-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Discussion of InTheWater attribute. #3
Comments
|
Is UNSARE navigable water? I agree with DEPARE and DRGARE certainly. I agree if we can do this automatically it makes sense. My understanding is that inTheWater replaces the coincident point objects referred to in the UOC, should we remove these when doing the conversion? |
Of the opinion that S-57 point objects will have to be removed (as they are work-arounds). |
|
Not converting Piles (PILPNT) coincident with Wind Motors in the water etc is logical. |
During last meeting, I mentionned LNDAREs or other objects could be treated similarly.
I did not check, but I guess all Feature objects with In the water=True will trigger an alarm. |
Agree with all the above, noting however my comment at the last Sub-Group meeting that LandArea point should not be automatically deleted from the converted S-101 dataset if coincident with the supposed "in the water" feature (in such cases, inTheWater should not be present or set to False). |
The difficulty/impossibility here is to know whether the point LNDARE has been encoded because there is actually a Land Area or to have a Base Display feature encoded. There must be a unique conversion rule and I would be in favour of treating the LNDARE like the PILPNT and PONTON (i.e. do not convert and set inTheWater to True). For back conversion to S-57, a LNDARE would be created coincident with every S-101 feature having inTheWater = True. |
this issue is for discussion, from an ENC conversion perspective, on how to automatically convert S-57 data to encode InTheWater in a way consistent with the feature catalogue and DCEG.
Some questions:
This issue needs a bit of explanation and discussion from DCEG/S-101 encoding experts, and trialling with some real examples of S-57 features to illustrate how the process can work.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: