There are several terms that are used for the problem exemplified in your sentence. The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar (p251) calls such constructions misrelated, and defines them as follows:
Not attached grammatically to the word or phrase intended by the
meaning, either joined to the wrong word or phrase, or completely
unattached.
...
Although terms such as misrelated, dangling, hanging, unattached, etc.
are most commonly applied to participles, verbless phrases can also be
misrelated.
The offending misrelation in your sentence is a prepositional phrase whose complement is the noun writer. The reader will expect writer to be the antecedent of the pronoun which follows it as the subject of the main clause: this. But this refers to the valuable chart and is hence misrelated to writer, causing momentary ambiguity.
Steven Pinker in his recent style guide The Sense of Style (2014) has some good advice on this issue under the heading dangling modifiers (p208-211). He writes:
The rule decrees that the implied subject of the modifier ... must be
identical to the overt subject of the main clause. Most copy editors
would recast the main clause, supplying it with a subject to which the
modifier can be properly fastened.
In your case this would mean recasting the main clause so that its subject is a personal pronoun: I, she, we, etc.
Pinker goes on to state:
The decision of whether to recast a sentence to align its subject with
the subject of the modifier is a matter of judgment, not grammar. A
thoughtlessly placed dangler can confuse the reader or slow her down,
and occasionally it can lure her into a ludicrous interpretation.
Also, even if a dangler is in no danger of being misinterpreted,
enough readers have trained themselves to spot danglers that a writer
who leaves it incurs the risk of being judged as slovenly. So in
formal styles, it's not a bad idea to keep an eye open for them and to
correct the obtrusive ones.
