linz / nzgoal_audit_script

Tool for tracking and managing LINZ's obligations under the NZGOAL framework
https://geodeticwiki
0 stars 2 forks source link

Layer not included in generated report #9

Open SPlanzer opened 6 years ago

SPlanzer commented 6 years ago

Below from @SsiZhang (added to track issue and my work)

I have a question about the data publish date in the NZGOAL script.

Did you use the first revision date in the history RSS feed or some other date? If the script uses the first revision date, this might be one improvement that can be added into the current process. It looks like that there are few recently published layers not in the ‘publish’ list.

e.g. Bay of Plenty 0.3m Rural Aerial Photos Index Tiles (2016-2017) - https://data.linz.govt.nz/layer/95441-bay-of-plenty-03m-rural-aerial-photos-index-tiles-2016-2017/

The date range I used is from 1/Jul/18 to 30/Sep/18. The BoP imagery index layer was uploaded on 17/May/18 and it’s only been published in the last three month. So the index layer is not in the last NZGOAL report (2017_2018 Q4, 01/Apr/18 – 30/Jun/18) and also not in the new one (2018_2019 Q1, 01/Jul/18 - 30/Sep/18).

Please let me know if you need more information.

SPlanzer commented 6 years ago

Hi SiSi.

the RSS feed has two dates available

    <published>2016-04-21T03:43:55+00:00</published>

    <updated>2016-05-13T01:51:41+00:00</updated>

I am using the published date to detect any new datasets.

I will investigate this particular dataset later today .

Thanks for the info

SsiZhang commented 6 years ago

Thank you Simon. FYI, I expand the date range from 01/01/2017 to 30/09/2018 and found the following layers that have the same issue: lds_id: Date Pub: Data Set Name: 95453: 2018-05-17T02:45:18+00:00 Wellington 0.3m Rural Aerial Photos Index Tiles (2016-2017) 88089: 2017-09-11T00:46:17+00:00 West Coast 0.3m Rural Aerial Photos Index Tiles (2016-2017) 95450: 2018-05-17T02:43:28+00:00 Thames Coromandel 0.05m Urban Aerial Photos Index Tiles (2015) 95496: 2018-06-08T09:17:49+00:00 Wellington 0.3m Rural Aerial Photos (2016-2017) 53561: 2017-01-20T00:36:42+00:00 Protected Areas to Parcel Association 95551: 2018-06-29T20:28:02+00:00 Thames Coromandel 0.05m Urban Aerial Photos (2015) 53596: 2017-04-23T22:12:43+00:00 NZ Roads: Address Range Road 95552: 2018-06-28T14:26:56+00:00 West Coast 0.3m Rural Aerial Photos (2016-2017)

SPlanzer commented 6 years ago

Hi @SsiZhang Concerning: Layers 95441 -Bay of Plenty 0.3m Rural Aerial Photos Index Tiles (2016-2017)

When I run python nzgoal_audit.py -F '01/04/18' -T '01/06/18' -f '~/Downloads/nzgoal.tsv' > nzgoal_results_log.txt against the google sheet I get the below row in the publish group (in the report). 95441: 2018-05-17T02:37:58+00:00 Bay of Plenty 0.3m Rural Aerial Photos Index Tiles (2016-2017)

This means the id is in the sheet, the forms outcome was publish without restriction and the layer has been published to the LDS. According to the RSS feed and LDS this was published on the 17 May 2018 and last updated on the 17 May 2018

This is as I would expect. Probably best if we talk about this one in person tomorrow

See full results below:


    -------------------------------------------------
     _     ____  ____       _   _   _ ____ ___ _____ 
    | |   |  _ \/ ___|     / \ | | | |  _ \_ _|_   _|
    | |   | | | \___ \    / _ \| | | | | | | |  | |  
    | |___| |_| |___) |  / ___ \ |_| | |_| | |  | |  
    |_____|____/|____/  /_/   \_\___/|____/___| |_|  

    This utility performs the NZGOAL LDS audit by
    comparing the LDS RSS feed with the NZGOAL
    google form questionnaire as exported in tsv.
    For more information. Please see the geodetic wiki 

    e.g.
        python nzgoal_audit.py --help
        python nzgoal_audit.py -F '30/06/15' 
                               -T '1/07/16' 
                               -f './NZ Goal Data.tsv'
    -------------------------------------------------

Assessing RSS Data:
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 

>>>RESULTS:
The script has found all LDS ids of those public datasets 
published between the provided dates.The results are categorised based
on the outcomes of the forms questionnaire, except those that did not find 
a matching id in the tsv/ spreadsheet. These are out-putted here under 
the section "NO CORRESPONDING LDS ID IN FORMS SPREAD SHEET (.TSV)"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NO CORRESPONDING LDS ID IN FORMS SPREAD SHEET (.TSV):

lds_id: Date Pub:       Data Set Name:
95450:  2018-05-17T02:43:28+00:00   Thames Coromandel 0.05m Urban Aerial Photos Index Tiles (2015)
95453:  2018-05-17T02:45:18+00:00   Wellington 0.3m Rural Aerial Photos Index Tiles (2016-2017)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISH WITH RESTRICTIONS:

lds_id: Date Pub:       Data Set Name:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DO NOT PUBLISH:

lds_id: Date Pub:       Data Set Name:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISH:

lds_id: Date Pub:       Data Set Name:
95451:  2018-05-17T02:44:01+00:00   Upper Hutt 0.10m Urban Aerial Photos Index Tiles (2017)
95449:  2018-05-17T02:41:55+00:00   New Plymouth 0.10m Urban Aerial Photos Index Tiles (2017)
95447:  2018-05-17T02:40:43+00:00   Napier 0.1m Urban Aerial Photos Index Tiles (2017-2018)
95446:  2018-05-17T02:40:00+00:00   Napier 0.05m Urban Aerial Photos Index Tiles (2017-2018)
95445:  2018-05-17T02:39:46+00:00   Kapiti Coast 0.10m Urban Aerial Photos Index Tiles (2017)
95443:  2018-05-17T02:38:51+00:00   Hutt City 0.10m Urban Aerial Photos Index Tiles (2017)
95442:  2018-05-17T02:38:30+00:00   Hastings 0.1m Urban Aerial Photos Index Tiles (2017-2018)
95441:  2018-05-17T02:37:58+00:00   Bay of Plenty 0.3m Rural Aerial Photos Index Tiles (2016-2017)
95440:  2018-05-17T02:37:33+00:00   Central Hawkes Bay 0.1m Urban Aerial Photos Index Tiles (2017-2018)
95439:  2018-05-17T02:37:32+00:00   Auckland 0.075m Urban Aerial Photos Index Tiles (2017)
95452:  2018-05-17T02:44:09+00:00   Wellington 0.10m Urban Aerial Photos Index Tiles (2017)
SPlanzer commented 6 years ago

with respect to -F '01/01/17' -T '30/09/18'

I get all these in the "NO CORRESPONDING LDS ID IN FORMS SPREAD SHEET (.TSV):" section. This means they have been published to the LDS but the data manager did not fill out the NZGOAL spread sheet

This therefore, from the script point of view appears fine to me. Just not from an audit point of view


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NO CORRESPONDING LDS ID IN FORMS SPREAD SHEET (.TSV):

lds_id: Date Pub:       Data Set Name:
95453:  2018-05-17T02:45:18+00:00   Wellington 0.3m Rural Aerial Photos Index Tiles (2016-2017)
88089:  2017-09-11T00:46:17+00:00   West Coast 0.3m Rural Aerial Photos Index Tiles (2016-2017)
95450:  2018-05-17T02:43:28+00:00   Thames Coromandel 0.05m Urban Aerial Photos Index Tiles (2015)
95496:  2018-06-08T09:17:49+00:00   Wellington 0.3m Rural Aerial Photos (2016-2017)
53561:  2017-01-20T00:36:42+00:00   Protected Areas to Parcel Association
95551:  2018-06-29T20:28:02+00:00   Thames Coromandel 0.05m Urban Aerial Photos (2015)
53596:  2017-04-23T22:12:43+00:00   NZ Roads: Address Range Road
95552:  2018-06-28T14:26:56+00:00   West Coast 0.3m Rural Aerial Photos (2016-2017)
SPlanzer commented 6 years ago

@SsiZhang Lets make sometime to go over this tomorrow

SsiZhang commented 6 years ago

Thank you Simon. Yes, if we can have a chat tomorrow will be great. I agree it's more for the audit view.

I feel the issue is the 'publish date'. For example, the imagery index data can be uploaded into the LDS few months before the data being actually released to the public. In the BoP index example, the publish date is May in the report, but it actually hasn't been released until recently. Th e RSS feed won't show this layer until it has been made available to the public. So this layer wasn't in the previous report.

I might make the issue sounds more confusing...I'll explain this in person tomorrow.

SPlanzer commented 6 years ago

Below is my understanding of the use case resulting in the issue and some options.

The Issue

@SsiZhang is the above correct?

Options

@SsiZhang I have assigned this to you. Please let me know if you need any further help