clarify: Wind

[Dirk--]

TWD:

• True Wind Direction (relative to true north) environment.wind.directionTrue
• True Wind Direction (relative to magnetic north) environment.wind.directionMagnetic

AWD:

• Apparent Wind Direction (relative to true north) environment.wind.directionApparentTrue
• Apparent Wind Direction (relative to magnetic north) environment.wind.directionApparentMagnetic

TWS:

• True Wind Speed (relative to ground) environment.wind.speedOverGround
• True Wind Speed (relative to water) environment.wind.speedOverWater

[joabakk]

It might be better to fork and make a pull request, so we can see what you are proposing in code. Is it the descriptions you are lproposing to change?

[Dirk--]

reworked things, here is my proposal: environment.wind:

• AW Apparent Wind (relative to vessel)
  • Apparent Wind Speed speedApparent
  • Apparent Wind Direction (relative to true north) directionTrue directionApparantTrue
  • Apparent Wind Direction (relative to magnetic north) directionMagnetic directionApparantMagnetic
  • Apparent Wind Angle (relative to HDG) angleApparent
• TW True Wind (relative to surface of the water)
  • True Wind Speed speedTrue speedWater
  • True Wind Direction (relative to true north) add: directionWaterTrue
  • True Wind Direction (relative to magnetic north) add: directionWaterMagnetic
  • True Wind Angle (relative to HDG) angleTrueWater angleWater
• GW Ground Wind (relative to ground) used in weather forecasts and reports
  • Ground Wind Speed speedOverGround
  • Ground Wind Direction (relative to true north) add: directionOverGroundTrue
  • Ground Wind Direction (relative to magnetic north) add: directionOverGroundMagnetic
  • Ground Wind Angle (relative to HDG) angleTrueGround angleOverGround

My (limited) knowledge is based upon https://opencpn.org/wiki/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=opencpn:opencpn_user_manual:terminology

[joabakk]

As this would be a breaking change, and any clients using the existing schema would have to be re-written, I would suggest refining the descriptions instead of the path names. Granted, the current path names can lead to confusion, but that can be resolved more easily by the descriptions. I would propose that you make a pull request with the additions and the description changes you propose

[sbender9]

You're changes make sense and too bad you weren't here before we finalized 1.0.

But as @joabakk said, we can't make breaking changes in the 1.x spec. It could be considered for 2.0, but that's probably a long way off.

[tkurki]

The different wind related figures seem to cause endless debates. Honing the descriptions would be the way to go here - no matter how you name them, they won't be crystal clear to everybody.

Plus the backwards compatibility already mentioned.