IHO / OHI Home

Search
   
Members

Calendar

Help

Home
Search by username
Not logged in - Login | Register 
IHO / OHI > IHO > Hydrographic Dictionary > HSSC3 Submission


HSSC3 Submission
 Moderated by: ihbpah  

New Topic

Reply

Print
AuthorPost
ihbpah
Administrator
 

Joined: Wed Feb 8th, 2006
Location: Monaco, Monaco
Posts: 107
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Tue Jul 5th, 2011 09:20 am

Quote

Reply
In the attached document I have put together our consideration of terms from S-52 and S-57. Please let me have your concurrence to these this document asap. I am in the process of putting together the full report to HSSC3.

I will shortly put some further work up on this forum. Should we complete any work prior to the HSSC3 submission deadline they can be added to the attached, if not they can be held for HSSC4.

Attachment: HSSC3-submission.zip (Downloaded 3 times)

JerryMills
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Thu Jul 7th, 2011 02:11 pm

Quote

Reply
I concur with the document prepared by Steve with one suggested addition:

Mark (navigation) - See NAVIGATION MARK

It seems to me that some people may try to find a definition for MARK as it is used in numerous places but wouldn't necessarily think to look under NAVIGATION MARK.

ihbpah
Administrator
 

Joined: Wed Feb 8th, 2006
Location: Monaco, Monaco
Posts: 107
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Fri Jul 8th, 2011 07:44 am

Quote

Reply
I agree with the thought however with the Wiki system anyone searching for "mark", "navigation" or "navigation mark" will see  all definitions containing the word / words.

"Mark" itself is already in the dictionary along with many other types of "mark". So we could add "navigation mark" at the end of the "See also ....." in the definition of "mark" but I do not think it is really necessary.

We could even consider removing those that are already there as they will also come up under the search for mark anyway. These links were useful inthe printed text but in the wiki if they contain the word in the main definition "mark" in this case, then they are really superfluous.

JerryMills
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Fri Jul 8th, 2011 12:08 pm

Quote

Reply
Thanks for the explanation on the Wiki system.  I'm still stuck mentally in the written version.  I agree there is no need to add "navigation mark" at the end of the "See also..."

 

jwootton
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Thu Jul 14th, 2011 11:11 pm

Quote

Reply
Jerry and Steve:

I have gone through the HSSC3 submission document and my comments are included in the attached document (blue text).  If there are no comments associated with a term I consider this to be OK.  As this is the first opportunity that I have had to look at the S-57 definition proposals most of my comments are related to these.  My apologies for not looking at these earlier, unfortunately my focus has been on other IHO Working Group activities. 

Please let me know if you require any further information or clarification on my comments.

Attachment: HSSC3-submission_AU.zip (Downloaded 9 times)

JerryMills
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Wed Jul 27th, 2011 09:18 pm

Quote

Reply
Below are my responses to jeff's comments:

1.  Electronic chart - change "paper CHART" to "paper NAUTICAL CHART" - This suggests that NAUTICAL should be inserted before the word chart throughout this definition and actually change the term to "electronic nautical chart".  I don't really think this is necessary. 

2.  Nautical chart - combine both definitions into one.  I much prefer the first definition but since the ECDIS dictionary includes the second definition, it seems reasonable to include it.  They should remain separate definitions in my opinion - the first that best describes a nautical chart and the second to reflect the ECDIS glossary.  If this is unaccepatble then I suggest we drop the second definition.

3.  Cardinal buoy - concur with removal (see my remarks of 3 March) - already done, correct Steve?  Second suggeston - concur

4.  Careening grid - I have no proble with appending "Also called gridiron".  This term is not used in the US to my knowledge.

5.  Caution area - While Jeff is technically correct, I think the term should be included because it is an "S-57 construct". 

6.  Dock - concur

7.  Elevation - TR3/1919 refers to heights not elevation.  Please read my lengthy entry of March 4.

I need to leave work at this time but will complete my responses tomorrow.

 

 

jwootton
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Thu Jul 28th, 2011 02:26 am

Quote

Reply
Electronic chart:  I have suggested that "paper NAUTICAL CHART" be used because of the "required by SOLAS" at the end of the definition.  The definition for "chart" is a generalised definition but it is the definition for "nautical chart" (that is, assuming the revised definition if approved) that relates to SOLAS.  If a user of the Hydrographic Dictionary wishes to find out what the SOLAS requirement for charts is, they will not get it from the definition for "chart", but from the definition for "nautical chart".

Nautical chart:  OK.  Suggest retain both definitions.

Caution area:  There are numerous "S-57 constructs" that have not been included in S-32, and many suggested as part of the TSMAD submission have been rejected.  Suggest, based on my previous comment, that this is not sufficient reason to define in S-32.

Elevation:  This probably needs further discussion because of the confusion that appears to exist because of the interchanging of the words "elevation" and "height", of which TR 3/1919 is an example.  Looking at the current S-32 definitions for elevation and height, it seems that the distinction between the definitions (other than a specific datum being mentioned and the reference to altitude in the definition for elevation), is the "on or affixed to the surface of the earth" part.  If we can agree that the term "elevation" relates to the vertical distance from a datum to a point on the earths surface (which is the interpretation used in S-57 in distinguishing elevation from height), perhaps the definition for "elevation" could be "The HEIGHT of a POINT or a LEVEL on the surface of the EARTH, measured from ......"?

JerryMills
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Thu Jul 28th, 2011 01:10 pm

Quote

Reply
In response to Jeff's latest comments:

1.  Electronic chart - Steve shouuld make the decision on the inclusion of "paper" based on his comments of 12 Oct 10 wherein he stated we should adopt the definition from SOLAS since IHO was prominent in defining this term in SOLAS.   I still do not think it is necessary.

2.  Caution area - Here is a proposed new revised definition of "caution area" as I think it is very important to include it in the dictionary: "An area to which a cautionary note applies where the mariner needs to be aware of special circumstances influencing the safety of NAVIGATION."  The definition for "cautionary note" is "Information calling special attention to some fact, usually a DANGER AREA shown on a CHART, or other publication."  A caution area is the spatially defined area to which the cautionary note applies.

3. Elevation - The proper reference datum for elevation is the refernce geoid, but I'm not sure we want to complicate the definition by using this.  Since the geoid approximates mean sea level, it seems reasonable to retain MSL in the definition.  To me, the difference between elevation and height is that elevation is always referred to MSL (geoid) and heights should be referenced to a high water datum (per TR3/1919).  If this is everyone else's understanding then TR 3/1919 is incorrect because it mixes the two terms.  Steve - what are the chances of getting TR 3/1919 changed from "elevation of lights" to "height of lights"? 

JerryMills
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Thu Jul 28th, 2011 03:24 pm

Quote

Reply
Continuing with the comments made by Jeff on 14 July:

1.  Fairway - Adding the proposed second sentence is fine but I'm also OK with leaving it out.

2.  Isolated danger mark - since the definition was amended with wording from the US Coast Guard, I'm not sure reference to the IALA Maritime Buoyage System should be made.  For that matter, should any of the definitons include reference to the IALA Maritime Buoyage System?  (S-32 definitions for safe water mark and special mark include reference to the IALA Maritime Buoyage System but the definition for isolated danger mark does not.  Lateral mark and cardinal mark are new definitions.  Before including reference to the IALA  Maritime Buoyage System for these latter three terms, we need to determine if there is any distinction between them and the first two. 

3.  Lateral buoy was already recommended for removal in my 3 March 11 comments.

4.  Life Saving Station - concur

5.  Pile - concur

6.  Radar line - concur

7.  Safe water mark - concur

8.  Sounding - I don't recall such a discussion but I'm not sure what objection one would have in relating a sounding to a vertical datum.  Steve - do you have any records of such a discussion?

9.  Restricted area - The TSMAD proposal to include the words "on land or water" and "access" does not seem necessary for a Hydrographic Dictionary.

10.  Installation buoy - I still see no need for this definition nor do I see a need for a definition of Single Buoy Mooring (I don't remember how/why we added it). 

11.  Fishing facility - this term doesn't add anything of importance to S-32.  The existing terms "fish stakes" and "fish traps" are sufficient in my opinion.  Furthermore, the word facility suggests a building or factory, not something that would be an obstruction to ships.

12.  Traffic separation line - this seems somewhat repetitive of "traffic separation zone".  It seems rather intuitive that a line would separate "zones" but I have no objection to its inclusion.

13.  Log pond - this term is self descriptive and need not be included in my opinion.

14.  Distance mark - this term is self descriptive and need not be included in my opinion.

15.  Pilot boarding place - this term is very self descriptive and need not be included in my opinion.

16.  Control point/control station - concur

17.  Calling-in point - concur

jwootton
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Sun Jul 31st, 2011 11:59 pm

Quote

Reply
In response to Jerry's comments:

Caution area:  Agree with Jerry's suggested amended definition.  I was not aware that "cautionary note" was defined in the Dictionary.

Elevation:  Other than re-iterating the interpretation of the terms "elevation" and "height" in terms of how they are used on nautical charts as included in my previous post, I have nothing further to add to this discussion. 

Isolated danger mark:  By suggesting the inclusion of "In the IALA Maritime Buoyage System" I was not implying that the definition was derived from IALA, but that the term itself is a term in the IALA Maritime Buoyage System.  Whether this is included in the definitions or not, I would prefer it to be consistently done.

Sounding:  I have managed to find time to go back through my records on this.  This term was discussed as part of a CSPCWG submission to HDWG late in 2009 or early in 2010.  As a result of this discussion, there was a recommendation to HSSC2 from HDWG to retain the definitions for "sounding" and "depth" unchanged and for CSPCWG to review their usage in INT1 and S-4 (refer HDWG Report to HSSC2).  As I recall, the main issue with "sounding" was that it was considered that this refers to the actual measurement of the depth of water by the instrument, independant of any datum.  When adjusted to a particular water level (datum), such measurements are referred to as "depths".  Anyway, I do not see why we should be re-visiting this term given the decision made by HDWG in 2010 which has been approved by HSSC.

I agree with all other suggestions from Jerry.

ihbpah
Administrator
 

Joined: Wed Feb 8th, 2006
Location: Monaco, Monaco
Posts: 107
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Wed Aug 3rd, 2011 01:38 pm

Quote

Reply
I have attempted to piece together all the comments made so far and attach a revised draft submission to HSSC3. The first couple of pages of the attachment explain what I have done and why. I will hopefully post an update on the WWNWS(CPRNW) terms tomorrow.

 

I would appreciate thoughts on the attached asap so that I can start to finalise the report for HSSC3.

Attachment: HSSC3-revised-draft-submission.zip (Downloaded 4 times)

jwootton
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Thu Aug 4th, 2011 12:48 am

Quote

Reply
Great job in getting the comments and revised definition sorted out Steve!  I have a couple of editorial comments only to tidy up, but otherwise agree with your summary and the submission:

Anchor berth:  The S-57 definition that has been suggested for adoption uses the term "sea plane" (2 words), while in S-4 the term is "seaplane" (one word).  Note also that in S-57 the object class SPLARE is "Sea-plane landing area".  I am trying to tidy this up for the IHO Hydrographic Register and have suggested that we be consistent with S-4 and adopt "seaplane", but will go with the term used in S-32, noting that this term is being used for the first time in this definition.  What do you suggest?

Cardinal mark:  For consistency, amend "navigational mark" to "NAVIGATION MARK" in first sentence.

Dock:  I have had a look at the Wiki, and virtually all instances of "Also called ...." are at the end of the definition.  Suggest "Also called slip." be moved to the end of the definition of dock for consistency.

Lateral mark:  For consistency, amend "mark" to "NAVIGATION MARK" in first sentence.

Pile:  Capitalise "sea floor".

Sandwave:  As for dock above, but suggest move to second last sentence.

Transhipment or lightening area:  As per my initial post on this definition, for consistency amend "cargo transfer area / cargo transhipment area" to "cargo transfer area or cargo transhipment area".

ihbpah
Administrator
 

Joined: Wed Feb 8th, 2006
Location: Monaco, Monaco
Posts: 107
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Thu Aug 4th, 2011 06:35 am

Quote

Reply
Many thanks Jeff. I agree with all the points you raise and have amended the document accordingly.

With regard to "seaplane", interestingly the wikipedia entry which is "Seaplane" starts of with "A sea plane is .."!! However a large majority of entries use the single word seaplane so I suggest that we go with this. Also one word in my Oxford English dictionary.

JerryMills
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Tue Aug 9th, 2011 01:53 pm

Quote

Reply
I concur with all of Steve's changes except I'm still having difficulty with elevation.  The existing S-32 definition specifically references mean sea level "The vertical distance of a point or a level, on or affixed to the surface of the earth. measured from mean sea level."  By inserting "usually" we retain the most commonly referenced vertical datum for elevations but remove the requirement in the current S-32 definition that it be MSL.

One other point of clarification - are you proposing to delete the definition for the term sounding, or delete the proposed change and simply retain the current S-32 definition?

ihbpah
Administrator
 

Joined: Wed Feb 8th, 2006
Location: Monaco, Monaco
Posts: 107
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Tue Aug 9th, 2011 03:29 pm

Quote

Reply
I can agree to keep "usually Mean Sea Level" in the S-32 definition.

Regarding "Sounding" my intention was to keep the definition exactly as it is and as approved last year by removing the revised definition that has been doing the rounds with this group of terms.

Assuming agreement on this I will now put a final submission to HSSC together.

JerryMills
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Tue Aug 9th, 2011 07:43 pm

Quote

Reply
Thanks for the clarification Steve.  I agree with both.

 

 

jwootton
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Fri Aug 12th, 2011 01:44 am

Quote

Reply
I concur.  Well done Steve.

ihbpah
Administrator
 

Joined: Wed Feb 8th, 2006
Location: Monaco, Monaco
Posts: 107
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Fri Aug 26th, 2011 06:48 am

Quote

Reply
Following further discussions some revisions have been made to the definitions of Elevation, Height and SafetyNET. These discussions have also required the inclusion of revised definitions for Altitude and NAVTEX. These can be seen in the attached final draft submission to HSSC. 

Attachment: HDWG_Report-to-HSSC3.zip (Downloaded 7 times)


 Current time is 01:31 pm




Powered by WowBB 1.7 - Copyright © 2003-2006 Aycan Gulez