Closed florisvdh closed 4 years ago
From a theoretically point of view, it's better to store the terrestrial forms in a polygon. In Flanders the current distribution can probably be better described by a point layer. So I can agree with a point layer.
A possible another possible approach is only to allocate the terrestrial forms to habitatmap_terr. Therefore the polygons in habitatmap_terr (considering they weren't dropped) can be checked and specifically labeled.
You can choose which approach to use.
Thanks for your ideas @w-jan.
Therefore the polygons in habitatmap_terr (considering they weren't dropped) can be checked and specifically labeled.
I'll check how this solution would look like (how large are those touched polygons compared to the surface area from read_habitatsprings()
?). Anyhow, it would imply a specific update of the habitatmap_terr
data source in an attempt to accommodate terrestrial 7220
sites as good as possible, while we already have a more reliable point layer for that. To avoid this hassle I was inclined to provide an option to drop 7220
from the result of read_habitatmap_terr()
. Once 7220
from habitatsprings
is properly included in the raw habitatmap
data source, the story for habitatmap_terr
will be different anyway.
Planning to turn back to this with more results.
Having explored this, I plan to go forward with the idea of dropping 7220
by default from the output of read_habitatmap_terr()
and document that best information on this type is to be gained by read_habitatsprings()
. It still remains optionally available.
@Patrikoosterlynck: FYI
Main reason is that 7220
is mainly present as tiny patches compared to habitatmap_terr
polygon areas, hence the latter data are coarse for this type compared to habitatsprings
. In the few cases where phab
is > 0 in habitatmap_terr
(only 5 from 40 cases), the calculated area of 7220
is still (much) too high compared to the information in habitatsprings
.
Both data sources do not completely match for their occurrences of 7220
, however last 3 row are potentially explained by the a priori absence of certain polygons in habitatmap_terr
(summary of spatially joined result):
# A tibble: 10 x 6
type_hmt type_hs system_type certain_hmt certain_hs n
<fct> <fct> <fct> <lgl> <lgl> <int>
1 7220 7220 mire TRUE TRUE 9
2 7220 7220 rivulet TRUE TRUE 19
3 7220 7220 unknown FALSE FALSE 7
4 7220 7220 unknown TRUE FALSE 3
5 7220 7220 unknown TRUE TRUE 1
6 7220 NA NA FALSE NA 1
7 7220 NA NA TRUE NA 2
8 NA 7220 mire NA TRUE 1
9 NA 7220 rivulet NA TRUE 2
10 NA 7220 unknown NA FALSE 13
(_hmt
= habitatmap_terr
, _hs
= habitatsprings
)
the a priori absence of certain polygons in
habitatmap_terr
Checks have been done for dropped polygons from habitatmap_stdized
(i.e. strictly aquatic, including 7220
). None of these have 7220
. This means that habitatmap_terr
still contains all 7220
occurrences of habitatmap_stdized
and we don't have to warn users about 'still missing' 7220
occurrences (compared to habitatmap_stdized
) when drop_7220
is set as FALSE
.
R-code & output included below.
@w-jan Do you follow this idea?
The
habitatsprings
data source, returned byread_habitatsprings()
, contains much more accurate information about this partly aquatic, partly terrestrial type (see its version in therc0.2
branch).Therefore I suggest to provide an argument
drop_7220
inread_habitatmap_terr()
to drop occurrences of7220
and set itTRUE
by default.7220
in terrestrial polygons according to the habitatmap, (s)he can do so by setting the argument toFALSE
. But the user will be advised to useread_habitatsprings()
; the current version of the data source (a points object) also contains information about terrestrial vs. aquatic.7220
-polygons were already dropped fromhabitatmap_terr
in the data source, because at that time it was considered as an aquatic type together with the other aquatic types.I believe this would better fit the purpose of
read_habitatmap_terr()
to provide a clean and optimally interpreted layer.