Topic: Weird habitat handling and Legacy habitats

I removed coastal and floodplain grazing marsh as a prioirty habitat but it just moves it to the "potential priroty habitat" section even if there is no potential and it can't be removed from here.

The unchangable nature of legacy habitats presents a problem. Changing the habitat means this box is going to be wrong. I guess it could be changed directly in the database which is not a good idea. Besides having this as a dropdown the only other option is to scrap the use of Phase 1 habitats. I'm all for such an idea but people seem to still be trapped by archaic classification.

Graham Hawker
Thames Vallley Environmental Records Centre

Re: Weird habitat handling and Legacy habitats

When a priority habitat is moved to the potential priority habitat area you will always need to complete any missing/invalid data (e.g. determination quality) before you can then select the whole row and press the <Del> key.

The original reason for including the Legacy Habitat field in the data attributes was to retain the habitat class/type prior to the bulk translation to IHS because not all class/types used by LRCs are available in the Sources fields (e.g. HBIC used to use a pseudo-Phase1 code unique to only them).  When the HLU Tool was developed the field was therefore included in the user interface, but as changes are made to the attributes the usefulness of the field is reduced because it becomes more and more out-of-date.  It was not meant to be maintained to stay in line with the IHS Habitat because that is what the Sources fields are for.

There are a few options available:

1. If your Legacy Habitat class/category is based on Phase 1 (or any other class/type available in the Sources fields) then it might be better to delete all the Legacy Habitat values in the database to avoid any potential confusion.

2. Enable users to be able to collapse/hide the Legacy Habitat field so it doesn't cause confusion - the IHS Summary field would then stretch right across the whole form.

3. Allow the Legacy Habitat field to be updated

Andy Foy
Ecologist & IT consultant
Andy Foy Consulting (ex-HBIC)

Re: Weird habitat handling and Legacy habitats

I think we're going to have to have an updateable legacy habitat field. People are just too tied into Phase 1 for us to ignore it unfortunately.

Graham Hawker
Thames Vallley Environmental Records Centre

Re: Weird habitat handling and Legacy habitats

If you use Phase 1 then why do you want to put/maintain the Phase 1 code in the legacy habitat field when it can already go in one of the Source fields?

Andy Foy
Ecologist & IT consultant
Andy Foy Consulting (ex-HBIC)

Re: Weird habitat handling and Legacy habitats

Because the phase 1 habitat is not usually related to the source. We would only put it there when it is specifically stated in the source material. If the phase 1 habitat is an interpretation of the source material it wouldn't go there but into our phase one attribute box.

Graham Hawker
Thames Vallley Environmental Records Centre

Re: Weird habitat handling and Legacy habitats

A new Change Request (CR44) for this has now been added to the GitHub issues log (see https://github.com/HabitatFramework/HLUTool/issues/71).

Andy Foy
Ecologist & IT consultant
Andy Foy Consulting (ex-HBIC)