Communes are not always LAU2 about solar-and-wind-potentials HOT 6 OPEN

Thanks for pointing this out. The data is unfortunately very confusing. Codes and classification change often, and are somehow inconsistent. For example, I also use the DEGURBA dataset for LAU 2013 data in the analysis, which matches mostly, but not always the codes. Back when I did the analysis, this was the only existing dataset available. I was always hoping eurostat would publish a newer dataset (based on the new classification in which there is only one LAU level left), checked regularly their website -- but nothing.

I looked it up once more just now, and indeed they published a newer dataset last June. So if there is reason to, one could update the analysis with LAU 2018 and NUTS 2016.

from solar-and-wind-potentials.

Yeah, I agree that it is a total mess of codes (just the UK has about 5 different ways of classifying areas of a similar size and their codes/boundaries change at different points in time to each other). The unified LAU from 2017 onwards would be possible, but it's a closer match to LAU1 than LAU2 (e.g. ~400 UK areas instead of ~10,000). Would this pose a problem, do you imagine?

from solar-and-wind-potentials.

No, that should be straightforward (as in: you update the URL, rerun the workflow, it breaks, and you start debugging 😜).

But seriously, the only thing that comes to my mind is the DEGURBA dataset, which wouldn't match anymore (which is necessary only for the analysis of the potentials, that you may not be interested in). And most probably the pre-processing of the LAU data would need to be updated, in particular the mapping of column names.

from solar-and-wind-potentials.

Yeah, I wouldn't expect it to be too much of a problem programmatically, but do we care about the super-high resolution of 2013 'LAU2' beyond the study you undertook in this paper?

RE DEGURBA, the latest correspondence tables include this classification, so updating to 2018 would work for LAU & DEGBURA, provided we're happy with the somewhat coarser resolution

from solar-and-wind-potentials.

Whether or not we care about the resolution depends on the use case. If we are talking about euro-calliope, I'd say coarser is better (and especially newer is better).

from solar-and-wind-potentials.

Agreed. I'll update the finest resolution to LAU2017/2018 after/if we make the repository split discussed in #2

from solar-and-wind-potentials.