search

gbif / portal-feedback

User feedback for the GBIF API, website and published data. You can ask questions here. 🗨❓
30 stars 16 forks source link

Unlikely elevation #1212

Closed MortenHofft closed 5 years ago

MortenHofft commented 6 years ago

content 250K plants and fungi above 9900m That sounds unlikely.

api We have a flag for unlikely - shouldn't it be set? Currently elevation unlikely == 0

https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/datasets?elevation=9900,9999&taxon_key=6&taxon_key=5&advanced=1

MattBlissett commented 6 years ago

It could, but we don't have the taxonomy as context when interpreting the elevation. The limit is 17km for everything: https://github.com/gbif/parsers/blob/master/src/main/java/org/gbif/common/parsers/geospatial/MeterRangeParser.java#L80

All but 54 of them have elevation=9999, presumably some placeholder for "unknown". The 54 will mostly be where the measurement is in feet, we detect and convert the value if "ft" is present, but otherwise don't.

https://www.gbif.org/occurrence/datasets?elevation=9900,9998&taxon_key=6&taxon_key=5&advanced=1

MortenHofft commented 6 years ago

@fmendezh In that case a suggestion for the new pipeline: Consider taxonomy when flagging elevation issues. I'm removing the API label as I consider it a won't fix for now

MattBlissett commented 6 years ago

For georeferenced occurrences, we can even consider location.

ManonGros commented 5 years ago

It looks like Species Links is using 9999 as default value for some of the datasets that they host (see list below). I contacted them by email.

ManonGros commented 5 years ago

the Species Links issue is fixed and we are working with Burke university to republish a new version of their dataset.