search

ncss-tech / ISSR-800

Intermediate Scale Soil Raster (data) prepared on an 800m grid.
https://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/soil-properties/
8 stars 0 forks source link

which restrictive features should be considered in "depth to restrictive feature" map #5

Open dylanbeaudette opened 6 years ago

dylanbeaudette commented 6 years ago

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.

jennifer-wood commented 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?

dylanbeaudette commented 6 years ago

Do you have a couple examples in mind? A set of coordinates would help track down issues like this. Thanks.

jennifer-wood commented 6 years ago

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?

jennifer-wood commented 6 years ago

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.