Replies: 2 comments 2 replies
-
|
@fwitmer Please let me know if this looks good so I can start working on it. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
-
|
Thank you for your interest. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
2 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
Hi @fwitmer, @rawann31 and @Ritika-K7,
I’m Vritti Goyal, a third-year B.Tech student in Information Technology. I have experience with Python, PyTorch, and machine learning, and I’m interested in contributing to Project Idea Automated coastline extraction for erosion modelling.
I’ve set up and run the existing pipeline to understand the current data flow and constraints. As a first step, I plan to focus on extending the Deering dataset beyond 2019, while keeping the rest of the pipeline unchanged initially. In parallel, I’ll also spend time studying and understanding the later phases of the pipeline to better inform future improvements.
Along with manually restricting date ranges (e.g., focusing on summer months), I’d like to consider a small set of metadata-based factors that directly affect NDWI label reliability:
NDWI assumes that water absorbs NIR strongly, land reflects more NIR, and that this contrast remains relatively stable. Snow, ice, and shadows violate these assumptions: snow and ice alter reflectance behavior, while shadows reduce NIR return and can be misclassified as water, particularly near cliffs and steep terrain.
I’d appreciate your thoughts on whether this approach aligns with your expectations for extending the Deering time series, and if there are any additional considerations you’d recommend at the data ingestion stage.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions