Talk:Navigation

Ships C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Template:WikiProject Maritime Trades

Robotics Start‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Robotics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Robotics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RoboticsWikipedia:WikiProject RoboticsTemplate:WikiProject RoboticsRobotics articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

/Archive 1

Although Navigation is not limited to navigation while under sail, I thought readers of this talk page might be interested to help with this. Take a minute to read the comments at Talk:Sailing#Re-write effort -- non how-to et seq. Some of us are working on re-organizing the sailing-related articles. See if you agree with our approach and give us some help. Mrees1997 21:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was WP:BOLD and made some significant changes in the article today to try and open up a path towards making this a b-class article. The biggest changes were structural: grouping modern stuff together and removing a section on the point system. I also replaced the "types" section with text from the public domain section 101 of Bowditch 2002. If there are no objections, I'd like to continue, using WP:SUMMARY to add sections for piloting, radio/radar, and satellite navigation.

"Navigation in other cultures" strikes me as a minefield. I've had a couple of notions about what to do with it, and I think the best approach might be to split it off into another article. Any feelings? Cheers. Haus^Talk 16:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC) (p.s. archived old talk, too)[reply]

In the process of rewriting the History section, the article grew to 50 kilobytes. As Navigation is still missing some significant pieces (bearing, range, latitude, longitude, prime meridian, etc...) and is likely to keep growing steadily, I decided to split History of navigation off to its own article. Probably the best thing to do would be to summarize the history article here on Navigation... Cheers. Haus^Talk 14:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These topics seem to have a significant problem: the terminology simply doesn't seem to be used as recorded here. Bowditch, for example, defines piloting as "navigat[ion of] a vessel through restricted waters." (ref) Likewise, googling on "pilotage" indicates that it means the provision of piloting services, and not the act of navigation itself. I can find no evidence of a British/American division on this either.

I'd like to try to straighten this out, but I'm asking for some support for the current definitions before I go and make a radical rearrangement of this and other articles of dubious terminology (e.g. seamark). Mangoe 16:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to look for a reference, but I have definitely seen "pilotage" used roughly as described in this article, and not as a term for "what a ship's pilot does". Paul Koning 15:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have come across some references to this with respect to aviation. Looking at the various official admiralty-type websites, however, shows a consistent use in reference to pilotage as the supplying of pilots. Mangoe 16:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone referred to Bowdich (The Practical Navigator)for a definition? I will look it up to make certain, but I believe it refers to piloting as visual navigation within sight of land and restricted maneuverability. Using DR, Visual and radar fixes to maintain a running track of the vessels position.I55ere (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This time it's sea mark, which is utterly unsourced. Again, I can't find evidence that it is used in the sense given here, at least not widely so. It most commonly appears as a catch-all term in legal lists (e.g. "No person shall make fast to, or interfere with, any light, beacon, sea mark, racing buoy or tide pole in the river." [1]). Other references speak of "sea marks" as more or less ad-hoc landmarks. The only case where I've found "sea mark" used as in the article is in a few Canadian boating sites, and they also use the the alternate terminology interchangeably.

The universal term here seems to be aid to navigation, or navigational aid. Right now the former has no article and the latter is stubby. It appears that two projects made two articles independently. My impulse is to fold everything into one of the two latter terms, and right now, I'm tending to prefer the former to the latter, as it is the form which seems to occur in formal definitions by the governing bodies. But before I do this I'd like to see if there is something behind the "sea mark" article of which I am unaware. Mangoe 21:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the second sentence, I doubt the sanskrit derivation is true. I think the correct derivation is as described in : http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=navigation.--Tvbanfield (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ideal marine should probably have a system integrated similar to the tempomaat Not sure where to put it dough

81.245.184.134 (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of this article is limited to marine navigation and as such I propose that the article be renamed to "Marine Navigation". Comments or thoughts?Rubisco (talk) 08:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

===I think the name should not be changed. The word navigate is derived from the Latin roots "navis" meaning "ship" and gate referring to movement. Why be redundant and change the name to ""marine ship movement." Yes I know the term navigate has been extended to aircraft and space ships, but that can easily be delt with within the article.--Tvbanfield (talk) 00:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was also think along the lines of non-vehicular navigation, such as mountaineering, orienteering etc. Perhaps the answer is to extend the scope of this article to reflect these other, more diverse types of navigation.Rubisco (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to add a section here commenting on the obvious error in the opening which ignores navigation in the absence of a vehicle when I noticed this section. Since navigation on foot predates all other forms it is clearly inappropriate that an article headed 'Navigation' should ignore it. The passage on derivation of the word is inappropriate in the opening not least because words change their meaning over time, particularly becoming generalised to embrace concepts well beyond the scope of the origin. Either the article should be renamed to reflect its limited scope or, better, the opening should be completely rewritten to correctly reflect the subject. The derivation of the word, if it is to be included at all, this being after all an encyclopedia and not an etymological dictionary, should be in a subsidiary section. treesmill (talk) 08:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going to open a section here called "naive question," but I see my topic already opened. Per the navigation disambiguation page, "Navigation is the theory and practice of navigating, especially the charting of a course for a ship, aircraft, or spaceship (American Heritage Dictionary)." If that is so, why is aircraft and space navigation not covered in this navigation article? Actually, I wandered in here wanting more information on SPOFs as that article seems to fail to cover anything but computer SPOFs/potential SPOFs. --Aladdin Sane (talk) 04:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I work with other historians on the origine of medieval portolan charts. The question how accurate dead reckoning (DR) navigation by sails could be is of overwhelming importance there. We could not find much historic date because most nautic historians supposed DR had the accuracy of the portolan charts from the same time. But that is in doubt.

I created a page with the DR data I found so far. If you have data or sources, please send it there or to its discussion page. Besides historians, it may be of interest to present sail navigators too. -- Portolanero (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weirdly enough, the article does not divide "Celestial navigation" in the subsections: "during the day" and "at night". Also the section about the chronometer should be made smaller and integrated to the sextant. Finally, in the section or even in the entire article, there is no mentioning of the gnomon, kamal, Cross-staff, Backstaff or astrolabe

See http://books.google.be/books?id=i7-HX1Dx_b8C&pg=PA46&lpg=PA46&dq=gnomon+and+navigation+and+arabian&source=bl&ots=cgCBg1gJPl&sig=cf8y8aYZPIovev0UxCjmvn2rbC4&hl=nl&ei=hTbuTPumFMiphAegwP3tCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=gnomon%20and%20navigation%20and%20arabian&f=false (gnomon= oldest navigation equipment )

http://nabataea.net/sailing.html

also, the Sounding_line, the most useful instrument for navigation troughout history hasn't been mentioned.

91.182.136.18 (talk) 09:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]