<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[Puget Sound expanded currents]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">Please expand the Current layer to include the entire Puget Sound down to Seattle</p>
]]></description><link>https://community.windy.com/topic/33139/puget-sound-expanded-currents</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 May 2026 10:39:07 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://community.windy.com/topic/33139.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Wed, 15 May 2024 15:20:11 GMT</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Puget Sound expanded currents on Wed, 15 May 2024 17:38:58 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto"><a class="plugin-mentions-user plugin-mentions-a" href="/user/ryan-watson" aria-label="Profile: Ryan-Watson">@<bdi>Ryan-Watson</bdi></a><br />
The question is…did the Currents data provider (Copernicus) include the Puget Sound in their data?<br />
Probably not (But this needs to be checked).<br />
Therefore Windy cannot create this data and extend the visualization of the currents in this arm of the sea. In addition it is obvious that in narrow bays the prediction of currents is very difficult without taking into account precisely the seabed and the tides. It is therefore better to refer to the tide calculation itself.</p>
<p dir="auto"><img src="/assets/uploads/files/1715794733231-0d4aed47-6413-41f6-9f51-5606bd373285.jpeg" alt="0D4AED47-6413-41F6-9F51-5606BD373285.jpeg" class=" img-fluid img-markdown" /></p>
]]></description><link>https://community.windy.com/post/190330</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://community.windy.com/post/190330</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[idefix37]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 15 May 2024 17:38:58 GMT</pubDate></item></channel></rss>