It is currently hard-coded that with each Zarr array of an indicator, the code writes a _map version of the same data, which has been reprojected to Web Mercator.
First of all, I think the creation of this copy should be optional - many will not need it, e.g. when using the indicators as input to Physrisk.
Secondly, the _map folders inside the Zarr tree can confuse clients to think that they are arrays in the same group. I think they should be separated at a higher level, perhaps a completely separate Zarr store, since they have a different projection than the main data and will in many ways not be compatible.
What do the maintainers think?
It is currently hard-coded that with each Zarr array of an indicator, the code writes a
_mapversion of the same data, which has been reprojected to Web Mercator.First of all, I think the creation of this copy should be optional - many will not need it, e.g. when using the indicators as input to Physrisk.
Secondly, the
_mapfolders inside the Zarr tree can confuse clients to think that they are arrays in the same group. I think they should be separated at a higher level, perhaps a completely separate Zarr store, since they have a different projection than the main data and will in many ways not be compatible.What do the maintainers think?