Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Calfornia embeddings description #11

Open
brunosan opened this issue Apr 7, 2024 · 0 comments
Open

Calfornia embeddings description #11

brunosan opened this issue Apr 7, 2024 · 0 comments
Assignees

Comments

@brunosan
Copy link
Member

brunosan commented Apr 7, 2024

I’m a bit lost on #7:

  1. What input images are used? The usual Sentinels, from what dates? Are these chips saved somewhere?
  2. From the code I gather that the filename are named as worldcover... but these are not the inputs... We don’t input landcovers, we input sentinel data. It also uses rows and columns, but I don’t know how to geolocate that.
  3. The only way to geolocate the extend of a chip embedding is to cross reference the random chip_id in the folder embeddings_v0.2 with the .geoparquet california-worldcover-chips-osm-multilabels.parquet which has both chip_id , [col - row to check], and geometry, which should in most cases be a rectangle.
  4. For patches within the 3 dimensional patch_embeddings_v0.2/, we need to unroll the image into the n patches, but unclear how to do that ensuring the right order, so we can calculate the bbox of each patch.

Plotting the california-worldcover-chips-osm-multilabels.parquet I can see that indeed these are the bbox
Screenshot 2024-04-07 at 22 56 37

  1. I do see holes, places within California but without a california-worldcover-chips-osm-multilabels.parquet coverage. Are these invalid inputs (due to clouds and other errors)/
  2. I assume these are in all cases the average across all bands and band groups.

Thanks!!

cc @yellowcap

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants