Open krystalbagnaschi opened 8 months ago
I think it might be easier to treat the stems as two different individuals (leave the two tags). 93968 was recruited last census and they must have either decided it was a different individual (or not notice the tag on the other stem - even though they did measure it). Maybe put a note saying we decide to leave them as is, so the next census people know that it is what we are doing.
I would advocate for deleting the mistaken recruit tag from last census. You don't want to double count a tree.
On Tue, Oct 24, 2023, 9:05 AM Valentine Herrmann @.***> wrote:
I think it might be easier to treat the stems as two different individuals (leave the two tags). 93968 was recruited last census and they must have either decided it was a different individual (or not notice the tag on the other stem - even though they did measure it). Maybe put a note saying we decide to leave them as is, so the next census people know that it is what we are doing.
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/SCBI-ForestGEO/2023census/issues/55#issuecomment-1777168888, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADK3BJL77JXPWORY4WBCFY3YA64KZAVCNFSM6AAAAAA6M37BISVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTONZXGE3DQOBYHA . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: @.***>
Yes, we should delete the newer tag.
I have made 93968 'DN' with a dbh of zero, and will be removing the tag from the field.
THanks, @krystalbagnaschi .
@ValentineHerr , could you please fix this in our previous census file(s)?
Hi @ValentineHerr,
I had a stem today that had two separate ID tags and points in the map. I was wondering which I should remove and if I should put the other stem as DN / what would be the best course of action. Currently the stem still has both tags in the field. Thanks!
The ID numbers are 93968 and 93381.