You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The boro and block are used in the geometry service to query the cartodb table 'dtm_block_centroids_v20201106'.
But if we look at the database in carto, we can see it is returning two centroids that match a boro=2 and block=2576.
While #1498 can be fixed without this issue being fixed, it is making it harder to troubleshoot #1498, and releasing a fix for #1498 without fixing this issue would undermine any confidence in its fuctionality.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
This might just be a limitation of using blocks for this functionality. Unrelated to this issue, I was going to suggest changing the code to use the dof_dtm_block_centroids table in Carto instead of the old dtm_block_centroids_v20201106. We should still do that but I confirmed that this issue still exists in that table. If block numbers simply aren't unique within a given borough, there's not much we can do here without rethinking how we geolocate projects.
I was able to fix this issue by creating a new table from dof_dtm_block_centroids which removes the duplicates, and have opened a PR which switches to use this new table.
https://zap.planning.nyc.gov/projects?applied-filters=project_applicant_text&project_applicant_text=gompers
Note the two blue dots on the map. They represent the same project, which has the associated BBL 2025760026.
The boro and block are used in the geometry service to query the cartodb table 'dtm_block_centroids_v20201106'.
But if we look at the database in carto, we can see it is returning two centroids that match a boro=2 and block=2576.
While #1498 can be fixed without this issue being fixed, it is making it harder to troubleshoot #1498, and releasing a fix for #1498 without fixing this issue would undermine any confidence in its fuctionality.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: