https://github.com/kellijohnson-NOAA/indexwc/blob/7beaf69f13478da9a4e55623df9bceb6ffe321f8/R/calc_index_areas.R#L26-L28
the boundaries are currently only based on the stored values and not on the presence of data like the "coastwide" boundaries are, i.e., if there are no positive tows in Southern California, then we do not include Southern California in the coastwide index but as of now it is included in the California index. @iantaylor-NOAA I think this is why I was having trouble with the California index when depth was included as a covariate. So, I don't think the covariate was messing things up, just my dumb code that I wrote to get indices by area. Note that even if we redo the indices by area, this will not change the overall index which is calculated independently of the state-specific areas.
https://github.com/kellijohnson-NOAA/indexwc/blob/7beaf69f13478da9a4e55623df9bceb6ffe321f8/R/calc_index_areas.R#L26-L28 the boundaries are currently only based on the stored values and not on the presence of data like the "coastwide" boundaries are, i.e., if there are no positive tows in Southern California, then we do not include Southern California in the coastwide index but as of now it is included in the California index. @iantaylor-NOAA I think this is why I was having trouble with the California index when depth was included as a covariate. So, I don't think the covariate was messing things up, just my dumb code that I wrote to get indices by area. Note that even if we redo the indices by area, this will not change the overall index which is calculated independently of the state-specific areas.