A number of operations collect information about the percentage of an area that is affected by the operation (e.g. soil disturbance associated with a Direct Seeding). This value is currently independently estimated on each form and thus, it would be quite possible to create logs that collectively imply that there is more than 100% of the area available. For example, a field with two beds might have two separate disturbance logs each with 100% of the Area affected. This would suggest that the entire field was affected twice, when each log should have said 50% instead.
The question then is can we prevent these types of mistakes? Or can we generate a better estimate of the % of a field that is affected based on the data we collect? For example, if we know the area of each field / bed then we can use the bed/feet and bed width values to produce a better estimate of the percentage of the area that is affected by the operation.
A number of operations collect information about the percentage of an area that is affected by the operation (e.g. soil disturbance associated with a Direct Seeding). This value is currently independently estimated on each form and thus, it would be quite possible to create logs that collectively imply that there is more than 100% of the area available. For example, a field with two beds might have two separate disturbance logs each with 100% of the Area affected. This would suggest that the entire field was affected twice, when each log should have said 50% instead.
The question then is can we prevent these types of mistakes? Or can we generate a better estimate of the % of a field that is affected based on the data we collect? For example, if we know the area of each field / bed then we can use the bed/feet and bed width values to produce a better estimate of the percentage of the area that is affected by the operation.