14482
Reporter: sant
Assignee: omeyn
Type: Feedback
Summary: wrong georreference statistics?
Resolution: Duplicate
Status: Closed
Created: 2013-12-18 10:36:43.402
Updated: 2013-12-19 18:10:02.31
Resolved: 2013-12-18 15:00:56.161
Description: Why does the number of georreferenced records differ between these 2 pages?:
4856 here:
http://www.gbif.org/dataset/1c334170-7ed1-11df-8c4a-0800200c9a66/stats
5041 here (which is the real number in our database):
http://www.gbif.org/occurrence/search?GEOREFERENCED=true&DATASET_KEY=1c334170-7ed1-11df-8c4a-0800200c9a66
Thanks
*Reporter*: David G. SanLeón
*E-mail*: [mailto:sant.herbarium@gmail.com]]]>
Author: trobertson@gbif.org
Created: 2013-12-18 11:34:27.769
Updated: 2013-12-18 11:34:27.769
There is an issue, but it is not the counts between the "cube" and SOLR, but that we are incorrectly marking things to be geographically suspicious when they are not.
The dataset counts show as 4,856 on:
http://www.gbif.org/dataset/1c334170-7ed1-11df-8c4a-0800200c9a66
and when you add the "No Coordinate Issues" flag to the search, the counts in SOLR line up correctly.
The records with issue can be searched too:
http://www.gbif.org/occurrence/search?SPATIAL_ISSUES=true&GEOREFERENCED=true&DATASET_KEY=1c334170-7ed1-11df-8c4a-0800200c9a66&DATASET_KEY=1c334170-7ed1-11df-8c4a-0800200c9a66
This currently returns 185 records, an example of which shows as:
http://www.gbif.org/occurrence/60006863
This is clearly marked incorrectly
Author: trobertson@gbif.org
Created: 2013-12-18 11:37:19.445
Updated: 2013-12-18 11:37:19.445
I suspect that we are being too precise in the geocode-ws, and probably finding a hole not covered between the terrestrial and the EEZ area.
This returns no records:
http://boma.gbif.org:8080/geocode-ws/reverse?lng=-8.24&lat=43.41750
We need to fix geocode, to return based on a buffer, not a precise lookup
Author: kbraak@gbif.org
Comment: I suggest closing this issue. The reverse geocode enhancements are addressed in PF-1357
Created: 2013-12-18 14:56:14.239
Updated: 2013-12-18 14:56:14.239
Author: omeyn@gbif.org
Comment: closed as dupe of PF-1357
Created: 2013-12-18 15:00:56.193
Updated: 2013-12-18 15:00:56.193
Author: sant
Created: 2013-12-19 18:10:02.31
Updated: 2013-12-19 18:10:02.31
Regarding this particular example, now I can't see any records using the 2nd link (search georreferenced occurrences). It returns "0 occurrences", when it should be returning the same number, or perhaps one more (coordinates added yesterday).
Is this related to corrections in progress, or this is a new different problem?
Thanks