Difference between revisions of "Talk:Cntltw"
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
changed to lowerCamelCase | changed to lowerCamelCase | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[User:DavidAcland|DavidAcland]] 12:52, 20 August 2008 (CEST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Jens, I am still not quite clear what this is saying. Is this just a string attribute which always says "A continuous listing watch must be maintained"? If so can you give me an example of something similar? | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[User:Jens|jens]] 10:55, 21 August 2008 (CEST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Yes, that is correct. The string you provided will fit the problem in the most cases. As an example see ALRS 286(1) 2008/09 edition page 255 REPORTING POINTS INWARD BOUND (2), except the last sentence which might be not be placed 100% correct at this point. But that is Larry's problem. | ||
| + | |||
| + | In the above mentioned example the channel is identical with the working channel provided under CONTACT DETAILS. This might not work for every harbour/area. | ||
Revision as of 08:55, 21 August 2008
Jens 11.07.07 added to fit NEG request 24 Aug 07 Definition
SNPWG8 Not finished
WEG 12 Feb 08 This is an empty attribute; or should it contain a list of channels?
Jens 25 Jul 08 it is often being said that vessels should keep cntltw within a marine service.The information should not be limited to a specific radio method, the variations are too much. therefore string prposed
DA 26 Jul I agree. In the WEG, we wondered what would appear in the string. It seems to me that maintaining cntltw is either part of the procedure or it is a regulation. For example, this instruction or requirement would be one of the items in svaprc.
jens 14:29, 19 August 2008 (CEST)
changed to lowerCamelCase
DavidAcland 12:52, 20 August 2008 (CEST)
Jens, I am still not quite clear what this is saying. Is this just a string attribute which always says "A continuous listing watch must be maintained"? If so can you give me an example of something similar?
jens 10:55, 21 August 2008 (CEST)
Yes, that is correct. The string you provided will fit the problem in the most cases. As an example see ALRS 286(1) 2008/09 edition page 255 REPORTING POINTS INWARD BOUND (2), except the last sentence which might be not be placed 100% correct at this point. But that is Larry's problem.
In the above mentioned example the channel is identical with the working channel provided under CONTACT DETAILS. This might not work for every harbour/area.