Inlude area in alert email

[timadriaens]

Hi, I think it is more logical to include the area rather than the source dataset in the alert email. If you have set a few alerts, it is in fact nog very clear anymore which ones you want to look at. Area is the most important to a manager. Alternatively, both could be included of course. Lat/Lon is in fact also totally uninformative so perhaps these 2 columns can go and we use area instead there?

[damianooldoni]

Hi @timadriaens

In email there is a section called "Alert details" where the area is mentioned. An example follows here below for one of my alerts. Maybe you refers to the table with the occs examples? Mentioning the area has not really sense as it could be "Belgium" if no more specific area is selected. Moreover, it will be a redundant information as this info is already present as I mentioned before. Notice also that the details shown in the example table are the same as the ones shown in the table mode of the web application. In my opinion we shouldn't change it as lat lon are always present while municipality (just to mention the field which would make more sense) is not always filled in.

Alert details

• Alert name: All IAS fishes in West Flanders
• Species: Ameiurus melas, Channa argus, Fundulus heteroclitus, Gambusia affinis, Gambusia holbrooki, Lepomis gibbosus, Morone americana, Perccottus glenii, Plotosus lineatus, Pseudorasbora parva
• Areas: West Flanders
• Datasets: all
• Email notifications frequency: Daily

[timadriaens]

Indeed, I refer to the table

[damianooldoni]

Getting back to this a year later 😄

Adding the area the occurrence belongs to means intersecting areas and observations (again). Also, the area is not always unique. Just an example here:

A user creates an alert selecting as locations:

• Bruxelles
• Zenne

Which area should be linked to an observation falling in the Brussels part of the Zenne river basin? Brussels? Zenne? Both?

We could have many of this kind of situations. So, I am not really fan of adding area in the table with examples.

I agree that lat/lon is not really informative in example table. Adding municipality is way more interesting, if given, of course. It's quite precise, unique and retrieving it doesn't require any spatial operation.

So, my proposal is:

• add municipality
• leave lat/lon (as municipality could be not present in the data)

However, I think it's easier to have the same fields in the example table as in the table view of the early alert application. @niconoe: am I correct? Should we maybe add municipality in the table view as well?

@timadriaens: about your comment:

If you have set a few alerts, it is in fact not very clear anymore which ones you want to look at.

Users can (should) provide meaningful names to alerts. For example: "IAS mammals in Zenne and Dijle" is informative, while "Alert 1" is not.

@niconoe, any thought in general?