search

echo-air-model / echo-air

A repository of scripts used for converting emissions to concentrations and health impacts using the InMAP Source-Receptor Matrix
MIT License
2 stars 0 forks source link

Add emissions warning #39

Closed amyryao closed 3 months ago

amyryao commented 4 months ago

I've written some code but it's definitely wrong- I'm going to keep looking at it later!

amyryao commented 3 months ago

There's a merge conflict because I've edited the code for the hole since I noticed the warning was being triggered for 140.0 in the CSV file where there was supposed to be no hole, so I'm assuming it's only considered a hole if it's excluding 140. If this isn't the case, please let me know!

(aka, should the hole be >= 140 or just > 140?) isrm_hole_flag = sum((heights>140.0)&(heights<760.0)) > 0

I believe that I've restored run_echo_air.py back to normal! I've tested the code with both of the CSV files (one with hole and one without) and haven't run into errors, but besides the large shapefile, I don't have any other types of files to test to see if the large size does trigger the warning (but at least the CSV file doesn't trigger a warning?). I am currently working on seeing if the emissions are also being projected later on and making sure that we aren't projecting redudantly!

lkoolik commented 3 months ago

There's a merge conflict because I've edited the code for the hole since I noticed the warning was being triggered for 140.0 in the CSV file where there was supposed to be no hole, so I'm assuming it's only considered a hole if it's excluding 140. If this isn't the case, please let me know!

(aka, should the hole be >= 140 or just > 140?) isrm_hole_flag = sum((heights>140.0)&(heights<760.0)) > 0

I believe that I've restored run_echo_air.py back to normal! I've tested the code with both of the CSV files (one with hole and one without) and haven't run into errors, but besides the large shapefile, I don't have any other types of files to test to see if the large size does trigger the warning (but at least the CSV file doesn't trigger a warning?). I am currently working on seeing if the emissions are also being projected later on and making sure that we aren't projecting redudantly!

Good question! I think the hole should be just > 140 (i.e., 140 meters should not be considered "hole")

The CSV file shouldn't trigger a warning, so that is good! I think if it is triggering with the large shapefile and is not triggering with the CSV file or the mobile source 1 km gridded shapefile, then we should be good to go.

Let me know when you are ready with the emissions projection streamlining and I can review.