Iss 24 #29
Iss 24 #29
Conversation
README.md
Outdated
| - Collect primary data in place of secondary categorical data, where feasible. | ||
| 1. #### Be specific about purpose and scope | ||
| - Each classification is designed for an explicit spatiotemporal geographic unit. | ||
| - Atomic geographic units, such as DGGS zones, should be preferred over pre-existing geographic units such as proepty boundaries. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Remove atomic; not the word we want here.
A DGGS, assuming we 'standardize' one (H3?), provides a fixed, persistent, reproducible grid without relying on imprecise 'boundary' information provided by councils, LINZ, StatsNZ, local planners, engineers, architects, etc.; all of which could, and probably do, differ.
Fix property typo
README.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| ## Principles <!-- Informative --> | ||
|
|
||
| 1. #### Prioritise atomic data (i.e. decomposition of multidimensional attributes, e.g. tenure) | ||
| - Break down information being collected into individual (atomic) attributes. | ||
| - Break down information being collected into individual (atomic, primitive, indivisible) attributes. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Expose data behind categories? High-producing grassland means little until grassland and high-producing are unpacked--e.g. grassland includes N species (list?) and high-producing is everything above X bushels per hectare (or whatever) for this area (DGGS cell).
README.md
Outdated
| - Collect primary data in place of secondary categorical data, where feasible. | ||
| 1. #### Be specific about purpose and scope | ||
| - Each classification is designed for an explicit spatiotemporal geographic unit. | ||
| - Atomic geographic units, such as DGGS zones, should be preferred over pre-existing geographic units such as proepty boundaries. | ||
| - A classification system does not have to be comprehensive, and may consider some land use types "out of scope", according to the purpose. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
instead of 'may' I suggest something like, 'will almost certainly'
README.md
Outdated
| - A classification system does not have to be comprehensive, and may consider some land use types "out of scope", according to the purpose. | ||
| 1. #### Classification systems should be extensible | ||
| - Ensure flexibility for land use classification systems which support indigenous data sovereignty protocols (see [Te Mana Raraunga – Māori Data Sovereignty Network)](https://www.temanararaunga.maori.nz/)). | ||
| 1. #### Hierarchies are encouraged where appropriate |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hierarchies are encouraged where appropriate, required and logically consistent
| @@ -21,6 +27,8 @@ NZLUMT is an adaptation of the Australian Land Use and Management (ALUM) Classif | |||
|
|
|||
| The NZLUMT is intended for the purpose of land use change modelling and environmental monitoring (especially for fresh water management). Land use practices are of particular relevance to this classification system, as there is a need to understand social and economic capacity for changes to land management practices. Land tenure is also a compulsory attribute as it relates to the potential for changes to land use and land use management practices (i.e. tenure may constrain possibile changes). | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we need to call out fresh water management, specifically?
|
|
||
| This work is licensed under a | ||
| [Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License][cc-by]. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This seems fine for now. I suspect there will need to be bits licensed separately downstream.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Also, if we are going to go with attribution (which I agree with) we should pipe this through Zenodo so we can get a proper DOI, and add a subsequent CITATION.cff file for the repository.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
....or contact Alla (or whomever in the library) to procure a Manaaki Whenua generated DOI.
(Apologies for the tangent.)
README.md
Outdated
| Different land use maps are made for different intended purposes, because of the necessity of making decisions about how information is organised that constrain its appliciblity. It is a best practice to explicitly state the purpose for which land use classification systems are designed. This purpose will inform other decisions. When deciding on this purpose, consider what questions are likely to be answered if land use information is systematically organised according to the classification system. A 2013 Stats NZ report[^2] provides a useful framing for these questions as "enduring", i.e. questions that don't really change over time, but the way we answer them (under a type of system or architecture) does. | ||
|
|
||
| A choice of geographic unit that make extension and re-organisation of land use information difficult (such as property parcels) can be made for _pragmatic_ reasons, but should be justified. Possible justifications include: alignment with existing tools or published data, computational feasibility, the expected absense of finer-scale input data, restrictions on the use of required input data, or privacy. Where possible, a specification to use grids without pre-defined boundaries (such as [DGGS zones](https://docs.ogc.org/as/20-040r3/20-040r3.html), or raster grids) should be preferred. | ||
|
|
||
| ### Scope | ||
|
|
||
| Land use classification systems _may_ only consider a few land use types, and consider others as being "out of scope". For example, a classification of protected land may choose to classify all other land as "non-protected" without attempting any form of further classification, according to the purpose of that classification system. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
...without attempting more precise classification, according to...
README.md
Outdated
| <!--  | ||
| Fig N. Overview figure. --> | ||
|
|
||
| ### Purpose | ||
|
|
||
| Different land use maps are made for different intended purposes, because of the necessity of making decisions about how information is organised that constrain its appliciblity. It is a best practice to explicitly state the purpose for which land use classification systems are designed. This purpose will inform other decisions. When deciding on this purpose, consider what questions are likely to be answered if land use information is systematically organised according to the classification system. A 2013 Stats NZ report[^2] provides a useful framing for these questions as "enduring", i.e. questions that don't really change over time, but the way we answer them (under a type of system or architecture) does. | ||
|
|
||
| A choice of geographic unit that make extension and re-organisation of land use information difficult (such as property parcels) can be made for _pragmatic_ reasons, but should be justified. Possible justifications include: alignment with existing tools or published data, computational feasibility, the expected absense of finer-scale input data, restrictions on the use of required input data, or privacy. Where possible, a specification to use grids without pre-defined boundaries (such as [DGGS zones](https://docs.ogc.org/as/20-040r3/20-040r3.html), or raster grids) should be preferred. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
suggest re-wording...
Choice of geographic unit may make extension and re-organisation of land use information difficult, e.g. property parcels. Obviously there are pragmatic reasons for choices of this nature. Be mindful of knock-on effects stemming from what are effectively modelling decisions. Potential issues include, but are not limited to, alignment with existing tools or published data, computational (in)feasibility, the expected absence of finer-scale input data, restrictions on the use of required input data, or privacy. Where possible, a specification to use grids without pre-defined boundaries (such as DGGS zones, or raster grids) should be preferred.
README.md
Outdated
| <!--  | ||
| Fig N. Overview figure. --> | ||
|
|
||
| ### Purpose | ||
|
|
||
| Different land use maps are made for different intended purposes, because of the necessity of making decisions about how information is organised that constrain its appliciblity. It is a best practice to explicitly state the purpose for which land use classification systems are designed. This purpose will inform other decisions. When deciding on this purpose, consider what questions are likely to be answered if land use information is systematically organised according to the classification system. A 2013 Stats NZ report[^2] provides a useful framing for these questions as "enduring", i.e. questions that don't really change over time, but the way we answer them (under a type of system or architecture) does. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
suggest modifying first sentence.
Land use information is collected at multiple scales for a variety of purposes which directly, and indirectly, affects relevant decisions based on how that information is organised and/or applied.
README.md
Outdated
| @@ -49,6 +61,7 @@ The list of best practices for land use classification systems under this framew | |||
| <!-- 1. Data product specification, e.g. ISO 19131:2022 --> | |||
| 1. **Purpose** Land use classification systems shall describe their intended use-cases. | |||
| 1. **Scope** Land use classification systems shall describe their intended scope. | |||
| 1. **Extensibility** Ensure flexibility for land use classification systems to interact with Māori attribute layers that maintain indigenous data sovereignty. | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Extensibility Ensure flexibility for land use classification systems to interact (connect? relate?) with other land use data and classification systems. This must include, for example, Māori attribute layers that maintain indigenous data sovereignty.
README.md
Outdated
| ### Scope | ||
|
|
||
| Land use classification systems _may_ only consider a few land use types, and consider others as being "out of scope". For example, a classification of protected land may choose to classify all other land as "non-protected" without attempting any form of further classification, according to the purpose of that classification system. | ||
|
|
||
| ### Extensibility | ||
|
|
||
| It should always be possible to "extend" or "widen" a classification system with more properties/attributes that can be determined by other users, such that information can be re-organised, re-presented, and corrected according to local priorities, to be owned by hapū and iwi without an expectation that this will be visible "upstream". |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can it be owned by individuals as well? (e.g. owned by hapū, iwi, or individuals?)
README.md
Outdated
| Different land use maps are made for different intended purposes, because of the necessity of making decisions about how information is organised that constrain its appliciblity. It is a best practice to explicitly state the purpose for which land use classification systems are designed. This purpose will inform other decisions. When deciding on this purpose, consider what questions are likely to be answered if land use information is systematically organised according to the classification system. A 2013 Stats NZ report[^2] provides a useful framing for these questions as "enduring", i.e. questions that don't really change over time, but the way we answer them (under a type of system or architecture) does. | ||
|
|
||
| A choice of geographic unit that make extension and re-organisation of land use information difficult (such as property parcels) can be made for _pragmatic_ reasons, but should be justified. Possible justifications include: alignment with existing tools or published data, computational feasibility, the expected absense of finer-scale input data, restrictions on the use of required input data, or privacy. Where possible, a specification to use grids without pre-defined boundaries (such as [DGGS zones](https://docs.ogc.org/as/20-040r3/20-040r3.html), or raster grids) should be preferred. | ||
|
|
||
| ### Scope | ||
|
|
||
| Land use classification systems _may_ only consider a few land use types, and consider others as being "out of scope". For example, a classification of protected land may choose to classify all other land as "non-protected" without attempting any form of further classification, according to the purpose of that classification system. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
First line:
Land use classification systems need not be comprehensive. They may only consider a few land use types...
An attempt to cover #24 for the draft report.
TODO