I can confirm that all_huc12_covariates latitude and longitudes plot within the February (new) boundary of our study area.
Here are some facts:
We have negative acc_elev_min. We are not in (say) California desert. I would not expect any negative values per se. A few might be just a question of rounding, conversion, or datum, but -12.99 m is the minimum for acc_elev_min.
We have an extreme positive acc_elev_max. The largest is 4394.81 m, which is 14,000+ feet (Pike's Peak?)
Distribution of acc_elev_max. I think we have a distinct change in population say at 800 meters with some part of the "divergence"(?) leaking way upstream. I bet we have one or more routings leaking upto Colorado.
We have a acc_basin_area as a max of 2873761.6 km^2, which is like a million square miles. I think Texas is 268,581 square miles itself. I think this is related to the leak in elevation maximum.
Good news is that we have only 10 comids with reversed dam storage values:
length(COV$comid[COV$acc_nid_storage < COV$acc_norm_storage])
[1] 10
I make mention of the storage because we have two sites (02295420 and 02296750) with reversed values too as part of the model building. I am assuming for those two sites that the values are swapped in the NID and move along. The fact that only 10 have a problem is good and the latitude and longitude of these two stations are near the locations of the 10 comids. So the problem is localized in our domain. Great news.
I can confirm that all_huc12_covariates latitude and longitudes plot within the February (new) boundary of our study area.
Here are some facts:
We have negative acc_elev_min. We are not in (say) California desert. I would not expect any negative values per se. A few might be just a question of rounding, conversion, or datum, but -12.99 m is the minimum for acc_elev_min.
We have an extreme positive acc_elev_max. The largest is 4394.81 m, which is 14,000+ feet (Pike's Peak?)
We have a acc_basin_area as a max of 2873761.6 km^2, which is like a million square miles. I think Texas is 268,581 square miles itself. I think this is related to the leak in elevation maximum.
Good news is that we have only 10 comids with reversed dam storage values: length(COV$comid[COV$acc_nid_storage < COV$acc_norm_storage]) [1] 10
I make mention of the storage because we have two sites (02295420 and 02296750) with reversed values too as part of the model building. I am assuming for those two sites that the values are swapped in the NID and move along. The fact that only 10 have a problem is good and the latitude and longitude of these two stations are near the locations of the 10 comids. So the problem is localized in our domain. Great news.