"Desperate Dan" wrote in message
...

I understand where you're coming from here and respect your view but, should
the gold standard in observations not be what we're striving for? Anything
else is only "advisory".
===================================

Isn't that the counsel of perfection though? Yes if it were possible then
every site contributing data should be professionally inspected and rated.
But there's presumably no resource to do that.

In the meantime, there's a substantial body of real-time WOW data that can
potentially add value and a refinement in local accuracy to near-term
forecasts. Should that value just be ignored and the readings thrown away?
Surely it makes sense to extract as much usefulness as possible from that
WOW data as possible, even given that the individual sites may not be of
gold standard accuracy and exposure.