Major Light (row 60 main)

[mikan66]

Rule Update. NOTE: Sanchez, Alvaro MR: Implemented in order to drive symbology to generate the "light halo's" for all-around major lights. If "No" should be a flare symbol; If "Yes" the halo.

Please notice that AUOC refers to lights with range =>10M and DCEG does not link the definition of 'Major Light' to any light range. It looks like, in S-101, Light Portrayal must change to halo irrespective of the light range value encoded when 'Major Light' is True. Do we need a validation check???

LightAllAround.lua update required. Need more information on "light halo".

[alvarosanuy]

OFFICIAL See red entry below

Alvaro Sanchez | Acting Director National Charting Australian Hydrographic Office | Maritime Geospatial Branch 8 Station Street, Wollongong T: +61 2 4223 6506 | M: +61 434 349 674

Defence Intelligence Group | Department of Defence [AGO Logo2]

IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence. Unauthorised communication and dealing with the information in the email may be a serious criminal offence. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email immediately.

From: mikan66 @.> Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2022 3:13 AM To: iho-ohi/S-101_Portrayal-Catalogue @.> Cc: Subscribed @.***> Subject: [iho-ohi/S-101_Portrayal-Catalogue] Major Light (row 60 main) (Issue #60)

EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click any links or open any attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Rule Update. NOTE: Sanchez, Alvaro MR: Implemented in order to drive symbology to generate the "light halo's" for all-around major lights. If "No" should be a flare symbol; If "Yes" the halo.

Please notice that AUOC refers to lights with range =>10M and DCEG does not link the definition of 'Major Light' to any light range. It looks like, in S-101, Light Portrayal must change to halo irrespective of the light range value encoded when 'Major Light' is True. Do we need a validation check???

LightAllAround.lua update required. Need more information on "light halo".

NIWC – The portrayal details of the ‘Halo’ should be as per S-52 (see below) – Do you need further details? What specifically?

@.***

Jeff – Tom– Would it be acceptable for somebody to encode: light range = 1M and Major light = TRUE ??? I do not think so. I believe we should create a validation check that aligns with S-57 encoding guidance (=>10M). It would be an ERROR so it gives the encoder the opportunity to review/ignore the message if erroneous (i.e. producing agency considers that 8.5M is a major light for the area and the portrayal of a ‘halo’ is preferred) – Your views on this please ??

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/iho-ohi/S-101_Portrayal-Catalogue/issues/60, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AQXP7WDKIXMPXFV56BWLBQTVJFBSRANCNFSM5VO5TMWA. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: @.**@.>>

[alvarosanuy]

Alvaro,

I support what you describe, S-101 will remove the 10M value (although it will probably be used in converted data) so it is the major light Boolean which drives portrayal now. I think this will actually be a big improvement if producers apply this intelligently as the halos currently cause clutter in some cases.

Therefore, as you suggest validation checks should prompt producers if the range exceeds 10M and major light is not populated, also if the range is less than 10M and major light is populated.

I will raise an item in the validation checks Github for this.

Unrelated but are you attending the meeting in Bali in person this week? I leave Wednesday night unfortunately but it would be good to catch up.

Best Regards,

Tom

Mr Tom Richardson Technical and Standards Manager International Centre for ENCs Telephone: +44(0)1823 483785

Web: www.ic-enc.orghttp://www.ic-enc.org/ @.***

From: Sanchez, Alvaro MR @.> Sent: 16 May 2022 06:37 To: iho-ohi/S-101_Portrayal-Catalogue @.>; iho-ohi/S-101_Portrayal-Catalogue @.> Cc: Subscribed @.>; Jeff Wootton @.>; Thomas Richardson @.> Subject: RE: [iho-ohi/S-101_Portrayal-Catalogue] Major Light (row 60 main) (Issue #60) [SEC=OFFICIAL]

OFFICIAL See red entry below

Alvaro Sanchez | Acting Director National Charting Australian Hydrographic Office | Maritime Geospatial Branch 8 Station Street, Wollongong T: +61 2 4223 6506 | M: +61 434 349 674

Defence Intelligence Group | Department of Defence [AGO Logo2]

IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence. Unauthorised communication and dealing with the information in the email may be a serious criminal offence. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email immediately.

From: mikan66 @.**@.>> Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2022 3:13 AM To: iho-ohi/S-101_Portrayal-Catalogue @.**@.>> Cc: Subscribed @.**@.>> Subject: [iho-ohi/S-101_Portrayal-Catalogue] Major Light (row 60 main) (Issue #60)

EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click any links or open any attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Rule Update. NOTE: Sanchez, Alvaro MR: Implemented in order to drive symbology to generate the "light halo's" for all-around major lights. If "No" should be a flare symbol; If "Yes" the halo.

Please notice that AUOC refers to lights with range =>10M and DCEG does not link the definition of 'Major Light' to any light range. It looks like, in S-101, Light Portrayal must change to halo irrespective of the light range value encoded when 'Major Light' is True. Do we need a validation check???

LightAllAround.lua update required. Need more information on "light halo".

NIWC – The portrayal details of the ‘Halo’ should be as per S-52 (see below) – Do you need further details? What specifically?

@.***

Jeff – Tom– Would it be acceptable for somebody to encode: light range = 1M and Major light = TRUE ??? I do not think so. I believe we should create a validation check that aligns with S-57 encoding guidance (=>10M). It would be an ERROR so it gives the encoder the opportunity to review/ignore the message if erroneous (i.e. producing agency considers that 8.5M is a major light for the area and the portrayal of a ‘halo’ is preferred) – Your views on this please ??

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/iho-ohi/S-101_Portrayal-Catalogue/issues/60, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AQXP7WDKIXMPXFV56BWLBQTVJFBSRANCNFSM5VO5TMWA. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: @.**@.>>

The contents of this e-mail and any attachments are the property of the International Centre for Electronic Navigational Charts (IC-ENC) and are intended for the confidential use of the named recipient only. Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail. This footnote also confirms that this e-mail message has been scanned for the presence of computer viruses. You are however advised to carry out your own virus checks.

[DavidGrant-NIWC]

• Only applies to LightAllAround
• I believe this is asking to replace the check for valueOfNominalRange >= 10.0 with a check for majorLight is true
  • e.g., elseif majorLight and not contains(...
• I believe the other checks should be retained (halo is only drawn on non-aero/non-morse code lights)
• I assume if majorLight is unknown it should be treated as false?
  • Or should valueOfNominalRange be checked?
  • What if valueOfNominalRange is also unknown?

Background

See row 68 in Remodelled spreadsheet_FINAL Actions_17NOV2021

[alvarosanuy]

Hi David,

My input in Bold text below.

Only applies to LightAllAround Correct • I believe this is asking to replace the check for valueOfNominalRange >= 10.0 with a check for majorLight is true Correct o e.g., elseif majorLight and not contains(...

• I believe the other checks should be retained (halo is only drawn on non-aero/non-morse code lights) Correct • I assume if majorLight is unknown it should be treated as false? Agree o Or should valueOfNominalRange be checked? No o What if valueOfNominalRange is also unknown? Use flare not halo

[LeoKuzmin]

The value 10 Miles of VALNMR has been assigned for LIGHTS in S-57 to specify major Lights, since there was no way to select such lights and to portray light “halo”. However, it does not mean that major light cannot have less nominal range in specific cases. I believe a chart producer should decide which light is major and set majorLight = true and an actual value of nominal range. However, we should continue to depict all lights around with VALNMR >= 10 with “halo” to support presentation of converted charts for DF mode. Therefore, the condition in the Lua file should be write the following way:

elseif (feature.majorLight or valueOfNominalRange >= 10.0) and not contains(categoryOfLight, { 5 }) and feature.rhythmOfLight.lightCharacteristic ~= 12 then

[KlasOstergren-SMA]

The value 10 Miles of VALNMR has been assigned for LIGHTS in S-57 to specify major Lights, since there was no way to select such lights and to portray light “halo”. However, it does not mean that major light cannot have less nominal range in specific cases. I believe a chart producer should decide which light is major and set majorLight = true and an actual value of nominal range. However, we should continue to depict all lights around with VALNMR >= 10 with “halo” to support presentation of converted charts for DF mode. Therefore, the condition in the Lua file should be write the following way:

elseif (feature.majorLight or valueOfNominalRange >= 10.0) and not contains(categoryOfLight, { 5 }) and feature.rhythmOfLight.lightCharacteristic ~= 12 then

I disagree to this. With the new opportunity for the dataproducer in S-101 to control the halo via the majorLight attribute, it is the responsibility of the dataproducer to make the right decition. For converted S-57 ENC's to S-101, an appropriate converter should handle the population of majorLight depending of the VALNMR value. The dataproduer then have the opportunity to change the converted value if needed.

[alvarosanuy]

Hi Tom and Alvaro.

Apologies, but because of high priority stuff I am way behind on emails ...

I agree with your assessment on this issue, however I think there needs to be some flexibility with this as there may be some lights (particularly in restricted navigable waters) that may have a nominal range of much less than 10NM that are considered by the local authorities to be major lights.

I will note this for possibly improving the guidance in the DCEG.

I agree that validation checks as you describe would be useful (as Warnings only).

Best Regards,

Jeff.

logo-website

Jeff WOOTTON Technical Standards Support Officer Responsable standards techniques

Tel: +377 93 10 81 00 Email: @.** www.iho.int* <https:\www.iho.int>

follow us http://www.fb.me/IHOhydro follow us https://twitter.com/IHOhydro follow us http://linkedin.com/company/international-hydrographic-organization follow us https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpMKDQTKKlJSXmQCQzFqZPA/featured

On 16/05/2022 09:47, Thomas Richardson wrote:

Alvaro,

I support what you describe, S-101 will remove the 10M value (although it will probably be used in converted data) so it is the major light Boolean which drives portrayal now. I think this will actually be a big improvement if producers apply this intelligently as the halos currently cause clutter in some cases.

Therefore, as you suggest validation checks should prompt producers if the range exceeds 10M and major light is not populated, also if the range is less than 10M and major light is populated.

I will raise an item in the validation checks Github for this.

Unrelated but are you attending the meeting in Bali in person this week? I leave Wednesday night unfortunately but it would be good to catch up.

Best Regards,

Tom

Mr Tom Richardson

Technical and Standards Manager

International Centre for ENCs

Telephone: +44(0)1823 483785

Web:www.ic-enc.org http://www.ic-enc.org/

From:Sanchez, Alvaro MR @.> Sent: 16 May 2022 06:37 To: iho-ohi/S-101_Portrayal-Catalogue @.>; iho-ohi/S-101_Portrayal-Catalogue @.> Cc: Subscribed @.>; Jeff Wootton @.>; Thomas Richardson @.> Subject: RE: [iho-ohi/S-101_Portrayal-Catalogue] Major Light (row 60 main) (Issue #60) [SEC=OFFICIAL]

OFFICIAL

See red entry below

Alvaro Sanchez | Acting Director National Charting

Australian Hydrographic Office | Maritime Geospatial Branch

8 Station Street, Wollongong

T: +61 2 4223 6506 | M: +61 434 349 674

Defence Intelligence Group | Department of Defence

AGO Logo2

IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Department of Defence. Unauthorised communication and dealing with the information in the email may be a serious criminal offence. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email immediately.

From:mikan66 @.> Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2022 3:13 AM To: iho-ohi/S-101_Portrayal-Catalogue @.> Cc: Subscribed @.**> Subject:* [iho-ohi/S-101_Portrayal-Catalogue] Major Light (row 60 main) (Issue #60)

EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click any links or open any attachments unless you trust the sender and know the content is safe.

Rule Update. NOTE: Sanchez, Alvaro MR: Implemented in order to drive symbology to generate the "light halo's" for all-around major lights. If "No" should be a flare symbol; If "Yes" the halo.

Please notice that AUOC refers to lights with range =>10M and DCEG does not link the definition of 'Major Light' to any light range. It looks like, in S-101, Light Portrayal must change to halo irrespective of the light range value encoded when 'Major Light' is True. Do we need a validation check???

LightAllAround.lua update required. Need more information on "light halo".

NIWC– The portrayal details of the ‘Halo’ should be as per S-52 (see below) – Do you need further details? What specifically?

Jeff – Tom– Would it be acceptable for somebody to encode: light range = 1M and Major light = TRUE ??? I do not think so. I believe we should create a validation check that aligns with S-57 encoding guidance (=>10M). It would be an ERROR so it gives the encoder the opportunity to review/ignore the message if erroneous (i.e. producing agency considers that 8.5M is a major light for the area and the portrayal of a ‘halo’ is preferred) – Your views on this please ??

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/iho-ohi/S-101_Portrayal-Catalogue/issues/60, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AQXP7WDKIXMPXFV56BWLBQTVJFBSRANCNFSM5VO5TMWA. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: @.***>

The contents of this e-mail and any attachments are the property of the International Centre for Electronic Navigational Charts (IC-ENC) and are intended for the confidential use of the named recipient only. Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail. This footnote also confirms that this e-mail message has been scanned for the presence of computer viruses. You are however advised to carry out your own virus checks.

[alvarosanuy]

It seems the way forward is:

• Rule should trigger the display of a 'halo' only when majorLight = TRUE

• Tom Richardson will add a validation check (Warning) to highlight:

  1. instances of majorLight=TRUE and valueOfNominalRange < 10.0 NM
  2. instances of majorLight=FALSE/Unknown and valueOfNominalRange >= 10.0 NM

It is important to note that the new portrayal logic will create display differences between S-57 and S-101 ENC

[DavidGrant-NIWC]

• I believe the other checks should be retained (halo is only drawn on non-aero/non-morse code lights) Correct

Shouldn't the check for aero / morse code lights just be a validation check as well?

[TDYCARHugh]

I like the suggestion that the check for aero / morse code lights just be a validation check. It would make the portrayal simpler. In hindsight, perhaps if the attribute name were 'showHalo' instead of 'majorLIght' it would be clear what it is intended for and avoid the discussion about the definition of what is a major light.