search

gbif / doc-georeferencing-best-practices

This publication provides guidelines to the best practice for georeferencing. Though it is targeted specifically at biological occurrence data, the concepts and methods presented here can be applied in other disciplines where spatial interpretation of location is of interest.
https://doi.org/10.15468/doc-gg7h-s853
Other
3 stars 1 forks source link

3.4.7 Doubt about combined uncertainties #27

Closed RicardoOrtizG closed 3 years ago

RicardoOrtizG commented 3 years ago

I see that there is no example of combined uncertainty for the distance uncertainty and the uncertainty due to the shape of the named place in chapter 3.4.6 from the new best practice document. But I think there is a reference in 3.4.7 to use the same methods mentioned in Wieczorek 2004, but is not clear for me if still can be right to add (+) de results from different uncertainties associated with localities, to have a total uncertainty. For example: datum uncertainty + scale uncertainty + distance uncertainty+ uncertainty due to extention.

RicardoOrtizG commented 3 years ago

The link highlighted in the next image from the chapter 3.4.7, is pointing to the glossary and not the chapter mentioned in the georeferencing calculator manual.

image

ArthurChapman commented 3 years ago

Thanks for picking that up - it will need to be corrected @kcopas - this should point to §9 in the Bloom et al paper (i.e. https://docs.gbif-uat.org/georeferencing-calculator-manual/1.0/en/#understanding-uncertainty)

tucotuco commented 3 years ago

I see that there is no example of combined uncertainty for the distance uncertainty and the uncertainty due to the shape of the named place in chapter 3.4.6 from the new best practice document. But I think there is a reference in 3.4.7 to use the same methods mentioned in Wieczorek 2004, but is not clear for me if still can be right to add (+) de results from different uncertainties associated with localities, to have a total uncertainty. For example: datum uncertainty + scale uncertainty + distance uncertainty+ uncertainty due to extention.

Hi @RicardoOrtizG, That paragraph is meant to be introductory to the concept of combining uncertainties in general, with references to the theoretical works where those considerations are discussed. I guess the message here is that the calculator takes care of all of that if you pick the right options and fill in the right values. I think an example here would be confusing, because it would be only one of the myriad possibilities based on locality type, data sources, etc.

Can you think of a way to improve upon what we have here to both avoid confusion and satisfy the expectation you had?

ArthurChapman commented 3 years ago

§3.4.7 in Sentence "To understand how each source of uncertainty contributes to the net overall uncertainty, see Understanding Uncertainty Contributions in the Georeferencing Calculator Manual (Bloom et al. 2020)." the Link for "Understanding Uncertainty Contributions" should point to "https://docs.gbif-uat.org/georeferencing-calculator-manual/1.0/en/#understanding-uncertainty" NOT to the Glossary as it does now

kcopas commented 3 years ago

Link corrected. However, leaving open since I'm uncertain whether other text changes are required.

tucotuco commented 3 years ago

Don't we have to push every change to avoid problems merging?

On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 7:00 AM Kyle Copas notifications@github.com wrote:

Link corrected. However, leaving open since I'm uncertain whether other text changes are required.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/gbif/doc-georeferencing-best-practices/issues/27#issuecomment-732054222, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AADQ72ZLKHP6YX2STH4DXH3SRIXCZANCNFSM4S3WRHJQ .

kcopas commented 3 years ago

You mean a release? If so, then no, not yet—we're still pre-release mode where changes are picked up on the gbif-uat domain.

However, to stay consistent, I should have made the change in the review-edits branch…

tucotuco commented 3 years ago

The latter is what I meant.

On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 8:45 AM Kyle Copas notifications@github.com wrote:

You mean a release? If so, then no, not yet—we're still pre-release mode where changes are picked up on the gbif-uat domain.

However, to stay consistent, I should have made the change in the review-edits branch…

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/gbif/doc-georeferencing-best-practices/issues/27#issuecomment-732110532, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AADQ727QCVV3QDNMWMJDO23SRJDL5ANCNFSM4S3WRHJQ .

tucotuco commented 3 years ago

We think this is satisfactorily covered and the needed fix is also addressed. Closing.