-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3
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 to deal with media-based observations in exploratory functions #332
Comments
I don't know how to handle media-based observations as I don't know the use cases. What I do know is that media-based observations should be retained when reading data, so they are available in functions that need them (e.g. density estimation). I would filter out media-based observations in most (all?) camtraptor functions to replicate old behaviour. If use cases come up for users with media-based observations, we can either 1) add it as a non-default option or 2) provide a function to create event-based observations out of media-based observations. |
I would suggest to provide a function to create event-based observations out of media-based observations |
All exploratory functions we wrote have been written when camtrapDP was dealing with event-based observations only.
Now that we can have both media-based and event-based observations (camtrap DP v1.0), the question arises about how to deal with them while applying observations related exploratory functions (
get_n_obs()
,get_n_individuals()
,get_rai()
, ...).Let's check each of three possible situations: event-based obs only, media-based only and mixed event and media based obs.
Event-based obs only
Everything as usual. No messages returned.
Media-based obs only
Need to throw a warning in this case? Probably yes. Because we can calculate a RAI based on number of media-based observations, but does it make any sense?
Both media-based and event-based obs
My idea is to throw an error in this situation as I do not see any use case where those observations need to be considered together.
(super)users @jimcasaer, @MartijnUH, codevelopers @peterdesmet, @sannegovaert and @PietrH: any thought?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: