-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12
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
Can we move _map output out of the main Zarr tree? #142
Comments
Hi @j08lue, Yes, agree it should be separated at a higher level and optional as:
|
Ok, so the behaviour around maps is currently implemented differently between indicators. My comment above was about
Please note that different projections and multiscale (optimized for dynamic data visualization e.g. on web maps) will be part of the upcoming GeoZarr spec - we hope to see some good advancements on that in the next few months, btw. Perhaps the |
Something like this: developmentseed@92ee4f1 Although it will fail because we have |
Yes, definitely we will want to reconsider once spec is out. |
It is currently hard-coded that with each Zarr array of an indicator, the code writes a
_map
version of the same data, which has been reprojected to Web Mercator.First of all, I think the creation of this copy should be optional - many will not need it, e.g. when using the indicators as input to Physrisk.
Secondly, the
_map
folders inside the Zarr tree can confuse clients to think that they are arrays in the same group. I think they should be separated at a higher level, perhaps a completely separate Zarr store, since they have a different projection than the main data and will in many ways not be compatible.What do the maintainers think?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: