Mountain Weather Service Review Report

Mountain Weather Service Review – Consultation Report
1. Background
PWS Development Milestone 2 for FY1213 includes a review of Mountain Weather and
National Park forecast services.
This is a report of consultation undertaken by the PWSCG Secretariat between July and
October 2012 to collect requirements for the PWS Mountain Forecast Service (MFS) and
National Park Forecast Service (NPFS).
Information compiled in this report was obtained through internet research, a literature
review and interviews and responses to an email questionnaire with National Park and
Mountain Rescue professionals.
2. Requirement for Mountain Forecast Service (MFS) and National Park
Forecast Service (NPFS).
The UK’s National Parks are visited by millions of people every year. Visitors undertake
a wide range of outdoor leisure activities from casual tourist visits to high-risk activities
and pursuits such as mountaineering and caving.
In 2010, the Mountain Rescue Committee of Scotland reported that they assisted 659
people as a result of incidents, fatalities and injuries. In England and Wales the
corresponding figure was 1377 people. Weather conditions are a contributory factor in
many of these of the accidents and knowledge of weather conditions is vital information
for those who undertake rescue activities.
The Mountain Forecast Service (MFS) and National Park Forecast Service (NPFS) form
part of the PWS as free at the point of use services to the public and emergency
response communities and help enable the protection of live, and assist the public to
plan day-to-day activities.
3. How is MFS valued by users?
Feedback from the National Park Authorities and Mountain Rescue Teams shows that
they use and value the MFS, as well as the severe weather warnings and general
weather forecasts.
The MFS hazard risk information approach is particularly valued. As far as it’s been
possible to tell, the Met Office MFS is the only UK service that provides this type of
information about mountain weather-related hazards.
Many expert users and professional stakeholders (e.g. Mountain Rescue teams,
Mountaineering clubs) promote the MFS service via their web sites (although many link
back to the old-style MFS pages rather than the new ones). However, most also promote
other weather forecast providers in addition to the Met Office. Feedback from Mountain
Rescue teams and National Park Authorities found some of the most commonly
mentioned were:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mountain Weather Information Service (MWIS) http://www.mwis.org.uk/
Norwegian Met Service: www.yr.no
BBC weather
www.raintoday.co.uk
Weatherline – Lake District Weather (which uses Met Office forecast data).
http://www.lakedistrictweatherline.co.uk/
Metcheck http://www.metcheck.com
Myweather2 http://www.myweather2.com/Hill-and-Mountain/United-Kingdom/
Online blogs and other postings comparing UK mountain weather resources rate the
MFS highly, along with MWIS.
For example:
http://www.outdoorsmagic.com/outdoors-news/weekend-mountain-weatheroutlook/9920.html writes about the MFS:
‘Another excellent weather resource as you'd expect from the Met Office. It has fewer
Scottish areas than the MWIS version, but otherwise provides a similar level of detailed
analysis and also scores by having individual Dales and Peak District sections plus
coverage of the Brecon Beacons.’
Some examples of user websites that link to the Met Office MFS as well as (in some
cases) other providers include:
•
Yorkshire Dales National Park web site provides links to the MFS, MWIS, BBC
and mylocalweather.org:
http://www.yorkshiredales.org.uk/outandabout/planningyourvisit/weatherforecasts
•
This outdoor shop’s website http://www.killinoutdoor.co.uk/weather.html
includes weather provided by netweather.tv, Met Office, MWIS and for long
range forecasts the Norwegian Met Service.
•
The Mountaineering Council of Scotland takes forecasts provided by the MWIS,
the Met Office and Weather2.
•
Llanberis Mountain Rescue team take the MFS Snowdon mountain weather
forecast: http://www.llanberismountainrescue.co.uk/weather
Feedback from users has also highlighted the popularity of the Mountain Widget. For
example, the following is taken from an outdoor enthusiast’s blog:
‘The
Met Office have started to offer website weather widgets so here are the mountain
weather ones for a quick spot of location planning for that next hill outing. After all, it
cannot hurt to have all the areas that they cover on a single page rather than having to
go from post to pillar to get the same information. That’s never to say that you shouldn’t
go the venerable Mountain Weather Information Service too. For one thing, they cover
more areas and it’s never a bad thing to get a second opinion.’
http://www.johnhennessy.co.uk/outdoors/met-office-mountain-weather/
4. How used is the MFS?
The MFS can be accessed via (i) the Met Office web site, including smart-phone
optimised mobile pages and (ii) a Mountain Widget.
MFS via the Met Office web site
The MFS pages are some of the most popular of those containing PWS products on the
Met Office web site.
There are currently two versions of the MFS on the Met Office web site; an old-look
version:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/loutdoor/mountainsafety/
and a new-look MFS introduced as part of the web site upgrade:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/mountain-forecast/
In July, there were 274 thousand visits to the old-look MFS web pages compared to 20
thousand to the new-look site. Some of this difference can be explained by the fact that
the old-look site has several (8) pages associated with it (each mountain area has an
individual page). The new-look site is a single page. However, the is evidence that the
new style pages are unpopular for other reasons. These are explored in section 6.
The mobile weather mountain pages (which have not been changed as a result of the
web site upgrade) were accessed 38 thousand times during July 2012.
MFS via Mountain Widget
The Mountain Weather Widget allows website owners to add Met Office mountain
weather content into their web pages for their visitors.
The Mountain widget is also very popular. Since its launch in April 2011, page
impressions of the Mountain widget have fluctuated between ~143 and 207 thousand.
These come from a wide range of sites that have downloaded the widget onto their
pages, including sites dedicated to promoting particular areas, outdoor activities,
individual tourist accommodation web sites (B&Bs and hotels), and public safety.
5. How valued and used is the NPFS?
The NPFS (which is only available via the Met Office web site) is not valued by National
Park Authorities.
None of the National Park Authorities that responded to this consultation (5 of the 15 –
despite being given multiple opportunities) make use of or promote the NPFS. In all
cases this was lack of or low awareness of the service. When the service was pointed
out to Park Authority representatives in 1:2:1 interviews, the response was that it far too
general to be of use to Park users – definitely those engaging in outdoor sport and
leisure activities but also for casual tourists and visitors.
No National Park Authorities link directly from their web sites to the NPFS.
The National Park Authority web sites for Dartmoor, Norfolk Broads, Exmoor, Loch
Lomond and the Trossachs and Mourne Hertitage Park do not contain any weather
information. South Downs, North York Moors and Northumberland National Park
Authority web sites link to the old Met Office home page. Pembrook Coast National Park
Authority web site includes weather forecast information from a private weather provider.
Only Cairngorm National Park Authority web site links to the new Met Office home page,
along with BBC weather and MWIS.
Views of the NPFS web pages are notably lower than the MFS. In July 2012, there were
12 thousand views.
6. Current Mountain Forecast Service (MFS) – Issues and concerns.
(i) Delivery via Met Office web site.
Issue 1: Parallel running of 2 similar services on the web site.
The existence of two versions of the web service causes confusion among users (e.g.
David Cross, Central Beacons Mountain Rescue Team) who aren’t sure which web
pages to rely on and whether the old-look service is being maintained.
Issue 2: The old-look site is preferred by many users for a variety of reasons.
Despite recognition that the new look MFS web site is visually appealing, the old-look
site is preferred by many users for a variety of reasons.
(a)
Familiarity, ease of use, loss of functionality and accessibility.
The new-look service does not include the ability to easily access radar, satellite, wind or
temperature observation and forecast information.
Discussion forums have highlighted discontentment with the new Met Office web site
and the new-look MFS:
‘So the Met Office seems intent on changing its weather site to something practically
unusable’
From UK Climbing discussion forum 11 Apr 2012
‘I always used the met office website for mountain forecasts when working, well, until I
came to use it the other week and found out they have completely destroyed it.’
From UK Climbing discussion forum 1 May 2012
‘Is it just me or has anyone noticed that the new Met Office web-site is laid out badly and
really awkward to use? I found the old one simple and I could get to any information I
wanted (especially Mountain forecasts) really quickly even when I first started using it.’
From WalkHighlands discussion forum 28 Mar 2012
Not sure how long it will last, but in case you haven't saved a link the old-style (much
friendlier)mountain forecasts are still available:http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/loutdoor/mountainsafety/index.html
From WalkHighlands discussion forum 29 Mar 2012
Feedback from the Yorkshire Dales National Park also highlights this:
‘It takes a while to get to understand each website change. It would be better not to
review the MetO and BBC pages quite so often. Some tools seem to be lost as well as
new ones gained, every time it changes. Not all office systems will load the MetO or
BBC content properly.’
Peter Stockton, Head of Sustainable Development, Yorkshire Dales National Park
Authority.
Discussion on the on-line UK Climbing Forum highlights discontentment among some
users of the MFS who strongly preferred the old-look MFS and as a result have now
moved to the mobile web site for a simpler view. The following was a typical sentiment:
If you just want the text without all the guff try here: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/mobile/
The information on the mobile MFS site corresponds to the text forecast information
available from the new-look MFS by clicking on the text forecast tab.
(b)
Ambiguous and internally inconsistent information.
The old-look site clearly states the day that the weather summary covers. The new-look
sight doesn’t. Neither site make it clear what geographic area the forecast covers (the
whole National Park area, mountain peaks generally within the Park, a specific peak or
other). In addition the new site allows dynamic scrolling of the surface pressure charts
for a four day period, but does not update the hazard warning information or weather
forecast information. This remains static, resulting in forecast pressure for days 3 and 4
overlying MFS hazard information for days 1 and 2.
For example, Figure 1 shows MFS hazards for Snowdonia National Park, valid for Friday
and Saturday 24 and 25th August 2012, along with the weather and precipitation
probability for either Friday or Saturday (unclear which), next to the hazard map for
Friday and/or Saturday (again unclear which) overlaid with the surface pressure chart for
Monday 27th Aug 2012.
Further confusion comes from the text forecast summary ‘Showers during the morning,
then more persistent rain spreading from the southwest later in the afternoon, heavy at
times’ which only covers weather for one day. In addition this summary is not consistent
with the corresponding forecasts from the text forecast tabs. The text forecast for Friday
24th was ‘Largely cloudy with a few scattered showers during the morning. Heavy
outbreaks of rain are expected by early to mid-afternoon, perhaps turning persistent at
times’, and for Saturday 25th ‘Heavy, sometimes thundery showers, merging to longer
spells of rain at times, but also some brighter spells between showers through the
afternoon.’
Figure 1.
Another problem is that the key for weather risks is not consistent with the colours used
in the hazard table or map. The amber medium risk key colour is different to that used in
the hazard table and the green, ‘no weather risk’ key colour is not used in the table at all.
Dales National Park was particularly keen to see no weather risk hazards coloured
green to ‘balance’ the overall risk picture.
A further inconsistency can be found in the MFS widget (Figure 2) where the weather
overview has a valid from time and date, but no valid to time and date.
Figure 2.
MFS probability precipitation was regarded by those consulted as potentially valuable
information. However, as the geographical extent of the weather and precipitation
probability forecast is unclear, the value is diminished. Additional confusion is added
when ranges of probabilities are included in the forecast (Figure 3):
Figure 3
(c)
Lack of ability to print a hard copy of the MFS
Many users, for example, Play Y Brenin, Mountain Centre for Wales, and outdoorfocused retail outlets and cafes in Snowdonia, display printed copies of the (old look)
MFS on their notice boards, on a daily basis. The new look MFS does not print the
hazard colours on the map or hazard list. There is a clear requirement for the new look
MFS to be printed clearly onto 1 side of A4.
(d)
Use of risk level labels
The new-look MFS includes labels that appear when the cursor hovers over a National
Park area on the map. These contain information about the highest level of risk for that
area (e.g. Figure 4). This is seen as pointless and meaningless and in some cases
derisory, by users. However, the labels do contain useful information for colour blind
users of the service, so any changes need to consider wider accessibility.
Figure 4.
Issue 3: Lack of link to NSWWS and apparent discrepancies between forecasts.
There is no direct link to NSWWS from the new look MFS areas. This means that users
may miss potentially important and relevant information.
For example, the MFS for the East Highlands on 21th Aug 2012 included a high (red)
hazard risk of thunderstorms and low (yellow) hazard risks for fog, strong sunshine and
heavy rain. The NSWWS for the corresponding time warned ‘Heavy showers will
develop in many areas during Tuesday morning, becoming frequent during the afternoon
and early evening, with the risk of thunder and perhaps hail.’ (Figure 5)
Users of the NSWWS only, would not be aware of the chance of dry interludes or fog
while users of the MFS only would not be aware of the risk of hail.
Figure 5.
There is also some confusion between NSWWS and MFS. For example, the MFS
hazard warnings and NSWWS for 6 and 7th July 2012 appeared to forecast different
weather conditions. The MFS (Figure 6) forecast a high risk of gales, persistent hill fog
and a low risk of heavy persistent rain. The NSWWS for the corresponding time forecast
indicated no severe weather for the Highland region of Scotland, but heavy rain (yellow
and amber warnings) for southern Scotland.
Figure 6.
Issue 4: Inconsistencies within MFS forecasts and between MFS and forecasts for
the same areas
In addition to apparent discrepancies between MFS and NSWWS, there are
inconsistencies within the MFS forecasts and between MFS and the general forecasts.
For example, the MFS forecast for Snowdonia National Park on 20th and 21st July 2012
(Figure 7) reported yellow (low risk) hazards for thunderstorms and red (high risk)
hazards for strong sunlight. The corresponding weather and precipitation probability
forecast on the same web page indicates heavy showers, but not thunderstorms.
Figure 7.
Similarly. the MFS forecast, such as for the Yorkshire Dales on 22nd August 2012
(Figure 8), which indicated a high (red) risk of thunderstorms as a hazard and part of the
general forecast (between 1500 and dusk) did not agree with the general forecast for the
same area.
Figure 8
7.
Current National Park Forecast Service (NPFS) – Issues and concerns.
The current National Park Forecast Service (NPFS) is a brief 20 word text forecast
provided for each of the 15 National Park Authorities in the UK plus The Mournes in
Northern Ireland. It is disseminated via the Met Office web site only. NPFS forecasts do
not include any hazard or impact information for users of the National Parks.
Issue 1: Overlap and inconsistency between MFS and NPFS
Five of the 16 national parks included in the NPFS are also included in the MFS. The
text forecast for corresponding NPFS and MFS forecasts are identical. However, the
MFS text forecast is presented as covering a two day period while the NPFS text
forecast is presented as being valid for the current day only. In addition the NPFS
forecasts do not include any hazard or risk information. The lack of link between the
NPFS and MFS on the web site means that users who only visit the NPFS will not
access potentially important additional information.
The MFS and NPFS forecasts shown in Figures 9 demonstrate this point. The MFS
forecast for Snowdonia on 7th Aug 2012 included a medium (amber) hazards risk for
strong sunlight and low (yellow) hazard risks for hill fog and heavy rain. The
corresponding NPFS (and MFS) weather summary does not make reference to these
hazards ‘Brightening up after a cloudy, damp start to give a fine day with spells of
sunshine’.
Figure 9.
Issue 2: Lack of link to NSWWS and other warnings
As with MFS, there is no link between the NPFS and NSWWS giving the potential to
impact public safety. For example, the NPFS for 7th July gave a forecast ‘Cloudy with
outbreaks of rain throughout, heavy at first. Often misty with extensive hill fog in higher
areas’ (Figure 10). Compare this with the NSWWS for the same geographic area and
time period which was a red warning for rain and included in the written explanation ‘The
public should be prepared for the likelihood of surface water flooding and some
disruption to travel and outdoor activities, particularly in the Amber and Red warning
areas.’ The lack of information about the severity of conditions in the NPFS and no
obvious link to the NSWWS could have led to the public venturing out onto Dartmoor
unaware of the severity of the weather situation.
Figure 10
A second example is shown in Figures 10 which compares a NPFS for the North York
Moors National Park on 6th Aug; ‘After a dry and fine morning with some sunshine, a few
heavy and thundery showers will develop this afternoon’; with the corresponding Amber
NSWWS for a similar geographic area time period of the afternoon of the 6th Aug;
‘Showers later today have the potential to become intense and slow moving over
Northeast England, with the risk of hail and thunder. The public should be prepared for
disruption due to localised flooding, though as is often the case with showers, many
places will miss the worst.’
Figure 10
In addition, neither the NFPS nor MFS link to the (non-PWS) heat-wave warning service.
This could result in important safety information being missed by users of the NFPS. For
example, the NPFS forecasts the New Forest, South Downs and Norfolk Broads
National Parks on 20 Aug 2012;
‘Mainly dry with bright or sunny spells, once early low cloud clears. Feeling warm and
humid.
Dry, bright or sunny spells, feeling generally warm and humid. However, areas of mist
and fog may occasionally come ashore.
Dry start, with sunny spells once early low cloud clears. Isolated showers this afternoon,
dying away later. Warm and humid.’,
make no mention of the level 3 heat-health watch warning in effect for a region covering
these National Parks (Figure 11). This level of warning provides the following advice
‘Heatwaves can be dangerous, especially for the very young, very old or those with
chronic diseases.’
Figure 11
8.
Additional Feedback from professional stakeholders
Feedback from professional stakeholders, including many from National Park Authorities
was generally very positive about the Met Office, its brand and reputation. Weather
forecasts were generally seen as accurate and reliable. However, there was a plea from
several people to ensure that forecast information included in the MFS and NPFS was
not presented in a pessimistic way as this would put visitors off coming to the Parks.
The precipitation probability information included in the MFS was considered very useful
by many professional users to help mitigate against pessimistic forecasts. This was
particularly true for Park Authority staff involved with promoting tourism and visitors to
their Park.
Several stakeholders noted that the Met Office should make greater use of site specific
forecasts in conjunction with the MFS, provided that any consistency issues are
resolved. This will increase utility and should lead to greater reach.
Feedback from a keen walker and mountaineer’s online blog praised the new Met Office
web site for the 5000+ site specific forecasts and in particular forecasts for the Munros
and other summits:
‘This is where the new Met Office site stands apart. It now not only enables you to find
out what the weather’s going to be for regions, but for precise locations’
In addition, the Northumberland National Park Site noted that site specific forecasts for
National Parks would be of far more use that the existing NPFS and suggested including
site specific forecasts that covered the range of geographic landscapes and weather
variability included in a park. For example, in Northumberland National Park this would
mean a minimum of 4 forecasts to represent the Cheviots, Hadrians Wall, North Tyne
Valley, Kielder Water.
Several representatives from National Parks also noted a requirement for information
tailored to the specific activities and attractions promoted by the Parks. For example,
recent rainfall for cavers in the Yorkshire Dales and Peak District National Parks (this is
currently available but not widely know about), windspeed and direction for boaters on
the Norfolk Broads and beaches for Pembrokeshire Coast National Park. Linking to this,
it was also noted by several stakeholders that the period dawn to dusk covered by the
MFS weather forecast was inappropriate for some users of the National Parks, including
cavers who often carry out their sport in the evenings and into the night.
Several stakeholders noted the very large increase in smartphone usage and suggested
access to the MFS via an app would be very popular and useful.
9. Mountain Forecast Service – recommendations for changes and
improvements
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Make clear to MFS users that both the old-look and new-look services are supported
and updated regularly and contain the same information.
Do not remove the old-look MFS web site until issues identifies with the new-look site
have been resolved:
• Familiarity, ease of use, loss of functionality and accessibility.
• Ambiguous and internally inconsistent information.
• Lack of ability to print a hard copy of the MFS
• Use of risk level labels.
Let users know when the old-look site will be removed.
Ensure consistency and linkage between MFS and NSWWS
Ensure consistency of information within MFS forecasts and between MFS and
forecasts for the same areas
Ensure weather forecasts for mountain regions aren’t overly pessimistic.
Link MFS forecasts to site specific forecasts, ensuring they are consistent.
Raise visibility of information currently presented as text e.g. recent rainfall
information, 5 day outlook.
Extent time period of weather forecast information to include the evening (cavers
often undertake their activity in the evening).
Consider developing a MFS app.
10. NPFS – recommendations for changes and improvements
•
•
•
•
•
Discontinue the NPFS service in present form.
National Park Authorities would like site specific forecasts for their areas that
represent the geographic and weather variability (e.g. tourist towns, mountain top,
open moorland).
There is also a requirement for information tailored to the specific activities and
attractions promoted by the individual National Parks.
Weather forecast information should be accurate and realistic and not presented in a
pessimistic that may put visitors off. Precipitation probability is useful and helpful in
this regard.
Warning, risk and hazard information (from NSWWS and MFS) should be easily
accessible from and consistent with any forecasts in National Park areas.