Talk:CONSHA - Revision history

Tom.loeper at 15:53, 12 March 2009

2009-03-12T15:53:53Z

New page

Drafted by Western before SNPWG 6

agreed SNPWG8

05.11.07 Jens Although knowing that we have had strong discussions in the past I would like to recommend to delete the last sentence which might cause misunderstandings and to point the first sentence more to the hazards caused by shipping.

14.12. Jens A bit cleverer I would propose to use CTNARE (Caution area) as an existing object and add catsha when necessary

11.01. Jens M-3 work

[[User:DavidAcland|DavidAcland]] 13:00, 13 August 2008 (CEST)

Tidied and simplified definition.

Jens, I have put the second sentence back in because we use "hazard", which could be quite a wide problem, in a fairly carefully calibrated way and I have not seen this definition published anywhere else.

[[User:Jens|jens]] 14:27, 13 August 2008 (CEST)
I see the point, but why we need to establish a new object if instead the Caution Area CTNARE will fit our requirements too. We simple have to add the attribute, which is perfect, to CTNARE.
What do think?

[[User:Jens|jens]] 13:22, 14 August 2008 (CEST)

Again. I didn't see the distinction to CTNARE. What is the difference between those two objects?

[[User:DavidAcland|DavidAcland]] 14:46, 14 August 2008 (CEST)

I think we could use CTNARE. But we all know it is already too heavily used for so many things. This allows us to be more specific and we already have instances where we would like to use a construction like this.

[[User:Jens|jens]] 13:17, 19 August 2008 (CEST)

No problem with that, it is good for the protocol that this option was taken under consideration
I will follow the proposed idea

[[User:Rolando Rios|Rolando Rios]] 2008-08-24

I think we have to make a distinction in Distinction (of course) adding there "Piracy and armed robbery risk area" which is a kind of hazard too. If you agree, perhaps we have to change the definition too, in the part that says "Hazards are risks to shipping..."

[[User:DavidAcland|DavidAcland]] 11:51, 1 September 2008 (CEST)
I do not mind adding this distiction but I do not think we need to. Piracy and armed robbery are also hazards but they are quite different from the hazards which arise out of concentration of shipping. I think that it is right to mention caution area as a distiction because an encoder might be tempted to use it instead of the more precise [[consha]]. What change do you think is nesessary to the second sentence?

[[User:Rolando Rios|Rolando Rios]] 2008-09-01 - When we say "Hazards are risks to shipping, which stem from sources other than shoal water or obstructions" I understand that piracy or armed robbery area are included in that definition, as well as an area with ship concentration. That´s why I think we would need a distinction. Please correct me if my English understanding is wrong.

[[User:DavidAcland|DavidAcland]] 14:56, 2 September 2008 (CEST) Yes OK I think that it is a minor problem of understanding and of emphasis. In adding the second setence " Hazards ..." we are not saying that '''all''' the hazards are covered by this object. There are others like bad weather, dredging, marine exploitation and military activity, exercises and submarine operations for example, and piracy. This object just covers the hazard from concentration of shipping, ie a busy place, a place where routes cross perhaps.

Submitted to Hydro register manager Date

Submitted to Nav register manager Date

If this object is to just cover a hazard area due to a heavy concentration of shipping, I agree - Tom Loeper 12 March 09.

Jens at 11:17, 19 August 2008

2008-08-19T11:17:26Z

New page

Jens at 11:22, 14 August 2008

2008-08-14T11:22:52Z

Jens at 12:27, 13 August 2008

2008-08-13T12:27:39Z

New page

Jens: New page: Drafted by Western before SNPWG 6 agreed SNPWG8 05.11.07 Jens Although knowing that we have had strong discussions in the past I would like to recommend to delete the last sentence w...

2008-07-27T12:20:14Z

New page: Drafted by Western before SNPWG 6 agreed SNPWG8 05.11.07 Jens Although knowing that we have had strong discussions in the past I would like to recommend to delete the last sentence w...

New page

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:22, 14 August 2008
Line 18:		Line 18:
	I see the point, but why we need to establish a new object if instead the Caution Area CTNARE will fit our requirements too. We simple have to add the attribute, which is perfect, to CTNARE.		I see the point, but why we need to establish a new object if instead the Caution Area CTNARE will fit our requirements too. We simple have to add the attribute, which is perfect, to CTNARE.
	What do think?		What do think?
		+
		+	[[User:Jens\|jens]] 13:22, 14 August 2008 (CEST)
		+
		+	Again. I didn't see the distinction to CTNARE. What is the difference between those two objects?
		+