Paper charts in jeopardy?

I'm an old, old time navigator and find the information difference between raster and vector charts appalling. Apparently NOAA is working toward abandoning paper charts altogether. See article:
Paper charts in jeopardy? - Ocean Navigator - Web Exclusives 2017
There is an opportunity to send in a comment.

I use electronic nav, but go places and thru narrows most people don't. I find the additional information of land detail (on paper charts, raster) very helpful.

Just out of curiosity, whats appalling about vector charts? You can layer on as much information as you need and they are more accurate than Raster charts. I use both

Lepke said:

I'm an old, old time navigator and find the information difference between raster and vector charts appalling. Apparently NOAA is working toward abandoning paper charts altogether. See article:
Paper charts in jeopardy? - Ocean Navigator - Web Exclusives 2017
There is an opportunity to send in a comment.

I use electronic nav, but go places and thru narrows most people don't. I find the additional information of land detail (on paper charts, raster) very helpful.

Click to expand...

I fully agree with your frustrations as to the status of NOAA charts and availability. In recognition of that I have retained and acquired charts of the flat world I explore. These with the Out of date [Edition #8 1960] Pacific Coast Alaska Coast Pilot, my GPS, fathometer, and radar I feel comfortable with facing the world without 'Current best NOAA' charts.
These old charts have world charm even with obsolete degree deflections from date of print. They feel good, look good rolled up in the overhead.
I am fond of my charts.

Al-Ketchikan

Lepke said:

I use electronic nav, but go places and thru narrows most people don't. I find the additional information of land detail (on paper charts, raster) very helpful.

Click to expand...

Raster charts are available electronically as well.

As I see it ECDIS is not all it claims to be. I work on a US Navy vessel and we still use paper alongside of the electronic charts. It is impossible to put a range or bearing fix on an electronic chart picture. We still do 6 minute range and bearing fixes when entering or leaving harbor or in close quarters to land.

Steve Jackson said:

As I see it ECDIS is not all it claims to be. I work on a US Navy vessel and we still use paper alongside of the electronic charts. It is impossible to put a range or bearing fix on an electronic chart picture. We still do 6 minute range and bearing fixes when entering or leaving harbor or in close quarters to land.

Click to expand...

But the surface fleet is still a century behind. We are now in the world of electronics.

Aircraft land on those ships with one or two guys. Why does it take an entire bridge crew to just get into the harbor?

And please, I have done both...flew aboard them and been part of a bridge crew.

If they are still taking bearings and putting them on paper in the next 20 years....I will still chuckle to myself.

When we found out that the world was not flat and needed to go somewhere, old school navigation, even regional trips used dead reckoning. I learned that way and its served me well. SWMBO says to others that she thinks my limited brain functions is centered around a compass rose, no matter where we go, land included. The old expression of "turned around" comes to mind and in part probably originated from some of the old timey sea dogs attempting to go somewhere on land.



As it pertains to paper charts, call me old fashioned with a bit of common sense still behind my navigational needs and desires. I cannot plan a trip in advance using any electronic gear. But when the rubber meets the road and I am in unfamiliar regions and your electronic gear quits, I have a paper chart to back me up. And this seems to always happen if you boat long enough, IMO. And yes I still prescribe to dead reckoning navigation, always keeping track of my running time and compass direction on a log folder.

I just hope that I can continue to boat long enough to use and access available paper charts. And I surely do not look down on folks that also subscribe to old school thinking of the tried and true methods while on the water. As it says on many publications, never depend on just one method of navigation.

Why do people think that a raster chart on a computer is any different than on a table?

The only difference I see is that it is
1. harder to find the "notes" in the margins of the chart....so I use my electronic coast pilot instead.

2. A little easier to see more chart as it is a larger format, but in no greater detail.

The advantage of the electronic chart is that it is up to date the day I need it, freshly downloaded... obviously in a place like the US where free charts are available. All bets off on paper versus electronic charts where accessibility is more difficult or expensive.

Not sure why one would think those that use electronic charts mostly are looking down at anyone....just frustrated some think a picture of the paper chart on a computer screen is somehow different.

One last thought...if old methods are so tried and true, why are there so many reef wrecks even on my paper charts?

psneeld said:

Why do people think that a raster chart on a computer is any different than on a table?

The only difference I see is that it is
1. harder to find the "notes" in the margins of the chart....so I use my electronic coast pilot instead.

2. A little easier to see more chart as it is a larger format, but in no greater detail.

The advantage of the electronic chart is that it is up to date the day I need it, freshly downloaded... obviously in a place like the US where free charts are available. All bets off on paper versus electronic charts where accessibility is more difficult or expensive.

Not sure why one would think those that use electronic charts mostly are looking down at anyone....just frustrated some think a picture of the paper chart on a computer screen is somehow different.

One last thought...if old methods are so tried and true, why are there so many reef wrecks even on my paper charts?

Click to expand...

This is a non-secular train of thought. There are parts of the state of the art airplanes laying on the bottom of the ocean these days as a result of pilots depending on electronic equipment that failed. Heck frozen water has taken down a couple too. One even crashed into a runway a few year too, depending on electronic equipment and a pilot that could not fly the airplane by "wire".

Not really, you and everyone else....especially those that have made a living on the sea or air knows electronic navigation, in the right hands with backups has made going to sea a lot safer and less stressful.

Doesn't mean sloppy or inattentivev work ethic can develope, for those even paper won't save them.

GEES............ I use electronic stuff to confirm where I think I am at and that is it. I do all my navigation using paper charts. My chart plotter is to big to use it on my 4" X 6" Garmin or my 9.7" IPad Pro

Steve Jackson said:

As I see it ECDIS is not all it claims to be. I work on a US Navy vessel and we still use paper alongside of the electronic charts. It is impossible to put a range or bearing fix on an electronic chart picture. We still do 6 minute range and bearing fixes when entering or leaving harbor or in close quarters to land.

Click to expand...

I like my paper charts as well. I have individual charts as well as chart books. I also had a whole bunch of charts printed by an outfit in Bham. They are only B&W but they were relatively inexpensive.

I am NOT good at taking range and bearing fixes and keeping them recorded on a paper chart. However, it is a practice that I am improving upon in my home waters. I think it is valuable in case of an equipment failure.

Yes, I can already hear many of you gearing up to write that you have protected yourself against equipment failure by way of multiple duplication of devices and equipment. I know that is possible, in many cases desirable, and I actually have electronic backups to my gps. However, I like to be able to continue to think, problem solve, and calculate rather than just look at an icon on a screen.

Scratchnsaw said:

As it pertains to paper charts, call me old fashioned with a bit of common sense still behind my navigational needs and desires. I cannot plan a trip in advance using any electronic gear. But when the rubber meets the road and I am in unfamiliar regions and your electronic gear quits, I have a paper chart to back me up. And this seems to always happen if you boat long enough, IMO. And yes I still prescribe to dead reckoning navigation, always keeping track of my running time and compass direction on a log folder.

.

Click to expand...

I won't look down on you but I will call you old fashioned. You do what you are comfortable with, but that doesn't make it better, just works better for you. I can plan electronically, and I can be prepared with backup electronics that are independent of the other systems. I keep track of all you do except do it electronically. My charts are more up to date than yours. If I want paper, I can always print it out, but I just don't have the need. The difference and the reason I think old fashioned is an appropriate term, but not an insult, is how you and I first learned. I started with electronics. Now, don't say I can't do the other, because I can. I just don't need to use paper and don't choose to.

I also don't hand write documents, I use electronic means and type them. I don't fill out forms by hand, I scan them and use a form filler. I don't read hard copies of fiction, but have them in electronic form.

You feel more comfortable having paper charts, because you've always had them and never chosen to wean yourself. I don't feel the need for them because I've always had electronics and always been comfortable with it.

So, unless NOAA is discontinuing updating the electronic data (which I doubt!!), then it should still be possible to get paper versions of the "electronic" charts, just not printed by NOAA. Just like Amazon. A friend recently self-published a book. Ordered today, printed today, shipped today, receive paper book tomorrow!!

Chrisjs said:

So, unless NOAA is discontinuing updating the electronic data (which I doubt!!), then it should still be possible to get paper versions of the "electronic" charts, just not printed by NOAA. Just like Amazon. A friend recently self-published a book. Ordered today, printed today, shipped today, receive paper book tomorrow!!

Click to expand...

Or just print them yourself. If for any reason we want a paper version of a chart, we just print it.

You must have a BIG printer!!!

Chrisjs said:

You must have a BIG printer!!!

Click to expand...

Yes.

Sailor of Fortune said:

You can layer on as much information as you need and they are more accurate than Raster charts.

Click to expand...

???

I've seen some vector charts that have info that's not on the comparable raster charts -- marina info in the C-Map charts, for instance -- but haven't before heard an argument that says the comparable data in vector is more accurate than raster...

???

-Chris

The whole appeal of vector charts is that you can layer on as much info or as little as you want with a click of a mouse. Vector charts are also more accurate than raster scan.

What is the difference between a raster chart and a vector chart?
Many CHS charts are available in digital form as either a Raster Navigational Chart (RNC) in the BSB format or as an Electronic Navigational Chart (ENC) in the S-57 vector format. Both kinds of electronic charts, when used with navigation software, relieve the navigator of many of the traditional paper chart routines, and contribute to safer navigation.

RNCs are simply an electronic image of the paper charts and as such provide no more information than that available on the paper chart. Raster charts are digitized by scanning the paper chart. Each tiny segment of each line on a chart is converted to a raster picture element or pixel. Similar to a television picture, when magnified they appear as dots on a grid. Beyond geo-referencing, there is no intelligence inherent in the raster image. Many recreational boaters have adopted raster electronic chart systems because the charts are less expensive and the navigation software required to use these charts has been tailored to meet the needs of the recreational boater.

ENCs are vector charts or "smart charts" and are coded with additional information not available in paper or raster charts. ENCs carry a wealth of geo-spatial intelligence through a database of information associated with them. On an ENC the user can click on different features, such as a light or buoy, and retrieve additional information about the feature. For example, a wharf appears only as an image on an RNC, but an ENC can identify it as a wharf and attach attributes to the wharf, such as height, length, age, ownership, number of berths – data that might otherwise be available only by consulting the relevant printed Sailing Directions.

ENCs also provide users with more control over the display of the chart, including the ability to turn different layers of information on and off. Because ENCs offer more powerful navigational flexibility and tools, they are typically used by commercial ships. When displayed on an Electronic Chart Display and Information System (ECDIS) and integrated with other data, such as GPS position, radar, planned route, heading, speed and draught, ENCs become part of a powerful system that allows mariners to know their ship’s position instantly and accurately and to be warned of dangerous situations.


From Fisheries Canada.

Another problem with electronic charts is they sometime lack important information to large ships with deep draft.

As one person said the Navy is behind the time, we are, our computer systems are being upgraded, all the way from XP Professional to Windows 7. Hard to believe we call ourselves the most advanced Navy in the world. All that said I still like paper charts. I like that they give you a bigger picture, and they make a good backup for the electronic charts that do fail, even on Navy ships

I am among those who use both paper and electronic at the same time. Essentially I navigate by means of the electronic charts but I keep a paper chart showing a much larger area open to continue to give me an idea of where I am. We rarely zoom out the electronic charts to give us the big picture, thus the paper chart is useful.

Paper charts in book form are cheap and for the way I use them they do not have to be updated.

Sailor of Fortune said:

Just out of curiosity, whats appalling about vector charts? You can layer on as much information as you need and they are more accurate than Raster charts. I use both

Click to expand...

My biggest beef is that vector charts don't have anywhere near as much data. I know that sounds contrary to popular belief, but let me offer just a couple of examples.

Place names: Raster (or paper) charts come in all different scales. Each chart has lots of place names on them. My observation is that two things happen when all this data is digitized into one vector file.

(1) Many, if not most, place names are lost. They simply aren't there on any layer of the vector charts.

(2) Many, if not most, place names are not located in the right place. I suspect it's because, when laying out a paper chart of a specific scale, the person drawing the chart picks a logical spot NEAR the place to put the name, based on the layout of the chart and where there's a blank area.

That spot may not be very logical at different scales, or with different data layers displayed. Presumably, the place name is entered (if at all) with specific coordinates when the raster chart is digitized. So you end up with the name of, say one island being next to a totally different island, or spilling over across several islands.

Place names are critical when navigating unfamiliar waters.

Other markings: Old paper charts actually showed shoreside structure (buildings, etc.) Granted, chimneys and other key piloting landmarks are usually digitized to the vector charts, but much of the other shoreside data isn't.

Also, the original cartographers would include, for example, the "swamp" symbol (tuft of grass) where they observed swampy areas. I notice that these are very poorly digitized. Whole swaths of the chart are flagged as swamp, even if there were just a few "tufts" with dry ground between.

Overall, the quality of the digitization is just poor for anything but buoys, channels and soundings.

I would have no beef with vector charts IF they contained all the data on a paper chart. They just don't.

Sailor of Fortune said:

Vector charts are also more accurate than raster scan.

Click to expand...

This is the part I was questioning. Who says? I've not heard that before...

(Accuracy being different from the amount of data...)

-Chris

CaptTom said:

I would have no beef with vector charts IF they contained all the data on a paper chart. They just don't.

Click to expand...

I've only come across approx 2 instances where our vector charts don't have the same data as the raster chart for that area. Both are about bridge clearance, and actually I can only just now remember where ONE of those two instances occur. (Short memory.)

BUT... I also don't remember checking to see whether I had that layer turned on at the time...

FWIW, our plotter has a menu for selecting enabled layers, and I think one of those is minor or additional place names...

-Chris

As far as accuracy and info...depends on the vector chart...

Not sure if the accuraccy comment was because of zoom capability or not.

As far as detail... the ENCs required for ships to be run on plotters with those capabilities specified by the IMO I believe are the most detailed of all.

That is why plain raster charts are not accepted all the time....cant remember the details...lots of links back in the "are paper charts required in Canada" threads.

CaptTom said:

My biggest beef is that vector charts don't have anywhere near as much data. I know that sounds contrary to popular belief, but let me offer just a couple of examples.



Place names: Raster (or paper) charts come in all different scales. Each chart has lots of place names on them. My observation is that two things happen when all this data is digitized into one vector file.



(1) Many, if not most, place names are lost. They simply aren't there on any layer of the vector charts.



(2) Many, if not most, place names are not located in the right place. I suspect it's because, when laying out a paper chart of a specific scale, the person drawing the chart picks a logical spot NEAR the place to put the name, based on the layout of the chart and where there's a blank area.

Click to expand...

Tom, I normally don't have any problems with vector charts, but this one issue that I have had problems with vector charts. Place names are important. They also should be displayed at appropriate zoom factors and in the right location. That is often not the case with vector charts.

It seems to me it would be an easy fix, but I'm not a computer guy.

CaptTom said:

My biggest beef is that vector charts don't have anywhere near as much data. I know that sounds contrary to popular belief, but let me offer just a couple of examples.



Place names: Raster (or paper) charts come in all different scales. Each chart has lots of place names on them. My observation is that two things happen when all this data is digitized into one vector file.



(1) Many, if not most, place names are lost. They simply aren't there on any layer of the vector charts.



(2) Many, if not most, place names are not located in the right place. I suspect it's because, when laying out a paper chart of a specific scale, the person drawing the chart picks a logical spot NEAR the place to put the name, based on the layout of the chart and where there's a blank area.



That spot may not be very logical at different scales, or with different data layers displayed. Presumably, the place name is entered (if at all) with specific coordinates when the raster chart is digitized. So you end up with the name of, say one island being next to a totally different island, or spilling over across several islands.



Place names are critical when navigating unfamiliar waters.



Other markings: Old paper charts actually showed shoreside structure (buildings, etc.) Granted, chimneys and other key piloting landmarks are usually digitized to the vector charts, but much of the other shoreside data isn't.



Also, the original cartographers would include, for example, the "swamp" symbol (tuft of grass) where they observed swampy areas. I notice that these are very poorly digitized. Whole swaths of the chart are flagged as swamp, even if there were just a few "tufts" with dry ground between.



Overall, the quality of the digitization is just poor for anything but buoys, channels and soundings.



I would have no beef with vector charts IF they contained all the data on a paper chart. They just don't.

Click to expand...

I agree that vector charts leave out most of the on-shore detail like topography. But they do include what's relevant to navigation, and that, after all, is their purpose.

It's also important to note that and given area can be covered by multiple vector charts at different scale ranges, just as there are different scale raster charts. In my experience, the place names are always there if you zoom in close enough. In that respect, it's no different from raster charts at different scales that show or omit various levels of detail.

ranger42c said:

I've only come across approx 2 instances where our vector charts don't have the same data as the raster chart for that area. Both are about bridge clearance, and actually I can only just now remember where ONE of those two instances occur. (Short memory.)



BUT... I also don't remember checking to see whether I had that layer turned on at the time...



FWIW, our plotter has a menu for selecting enabled layers, and I think one of those is minor or additional place names...



-Chris

Click to expand...

Operation of vector charts if different than raster charts, but I think you will find all the info is there. For bridges, for example, you typically need to click on the bridge to get a popup with clearance info. On raster charts its printed right near the bridge.

The same is true for lights. Often not all info is displayed in the vector char view, but click on the light/ buoy and you will get the details. Coastal explorer, for example, only shows the preferred color for multi colored buoys like at a channel fork. You need to click on he buoy to see that it is multi colored and has a preferred and secondary color.

twistedtree said:

It's also important to note that and given area can be covered by multiple vector charts at different scale ranges, just as there are different scale raster charts. In my experience, the place names are always there if you zoom in close enough. In that respect, it's no different from raster charts at different scales that show or omit various levels of detail.

Click to expand...

That is true. But if I am trying to find a city or town on the water, or the name of a smaller island, it doesn't help to have to zoom way in on the chart to find it. Raster charts will have most of those names visible on all but the largest scale charts.