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

Coastline is missing ice shelves, CCAMLR coastline mismatch with ADD-derived coastline #17

Open
raymondben opened this issue Feb 26, 2019 · 11 comments
Assignees

Comments

@raymondben
Copy link
Member

Does the simplified ADD map in quantarcticR provide a better alternative, perhaps?

@raymondben raymondben self-assigned this Feb 26, 2019
@raymondben
Copy link
Member Author

WIP: data-raw/SOmap_data.R now has separate data objects for ice shelves/tongues/etc, and land

@raymondben raymondben removed their assignment Mar 4, 2019
@Maschette
Copy link

Do I recall you finishing this? I feel like I saw it somewhere.

@raymondben
Copy link
Member Author

No, not finished yet. The data objects are there, but they aren't used in the code yet. It's one of the many things I'll get back to when time allows (but anyone else can take it on in the meantime ...)

@raymondben
Copy link
Member Author

Any chance we can re-define the CCAMLR planning domain data so that they do not include the coastline (and same for any other management layers in SOmap_data that have coastline in them)? If they are just lines over the ocean (e.g. like the IWC domains) things will be easier and faster

@mdsumner
Copy link
Member

mdsumner commented May 16, 2019

YESSS - and we could add something to "bake in" a coastline at user request. sf is fast enough for that to be feasible now (though it's still not always reliable)

FWIW, I have quite a few of these kinds of layers defined from scratch, from a few points and lines (MEASO, aceecostats, and some CCAMLR things)

@Maschette
Copy link

Simple answer, Possibly? it has always been unclear about where the CCAMLR boundary starts in relation to ice shelves but in theory we could remove their coast line and use our own as long as we are quite explicit about it in the documentation. It would mean you couldn't easily use those layers for analysis like i currently do.

@mdsumner
Copy link
Member

mdsumner commented May 16, 2019

Well, it's the convention text that holds the boundary - but they then publish a shapefile with some unknown provenance with a baked in geography. I think it's clear where our responsibility lies, and btw of course there is this long ago thing:

https://github.com/mdsumner/cconvention

    #The waters bounded by a line starting at 62°S 30°E
    # thence due east to 62°S 73°10'E
    # thence due south to 64°S 73°10'E
    # thence due east to 64°S 80°E
    # thence due south to the Antarctic Continent
    # thence westward along the coast of the Antarctic Continent to 30°E longitude
    # thence due north to the starting point.

SW even wrote a recursive descent parser to extract the coordinates from the convention text, but I'll leave that aside for now

I guess I'm volunteering ...

@Maschette
Copy link

My main thought would be we should have both in data so people can access if they want it, but our default would be the correct continent file.

@raymondben
Copy link
Member Author

raymondben commented Jun 4, 2019

Ice shelves added as of 83df0f4
Have not yet resolved the CCAMLR vs ADD coastline discrepancies

@raymondben raymondben changed the title Coastline is missing ice shelves Coastline is missing ice shelves, CCAMLR coastline mismatch with ADD-derived coastline Jun 4, 2019
This was referenced Jun 30, 2020
@raymondben
Copy link
Member Author

2f504df uses a simplified (less complexity, smaller object size) of the domains layer, but I think ideally we still want to remove the coastline from any layer except the coastline layer

@mdsumner
Copy link
Member

mdsumner commented Jul 2, 2020

I'll revisit this stuff

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

No branches or pull requests

3 participants