API Hood / apihood

API Provider @

Spain

Discussioni

8
All
Questions
Answers
Il più nuovo
A
1
Hi Chris, I'm sorry to hear that you are having problems with the prediction precision. We are currently using mathematical model which uses historical water level measurements and satellite altimetry. The model is global (meaning for all world oceans), but the quality may vary by the location. Because of that we are currently adding another global model and few thousands predictions around the world which are based on the historical tide gauge measurements in the particular location. For the mentioned location we are going to add predictions based on the water level measurements from Cuxhaven. New values would be: | Provider | High Tide | Low Tide | High Tide | Low Tide | High Tide | |-----------------------|-----------|----------|-----------|----------|-----------| | BSH | 20:35 | 03:12 | 09:09 | 15:46 | 21:44 | | Marea.ooo (Current) | 21:16 | 01:41 | 09:46 | 14:04 | 22:15 | | Marea.ooo (Cuxhaven) | 21:07 | 03:30 | 09:39 | 16:01 | 22:08 | | Marea.ooo (New model) | 20:20 | 02:46 | 08:54 | 15:20 | 21:31 | You can take a look at the [current model](https://stage.marea.ooo/en/53.875/8.75), [Cuxhaven station](https://stage.marea.ooo/en/53.875/8.75?station_radius=5) or [new model](https://stage.marea.ooo/en/53.875/8.75?model=eot20) at the staging marea page (please note that this is development environment which might not be available all the time). If you want to be notified when the new API is deployed to the production, please subscribe for notification at https://api.hood.land or let us know at [hi@hood.land](mailto:hi@hood.land). Please let me know if you have any other questions. Have a nice day Vojta
mar 4:45 3/8/21
A
4
Hi Andrey, thank you for the clarification. I took a quick look at the sites you posted and it seems you are right that there are differences. I just wanted to point out that for example for https://magicseaweed.com/Playa-Negra-Limon-Surf-Report/2497/ tide forecast is from Limon ("Tide Location Limon - 21.87 miles away") which is quite far, so I was comparing following for 20th May 2021 https://marea.ooo/en/9.974054/-83.01094 https://magicseaweed.com/Playa-Negra-Limon-Surf-Report/2497/ https://tablademareas.com/cr/costa-mar-caribe/limon#_oleaje https://www.tideschart.com/Costa-Rica/Limon/Limon/Limon/ | Provider | High Tide | Low Tide | High Tide | Low Tide | |-----------------|-----------|-----------|-----------|---------| | Tideschart | 5:30 | 12:54 | 19:42 | 0:49 | | MSW | 4:30 | 11:54 | 18:42 | 23:49 | | Tabla de Mareas | 6:00 | 12:34 | 20:12 | 0:29 | | Marea.ooo | 4:57 | 12:38 | 19:08 | 0:52 | So it seems to me that MSW has the same results, but moved by 1 hour as Tideschart. Marea.ooo for location near Limon is somewhat between the sources you posted. The important thing is to compare locations which are close to each other as bathymetry and other factors influence the prediction. The good news is that you are using the API correctly (sometimes people have problems with timezones and tidal datums) but bad news is that I can't help you more as the prediction is what it is. As I mentioned before, the quality of global model can vary by location. As I mentioned we are looking for a way how to validate the data in places with available (near)real time measurements. So when we have something new in this particular location I'll let you know. Please let me know if you have other questions. Have a nice day Vojta
gio 10:15 20/5/21
A
4
Hi Andrey, thank you for the clarification. I took a quick look at the sites you posted and it seems you are right that there are differences. I just wanted to point out that for example for https://magicseaweed.com/Playa-Negra-Limon-Surf-Report/2497/ tide forecast is from Limon ("Tide Location Limon - 21.87 miles away") which is quite far, so I was comparing following for 20th May 2021 https://marea.ooo/en/9.974054/-83.01094 https://magicseaweed.com/Playa-Negra-Limon-Surf-Report/2497/ https://tablademareas.com/cr/costa-mar-caribe/limon#_oleaje https://www.tideschart.com/Costa-Rica/Limon/Limon/Limon/ | Provider | High Tide | Low Tide | High Tide | Low Tide | |-----------------|-----------|-----------|-----------|---------| | Tideschart | 5:30 | 12:54 | 19:42 | 0:49 | | MSW | 4:30 | 11:54 | 18:42 | 23:49 | | Tabla de Mareas | 6:00 | 12:34 | 20:12 | 0:29 | | Marea.ooo | 4:57 | 12:38 | 19:08 | 0:52 | So it seems to me that MSW has the same results, but moved by 1 hour as Tideschart. Marea.ooo for location near Limon is somewhat between the sources you posted. The important thing is to compare locations which are close to each other as bathymetry and other factors influence the prediction. The good news is that you are using the API correctly (sometimes people have problems with timezones and tidal datums) but bad news is that I can't help you more as the prediction is what it is. As I mentioned before, the quality of global model can vary by location. As I mentioned we are looking for a way how to validate the data in places with available (near)real time measurements. So when we have something new in this particular location I'll let you know. Please let me know if you have other questions. Have a nice day Vojta
gio 10:15 20/5/21
A
1
Hi @TheSea, I'm sorry you have problem with the API. The error you posted doesn't seem familiar to me. Also I can't see any failed requests for the last 30 days in RapidAPI analytics. Could you please post the whole request you are trying to call (preferably in cURL format) so I can replicate and debug the issue? Thank you
mer 4:51 10/3/21
A
1
Hello, I'm sorry, but I don't know which schema you have in mind. Please, could you share the steps you did for us to be able to investigate the issue. Are you referring to this schema located in https://rapidapi.com/apihood/api/tides/endpoints? ``` { "type": "object", "properties": { "disclaimer": { "type": "string" }, "status": { "type": "integer" }, "latitude": { "type": "number" }, "longitude": { "type": "number" }, "origin": { "type": "object", "properties": { "latitude": { "type": "number" }, "longitude": { "type": "number" }, "distance": { "type": "number" }, "unit": { "type": "string" } } }, "datums": { "type": "object", "properties": { "LAT": { "type": "number" }, "HAT": { "type": "number" } } }, "timestamp": { "type": "integer" }, "datetime": { "type": "string" }, "unit": { "type": "string" }, "timezone": { "type": "string" }, "datum": { "type": "string" }, "extremes": { "type": "array", "items": { "type": "object", "properties": { "timestamp": { "type": "integer" }, "datetime": { "type": "string" }, "height": { "type": "number" }, "state": { "type": "string" } } } }, "heights": { "type": "array", "items": { "type": "object", "properties": { "timestamp": { "type": "integer" }, "datetime": { "type": "string" }, "height": { "type": "number" }, "state": { "type": "string" } } } }, "copyright": { "type": "string" } } } ``` Thank you
lun 7:50 17/8/20
A
1
Hi Jean-Philippe, I'm not 100% sure what you have in mind. It seems that the page you linked is showing the value based on different reference water level (tidal datum). The API is using MSL (Mean Sea Level) and it seems that the page https://maree.shom.fr/harbor/LANILDUT/hlt/6?date=2020-06-20&utc=standard is using LAT (Lowest Astronomical Tide) as reference water level. But even when I convert the value to use LAT as reference water level (by adding LAT to the value) the values are slightly off (like half meter or so). Also please note that the prediction is calculated using mathematical model which doesn't take into account actual weather conditions and is calculated for place 5km away (you can check it using Marea website, which is using this API - https://marea.ooo/en/48.473738/-4.745571 ) . We are considering to add better predictions for places that have actual water level measurements available, but unfortunately for now we do not have any ETA for that..
sab 4:29 20/6/20