In the past, route planning was inevitably a manual process involving paper charts, subject to errors caused by using charts of different scales and updates that were not always timely. Today, digital tools offer ever-increasing precision, speed, and flexibility. Vector electronic cartography does not only clearly and dynamically displays all relevant planning information, but also allows users to interact with the data and receive updates more frequently. This has gradually transformed planning from a complex and "specialist" task into a faster process accessible to an increasing number of users.
Many tools and applications, ranging from advanced multifunction chartplotters to mobile apps, offer sophisticated planning features capable of automatically generating routes based on charted depths and known hazards with surprising ease.
At the core of these automatic route calculation features is an algorithmic process designed to find the safest and most efficient path between two points, taking into account a set of constraints and user-defined preferences. While land-based systems rely on a defined road network, where intersections and roads are represented as nodes and edges in a graph, the marine environment is far more complex. Navigation takes place in open space, without fixed structural constraints. For this reason, the environment is divided into a virtual grid, in which each cell is assigned a variable "cost" based on factors such as depth, the presence of obstacles, restricted areas, and more.
Algorithms like grid-based A*, or its variants such as Theta* or Fast Marching, are used to generate continuous routes that avoid potentially dangerous areas. The result is a smooth path that intelligently balances distance, safety, and environmental conditions, offering a solid starting point for planning.
But how much can we really rely on an algorithm?
One thing is certain: automation cannot mean abandoning the role of skipper.
In our effort to better understand our users, both experienced and novice, from different parts of the world and with widely varying sailing habits, we listened carefully. Our goal was to collect opinions and insights on a topic as important as it is delicate, while also encouraging constructive discussion.
Unsurprisingly, a strong attachment to traditional planning methods emerged. There is a group of navigators we might call the fans of classic planning; devoted to nautical dividers, parallel rulers, and paper charts. For them, planning is not just a duty, but a true ritual: a moment to reflect, visualize, and imagine the journey before it even begins. What stands out is a deep connection with tools "that need no power, except brainpower”.
Whether required or not, having and knowing how to use paper charts is always better…much better. They are useful, enjoyable, and even beautiful. This viewpoint is not just romantic—it’s practical: when technology fails, the paper chart is still the most reliable backup.
A more balanced view comes from those who carefully embrace technology: navigators who rely on digital tools while not giving up their own judgment and direct experience.
A route suggested by the system, if not reviewed and adapted according to the specific parameters of one’s vessel and the prevailing conditions, is not automatically safe. Even with all the advantages of vector electronic charts, a route remains, at its core, a carefully traced sequence of waypoints. It is the result of detailed examination, enriched by the navigator’s trained eye, input from more experienced sailors, and, always, used with full attention.
Automatic route calculation is a concrete evolution in navigation planning: a real advantage, especially for long voyages or in unfamiliar waters. It can improve efficiency and support quick decisions in complex areas like archipelagos or narrow coastal channels. The key point, however, is that the value of these tools lies in their ability to support, not replace, human expertise.
A good routing system offers a strong, customizable foundation. The suggested path is a proposal, not a verdict. It’s the beginning of a decision-making process, not the conclusion.
The support it provides is valuable, especially when comparing alternatives based on time, distance, and marine forecast. However, they’re not without limitations: routes too close to shore, risky passages under fixed bridges or in shallow water, and an inability to adjust dynamically to real-time conditions. Even the most advanced software doesn’t understand maritime regulations or local customs. It can’t interpret a vessel’s intentions during a maneuver or take into account a shoal created by the last storm.
Moreover, many of these tools are designed for beginners, offering suggestions that are often oversimplified for more experienced skippers.
A potential evolution could be a hybrid routing system, capable of creating “flexible” routes that combine manually defined segments with algorithm-suggested ones, always editable. Enhancing this approach, the system could draw from previously recorded tracks or reference routes, transforming them into valuable planning insights. This method respects human contribution while leveraging the efficiency of automation.
As for artificial intelligence, its potential is undoubtedly intriguing, but it's perhaps too early to discuss it in depth in this field; it would require a dedicated space and specific reflection.
The real risk, then, does not lie in using automatic route calculation tools, but in using them passively. Treating an automatically generated path as a definitive reference, without verifying, correcting, or adapting it to real-life navigation, can lead to dangerous situations. Manual planning, even using digital tools, means observing, interpreting, deciding. It means taking responsibility for the route.
Being aware of the situation, respecting the rules, and using technology as a guide, not as an absolute truth, is what distinguishes a responsible sailor from an unprepared one. Automatic route calculation is a powerful tool, but only when used with experience and good judgment.
The future of navigation is not a choice between automation and expertise: it is the integration of the two. It is experience meeting technology. It is the skipper who, thanks to ever more advanced tools, continues to do what they’ve always done: make informed decisions.
Automatic planning? Yes. But with head held high, eyes wide open, and hands firmly on the helm.
Pietro - Aqua Map Team
