[Xastir] Problems with lighting up Counties, NWS files

[Gerry Creager]

Alex Carver wrote:
> 
> --- On Sun, 8/2/09, Gerry Creager <gerry.creager at tamu.edu> wrote:
> 
>> From: Gerry Creager <gerry.creager at tamu.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [Xastir] Problems with lighting up Counties, NWS files
>> To: "Xastir - APRS client software discussion" <xastir at lists.xastir.org>
>> Date: Sunday, August 2, 2009, 12:08 AM
>> Addendum.  You don't want to
>> light up counties for weather warnings. You want to draw the
>> polygons.
>>
>> We changed to Storm Based Warnings for TOR, SVR, FFW and
>> Special Marine 18 months ago.  It's a better depiction
>> of the at-risk area and doesn't require distracting so many
>> folks who are not at significant risk.
> 
> The one bad part about the switch is that I can't see the warning location on a simple interface like the D700 display.  Under the old county system, I could see the county FIPS codes so I knew which area was under a warning.

How to get the warning disseminated in all its various forms was 
something we struggled with. I was the only non-NWS guy on the 
committee, and we still meet periodically, and worry about these things. 
  Using an expanded FIPS code provides more info by decimating the 
county into 9 sectors:

                    -----------------
                    | NW |  N  | NE |
                    |  W |  C  |  E |
                    | SW |  S  | SE |
                    -----------------
However, that doesn't help the fact that there's a documented number of 
folks in the general population (on the order of 70%) who are 
geospatially illiterate.  Some of us dispute that, saying it's likely 
closer to 90%.  A lot of the folks I talk to don't know what county 
they're in.  Yeah, really.

Graphical warnings are a benefit there.  Also, in one economic study it 
was found that the unnecessarily warned group in county based warnings 
was roughly 70%.  Put another way, we can reduce the number of folks 
warned by 70%, generally, and still get the word to the folks who need 
it.  Assuming we can get it out.

Today, the majority of the warnings to the public are received via the 
news media (or entertainment media in the case of OUR local TV 
stations:-).  Weather Radio accounts for some 5% of the overall warnings 
nationally, and it doesn't have the budget to bring it up to its currect 
requirements document, much less incorporate the new coding needed for 
SBW.  However, there are other technologies that can, today, benefit 
from this.

1.  OnStar has the ability now to send a warning to all drivers in a SBW 
warned area.
2.  Walmart and its affiliates have an active SBW tracking program in 
their operations center in Bentonville AR. They warn stores in affected 
areas, and their managers are required to lock down the stores and 
safe-haven employees and customers when a warning affects a store. You 
should have seen the consternation in the local Sam's Club manager when 
I went out of the store to serve as "the trained spotter" for a recent 
event here in town.  He kept telling me I had to go to the center of the 
store and I kept refusing. Finally, he asked me who was so important on 
the cell phone, and I told him I was reporting to the MIC at the NWS 
Houston-Galveston office.  He settled down a bit after that...
3.  There are several cell-based services that call you when your number 
is in a warning box.
4.  Cell towers COULD BE equipped to monitor SBW and notify all phones 
in their coverage via automated SMS when they're affected.
5.  Broadcast now have good tools from their software vendors for SBW, 
some based on snagging python scripts from a rather talented open source 
guy in Iowa.

The list goes on.  The FIPS code, by the way, is still supposed to be sent.

Keep the comments coming. I'll pass 'em on to NWS and we'll discuss 'em.

73
gerry
-- 
Gerry Creager -- gerry.creager at tamu.edu
Texas Mesonet -- AATLT, Texas A&M University	
Cell: 979.229.5301 Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.862.3983
Office: 1700 Research Parkway Ste 160, TAMU, College Station, TX 77843