search

COMPASS-DOE / data-workflows

Sensor data workflows and processing scripts
MIT License
4 stars 0 forks source link

gw_depth missing from L1 #155

Closed bpbond closed 6 months ago

bpbond commented 7 months ago

h/t @wilsonsj100

bpbond commented 7 months ago

It's not marked as to be included in the output! In addition, no units are given in the variable table.

This is the Depth600A AquaTROLL variable, is that correct? What are the units?

bpbond commented 7 months ago

For reference, here are the troll variables we ARE currently outputting:

battery_voltage gw_bar_pressure gw_temperature gw_salinity gw_density gw_ph gw_ph_orp gw_rdo_conc gw_pressure

bpbond commented 6 months ago

I talked with @peterregier and this omission is intentional, because the data need to be corrected for various factors to compute groundwater depth; i.e., the raw Aquatroll Depth600A is not correct and potentially misleading.

BUT as I sit here typing this, if the corrected value will be in L2, don't we still want it in L1 (but with a warning not to use raw value)?

@stephpenn1 @peterregier

wilsonsj100 commented 6 months ago

Hmmmm I feel like water depth is one that we would probably want to have in L1, but I understand the original intention.

stephpenn1 commented 6 months ago

I don't believe Depth600A is used to calculate water level, just looking at a snippet of PRs code:

image

It uses pressure and density from the sonde (weather station baro pressure for the 200s), and a static field-measured distance of the sonde line from an inventory sheet.

I'd be fine with keeping that Depth600A variable if it's useful as long as we rename to something more descriptive. Also talking with PR today I was curious: if we calculated wl_below_surface_m and plotted it with Depth would it'd be correlated? I assume somewhat

bpbond commented 6 months ago

Great detective work and reasoning!

@peterregier @Fausto2504 It would be great to get your expert opinions:

  1. Correct that Depth600A is not part of the depth calculation, per @stephpenn1 above?
  2. Does it have any potential use? Or should we (continue to) drop it?

Thanks for everyone's patience and help to resolve this!

peterregier commented 6 months ago

Hi folks,

  1. Correct, we don’t use Depth600A
  2. I’m for continuing to drop it completely. My worry is, no matter what caveats we put on it, we know that Depth600A is wrong, but it says depth in the name, and so including it at any step means folks might find it and erroneously use it. I’ve done similar things with other folks’ datasets in the past, since I’m usually too excited to look at data to read the metadata…

Interested in Fausto’s thoughts on this.

Cheers, Peter

Research Scientist Coastal Sciences Division Energy and Environment Directorate Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

From: Ben Bond-Lamberty @.> Reply-To: COMPASS-DOE/data-workflows @.> Date: Friday, April 19, 2024 at 3:59 AM To: COMPASS-DOE/data-workflows @.> Cc: "Regier, Peter J" @.>, Mention @.***> Subject: Re: [COMPASS-DOE/data-workflows] gw_depth missing from L1 (Issue #155)

Check twice before you click! This email originated from outside PNNL.

Great detective work and reasoning!

@peterregierhttps://github.com/peterregier @Fausto2504https://github.com/Fausto2504 It would be great to get your expert opinions:

  1. Correct that Depth600A is not part of the depth calculation, per @stephpenn1https://github.com/stephpenn1 above?
  2. Does it have any potential use? Or should we (continue to) drop it?

Thanks for everyone's patience and help to resolve this!

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/COMPASS-DOE/data-workflows/issues/155#issuecomment-2066238857, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AQVBN6IZDXOBIAB5RV2SVMTY6DTHVAVCNFSM6AAAAABGHZ5YPOVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDANRWGIZTQOBVG4. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

Fausto2504 commented 6 months ago

Hi all,

I am doing fieldwork at OWC and can discuss the possibility of use depth600 next week.

But for now, I agree in deleting depth600 because it is incorrect as it is now and we do not use to calculate wl_below_surface.

Thanks for reaching out! Best, Fausto

From: Peter Regier @.> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2024 12:58 PM To: COMPASS-DOE/data-workflows @.> Cc: Machado da silva, Fausto @.>; Mention @.> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [COMPASS-DOE/data-workflows] gw_depth missing from L1 (Issue #155)

Hi folks,

  1. Correct, we don’t use Depth600A
  2. I’m for continuing to drop it completely. My worry is, no matter what caveats we put on it, we know that Depth600A is wrong, but it says depth in the name, and so including it at any step means folks might find it and erroneously use it. I’ve done similar things with other folks’ datasets in the past, since I’m usually too excited to look at data to read the metadata…

Interested in Fausto’s thoughts on this.

Cheers, Peter

Research Scientist Coastal Sciences Division Energy and Environment Directorate Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

From: Ben Bond-Lamberty @.> Reply-To: COMPASS-DOE/data-workflows @.> Date: Friday, April 19, 2024 at 3:59 AM To: COMPASS-DOE/data-workflows @.> Cc: "Regier, Peter J" @.>, Mention @.***> Subject: Re: [COMPASS-DOE/data-workflows] gw_depth missing from L1 (Issue #155)

Check twice before you click! This email originated from outside PNNL.

Great detective work and reasoning!

@peterregierhttps://github.com/peterregier @Fausto2504https://github.com/Fausto2504 It would be great to get your expert opinions:

  1. Correct that Depth600A is not part of the depth calculation, per @stephpenn1https://github.com/stephpenn1 above?
  2. Does it have any potential use? Or should we (continue to) drop it?

Thanks for everyone's patience and help to resolve this!

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/COMPASS-DOE/data-workflows/issues/155#issuecomment-2066238857, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AQVBN6IZDXOBIAB5RV2SVMTY6DTHVAVCNFSM6AAAAABGHZ5YPOVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDANRWGIZTQOBVG4. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/COMPASS-DOE/data-workflows/issues/155#issuecomment-2066948937, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AZSL7UOHJBUXRGWIAYZ3663Y6FEKJAVCNFSM6AAAAABGHZ5YPOVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDANRWHE2DQOJTG4. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

bpbond commented 6 months ago

Okay I think if both hydrologists are saying "no don't use this" then we have our answer! 🙏

Fausto2504 commented 6 months ago

[like] Machado da silva, Fausto reacted to your message:

From: Ben Bond-Lamberty @.> Sent: Friday, April 19, 2024 8:33:40 PM To: COMPASS-DOE/data-workflows @.> Cc: Machado da silva, Fausto @.>; Mention @.> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [COMPASS-DOE/data-workflows] gw_depth missing from L1 (Issue #155)

Okay I think if both hydrologists are saying "no don't use this" then we have our answer! 🙏

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/COMPASS-DOE/data-workflows/issues/155#issuecomment-2067248484, or unsubscribehttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AZSL7UK6275BTE3ODLSOQS3Y6F5SJAVCNFSM6AAAAABGHZ5YPOVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDANRXGI2DQNBYGQ. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>