Masking (DCEG clause 2.5.10)

[JeffWootton]

Refer to S-101 Portrayal issue #32: (https://github.com/S-101-Portrayal-subWG/Working-Documents/issues/32)

DCEG Sub-WG action from this issue:

Part of the recommendations to the DCEG Sub-WG is to include better (more appropriate) encoding scenario's in DCEG clause 2.5.10. Any DCEG Sub-WG members that can provide some input to this, your input will be appreciated.

It is intended that one of the outcomes of discussions on masking for S-101 ENCs is a recommendation back to the Portrayal Sub-WG as to any aspects of masking that may be automatically applied in the ECDIS (if any).

[JeffWootton]

From DCEG Sub-Group meeting 3 Record:

Points to Note:

• Not necessarily for Edition 1.1.0, but note that more appropriate examples and Figures would be appreciated.

Discussion/Decision:

• While not a critical requirement for S-101 Edition 1.1.0, it was reported that improved guidance on masking for S-101, including more appropriate scenarios, examples and Figures, need to be developed for masking in S-101. Issue #26 has been opened with the intent that contributors can provide such examples. It was agreed that the Sub-Group Lead will discuss possible options for re-structuring DCEG clause 2.5.10 with DK (Richard) and any other interested parties during the upcoming S-101PT9 meeting.
• The S-101 Portrayal Sub-Group Lead reported that such guidance should provide an indication as to masking that may be an “automated” process and not something that is required to be done by the encoder in all circumstances. While the initial discussion suggested that this automation could be provided by the ECDIS, it was strongly suggested that this automation should be automated within the ENC production software and not in the ECDIS, with the ability for the encoder to override if required.
• The question was raised as to where such guidance for automated masking in the ENC production system should go, given that the DCEG is intended for ENC compilers and not production system developers.
• It was noted that several of the Figures and Table 2.10 in clause 2.5.10 were not referenced in the text of the clause. It was agreed that this should be addressed for Edition 1.1.0.
• The requirement for the retention of the paragraph related to the masking of edges of “linear” surface features was questioned. This will be monitored as S-101 development continues and the paragraph will be removed if no longer necessary.

Action: - Keep Issue open for contributors to include suggestions for improvement to DCEG clause 2.5.10 (All). [Ongoing] - Initial discussions on improvements to clause 2.5.10 to take place in conjunction with S-101PT9 (IHO Sec, DK). - Amendments to be made to clause 2.5.10 to ensure that all Figures and Tables are referenced in the text (IHO Sec). [Complete]

[alvarosanuy]

We could start by splitting the scenarios in clause 2.5.10 into 'automation possible' and ''automation not possible'. Possible meaning we can clearly define the requirements (conditions to be met) in a 'machine readable way'. I do not see a problem with retaining this information in the DCEG. In the end is 'encoding guidance', we are just highlighting that the action can be performed by the production tool and not the ENC producer (human). In the end, the need for masking has to be visible to the human because, in the end, it's their responsibility to ensure masking is applied to the product. Not possible would be the other cases (conditions can't be 'easily' written in a machine readable way). If automation is possible then we should expect (we cannot enforce this) implementation by ENC production software (automated masking). Whenever machine readable conditions cannot be identified and human intervention is expected, then DCEG should provide clear guidance on 'how to'' identify and resolve them. In 2.5.10 there seems to be a 3rd case (refer to Figure 2.5) where the problem could be related to 'display priorities' although its resolution could be also be managed by automated edge masking based on well defined conditions (i.e. Anchorage Area edge overlaps Pontoon edge).