Update symbology and mapping of Sloping Ground & Slope Topline features - NCWG8-06.10A

[alvarosanuy]

NCWG8 meeting confirmed the validity of the guidance in S4 where SlopingGround and SlopeTopline related symbols are differentiated only when they are visually conspicuous and not when they are Radar conspicuous (as currently implemented by S-52 PL).

Based on this premise, it is proposed to modify the S-52 logic and always depict these features using the same symbology (generally, irrespective of their 'category'), and only alter this default symbology to indicate conspicuity (visual or radar). As a consequence, the portrayal rules for these 2 features should be amended as follows:

SLOPING GROUND

• Symbolise all SlopingGround features of type Point using the symbol HILTOP01 except when the attributes visualProminence = 1 (visually conspicuous) or the attribute radarConspicuous = True are encoded; in these cases they are to be mapped to HILTOP11.

• Symbolise all SlopingGround features of type Surface as per S-52 SLOGRD (Plain & Symbolised boundaries) but:

  • replacing CHGRD with LANDF and CHBLK with CHGRD when features are not Visual or Radar conspicuous. AC(LANDF);LS(SOLD,1,CHGRD)
  • Using AC(CHGRD);LS(SOLD,1,CHBLK) when features are Visual or Radar conspicuous.

SLOPE TOPLINE

• Symbolise all SlopeTopline features, not Visually or Radar conspicuous, and categoryOfSlope <> 2 & 6 using: LS(SOLD,1,LANDF)

• Symbolise all SlopeTopline features, not Visually or Radar conspicuous, and categoryOfSlope = 2 or 6 using: LS(SOLD,1,CHGRD)

• Symbolise all SlopeTopline features, that are Visually or Radar conspicuous, where categoryOfSlope = 2 or 6 using: LS(SOLD,1,CHBLK)

[alvarosanuy]

Portrayal subWG meeting - 12th January 2023

1. @DavidGrant-NIWC - Can you please confirm you can amend the simple lines and area boundaries yourself (within the rules) without the need of new symbology? If yes, we aim for PC 1.1.0. If not, please identify what is needed and I will coordinate development (this will move the implementation target to PC 1.2.0).

2. Test data will be required.

[DavidGrant-NIWC]

No new symbols are needed.

• [ ] @alvarosanuy please update the label to PC 1.1.0

[mikan66]

@alvarosanuy , sloping ground SURFACE (symbolized boundaries) has compound logic depending on categoryOfSlope and also AND combination of radarConspicuous, visualProminence

cat (1,2,3) and feature.radarConspicuous and feature.visualProminence == 1 then CHBLK cat(4,5,6,7) and feature.radarConspicuous then CHBLK

Please clarify further the exact boolean conditions to change the color OPTION 1:
cat (1,2,3) and NOT (feature.radarConspicuous AND feature.visualProminence == 1 ) then CHGRD cat(4,5,6,7) and NOT eature.radarConspicuous then CHGRD

OPTION 2: cat (1,2,3) and NOT (feature.radarConspicuous OR feature.visualProminence == 1 ) then CHGRD cat(4,5,6,7) and NOT eature.radarConspicuous then CHBLK

OPTION 3: ???

---

Specific example for categoryOfSlope(1,2,3):

[alvarosanuy]

@DavidGrant-NIWC - The decision made at NCWG8 was not to use category of Sloping Ground to drive portrayal and only check if the feature is conspicuous or not (either visual or radar) to drive a change in portrayal.

Category of Sloping Ground is not to be used to drive portrayal of SURFACES. Only focus on their conspicuity (either visual or radar).

• Symbolise all SlopingGround features of type Surface as per S-52 SLOGRD (Plain & Symbolised boundaries) but:
  • replacing CHGRD with LANDF and CHBLK with CHGRD when features are not Visual or Radar conspicuous. AC(LANDF);LS(SOLD,1,CHGRD)
  • Using AC(CHGRD);LS(SOLD,1,CHBLK) when features are Visual or Radar conspicuous.

[mikan66]

Thanks for clarification, see PC #161 which is now closed.

[alvarosanuy]

Implemented in PC 1.1.0