Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

How document epu_sf dataset #43

Open
andybeet opened this issue Jun 7, 2023 · 5 comments · May be fixed by #45
Open

How document epu_sf dataset #43

andybeet opened this issue Jun 7, 2023 · 5 comments · May be fixed by #45

Comments

@andybeet
Copy link
Member

andybeet commented Jun 7, 2023

@jmhatch @kimberly-bastille
The epu_sf dataset is an internal product.
It did arise from a publication from the center and is documented in the tech doc
It is also documented in the ecodata package (ecodata::epu_sf)

How should be best document this? Should we just point to tech doc above?

Should we change the name too? epu_strata?

What do you two think?

@jmhatch
Copy link
Member

jmhatch commented Jun 7, 2023

@andybeet @kimberly-bastille
I lean towards mirroring the documentation in ecodata, since that's the data source. Along those lines, I'd also lean towards keeping the name the same (epu_sf). But I don't feel that strongly and would support changes, if you'd like to make some.

@kimberly-bastille
Copy link
Collaborator

+1 to using the documentation from ecodata and pointing to tech doc.

For the naming, I don't think strata is the best since that really applies to survey files, and EPUs used survey inputs but are not used in the survey statistics that make those strata areas necessary. Maybe for this package, it is best to use the full name (Ecological_Production_Units).

@andybeet andybeet linked a pull request Jun 8, 2023 that will close this issue
@andybeet
Copy link
Member Author

andybeet commented Jun 8, 2023

so the CRS for this file uses "old-style crs object detected; please recreate object with a recent sf::st_crs()"

eg: +proj=longlat +lat_0=40 +lon_0=-77+x_0=0 +y_0=0 +datum=NAD83 +no_defs +ellps=GRS80 +towgs84=0,0,0

Should this be converted?

Also is it worth also adding centroid values (X,Y) as additional fields? These are present in other shapefiles (i think i may have added them as part of the conversion script for other shapefiles. These XY fields are often used when adding labels to polygons?

@kimberly-bastille
Copy link
Collaborator

I forgot I had ignored that warning. I converted the raster::crs to the sf::st_crs in commit 4006a1b.

I support adding the centroid values but I was not sure how to do that.

@sgaichas
Copy link

sgaichas commented May 1, 2024

Thanks for this awesome product!

I had one further thought on EPU documentation:

Some of our state of the ecosystem indicators use the spatial definition in this current dataset, but others are now using a NEFSC bottom trawl survey strata-based EPU definition.

This may not need to be a separate dataset if the documentation here includes a description of which survey strata map to which EPUs:

MAB <- c(1010:1080, 1100:1120, 1600:1750, 3010:3450, 3470, 3500, 3510)
GB <- c(1090, 1130:1210, 1230, 1250, 3460, 3480, 3490, 3520:3550)
GOM <- c(1220, 1240, 1260:1290, 1360:1400, 3560:3830)
SS <- c(1300:1352, 3840:3990)

Then everyone could use the same mapping.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants