![\"warntext\"](\"https:\/\/inside.nssl.noaa.gov\/ewp\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/22\/2011\/11\/warntext1.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nWhat about the placement of the point or line?\u00a0 Where should these go?\u00a0 Let’s just look at the point placement, the “Drag Me To Storm” position.<\/p>\n
This point is used to represent the “storm”.\u00a0 But does this get placed at the centroid of the storm (option 1)?\u00a0 Or is it placed on the leading edge of the storm along the centroid motion vector (option 2)?\u00a0 Or the most forward portion of the echo (option 3)?\u00a0 Or elsewhere?\u00a0 This point is used to project the future location of the threat at the end of the warning, and also to compute the “pathcast” information.\u00a0 But if the point doesn’t actually represent the full spatial extent of the threat, wouldn’t the resulting polygons and pathcasts be incorrect?\u00a0 For example, if using the centroid of the storm, the severe weather might commence before reaching the centroid of the storm, and the polygons and pathcasts would be lag in time.<\/p>\n So let’s say for example we track using the storm centroid.\u00a0 Without editing the default polygon, you can see that a portion of the storm threat might be missed using the default box sizes.\u00a0 One could manually edit the polygon, but this would be done entirely qualitatively.\u00a0 How could this be done quantitatively?<\/p>\n In either case, the storm hazard isn’t a point, but it is a two-dimensional area<\/em>.\u00a0 In a way, WarnGen provides a 2D threat area, but it is a perfect square 20 km on each side.\u00a0 No storm actually has those dimensions.\u00a0 It therefore makes more sense that we should be defining 2D threat areas, and projecting 2D threat areas at future positions, like so (assuming the orange contour represents the spatial extent of the severe weather in this storm):<\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n