Dear Jim
I agree that for some purposes you want a field of integers that identifies the
area types, rather than a binary mask. I think this can be achieved by using
the existing standard_name of area_type. This standard_name indicates a string-
valued data variable, but it can be encoded as
Hi.
Given the prior existence of land_binary_mask, Elodie's request for
sea_binary_mask makes sense. Even given my request below, if Elodie
needs this standard name, I endorse it's addition. I don't want to bog
her down.
I'd like to suggest that we do something slightly more flexible and
Dear Jim,
Just for information there are three other binary mask Standard Names
(surface_snow_binary_mask, sunlit_binary_mask and cloud_binary_mask) providing
a precedent for Elodie's proposal so as you say sea_binary_mask should be added
to the collection.
Regarding your generic mask
Dear CF-Meta Mailinglist,
I would like to advertise my long question from two weeks ago. Maybe
there were no replies because it was to long :-) . Excuse me if I should
be wrong with that assumption. The basic questions are:
What do these two standard names mean?
(a)
Dear all,
I would like to suggest the addition of a new standard_name to describe
land-sea masks. A standard_name already exists: land_binary_mask (
X_binary_mask has 1 where condition X is met, 0 elsewhere. 1 = land, 0 =
sea.). But in the ocean modelling community, we have already existing
files
