Choosing a Suitable Projection for Navigation in the Arctic

Abstract

Navigation at sea is based on Electronic Chart Display and Information Systems (ECDIS) that allow for the use of a limited number of projections. As navigation in the Arctic region becomes a reality due to the progressive melting of the polar ice cap, a re-examination of the most suitable projections for navigation in the Arctic becomes timely. Several projections are proposed in the literature for this area. In our approach, the selection is based on an analytical study utilizing three criteria: the control of the magnitude of distortions within acceptable limits, the shape of great circles (GCs) and rhumb lines/loxodromes, and the shape of the graticule lines portrayed on the chart. The analysis carried out shows that to fulfill the set criteria, the arctic area should be divided into Arctic and sub-Arctic regions. More specifically, for the Arctic region the Azimuthal Polar Equidistant projection and the Azimuthal Polar Stereographic projection are the most suitable ones. For the sub-Arctic region, the Lambert Conformal Conic and the Conic Equidistant projection are considered more appropriate. All four projections proposed can be used for both the traditional nautical chart and the ECDIS, and both are considered as the starting point for further study of specific ECDIS requirements.

Electronic Navigational Charts: International Standards and Map Projections

“…According to relevant surveys different ECDIS systems provide different capabilities and a number of ECDIS operating anomalies have been identified [11,12]. One issue is that the international standards for ENCs and ECDIS do not specify or recommend map projections.The lack of international standards on the employment of map projections in ENCs and ECDIS has been detected at least since 2010 [13,14] but, perhaps surprisingly, the selection of map projections for ENCs and ECDIS is still left to the manufacturers; as a result, different systems use different practices and methods [15] and some functional discomforts and inadequacies have been detected [14,[16][17][18][19].The aim of this study is:…”

“…The lack of international standards on the employment of map projections in ENCs and ECDIS has been detected at least since 2010 [13,14] but, perhaps surprisingly, the selection of map projections for ENCs and ECDIS is still left to the manufacturers; as a result, different systems use different practices and methods [15] and some functional discomforts and inadequacies have been detected [14,[16][17][18][19].…”

“…In the applications of Table 2, other than coastal navigation, the choice of a suitable map projection is vital. Particularly for navigation in the Arctic, it is imperative to employ a projection other than the Mercator [16,19].…”

“…In this study the research and methodology for the determination of an initial set of candidate map projections for ENCs and ECDIS has been based on the results of earlier studies [14,16,19,25,29], as well as, as presented in Section 2.2. experience from the manufacturer's practice on the employment of map projections. Pallikaris [16] proposed eight (8) candidate projections that could be used for marine navigation with ECDIS according to the location and the extent of the area portrayed on the screen.…”

“…Pallikaris [16] proposed eight (8) candidate projections that could be used for marine navigation with ECDIS according to the location and the extent of the area portrayed on the screen. Skopeliti and Tsoulos [19] proposed four (4) map projections for navigation in the Arctic and Subarctic regions. Jenny et al [26] proposed a compromised aspect adaptive cylindrical projection for world maps, which can be easily modified for the worldwide depiction of ENCs, as an alternative to that of the standard Miller Cylindrical Projection.…”