Resolve "MAS-DT update platform status message"

Closes #47 (closed)

Failed merge and rebase on nested branches. I accidentally overwrote these changes.

examples/geojson/platform_status.json

+      "battery_remaining_capacity": 80.2,
+      "platform_state": "ABORT",
+      "mission_plan_ID": 1,
+      "mission_track_ID": 4,
+      "position": {
+          "type": "Point",
+          "coordinates": [
+              -10.122,
+              178.2,
+              50.0,
+              20
+          ]
+      },
+      "waypoint": {
+          "type": "Point",
+          "coordinates": [

examples/geojson/platform_status.json

 {
   "header":{
       "message_ID": "b427003c-0000-11aa-a1eb-bvcdfghjgfdd",
-      "timestamp": "2022-11-16T00:00:00Z",
+      "timestamp": "2024-09-06T00:00:00Z",
       "version": 2,
       "source": "ecosub_c2",
-      "destination": "soar.planet-ocean.ecosub.ecosub-2.from_platform.platform_status",
+      "destination": "mas-dt.noc.slocum.unit_xxx.from_platform.platform_status",
       "delivery_type": "publish",
       "encoded": false
   },
   "payload":{
       "message_type": "platform_status",
-      "platform_ID": "ecosub-2",
-      "platform_timestamp": "2022-12-21T00:00:00Z",
+      "platform_ID": "unit_xxx",
+      "platform_timestamp": "2024-09-06T00:00:00Z",
       "status_source": "onboard_platform",
       "autonomy_engine_plan_ID": 1,
       "battery_remaining_capacity": 80.2,
               -10.5,
               178.5
           ]
-      },
-      "heading": 90.0,
-      "health_status": false,
-      "localisation_north_error": 0,
-      "localisation_east_error": 0,
-      "usbl_fix_seconds_ago": 0,
-      "range_to_go": 124.3,
-      "sensor_config": {
-          "sensor_serial": "sidescan-2x",    
-          "sensor_on": true,
-          "additional_data": {
-              "whiskers_on": true
-          }      
-      },
-      "speed_over_ground": 4.3,
-      "thrust_applied": 124.3,
-      "water_current_velocity": "124.3NE"
+      }
   }
 }

[Dan Jones]

I had a thought about this in the OCS seminar. I'm not sure that including depth/altitude as dimensions of the GeoJSON.Points makes sense. Typically the depth and altitude are an either or so [x,y,z1,z2] doesn't make sense because depth z1 isn't equivalent to altitude z2. I wonder if it's better to keep these as separate fields like tolerances rather than coordinates.

[Dan Jones]

Is this different between the platform_status.position and mission_plan.action? So in platform_status.position the depth and altitude should reflect where the platform is (so for a USBL status the position could be at depth) so included in the GeoJSON.Point.coordinates makes sense. In the mission_plan.action they reflect what you're telling the platform to do so the depth and altitude aren't necessarily consistent and it maybe makes more sense to keep them separate?

[Trishna Saeharaseelan]

I'm not sure about this. We could have a chat in office with the ocs folks regarding the best representation of this data. For now, I'd say leave platform_status.position as a geojson point.

[Dan Jones]

I agree. I started changing it and backed out. I've raised it as a separate issue to discuss for later.

[Trishna Saeharaseelan]

Could you add in a depth or altitude field sample -> would be nice to see it

[Dan Jones]

Do you mean a platform status using the old separate field data model? I've left those as is. https://git.noc.ac.uk/communications-backbone-system/backbone-message-format/-/blob/dev/examples/ecosub_adapter/platform_status.json#L23