-
## What were you trying to do and how can we improve it?
https://cneos.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news146.html
https://ngdc.noaa.gov/hazard/26dec2004.html
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/day-2011-japan-earth…
-
## What is the context or reason for the change?
More info needed on rationale for GLIDE number, ability to use other disaster identifiers
E.g. Shakemap ID for EQ
Consider limitations on GLIDE ha…
-
From a technical standpoint there is potential to reuse the new `Classification` object here. this would allow users to declare which scheme they're taking their disaster id from, e.g.:
…
-
Review building damage analysis implementation and propose refactoring to support multiple hazards required by multi-hazard fragility curves (e.g. a fragility that has both Earthquake and Tsunami) req…
-
Once the service adds support for multi-hazard fragilities (e.g. Earthquake + Tsunami), the DFR3 viewer will need to support this as well so they can be filtered .
-
The current implementation of the DFR3 service expects a single hazardType specified for a fragility curve; however, there is a use case where two distinct hazards are used within a fragility curve (T…
-
Similar to #127, the DFR3 mapping has a single hazardType definition. How we can support specifying multi-hazard (earthquake and tsunami) so the pyincore analysis can use this to determine if the inpu…
-
!!! Make sure you test thoroughly of all the endpoints
This task will depend on
#118
and
#120
Follow the instruction and add userGroup to each of the controller
https://github.com/IN-COR…
-
Based on the outcome of #336, refactor building damage analysis implementation to support multiple hazards required by multi-hazard fragilities
-
## What is the context or reason for the change?
From the original hazard schema report (pg 15-17):
```
- event.set.time attributes refer to the whole collection of scenario modelled.
- event oc…