twistedtree
Guru
I just need to say this here after sending an email to C-map. Their charts for Mexico really suck. Unfit for navigation is all that keeps coming to mind. And it's not that a handful of places are wrong, it's the whole freekin place. The ONLY places that are reasonably correct are the large ports like Ensenada, Cabo, La Paz, and only the immediate port. According to the charts, I have yet to anchor in the water and am instead always on land. Depths are non-existent or wrong, and wrong by a lot, not a little bit.
Satellite imagery has been around for decades. To me there is simply no excuse for incorrectly located land masses, and for large discrepancies between actual and charted land shapes.
Navionics is better. Not great, but mostly right as opposed to mostly wrong.
To put all this in perspective, let me offer up some school grades.
NOAA charts - A
CHS (Canadian Hydro Service) - A
C-map for the US and CN - B+
Navionics for the US and CN - B+
Navionics in Mexico - C
C-map in Mexico - F
I would almost be better of in Mexico without C-map. Even the Global world map that comes with Coastal Explorer does a better job of depicting and locating land masses.
Satellite imagery has been around for decades. To me there is simply no excuse for incorrectly located land masses, and for large discrepancies between actual and charted land shapes.
Navionics is better. Not great, but mostly right as opposed to mostly wrong.
To put all this in perspective, let me offer up some school grades.
NOAA charts - A
CHS (Canadian Hydro Service) - A
C-map for the US and CN - B+
Navionics for the US and CN - B+
Navionics in Mexico - C
C-map in Mexico - F
I would almost be better of in Mexico without C-map. Even the Global world map that comes with Coastal Explorer does a better job of depicting and locating land masses.
