-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
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
updated baseline check #32
Comments
Hello Sander, Tell me how i can help you for solving this problem. |
And thus be excluded from the export (csv/shp) ? |
@adrienlatli Can you somehow identify the missing records ? By ID perhaps ? |
Hello Sander, Find below a datafiles with observations that have disappear in the new baseline (essentially VMM observations) : And find below another data file with the most recent observations that were missing in the last baseline: For the baseline, missing observations from VMM should appear, also with observations from the other data owners, up to 2020. But observations after December 31, 2020 should be deleted. |
I'll look into what went wrong with this data.
This is logical since I did not receive any new Walloon data besides the data that's present on gbif. Can/may I consider this as a part of the Demna dataflow ? or should I create a new dataflow for Natagora data ?
Since I also need the data for the website https://iasspeciesdashboard.shinyapps.io/Riparias-baseline-maps/ I'll have to look into were I can implement this filter. |
I've Identified the step in the flow where the error does occur. I'll see what goes wrong and try to fix it. |
I've fixed the cause for the missing data but I'm waiting for a response whether or not to include the natagora data as demna or as independent to complete the update. |
In my opinion, you have to create a new dataflow for natagora data but only for observations in Flanders. Observations made by Natagora in Wallonia will appear in the DEMNA database when we make data aggregation. |
The Natagora data is all present on gbif so they should be present in the baseline. |
@adrienlatli noticed lacking crayfish data for Faxonius limosus in the baseline with more data available on waarnemingen.be for the period considered (1/1/2010-1/1/2020) https://waarnemingen.be/species/8887/maps/?start_date=2010-01-01&interval=15552000&end_date=2020-01-01&map_type=grid10k Can we do a quick check to see what went wrong here? Do we need to update the gbif data extraction @SanderDevisscher? |
@tim Tim Adriaens ***@***.***> I used approved data only. Does
the difference appear mostly with older approved observations? Or more with
newer (non) approved observations ?
Op do 24 feb. 2022 12:24 schreef Tim Adriaens ***@***.***>:
… @adrienlatli <https://github.com/adrienlatli> noticed lacking crayfish
data for Faxonius limosus in the baseline with more data available on
waarnemingen.be for the period considered (1/1/2010-1/1/2020)
https://waarnemingen.be/species/8887/maps/?start_date=2010-01-01&interval=15552000&end_date=2020-01-01&map_type=grid10k
[image: image]
<https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/16116743/155515031-a710cb42-928c-42f0-b5c7-b146d36e62bb.png>
Can we do a quick check to see what went wrong here? Do we need to update
the gbif data extraction @SanderDevisscher
<https://github.com/SanderDevisscher>?
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#32 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEAAQOBMZUTSVBKI64ZNGZLU4YIQBANCNFSM5BADCBBA>
.
Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS
<https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675>
or Android
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub>.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
Hello Sander, The link with the validated observations: We have less observations than previously but many of them are in the Riparias area but not in the baseline. |
@adrienlatli can you confirm these observation are included in this waarnemingen.be dataset on gbif ? ifso some gbifid's to troubleshoot would be appreciated |
@SanderDevisscher |
@adrienlatli thanks for the examples. I'll look into what goes wrong. |
I found the suspected cause of the missing Faxonius limosus observations. Somehow the species was not included in the gbif download and thus no waarnemingen.be data was included. I'll look into a fix. |
@adrienlatli Orconectes limosus was included in the download but the waarnemingen.be data uses Faxonius limosus and was thus omited. I'll change the download to include both taxa. |
@SanderDevisscher : Thanks a lot for your work. |
It does download synonyms when you download the accepted species, in this case Faxonius limosus. The download considers all (including orconectes & astacus) as Faxonius. When you download only the synonym, like we did, the download gets limited to that synonym. |
the usual hassle with taxonomic matching to the gbif backbone. It will be so much easier when we have published the RIPARIAS target species checklist and the Union List as checklists on gbif (work in progress). |
@adrienlatli is this more in line with what it should be ? |
I checked and the example you provided is now present in the baseline |
Looks great Sander. It 's ok for me :-) |
@adrienlatli checked the updated baseline (which now looks good for the crayfish spp.):
For Wallonia the baseline is OK and validated.
@SanderDevisscher can we check and solve these issues?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: