On 24/07/2017 09:04, Roland van Rijswijk - Deij wrote: >> Please let us know if you have any preference for which way we go on >> this, particularly if you have a (current or future) use case for this >> kind of data. > > I don't quite see how option 2 does not result in an increase in storage > requirements, and you seem to contradict this by then talking about > reducing the measurement frequency. Perhaps I misunderstand what you're > saying here.
My mistake, I had the option numbers the wrong way round. Option 2 (new measurements) slightly increases storage requirements, but comes with the kinds of benefits that you advocate for below. >>From a research perspective, I would argue that it would at least > temporarily make sense to have the two (slightly) different measurements > (i.e. the old without and the new one with NSID enabled) running in > parallel, just to flesh out whether any significant differences occur. > If storage and measurement performance are not a (serious) issue, then > running two separate measurements would be preferable, in my opinion, to > safeguard continuity of the existing measurements. In my experience such > longitudinal datasets keep increasing in value as time progresses, and > are more valuable if they have a consistent measurement methodology. > Based on that argument, discontinuing or altering and existing > measurement should only be done if there are good reasons for it. ACK
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
