I think there is some confusion. Iâm talking about editing and updating the RNC chart files. Updating paper charts, apart from some outfits that do it as a tradition that breeds good seamanship which is all well and good, is pretty much a hobby past time at this point.
I prefer navigating with raster charts for the most part, and I donât plan to stop. There are certain situations where the inherent inaccuracy of quilted rasters isnât appropriate, but itâs half a second to switch to a vector. The inherent inaccuracy and lack of data in a quilted raster is a good reminder, personally. Opinions vary.
Itâs probably not worth anyone elseâs time to learn to edit raster chart files, but my time is my own and I like em so theyâll stay.
It makes sense that if the extent and scale of a paper chart is unknown then corrections canât be provided. But if the paper chart is the same extent and scale as the canceled chart is there some other technical reason updates canât be provided?
On the Ocean Grafix website they claim that a paper version of a ENC (Lake Tahoe) is sold updated. How were they doing that? Whatâs changed that it can no longer be done?
It is very easy to sell an updated version since you are printing directly from the updated ENCs supplied by NOAA. I do think it will be slightly more convoluted to update by hand a printed ENC since the corrections wonât be associated by number with any paper chart.
When you order the chart from them, they go to NOAAâs custom chart maker where they presumably have already saved the outline of the chart. They export a new chart that theyâve given the same number as the old NOAA chart, and it is up to date to when they generate the chart. They can then export it in a 36"x52" PDF that goes directly to their large format printer and ship it to you, selling you the free product just like Dasani bottles tap water.
If the USCG or NGIA or OCS moves the buoy âTDR2â .5NM East, they will just push that update in the ENC update that youd be downloading every week for your Electronic chart software of choice, and at the moment the change would not appear in the LNM or NMs. (OCS does this to you anyway if you report a discrepancy on the chart, they will just push the update and there will be no notice.) If you bought another chart from Ocean Graphics, it would probably be in the correct position, because theyd repeat the process with the most up to date ENC information.
You could theoretically use this data to plot changes on the chart, however from what Iâm hearing these ENC paper charts wont even meet carriage requements. But this map is the best ive seen for sourcing ENC update data.
That being said v1.2 of the custom chart maker still has a few bugs. This is a 8.5"x11" 1:5,000 chart of the jetties at Palm Beach that i just generated, and its not showing any characteristics for these bouys. Your milage may vary even with the Ocean Graphix charts because this is the system they are using.
Ocean Grafix solved the problem of printing paper versions of ENCs.
The took the number of the corresponding paper chart and added two letters to the end (OG). The corrections could be made as long as the old correction scheme in place remained in place.
For some reason thatâs not being done. My understand is that the old system is going to be replaced by a system that works in any instance, not just the for the legacy charts.
The devil is in the details, presumably NOAA doesnât want to expend the resources required to keep the old scheme in place while the switch is being made.
As a practical matter I donât imagine that the number of mariners that donât want to switch to ENCs but do require corrected charts is very large.
EDIT: Itâs been pointed out on this thread by @requiem that NOAAâs side of the chart correction system is still in place. Itâs downstream from there thatâs not being maintained.
Eh, I very much doubt that vendors such as Ocean Grafix are applying any corrections to the charts themselves, or that they even retain such capability. Rather they simply print whatâs made available by the HOs.
Since the RNC charts are georeferenced it would be a âsimpleâ matter to determine the bounds for each chart, and query NOAAâs systems for changes having coordinates within those bounds. It would require someone manually editing the image part of the chart (think playing about in Photoshop or Illustrator). And as the kids say these days, âainât nobody have time for thatâ.
Some mariners are not correcting charts for months at a time and use the ECSIS as a reason not to worry. What is your opinion on this? Do you think Paper Chart Corrections are still needed when you have an ECDIS? What about plotting of positions? The CFR still says you have to fix the position on a chart. Not all vessels have Voyage Data Recorders.
Were I attempting such, Iâd make a list of my paper versions along with their lat/lon bounds. Iâd then go through the NTMs and look for entries within those, noting down the corresponding paper chart ID (you could make up your own IDs for this).
Some experimentation may be needed to find the most efficient means of doing this. Iâd be tempted to use a spreadsheet, where you paste in the coordinates for each correction and it filters the list for entries where those coordinates are in-bounds.
I think mariners should put their resources to use where they will be used most efficiently. Not everybody is going to have the same requirements.
Itâs in the publicâs interest that mariners have up-to-date charts, whatever the form. It just strikes me as odd that, as I understand it at least, thereâs going to be a gap in coverage with the NTM.
If the corrections can applied to a print-on-demand chart why canât the be listed for paper charts that have the same extent and scale? Is that a bureaucratic issue or a technical one?
The issue of lack of data to correct charts is not much of an issue for our operation. Our Navigation Board has decided to keep using certain charts specifically for parallel indexing through certain passages etc. The geography in our neck of the woods doesnât change much. Water/granite, not much in between Few buoys. So for that use (secondary to ECS) corrections not necessary.
NOAA says already developing the next iteration of paper charts and presumably these will have corrections in NTM so the non-correction issue may simply be a temporary problem.
Where we work the tricky navigation is in Canadian waters and Canadians are still printing charts, though they have phased out print-on-demand charts.
The paper BA charts used to come updated to the latest NTM but the corrections had been done by hand .Thatâs one of the reasons we switched from DMA (now NGA) to BA, correcting new DMA charts just took too much time and effort. Instead of correcting an old chart it was better to buy a new one.
Maybe in this case, as a practical matter, itâs just better to switch to ENCs.
On March 28, 2022 the USCG opened a 3 month comment period in regards to change in the CFRs regarding electronic charts. (87 FR 17241) Currently, only public vessels are allowed to be paperless under CFRs, however I believe there is a NVIC that outlines an approval processes for everyone else, and then vessels are approved to sail paperless. Long story, short, I think the rules for paperless will soon be codified in the Nav Regs.
After bugging the OCS about several discrepancies I have found between the light list and the chart through the ASSIST program, Iâve come to realize how much manual input there is in producing paper charts, and how often there are discrepancies. Iâm pretty sure they arenât discontinuing paper charts just for funzies, but because itâs a lot of work and time they could spend producing electronic charts that a majority of the commercial maritime industry is already using.
And to clarify again, the corrections arenât being applied to print on demand charts, they are being applied to ENCS, which are being printed by Ocean graphicâs custom charts using NOAAs free, public, custom chart generator.
Iâm made $3,000 chart orders before, this makes a lot of sense if folks in the office really have a hardon for paper charts. Especialy at nearly $30 a pop for a free PDF. But who knows how much the magic BA watermarked paper is.
I understand why the industry is shifting to ENCs. I was just curious about the NTM situation.
The shift is happening and itâs been discussed ad nauseam on here. I donât see any point in rehashing the subject.
The fact that there are plans to provide a means of correcting paper charts shows that someone must want to do it. I personally have no need or desire to correct paper charts.
I think this where we arenât understanding eachother. Since paper charts are going away, the means to correct them are also appear to be going away. I havent seen these plans to provide a means of correcting paper charts. The information and data still needs to get from the survery ships, USCG, and any other interested parties to the cartographers, but who knows how public that will be. As long as buoys sink and pipelines become exposed there will always be corrections, but the fact is unless there is a very bored mate listening to the broadcast local notice to mariners and applying manual corrections to the ECDIS, no one is going need a text based description of chart corrections when you just download a new ENC every week.
And thats the problem with Ocean Graphix Print on Demand custom charts, they dont appear to meet carriage requirements and they will be unreliable and difficult to update. They could have a place recreationaly, and maybe on the test for Pilotage, but it just irks me that they are selling it like itâs an offical product. Clealry their business is going the way of the Buffalo as charts make their exit, i can see why theyâre trying to adapt.
My impression is this comment period is less about âyou may go paperlessâ (which is already allowed) but more about âyou must go electronicâ. This also seems quite timely, as once all the RNC charts are retired there may no longer be any paper charts for the US that meet carriage requirements. (Sure, you could obtain some from BA or another provider, but from where would they obtain them?) Thus there would be no need to have a manual update mechanism via NTM because it would no longer be possible within the regulatory framework.
On the other hand, I suspect at some point NOAA intends to âblessâ the output of their custom chart tool as suitable for carriage. A simple means of resolving the update problem in that case would be to list the ENC cells used on those charts, list the impacted ENC cells in the NTM, and leave it up to the user to determine if each update was part of their particular chart or not. This is more a function of the ENC re-scheming plan than the switch from paper.
Itâs the CG that has to approve the paper ENC charts, not NOAA. Thereâs two agencies involved. My understanding is that NOAA expects the paper versions to get approval.
But who knows how much the magic BA watermarked paper is.