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 <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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 infer that the original drafter thought surface_altitude 
>> was just as good for describing platform location, as it was for describing 
>> observation location. I suspect the assumption was that any corresponding 
>> observations were at the same location as the platform.
>> 
>> Since this is not always true, I'm with you that there should be a term 
>> platform altitude, and it should be the one used in this sentence.
>> 
>> I hereby propose the standard name platform_surface_altitude (m), "Standard 
>> names for platform describe the motion and orientation of the vehicle from 
>> which observations are made e.g. aeroplane, ship or satellite.
>> The surface called "surface" means the lower boundary of the atmosphere. 
>> Altitude is the (geometric) height above the horizontal reference surface."
>> 
>> Note I've changed the standard wording of the _altitude definition, which 
>> generally says ".. above the geoid, which is the reference geopotential 
>> surface. The geoid is similar to mean sea level." This seems clearly in 
>> conflict with the definition of surface_altitude and this new term, and I 
>> think it should be changed in surface_altitude's definition too.
>> 
>> I suppose if people agree with you and me, we need to do a Trac ticket for 
>> the corresponding change to the standard.
>> 
>> John
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sep 18, 2014, at 06:40, Signell, Richard <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 
>>> 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, we have lots of upward-looking Acoustic Doppler Current
>>> Profilers (ADCP), where the instrument with transducer and other
>>> sensors is located some distance below the ocean surface.   While
>>> velocity and other properties are measured in vertical bins above the
>>> instrument (timeSeriesProfile), other properties like pressure and
>>> temperature are measured at the instrument.
>>> 
>>> Since the instrument is not at the surface, it seems misleading to use
>>> the standard_name "surface_altitude" instead of "platform_altitude",
>>> particularly when we already have "platform_name" and "platform_id".
>>> 
>>> In this example CF_1.6 ADCP dataset:
>>> 
>>> http://geoport.whoi.edu/thredds/dodsC/usgs/data2/rsignell/data/adcp/7201adc-a_cf16.nc.html
>>> 
>>> the variable "platform_altitude" has a value of -10.4522 m:
>>> http://geoport.whoi.edu/thredds/dodsC/usgs/data2/rsignell/data/adcp/7201adc-a_cf16.nc.ascii?platform_altitude
>>> 
>>> but we are forced to use a standard_name of "surface_altitude".
>>> 
>>> Why not "platform_altitude"?
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Rich
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Dr. Richard P. Signell   (508) 457-2229
>>> USGS, 384 Woods Hole Rd.
>>> Woods Hole, MA 02543-1598
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CF-metadata mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dr. Richard P. Signell   (508) 457-2229
> USGS, 384 Woods Hole Rd.
> Woods Hole, MA 02543-1598

_______________________________________________
CF-metadata mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata

Reply via email to