Closed thansidwell closed 8 months ago
This is a really good idea, I just came to file the same issue. the sort should be predictable to users. Recommend sorting by the numeric priority value so that the "best" values in the list come first. Ensure this is done before capping the results at 100.
@willonabike Good idea. I'll didn't realize there's an underlying numeric priority value. I'll add that to the instructions above.
@willonabike — I think there may be a misunderstanding — after evaluating the features
array, the only priority is the field properties.priority_level
which is of strings "High" | "Medium" | "Low"
. Please inform if theres another way to retrieve a more concrete numerical priority value, or to even derive a general priority based on the available fields?
example feature
object:
{
"type": "Feature",
"state": {},
"geometry": {
"type": "Polygon",
"coordinates": [
[
[
-75.14859795570374,
40.012742869523834
],
[
-75.1483404636383,
40.012710000590914
],
[
-75.14835119247437,
40.01266891440247
],
[
-75.1486086845398,
40.0127017833552
],
[
-75.14859795570374,
40.012742869523834
]
]
]
},
"properties": {
"OPA_ID": 433174700,
"access_process": "Private Land Use Agreement",
"address": "3926 N 13TH ST",
"all_violations_past_year": 0,
"building_description": "ROW 2 STY MASONRY",
"city_owner_agency": "",
"conservatorship": "No",
"council_district": "5",
"drugcrime_density": "Top 50%",
"guncrime_density": "Top 25%",
"imm_dang_building": "N",
"is_actionable": "true",
"li_complaints": "",
"llc_owner": "No",
"market_value": 23200,
"most_recent_year_owed": 2021,
"neighborhood": "Hunting Park",
"num_years_owed": 7,
"open_violations_past_year": 0,
"owner_1": "WOOTEN C L",
"owner_2": "",
"parcel_type": "Building",
"payment_agreement": "false",
"phs_partner_agency": "None",
"priority_level": "High",
"rco_info": "Nicetown-Tioga Improvement Team; 3621 N 11th St, Phila PA 19140; nicetowntioga@gmail.com; 2672583111|Hunting Park Connected; 1300 W Hunting Park Avenue \r\nPhiladelphia, PA 19140; gardinerwadia1@gmail.com; 4042546529",
"sale_date": "2019-09-15T00:00:00Z",
"sale_price": 11000,
"sheriff_sale": "N",
"side_yard_eligible": "No",
"tactical_urbanism": "No",
"total_assessment": 23000,
"total_due": 2344.32,
"tree_canopy_gap": 0.231499754748575,
"unsafe_building": "N",
"zipcode": "19140",
"zoning_base_district": "RM-1"
},
"id": 1161,
"layer": {
"id": "vacant_properties_tiles",
"type": "fill",
"source": "vacant_properties_tiles",
"source-layer": "vacant_properties_tiles",
"metadata": {
"name": "Priority"
},
"paint": {
"fill-color": {
"r": 1,
"g": 0.27058823529411763,
"b": 0,
"a": 1
},
"fill-opacity": 0.7
},
"layout": {}
},
"source": "vacant_properties_tiles",
"sourceLayer": "vacant_properties_tiles"
}
@paulhchoi that's correct, FYI @thansidwell
so maybe sort by priority than just by OPA_ID
or something to keep it consistent
Right now properties aren't sorted in any particular way. https://share.cleanshot.com/DTFJqbJc
Sort the properties by priority, displaying the highest priority properties at the top of the list. Use the underlying numeric priority value to sort.