Page 1 of 1

station 2 - (user defined) causing logging but station is deleted

Posted: Tue May 19, 2026 4:50 pm
by jasonmfarrow
Hi Meteobridge Gurus (Boris et al),

A while ago I had written a used-defined weather station to inport UV & Solar readings. This was setup as Station 2 in the Station panel of the meteobridge admin. These were mapped to uv0index and sol0rad variables.
Meteobridge mappings.jpg
Meteobridge mappings.jpg (104.91 KiB) Viewed 22 times
Then I upgraded to a Davis Pro with proper UV and Solar readings and these produced proper uv0!0index and sol0!0rad values and the old mappings were removed and uv0!0index properly maps to uv0index. The old "station 2" was removed.
Meteobridge Station list.jpg
Meteobridge Station list.jpg (77.76 KiB) Viewed 22 times
However the meteobridge logging is still showing station 2 doing something, but not working as there's no data available from which to draw readings.
Any clues as to how I really remove this?
Meteobridge logging.jpg
Meteobridge logging.jpg (206.62 KiB) Viewed 22 times
The script (in the /scripts folder on meteobridge) that is generating these log messages looks like this:

Code: Select all

#!/bin/sh
while true
do
   uvdata=$(wget -q0- http://192.168.0.202/uv.data)
   echo "uv1 $uvdata"
   soldata=$(wget -q0- http://192.168.0.202/solar.data)
   echo "sol1 $soldata" 
   sleep 120
done
Meteobridge is still running this script when it's not supposed to. Do I just delete the script or will that break something else in Meteobridge?

Re: station 2 - (user defined) causing logging but station is deleted

Posted: Tue May 19, 2026 5:20 pm
by jasonmfarrow
Ok. I think I fixed (worked around) it.
1) I emptied the script of all but the first two lines. That way if the script was still being called, it would not fail by not finding a deleted file
2) I deleted all the legacy data for the old, and not very accurate, solar and uv sensors from the database (after a db backup).
3) I rebooted the NanoSD breaking the 250+ days of uptime...
The logger is no longer reporting errors...so...success?