[BUG] Afschotlocations for specific municipalities are sometimes assigned to different (wrong) provinces
mvarewyck opened this issue · 1 comments
To Reproduce
For example for 'Lommel' for some records, the assigned province is Limburg while for others it is Antwerpen.
library(reportingGrofwild)
geoData <- loadRawData(type = "geo")
table(geoData[geoData$gemeente_afschot_locatie == "Lommel", "provincie"])
# provincie
# West-Vlaanderen Oost-Vlaanderen Vlaams Brabant Antwerpen Limburg
# 0 0 0 14 2718
# Voeren Onbekend
# 0 0
subData <- geoData[geoData$gemeente_afschot_locatie == "Lommel", ]
xtabs(~ subData$provincie + subData$afschotjaar, drop.unused.levels = TRUE)
# subData$afschotjaar
# subData$provincie 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
# Antwerpen 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
# Limburg 24 91 79 87 78 75 75 83 131 121 107 114
# subData$afschotjaar
# subData$provincie 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
# Antwerpen 0 0 4 2 6 0 1 1 0 0 0
# Limburg 33 104 131 135 185 186 187 218 216 255 3
subData$ID[subData$provincie %in% "Antwerpen"]
# [1] "acb55f06-e64e-42c0-a818-36540efceb8a"
# [2] "d910b347-5a7f-425e-a515-4cf2f8ecb4f0"
# [3] "a13fd62a-63ad-441f-9c11-8a88217896a5"
# [4] "2b7daffe-985c-4450-b261-ff717ae09e20"
# [5] "8aadf1b0-127d-46fd-a888-b1309d20aa16"
# [6] "d534c58b-5cf9-4dda-a611-6834191fb1f9"
# [7] "0253f2ce-f0a8-4a85-babd-d5a5ead4ca43"
# [8] "25e30a5f-c09b-4b7b-8026-0707cd14c5c9"
# [9] "09f5142f-9834-42a2-943f-1508d0b547c5"
# [10] "c84de6a9-3027-48c6-937c-c0d2c7475ab7"
# [11] "43889602-7602-408a-890f-34db2f8412f3"
# [12] "ab461b9a-bfdd-4fee-b6ec-9a4141bf8849"
# [13] "f2bba867-479b-4f46-8458-73093f1055c0"
# [14] "adb1870e-2caa-4aed-b575-1f1a68bed2aa"
Also the case for other municipalities (output omitted)
tmp <- sapply(split(geoData, geoData$gemeente_afschot_locatie), function(iData) {
if (length(unique(iData$provincie)) > 1) {
cat("\n\n", unique(iData$gemeente_afschot_locatie), "\n")
print(xtabs(~ iData$provincie + iData$afschotjaar, drop.unused.levels = TRUE))
}
})
Git SHA (after 0.3.1)
GIT commit
@SanderDevisscher Could you check whether this is also the case in your input file "rshiny_reporting_data_geography.csv" or share this file with me?
I checked with the latest input file I have locally and there this issue does not occur.
@mvarewyck The issue exists in my local file as well.
This issue is due to some issue in the georef - script, which completes some missing spatial data. The issue was allready fixed in the past but I haven't had the chance to do a complete rerun thus resulting in some historical data with incorrect data. I'll look into doing a complete rerun in the future.
I did find another issue concerning the historical data which should be fixed in issue 1112 from the backoffice.