In working through the tree core tags a check against the forest veg backend was run to determine what information existed for these tags in that database. The purpose of the check was to de-conflict and validate tree coring tag data.
Of the 32 tags being checked,
25 tags had a record in tbl_Tags
-- Retired (In Office)
-- RFS = 0
-- Tag_Notes = "Reserved for tagging continuous water loggers"
7 tags had no record in tbl_Tags
In the query results (shown below), TREE_ID is the tree tag and SPECIES_CODE is the PLANTS_Code in the tree coring data; Tag and Tag_ID are from the 2019 forest veg BE. NULL indicates there is no 2019 forest veg BE record for the tag.
Question
How should we address tag reconciliation across protocols?
Since tree core tags shouldn't be in use by the forest veg protocol the RIO designation makes sense, but it seems that lacking a reconciliation of tags between the protocols can lead to one protocol missing a tag that later is used by another protocol.
Recommendation
In addition to using the RIO check at the end of the field season/beginning of the next field season, another check should be run against other protocols that also use tags. Like the idea of a common Location repository, there should be a common Tag repository that mirrors tbl_Tags but also adds in the protocol where the tag is currently assigned.
@johnpauls, @lizmatthews03, @abrolis ...
In working through the tree core tags a check against the forest veg backend was run to determine what information existed for these tags in that database. The purpose of the check was to de-conflict and validate tree coring tag data.
Of the 32 tags being checked,
In the query results (shown below), TREE_ID is the tree tag and SPECIES_CODE is the PLANTS_Code in the tree coring data; Tag and Tag_ID are from the 2019 forest veg BE. NULL indicates there is no 2019 forest veg BE record for the tag.
Question How should we address tag reconciliation across protocols?
Since tree core tags shouldn't be in use by the forest veg protocol the RIO designation makes sense, but it seems that lacking a reconciliation of tags between the protocols can lead to one protocol missing a tag that later is used by another protocol.
Recommendation In addition to using the RIO check at the end of the field season/beginning of the next field season, another check should be run against other protocols that also use tags. Like the idea of a common Location repository, there should be a common Tag repository that mirrors tbl_Tags but also adds in the protocol where the tag is currently assigned.