On 24/07/2017 09:04, Roland van Rijswijk - Deij wrote:
Please let us know if you have any preference for which way we go on this, particularly if you have a (current or future) use case for this kind of data.
I don't quite see how option 2 does not result in an increase in storage requirements, and you seem to contradict this by then talking about reducing the measurement frequency. Perhaps I misunderstand what you're saying here.
My mistake, I had the option numbers the wrong way round. Option 2 (new measurements) slightly increases storage requirements, but comes with the kinds of benefits that you advocate for below.
From a research perspective, I would argue that it would at least temporarily make sense to have the two (slightly) different measurements (i.e. the old without and the new one with NSID enabled) running in parallel, just to flesh out whether any significant differences occur. If storage and measurement performance are not a (serious) issue, then running two separate measurements would be preferable, in my opinion, to safeguard continuity of the existing measurements. In my experience such longitudinal datasets keep increasing in value as time progresses, and are more valuable if they have a consistent measurement methodology. Based on that argument, discontinuing or altering and existing measurement should only be done if there are good reasons for it.
ACK