ULTRA l2 map attributes #2175
ULTRA l2 map attributes #2175
Conversation
| @@ -196,6 +196,50 @@ exposure_factor: &exposure_factor | |||
| DISPLAY_TYPE: no_plot | |||
| DICT_KEY: SPASE>TemporalDescription:Exposure,Qualifier:Directional,CoordinateSystemName:HAE,CoordinateRepresentation:Spherical | |||
|
|
|||
| geometric_function: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this should be geometric factor?
| geometric_function: | |
| geometric_factor: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I had the same thought but apparently they want geometric function. Will that be going against the grain? Maybe it is worth it to have a separate ultra l2 map yaml file.
| DISPLAY_TYPE: no_plot | ||
| DICT_KEY: SPASE>Particle>ParticleType:Atom,ParticleQuantity:GeometricFactor,Qualifier:Directional,CoordinateSystemName:HAE,CoordinateRepresentation:Spherical | ||
|
|
||
| efficiency: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Some of these are ultra-specific and will be different for Lo/Hi I believe. Do we want to add a separate file like enamaps_l2-ultra and similar for some of these?
On Lo, our efficiency is per pointing (so not on the map), and it has a dependence on energy. I'm not sure if yours does or not (looks like no here)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see, the energy depend was defined in the specific healpix/latlon files. I guess that could be brought out here since it is the same for all of them, but it doesn't really matter. I guess you can ignore this comment for now.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh interesting. So the efficiency just has energy as a depend for lo?
| # Rename positional uncertainty variables if present | ||
| if "scatter_theta" in map_dataset and "scatter_phi" in map_dataset: | ||
| map_dataset = map_dataset.rename( | ||
| {"scatter_theta": "positional_uncertainty_theta"} | ||
| ) | ||
| map_dataset = map_dataset.rename({"scatter_phi": "positional_uncertainty_phi"}) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This won't fail if the variables aren't present, so you can just call the rename directly and it will work if they are there.
| # Rename positional uncertainty variables if present | |
| if "scatter_theta" in map_dataset and "scatter_phi" in map_dataset: | |
| map_dataset = map_dataset.rename( | |
| {"scatter_theta": "positional_uncertainty_theta"} | |
| ) | |
| map_dataset = map_dataset.rename({"scatter_phi": "positional_uncertainty_phi"}) | |
| # Rename positional uncertainty variables if present | |
| map_dataset = map_dataset.rename({"scatter_theta": "positional_uncertainty_theta", "scatter_phi": "positional_uncertainty_phi"}) |
| @@ -220,6 +264,18 @@ obs_date_range: | |||
| DISPLAY_TYPE: image | |||
| TIME_SCALE: Terrestrial Time | |||
|
|
|||
| obs_date_for_std: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The product definition agreed to by the IMWG named this obs_date_range. Is Ultra requesting a change in that variable name? Here is the spreadsheet with the current definition: https://o365coloradoedu-my.sharepoint.com/:x:/g/personal/plummert_colorado_edu/EX8IRmgRKw5Hpik9wPAXZQABBgOemDqOv-uLMlRxZLJaTw
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh, I guess I am confused what this is vs. obs_date and obs_date_range.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I might have made some assumptions here. They made this note
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ok. I'm not sure what to do for this. Probably move forward with what you have. I will send out an email to the IMWG noting that I am seeing lots of variables being added to L2 products last minute here. All the ENA ITs agreed to the spreadsheet and this is causing quite a bit of churn.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
OK I also just messaged Nick Dutton for more info. Yeah sorry about that - I didnt realize these are unexpected.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
At least for this issue im wondering if they will be ok with just obs_date and obs_date range, knowing now that obs_date_range seems to be the std already.
| LABL_PTR_2: longitude_label | ||
| LABL_PTR_3: latitude_label | ||
|
|
||
| positional_uncertainty_theta: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Based on the recent Slack messages should this now be uncert instead?
Change Summary
Overview
Update ena map attributes to include efficiency, geometric function, and positional uncertainty.
Updated Files
Testing