LevanTielidze
commented
2 years ago - Since you are already familiar with this issue, this is just a simple reminder that these three glacier polygons (Azay, Garabashi, and Terskol) still need to be replaced in the RGI7 database according to the Zenodo database. This should be also amended in GLIMS.
- The rest of the outlines from the Greater Caucasus looks good to me. Note that I haven't checked the outlines from the Middle East sub-region.
- Other minor changes: the "analysts" should be "Tielidze, Levan and Paul, Frank". Currently, it is only "Tielidze, Levan".
fmaussion
There is a tiny difference between the glims version and the final inventory by Levan for three outlines. Email by Levan:
This error is due to different views on the definition of the margins of the Garabashi Glacier.
While working on our preprint, I was advised by Russian colleagues to modify the margins of Garabashi Glacier (and thus Azay and Terskol as neighbouring glaciers) before submitting to Zenodo. Mind you, that the database was already submitted to GLIMS at that time .
The Russian colleagues considered it important to keep the glacier boundaries in our Zenodo database consistent with in-situ measurements because Garabashi is one of the representative glaciers in the WGMS and this will be important for future comparisons (e.g. glaciological mass balance vs geodetic one).
To conclude, the outlines of Garabashi, Azay, and Terskol glaciers are more comprehensive in Zenodo (see attached) than those in GLIMS. However, the rest of the glaciers in both databases are the same.
I know, this sounds a bit annoying, but perhaps Bruce wants to replace them in GLIMS database as well? If so, I'm attaching the shp file of just those three glaciers. Sorry Bruce about it, but this was not only my fault :) and thank you Fabien again for pointing this out.