Notices

Garmin Fishing Charts not accurate

Old 12-11-2009, 12:14 AM
  #1  
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii, USA
Posts: 38
Default Garmin Fishing Charts not accurate

I like my new Garmin 4208 chartplotter. The screen is easy to read in sunlight and the resolution is terrific. Nevertheless, I am very disappointed in the $300 Vision charts for the Hawaiian Islands. I only bought them for the "fishing charts" and they aren't that useful. The bottom is shown is great detail and there there are lots of dramatic bottom features shown that I was eager to try. Unfortunately, most of those "features" don't really exist. No doubt, they are a wonderful selling point in the store for fishermen like me. Maybe Garmin will come out with more accurate maps in the future, but my advise is to wait and see.
LarryGaddis is offline  
Old 12-11-2009, 01:26 AM
  #2  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,562
Default

There really isn't a lot of mapping that is accurate anyway and certainly no where near the accuracy of GPS. Maps and charts have a lot of catching up to do and this is not going to happen overnight or even in the next 5-10 years.
Kerry is offline  
Old 12-11-2009, 06:11 AM
  #3  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Miami Beach, FL
Posts: 1,752
Default

Interesting I was all over Abaco Bahamas, quite remote, and was amazed at how accurate the charts were.
Dsaltydog is offline  
Old 12-11-2009, 07:17 AM
  #4  
Senior MemberCaptains Club MemberPLEDGER
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: mass/Point Judith, RI dockage
Posts: 11,796
Default

What do you mean by the features don't exist, and how did you verify it?

Those charts come from published noaa data that comes from all kinds of research (some civilian, some military). Garmin doesn't create it's own data (at least I hope not).

But if you are referring to wrecks, those numbers are VERY innacurate. They come from c.g. reports of sinkings, not actual bottom searches. They can be miles off. The same thing happens on paper charts and all commercial wreck charts.

Some of the smaller wrecks will eventually be broken up by draggers and the weather and just disappear altogether.

At least in the northeast, wreck numbers are jealously guarded, and it isn't uncommon for people to just lie about where they are.

So what didn't exist?
gerg is online now  
Old 12-11-2009, 07:27 AM
  #5  
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Savannah, Ga
Posts: 74
Default

You might want to read up on Datums. If your chart has one datum and the machine is set on another, you will be way off. Some of the datum may be from 1884 and the machine might be set on 1976 or so. Getting them both the same will greatly improve your accuracy.

Mike
Mweathers is offline  
Old 12-11-2009, 07:50 AM
  #6  
Edd
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Inland Waters of California
Posts: 1,896
Default

There's always Dr. Depth
Edd is offline  
Old 12-11-2009, 08:22 AM
  #7  
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii, USA
Posts: 38
Default

Originally Posted by gerg View Post
What do you mean by the features don't exist, and how did you verify it?

Those charts come from published noaa data that comes from all kinds of research (some civilian, some military). Garmin doesn't create it's own data (at least I hope not).

But if you are referring to wrecks, those numbers are VERY innacurate. They come from c.g. reports of sinkings, not actual bottom searches. They can be miles off. The same thing happens on paper charts and all commercial wreck charts.

Some of the smaller wrecks will eventually be broken up by draggers and the weather and just disappear altogether.

At least in the northeast, wreck numbers are jealously guarded, and it isn't uncommon for people to just lie about where they are.

So what didn't exist?
The features that don't exist are pinnacles on the chart that rise from a bottom of 250+ fathoms to 100 fathoms or less and cover several acres of area. I verify that they aren't there by driving over them with my Furuno FCV292 and an Airmar 2000 watt transducer that can easily see the bottom and fish. The only feature that is there is the flat bottom at 250 fathoms,. It is the fishing chart that is bogus, not the
GPS or the navigation charts. Features like channel markers are right on.
LarryGaddis is offline  
Old 12-11-2009, 09:51 AM
  #8  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member Admiral's Club Member
THT sponsor
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brookhaven, LI, NY
Posts: 15,755
Default

As Kerry stated, they are ALL OFF. The ocean is a BIG place, and it will take a LONG time (if every!) to get them dead on. And also as stated, the chart data is NOT made by Garmin, it is made by the the US guberment with your tax money. Garmin simply formats it to work with their plotter.

Send you complaint/change notification to NOAA, they will update the chart after verification.

Lastlty, nobody living in Hawaii has the right to complain about ANYTHING!!!!
Birdman is offline  
Old 12-11-2009, 10:18 AM
  #9  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 479
Default

Originally Posted by Birdman View Post
As Kerry stated, they are ALL OFF. The ocean is a BIG place, and it will take a LONG time (if every!) to get them dead on. And also as stated, the chart data is NOT made by Garmin, it is made by the the US guberment with your tax money. Garmin simply formats it to work with their plotter.

Send you complaint/change notification to NOAA, they will update the chart after verification.

Lastlty, nobody living in Hawaii has the right to complain about ANYTHING!!!!
Looks like a job for Tom Brady
madkate88 is offline  
Old 12-11-2009, 12:30 PM
  #10  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hilo,Hawaii
Posts: 253
Default

I have the G2 chart card for my Garmin 441s and have found the fishing charts to be pretty accurate outside of the big island.
Bottom contour chart has been great in finding bottom fish and have located an Ahi Koa with it.
YMMV.

oceanwarrior
oceanwarrior is offline  
Old 06-30-2011, 01:56 PM
  #11  
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1
Angry I get mixed results and the Lowrance ones are different

I have the G2 vision chart for Puget sound to Port Hardy. About half of the fishing chart depts are right - they are broken up into zones and you can see when you move from one zone (accurate) to another (faked) because the depth lines stop meeting as you cross zones.

I believe that the mapping vendor that transcribed the Govt data to the garmin format took some shortcuts - it's almost as if some of the grid zones were mapped by guess, and others were made from depth soundings.

My buddy has a Lowrance, and in several places where I have learned the Garmin G2 vision fishing charts are totally bogus, his Lowrance fishing charts show data that tracks very close to what our depth sounders read.

For example, on possession bar on the south end of Whidbey Island, the edges of the bar seem accurate enough. But when you move onto the bar, the pinnacles and underwater mountans are not shown at all. Instead, the map shows gentle contours that roughly mirror the shore line in a smooth transition from the shore to the bar edges. The lowrance chart shows mountains and gulleys here and when we fish, it is the mountains and gulleys that are real.

I've had similar experiences - data sometimes is accurate, other times it has the appearance of being hand drawn. In some cases it is dangerous - the fishing chart on Sarah Point in Desolation Sound (BC) is so badly drawn that you could be on rocks if you trust the charted depths in fishing view. The navigation view shows reasonable navigation data.

Somebody at garmin took on some well faked data and didn't bother checking. the "it's all from the Govt" argument should stack up - but comparing the lowrance and garmin charts for the same positions where I see the "faked" lines, tells me something else is involved here.
danro is offline  
Old 06-30-2011, 03:11 PM
  #12  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Annapolis
Posts: 1,929
Default

First post danro? Thought you'ld make a big splash talking about Faked this and hand drawn that? or are you just some guy who has lost all cred here and is trying a different login to get another stab or two in?
sandyda is offline  
Old 06-30-2011, 03:21 PM
  #13  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 494
Default

NOAA spent the last 2 years scanning the bottom of Puget Sound, the Straights and the coast off of Washington State. The last time it had been done was in the 1960's. I would expect to see those updates in the next year or two. The Columbia River gets a lot of attention as I would guess the Mississippi and any major harbor entrance due to the barge traffic and ever changing bottom.
The Hat Island Pirate is offline  
Old 06-30-2011, 03:41 PM
  #14  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 578
Default

Originally Posted by sandyda View Post
First post danro? Thought you'ld make a big splash talking about Faked this and hand drawn that? or are you just some guy who has lost all cred here and is trying a different login to get another stab or two in?
Ok, sandyda, it's time for your meds. Do you want to watch tv this afternoon or play shuffleboard?

Jeez man, lighten up a bit. As a Garmin Vision chart owner, I hope like hell that danro is wrong, but let's ease off the hammers and just ask him if he can share some screen shots to prove his point or something. No need to go all jackdaw on his ass yet.

Then again, he only has one post.

flying squirrel is offline  
Old 06-30-2011, 06:46 PM
  #15  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Southeast, Fl
Posts: 394
Default

I spent some time with Homeport and thought I had found a pinnacle off Stuart, Fl. It is labeled Walt's hill on the picture. It does not appear until you reach a certain zoom level on the charts. I headed out there my tail was waggin'. Only problem was it did not exist. My Navionics chart showed the bottom as it was. Slightly declining as you head East. Not looking to slam Garmin or pick a fight with anyone. Just a mistake I found. Dampened my spirits on searching for new bottom details with the Garmin charts.

dolphan is offline  
Old 07-01-2011, 02:03 AM
  #16  
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 96
Default

I find the fishing charts here in Aus pretty accurate but the depths don't line up with my depth sounder displayed depth. I put some of that down to my thru hull shooting out to starboard by about 10 degrees off vertical but even still they seem a bit too far out.

Would love to know the source for the fishing chart data here in Aus. Never seen it anywhere else.
WETSS is offline  
Old 07-01-2011, 02:45 AM
  #17  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,562
Default

....but the depths don't line up with my depth sounder displayed depth...
don't line up by how much?
Kerry is offline  
Old 07-01-2011, 06:24 AM
  #18  
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: BOCA RATON
Posts: 81
Default

here is what i found off bimini !
Attached Images   
MOCEAN CONTROL is offline  
Old 07-01-2011, 11:25 PM
  #19  
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 96
Default

Originally Posted by Kerry View Post
don't line up by how much?
In say 160' of water they would be 20-30' too deep on the chart. The nav chart is much closer in depth if I account for my angled thru hull and the fact that nav chart depths shown are low tide figures.

No where near as bad as the pictures above. That is very poor effort from the cartographers or whoever made that stuff up.
WETSS is offline  
Old 07-02-2011, 06:04 AM
  #20  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location:
Posts: 13,052
Default

Originally Posted by Birdman View Post
Lastlty, nobody living in Hawaii has the right to complain about ANYTHING!!!!
As a former resident of Hawaii, I can say "yes they do".

The problem, and only problem, with Hawaii is the Hawaiians. They act like they have some god given special right to the place. If I recall my history correctly, they moved to the Hawaiian islands from somewhere else, just like everyone else. Because they got there ahead of some others, they have a sense of "entitlement".

What does this have to do with charts? My comment may be construed as "off the charts".
jethro1 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread