In the 'old' system, I had a 'personal convention' by which I was able to (to a small extent, anyway) mark gauges which may have been 'less reliable' for a given reach. For all rivers/reaches which had a USGS gauge (on or relatively close upstream or down from the reach being described), I just recorded the 'units' as either 'ft' or 'cfs'. If the gauge was a great distance removed from the reach, or if it was a 'reference gauge' on a nearby river, or a 'virtual gauge' which was not assured to be completely reliable for reflecting actual flow in a river/reach, I would put an asterisk after the units, either 'ft *' or 'cfs *'. In the gauge description ('Flows' tab), I would then start off the first paragraph with an asterisk (like coordinating a superscript in a manuscript or document with a footnote at the bottom of the page), and have text explaining that the listed gauge was a virtual gauge, or reference gauge, or whatever, and was therefore less reliable, and should therefore be used with caution, and actual runnability of the reach needed to be verified via other means (on-site inspection or whatever).

With the implementation of the new release of the website, I no longer have the option for this particular 'personal convention'. (Perhaps just as well, for consistency across the nation on the website.) However, I think a 'reliability indicator' of some sort would be a good idea. My suggestion (and I'm open to other implementation ideas) would be (perhaps) a simple 1-4 stars system.
**** = gauge is ON the listed reach of river, or within a fairly short distance upstream or down, with no major tributaries nor any dam regulation intervening -- absolutely accurate for flows in the listed reach.
*** = gauge is ON the listed river, but is some distance removed from the listed reach, or dams intervene which may occasionally affect flow -- usually fairly accurate for flows, though some lead/lag time may be involved, or disproportionate tributary flow may adversely affect reading at times.
** = gauge is on a nearby river of similar size, or is a 'virtual gauge' which is not completely reliable for flows in the given reach -- the gauge is 'indicative' and 'reasonably predictive', but verification of runnability is advised through visual (on-site) inspection, or via other means.
* = gauge is of doubtful, untested, or unproven reliability. Verification of runnability through visual (on-site) inspection, or via other means is required.

With the two-line format of each entry on the river page display, there is presently blank space under the gauge, where this gauge rating could be installed.

As always, StreamTeam members would/should be encouraged to elaborate with text on the gauge description ('Flows' tab) to provide further detail about the gauge location, reliability, and so forth. However, I suspect that many people (much like myself) mostly just pull up the state listing, and scan down the list, seldom actually pulling up each individual river description, much less looking at the 'Flows' tab. Thus, having SOME indicator of 'gauge reliability' on the state listing would be a big plus. It would remind people that while a reach may be color-coded as 'runnable', especially on certain runs, that is subject to some degree of variability.

Rob Smage
AW member since 1992, volunteer since 2000, Midwest Regional StreamTeam Editor

By the way . . . since I am also still petitioning (as, I think, are others, by comments on BoaterTalk) for the listing to revert (if at ALL possible) to one line per river/reach . . .
If some sort of 'gauge reliability' were to be implemented, it could alternatively be just a single value, either 1-4 or (perhaps better) a 'letter grade', A through D, which would not take much space in the line, placed right after the gauge reading.

Rob Smage
AW member since 1992, volunteer since 2000, Midwest Regional StreamTeam Editor

I agree with Rob, that we should move back to one line per reach, if possible.
If that requires truncating the "Section" field if it's a little long, in IMHO that's an okay compromise. (Maybe we STs should be concise with our titles sometimes.)

FWIW, such a 'reliability rating' could also (in some ways) help address the (peripheral) issue raised (by Chuck B's post on a separate thread) about the disclaimer on virtual gauges.

Virtual gauges could/should probably never be considered as accurate or 'reliable' as a USGS gauge directly on the river/reach in question, thus would/should probably never get a four-star or 'A' rating.

Virtual gauges which are time-proven to be fairly accurate might rate a three-star or 'B' rating. This would probably only be true for gauges which apply fairly simple calculations -- fractional multipliers perhaps greater than 0.2 and less than 2 or 3 times some single 'other' gauge source.

Virtual gauges which are less often accurate might rate two-star or 'C' rating. Again, this would probably only be true for gauges which apply fairly simple calculations -- fractional multipliers perhaps greater than 0.2 and less than 2 or 3 times some single 'other' gauge source, but with a weaker proven correlation to the stream/section in question.

Virtual gauges which are unproven, or even less often accurate (but still of some value, as the 'best guess indicator, known and available online') might rate one-star or 'D' rating. These might apply 'significant calculation' -- fractional multipliers perhaps less than 0.2 or greater than 2 or 3, or combining two or more gauge sources.

Rob Smage
AW member since 1992, volunteer since 2000, Midwest Regional StreamTeam Editor

It works for me. In the mean time I have the estimated flag on the gauge. Click that and leave a comment on why the gauge is estimated. It puts a "~" in front of the gauge reading.

Ryan

Sounds good.

Rob Smage
AW member since 1992, volunteer since 2000, Midwest Regional StreamTeam Editor