Percentile Map: Add values to categories in Legend

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Percentile Map: Add values to categories in Legend

[GoogleCodeExporter]

There is currently a logical inconsistency between the labels for the 
percentile map and the labels for the other maps. The percentile map does not 
show the bounds of the categories, the others do. This needs to be changed to 
conform.

Original comment by [email protected] on 25 Jun 2015 at 2:36

• Added labels: Milestone-Release1.8, Priority-High, Type-Defect
• Removed labels: Milestone-Release_Future, Priority-Medium, Type-Enhancement

[GoogleCodeExporter]

propose a solution for this fix, see the attached figure (first). The second 
figure seems too crowd.

the real values are appended at the end of the label.  

Did not use the style "10%-50% (528) 33.45-67.01", since it's too crowded (see 
second figure)

Let me know any comments.

Original comment by [email protected] on 2 Jul 2015 at 9:25

Attachments:

• [Screen Shot 2015-07-02 at 2.25.16 PM.png](https://storage.googleapis.com/google-code-attachments/geoda/issue-21/comment-2/Screen Shot 2015-07-02 at 2.25.16 PM.png)
• [Screen Shot 2015-07-02 at 2.23.31 PM.png](https://storage.googleapis.com/google-code-attachments/geoda/issue-21/comment-2/Screen Shot 2015-07-02 at 2.23.31 PM.png)

[GoogleCodeExporter]

fixed in ci #3680

Original comment by [email protected] on 2 Jul 2015 at 9:56

[GoogleCodeExporter]

fix will be applied in 1.7.37

change status for verification

Original comment by [email protected] on 9 Jul 2015 at 6:44

• Changed state: Started

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Hi Xun, Please add the minimum and maximum values to the first and last legend 
item so people know what those are (e.g. this is often relevant for quality 
checks of the data to make sure there aren't any numbers that are outside of 
the expected value range). Thx, Julia

Original comment by [email protected] on 13 Jul 2015 at 5:13

[GoogleCodeExporter]

fixed in ci 3073

Julia, can you check the value range of percentile? looks weird me -- why <1% 
and 1%-10% has 0 items?

Original comment by [email protected] on 14 Jul 2015 at 2:32

[GoogleCodeExporter]

This is related to the value distribution of the HR60 variable (homicides in 
1960), which has a lot of zeros. Natural breaks would be a better map 
classification since there's no way to uniquely cut the zeros into the three 
bottom categories, so they're all put into the 10-50% bin.

Original comment by [email protected] on 14 Jul 2015 at 9:03

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by [email protected] on 14 Jul 2015 at 1:12

• Changed state: Verified

[GoogleCodeExporter]

One other small cosmetic thing: Could you set the precision of the legend 
values to two after the decimal point, e.g. 2.34? Right now the natural breaks 
map has 6 digits, and equal intervals+quantile 3 or two (see attached). thx! 

Original comment by [email protected] on 16 Jul 2015 at 11:22

Attachments:

• [Screen Shot 2015-07-16 at 4.13.02 AM.png](https://storage.googleapis.com/google-code-attachments/geoda/issue-21/comment-9/Screen Shot 2015-07-16 at 4.13.02 AM.png)

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Luc discovered one other issue with the boxmap legend (see attached): When no 
observations are in the lower outlier category, the minimum value gets set to 
zero instead of the actual minimum value of the variable. E.g. in attached min 
value is zero but should be -0.17.

Original comment by [email protected] on 16 Jul 2015 at 11:40

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Luc discovered one other issue with the boxmap legend (see attached): When no 
observations are in the lower outlier category, the minimum value should be set 
to “:” or something like that since there are no values in that range. Same 
on the high end, if the max value is less than the upper fence, the upper end 
value should be “:” not the max.

Original comment by [email protected] on 16 Jul 2015 at 11:44

Attachments:

• [boxmap issue.png](https://storage.googleapis.com/google-code-attachments/geoda/issue-21/comment-11/boxmap issue.png)

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Mark to accepted for fixing

Original comment by [email protected] on 16 Jul 2015 at 8:08

• Changed state: Accepted

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Fix has been proposed in ci 3721 3722

Fix will be in >= 1.7.45

Original comment by [email protected] on 21 Jul 2015 at 1:25

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Let's skip the scientific notation unless the numbers are over 100k (e.g see 
attached screenshot of SIDS data). When we used scientific notation before, we 
got lots of emails from users who can't read it.

Could you add a conditional statement for when the numbers are very small (e.g. 
0.001 as in the attached SIDS example) to go up to 4 digits after the decimal 
point since the range is otherwise meaningless (as in the attached example with 
0.00 everywhere). If it's beyond 4, we can switch to scientific notation.

Original comment by [email protected] on 27 Jul 2015 at 12:30

Attachments:

• [sids zeros.png](https://storage.googleapis.com/google-code-attachments/geoda/issue-21/comment-14/sids zeros.png)