I still think, based on the vast majority of other observations, that the 2nd subsection of "Location" is the most complete (thus, reliable) one, not to mention it is in English (I checked a city in China in Chinese and the Chinese characters were in the 1st subsection of "Location"), but I lean more and more to some sort of "aggregation" of data where there are more than one section involved (thankfully, there aren't many, in fact if I think about it, just this one). That way you can't go wrong, as if something is unavailable in one subsection, you get the non-empty / non-null data from the other.
Of course, that just adds to an already heavy effort, but as I said before, things are very volatile in TWC's case (and not only in "Location") and there is nothing we can do about it. I thought you should know about this - what you decide to do (or not do) eventually is your decision to make. I'll weigh in the pros and cons as well and see what the best solution would look like.
P.S. So far, nothing out of the ordinary with the precipitation and those amounts. I don't know if you noticed, but when there is an accumulation of snow, it is also mentioned in the "snowRange" field. I have a day where:
so it's clear that the snowRange string is aggregated into the narrative presented to the user, but it seems to be also present in precipAmt, albeit more precise. I don't know the reason for these duplicates however, but this is not the only case, as the "narrative" field is also aggregated from various others (including the "qualifier" field, which has things like hard freeze expectations and such).
Code: Select all
"precipAmt": 2.49,"precipType": "snow",...,"narrative": "Snow showers. Low -2ºC. Winds NW at 15 to 30 km\u002Fh. Chance of snow 60%. Snowfall of 2-3 cm.",...,"snowRange": "2-3",
My final conclusion on this is that precipType is only relevant to precipPct (e.g. 60% chances of rain/snow), and not to precipAmt. In the end, my observation strongly suggests that precipAmt is the amount of precipitation in general (e.g. 35 mm of precipitation), while the field showing the amount (i.e. accumulation) of snow is exclusively snowRange (e.g. 3 cm of snow).
- precipType can be precip/rain/snow (where precip can be a combination of both or otherwise a generic term - no frogs or sleet noticed)
- precipPct is measured in %
- precipAmt is measured in mm/in
- snowRange is measured in cm/in
Sorry to lead you in the wrong direction before, but only recently I've been able to see radically different values for these fields that allowed me to reach a definitive conclusion:
Code: Select all
"precipPct": 90,"precipAmt": 10.2,"precipType": "precip",...,"phrase": "Rain \u002F Snow","narrative": "A mix of rain and snow. Low 1ºC. Winds N at 15 to 30 km\u002Fh. Chance of precip 90%. Snowfall of 2-3 cm.",...,"snowRange": "2-3",...