> On Dec 8, 2015, at 7:07 AM, John Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > As I am comparing data between mobile and PC version, I am starting to > understand more about how things are calculated, but have a few queries. > > By the way, these are just questions rather than any thing else.... > > 1. Why are depths rounded up/down to the nearest integer? With normal table > use, the maximum depth is usually taken as the depth rounded to next highest > integer.
What else would we do? I'm not quite sure what you are asking. We should report 11.1m as 12m? I don't think so. > 2. Why are temperatures taken to the lowest value seen rather than the > average over the whole dive - for example this: It's a reflection of what most (?) people use the temperature value for: figure out what thermal protection to wear. It's also a left over from what older dive computers used to do: they stored just one temperature value for a dive and that was the lowest temperature measured (for many) or the temperature at the deepest spot (for some). > is recorded as a 27 degree dive, but you can see there were only a few > moments when 27 degrees was recorded. Would an overall modal value be more > representative? > > 3. And if you look at the dive list on the above grab, why do some depth > values not get rounded whilst others do? It's a matter of perceived precision (and certainly debatable). Showing 102.2m seems silly - actually, in general showing "10cm" resolution on depth is silly - is that your left arm, your right arm, or your toes? Yet not showing a decimal for single digits (6m, 7m) causes people to tell you that you are over-simplifying. So we compromise and show a decimal down to 20m (IIRC) and no decimal after that. I agree that this looks inconsistent - but I'm not sure what a more reasonable solution would look like. /D
_______________________________________________ subsurface mailing list [email protected] http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface
