Where the oppo Nautical experts at?

"itschrome" (itschrome)
09/05/2018 at 10:44 • Filed to: None

Looking at depth charts and I dont understand. whats the deal with the big number with the little number next to it? it confuses and angers me.

DISCUSSION (24)

adamftw > itschrome
09/05/2018 at 10:51

Whats the chart say for depth format? It should be labeled “soundings.” I’m going to assume its fathoms and feet, 6 fathoms 9ft; 3 fathoms, 9 ft, etc.

1 fathom = 6ft, btw.

Aremmes > adamftw
09/05/2018 at 10:57

That looks like a Navionics chart, so the depths are shown in whatever unit the user chose (feet/inches by default). I’m quite certain that those are feet and inches — their webapp confirms it.

itschrome > Aremmes
09/05/2018 at 11:00

it is and it’s in feet. but I cant find out what the little numbers mean

HammerheadFistpunch > adamftw
09/05/2018 at 11:00

My guess as well.

OPPOsaurus WRX > adamftw
09/05/2018 at 11:00

if one fathom is 6' why would you put 5f- 9' and not 6f- 3'

benjrblant > itschrome
09/05/2018 at 11:04

I’d guess high and low tide?

Edit: Oh, I see that it’s a lake. Nevermind.

functionoverfashion > itschrome
09/05/2018 at 11:08

I believe that’s meters and tenths.

Could be fathoms and feet, except that there are numbers higher than 5, which wouldn’t make sense. Must be meters.

Aremmes > itschrome
09/05/2018 at 11:08

The subscript numbers are inches.

functionoverfashion > itschrome
09/05/2018 at 11:09

little numbers would be inches, although I would think it would be meters and tenths of meters, as there are no numbers above 9 there. could be coincidence

functionoverfashion > OPPOsaurus WRX
09/05/2018 at 11:10

Must either be meters/tenths or feet/inches then...

Akio Ohtori - RIP Oppo > Aremmes
09/05/2018 at 11:11

Oddly specific. I would have expected the margin of error to be large enough that inches would be irrelevant.

itschrome > benjrblant
09/05/2018 at 11:11

there is a mild tidal effect on the lake, not enough to go from 12 f eet to 8 feet tho...

itschrome > functionoverfashion
09/05/2018 at 11:12

nah it’s set for feet. the area around the piers run up to shore so fathoms wouldn’t work too well in that shallow of water.

Aremmes > Akio Ohtori - RIP Oppo
09/05/2018 at 11:18

I agree, but that’s how Navionics rolls. They have a program in which users can submit chartplotter/fishfinder sounding data that is arguably more precise than what NOAA/USCG have used in the past, and they're probably not normalizing the data.

cbell04 > itschrome
09/05/2018 at 11:21

Relevant. Winter surfing during a snow storm right at that spot. Crazy folks.

functionoverfashion > itschrome
09/05/2018 at 11:24

Ah, then feet and inches it is.

itschrome > cbell04
09/05/2018 at 11:25

yeah.... No thank you! hahaha people are insane!

adamftw > OPPOsaurus WRX
09/05/2018 at 11:33

Oh yea, makes sense.

itschrome > functionoverfashion
09/05/2018 at 11:35

ok, I’ll buy that. just seems odd to list inches.

functionoverfashion > itschrome
09/05/2018 at 11:36

I totally agree. But it’s consistent with using fathoms/feet, meters/tenths...

functionoverfashion > Akio Ohtori - RIP Oppo
09/05/2018 at 11:37

For sure it is, but it’s consistent with using fathoms/feet, or meters/tenths. If you really want your depths to show in feet, they’re still giving you the next level of detail whether it’s significant or not.

asenna > cbell04
09/05/2018 at 13:37

Its feet a nd tenths of feet not inches. i.e 10.8ft

You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much > itschrome
09/07/2018 at 15:50

Comparing it to the NOAA chart for Rochester I would guess that it is giving the depth in feet and tenths of feet. A little bit odd for a UOM, but feet-inches doesn’t seem to make sense either since there are not subscripts higher than nine. The NOAA chart is available here: http://www.charts.noaa.gov/PDFs/14815.pdf

I found that particular chart through their chart locator here: http://www.charts.noaa.gov/InteractiveCatalog/nrnc.shtml#mapTabs-1

itschrome > You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much
09/07/2018 at 15:54

awesome! thank you. thats a sweet chart!