Geosphere Dataset Update

[bluearrow98]

• Updated dataset source
• Fixed bugs in specifying dates

[gutzbenj]

Dear @bluearrow98 ,

Thanks for handing in this PR!

I will have to continue looking through all parameters tomorrow and just dropped you some small comments.

[gutzbenj]

Dear @bluearrow98 ,

if we follow my "logic" of parameter naming this would be

Suggested change

	WIND_SPEED_MEAN_100 = "ffam" # vektorielle Windgeschwindigkeit in 10m Höhe m/s
	WIND_SPEED_MEAN_1000 = "ffam" # vektorielle Windgeschwindigkeit in 10m Höhe m/s

What do you think?

[gutzbenj]

I just recognized that we probably should adjust all parameter names to either one of TEMPERATURE_AIR_MEAN_0001 or TEMPERATURE_AIR_MEAN_1 to get a consistent schema...

[bluearrow98]

I agree, thanks for your suggestions! I'll fix this in my next commit.

[gutzbenj]

Suggested change

	WIND_SPEED_MEAN_100 = MINUTE_10.WIND_SPEED_MEAN_100
	WIND_SPEED_MEAN_1000 = MINUTE_10.WIND_SPEED_MEAN_1000

[gutzbenj]

Can this parameter be parsed as float?

[bluearrow98]

Hi @gutzbenj , I checked that they are already in float when they are read. Is there any particular reason why you'd want me to specifically parse these parameters as float?

[gutzbenj]

Dear @bluearrow98 ,

thanks again for working on this PR! We should discuss the naming of parameters with height information e.g. TEMPERATURE_AIR_MEAN_200. Do you think we should drop leading zeros entirely (TEMPERATURE_AIR_MEAN_5) or rather readjust to new 10m maximum height (TEMPERATURE_AIR_MEAN_0005)?

Also what's left is the nasty rewriting of the docs but I would do that afterwards so that we can get this PR in quick.

[bluearrow98]

Dear @bluearrow98 ,

thanks again for working on this PR! We should discuss the naming of parameters with height information e.g. TEMPERATURE_AIR_MEAN_200. Do you think we should drop leading zeros entirely (TEMPERATURE_AIR_MEAN_5) or rather readjust to new 10m maximum height (TEMPERATURE_AIR_MEAN_0005)?

Also what's left is the nasty rewriting of the docs but I would do that afterwards so that we can get this PR in quick.

Dear @gutzbenj,

thanks for taking time to review this PR thoroughly! Super great :)
I was wondering the same. While I was working, the most tempting thing to do was to just name with only the SI unit information. So TEMPERATURE_AIR_MEAN_200 would instead become TEMPERATURE_AIR_MEAN_2, and TEMPERATURE_SOIL_MEAN_050 would just be TEMPERATURE_SOIL_MEAN_05. In other words, just drop the leading zeros, if any. I also feel that it is more intuitive this way. What do you think?
I'll get back to you on the other requested changes. Thanks again!

[gutzbenj]

Dear @gutzbenj,

thanks for taking time to review this PR thoroughly! Super great :) I was wondering the same. While I was working, the most tempting thing to do was to just name with only the SI unit information. So TEMPERATURE_AIR_MEAN_200 would instead become TEMPERATURE_AIR_MEAN_2, and TEMPERATURE_SOIL_MEAN_050 would just be TEMPERATURE_SOIL_MEAN_05. In other words, just drop the leading zeros, if any. I also feel that it is more intuitive this way. What do you think? I'll get back to you on the other requested changes. Thanks again!

Wouldn't it rather be TEMPERATURE_AIR_MEAN_1 (1cm), TEMPERATURE_AIR_MEAN_10 (10cm), TEMPERATURE_AIR_MEAN_100 (100cm) and TEMPERATURE_AIR_MEAN_1000 (1000cm)?

[bluearrow98]

Wouldn't it rather be TEMPERATURE_AIR_MEAN_1 (1cm), TEMPERATURE_AIR_MEAN_10 (10cm), TEMPERATURE_AIR_MEAN_100 (100cm) and TEMPERATURE_AIR_MEAN_1000 (1000cm)?

No, I was proposing using SI unit of length (meters) for this purpose. That's why I suggested TEMPERATURE_AIR_MEAN_001 (1cm), TEMPERATURE_AIR_MEAN_01 (10cm), TEMPERATURE_AIR_MEAN_1 (100cm) and TEMPERATURE_AIR_MEAN_10 (1000cm). Does that sound good to you?