NCWG Baseline Symbology Meeting Report VTC 1 March 2021

Contents: 1. Report 2. Annexes: 

A    Agenda  B    ParticipantsC Project RoadmapD List of abbreviations used

 

REPORT: 

Welcome:

The NCWG Chair Mikko Hovi opened the meeting and welcomed participants. In his opening remarks, the Chair emphasised the complexities inherent in the project to develop baseline symbology. It was noted that it is a very wide reaching topic and that the intention was to narrow down the focus and reach agreement regarding what the primary focus of the work should be. The Chair commented that there was currently no official project team established tasked with conducting the work and the decision as to whether to establish a project team would be discussed later in the meeting. The participants were reminded that this meeting was open to all members of the NCWG as agreed at the NCWG 6 in November 2020. The Chair informed participants of the various protocols for the VTC meeting.

Background

The Chair started by providing a recap of the background behind the work. Issues related to the production of paper charts from ENC data have been considered at a number of earlier NCWG meetings and different approaches have been discussed. The Chair recalled discussions held back in 2017 related to how the specifications of S-4 support automation and automated production. Participants were reminded that S-4 contains many rules that are difficult to automate. Attempts have been made to address this issue when editing the symbology but this has not been done in a systematic manner. In 2017, a decision was made that the rules regarding all new symbology would be written in such a way as to facilitate automation in the future however this has yet to materialise on a large scale as so few new items have been added since this decision was taken..

Based on discussions at NCWG 5 and informed by the context of the Future of the Nautical Paper Chart work the issue of establishing baseline symbology has emerged as an area the group needs to start working systematically on. Acknowledgement of this need informed the decision to propose to HSSC to establish a new task for the NCWG. At HSSC 12, the NCWG was given the task to develop baseline symbology. Related to this there have also been discussions related to back up charts and the fully automated processing of charts. However as the Chair noted; whilst such issues should be kept in mind they do not form the core of the work the NCWG has been tasked with.

In summary there are been significant discussions relating to enabling and enhancing the possibility for HO’s to produce paper charts based on ENC Data, primarily S-101 data. In connection with this would be the development of a common baseline set of symbology and rules that could be used by software manufacturers as a basis for production developments. It was noted that the concept of fully automated paper chart production is challenging. It would require significant changes in S-4 and S-101, which should be avoided given the current situation with S-101 development. In addition, it was noted that the decision was

made at HSSC 12 that it was not necessary to develop a simplified product specification for back up charts. Therefore, the group should not focus on this aspect and rather maintain the development of baseline a baseline symbology library as it primary task.

The IHO Sec commented that at HSSC 12 there was a submission paper (Ref: HSSC12 5.4C) from DK, CA and US on proposed guidelines for automated paper chart production from ENC’s. The actions from HSSC stated that NCWG should take into account the recommendations outlined in this paper moving forward. The suggestion was made that this paper should be considered in the background to this project as well. The Chair agreed with this suggestion stating that the information in the paper provides useful background information to the current project.

The US (NOAA) commented that there has been a lack of clarity regarding what the terms ‘back-up’ chart and ‘simplified’ chart actually mean. Any simplified approach that is associated with a simplified set of rules to enable a degree of automation will result in a de facto simplified form of chart. It was recommended that NCWG should try to provide a definitions of what a backup charts is and whether it differs from a simplified chart. It was considered necessary to provide a common understanding and avoid any potential confusion.

The IHO Sec highlighted the importance of clarifying the assumptions on which the work will be based and setting out the aims and focus of the work. The usefulness of the paper prepared for HSSC 12 (Ref: HSSC12 5.4C) was reiterated and the recommendation was made that it be taken as input for the development of the mandate for the group.

Canada advocated a back to basics strategy focusing on the creation of a common library of INT1/S4 symbology for all HO’s to use. Canadian paper charts are currently produced using their own symbology however; there is a strong desire to use international symbology to make their products. The development of a common symbol library would help all HO’s make future decisions and would have benefits for the navigator. Once the common library is established, the focus could be directed towards the sub products that could be produced from it. The Chair voiced agreement with these comment and reiterated that the development of a standardised symbol library is key to the project. In addition to symbols, this would include colours and portrayal rules. It would be very beneficial if the software providers could incorporate these into their software.

The IHO Sec highlighted the importance of considering the user requirements of an eventual symbology library. The group should consider if the intention is to design the baseline symbology solely for the production of and paper charts produced at the HO level from S-101 ENC data or whether it is also for intended for the mariners to enable the printing of paper charts on the fly from the bridge. It is recommended that the intended users be defined in the objectives of the project as solutions may differ dependent on the various different user requirements.

The Chair suggested that the primary focus of the work should be HO has to help enhance production and welcomed other views from the group. Canada supported this view; the primary focus should be on providing benefits at the HO level. The US (NOAA) also endorsed this position suggesting that the most straightforward approach would be to create a common symbology library, most likely in SVG format to mirror that used in S-100/S-101. It was also noted that the resulting library should be open source and universally available as this will help encourage non-commercial users to adopt a common symbology.

The Chair advocated for the symbol library to be open source and questioned whether the IHO has any policies relating to open source data. The IHO TSSO noted that the repository for developing, and maintaining a symbol set already exists in the Geospatial Information

Registry. The portrayal registry within the registry was designed especially for this purpose. The recommendation was therefore made that once developed, the symbol library be registered and maintained with the in the Geospatial Information Registry and the NCWG would have responsibility for this. This approach would enable open source, as anyone is free to download the symbol and use them.

In addition, the IHO TSSO made a comment relating the wording of the work item on the NCWG work plan from HSSC, which states:

“Develop baseline symbology to support automated chart production”

It was noted that based on this wording, the development of baseline symbology is the only task. Whilst a common symbol library would support automation, investigations into how to achieve an automated chart production solution is not part of this work item and should be considered as a completely separate topic outside the remit of this project.

The Chair summarised the discussions so far and highlighted that there had been consensus that the work should focus on HO’s first and that the overall aim should be to create a common symbol library, colour specifications and associated rules for how to go from the source data to define the appropriate symbol.

Germany questioned what the timeframe was for the work and whether the baseline symbology set would be completely new or would be based on the current symbology. In response, the Chair acknowledged that the issue of a timeframe had not been discussed and should be addressed at this meeting. HSSC have not provided a set time line for completion of the task but the Chair suggested that it would take a number of years depending on the level of completeness. In response to the question relating to whether new or old symbology would be used the Chair suggested that the symbology would likely be based on ENC symbols but that this would be open to discussion.

CARIS commented that they had converted S-52 simplified and traditional symbols into S-100 SVG for IHO to use in S-101 portrayal. It was suggested that these could be a starting point for the new baseline.

The Netherlands commented that they had developed symbology, which was now well established, and they are satisfied with the benefits this brings. Concerns were raised over the need to change things once a new symbol library is developed. In addition, the issue of charts produced and then adopted by other countries was raised. It was questioned whether we should be looking to increase cooperation between countries who produce paper charts in order to make it more efficient.

The IHO TSSO suggested that greater clarification was required regarding NCWG work item E11 based on the wording. It does not reference whether it is intended to support paper chart production or whether it is intended to bring paper chart and ENC symbology closer together. This should be defined in the scope of this work and set out exactly which symbols are to be defined. The Chair agreed and noted that the wording of the work item does appear rather condensed but notes that in HSSC Action 12/36 it does references the production of paper charts and raster chart images from S101. The Chair further suggested that the word ‘data’ be added to the end of wording of the action to make it clear that we are talking about producing paper charts from S-101 data and not the products themselves.

The NCWG vice Chair, Nick Rodwell, commented that this task was originally borne out of an acknowledgement that most HO’s apply an individual approach to their symbology. It was suggested that the group should agree that the task is purely the development of baseline

symbology that all HO’s should use for paper chart production so that there is universal portrayal and this will assist automation going forward.

The US (NOAA) noted that efforts to develop baseline symbology could have potential benefits to ECDIS symbology bringing advantages for the mariner. There is an opportunity to improve on the criticised S52 symbology. The symbology being discussed may influence ECDIS manufacturers in terms of improving their symbology.

The Vice Chair advocated the use of the Geospatial Information Registry as the framework already exists and enquired as to the best place to find out more information about it. The IHO TSSO responded that there is no guide but part 2 of S-100 is the registry’s part in addition S-99 which is the guidance document for the registry. However, it was noted that Edition 5 of S-100 is now fairly well advanced and part 2 is undergoing a major revision. The registry has been reconstructed and the existing part 2 in Edition 4 of S-100 does not accurately reflect the structure of the registry as it is now. S-99 also requires a major rewrite for similar reasons. The IHO TSSO, Jeff Wootton, confirmed he was the relevant point of contact as the registry manager. It was noted that the NCWG is not actually the first group to have been through a similar exercise. The Inland ENC Working Group have registered their entire symbol library in the registry for S-401 and discussion with representative from this group could therefore be beneficial for NCWG in this task.

In addition to the development of symbols, the Chair emphasised the importance of developing the portrayal rules that accompany the symbology at the same time. It was noted that it is important to work on the rules in tandem, as this will highlight cases where variant symbols are required to address particular situations. ESRI agreed that developing a baseline of symbols was very important. In addition, if we could start adopting rule sets then you could start to address some of the concerns with pick reports as different texts could be displayed in different ways creating greater flexibility. CARIS commented that the establishment of a common symbol set was very important and highlighted the issues that exist with symbol variation. The suggestion was made that composite symbols could be utilised that could be assembled in different ways and could be a good solution when creating the rules. ESRI agreed that the symbols should be the item to work on first but also highlighted the challenge of data to symbol mapping and would encourage consideration of the S-100 standard that helps with attribute mapping. It is necessary to remember to consider the future receipt of the S101 requirements to convert for the paper symbols.

Denmark suggested that this could be an opportunity to reduce the nuance in the symbol set by simplify the rules and removing some of the cartographic decision making necessary. The suggestion was made that we could propose a more simplified version of paper chart representation. This could potentially streamline the symbol library and complexity but also increase the automation prospects. The Chair commented that we should consider reducing some unnecessary complexities in symbology that would make it easier to utilise the automation capabilities in the future. ESRI also acknowledged that this is an opportunity to reduce complexities and make it more fit for purpose.

Navico commented on the issue of text placement that could create an issue if automated. Standard placement rules exist for text, but these might not be optimal. The Chair noted that this is an issue that might interest HO’s. S-101 will have improved text placement capabilities.

Denmark commented that were are presented with an opportunity to look at using ENC data and communicating that the paper chart may now be a compromise compared to what it was traditionally but it is serving a purpose of providing a dataset that is delivered through multiple products. It is viewed, as an opportunity to enter into a dialogue with all HO is to

gauge where they are in terms of a ‘data first approach. We can deliver a symbol set to help all HO’s be in the position to make the necessary compromises with their data so that we all try and work with the same problems and come to better solutions because we are all focusing in the same problematic areas. The Vice Chair presented a roadmap for the project based on the specific objectives and expectations that have come down from HSSC (See Annex C) providing a broad overview of the project and related issues.

The Chair noted that he believed a consensus had been reached regarding the aims and focus of the baseline symbology project and attention was directed towards how to move forward. It was suggested that a formal project team be established under the NCWG. The vice Chair supported the suggestion noting that this is big topic and the establishment of a formal project team would add structure and help maintain overall direction. There was wide support for the suggestion and the decision was made to formally establishing a project team. The suggestion was made to use the GitHub space under the IHO GitHub to keep track of the work conducted by the project team.

DECISION: Formally establish a Baseline Symbology Project Team under the NCWG.

The Chair made a request for volunteers to take the role of project team lead. Mr Daniel Brousseau from Canada stated his willingness to volunteer but noted that he would need to make enquiries within his organisation before providing official confirmation of his ability to stand in this role.

DECISION: Mr Daniel Brousseau (Canada) to provide confirmation of his ability to adopt the role of Project Team Lead for the Baseline Symbology Project Team.

The Chair noted that the first task of the newly formed project team would be to draft terms of reference. A call was made for those interested in joining the project team to make their intentions known. Interest was expressed from, NZ, DK, NL, UK, FI, NO, CA, DE, ESRI, Caris, US (NOAA), US (NGA).

The initial priorities of the project group will be the development of the symbol library and rules sets. In addition, the project team will be responsible for making recommendations for how the symbol library will be disseminated though Geospatial Information Registry.

No date was agreed for the next meeting it was decided that once the Project Team is organised a new meeting date could be determined

The chair thanked participants for a very successful meeting and the meeting was closed.

ANNEX A

AGENDA AND TIMETABLE

NCWG Baseline Symbology Project Team VTC Meeting1 March 2021

Monday1 March

16:00 1.  Welcome and meeting protocol (Chair/Vice Chair)

16:10 2.  Recap on the background and Objectives of the project team    

16:20 3 Determine the key aims of the project17:00 4. Introduction of Project Road Map17:20 5. Discuss how best to approach the task

17:40 6. Agree the way forward

17:55 7. Agree date of next meeting18:00 Closure of the meeting

ANNEX B

Participants List

Yves Guillam (IHO Secretariat)Jeff Wootton (IHO)Kevin Black (DK)Ben Timmerman (NL)Christie Ence (US- NOAA)Daniel Brousseau (CA)Edward Hands (NO) (Secretary)Jukka Helminen (FI)Magnis Hovberg (SE)Oke Dwiyana Pribadi (ID)Dady Suryanegara (ID)Mohammad Qisthi Amarona (ID)Capt Yanuar (ID)Colby Harmon (US-NOAA)Hugh Astle (Caris)Inga Fjellanger (Navico)Julien Barbeau (Caris)Maris Akkerman (EE)Mikko Hovi (FI) ChairMikus Ranka (NZ)Nick Rodwell (UK) Vice ChairPatricia Sheatsley (Esri)Sam Lerigo (UK)Sean McGurgan (US –NGA)Simon Matthews (Caris)Sylvia Spohn (DE)Tom De Puyt (Esri)Yong BAEK (IHO Secretariat)

ANNEX C

Project Road Map

Annex D

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

AU Australia

BR Brazil

CATZOC Category of Zone of Confidence

CL Circular Letter (of IHO)

CO Colombia

CSPCWG Chart Standardization and Paper Chart WG (of HSSC)

DE Germany

DK Denmark

doc NCWG4 document or paper associated with the meeting

DQ Data quality

DQWG Data Quality Working Group (of HSSC)

E110 IALA standard for rhythmic characters of lights on aids to navigation

ECDIS Electronic Chart Display and Information System

ED Existence Doubtful

EE Estonia

EN Explanatory note

ENC Electronic Navigational Chart

ENCWG Electronic Navigational Chart Working Group (of HSSC)

ES Spain

ESRI Environmental Systems Research Institute

FI Finland

FOPNC Future of Nautical Paper Chart

FR France

HAT Highest astronomical tide

HDWG Hydrographic Dictionary Working Group (of HSSC)

HO Hydrographic Office

HQ Headquarters

HSSC Hydrographic Services and Standards Committee (of IHO)

IALA International Association of Lighthouse Authorities

IBSC The FIG/IHO/ICA International Board on Standards of Competence for Hydrographic Surveyors and Nautical Cartographers

ICA International Cartographic Association

ICPC International Cables Protection Committee

ID Indonesia

IHA International Hydrographic Assembly

IHO International Hydrographic Organization

IHO(Sec) Secretariat of the IHO (based in Monaco)

IHO(TSSO) Technical Standards Support Office of the IHO

IMO International Maritime Organization

IN India

INF Information paper associated with the meeting

INT International

INT1 Symbols, Abbreviations, Terms used on Charts

INT3 Use of Symbols and Abbreviations - standard reference chart

IRCC Inter-Regional Coordination Committee

JP Japan

MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL)

M_QUAL Quality of data

MS Member State (of IHO)

NCWG Nautical Cartography Working Group (of HSSC)

NGA National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (US)

NIPWG Nautical Information Provision Working Group (of HSSC)

NL Netherlands

NO Norway

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (US)

NM Notice to Mariners

NP 5011 Nautical Publication 5011, symbols and abbreviations used on

Admiralty paper charts, published by UK.

OEMs Original equipment manufacturers for ECDIS

PDF Portable document format

(P)NM Preliminary Notice to Mariners

PPT Microsoft PowerPoint

PSC Port State Control

Res. Resolution (of the IHO)

Rev Revision (of a paper)

S-4 Chart Specifications of the IHO and Regulations for International (INT) Charts

S-11 Guidance for the Preparation and Maintenance of International Chart Schemes and Catalogue of International (INT) Charts

S-32 Hydrographic Dictionary

S-52 Specifications for Chart Content and Display Aspects of ECDIS

S-57 IHO Transfer Standard for Digital Hydrographic Data

S-100 IHO Geospatial Standard for Hydrographic data

S-100WG S-100 Working Group (of HSSC)

S-101 ENC Product Specification

S-122 Marine Protected Area Specification

SA South Africa

SCAMIN The SCAMIN value of an object determines the display scale below which the object is no longer visible on an Electronic Chart Display and Information System (ECDIS).

SE Sweden

Sec Secretary

SOLAS The international convention for Safety of Life at Sea

SubWG Sub-working group (of relevant HSSC WG)

SVG Scalable Vector Graphics

T&P Temporary and Preliminary (NMs)

TIF Tagged Image File

(T)NM Temporary Notice to Mariners

TOR Terms of Reference

UK United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

UOC Use of Object Catalogue for ENC

US United States of America

WIG Wing in Ground

WG Working Group (of IHO)