Dear team,
We've (c.c. Roelof (@strawpants), Kiana (@SedighehKarimi) tried to use the API to get corresponding Geoglows discharge estimates to GRDC station locations. However, the API return does not seem to present the optimal id.
|
def get_river_id(lat: float, lon: float): |
For example, for the GRDC station with id: 4247100 (latitude: 45.1367, longitude: -67.3181), the API returns Geoglows id: 750110738 while manual selection returns GeoGLOWS id: 750139747. A schematic diagram of the setup is included below:
Sharing the API call in terminal below:
Upon inspection of the discharge values, the discharge at the two reaches vary significantly (by a scale of 100).
Geoglows API results (1 Jan - 14 Jan, 1940):
Manual selection results (1 Jan - 14 Jan, 1940):
Furthermore, we've done similar comparision to few other stations of our interest. While some stations (lat long pair) show consistent behavior, a majority show difference. In each of the stations that show difference, our manual selection seem to be more correct (selects main branch, while API often leads to sub-branches with much less discharge).
In addition, visually, the selected branch manually seems to be closer than through the API call.
I would like to request a double check on the API code. We've skimmed through it and cannot seem to figure out potenital bugs.
Dear team,
We've (c.c. Roelof (@strawpants), Kiana (@SedighehKarimi) tried to use the API to get corresponding Geoglows discharge estimates to GRDC station locations. However, the API return does not seem to present the optimal id.
geoglows-rest-api/app/v2/controllers_misc.py
Line 9 in 8421e41
For example, for the GRDC station with id: 4247100 (latitude: 45.1367, longitude: -67.3181), the API returns Geoglows id: 750110738 while manual selection returns GeoGLOWS id: 750139747. A schematic diagram of the setup is included below:
Sharing the API call in terminal below:
Upon inspection of the discharge values, the discharge at the two reaches vary significantly (by a scale of 100).
Geoglows API results (1 Jan - 14 Jan, 1940):
Manual selection results (1 Jan - 14 Jan, 1940):
Furthermore, we've done similar comparision to few other stations of our interest. While some stations (lat long pair) show consistent behavior, a majority show difference. In each of the stations that show difference, our manual selection seem to be more correct (selects main branch, while API often leads to sub-branches with much less discharge).
In addition, visually, the selected branch manually seems to be closer than through the API call.
I would like to request a double check on the API code. We've skimmed through it and cannot seem to figure out potenital bugs.