NewGraphEnvironment
commented
1 month ago key point here is that the above checklist and error examples are def not meant to be everything. its just a start. The transfer over process and critical thinking should help uncover what needs to be done.
Some of it will come from emails and some from onboarding and some from methods of reports. From my perspective there are many issues in onboarding that I hope you can find, clean up and clarify in the transfer.
I would start with getting people in a position to use mergin (make account) point to documentation, how to sync, how to load on phone, using forms, etc, etc. Most of it has already been written down but we want to untease it to try to make it all as simple as possible. Don't forget to reference documentation whenever possible (mergin, bcfishpass, fish passage methods, hab con methods, risc habitat methods) as we want to leverage all of that as much as we can.
As part of this - eventually we want to help people be ready to do things like work with qgis and push info to bcfishpass with as little of our time as possible (ex. how do you tell bcfishpass there is a ford where a "Potential Barrier" shows up in the crossings layer). Remember that there is more than one way to skin a cat. I think it is easy to forget that and that is something that we want to find ways to communicate to people. For example - you can edit the csvs in bcfishpass without going through the entire setup for rstudio, git, etc. you can do it all online with point and click. If you need a layer in a qgis project you can just download it from the bc data catalougue website and add it manually. We are looking to include the path of least resistance options while still noting how we do it while letting people know that they need to think and learn how to figure things out for themselves - especially if they are stuck.
That data management word doc is basically garbage except for a few things. It will never be referenced. just the real stuff moved over after being corrected and then it can be deleted.
We will still need to show people with screenshares but the docs can be much much improved. We can slim down our onboarding by moving some things over. The odd thing will be duplicated and we can consider even just copying over pieces of those .Rmds (after they are corrected and clear) so that we don't have conflicting versions. It won't be simple but it could maybe be fairly quick.
lucy-schick
there are a decent number of errors in the methods that I can see at first glance and quite a bit of work to do to get things organized for ourselves and others to effectively use this. here are a few examples
1.
The methods are linked but should have a referenced citation so it can be looked up. We should strive for a minimum of 6 widths as per the methods linked (3 widths is from in the MoE fish passage assessment methods).
We actually use https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/land-based-investment/forests-for-tomorrow/checklist-for-fish-habitat-confirmation-201112.pdf and have adapted it to record data using https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/nr-laws-policy/risc/sitecard20.pdf so standardize collection methods and can submit raw data to province
2.
FHAP Procedures ARE NOT the methods we have been using to get standardized fish and fish habitat data while doing phase 2 assessments. Those are as per the citation - Resource Inventory Standards Committee 2001. FHAP is far more detailed and used when we have waaaay more time to gather detailed data. worth mentioning but not there
3.