Talk:CATCGO

Drafted by DA 29 Jul 2008

Drafted following discussion with Jens to provide a simple descriptor of the type of cargo

Rolando Rios 2008-08-24 I am a little confused. It´s about shptyp, attribute that was proposed this year to replace catcgo.

DavidAcland 12:24, 1 September 2008 (CEST)

Yes, they did not like shptyp at Brest; particularly Peter Parslow and Eivind. They could not accept that we could easily put detail into more than one attribute. For example, for "cargo ship" how does an encoder decide to use 70 or 79?

70: Cargo ships - All ships of this type

71: Cargo ships - Carrying DG, HS, or MP IMO hazard or pollutant category A

72: Cargo ships - Carrying DG, HS, or MP IMO hazard or pollutant category B

73: Cargo ships - Carrying DG, HS, or MP IMO hazard or pollutant category C

74: Cargo ships - Carrying DG, HS, or MP IMO hazard or pollutant category D

79: Cargo ships - No additional information

So Jens and I have decided to go back to the earlier model. In this we have one attribute for the type of ship and another for the type of cargo and both must be very generalised. Also "other" is not allowed.

Rolando Rios 2008-09-01 - Yes, David. Now I remember. Thank you.

DavidAcland 16:55, 15 January 2009 (CET)

Jens, Do you remember why we do not have a category of dangerous or hazardous cargo any more? Ref ID: 7 and Remark.

DavidAcland 13:14, 19 January 2009 (CET) I have redrafted and re-inserted catdhc and redrafted "Remarks", removing reference to "ballast" and "waste" from both catcgo and catdhc.

jens 14:33, 19 January 2009 (CET)

I would say it is a simple copy 'n past fault. I checked that against our discussions placed in the associated files. We simplified the complicated and not accepted former category of vessel attribute and split the information up into category of vessel and category of cargo. Initially we placed no dangerous cargo according to the IMDG code, rather we thought MARPOL fits our requirements. The current construction looks better. We can (have) add(ed) the attributes to describe vessels characteristic (although I believe that the cargo not characterize a type of a vessel).

I also thought about using it to describe harbour facilities. But that is fixed by HRBFAC/CATHAF. And the more I am thinking on that the less it makes sense to add it there. At the moment we should keep it as it is.

Submitted to Hydro register manager Date

Submitted to Nav register manager Date