False alert in Blackpool, UK???
4 years 8 months ago #4555
by Simomax
I'm a little on the fence about this. One one side it could be handy for a station owner to know they have been removed from the map, but on the other I wouldn't want unreliable stations to keep coming and going. If their setup isn't at least semi-reliable and it is up and down, then down for a month and they get removed from the map, in indicating they have been removed the station owner may just reboot or whatever for their station to come back alive again, but only to put the unreliable station back on the map.
I guess it could be said that at least some readings from an unreliable station are better than none. You know, 1% of something is better than 100% of nothing. That said, my belief is this; If a station owner wants their station as part of a network then it is the responsibility of the station owner to regularly check and maintain their equipment. To rectify and bring back up and online when they are offline and to maintain as proper results as is possible as regular as is possible. Therefore by not notifying the station owner they have been removed from the map ensures the responsibility of the owner to keep their station on the map themselves.
I also think that some people think that once their station is reporting to Radmon then that is it, job done and they can happily forget about it. There are others that get bored once their station is on the map as the challenge for them is to get a working Geiger counter then get it reporting to Radmon. Once that is complete the challenge is done and all that is left is maintaining the station; the boring bit. I can probably think of a few other reasons why stations come and go. Personally I take great responsibility for all of my data gathering sensors etc. (weather, air quality, solar, radiation and even domestic water pressure). Pretty much every day I will check all of them and make sure they are operating correctly and that the data is within the relevant tolerances. If one is not then it needs attention. It literally takes me about 60 seconds to check all of these and I feel that it is important as I publish the info for other people to use. So it has to be as accurate and correct as is possible within the bounds of the equipment I use. So yeah, go me!
I also think that a system with say 50 nodes reporting good data would only be muddied if there were another 50 unreliable nodes reporting unreliable data. In the first scenario you have less but quality data, in the second you have more data but of lesser quality. I would go for the first scenario over the second all the time.
Replied by Simomax on topic False alert in Blackpool, UK???
OK makes sense. Does the system send a message to the station owner in such an event?
Probably not a bad idea so they can check the issue and report back if there is a fault or its a genuine reading etc.
I'm a little on the fence about this. One one side it could be handy for a station owner to know they have been removed from the map, but on the other I wouldn't want unreliable stations to keep coming and going. If their setup isn't at least semi-reliable and it is up and down, then down for a month and they get removed from the map, in indicating they have been removed the station owner may just reboot or whatever for their station to come back alive again, but only to put the unreliable station back on the map.
I guess it could be said that at least some readings from an unreliable station are better than none. You know, 1% of something is better than 100% of nothing. That said, my belief is this; If a station owner wants their station as part of a network then it is the responsibility of the station owner to regularly check and maintain their equipment. To rectify and bring back up and online when they are offline and to maintain as proper results as is possible as regular as is possible. Therefore by not notifying the station owner they have been removed from the map ensures the responsibility of the owner to keep their station on the map themselves.
I also think that some people think that once their station is reporting to Radmon then that is it, job done and they can happily forget about it. There are others that get bored once their station is on the map as the challenge for them is to get a working Geiger counter then get it reporting to Radmon. Once that is complete the challenge is done and all that is left is maintaining the station; the boring bit. I can probably think of a few other reasons why stations come and go. Personally I take great responsibility for all of my data gathering sensors etc. (weather, air quality, solar, radiation and even domestic water pressure). Pretty much every day I will check all of them and make sure they are operating correctly and that the data is within the relevant tolerances. If one is not then it needs attention. It literally takes me about 60 seconds to check all of these and I feel that it is important as I publish the info for other people to use. So it has to be as accurate and correct as is possible within the bounds of the equipment I use. So yeah, go me!
I also think that a system with say 50 nodes reporting good data would only be muddied if there were another 50 unreliable nodes reporting unreliable data. In the first scenario you have less but quality data, in the second you have more data but of lesser quality. I would go for the first scenario over the second all the time.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
4 years 8 months ago #4561
by nzoomed
I guess I was thinking more about the fact that in some instances such a high reading would be good to get the owner investigate further and measure levels in the area. As you say, naturally the station keeper should be checking the operation and would probably be on top of this.
Replied by nzoomed on topic False alert in Blackpool, UK???
Fair enough too.
OK makes sense. Does the system send a message to the station owner in such an event?
Probably not a bad idea so they can check the issue and report back if there is a fault or its a genuine reading etc.
I'm a little on the fence about this. One one side it could be handy for a station owner to know they have been removed from the map, but on the other I wouldn't want unreliable stations to keep coming and going. If their setup isn't at least semi-reliable and it is up and down, then down for a month and they get removed from the map, in indicating they have been removed the station owner may just reboot or whatever for their station to come back alive again, but only to put the unreliable station back on the map.
I guess it could be said that at least some readings from an unreliable station are better than none. You know, 1% of something is better than 100% of nothing. That said, my belief is this; If a station owner wants their station as part of a network then it is the responsibility of the station owner to regularly check and maintain their equipment. To rectify and bring back up and online when they are offline and to maintain as proper results as is possible as regular as is possible. Therefore by not notifying the station owner they have been removed from the map ensures the responsibility of the owner to keep their station on the map themselves.
I also think that some people think that once their station is reporting to Radmon then that is it, job done and they can happily forget about it. There are others that get bored once their station is on the map as the challenge for them is to get a working Geiger counter then get it reporting to Radmon. Once that is complete the challenge is done and all that is left is maintaining the station; the boring bit. I can probably think of a few other reasons why stations come and go. Personally I take great responsibility for all of my data gathering sensors etc. (weather, air quality, solar, radiation and even domestic water pressure). Pretty much every day I will check all of them and make sure they are operating correctly and that the data is within the relevant tolerances. If one is not then it needs attention. It literally takes me about 60 seconds to check all of these and I feel that it is important as I publish the info for other people to use. So it has to be as accurate and correct as is possible within the bounds of the equipment I use. So yeah, go me!
I also think that a system with say 50 nodes reporting good data would only be muddied if there were another 50 unreliable nodes reporting unreliable data. In the first scenario you have less but quality data, in the second you have more data but of lesser quality. I would go for the first scenario over the second all the time.
I guess I was thinking more about the fact that in some instances such a high reading would be good to get the owner investigate further and measure levels in the area. As you say, naturally the station keeper should be checking the operation and would probably be on top of this.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Moderators: Gamma-Man
Time to create page: 0.143 seconds