Wave Height vs. Significant Wave Height

[abkfenris]

Copied from ClickUp CU-64fght

There are inconsistencies with how we are labeling wave measurements. Some of this is from failing over to the secondary wave sensors that are measuring significant wave height vs. average. The charts are also a little misleading. Placeholder for this issue, I need some clarification from Tom so I can do a better job of explaining exactly what needs updating!

[youngmorse]

It's confusing. I think we were trying make sure the label on the variable matched the BIO forecast - which is significant wave height. If the secondary sensors are measuring an average value then they should probably be their own chart and not a fail over. Safe to say this isn't well understood (or documented in the ERDDAP metadata) as to which are actual values vs. average over a period of time. Re: the forecast charts, what Tom wants, and I think makes sense, is that the forecast variable matches the observation variable. So if the forecast is for significant wave height, the only observations we should show are significant wave height. Just a placeholder comment in case it's helpful at the moment, but I'll try to get clarification from Tom.