search

PNHP / COA

Pennnsylvania Conservation Opportunity Area Tool development scripts
GNU General Public License v3.0
2 stars 1 forks source link

What data belongs in the Planning Units layer #34

Closed ChristopherTracey closed 7 years ago

ChristopherTracey commented 7 years ago

So, we are beginning to compile a lot of data that's appearing in tables that are linked to the planning units. These datasets appear to fall into one of three categories:

  1. Data that has a 1-to-many relationship with the PUs. The main (only) example of these are SGCN data. These are likely to be best maintained in a related table.
  2. Data that has a 1-to-1 relationship with the PUs, but they do not cover a substantial portion of the state's area. These are likely most efficiently stored as related tables so they don't take up a lot of space with empty cells.
  3. Data that is currently in a related table, but that data covers all of the state and would be useful to return with whatever planning unit is selected. Examples of these are ones that are currently stored in 'lu_NaturalBoundaries' like physiographic province. Catchments, HUCs, etc would be another type of geographically descriptive data that falls in this category.

I would like to propose that we move some of the layers that fall under #3 to the main PU_10ac layer. Thoughts?

ChristopherTracey commented 7 years ago

I'm getting more convinced that this is the way to go, especially as we get to the geographic specificity of threats and actions.

One note, we would probably have to include HUC12.

ChristopherTracey commented 7 years ago

Right now, 'Natural Boundaries' is a separate table in the database that we do a join on via SQL. It's performing fairly well, so maybe this topic isn't relevant for the new approach.

ChristopherTracey commented 7 years ago

I'm going to close this for now, as the tool seems to be running ok with these data in separate tables. We can reconsider in the future if needed.