Problem with adding virtual gauge to a river description

[Rob]

Not sure if this has been already noted in other threads, but ...

I created a couple of virtual gauges. They appear in the list (https://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/StreamTeam/edit-virtualgauges/) and I can see that they are working. However, when I attempt to add them to a river/reach, they do not come up on the list of gauges available there. (I.E.,  I start typing the name exactly as I created it, and it is not found from that gauge edit/add facility)

E.G.: one of the gauges I was trying to add was "Little Vermilion above Triple Drop Canyon (Approximation) (#281058)", to be added to https://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/River/view/river-detail/2508/ (replacing gauge presently referenced there).

[Rob]

In fact, right now, it looks like I can't even add ANY gauge (USGS or Virtual) to ANY reach.

[Kevin Colburn]

Has this problem persisted? I just added and deleted a gage and it worked. 

Kevin Colburn
National Stewardship Director
American Whitewater

828-712-4825

ke...@americanwhitewater.org

www.americanwhitewater.org

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "American Whitewater StreamTeam Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to american-whitewater-stre...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/american-whitewater-streamteam-forum/484f3ff0-c037-4ed7-b94e-097455559518n%40googlegroups.com.

[Anthon Allred]

I was able to do the same (although it took two tries).  This is different from the problem with adding new virtual gauges and not having them listed as options when you look for gauges for a particular reach or the problem of making changes to an existing virtual gauge and not having the changes reflected in the results in the reach or state summary pages.

Tony Allred Jr.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/american-whitewater-streamteam-forum/CAA9GcwUQLawqA4xhdsYTJnC0Xpca99UEMj%3DyZF_QP7qJyEpVaw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Paul Lange]

Hey all,   Sorry to bother you again on this issue as it was fixed last year but the virtual gauge on https://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/River/view/river-detail/1663/main is again incorrect.  The algorithm should be ( McConnell's Mill = (Wurtemburg * 1.4) - 2.36).      That is not exact but the virtual gauge posted on the site is way off.  Anything close would be appreciated.

Slippery Rock Creek

1. Kennedy Mill (Frew Mill Rd., SR 1012) to Eckert's Bridge (Slippery Rock Gorge)

   

When we lead beginners down this they believe AW more than they believe us!!!

I have no clue how to change it back to the repaired way so anything you do..... we would appreciate.  May also be helpful to label it as a virtual gauge.

Thanks in advance.

Paul Lange

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/american-whitewater-streamteam-forum/3321a034-1286-4ffb-bf8f-169318a6c257%40gmail.com.

[Anthon Allred]

Paul,

I was the one that corrected this virtual gauge last year.  There is currently continues to be a problem with virtual gauges that do math other than addition.  Until this is fixed, would it be better to just reference the Wurtemburg gauge?

Tony Allred Jr.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/american-whitewater-streamteam-forum/CANuEZF7ZuBV544Z3Anpv%2BPPMkA9hhkFEn6Qg0v2BHdexVUEhSw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Anthon Allred]

Paul,

Actually, now that I've had a chance to think about it, given the current virtual gauge problem, the slippery rock virtual gauge would equal exactly the Wurtemburg gauge.  So to restate the problem, do you have ranges for the Wurtemburg gauge that can be used until the AW virtual gauge problem is resolved?

Tony Allred Jr.

[Paul Lange]

Hi Tony,  

I again thank you for your help the first time around.  If you could just put up the cfs from the Wurtemburg gauge as the gauge on the 

Slippery Rock Creek

2. Eckert's Bridge to Harris Bridge (Mountville Rd, SR 2030) (Lower Slippery Rock)

shows it would be easy to change the level of low runnable/runnable/high.  Although it might take me a while to figure out how to change that!  LOL

Right now it is incorrect so anything you do will be an improvement.  Thanks again in advance and sorry I had to bother you with this again.

Paul Lange

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/american-whitewater-streamteam-forum/f9e4ff3f-d60a-437b-9485-ad85ebdce59c%40gmail.com.

[Paul Lange]

just sent a previous note.  Assign the cfs from Wurtemburg if you could.

Thanks again

PL

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/american-whitewater-streamteam-forum/90f10218-c90a-4481-ae07-254b016a82aa%40gmail.com.

[Anthon Allred]

Done.

Tony Allred Jr.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/american-whitewater-streamteam-forum/CANuEZF57LWAZ%2B_-b6XiVvnm5SMn0T5aWk%3Dj--rGxbuCJ6Sk4nA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Paul Lange]

Thank you, thank you thank you.  That has been a real thorn in my side.  If possible could you make 3000cfs max runnable?  That is a pretty big level for a small stream.  5000 cfs is not really a high end.

Thanks again for your help.

Paul

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/american-whitewater-streamteam-forum/e8f8393e-2007-4d2e-8f76-2a73f71ee7f5%40gmail.com.

[Doug Heym]

Updated to 3,000 CFS

[Rob]

Kevin,

The problem regarding adding regular (USGS) gauges appears to have been a temporary thing. (I.E., I can now add regular gauges to listings).

The problem regarding virtual gauges (showing up on the page of virtual gauges, but not showing up when I try to edit a 'Flows' page to add them to a listing) remains a problem.

[Zachariah Schiada]

I'm not sure how close it relates to the original topic, but is it possible to have two gages feed to show the total CFS on the dashboard? I recently had the Cape Fear River added and there are two upstream gages that contribute to the flow. I added the notes in the description based on adding the flow from the Deep River and Haw River upstream, but I would like to have the main page show the total CFS between the two. I added the second gage on the Flow tab, but am wondering if both flows combined can show since it only allowed for one to be shown as the primary. The link to the river page is at:  American Whitewater.

[Skip Morris]

Zach said:

>is it possible to have two gages feed to show the total CFS

Yes, it's easy with a virtual gauge. You can even easily adjust it for estimate additional inflow between the upstream gauges and the actual virtual measurement point.

What are the upstream gauges?  And where on The Cape Fear River do you want the CFS estimate?

/Skip

[Zachariah Schiada]

I want for the Cape Fear River (Buckhorn Falls to Lillington) to pull from both gages I put on the flow tab, which are Deep River at Moncure and Haw River at Moncure.

Zach

[Skip Morris]

Zach,

Ok, I've created a new virtual gauge: " Cape Fear as function of Deep River and Haw River"

https://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/Gauge2/detail/id/281152/

The calculation is:

$flow=(0.000000)+(1.000000*($gauge[50966]->getValue(GMETRIC_FLOW,0)))+(1.082000*($gauge[708]->getValue(GMETRIC_FLOW,0)));; $time=30;; return(array(2,$flow,$time,isset($comment) ? $comment:null));; ; return(array(2,$flow,$time,isset($comment) ? $comment:null));

I added 8.2% to the Deep River flow since the drainage area of the Cape Fear at the put-in is 3238 square miles vs the 1690 for the Haw and 1440 for the Deep Rivers) at the USGS gauges.

We could probably also add a slight delay to the calculation since the Cape Fear put-in is downstream of the two source gauges.

/Skip

[Anthon Allred]

Wait... I'm confused.  Currently, I'm able to create virtual gauges, but new virtual gauges that I've recently created are not listed on the list of gauges that I can choose for a particular river reach.  Moreover existing virtual gauges that I've created in the past that use the multiplication or division functions are apparently ignoring those operators.  I've just checked and this still appears to be true with respect to virtual gauges that I have created.  Has something changed... do the virtual gauges work with some logins but not others???  Also, why are you starting the calculation by adding (0.000000)?

Tony Allred Jr.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/american-whitewater-streamteam-forum/d1c26ca5-e512-45c3-8fb7-a787680cab7an%40googlegroups.com.

[Skip Morris]

Tony,

For the new virtual gauge I created multiplication is working fine.

What isn't working is the time delay feature. I tried "$gauge[708]->getValue(GMETRIC_FLOW,12*60*60)" to use the value as of 12 hours prior but it still uses the current value.

And I started the calculation by adding 0.00000 because it was in the gauge code I copied and it was easier to just not delete it.  But... this is an idea, maybe starting the calculation with that bit is something that makes the multiplication work.  This would take some playing around to figure out.

/Skip

[Anthon Allred]

Hmm... When I have more time, I'll have to play with it.

Tony

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/american-whitewater-streamteam-forum/6eb48812-840f-4a85-af0c-1debebcdcda3n%40googlegroups.com.

[Zachariah Schiada]

Hey Skip,

Thank you for creating this. It looks good to me. I probably wouldn't be too concerned with adding a delay since we are not talking about that far upstream that both source rivers are located. Is there any way to have this be the flow referenced in the flow rate on the top of the page for that section of river (Cape Fear - Buckhorn Dam to Lillington)?

Zach

[Anthon Allred]

So... I redid 'Cacapon Rt 127 Virtual Gauge' in cfs and now nothing reports (which is an improvement).  I went into "view" and noticed that it is "disabled".  I don't see a switch anywhere to "enable" it. 

Tony Allred Jr.

[Skip Morris]

I'm not sure about the "disabled" status.  Every time I create a virtual gauge it starts as disabled, but within 24 hours it automatically switches to enabled.  No idea why.

It seems working, I see a value of 830 CFS when I "view gauge".  Both Capapon Rt 127 gauges are reading the same.  If you do the calculation by hand is the result correct?

/Skip

[Anthon Allred]

Yes.  We'll give it some time.

Tony

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/american-whitewater-streamteam-forum/ec26d17e-441e-4efc-aa3f-49501b172765n%40googlegroups.com.

[Anthon Allred]

Skip

Well, you were right that the system automatically switches new virtual gauges to enabled after a short period of time.  But new recently created virtual gauges are still not listed on the list of gauges to be chosen for a particular river reach and this apparently includes the 'Cape Fear as a function of .....' gauge you just created for Zach.  Do I have this right?

Tony Allred Jr

[Kevin Colburn]

Hi All, 

I'm writing to encourage you not to create calculated/virtual gages or expect them to work. Calculated gages are not currently a supported feature, and any new calculated gages you create will be automatically deleted at some point. We intend to rebuild this system and certainly see value in it, but we have other projects taking priority this spring and summer. Specifically we are working on a new app that is close to launching, a new main Wordpress site (not the river pages), and some tech stack pieces to make those priorities work that will also help with future river page work (which is the next priority). We are stoked on the new gage service we launched a bit ago. We'd love your help with other content on the site besides calculated gages. If there are specific calculated gage issues that need immediate attention we can pull programmer time to address them, but we'd like to stay focused on our strategic priorities. Thanks!  

[Skip Morris]

Tony,

You have it right.  The new virtual gauges aren't shown in the list.

Also, the time delay feature for reading a gauge isn't working either, not sure why.

But otherwise they work fine.

/Skip

On Thursday, April 17, 2025 at 7:24:08 AM UTC-4 allred...@gmail.com wrote: