search

nsidc / qgreenland

Source code for generating the QGreenland package hosted at https://qgreenland.org/
https://qgreenland.readthedocs.io
Other
36 stars 9 forks source link

Apply v3 feedback from Twila #738

Closed MattF-NSIDC closed 1 year ago

MattF-NSIDC commented 1 year ago

https://nsidc.slack.com/archives/CRB96FG68/p1689705184038139

MattF-NSIDC commented 1 year ago

The bottom 3 layers in the "internet-required data" group have dropdown arrows on the left, but nothing that appears when you click it.

This is an artifact of the different ways the data is exposed over the internet by the data providers. The image mosaics are displayed as "multiband color" because they're based on an online VRT file that defines multiple bands. The orthophotos, topomap, and bathymetry layers are all WMS layers understood as "singleband color data" by QGIS.

I don't see a way to make the legends of these layers more consistent. Seeing the 3 bands for the image mosaics doesn't help the user understand the color imagery.

MattF-NSIDC commented 1 year ago

I don't see any apparent date information for the 'global administrative divisions' layer. Browsing around the citation URL also didn't provide leads. Is it easy for us to know the date of this data version and add to metadata?

Looks like the most recent version 5.1.0 was released on 2022-05-13. I don't think that necessarily means that all boundaries are correct and valid as of that date. We should probably clear this dataset ne_states_provinces from our cache to ensure the latest version is grabbed on our next compilation.

https://github.com/nvkelso/natural-earth-vector/blob/master/CHANGELOG https://www.naturalearthdata.com/downloads/10m-cultural-vectors/10m-admin-1-states-provinces/

MattF-NSIDC commented 1 year ago

Under Geophysics > Heat flux we have 2 different titles that acknowledge data authors. We don't do this for other layers. Consider removing that from title and simply ensuring full metadata information. Could consider replacing with a date/date range re: measurements instead. >> follow up: looks like data compilation, so just title without date(s) looks like best option (edited)

This was a point of discussion when we first added the two layers. One author refers to flux, the other to flow (same units, I think they're the same thing). Without adding the authors, distinguishing between them was difficult.

just title without date(s) looks like best option

This would give us:

Maybe we should rename Heat flow to Heat flow from machine learning?

MattF-NSIDC commented 1 year ago

I think it would be a good idea to update BedMachine title to "BedMachine v5"

https://github.com/nsidc/qgreenland/pull/741

MattF-NSIDC commented 1 year ago

@trey-stafford @twilamoon-science could use input on:

https://github.com/nsidc/qgreenland/issues/738#issuecomment-1683033665 https://github.com/nsidc/qgreenland/issues/738#issuecomment-1683038934

trey-stafford commented 1 year ago

We should probably clear this dataset ne_states_provinces from our cache to ensure the latest version is grabbed on our next compilation.

Sounds like a good idea to me!

twilamoon-science commented 1 year ago

Re: 'global administrative divisions' layer... We aren't in the business of saying if the data are correct, but I do think we should record something about when a dataset is published and/or when we access it. That was my thought re: the metadata, rather than being able to say something about the boundary accuracy for a specific date. Does that make sense for implementation?

trey-stafford commented 1 year ago

Under Geophysics > Heat flux we have 2 different titles that acknowledge data authors. We don't do this for other layers. Consider removing that from title and simply ensuring full metadata information. Could consider replacing with a date/date range re: measurements instead. >> follow up: looks like data compilation, so just title without date(s) looks like best option (edited)

This was a point of discussion when we first added the two layers. One author refers to flux, the other to flow (same units, I think they're the same thing). Without adding the authors, distinguishing between them was difficult.

just title without date(s) looks like best option

This would give us:

* `Heat Flux/Heat flow/Flow measurement locations`

* `Heat Flux/Heat flow/Flow from multiple observations`

* `Heat Flux/Flux from ice cores`

Maybe we should rename Heat flow to Heat flow from machine learning?

I think you're right about flux and flow referring to the same phenomena. Part of the reason we stuck with those terms for those layers is because the dataset title:

I think the idea of renaming the "Heat flow" subgroup to "Heat flow from machine-learning" seems reasonable.

trey-stafford commented 1 year ago

I do think we should record something about when a dataset is published and/or when we access it.

Agreed. We should update the citation to indicate the version of the data. We can also add the date accessed.

Note that we do have a mechanism for injecting the access date into the citation, but it is done on a case-by-case basis (not all dataset citations have this)

twilamoon-science commented 1 year ago

Re: Heat Flux

1) Agree it's no problem to keep "heat flux" and "heat flow", reflecting the dataset names 2) What about keeping "heat flow", but changing "flow from multiple observations" to "gridded heat flow". Then we could copy/paste the related publication abstract into the metadata (we do this for some other layers). That abstract explains the method.

The abstract:

We compile and analyze all available geothermal heat flow measurements collected in and around Greenland into a new database of 419 sites and generate an accompanying spatial map. This database includes 290 sites previously reported by the International Heat Flow Commission (IHFC), for which we now standardize measurement and metadata quality. This database also includes 129 new sites, which have not been previously reported by the IHFC. These new sites consist of 88 offshore measurements and 41 onshore measurements, of which 24 are subglacial. We employ machine learning to synthesize these in situ measurements into a gridded geothermal heat flow model that is consistent across both continental and marine areas in and around Greenland. This model has a native horizontal resolution of 55 km. In comparison to five existing Greenland geothermal heat flow models, our model has the lowest mean geothermal heat flow for Greenland onshore areas. Our modeled heat flow in central North Greenland is highly sensitive to whether the NGRIP (North GReenland Ice core Project) elevated heat flow anomaly is included in the training dataset. Our model's most distinctive spatial feature is pronounced low geothermal heat flow (< 40 mW m−2) across the North Atlantic Craton of southern Greenland. Crucially, our model does not show an area of elevated heat flow that might be interpreted as remnant from the Icelandic plume track. Finally, we discuss the substantial influence of paleoclimatic and other corrections on geothermal heat flow measurements in Greenland. The in situ measurement database and gridded heat flow model, as well as other supporting materials, are freely available from the GEUS Dataverse (https://doi.org/10.22008/FK2/F9P03L; Colgan and Wansing, 2021).

MattF-NSIDC commented 1 year ago

https://github.com/nsidc/qgreenland/issues/742

MattF-NSIDC commented 1 year ago

Agreed. We should update the citation to indicate the version of the data. We can also add the date accessed.

Note that we do have a mechanism for injecting the access date into the citation, but it is done on a case-by-case basis (not all dataset citations have this)

I think we need to use this for the natural earth layer. The version number is not encoded in the URL, they seem to silently replace the file with the new one every time.

MattF-NSIDC commented 1 year ago

743

MattF-NSIDC commented 1 year ago

744

MattF-NSIDC commented 1 year ago

@twilamoon-science @trey-stafford are you OK with this issue being closed, and rolling forward with the issues I created above? If not, please re-open and we can continue discussion :)