DE crop/code mapping

[sbgeophd]

Observations

1. The codes for DE_NRW and DE_LS follow the same system

The "original_code" fields for the two German regions (NRW and LS) (e.g. https://github.com/maja601/EuroCrops/blob/main/csvs/country_mappings/de_nrw_2021.csv) seem to follow the same system.
There are sometimes minor differences in the original_name and translated_name, but they always seem to refer to the same concept.

For example:
"Lein (Flachs, Leinsamen)" vs "Lein, Flachs"

2. BB (Brandenburg) also follows the same system

Looking at the BB data from the PA (not included in EuroCrops yet as far as I can tell), the situation is the same as for NRW and LS: the crop codes obviously refer to the same thing.
i.e. there is a German wide crop code system

3.

Some crop codes from NRW and LS have different HCAT2 names/codes, for example:
code 125 ("Wintermenggetreide") has HCAT2 names "winter_meslin" and "winter_unspecified_cereals"
code 341 (Flax) has HCAT 2 names "flax_linen" and "flax_linseed"
code 422 ("Kleegras") has HCAT2 names "pasture_meadow_grassland_grass" and "clover"

There seem to be 25 such conflicts in total.

4.

There are some differences in usage of the codes between the states.
e.g. LS has code 452 ("Mähweiden") (the most common class), while NRW doesn't have that class (in the mapping)

Questions/suggestions

1.

As there is a common system, I'd suggest creating a unified DE mapping which will be relevant if data from additional regions becomes available. To begin with we can create this from the existing NRW and LS mappings plus the extracted classes from BB.

2.

The HCAT2 conflicts should be resolved for consistency.

3.

Additional HCAT2_name, HCAT2_code and translated_name data will have to be added for codes in BB but not in NRW and LS.
de_2022.csv

Starting point

I've created a combined csv file based on the NRW and LS mappings, plus extracted codes from BB here:
de_2022.csv
Where there are conflicts in the original_name, HCAT_name or HCAT_code, all the values are provided separated by "/"

[maja601]

hi @sbgeophd! Fantastic, thank you for the suggestions! We are currently re-structuring the entire project, that's why I am not including all the changes right away. But I really like your ideas and maybe we can discuss them in a quick meeting? Could you maybe write me an email, then I can send you the invite? (I must admit I am losing a bit track with who's who with the github user names here 😄)

[chrispahm]

Hey 👋

not sure if you've seen this but there's been a bigger effort to analyse differences/similarities between the crop codes in different federal states in the past year: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Staat/Buerokratiekosten/Publikationen/Downloads-Buerokratiekosten/harmonisierung-bodennutzungscodes.pdf?__blob=publicationFile

Note the larger table including all identified codes starting at page 35!
Maybe the authors could provide a CSV with all differences, which would potentially make it easier to harmonise them for this project as well?

[sbgeophd]

Good find Chris!
Until there is a homogenised list for all states, we can at least use that document to create an exhaustive list with hcat codes which can be used for any state.

[maja601]

Hi @chrispahm,
it it Christmas already? That's a fantastic find!
Now we only have to wait until the remaining federal states also release their data 😁

[xchan011]

Hi all,

a unified DE mapping has been created under de.csv based on the PDF @chrispahm provided and @sbgeophd's csv file. Isolated cases of inconsistencies does exist where these crops will remain mapped to state specific crops. However, the conflicts in HCAT code have been resolved as well as some incorrectly mapped crops.

de.csv was used as a basis for the mapping of Brandenburg, therefore an extra column of original_name_DE exists to compare the crop names in Brandenburg to the unified DE mapping.

Let me know if any further conflicts in mapping exists :).