Open CPN Maps for Australia

[StuM]

It's there on your oeSenc chart, but it's just a dot, it's not in the same detail as Navionics.

It's an unnamed dot if you select the more detailed chart(1:1 500 000).
Overzooming the larger scale chart (1:3 500 000) shows the name.
Don't know why mine shows the dotted "rings" around land areas while yours doesn't

[StuM]

Incidentally, CM93

[ChrisJHC]

Thanks, all.

[nohal]

Originally Posted by ilenart

Hopefully the official AusENC charts are better than this.

AusENC charts are exactly the same, as already written, o-charts are AusENC in different format.

[requiem]

Originally Posted by nohal

AusENC charts are exactly the same, as already written, o-charts are AusENC in different format.

Browsing the catalog, official Australian charts seem to lack detailed coverage west of 123°39' for the Great Australian Bight; they only have small-scale charts there.



In contrast, the Sydney to Gold Coast section appears to have good large-scale coverage.

[grantmc]

Originally Posted by Dsanduril

Australia is not one of those places that gives away charts for free (US, NZ, Brazil, a couple of others). ...

The charts were created and updated by tax payers hard earned cash over many many decades. It's somewhat ironic, to me anyway, that the Australian Govt. then 'sells' that resource back. mostly to those same tax payers. Effectively another tax.

[ilenart]

Originally Posted by nohal

AusENC charts are exactly the same, as already written, o-charts are AusENC in different format.

So the AusENC charts are missing islands and lots of rocks that appear on Navionics charts

[ilenart]

Originally Posted by requiem

Browsing the catalog, official Australian charts seem to lack detailed coverage west of 123°39' for the Great Australian Bight; they only have small-scale charts there.

Attachment 259051

In contrast, the Sydney to Gold Coast section appears to have good large-scale coverage.

Between Sydney and Brisbane I came accross a number of spots where rocks were highlighted on the Navionics charts which did not appear on the O-Charts on Open-CPN, which nohal is saying are exactly the same.

[nohal]

Originally Posted by ilenart

So the AusENC charts are missing islands and lots of rocks that appear on Navionics charts

As we found out in this thread, that Island is not missing on AusENC (And neither on o-charts), just to be exact.

There is information on Navionics charts that is not present on official ENC charts, that is absolutely sure. Especially in areas not interesting for big commercial shipping. Navionics as well bases their charts on the official ENCs (often quite outdated as can be found), but compiles in also other sources.

O-charts gives you very up to date official ENC cells, nothing more, nothing less.

Is Navionics better? Not as easy to tell as you would like, I personally know places along the main shipping route throught the channels connecting the Magellan straight and Beagle channel (nothing minor, all ships including the big cruisers obligatorily pass right through there) where it contains the same islands multiple times, all of those copies being wrong and effectively trying to kill people.
The reason for that actually is ptetty simple - also the official and all the other charts available are off there, just different editions diffferently and Navionics somehow managed to mix all that information together. But as it is absolutely unclear what information they took from where and everything looks the same, the navigator has no chance to figure out what's wrong and how much. When someone tells you to use radar and keep watch, better do believe them. And use your charts, all charts, with a sane amount of caution...

Oh, and also check your vector charts settings in OpenCPN, you probably could tune them a little better for the Australian charts to work better for you as StuM already pointed out.

[ilenart]

Originally Posted by nohal

As we found out in this thread, that Island is not missing on AusENC (And neither on o-charts), just to be exact.

There is information on Navionics charts that is not present on official ENC charts, that is absolutely sure. Especially in areas not interesting for big commercial shipping. Navionics as well bases their charts on the official ENCs (often quite outdated as can be found), but compiles in also other sources.

O-charts gives you very up to date official ENC cells, nothing more, nothing less.

Is Navionics better? Not as easy to tell as you would like, I personally know places along the main shipping route throught the channels connecting the Magellan straight and Beagle channel (nothing minor, all ships including the big cruisers obligatorily pass right through there) where it contains the same islands multiple times, all of those copies being wrong and effectively trying to kill people.
The reason for that actually is ptetty simple - also the official and all the other charts available are off there, just different editions diffferently and Navionics somehow managed to mix all that information together. But as it is absolutely unclear what information they took from where and everything looks the same, the navigator has no chance to figure out what's wrong and how much. When someone tells you to use radar and keep watch, better do believe them. And use your charts, all charts, with a sane amount of caution...

Oh, and also check your vector charts settings in OpenCPN, you probably could tune them a little better for the Australian charts to work better for you as StuM already pointed out.

I can only go by my experience of sailing from Fremantle to Brisbane over the last 8 months, where I found that Open CPN / O- Charts was missing information that was displayed on Navionics. Unfortunately Round Island was not the only issue, the Eastern Group to the NE of Round Island was also missing a number of surrounding rocks, plus I kept seeing missing rocks sailing up the east coast, to the point where I stopped relying on Open CPN / O- Charts.

I also prefer sailing to playing around with charts. Navionics cost around $30 a year and takes about 3 minutes to setup. Why bother “tuning” charts on OpenCPN when their is a better alternative?

[nohal]

Originally Posted by ilenart

I also prefer sailing to playing around with charts. Navionics cost around $30 a year and takes about 3 minutes to setup. Why bother “tuning” charts on OpenCPN when their is a better alternative?

Of course nobody can tell you what you have to do and I believe nobody did. All I and the others, including you, in this thread did is share the information we have available to help the other readers make their own informed decision...

[RaymondR]

One of the reasons is the vast superiority of OpenCPN in utility and usability. I have a number of MFDs but still use O for passage planning.

[ChrisJHC]

All, thanks for the interesting discussion.

I should declare that I also love paper charts, having grown up navigating on land with just a map, compass and pace counter.

I also appreciate the convenience of electronic charts and I’m well aware of the pros and cons of both approaches.

I also see too many people - usually power boaters - who have their noses stuck in their chart plotters and have 100% faith in the accuracy of their devices.

[bbalan]

Originally Posted by ChrisJHC

I also see too many people - usually power boaters - who have their noses stuck in their chart plotters and have 100% faith in the accuracy of their devices.

Absolutely true... and certainly not just powerboats out here in French Polynesia following their chart plotter religiously.


Chart plotters usually give only ONE source of data. And any cartographer will tell you that all charts -- no matter the source -- will have errors. That's why using OpenCPN with multiple sources is safer than just believing that Navionics (for example) got it right.


All of the east coast of Australia, plus Tasmania and the western parts of Queensland and Victoria, are available in MBTile format (multiple satellite views and Navionics) at TheChartLocker.com.


Cheers
Bruce