Groundstop - prohibit or rate per hour of 0

[KHardern]

I've deleted the old issue to make it less likely someone will change the system until we've decided.

Should a groundstop be a "prohibit" or a "rate per hour" of 0?
(Note to self: If rate per hour can be 0, then the UI needs a label change)

The downside of it being a prohibit is that we have some ways to override a prohibit with mandatory routes. Therefore a "prohibit" X to Y may be a groundstop, or it may be a routing requirement. It is then challenging for humans to figure this out when they receive the ping.

It being rate per hour is umambiguous and can't be overriden, so it may be easier for 'humans' to understand. If we allow this however, it allows 2 ways of doing the same thing (i.e. people could accidentally use prohibit), which is messy.

[KHardern]

The issue of compound prohibits doesn't really exist anymore with the changes to allow multiple mandatory routes in a single filter.

However, a prohibit would arguably be applicable to airborne traffic as well as ground traffic. I therefore still think either rate per hour 0, or perhaps a separate measure called "ground_stop". It's unambiguous and our American colleagues would understand it better!