Closed mcoughlin closed 3 years ago
Would you mind plotting the output of this please, to check?
Merging #5 (da3cee5) into master (44a33ed) will not change coverage. The diff coverage is
n/a
.
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #5 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 89.70% 89.70%
=======================================
Files 6 6
Lines 136 136
=======================================
Hits 122 122
Misses 14 14
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact)
,ø = not affected
,? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 44a33ed...da3cee5. Read the comment docs.
Here's what this looks like near the north celestial pole. It has a lot of overlap. Does this look correct?
Yeah I just added one that I think behaves a bit better at the poles. Can we add that script to tiles.py for the plotting?
What is the provenance of these algorithms? Have they been used for previous surveys?
I have used a variation on these to produce tilings for various telescopes, including DECam and others. I usually tune the overlaps by hand a bit for the various surveys to get some reasonable amount of overlap, which also means needing to play around a bit close to the poles.
Would you please add docstrings with references to the journal articles where these grids are introduced, described, or used?
I'm ready to merge this as soon as legal processes your CLA. So sorry about the red tape.
I added geodesic grids: https://dorado-scheduling.readthedocs.io/en/latest/reference/tesselation.html
awesome leo!
They finally got your CLA processed. I'd like to see this unified with the new dorado.scheduling.tesselation
module, but since I added that after you had opened this PR, I could merge this as is and do the refactoring myself. What would you prefer?
Let's get this merged and then I can help as necessary this weekend when I have more time. Thanks Leo.
Quick example to make a tiling on the sphere