Talk:UKALNS

raphael 18:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC) from E.M. via email): The definition is almost ok for me, but I think the last part about predicted tide takes us down a road of historical data, where as the trend today with underkeel allowance is one of real time data. So I recommend the wording reflect this, and in addition use the term water level, as a number of harbours are not tidal harbours (e.g. Montreal) and in others there is much greater effect of weather conditions on the available water column than tide has (e.g. Hamburg). So in conclusion, I recommend changing the last part of the definition;

From … and variance from predicted height of tide.

To …and variance from height of water level (predicted or real time).

As extra curricular reading if interested, the link below is for the St. Lawrence Seaway specification for a dynamic under keep clearance (allowance) system using more real time data for the calculations. [1]

under-keel clearance allowance as an object?

raphael 18:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC): I think the issue of under-keel clearance allowance is complicated enough that we should consider making it an object (either information or feature). The original idea is here (scroll to 3 December 2010).

The original idea was to make it an information object. If we decide to make it a geographic feature object instead it could get its own spatial object.

It could be associated with WATARE, HRBARE, PRTARE, FAIRWAY, DRGARE, SEAARE or other suitable feature objects.