Talk:CATVSL

Drafted by Northern before SNPWG 6

DA 18.08.2006 Aligned with AIS attribute ship type shptyp; definitions and extended

9.Nov. 2006 changed definition for leisure craft; keeping the option to cover all size of leisure crafts

Needs work on list SNPWG8

DA 26 Sep 07 This list is based on a 1999 proposal which was not subsequently adopted. Propose abandon catvsl in favour of shptyp based on IMO (2003) and IALA (2004) guidelines for ship type in AIS.

Jens 11.01. If keeping valid the last entry can be deleted, the entry is given from the system for each attr.

DA 8 Feb 08 Propose delete

DA 2 Jul Following deleting of shptyp trying again with a more rigorous catvsl

25 Jul Jens added a general approach for dangerous cargo ‘ thinking we should give the list a try and built up examples how to use

DA 25 Jul Discussed by email

DA 29 Jul Reinstated catcgo, changed old catcgo to catdhc, and balast.

raphael 09:47, 31 March 2009 (CEST) May need an additional category for barges, towed or pushed units.

jens 20:37, 1 April 2009 (CEST)

At the moment I would reject Raphael's proposal. Rigorously interpreted, accepting this is likely the starting point for an endless list we intented to avoid. Barges/tows etc. may a construction of bulk/container/General cargo vessels depending on what is been transported.

If we see that for certain reasons the list must be extended we can come back to the proposal again.

Raphael: I found a few places where there is a statement about a something applying to "towed or pushed units" over specified limits, but I did not find one that was not accompanied by a similar restriction applying to other vessels in general. So, OK, let's leave it for now and we'll revisit it if we find any special cases. --raphael 00:50, 2 April 2009 (CEST)

DavidAcland 11:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Changed to Enumeration.

I cannot decide how to proceed on the tug and tow case. Pushed units seems easy. The pusher and barges are one unit i.e. a single vessel showing one set of lights. "Tug and tows" are not; they are two vessels with the tug showing special lights. So I could entertain the idea of another item here: "Tugs and tows" or maybe "Towing vessels".

DavidAcland 14:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

See also Jens' post at RXNCOD:Talk 13 Feb 2011. This indicates that we do need at least need "Tugs and Tows" as Raphael suggested above. I will add an attribute value and see if we can draft a definition which fits both your real life examples.

jens 05:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC) Do we need to separate pushed and towed units? I afraid the day will come where something applies only for pushed units. I prefer to split the into two entries. Merging them later is simpler than, you know.

raphael 07:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC): I think that unless someone knows of cases where it matters, distinguishing between towed and pushed units may be too fine a distinction.

DavidAcland 17:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC) I have also wondered about splitting into "towed" and "pushed". Funnily enough we have quite a lot about "tugs and tows" in Alain's Radio Signals extract for Jussland.

jens 10:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC) I see pushed and towed composite units as one entry. I come to the conclusion that we talk about composite units and taking that verbatim. The additional entry can by a towed unit, means a vessel in tow. What do you think?

DavidAcland 14:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC) I have done some searches of the ALRS6 database. When I searched for "pushed" I found 32 instances. I looked at 9 of these and in every case the phrase was "... towed or pushed units". I did another search and found about half a dozen entries for "tugs and tows".

So I conclude that we should deal with "towed and pushed composite units" as one group; and "tugs and tows" as another group. Sometimes the relevant characteristic was length; on other occasions it was gross tons.

So for "towed and pushed composite units" I agree with you.

Then I think we talk about "tugs and tows", which is both the tug and its unpowered towed object which might be another vessel, barges or something like an offshore oil platform or a crane.

But I think we should be careful not to include in this second group a powered vessel which is under command but has one or a number of tugs attached, at any of ahead, astern, or pushing alongside, attached or unattached. The category for this last group should just be "tanker" or "passenger".

The data compiler can only be guided by the language. If "pushed" is included, it is "towed and pushed composite units". If "pushed" is absent it is "tugs and tows".

jens 18:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC) If the data compiler approach works, the better for us. That is a good idea employing the software.
Picking up my recent enthusiasm. Sorry I was to fast. How to model the missing or existing "pushed" if we work with enumerations only?

jens 12:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC) We should add "recreation craft", based on discussions and mapping Hirsthals havn

--raphael (talk) 08:25, 19 January 2017 (CET): New proposed listed values. (I see Jens had proposed recreation craft in 2011...)
13: light recreational
a pleasure boat or watercraft, or an excursion vessel used for short cruises such as whale watching
14: heavy lift
a vessel designed to move very large loads that cannot be handled by normal ships
(Wikipedia). See also CATCGO discussion.

jens (talk) 07:20, 23 January 2017 (CET) I agree with recreational but have use case problems with heavy lift. So. recreational added to the list

raphael (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2017 (CET): OK. Awaiting input on a use case for 'heavy lift' from other NIPWG members.

raphael (talk) 20:06, 1 February 2017 (CET): This was changed from enumeration to an open enumeration codelist in 2014 (see the S-122 figure 'Defining Vessel Categories...' on the UML diagrams page.

• The main page still says 'enumeration', it should be updated.
• Since it is an open enumeration codelist, other vessel types can be indicated using the 'other: xyz' formulation.
• Use of the 'other: xyz' formulation is supposed to be by agreement. It is not carte blanche for individual encoders or data producers to add anything they want. While a suitable process has not yet been defined, my own view is any such 'extra' value must be brought before the S-122 project team and/or NIPWG (though not necessarily approved by them), and have the support of at least three stakeholders (producers or OEMs) before it can be used.
• If a particular 'other: xyz' type becomes widely used, consideration should be given to making it a listed value via the process for revising the product specification.

I also suggest adding 'sport fishing' to the definition of 'light recreational' on the theory that this is one subcategory to which protected area rules are important.
(Eivind says sport fishing might require its own category, likely there will be significantly different regulations applying to sport fishing over a pleasure boat. Tentatively not broken out separately, pending further comments from others.)

Proposed revised definition of 'light recreational': a pleasure boat or watercraft, sport fishing boat, or an excursion vessel used for short cruises such as whale watching

raphael (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2017 (CET): Proposed definition for the attribute: Classification of vessels by function or use.