Closed philipshirk closed 4 years ago
Thanks for the issue @filups - Sorry for any confusion: this is a great place to open issues regarding bugs, features, use cases, etc. Not just bug reports.
@geanders do you have any thoughts on this? plotting stuff is not one of my skills, and you were the original author of this i think
it makes sense to me to make this change to account for gaps
@filups if you have time, could you send a pull request with your proposed changes?
I'll see what I can do. Could you save me a bit of time by pointing me towards where I can find the code for the autoplot
function and some info on the meteo_coverage
output structure?
great, thanks.
autoplot.meteo_coverage
is in https://github.com/ropensci/rnoaa/blob/master/R/meteo-autoplot.R
meteo_coverage
is in https://github.com/ropensci/rnoaa/blob/master/R/meteo_utils.r
I (finally) started working on this, but I'm not sure if I can stay within the confines of the meteo_coverage
class. What can you tell me about that class? Is it used for anything other than the autoplot.meteo_coverage
function? My initial thought is to change the output of the meteo_coverage
function from a data.frame to a list that contains the current data.frame output as well as a 2nd data.frame that I'll use for plotting in the autoplot.meteo_coverage
.
@philipshirk Great, glad to hear it. Looks like meteo_coverage
is only used for autoplot - so we are free to change it outputs
I'm not sure if this really belongs in the issues or the forum, since it's more a feature request than a bug, but here it goes. In some cases stations are missing a lot of data, making the
autoplot()
of ameteo_coverage
object very misleading. For example: