Wreck Locations

8 months 2 weeks ago #303223 by peter6956
peter6956 created the topic: Wreck Locations
Does anyone have accurate wreck locations for Melbourne grave yards. I have looked at some info on internet sites here in Melb but I havent found them to be reliable with the wrecks I have looked at to date. I have found George Kermode and have its position accurately but nothing else.

I am looking for someoen who has dived them and has accurate positions with the Datum. I use WGS84.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
8 months 2 weeks ago - 8 months 2 weeks ago #303224 by AB
AB replied the topic: Wreck Locations
Peter,
Divers are a little cautious about giving out marks for sites deeper than 40 metres unless they know the competency of who they are giving them to. It would be horrible to give someone the location of a deep wreck and learn that it ended in tragedy. Which specific wrecks are you interested in (there are 55 of them)?

Alan
Last Edit: 8 months 2 weeks ago by AB.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
8 months 2 weeks ago #303225 by peter6956
peter6956 replied the topic: Wreck Locations
Alan,

I have Adv Trimix via Rubens. I have dived a number of them but now having bought a decent boat wish to go dive them again. Mainly anything down to about 55m. Those in the graveyard site, J1, J2, J4, J5, Beverwijk 19, Buninyong, Coogee, Courier, D. McLennan, Dunloe, Eliza Ramsden, Euro, Fawkner, Hygiea, Milora, Piggot, Pioneer, Sir William McPherson, White Pine, Wills.

Anything deeper than about 50m I would probably go with Red boats but Luke is more into recreational and its hard to get dives that are tech orientated, and when I am available, especially now with DV gone.

I only dive those dives with certified divers. Its far too risky to take uncertified divers out to cold, deep dives in current and low vis, this isnt Truk afterall.

I do have a lot of positions from well known local internet sites, but they all seem off position, and from what I have found, my chart marks on my sounder are more accurate than these supposed accurate positions.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
8 months 2 weeks ago #303226 by AB
AB replied the topic: Wreck Locations
I can do the shallower ones easy enough!
J1 38 18.967 144 23.239
J2 38 18.828 144 34.805
J4 38 17.986. 144.33.813
J5 38 18.648. 144 34.109

Coogee 38 18.415. 144 34.278
Courier 38 19.475. 144 34.916
Milora 38 21.103. 144 23.379
Rotomahana 38 19.197 144 32.175

J2 and Courier are close to the shipping lane from the Pilot boarding ground and the main leads so require shipping clearance.

Alan

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
8 months 2 weeks ago - 8 months 2 weeks ago #303227 by peter6956
peter6956 replied the topic: Wreck Locations
Alan,

Thanks for the data. Its at least a start. I can then go search some of the others, or more probable go dive them with Luke and get a GPS shot as well.

I assume WGS84 is the datum?

Peter
Last Edit: 8 months 2 weeks ago by peter6956. Reason: addition

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
8 months 2 weeks ago #303228 by peter6956
peter6956 replied the topic: Wreck Locations
Think J1 38 18.967 144 23.239 should be J1 38 18.967 144 33.239 a typo

Thanks
Alan

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
8 months 2 weeks ago - 8 months 2 weeks ago #303229 by packo
packo replied the topic: Wreck Locations
Yeah **## happens, it would be a typo & WGS84 datum. Coogee mark might be just a tad too far west. According to a survey I did a few years back (Disclaimer - I use a DIY GPS chart plotter & homemade 40yr old sounder!) the numbers (minutes only) that I got were:-
Stern area:- 18.420' S, 34.298' E
Starboard Boiler:- 18.412' S, 34.309' E
Bow area:- 18.402' S, 34.322' E
Roughly speaking she lies pointing northeast towards Pt Nepean.

Now for your good Geo(rge) Kermode numbers? Last saw it 35 years ago in 70 foot vis and I wanna go back!
packo
Last Edit: 8 months 2 weeks ago by packo.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
8 months 2 weeks ago #303230 by Bazza
Bazza replied the topic: Wreck Locations
AB wrote:-

Divers are a little cautious about giving out marks for sites deeper than 40 metres unless they know the competency of who they are giving them to. It would be horrible to give someone the location of a deep wreck and learn that it ended in tragedy

Mate that is pathetic - what a nanny state we live in. The marks are public and if he wants to dive them then its his responsibility.

regards Baz

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
8 months 2 weeks ago #303231 by AB
AB replied the topic: Wreck Locations
Peter, yep, typo, And the Coogee mark I gave from my database is different to what is in my gps. I find the stern easy to see on the sounder and is at 38 18.428 144 34.295 pretty close to Packo's mark. My database goes back to days of differential gps, so I need to update it!

Packo, I have Kermode marks, but I haven't used them for decades as I never take my boat to PI anymore, so I can't trust them. I dived it just over a year ago and was terribly disappointed at how it has collapsed.

Alan

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
8 months 2 weeks ago - 8 months 2 weeks ago #303232 by peter6956
peter6956 replied the topic: Wreck Locations
George Kermode position is

WGS84
S 38 31.212
E 145 14.712
Thats about half way along the hull.
Dived it last week. there were a number of cray pots around it and a pain but manageable.
Last Edit: 8 months 2 weeks ago by peter6956.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
8 months 2 weeks ago #303233 by peter6956
peter6956 replied the topic: Wreck Locations
Alan,

I happen to agree with Bazza. Stupid divers are stupid divers. We cannot save them from themselves, and sometimes there is something to be said about the Darwinian theory.

I happen to know one young diver who was diving with his uncertified mates to 40m on hooka, bending computers and showing signs of DCS. In discussion I tried to explain the stupidity of his decisions. He however explained that his uncertified mates had told him you build up with bends over time, but if you go to deco chamber once a year you can empty out (good luck with that). Same guy dives all year around taking anything from the water they find (no seasons). I spent a lot of time trying to explain his errors, but clearly to no avail. My biggest worry was he would take someone else with him on his final trip. Should he die diving I do not feel sorry for him as he is clearly way outside the bounds of sane decisions, I would however feel sorry for his family.

So not posting wreck data wont stop these competitors for the Darwinian door prize. The internet has far too much data available these days. I do however appreciate your sentiment and concern.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
8 months 2 weeks ago #303234 by AB
AB replied the topic: Wreck Locations
Peter,
To some extent I agree, having encountered a few Darwin nominees. But I have learned that these idiots don't just stuff themselves up, but make it harder for everyone. Every time there is a significant stuff up, some government official has to write a report and include a recommendation to prevent it from happening again, and banning stupidity is never raised! This is why you now have to wear a lifejacket from Queenscliff all the way to the J4!

If you can influence the outcome of anything you are involved, and the smart ones are expected to look out for the stupid ones, that's what a society does. Like it or not. Having said all that, it's more a reason you won't get flooded with marks. I mean, I just posted the marks for the wrecks to 43 metres I've done recently! I'm not a tech diver and although I've dived many of the wrecks to 55m, my marks are pretty old and I'm not confident to give them out in case they are DGPS.

Alan
The following user(s) said Thank You: peter6956

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
8 months 2 weeks ago #303235 by james
james replied the topic: Wreck Locations
I agree no point holding back on marks under the guise of safety, some people just don't want to hand over marks they may have worked hard to get and safety could be a pretty convenient reason in their eyes.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
8 months 2 weeks ago #303236 by peter6956
peter6956 replied the topic: Wreck Locations
Yep the old power game, knowledge is power. I dont agree with it or go along with it. Often you find that those who give nothing away, harass others for any info they can get, so they get off on having knowledge others dont have.

I just enjoy diving, and if I can help someone then good. Any dive positions I have are available to everyone. I am a member of wrecksite.eu and I correct or add any wrecks to this site where I can so everyone can enjoy them. Just came back from Truk and added a huge number of wreck positions from there too.

In the main, wreck diving is for everyone to enjoy and only those of historical value or war graves should have their position protected.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
8 months 2 weeks ago - 3 months 5 days ago #303238 by packo
packo replied the topic: Wreck Locations
While James's point about some divers using "safety" as an excuse to hold their GPS coords close to their chest is a fair one, Alan's point about keeping the deeper or trickier ones back has a lot of merit too. As Alan says, any diving accident does eventually come around to bite us all in the bum with some new restricting rule or regulation. I presume last year's double fatality under Mornington Pier hasn't made it through the Coroner's court yet but it is usual that these courts like to "make recommendations".

Yes we do all live in a nanny state, and it seems wise to avoid pissing off Nanny!

It also makes sense, even if in a self-interested sort of a way, to discourage obviously hazardous or foolish behaviour. Those who take the "none of my business" or "it is their own damn fault" roads possibly have never been close enough to a "preventable drowning". If they had I feel they might sing a different tune. Idiot or not, it is still a fellow human being behind that mask & reg.

Peter6956 is obviously frustrated trying to talk sense into his misguided "danger-man" acquaintance. I know that feeling well, but please Peter don't give up on that task yet! - you might just manage to "save him from himself". Even if you don't, the fact you tried hard will be of some comfort and allow you to look his family straight in the eye.


******** DGPS **********
Sorry to Alan for this last "picky point" - but perhaps when you said "differential GPS" (or DGPS) you really meant to say "AGD66", an older style datum which if used today under a WGS84 interpretation puts you about 180m out of position.

"Retail GPS" as most of us would own is often quoted as having a 5-10m accuracy due to certain timing uncertainties in the arrival of the satellite signals. It seems to do a little better on the water where the generally open horizons allow more satellites to contribute to the fix. (By the way "WAAS", the Wide Area Augmentation System that improves accuracy to around 1m, and is done by some additional "special satellites", simply isn't currently available in our neck of the woods - no matter what the GPS salesman may have told you!)

"Differential GPS" or DGPS is actually the next step up in accuracy. It uses a ground based station within 200-400km to provide a separate terrestrial radio "correction signal" to a DGPS unit. The ground station measures the difference between its known highly accurate coords and what coords the satellite signals appear to say. When these correction signals are received by a DGPS unit in the field, the position accuracy improves to around 10-15cm.

I think there is a DGPS ground base station at Crib Point in WesternPort Bay. Don't know what a DGPS unit costs but probably a little north of $5k. Typically used by marine science bods or by tech savvy farmers who want to put the tractor wheels on exactly the same line season after season.

Next level up is "Kinematic GPS" which takes multiple samples of the raw satellite transmissions, then sends them off over mobile broadband to special processing centres which are on-line to a network of 40 or so special reference ground stations. After some processing they send you back GPS coords accurate to within just 1 or 2cm. I think these units are around $10k-$20k and are commonly used by techs from the big utility companies to record pipe & cable positions.

Sorry for all the guff Alan, but I didn't want others thinking DGPS was "crap" as your post might have implied. Sad to here that the Geo Kermode has collapsed significantly. Peter6956 didn't seem to give it much of a wrap either.

packo,
Last Edit: 3 months 5 days ago by packo. Reason: colour adjust

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
8 months 2 weeks ago #303239 by lloyd_borrett
lloyd_borrett replied the topic: Wreck Locations
G'day,

I've been trying to maintain a comprehensive database of Melbourne dive site marks for many years in various forms online. The most comprehensive and up-to-date list is online at https://www.scubadoctor.com.au/melbourne-dive-site-gps-marks.htm .

All along I've asked that if you have have information about other dive sites you'd be happy to see added to the information available, then please contact me. Yet it's very rare that this happens.

Also, I've always asked that if you know of any corrections and/or updates that could be made to the GPS marks listed, please feel free to contact me. But very few people have ever done so.

Knowing which marks are accurate and which are not is very problematic. Sometimes I have multiple marks for the same locations that are vast distances from each other. Sometimes marks are reported as being highly accurate having been regularly used successfully, yet others report they find nothing.

Best regards, Lloyd Borrett.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
8 months 2 weeks ago #303240 by lloyd_borrett
lloyd_borrett replied the topic: Wreck Locations
G'day,

Back in the day when transits were used, the information would be that you should come in at such and such a heading until whatever lined up. Often how the wreck was lying would be recorded so that you'd have a better chance of locating it.

These days when just the GPS marks are given, it can be problematic locating some wrecks. Thus the more information provided about using a mark, the better.

Best regards, Lloyd Borrett.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
8 months 2 weeks ago - 6 months 5 hours ago #303242 by packo
packo replied the topic: Wreck Locations
Hello Lloyd,

You are really leading with your chin here! However I agree with your comments about the old transit days and the importance of giving the direction in which a wreck lies not just the GPS coords of some unknown point on it. The same should be done for any "linear feature" such as a wall or line of reef. Makes life much easier.

Yes the scubadoc GPS list is extremely comprehensive and a great diver resource. Congratulations for the very big effort involved in getting this up and maintained. I should have mentioned it to Peter6956, but he seems to be anti "internet stuff" - and with some justification.

However my experience in getting corrections to your list wasn't as simple as you imply. I tried 3 times over several months before anything was done.

Since you have come out here with a call to be notified of any corrections needed, I'll give you one more:-

Rye Scallop Drift:
Latitude: 38° 18.500′ S (38.308333° S / 38° 18′ 30″ S)
Longitude: 144° 54.250′ E (144.904167° E / 144° 54′ 15″ E)

This position must be way off. It is about 4km North of Rosebud Pier, even beyond Hovell Pile. It is also pretty damn close to the main shipping channel leads from Rosebud to Fawkner Beacon.

Any divers who scallop there will really be "pissing Nanny off!". Please fix it soon. (Same coords on VSAG website list too.)
cheers,
packo
Last Edit: 6 months 5 hours ago by packo.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
8 months 2 weeks ago #303243 by AB
AB replied the topic: Wreck Locations
By DGPS I meant the marks we put in during the Gulf War when there was an error deliberately placed in GPS, so we had to calculate the error and apply it to the GPS mark we had. When the error was removed, most of those marks were inaccurate. Definitely not AGD66!

Alan

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
8 months 2 weeks ago #303244 by packo
packo replied the topic: Wreck Locations
Sorry Alan, I owe you an apology - or perhaps half-a-one. I'm a late GPS adopter, and didn't use it in early times while the US military's "Selective Availability" (SA) regime was in operation. Wikipedia tells me "SA" added time varying errors of up to about 50m unless you had a daily changing "secret key" and the right GPS receiver to use it.

That article went on to say that yes, people (like you) tried to work around it by using a DIY "differential GPS" technique by comparing their handset readings at a known station to its coords known by other means. I now understand what you meant. That must have been an awkward way to operate given the deliberately introduced error was time varying?

The article goes on to say:- "During the 1990–91 Gulf War, the shortage of military GPS units caused many troops and their families to buy readily available civilian units. Selective Availability significantly impeded the U.S. military's own battlefield use of these GPS, so the military made the decision to turn it off for the duration of the war.

In the 1990s, the FAA started pressuring the military to turn off SA permanently. This would save the FAA millions of dollars every year in maintenance of their own radio navigation systems. The amount of error added was "set to zero" at midnight on May 1, 2000 following an announcement by U.S. President Bill Clinton, allowing users access to the error-free L1 signal. Per the directive, the induced error of SA was changed to add no error to the public signals (C/A code).

Clinton's executive order required SA to be set to zero by 2006; it happened in 2000 once the U.S. military developed a new system that provides the ability to deny GPS (and other navigation services) to hostile forces in a specific area of crisis without affecting the rest of the world or its own military systems."


So now I do understand your point about some of the marks from the early days not being quite fit for public consumption today, and that you weren't meaning an "AGD66" datum - my bad.

Nevertheless the term "DGPS" nowadays does mean a GPS receiver modified to accept official "error correction" signals transmitted from "official differential GPS base stations on the ground", and the errors that are being corrected have nothing to do with "SA" but ionosphere issues and the like. Some of the "retail GPS" chips do actually have DGPS correction capability, but need an external radio receiver to pick up the signals and deliver them to the unit at the correct "volume".

My clarification on what "DGPS" actually means today still needed to be made, but you are right to call me out for being a bit of a p.r.i.c.k in the way I went about it. At the end of a bad week I just got a bit punchy. Lloyd copped some too.

During the years 1980 - 2000 I navigated around dive sites with a "horizontal sextant method" using prominent objects on the shore. It is sort of a "visual transit" method, but the objects are "lined up" using a moveable mirror and the angles are recorded. This gives much more freedom in choosing reference objects but a lot of maths is needed if you need to calculate what the readings need to be for finding a particular position. However "re-finding" somewhere you had been before was pretty easy.

Accuracy was often a little better than today's standard GPS, but it was 100 times less convenient - and a real pain in rough weather. I simply had no idea during those years that the GPS brigade were having their own problems with "Selective Availability". Thanks for that history lesson.

cheers,
packo

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
8 months 2 weeks ago - 8 months 2 weeks ago #303245 by peter6956
peter6956 replied the topic: Wreck Locations
Packo,

Yes I agree, I would always try and convince the young man in question to change his ways, knowing perhaps in my heart that in bad company he would continue to be stupid. Taking advice from non divers is just a bad start. I had already decided, should I dive on the same boat with him again, rather than have them match him with someone inexperienced, I would volunteer to take him and give him a firm lesson in diving with care and concern for others. There was much more to this story, as what i related happened in a dive shop initially. I then had the experience of diving on the same boat with him. I again spoke to him after the dives, and he admitted he has probably been already bent a number of times (and just OW). The boat operator matched him with an inexperienced diver, knowing what I though of this young man and his diving habits, and I think that was totally wrong. He played his stupid games with his dive buddy, but to give her credit, she told him off and left him to his own devices on surfacing as he was being stupid and risky. His stupidity continued on coming back to the boat and on the next dive as well. that was when I had a long talk with him again on the way back to the pier. I dont think he is the full 2 bob, and clearly is easily lead as well as never being challenged by his parents.

With relation to the many current internet sites listing positions, in the main I have found them unreliable , example Wrecksite.eu generally lists position as per the charted position and thats often way off the true position (although they give the option to estimate accuracy, with no comment in this entry it usually means a rough guess or "official chart position", which often means a rough guess). Many other sites list the "official" position which again appears quite way off. Other lists can be hit and miss as well, hence my request for "reliable" positions, rather than "someone told me", or "a mate of mine has some..... etc etc. Anything thats not stated as reliable is at best guess only (in my opinion).

I think its important to give datum, position and reliability to give confidence of a position. Whilst in Truk I took shots of many of the wrecks. On the second dive on those wrecks I said nothing to the guides "who have accurate GPS in their head", but left them to their own devices and then estimated of where the wreck was whilst they were locating it. I was only then satisfied that my positions were accurate and repeatable. I have also checked my hand held GPS, Iphone and boat GPS to ensure they are all talking the same language. Only then am I satisfied to submit data to websites.

As a suggestion to Lloyds website, would be estimated accuracy as per wrecksite.eu. This then gives confidence, to say GPS means little as it could be a second hand position of unreliable accuracy etc. Better to say GPS and 4-30m or innacurate 400m-1km etc. My thoughts anyway.

With relation to George Kermode condition, the hull is broken into about 3 pieces but still penetrable. Caution is required with swell as there are many very sharp edges. The hull is thinning and becoming fragile. The good part is the bucket and chain is still there, and allegedly there is an anchor out in front of the bow somewhere, perhaps a challenge for someone. Its a better wreck than some of the grave yard dives where there is nothing more than a skeleton and frame. I would dive it again and take others there for a dive.

I have yet to dive Milora but have heard its big and still together, something I want to dive.
Last Edit: 8 months 2 weeks ago by peter6956. Reason: corrections

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
8 months 2 weeks ago - 8 months 2 weeks ago #303246 by AB
AB replied the topic: Wreck Locations
Packo, We would spend a weekend going to all the divesites with land transits and marking them on our gps, then marking a known location (Queenscliff channel marker). Next time we went out, went to the channel marker gps mark and measured distance and direction to the actual marker, giving us the corrections for the day. Trouble is, I saved some into my database, so can't be sure of the older marks.

Peter, I was lucky enough to dive the Kermode a number of times when it was completely intact, then not for over a decade. It has suffered significant collapse, and while still a good dive, disappointing from what it was. The Milora is large, but mostly broken up, and confusing to dive. Hard to work out what part of the wreck you are in, with the stern being the most intact. It is comparatively shallow though, but there are many better wrecks. I don't rate the VHB53 and 54 wrecks highly, being just dredge barges.

Alan
Last Edit: 8 months 2 weeks ago by AB. Reason: spelling

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
8 months 2 weeks ago #303247 by peter6956
peter6956 replied the topic: Wreck Locations
Alan,

Thanks, thats all good info. That way I can rate the wrecks and do them in order of quality, rather than a guess as to which would be good to do.

Nothing beats Truk, hard to dive rust piles after doing them.

Peter

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
8 months 2 weeks ago #303248 by AB
AB replied the topic: Wreck Locations
Basically why we sank the Canberra!

Alan

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
8 months 2 weeks ago - 8 months 2 weeks ago #303249 by lloyd_borrett
lloyd_borrett replied the topic: Wreck Locations

peter6956 wrote: As a suggestion to Lloyds website, would be estimated accuracy as per wrecksite.eu. This then gives confidence, to say GPS means little as it could be a second hand position of unreliable accuracy etc. Better to say GPS and 4-30m or innacurate 400m-1km etc. My thoughts anyway..


That would be a great thing to be able to do. The problem is most sources just provide me with the marks, so I have no additional information to provide. Some say they have used the marks to regularly locate and dive the site, but then others say the same marks are wrong. Thus it's very hard to know which are right and wrong. It might be the marks, or it might be the way they're being used.

With Dive Victoria going under I recently sent Jason Salter an email offering to pay to purchase the dive site data he had.so that I could use it to update the online database. (Many of the marks in the database came from an earlier owner of Dive Victoria, but those would have been taken during the era when SA was in place.) I thought Jason might find the money useful. But I haven't had a reply.

Best regards, Lloyd Borrett.
Last Edit: 8 months 2 weeks ago by lloyd_borrett.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
8 months 2 weeks ago #303253 by Stan Bugg
Stan Bugg replied the topic: Wreck Locations
Peter,
A book that might help you is Victoria's Ship's Graveyard. by Mark Ryan, Mick Taylor and Stuart Whitmore. Scuttlebutt Press. Published 2009.
I reckon Lloyd could get you a copy if you asked him.
GPS is listed for most wrecks therein, and the datum quoted is WGS84.

I have no experience in using these coordinates, so I cannot attest to their accuracy.

Regards,
Stan

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
8 months 2 weeks ago #303255 by lloyd_borrett
lloyd_borrett replied the topic: Wreck Locations
G'day,

My understanding is that the book is out of print, which is why we aren't selling them at The Scuba Doctor.

I'm pretty sure all of the marks given in the book are included in my online database.

Best regards, Lloyd Borrett.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
8 months 2 weeks ago #303256 by Stan Bugg
Stan Bugg replied the topic: Wreck Locations
G,day Lloyd,
Thanks for that. At least Peter has a source for the GPS.
...and it gives me a chance to correct the names of the authors: Peter Taylor and Mick Whitmore..
Regards,
Stan

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
8 months 2 weeks ago - 8 months 2 weeks ago #303257 by packo
packo replied the topic: Wreck Locations
Thanks Stan for the correction.

On the subject of the numerous "alternative truths" on wreck locations on the internet, we all need to be more careful in recording and passing on GPS co-ords. Once bad ones escape onto the net you can never get them back. Lloyd's problem of receiving multiple sets of GPS numbers that often seem to disagree beyond a reasonable amount (4-8m?) is a tough one indeed, but not the only problem.

Lloyd your latest on-line dive site GPS database is very comprehensive, but maybe it is time to somehow "kill off" the previous VSAG & BSAC ones unless corrections to the new list are propagated back through these predecessor lists. The problem is that these older lists (still containing errors) will come up in google searches ahead of your new one.

For example entering "hurricane wreck gps" into the google search engine yields as 1st hit the BSAC website list where the last two longitude digits have been swapped (giving a 120m too far east error).

The second hit is a copy of a heritage victoria "hurricane information sheet" from the scubadoctor server. These info sheets are very old and probably AGD66 datum. More worrying is that heritage vic labelled the Lat number as "East" and the Long as "South". Can't see that these numbers under any interpretation will land you close to the wreck.

If there is confusion over the coordinates, we might want to drop back to the very clear sketch of the visual transits that is also given in the heritage vic doc, - but wait wasn't the south channel pile light shifted by a couple of miles towards Rye in the early 1980s? Good luck trying to line yourself up as per this (pre 1980s) sketch! However the sketch of the wreck site on page 2 is interesting.

Forth hit is the VSAG website GPS list, which does give ok co-ords.

Sixth hit is Lloyd's own personal website which got scooped up by google even though it is a Rosebud Reef reference. There is a problem there too. These Rosebud Reef co-ords are stated as being from Dive Vic and their accuracy was unknown. However there is a full minute error in the Longitude minutes (giving a 1.5km too far west error). Probably a typo somewhere, but this propagated into both the VSAG & BSAC website GPS lists, which were never corrected when the latest list was. Some years back I wasted a dive there and I know quite a few others have too.

Until your new list works its way up the google rankings, these old uncorrected websites will continue to pop up ahead of the new list and give pain to the unsuspecting. As the author of all these lists can't you somehow get the old lists to redirect viewers to the new one? Maybe that would not be your call, but surely the BSAC & VSAG clubs would prefer to turn people towards good info?

The alternative is to "back correct" everything but that would be far to much work. Re-directions would be simpler and if the clubs are unhappy with that, then maybe they should take the responsibility to correct their own lists or disable that section of their websites.
cheers,
packo
Last Edit: 8 months 2 weeks ago by packo.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
8 months 2 weeks ago - 8 months 2 weeks ago #303258 by peter6956
peter6956 replied the topic: Wreck Locations
Thanks everyone for all the information to date. Just understanding where we are with the lists and the typical issues is a great help. I am currently on a mission to scoot out to each wreck with the data I have and after trying to locate with sounder, then dive them and either debunk the data or advise of its accuracy.

On another note, not ever having to call the port authority before for shipping traffic, its "Lonsdale VTS" on ch 16 for shipping?
Last Edit: 8 months 2 weeks ago by peter6956.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
  • Not Allowed: to create new topic.
  • Not Allowed: to reply.
  • Not Allowed: to add attachements.
  • Not Allowed: to edit your message.