From: John Caron ca...@ucar.edu
To: Signell, Richard rsign...@usgs.gov
CC: CF Metadata List cf-metadata@cgd.ucar.edu, John Graybeal
john.grayb...@marinexplore.com
Subject: Re: [CF-metadata] Why surface_altitude instead of
platform_altitude?
As I recall, the original proposal
In the CF-1.6 and CF-1.7 draft doc, in section H.2, we have:
It is recommended that there should be station variables with
standard_name attributes platform_name , surface_altitude and “
platform_id ” when applicable.
Why is this surface_altitude instead of platform_altitude?
In the ocean,
Interesting that there is so little discussion of this language in the mail
list, only in John Caron's 2011.09.16 mail on standard names for stations
(which refers to words already in draft 1.6, I think) -- which came at the tail
end of a long thread on platform names/IDs.
From those words, I
Maybe a simpler approach would be to just adopt platform_altitude as
an alias for surface_altitude and suggest deprecating the use of
surface_altitude?
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 11:15 AM, John Graybeal
john.grayb...@marinexplore.com wrote:
Interesting that there is so little discussion of this
I assume surface_altitude is an important variable for providing the vertical
location of measurements relative to a surface (as opposed to relative to a
geoid -- notwithstanding the definition issue).
John
On Sep 18, 2014, at 08:30, Signell, Richard rsign...@usgs.gov wrote:
Maybe a simpler
John,
So then the surface needs to be defined relative to some known datum, no?
Maybe we need platform_altitude_above_datum and a specification of
the vertical datum (EPSG:5701 (MSL), EPSG:5703 (NAVD88), etc)
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 1:47 PM, John Graybeal
john.grayb...@marinexplore.com wrote:
As I recall, the original proposal was for station_altitude. We decided to
change station to platform. At the same time it was thought that the
existing standard name of surface altitude would be synonymous. I at
least was thinking of ground stations. So I think we make a mistake there
and
