specification
specification copied to clipboard
clarify: Wind
TWD:
- True Wind Direction (relative to true north) environment.wind.directionTrue
- True Wind Direction (relative to magnetic north) environment.wind.directionMagnetic
AWD:
- Apparent Wind Direction (relative to true north) environment.wind.directionApparentTrue
- Apparent Wind Direction (relative to magnetic north) environment.wind.directionApparentMagnetic
TWS:
- True Wind Speed (relative to ground) environment.wind.speedOverGround
- True Wind Speed (relative to water) environment.wind.speedOverWater
It might be better to fork and make a pull request, so we can see what you are proposing in code. Is it the descriptions you are lproposing to change?
reworked things, here is my proposal: environment.wind:
- AW Apparent Wind (relative to vessel)
- Apparent Wind Speed speedApparent
- Apparent Wind Direction (relative to true north)
directionTruedirectionApparantTrue - Apparent Wind Direction (relative to magnetic north)
directionMagneticdirectionApparantMagnetic - Apparent Wind Angle (relative to HDG) angleApparent
- TW True Wind (relative to surface of the water)
- True Wind Speed
speedTruespeedWater - True Wind Direction (relative to true north) add: directionWaterTrue
- True Wind Direction (relative to magnetic north) add: directionWaterMagnetic
- True Wind Angle (relative to HDG)
angleTrueWaterangleWater
- True Wind Speed
- GW Ground Wind (relative to ground) used in weather forecasts and reports
- Ground Wind Speed speedOverGround
- Ground Wind Direction (relative to true north) add: directionOverGroundTrue
- Ground Wind Direction (relative to magnetic north) add: directionOverGroundMagnetic
- Ground Wind Angle (relative to HDG)
angleTrueGroundangleOverGround
My (limited) knowledge is based upon https://opencpn.org/wiki/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=opencpn:opencpn_user_manual:terminology
As this would be a breaking change, and any clients using the existing schema would have to be re-written, I would suggest refining the descriptions instead of the path names. Granted, the current path names can lead to confusion, but that can be resolved more easily by the descriptions. I would propose that you make a pull request with the additions and the description changes you propose
You're changes make sense and too bad you weren't here before we finalized 1.0.
But as @joabakk said, we can't make breaking changes in the 1.x spec. It could be considered for 2.0, but that's probably a long way off.
The different wind related figures seem to cause endless debates. Honing the descriptions would be the way to go here - no matter how you name them, they won't be crystal clear to everybody.
Plus the backwards compatibility already mentioned.