(meteorobs) Update of the IMO visual report form

[Bruce McCurdy]

> It would seem sufficient to simply ask for the starting and ending UTs
> (please, use yyyy-mm-dd hhmm notation- anything else encourages errors),
> and then just hhmm-hhmm for individual observations.

    Yes, I couldn't agree more. ISO long form is the *only* unambiguous --  
not to mention logical -- method for recording dates and times. Biggest to 
smallest. On my pet peeve list, archaic (and competing) dating methods rank 
right up there with Daylight Savings Time (sic) and the bizarre division of 
the day into two twelve-hour clocks. And while time zones are a necessary 
evil, standardizing to UT wherever possible is very useful. Setting 
standards that aren't moving targets seems to me to be fundamental science, 
not to mention plain old (not-so-)common sense. <end rant>

> It's a bit more work, but if I were making this form I'd add a little
> scripting. I think the observed showers should be selected from a
> dropdown so that they are guaranteed to be valid, and then those codes
> filled in on the observation report before it gets filled in. That is,
> the report becomes a two-step operation: first, the basic information is
> entered along with the observed showers. This is submitted (with some
> error checking), which produces a second page presenting the actual
> report form.

    Again, I agree. As I have mentioned to Geert and Rainer in recent 
private notes, it is frustrating to enter all the information for 
AMS-recognized showers, only to find out at the end that IMO does *not* 
recognize them. It's great having Bob Lunsford's weekly outlooks as a guide, 
but it would be nice to have more consistency between the various 
organizations in terms of recognized radiants. At the very least, an error 
warning that occurred sometime before the end of the process would be most 
helpful.

    Thanks for your consideration, and for all the work you are doing.

    Bruce
    *****