But other tests related to updates do not include plot(s) showing highlight symbols used for update review (2.2.3, 2.2.5 and 2.2.7). The update for this test GB5X01SW ed2 upd1 is very problematic as indicated by the associated “readme.txt” Because of the way that UKHO’s ENC production software works, the update also deletes and a bundle of 273 soundings as well as the 10m contour, the 5-10m depth area, the 10-20m depth area, a harbour area and a meta navigational system of marks The above cause very crowded highlight of update review if all deletion/re-creations are also highlighted. Such a crowded display does not serve end user to see what has been updated. The current picture included in S-64 has much less highlight of update review. Obviously the plot is from a system has analysed the content of the update and removed unwanted deletions/re-creations from the highlight. However the analyse/optimization process is not described in the S-52. Therefore the S-64 test for compliance should not require such a process. On the other hand making such optimization illegal by having a plot containing all deletions/re-creations in the S-64 does not serve end-user. Our conclusion is that in this case the best way forward is to show after the update a neutral plot without highlight for update review.
2.3 picture 2.PNG 2.3 picture 3.PNG 2.3 picture 4.PNG 2.3 picture 5.PNG 2.3 Results ed Mistakes in 6th plot Manual update review highlight is correctly for items h-j. However the manual updates (items a, b, c and f) not subject to review highlight miss the standard manual update symbol Additional mistake for omnidirectional light Replace the picture by using the attached png-file 2.3 picture 6.PNG 2.3 Results ed Numbering of results fail to follow numbering of actions It is looking like that numbering of pictures in results is trying to follow numbering of actions, but there are mistakes. Change numbering of results from 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 To 2, 3, 5, 6, 7.a-g, 7.h-j, 8 and 9 Agree 2.5.2 c) Results ed Typo in checksum - Wrong value There is a typo for both values of checksum 714AB61CA474BF64 to 714AB61CA474CF64 Change as below 760CD6BA8AAEF1A0 to 760CD6BA8AAEE1A0 2.5.2 e) Action te Fuzzy action to set date Replace Set the computer Date/Time in advance of 1st Jan 2013 Agree
instruction attribute with a text instructions on OBJNAM attribute but it doesn't have a OBJNAM attribute Foid : 1810-1386325754-1 Prim : Line 190 : Preliminary Object 191 : P_NtoM 192 : SY(CTNARE51);LC(CTNARE51);TX(OBJ NAM,1,2,3,15110,0,0,CHBLK,26) should be added to the object with the value “PRELMN” (text display is a topic of this test). Proposed action: Modify test data set “3.1 ENC Display\Standard\ENC_ROOT\AA5STNDR.000”. 3.1.2 Result ed Confusion about correct text position for RECTRC For area geometry RECTRC object has text in offset: vertically centred but 4 char position to This together with small displayed areas cause that the text for an RECTRC is in the screen sample above the next RECTRC area to the right. See picture below. Red box show RECTRC line and his text Yellow box show RECTRC line and his text Orange box show RECTRC area and his text Green box show RECTRC area and his text Obviously it would be better for the text to be more close to the associated object. This would require that the S-52 should be modified to allow manufacturers own algorithm to improve the position the text. Possible result like examples below: Replace the 2nd picture by using the attached png-file 3.1.2 picture 2.PNG (In this picture the char offset to right is more exactly 4 chars right from centre of RECTRC areas than in the original) New Screen at larger scale to show light description and RECTRC 3.1.3 Setup ed Typo in setup - Miss instruction to set scale min off See new rule at 1.7 Agree
Some of the objects in the test cell have scale minimum set as 1:45 000. To make them visible one shall set scale min off. 3.1.3 Result ed Mistakes in 1st plot The 1st picture has a mistake. Airport area miss symbol. Replace the 1st picture by using the attached png-file 3.1.3 picture 1.PNG Agree 3.1.4 ed Typo in - Instruction should be paper chart instead of simplified point symbols The pictures are made with Paper chart symbols while the setup instruction is for Simplified symbols Replace Select Simplified Symbols By Select Paper chart symbols 3.1.4 Result ed Mistakes in 2nd plot The 2nd picture have a mistake. Boundary line for Navsys. Replace the 2nd picture by using the attached png-file 3.1.4 picture 2.PNG 3.1.4 Boundaries and limits plot CTNARE (Caution area) object with the Point geometry. CTNARE is not a member of the Viewing group layer “Boundaries and limits.” It is a member of the Viewing Group layer “Cautionary notes” Plot number 4 re-created and Plot 6 Hannu to provide screen shot 3.1.4 Result ed Mistakes in 8th plot Replace the 8th picture by the attached png-file Agree
3.1.6 Results ed Mistakes in 2nd plot The 2nd picture has mistakes. Boundary line for Navsys, centred symbol for fish farm and for sand waves Replace the 2nd picture by using the attached png-file 3.1.6 picture 2.PNG 3.1.6 Results ed Mistakes in 3rd plot The 3rd picture has mistakes. Boundary line for Navsys, centred symbol for fish farm and for sand waves Replace the 2nd picture by using the attached png-file 3.1.6 picture 3.PNG Agree
3.1.6 Results ed Mistakes in 4th plot The 4th picture has a mistake. Airport area miss symbol. Replace the 4th picture by using the attached png-file 3.1.6 picture 4.PNG 3.1.6 Results ed Mistakes in 5th plot The 5th picture has a mistake. Airport area miss symbol. Replace the 5th picture by using the attached png-file 3.1.6 picture 5.PNG
Both pictures have mistakes for omnidirectional lights visible for 10 NM or over. They should be drawn as circles instead of flares. 3.3.11 picture 1.PNG 3.3.11 picture 2.PNG 3.3.12 Setup ed Typo in setup - Miss instruction to select all text groups and to select Highlight info The setup instruction miss selection of text and selection of highlight info Add into Setup Select all Text groups Select Highlight info 3.6.1 Test material te Wrong checksum in Catalog.031 Chart 2J5X0001.000 has wrong checksum in test data set. We have noted that this chart has relative new time stamp as 17th Apr 2015. Most probable the catalog.031 file contains checksum of the previous version of this chart cell Fix the test data set Note that the dated 23.04.2014 was ok and can be used for testing Agree fix available from Eivind. 3.6.3 Setup ed Typo in setup - Miss instruction to select all text groups and to select Highlight info The setup instruction miss selection of text Add into Setup Select all Text groups Done in 3.6.1 3.6.5a) Two centred symbols with their text are missing Two centred symbols and two texts “Nr priority is 5” are missing in object 2, which has a berth, of which the centre part is masked by another object, but the Replace the picture by using the attached png-file 3.6.5a picture 1.PNG Reject Add the second picture with note that Manufactures may
Our opinion is that the better method is to keep original setup instructions and just replace picture based on the original setup. 3.7.4 b Plot b) GB3OVRLP overlaps chart AA3SCAMN has small area in top left which should be removed Hannu to create new screen plot Hannu to provide new screen shot 3.7.4.b It is not the only case of overlapping between IHO test datasets . For example there are some overlapping areas between power up GB5X01SE et GB5X02SE cells. Do we have to raise an overlap indication for very small overlapping areas ? => means for most part of IHO plots ? True. Some of the cells overlap. Given examples have a 2m overlap. Section “2.1.8 Seamless ENC coverage” of “UOC Ed. 4.0.0” allows a 5m overlap, but only “at the agreed adjoining national data limits” which is not the case here. As a result, the overlap indication should be shown by the ECDIS as requested by section “10.1.3 Data Overlaps” of “Preslib Ed. 4.0.1”. There’s no requirement however to show the indication on the chart, so the test plots do not need to be changed to include the indication. Test 3.7.4 b) is sufficient to check the indication. Proposed action: None. No Action 3.7.6 Action te Inaccurate test instruction - Alternative methods specified by IMO are missing This test is not based on IHO S-52 but on IMO MSC 232(82) clause 5.7: It should be possible to change the display scale by appropriate steps e.g. by means of either chart scale values or ranges in nautical miles Replace Change of display scale by chart scale values and by increments of displayed range values in nautical miles. By Change of display scale by chart scale values or by increments of displayed range values in nautical miles. Agree
New screen plot required 5.1 Style of the WRECKS border is wrong Hannu to check 5.1 Wrong Safety contour set in setup Hannu to check 5.1 OBSRTN object with Line and Area geometry to check 5.2 ed Incomplete setup instructions Pictures contain text for which the setup miss instruction to select Add Select all Text groups Agreed 5.2 Setup ed Typo in Setup - Wrong value of safety contour Obviously the route monitoring test should be based on non zero value of safety contour. Correct value is for example 30 m, which is used also for safety depth Replace Set the safety contour value to 0 m By Set the safety contour to 30 m Agree 5.2 Result ed Error in picture 1 for object MARCUL Object MARCUL miss fish symbol Replace the picture by using the attached png-file 5.2 picture 1.PNG Issue identified at 5.1 is also present in these screen plots Agree changes 5.2 Result te Error in picture 2 for object LNDARE, MARCUL etc. Object LNDARE cause DNGHLT instead of INDHLT plus some underlying hazards not indicated Object MARCUL miss fish symbol Replace the picture by the attached png-file 5.2 picture 2.PNG Issue identified at 5.1 is also present in these screen plots Agree changes 5.3 Setup ed Incomplete setup instructions Add