Date: 201510
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: A90.TRACON, MA
Flight conditions: VMC
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Light Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Initial Climb
Airspace: Class B BOS
ATC / advisory: TRACON A90
Aircraft component: Aero Charts
Component problem: Design
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Not Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor
Human factors: Confusion; Distraction; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: In-flight
Result: General None Reported / Taken
Contributing factors: Chart Or Publication; Manuals; Procedure
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: Departing runway 4R from BOS on the HYLND4 departure I note an issue with the charting of the SID.Using the NOS version of the chart; the plan view calls out climbing to 520 feet MSL then flying RNAV to NHANT fix then HURBE fix.  Here is where the confusion begins.  There are two routes that cross the next fix names STAYC while en route to the terminus fix HYLND.The narrative on page 2 offers little help either.  The narrative also describes flying to the HURBE fix as above; and ends with ...Thence...Continuing; '... on depicted route to HYLND.'The question remains; which route...?It is my understanding that the pilot is required to have either the plan view or the narrative of the procedure in their possession to be considered properly charted.  As both versions are lacking information and require the other to complete; and even at that the information is misleading; I would have to say this chart is not in keeping with regulation.Referencing the Jeppesen version of the chart; the Jeppesen version adds 'flags' to the route to indicate which path to follow.  However; the narrative of the departure route is identical to the NOS verbiage.Asking my fellow pilots about this procedure; I find some would rely on their pre-coded FMS routing to make the determination of proper routing.  As there does not go a week without a navigation alert from Jeppesen on mis-coded fixes/intersections/procedures somewhere in the world; reliance on the pre-coded fixes is an issue in its own right.The only rectification is to query ATC on the actual route effectively negating the 'time and radio congestion' reasons to have charted procedures in the first place.And let's touch a minute on the final leg of the departure serving runways 4; 9 and runways 22.  Three routes with final courses to be flown that have a total of a 6 degree variance.  Really? Blamed on noise? With all that water out there?  This must be better thought out.As to charting; I would refer all to the routing presentation of the 'ForeFlight' folks.  While building a route for the navigation logs; departure/arrival procedures are depicted and; as runway and originating/terminating fixes are described; the routing is graphically simplified.  As the industry is moving to more electronic charting; the current spaghetti-lined paper charting; I think; will finally go away.  In the interim; let's be careful out there.




Synopsis: A pilot reported the NOS version of the BOS HYLND FOUR RNAV SID Runway 4R became ambiguous at waypoint STAYC because without textual or graphical description a pilot could fly to either waypoint HYLND or SHAAN.