New WF owner with a somewhat off-the-wall question. I searched and found a similar question from last year on how to frequently change locations of the station (an RVer), but I think my situation is much simpler so I didn’t resurrect that thread.
We’re RVer’s who own two fixed sites in RV resorts in Florida and Michigan that we move between seasonally. We do travel a couple of months in the spring and again in the fall when moving between the two, but I will not use the WF station during those periods, just remounting when we arrive at the summer or winter location.
So my question is: should I just change the latitude/longitude and elevation data and sensor heights in my station settings in the App twice a year (which doesn’t seem like any trouble at all), or should I create a second “station” somehow in the WF system using the same hardware and switch between the two?
Hi Ron, thanks for reaching out for advice. I think you should keep the two stations as separate locations and re-activate the Hub (and AIR & SKY) on each station when you get to the semi-permanent locations. You’d have a more comprehensive weather data record. For historical data purposes, this way would be preferred but it is your equipment and your data so you of course get to decide what is best for you.
Another thought I wanted to add: With the Continuous Learning system analyzing data and calibrating sensors - it would be much better to have two stations at separate locations.
The more I’ve thought about this, maybe I mis-interpreted this comment. In considering the CL implications, are you talking about using two sets of hardware, or one set of hardware that is assigned to two different software “stations” (one at a time).?
As yiu think of two software stations, please describe how to switch the hardware between those.
As far as I know assigning a hub to a station ID is only possible once, no return after a re-setup.
Did this change within the new app version ?
@ronraley@dsfg I mean using only one set of hardware that is assigned to separate stations but only one at a time. However, we’re realizing some constraints with this approach.
I will PM you @ronraley with a solution to this use case.
@dsfg you’re right, for now we’ll figure out an easy workaround for Ron but hopefully we can implement something to handle this use case in the future.
Hi @WFstaff,
In the future I am intending to install extra remote Skys perhaps km’s away from the hub. Currently the station (hub) has a location. But the Air and Sky are in slightly different locations. Extra Skys (and Airs and indoor sensor) will be in different locations. I thought it is strange that the location is associated to the station/hub and not precisely with the sensors.
cheers Ian
Hi Ian, it is conventional to mark the location of the instruments collecting the data. Although, you are free to position the station’s location and the public location anywhere you’d like. If your sensors are sited farther away and that’s where you want the station to appear, go ahead and move the marker in the app settings.
Perhaps I didnt explain myself clearly enough.
The issue I have with the current location being assigned to the Hub/Station rather than the sensors is that it is possible to position two seperate Sky’s communicating from the same hub but 20km away from each other.
Two locations which I have tested for potentially installing extra Sky’s to measure winds are 7.6km North and 12.4km South from my hub which is a 20km difference in location. I dont think that I can assign a seperate location to each Sky communicating from a common Hub.
This is the thread where I tested my potential sites:
Indeed! I actually thought about that, but the internet connection moves with the bus so the second set would be wasted.