Coverage Mystery
33 views
Skip to first unread message
Prospero
Apr 20, 2011, 10:35:11 AM4/20/11
to Marine Traffic
I am a big fan of this site and other collaborative forums, but I live
in an area that has not had a direct contributor to Marine Traffic, so
I am in the process of setting up a station (ID obtained, equipment on
order, etc., but no feed yet).
In the meantime, we have occasional coverage in my local harbor,
presumably from visting ships that are feeding their local AIS data to
another network that then passes it to Marine Traffic (station ID 688,
for example).
We also have fulltime AIS data from the local Harbor Pilots on their
website, but the image is just a snapshot of a fixed area with ship
names and locations that has to be refreshed manually.
When we have (the indirect) MT coverage, I've noticed that the data
content from the two sources doesn't always match up. Vessels will
appear in one source, but not the other, and I'm wondering why? LOS
coverage doesn't seem to explain it as MT will sometimes display
targets on all sides of the local source coverage, but the local
source will have targets that MT does not.
My best guess right now is that the other network (like 688) that is
feeding MT is filtering out some targets (based on size, type,
pleasure vs. commercial or other factors?). Or perhaps there is some
other explanation? Has anyone else had this experience?
There may be commercial or privacy issues involved here and I
certainly don't expect another contributor to divulge anything they
don't want to (this is a voluntary user-supported community after all)
but I am trying to firm up my understanding of this application as I
prepare to contribute in my own way.
Thanks in advance
in an area that has not had a direct contributor to Marine Traffic, so
I am in the process of setting up a station (ID obtained, equipment on
order, etc., but no feed yet).
In the meantime, we have occasional coverage in my local harbor,
presumably from visting ships that are feeding their local AIS data to
another network that then passes it to Marine Traffic (station ID 688,
for example).
We also have fulltime AIS data from the local Harbor Pilots on their
website, but the image is just a snapshot of a fixed area with ship
names and locations that has to be refreshed manually.
When we have (the indirect) MT coverage, I've noticed that the data
content from the two sources doesn't always match up. Vessels will
appear in one source, but not the other, and I'm wondering why? LOS
coverage doesn't seem to explain it as MT will sometimes display
targets on all sides of the local source coverage, but the local
source will have targets that MT does not.
My best guess right now is that the other network (like 688) that is
feeding MT is filtering out some targets (based on size, type,
pleasure vs. commercial or other factors?). Or perhaps there is some
other explanation? Has anyone else had this experience?
There may be commercial or privacy issues involved here and I
certainly don't expect another contributor to divulge anything they
don't want to (this is a voluntary user-supported community after all)
but I am trying to firm up my understanding of this application as I
prepare to contribute in my own way.
Thanks in advance
jrw_mdus
Apr 21, 2011, 9:06:14 AM4/21/11
to Marine Traffic
More Mystery Station 396, Cairo IL is now showing ships in the
Delaware Bay, that some badass station, or there is some error, how do
I find out what is happening.
Delaware Bay, that some badass station, or there is some error, how do
I find out what is happening.
Davwbs
Apr 21, 2011, 2:12:58 PM4/21/11
to Marine Traffic
Data error on the site that is transmitting the information, as we
here in the Cincinnati area have been having computer issues & the
data comes back as 396 ( default ) when there is a problem. Once the
error is fixed it will show the correct site.
here in the Cincinnati area have been having computer issues & the
data comes back as 396 ( default ) when there is a problem. Once the
error is fixed it will show the correct site.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages