Ah so! Good points, I would not have thought of that until too late.I'm going to disagree. It may be useful in 2 ways:DO NOT go into a protest hearing with your GPS track and wave it around as thought it proves something, it will only alienate the committee and convince them that you are a computer jockey not a sailor.
Helpful to put timings on your print out - time of tack, and time of impact (+ distance between them both)
- To show clearly that time between your tack and contact, to counteract any "he tacked right in front of me" arguments from the other boat.
- To show that you didn't luff, and likewise avoid any "he luffed right in front of me" arguments. (*)
I would use it as backup to setting out the models. So:
"We rounded the mark, hardened up onto close hauled on port and held that course for xx minutes. We then tacked onto starboard, and the incident occurred xx minutes after our tack - you can see from this GPS track. Seaward was clear astern after we tacked and...."
Then continue with the models and description. Anything you can do to support your story is helpful
* - (given good enough sampling rate/positional accuracy/etc)
... ... ... ...
The GPS track can be a bit deceptive as it often shows a straight course as a series of wobbles when you zoom in; but it certainly can show the time & distance between the tack and the collision. Hopefully Allen's track does not show a digital artifact 'wobble' just before the collision.
Agree that any supporting evidence is good; I was thinking more about what GPS doesn't show.