Difference between revisions of "Talk:VOLTRF"
m |
|||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
On both I answer "no". It seems to me this information can be passed to the "nice to know" section. The reason to provide those information based in a time when mariners were ordered to unknown ports and the only source to get an idea what he can expect there was the SDs. I would like to draw your attention to the point that we live in the 21st century. Internet is available around the world (INMARSAT and friends send the best greetings, wikipedia too). That a vessel is on tramp with no agent is not impossible but unlikely. On other playgrounds dynamic licensing of ENC is under discussion. Jeppesen provides an ENC overlay providing information about the current piracy information.<br> And it can be dangerous, e.g. when providing information of ports which are primary used for oil shipment. The quantity of vessels and cargo can be enormous, but only a terminal in the middle of nowhere is available. <br>Providing VOLTRF information is IMO useless. It can be an added value if one is interested in, but not a part of our official NPUB register. <br> | On both I answer "no". It seems to me this information can be passed to the "nice to know" section. The reason to provide those information based in a time when mariners were ordered to unknown ports and the only source to get an idea what he can expect there was the SDs. I would like to draw your attention to the point that we live in the 21st century. Internet is available around the world (INMARSAT and friends send the best greetings, wikipedia too). That a vessel is on tramp with no agent is not impossible but unlikely. On other playgrounds dynamic licensing of ENC is under discussion. Jeppesen provides an ENC overlay providing information about the current piracy information.<br> And it can be dangerous, e.g. when providing information of ports which are primary used for oil shipment. The quantity of vessels and cargo can be enormous, but only a terminal in the middle of nowhere is available. <br>Providing VOLTRF information is IMO useless. It can be an added value if one is interested in, but not a part of our official NPUB register. <br> | ||
Rather the information on services at port area should be provided. | Rather the information on services at port area should be provided. | ||
| + | |||
| + | [[User:Rmm|raphael]] 06:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC):<br>Might VOLTRF and [[POPNBR]] appear in a port index document of some kind? There must have been a reason it was suggested. | ||
Revision as of 06:13, 2 November 2009
Agreed by SNPWG9
jens 18:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC) Although this attribute was agreed at SNPWG 9 I will ask again if this information is particularly
- improving the safety of life at sea?,
- is useful to navigate safer?
On both I answer "no". It seems to me this information can be passed to the "nice to know" section. The reason to provide those information based in a time when mariners were ordered to unknown ports and the only source to get an idea what he can expect there was the SDs. I would like to draw your attention to the point that we live in the 21st century. Internet is available around the world (INMARSAT and friends send the best greetings, wikipedia too). That a vessel is on tramp with no agent is not impossible but unlikely. On other playgrounds dynamic licensing of ENC is under discussion. Jeppesen provides an ENC overlay providing information about the current piracy information.
And it can be dangerous, e.g. when providing information of ports which are primary used for oil shipment. The quantity of vessels and cargo can be enormous, but only a terminal in the middle of nowhere is available.
Providing VOLTRF information is IMO useless. It can be an added value if one is interested in, but not a part of our official NPUB register.
Rather the information on services at port area should be provided.
raphael 06:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC):
Might VOLTRF and POPNBR appear in a port index document of some kind? There must have been a reason it was suggested.