search

USGS-R / WQ-Review

Toolbox for discrete water-quality data review and exploration.
11 stars 4 forks source link

Replicate Table not providing all data #139

Open ehermosillo opened 7 years ago

ehermosillo commented 7 years ago

Hello.

I have noticed that when I pull data for a Replicate Table in WQ-Review, not all values are provided, however they are in the database as I can see them if I create an excel spreadsheet from QWDATA.

Thank you,

jlwilson-usgs commented 7 years ago

Yeah, I have the same problem. I have 13 replicate samples that I can see if I do a wide table, but when I try to populate the sites, no replicate tables, boxplots, or timeseries plots are displayed. Just a blank screen.

tjmills commented 7 years ago

@ehermosillo I apologize for not responding sooner. I was on paternity leave when this issue was posted and it slipped my mind after I returned. If you are still having problems let me know

tjmills commented 7 years ago

@jlwilson

So a common problem is that the environmental sample of the Env-Rep pair is not coded correctly. Check that your environmental sample associated with your replicate is coded as Medium Code = WS(or WG, etc) and Sample Type Code = 7 or 5

A number of centers/projects will leave the environmental sample coded as 9, which is not correct. The Env-Rep pairing acts on that sample type code

tjmills commented 7 years ago

@ehermosillo @jlwilson

Feel free to send me your saved data pull (use the save option in the GUI) and I can take a look

jlwilson-usgs commented 7 years ago

Sample type is 7 but the medium code is WGQ since its a QA/QC sample.

tjmills commented 7 years ago

OK, so the "proper" coding for an environmental-replicate sample pair in NWIS for a groundwater sample is:

Environmental Sample: MEDIUM_CD = WG SAMPLE_TYPE_CD = 7

Replicate sample: MEDIUM_CD = WGQ SAMPLE_TYPE_CD = 7

Is that how you have your data coded?

This is a nice tip sheet for coding: http://nwis.usgs.gov/nwisdocs5_2/qw/QW-TipSheet5.11.pdf

tjmills commented 7 years ago

Also, you are not the first to have this issue, it seems the coding conventions vary a fair bit across the GS and the "proper" method was not communicated well

jlwilson-usgs commented 7 years ago

Nope, looks like I screwed that up :)

Thanks, Joe.

tjmills commented 7 years ago

FYI, there is a new 2.0 version that is in testing as of last week if you want to check it out.

WQReview 2.0

Pretty major overhaul that I think will make some folks happy. If your interested let me know and I will send you a link to a short video presentation

ehermosillo commented 7 years ago

@tmills-usgs Please let me know if you received my email responding to this thread. Thank you!