correct veg/non logic in landcover veg frequency #176
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
JM-GA
approved these changes
Dec 5, 2024
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #176 +/- ##
===========================================
- Coverage 81.20% 81.20% -0.01%
===========================================
Files 50 50
Lines 4528 4522 -6
===========================================
- Hits 3677 3672 -5
+ Misses 851 850 -1 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
tebadi
reviewed
Dec 6, 2024
| # implies any "wet" area potentially veg | ||
|
|
||
| max_count_veg = expr_eval( | ||
| "where((a<_v)&(b<_v), _v, b)", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
strictly less, it's specific for the pattern of non-veg - veg - non-veg - veg
tebadi
reviewed
Dec 6, 2024
|
|
||
| # consecutive observation of non-veg | ||
| non_veg_data = expr_eval( | ||
| "where(a<nodata, 1-a, nodata)", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't understand why it's 1-a
There was a problem hiding this comment.
1: veg 0: non-veg. after flipping 1: non-veg, 0: veg, easier to use same function to calculate monthly median.
tebadi
approved these changes
Dec 6, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
As the title. It removed the "likely water" -> non-veg, introduced consecutive observations of non-veg < threshold(2) -> veg. The earlier caused bare soil along water edges, where wo summaries don't have clear enough data to tell for sure if it's water, consequently it'll be non-water, non-water + non-veg -> bare soil. The absence of later would cause similar problem, where a water - veg - water - veg sequence would cause a pixel to be bare soil. It's very rare to have soil - veg - soil - veg sequence after the sanity check on the results of first implementation, and intuitively. The condition was also used in c2, though back to the time, there didn't seem to make any statistical difference to classify dry pixels either way. Now the pro of having the condition clearly out-weighted con, decide to introduce it now.