agrc / porter

UGRC tracks the additions, replacements, and deletions of SGID items (in the broadest sense of add, replace, or delete) through issues in this repository.
https://gis.utah.gov/documentation/policy/
MIT License
2 stars 0 forks source link

Replace existing Municipalities with new version with muni_code field #127

Closed ZachBeck closed 3 years ago

ZachBeck commented 3 years ago

Summary

This data will swapping out the existing BOUNDARIES.Municipalities and is essentially the same, the only difference is a new field has been added to hold a 3 character municipal code as per Bert's request.

The data should be available in

1 Check [x] all the areas where you expect the data to show up.

The data is of high quality

Where is the data source

Choose one.

Action items

  1. Assign a person who should complete the task by replacing name with their github @name.
  2. Check [x] the box when the task is completed and add the date of completion.
  3. ~Strike~ out all items that do not apply.

:robot: Automation validation

  1. Assign yourself or someone to check the item by replacing name with their github @name.
  2. Check [x] the box and add the date of verification 2020/01/01 when the task is verified.
  3. ~Strike~ out all items that do not apply.

Notification

Group Task Assignments

  1. Check [x] the box when you have assigned all the tasks relevant to your group.
ZachBeck commented 3 years ago

I'm hoping that once I replace the data in Internal no other action will be needed since this data is a replacement rather than an addition or removal.

steveoh commented 3 years ago

I don't think porter is required for adding a field to a table.

steveoh commented 3 years ago

Anyone, please reopen this if you disagree.

eneemann commented 3 years ago

I had the same thought as Steve. But on another note, should we review the codes in the Data team meeting? It might help to have multiple eyes on them to make sure fit the munis as best as possible.

ZachBeck commented 3 years ago

I thought I'd error on the safe side... I'll swap out the data in Internal and leave the old version with the db privileges revoked in there in case we need to roll back. This will be happening to MetroTownships as well.

steveoh commented 3 years ago

should we review the codes in the Data team meeting? It might help to have multiple eyes on them to make sure fit the munis as best as possible.

That makes sense to me. I assumed that had happened since there were multiple values for municipalities and it seemed like some discussion was required from the different stakeholders.