That guide could use about 20 more examples… 
It’s a wiki! Please contribute to it as much as you can 
2 Likes
@pierros, ok I added a bunch more waterfalls, and put them on a new page. These waterfalls are “new” too, the ones in the current wiki look like they are from a previous generation of software (?). I think many of the wiki pages are too long and should probably be broken into multiple pages. I haven’t added much text, but it’s a start:
5 Likes
Nice work @jebba ! Any idea how we can add some descriptions to those? (e.g. why they are what they are)
1 Like
why is this a “failed” observation?
https://wiki.satnogs.org/File:Waterfall_1484539_2020-01-03T13-22-00.png
I frequently have observations like this when I am working APRS sats on 145.825. The fact that there are weaker signals in there seems to indicate that the station was working just fine except for the more than likely local strong interference.
1 Like
@k3rld Ya, it looks like there is a satellite signal, but my understanding is if there is strong local interference, it is a failed observation. I could be wrong about all of them though, so I’d definitely like feedback. I have a lot more corner cases I can upload as well.
@pierros I was trying to figure out the best layout for them. I think it is easiest to just add to the caption where it just says “Observation 1234567” now. I kind of like the gallery layout with one huge image because you really have to see them full size. Any other wiki layout suggestions appreciated.
Ok, I added a bunch more waterfalls here:
https://wiki.satnogs.org/Rating_Observations
Many of them were the more difficult to classify waterfalls (at least for me). Also, searching through others’ observations, I’ve noticed the ratings overall aren’t very consistent.
So at the bottom I have a new “Possibly” section with waterfalls I rated, but I’m not very certain about the rating. If someone that knows more wants to confirm the ratings here or in the wiki, that’d be just swell. Then I’ll move them to the correct spot in the wiki. Thanks!
I also added a new page to help visualize the differences between different transmitters:
1 Like
Yes, many observations may contain local interference, but if the satellite signal is still visible, then it should still be considered good.
This particular observation is of LilacSat-2, observed by a station in the US, on 144.390 MHz. This frequency is the US-wide APRS frequency, not specifically for satellite use. All the signals in the waterfall are most likely terrestrial APRS stations. I don’t see any clear evidence of a satellite signal, so i would consider the observation to be bad, not failed. The station is clearly receiving fine, it’s just the satellite signal wasn’t present.
1 Like
Ok, I changed 1484539 of LilacSat-2 to “bad”. Thanks!