You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Dec 5, 2022. It is now read-only.
In some scrapers, we're making justifiable assumptions about how to interpret the data (e.g., covidatlas/coronadatascraper#572 - KOR quarantines). For scrapers, we could hardcode these caveats in the scrapers, and perhaps include them in the source output, e.g.:
Yes! This came up also in the discussion of the Panama scraper, because the Panama granularity level is akin to "borroughs" (smaller than cities) and we don't have anyway to store that. So if we call them counties, that detail could go in a field like this.
Description
In some scrapers, we're making justifiable assumptions about how to interpret the data (e.g., covidatlas/coronadatascraper#572 - KOR quarantines). For scrapers, we could hardcode these caveats in the scrapers, and perhaps include them in the source output, e.g.:
Perhaps these assumptions could be rolled up to the higher levels:
Why do you need this feature or component?
Publicize assumptions
Notes
For testing/regression, I don't think we'd need to check the caveats field, as it might change over time. One sanity check would be enough.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: