Country page: Remove ThinkHazard filter #319
Comments
|
Actually, I am wondering if you should distinguish between zero chance and very low chance. For instance, it is not relevant look for volcano related data if the country does not have any Volcano, but it can be relevant to look for Flood data, even though country is rated as low. What do you think @gracedoherty @stufraser1 ? |
|
In ThinkHazard we use VERY LOW if, according to the data we have, the hazard intensity does not exceed the 'threshold to cause damage', at the longest return period we consider, and we don't state 'no chance', because of the difficulty to state 'no chance' with 100% certainty. For the example you give, a country without volcano might still suffer the impacts of volcanoes because their impacts can cover many 10-100s of km. It is certainly, in my opinion, relevant to look for data if a hazard is rated low - it just means that the hazard is rarely going to cause damage, but there is still a hazard present. If you want to grey out any datasets, I would not grey the option out for hazards that are low in TH, I would use VERY LOW only. I wouldn't use 'no data available' in TH either, as in some cases this will hopefully change, and isn't reflective of the hazard level (it is just that we've found no hazard data suitable for use in TH - there may be other useful data available). |
|
Many thanks Stu,
so I believe better than graying out any hazard option, the best would be
to show the thinkhazard! level for a given hazard and a given country.
…On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 2:12 PM Stuart Fraser ***@***.***> wrote:
In ThinkHazard we use VERY LOW if, according to the data we have, the
hazard intensity does not exceed the 'threshold to cause damage', at the
longest return period we consider, and we don't state 'no chance', because
of the difficulty to state 'no chance' with 100% certainty. For the example
you give, a country without volcano might still suffer the impacts of
volcanoes because their impacts can cover many 10-100s of km.
For data collection it is a bit different, and you could acceptably say
'no data required' or similar, where there is no volcano, as you're not
communicating risk in the way TH is.
It is certainly, in my opinion, relevant to look for data if a hazard is
rated low - it just means that the hazard is rarely going to cause damage,
but there is still a hazard present.
If you want to grey out any datasets, I would not grey the option out for
hazards that are low in TH, I would use VERY LOW only. I wouldn't use 'no
data available' in TH either, as in some cases this will hopefully change,
and isn't reflective of the hazard level (it is just that we've found no
hazard data suitable for use in TH - there may be other useful data
available).
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#319 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACRKx4gdl0A7HMAGC0JlKhM7faCzNOpHks5uw__CgaJpZM4Yov1O>
.
|
pzwsk
changed the title
|
Need to investigate as this may have implication on BE scoring as well |
|
So if I recap my understanding of what you'd ideally like:
|
Currently hazard for which rate is low or very low are grayed out on Country page.
TODO : Remove ThinkHazard! filter for Hazard icons on country page.
See discussion below for rationale.
On a country page (ex https://index.opendri.org/dataset_list.html?idcountry=SI&idcategory=0) hazard icons for which hazard is considered of low level on Thinkhazrd! platform are grayed out - It is not possible to filter datasets by this hazard.
However, there is no explanation about this feature on the page - when hovering the icon for instance.
Suggestion:
Provide a specific explanation when hovering grayed out hazard icons.
Suggested text:
[Flood] hazard is not relevant for this country.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: