search

S-101-Portrayal-subWG / Working-Documents

17 stars 5 forks source link

New symbology - Rapids (Point) #33

Closed alvarosanuy closed 2 years ago

alvarosanuy commented 3 years ago

The DCEG subWG has requested the Portrayal subWG to discuss new symbology for Rapids (DCEG 5.8) of geometric primitive type = Point.

S-52 symbology instructions for Line and Area RAPIDS are as follows:

Area (Plain & Symbolised) - "RAPIDS","","AC(CHGRD)","3","S","OTHER","32050"

Line - "RAPIDS","","LS(SOLD,3,CHGRD)","3","O","OTHER","32050"

TDYCARHugh commented 3 years ago

I remember that when S-52 was being developed the people involved questioned the significance to navigation of point features such as BRIDGE, GRIDRN, PIPSOL, PRDARE, RAPIDS, ROADWY, RUNWAY, TUNNEL, VEGATN, WATFAL. The decision for the first cut of S-52 was to not bother making symbols and cluttering the display with these objects. At that time it was expected that there would be feedback from real users if these features needed to be shown. That was 30 years ago.

I am not intending to be controversial, I am just curious. Is the request to make symbology for point RAPIDS coming from mariner feedback?

alvarosanuy commented 3 years ago

@TDYCARHugh I don't think so. but I imagine that the existing workaround in the UOC is the consequence of some sort of request (!?) One would imagine that this was discussed and approved (??) at the WG level. Why would we have some of the features you listed above with workarounds to make them visible and others not? Maybe Jeff can provide some light on the existence of a user case that was put forward in the past and justified the workaround in the UOC. I certainly agree that, before we create new symbols, we have to be sure that there's a need (a requirement) for them. The workaround in the UOC seems to suggest that ......

JeffWootton commented 3 years ago

None of the work-around's in S-57 and the requests for symbology to portray valid encoding that does not display in ECDIS has come from mariner feedback that I am aware of. Quite a few years ago there was a paper submitted to the former C&SMWG (Colours and Symbols Maintenance Working Group - thereafter DIPWG) questioning why there was valid encoding for S-57 ENCs that does not display in ECDIS. As I recall this was from a Member State with no reference to mariner feedback and was simply asking the question. The WG conducted a review and suggested to the (then) TSMADWG what encoding combinations it considered warranted some form of display, from which the work-around's were developed.

alvarosanuy commented 2 years ago

Decisions and Actions at 01DEC2021 (post 2nd meeting in November 2021):

image

alvarosanuy commented 2 years ago

Decision made at Portrayal subWG meeting on 13/7/22

  1. No proposal has been presented by MS. Portrayal will behave as per S-52. Close this issue and create new one when/if a proposal is submitted in the future.