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

add_max_cover_objective [potential bug?] #38

Closed
jeffreyhanson opened this Issue Nov 3, 2017 · 1 comment

Comments

Projects
None yet
1 participant
@jeffreyhanson
Copy link
Contributor

jeffreyhanson commented Nov 3, 2017

I was reading over some of the older conservation planning literature, and the add_max_cover_objective doesn't follow the conventional formulation of the maximum covering problem. The conventional formulation aims to maximise the number of species that are represented in at least 1 planning unit. The current formulations aims to maximise the total level of representation in the solution.

Although this is documented in the help page, I worry that users might misinterpret what the add_max_cover_objective does. I suggest renaming the current version as add_max_utility_objective and implementing the classic maximum covering objective in add_max_cover_objective.

What do people think?

@jeffreyhanson

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

jeffreyhanson commented Nov 3, 2017

Or maybe add_max_repr_objective?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment