[ForestryTools] Forestry-Toolkit Structure

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
9 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[ForestryTools] Forestry-Toolkit Structure

Lee-3
I'm not sure the list will accept attachments, but let's give this a go.

I've put together a simple "project map" on how I see the toolkit's workflow, at least in my head. I'm looking for feedback and consensus moving forward.

I tried to use colors within the idea map to describe another level of thinking. I'm not sure how much it worked, but here's the descriptor.

Yellow - User input / handled externally.
Blue - Internal to Forestry Toolkit
Green - Output
No color - Handled completely outside QGIS/Forestry-Toolkit

Essentially, the blue boxes are the operations/utilities we need to build within Forestry-toolkit. I've tried to use brackets to describe where some of these codes or operations might already partially exist.

For example, in reality, we could just force the user to do their plot generation within F-tools. That said, I find F-tools largely inadequate for generating the appropriate plots. It's just not simple or straight-forward enough to use for most forestry aspects. Which is fine, since it wasn't made for that purpose. So we could probably use the  F-tools code, refine it, and put it in Forestry-Toolkit for plot generation.

So, to dissect what's happening:
1. The user takes a forest parcel and uses Forestry-Toolkit to generate inventory plots.
2. The user goes and collects the information in the field.
3. The user enters the data into an excel spreadsheet or other format which will output a CSV.
4. Forestry toolkit will connect Plot ID between the plot shapefile and inventory CSV. The data will inherit a stand ID from the stand shapefile (spatial join).
6. Forestry Toolkit will run inventory data for each stand.

Is this making sense? Is this what we want to do? Is there something we should adjust? For you software guys, is this the best way of doing it?

Basically, do we want to move forward with this "design" and better assign some tasks?

Let's come to a consensus. I'm trying to facilitate, not lead.

--
All the best,
Lee
ISA Certified Arborist MI-4148A
Registered Forester #46043


_______________________________________________
Forestrytools mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/forestrytools

forestry tools map.pdf (27K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ForestryTools] Forestry-Toolkit Structure

Lee-3
whoops. Wrong version of the map.


--
All the best,
Lee
ISA Certified Arborist MI-4148A
Registered Forester #46043



On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Lee <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'm not sure the list will accept attachments, but let's give this a go.

I've put together a simple "project map" on how I see the toolkit's workflow, at least in my head. I'm looking for feedback and consensus moving forward.

I tried to use colors within the idea map to describe another level of thinking. I'm not sure how much it worked, but here's the descriptor.

Yellow - User input / handled externally.
Blue - Internal to Forestry Toolkit
Green - Output
No color - Handled completely outside QGIS/Forestry-Toolkit

Essentially, the blue boxes are the operations/utilities we need to build within Forestry-toolkit. I've tried to use brackets to describe where some of these codes or operations might already partially exist.

For example, in reality, we could just force the user to do their plot generation within F-tools. That said, I find F-tools largely inadequate for generating the appropriate plots. It's just not simple or straight-forward enough to use for most forestry aspects. Which is fine, since it wasn't made for that purpose. So we could probably use the  F-tools code, refine it, and put it in Forestry-Toolkit for plot generation.

So, to dissect what's happening:
1. The user takes a forest parcel and uses Forestry-Toolkit to generate inventory plots.
2. The user goes and collects the information in the field.
3. The user enters the data into an excel spreadsheet or other format which will output a CSV.
4. Forestry toolkit will connect Plot ID between the plot shapefile and inventory CSV. The data will inherit a stand ID from the stand shapefile (spatial join).
6. Forestry Toolkit will run inventory data for each stand.

Is this making sense? Is this what we want to do? Is there something we should adjust? For you software guys, is this the best way of doing it?

Basically, do we want to move forward with this "design" and better assign some tasks?

Let's come to a consensus. I'm trying to facilitate, not lead.

--
All the best,
Lee
ISA Certified Arborist MI-4148A
Registered Forester #46043



_______________________________________________
Forestrytools mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/forestrytools

forestry tools map.pdf (27K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ForestryTools] Forestry-Toolkit Structure

Lee-3

Did anyone have a chance to view the attachment? Any thoughts? I'm in no way a software engineer.

Thanks guys, have yourself a great weekend!

On Jun 6, 2013 6:04 PM, "Lee" <[hidden email]> wrote:
whoops. Wrong version of the map.


--
All the best,
Lee
ISA Certified Arborist MI-4148A
Registered Forester #46043



On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Lee <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'm not sure the list will accept attachments, but let's give this a go.

I've put together a simple "project map" on how I see the toolkit's workflow, at least in my head. I'm looking for feedback and consensus moving forward.

I tried to use colors within the idea map to describe another level of thinking. I'm not sure how much it worked, but here's the descriptor.

Yellow - User input / handled externally.
Blue - Internal to Forestry Toolkit
Green - Output
No color - Handled completely outside QGIS/Forestry-Toolkit

Essentially, the blue boxes are the operations/utilities we need to build within Forestry-toolkit. I've tried to use brackets to describe where some of these codes or operations might already partially exist.

For example, in reality, we could just force the user to do their plot generation within F-tools. That said, I find F-tools largely inadequate for generating the appropriate plots. It's just not simple or straight-forward enough to use for most forestry aspects. Which is fine, since it wasn't made for that purpose. So we could probably use the  F-tools code, refine it, and put it in Forestry-Toolkit for plot generation.

So, to dissect what's happening:
1. The user takes a forest parcel and uses Forestry-Toolkit to generate inventory plots.
2. The user goes and collects the information in the field.
3. The user enters the data into an excel spreadsheet or other format which will output a CSV.
4. Forestry toolkit will connect Plot ID between the plot shapefile and inventory CSV. The data will inherit a stand ID from the stand shapefile (spatial join).
6. Forestry Toolkit will run inventory data for each stand.

Is this making sense? Is this what we want to do? Is there something we should adjust? For you software guys, is this the best way of doing it?

Basically, do we want to move forward with this "design" and better assign some tasks?

Let's come to a consensus. I'm trying to facilitate, not lead.

--
All the best,
Lee
ISA Certified Arborist MI-4148A
Registered Forester #46043



_______________________________________________
Forestrytools mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/forestrytools
j.m
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ForestryTools] Forestry-Toolkit Structure

j.m

Lee, I think I didn’t get the attachment.

Again thank you for facilitating.

Jake

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Lee
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 10:44 AM
To: ForestryTools List
Subject: Re: [ForestryTools] Forestry-Toolkit Structure

 

Did anyone have a chance to view the attachment? Any thoughts? I'm in no way a software engineer.

Thanks guys, have yourself a great weekend!

On Jun 6, 2013 6:04 PM, "Lee" <[hidden email]> wrote:

whoops. Wrong version of the map.



--
All the best,
Lee
ISA Certified Arborist MI-4148A
Registered Forester #46043

 

On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Lee <[hidden email]> wrote:

I'm not sure the list will accept attachments, but let's give this a go.


I've put together a simple "project map" on how I see the toolkit's workflow, at least in my head. I'm looking for feedback and consensus moving forward.

I tried to use colors within the idea map to describe another level of thinking. I'm not sure how much it worked, but here's the descriptor.

Yellow - User input / handled externally.

Blue - Internal to Forestry Toolkit

Green - Output
No color - Handled completely outside QGIS/Forestry-Toolkit

Essentially, the blue boxes are the operations/utilities we need to build within Forestry-toolkit. I've tried to use brackets to describe where some of these codes or operations might already partially exist.

For example, in reality, we could just force the user to do their plot generation within F-tools. That said, I find F-tools largely inadequate for generating the appropriate plots. It's just not simple or straight-forward enough to use for most forestry aspects. Which is fine, since it wasn't made for that purpose. So we could probably use the  F-tools code, refine it, and put it in Forestry-Toolkit for plot generation.

So, to dissect what's happening:

1. The user takes a forest parcel and uses Forestry-Toolkit to generate inventory plots.

2. The user goes and collects the information in the field.

3. The user enters the data into an excel spreadsheet or other format which will output a CSV.

4. Forestry toolkit will connect Plot ID between the plot shapefile and inventory CSV. The data will inherit a stand ID from the stand shapefile (spatial join).

6. Forestry Toolkit will run inventory data for each stand.

 

Is this making sense? Is this what we want to do? Is there something we should adjust? For you software guys, is this the best way of doing it?

Basically, do we want to move forward with this "design" and better assign some tasks?

Let's come to a consensus. I'm trying to facilitate, not lead.


--
All the best,
Lee
ISA Certified Arborist MI-4148A
Registered Forester #46043

 


_______________________________________________
Forestrytools mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/forestrytools
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ForestryTools] Forestry-Toolkit Structure

Lee-3
In reply to this post by Lee-3
Let's see if this works. I'm not sure the mailing list likes attachment.

Please confirm if this is working or not. If it isn't, I can host the pdf/image somewhere else.


--
All the best,
Lee
ISA Certified Arborist MI-4148A
Registered Forester #46043



On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Jake Maier <[hidden email]> wrote:

Lee, I think I didn’t get the attachment.

Again thank you for facilitating.

Jake

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Lee
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 10:44 AM
To: ForestryTools List
Subject: Re: [ForestryTools] Forestry-Toolkit Structure

 

Did anyone have a chance to view the attachment? Any thoughts? I'm in no way a software engineer.

Thanks guys, have yourself a great weekend!

On Jun 6, 2013 6:04 PM, "Lee" <[hidden email]> wrote:

whoops. Wrong version of the map.



--
All the best,
Lee
ISA Certified Arborist MI-4148A
Registered Forester #46043

 

On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Lee <[hidden email]> wrote:

I'm not sure the list will accept attachments, but let's give this a go.


I've put together a simple "project map" on how I see the toolkit's workflow, at least in my head. I'm looking for feedback and consensus moving forward.

I tried to use colors within the idea map to describe another level of thinking. I'm not sure how much it worked, but here's the descriptor.

Yellow - User input / handled externally.

Blue - Internal to Forestry Toolkit

Green - Output
No color - Handled completely outside QGIS/Forestry-Toolkit

Essentially, the blue boxes are the operations/utilities we need to build within Forestry-toolkit. I've tried to use brackets to describe where some of these codes or operations might already partially exist.

For example, in reality, we could just force the user to do their plot generation within F-tools. That said, I find F-tools largely inadequate for generating the appropriate plots. It's just not simple or straight-forward enough to use for most forestry aspects. Which is fine, since it wasn't made for that purpose. So we could probably use the  F-tools code, refine it, and put it in Forestry-Toolkit for plot generation.

So, to dissect what's happening:

1. The user takes a forest parcel and uses Forestry-Toolkit to generate inventory plots.

2. The user goes and collects the information in the field.

3. The user enters the data into an excel spreadsheet or other format which will output a CSV.

4. Forestry toolkit will connect Plot ID between the plot shapefile and inventory CSV. The data will inherit a stand ID from the stand shapefile (spatial join).

6. Forestry Toolkit will run inventory data for each stand.

 

Is this making sense? Is this what we want to do? Is there something we should adjust? For you software guys, is this the best way of doing it?

Basically, do we want to move forward with this "design" and better assign some tasks?

Let's come to a consensus. I'm trying to facilitate, not lead.


--
All the best,
Lee
ISA Certified Arborist MI-4148A
Registered Forester #46043

 



_______________________________________________
Forestrytools mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/forestrytools

forestry tools map.pdf (27K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ForestryTools] Forestry-Toolkit Structure

dia.abdoul
Hi Lee,

The attachment works well for me. For your previous questions, I still believe that we should spend a bit of time on the design to make sure that we are heading into the right direction and avoid leaving important things a side. We could improve the framework that you've suggested. What do you think guys?

Abdoul



Le 2013-06-16 13:00, Lee a écrit :
Let's see if this works. I'm not sure the mailing list likes attachment.

Please confirm if this is working or not. If it isn't, I can host the pdf/image somewhere else.


--
All the best,
Lee
ISA Certified Arborist MI-4148A
Registered Forester #46043



On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Jake Maier <[hidden email]> wrote:

Lee, I think I didn’t get the attachment.

Again thank you for facilitating.

Jake

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Lee
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 10:44 AM
To: ForestryTools List
Subject: Re: [ForestryTools] Forestry-Toolkit Structure

 

Did anyone have a chance to view the attachment? Any thoughts? I'm in no way a software engineer.

Thanks guys, have yourself a great weekend!

On Jun 6, 2013 6:04 PM, "Lee" <[hidden email]> wrote:

whoops. Wrong version of the map.



--
All the best,
Lee
ISA Certified Arborist MI-4148A
Registered Forester #46043

 

On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Lee <[hidden email]> wrote:

I'm not sure the list will accept attachments, but let's give this a go.


I've put together a simple "project map" on how I see the toolkit's workflow, at least in my head. I'm looking for feedback and consensus moving forward.

I tried to use colors within the idea map to describe another level of thinking. I'm not sure how much it worked, but here's the descriptor.

Yellow - User input / handled externally.

Blue - Internal to Forestry Toolkit

Green - Output
No color - Handled completely outside QGIS/Forestry-Toolkit

Essentially, the blue boxes are the operations/utilities we need to build within Forestry-toolkit. I've tried to use brackets to describe where some of these codes or operations might already partially exist.

For example, in reality, we could just force the user to do their plot generation within F-tools. That said, I find F-tools largely inadequate for generating the appropriate plots. It's just not simple or straight-forward enough to use for most forestry aspects. Which is fine, since it wasn't made for that purpose. So we could probably use the  F-tools code, refine it, and put it in Forestry-Toolkit for plot generation.

So, to dissect what's happening:

1. The user takes a forest parcel and uses Forestry-Toolkit to generate inventory plots.

2. The user goes and collects the information in the field.

3. The user enters the data into an excel spreadsheet or other format which will output a CSV.

4. Forestry toolkit will connect Plot ID between the plot shapefile and inventory CSV. The data will inherit a stand ID from the stand shapefile (spatial join).

6. Forestry Toolkit will run inventory data for each stand.

 

Is this making sense? Is this what we want to do? Is there something we should adjust? For you software guys, is this the best way of doing it?

Basically, do we want to move forward with this "design" and better assign some tasks?

Let's come to a consensus. I'm trying to facilitate, not lead.


--
All the best,
Lee
ISA Certified Arborist MI-4148A
Registered Forester #46043

 




_______________________________________________
Forestrytools mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/forestrytools


_______________________________________________
Forestrytools mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/forestrytools
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ForestryTools] Forestry-Toolkit Structure

Lee-3
Thanks Abdoul,

I'm in agreement. I think it's a good idea to nail down this design/framework before going too far. I'm not sure what the best way to collaborate on that is, other than for you guys to propose your own "pictures" based on my start.

For the most part, I created the attached image to initiate discussion. When it comes to software design and build, I make a much better soldier than a general. So, chiefly, I look to those of you who are most experienced to set the right direction of this project.

On a last note, I do think it is important during this process that we "think small." I ascribe to the belief that we should "release early and often." For the initial programming, we should look to have the smallest workable components. Hopefully then we can generate interest, and build community working towards a more robust product.

How are others feeling? Thoughts? How can we refine my proposed framework?


--
All the best,
Lee
ISA Certified Arborist MI-4148A
Registered Forester #46043



On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Abdoul O. Dia <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Lee,

The attachment works well for me. For your previous questions, I still believe that we should spend a bit of time on the design to make sure that we are heading into the right direction and avoid leaving important things a side. We could improve the framework that you've suggested. What do you think guys?

Abdoul



Le 2013-06-16 13:00, Lee a écrit :
Let's see if this works. I'm not sure the mailing list likes attachment.

Please confirm if this is working or not. If it isn't, I can host the pdf/image somewhere else.


--
All the best,
Lee
ISA Certified Arborist MI-4148A
Registered Forester #46043



On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Jake Maier <[hidden email]> wrote:

Lee, I think I didn’t get the attachment.

Again thank you for facilitating.

Jake

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Lee
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 10:44 AM
To: ForestryTools List
Subject: Re: [ForestryTools] Forestry-Toolkit Structure

 

Did anyone have a chance to view the attachment? Any thoughts? I'm in no way a software engineer.

Thanks guys, have yourself a great weekend!

On Jun 6, 2013 6:04 PM, "Lee" <[hidden email]> wrote:

whoops. Wrong version of the map.



--
All the best,
Lee
ISA Certified Arborist MI-4148A
Registered Forester #46043

 

On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Lee <[hidden email]> wrote:

I'm not sure the list will accept attachments, but let's give this a go.


I've put together a simple "project map" on how I see the toolkit's workflow, at least in my head. I'm looking for feedback and consensus moving forward.

I tried to use colors within the idea map to describe another level of thinking. I'm not sure how much it worked, but here's the descriptor.

Yellow - User input / handled externally.

Blue - Internal to Forestry Toolkit

Green - Output
No color - Handled completely outside QGIS/Forestry-Toolkit

Essentially, the blue boxes are the operations/utilities we need to build within Forestry-toolkit. I've tried to use brackets to describe where some of these codes or operations might already partially exist.

For example, in reality, we could just force the user to do their plot generation within F-tools. That said, I find F-tools largely inadequate for generating the appropriate plots. It's just not simple or straight-forward enough to use for most forestry aspects. Which is fine, since it wasn't made for that purpose. So we could probably use the  F-tools code, refine it, and put it in Forestry-Toolkit for plot generation.

So, to dissect what's happening:

1. The user takes a forest parcel and uses Forestry-Toolkit to generate inventory plots.

2. The user goes and collects the information in the field.

3. The user enters the data into an excel spreadsheet or other format which will output a CSV.

4. Forestry toolkit will connect Plot ID between the plot shapefile and inventory CSV. The data will inherit a stand ID from the stand shapefile (spatial join).

6. Forestry Toolkit will run inventory data for each stand.

 

Is this making sense? Is this what we want to do? Is there something we should adjust? For you software guys, is this the best way of doing it?

Basically, do we want to move forward with this "design" and better assign some tasks?

Let's come to a consensus. I'm trying to facilitate, not lead.


--
All the best,
Lee
ISA Certified Arborist MI-4148A
Registered Forester #46043

 




_______________________________________________
Forestrytools mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/forestrytools


_______________________________________________
Forestrytools mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/forestrytools



_______________________________________________
Forestrytools mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/forestrytools
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ForestryTools] Forestry-Toolkit Structure

dia.abdoul
Hi Lee,

Sorry for the responding delay. I've been so overloaded these last weeks. I'm back now and I'll have some time to work on our project. I'll rework your design picture so I'll put it on the git hub as well suggest an interface design that we can share.

All the best

Abdoul

Le 2013-06-20 12:05, Lee a écrit :
Thanks Abdoul,

I'm in agreement. I think it's a good idea to nail down this design/framework before going too far. I'm not sure what the best way to collaborate on that is, other than for you guys to propose your own "pictures" based on my start.

For the most part, I created the attached image to initiate discussion. When it comes to software design and build, I make a much better soldier than a general. So, chiefly, I look to those of you who are most experienced to set the right direction of this project.

On a last note, I do think it is important during this process that we "think small." I ascribe to the belief that we should "release early and often." For the initial programming, we should look to have the smallest workable components. Hopefully then we can generate interest, and build community working towards a more robust product.

How are others feeling? Thoughts? How can we refine my proposed framework?


--
All the best,
Lee
ISA Certified Arborist MI-4148A
Registered Forester #46043



On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Abdoul O. Dia <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Lee,

The attachment works well for me. For your previous questions, I still believe that we should spend a bit of time on the design to make sure that we are heading into the right direction and avoid leaving important things a side. We could improve the framework that you've suggested. What do you think guys?

Abdoul



Le 2013-06-16 13:00, Lee a écrit :
Let's see if this works. I'm not sure the mailing list likes attachment.

Please confirm if this is working or not. If it isn't, I can host the pdf/image somewhere else.


--
All the best,
Lee
ISA Certified Arborist MI-4148A
Registered Forester #46043



On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Jake Maier <[hidden email]> wrote:

Lee, I think I didn’t get the attachment.

Again thank you for facilitating.

Jake

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Lee
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 10:44 AM
To: ForestryTools List
Subject: Re: [ForestryTools] Forestry-Toolkit Structure

 

Did anyone have a chance to view the attachment? Any thoughts? I'm in no way a software engineer.

Thanks guys, have yourself a great weekend!

On Jun 6, 2013 6:04 PM, "Lee" <[hidden email]> wrote:

whoops. Wrong version of the map.



--
All the best,
Lee
ISA Certified Arborist MI-4148A
Registered Forester #46043

 

On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Lee <[hidden email]> wrote:

I'm not sure the list will accept attachments, but let's give this a go.


I've put together a simple "project map" on how I see the toolkit's workflow, at least in my head. I'm looking for feedback and consensus moving forward.

I tried to use colors within the idea map to describe another level of thinking. I'm not sure how much it worked, but here's the descriptor.

Yellow - User input / handled externally.

Blue - Internal to Forestry Toolkit

Green - Output
No color - Handled completely outside QGIS/Forestry-Toolkit

Essentially, the blue boxes are the operations/utilities we need to build within Forestry-toolkit. I've tried to use brackets to describe where some of these codes or operations might already partially exist.

For example, in reality, we could just force the user to do their plot generation within F-tools. That said, I find F-tools largely inadequate for generating the appropriate plots. It's just not simple or straight-forward enough to use for most forestry aspects. Which is fine, since it wasn't made for that purpose. So we could probably use the  F-tools code, refine it, and put it in Forestry-Toolkit for plot generation.

So, to dissect what's happening:

1. The user takes a forest parcel and uses Forestry-Toolkit to generate inventory plots.

2. The user goes and collects the information in the field.

3. The user enters the data into an excel spreadsheet or other format which will output a CSV.

4. Forestry toolkit will connect Plot ID between the plot shapefile and inventory CSV. The data will inherit a stand ID from the stand shapefile (spatial join).

6. Forestry Toolkit will run inventory data for each stand.

 

Is this making sense? Is this what we want to do? Is there something we should adjust? For you software guys, is this the best way of doing it?

Basically, do we want to move forward with this "design" and better assign some tasks?

Let's come to a consensus. I'm trying to facilitate, not lead.


--
All the best,
Lee
ISA Certified Arborist MI-4148A
Registered Forester #46043

 




_______________________________________________
Forestrytools mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/forestrytools


_______________________________________________
Forestrytools mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/forestrytools




_______________________________________________
Forestrytools mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/forestrytools
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [ForestryTools] Forestry-Toolkit Structure

Lee-3
Abdoul,

No worries. I think we've all fell into the busy spell. Some forestry legislation was recently changed here that's thrown us all into a bit of extra work.

In either case, as soon as some of you get a chance to digest some of those suggestions and improve my work, I think we can begin moving a little more forward on divvying up the various necessary elements.

Cheers!


--
All the best,
Lee
ISA Certified Arborist MI-4148A
Registered Forester #46043



On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 4:33 AM, Abdoul O. Dia <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Lee,

Sorry for the responding delay. I've been so overloaded these last weeks. I'm back now and I'll have some time to work on our project. I'll rework your design picture so I'll put it on the git hub as well suggest an interface design that we can share.

All the best

Abdoul

Le 2013-06-20 12:05, Lee a écrit :
Thanks Abdoul,

I'm in agreement. I think it's a good idea to nail down this design/framework before going too far. I'm not sure what the best way to collaborate on that is, other than for you guys to propose your own "pictures" based on my start.

For the most part, I created the attached image to initiate discussion. When it comes to software design and build, I make a much better soldier than a general. So, chiefly, I look to those of you who are most experienced to set the right direction of this project.

On a last note, I do think it is important during this process that we "think small." I ascribe to the belief that we should "release early and often." For the initial programming, we should look to have the smallest workable components. Hopefully then we can generate interest, and build community working towards a more robust product.

How are others feeling? Thoughts? How can we refine my proposed framework?


--
All the best,
Lee
ISA Certified Arborist MI-4148A
Registered Forester #46043



On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 5:00 PM, Abdoul O. Dia <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Lee,

The attachment works well for me. For your previous questions, I still believe that we should spend a bit of time on the design to make sure that we are heading into the right direction and avoid leaving important things a side. We could improve the framework that you've suggested. What do you think guys?

Abdoul



Le 2013-06-16 13:00, Lee a écrit :
Let's see if this works. I'm not sure the mailing list likes attachment.

Please confirm if this is working or not. If it isn't, I can host the pdf/image somewhere else.


--
All the best,
Lee
ISA Certified Arborist MI-4148A
Registered Forester #46043



On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Jake Maier <[hidden email]> wrote:

Lee, I think I didn’t get the attachment.

Again thank you for facilitating.

Jake

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Lee
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2013 10:44 AM
To: ForestryTools List
Subject: Re: [ForestryTools] Forestry-Toolkit Structure

 

Did anyone have a chance to view the attachment? Any thoughts? I'm in no way a software engineer.

Thanks guys, have yourself a great weekend!

On Jun 6, 2013 6:04 PM, "Lee" <[hidden email]> wrote:

whoops. Wrong version of the map.



--
All the best,
Lee
ISA Certified Arborist MI-4148A
Registered Forester #46043

 

On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Lee <[hidden email]> wrote:

I'm not sure the list will accept attachments, but let's give this a go.


I've put together a simple "project map" on how I see the toolkit's workflow, at least in my head. I'm looking for feedback and consensus moving forward.

I tried to use colors within the idea map to describe another level of thinking. I'm not sure how much it worked, but here's the descriptor.

Yellow - User input / handled externally.

Blue - Internal to Forestry Toolkit

Green - Output
No color - Handled completely outside QGIS/Forestry-Toolkit

Essentially, the blue boxes are the operations/utilities we need to build within Forestry-toolkit. I've tried to use brackets to describe where some of these codes or operations might already partially exist.

For example, in reality, we could just force the user to do their plot generation within F-tools. That said, I find F-tools largely inadequate for generating the appropriate plots. It's just not simple or straight-forward enough to use for most forestry aspects. Which is fine, since it wasn't made for that purpose. So we could probably use the  F-tools code, refine it, and put it in Forestry-Toolkit for plot generation.

So, to dissect what's happening:

1. The user takes a forest parcel and uses Forestry-Toolkit to generate inventory plots.

2. The user goes and collects the information in the field.

3. The user enters the data into an excel spreadsheet or other format which will output a CSV.

4. Forestry toolkit will connect Plot ID between the plot shapefile and inventory CSV. The data will inherit a stand ID from the stand shapefile (spatial join).

6. Forestry Toolkit will run inventory data for each stand.

 

Is this making sense? Is this what we want to do? Is there something we should adjust? For you software guys, is this the best way of doing it?

Basically, do we want to move forward with this "design" and better assign some tasks?

Let's come to a consensus. I'm trying to facilitate, not lead.


--
All the best,
Lee
ISA Certified Arborist MI-4148A
Registered Forester #46043

 




_______________________________________________
Forestrytools mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/forestrytools


_______________________________________________
Forestrytools mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/forestrytools





_______________________________________________
Forestrytools mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.osgeo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/forestrytools