Open dylanbeaudette opened 6 years ago
I am seeing a lot of areas in CA where I don't think there should be any restriction in any of the components, yet the map is showing a restriction. Perhaps it is an artifact of the averaging across components, even where there should be no restriction?
Do you have a couple examples in mind? A set of coordinates would help track down issues like this. Thanks.
One issue, related to issue that the zero value being interpreted as NO DATA, is that no restrictive feature entered I believe is being considered translated to "NO DATA". No restrictive feature should equal depth to restrictive feature > 150cm. Also, for this property, are you averaging across all components? Wonder if we should be averaging across only majors?
There are also different kinds of restrictions - http://localhost:54820/restriction_kindDomainInfo.aspx. Perhaps broadly they can be grouped into 2 groups: cemented, with Hardness of indurated, very strongly, strongly, moderately, weakly, and very weakly vs. noncemented - http://localhost:54741/rupture_resist_block_cemDomainInfo.aspx. Things like salic and sulfuric turn up in the noncemented. So perhaps there needs to be cemented and noncemented restrictions property maps.
In the current implementation, we are using the "most shallow" restrictive feature. This could be interpreted as the worst-case scenario--maybe too conservative?
Discuss.