Talk:Hydrographic survey

A hydrographic survey is also a legal term to describe a water right in the western US. http://www.ose.state.nm.us/legal_ose_hydro_survey.html

The first stage of the adjudication process is the completion of the hydrographic survey. During this process, Hydrographic Survey Bureau and the Litigation and Adjudication Program staff gather all of the information used to legally describe a water right and record it in the report and associated maps filed with the court. The survey filed by the bureau is presumed by the court to be correct. Any party wishing to dispute these facts bears the burden of proving the survey wrong.

The bureau makes every effort to ensure its information is correct. Staff search county ownership records, State Engineer water rights records, historical records, field surveys, field interviews, historical aerial photography and current aerial photography.

All new hydrographic surveys are based on geographic information systems (GIS) technology and all field measurements are now done with global positioning systems (GPS) receivers.

The link provided is broken, so cannot be checked, but is this not a hydrological survey? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 15:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

The article is now very weak in history, international scope and technically. This is also potentially a very large subject expanding well beyond the obvious oceanic hydrographic survey for nautical charting. A strategy for development might help avoid a runaway page. Should it be an introduction defining what the term means, brief mention of the wide international scope of the thing and sub pages dealing with the international aspects? I just added a bit about RN/UKHO and clarified the U.S. section where only NOAA was mentioned and then not its NOS uniformed corps that actually conducts hydrographic surveys. A whole section could develop about the specialized ships and techniques alone. We have to take note too of the odd little "western waters" subject already noted that would only be recognized by a few specialists and residents of the states using such a term. The term "hydrography" covers lakes, streams, rivers and oceans so linked branches need to be considered rather than trying to cover everything in one piece.-Palmeira (talk) 16:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Only a very small percentage of the Hydrographic surveys performed worldwide are for the purpose of nautical charting. To limit this article to nautical charting would omit the bulk of the surveys performed worldwide. Talk to any Hydrographic Survey supply company like HYPACK, Geo Accoustics, Reson, Odom ect. Ask them what percentge of their products is actually used for nautical charting. It is very, very small. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tugboat069 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

We can discuss this, but your reversion of my update goes way too far. I added internationally recognized authorities. You seem to be focused on companies. I added sample national organizations dealing in marine hydrography. My point is that "hydrography" is a very broad term ranging from little mom and pop outfits doing local work mapping lakes and streams to major national organizations. I don't want to get into a reversion war, but that revert was unacceptable and I will kick it "upstairs" if necessary. Palmeira (talk) 00:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

The bulk of Hydrographic surveys are conducted by companies not governments.

This is the second time you have reverted and eliminated documented, cited references regarding national hydrographic efforts in maritime areas. Regardless of your personal bias that is the origin of nautical hydrography and a major component of present day maritime hydrography. I suggest you add your corporate views to flesh out the article and stop destroying input by others. I am reverting to give you that opportunity. Palmeira (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have just completed subject headings that should allow for you to expand on your area of interest--and remember the neutral view. Yes, there is plenty of commercial hydrography. Worldwide, and in the U.S. vast sums are expended and assets applied to national, state and local hydrographic survey of public waters. Even many of the private firms working in the field get many of their contracts through such efforts. Any shoving that under a table is simply ignoring fact. I will state, for the last time, that if you simply again undo what I have contributed with cites I will take this to a third party intervention.Palmeira (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Note that in the UK the UKHO no longer carries out any hydrographic surveys. Government sponsored surveys are managed by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and Nature England, but they are all carried out by subcontracts to commercial organisations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartcom (talk • contribs) 13:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hydrographic survey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130415030816/http://www.imo.org/Safety/mainframe.asp?topic_id=350 to http://www.imo.org/safety/mainframe.asp?topic_id=350

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Hydrographic survey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090724155623/http://www.iho-ohi.net/english/standards-publications/introduction.html to http://www.iho-ohi.net/english/standards-publications/introduction.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090410145023/http://www.iho-ohi.net/english/letters-and-documents/mou-agreements.html to http://www.iho-ohi.net/english/letters-and-documents/mou-agreements.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090206011442/http://icomia.com/technical-info/docs/SOLASV.pdf to http://www.icomia.com/technical-info/docs/SOLASV.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100125231253/http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/implementation/water/tmdl/hydromaps.html to http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/implementation/water/tmdl/hydromaps.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070209015914/http://chartmaker.ncd.noaa.gov/hsd/wrecks.htm to http://chartmaker.ncd.noaa.gov/hsd/wrecks.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070325091416/http://www.thsoa.org/hy03/3a_3.pdf to http://www.thsoa.org/hy03/3a_3.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614123051/http://chl.erdc.usace.army.mil/library/publications/chetn/pdf/cetn-vi-17.pdf to http://chl.erdc.usace.army.mil/library/publications/chetn/pdf/cetn-vi-17.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070324014031/http://www.hydrographicsociety.org/Articles/journal/2002/104-3.htm to http://www.hydrographicsociety.org/Articles/journal/2002/104-3.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090603032520/http://www.nga.mil/portal/site/nga01/index.jsp?epi-content=GENERIC&itemID=21786591e1b3af00VgnVCMServer23727a95RCRD&beanID=1629630080&viewID=Article to http://www.nga.mil/portal/site/nga01/index.jsp?epi-content=GENERIC&itemID=21786591e1b3af00VgnVCMServer23727a95RCRD&beanID=1629630080&viewID=Article
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131218201511/http://www.hydrobharat.nic.in/index.htm to http://www.hydrobharat.nic.in/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100104133626/http://hydro-international.com/index.php to http://www.hydro-international.com/index.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100412091557/http://www.idrografo.com/ to http://www.idrografo.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

What era does this cover? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 15:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Fgnievinski, you tagged for a split but do not seem to have started a discussion anywhere explaining why. It is not obvious that the section is already large enough to be a stand-alone, not is the full scope of the topic likely to be familiar to most editors. Your credibility and the level of attention likely to be attracted by the tag would be improved by an explanation of why the section should be split out, and possibly by a list of useful references. Alternatively, you could start the article yourself. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 15:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

It's the only section in Hydrographic_survey#Methods without a separate main article. fgnievinski (talk) 19:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply