# UPDATE: Flows page updated with EddyFlower Flows



## Andy R (Jul 3, 2005)

I just wanted to let you know that Phateye was acquired by Eddy Flower and they have updated their section of our flows page to data coming from their database.

Here is a link to our flow page:
http://www.mountainbuzz.com/flows.php

Please report any bugs or new feature requests for that section to [email protected].

Click here to go to the Eddy Flower home page:
http://www.eddyflower.com


----------



## latenightjoneser (Feb 6, 2004)

Can you still access the old Phateye anywhere?


----------



## lotsawater (Nov 18, 2003)

LAME!


----------



## DanOrion (Jun 8, 2004)

Too much information. Liked Phateye for what it was, liked eddyflower for what it is. Eddyflower doesn't replace the simplicty of Phateye.


----------



## deepsouthpaddler (Apr 14, 2004)

I personally liked the old flows as they were sorted by drainage, not alphabetical, and it was easier to make sense of what was happening geographically with tributaries etc. I agree with Dan, too much info in once clustered space. 

It would be nice to have links to both a simple flows page that was color coded like the old one, and keep the run descriptions separate. 

The other problem with the eddyflower flows is that there are a number of gauges that don't work (poudre), lots of "visual", and some empty spots. Day to day during kayaking season, the flows page is probably what we use the most. Making it user friendly and simple like the old one was top notch and the interface did not need to be improved in my opinion. 

I think a potential improvement would be listing the low, medium, and high levels so that folks can see what the values for the color coding are.

Bring back the flows!


----------



## danger (Oct 13, 2003)

organized by drainage was better. 

-dan


----------



## paulh (Mar 12, 2004)

Yo buzzards!

Keep the feedback comin'! We've got time to make the flows tight before spring run off. 

Try out the My Favorites feature which allows you to select exactly which runs you want listed i.e. remove runs with visual gauges or no flows. Mouse over the flow level to get the Flow Level Legend, if you prefer we can add the legend to the bottom of the page. As for Drainage that is a bit sticky...some love drainage some don't...we have "Location" displayed. We can easily add a drainage column and sort by drainage if that's the call.

Paul (eddyflower guy)


----------



## Dave Frank (Oct 14, 2003)

Another vote for by drainages. Also flows need to be seperated from the full list of runs. That is just too much beta.

Obviously any of us who use it much will work on a favorite list to view and it will be better still. 

But for people who dont take the time to set that up, a list more silmilar to the original would be best.

I actually think I might prefer the original list even to a well organized favorites. I like to run through the state by drainage. Even though i wont be headed to many of the places regularly, and might not include them in my favorites, it is nice to see how the state is "running off".

Dave


----------



## COUNT (Jul 5, 2005)

I agree that I liked the general layout of the old system better. Definately sort by drainage. I also agree that you don't need a gauge for every individual section as it makes it appear overcrowded and is difficult to read. It'd be better to just list one gauge for multiple sections, i.e. having a separate flow listed for the Upper, Middle, and Lower Narrows is unnecessary.

COUNT


----------



## etnguppys (Nov 11, 2005)

*Drainage*

I like by drainage. - It makes more sense to my small weasle brain.


----------



## rivergod (May 26, 2004)

*Snow-tell analysis graphs*

I've noted that the link on the flows page takes you places that haven't been updated since last year. Here is a new equivelent link...

http://www.co.nrcs.usda.gov/snow/snow/watershed/current/daily/maps_graphs/swe_hilo.html


----------



## paulh (Mar 12, 2004)

I'm hearing you guys loud and clear. Not a problem, we'll work on it and have something up in a week or two for more feedback. 

Any suggestions on improving the old model?


----------



## DanOrion (Jun 8, 2004)

Have a 3-day running average flow along with the instanteneous. I ususally look at the graph to see if flows are coming up or dropping down, this would save me a step. Having both flows, however could be confusing for some. :roll:


----------



## sj (Aug 13, 2004)

By Drainage and what Dan said please. sj


----------



## latenightjoneser (Feb 6, 2004)

You might cross-reference CRC I and II to get all the runs up.

I don't see Steamboat town run (Yampa @ Stmbt) on the list. Maybe I missed it.

You could add the Slater Creek

http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/co/nwis/uv/?site_no=09255000&PARAmeter_cd=00065,00060


Elkhead Creek

http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/co/nwis/uv/?site_no=09246200&PARAmeter_cd=00065,00060

and Little Snake gauges

http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/co/nwis/uv/?site_no=09253000&PARAmeter_cd=00065,00060

These may be obscure, but who cares. 

Also, you don't have to change the Eddyflower page if you creat a column that listed "Drainage". If you could click on the heading and sort by drainage, that would do the trick for me.


----------



## deepstroke (Apr 3, 2005)

Another vote for categories by drainage. I'd also like to see the Northern N.M. runs previously listed be part of the default setting. Not the scenic floats on Eddyflower, but the goods- Embudo, Pueblo, UTB, LTB, Pilar.


----------



## craporadon (Feb 27, 2006)

Barrel Springs is listed as medium, maybe it's medium if you're GI Joe. There's about 40 cfs in there. If you can get the reading for the SHoshone Power Plant and subtract that from Colorado at Dotsero you would have the flow in Barrel. X-cel energy probably has that info available. If they don't have real-time they would have historical and you could just make a spreadsheet of average historical and subtract that.


----------



## craporadon (Feb 27, 2006)

Paul

The site looks pretty sick. The name is not very though, maybe there could be 2 versions, Eddy FLower and Bad Ass *****'s on the River. Anyway I tried to search California Class V+ and it crashed. That is pretty much the most important search in the Western US, your site should stick that one. Plus your Montana section is pretty weak. Overall I'm impressed.


----------



## GoodTimes (Mar 9, 2006)

That's funny shit crapo. I like it.

Just another vote for "by drainage".


----------



## badkins (Oct 30, 2003)

*good concept but it needs a lot of work*

Yeah I'll second the vote for getting rid of all the visual guages. No need for them. Removing all the duplicate gauges would also clean up a lot of the clutter, have one gauge linked to several runs instead of each run indavidually linked to the same guage. Or something like that. Maybe you could add a link to the "classic" flow page. Same comments for the PDA flow page, honestly way too cluttered. The one feature I really do like is to filter by level. Then the gauges are listed descending from the highest levels.


----------



## N. Wigston (Nov 5, 2003)

I'm going to go ahead and say that the new flows are sweet. I prefer them organized by drainage or region, but I think it is awesome that it tells you the difficulty of the run and you can get a link to a description with photos. Phateye flows didn't even really tell you what run the guage was for, and the ones they did were only class 3 runs since it wasn't updated since Chris Webster ran them in his Dancer. Eddyflower's flows are much more updated with new guages and new runs. Nice work Paul. Organize it by drainage though you douche bag.


----------



## blutzski (Mar 31, 2004)

Yeah, What Nick said. Overall I think it's a big improvement. It just needs to be sorted by drainage.


----------



## paulh (Mar 12, 2004)

We added a drainage column and sorted the flows by drainage just to see what everyone thinks.

Things to consider...post your opinions.
1. Remove runs that have visual gauges?
2. Go back to a more classic look...a few cons to this but very doable?
3. Add a 3 day running average, need specifics on this.
4. Rename eddyflower to Bad Ass N... 
5. Add New Mexico runs...no problem, we can add as many runs as you guys want.

Any other suggestions?


----------



## COUNT (Jul 5, 2005)

I like what you've got here, Paul. One thing I liked with the old setup (just for aesthetic and ease of use purposes) that you don't have is the visual separation between drainages (there was that grey bar across the page between every drainage).

1.I think that removing the visual gauge runs is a good idea but I think it would be even cooler if people (or only certain designated people) could go in and post the current level, along with the date observed for any of these runs. Kind of a Rock Report style setup.

2.I like the new look (and it would be even better with the graphical separation of drainages, as mentioned above). Personally, I don't think you need to change it back to the old style.

3.The 3 day running average is kind of a neat idea and I like it but I would be concerned that it would crowd and confuse the page.

4.I second the motion to rename EddyFlower Bad Ass ****** on the River.    

5.Definately add at least the classic Northern New Mexico runs. I'd also like to see a couple of the Southern Wyoming runs (Bluegrass, etc.) added.

I think having the ability to also sort runs by flow/level is an awesome idea, too. All in all, I like the new Flows page (having run description links on with the flows is awesome) and I can't wait to be using this spring.

COUNT


----------



## natebone (Jul 26, 2005)

That is good feedback. I'm the one who'll be making the changes to eddyflower and I appreciate these detailed responses.

A few questions if you don't mind clarifying...

Drainage Separator Bars
These would only be visible when sorting by drainage and would disappear when you manually sort on anything else by clicking a column header? Do you mean completely remove the ability to sort manually by adding fixed drainage sections?

Grouping Runs by Gauge
In looking through the data we have on file, I found examples where there are some runs that use the same gauge where a 'low' level on one run might be a 'too low' level on another run. (even though the same amount of water is flowing through both) Lower East and Early Bird Falls on the East River are good examples of this. What would you picture doing with the 'level' indicator in this situation?


----------



## deepsouthpaddler (Apr 14, 2004)

Are you making a flows page that will be separate from the eddyflower river info page? If so, deleting the visual gauges, and keeping only the number of guages needed to figure our whats happening to the main runs like the old one is the trick. In my opinion, the old flows page was the best that I have run across on the internet. Short, sweet, to the point, just what you need, and I know where to go digging for USGS data when I want more. 

One other wish is to figure out a way to get the poudre rock report email to be auto-updated on the flows page. Gauge height would be great. 

Why not have an old style flows page for just flows and then link the "runs" for each section of river to the eddyflower page for river runs.


----------



## andy (Oct 13, 2003)

I like it. Only a few suggestions/comments.

Make the actual gauge link a small icon instead of the gauge name. It takes up too much space.

Make the flow column larger text so it is easier to see the actual CFS numbers.


When you mouse over the level indicator column (far right), it's kind of annoying that the level definitions pop up all the time.


----------



## GoodTimes (Mar 9, 2006)

Gotta say that I love it.....really looking forward to seeing the right side light up with some color. Filtering is kick ass.

One suggestion that I believe was already mentioned. A space or "bar" between rivers (for ex. One blank line btwn the last Ark. and the first Poudre). I think it'll help a lot when there are colors and numbers flying around.

Love the detail....great job.....

EddyFlower -> BANOR (Bad Ass *****'s On the River) report


----------



## DanOrion (Jun 8, 2004)

A three day running average would probably clutter the page. A three day running average is calculated as (sum of flow measurements during past 72 hours) / (number of measurements). Technical analysis of stocks and runoff are pretty much the same. :roll: I'm looking forward to the board lighting up with "winners." Ark at granite 2700? oh fuck yeah, I'm callin in well.

-Dan


----------



## Guest (Jan 16, 2007)

If I was really dreaming and this is possible with some computer savy folks, how about some sort of feature that automatically pulls the time of day and flow which the river peaks at each day? I know if you go into the graph anyone can figure it out, but it could be another cool improvement. Some of those high alpine snow fed creeks fluctuate so much it really depends what time of day you put on.

The Steamboat hole sometimes increases by like 20-30 percent oer the course of a few hours, same with Fish Creek. Non-locals do not know this fact, could tip em off though.

Nick


----------



## COUNT (Jul 5, 2005)

Keep the filtering options; those are pretty cool. When I say "drainage separator bar" I just mean some visual way of separating the drainages on the list (that only shows when sorted by drainage). In the old setup this was a gray bar across the page between the last run of one drainage and the first run of another. A couple of black lines or a change in text color would also do the same thing.

Sorting by flows would be awesome but, as you said, there are a couple of things that make this a little tricky. One of the big issues is that you can't just list them by cfs because you will have runs like Westwater that are low at 2500 while runs like Blackrock that are raging at 2000 are listed lower. It seems to me that the best way to do it would be to sort so that all of the runs listed as High show at the top, followed by Medium, Low, etc. Then within the block of runs listed as High, you could sort those by cfs/gauge height.

COUNT


----------



## BKC (Apr 18, 2004)

*Flow page*

Hey Paul. I'd have to say I like the changes also. Like Nick's idea of the ideal flow time for rivers and the flexibility to see the information how I would like. I agree with some color changes to make it easier to read but I am sure you are bustin' on something like that already. From a bigger picture concept and especially in the winter time I like being able to read the descriptions of rivers, whether here in CO or another state, easily from the flow page. I like the idea of people posting updates on non-gauge runs also. I also like how you can customize the view. Keep it up!


----------



## paulh (Mar 12, 2004)

*Flows Only Check Box*

We have added a new feature to the flows page. You can now check the "Flows Only" check box which removes all runs with "Visual" gauges. Your setting will be remembered the next time you visit the flow page. Let me know if you have any problems with it.

Next on the to do list is the "drainage separator bar".


----------



## paulh (Mar 12, 2004)

*New Runs / Guages*

We have added 3 new CO runs with gauges.
- Slater
- Elkhead
- Steamboat Town Run

If you would like to add a run, flow levels or have pictures/video send me an email.

[email protected]


----------



## Schizzle (Mar 26, 2004)

Sorry if this is a repeat to someone else's critique.

I think the new flows page is really hard to read. Too much information. Drop the location because I don't care what town is nearby. Move the level and the flow over next to the class and move the gauge to the far right. You may even want to drop the class altogether as you can drill down to that if you don't already know it.

This would have the effect of visually bringing the flow info closer to the river and the run name. I also think a different background color for each drainage (not river), could also help break it up a bit.


----------



## TheKid (Aug 25, 2004)

Paul we need a union gauge!!!


----------



## brendodendo (Jul 18, 2004)

Just a quick imput. Half the runs for the Crystal River are in the Crystal River Section. The other half are under Roaring Fork Crystal River. This is very confusing in its organization. I like the page, but there is so much to process. This is probably good for people doing research on our state, but it would be nice if we (on the buzz) could narrow down the fields as stated above.

Mtn Buzz Admin... When I open the Phlows page, It asks me to download a file ftp://ftp.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov . Downloads as a notepad file named "co". What the deal? 

Bring on the Snow!-)


----------



## paulh (Mar 12, 2004)

*Crystal or Roaring Fork*

Let me know if any of these runs are in the wrong drainage:

CRYSTAL
- Avalanche to BRB
- Bogan Canyon
- Crystal Gorge
- Crystal Mill Falls
- East Fork Crystal
- Meatgrinder
- Narrows
- North Fork of the Crystal
- South Fork Crystal
- Yule Creek

ROARING FORK
- Basalt to Carbondale
- Castle Creek
- Cemetary
- Lower Fryingpan
- Lower Gorge (Rock Creek)	
- Slaughterhouse
- Upper Fryingpan
- Upper Gorge (Rock Creek
- Upper Roaring Fork
- Upper Woody


----------



## COUNT (Jul 5, 2005)

Brendo, I have never had, seen, or heard of that problem. Wish I could help. Maybe Paul or Andy knows more?

COUNT


----------



## paulh (Mar 12, 2004)

*Union Chutes Gauge*

Yo Kid...we added the Union Chutes run and linked it to the USGS 06710247 SOUTH PLATTE RIVER BELOW UNION AVE, AT ENGLEWOOD,CO.

Here is a link to the run - http://www.eddyflower.com/RunDetail.aspx?RunId=524

Enjoy!


----------



## Andy R (Jul 3, 2005)

I will look into the download issue...


----------



## brendodendo (Jul 18, 2004)

PaulH, As fas as can tell the list looks correct.

Andy, I'll try pm'n you a screen shot of the message.


----------



## Buenyjohn (Oct 27, 2021)

Can’t get to flows page!



Andy R said:


> I just wanted to let you know that Phateye was acquired by Eddy Flower and they have updated their section of our flows page to data coming from their database.
> 
> Here is a link to our flow page:
> http://www.mountainbuzz.com/flows.php
> ...


----------



## mkashzg (Aug 9, 2006)

Buenyjohn said:


> Can’t get to flows page!


You found a post that is almost 15 years old so not sure any of that information is still valid.


----------

