Anyone else think the warning maps  are prone to get very confusing when there are multiple warnings close together and overlapping?  The recent spate of complex and overlapping warning types have (I think) tested the system to destruction.  In my opinion I think it would be a lot better to produce a separate map for each type of warning as opposed to trying to cram them all on the same map.

WRT the warning colour matrix.  I don't like the muddling of "likelihood" and "severity".  A very likely event of more moderate severity and a severe event  that is more unlikely  could share the same colour, without "drilling down" into the matrix you can't tell.  

Again, I think the potential severity of an event needs to be portrayed separately from the likelihood.   After all, it matters not a stuff "on the ground" when you are actually experiencing something severe whether it was or was not likely to happen! 

Originally Posted by: Bugglesgate 

Anyone else think the warning maps are prone to get very confusing when there are multiple warnings close together and overlapping? The recent spate of complex and overlapping warning types have (I think) tested the system to destruction. In my opinionI think it would be a lot better to produce a separate map for each type of warning as opposed to trying to cram them all on the same map.
WRT the warning colour matrix. I don't like the muddling of "likelihood" and "severity". A very likely event of more moderate severity and a severe event that is more unlikely could share the same colour,without "drilling down" into the matrix you can't tell.
Again, I think the potential severity of an event needs to be portrayed separately from the likelihood. After all, it matters not a stuff "on the ground" when you are actually experiencing something severe whether it was or was not likely to happen!

Originally Posted by: Bugglesgate