Very well done I may say!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
smitchell333
Here's my amateur's $.02 on where snowpack field data can really improve.
I see 2 major problems with the current state of the art:
1) The data is all subjective. Sure there are standard ways folks are taught to gather and measure data (1 finger hard vs pencil hard, reutsh-block, etc, etc.) , but ultimately its all open for interpretation by the gatherer and vary's by their interpretation. What's an easy failure vs moderate failure?
A few good papers were presented on this very issue at ISSW. In summary, there are quite a few ways to interpret the data and that is where standardization could play a great role. But what method gets the standarization??? I believe this is one of the real problems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
smitchell333
2) Limited Data - because of the cumbersome nature of pit digging and data gathering the range of data available (whether to the individual tourer or professional forecaster is limited by how many pits you can did or how many field reports you can read). The result is that decisions are made on best available data - I'm not digging 3 or 4 pits on my tours and the CAIC forecasters are not able to thoroughly look at dozens or hundreds of pit field data at 6AM before issuing a forecast.
Buzz's tool could, if adapted widely enough, help aleviate #2 by the databasing of field reports.
This is a concept that some companies have a working database, so I guess it is not really a concept anymore. I and many others agree with having a database. But Hacksaw had a real good comment about this: "Who is to say that the data coming in is any good and reliable, and who's data do you look at first?" Again, the interpretation factor comes into play.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
smitchell333
I think the real revolutionary concept would be that of a more standardized method of gathering snowpack data and databasing it. To get Sci-Fi with the concept - why cant we develop a handheld tool that probes the snowpack with radar or infrared or both or???, adds GPS reading, altitude, aspect, then provides a pit profile that is both standardized and easily databased and accessed by both professionals and users. With such a tool I could take 10-20 snowpack readings in a tour rather than 1 or 2 snowpits. Then I'd have all my localized data readings, along with all those others had databased. All this data could ultimately lead to development of algorithms that could essentially forecast the relative danger for your local readings as well as overall by time and place as supported by readings.
What if I told you I looked at a snow probe that does take some data (I would want to see more than it does currently)? This concept is in material form now as well. Will it be the answer, well, maybe. Maybe not. But we will find out.
"GPS reading, altitude, aspect, then provides a pit profile "
This can all be done by the Archer field PC and Doug Scott's Application.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
smitchell333
Wild concept, but if it could happen, it would hold promise...now off to design a hover car.
You are way more on target with your post than you realize. But if there is one main thing I learned at ISSW is that all of this data is subject to interpretation, which leads to less accurate data if different methods are used. We are getting there slowly, but at a snail's pace. One day, one day....
So I will work on this and you let me know when the hover car is done so I can get to my mountain faster. :biggrin:
