Land cover and soil classification using generic categories about hydrofabric HOT 7 OPEN

@SnowHydrology Working through this and am close... however there is something odd... the chance I did something wrong is not 0 but this is what I am seeing:

In the SOIL map (ISLTYP) there appears to be a glacier in Florida. I changed values of 16 (ice) to 100 just to be visually nice.

Does this bother any of you haha?

library(hydrofabric)

wrf  = correct_nwm_spatial('/Volumes/MyBook/conus-hydrofabric/nwm_v3.0.7/conus/wrfinput_CONUS.nc')

AOI = AOI::aoi_get(state = "FL")

crop(wrf[['ISLTYP_Time=1']], project(vect(AOI), crs(wrf))) %>% 
  classify(data.frame(from = 16, to = 100)) %>% 
  plot()

^{Created on 2024-02-07 with reprex v2.0.2}

from hydrofabric.

I'd say that is generally unreasonable.

Is there something we're missing or is this a problem?

from hydrofabric.

Yeah .... the code is good. That cluster of 16 is there for sure:

from hydrofabric.

Hmm, any chance they're using a different soil classification than our SOILPARM.TBL?

The public WRF-Hydro version shows the same table, but maybe operational version is different.

from hydrofabric.

I dont think so, it is surrounded by 4 (SILT LOAM) ,6 (SILT) ,13 (ORGANIC MATERIAL). Which seem reasonable.

And if I do the same with CONUS (Ice becomes 100 for visibility) its generally reasonable but definitely has some questionable areas.

from hydrofabric.

I am confident that in the wrfinput associated with NWM 3.0.7, those are where class 16 exists. I only have found tables where class 16 is (OTHER; INLAND ICE).

Someone in GID thought it might be a model hack...

from hydrofabric.

However! If we were to rebuild landcover and soil grids this is a good time to inplement some of @DonnyDHKim and my work on land cover resampling:

An area preserving method for improved categorical raster resampling

Untangling the impacts of land cover representation and resampling in distributed hydrological model predictions

from hydrofabric.