Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > uk.comp.sys.mac > #182121 > unrolled thread

Illegal weather forecast website?

Back to article view | Back to uk.comp.sys.mac

Contents

  Illegal weather forecast website? liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2025-10-24 15:14 +0100
    Re: Illegal weather forecast website? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2025-10-24 15:40 +0100
      Re: Illegal weather forecast website? liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2025-10-24 17:48 +0100
    Re: Illegal weather forecast website? Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-10-24 17:06 +0200
      Re: Illegal weather forecast website? liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2025-10-25 09:30 +0100
    Re: Illegal weather forecast website? Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> - 2025-10-24 16:08 +0100
      Re: Illegal weather forecast website? liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2025-10-24 17:48 +0100
        Re: Illegal weather forecast website? Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-10-24 21:38 +0200
        Re: Illegal weather forecast website? Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> - 2025-10-24 20:46 +0100
    Re: Illegal weather forecast website? richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) - 2025-10-24 17:13 +0000
      Re: Illegal weather forecast website? liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2025-10-25 09:30 +0100
        Re: Illegal weather forecast website? richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) - 2025-10-25 11:23 +0000
    Re: Illegal weather forecast website? Bruce <07.013@scorecrow.com> - 2025-10-24 21:59 +0100
      Re: Illegal weather forecast website? Alan B <alanrichardbarker@gmail.com.invalid> - 2025-10-25 07:55 +0000
        Re: Illegal weather forecast website? John Hill <watcombeman@yahoo.co.uk> - 2025-10-26 07:59 +0000
          Re: Illegal weather forecast website? "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> - 2025-10-26 08:13 +0000
        Re: Illegal weather forecast website? Alan B <alanrichardbarker@gmail.com.invalid> - 2025-10-29 11:22 +0000
      Re: Illegal weather forecast website? liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2025-10-25 09:30 +0100
        Re: Illegal weather forecast website? "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> - 2025-10-25 12:06 +0100
    Re: Illegal weather forecast website? Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-10-26 08:06 +0000
      Re: Illegal weather forecast website? Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2025-10-26 10:23 +0000
        Re: Illegal weather forecast website? Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-10-26 21:05 +0000
    Re: Illegal weather forecast website? liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2025-10-27 08:44 +0000
      Re: Illegal weather forecast website? RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> - 2025-10-27 09:27 +0000
        Re: Illegal weather forecast website? Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-10-28 11:28 +0000
          Re: Illegal weather forecast website? Alan B <alanrichardbarker@gmail.com.invalid> - 2025-10-28 11:41 +0000
            Re: Illegal weather forecast website? "David B." <BD@hotmail.co.uk> - 2025-10-28 14:02 +0000
            Re: Illegal weather forecast website? Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> - 2025-10-28 14:55 +0000
              Re: Illegal weather forecast website? Alan B <alanrichardbarker@gmail.com.invalid> - 2025-10-28 15:01 +0000
                Re: Illegal weather forecast website? Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> - 2025-10-29 08:11 +0000
                  Re: Illegal weather forecast website? Alan B <alanrichardbarker@gmail.com.invalid> - 2025-10-29 11:30 +0000
                    Re: Illegal weather forecast website? Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> - 2025-10-29 13:02 +0000
                      Re: Illegal weather forecast website? Alan B <alanrichardbarker@gmail.com.invalid> - 2025-10-29 14:33 +0000
          Re: Illegal weather forecast website? Andy H <thewildrover@icloud.com> - 2025-10-29 22:44 +0000
            Re: Illegal weather forecast website? Bernd Froehlich <befr@eaglesoft.de> - 2025-10-30 07:38 +0000
              Re: Illegal weather forecast website? Andy H <thewildrover@icloud.com> - 2025-10-31 06:41 +0000

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#182147

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have noticed an increasing trend with some sites, particularly news, that
> require you to either get a subscription or accept all cookies. 
> 
> Not sure whether that's illegal or not and possibly a wrinkle that's
> allowed since brexit. 

The ICO recently ruled that 'consent or pay' is legal:
https://cy.ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/online-tracking/consent-or-pay/

So of course everyone's at it.

Theo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182148

Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I have noticed an increasing trend with some sites, particularly news, that
>> require you to either get a subscription or accept all cookies. 
>> 
>> Not sure whether that's illegal or not and possibly a wrinkle that's
>> allowed since brexit. 
> 
> The ICO recently ruled that 'consent or pay' is legal:
> https://cy.ico.org.uk/for-organisations/uk-gdpr-guidance-and-resources/online-tracking/consent-or-pay/
> 
> So of course everyone's at it.
> 

That explains it. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182149

Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:

> Selecting my local area from the Met Office website:
> 
> https://weather.metoffice.gov.uk/
> 
> used to display a fairly comprehensive weather foracast, today it
> displayed a huge animation of clouds and a useless summary.  It also
> displayed a message that if I wanted to see more information I would
> have to turn on cookies.
> 
> Surely this is illegal; the information displayed should be the same
> regardless of the choice of cookies.

I've looked around at other weather forecasts and found that
netweather.tv has less eye candy and gives more comprehensive
information in fewer pages than the Met Office.  If it proves to be
reasonably accurate, I'll stick with netweather from now on.



-- 
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182150

On 27 Oct 2025 at 08:44:45 GMT, Liz Tuddenham wrote:

> Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Selecting my local area from the Met Office website:
>> 
>> https://weather.metoffice.gov.uk/
>> 
>> used to display a fairly comprehensive weather foracast, today it
>> displayed a huge animation of clouds and a useless summary.  It also
>> displayed a message that if I wanted to see more information I would
>> have to turn on cookies.
>> 
>> Surely this is illegal; the information displayed should be the same
>> regardless of the choice of cookies.
> 
> I've looked around at other weather forecasts and found that
> netweather.tv has less eye candy and gives more comprehensive
> information in fewer pages than the Met Office.  If it proves to be
> reasonably accurate, I'll stick with netweather from now on.

A bit pared back for me. I've used Windy

https://www.windy.com

for a while, and still use the Met Office despite the new design.

Pic of the phone apps is Apple's Weather app.
-- 
Cheers, Rob, Sheffield UK

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182156

RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
> On 27 Oct 2025 at 08:44:45 GMT, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
> 
>> Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> Selecting my local area from the Met Office website:
>>> 
>>> https://weather.metoffice.gov.uk/
>>> 
>>> used to display a fairly comprehensive weather foracast, today it
>>> displayed a huge animation of clouds and a useless summary.  It also
>>> displayed a message that if I wanted to see more information I would
>>> have to turn on cookies.
>>> 
>>> Surely this is illegal; the information displayed should be the same
>>> regardless of the choice of cookies.
>> 
>> I've looked around at other weather forecasts and found that
>> netweather.tv has less eye candy and gives more comprehensive
>> information in fewer pages than the Met Office.  If it proves to be
>> reasonably accurate, I'll stick with netweather from now on.
> 
> A bit pared back for me. I've used Windy
> 
> https://www.windy.com
> 
> for a while, and still use the Met Office despite the new design.
> 
> Pic of the phone apps is Apple's Weather app.

I don't find the Apple Weather to be very accurate. I've been using Yr
recently which been better. Looks good too. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182157

On 2025-10-28, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
> RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
>> On 27 Oct 2025 at 08:44:45 GMT, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
>> 
>>> Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Selecting my local area from the Met Office website:
>>>> 
>>>> https://weather.metoffice.gov.uk/
>>>> 
>>>> used to display a fairly comprehensive weather foracast, today it
>>>> displayed a huge animation of clouds and a useless summary.  It also
>>>> displayed a message that if I wanted to see more information I would
>>>> have to turn on cookies.
>>>> 
>>>> Surely this is illegal; the information displayed should be the same
>>>> regardless of the choice of cookies.
>>> 
>>> I've looked around at other weather forecasts and found that
>>> netweather.tv has less eye candy and gives more comprehensive
>>> information in fewer pages than the Met Office.  If it proves to be
>>> reasonably accurate, I'll stick with netweather from now on.
>> 
>> A bit pared back for me. I've used Windy
>> 
>> https://www.windy.com
>> 
>> for a while, and still use the Met Office despite the new design.
>> 
>> Pic of the phone apps is Apple's Weather app.
>
> I don't find the Apple Weather to be very accurate. I've been using Yr
> recently which been better. Looks good too. 

I don't find any of these forecasting sites particularly good. There's
too much reliance on satellite data rather than ground observations 
by humans and automatic sites especially when it comes to local area 
forecasts.

-- 
Cheers, Alan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182158

On 28/10/2025 11:41, Alan B wrote:

> I don't find any of these forecasting sites particularly good. There's
> too much reliance on satellite data rather than ground observations
> by humans and automatic sites especially when it comes to local area
> forecasts.

This is just about as good as it gets!

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk

What do YOU think is missing?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182160

On 28/10/2025 11:41, Alan B wrote:
> On 2025-10-28, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>> RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
>>> On 27 Oct 2025 at 08:44:45 GMT, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
>>>
>>>> Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Selecting my local area from the Met Office website:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://weather.metoffice.gov.uk/
>>>>>
>>>>> used to display a fairly comprehensive weather foracast, today it
>>>>> displayed a huge animation of clouds and a useless summary.  It also
>>>>> displayed a message that if I wanted to see more information I would
>>>>> have to turn on cookies.
>>>>>
>>>>> Surely this is illegal; the information displayed should be the same
>>>>> regardless of the choice of cookies.
>>>>
>>>> I've looked around at other weather forecasts and found that
>>>> netweather.tv has less eye candy and gives more comprehensive
>>>> information in fewer pages than the Met Office.  If it proves to be
>>>> reasonably accurate, I'll stick with netweather from now on.
>>>
>>> A bit pared back for me. I've used Windy
>>>
>>> https://www.windy.com
>>>
>>> for a while, and still use the Met Office despite the new design.
>>>
>>> Pic of the phone apps is Apple's Weather app.
>>
>> I don't find the Apple Weather to be very accurate. I've been using Yr
>> recently which been better. Looks good too.
> 
> I don't find any of these forecasting sites particularly good. There's
> too much reliance on satellite data rather than ground observations
> by humans and automatic sites especially when it comes to local area
> forecasts.
> 

Most of the ground observations are done by automatic sites these days!

-- 
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182161

On 28 Oct 2025 at 14:55:05 GMT, "Graeme Wall" <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

> On 28/10/2025 11:41, Alan B wrote:
>> On 2025-10-28, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>> On 27 Oct 2025 at 08:44:45 GMT, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Selecting my local area from the Met Office website:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> <https://weather.metoffice.gov.uk/>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> used to display a fairly comprehensive weather foracast, today it
>>>>>> displayed a huge animation of clouds and a useless summary.  It also
>>>>>> displayed a message that if I wanted to see more information I would
>>>>>> have to turn on cookies.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Surely this is illegal; the information displayed should be the same
>>>>>> regardless of the choice of cookies.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I've looked around at other weather forecasts and found that
>>>>> <netweather.tv> has less eye candy and gives more comprehensive
>>>>> information in fewer pages than the Met Office.  If it proves to be
>>>>> reasonably accurate, I'll stick with netweather from now on.
>>>> 
>>>> A bit pared back for me. I've used Windy
>>>> 
>>>> <https://www.windy.com>
>>>> 
>>>> for a while, and still use the Met Office despite the new design.
>>>> 
>>>> Pic of the phone apps is Apple's Weather app.
>>> 
>>> I don't find the Apple Weather to be very accurate. I've been using Yr
>>> recently which been better. Looks good too.
>> 
>> I don't find any of these forecasting sites particularly good. There's
>> too much reliance on satellite data rather than ground observations
>> by humans and automatic sites especially when it comes to local area
>> forecasts.
>> 
> 
> Most of the ground observations are done by automatic sites these days!

Yes I know and they can give accurate readings of air temperature,
humidity/dew point , atmospheric pressure, rainfall, wind speed plus any other
data not needing human interaction. Automatically reporting visibility and
cloud data must be more difficult though.

-- 
Cheers, Alan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182164

On 28/10/2025 15:01, Alan B wrote:
> On 28 Oct 2025 at 14:55:05 GMT, "Graeme Wall" <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
> 
>> On 28/10/2025 11:41, Alan B wrote:
>>> On 2025-10-28, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 27 Oct 2025 at 08:44:45 GMT, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Selecting my local area from the Met Office website:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <https://weather.metoffice.gov.uk/>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> used to display a fairly comprehensive weather foracast, today it
>>>>>>> displayed a huge animation of clouds and a useless summary.  It also
>>>>>>> displayed a message that if I wanted to see more information I would
>>>>>>> have to turn on cookies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Surely this is illegal; the information displayed should be the same
>>>>>>> regardless of the choice of cookies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've looked around at other weather forecasts and found that
>>>>>> <netweather.tv> has less eye candy and gives more comprehensive
>>>>>> information in fewer pages than the Met Office.  If it proves to be
>>>>>> reasonably accurate, I'll stick with netweather from now on.
>>>>>
>>>>> A bit pared back for me. I've used Windy
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.windy.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> for a while, and still use the Met Office despite the new design.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pic of the phone apps is Apple's Weather app.
>>>>
>>>> I don't find the Apple Weather to be very accurate. I've been using Yr
>>>> recently which been better. Looks good too.
>>>
>>> I don't find any of these forecasting sites particularly good. There's
>>> too much reliance on satellite data rather than ground observations
>>> by humans and automatic sites especially when it comes to local area
>>> forecasts.
>>>
>>
>> Most of the ground observations are done by automatic sites these days!
> 
> Yes I know and they can give accurate readings of air temperature,
> humidity/dew point , atmospheric pressure, rainfall, wind speed plus any other
> data not needing human interaction. Automatically reporting visibility and
> cloud data must be more difficult though.
> 

Visibility is fairly easy, IIRC it is done by measuring the drop in 
intensity of a light beam over a measured distance. Types of cloud is 
the one thing that I believe still needs a human observer.

Full disclosure: my father was a meteorologist and his last job before 
he retired was organising the setting up of automatic weather stations 
round the world.

-- 
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182166

On 2025-10-29, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 28/10/2025 15:01, Alan B wrote:
>> On 28 Oct 2025 at 14:55:05 GMT, "Graeme Wall" <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 28/10/2025 11:41, Alan B wrote:
>>>> On 2025-10-28, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 27 Oct 2025 at 08:44:45 GMT, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Selecting my local area from the Met Office website:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <https://weather.metoffice.gov.uk/>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> used to display a fairly comprehensive weather foracast, today it
>>>>>>>> displayed a huge animation of clouds and a useless summary.  It also
>>>>>>>> displayed a message that if I wanted to see more information I would
>>>>>>>> have to turn on cookies.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Surely this is illegal; the information displayed should be the same
>>>>>>>> regardless of the choice of cookies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've looked around at other weather forecasts and found that
>>>>>>> <netweather.tv> has less eye candy and gives more comprehensive
>>>>>>> information in fewer pages than the Met Office.  If it proves to be
>>>>>>> reasonably accurate, I'll stick with netweather from now on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A bit pared back for me. I've used Windy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://www.windy.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> for a while, and still use the Met Office despite the new design.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pic of the phone apps is Apple's Weather app.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't find the Apple Weather to be very accurate. I've been using Yr
>>>>> recently which been better. Looks good too.
>>>>
>>>> I don't find any of these forecasting sites particularly good. There's
>>>> too much reliance on satellite data rather than ground observations
>>>> by humans and automatic sites especially when it comes to local area
>>>> forecasts.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Most of the ground observations are done by automatic sites these days!
>> 
>> Yes I know and they can give accurate readings of air temperature,
>> humidity/dew point , atmospheric pressure, rainfall, wind speed plus any other
>> data not needing human interaction. Automatically reporting visibility and
>> cloud data must be more difficult though.
>> 
>
> Visibility is fairly easy, IIRC it is done by measuring the drop in 
> intensity of a light beam over a measured distance. 

I wonder if it can distinguish smoke or other pollutants from water
droplets in mist/fog/rain etc.

> Full disclosure: my father was a meteorologist and his last job before 
> he retired was organising the setting up of automatic weather stations 
> round the world.

Years ago I bought a cheap PWS but it got wrecked in a gale!

-- 
Cheers, Alan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182168

On 29/10/2025 11:30, Alan B wrote:
> On 2025-10-29, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 28/10/2025 15:01, Alan B wrote:
>>> On 28 Oct 2025 at 14:55:05 GMT, "Graeme Wall" <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 28/10/2025 11:41, Alan B wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-10-28, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 27 Oct 2025 at 08:44:45 GMT, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Selecting my local area from the Met Office website:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <https://weather.metoffice.gov.uk/>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> used to display a fairly comprehensive weather foracast, today it
>>>>>>>>> displayed a huge animation of clouds and a useless summary.  It also
>>>>>>>>> displayed a message that if I wanted to see more information I would
>>>>>>>>> have to turn on cookies.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Surely this is illegal; the information displayed should be the same
>>>>>>>>> regardless of the choice of cookies.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've looked around at other weather forecasts and found that
>>>>>>>> <netweather.tv> has less eye candy and gives more comprehensive
>>>>>>>> information in fewer pages than the Met Office.  If it proves to be
>>>>>>>> reasonably accurate, I'll stick with netweather from now on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A bit pared back for me. I've used Windy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <https://www.windy.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> for a while, and still use the Met Office despite the new design.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pic of the phone apps is Apple's Weather app.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't find the Apple Weather to be very accurate. I've been using Yr
>>>>>> recently which been better. Looks good too.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't find any of these forecasting sites particularly good. There's
>>>>> too much reliance on satellite data rather than ground observations
>>>>> by humans and automatic sites especially when it comes to local area
>>>>> forecasts.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Most of the ground observations are done by automatic sites these days!
>>>
>>> Yes I know and they can give accurate readings of air temperature,
>>> humidity/dew point , atmospheric pressure, rainfall, wind speed plus any other
>>> data not needing human interaction. Automatically reporting visibility and
>>> cloud data must be more difficult though.
>>>
>>
>> Visibility is fairly easy, IIRC it is done by measuring the drop in
>> intensity of a light beam over a measured distance.
> 
> I wonder if it can distinguish smoke or other pollutants from water
> droplets in mist/fog/rain etc.

Possibly, the dispersal pattens would be different.

> 
>> Full disclosure: my father was a meteorologist and his last job before
>> he retired was organising the setting up of automatic weather stations
>> round the world.
> 
> Years ago I bought a cheap PWS but it got wrecked in a gale!
> 

Hopefully not one of his :-)
-- 
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182169

On 2025-10-29, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

[snip]

>>> Full disclosure: my father was a meteorologist and his last job before
>>> he retired was organising the setting up of automatic weather stations
>>> round the world.
>> 
>> Years ago I bought a cheap PWS but it got wrecked in a gale!
>> 
>
> Hopefully not one of his :-)

I don't think so. It was bought as a present from a Clas Ohlson store
(remember them? by a relative and was pretty basic.

-- 
Cheers, Alan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182174

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
> RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
>> On 27 Oct 2025 at 08:44:45 GMT, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
>> 
>>> Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Selecting my local area from the Met Office website:
>>>> 
>>>> https://weather.metoffice.gov.uk/
>>>> 
>>>> used to display a fairly comprehensive weather foracast, today it
>>>> displayed a huge animation of clouds and a useless summary.  It also
>>>> displayed a message that if I wanted to see more information I would
>>>> have to turn on cookies.
>>>> 
>>>> Surely this is illegal; the information displayed should be the same
>>>> regardless of the choice of cookies.
>>> 
>>> I've looked around at other weather forecasts and found that
>>> netweather.tv has less eye candy and gives more comprehensive
>>> information in fewer pages than the Met Office.  If it proves to be
>>> reasonably accurate, I'll stick with netweather from now on.
>> 
>> A bit pared back for me. I've used Windy
>> 
>> https://www.windy.com
>> 
>> for a while, and still use the Met Office despite the new design.
>> 
>> Pic of the phone apps is Apple's Weather app.
> 
> I don't find the Apple Weather to be very accurate. I've been using Yr
> recently which been better. Looks good too. 

For a start I use Weather apps rather than the websites, so no issues with
cookies.

I work outdoors, and check weather apps a fair bit.

Certain things need consideration. No weather forecasts are accurate past a
day or two, and none are really accurate at a close local level.

However, overall, I do find the Apple Weather app isn’t too far off most of
the time. Enough so that it’s my default data on my phone and watch. I
tried some of the others, such as BBC and AccuWeather, but neither showed
significant improvement. The BBC one is about the same, and AccuWeather is
full of ads, unless you pay to subscribe.

The MetOffice app, to my surprise, and disappointment, is by far, and
consistently, the least accurate.

One other I’ve been trying is OpenWeather, which is fairly simplified, but
isn’t bad for accuracy. It’s open source and truly free as well.



-- 
Andy H

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182179

On 29. Oct 2025 at 23:44:15 CET, "Andy H" <thewildrover@icloud.com> wrote:

> However, overall, I do find the Apple Weather app isn’t too far off most of
> the time. Enough so that it’s my default data on my phone and watch. I
> tried some of the others, such as BBC and AccuWeather, but neither showed
> significant improvement. The BBC one is about the same, and AccuWeather is
> full of ads, unless you pay to subscribe.
> 
> The MetOffice app, to my surprise, and disappointment, is by far, and
> consistently, the least accurate.
> 
> One other I’ve been trying is OpenWeather, which is fairly simplified, but
> isn’t bad for accuracy. It’s open source and truly free as well.

Another one you could try is Yr.no.
As I´m spending most of my holidays in Norway I use it quite often.
It does not only cover Norway though, so you can use it anywhere.
And it´s free.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#182187

Bernd Froehlich <befr@eaglesoft.de> wrote:
> On 29. Oct 2025 at 23:44:15 CET, "Andy H" <thewildrover@icloud.com> wrote:
> 
>> However, overall, I do find the Apple Weather app isn’t too far off most of
>> the time. Enough so that it’s my default data on my phone and watch. I
>> tried some of the others, such as BBC and AccuWeather, but neither showed
>> significant improvement. The BBC one is about the same, and AccuWeather is
>> full of ads, unless you pay to subscribe.
>> 
>> The MetOffice app, to my surprise, and disappointment, is by far, and
>> consistently, the least accurate.
>> 
>> One other I’ve been trying is OpenWeather, which is fairly simplified, but
>> isn’t bad for accuracy. It’s open source and truly free as well.
> 
> Another one you could try is Yr.no.
> As I´m spending most of my holidays in Norway I use it quite often.
> It does not only cover Norway though, so you can use it anywhere.
> And it´s free.

That’s quite interesting, I had no idea such a thing existed. It doesn’t
show historical data outside Norway, and doesn’t sync between devices (I
suspect you have to be able to setup an NRK account for that). However,
considering it’s really meant for use in Norway, it offers quite a bit of
information in the UK too (and elsewhere of course). The watch app works
fine, but has limited data showing on the watch face complication.

Definitely worth downloading the app though.

Cheers.

-- 
Andy H

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | uk.comp.sys.mac

csiph-web