And as I sit with a hand under my chin tapping a finger...

"....as I predicted...."



Post 18 - this thread.

DOug

I'm sure they'll have real names soon, then we'll have a clearer picture and can do some serious armchair navigating! Actually, I don't think there's much "confusion reigning" here, it's just a shift from our speculation to JPL's official work. The time and effort spent mapping and charting and labelling VC wasn't wasted, IMHO; James in particular put in a great deal of work on hischarts and labels, and I can only speak personally, of course, but I know they made Victoria seem more "real" to me, just because he got us all thinking about it in a more focussed way and concentrating on its structure and shape.

And it was fun, and gave us something to do waiting for pictures to come in!

Hmm, I don't think confusion does reign. It's not like the same name is used for different features in the two schemes. Hence there can never be any confusion!

The only confusion will be when we see more of the crater and JPL has to assign more names out of sequence. I can't beleve they only named the things they could see at the time - how short sighted is that! And I can see at least two major bays between Bay1 and Bay2 that they could see at the time as well. Pretty poor effort in my opinion, I'll stick with my scheme for now I think.

James

Well, there is always confusion for a bit when switching from one nomenclature scheme to a new one. I know I called Shikoku Facula "Great Britain" accidently for a few weeks after the official names for Titan features were picked. The VIMS team still stubornly use "The Snail" for Tortola Facula, despite the fact that the official name has been around for a year now. James, you may want to consider just supplementing the JPL scheme, rather than just using your own, since people using two different naming schemes can be a source of confusion.

Well I'll add JPL's names to my map and then we can use either or both. Both schemes are complicated enough that if your going to get confused by which one is being used your definitely going to need a labeled map to tell you which is which anyway. It's gonna get even more complicated when some of them get official "Magellan" names as well.

James

I think we should definitely continue using James's naming scheme. Two big reasons:

1. As James already said, the schemes share no names in common, so confusion cannot arise.

2. The "official" jpl scheme is not nearly complete. We can already see features that have no jpl names, and very likely in a day or two we will have most of the rest of the rim within view. We know very well that the pipeline from official channels is sporadic at best, so we likely won't see official names for the remaining features for some time.

It's in the absence of names that the greatest danger for confusion can arise.

Just to add to fredk's point 2. If JPL continue to only name features after they are seen (and only tell us about them a week or more later) then these names are virtually useless to us. The most likely time folks on this board are going to want to talk about a feature is within hours (or even minutes!) of the images hitting the ground and that's when we need to be able know what we're refering to.

It is better to wait a little until JPL recuperate the lost time in naming the places. So we are going to avoid the confusion. I agree that UMSF names some place in advance such as Corner Crater, Epsilon, Zeta, etc. and we all know that these names are "nicknames" and they are not official.

Rodolfo

However, it would be incredibly cool if Sofi crater were actually named Sofi, giving respect both to the UMSF folks and the girl who gave the (official!) names to the rovers.

Exactly.
Whenever you have a name or Id to call a feature you can avoid referencing it by something like "that fourth bay from right to left seen on the third (of four) pancams".

New versions using the clean MOC image that has just been released. Now with a third version that includes JPL's numbered capes as well (right).



James

I can only agree with James' comments. It seems very strange to name Cape 0 and Cape 1 on nearly opposite sides of the crater when we know there are plenty of capes in between. Are we going to get Cape 0a, Cape 0b, etc.?

James' method seems much more logical.

Castor

No confusion here, seems pretty clear. Good work James.

May I add a suggestion?
Why don't we call one cape : Cape Canaveral ?

Imagine the Head Lines :
"After travelling 1000 Sols, Opportunity is back to Cape Canaveral"

Or, if they select Meridianii for Mars Sample Return :
"MSR Launched from Cape Canaveral and will be launched again from Cape Canaveral"

Well, I'm just having fun with the idea

New version using the HiRise image (at half resolution).



(Click image for larger version, 344kB)

James