all possible situations.

For information, last night, I tested with "boundary" activated or not activated. This leads to 36 tests. Patience, I will give you my further results in the night or tomorrow.

Cordially. Gilletarom.

[rgleason]

Roger D wrote:

I have been reviewing the 4.2 manual about Draw and Watchdog alarms. There appears to be either a mistake in the manual or I don't get the logic of the WD alarms.

Excerpts from the manual (witt my underline & bold):
Boundary Types
....Note: in WD you can set the alarm for every kind of boundary. So, you can set alarms that get triggered when you get in (or too close to) a boundary of the type "Exclusion" but you can also set alarms that get triggered when you get in (or too close to) a boundary of the type "Inclusion"...
....We advise you to use "Inclusion" boundaries as "OK to get in", ....
....The type of message each boundary type would send to you, would then be something like this:
....Boundary Type Exclusion says: “Don’t you come near me (and “inside me” is an absolute No No!)”.
....Boundary Type Inclusion says: “Stay with me, please”.....

Boundary Alarm: “Distance” or “Time”
.... If you choose “Boundary-Distance”, you can type how many nautical miles you want as a margin from the boundary.
.....
Boundary Alarm: “Boundary Type”
....If you set a WD Boundary Distance-alarm for Inclusion, the alarm will be triggered as soon as you enter a boundary of the type “Inclusion”.

This wording indicates to me that the Exclusion and Inclusion alarms both operate when a boat approaches or enters a zone from outside the zone.

Roger

Thank you for reading the manual.

Roger I went back to the text to find where this is written. I did not find it yet (please advise.) What I did find seemed to be correct to me, and I added for Exclusion="Keep boat out" and Inclusion="Keep boat in"
which might make it clearer to you.

Inclusion and Exclusion "alarms" are different types of alarms.

Also keep in mind that that the Inclusion and Exclusion "alarms" in the Watchdog plugin are separate and distinct from the Inclusion and Exclusion Boundary "graphics" in Ocpn_Draw Plugin. In Ocpn_draw the Inclusion and Exclusion graphics can be created, but they do not automatically set the Inclusion and Exclusion "Alarms" in WatchDog_pi. You must set those from within Watchdog_pi. The Ocpn_draw_pi Boundary Inclusion and Exclusion graphics are just helpful graphic reminders of what you intend. We suggest that both the graphics and alarms be set separately from within respective plugins (Ocpn_draw for graphics and Watchdog for Alarms) to help with comprehension.

Let us know where you found those statements please.
Watchdog | Official OpenCPN Homepage

[NAV]

Originally Posted by jongough

Currently there is a line drawn from the boat to the point in the boundary that caused the alarm, ....
Regards

1. I don't have sufficient time to carry out extensive testing as Gilletarom is doing, but during the simple testing I did, I think I observed that - whenever areas are close together - the line indicating which boundary is causing the alarm, does not always point to the closest area/boundary ahead of you.

2. In practice, the areas defined using the boundary functionality will be larger than those used during testing, I expect. Also, I think that in practice it will be unlikely that someone will need a lot of small areas close together (however, it's good for code testing).

3. For Exclusion areas, a user would expect an alarm whenever he is approaching a boundary from the outside.

4. For Inclusion areas, a user would expect an alarm whenever he is approaching a boundary from the inside. I understand from previous posts and my simple testing that this is presently not provided (alarms sounds only when entering from the outside).

[jongough]

Gerhard,
Patch 664 replaces the graphic with a text table that allows translation.

Jon

Originally Posted by CarCode

Jon,

can you please explain how this help picture should be translated to other languages?

Please think about user friendliness a little bit more...

Gerhard

[jongough]

NAV,
WD looks for a boundary by asking OD if a lat/lon is inside a boundary, the lat/lon is based on a distance from the boat and at certain angles starting due North (T) and working clockwise. The distance from the boat increases for each sweep, so the further from the boat the bigger the step to the next sweep. To reduce the load the angle increment for each sweep is different. When close to the boat the angle is 45deg, when distant from the boat the angle is 10deg.

So, if you have two boundaries that will/could trigger the alarm the nearest may not actually trigger it. In the penultimate sweep both boundaries are outside, so no alarm, in the next sweep the with the next distance increment it may be that the most distant boundary is the first in clockwise order that would trigger the alarm. As there is no way, currently, to report multiple boundaries for the alarm this is a limitation. As you approach more closely the boundaries then the discrimination should get better, so the nearest boundary should then trigger the alarm.

This alarm was the first pass at creating a boundary alarm and has laid the foundation capability that can now be extended for what the users really want. I was just trying to show that boundaries could be used for alarms and made a guess at what would be useful.

A future version of the Anchor alarm could have the distance to the nearest segment of a boundary returned and shown to the user. But I am not sure if this is useful.

I can think of one case where being warned that you are approaching an inclusion boundary from the outside may be useful. If you have a safe anchorage marked with an inclusion boundary you may want to be told that you are approaching that boundary from the outside so that you then know you would be 'safe'. Then you would set/activate the anchor watch on the same boundary. I hope that makes sense.

If you want a new alarm perhaps raising a flyspray against watchdog for it may be a way to go.

From the discussions that seem to be happening in this thread about watchdog it may be worth starting a separate thread to discuss the possible alarms that users may want. This thread is useful to me because I am always following it, but to a user it would be far too big (over 85 pages). What do you think?

Jon

Originally Posted by NAV

1. I don't have sufficient time to carry out extensive testing as Gilletarom is doing, but during the simple testing I did, I think I observed that - whenever areas are close together - the line indicating which boundary is causing the alarm, does not always point to the closest area/boundary ahead of you.

2. In practice, the areas defined using the boundary functionality will be larger than those used during testing, I expect. Also, I think that in practice it will be unlikely that someone will need a lot of small areas close together (however, it's good for code testing).

3. For Exclusion areas, a user would expect an alarm whenever he is approaching a boundary from the outside.

4. For Inclusion areas, a user would expect an alarm whenever he is approaching a boundary from the inside. I understand from previous posts and my simple testing that this is presently not provided (alarms sounds only when entering from the outside).

[Gilletarom]

Regarding the type of alarm "Boundary distance", using only "GPS distance lees than0.1 Nm.
Here are my tests for the 04662 version of OD, and the 19031 version of WD.
The results are consistent with what was achieved with previous versions of WD OD and that I had tested.
One thing certain st, I have not encountered any crash. This is a good thing.
That said, there is something that does not suit me. This concerns the role of "Boundary-type" in relation to "Boundary state".
You give priority to "Boundary-type" in relation to "Boundary state".
Personally, I think this is a concept error.
Currently with "Boundary Type" = "any" and "boundary state" = any, exclusion or inclusion, in all cases, the alert always fires.
Really, I would have preferred that, in any case, no alert is triggered for an inactive area. But this is a personal point of view. We must seek the opinion of all others in this thread.

Note : I use 6 "boundary" for these tests : 3 actived, 3 inactived. So, really 72 cases tested.

So, for me, here there is too much choice for an "alpha user". Not good. I thing that the "alpha user can't unsderstand the funtionning or WD.

[jongough]

Gilletarom,
I have updated the default setting so that Boundary State defaults to 'Active' when creating a new alarm. This is in patch 1.9.032 of WD. I have not changed the functioning of the alarm, WD or OD, just the default it starts with.

I am not really sure how to make OD and interactions from AIS and Watchdog easier for users to understand. We could add more documentation, but who actually reads it? Perhaps we need more tables like yours to give a graphical representation of what is happening?

Also, with the changes I am seeing being requested this plugin and its interactions are going to get more complicated not less. Each function will be quite simple, but the combinations keep on increasing. I am worried that the plugin will look too complex for users (I hope it is not too complex already).

I think we may have to 'release' a version of the plugin into production and hope that with more users we will find the bugs that are around the edges. I try to test as best I can, but I do things differently to you and Rick and Haken and Hubert and Gerhard, so we all find different error conditions.

Jon

[bcn]

Jon,

agree with you to freeze - error fixes excluded - and let more people play with the plug-ins.
There are already such a bunch of goodies.

Hubert

[NAV]

Originally Posted by jongough

I am worried that the plugin will look too complex for users (I hope it is not too complex already).

I agree. The number of variables to be set is, relatively, quite high. It should be prevented that to many users trust the alarm function, without having sufficient understanding of the end result of the combination of settings.

Originally Posted by jongough

I think we may have to 'release' a version of the plugin into production and hope that with more users we will find the bugs that are around the edges.

I agree. It might be wise to include a 'warning' on the plugin window of OpenCPN, where the plugins can be activated, saying that the alarm function should be further tested and that caution is required in using it.

[Gilletarom]

hello Jougough, hello All,

Originally Posted by NAV

I agree. The number of variables to be set is, relatively, quite high. It should be prevented that to many users trust the alarm function, without having sufficient understanding of the end result of the combination of settings.

I agree. It might be wise to include a 'warning' on the plugin window of OpenCPN, where the plugins can be activated, saying that the alarm function should be further tested and that caution is required in using it.

One thing is certain, now, users could easily make choices not triggering alarm without his knowledge. This is unacceptable. OpenCPN and plugins were created to increase the security, not to endanger the user.

I understand the need to move things forward. So momentarily let go of the plugin in production by improving assistance.

But forgive "the iron in the fire" immediately us.

Moreover, the plugin does not answer the needs of all. In particular, it triggers an alert if a boat comes within due area bounded by a "boundary". He must also triggers an alert by going outside.

So I offer this thought:
---------------
In OD:
Each "boundary" defines two zones: inside and outside. Mathematically, these areas are complementary to one another.

With a "boundary", there is, in OD, 3 options:
- Grid inside, therefore, the outside is not a grid area,
- Grid on the outside, so the interior is not a grid area,

- No grid. So the interior and exterior are "not squared."
----------------
With WD:
When an area is taken into account in WD I plan 6 choices in the head of the user:
A: If there is a grid on one side or the other of the boundary:
- A1: The grid area is an authorized area and the additional area is a restricted area. That leaves one freedom
- A2: The grid area is a restricted area, and the additional zone is a permitted area. That leaves one freedom
- A3 / A4: The grid area is permitted or prohibited area, and the additional area is permitted or prohibited. That leaves two freedoms

B: In the absence of grid lines, both sides of the "boundary"
- B1: A grid-free zone is a restricted area. Leaving, one freedom,
- B2: A grid-free zone is an authorized area. That leaves one freedom,
- B3 / B4: A grid-free area can be allowed or prohibited. That leaves two freedoms.
----------

I did not need to tell you that it is monstrous:
- Difficult to explain to users on the website,
- Hard to understand for users,
- Difficult to code to the developer.

We must make choices. Here's an example that I like a lot:

(In the presence of a grid, the grid area is prohibited and its complementary zone is allowed) and (in the absence of grid, the two areas are permitted / prohibited).

Concretely :
- A: In the presence of a grid, the alarm sounds when the ship enters a prohibited area
- B: In the absence of any grid, the alarm sounds if the boat crosses a "boundary"

Using the same example, there is:
Case 1:
- In OD I creates an area with the grid inside.
- In WD, this means that the boat does not go in and the alert is triggered if it comes.

Case 2:
- In OD I creates an area with the grid outside.
- In WD, this means that the boat should not go outside and the alert is triggered if fate.

It may be that, in the presence of a grid, the user prefers a grid area is permitted, and that a non-grid area is prohibited. This should be set in the General preferences of WD plugin and can not be changed elsewhere so be it defined "once and for all." But now, in WD, there is no general preferences.

Case 3:
- In OD, I create an area without grid
- In WD, this means that if the ship passes the "boundary", in one direction or the other.

I am convinced that with this type of choice:
- The development is facilitated,
- Explanations on the website will be easy,
- Users can easily understand the user manual.

In addition, in all cases:
- No warning for the inactivated area, visible or invisible.
- Alerts, as defined above, for visible or invisible zones. And in this case, an invisible area should be momentarily made visible.

When defining an "alert zone", you no longer need to remember what has been done in OD. Let WD check if the area has a grid or if it does not have.
Therefore, I suggest that there are no choices in WD. The choices are made:
- "Once for all" in the way we define the role of the grid (permission or prohibition is in General preferences WD)
- At the time of the decision of the presence or not of a grid and the grid side of this possible from the "boundary".

Jongough, what do you think? And think that beta testers?

Note: With the implementation of this, the current language file is outdated and conflict translation of the word "exclusion" and "inclusion", between the two plugins, disappears.

[NAV]

Dutch language file for patch 664.