Closed lasseke closed 4 months ago
I believe that these specific "grunntyper" are not being realized at the coarser mapping scales and thus don't have an associated "mapping unit". These instances should be left out from the tables for the respective mapping scale. THE EXCEPTION are the NA-F "Limniske vannmassesystemer" #11 - these need to be kept
Okay! I cannot yet fully grasp the logic behind this - if they occupy unique ecological space that is not aggregated into a 'kartleggingsenhet' while other 'grunntyper' of the same 'hovedtype' are, to me this would imply that they would require their own 'kartleggingsenhet'... Or is this based on the fact that no polygons meeting the minimum size requirements of the corresponding mapping scale exist in reality? Excuse my NiN-ignorance 😃
According to our current API requests, certain 'hovedtyper' can have some 'grunntyper' with no associated 'kartleggingsenheter' while others do. See the example below (note rows 468 and 469). How should this be dealt with?