Author Topic: Weather 2.0  (Read 3199 times)

Sigurd Mudtracker

Weather 2.0
« on: 31 December, 2009, 03:39:20 pm »
Since we've had all this winter weather recently, I've been struck how official weather channels such as the Met Office, the BBC, and DoT websites such as Travel Scotland are good at the "macro" level but fail when it comes to the local level: are the roads to work going to be icy or not?  Are there fallen trees likely to impede my progress?  What are the conditions like in the next town?

Local radio round here does give a fairly good indication of what's going on, but I hate having to listen to piped music and inane banter to get the information that I want.

Hence my idea for Weather 2.0: interactive weather reports for your area.  The idea is that when a contributor is out walking the dog, putting in a few miles before work, or have got to work, they post a brief report as to what conditions are actually like.  For example, on my journey home tonight I could have posted about the packed ice on the roads with snow on top leading to lots of cars getting stick on even minor inclines.  (All that Traffic Scotland warned of were icy roads).

Does anything like this actually exist, or could I be the next Sergy Brin?  Mrs M suggested it was the sort of thing that might work on Twitter - having no experience of the service and no particular desire to at present I have no idea myself.

Re: Weather 2.0
« Reply #1 on: 31 December, 2009, 04:12:51 pm »
Networked personal weather stations - wouldn't that be lovely?
Your Royal Charles are belong to us.

border-rider

Re: Weather 2.0
« Reply #2 on: 31 December, 2009, 04:18:17 pm »
The problem is - a lot of this is micro-microclimate stuff. Here there's different weather at the next house up the lane :)

Tewdric's my nearest fellow YACFer, and his weather seems quite different to ours.

rogerzilla

  • When n+1 gets out of hand
Re: Weather 2.0
« Reply #3 on: 31 December, 2009, 04:24:02 pm »
You could do it with the Internet and a wireless weather station, but computers running 24/7 are Very Bad for your electricity bill and for the environment. 
Hard work sometimes pays off in the end, but laziness ALWAYS pays off NOW.

Basil

  • Um....err......oh bugger!
  • Help me!
Re: Weather 2.0
« Reply #4 on: 31 December, 2009, 04:31:29 pm »
Agreed.  A lot of micro climates.  Not quite the next house. but definately the next village.  If you go up a hill and then down the other side, that's it.  Different weather.
If we go to town, Llandsul c 5 miles, the weather is different (unless it's raining)

BBC TV, radio or online forcasting just doesn't work here.  Metcheck is probably based on the weather station at Aberporth which is so different a type of location as to make it totaly useless.

I could tweet my local weather conditions, but it wouldn't be of any use to anyone.
Admission.  I'm actually not that fussed about cake.

fuaran

  • rothair gasta
Re: Weather 2.0
« Reply #5 on: 31 December, 2009, 04:33:09 pm »
There's Weather Underground, which anyone can add their personal weather station to. You could probably link one to some sort of mini server for uploading data without too much power consumption. Though they're not exactly cheap.
Personal Weather Stations : Weather Underground

Sigurd Mudtracker

Re: Weather 2.0
« Reply #6 on: 31 December, 2009, 06:59:19 pm »
I guess my point is that those micro (micro) climates are important on a personal level - if I am going over the hill to the next village the weather I'm going to encounter is important to me - although I accept that scaling it up to the level of an internet service either means that you get unwieldy amounts of data or it becomes insufferably parochial - along the lines of "the Upper Wittering Internet" (apologies to anyone who might live in such a place).

Another question presents itself to me - what would I do with the information anyway?  I needed to get home, I was going to get home, and realistically (although not impossible) a total infrastructure meltdown was unlikely to happen.  In the event, although road conditions were probably amongst the worst I've seen on this journey (a combination of a thaw in the morning followed by a re-freezing and further snow), it only took 40 minutes home rather than 20.  (and yes I have to admit that I was DRIVING)

In the end it was all a bit of an adventure anyway and perhaps I prefer to live in a random and unpredictiable world than a 100% networked one.

Wowbagger

  • Stout dipper
    • Stuff mostly about weather
Re: Weather 2.0
« Reply #7 on: 31 December, 2009, 08:13:17 pm »
You could do it with the Internet and a wireless weather station, but computers running 24/7 are Very Bad for your electricity bill and for the environment. 

One of these runs linux at about 7 watts I believe. Dez had reently set one up to support my brother's weather station (retirement present). It took a bit of faffing but the results are here:-

http://alfaco.thewalkers.org.uk/
Quote from: Dez
It doesn’t matter where you start. Just start.

David Martin

  • Thats Dr Oi You thankyouverymuch
Re: Weather 2.0
« Reply #8 on: 31 December, 2009, 10:45:20 pm »
Microclimate is everything though. My boss has a PWS but lives on the other side of a small hill from me (<1mile as the crow flies). We have much differing weather patterns. Some days he gets rain and I don't, and vice versa).
"By creating we think. By living we learn" - Patrick Geddes

Re: Weather 2.0
« Reply #9 on: 01 January, 2010, 02:48:55 am »
I use "RainToday" - a higher resolution version of the Met Office rainfall radar,
and UK Wind Map - cobbled together from all airport weather reports, current to within  3 hours or so.

I reckon that to get much better, you'd have to have a network of people with reasonably comprehensive automatic weather stations and always on PCs that would upload the data somewhere at least every 3 hours. "Reasonably comprehensive" would mean including wind speed & direction and rainfall recording, so the setup costs would be 200 pounds or so per person not including PC and comms.
To be worthwhile, you would need at least 150 or so people, reasonably well distributed across the country.

Quote from: wowbagger
One of these runs linux at about 7 watts I believe. Dez had reently set one up to support my brother's weather station (retirement present). It took a bit of faffing but the results are here:- http://alfaco.thewalkers.org.uk/
403 Forbidden You don't have permission to access / on this server.

Jaded

  • The Codfather
  • Formerly known as Jaded
Re: Weather 2.0
« Reply #10 on: 01 January, 2010, 02:57:37 am »
We have a town nerd that posts hourly data to a website from his weather station.

My neighbour says "Never trust a bloke with his own weather station".

This is good advice.
It is simpler than it looks.

gordon taylor

Re: Weather 2.0
« Reply #11 on: 01 January, 2010, 10:44:55 am »

...  but fail when it comes to the local level: are the roads to work going to be icy or not?  Are there fallen trees likely to impede my progress?  What are the conditions like in the next town?


I think (IMHO) that this is only a motorist/car problem. Those of us who have been moving about by foot or bike during the recent icy spells have constant verbal feedback from other pedestrians and cyclists - who incessantly exchange information about conditions ahead at a very local level. And of course there is physical feedback about temperature and snow from our interaction with the weather face-to-face rather than from behind a windscreen or monitor.

If it is snowing or icy we should be out shovelling it or checking on elderly neighbours, not inside tweeting about it. Technology is part of the problem, not part of the solution. IMHO,  of course.

gordon taylor

Re: Weather 2.0
« Reply #12 on: 01 January, 2010, 11:44:11 am »
I've changed my mind completely in the last hour. With a local tweet for road conditions, I could make up problems like "tractor stuck in ditch, lane blocked" or "ford flooded, impassable" every day for the rat-run cum narrow country lane that goes past my house.

Then some of the high-speed dickheads around today would go forth and drive somewhere else.

I like it!   ;D  ;)


Sigurd Mudtracker

Re: Weather 2.0
« Reply #13 on: 01 January, 2010, 11:55:14 am »
A bridge was washed out near us recently and I took great pleasure in the quietness of the country lanes when it was "no through road" for cars (although easily navigable by bike).  I spread counter-intelligence about the road's status after they cleared the problem in the hope that it would remain quiet - sadly it didn't work for long...

Re: Weather 2.0
« Reply #14 on: 01 January, 2010, 01:25:56 pm »
Local conditions vary too much.

I've left work in the dry, got home in the dry, but ridden through two separate downpours en route. 


And, as said upthread, I need to do the journey anyway and can't influence the weather.  For this reason I very rarely look at a weather forecast.

Re: Weather 2.0
« Reply #15 on: 01 January, 2010, 01:29:15 pm »
Ooh thanks andrew_s - that raintoday is nice.
Your Royal Charles are belong to us.

rogerzilla

  • When n+1 gets out of hand
Re: Weather 2.0
« Reply #16 on: 01 January, 2010, 02:01:11 pm »
We have a town nerd that posts hourly data to a website from his weather station.

My neighbour says "Never trust a bloke with his own weather station".

He tells the people on the other side "Never trust a man with more than one bicycle".
Hard work sometimes pays off in the end, but laziness ALWAYS pays off NOW.

Re: Weather 2.0
« Reply #17 on: 01 January, 2010, 03:02:20 pm »
On horses:  "Never trust an animal that can run and take a dump at the same time."
Your Royal Charles are belong to us.