Navionics or C-Map Cartography for Europe?

[Dockhead]

The new touchscreen plotters from Navico (B&G and Simrad) can use either Navionics or C-Map cartography. Hurrah!

It's great to see more openness and choice.

I am just in the process of installing new B&G Zeus plotters and have not yet bought the cartography.

What do you guys think is better?

I had C-Map charts in my old system, and I thought they were great. I can't remember a single thing I didn't like about them.

I have been using Navionics charts with INavX on an IPad for the last couple of years. Comparing the C-Map to Navionics from place to place, the C-Map charts were usually more detailed.

Is that generally true for C-Map charts of Europe, or is this a function of the Silver (or was it Gold?) versions of the Navionics charts I have?

Any opinions from UK/European sailors?

[Dockhead]

Urgh, no one has even a WAG about this?

[barnakiel]

I used Navionics (for iPad) and C-map (for a plotter) two years ago in Sweden. Navionics was the better chart - the amount of detail was about the same but the Navionics had the better presentation. C-map looked 'overzoomed' when it was not, and it was either cluttered or else 'bare'.

I can't say how things look if you take Navionics and C-map on a ride in the same device. I think this is the real test.

b.

[estarzinger]

^^ As above, I have c-map on the plotter and navionics on the ipad/iNavX. My impression is that the detail is equivalent and the decision a toss up. The ipad and iNavX has a better display, so the charts look better on it, but I believe (based on looking also at the raster charts) that's the iPad and not the underlying charts.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

^^ As above, I have c-map on the plotter and navionics on the ipad/iNavX. My impression is that the detail is equivalent and the decision a toss up. The ipad and iNavX has a better display, so the charts look better on it, but I believe (based on looking also at the raster charts) that's the iPad and not the underlying charts.

Wow, that's so different from my experience. I had an ancient steam-powered Raymarine RL80 with old-style CMap NT charts, and it looked SO much better than Navionics/iNavX.

Hmm.

[Dockhead]

By the way, it looks like the CMap charts are wider - whole Euro Atlantic coasts plus Iceland and Greenland on one chip. For the same price of about $350. That might be the decisive difference for me.

[44'cruisingcat]

I had a Navman 12" plotter which ran C-Map charts. I now have a Simrad which runs Navionics. Comparing near equal priced charts, ie Navionics Gold charts (which are a little more expensive than C-Maps) for Australia, C-Map was FAR better. Showed more detail, had more features, like hundreds of ariel photo's of anchorages, islands and marinas..

My Navionics charts show ZERO land detail. No height contours, no towns, no roads, nothing. Just blank yellow stuff where there's land.

Also the C-Map charts had "real time" tidal flows represented by arrows on the chart, navionics do not. Marine reserves were shown on C-Map, not on Navionics....

There's more, but that's what springs to mind immediately.

If my Simrad can now be upgraded take C-Map, I'm going to be seriously pissed off that I've already sold the C-Maps and bought the Navionics.....

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Wow, that's so different from my experience. I had an ancient steam-powered Raymarine RL80 with old-style CMap NT charts, and it looked SO much better than Navionics/iNavX.

Hmm.

My plotter (furuno) screen is tiny . . . 15cm x 9cm (to minimize amps), while my ipad screen is both bigger and the latest retina highest resolution screen. So, in my case its not surprising at all.

I have a slight historic bone to pick with c-map, because in a corner of the Delaware bay there is a sunken break wall that's been there (and on the official charts) for decades, but it was not on the c-maps and we hit it pretty hard. Fortunately Hawk is strong. I think we broke the wall and did not damage to our keel, but it was sure shocking. I am sure Navioncs has similar glitches, but this was a major feature in a major harbor! We mentioned this to C-map and the break wall is shown on their new charts.

[Palarran]

I used C-map last year and just bought the card for the Adriatic. I found the detail and accuracy to be excellent. My plotter is old so I have to use the NT+ cards so it takes about 5 of them for the west and east Med.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Palarran

I used C-map last year and just bought the card for the Adriatic. I found the detail and accuracy to be excellent. My plotter is old so I have to use the NT+ cards so it takes about 5 of them for the west and east Med.

That was one of several reasons I decided to replace my RL Raymarine plotters. One of the others was the inability to display AIS data.

But I had no complaints at all about the basic functionality of the plotters, or the cartography. They were great, actually.

[Dockhead]

UPDATE:

I finally called Jeppesen to figure out how to order the CMap chip which is compatible with my plotter.

As it turns out -- it's not shipping yet. Maybe sometime in May. That's why I couldn't figure out on their website.

So you need a special chip which is compatible with Simrad and B&G plotters, plus probably a firmware update in the plotters.

I hope this saves someone from wasting as much time on this as I did.

[Suijin]

Remember that the chart data from both vendors is vector, not raster. That means that its presentation is largely dependent on how a given device interprets the vector data and renders it.

I would in fact choose the format based on what you learn is more accurate in the places that you sail. A few years ago I had a Lowrance unit the Navionics chart on it for the middle Chesapeake had a glaring error (a peninsula location was off by 1/2 mile) on it that was a constant thorn in my side.

[ronbo1]

Originally Posted by estarzinger

My plotter (furuno) screen is tiny . . . 15cm x 9cm (to minimize amps), while my ipad screen is both bigger and the latest retina highest resolution screen. So, in my case its not surprising at all.

I have a slight historic bone to pick with c-map, because in a corner of the Delaware bay there is a sunken break wall that's been there (and on the official charts) for decades, but it was not on the c-maps and we hit it pretty hard. Fortunately Hawk is strong. I think we broke the wall and did not damage to our keel, but it was sure shocking. I am sure Navioncs has similar glitches, but this was a major feature in a major harbor! We mentioned this to C-map and the break wall is shown on their new charts.

Was that 'break wall' by Reedy Island in Delaware Bay?
I remember several years ago an Island Packet hit a submerged wall and quickly sank.

Ronbo

[estarzinger]

Originally Posted by ronbo1

Was that 'break wall' by Reedy Island in Delaware Bay?
I remember several years ago an Island Packet hit a submerged wall and quickly sank.

Ronbo

Yes, exactly. The C-Map showed a clear deep water channel a bit south of the island, when in fact there is an underwater breakwall. It has been corrected now on the c-maps at least.

I had not heard of the island packet incident, but I am not surprised.

[ronbo1]

It was reported the IP was crossing the southern end of Reedy Island to go up the west side when it struck hard a submerged wall.

Sept 2009

From IPHomePort site: The Island Packet 40 was under power in the Delaware Bay when it struck a submerged breakwater. As a result of the grounding, the hull was holed about midway down the keel, causing the vessel to quickly fill with water. Boat is reported to have sunk in 30' of water, and remained underwater for approx. 17hours. The hole is in the upper end of the internal ballast chamber in the hull, below the forward cabin. Both external hull and internal ballast covering laminate was damaged. There are minor scrapes, damage on the hull and minor discoloration on the starboard cabin side from the dewatering and recovery. Most of the damage is water related.
http://www.yachtsalvage.com/Listings/YS090078.htmat