Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

OrientationPoints with two MapUnits throwing GeMS Validation error #51

Open
MnashUSGS opened this issue Jun 1, 2023 · 1 comment
Open

Comments

@MnashUSGS
Copy link

Certain OrientationPoints in our maps straddle two map units (i.e. inclined fault points), and therefore we enter two MapUnits in the MapUnit Field of OrientationPoints (e.g. Ts is the hanging wall unit, Tsp is the foot wall unit, thus our MapUnit in OPt is populated as "Ts/Tsp")

Due to this, the GeMS validator throws an error because "Ts/Tsp" is not defined in the DMU. I understand this was not originally written in the GeMS Validator, but if this could be made acceptable for the Validator, it would help make our databases with these straddled OPts GeMS level 3-compliant.

@ethoms-usgs
Copy link
Collaborator

Might still edit the tool to do this but a couple suggestions as workarounds:

  1. Put that information in the Label field
  2. Add a field called StackedMapUnit (or similar). In this case, the validation tool will trigger a warning but not an error.
  3. Add fields RightMapUnit and LeftMapUnit and attribute them according to the right-hand rule. Doing this or adding those same fields to the fault line feature seems to me to be more analysis-ready in that the information is parsed into atomic values rather than existing in a string that needs to split.

The main argument we have right now for not implementing a stacked unit check is that in other states where stacked map units are common, there is often even more information in the string than just the basic stratigraphy. There can also be codes indicating thickness, for example, which would be difficult to check in all cases. It would only be a partial implementation.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants