[ForestryTools] Forestry-Toolkit Structure

[Lee]

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 <j.m at jmforestry.com> wrote:

> Lee, I think I didn’t get the attachment. ****
>
> Again thank you for facilitating.****
>
> Jake****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* forestrytools-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:
> forestrytools-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] *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" <muellerl at gmail.com> 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 <muellerl at gmail.com> 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****
>
> ** **
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/forestrytools/attachments/20130616/d4d3a073/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: forestry tools map.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 20293 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/forestrytools/attachments/20130616/d4d3a073/attachment-0001.pdf>