Note: This forum is not affiliated with World Sailing and comments on this forum do not represent an official interpretation of the rules, definitions, cases or regulations. The only official interpretations are those of World Sailing.
Looking for experience using RRS Appendix WP RULES FOR WAYPOINTS based on the 2025-2028 version. In particular, if you changed the “the area at the zone”
Previous versions, before 2025-2028, had changes to 18. Not the 2025-2028. However, 2025-2028 version allows the area of the zone to be changed. I'm assuming it's there for a reason. Attempting to understand the reason permitting possible changes to the zone. Don’t want to miss changing the Zone if that really makes sense. The SIs I could find with Google that invoked Appendix WP left the zone unaltered.
I see. I didn't realise that there was a 2025 change and the zone change was put in. Or I didn't realise zone change was not allowed before.
So I'm not sure why this change - I can't see any mention of Appendix WP in the submissions.
I thought an earlier rule set allowed the zone to be changed (before the zone was fixed at 3 boat lengths), but I can't find that now. Perhaps some historian can remind me. ------------------------
From a practical sense, I think a larger zone makes sense for WP.
I imagine rounding a windward waypoint on a quite stormy sea, 500 miles offshore. Guys on the bow preparing the spinnaker, with waves crashing over the deck. The mast of another boat off in the distance, in and out of view as the waves put you both in troughs or on crests.
In this condition, I may well be on the VHF and hailing the boat to negotiate a safe rounding. I don't want that boat anywhere near me. Just one more thing to think about.
1. The sea state is often bigger offshore. Affording boats more rounding room is probably safer. While it might be an acceptable risk to have a contact between boats on a local placid lake, 500 miles offshore is not a place where you want close manoeuvring. So enlarging the zone will ascertain rights sooner.
2. With no physical object to round, the navigation approaching a waypoint must be done by cross-checking a GPS unit. This may be done on deck. However, often navigation is done from below on the nav station and headings and strategy are shouted up to the helm! The comms and cross-checking of instruments in order to round a waypoint becomes a little more complex. With another boat in the vicinity, the stress just increases.
In all then, I think a larger zone makes sense for sure. How big? I don't know. Perhaps 200 meters even. The aim would be to establish the rights well in advance of boats getting close, and give the space for boats to comply with other rules, and discourage close quarter sailing when offshore.
Good thought - looking forward to hear from anyone who has inside knowledge why WP1.3 was included.
I use Appendix WP and Appendix RV a lot, almost invariably in combination in offshore races.
A lot of boats round waypoints at night and I have always been concerned about which "Zone" size applied. Personally I always told competitors that the 200m Zone from Appendix RV applied when Appendix RV applied not the 3 boat lengths from Appendix WP. Competitors approved and I have never had any complaints.
I am delighted to see that the zone in Appendix WP is now officially changeable.
Thank you for the info. This makes sense and I will incorporate it into the race we are running using both RV & WP. The Lake Ontario 300 Challenge Race (LO300).
I have used this (or something like this) some time ago, but not since 2025. It seemed fine then.
I'm interested to know what your thoughts are.
Can you elaborate?
So I'm not sure why this change - I can't see any mention of Appendix WP in the submissions.
I thought an earlier rule set allowed the zone to be changed (before the zone was fixed at 3 boat lengths), but I can't find that now. Perhaps some historian can remind me.
------------------------
From a practical sense, I think a larger zone makes sense for WP.
I imagine rounding a windward waypoint on a quite stormy sea, 500 miles offshore. Guys on the bow preparing the spinnaker, with waves crashing over the deck. The mast of another boat off in the distance, in and out of view as the waves put you both in troughs or on crests.
In this condition, I may well be on the VHF and hailing the boat to negotiate a safe rounding. I don't want that boat anywhere near me. Just one more thing to think about.
1. The sea state is often bigger offshore. Affording boats more rounding room is probably safer. While it might be an acceptable risk to have a contact between boats on a local placid lake, 500 miles offshore is not a place where you want close manoeuvring. So enlarging the zone will ascertain rights sooner.
2. With no physical object to round, the navigation approaching a waypoint must be done by cross-checking a GPS unit. This may be done on deck. However, often navigation is done from below on the nav station and headings and strategy are shouted up to the helm! The comms and cross-checking of instruments in order to round a waypoint becomes a little more complex. With another boat in the vicinity, the stress just increases.
In all then, I think a larger zone makes sense for sure. How big? I don't know. Perhaps 200 meters even. The aim would be to establish the rights well in advance of boats getting close, and give the space for boats to comply with other rules, and discourage close quarter sailing when offshore.
Good thought - looking forward to hear from anyone who has inside knowledge why WP1.3 was included.
Thanks.
I use Appendix WP and Appendix RV a lot, almost invariably in combination in offshore races.
A lot of boats round waypoints at night and I have always been concerned about which "Zone" size applied. Personally I always told competitors that the 200m Zone from Appendix RV applied when Appendix RV applied not the 3 boat lengths from Appendix WP. Competitors approved and I have never had any complaints.
I am delighted to see that the zone in Appendix WP is now officially changeable.